Evolution of women's property status
The characteristics of the legal status of women in the 17th – 18th centuries are based, first of all, on a consideration of their property status.
In the era of the emerging estate-representative monarchy from the 16th century, the legislative power began to strive to regulate the relationship between the law as a state norm in inheritance and the will as an expression of the will of inheritance. It was from the 16th century that legislative thought began to determine the status of the concept of patrimonial ownership (patrimonial estates) and the developing estate (as conditional ownership), features of inheritance, and the status of patrimonial ownership depending on its origin. Depending on this, throughout the 17th – 18th centuries. the property and inheritance rights of family members in relation to feudal estates of different status were modified; finally, attention was paid to the inheritance rights of collateral relatives living separately and in relation to the property of a particular small family. In the process of development of patrimonial and local land tenure as forms of feudal property, written law increasingly acquired a clearly defined class character.
In the process of codifying family property and testamentary law, according to the Council Code of 1649, unconditional hereditary ownership of estates was determined not only by the sons of the owner, but also, in their absence, by daughters and their children; in the absence of children, the estate passed to representatives of the clan along their descending lines. Since 1551, estates as conditional possessions for military service were gradually assigned to the family as property inherited through the male line.
Due to the need to ensure the existence of mothers, wives and children of deceased servicemen, widows-mothers and wives received part of the estates for life. However, estates were not yet considered, in contrast to estates, as family property; however, the very concept of living expenses became an essential link in securing the rights of the family to the estate, since living expenses began to act as one of the forms of inheritance. Subsistence contributed to the development of personal rights to real estate for female family members.
Back in the first half of the 17th century, the personal right to real estate in the family belonged to women, according to which the widow and girls disposed of their subsistence, in particular as a dowry. At the same time, another expansion of other rights of members of feudal families to real estate took place: according to the Council Code, wives and children received the right of co-ownership with husbands and fathers of purchased lands; wives were granted the right to own estates received from relatives by inheritance and as a gift; they also received full right to dispose of their dowry.
Thus, during the 17th century, there were no significant changes in the life of a Russian woman. This applies to both everyday life and property and marriage relations. The legislation of previous years continued to apply in all areas of activity.
As for the next century, the changes here are associated with the name of Peter I, the emperor, whose reforms radically changed the existing foundations of society.
Consideration of regulations, as well as materials of local-patrimonial land ownership of those years gives an idea of the expansion of women's property rights. This was directly related to the social reform of the first quarter of the 18th century, namely with the formation of the upper class (the merger of the nobility and the boyars), after which there was an equalization of two types of property - estates and patrimony. As a result, according to the decree of 1714, a woman of the upper classes received the opportunity to inherit all of her husband’s real estate.
The development of property rights of representatives of the upper classes was also associated with changes in legislative norms ensuring the inheritance of property that a woman received on the occasion of marriage (dowry) or in connection with the death of a spouse (subsistence).
The expansion of women's property rights in the family is associated with the limitation of the husband's administrative rights to the dowry. Over a short period of time, decrees were issued one by one, according to which at first there was a ban on husbands making transactions on their own behalf, then the presence of a woman’s signature on the document became mandatory. Since 1715, a woman has the opportunity to independently dispose of her dowry, but transactions were made only with the consent of her husband.
In addition, by limiting the conditions of subsistence inheritance, social control over the marriage strategies of elite representatives was ensured. A serious obstacle to remarriage for widows was the restrictions on the right of subsistence inheritance for upper-class women. The risk of losing financial support was a serious obstacle to creating a new family for the vast majority of women.
In relation to family property, peasant spouses were in co-ownership, including in relation to the dowry. After the death of the head of the family, the tax - fulfillment of state and lordly duties - could be transferred to the widow and daughters of the deceased. Therefore, the share of the widow's inheritance was sometimes significant. But more often, the bulk of the family property passed into the hands of male relatives, although not all widows were reconciled with such a decision.
The real share of daughters in the inheritance of a deceased peasant depended on the presence of brothers: it could be ten times inferior to the share of men - “natural heirs”, or it could be equal to it. The property rights of women in peasant families of the 18th century were determined by the share of labor invested in the common economy, as well as by circumstances related to the payment of taxes to the landowner or to the treasury.
Now, after the death of the head of the family, the wife could head the household. However, in cases of division of such a family, when the widow wanted to live independently, she, as a non-taxable member of the community who did not have the opportunity to run a productive household, received only the minimum part of the property necessary for existence. The same conditions provided for the existence of single aunts, sisters, and nieces separated from families as a result of their division.
Cases of litigation for inheritance between a widow and her husband's children from a previous marriage indicate the priority of the children's rights, while the interests of the woman could be infringed.
The guarantee of women’s financial stability was the inviolability of the dowry and the absence of financial liability for the spouse’s debts, as well as the surrender of subsistence allowance to the chosen guardian (in exchange for maintenance and protection, and for young girls with the obligation to arrange a subsequent marriage). All this corresponded to the ideas of contemporaries about the well-being of women.
When studying women's property rights, it should be noted that the legislation ensured full inheritance of the spouse's property for a widow with children. It was also established that widows with children had extensive administrative rights to exchange, surrender, sell or bequeath property. At the same time, a study of court records shows that the state guaranteed support for representatives of the elite in the event of failure by the opposite party to fulfill the terms of the contract.
Thus, inheritance after husbands and fathers of real and movable property was finally extended to wives and daughters; If there were no children in the family, the “ancestral” property passed down the line after the death of the spouses.
In addition, the expansion of marriage strategy is associated with a weakening of normative control. The abolition of the ban on marriage within a year after the death of a spouse when inheriting property and the permission to remarry for widows who do not have children without property losses provided women of the upper classes with wider varied opportunities for arranging their lives.
The first quarter of the 18th century was characterized by a positive trend in the development of women's property rights.
Transformation of marriage and family relations
Peter's reforms accelerated the historical development of Russia and introduced many innovations into a wide variety of spheres of life. Life and customs also experienced a process of renewal. The absolutism that had developed in the country sought to rebuild the old way of life, morals and family in relation to its goals.
The reforms of Peter I marked the beginning of a new period in the development of family and marriage relations. First of all, the role of secular legislation, mainly imperial decrees, which serve to fill gaps in canon law, is increasing.
Thus, by a special decree of Peter I in 1702, he ordered not to compile ordinary agreements and charging records, not to register them in the Order. Instead, the bride and groom had to become engaged six weeks before the wedding. Thus, the old-fashioned bridesmaid ceremony was replaced by betrothal. A meeting between the bride and groom has become an indispensable condition for marriage. The engagement could be upset if “after the agreement and betrothal, the groom does not want to take the bride or the bride does not want to get married, and there will be freedom.”
The legislator breaks with antiquity and customs. Previously, the chosen bride was carefully hidden from the groom. Now the groom, of his own free will, could refuse his betrothed if, under some pretext, she was not shown to him. The girl could not express her attitude to what was happening at all when her fate was being decided. Now the bride was given the formal right to terminate the betrothal and upset the arranged marriage.
New forms of marriage became widespread among the population, although various strata and groups interpreted the decrees addressed to them in their own way and made amendments to them.
One of the main factors that had a key influence on the humanization of family relations in the first quarter of the 18th century was the development of a system of civil legislation and a decrease in the influence of church law. The proclamation of the principle of voluntary marriage, raising the age of marriage, establishing uniformity in the reasons for divorce for men, all this expanded the variability of marriage strategy in the first quarter of the 18th century. In addition, cases of remarriages in which widows decided to enter into became more frequent.
However, the main achievement in the field of family relations was the introduction of norms according to which it was assumed that both spouses would be tonsured, the tonsure of young women of childbearing age (not earlier than 50 years old) was prohibited, and a fine was introduced for forced tonsure, which closed the institution of monasticism for husbands who practiced getting rid of marriage bonds through forced tonsure of wives. At the same time, the implementation of these measures in practice was difficult, since in upper-class families, men actively used power and material resources to make decisions that were beneficial to them.
By decree of 1914, Peter I tried to introduce an educational qualification for nobles marrying, requiring a certificate of knowledge of arithmetic and geometry at the wedding. But this attempt was unsuccessful.
In 1721, the Orthodox population of Russia for the first time received the right to marry Christians of other faiths. This innovation was due to the fact that after the war between Russia and Sweden, Peter I wanted to settle captured Swedes in Siberia and involve them in its development. However, according to the laws of that time, they could not enter into a barque with the Orthodox without first accepting the Orthodox faith. In connection with this, a rule was established that a Christian of another denomination has the right to marry an Orthodox Christian, having given a signature that he will not seduce the Orthodox spouse into his faith and undertakes to raise children in Orthodoxy.
In 1830, the age for marriage was raised to 18 for men and 16 for women. To get married, it was necessary to obtain parental consent, regardless of the age of the bride and groom. A marriage entered into without the consent of the parents was nevertheless recognized as valid, but the children were deprived of the right to inherit the property of their parents by law if the parents did not forgive them. Persons in civil or military service were obliged to obtain the consent of their superiors to marry. For marriages entered into without such permission, they were subject to disciplinary action.
In 1744, by Decree of the Synod, marriages of persons over 80 years of age were prohibited. “Marriage was established by God,” says the Decree, “for the continuation of the human race, which is very desperate to hope for from someone over 80.”
The legislation of that period also knows cases of restriction of marital capacity in court. The court's verdict prohibited persons convicted of bigamy from marrying, as well as the spouse whose marriage was dissolved due to his inability to marry.
Since 1775, marriage could only take place in the parish church of one of the parties to be married. The wedding was still preceded by an announcement. The marriage took place in the personal presence of the bride and groom. An exception was made only for members of the imperial family marrying foreign princesses.
A marriage could be declared invalid if it was committed as a result of violence or the insanity of one or both spouses. Marriage between persons who were in prohibited degrees of blood or spiritual relationship or property was also invalid; if there is another undissolved marriage; with a person over 80 years of age; with a person of the clergy doomed to celibacy; Orthodox with non-Christians.
If the marriage was concluded with a person who had not reached the age of marriage established by secular law (16 and 18 years), but had reached the canonical age of marriage (13 and 15 years), the spouses were separated before the age established by secular law. After this, they could again express their will and continue the marriage, which was recognized as valid. The right to demand that a marriage be declared invalid on this basis belonged only to the minor spouse upon reaching the age of majority.
Divorce during the imperial period became less and less free. Divorce by mutual consent is expressly prohibited. The reasons for divorce were: adultery of either spouse; bigamy; inability to cohabitate in marriage; unknown absence of a spouse for more than 5 years, unless it was caused by the guilty behavior of the remaining spouse; attempt on the life of a spouse; adoption of monasticism; exile to hard labor with deprivation of all rights of state.
In the pre-Petrine era, exile had no effect on marriage, and the wife followed the exiled husband. Beginning in 1720, the wives of exiles could remain on their dowry estates. However, until 1753, divorce was not required in this case. The marriage was considered terminated automatically from the moment the sentence was passed by the criminal court, as if the exiled spouse had died. This was due to the fact that reference to hard labor was accompanied by deprivation of all rights of the estate and was considered civil death. Since 1753, it became necessary to apply for a divorce from a convicted spouse.
