home / Success stories/ Orators of the 19th century. Russian court speakers of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries

Speakers of the 19th century. Russian court speakers of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries

The history of eloquence begins in Ancient Greece. Oratory was known in Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, but in the form in which we know it, eloquence appeared in Hellas. The success and career of a Hellene depended on his ability to speak beautifully: public speaking was the main weapon of a politician and lawyer; they were used to judge a person’s education. Therefore, already in the first half of the 5th century BC. sophists appeared - paid teachers of eloquence who conducted public discussions. The sophists were the first to begin recording oratory, which until then had existed only in oral form.

Gorgias of Leontina

One of the most famous orators of antiquity, Gorgias of Leontina, belonged to the Sophists. He was not only a practitioner - a skilled rhetorician who taught young men from wealthy families to make speeches and conduct discussions. Gorgias was also a theorist. Traveling around Hellas, he became famous for his successful performances. He convinced the Athenians to provide military assistance to their compatriots, and during another speech, to unite against the barbarians. This speech, delivered at Olympia, made Gorgias a celebrity. Gorgias paid great attention to style. He developed and used “Gorgian figures” - rhetorical techniques that gave poetic expressiveness to speech. For his time, Gorgias was a great innovator: he used metaphors and comparisons, symmetrical construction of phrases, and identical sentence endings to enhance persuasiveness. Little direct advice from Gorgias has survived to this day: “Refute serious arguments with a joke, jokes with seriousness.” As you can see, the Hellenes no longer liked too serious speakers who were not able to decorate their speech with a good joke.

Demosthenes

A little later, Demosthenes lived - he is rightly called the greatest Greek orator. Demosthenes attracted attention with his appearances in court: the young man's guardians squandered his father's fortune, and Demosthenes sought the return of the funds. He managed to regain only a small part, but his skillful speeches at court hearings did not go unnoticed. Demosthenes dreamed of glory, he studied with the outstanding Iseus of Athens, and took Pericles, the “father of Athenian democracy,” a commander and master of eloquence, as an example for himself. During the time of Demosthenes, the Athenian public was spoiled by public speaking, the listeners were sophisticated. They expected from public speakers not only the beauty of style and deep content of speeches, but also a beautiful, almost theatrical presentation: staged gestures, facial expressions. By nature, Demosthenes could not boast of outstanding characteristics: he had short breathing, weak voice. In addition, he had a habit of nervously twitching his shoulder. To overcome these shortcomings, Demosthenes used a technique well known to everyone who taught diction: he spoke by putting pebbles in his mouth. To make his voice stronger, he rehearsed speeches on the seashore: the noise of the sea replaced the noise of the crowd. And to develop breathing, I read poets while climbing steep paths. He practiced facial expressions in front of the mirror. As a result, with perseverance he overcame his shortcomings, and although Demosthenes’s very first speeches were not successful, he did not give up and subsequently made a brilliant political career.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Greece became the birthplace of oratory; it gave the world many outstanding speakers. This was required by the very way of life of the Hellenes. But the baton of eloquence was successfully picked up by Rome, which borrowed a lot from Hellas. One of the outstanding rhetoricians of Rome was Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero owes his dizzying career solely to his own perseverance and oratorical talent. He came from a modest, humble family and from birth had very modest opportunities to become an influential person. However, thanks to his oratory talent, he entered the Senate and became consul. You can learn from Cicero yourself: he left a large literary legacy that has survived to this day, and his letters formed the basis of European epistolary literature. Before becoming famous and gaining recognition, Cicero studied Greek poets and prose writers - he had an excellent command of the Greek language. His teachers were great rhetoricians: Mark Antony and Lucius Licinius Crassus. Since in the time of Cicero it was necessary to know Roman law well, the future consul studied it with Quintus Mucius Scaevola, the most popular lawyer of his time. Cicero's first success came with the speech “In Defense of Quinctius” - it was written and delivered to return illegally seized property. His second famous speech also defended the wrongfully offended: a native of the province of Russia, who was unjustly accused of parricide. In this case, Cicero showed himself not only to be a brilliant orator, but also a real detective: he took the trouble to personally visit the crime scene and investigate the circumstances. Cicero's speeches were structured according to all the rules of rhetoric of that time: they included direct appeals on behalf of the accused and a refutation of the prosecution's arguments.

Abraham Lincoln

Oratory helped to make a brilliant career not only in the distant times of Roman consuls and legionnaires. The sixteenth President of the United States and America's national hero, Abraham Lincoln also owes much to his eloquence. Although he was born into a poor family, from childhood he was drawn to education and received a lawyer's degree. Long before he became president, Lincoln became famous as an oral storyteller - people came even from far away to listen to his stories. And the Gettysburg Address, which he delivered at the opening of the National Soldiers' Cemetery, has gone down in history as one of the greatest speeches in US history. Lincoln took the preparation of his public speeches seriously. He thought about and prepared each of his speeches for a long time, did not hesitate to discuss his own ideas at every opportunity, and was attentive to criticism. This allowed him to find brilliant arguments in defense of his position.

Winston Churchill

Churchill was a journalist, writer and Nobel Prize winner in literature, but we remember him as the Prime Minister of Great Britain. It was he who held this responsible post for most of the period of World War II. Winston Churchill went down in history as an unsurpassed orator. Churchill attached great importance emotionality of speech and the speaker’s devotion to his own ideas: how can you convince others if you yourself do not believe your own words? But he attached no less importance to technology. Churchill valued simplicity and rejected anything too complicated or pretentious that would prevent his listeners from grasping the essence. He believed that " short words– the best,” and you can learn from him to simplify your own speeches, making them clear.

