II.
Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn
- colonel, active privy councilor, chamberlain, ambassador, chemist, mineralogist, volcanologist. Representative of the third branch of the Golitsyn princes - the Golitsyn-Alekseevichs, whose ancestor was A.A. Golitsyn (1632--1694). The fifth son of lieutenant of the Butyrsky regiment Alexei Ivanovich Golitsyn (d. June 5, 1739) and Daria Vasilievna, née Princess Gagarina. Dmitry's early childhood may have been spent in an estate near Moscow or in Moscow, where his father's regiment was stationed. He received his education, like his brothers, in Cadet Corps. For some time he served as a captain in the army. Since 1754 he served in the College of Foreign Affairs. He began his diplomatic service in Paris in 1760, with D.M. Golitsyn temporarily filling the place of envoy. Under the new envoy, P.G. Chernyshev, Golitsyn did not have a specific position; his only duty was to pay weekly visits to Choiseul. In 1762 he was appointed by Peter III as an adviser to the embassy. In the fall of 1763, Catherine II appointed Golitsyn minister plenipotentiary at the Versailles court with the rank of chamber cadet. Perhaps the purpose is due to the fact that brother Golitsyna Peter, captain of the Izmailovsky regiment, was an active participant in the coup of 1762. While serving in Paris, Golitsyn mainly had to deal with Polish question, which complicated relations between France and Russia. Another important aspect of his activities was the strengthening of cultural ties between the two countries. In connection with the French authorities prohibiting the printing of new volumes of the Encyclopedia, the Empress, through Golitsyn, negotiated to move the publication to one of the cities of Russia. Golitsyn recommended Grimm as the supplier of the magazine "Literary Correspondence" for Catherine II. Through the mediation of the envoy, the empress acquired a collection of books by Diderot, who was in need of money, and he himself was appointed her librarian for life. With the help of Golitsyn, a sculptor was found to work on the monument to Peter I - Etienne Falconet. While serving in Holland, he did not break ties with friends from France: Diderot, Montesquieu, D'Alembert and Voltaire and remained an adviser on cultural issues. "Return" prodigal son", Rembrandt (circa 1666-1669, Hermitage). Acquired through the mediation of D. A. Golitsyn. Golitsyn was also involved in the selection and acquisition of works of art for sending to St. Petersburg: with his help, the collections of Croz, Cobenzl, and Feitham were purchased for the Hermitage. Diderot spoke about the prince’s artistic preferences: I properly felt the current decline of painting only after the acquisitions made by Prince Golitsyn for Her Majesty and which attracted my attention to ancient paintings. You will receive a magnificent collection there! The prince, our mutual friend, has incredibly succeeded in his knowledge of art. You yourself will be surprised how he understands, feels, judges. And this, my friend, is because he has high thoughts and a wonderful soul. And a person with such a soul does not have bad taste. In 1767, because of a diplomatic conflict: humiliation in the official. correspondence with the St. Petersburg court of Versailles under the title of Catherine II, Golitsyn was ordered to “leave Paris without an audience.” During his stay in Russia, he received the title of full chamberlain and rank. Privy Councilor. In 1769 he was appointed "Minister Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary to the States General of the United Provinces of the Lower Netherlands." His diplomatic activities in The Hague mostly was aimed at ensuring the safety of Russian merchant ships during the war for the independence of the British colonies in North America . The extent of Golitsyn’s participation in the creation of the “Declaration of Armed Neutrality” (1780) is not fully clear. However, according to the research of historians and, above all, N.N. Bolkhovitinov, Golitsyn was the initiator of the creation of the “Declaration...” and the compiler of its draft. Golitsyn convinced Stadtholder Wilhelm V, who had previously been a supporter of England, to join the countries that adopted the “Declaration...”. Probably, the dissatisfaction of the Russian court with Golitsyn's contacts with Adams, the US representative in the Netherlands, explains his recall from The Hague and subsequent appointment as envoy to Turin (November 24, 1782). Having never left for Turin, at the end of 1783 Golitsyn resigned and remained to live in Holland. In 1767, forced to leave France, Golitsyn asked permission to stay abroad to continue his education. Neither his direct superiors nor the Empress, to whom Golitsyn addressed through Falcone, gave him this opportunity. Due to health reasons, he delayed his departure to Russia for several months. In the summer of 1768, while undergoing treatment in Aachen, the prince met the daughter of the Prussian field marshal Amalie von Schmettau, who accompanied Frederick II's daughter-in-law Ferdinanda on a trip to the resort. The wedding took place in Aachen on August 14, 1768. The young people arrived in St. Petersburg in October of the same year. As soon as Golitsyn received a new appointment, the couple left for Holland. In Berlin, the Golitsyns had a daughter, Marianna (December 7, 1769), and a year later in The Hague, a son, Dmitry (December 22, 1770). From 1774, perhaps seeking a less formal lifestyle, Amalia Golitsyna lived near The Hague and raised her children. At first, she shared her husband’s atheistic way of thinking, but the princess later became very religious. In 1780, there was a break between the spouses, and Amalia Golitsyna moved to Munster with her children. In 1786, the princess converted to Catholicism and opened a religious-mystical salon (Kreise von MEnster). Nevertheless, the couple corresponded and Golitsyn sometimes visited his family in Munster. During his service in France, Golitsyn was a regular visitor to the salon of Victor Mirabeau, a kind of branch of the circle of the creator of physiocracy, F. Quesnay. He became one of the first Russians to join the ideas of the physiocrats. In his letters to Chancellor A.M. Golitsyn, understanding the need to increase agricultural productivity in Russia, D. Golitsyn spoke out for the liberation of peasants and granting them ownership of property, the gradual formation of land ownership, through the purchase of land by farmers, the creation of a middle class, the destruction subsistence farming. In his correspondence with the Chancellor, Golitsyn referred to the example of Denmark; he closely followed the progress of socio-economic reforms in this country. In 1766, Golitsyn studied more than half of the works on legislation favorable to agriculture submitted to a competition announced by the Economic Society in Bern. In his letters to A.M. Golitsyn, the envoy retells and extensively quotes some of the competition works. Believing that changes should be achieved gradually, through the power of persuasion, he believed that the most effective example would be the one set by the empress herself. Golitsyn’s letters were read by Catherine II, judging by the notes left on them, who was very skeptical of his proposals, and, unlike the prince, did not idealize the landowning nobles. Supporter social transformation However, Golitsyn was an opponent of the revolutionary coup. Later, under the influence of the events of the French Revolution, he would write: ... the Jacobins are given to us as legislators, sans-culottes - as sovereigns, freedom, complete, absolute equality, etc. - as the basis of a constitution that should give happiness and glory to the human race; where, finally, having proclaimed freedom of speech and press, opinions differing from those of the masters