The divorce procedure in Imperial Russia was very complicated. The divorce process was carried out by the courts of the Ecclesiastical consistories. The process itself was of a mixed adversarial and investigative nature. The decision was made on the basis of a formal assessment of the evidence, i.e. decisive importance was attached not to the persuasiveness of evidence for judges, but to the presence of strictly defined evidence, which, for example, in the case of adultery, was the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses. The mere admission of guilt by the spouse who committed adultery was not taken into account unless it was formally confirmed by the necessary evidence. In practice, this led to numerous abuses and often forced the bribery of false witnesses.
Adultery was also a criminal offense and could also be tried by a criminal court upon the complaint of the other spouse.
The personal rights and obligations of spouses also underwent significant changes during the imperial period. First of all, with the perception of European forms of life, the very position of women in society changed. The husband's power, formally preserved until 1917, takes on more civilized forms. Since 1845, the husband no longer had the right to subject his wife to physical punishment.
During this period, the legislator is increasingly trying to regulate the internal relations of spouses in marriage. “A husband is obliged to love his wife as if he were his own body, to live in harmony with her, to respect, to protect, to excuse her shortcomings and to alleviate her infirmities,” says the Civil Law. Article 107 formulates the duties of a wife: “a wife is obliged to obey her husband as the head of the family, to remain in love and unlimited obedience to him, to show him every kind of pleasure and affection as the mistress of the house.”
The husband's power, although it continued to exist, was no longer unlimited. She did not give the husband the right to destroy his wife’s human dignity. The customs and traditions that regulated family relations in peasant families, to a much greater extent than the norms of official laws, gave husbands the right and opportunity to punish their wives for disobedience, but required them to take into account the amount of “guilt.”
Daughters-in-law occupied a different position in the Russian peasant family of the 18th century. As soon as they appeared in the house, they were immediately assigned all the household chores. They had to obey not only their husbands, but also all older relatives. Conflicts between daughters-in-law and husband's parents sometimes ended dramatically: the death of one of the women, “damage” to the pregnancy, and the destruction of a young family. When relations between different generations became especially tense, they tried to find a way out of the situation through family division. Young people, with the consent of their elders or without permission, built a separate house and formed a new family. This way of resolving conflicts became a custom in subsequent times.
In essence, all these rules are nothing more than imaginary rights; no sanctions were established for them, and with the abolition of the husband’s right to physically punish his wife, they could not be implemented by direct coercion.
The place of residence of the spouses was determined by the place of residence of the husband. The wife was obliged to follow him, otherwise she could be forced into her husband’s house. Only the husband's exile freed the wife from this obligation.
Beginning in the 18th century, the wife gained the right to demand judicial separation in cases of cruelty. Living together could be considered intolerable due to cruelty to the spouse or children, grave insults, obvious abuse of conjugal rights, inhumane or vicious behavior of the spouse, or if the spouse is “possessed by a serious mental illness or other clinging and disgusting disease that poses a danger to life and the health of the other spouse or his offspring.”
The wife had the right and was obliged to bear the name of her husband and follow his condition. The only exception to this rule was the privilege of noblewomen who married persons of non-noble rank to retain their nobility without communicating it to their husband.
The obligation to follow the status of the spouse of persons of unfree classes has undergone a significant evolution. Previously, there was a rule that a person who married a serf himself lost his freedom if he did not negotiate its preservation with the master of his future spouse.
In Peter's times, the power of parents over children was softened: parents no longer had the right to forcibly marry their children or send them to a monastery.
Respect for the mother in families was an important element of moral education, based on customary models of everyday behavior and personal example. The mother had to “maintain, educate and satisfy” her children. In turn, in old age, she could count on attention and care from older children. If the children did not show due care to their mother, both public opinion and the law stood on her side and defended her, demanding that children who had forgotten their duty towards their elderly parent be punished.
As for illegitimate children, in the 18th century they followed the status of the mother, but the children of noblewomen did not receive nobility, although they were often granted it by imperial decree. The father was only obliged to support the illegitimate child and his mother, but this maintenance was not considered as alimony, but as compensation for harm.
The legal connection between the mother of the child was established on the basis of her recognition of the child as her own. In the absence of recognition, the origin of the child from the mother could only be confirmed by a metric registration or her own written certificate. In this case, it was the family legal connection between mother and child that was established. This limitation in methods of proof was justified by the need to protect girls from noble families who gave birth to a child out of wedlock from possible blackmail.
Parental authority over an illegitimate child belonged to the mother. The child's surname was given according to the mother's surname, but only if she expressed consent to this. The mother also had to support the child. Illegitimate children could only inherit the acquired property of their mother. Inheritance by law of her family property and inheritance after her father were not allowed.
To summarize, we can conclude that the development of marriage and family relations during the 18th century underwent significant changes. A woman, as a subject of family relations, receives more rights and freedoms regarding marriage or divorce, despite its such a complex procedure. Forced marriage is becoming a thing of the past; it is being replaced by marriage by mutual consent of the future spouses.
It can also be noted that at this time there was a humanization of family relations, which directly depended on the development of civil legislation. This was expressed in raising the marriageable age to 18 years for men and 16 years for women, and in establishing uniform grounds for divorce for men and women.
In general, family legislation was at approximately the same level of development as the legislation of most European powers.
Development of women's education and leisure
The question of a woman’s place in society was invariably associated with her upbringing and education. In pre-Petrine Russia, not only statehood, but also public life was built, as it were, only for men. But already in the 18th century, women's education and upbringing received their new development. In fact, at this time a woman is trying to win the right to a place in society and culture.
From time immemorial in Rus' there was a purely patriarchal view of the significance of the female generation. The preference for boys over girls has been the dominant principle in family and clan views since ancient times. In addition, according to these ideas, a woman was a cut-off “piece” from the clan, completely useless in the interests of exalting and strengthening the clan. She was still a burden for her parents, placing on them the difficult task of getting her married, since marriage was then her calling, the whole purpose of life.
Mothers themselves often looked at the birth of their daughters, especially when no boys were born, as a misfortune and punishment from God. They went on pilgrimages to monasteries and begged the holy wonderworkers for blessings to give birth to a son. And if, despite the passionate desire to have a son, it did not come true, then the wife often fell out of favor with her husband, and even considered herself an outcast.
Thus, the educational policy of the state and new forms of leisure activities are considered as a necessary condition and means for women to successfully master the public sphere of life.
The policy of development of education and upbringing is best examined by representatives of the upper classes, since the changes that have affected this part of society are most indicative when revealing this topic of work.
Women's education in early modern times was aimed at teaching representatives of the upper classes “the fear of God and civility,” observing religious rituals, as well as teaching handicrafts and home economics. This contributed to the formation in women of qualities required exclusively for family life, and significantly narrowed the options for the life strategy of noble women of the early modern period.
An analysis of the literature shows that in order to maintain control, a negative attitude towards women’s mental activities was cultivated in society.
The home education of a young noblewoman was not very different from the upbringing of a boy. From the hands of the serf nanny, the girl came under the supervision of bonnes, governesses and teachers, who pledged to jointly teach her various sciences and arts, mainly the French language, as well as train the girl in elegant manners and the ability to behave in society.
The girl’s physical education boiled down to ensuring that she knew how to show off her charms. They tried to make the girl a white-handed, pampered, semi-airy creature. The most important part of physical training in a woman's upbringing was dancing.
Thus, throughout the entire 18th century, a girl’s upbringing was exclusively external, superficial, aimed at equipping her, to shine in the salon by all means, to captivate and please her. The very purpose of education, according to the concepts of the time, lay not at all in achieving the highest improvement of the spiritual nature of the girl, not in the development of the mind and heart. Her parents and she herself were concerned, first of all, with the idea of making a more brilliant match, that is, getting married as profitably as possible.
But in addition to home education, in the 18th century the question of literacy was raised more widely. The need for female education and its nature became the subject of controversy and was associated with a general revision of the type of life, the type of way of life. According to the sources studied, it can be said that introducing the daughters of elite representatives to education became one of the directions of Peter’s education policy.
But the idea of enlightening all noble women arose only in the second half of the 18th century. And this project owed its implementation to Catherine II.
The formation of women's education in Russia was also associated with the name of the famous cultural figure I. I. Betsky (1704–1795). He was close to government circles and generally reflected the sentiments of Catherine II, who wanted to implement a far-reaching educational program.
With the assistance of Catherine II and the direct participation of I. I. Beletsky, an educational institution arose, which was called after the premises where it was located - the Smolny Institute of Noble Maidens, and its students - Smolyanka. The Smolny Institute was opened in 1764 in the Resurrection Convent and was conceived as an educational institution with a very broad program of women's education.
The general structure of the Smolny Institute was as follows. The bulk were girls of noble origin. But there were few parents who wanted to send their daughters to this institution. Only insufficiently wealthy nobles decided to let their girls go. Only six months later the vacancies were filled. Among those accepted were seven titled pupils and many daughters of minor officials and impoverished nobles. Here one could also meet the daughters of fallen generals who were unable to provide for their futures.
In 1765, a secular “special school” for bourgeois girls was opened at Smolny, where girls of non-noble origin were accepted. The subjects taught to them included literacy, writing, arithmetic, catechism and subjects related to home economics. Graduates of the school were widely used to service Smolyankas, courtyards and estates of the aristocracy.
The head of the Smolny Institute was a boss appointed by the empress. The second person after her was the ruler. Each class at the Institute for Noble Maidens had to be under the supervision of a class lady - the matron. Her duties were to supervise the education of girls and assist teachers in teaching. The matrons had to be constantly with the pupils, taking care of their character development, their successes, behavior, and the cleanliness of their linen. According to the charter, there were twelve teachers. They also, from morning to night, constantly being with the girls, were engaged, in addition to teaching, in raising the girls. What was progressive was that the Smolny Institute had noble and philistine departments.
Studying at the Smolny Institute lasted nine years. These years of study were divided into three stages. Lower-level students were called “coffee girls.” They wore coffee-colored dresses with white calico aprons. The middle group - the “blues” - were famous for their despair: they always teased the teachers and did not do their homework. These were girls of puberty age.
The girls in the older group were called “white” because they wore white dresses. These girls were allowed to organize balls where they danced together. And only in special cases - with a limited number of court gentlemen. Grand dukes came to such “balls”. Subsequently, Alexander I and Nicholas I loved to attend this bachelorette party.
For nine years they lived at the institute, usually without seeing, or hardly seeing, home. If parents living in St. Petersburg could still visit their daughters (although these visits were specially limited), then the poor, especially provincial college girls, were separated from their relatives for years. This isolation was part of a well-thought-out system.
The training was based on the principle of isolation: according to the system of I. I. Betsky. College girls were specially separated from the “spoiled” home environment of their parents in order to raise them into “ideal people” according to the educational model.
Education at Smolny, despite its broad plans, was superficial. The only exceptions were languages (French and German). Of the other subjects, only dancing and needlework, and good manners were given importance. As for the study of all other sciences, so pompously stated in the program, it was very shallow: physics was reduced to amusing tricks, mathematics to the most elementary knowledge, literature and astronomy were taught superficially.
After nine years of study, a public exam was taken, which was attended by members of the royal family. During the exam, questions were given to which the institutes knew the answers in advance.
Since education was conducted in French, many Smolensk women could hardly speak Russian, had a very weak idea of Russian culture, and were arrogant towards the Russian people and their traditions.
The girls left the institute with absolutely no idea about real life. It seemed to them that an endless ball awaited them outside the walls of the institute.
And although the empress knew all her students, in fact, after graduating from the institute, few people were interested in “favorite toys.” Often, poor girls who graduated from the Smolny Institute became officials, teachers or students in women's educational institutions, or even just hangers-on.
