Russian merchants acquired and preserved priceless treasures of domestic and world culture for Russia, but time erased many names from the memory of posterity. Unfortunately, people have short memories. But art has eternal life.
Tretyakov Gallery, theater museum Bakhrushin, Shchukin’s collection of French impressionists, Morozov’s Handicraft Museum, gymnasiums, hospitals, shelters, institutes - all these are gifts from the Moscow merchants to their native city. The historian M. Pogodin set Moscow merchants-philanthropists as an example to tight-fisted European entrepreneurs: “If we count all their donations for the current century alone, they would amount to a figure that Europe should bow to.”
Tretyakovs
Among Moscow patrons of the arts, the name of Pavel Mikhailovich Tretyakov has a special place: it is to him that we owe the unique collection of paintings stored in the famous Tretyakov Gallery. The Tretyakov merchant family could not boast of special wealth, but Pavel Mikhailovich did not spare money to purchase paintings. Over the course of 42 years, he spent an impressive amount of money on them at that time - over a million rubles. Unfortunately, Pavel’s brother, Sergei Mikhailovich, is much less known to our contemporaries. He collected Western European paintings, and after his death in 1892, all the paintings he acquired passed, according to his will, into the possession of Pavel Mikhailovich. They were also donated to the city. On August 15, 1893, a new museum appeared in Moscow - the City Art Gallery of Pavel and Sergei Tretyakov. At that time, the collection consisted of 1,362 paintings, 593 drawings and 15 sculptures. Art critic V. Stasov wrote about it: “An art gallery... is not a random collection of paintings, it is the result of knowledge, considerations, strict weighing and, most of all, deep love for one’s dear business.”
Bakhrushins
The Bakhrushins came from the city of Zaraysk and were engaged in leather and cloth making. Both in Zaraysk and Moscow, the family donated large sums to those in need. In the mother throne, the Bakhrushins were called “professional philanthropists” from whom “donations pour in like from a cornucopia.” Judge for yourself, they built and maintained: a city hospital, a house of free apartments for the poor, a shelter for orphans, a vocational school for boys, a home for elderly artists... For this, the city authorities made the Bakhrushins honorary citizens of Moscow, they offered nobility, but proud merchants abandoned their titles. Alexey Petrovich Bakhrushin was a passionate collector, collecting Russian medals, porcelain, paintings, icons and ancient books. He bequeathed his collection to the Historical Museum; several museum halls were named after him. Alexey Petrovich's uncle, Alexey Aleksandrovich Bakhrushin, collected everything related to the theater: old posters, programs, photographs of famous actors, stage costumes. Based on his collection in Moscow, in 1894, the world's only Theater Museum named after. Bakhrushin. It is still in effect today.
The Khludov family, who came from Yegoryevsk, owned cotton factories and built railways. Alexey Ivanovich Khludov collected a unique collection of ancient Russian manuscripts and early printed books. Among them are the works of Maxim the Greek, “The Source of Knowledge” by John of Damascus, translated and with comments by Prince Kurbsky (the author of angry letters to Ivan the Terrible). In total, the collection consisted of more than a thousand books. In 1882, after the death of Khludov, the precious collection, according to his will, was transferred to the St. Nicholas Monastery of Edinoverie in Moscow. Alexei's brother, Gerasim Ivanovich, was also an avid collector: he collected paintings by Russian artists. The Khludovs, like the Bakhrushins, did not spare money for charity: they built an almshouse, free apartments for the poor, wards for terminally ill women and a children's hospital with their own funds.
This dynasty gave Russia many talented people: industrialists, doctors, diplomats. Let us at least remember Pyotr Kononovich, the pioneer of the tea business in Russia, or Sergei Petrovich, the famous Russian aesculapian. Many Botkins were collectors. Privy Councilor and artist Mikhail Petrovich collected Western European paintings, terracotta figurines, Italian majolica of the 15th-17th centuries, as well as Russian enamel for almost 50 years. He was keenly interested in the work of the artist Ivanov: he bought sketches and even published his biography. Vasily Petrovich and Dmitry Petrovich Botkin collected paintings by European masters and were friends of Pavel Tretyakov.
Mamontovs
The rich and populous merchant family of the Mamontovs “rose up” in the wine farming industry. At the end of the 18th century, Fyodor Ivanovich was known as a generous philanthropist, for which he was awarded a posthumous monument from the grateful residents of Zvenigorod. However, the most outstanding figure among the Mamontovs was Savva Ivanovich. Nature generously endowed him with talents: singer (studied in Italy), sculptor, theater director, playwright. It was Savva who discovered the talent of Chaliapin, Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov to the world. In his own theater he staged operas, the scenery for which was written by Polenov, Vasnetsov, Serov, Korovin. Savva Ivanovich helped achieve recognition for Vrubel: at his own expense he built a pavilion for the artist and exhibited his paintings in it. The estate of Savva Ivanovich, Abramtsevo, became “a haven of peace, work and inspiration” for many talented artists and performers.
Morozovs
The range of cultural activities of the Morozov dynasty is enormous: they were extremely talented people. Savva Timofeevich Morozov did a lot for the Art Theater (MAT). He was passionate about the revolutionary movement and idolized Maxim Gorky. Moscow owes the creation of the Handicraft Museum to Savva’s brother, Sergei Timofeevich. He collected works of Russian decorative and applied art of the 17th-19th centuries, trying to preserve their national flavor and traditions. After the revolution, the museum, as a sign of respect for his services, was renamed the Museum of Folk Art. S.T. Morozova. Mikhail Abramovich Morozov collected Russian and French paintings from a young age, but, alas, died at the age of 33. His collection was transferred to the Tretyakov Gallery. Ivan Abramovich Morozov was also a famous philanthropist; it was he who became the first patron of the unknown Vitebsk artist Marc Chagall. In 1918, Ivan Abramovich left Russia. His rich collection of paintings was distributed among the Museum of Fine Arts. Pushkin and the Hermitage.