of the day are responded to with blows of a lance and a guillotine... In 1796, Golitsyn published the book “On the Spirit of Economists, or Economists Acquitted of the Accusation that Their Principles and ideas formed the basis of the French Revolution" (“De l"esprit des economistes ou les economistes justifies d"avoir pose par leurs principes les bases de la revolution francaise"), where he argued that the physiocrats of the older generation did not strive for revolution, but tried support the collapsing existing system. Even while working in Paris, Golitsyn was interested in scientific and technical innovations, followed natural science literature and maintained correspondence with scientists. Golitsyn’s letters sent to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences through diplomatic channels were valuable because they last decade 18th century and first years XIX Almost no literature came to Russia from abroad. Like many naturalists of the 18th century, Golitsyn was interested in various fields of science. Having become the Russian envoy to Holland, he established connections with Dutch scientists from different cities. Around 1776, Golitsyn created his home laboratory in The Hague, but he also experimented in other people's laboratories, and also assisted other scientists. Judging by a letter dated February 28, 1778 to Swinden, Golitsyn had the largest electrostatic machine at that time (the diameter of two disks was 800 mm) of his own design. After retiring in 1783, the prince was able to come to grips with scientific research. Golitsyn summarized the results of his experiments on electricity in the works: “Letter about some objects of electricity...” and “Observations of natural electricity through kite". "In the first work, the question of the nature of electricity was considered (Golitsyn's concept is one of the variations of the fluid theory), a guess was made about "rays emanating from a positively charged body", the topic of lightning protection devices was discussed, as well as the influence of electricity on biological processes (using the example of electrification chicken eggs hatched by a hen). In his second work, Golitsyn drew an analogy between a cloud carrying an electric charge and a Leyden jar and described attempts to charge the latter using a kite in different weather conditions, noting the lack of a stable result. Golitsyn also conducted a series of experiments to prove that. that a pointed arrester is more effective than rounded or flat arresters. In the article “Letter on the Shape of Lightning Rods” (July 6, 1778, published in 1780), Golitsyn discussed this issue in detail, developing the design of a single-rod lightning rod to ensure the insulation of its metal parts from the building structures of the protected one. structures to prevent damage when the rod is heated by a lightning strike. A similar lightning rod was installed at Rosendal Castle (Geldern). Golitsyn in this installation anticipated modern standards lightning protection of explosive and fire hazardous objects. Together with Swinden, Golitsyn carried out experiments to discover the effect of electricity on magnetism. Scientists were one step away from success: placing a magnetic needle in the plane of a spark discharge, they did not detect its movement under the influence of electricity. Positive result could be achieved if the arrow were above or below the discharge. Based on unsuccessful experiences, Swinden denied the connection between electricity and magnetism. Having become interested in mineralogy in the 1780s, Golitsyn, like many others, began collecting specimens, mostly in the mountains of Germany. His collection of minerals was replenished with receipts from Russia; P.S. Pallas provided the prince with great assistance in this. Forster, who visited Golitsyn in 1790, spoke about it this way: “The prince’s mineralogical cabinet is the collection of an expert who himself collected and preserved it, which happens rarely and is instructive in its own way. We were surprised at the one and a half pound block of flexible Peiresque sandstone brought from Brazil; The prince's experiments have convinced us that the decomposed types of granites of Siebengebirg near Bonn are even more strongly attracted by a magnet than basalts." Golitsyn highly valued the works of Buffon, with whom he knew personally and corresponded. The prince followed Buffon's principle of historicism in mineralogy, where the mineral was considered as a "document of nature's past." According to Golitsyn, minerals should be studied not only through chemical analysis, but also according to the geography of their deposits, the form of crystallization, physical properties. Realizing the need to classify minerals and not finding any of the systems existing at that time satisfactory, Golitsyn in 1792 proposed his own, consisting of “the greatest possible simplification... reducing the number of species that can be nothing more than varieties.” In his classification there were 8 categories (quartz, metals and semimetals (native), calcites, products of flora and fauna, acids and salts, mixed substances, metals and mineralogical semimetals, products of volcanic activity), divided into classes and varieties. His “Treatise, or Abridged and Methodical Description of Minerals,” actually a textbook of mineralogy, went through five editions. Later, Golitsyn saw the weaknesses of his classification, admitting that “he was terribly mistaken in thinking that it was already possible to systematize fossils according to their filiation and genesis.” The last and most major work Golitsyn was “A collection of names in alphabetical order accepted in mineralogy for earths and stones, metals and semimetals and rock resins...” (Gallitzin D. Recuel de noms par ordre aiphabetique apropries en Mineralogie aux terres et pierres, aux metaux et demi metaux et au bitume... Brunsvik, 1801, p. 320; Nouvelle edition. Brunsvik, 1801, p. The second, revised, edition of the "Collection..." was published just before the author's death. The book was not translated into Russian, but domestic mineralogists were familiar with it, in particular, V. M. Severgin, when compiling the “Detailed Mineralogical Dictionary,” used material from Golitsyn’s “Collection...”. While exploring the Spessart plateau on one of his last trips, the prince discovered an unknown mineral. Golitsyn sent a sample of the mineral to Klaproth in Berlin: chemical research showed that it is titanium oxide with iron. The prince sent a sample of the mineral with the results of the analysis to the Jena Mineralogical Society. Its founder and director Lenz called the mineral “gallicinite” (the name lasted until mid-19th century, the name rutile is currently used). In the summer of 1799, Golitsyn was elected president of the Jena Mineralogical Society. Despite his serious illness, the prince took an active part in his work. Before his death, Golitsyn donated his collection to the Mineralogical Museum of Jena (a load weighing 1850 kg arrived in December 1802), asking that the samples be placed according to the Haüy system. Golitsyn was one of the first to study the extinct volcanoes of Germany, noting the surprising silence of local naturalists when “their [volcanoes] number is amazingly large, their products are very diverse and they are constantly in sight; the materials that emitted these volcanoes have been used for centuries... ". The prince saw the reason for this in the relative youth of mineralogy and volcanology and in the absence of a unified classification of minerals. "Memoir about some extinct volcanoes Germany" was provided by Golitsyn in February 1785 to the Brussels academicians (Gallitzin D. Memoire sur guelgues vilcans etenits de l "Allemaqne. - Mem. Acad. Bruxelles, 1788, 5, p. 95-114). In his work, the prince summarized the results of research