Many Smolyans were made into maids of honor, others turned into society brides. Among the enlightened nobles, Smolensk women enjoyed great sympathy and respect.
The Smolny Institute was by no means the only educational institution in Russia in the 18th century. Private boarding houses also appeared. By the end of the century there were several dozen of them in St. Petersburg, more than ten in Moscow, and there were also in the provinces. The first educational institution of this type for girls arose in Dorpat, long before the Smolny Institute, in the 50s of the 18th century. Teaching there was conducted in German.
The level of education in such boarding houses was often not too high. Only music and dance were systematically studied. The teachers were, as a rule, French or German.
In French boarding houses (from the 1790s onwards, often filled with emigrants fleeing the revolution), schoolgirls were taught in a crude and simplified manner in the manners of French society of the pre-revolutionary era; in German - by the habits of burgher housekeeping and education.
We should not forget about the contribution that E.R. Dashkova made to the development of women’s education. The first Russian woman of the 18th century to hold such a responsible position - she was both the director of the Academy of Sciences and the president of the Russian Academy. This was not only the first, but also an exceptional case in Russian history. This woman combined the type of high-society woman, patron of the sciences and arts, and an independent activist in this field, as a scientist and writer. She was also the founder of the magazine “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word,” in which she attracted the most famous figures of the 18th century to participate.
Thus, during the reign of Catherine II, three types of education emerged: the Institute of Noble Maidens, private boarding houses, and home education. These three types of institutions existed almost until the end of the 19th century.
In general, having become acquainted with the projects for the education of women, including the proposal to train young girls abroad, as well as the project for the establishment of girls' schools in monasteries, we can conclude that there is a positive trend in the development of the education of women of the upper classes.
The study confirms the position that the implementation of a number of measures to educate women contributed to the development of their social activity. Representatives of the elite invited teachers to teach etiquette, dance, and foreign languages, which over time became the key to the successful socialization of women in high society.
As for the leisure of women of the 18th century, some changes took place here too.
Upon returning from abroad in 1717, Peter I issued a special decree in which he ordered the establishment of a previously unheard of meeting of both sexes - an assembly.
Unlike the customs of the previous century, when men were received separately from women, the assemblies were meetings in which women participated equally with men. Thus, women were given the opportunity to appear in public places. This decree produced different impressions. The assembly was structured as follows: in one of the rooms there were only tables for chess and checkers; gambling was not allowed at the assemblies. In another there were pipes with wooden matches for smoking, tobacco scattered on the tables and bottles of wine. They were dancing in the third room. Dancing was considered the main entertainment at the assemblies.
There was no liveliness and freedom at the evenings, although the assemblies were considered a place where one could communicate without rank and have fun. Peter I introduced a special dance at these meetings, in which the entire meeting, men and women, to the sounds of a slow, almost funeral march, also moved around the rooms; suddenly, at a sign from the marshal's baton, the music turned to cheerful, the ladies left their gentlemen and took on those who had not danced before.
Regardless of the assemblies, Peter I organized masquerades and masquerade processions with the obligatory participation of women. Anyone who did not appear on a summons to such a masquerade was subjected to a kind of fine: the draining of the “big eagle” cup.
Peter I tried to instill in the minds of his subjects humanity and respect for other people's personalities, especially women, and teach them the rules of secular communication. He introduced etiquette.
The book “An Honest Mirror of Youth, or Indications for Everyday Conduct,” which went through three editions in Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century, became a kind of encyclopedia of the cultural behavior of young people at home, on a visit, in public places, and at work. Some of her recommendations were reminiscent of Domostroy. In general, this book reflected an era where other virtues were also valued.
Significant pages of “The Honest Mirror of Youth” set out the rules of behavior for girls. If a young man was supposed to have three virtues: “humble, friendly, courteous,” then the girl had to have two dozen of them. Girls were valued for their ability to blush, which was considered an indicator of moral purity and chastity.
During the reign of Catherine I, dancing became widespread. Ignorance of dancing was already considered a lack of education in a girl. Soon the assemblies disappeared from the secular life of society, but frequent meetings, on the contrary, became increasingly widespread. And under Anna Ioannovna, balls became permanent. At this time, playing cards began to spread.
The reign of Elizabeth Petrovna is an endless series of court holidays. Masquerades, which appeared in Rus' back in the era of Peter the Great, came into fashion. Once a week, members of the court and representatives of the nobility, invited by the empress, gathered for a masquerade.
And yet, Elizabeth’s favorite entertainment was not masquerades, but balls. They were held both in imperial houses and in the courts of the nobility.
During the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, theater came into fashion. And under Catherine II, almost every high society lady had her own theater.
In the middle of the 18th century, ballet art was also widespread. Noble ladies took part in plays and ballets. Princess K. F. Dolgorukova was famous for her home theater and her stage talent. She aroused strong aristocratic competition among high society ladies.
If in pre-Petrine society there were almost no educated women, in the 18th century you can already meet many women - writers and scientists. All of them practiced writing, science and art not as a profession, but as amateurs. These were well-off financially, well-educated and well-read, often talented young ladies, filled with a sincere love for literature and art.
The entry of women into a world previously considered masculine began with literature. The Petrine era involved women in the world of literature, the world of literacy.
In the 70-90s, a woman becomes a reader. This is largely due to the influence of N. M. Novikov and N. M. Karamzin.
Novikov was the first to set himself the goal of making a woman - a mother and housewife - a reader, and prepared for her a thoughtful system of useful books in a form accessible to her. He created a genuine library for women's reading. Karamzin, together with his friend A.P. Petrov, edited the magazine “Children’s Reading for the Heart and Mind.” For the first time in Russia, the readers of this magazine were children and women-mothers.
Also, women of Catherine's time were muses for many poets. The great world at the end of the 18th century had many such charming, enlightened patrons of the arts, such as M. T. Razumovskaya, A. K. Vorontsova, M. A. Naryshkina, Z. A. Volokonskaya.
The materials studied allow us to assert that the leisure of representatives of the elite in the 18th century. was of a private nature and implied a connection with spiritual improvement or usefulness in the household. Assessing the consequences of the development of the leisure sphere in the first quarter of the 18th century, we can conclude that the participation of women in public forms of leisure became a significant factor in the rapprochement between the sexes, and also accelerated the socialization of representatives of the upper classes. In addition, it is necessary to indicate the importance of gaming culture at the assemblies, since “funny games” - chess, forfeits, cards - served to develop communication skills and allowed to reduce psychological stress among the women present. Theater became a form of social activity, as well as a sphere for applying the organizational and creative abilities of representatives of the elite.
At the same time, a number of events, such as masquerades and buffoonery, contradicted the ethical and religious ideas of early modern contemporaries and were assessed by them as an insult. The study showed that often noble women were forced to attend events that had a negative impact on the moral (involvement in rough entertainment) and physical (sleepless nights, as well as forced drinking) state of women.
--- ---
Chapter 2
Marriage.
In the midst of transformations XVIII V. the authorities made an attempt to rebuild the institution of marriage on a more reasonable basis than before. In Peter’s first decrees regarding marriage, one senses both familiarity with European customs and forms of life, and the personal interest of the legislator, for Peter’s first marriage, concluded according to the “old times,” turned out to be very unsuccessful. A simple and immutable rule was declared by Peter’s Naval Decree I: “Everyone must be obedient to the sovereign in all those matters that concern the benefit of the sovereign and the state.” The concept of state benefit in relation to family and marriage relations was specified in this way:Forced marriages do not increase the birth rate, therefore they must give way to freer marriages that will increase the population. In turn, this was supposed to bring certain benefits to the Fatherland, through an increase in workers and employees of the state.
By a special decree, Peter ordered in 1702.
not to compile more regular agreements and charging records and not to register them in the Order of Serf Affairs. Instead of agreement notes, it was ordered that the dowry be written without a “charge.” The bride and groom were supposed to be written six weeks before the wedding. Thus, the old-fashioned bridesmaid ceremony was replaced by betrothal. A meeting between the bride and groom has become an indispensable condition for engagement. The engagement could be upset if “after the agreement and betrothal, the groom does not want to take the bride or the bride does not want to get married, and in that case there will be freedom.”
The legislator made a decisive break with antiquity and custom. Previously, the bride chosen by the family was carefully hidden from the groom. “If someone wants to get married, then you need to talk to the girl’s parents: IN
If he agrees to the marriage, he sends one of his most faithful relatives or friends to see the said girl and he tells him about his impression, and based on this story they conclude, and whoever breaks the promise pays the amount of money agreed upon between them. After concluding this agreement, he can go see his wife."
There was also another version of such matchmaking, because before, a young man could only indirectly, through “caretakers”, inquire about the bride's appearance;the girl could not at all express her opinion and attitude to what was happening when her fate was being decided. “Young men and girls,” wrote Adam Olearius, “are not allowed to make acquaintances on their own.” Sigismund Herberstein wrote in his notes:“It is considered dishonorable and disgraceful for a young man to woo a girl himself so that she can be given to him in marriage.”
The wedding ceremony itself is also vividly and in detail reflected in the notes of foreigners. One example can be cited from the work of Jacques Margeret: “On the wedding day, she (the bride) is taken to church, covering her face with a veil, So that she cannot see anyone, and no one can see her face. Then she is brought in the same way and seated at the table, and so she remains closed until the wedding is completed.” Adam Olearius also describes an interesting tradition: “When marrying, they (Russians) also take into account the degree of consanguinity and do not marry close relatives by blood, willingly avoid marriages with any relatives and do not even want to allow two brothers to marry two sisters or that persons who were the baptism recipients of the same child enter into marriage. They are married in open churches with special ceremonies and during the marriage they observe such customs.” Sigismund Herberstein wrote in Notes on Muscovy: they (Russians) consider it a heresy if siblings marry siblings." . In modern and later times, a custom has been preserved: “they (the newlyweds) need to receive the blessing of a priest or monk before entering the church.” .
During the era of Peter's transformations and reforms, the situation changed dramatically. Now the groom, of his own free will, could refuse his betrothed if, under some pretext, she was not shown, or was not allowed to personally verify the correctness of his choice and decision. The bride was also given the formal right to dissolve the betrothal and thus upset the arranged marriage.
Many examples indicated that new forms of marriage had become widespread among the population, although various strata and groups in their own way refracted the decrees addressed to them and made amendments to them. The famous industrialist and publicist of Peter the Great's time, Ivan Tikhonovich Pososhkov, compiled detailed instructions to his son about matrimonial affairs. Having noticed the bride, the father taught. You must first make inquiries about her, then see her “not in a smart way, but at a church, or on a crossing somewhere... so that you don’t put any shame on the girl. Show yourself, if you like it, then start your own business.” .
The conditions for marriage changed when the ordinary course of life gave way to difficult everyday situations. One such situation was the birth of a child before marriage. The Church strictly persecuted people guilty of such sin.
Petrine laws noticeably softened sanctions against the father of an “illegitimate” child. Peter's military regulations stipulated that a single man was only obliged to marry a pregnant or giving birth woman if he had promised her everything about marriage. Otherwise, he could not be forced into marriage. The system of fines (fees) and punishment from the state were considered as an incentive to marry, because marriage freed the “guilty” from all payments and debts.