Representatives of the Shchukin family have preserved truly unique treasures for us. Pyotr Ivanovich was the largest collector of Russian antiquities. There was everything in his collection: rare books, ancient Russian icons and coins, silver jewelry. In 1905, Pyotr Ivanovich donated his collection to Moscow; the catalog of valuables included 23,911 items! The canvases of Dutch painters Dmitry Ivanovich Shchukin are a pearl to this day Pushkin Museum. And a whole generation of Russian avant-garde artists grew up on the paintings of French impressionists acquired by Sergei Ivanovich Shchukin. He had an amazing sense of talent. When Shchukin met Picasso in Paris, he was an unknown poor artist. But even then the insightful Russian merchant said: “This is the future.” For six years, Sergei Ivanovich sponsored Picasso, buying his paintings. Thanks to Shchukin, paintings by Monet, Matisse, and Gauguin appeared in Russia - artists who were considered “outcasts” in France. But after the revolution in Russia, Shchukin turned out to be an “outcast”, and he had to emigrate to France. Bitter irony of fate. At the end of the 1920s. There was a rumor among Russian emigrants that Shchukin was demanding the return of his nationalized collection from the Bolsheviks. But Sergei Ivanovich denied the speculation: “I collected not only and not so much for myself, but for my country and my people. Whatever is on our land, my collections must remain there.”
Dmitry Kazennov
A philanthropist is a person who contributes on a voluntary and free basis to the development of science and art, providing them with material assistance from personal funds. The name comes from the name of the Egyptian Gaius Cilnius Maecenas, who was a patron of the arts under Emperor Augustus.
“His name became a household name for a reason - for the first time in history, a powerful state policy was implemented, the conductor of which was Maecenas. With the support of the emperor, Maecenas directed a significant portion of the finances accumulated by the Roman Empire to encourage and support the creative industries. This is how a system of state financial support for culture or the world of art was created.
With the help of investments in art, the political problems of great Rome were solved, strengthening the position and power of the Roman Empire and its power. Therefore, one cannot assume that a philanthropist is a disinterested person who does good to people for free. A patron is someone who, by supporting art, develops the spirituality of society as a necessary condition for the implementation of the tasks facing it.” (Magazine "World of Arts")
In the old days, the word “charity” meant compassion for one’s neighbor, mercy. Various charitable institutions were built for those in need - hospitals, shelters, schools, colleges, almshouses. Charity was one of the main virtues of Christianity.
In pre-revolutionary Russia, charity was usually not included in government programs to help the poor; it was carried out by private individuals and societies helping the needy. State aid was designated by the term “charity” (public charity). Charity was widespread in the state and public life of Russia.
The 19th century was the heyday of charity in Russia. The rapid growth of the economy has led to the emergence of a large number of rich people. Among them were those who had not only a lot of money, but also amazing spiritual qualities - generosity, a sense of compassion and, at the same time, an understanding of beauty.
Who are they - the most famous philanthropists in the history of Russia?
In modern Russia, the same names are always heard: Tretyakov, Mamontov, Morozov. But there were other philanthropists and philanthropists, whose names have been undeservedly forgotten. This article is dedicated to them.
Sergei Grigorievich Stroganov
Sergei Stroganov (1794–1882) – count, statesman, archaeologist, general, Moscow governor.
All my life I was on military service, showed considerable courage in the Battle of Borodino, took part in the Crimean War. However, his most striking and fruitful activities were in the purely civilian field. Russian education owes a lot to him. On top of everything, Sergei Grigorievich was also a great philanthropist.
Despite the fact that he held the rank of adjutant general and held high positions, Stroganov was indifferent to his career. He was distinguished by a strong and independent character, able to firmly defend his convictions, even if they contradicted the opinions of senior officials in the state.
Thanks to his spiritual qualities and deep education, Sergei Grigorievich was chosen as the teacher of the emperor’s sons, Grand Dukes Nicholas, Alexander, Vladimir and Alexei Alexandrovich.
He managed to do a lot for his homeland. He founded the first free drawing school in Russia. It was available to all talented children, regardless of their class origin. The “School of Drawing in Relation to Arts and Crafts” (now the S.G. Stroganov Moscow State Art Academy) was opened in Moscow on October 31, 1825. The Stroganov family continued to finance the school until 1917.
From 1835 to 1847 he was a trustee of the Moscow educational district and Moscow University. Contemporaries called this period the “Stroganov time.” In 1840, Stroganov showed all his characteristic strength of character and progressive thinking, sharply protesting against a secret government circular that recommended limiting access to university education for representatives of the lower classes.
For more than 37 years, Count S. G. Stroganov was the chairman of the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, founded at Moscow University. Every year he equipped scientific archaeological expeditions to the south of Russia with his own money. The result of these excavations in Crimea were rich Kerch treasures and “Scythian gold”, now stored in the Hermitage.
In 1859 he founded the Moscow Archaeological Society. He was the chairman of the Imperial Archaeological Commission, located in his St. Petersburg palace for 23 years. On the highest order, the count supervised the multi-volume publication of “Antiquities of the Russian State,” which was published in 1837-1874. Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir was restored at the expense of the count. Stroganov was the author of a number of published works on the history of ancient Russian architecture and archeology.