Russian speakers

In Russian history, Vladimir Lenin became famous as a brilliant speaker - the leader of the proletariat, although he did not have impeccable diction and delivered speech as a speaker, but had his own style that won the hearts of people. Firstly, Lenin would have agreed with Churchill regarding emotionality and devotion to ideas. He was famous for his passion, obsession with his own ideas, and also expression. He who burns himself can light the hearts of others. At the same time, Lenin remained laconic in his speeches. He addressed the audience simply, without unnecessary pathos, creating the illusion of communication as equals. Another outstanding speaker of Russia is Leon Trotsky. Political opponents were afraid of the influence that Trotsky knew how to exert on his listeners. At that time there were no speechwriters, and politicians wrote speeches on their own: Trotsky’s speeches were consistent, logically verified, but at the same time emotionally charged. If you want to have an example of a contemporary before your eyes, watch Vladimir Zhirinovsky. The odious politician is famous for the fact that it is impossible to argue with him. I don't recommend imitating his provocative style of presentation, but pay attention to his truly encyclopedic knowledge and how deftly he applies it; how Zhirinovsky is always confident in himself and never allows himself to be unsettled. This is far from full list outstanding speakers. If you want to learn more about public speaking, come to classes at my school “Oratoris”: I conduct individual and. I will teach you how to prepare the text of a speech, control your own voice and behave in front of the public like the best rhetoricians in history!

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Orenburg State Agrarian University

Department of History of the Fatherland

Essay

Famous Russiansjudicialspeakers

Completed:

Checked by: Porol O.A.

Orenburg 2009

Plan

Introduction

1 Oratory as the art of words

2 Types and types of oratory

3 Structure of oratory

4 Russian court speakers of the second half XIX beginning XX century

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

People have valued oratory and spoken word at all times. It is an important and active means of education and training, dissemination of philosophical, aesthetic teachings, political, economic and other knowledge, comprehension of cultural values and new ideas. The true word awakens the best civic feelings and serves the goals of progress.

The speaker addresses people directly. This allows the speaker to quickly respond to pressing life issues, actively promote progressive thoughts, quickly respond to events, take into account the numerous interests of listeners, comment on known facts, and explain government policy. The speaker appeals to the conscience of people, their memory, their national, patriotic, international feelings. It raises spirituality in a person, a noble movement of the mind, puts universal human concerns, interests, and ideas to the fore. The noble goals of knowledge, the preaching of humanism and mercy, the “discovery” of truth elevate speech and influence the spiritual world of listeners. A true speaker, putting into his speech all the depth of his intellect and the passion of his soul, influences the minds and hearts of people.

Now many people give speeches and reports, give lectures, and hold discussions. People's speech activity has increased significantly. And it pleases. But to improve your skills, of course, it is necessary to study the theory of oratory, deeply analyze the speeches of outstanding speakers, and transfer theoretical knowledge to your own practice.

This work examines oratory itself as the art of speech, the types and types of oratory. And finally, the fourth and final chapter will examine the great Russian judicial orators of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

1 Oratorical speechlike the art of words

Ancient theories of eloquence are included in the golden fund of rhetorical science. And, naturally, to understand the essence of eloquence, it is necessary, first of all, to become acquainted with the views of ancient rhetoricians.

In ancient rhetorical science, one can name the names of researchers who occupied a leading place in the development of the theory of eloquence. These are Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian and some others. It is their theoretical research that constitutes the platform on which further research was based.

Ancient Greece is considered the birthplace of eloquence, although oratory was known in Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and India. But it was in ancient Greece that it developed rapidly, and for the first time systematic works on its theory appeared. In the state of slave-owning democracy, a special atmosphere was created for the flourishing of eloquence. It becomes essential public life and a weapon of political struggle. Owning one was considered a necessity. Gradually, a practical direction took shape - composing speeches for the needs of citizens. The first statements from practitioners about the language and style of presentations appeared. They served Plato, Aristotle and other theorists as the basis for systematization, further development and deepening of these judgments, turning them into a theory.

Even Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, emphasized that rhetoric, like any true art, is a creative activity. This creative activity, however, requires careful preparation. Rhetoric (Greek - oratory) is a philological discipline, the object of which is the theory of eloquence, oratory, methods of constructing expressive speech in all branches speech activity(i.e. in different genres of writing and oral speech). A good speaker needs to work hard to improve his speech. According to Plato, he should go through a special school of oratory, which would teach him to write speeches correctly, proportionately and effectively. And Cicero, the Roman theorist, the most important conditions To form a real speaker, he considered not only natural talent, but also, most importantly, the study of oratory (theory) and exercises (practice). Since the theory of eloquence is an important philosophical and psychological doctrine, Cicero argued, it requires serious treatment.

Such a high culture of speech in the broad sense of the term could not arise on its own. Naturally, it was stimulated by theoretical research in the field of oratory.

Protagoras is considered the founder of the art of rhetoric. A.F. Losev writes that in Diogenes we find a message about Protagoras dividing any speech into four parts: request, question, answer and command.

Plato believes that the speaker should not chase other people's opinions, but should himself comprehend the truth of what he is going to talk about. Correct, true, precise speech must proceed from the true definition of its object, the subject of speech. “Whoever intends to engage in oratory must, first of all, determine his path in it and grasp what is the sign of each of its varieties.”