on volcanoes in the Rhine region below Andernach, in Hesse and near Göttingen (in the Fulda River basin) and noted the successes of French scientists in studying the volcanoes of Auvergne, Languedoc and Dauphine. While working on his “Memoir...” Golitsin used the works of Buffon, Dolomier, Hamilton and criticized a number of provisions of Neptunism. Member-Director of the Dutch Society of Sciences (1777), Honorary Member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1778), Foreign Member of the Brussels Academy of Sciences (1778), Foreign Member Swedish Academy Sciences (1788), Foreign Member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences (1793), Member of the German Academy of Naturalists (Leopoldina, Halle) under the name Maecenas III (1795), Foreign Member of the London Royal Society(1798), Member of the St. Petersburg Free Economic Society (1798), President of the Jena Mineralogical Society (1799-1803). In 1795, before the lesson French troops Holland, Golitsyn moved to Braunschweig. In recent years he was seriously ill and experienced financial difficulties. He died of consumption in Brunswick on March 16, 1803, and was buried in the cemetery of the Church of St. Nicholas (the grave has not survived). The prince's personal archive was kept in Brunswick and was lost during the Second World War. Awards: Order of St. Anne, 1st degree. In 1771, having learned from Helvetius’s relatives about the unpublished work he had left behind, “On Man, His mental abilities and his upbringing" (De l'homme, de ses facultes intellectuelles et de son education), Golitsyn, who personally knew the philosopher and shared his views, decided to publish the book. Through the vice-chancellor, the prince informed the empress of his intention. Catherine II requested a copy of Helvetius's work. In December 1772, the first part of the book was rewritten, but, without waiting for Catherine’s decision, Golitsyn published the book in The Hague (June 1773) with a dedication to the empress. Helvetius's work, with some provisions of which not everyone agreed in France, received approval in Russia. In 1773, Golitsyn edited a book by a professor of the Parisian Military school Keralio "History of the war between Russia and Turkey, in particular the campaign of 1769." Keralio's work was published in St. Petersburg in French without indicating the author's name in the same volume with "Genealogy of the Golitsyn Princes" and "Notes on the article by an anonymous person from the Military Encyclopedia on the Russian-Turkish War and the Campaign of 1769." According to historians, the second and third parts of the publication were written by D.A. Golitsyn. "Remarks" are a critical analysis of an article that appeared in January-April 1770 in the journal "L" Encyclopedie Militaire, where the course of the military campaign was presented in a distorted light, and also contained attacks on the commander of the 1st Russian Army A.M. .Golitsyn. In 1785, Golitsyn translated into French the first description of the physical geography and economy of Crimea by K.I. Gablitz. Physical Description Tauride region by its location and across all three kingdoms of nature" was published in 1788 in The Hague with a preface and comments by Golitsyn, who noted that the author continued the work begun by descriptions of travel "through the vast expanses of the empire" of Pallas, Johann and Samuil Gmelin, Lepyokhin. In 1790-1793, the Parisian Journal de physique, published by Jean Metairie, published several articles by J. A. Deluc attacking his scientific opponents, including Buffon, in response to Deluc and the chemist Balthasar de Sage, who also published in the journal. materials directed against progressive French naturalists, the anonymous Defense de M. de Buffon (1793, The Hague) was published. In Russia, this work was published in the magazine "New Monthly Works" translated by D. Velichkovsky, N. Fedorov, P. Kedrin and I. .Sidorovsky. Based on the surviving copy with Golitsyn’s dedicatory inscription, it was established that he was the author of the pamphlet. This is the only work of the prince that was translated into Russian. Recognizing some of Buffon's theories as erroneous, the author of the "Defense..." consistently rejected the accusations of Deluc and Sazh against him: ... scientists of all countries, working to improve the sciences, continue to always show respect for them [Buffon's works], despite the crept into them errors. I spent a deliberate part of my life getting to know Camper, Allaman and others; I know quite a few scientists in Germany. They are not exactly the opinions of Messrs. Deluc and Sazh: they think and speak frankly, they even write that the work of M. de Buffon, with all its errors, is and will forever remain the creation of a man with talents, and not a dry, so to speak, journal, like that of ancient Pliny; this is a collection of events that led him to reasoning and conclusions, whether they were fair or false, but always proving that he had to reflect and delve deeply into everything that his florid pen had written for us. Died in Brunswick on March 28, 1803.Golitsyn's works:
"Lettre sur quelques objets d"Electricite" (The Hague 1778, in Russian, St. Petersburg, 1778); "Defense de Buffon" (The Hague, 1793); "De l"esprit des economists ou les economists justifies d"avoir pose par leurs principes les bases de la revolution francaise" (Braunschw., 1796), etc.; published the posthumous work of Helvetius: "De l"homme, de ses facultes intellectuelles et de son education" (The Hague, 1772), the manuscript of which was purchased by purchase , as well as the work of Keralio, “Histore de la guerre entre la Russie et la Turquie, et particulierement de la campaqne de 1769” (Amsterdam, 1773), with its notes.
Literature:
House of the Romanovs. Compilation by P.H. Grebelsky and A.B. Mirvis, St. Petersburg, LIO "Editor", 1992, ISBN 5-7058-0160-2; Bak I.S. Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn: Philosophical, socio-political and economic views. -- Historical Notes, 1948, 26, pages 258--272; Golitsyn N.N., prince. Family of princes Golitsyn. St. Petersburg, 1898. Volume 1; Danilov A.A. Reference materials on the history of Russia of the 9th-19th centuries; Semevsky V.I. The peasant question in Russia in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. Volume 1. St. Petersburg, 1888; Tsverava G.K. Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn (1734--1803) / Editor-in-chief, Doctor of Chemical Sciences Yu.I. Solovyov. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. - Leningrad: Science, Leningrad branch, 1985. - 185 pages. -- (Scientific biographical series). -- 40,000 copies. Source here: http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/kakula/post277620000/
Individual representatives of the educated classes, comparing the feudal-serf orders that existed in Russia with the orders of more developed countries or with the advanced theories of countries experiencing a crisis of feudalism, expressed critical judgments about the abuses of serfdom, and raised the question of the implementation in Russia of at least part of the ideas of the Enlightenment. Based on the belief that all misfortunes and abuses are caused by ignorance and bad morals, supporters of the Enlightenment considered the exposure of social vices (bribery, greed, panache, gallomania, ignorance, cruelty, recklessness) and the moral and spiritual education of the nobility as a sure means of eradicating vices.
Since the late 60s. With the permission and initiative of the Empress, various magazines began to be published in Russia. The motto of the magazine "Everything" (1769-1770), which was secretly directed by Catherine II, was the expressed intention of the publishers "to instill philanthropy in the hearts and souls of landowners and soften the suffering of the serfs."