The reformer was preoccupied with the idea of how to make it easier for orphans who were brought up in monasteries to get married. Only an undated draft of the decree, written by the hand of Peter 1, has survived, with entertaining and interesting reflections on this matter: “The time determined for orphans to see and talk publicly for marriage, and it seems, on Sundays to dine together and talk and after dinner an hour or two, or how better it will be invented"
The Church has always been the highest authority in matters of family and marriage relations. Already at the end of the 17th century, church leadership made weak attempts to change the usual form of marriage. In November 1693 Patriarch Andrian turned to the priests with the order to “nekreko interrogate” the young people at the wedding, whether they are getting married by good consent, and not from violence or bondage, to interrogate the parents of a bashful bride, etc. “The Patriarchal decree was evidence of the good intentions of the church. He changed the tradition, which left “young people with little chance of choosing “out of love and consent.” However, this decree was evidence that even the church, a stronghold of traditionalism, by the end of the 17th century began to think about the imperfections of the “temple”, on the construction of which it had worked for many centuries.
The issue of forced marriages became the subject of wider discussion in church circles after one of the leading ideologists of Peter the Great’s time, Feofan Prokopovich, published in 1720 a primer-catechism entitled “The First Teaching to Youths.” One of the commandments of the catechism read: “And children must have their parents do everything diligence... And without their blessing, do not begin any important work, especially do not choose the order of life...” F. Prokopovich interpreted the question of parental will in the traditional spirit, going back to Domostroy.
Dmitry Cantemir criticized the catechism of F. Prokopovich. He most strongly protested against the church ideologist’s interpretation of forced marriages concluded at the will of parents, without the participation of children, primarily those concluded for the sake of property benefits and ranks. The prince was also no stranger to participating in disputes on religious topics, and after reading F. Prokopovich’s book, he objected to the author in an anonymous letter, which became widespread among readers. Feofan, according to D. Kantemir, incorrectly interprets the dogma of original sin. He believes that God condemned people to suffering and death, temporary and eternal, only for their ancestral sin - Adam and Eve disobeyed the Lord, plucked an apple at the instigation of the Serpent without asking - and were immediately expelled from paradise. However, the meaning of this episode is not that - the human race turned out to be bad, the first people discovered their natural depravity, and bad qualities from them are successively passed on to their descendants from generation to generation. And it is not for the sin of their ancestors, but for their own shortcomings and bad skills that people are condemned to destruction and death.
Feofan did not tolerate criticism. He disputed the amendment of the learned prince: “Doesn’t it follow from such inquisitive co-questioners that ordinary people, fearing the moral corruption of their children, will not want to give them useful instruction, and the desire of the Tsar’s Majesty to see people educated will be expressed in vain? With such gross lack of skill, how can one dare to proceed? to teaching and judge theological readings?
Theophan turned the theological dispute into an administrative channel and suggested not to upset Emperor Peter 1. The opponent had to remain silent.
Disputes about the limits of parental authority in marriage served as a prelude to the development of new legislation on marriage. On April 22, 1722, Peter 1 ordered the Senate and the Synod to prohibit marriages concluded under coercion by parents or guardians, as well as marriages of “slaves” and slaves forced into such by masters of any rank. The development of the decree encountered resistance in the Senate, which disputed the point, relating to serfs. Peter did not take into account the opinion of the senators and on January 5, 1724 he signed a Decree that contained all the previously prepared points. Since in the capital and in other cities a significant part of the population consisted of courtyard people, and in this environment forced marriages were especially frequent, Peter tried to extend the innovation to them. A decree of 1724 obligated masters to issue written evidence to their servants confirming by oath and oath that they did not force the servant into marriage. The decree, however, did not in any way guarantee the free expression of the will of the courtyard servants, therefore, it had to remain on paper. The complete and unlimited power of feudal lords over their slaves doomed attempts of this kind to failure. Since Peter's laws affirmed the power of those in power and the lack of rights of the lower classes, any attempts to mitigate the arbitrariness of the propertied people were doomed to failure from the very beginning.
Attempts to reform marriage affected mainly the urban population. Even the most radical decrees of Peter 1, drawn up by him at the end of his life, did not mention the peasant population, which made up the overwhelming mass of the Russian people. Chernososhnye (state) peasants in Pomerania, the North and Siberia did not know the oppression of the landowners and held tightly to ancient traditions and customs. Marriages between family members who were at the same level of material wealth were common among peasants. The peasant dowry usually included clothing (shirts, chemises, caftans,) jewelry, sometimes some livestock and money.
Among the nobility, the prospect of a dowry often prompted them to marry young brides. The peasants, when marrying children, were guided by the needs of life.
In a privately owned village, marriages between peasants were complicated by the constant interference of feudal landowners, with their petty, private, selfish calculations about personal benefit and benefit. Starting from the 17th century, a peasant bride did not have the opportunity to move from estate to estate in connection with marriage without paying a “exit” - a special duty in favor of the feudal lord. As long as the “output” did not exceed 1-2 rubles, it did not complicate matters too much, but when landowners raised the payment to 5 rubles from girls, to 10-15 rubles from widows, this sometimes became an insurmountable obstacle and barrier to peasant marriages.
Numerous patrimonial instructions have been preserved XVIII century, regulating the marriages of serfs. In this regard, we can cite as an example the instructions of the noble historian and publicist M.M. Shcherbatov to the clerk of the Yaroslavl estate on the marriage of peasants:“It is a matter of discretion in many villages that many peasants reach old age unmarried and do not marry, and girls also grow old unmarried.... It is necessary for (the girls) to take (the girls) into the house (husband) (...) son-in-law, and the men get married twenty years old" . But always, on the ground, certain difficulties in resolving such issues were created intentionally or by the will of circumstances. Some landowners, in their patrimonial instructions, prohibited clerks from interfering in matters relating to peasant marriages.
Instructions of a completely different nature should be considered typical. As the serfdom developed, the rights of landowners to the personality of the peasant expanded unlimitedly. The owners of “serf souls”, at their own discretion and discretion, interfered in the family life of their “baptized” property. First of all, feudal landowners were concerned about preventing the leakage of female serf souls from the estate. In this regard, they allowed marriages between peasants within the estate and opposed the “removal” of peasant brides to other people's estates. In large estates, peasant women had more opportunities to marry within the estate. In small and interstitial estates and estates, such opportunities were minimal, which significantly complicated the situation.
Our history is characterized by such a phenomenon as the important role in marriage played by the church, because The church considered this area to be the object of its exclusive influence and was not averse to using it to strengthen the foundations of religion. Those entering into marriage were required to know the most important prayers (“I Believe in One,” “Our Father,” “Virgin Mother of God”) and the Ten Commandments. This was the mandatory minimum of church knowledge for parishioners. In the era of transformations, it was not scholastic dead wisdom that was valued, but accurate knowledge. January 20, 1714 Peter I issued a decree introducing an educational minimum for nobles wishing to marry .
The creation of a school system, new conditions of service in the regular army and navy, and the complication of public life led to XVIII V. to increase the marriageable age. Public life was now becoming more important than private interests. As for the marriageable age, the same Tatishchev V.N. in his “Spiritual” he instructed his son to follow the advice that he should not get married at 18... Life itself changed, views on it were measured, they became more liberated, new, responding to new changes in society. On April 6, 1722, Peter I published the so-called decree “Certified; and fools in the Senate,” the meaning of which was that those who are not fit for service “are by no means a wife.” Peter1 added to this point in the draft; “And it’s not to allow marriage.” Peter's registration, thus, excluded from the sphere of marriage relations not only “fools” unfit for service, but also weak-minded girls. In the latter case, no procedure was established. A special procedure for testifying in the Senate was introduced for young men. The Senate “looked” for idiots, “fools” who were not suitable for science and service, in order to prevent them from getting married, which threatened to produce bad offspring and did not promise “state benefit”. “Fools” entering the service were given a probationary period (“lesson years”). If they turned out to be fit for service, they received permission to marry.
The Church has always been considered the highest authority in family and marriage matters. Peter 1 sought to turn the church into a bureaucratic institution and completely subordinate it to the goals of secular power. The government took control of the activities of the lower clergy, including the celebration of the “sacrament of marriage.” Petersburg repeatedly demanded that the local clergy (parish) follow the new procedure for registering marriages and making entries in the books. Report cards from these books were regularly sent to the Synod. Spiritual College
Marget F Decree. Op. P. 247. Herberstein S. Notes on Muscovy. M., 1988. P. 110. Marget J Decree. Op. P. 247 Olearius A, Decree op. P.347-348 Herberstein S. Decree. Op. P.111 Marget F Decree. Op. P. 247. 7 Shcherbatov M.M. From the instructions to the clerk of the Yaroslavl estate. // Reader on the history of the USSR M., 1963. P. 215
8 PSZ. T V. No. 2762. P. 78.
Alexander Fedorovich Lazursky (1874-1917)
JOURNAL OF NEUROPATHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY NAMED AFTER S. S. KORSAKOV
VOLUME 77 1977 ISSUE. 6
HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRY
V. A. Zhuravel
ROLE OF A. F. LAZURSKY IN THE CREATION OF DOMESTIC
MEDICAL PSYCHOLOGY.
Museum of V. M. Bekhterev (headed by A. M. Shereshevsky) of the Leningrad Research Psychoneurological Institute named after. B. M. Bekhtereva (director M. M. Kabanov)
“It is difficult to imagine a more selfless and devoted person to the scientific cause, who forgot all earthly blessings for the sake of science,” said academician. V. M. Bekhterev about the largest Russian psychologist of the early 20th century, Alexander Fedorovich Lazursky, one of the pioneers of medical psychology.
A. F. Lazursky was born on April 12, 1874. In 1897, he graduated with the degree of “doctor with honors” from the Military Medical Academy and was retained by competition for scientific improvement in the clinic of mental and nervous diseases headed by V. M. Bekhterev. The research activities of A.F. Lazursky began during the first years of the academy in the laboratories of this clinic. The problem of psychology even then took a central place in his scientific interests, which was facilitated not only by the broad outlook and deep erudition of A.F. Lazursky in the field of human sciences, but also by the whole atmosphere of the clinic, where a psychological laboratory was opened in 1895. After graduating from the academy, the young doctor became the head of this laboratory.
Being a full-time physician at the clinic, A.F. Lazursky carried out extensive medical work for 16 years. For some time he also headed various departments at a home for the mentally ill in St. Petersburg. Subsequently, A.F. Lazursky was a doctor and consultant on medical pedagogy in a school he organized together with other doctors for children with reduced success, nervous and underdeveloped." Since graduating from the Academy, he took an active part in the work of the St. Petersburg Society of Psychiatrists and Neuropathologists, and in 1899. was elected as a full member. At the same time, A.F. Lazursky passed exams for the degree of Doctor of Medicine, which were conducted in all medical disciplines.
A.F. Lazursky's development of medical psychology was based on his multifaceted research work, in particular neuromorphological studies.
In parallel, in connection with the requests of the psychoneurological clinic, he conducted a thorough physiological study “On the influence of muscle work on cerebral circulation” (9). The research was carried out using an original experimental method, its results were defended with great success in a dispute as a doctoral dissertation with official opponents I. P. Pavlov, V. M. Bekhterev and M. S. Dobrotvorsky. I. P. Pavlov highly appreciated the work, noting the “outstanding interest of the topic” in theoretical and practical terms, and V. M. Bekhterev emphasized the importance of the research for the clinic.
At one time, the work of A.F. Lazursky on clinical psychophysiology, concerning somato-psychic relationships, aroused great interest. One of them examined changes in the physiological functions of external respiration and blood circulation in hypnotic sleep. A.F. Lazursky also conducted a study of the influence of directly inspired emotions of joy, grief, fear and anger on some physiological functions.