According to Plato, the art of an orator largely depends on the ability to embrace everything with a general gaze, to raise disparate objects of speech to a single general idea and to divide everything into types, as well as to be able to raise the particular to the general and obtain the particular from the general.

Rhetoric, like any true art, according to Plato, is a creative activity. It brings emotions and passions into a systematic, orderly state, thereby embodying the highest justice. This creative activity, however, requires careful preparation of the speaker. And here Plato supports the idea of the Sophists, who believed that a good speaker should work hard on self-improvement and speeches. Plato's reasoning indicates that he attached great importance to the technical side of speech, understanding the perfect technique of speech in close connection taking into account the psychology of listeners, considering the science of eloquence to be an important philosophical and psychological teaching.

A great cultural and scientific event was the appearance of Aristotle's Rhetoric (384-322 BC), in which Aristotle significantly developed Plato's teaching on oratory. Aristotle criticized Plato's theory of incorporeal forms ("ideas"), but could not completely overcome Plato's idealism.

Aristotle believes that rhetoric is an art corresponding to dialectics, for both of them concern such subjects, familiarity with which can be considered the property of everyone. This is what brings both arts together. He defines rhetoric as the art of persuasion, which uses the possible and probable in cases where real certainty is insufficient. Rhetoric deals with the identification of methods of persuasion and the theoretical understanding of these methods. As Aristotle notes, the effect of persuasive speech depends on three factors: the moral character of the speaker, the quality of the speech itself, and the mood of the listeners. Already in the teachings of Aristotle, a triad stands out: sender of speech-speech-receiver of speech, which finds its development in modern research.

Aristotle identifies three types of speeches that arose as a result of the development of the socio-political life of Greece: deliberative, judicial and epideictic. The purpose of deliberative speeches is to “incline or reject,” judicial speeches are to accuse or justify, epideictic speeches are to praise or blame.

Aristotle believes that a speaker should bring his listeners into a state that will allow him to easily convince the audience. He dwells in detail on the important role of anger, neglect and mercy, enmity and hatred, fear and courage, shame, beneficence (service), compassion, and indignation in speech. He also talks about the impact of speech on people of different ages and social groups, as we see, the philosopher plans to develop problems of the psychology of influencing various groups of listeners.

The time of Plato and Aristotle in the history of Greek culture ends the period of classics. From the second half of the 4th century. BC. a new period of ancient culture begins, called Hellenism (Hellene - Greek). Hellenistic rhetoric analyzed big number stylistic phenomena. She studied combinations of words, developed a doctrine of the qualities of speech, and continued to study the problems of tropes, figures, and styles. In some treatises, however, at first we find a fascination with rhetoric, the sophistication of expressions, complex images, and the “flowers of eloquence.” This manner of speech came to be called the “Asian style” after the place of its origin and prosperity in Asia Minor. The Asian style was studied by Hermogenes, Theodore of Godard (teacher of Tiberius), and an anonymous author called Longinus, who wrote the treatise “On the Sublime.” Representatives of this style preached pathos, elation, and exaltation.

However, not all theorists and practitioners were supporters of the Asian style; its opponents stood for classical examples and rigor of speech. This style, in contrast to the Asian one, began to be called Attic, and its representatives - Atticists. They preached refined imagery and intellectual speech, which evoked certain associations in listeners, thereby influencing them. The Atticists were supporters of purity of speech, which meant its normativity, which boiled down to the correct choice of words and morphological form. If a speaker followed these requirements, he could be considered an exemplary speaker, and his speeches were studied as models.

Representatives of the Attic movement were, for example, Apollodorus of Pergamon, the mentor of the Roman emperor Octavian Augustus, who adhered to strict and precise rules of rhetoric; Cicelius, mentioned by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, is himself a supporter of the Attic movement, as well as Demetrius.

The greatest classic of ancient eloquence and theoretician of oratory was the ancient Roman orator and politician Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC). Three treatises on oratory reflect the rich experience of ancient rhetoric and his own practical experience as the greatest Roman orator. These treatises - “On the Orator”, “Brutus, or on the Famous Orators”, “The Orator” - are monuments of the ancient theory of literature, ancient humanism, which had a profound influence on the entire European culture (Cicero, 1972). In the theory of knowledge, Cicero is inclined to skepticism, believing that there is no criterion for distinguishing real ideas from unreal ones. He considers questions about the highest good, about virtues as the only source of happiness, and strives for perfection. This desire is perfected by four virtues: wisdom, justice, courage, moderation. His philosophical views formed the basis of his views on oratory.

The speaker's duty is to: find something to say; arrange what was found in order; give it verbal form; confirm all this in memory; pronounce. In addition, the task of the speaker is to win over the audience; state the essence of the case; install controversial issue; reinforce your position; refute the opponent's opinion; in conclusion, to give shine to your positions and finally overthrow the enemy’s positions.

2 Types and types of oratory

The genera and types of eloquence are distinguished depending on the sphere of communication, corresponding to one of the main functions of speech: communication, message and influence. There are several spheres of communication: scientific, business, information and propaganda and social and everyday life. The first, for example, can include a university lecture or scientific report, the second a diplomatic speech or speech at a congress, the third a military-patriotic speech or a rally speech, the fourth an anniversary (praise) speech or a table speech (toast). Of course, such a division is not absolute. For example, a speech on a socio-economic topic can serve the scientific sphere (a scientific report), or the business sphere (a speech by a propagandist in a group of listeners). They will also have common features in shape.