A special place among publishers and journalists of that time was occupied by N. I. Novikov(1744-1818), publisher of the magazines "Drone", "Painter" and others. Novikov denounced the vices of the then society, arbitrariness and bribery of officials and judges, embezzlement, sycophancy of the nobles before foreign countries. "Drone" touched upon the problem of the contradiction between class inequality and the natural equality of people. The magazine ridiculed landowners who are sick with “the opinion that peasants are not human beings” and do not hear “the crying voice of nature: and slaves are people."
Novikov did not oppose serfdom as a system, considering it, like the class structure of society, an inevitable consequence and form of division of labor. However, familiarity with the real state of affairs in the village, the application of natural-legal, moral assessments to serfdom relations, and adherence to the Masonic ideas of universal equality of people prompted him to make radical speeches for that time. In 1772 in the magazine "Zhivopiets" (the publication of "Trutnya" was discontinued due to censorship conditions) published "An excerpt of a trip to *** I *** T***" (the supposed transcript is "Publisher Trutnya"), for the first time in Russian journalism describing the life of serfs . Contrary to official point view of the dominance of good landowners in the village, the author talked about the poverty and oppression of the peasants, exorbitant exactions and inhumane treatment of serfs by cruel and stupid landowners. "Poverty and slavery everywhere I met in the form of peasants,” writes a visitor to the village “Ravaged.” Soon defending himself from attacks, “as if this leaflet upsets an entire noble corps,” Novikov explained that only “a nobleman who uses his power and noble advantage for evil” is condemned. Novikov’s satire did not go further than exposing individual vices of the existing system; from the very beginning, the publisher of “Drone” announced that “no one will write anything against God and government in our time who even has a spark of understanding.” also caused threats from official publications; his magazines were closed, their publisher was persecuted.
Novikov is credited with organizing Russian book printing, publishing and distributing many books by Russian writers, as well as publishing translations foreign classics. For his connection with the Freemasons, Novikov, whom the Empress called “smart and dangerous person", was imprisoned in Shlisselburg Fortress(for 15 years), from where he (4 years later) was released by Paul I.
Under Catherine II, relatively wide access to foreign literature, including radical in content, was opened to Russia; the selection of various works for translation, their publication with notes from publishers and translators, became one of the forms of expression and propaganda of political and legal ideas of various directions.
In 1768, a retired military man, secretary of one of the Senate departments Yakov Pavlovich Kozelsky*(1728 - after 1793) published the book “Philosophical Propositions,” which is something like an anthology, in which, according to a certain system, the “truths useful for the human race” selected by the author are presented.
* His younger brother and namesake spoke in the Law Commission in the same year supporting Korobin’s opinion.
According to Kozelsky, only four philosophers are worthy of attention: Rousseau, Montesquieu, Helvetius and a certain anonymous person (Shaftesbury). “The first of them, a man worthy of immortality, like a pompous eagle, surpassed all the philosophers who came before him.”
The book reproduces ideas about the contractual creation of the state and society to provide people with “civil liberty and property of the estate”, about the need to combine “the special benefit of each person with the common benefit for all.” The best society is considered to be one with such a distribution of property that “some people cannot despise and oppress others,” where labor is obligatory, and “eight hours a day is enough for a person to work.” Democratic ideas are reproduced with approval and sympathy: “In republican government, the common good is the basis of all human virtues and legislation.”
Having compiled a collection of statements by Western enlighteners, the author of “Philosophical Proposals” deflected the accusation of excessive free-thinking and seemed to follow the way in which Catherine II’s “Order” was compiled; his work, however, opposed Catherine’s “Order” both by the choice of thinkers and their ideas, and by the conclusions that followed from the philosophical premises. In "Philosophical Proposals" there is a lot of hidden polemics with the ideologists of "enlightened absolutism" and critical allusions to feudal reality.
Kozelsky used the idea of natural law to justify the conclusion that “a law that allows a captive to be sold, bought, made a slave and maintained in an arbitrary manner is not based on any right or justice.” An allusion to Catherine’s decree, which forbade serfs from filing complaints with her against the landowners (1767), can be heard in the following reasoning: “It is intolerable in a person when he inflicts offense on his neighbor, and it is doubly more intolerable if he does not tolerate the offended person complaining.” to be offended." Contrary to the officially supported idea of the need to first enlighten (“polish”) the people, and then grant them freedom, Kozelsky argued: “It is impossible to polish the people otherwise than by alleviating their difficulties.”
The book contains hints of justice and the possibility of violent abolition of serfdom. Kozelsky considered a war to be fair only if it is waged by people “who are so offended that their offense is worth the justice of the war,” and if they have no other means of getting rid of injustices. Just as a river breaks through a dam with greater force the longer its flow is held back, so people who have long been oppressed “exhaust their vexation the more outward” the longer they are forced to endure patience; the offended “when the opportunity arises for them, are very vindictive” towards the oppressors, and “in fairness they can be considered almost innocent.”
Kozelsky wrote that his “Philosophical Proposals” contradicted “current customs” and therefore would not escape censure. He rightfully contrasted the ideas of his book with Machiavellianism: “Machiavelli will not die, they will curse him very loudly and imitate him very quietly.”
Serfdom was condemned by some large landowners as an economically unprofitable system for large landowners.
Prince D. A. Golitsyn(1734-1803), a wealthy landowner, diplomat and ambassador, was one of the first noble liberals who considered the development of agriculture, industry and trade on the basis of free labor more beneficial for his class and for the entire state: “As long as it exists serfdom, The Russian Empire and our nobility, destined to be the richest in Europe, will remain poor." Referring to the history of France, England, Holland, Golitsyn wrote that "the arts, crafts developed and morals improved only in a country where peasants enjoyed property rights and freedom."
Golitsyn proposed freeing the serfs, taking into account “the danger from both immoderate haste and excessive slowness.” The peasants were supposed to be released for ransom and without land. “The lands belong to us,” Golitsyn reasoned. “It would be a blatant injustice to take them away from us.”
Golitsyn's political views are reactionary. He was extremely hostile towards french revolution, defended “the altar, the throne, property,” overthrown and replaced by “chimeras and extremes, of which the favorites were unlimited freedom, as well as perfect and absolute equality.” In a special essay, Golitsyn convinced the monarchs of Europe that their crowns were already shaking, and called on them to fight against the “disorder and anarchy” that had engulfed France.