He was a member of the commission for the construction of the Cathedral of the Savior in Moscow.
He studied numismatics and left rich collections of Russian coins and ancient icons.
Sergei Grigorievich's son, Alexander Sergeevich Stroganov, was also interested in history and archeology, was a member of the St. Petersburg Archaeological Society and was a famous numismatist. His collection of 35,000 medieval European coins is today in the Hermitage. And the breeding stud farm he founded still operates and is known as the “Pskov Stud Farm”.
Unfortunately, fate prepared a bitter fate for this noble and illustrious family. Today there is no one left from the Stroganov family except Helen Stroganova. Baroness Helene de Ludinghausen is the only representative of this glorious and ancient family. She is the great-grandniece of Count Sergei Grigorievich Stroganov.
Hélène was born on August 20, 1942 in Paris. Her grandmother, Princess Sofya Vasilchikova (daughter of Olga Stroganova, granddaughter of Sergei Grigorievich) left Russia at the end of 1917 along with her four daughters. In 1942, one of the daughters of Ksenia and Baron Andrei de Ludinghausen, a descendant of the Russified Germans (who lived in Russia in the 16th century), had a daughter, Helen.
For many years she worked for Yves Saint Laurent as the director of his fashion house. Now retired. Lives in France, in Paris. Engaged in extensive social and charitable activities.
Alexander Ludwigovich Stieglitz
Alexander Ludwigovich Stieglitz in different time held senior positions in the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Empire.
Talented financier, banker, entrepreneur, Baron A.L. Schtiglitz was the richest man in Russia at the end of the 19th century, one of the founders of the Main Society of Russian Railways, as well as director of the State Bank. The baron built the Nikolaev, Peterhof and Baltic railways.
He inherited capital and the title of court banker from his father, through whose mediation Nicholas I concluded agreements on foreign loans for more than 300 million rubles, for which the Russified German received the title of baron. Having an annual income of 3 million, he remained just as uncommunicative (the hairdresser who cut his hair for a quarter of a century never heard the voice of his client) and painfully modest.
His father, a millionaire and a zealot of education, intended his son to pursue an academic career, to which he felt inclined. Having received an excellent classical education at home, Stieglitz graduated from the University of Dorpat, where he showed great ability in science. He was interested in ancient languages, painting, and literature. After graduating from university, the young man traveled a lot throughout Europe, and upon returning to Russia, he entered the civil service in the Ministry of Finance.
Alexander Ludvigovich has been involved in financial issues all his life, but understanding the problems ordinary people was not alien to him. During the Crimean War, he donated large sums for the needs of the Russian army: in 1853 - in favor of the Chesme military almshouse and in 1855 - in favor of naval officials who lost their property in Sevastopol. Considerable funds were spent on education, on the maintenance of students of educational institutions, on maintaining an orphanage in Kolomna, founded by his father.
On January 1 (13), 1853, on the day of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Stieglitz and Co. trading house, the young owner of the company generously rewarded and provided for the future of all his employees, and no one was forgotten, including the artel workers and watchmen.
In 1858, simultaneously with a donation for the construction of a monument to Emperor Nicholas I in the exchange hall, Stieglitz contributed a significant amount for the maintenance of students in educational institutions of the capital in memory of the late emperor.
After assuming the post of manager of the State Bank, Stieglitz became concerned with the needs of his colleagues. With his closest assistance, in 1862, a savings and loan bank for employees in the State Bank was established, then for 3 years he supported the funds of the cash desk with donations (leaving part of his salary in its favor). In the 1880s, the deputy meeting of the treasury gave this amount the name “capital named after Baron A. L. Stieglitz.” From its interest, benefits were annually issued to widows and orphans of members of the fund.
In addition to the listed institutions, Stieglitz benefited many others at different times, including the orphanage in Kolomna, founded by his father, that continued to exist through his donations.
Undoubtedly, Alexander Ludvigovich loved beauty, although all his life he was engaged only in making money. And if his son-in-law Alexander Polovtsov, the husband of his adopted daughter, had not convinced him that Russian industry could not survive without “scientific draftsmen”, we would not have had either the Stieglitz School or the first Museum of Decorative and Applied Arts in Russia ( best part collections of which later went to the Hermitage).
“Russia will be happy when merchants donate money for teaching and educational purposes without the hope of receiving a medal on their neck,” said A. A. Polovtsov, State Secretary of Emperor Alexander III.
In 1876, the baron presented his most valuable gift to St. Petersburg and Russia, giving 1 million rubles. to create an industrial design school in his hometown - the Central School technical drawing(St. Petersburg State Academy of Arts and Industry named after A.L. Stieglitz, from 1953 to 1994 the institute was called the Leningrad Higher Art and Industry School named after V.I. Mukhina, “Mukhinsky School”). This is how a building in the neo-Renaissance style appeared in Solyany Lane, erected according to the design of architects R.A. Gedike and A.I. Krakau, which in itself was already a work of art.
An integral part of the St. Petersburg State Academy of Arts and Industry is the Museum of Applied Arts. The halls of the museum became the cultural, educational, training and exhibition center of the academy.