In modern practice of public communication, the following types of eloquence are distinguished: socio-political, academic, judicial, social and everyday, spiritual (church-theological). A type of eloquence is an area of oratory characterized by the presence of a specific object of speech and a specific system for its analysis and evaluation. The result of further differentiation based on more specific characteristics are types or genres. This classification is situational and thematic in nature, since, firstly, the situation of the speech is taken into account, and secondly, the topic and purpose of the speech.

Speeches on issues of scientific and technological progress, reports at congresses, meetings, conferences, diplomatic, political, military-patriotic, rally, agitation, and parliamentary speeches belong to socio-political eloquence.

Some genres of eloquence have features of an official business and scientific style, since they are based on official documents. In such speeches, the situation in the country and events in the world are analyzed, their main goal is to provide listeners with specific information. In these public speaking contains facts of a political and economic nature, evaluates current events, makes recommendations, and makes a report on the work done. These speeches may be dedicated current problems or may be of an appealing, explanatory, programmatic and theoretical nature. The choice and use of language means depends primarily on the topic and target setting of the speech.

Political eloquence in Russia as a whole was poorly developed. Only military oratory has reached comparatively high level. Peter I addressed the soldiers more than once.

Parliamentary eloquence is developing rapidly today. It reflects the clash of different points of view and reveals the discursive nature of the speech.

Academic eloquence is a type of speech that helps form a scientific worldview, characterized by scientific presentation, deep argumentation, and logical culture. This type includes a university lecture, scientific report, scientific review, scientific communication, popular science lecture. Of course, academic eloquence is close to the scientific style of speech, but at the same time, it often uses expressive and figurative means.

Judicial eloquence is a type of speech designed to have a targeted and effective impact on the court, to contribute to the formation of the beliefs of judges and citizens present in the courtroom. Typically, prosecutorial, or accusatory, speech and advocacy, or defensive, speech are distinguished.

Of course, in judicial speeches, factual material, forensic data, all the arguments for and against, testimony of witnesses, etc. are analyzed in detail. Find out, prove, convince - these are three interrelated goals that determine the content of judicial eloquence.

An anniversary speech dedicated to a significant date or delivered in honor of an individual, a memorial speech dedicated to a deceased person, belong to social and everyday eloquence. One of the types of social and everyday eloquence was court eloquence. He is characterized by a predilection for high style, lush, artificial metaphors and comparisons.

The form of expression in oratory speech may not be worked out with the same degree of completeness and thoroughness as is the case in written speech. But we also cannot agree that oratory is spontaneous. Speakers prepare for their speech, although to varying degrees. It depends on their experience, skill, qualifications and, finally, on the topic of the speech and the situation in which the speech is given. It's one thing to speak at a farm or a conference, but another thing to speak at a rally: different shapes speeches, different delivery times, different audiences.

Oratorical speech is a prepared speech. And it is prepared, naturally, from book and written sources, which have a direct and immediate impact on the structure of speech.

Styles, distinguished in accordance with the main functions of the language, are associated with a particular area and conditions human activity. They differ in their system of linguistic means. It is these means that form a certain stylistic coloring that distinguishes this style from all others.

Official business style serves the sphere of official business relations; Its main function is informative (transfer of information). Scientific style serves the field scientific knowledge; its main function is to communicate information, as well as prove its truth; it is characterized by the presence of terms, general scientific words, and abstract vocabulary. The journalistic style serves the sphere of socio-economic, socio-cultural and other public relations; its main functions are communication and influence; this style uses all linguistic means; it is characterized by economy of language resources, conciseness and popularity of presentation with informative richness.

The literary style has an impact and aesthetic function; it most fully and vividly reflects the literary and, more broadly, popular language in all its diversity and richness, becoming a phenomenon of art, a means of creating artistic imagery.

The conversational style serves the sphere of everyday and professional (but only unprepared, informal) relationships. Its main function is communication; manifests itself orally; has two varieties: literary-colloquial and everyday speech.

3 Structure of oratory

The integrity of an oratorical speech lies in the unity of its theme - main idea speech, the main problem posed in it, and semantic parts of different structure and length. Speech has an impact only if there are clear semantic connections that reflect consistency in the presentation of thoughts. A confused statement will not achieve the goal and will not cause the audience to react as planned by the speaker.

When the speaker begins to speak, we, the listeners, seem to take shorthand and comment on his words. Informs what he will talk about..., makes a reservation..., moves on to the main topic..., makes a digression..., repeats..., discusses..., refutes the opinion of the scientist..., disagrees..., emphasizes..., repeats..., adds..., lists..., answers to questions..., draws conclusions. This comment strictly reflects the connection between the speaker and the audience, and, above all, the sequence of arrangement of the material and the composition of the speech.

The composition of a speech is a natural, content-motivated and intended arrangement of all parts of a speech and their appropriate relationship, a system for organizing the material.

The composition can be divided into five parts: the beginning of the speech, the speech, the main part (content), the conclusion, and the end of the speech. This is, so to speak, a classic scheme. It can also be collapsed if any of the parts are missing, except, of course, the main one (after all, without content there is no talk).

All parts of oratory are intertwined and interconnected. Combining all parts of speech in order to achieve its integrity is called integration. The irreversibility of speech determines much in its construction. After all, it is difficult to retain the entire performance in memory. This dictates its fundamentally different construction compared to in writing. The coherence of oratorical speech is ensured by cohesion, retrospection and prospection.