Noble liberalism expressed the sentiments and interests of those large landowners who advocated creating conditions for the development of capitalism in Russia while maintaining such foundations of feudalism as autocracy and landlord ownership of land.
One of the first representatives of bourgeois-type liberalism in Russia was a professor at Moscow University Semyon Efimovich Desnitsky(after 1740 - 1789).
Desnitsky's works made extensive use of the achievements of theoretical thought in other countries. He highly valued Grotius’s book “On the Law of War and Peace,” but sharply criticized the purely speculative constructions of a number of representatives of the natural law school, especially Pufendorf.
Following Adam Smith, whose lectures he listened to in Glasgow, Desnitsky connected the development of society, state and law with the economic life of peoples, the way of obtaining a livelihood. He divided the history of mankind into four stages (states) - hunting, pastoral, agricultural, commercial state. The transition of peoples from one state to another is associated with the emergence (with the transition to agriculture) and changes in the state and laws. In a commercial state, agriculture, crafts and arts reach perfection; Trade, merchants and property rights are greatly developed. All this predetermines the need for a number of changes in the state and law.
In a commercial state, “superior wealth is the first source of all dignity, rank, and advantage over others.” Commerce determines the development of law - ordinary peoples have few laws (all the laws of the ancient Romans fit on twelve tables); the higher the people are in development, the more laws he needs (only an abbreviated summary of the laws of Great Britain, “where the laws are now in great perfection,” occupies 25 books). Wealth is the cause and basis of the separation of powers; Desnitsky spoke approvingly of state system England, but considered parliamentary rule inapplicable to Russia.
“The All-Russian monarch,” Desnitsky wrote, “there is an autocrat in the Russian Church and Empire.” Approving Montesquieu's ideas on the separation of powers, Desnitsky sought to “adapt the establishment of such authorities to the current rising Russian monarchical state.”
The convening of a Commission to compose a new Code was presented to Desnitsky the right time and a reason for carrying out at least some reforms in Russia that would bring the commercial state closer. He wrote “Imagination on the establishment of legislative, judicial and punitive powers in the Russian Empire” (dated “February 30, 1768”). The peculiarity of the ideas presented here is that what is proposed is not “separation of powers” in the sense of creating a constitutional monarchy with a system of “checks and balances”, but the formation or reform of institutions subordinate to an unlimited monarch, carrying out legislative, judicial and executive functions.
Since the development of commerce requires an increasing number of laws, a special institution must be permanently established under the monarch for their preparation. It should be the Senate; Desnitsky proposed transforming the Senate into a legislative and advisory representative body (600-800 people), elected (“by the will of the monarchs”) for five years on the basis of a high property qualification.
The establishment of “judicial power” was thought of as streamlining the system of professional judges and organizing jury trials, “if only the Russian monarchs would deign to legitimize it following the English example.” Desnitsky is a supporter of openness of legal proceedings, publication of court decisions in the press, the establishment of the legal profession, and the principle of adversarial law. “In many states it has been proven by experience that without disputes in a court of justice there is no other way to achieve it.”
“Punitive power” should be exercised by voivodes in charge of places of detention, execution of sentences, and collection of capitation and duties. Complaints can be filed against the governor; justified complaints are reported to the Senate, “where the governor will be subject to fines and punishments arbitrary by the monarch.” In addition, in capitals and major cities it was proposed to establish " civil authority"from merchants (the majority) and nobles, in charge of urban planning and improvement, prices, bills, duty collection, etc.
The legislative power, Desnitsky reasoned, is the first and in full meaning belongs only to the monarch; however, the implementation of laws depends on the organization and activities of other authorities. “Many nations have learned through experience that it is better not to have laws other than those that have laws and not to obey them.”
The main goal of the project was to create conditions for streamlining legislative activity, as well as (most importantly) organizational and legal guarantees of the legality of the activities of the bureaucratic and judicial apparatus of autocratic Russia.
Desnitsky's views on the commercial situation in Russia and the West are unique. In his works there are many critical judgments about “treasure millionaires” who use wealth to “capture the whole world into obedience to themselves,” making “insensitively the darkness of nations dependent on themselves,” among whom (as in England) “even justice itself can be insensitively farmed out" etc. But, Desnitsky stipulates, this is the result of “immense and poorly managed commerce,” “a very dangerous commerce, when it all falls into the hands of a few rich people.”
In the spirit of the politics and ideology of “enlightened absolutism,” Desnitsky approved state patronage of industry and trade, support for manufactories, the establishment of banks, patronage of the development of sciences and the arts; this refers to the tasks of the “police” in charge of civic improvement and welfare.
Desnitsky recognized the existence of such “natural rights” of man as the right to life, health, honor, property; he argued, however, that historical, geographical and other circumstances could determine such a development of lordly or paternal power, which, like the Romans, was necessary for political reasons, “no matter how much it may seem in theory contrary to human nature.” Slavery among the Romans, Desnitsky reasoned, was caused by the vast size of the country, the presence of many people of “vile condition”, prone to riots and disturbances, who for this reason were better kept in captivity.
Desnitsky did not condemn serfdom and did not call for its abolition. He wrote about the serf peasants of Russia: “There is no way to give these farmers rights and advantages without disturbing the peace of the state.” Referring to Catherine’s “Instructions,” he proposed “to designate some kind of property for the peasants,” which the landowner would reward the hardworking for his own benefit.
Like almost all thinkers of that time, Desnitsky condemned the retail sale of peasants and proposed to define by law that such sales or transfers of peasants to distant villages should not be made without their consent. At the same time, even very moderate “institutions for the peasantry,” Desnitsky stipulated, must be made “with extreme caution” (their implementation should entirely depend only on the “will of the landowner”; they should not “give the peasant inclinations towards disobedience and insolence,” etc. p.).
The liberalism of the bourgeois type that emerged in Russia differed from noble liberalism, which did not contain a program of political reforms for the very reason that the autocracy expressed the general interests of the nobility, and each individual nobleman was to some extent protected from bureaucratic arbitrariness by his privileges. The position of the commercial and industrial classes of Russia, whose economic interests and wishes in the middle of the 18th century did not go further than acquiring the right to own serfs, however, in the political and legal sphere they consisted not only in approving the policy of protectionism, but even more in the desire to obtain at least some legal guarantees and protection from the almost uncontrolled arbitrariness of dignitaries, officials, military men, judges, landowners.
GOLITSYN DMITRY MIKHAILOVICH - prince, Russian statesman, actual privy councilor (1725).