The fact is that the industrialist Stieglitz collected in these halls the best examples of applied art from all over the world, on which he spent a fortune. Antique furniture, household items, and tapestries were bought at auctions throughout Europe. The baron exhibited all the masterpieces in the halls of the museum so that future artists could study only the best examples of art of all times and peoples, thus adopting the experience of recognized masters. Almost all historical eras and styles are reflected in the artistic decoration of the thirty-two halls of the museum.
Now the St. Petersburg State Academy of Arts and Industry named after. A.L. Stieglitz is one of the most famous art universities in the country. The Academy graduated from many artists who made significant contributions to the art and culture of Russia and other countries. Among the famous graduates are Adrian Vladimirovich Kaplun, Anna Petrovna Ostroumova-Lebedeva, Kuzma Sergeevich Petrov-Vodkin.
Until the end of his days, Baron Stieglitz regularly allocated funds for the maintenance of the school and after his death bequeathed it for its needs a large sum money, which contributed to its further development.
On October 24 (November 5), 1884, Stieglitz died of pneumonia and was buried, of his own free will, in Ivangorod in the Church of the Holy Trinity, which he personally built over the grave of his wife, for the spiritual needs of the local factory population.
The will left by Stieglitz generally represents an example of caring for the institutions he created and the persons who were in any more or less close relationship with him.
Thus, by the way, 30,000 rubles were bequeathed to them in favor of the employees of the State Bank; His personal employees were not forgotten either: his favorite valet, for example, received 5,000 rubles. total amount, distributed according to Stieglitz's will among various persons and institutions, was rumored to reach 100 million rubles (not counting real estate), but in reality it was more modest - about 38 million rubles.
It is interesting to note that, being a completely independent person, whose capital was readily accepted in all countries, Stieglitz placed his enormous fortune almost exclusively in Russian funds and, in response to the skeptical remark of one financier about the imprudence of such trust in Russian finance, he once remarked:
“My father and I made our entire fortune in Russia; if she turns out to be insolvent, then I am ready to lose all my fortune along with her.”
Solodovnikov Gavrila Gavrilovich
Gavrila Gavrilovich Solodovnikov (1826, Serpukhov - May 21, 1901, Moscow) - one of the richest Moscow merchants and homeowners, a multimillionaire, owner of a store and theater in Moscow, philanthropist; donated more than 20 million rubles to charity. With his funds, a theater on Bolshaya Dmitrovka (later the Moscow Operetta Theater), a clinic at the Faculty of Medicine of Moscow State University, a number of houses for the poor in Moscow, an orphanage, and several schools in four provinces of Russia were built.
The son of a paper goods merchant, due to lack of time, he poorly learned to write and express his thoughts coherently. At 20 he became a merchant of the first guild, at 40 he became a millionaire. He was famous for his frugality and prudence (he ate yesterday's buckwheat and rode in a carriage with only the rear wheels shod in rubber). He did not always conduct his affairs honestly, but he made up for this with his will, devoting almost all of his millions to charity.
He was the first to make a contribution to the construction of the Moscow Conservatory: with his 200 thousand rubles, a luxurious marble staircase was built. He built on Bolshaya Dmitrovka “a concert hall with a theater stage for performing extravaganzas and ballets” (the current Operetta Theater), in which Savva Mamontov’s Private Opera was located. It was here that the young Fyodor Chaliapin, who had already established himself in provincial operas, performed for the first time in Moscow. Since 1961 and currently, this house is known as the Moscow Operetta Theater.
During these same years, Gavrila Gavrilovich decided to become a nobleman. For a person with the condition that Solodovnikov had, this was not difficult. Everyone knew perfectly well how it was done. Anyone interested came to the city government and directly asked how he could help the city. He was given a task, he carried it out, and the city wrote a petition to the highest name, and this petition was usually granted. So did Solodovnikov.
Appearing at the council in 1894, he stated that he would like to build some useful institution for the city. The council was filled with people with a sense of humor. They explained to the merchant that the city now needs nothing more than a venereal hospital. The subtlety of the situation was that, according to the tradition of that time, an object donated to the city was given the name of the donor. Consequently, the hospital built by Gavrila Gavrilovich should have been called "Clinic of skin and venereal diseases of the merchant Solodovnikov." The millionaire immediately understood where the fun was and refused the offer. He contacted the council three more times, and each time he was offered the same thing.
It ended with the desire to become an aristocracy winning out. The clinic was built and equipped with the latest state-of-the-art science and technology. In return, Gavrila Gavrilovich graciously asked the authorities not to assign his name to the hospital. The authorities agreed.
After some time, Solodovnikov received an order around his neck for a gift to the city and was registered in the nobility register. Nowadays it is the Clinic of Skin and Venereal Diseases at the 1st Moscow Medical Institute; since 1990, the institute has a different status and a different name - Moscow Medical Academy named after I.M. Sechenov. Since nothing else was built in all subsequent years, the work of Gavrila Gavrilovich Solodovnikov exists to this day.
He died on May 21, 1901, after a long illness. After the death of the richest of Russian millionaires at the beginning of the last century and after the announcement of his will, artist Mikhail Lentovsky recalled: “I asked him: “Well, where are you going to spend your millions, old man?” What will you do with them?” And he told me: “When I die, Moscow will find out who Gavrila Gavrilovich Solodovnikov was!” The whole empire will talk about me."
At the time of his death, his fortune was estimated at 20,977,700 rubles. Of these, he bequeathed 830,000 rubles to his relatives.
The eldest son and executor, member of the board of directors of the Nizhny Novgorod-Samara Land Bank Pyotr Gavrilovich received the most, 300,000, and the least of all - the dress and underwear of the deceased - the youngest son, ensign of the tsarist army Andrei. This is how the father punished his son for refusing to follow the “commercial line.”