Early research contributed to the formation of the progressive natural-scientific worldview of A.F. Lazursky, on which his work as a clinical psychologist was subsequently based. Having traced the development of psychology since ancient times, A.F. Lazursky showed the dependence of the stages of its history on the successes of natural science as a whole. He attached particular importance to physiology and, in particular, the physiology of the brain, since it was thanks to it that it became clear that “the brain is... the seat of our mental activity,” and therefore “it is unthinkable to study psychology without having a thorough knowledge of anatomy and physiology.” central nervous system". The successes of psychopathology as a branch of medicine, the scientist believed, are also important for the progress of psychology, for “the data obtained by the pathology of the soul forced us to reconsider, and in many cases subject to thorough revision, many important departments of normal psychology.”
The development of A.F. Lazursky as a psychologist was facilitated by work in a psychiatric clinic with the psychological laboratory of Emil Kraepelin in Heidelberg and the Wilhelm Wundt Psychological Institute in Leipzig during a two-year scientific trip, where he was sent in 1900 after defending his dissertation. However, the first psychological studies carried out by experimental methods were started by A.F. Lazursky back in 1896. In subsequent years, he carried out a number of developments that enriched classical experimental psychology. Having become a professor at the Psychoneurological Institute in the department of general and experimental psychology, A.F. Lazursky organized and headed a psychological laboratory there in 1909, which over time turned into a center for the study of mental activity in experiment. He created an interesting textbook, “General and Experimental Psychology,” which went through a number of editions, including in Soviet times. Since the founding of the journal “Bulletin of Psychology” by V. M. Bekhterev, A. F. Lazursky has been the editor of the section on experimental psychology. Subsequently, he actually headed this periodical. He took an active part in editing the Russian translation of the multi-volume “Fundamentals of Physiological Psychology.” Wundt. Recognition of A.F. Lazursky’s merits in the field of experimental psychology was his election as a scientific secretary of the Russian Society of Normal and Pathological Psychology created by V.M. Bekhterev and I.P. Pavlov, as well as an honorary member of the Moscow Society of Experimental Psychology.
In his experimental psychological studies, A.F. Lazursky sought to obtain data characterizing the individuality of the people being studied. Initially, this tendency acted only as a research orientation, but from the beginning of the 900s, the study of individual differences and personality psychology in general became the main work of A.F. Lazursky’s life1. In these central sections of psychology, he was able to move from a priori classifications and ideas of his predecessors to fundamentally important empirical developments through the “Personality Research Program” he specially created. The scientist rightly believed that the highest levels of people’s psyche should be studied as specifically as a clinician studies their physical and physiological organization [23]. A.F. Lazursky worked tirelessly to create methodological techniques adequate for this kind of research. He proposed and widely used the method of systematic observation, combining it with specially selected methods of experimental psychology. The pinnacle of A.F. Lazursky’s methodological research is the “natural experiment method” he created by 1910, thanks to which the artificiality of laboratory experience is eliminated and the value of observation data significantly increases, since the subject does not break out of his usual environment, but becomes at the same time time under strictly programmed and controlled conditions. A.F. Lazursky put forward the concept of personality, developed on the basis of dialectical and historical materialism by a prominent Soviet psychologist, student of A.F. Lazursky V.N. Myasishchev, who applied it, in particular, in the clinic of neuroses and borderline states. A talented theorist, one of the creators of individual psychology - the “science of character,” as he called it, A.F. Lazursky never confined himself to the circle of abstract constructions; his living thought penetrated into various areas of practice. Creating the foundations of clinical psychology and teaching psychology in higher medical educational institutions became one of the main directions of his scientific, practical and pedagogical activities.
The experience of the first years of clinical work led A.F. Lazursky to the following conclusion: “The introduction of psychology into the course of medical sciences is necessary and highly desirable both for completing general medical education and for the successful use of psychotherapy in the broadest sense of the word.” The implementation of this idea began with a series of lectures “On the significance of experiment in psychology” and “On sensory aphasia,” which he read at the Military Medical Academy at the end of 1903. For more than ten years, he gave lectures to academy students and conducted practical classes on pathological psychology with a detailed psychological analysis of the most important painful symptoms. In addition, in those same years, with the direct assistance of A.F. Lazursky in the clinic, a number of dissertations on various theoretical issues of psychology and the study of the mentally ill using psychological methods were completed by his students.
The formation of the scientific foundations of medical psychology and the development of its teaching is largely associated with the activities of A.F. Lazursky at the Women's Medical Institute (now I Leningrad Medical Institute named after I.P. Pavlov). In October 1908, he was elected as a teacher at this institute and soon presented a program of lectures for junior female students. The program included a course similar to the one that A.F. Lazursky taught at the Psychoneurological Institute, and consisted of the following sections: the subject and tasks of psychology, its relation to the border areas of knowledge, methods of psychology, psychophysics and analysis of sensations of various modalities; processes of perception, memory, thinking and imagination; emotions and will and, finally, a section on personality, temperament and character. Subsequently, he significantly supplemented this program with issues of pathological psychology and childhood psychology, and also introduced practical classes in experimental psychology. This expansion of the course was caused by the desire of A.F. Lazursky to bring teaching as close as possible to the needs of life. He considered consideration of disorders of perception and thinking, the study of associations in the mentally ill, the study of pathological affects and other issues of pathopsychology to be a necessary introduction to psychiatry. The addition of a section on childhood psychology to the course was due to the fact that a significant number of graduates of the institute became school doctors. Therefore, practical classes included experiments confirming the theoretical principles of general psychology, methods of objective research of mentally ill people, as well as the compilation of children's characteristics according to the “Program” of A.F. Lazursky. An extended course of lectures was given throughout the academic year for two hours, and practical classes were held twice for two hours a week, attracting a large number of students, despite the optional attendance.
Based on the experience of the first years of teaching psychology, having become convinced of the urgent need to introduce psychology into the medical education system, A.F. Lazursky addressed the medical community with an appeal to disseminate psychological knowledge among future doctors. At the III Congress of Russian Psychiatrists in early 1910, he confidently stated that psychiatric and especially psychological-pedagogical training could create a full-fledged school doctor. In April of the same year, he spoke in the section of mental and nervous diseases of the XI Pirogov Congress of Russian Doctors with a report “On the teaching of psychology in medical faculties,” in which he substantiated the need to introduce psychology into the system of medical sciences. A.F. Lazursky emphasized that serious knowledge in this area can only be obtained “from the lips of a specialist and in the laboratory.” He proposed a plan for teaching psychology to future doctors, especially noting the need for practical training. V. M. Bekhterev, who spoke in the debate, emphasized that it is unthinkable to teach a course in psychiatry without psychology and that a psychiatrist must rely on psychology in the same way as a therapist relies on physiology, and a surgeon on anatomy. The resolution of the congress confirmed the need to teach psychology, and necessarily on the basis of objective methods.
Having received the support of the representative congress, A.F. Lazursky continued to improve the psychology course and its teaching with even greater energy. In 1912 he noted with satisfaction the completion of the formation of such a course, which “best meets the needs of the medical faculty and which can rightfully be called a course in medical psychology” (discharge of A.F. Lazursky). In conclusion, he expressed the hope that the business he had begun would not die out, but would continue to develop.
At the end of 1913, A.F. Lazursky, along with teaching psychology, began conducting clinical classes in psychiatry with graduate students, and soon began teaching a systematic course in psychiatry. The combination of teaching psychology and psychiatry in the hands of an outstanding scientist undoubtedly provided deep knowledge of future doctors both in general and clinical psychology, and in psychiatry. A. F. Lazursky’s lectures on general and experimental psychology were also attended by students of the medical faculty of the Psychoneurological Institute, as well as participants in advanced training courses for neuropathologists and psychiatrists, which were periodically organized at the institute.
Thus, A.F. Lazursky managed to implement his ideas of improving medical education by introducing the teaching of psychology in three higher educational institutions.
On March 26, 1917, a serious illness ended the life of an outstanding scientist-innovator, who was only 43 years old.
A.F. Lazursky did an enormous amount for the development of psychology, especially in creating, on a materialistic basis, the actual psychological theory of personality and research methods adequate to it. He was one of the pioneers of introducing the ideas of scientific psychology into clinical medicine through the clinic of psychiatry and laid the theoretical foundations of clinical personology, which is becoming increasingly developed these days. In general, the creative achievements of a brilliant psychologist and clinician, which for a number of reasons are not widely known today, show his outstanding role in creating the foundations of Russian medical psychology.
Lazursky Alexander Fedorovich (1874 – 1917) - Russian doctor and psychologist. He developed a doctrine of personality and character types based on the identification of two mental spheres: innate characteristics, which included temperament and character (“endopsyche”), and those that develop throughout life, primarily in the form of the individual’s relationship to the outside world (“exopsyche”). He proposed a strategy for studying personality in the usual conditions of its activity.
He was an employee of V. M. Bekhterev, a professor at the Pedagogical Academy and the Psychoneurological Institute in St. Petersburg. He developed a doctrine about personality and character types (“characterology”) based on the identification of two mental spheres: innate characteristics, which included temperament and character (“endopsyche”), and those that develop throughout life, primarily in the form of the individual’s relationship to the world around him (“ exopsyche"). In his classification he relied on data known by his time about the activity of nerve centers. He was one of the first to conduct personality research in natural conditions of the subject’s activity.
(April 12, 1874 - March 12, 1917) - Russian psychologist. Employee of V. M. Bekhterev, professor of the Psychoneurological Institute in St. Petersburg. The main interests of A.F. Lazursky lay in the field of psychology of personality and character. Lazursky proposed a special type of experiment, the so-called “natural experiment,” which was supposed to make it possible to scientifically study a specific person in his real life situations. The idea of relationships in understanding the nature of personality put forward by A.F. Lazursky was an important step forward compared to the traditional understanding of personality as a set of mental functions. This idea became the starting point for Soviet psychologists of the Leningrad school (V.N. Myasishcheva, B.G. Ananyev, etc.). In the works of A.F. Lazursky, one of the first serious attempts in psychology was made to give a specific and heuristic typology of personalities, on the basis of which an extensive program of empirical human research was developed (in collaboration with S.L. Frank). Despite all the simplicity and well-known mechanistic nature of A.F. Lazursky’s theoretical ideas about personal The bulk of his work still retains interest for psychology, captivating, first of all, with the enormous factual material collected in them and the subtlety of individual observations and thoughts.
Works: . School Characteristics, 2nd ed. St. Petersburg 1913; To the doctrine of mental activity. M., 1916; Essay on the science of character. 3rd ed. Pg., 1917; Natural experiment and its school application (edited by A.F. Lazursky). Pg., 1918; Classification of personalities. 3rd ed. Pg., 1924; General and experimental psychology, 3rd ed. L., 1925. > Lit.: Bekhterev V.M., Laz u.r-s k i y 1 A.F. - Bulletin of psychology, criminal anthropology and pedology, 1919, v. 14, no. 1;, S and d h i-k about in and P. I. Psychological heritage of A. F. Lazursky. Kyiv, 1955 (abstract).
Describing his classification of personalities, A.F. Lazursky gives a large number of examples from fiction and biographies. The biography of Dr. Haass given here is one of them.
Lazursky classifies F.P. Haas as a person of the highest level. He identifies significant wealth as characteristic features of the highest level; strength, consciousness and coordination of mental experiences and personality manifestations.