From the Go-li-tsy-nykh family, brother M.M. Go-li-tsy-na Star-she-go, M.M. Go-li-tsy-na Young-she-go. Began serving in 1686 as a room-mate of Tsar-re-vi-cha Peter Alek-see-vi-cha (future Emperor Peter I) . Ka-pi-tan Pre-ob-ra-zhen-skogo Life Guards regiment (1694). In 1697 he was sent by Peter I to Italy to study military affairs. Extraordinary envoy in Kon-stan-ti-no-po-le (1701), where without-re-zul-tat-but do-bi-val-sya freely the sailing of Russian ships in the Black Sea. Kiev Voivode (1707-1711), then Governor (since 1711); control the activities of the elder and the get-man I.I. Soon it will fall. According to Golitsyn’s Russian language, the Kiev aka-de-mi-ey was re-ob-re-ta-la and transferred the works of European cars. ditch, mainly on the history of the Republic of Po-spo-li-toy (M. Kro-mera, A. Fred-ro, J. Dlu-go-sha, etc.) and Russia (A . Pos-se-vi-no, P. Io-via). Member of the Supreme Court of the Tsar-re-vi-ch Alek-se-em Pet-ro-vi-ch (was among the under-pi-sav-shih at-the-thief). Se-na-tor (1718). President of Ka-mer-kol-le-gyi (1717-1722). In 1723, according to the case of vice-kantz-le-ra P.P. Sha-fi-ro-va was deprived of chin, subjected to a fine and to-mash-no-arrest; in the same year, by Mi-lo-wan, Emperor Peter I, following the course of Empress Eka-te-ri-ny I, and the restoration of Lenin in chin and must. During the subsequent illness of Peter I, together with P.M. Ap-rak-si-nym, G.I. Go-lov-ki-nym, A.I. Rep-ni-nym and others wanted to place Tsar-re-vi-cha Peter Alek-see-vi-cha (the future Emperor Peter II) on the throne, and the empress Eka-te-ri-nu I os-ta-vit the pra-vi-tel-no-cey under the control of Se-na-ta.
Member of the Supreme Tai-no-go So-ve-ta (1726), in the representative of the So-ve-tu for the writ-ke before-la-gal co-crea-tit expenses for the army, with the size in accordance with the size of the soul according to the size of the former under -thief about-lo-zhe-niya. In 1727-1730, he headed the commission to re-examine the system (“Co-mission about po-da-ti”) . After the death of Emperor Peter II, he offered to enthronement on the Russian throne the Duke of Kur-lyandskaya An-nu Iva-nov-nu (empress from 1730 year). Participated in the formation of “Con-di-tions”. After the division of the Verkhov-no-go tai-no-go so-ve-ta (1730), it entered the new structure of Se-na-ta, but in its ra -I didn’t take part in it at all. He lived in the village of Ar-khan-gel-skoe, near Moscow, where he collected the largest amount of goods in Russia at that time. new collection of hand-written and printed books in Latin, French, English, German, Dutch, Russian and other languages (about 6 thousand volumes): books of classical av-to-ditch (Xe-no-fon-ta, Plu-tar-ha, Fu-ki-di-da, Tsi-tse-ro-na, etc.), pere-re-vo-dy so-chi -ne-niy fi-lo-so-fov and pi-sa-te-ley (G. Gro-tsia, S. Pu-fen-dor-fa, N. Ma-kia-vel-li, J. Lok- ka), work on the theory of go-su-dar-st-va, di-pl-m-tia, right-wu, geography, eco-no-mi-ke, as- tro-no-mii, is-to-rii. His collection included Russian le-to-pi-si and chro-no-graphs. In 1736, he was brought to trial in the case of the inheritance of his son-in-law K.D. Kan-te-mi-ra and his brother A.D. Kan-te-mi-ra. Golitsyn decided the lawsuit in favor of K.D. Kan-te-mi-ra. Recognized by the Supreme Court as vi-new in the superiority of the duly-powerful powers in the case of Kan-te-mi-rov, and so - in failure to fulfill his direct official duties, he was sentenced to death, in lieu of nya Empress An-noy Iva-nov-noy locked in the Shlis-sel-burg fortress.
On-gra-zh-den or-de-na-mi of St. An-d-ray Per-vo-zvan-no-go and St. Alek-san-dr. Nev-sky (both 1727).
Prince Golitsyn Dmitry Alekseevich (1734-1803) was a very enlightened man. In 1796, he published a book “On the Spirit of Economists,” in which he touched upon issues of government. He believed that government should be based on an understanding of the role of agriculture. He recognized the source of wealth not from trade, but from production, but limited it to agriculture.
Golitsyn proposed releasing the peasants for a large ransom and without allocating land. The tenants of the landowner's land should become rich peasants who will exploit the landless fellow villagers.
Radishchev Alexander Nikolaevich(1749-1802) outlined his views in the book “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” (1790). In the book, he realistically depicted all aspects of Russian life and various classes; considered political, social, economic and other problems; pointed to the sources of lawlessness and lawlessness - autocracy and serfdom. He concluded that the existing state of affairs can be changed only through a popular revolution that will destroy the autocratic serfdom system.
Radishchev highly appreciated the reforms of Peter I on the development of industry and trade, but noted their shortcomings and contradictions; he considered the old feudal basis to be an obstacle to their development. Radishchev considered the development of manufactories and crafts on the basis of the elimination of serfdom and the formation of small commodity producers.
Radishchev was the first Russian economist to give a detailed analysis of paper money circulation and showed the negative consequences of issuing paper money in quantities exceeding the needs of commodity circulation.
He criticized all existing types of taxes, including the poll tax of Peter I. He believed that it was necessary to tax all segments of the population, but taking into account their property income.
Transformations of Alexander I, reforms of M.M. Speransky and N.S. Mordvinova
Transformations of Alexander I
Alexander Ι(1777-1825) was brought up in the spirit of enlightenment. He tried to be guided by the principle of legality in government. He wrote that the main drawback of the state order is the “arbitrariness of government.”
He tried to create a set of laws for governing the state. In this he was helped by his close friends, who created the “Unspoken Committee”. The main activity of this committee was the reform of central government. In 1801, a manifesto was issued on the establishment of ministries that replaced the existing Peter the Great Collegiums.
Alexander I fought against bureaucracy by streamlining all levels of the administrative apparatus, rationalizing political structure based on the principles of legality and citizenship. He instructed the draft of government reforms to be prepared by his closest assistant M.M. Speransky.
Plan of government reforms M.M. Speransky
Speransky Mikhail Mikhailovich(1772-1839) prepared a plan for government reforms in 1809 (“Introduction to the Code state laws"). Solving the problem economic development He saw Russia in the government's deliberate policy of creating an economically independent class. The basis of independence is the full expansion of the institution of private property.