It is worth saying that the merchant did not forget about anyone in his will. Sister Lyudmila was allocated 50,000 rubles, cousin Lyubov Shapirova - 20,000, her daughters - 50,000 each, Passage artel worker Stepan Rodionov - 10,000, and the same amount for clerk Mikhail Vladchenko. In addition, the will mentioned a huge number of relatives, friends, acquaintances and even just fellow countrymen of the merchant, and each was marked with a rather large sum.
However, the real sensation was the second part of the will. According to it, the remaining 20,147,700 rubles (about 200 million dollars according to today’s accounts) Gavrila Gavrilovich ordered to be divided into three equal parts. He ordered the first part to be spent on “the establishment of zemstvo women’s schools in the Tver, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, and Vyatka provinces.”
The second - “give to the device vocational schools in the Serpukhov district for the training of children of all classes and... for the establishment and maintenance of a shelter for homeless children there.” The third part should have been allocated “for the construction of cheap apartment buildings for poor people, single and married.” Solodovnikov wrote in his will: “The majority of these poor people are the working class, living by honest labor and having the inalienable right to be protected from the injustice of fate.”
The eldest son, Pyotr Gavrilovich Solodovnikov, was appointed manager.
The Moscow city government took up the task of fulfilling the will of the deceased. Houses for the lonely and poor gradually began to be built - in the area of 2nd Meshchanskaya. The first home for singles, called the Freeman, opened on May 5, 1909, followed two days later by the home for families, the Red Diamond.
House of cheap apartments named after. Solodovnikov “Free Citizen” The first had 1,152 apartments, the second - 183. The houses were a complete example of a commune: each of them had a developed infrastructure with a store, a dining room, a bathhouse, a laundry, a library, and an outdoor shower. In the family house, a nursery and kindergarten were located on the ground floor. All rooms were already furnished. Both houses were illuminated with electricity, which residents had the right to use until 11 pm.
Moreover, the houses had elevators, which at that time was considered almost fantastic. And housing was truly incredibly cheap: a one-room apartment in “Grazhdanin” cost 1 ruble 25 kopecks a week, and in “Romb” - 2 rubles 50 kopecks. This is despite the fact that the average Moscow worker then earned 1 ruble 48 kopecks a day.
The Solodovnikovsky House for families had 183 pre-furnished one-room apartments, each with an area of 16 to 21 square meters; on the floor there were 4 kitchens with cold and hot water, with separate tables for each family, with cold pantries, a Russian stove, rooms for drying outer clothes, as well as a room for servants who cleaned the house; residents used a common library, a nursery, and a consumer shop.
It is known that, in accordance with Russian tradition, officials were the first to move into the “houses for the poor.” True, quite soon it was the turn of ordinary people - working people: workers, teachers, etc.
It must be said that Pyotr Gavrilovich himself was in no hurry and did not show zeal to say goodbye to his father’s millions. His polite correspondence with the Moscow authorities regarding the inheritance he left was long, many years and did not stop until 1917.
In 1918, houses and bank accounts were nationalized and Solodovnikov’s charitable millions disappeared into the general money supply of the young revolutionary state. Soviet and public organizations moved into the cheap apartment buildings of the merchant Solodovnikov. In the 30s, “Red Diamond” was occupied by “Rospotrebsoyuz”. There was a very cheap and high-quality canteen there, but ordinary people were not allowed into it.
Yuri Stepanovich Nechaev-Maltsov
Portrait of Yuri Stepanovich Nechaev-Maltsev. 1885 Artist Kramskoy II Yuri Stepanovich Nechaev-Maltsov (October 11 (23), 1834 - 1913) - Russian philanthropist, manufacturer, diplomat, owner of glass factories, honorary citizen of the city of Vladimir (1901), honorary member of the Moscow Archaeological Society, honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Arts (1902). Civil rank - Privy Councilor.
In 1880, at the age of 49, Yu. S. Nechaev received an inheritance from his uncle Ivan Sergeevich Maltsov (1807-1880), which included several factories and factories in various provinces of Russia, the largest of which was the Gusev Crystal Factory in the Vladimir region. Entering into inheritance rights, Yu. S. Nechaev also took the surname of his uncle (mother’s brother) and became Nechaev-Maltsov.
Uncle diplomat Ivan Maltsov was the only one who survived the massacre committed at the Russian embassy in Tehran, during which the diplomat-poet Alexander Griboyedov died. Having hated diplomacy, diplomat Maltsov continued the family business, setting up glass factories in the town of Gus: he brought the secret of colored glass from Europe and began producing profitable window glass. This entire crystal and glass empire, along with two mansions in the capital, painted by Vasnetsov and Aivazovsky, was received by the middle-aged bachelor official Nechaev.
The years lived in poverty left their mark: Nechaev-Maltsov was unusually stingy, but at the same time a terrible gourmet and gastronome. Professor Ivan Tsvetaev (Marina Tsvetaeva’s father) struck up a friendship with him (while eating delicacies at receptions, he sadly calculated how many building materials he could buy with the money spent on lunch), and then finally convinced him to give about 3 million, which was missing for the completion of the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts (Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts named after A.S. Pushkin) By the way - a million royal rubles - a little less than one and a half billion modern dollars!