Cohesion is a special type of connection that ensures the consistency and interdependence of individual parts of oratorical speech, which allows you to penetrate deeper into its content, understand and remember individual parts. Its fragments, located at some (and even significant) distance from each other, but to one degree or another connected with each other. This type of connection can be expressed by various repetitions, words denoting temporal, spatial and cause-and-effect relationships. Examples: thus, so, firstly, secondly, thirdly, the next question, at present, is quite obvious, let's look further. The following words and phrases also play a connecting role: taking into account, on the one hand, on the other hand, meanwhile, despite this, as it turns out, in all likelihood, as it turned out later.

Retrospection is a form of speech expression that refers listeners to previous meaningful information. The speaker can refer to information that is available in addition to his speech (thus, this speech is connected with the general information context), refer listeners to information that is contained in his previous speeches or in this speech, but stated earlier (this is how the speech is connected with previous speeches).

Prospection is one of the elements of speech that relates meaningful information to what will be discussed in subsequent parts of the speech. Prospection allows the listener to more clearly imagine the connection and interdependence of thoughts and ideas expressed in the speech. At the beginning, the speaker may promise the audience to give some information about the given speech, and also talk about his future speeches or the speeches of other speakers. This will be a prospectus.

Etiquette of oratory speech is stable specific units of communication adopted in oratorical practice and necessary to establish contact with the audience, maintain communication in the chosen tonality, and convey other information. In addition to the main function - maintaining contact - the indicated speech formulas perform the function of politeness, a regulating function, thanks to which the nature of the relationship between the speaker and listeners and the perception of speech is established, as well as emotional and expressive.

Most often, address is used in speech etiquette. Greetings to the audience are also common, i.e. expression of friendly feelings, friendly disposition, goodwill. The next group is the formulas for “farewell” and “gratitude for your attention.” There is also a group of speech cliches related to acquaintance. The speaker must be introduced or must introduce himself. In oratory, a high, neutral and emotional tonality is used, because... Thanks to her, favorable contact with listeners is established.

4 Russian court speakers of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries

The pre-revolutionary Russian legal profession had in its ranks many famous judicial speakers, who were not only popular defenders who successfully acted in criminal trials, but also major legal scholars, writers, critics, and prominent public figures of the liberal trend.

Alexandrov Petr Akimovich (1838-1893)

After graduating from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University, from 1860, for 15 years, he held various positions in the Ministry of Justice. Solid knowledge, great abilities and talent ensured his rapid advancement through the ranks: comrade prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court, prosecutor of the Pskov District Court, comrade prosecutor of the St. Petersburg Judicial Chamber and, finally, comrade chief prosecutor of the cassation department Governing Senate. In 1876, Alexandrov, after an official conflict caused by his superiors’ disapproval of his conclusion in court in one of the cases, where he spoke in defense of freedom of the press, retired and entered the legal profession in the same year.

As a defender, Alexandrov attracted attention with his performance in the famous political trial of the “193s”. The case was heard in 1878 in the St. Petersburg District Court behind closed doors. The best forces of the St. Petersburg Bar took part as defenders.

Speaking in this trial, Aleksandrov, little known as a lawyer, first attracted the attention of the public with a thoughtful speech and convincing polemics with the prosecutor.

Soon after this case, the St. Petersburg District Court heard a case charging Vera Zasulich with the attempted murder of the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov. The speech Alexandrov delivered in defense of Vera Zasulich brought him wide fame not only in Russia, but also abroad. His speech was reproduced in full on foreign languages. It should be directly noted that Aleksandrov’s speech had a great influence on the formation of the jury’s decision in the case. This speech revealed the great talent of a gifted, courageous judicial orator.

Respecting his profession, P. A. Alexandrov was always restrained in his speeches. His speeches are distinguished by the thoroughness of his main provisions and the internal consistency of all their parts. He pronounced them quietly, convincingly, with great inner strength. Being a brilliant orator, he never relied solely on his oratory skills, attaching great importance to pre-trial preparation for the case and the judicial investigation. He always thought through his speeches carefully.

Andreevsky Sergei Arkadievich (1847-1918)

A very talented pre-revolutionary lawyer. After graduating from law school in 1869 Kharkov University was a candidate for a judicial position under the prosecutor of the Kharkov Judicial Chamber, a judicial investigator in the city of Karachev, a comrade of the prosecutor of the Kazan District Court, where he proved himself to be a talented prosecutor. In 1873, with the direct participation of A.F. Koni, with whom he was close in joint work, S.A. Andreevsky was transferred as a fellow prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court.

In 1878, the tsarist justice was preparing for hearing a case accusing Vera Zasulich of attempted murder of the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov. The Ministry of Justice carefully processed issues related to the consideration of this case. Much attention was paid to the composition of the court and the role of the prosecutor in the process. The Ministry of Justice invited S.A. to act as a prosecutor in this case. Andreevsky and V.I. Zhukovsky. However, both of them refused to participate in the process.

Already the first trial in which Andreevsky spoke (speech in defense of the accused in the murder of Zaitsev), created his reputation as a strong lawyer in criminal cases.

Unlike Aleksandrov, he did not care about a deep, comprehensive analysis of the case materials, and did not pay enough attention to the conclusions of the preliminary investigation. They focused on the personality of the defendant, analysis of the environment in which he lived, and the conditions in which the defendant committed the crime. Andrievsky always gave a psychological analysis of the defendant’s actions deeply, vividly, vividly and convincingly. Without exaggeration, he can be called a master of psychological defense. The images he reveals always create an irresistible impression.