He raised the question of public education and believed that the government’s task was to create a network educational institutions and libraries, as well as the general education of youth. Speransky proposed creating a special closed lyceum near St. Petersburg for a limited number of noble children of noble families, where they could receive the best education and later work in the central institutions of Russia.
He did not try to abolish the serfdom, but believed that it would be abolished on its own gradually under the influence of the development of industry, trade and education.
Speransky proposed dividing the system of power into 3 parts: legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative issues would be under the jurisdiction of the State Duma; courts are under the jurisdiction of the Senate, government administration is under the jurisdiction of ministries responsible to the Duma.
Speransky saw the unification of legislative, executive and judicial systems power in the autocratic power of the emperor, so he proposed the creation of a State Council.
On his initiative, a plan for the financial recovery of the country was adopted. Among other measures of this plan, it was envisaged to introduce a new progressive income tax on the income of landowners from their lands.
On the initiative of Speransky, instead of the 8 existing ministries there should have been 11. In 1811 he developed General position about ministries.
Speransky's main merit is considered to be successful implementation enormous work on systematization and codification Russian legislation. Under his leadership, the first Complete collection laws of the Russian Empire in 45 volumes (1830) and the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire in 15 volumes (1832).
PHOTO - GAGARINS
SON of Daria Vasilievna Gagarina (1708–1774) Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn.
The Golitsyns are one of the most noble and ancient princely families Russia, tracing its ancestry from the son of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas, Narimund, who reigned in Novgorod in the 15th century and received the name Gleb at baptism. From the family came 2 field marshals, 22 boyars, 16 governors, 37 high dignitaries, 14 Golitsyns fell on the battlefield, Vasily Vasilyevich (died in 1619) was even one of the contenders for the Russian throne. Princes, senators, scientists, military men, numerous representatives of the Golitsyns served Russia faithfully for six centuries, taking a prominent place in the history of their Fatherland.
Russian diplomat, colonel, active privy councilor, chamberlain, ambassador, chemist, mineralogist, volcanologist - that's all one outstanding man, representative of the third branch of the Golitsyn princes (Alekseevichs), grandson of Princess Anastasia Petrovna Golitsyn (nee Princess Prozorovskaya, member of the All-Joking Council established by Peter I), son of Lieutenant of the Butyrsky Regiment, Prince Alexei Ivanovich Golitsyn (1707–1739) and Princess Daria Vasilievna Gagarina (1708 –1774 ) Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn.
Alexey Ivanovich Golitsyn b. 3 March 1707 d. 5 June 1739
Entry:183789
Full tree
Generational painting
The Golitsyn family
Gender male
Full name
from birth Alexey Ivanovich Golitsyn
Parents
; Anastasia Petrovna Prozorovskaya (Golitsyna) [Prozorovskie] b. October 22, 1665 d. 10 March 1729
Events
Title: Prince
Military rank: Lieutenant of Artillery
April 18, 1728 marriage: ; Daria Vasilievna Gagarina (Golitsyna) [Gagarins] b. 8 May 1708 d. 1774
Had - 5 CHILDREN
February 9, 1729 birth of a child:
; Ivan Alekseevich Golitsyn [Golitsyn] b. 9 February 1729 d. 1 August 1767
6 April 1731 birth of a child:
; Petr Alekseevich Golitsyn [Golitsyn] b. 6 April 1731 d. 4 May 1810
February 21, 1732 birth of a child:
; Fyodor Alekseevich Golitsyn [Golitsyn] b. February 21, 1732 d. 1782
4 April 1733 birth of a child:
; Alexey Alekseevich Golitsyn [Golitsyn] b. 4 April 1733
May 15, 1734 birth of a child: Moscow, Russia,
; Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn [Golitsyn] b. 15 May 1734 d. 23 February 1803
1735 birth of a child:
; Ekaterina Alekseevna Golitsyna (Golovina) [Golitsyn] b. 1735 d. 1802
Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn b. 15 May 1734 d. 23 February 1803
Entry:183861
Full tree
Generational painting
The Golitsyn family
Gender male
Full name
from birth Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn
Parents
Title: Prince
3 August 1768 marriage: Berlin, ; Amalia-Adelheid von Schmettau [?] b. 16 August 1734 d. 15 April 1806
November 26, 1769 birth of a child: Berlin, Prussia, ; Marianna Dorothea Golitsyna (Salm-Reiferscheid-Krautheim) [Golitsyn] b. November 26, 1769 d. 11 December 1823
11 December 1770 birth of a child: The Hague, Netherlands, ; Dimetrius-Augustin Golitsyn [Golitsyn] b. 11 December 1770 d. 24 April 1840
Russian scientist and diplomat, ambassador to France and the Netherlands, friend of Voltaire and other French educators, honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1778). Author of works on natural science, philosophy, political economy. Supporter of the mitigation of serfdom.
SON of Daria Vasilievna Gagarina (1708–1774)
Photo - loons
Daria Vasilievna Gagarina (1708–1774) Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn.
Like his brothers, Dmitry Golitsyn studied in the Cadet Corps, then continued his education at German universities, where he studied mainly physical and mathematical sciences. At first, according to the custom of that time, Prince Golitsyn was listed in military service in the Izmailovsky regiment (in 1757, with the rank of captain, he was sent to French army), and then he moved to the diplomatic service, which he began in Paris in 1760 under Prince D. M. Golitsyn (1721–1793), who temporarily filled the place of envoy. In 1762–1763, with the rank of embassy adviser, having received an appointment from Peter III, Golitsyn was charge d'affaires in France, and in October 1763, Catherine II appointed twenty-six-year-old Prince Golitsyn as minister plenipotentiary at the Versailles court with the rank of chamber cadet (perhaps the appointment was due to the fact that D. A. Golitsyn’s brother Peter, captain of the Izmailovsky regiment, was an active participant in the 1762 coup that brought Catherine to the throne).