One of the very interesting ideas embedded in Lazursky’s classification is that as the level increases, social significance increases. or the social resonance of the life and activities of an individual. So, if, when individually characterizing representatives of a lower level, greater emphasis should be placed on the features of their internal neuropsychic organization (in Lazursky’s terminology, endopsyche), then to classify people of a higher level, one must take into account, first of all, the nature of their connections and relations with the external social world (exopsyche). Thus, the “psychological” principle of dividing a lower-level personality into “rational,” “affective,” and “active” gives way to the “psychosocial” principle of classifying higher-level personalities into spheres of social life: into servants of “knowledge,” “beauty,” “organization.” ", "altruism".
Let us note that here Lazursky is talking specifically about setting accents, and not about ignoring one of the aspects of mental manifestations of personality that he identified.
Special comments on altruistic types of the highest level are given by A.F. Lazursky himself.
A. F. Lazursky ALTRUISM"
1 Lazursky A.F. Classification of personalities. Pg., 1922.
The altruistic types of the highest level are based on the same psychological and characterological complex that was already discussed when considering middle-level altruists, namely the feeling of sympathy or the process of “feeling” aimed at experiencing the sorrows and joys of others. Here there are both the necessary end-elements of this complex (affective excitability, strength and duration of feelings), and some other features usually associated with it, such as: a significant development of volitional activity aimed at helping the suffering and needy, the absence of selfishness and pride, reaching often to the point of self-forgetfulness and; self-sacrifice, significant development of higher, ideological feelings (especially moral and purely religious), and finally, interest in internal, spiritual experiences, which often gives rise to a peculiar concentration and inclination towards self-deepening.
At the same time, however, due to the richness and complexity of personality characteristic of representatives of the highest level, they always have, along with this main, altruistic complex, one or two additional ones, which are also significantly developed and significantly modify the character and manifestation of the main complex. Most often these additional complexes determine the way or means by which the altruism of a given person is carried out. Thus, for example, significantly developed volitional activity, aimed primarily at combating cruel and selfish oppressors, makes a person an unyielding, fierce fighter for truth and philanthropy (Dr. Haaz). ), or. deep faith in the benefits of enlightenment and in the possibility of the ideological and moral regeneration of humanity forces an active altruist to direct all his energies to the education of the younger generation (Pestalozzi), or we have a deeply religious person, “a typical contemplator, who, however, has an ardent love for people, penetrating all his religious views, forces them not to retire in the desert, but to devote their entire lives to the cause of preaching and saving lost humanity (Francis of Assisi); or, on the contrary, a person of a completely different type, a typical industrialist, cautious, prudent and practical, devotes all his wealth and all his energy to the poor working people and creates new forms of organization for the working class (Robert Owen).
DOCTOR GAAZ"
Fyodor Petrovich (Friedrich Joseph) Haaz was born in 1780 in Germany into an intelligent family. A pupil of a Catholic church school, he was later an ardent student of philosophy and mathematics in Jena; received his medical education at the University of Vienna. He moved to Russia with Prince Golitsyn in 1802; around 1814, he briefly went to Germany, then, returning, finally settled in Moscow, where he died at more than 70 years of age. Upon arrival in Russia, he entered into private practice and soon became one of the most prominent ophthalmologists in Moscow, a practice he acquired for himself a decent fortune, which was then all spent by him on charity. At the age of 27, he was appointed chief physician of the Pavlovsk hospital in Moscow, had two business trips to the Caucasus and wrote one of the best essays on the Caucasian waters. Remaining a bachelor until the end of his life, he always led. an active and sober lifestyle, maintaining great moderation in food and drink. Tall, broad-shouldered, with large features of a wide face, with a soft, affectionate smile, he, being already an old man, with his energetic posture resembled Luther. Cheerful and hardy, he had never been. seriously ill, although he did not care about his health. At the age of 50, he, at the invitation of Prince Golitsyn, became a member of the prison committee and, devoting himself wholeheartedly to the cause of helping the prisoners, eventually gained enormous popularity among the population. Moscow, which, as the biographer puts it, during his lifetime “canonized him as a saint.”
The most distinctive feature of Haas, which over the course of his life more and more dominated over everyone else, was his ardent, passionate and, moreover, active love for people, especially for unfortunate and humiliated people, as he considered prisoners. Having chosen as a slogan; “Hurry up to do good!”, all his life he steadily strived for its implementation; “The surest path to happiness” was, in his words, “not in the desire to be happy, but in making others happy.” And he put these words into practice; At 47 years of age he had a house in Moscow, an estate and a cloth factory, horses and a carriage, and died almost beggarly; everything went to the prisoners. 2 See: Koni A.F. Fedor Petrovich Gaaz. 1897 (Author's note). 18*
Occupying a two-room apartment at the prison hospital he founded, when the hospital was overcrowded, he put the sick in his room and looked after them himself. Almost every day he went to inquire and take care of the cases of individual prisoners, often risking his health. He kissed cholera patients and sat in the bath after them, so that the Governor-General of Moscow, Zakrevsky, although he did not like the “exaggerated philanthropist” (as Haass was called by defenders of police-administrative routine), but during cholera he asked him to calm the people. For the sake of the slightest improvement in the fate of the “unfortunate”, he was always ready to sacrifice his pride: already as an old man, in front of everyone, he asked the director of the committee for forgiveness for an order he had made without permission (albeit essentially useful), and it sometimes happened that he, with tears, begged on his knees from his superiors persons some kind of leniency for the prisoners. In general, he never felt sorry for himself, so one day, when he was already an elderly man, in order to test the effect of the lightweight shackles he had invented, he put them on himself and, despite extreme fatigue, walked with them in his apartment until until he had traveled a distance equal to the first prisoner's stage.
Haaz not only did good deeds, but also loved unfortunate people with all his soul, warmly sympathizing with them and empathizing with everyone’s situation. Once, having learned that an official who had taken part in the prisoners’ arrest was stopping in Moscow while passing through, returning from his business trip to Siberia, he came to him at night, and until dawn they talked about the situation of the prisoners in Siberia. While visiting the sick or being present when the prisoners were being sent, he talked for a long time with them, distributed delicacies (when visiting he often took a double portion of fruit - “for the sick”), sometimes kissed them, and often walked for several miles with those sent along the stage, talking with them. Patiently and attentively listened to the most absurd statements of the prisoners, he always knew how to kindly and calm the excited patients. And Haaz did all this not as a heavy duty; on the contrary, when one day he was forbidden to be present when the prisoners were being dispatched, he asked as a favor, as a reward for his labors, to lift this ban from the Negb. Of course, Haaz was capable of loving not only prisoners. So, he wrote to the humane chairman of the prison committee, Prince Golitsyn: “It is impossible for me not to love you with all my heart”; even about cruel and unjust authorities, “he always prays that when everyone is gathered before God, the authorities will not be condemned by these same criminals and will not suffer... heavy punishment.” He felt sorry for animals: he always bought horses for himself at a knacker’s farm, saving them from slaughter. He loved children very much, willingly caressed them, and the children loved him. He worked hard to ensure that children were not taken away from their exiled parents. One unfortunate girl who suffered from such a disgusting disease (cancer is a terrible stench) that even her dearly loving mother could not sit near her, Haaz visited until her death, sat for hours, hugging and kissing her. But still, his most ardent love was focused on the prisoners; behind the appearance of a criminal, he, according to Koni, always saw a person, unhappy and humiliated. And the prisoners understood and appreciated this. The patients looked at him as a doctor not only physical, but also spiritual; the most bitter, inveterate criminals treated Haass with respect; and many years later, in the depths of Siberia, the exiles with tears in their eyes remembered the “holy doctor.”
Always even in his manners, rarely laughing, often absorbed in himself, Haaz was usually silent in society and only in a close circle did he like to talk for a long time - all on the same topic, about the situation of prisoners. However, under this external calmness hid deep efficiency: as soon as the interests of the prisoners were touched, the meek, calm Haaz became obstinate and sarcastic, capable of being on his knees, with tears, to beg for the cancellation of some harsh order, or to angrily indignantly attack the enemy. At committee meetings, he often argued with the chairman himself and once declared that if the chairman did not give an explanation for his words, he would leave the meeting. Once, in response to the objection that the common people were accustomed to hardship, he told of a cook who claimed that eels were accustomed to having their skins torn off. Angrily, in a tone that did not allow for objections, he interrupted the brilliant young official who was demonstrating to curious visitors the spiritual drama of the prisoner, ordering him to immediately shut up. When Metropolitan Philaret remarked that there were no innocent people convicted, Haaz jumped up from his seat and exclaimed: “You have forgotten Christ, Vladyka!” No one dared to say such things to Filaret. One day, indignant at the committee’s nagging, Haaz lost his temper and, in his own words, “stood up, raised his hands to the sky and, in a voice in which they shout “guard,” declared that he had not done anything illegal... Haaz steadily and consistently pursued his moral views in life. Extremely conscientious, out of 293 committee meetings, he was absent from only one, and that was due to illness; he himself personally supervised the reforging of prisoners into his lightened shackles; he did not miss a single party. He was just as demanding of others, in particular the staff of his hospital, widely practicing fines (for drunkenness, rudeness, negligence, etc.), he then turned the collected money into favor of the patients. Deeply truthful, he also fined people for lies, and once, after a joint inspection of the hospital, he collected a fine from a high-ranking visitor who falsely reported to the sovereign that Haaz was keeping healthy people in the hospital. For all that, he was by no means a formalist: often, in the interests of the sick, he had to violate various administrative orders, and, although he recognized himself as formally wrong, he nevertheless ardently defended his point of view.
Being mobile and active by nature, Haaz at the same time was distinguished by extreme persistence and energy in achieving once-set goals. The conditions in which he had to work were unusually difficult. Alone, amid bureaucratic routine and callousness, withstanding fierce attacks and malicious criticism from people who based their well-being on the misfortune of the prisoners, until the end of his life he never once gave up in helplessness. The Committee continually refused to satisfy his requests, rejected his proposals for purely formal reasons, often without even considering them on the merits; Once, when he was almost 60 years old, he was completely removed from business for a while, which worried him extremely. But nothing could stop Haaz in his fight for the offended and oppressed: neither nagging, nor red tape, nor the anger of the powerful of this world, nor disappointment in people. Back in 1825, having been appointed Stadt Physicist, he waged such an energetic fight against routine and abuse that a year later he had to leave his post. Subsequently, all his activities in the prison committee were a continuous struggle for the truth. In this struggle, he tried to use all the means available to him, if the intercession of the trustee Prince Golitsyn was powerless, he went to the sovereign, once even wrote a letter to Frederick William IV. With particular persistence and “unrelenting hatred” (Kony’s expression) he fought against the barbaric chaining of prisoners to the rod during transitions and, having failed in the general formulation of the issue, finally achieved at least partial, local implementation of his demands. In the fight, he was distinguished by extreme intransigence and fearlessness. Having once argued with the governor, he began to ardently argue that he had no right to oppress him, and took responsibility for the possible escape of the prisoners. When Golitsyn threatened to take him out in the committee, Haaz replied that if he was taken out through the door, he would return through the window; the incident with Metropolitan Philaret was already mentioned above. When the struggle did not help, he was ready to ask, just to achieve his goal, to mitigate the fate of the unfortunate.