In cases where not only consistency and infallible logic were required, but also strict legal thinking and research of legislative material, he, as a lawyer, was not up to par, and success failed him. As judicial speaker S.A. Andreevsky was original and independent.

Its main feature is the widespread introduction of literary and artistic techniques into defense speech. Considering advocacy as an art, he called the defender a “talking writer.” In his work “On Criminal Defense,” noting the role of the psychological disclosure of the defendant’s inner world, Andreevsky wrote: “...fiction, with its great revelation of the human soul, was to become the main teacher of criminal lawyers.” S. A. Andreevsky, Dramas of Life, Petrograd , 1916. Noting the need to introduce techniques into criminal defense fiction, he believed that “...techniques of fiction should be introduced into criminal defense completely, boldly and frankly, without any hesitation” Ibid. .

He not only expressed these views on defense in the press, but also practically implemented them in court. Andrievsky always carefully crafted his speeches. They contain many vivid figurative comparisons, apt words, and truthful reproductions of the events of the crime. True, his speeches are not without a certain pathos, a desire for excessive eloquence.

His contemporaries said that Andreevsky's style is simple, clear, although somewhat pompous. His speeches are harmonious, smooth, carefully planned, full of bright, memorable images and colors, but his passion for psychological analysis often prevented him from giving a deep analysis of the evidence, which in some cases greatly weakened his speech.

S.A. Andreevsky was also involved in literary activities. He has written many poems on lyrical themes. Since the beginning of the 80s, he has been published in the “Bulletin of Europe”; a number of his works and critical articles about Bartynsky, Nekrasov, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and Garshin have been published in the book “Literary Reading”. A collection of his poems was published in 1886.

Andreevsky's court speeches were published as a separate book.

Zhukovsky Vladimir Ivanovich (1836-1901)

Graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University with the rank of candidate. In 1861 he entered the post of judicial investigator in the Orenburg province. Subsequently he worked in various judicial positions. In 1870, he was appointed associate prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court. Successfully acted as a prosecutor. With his speech on the sensational criminal case of the arson of a mill by the merchant Ovsyannikov, Zhukovsky established himself as a talented speaker.

In 1878, for the same reasons as S.A. Andreevsky Zhukovsky was forced to leave the prosecutor's office and entered the bar. He has successfully acted in many class action cases as defense counsel and a civil plaintiff. He was widely known both in St. Petersburg and on the periphery. His speeches in court were always simple and intelligible, easily understood by listeners. He especially established himself as a representative of a civil plaintiff. Zhukovsky delivered his speeches quietly and naturally. Comic situations did not escape his observant gaze. He was brilliant at irony, and skillfully used it in court.

Zhukovsky carefully crafted his speeches, paying a lot of attention to ensuring that they were accessible and well received by listeners. In his speeches, he always found a place for a caustic joke, doing it like a great master. He skillfully polemicized with the prosecutor, but did not always pay attention to a deep and detailed analysis of the evidence. Zhukovsky’s contemporaries noted that the shorthand recordings of his speeches do not fully convey the character of the individual details of the speech, which acquire special meaning in tone, facial expressions and gestures, which V.I. Zhukovsky brilliantly mastered.

Karabchevsky Nikolai Platonovich (1851-1925).

In 1869 he entered the natural sciences department of St. Petersburg University. Fascinated by the lectures of famous pre-revolutionary lawyers - professors P. G. Redkin, N. S. Tagantsev, A. D. Gradovsky, he transferred to the Faculty of Law, which he successfully graduated from in 1874 with a candidate’s degree, and in the same year he entered the bar. For five years he was an assistant to a sworn attorney, and since 1879 he was a sworn attorney at the St. Petersburg Court Chamber. He quickly gained popularity as one of the most capable criminal defense attorneys. Repeatedly made defensive speeches in political processes.

As a young lawyer, he successfully acted in the “193” trial, defending Breshkovskaya, Rogacheva and Andreeva. He proved himself well, speaking in the large trial “On quartermaster abuses during the Russian-Turkish war,” considered by the military district court. In this large, labor-intensive case, Karabchevsky proved himself to be a serious lawyer, able to give a complete, detailed analysis of numerous evidence in complex, complicated cases.

Among his most famous speeches in criminal cases is a speech in defense of Olga Palem, accused of the premeditated murder of student Dovnar, in defense of the Skitsky brothers, in defense of the Multan votyaks, in whose fate V. G. Korolenko took part. His speech on the case of the sinking of the steamship Vladimir was very famous. His speeches on political matters, in defense of Gershuni, Sazonov, and Beilis, are widely known.

In addition to his advocacy, Karabchevsky took up literary work. He is responsible for a number of literary works- prose and poetry, published in the collection “The Lifted Veil”. Memoirs and articles on legal issues were published in his book “About Justice”. He is also known as the editor of the “Lawyer” magazine that was published at one time. Died abroad in exile.

Plevako Fedor Nikiforovich (1842-1908)

Graduated from Moscow University. He was a sworn attorney at the Moscow Judicial Chamber. He worked as a lawyer for more than 40 years. Gifted judicial speaker. Gradually, from trial to trial, he won wide recognition with his speeches. He carefully prepared for the case, deeply knew all its circumstances, knew how to analyze evidence and show the court the inner meaning of certain phenomena. His speeches were distinguished by great psychological depth, worldly wisdom, simplicity and clarity. Complex human relations He elucidated life's combinations, which were sometimes insoluble, soulfully, in a form accessible to listeners.