Yu.S. Nechaev-Maltsov, I.I. Rerberg, R.I. Klein and I.V. Tsvetaev at the construction of the museum. August 2, 1901 Fourteen years of construction and orders for casts in different countries were a true epic in the life of I.V. Tsvetaev and his like-minded person - a major entrepreneur and philanthropist Yu.S. Nechaev-Maltsov, who paid all the expenses: for stone, for Italian and Russian workers, for transporting expensive casts from Europe to Russia. Suffice it to say that for cladding the walls of the museum building, Ural white marble, Italian marble from Carrara, dark pink marble from Hungary, light green marble from Belgium, black Norwegian marble, Finnish granite and other valuable colored stones were used, extraction and delivery which were paid for without complaint by Yu.S. Nechaev-Maltsov.
“...It was mainly masters from Italy who worked on marble. For granite - ours from Tver. I imagine this Babylon. Light, heavenly-colored eyes, so you can drown, residents of Tver, Vladimir, and dark-skinned Italians with black eyes...” Valeria Tsvetaeva.
In 1901 alone, 90 wagons of marble were delivered from the Urals to Moscow, and another 100 wagons were supposed to be sent from the same place the following year. Glass manufacturer, wealthy donor to the museum, Yu.S. Nechaev-Maltsov, unbeknownst to himself, became the main builder of the museum and supplier of expensive casts to the museum. Today, his real role in the creation of the museum is revealed through the published extensive correspondence with I.V. Tsvetaev. Without Yu.S. Nechaev-Maltsov, the museum would have remained an empty dream of university professor I.V. Tsvetaev.
Surprisingly, the completion of the museum’s construction was also the beginning of the end for its creators: in September 1913, I.V. Tsvetaev died, and forty days after him, Yu.S. Nechaev-Maltsov. Having fulfilled their life's duty, they summed up an entire era when the idea, barely born, found real embodiment in the grandiose museum building that decorated Moscow.
Grand opening of the museum. Nicholas II with his family. 1912 “...And there was a quiet triumph of joy: it’s not the powers that be who are giving something to dad now, but he’s giving everyone who is here now, all of Russia, the museum he created!..” (A. Tsvetaeva).
Not counting the museum (for which the sponsor received the title of Chief Chamberlain and the Order of Alexander Nevsky with diamonds), with the money of the “glass king” the Technical School named after I. S. Maltsov was founded - one of the best in Europe in terms of technical equipment (now the Vladimir Aviation Mechanical College ).
During the construction of the Historical Museum building in Vladimir, he donated glass for the manufacture of museum display cases.
He erected the majestic Church of St. George in the center of the city of Goose, which became known under him as Goose-Crystal, and in the village of Berezovka - the Church of Dmitry of Thessalonica in memory of the soldiers who died in the Battle of Kulikovo. The temples were painted by V. M. Vasnetsov. Following the temple-monuments in Gus-Khrustalny, an almshouse named after I. S. Maltsov was built, and in Moscow, on Shabolovka 33, in 1906 a complex of a noble almshouse named after Yu. S. Nechaev-Maltsov was built.
In St. Petersburg, Yuri Stepanovich was a trustee of the Maritime Charitable Society, the Nikolaev Women's Hospital, the Sergius Orthodox Brotherhood, helped the House of Charity and Craft Education for Poor Children, and from 1910 was a trustee of the School of the Imperial Women's Patriotic Society named after Grand Duchess Catherine Mikhailovna.
For a long time he was a member of the Trustee Committee for the Sisters of the Red Cross, on the basis of which in 1893, under the patronage of Princess E. M. of Oldenburg, the Community of Sisters of Charity of St. Eugenia arose. Having become vice-president of the Community, he donated money for the construction under its auspices of two hospital pavilions and the building of the Shelter for Elderly Sisters of Mercy named after Emperor Alexander III. Financed the activities of medical institutions.
Nechaev-Maltsov was vice-chairman of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts and subsidized the magazine “Artistic Treasures of Russia”, whose editors were Alexander Benois and Adrian Prakhov. Currently, the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Northwestern Federal District is located in the St. Petersburg house of Yu. S. Nechaev-Maltsov.
According to the will of the childless Yu. S. Nechaev, his fortune in 1914 passed to his distant relative, Count P. N. Ignatiev. In 1918, the enterprises were nationalized.
Soldatenkov Kozma Terentievich
Kozma Soldatenkov is an entrepreneur and one of the largest Russian philanthropists. According to official data, he donated more than 5 million rubles.
Soldatenkov belonged to a dynasty of textile manufacturers, natives of the village of Prokunino, Kolomensky (then Bogorodsky) district of the Moscow province.
Kozma Soldatenkov began his charitable activities in the 1850s. By his order, in the village of Prokunino, benefits began to be issued in memory of his grandfather and grandmother: until 1917, each girl who got married and each recruit received 50 rubles. With this money, a rural girl could arrange a wedding for 20 people and prepare a dowry: a bed, bed linen, three or four dresses. And the soldier’s family, in the absence of their breadwinner son, had the opportunity to spend the allowance on material needs - repairing a hut, buying a horse or cow.
In 1866, the Almshouse of Commerce of Advisor K.T. opened in Moscow. Soldatenkov in memory of February 19, 1861. Being a descendant of serfs who bought their freedom, Soldatenkov immortalized the most important historical event in the name of the almshouse - the day of the abolition of serfdom. The merchant built the establishment with personal funds and maintained it for 30 years. In a two-story stone building (construction cost 60 thousand rubles) 100 people found shelter. Preference, according to the Charter, was given “permanent residents of the city and visitors of all classes and confessions, but mainly from former courtyard people.” Soldatenkov bequeathed 285 thousand rubles for the maintenance of the establishment.