Such inexhaustible energy enabled Haaz, despite endless obstacles, to achieve much. So, he set up a hospital with 120 beds at the transit prison and detained all the tired and travel-weary prisoners in it; in the provincial prison, he remodeled part of the building, setting up workshops and a school there, for those who fell ill in the debt “Pit”, and organized a ransom; founded a police hospital (“Gaazovskaya”) - for homeless people and victims of accidents, which during his lifetime accommodated up to 30,000 people. Where it was not possible to achieve the goal in full, Haaz achieved at least partial improvements, invented his own, lightweight (“Haaz”) shackles and forged all prisoners arriving in Moscow in them, achieved, despite opposition, a decree on covering the nuts of the shackles with leather, as well as the abolition of universal head shaving for prisoners. But he devoted especially much attention and energy to efforts to improve the lot of individual prisoners, who for some reason especially needed his help. The minutes of committee meetings contain a long list of his petitions for individuals; at each meeting he worked to increase visits to the prisoners, to send money, etc., about each individual case he argued, proved, resorted to logical and grammatical interpretations of the law - and “In most cases, he achieved his goal.
In this unusually pure and integral person, two complexes come to the fore, closely connected with each other and forming in their totality the core of his personality: “firstly, ardent and selfless love for people, in particular for the powerless, prisoners suffering need and deprivation ; secondly, extreme energy and perseverance, entirely aimed at alleviating the lot of unfortunate people and fighting their oppressors.
The endopsychic basis of the first complex is made up of increased affective excitability, strength and depth of feelings, directed primarily at higher, ideological objects and, above all, sympathy for the suffering of others; For Haas, self-care and sensual desires always gave way to the need to help others. Hence his deep attention to every manifestation of human suffering, the tenderness and affection with which he sought not only to help the grief of others, but also, with his ardent sympathy, to bring moral relief to the sufferer. And since a sincere, deep feeling always leads to the corresponding actions, then along with sympathy there was always active help.
The basis of the second complex was his indomitable energy, stopping at nothing, the objects of application of which were determined by the same altruistic feelings that dominated him. However, the conditions in which he had to act were unusually difficult, and a wide variety of obstacles were continually erected along the way. Thanks to this, the inclination to fight, always inherent to a greater or lesser extent in energetic natures, was further strengthened under the influence of obstacles, and the peaceful, active altruist turned into an unyielding fighter for truth and humanity - while remaining at the same time tender and affectionate towards those he defended.
Representatives of the highest level always demonstrate creativity to a greater or lesser extent, each in their own field. How did Haas’s creativity express itself? Obviously, not in any external structures, structures or organizations, but rather in his completely new, original attitude towards the prisoners, in the unusually strong and beneficial effect that he had on their spiritual world and which was determined not so much by his material help, as much as the genius power and depth of his altruistic “feeling”. No wonder Moscow was at first surprised by his eccentricities, and then, during his lifetime, “raised him to the ranks of saints.”
Chekalin Alexander Pavlovich (March 25, 1925 – November 6, 1941). Born in the village. Peskovatskoye is now Suvorovsky district, Tula region. Participant of the partisan movement during the Great Patriotic War. Since 1938 he studied at the Likhvin secondary school. Member of the Komsomol since 1939. In July 1941, he volunteered for a fighter detachment, then a partisan detachment
"Advanced"; was a scout. Based on the denunciation of a traitor, he was captured by the fascist occupiers and, after cruel torture, hanged in the city of Likhvin. Hero of the Soviet Union (1942, posthumously). Lit.: Ivanovsky E. M., Sokolov V. A. Son of the Motherland. Tale. 2nd ed. 1968; Smirn about V. I. Sasha Chekalin. Tale. M., 1972.
The Great Patriotic War laid a heavy test on the shoulders of the Soviet people, but also showed the best qualities of the Soviet people. Thousands of heroes who became famous and remained unknown... Alexander Chekalin is one of them. The mother’s ingenuous story tells how Shura grew up, what he was interested in, what he dreamed about. A life opens before us, in many ways familiar, the typical life of a Soviet boy: he loved to listen to fairy tales on the stove, helped his mother with housework and his comrades with their studies, admired Chapaev and Suvorov. True, the boy’s special traits also stand out: the desire for independence, good pride “within oneself,” and an early maturity beyond his years. Sixteen-year-old Sasha becomes the youngest member of the partisan detachment, and there he is not inferior to adults in seriousness and courage, ability to fight, hatred To to the enemy. In the most difficult test, in the face of death, he remains the same pure, ardent and fearless patriot. He uses every opportunity to strike the enemy - physically and morally, and remains undefeated in death.
Where does the strength come from in this person who has not yet had time to grow up? The answer to this question emerges through the lines of the story. In fact, we get to know another person - Sasha’s mother herself - Nadezhda Samuilovna Chekalina. She loved her son dearly, even spoiled him, and at the same time closely monitored the growth of real human qualities in him. She could not have let Sasha into the detachment, and there was an argument - she had not quite grown up yet, but she did not allow herself to do so: “She herself was never a coward and did not teach her children that.” She went through a difficult life path - from a half-starved childhood to the fight against fists in the ranks of the party: she fought for the truth, “she did not retreat from the truth.” She passed on her views on life and on people, her “value system,” and her conviction, along with her passion of character, to her son. And they behave similarly to the enemy - fearlessly, rebelliously.
Thus, tracing the fate of the mother and son, the atmosphere of this family, the national spirit of patriotism and high moral principles reflected in it, you begin to better understand the origins of the heroism of the Soviet people.
N. Chekalina MY SON"
1 Young heroes of the Great Patriotic War (ed. - V. Bykov). M., 1970.
My Shura was born on March 17, 1925 in the village of Peskovatsky, Cherepovets district. He would now be seventeen years old.
I saw nothing but joy from him. He was a calm, healthy child. I didn't notice how he grew.
I bought a lot of toys for Shura - I didn’t spare anything for him, I myself had a difficult childhood, I was left an orphan early with a younger brother and sister. I had to work in a factory. They paid me pennies, and after work I walked around the world with my hand outstretched. It was a bitter childhood. Only insults and reproaches. So I wanted my Shura to grow up happy. The neighbors said many times: “You spoil the boys, Samuilovna.” That’s right, I spoiled her as much as I could. But my pampering only made them better.
Shura was never as mischievous as other guys. He's troublesome, hot-tempered, and won't say a bad word to anyone. He helped everyone, and everything went smoothly for him. It's downright amazing. Whether the Primus goes bad or the saucepan leaks, Shura will fix everything right away. Neighbors and comrades turned to him for help. But he didn’t really like it: he was definitely ashamed in front of them of these chores of his.
Shura firmly remembers “Chapaev”, “Alexander Nevsky”, “Suvorov”. Viktor teases: “What kind of name do you have: Vitka, Vityushka. Alexander is a different matter. Alexander Nevsky, Alexander Suvorov. This name!"
He was joking, of course. But it seems that he was really proud that his name was Alexander. There was pride in him. Good, real, within yourself.
Of course, Shura is my son. Every son is dear to a mother. But complete strangers - teachers, neighbors - told me: “Shura, you have talent.” He had a great greed for life, a keen mind, and courage. A real person would grow out of him.
The war began, and Shura had no other idea than to go beat the Germans. He tells me: “War, mom, whatever you want, there will be war. Nothing. Let’s go to war with daddy.”
From an early age he played war. Our house stood on a hill, on the outskirts. The guys dug a dugout under the mountain and hid there for the whole day: they called it “sitting in ambush.” We played red and white. Shura was always red. He cut the guns out of wood and painted them; the pistols look completely real. Then I made a ratchet machine gun. Those hands were golden!
A sort of shooter, hunter, daredevil - could he endure and remain on the sidelines? And he was an exemplary Komsomol member. It's true - let's be honest - when he joined the Komsomol, he cheated a little: he added a year to himself, he really wanted to become a Komsomol member as soon as possible. The only time in my life, in my opinion, he cheated - he was always a straight guy, honest, truthful.
I knew: my Shura would go to war anyway, and it was not for me to stop him from doing so. I’ve been in the party since 1931, I’ve never been a coward myself and I didn’t teach my children that. For six years I worked as the chairman of the regional council, I had to tinker a lot with the kulaks and subkulak members, some of them hated me deeply and threatened to take revenge. But I didn’t deviate from the truth. Should I dissuade Shura from danger? And yet the mother’s heart aches, pains for her beloved son.
As soon as we created a fighter squad, Shura ran to sign up. They refused him: he was young. He returned home and cried, but I almost never saw him in tears. He seemed very offended.
People began to gather in militia. I see my Shura marching next to the bearded men, studying military affairs with them. The commanders took a closer look at him - even though he was sixteen years old, the guy would be good. “Okay,” they say, “go to the fighter, we’ll accept you.”
My Shura became a fighter. They used to go into the forests to catch saboteurs. You wait for them for three or four days, or even five. Why can’t you change your mind during this time!
Shura once told me:
Could you help me, Mom, write my autobiography?
Why do you need it?
The circle is being organized. To help the police.
I helped. He wrote an autobiography and a statement. I took a photo. This is the only card I have left. He was a dark-skinned guy, black-eyed, black-haired - handsome.
Now I know that this was not required at all for the police circle. He didn’t tell me anything about the partisans, but I soon guessed.
The Germans were getting closer and closer to our Likhvin. One day Shura comes home silent. I see that he is worried in his soul.
Well,” he says, “put me together properly.” I'll probably be gone all winter.
My heart sank. I collected his underwear, warm clothes, felt boots. She gave me three loaves of bread. I wanted to put some meat. He says:
No need. We've already got everything in the folder. I kiss the pig. Two pounds of honey.
They left with their father.
Vitya and I were left alone. Of course, his eyes also sparkle, he would be glad to follow the elders, but who would take a thirteen-year-old? We live with him and miss him. And five days later the evacuation began.
I ran to the district committee. “As you wish,” I say, “call your son. I know he is in a partisan detachment. Call for at least an hour. I want to say goodbye."
I had this decision: if I don’t see him, I won’t leave. I invested everything in this Eun: all my hope, all my joy. Shura was my pride. And the only happiness left for me is to look at him at least once again.
I chewed my lips until they bled, waiting for him. Had arrived. He came in gloomy.
Why did you call me, mother? After all, you took me away from the case.
“Shurochka,” I say, “don’t you really want to say goodbye to me?”
He looked at me, his face cleared up.
I really want it, mom. But I don't want you to cry. You are smart and brave. Show me off cheerfully.
Of course, I cried. We said goodbye.
Well, I say, son, go, defend our Motherland, defend it firmly. Just look: you are not trained in military affairs, be careful.
What are you doing, mom? I'm a better shooter than my elders. I pressed him to me and kissed him. I never saw my Shura again...
I decided not to go far. Vitya and I settled in Tokarev, forty-five kilometers from Likhvin. I told everyone there that I worked in a mine, and I myself kept in touch with the partisan detachment. She helped them in any way she could: she got clothes, food, and passed on information.
My husband visited me and told me about Shura. Our son is a good partisan, he goes on reconnaissance missions: it’s not for nothing that he hunted in our forests, he knows every trail. He is the only radio technician in the detachment and installed the equipment. The boss won't praise them enough.
And later rumors came about Shura, the youngest partisan of the detachment. They told how ten Krauts attacked him. He blew up six with a grenade, killed three with a rifle, and the tenth ran away.
There were many stories about my Shura. There is something to be proud of a mother, something to cry about.