Speaking in many major trials, he showed himself to be a sharp and resourceful polemicist.

Spasovich Vladimir Danilovich (1829-1906)

In 1849 he graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University. Upon graduation, he worked as an official in a criminal court chamber. At the age of 22, he defended his master's thesis in the department international law. I was studying pedagogical work. Translated Polish writers into Russian. He was close to the scholar-historian K.D. Kavelin, on whose recommendation he took the department of criminal law at St. Petersburg University. A gifted criminologist known for his theoretical works in the field of criminal procedure, Spasovich was the author of one of the best textbooks on Russian criminal law of his time. Spasovich was very popular among students. His lectures attracted a large number of students. Spasovich had anti-routine views in the science of criminal law and procedure, which caused dissatisfaction with the university authorities.

In 1861, together with a group of leading scientists, he left St. Petersburg University due to student unrest. At the bar since 1866. He acted as a defense attorney in a number of political cases.

Khartulari Konstantin Fedorovich (1841-1897)

After graduating from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University, he initially served in the Ministry of Justice, and from 1868 - as a sworn attorney at the St. Petersburg Court Chamber. He is known as an exceptionally balanced lawyer, far from any attempts to saturate his speech with excessive eloquence.

His appearances in court are distinguished by his thorough and in-depth analysis of evidence, his ability to find the main points in a case and give them the correct coverage. A characteristic feature of his speeches is careful finishing, proportionality of their parts, and deeply thought-out presentation of material. His best speech is his speech on the sensational criminal case on charges of murder of Margarita Jujan. True, this speech is devoid of bright colors, acute situations and deep psychological images, which he did not know how to draw. The speech on the case of Margarita Jujan is an example of a business-like, in-depth analysis of evidence, strict consistency and logic, which makes it intelligible and convincing. The lawyer did not leave a single piece of evidence without thorough analysis and careful comparison with other evidence. In this speech, all the evidence confirming the innocence of Margarita Jujan is skillfully grouped and sequentially presented. This largely ensured the acquittal verdict.

On a completely different level, a speech was made in defense of Maria Levenshtein and Raznotovsky, accused of attempted murder. Here Khartulari showed himself good psychologist, a great observer, a vivid describer of everyday life.

Kholev Nikolai Iosifovich (1858-1899)

In 1881 he graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University and immediately became an assistant attorney at the St. Petersburg Court Chamber, where he began his advocacy. He did not gain fame immediately. Only five or six years later he had the opportunity to speak in a major trial, where he demonstrated his oratorical abilities to the fullest extent. His speeches, like those of K.F. Khartulari, are characterized by efficiency and confidence in the word. Kholev’s best speech is his speech in defense of Maksimenko and his speech on the case of the wreck of the steamer “Vladimir”.

His speeches, however, are rather dry, they lack brilliance, sharp humor, combative polemical fervor, and he is not capable of deep psychological excursions. Kholev’s success was due to his ability to conscientiously collect evidence and correctly present it to the court. For example, his speech in defense of Maksimenko is persistent, painstaking work. Every piece of evidence he uses has been carefully verified. In analyzing the evidence, he is strictly consistent. The logic of his speech is difficult to dispute. His polemics with medical expertise make a great impression. On special medical issues that have arisen in court, he is erudite and freely debates with authoritative experts. Kholev’s speeches are an example of an extremely conscientious attitude towards the duties of a lawyer. Kholev was not in the first rank of pre-revolutionary Russian speakers, but he was one of the famous ones, spoke in major trials, where he achieved success with great work and diligence.

Conclusion

Summing up the results of what is presented in this work, I would like to dwell on the following key aspects of Russian oratory:

Firstly, Russian oratory was most clearly expressed in legal proceedings, using the example of which this work showed its specific features.

Secondly, there were enough names in Russian oratory that would compare with their colleagues at the dawn of the ancient period.

Bibliography

2 Zarifyan I.A. Theory of literature. M., 1990

3 Kokhtev N.N. Basics of public speaking. M., 1992

4 Vinogradov S.I., Graudina L.K., Danilenko V.P. Culture of Russian speech.

5 Nozhin E.A. Mastery of oral presentation-M: Knowledge, 1989.

6 Mikhailichenko N.A. Rhetorika-M: New School, 1994.

7 Vvedenskaya M.A., Pavlova L.G. Culture and art of speech. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix. 1995

8 Golovin B.N. Fundamentals of speech culture. - M.: 1990

Books

The greatest speeches of Russian history From Peter the Great to Vladimir Putin, Klimenko A. (ed.), This collection, which should become a reference book for every Russian patriot, presents the best speeches statesmen Russia XIX-XX centuries They aroused sincere interest and lively... Category: Russian history
Thoughts, aphorisms, quotes Politics, Dushenko K., “Until now we have not had any representative anthology of quotes about politics and related subjects, although in other countries (primarily English-speaking) such publications are not uncommon.”… Category:

At the beginning of the 19th century, Russian rhetoric was experiencing an era of prosperity. Among manuals on rhetoric, the textbooks of N. occupy a special place. Φ. Koshansky (1784-1831), classical philologist, translator, literature teacher at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. N. Φ. Koshansky owns two wonderful work: “General Rhetoric” (1829) and “Particular Rhetoric” (1832).