Almshouse of Commerce Advisor K.T. Soldatenkov in memory of February 19, 1861 In 1870–1882, Soldatenkov donated 1000 rubles annually. for the maintenance of the Nikolaev charity home for widows and orphans of the merchant class. With this money, residents were provided with improved food: poultry, game, veal, and red fish. In 1889–1900, he donated 10 thousand rubles. for the construction of the Alekseevskaya psychiatric hospital and 5 thousand rubles. for the construction of an almshouse for the city care of the poor in the Yauza part.
Soldatenkov is known not only as a businessman, but also as a book publisher. Over 45 years, more than 200 historical and works of art. Newspaper " Russian word"(dated May 20, 1901) noted that the merchant "spent a lot of money on the publication of major works."
Soldatenkov's great passion was collecting paintings. His collection consisted of 269 paintings by Russian and European artists, among them paintings by Vasily Tropinin, Alexander Ivanov, Nikolai Ge, Sylvester Shchedrin, Ivan Aivazovsky, Pavel Fedotov. The merchant bequeathed the collection to the Rumyantsev Museum with the condition that it be placed “in a separate room with the name ... “Soldatenkovskaya”.” For decades, the generous philanthropist invested in the development of the Rumyantsev Museum and Moscow University.
Kozma Soldatenkov died in 1901. The newspaper “Russian Word” wrote: “The whole of Moscow knew the good-natured figure of an old man as white as a harrier with softly glowing intelligent eyes.”
From the Kuntsevo estate (in the 1860s, Soldatenkov bought it from the Naryshkins) to the Rogozhskoye cemetery, the coffin was carried in the hands of peasants, covering a distance of ten kilometers. The funeral service was attended by Moscow University professors Ivan Tsvetaev and Sergei Muromtsev, editor of Russian Vedomosti Vasily Sobolevsky, deputies of the Moscow City Duma from the eminent merchant class Savva Morozov, Pyotr Botkin, Vladimir Sapozhnikov. The weekly Iskra noted:
“The deceased was known as an ideological publisher, an outstanding financier and, most of all, as a person of remarkable moral qualities.”
The philanthropist bequeathed a significant part of his fortune to charitable purposes. So, 1.3 million rubles. Soldatenkov left the Moscow merchant society to create a vocational school “for free training therein for male children, without distinction of their condition or religion, in various crafts related to technical production.” 300 thousand went to the construction of the building, and 1 million rubles. amounted to untouchable capital, the interest from which supported the educational institution.
The school with electrical engineering and foundry departments for 320 students opened on November 1, 1909 in a three-story mansion on Donskaya Street (now the building houses the Faculty of Chemical Technology and Ecology of the Moscow State Textile Institute named after A.N. Kosygin). The duration of training was five years: the first two years taught general education subjects, the next three – special ones.
More than 2 million rubles. Soldatenkov donated to the establishment of a free hospital for the poor “without distinction of rank, class and religion.” Soldatenkovskaya Hospital, as Muscovites called it, was opened on December 23, 1910.
The benefactor also left 100 thousand rubles. To the almshouse at the Rogozhskoe cemetery, 20 thousand rubles. Arnoldovsky School of the Deaf and Mutes, 85 thousand rubles. for scholarships and tuition fees for poor students at Moscow University, 40 thousand rubles. for scholarships for students of Moscow gymnasiums, 20 thousand rubles. for scientific prizes Russian Academy Sci. In total, the will mentions about 20 charitable, educational and medical institutions - recipients of assistance. The amount of donations amounted to 600 thousand rubles.
He was buried at the Rogozhskoe cemetery. During the Soviet years, the grave of Kozma Terentyevich Soldatenkov, as well as the large tomb of the Old Believers merchants Soldatenkov, were destroyed.
In 1901, according to Soldatenkov’s will, his library (8 thousand volumes of books and 15 thousand copies of magazines), as well as a collection of Russian paintings (258 paintings and 17 sculptures) passed to the Rumyantsev Museum and, as a national treasure, was kept in a separate room with the name “Soldatenkovskaya”. After the closure of the Rumyantsev Museum in 1924, they replenished the funds of the Tretyakov Gallery and the Russian Museum. Some of the icons from his collection were bequeathed to the Intercession Cathedral of the Rogozhsky cemetery.
Found a mistake? Select it and press left Ctrl+Enter.
I. Kramskoy "Portrait of P. M. Tretyakov"
Domestic philanthropy is a unique phenomenon. And if we take into account that Russia is now going through difficult times, then the issue of patronage can be considered relevant.
Nowadays, culture is in a difficult situation; not only provincial libraries and theaters need support, but even famous, world-famous museums and other cultural institutions.
Patrons founded factories, built railways, opened schools, hospitals, orphanages... To talk in detail about everyone, you need the format of not an article, but a whole book, and more than one. We will focus only on some names.
But first, about the term “philanthropy” itself. The Russian synonym is the concept of “charity”. But where did borrowing come to us?
History of the term "philanthropy"
Maecenas- a person who helps the development of science and art free of charge and provides them with material assistance from personal funds. The common name “patron” comes from the name of the Roman Gaius Cilnius Maecenas (Mecenates), who was a patron of the arts under Emperor Octavian Augustus.
Bust of Maecenas in one of the parks in Ireland
Guy Tsilny Maecenas(c. 70 BC - 8 BC) - ancient Roman statesman and patron of the arts. A personal friend of Octavian Augustus and a kind of minister of culture under him. The name of Maecenas as a fan of fine arts and patron of poets became a household name.