A week passed, two, three... There was no news from either my husband or my son. I can't find a place for myself. Dark thoughts come into my head. I couldn’t stand it, I decided to go and find out what was happening to the detachment myself. And Vitya, of course, is with me - shouldn’t he be left alone?
We went around Likhvin and went into the village where my mother-in-law lived. No wonder I was gnawing at me. My mother-in-law said: they took my husband, they took my son.
Shura,” says the mother-in-law, “went to Peskovatskoye, our
An old house, lay there on the stove. At night the Germans came, twelve soldiers. He threw a grenade at them. The grenade did not explode. They grabbed him and took him away. On the street, an old woman asks: “How did you get caught?” And he told her: “I don’t want to talk to the sandy traitors!”
They gave him away, the damned ones. It’s true that the same bastards who held a stone in their bosom against me took revenge on me.
It became dark in my soul. I feel: I won’t see my own son anymore. Mother in law says:
Get out of here. Everyone knows about Shura. They will take you away. But I was tired, and it was very hard for me. Stayed overnight. And in the morning the headman came to the hut and said with a grin:
Let's go, Chekalina, to help my son out.
I immediately realized what a profit this was, but there was nothing to be done - I had to obey. He took me to the headquarters, and Vitya ran after us with the dog.” She followed us from Tokarev himself.
I entered the headquarters. Shutenkov from Likhvin, a traitor, is sitting there.
At least one Likhvin communist was caught. And then everyone disappeared.
I answer him:
No, we are communists, we are not hiding, we are doing the work. He knitted his eyebrows.
Look what you are. You probably don’t know our law: exterminate all communists...
But, I say, you know the fascist law well. How long ago did this fascist law become yours?
Here the headman intervened.
The point, he says, is clear. Her son is a partisan. The husband is a partisan. And since she didn’t go anywhere, that means she’s also a partisan somewhere. Why bother with her!
Then they started talking among themselves about the executed partisans. Shutenkov advises the headman:
If you don’t disdain, take off their felt boots, undress them and bury them in the ground, like dogs.
Anger took my breath away. I see a heavy inkwell standing on the table. “I’ll grab it,” I think, “and gasp at this scoundrel so that he can die, damned dog, right there on the spot.” My hand just reaches out to the inkwell, and I have no fear - such lightness. Then I remembered Vitka.
Okay,” I shout, “kill me!” Exterminate everyone to the roots. You killed my husband, you killed your beloved son. Kill your youngest son too, execute me along with him! I'll bring it to you myself!
I must have sounded desperate. I had great strength in those moments. The headman nodded his head.
Okay, take your son.
They did not understand, the bastards, that I would not surrender, I would not lay down my bones until I took revenge on them for their meanness. They did not know the Bolshevik soul. She left the headquarters. I see Vitya standing, dejected.
We're ticking, son.
And they told me about my eldest, about Shura, in the neighboring village. The rumor of his death was ahead of me. People whispered about this to each other and were amazed at the great power that lay hidden in the sixteen-year-old boy.
They brought Shura in for questioning. The German commandant began to question him and began to rudely scold the Bolsheviks and partisans. Shura could not stand it. He grabbed the inkwell from the table and pushed it into the bridge of the commandant’s nose. And they sentenced my son to a terrible execution.
As they told me about this, my heart sank. “Yes,” I think, “Shurochka. You did what your mother was going to do. It's like you and I have come to an agreement. That's it, Shurochka!
And although I was not with him in his last minutes, I experienced them with him hundreds of times, because he is my son and because I myself went through all this - through this anger towards scoundrels, and pride, and desperate fearlessness.
I know how he wandered, sick, to his native village of Peskovatskoye, how he lay there at night alone in the house on the stove, where his father and mother told him fairy tales. I remember he loved to hear about travelers who discovered new countries, about winners, about people who don’t know how to give up. He didn't give up.
When he went to execution, the fascist bayonets stabbed his legs with bayonets - my Shura had felt boots full of blood. But he walked firmly: he decided to die well.
People saw how he looked into the face of his executioners, laughing. They told him to write on a plywood board: “This is the end that awaits all partisans.” And he took a pencil and wrote in large letters all over the plywood: “Let’s wipe the fascist reptile off the face of the earth!” - and threw the tablet at the people. ,
They wanted to hang a rifle on his back: the partisan must swing in a noose with all his weapons. He grabbed this rifle and hit the German soldier with the butt. They say he broke his rib. He hit and shouted:
Why are you giving me a rusty rifle! We are not fighting with such people! And when they brought him to the gallows, he exclaimed in a ringing voice:
Eh, bastards! You can't outweigh us all! There are a lot of us! Then they threw a noose around his neck.
Then Shura sang “The Internationale”. The noose was around his neck, and he was singing. He sang about his last, decisive mortal battle.
Throw away the stool, the executioners ordered him.
Shura refused. He didn't want to help them with anything. Only cowards hasten their death. The German knocked the stool out from under his feet.
Hanging in the noose, Shura kicked the reptile with all his strength. So he died, resisting.
I walked with Vitya from village to village, as if I had been stunned. I heard nothing but pain. There was such darkness all around, so many horrors we encountered on the way, so many people shot, burned, and hanged by the Germans.
Brother-in-law's torment looked at me from everywhere. I went, bandaged the wounded and gave everything to them: “I prepared my brother-in-law’s shirt for him, my mug, all my things. It was not my strength that led me, forced me to hide, to avoid dangerous places. The wounded lieutenant showed us how to cross the front line. Vitya and I got out of German hell. When I saw our people, my heart warmed. For the first time ever, I felt better. We stayed in the unit. I asked to be accepted into the army, at least as a nurse. She told the commissioner about her son and husband. He agreed. And she started working.
When our area was liberated, I received a letter from my husband - he managed to escape from the Germans. The husband wrote that Shurino’s body was found near the gallows V snow. The rope must have broken. They washed him, dressed him and buried him in the square.
This square is now called Alexander Chekalin Square. And Peskovatskoye is also now a village named after Shura Chekalin, my son. .
The significance of this concept is that for the first time the position was put forward about the relationships of the individual, which represent the core of personality. Its special significance lies in the fact that the idea of personality relationships became the starting point for many domestic psychologists, primarily representatives of the Leningrad-St. Petersburg school of psychologists.
A. F. Lazursky’s views on the nature and structure of personality were formed under the direct influence of the ideas of V. M. Bekhterev at the time when he worked under his leadership at the Psychoneurological Institute.
According to V. M. Bekhterev, “a personality is, as it were, two closely related sets of traces, one of which is more closely connected with the organic, and the other with the social sphere.” Considering the nature of the relationship between them, V. M. Bekhterev noted that:
“the social sphere, developing on organic soil, expands it depending on the social conditions of life to the extent where organic influences are suppressed by past experience of social relations and social influences.”
In general, in the structure of personality, V. M. Bekhterev emphasizes the role of the social sphere, which “is a unifying link and the causative agent of all traces of psychoreflexes that arise on the basis of social life and revive certain organic reactions.”
A comparison of the concept of A.F. Lazursky with the ideas of V.M. Bekhterev suggests that the latter became for A.F. Lazursky the fundamental conceptual provisions that received theoretical and empirical development in the very concept of personality.
According to A.F. Lazursky, the main task of the individual is adaptation (adaptation) to the environment, which is understood in the broadest sense (nature, things, people, human relationships, ideas, aesthetic, moral, religious values, etc.) . The measure (degree) of activity of a person’s adaptation to the environment can be different, which is reflected in three mental levels - lower, middle and higher. In fact, these levels reflect the process of human mental development.
Personality in the view of A.F. Lazursky is the unity of two psychological mechanisms. On the one hand, this is the endopsychia - the internal mechanism of the human psyche. The endopsyche reveals itself in such basic mental functions as attention, memory, imagination and thinking, the ability to exert volition, emotionality, impulsiveness, i.e., in temperament, mental talent, and finally, character.
According to A.F. Lazurny, endotraits are mainly congenital. However, he does not consider them absolutely innate. In his opinion, the endopsyche constitutes the core of the human personality, its main basis.
Another significant aspect of the personality is the exopsyche, the content of which is determined by the personality’s relationship to external objects and the environment. Exopsychic manifestations always reflect the external conditions surrounding a person. Both of these parts are interconnected and influence each other. For example, a developed imagination, conditioning abilities for creative activity, high sensitivity and excitability - all this presupposes the practice of art. The traits mentioned here are closely related to each other, and significant development of one inevitably entails the development of the others. The same applies to the exocomplex of traits, when external living conditions seem to dictate appropriate behavior.
We have already said above that the process of personality adaptation can be more or less successful. In this regard, A.F. Lazursky identifies three mental levels.
Before moving on to characterizing these levels, a few words about the signs that characterize an increase in mental level.
- The wealth of personality, which denotes the total amount of mental production, manifested externally, i.e., by the abundance, diversity and complexity (or vice versa, primitiveness, poverty, monotony) of individual mental manifestations.
- Strength, brightness, intensity of individual mental manifestations. The stronger they are, the more opportunities there are to increase the mental level.
- Consciousness and ideologicalness of mental manifestations. The higher a person’s spiritual organization, the richer and more intense his spiritual life he lives. As a result, a person develops a system of principles - moral, social, etc.
- Coordination of mental elements that together make up the human personality. The higher the tendency to coordinate and integrate these elements, the higher the level of mental development.
Lowest level characterizes maximum influence of the external environment on the human psyche. The environment, as it were, subjugates such a person to itself, regardless of his endo-peculiarities. Hence the contradiction between a person’s capabilities and the professional skills he has acquired. Therefore, the person is unable to give even that little that he could with more independent and independent behavior.
Average level assumes Greater ability to adapt to the environment, find your place in it. More conscious, with greater efficiency and initiative, they choose activities that suit their inclinations and inclinations. They can be called adapted.
On the highest level mental development the process of adaptation is complicated by the fact that significant tension, the intensity of mental life, forces not only to adapt to the environment, but also gives rise to the desire to remake, modify it, in accordance with their own inclinations and needs. In other words, here we can rather encounter the process of creativity.
So, the lowest level produces people who are insufficiently or poorly adapted, the middle - those who are adapted, and the highest - those who are adaptable.
The combined interaction of two personality characteristics - from the side of his belonging to one or another level of mental development, on the one hand, and the meaningful psychological characteristics of the personality within each level, on the other, allowed A. F. Lazursky to build a specific heuristic typology, which became the basis for subsequent empirical research .
At the lowest level of mental development, the division was made on the basis of identifying the predominant psychophysiological functions (typology within the endopsychic complex): rational, affective - “moving”, “sensual”, “dreamers” and active - energetic, submissively active and stubborn.
At the average level of mental development, the division took place along psychosocial complexes corresponding to the endo- and exopsyche. In addition, A.F. Lazursky divided all pure types of the average level into two large groups, depending on the predominance of abstract-idealistic or practical-realistic tendencies in them: impractical, realist theorists - scientists, artists, religious contemplatives and practical realists – lovers of humanity (altruists), social activists, authorities, business executives.
At the highest level of the psychic level, thanks to spiritual wealth, consciousness, and coordination of mental experiences, the exopsyche reaches its highest development, and the endopsyche constitutes its natural basis. Therefore, the division proceeds according to exopsychic categories, or more precisely, according to the most important universal human ideals and their characterological varieties. The most important among them, according to A.F. Lazursky, are: altruism, knowledge, beauty, religion, society, external activity, system, power.