Manuals Η. Φ. Koshansky were focused on classical examples of belles-lettres and provided a very solid education. By studying rhetoric, a student at a Russian gymnasium mastered the skills of understanding classical works and independent literary creativity. Picture of the genera and types of literature in “Private Rhetoric” N. Φ. Koshansky, connecting Russian literature with classical and Church Slavonic literature, revealed a broad perspective of the culture of words. Literature textbooks by N. F. Koshansky, A. F. Merzlyakov, A. I. Galich, I. I. Davydov and other authors formed several generations of talented and educated Russian people, to whom we owe our prosperity national culture in the 19th century.

In the first half of the 19th century, a number of literary critics, led by V. G. Belinsky, launched a propaganda campaign against rhetoric. In the minds of the secular society of that time, fiction and literary criticism were the only type of verbal creativity. As a result, in the second half of the 19th century, rhetoric was excluded from the education system, and its place was taken by the compulsory study of artistic works and the opinions of literary critics on various issues of public life6.

Repeatedly republished rhetoric courses by A.F. Merzlyakov (1809 – 1828), N.F. Koshansky (1829 – 1850), K.P. Zelenetsky (1846 – 1852) and others became widely known in Russia. Researchers consider the first half of the 19th century the heyday of Russian rhetoric.

Russian rhetoric of the late 18th and early 19th centuries had a traditional three-part structure - invention, arrangement, expression - and considered a classic set of rhetorical subjects: common places, doctrine of passions, periods, tropes, figures, etc.

Characteristic feature Russian rhetoric, which distinguished it from all other rhetoric, was its division into general And private. General rhetoric examined communication and the laws of speech, and specific rhetoric described prose, its types and varieties. This tradition of Russian rhetoric came from M.V. Lomonosov and was continued by outstanding Russian philologists Ya.V. Tolmachev, N.F. Koshansky, M.M. Speransky, K.P. Zelenetsky and many others.

In the second half of the 19th century, the gradual decline of rhetoric as the science of prose (business, scientific, oratorical) began. The focus of philological thought is the study literary prose and poetic forms of speech.

A new subject appears in the education system, called “Theory of Literature.” School normative manuals have been published under this name since the 70s of the 19th century. until the 20s of the 20th century. The content of these manuals shows that the teaching of philology at school is gradually becoming more and more oriented towards the exclusive study of folklore and fiction. If early manuals on the theory of literature included the study of prosaic forms of speech, such as documents, “scientific prose,” then in later manuals, such as the manual by D.I. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, all attention is given to artistic speech.

New academic discipline took a number of concepts and even entire sections from rhetoric, for example, the doctrine of composition, styles of speech, and figures of style. But the traditional three-part scheme of rhetoric is violated. Many matters relating to the presentation of the invention, arrangement and expression are omitted. Thus, rhetoric as an independent academic discipline was lost by the second half of the 19th century.

Rhetoric, which has its own subject of study, is a continuation of knowledge obtained from general information about language, which are recorded in certain sections of school linguistics (spelling, spelling, morphology, word formation, syntax, punctuation, etc.). In accordance with the tradition of Russian classical education, elementary information about the language (phonetics and grammar) was always given at first, and the skills and abilities to read and write were formed; then grammar was proposed as a general standardized idea of the correctness of the language with the sections listed above; then followed the transition to rhetoric, which meant learning to use speech for the purpose of personality formation. In any case, this was the case until the middle of the 19th century. One of the ideas of rhetoric theorists of the mid-19th century was to prepare students of the rhetoric class to master the Word in all the richness of real social and speech connections. It is with this that the classification of the kinds and types of literature that students were supposed to learn is connected: from learning to write letters (everyday and business) to knowledge of how scientific, historical, and philosophical works are compiled, how oratory speeches are prepared and delivered. Classifications of types of speeches or texts, which were proposed by the teachers of A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov, N.F. Koshansky and A.F. Merzlyakov, tended to teach all types of speech that exist in real practice. However, it was precisely the most important type of speech - everyday practical speech that the matter did not reach in the rhetoric of the mid-19th century, which is why K.P. Zelenetsky called in “General Rhetoric” of 1849 to teach not only “eloquence”, but also “colloquial speech” ". It was the lack of attention to everyday prose that led rhetoric to decline, and the poetics of the natural school, which was focused on real social problems, to the establishment of fiction as the most important type of literature.

Proposals by K.P. Zelenetsky were heard only partially: everyday prose was reflected in the works of writers of the natural school - and this was another blow to the “old woman rhetoric”, which did not keep up with the real needs of speech practice. In the middle of the 19th century, rhetoric was criticized and converted into stylistics and the theory of literature, the subject of which was primarily the study of fiction, analysis of ideological opinions expressed by word artists, and precisely according to the scheme created in the middle of the 19th century (and not at all after 1917), Russian language and literature continue to be taught in our country to this day.

When rhetoric was removed from the curriculum, the child himself was thrown out of the cradle. There is no subject left that would actually be responsible for “speech” as part of the philological disciplines. “The subject of rhetoric is speech” - this is how the textbook “Theory of Literature” of 1851 introduced the subject of rhetoric and literature very briefly and clearly, where the head of the Department of Russian Language and Literature Russian Academy Sciences I.I. Davydov contaminated and edited the best textbooks of that time by N.F. Koshansky and K.P. Zelenetsky.