While serving in Paris, Golitsyn mainly had to deal with the Polish issue, which complicated relations between France and Russia. Another important aspect of his activities was the strengthening of cultural ties between the two countries. In his private reports to Catherine II, D. A. Golitsyn introduced her to various phenomena social and intellectual life of France, in particular, it was he who proposed the candidacy of the sculptor Etienne Falconet to create a monument to Peter I in St. Petersburg. Through Prince Golitsyn, the Russian Empress negotiated the transfer of the publication of the Encyclopedia by Diderot and D'Alembert to one of the cities of Russia, after how the French authorities banned the printing of new volumes. Through the mediation of a young envoy, Catherine II acquired a collection of books from Diderot, who was in need of money, and he himself was appointed her librarian for life. Golitsyn was a supporter of the conclusion trade agreement with France and in a report dated April 13, 1766, he argued to the Empress that “the agreement cannot but be important for Your Majesty’s empire, since Russia constantly needs French goods, which are generally almost cheaper than other European ones.” Catherine replied: “At least everyone wasn’t there.” But, being an opponent of the import of French goods, she was not averse to luring representatives of French industry and instructed Golitsyn to persuade French Protestants to move to Russia. This gave rise to unpleasant explanations with the French government. Misunderstandings were also caused by the refusal of the Versailles court to give the Russian Empress the title Votre Majeste Imperiale under the pretext that the application of any epithet to the words Votre Majeste (“Your Majesty”) was contrary to the rules of the French language. On Golitsyn’s report on this dated April 28, 1766, Catherine II wrote: “I’m against regular language and the Russian protocol to accept letters without the proper title." As a result of disputes, Golitsyn in August 1767 was ordered to "leave Paris without an audience", transferring control of the mission to an adviser. However, he was so accustomed to Parisian life that he could not part with France even in November asked permission to stay abroad to continue his education. However, neither his direct superiors nor the Empress, to whom Golitsyn addressed through Falcone, gave him this opportunity (Catherine II expressed the opinion that he would find an opportunity to use his talents to good use in his fatherland). During his stay in Russia, Dmitry Alekseevich received the title of actual chamberlain and the rank of privy councilor. In August 1769, Prince Golitsyn was appointed “plenipotentiary and extraordinary minister under the General States of the United Provinces of the Lower Netherlands,” but only in March 1770 was he received in The Hague by the government of the republic. His diplomatic activities in the Netherlands were mostly aimed at ensuring the safety of Russian merchant ships in the conditions of the war for the independence of the British colonies in North America. Golitsyn sympathized with the struggle of the North American colonies for independence; some historians believe that he was even the initiator of the creation and drafter of the “Declaration of Armed Neutrality” (1780), under the terms of which countries that did not participate in the war received the right to forcefully protect their ships carrying goods warring powers, which, of course, was not good for England. Golitsyn convinced the stadtholder of the Netherlands, William V, who had previously been a supporter of England, to join the countries that adopted the Declaration. After staying in The Hague for 12 years, in 1782 Prince Golitsyn was transferred to Turin, but he did not want to go there and, upon request, was dismissed with a pension (probably his recall from The Hague and subsequent appointment as envoy to Turin is explained by the dissatisfaction of the Russian court with Golitsyn’s contacts with John Adams, US Representative to the Netherlands). Dmitry Alekseevich was awarded during his diplomatic service the title of full chamberlain (1769) and the Order of St. Anne (November 24, 1782). Having left The Hague in 1782, Golitsyn settled in Brunswick. In recent years he was seriously ill and experienced financial difficulties. Prince Golitsyn died of tuberculosis in Brunswick on March 16, 1803, at the age of 69, and was buried in the cemetery of the Church of St. Nicholas. Ironically, the grave did not survive, just like the one kept in Brunswick personal archive Prince, who died during the Second World War.
However, D. A. Golitsyn made his mark not only in the diplomatic field. He was a true son of the Age of Enlightenment, was friends with Voltaire Diderot and other French educators, and was interested in natural sciences, philosophy, political economy.
Even while working in Paris, Golitsyn was interested in scientific and technical innovations, followed natural science literature and maintained correspondence with scientists. Golitsyn's letters, which he sent to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences through diplomatic channels, were valuable because in the last decade of the 18th century and the first years of the 19th century, almost no literature came to Russia from abroad.
Like many naturalists of the 18th century, Golitsyn was interested in various fields of science. Having become the Russian envoy to Holland, he established connections with Dutch scientists from different cities. Around 1776, Golitsyn created his home laboratory in The Hague, but he also experimented in other people's laboratories, and also assisted other scientists. Judging by a letter dated February 28, 1778 to the Dutch mathematician and physicist Swinden, Golitsyn had the largest electrostatic machine of his own design at that time (the diameter of two disks was 800 mm). Having retired in 1783, the prince was able to seriously engage in scientific research.
In 1777, he sent his “Letter on Some Subjects of Electricity” to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, later published as a separate brochure. For this work he was elected a corresponding member of the Academy, as well as a foreign member of the Imperial-Royal Academy of Sciences and Fine Letters in Brussels. In addition, Golitsyn collected a rich collection of minerals and published more than a dozen works in this field.
He became widely known in scientific circles, became a foreign member of the Swedish and Berlin Academies of Sciences, and president of the Jena Mineralogical Society.
Golitsyn's socio-political views developed within the framework of the noble-aristocratic worldview, under the influence of Western European ideology, mainly the ideas of the physiocrats and French enlighteners. In 1773, he posthumously published the work of K. A. Helvetius “On Man” in The Hague. Calling for the "planting" of science and art in Russia in order to overcome "ignorance", Golitsyn is the most important and useful knowledge in this regard, he considered philosophy, which teaches how to be highly moral, how to soften passions and control oneself, instills in a person humanity and kindness. At the same time, he considered French economists to be real philosophers, in whose defense he wrote in French great job"On the Spirit of the Economists, or Economists Exonerated from the Charge that Their Principles Are the Foundation of the French Revolution" (1796). In his ideas about man, Golitsyn significantly diverged from orthodox Christian views and was guided by the achievements of natural science anthropology of the 18th century. Social order, according to Golitsyn, is a branch of the general physical order; its laws should not be arbitrary; property, security, freedom - principles of social order consistent with the physical order of nature. Slavery, as a state contrary to freedom, is the last, according to Golitsyn, degree of degradation of the human being, humiliation of reason, corruption of morals. On this basis, he advocated the liberation of the peasant from serfdom, without land, but with the right to movable and immovable property. Believing that the land should be the inviolable property of the noble landowners, Golitsyn proposed releasing the peasants for high redemption payments without allocating land. He called on Empress Catherine II to set an example of the liberation of the peasants. However, Golitsyn believed that “having moved so quickly from slavery to freedom, they [the peasants] will not use it to strengthen their well-being and most of them will indulge in idleness.” Sharing the principle “Freedom in a monarchy, slavery in a republic,” he preached the ideal of a monarchy based on “fair” laws. Free-thinking, speeches in defense of philosophy as independent science, naturalistic ideas with elements of deism and mechanism, anthropology objectively placed D. A. Golitsyn in opposition to the dominant Orthodox religious worldview, strengthened the Renaissance and Enlightenment tendencies in Russian philosophical thought of the second half of the 18th century.