During the civil war in the Roman Empire, he arranged the reconciliation of the warring parties, and after the end of the war, during Octavian’s absence, he conducted state affairs, was free from sycophancy and ingratiation, boldly expressed his views and sometimes even restrained Octavian from imposing death sentences. The poets of that time found a patron in him: he helped Virgil return the estate that had been taken from him, and gave his estate to Horace. He died, mourned by the whole people, and not just by his friends.
F. Bronnikov "Horace reads his poems to Maecenas"
However, charity in Russia is not such a rare thing. This system of donation began to take shape with the adoption of Christianity in Rus': after all, the first almshouses and hospitals began to be built at monasteries, and the majority of patrons of the 19th century came from the merchant Old Believer environment. P. A. Buryshkin, a researcher of the Moscow merchants, believed that merchants used their labor and income “they looked at it not only as a source of profit, but as the fulfillment of a task, a kind of mission assigned by God or fate. They said about wealth that God gave it for use and would demand an account for it, which was partly expressed in the fact that it was in the merchant environment that both charity and collecting were unusually developed, which were looked upon as the fulfillment of some divinely appointed task ». Period XVIII-XIX centuries. gave Russia so many benefactors that it is called the “golden” age of philanthropy. There are especially many such monuments to human mercy in Moscow. For example, Golitsyn Hospital.
Golitsyn Hospital
City Clinical Hospital No. 1 named after. N.I. Pirogov
Golitsyn Hospital was opened in Moscow in 1802 as a “hospital for the poor.” Currently this is the Golitsyn building of the First City Clinical Hospital.
The Golitsyn hospital was built according to the design of the architect Matvey Fedorovich Kazakov using funds bequeathed by Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Golitsyn “for the establishment in the capital city of Moscow of an institution pleasing to God and useful to people.” When developing the project, Kazakov used the principle of an urban estate. The prince's cousin, the actual privy councilor, chief chamberlain Alexander Mikhailovich Golitsyn, was directly in charge of the construction.
Opened in 1802, it became the third hospital in Moscow of the civil department. Representatives of all segments of the population, except for serfs, were admitted to the Golitsyn hospital for free treatment - “...both Russians and foreigners, of every gender, rank, religion and nationality.”
In 1802, the hospital had 50 beds, and in 1805 - already 100. Additionally, in 1803, an almshouse for incurable patients with 30 beds was opened at the hospital. Christian Ivanovich Tsinger served as the hospital manager for many years. During the Patriotic War of 1812, when Moscow was occupied by Napoleon's troops, he was left alone in the hospital and managed to prevent its looting, and also saved the hospital money left for his safekeeping. For conscientious service, Christian Ivanovich Tsinger received the title of hereditary nobleman.
And now a little about whose funds this hospital was built.
Dmitry Mikhailovich Golitsyn (1721-1793)
A. Brown "Portrait of Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Golitsyn"
Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Golitsyn- Russian officer and diplomat from the Golitsyn family. In 1760-1761 Acted as ambassador in Paris, and then was sent as ambassador to Vienna, where he played a major role in improving relations between the Russian court and Emperor Joseph II. He was one of the first among Russians to become interested in collecting paintings by old masters (artists of Western Europe who worked before the beginning of the 18th century).
D. M. Golitsyn was a famous philanthropist. He bequeathed 850 thousand rubles, income from two estates worth 2 thousand people and his art gallery to the construction and maintenance of a hospital in Moscow. His will was carried out by his cousin, Prince A.M. Golitsyn. Until 1917, the hospital was maintained at the expense of the Golitsyn princes, and then by the will of D.M. Golitsyn was violated by subsequent heirs - the sale of his gallery.
He died in Vienna, but his body, at the request of his relatives and with the highest permission, was transported to Moscow in 1802, where he was buried in a crypt under the church of the Golitsyn Hospital.
True patrons of the arts never sought to advertise their activities; rather, on the contrary. Often, when carrying out a major charity event, they hid their names. It is known that Savva Morozov, for example, provided great assistance in the founding of the Art Theater, but at the same time set the condition that his name should not be mentioned anywhere. Our next story is about Savva Timofeevich Morozov.
Savva Timofeevich Morozov (1862-1905)
Savva Timofeevich Morozov
He came from an Old Believer merchant family. He graduated from high school, and then from the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University and received a diploma in chemistry. He communicated with D. Mendeleev and himself wrote a research paper on dyes. He also studied at Cambridge University, where he studied chemistry, and then in Manchester - textiles. He was the director of the Partnership of the Nikolskaya Manufactory “Savva Morozov’s Son and Co.” He owned cotton fields in Turkestan and several other partnerships, where he was a shareholder or director. He was constantly involved in charity: in his factories he introduced maternity pay for working women, and awarded scholarships to young people studying in the country and abroad. It is known that at his enterprises the workers were more literate and educated. He also helped needy students at Moscow University.
In 1898, he became a member of the Partnership for the establishment of a theater in Moscow and regularly made large donations for the construction and development of the Moscow Art Theater, and initiated the construction of a new theater building. The most modern equipment for the stage was ordered abroad with his money (lighting equipment in the domestic theater first appeared here). Savva Morozov spent about half a million rubles on the Moscow Art Theater building with a bronze bas-relief on the facade in the form of a drowning swimmer.
Unfortunately, connections with the revolutionary movement, as well as personal circumstances, led S.T. Morozov to premature death.
The Bakhrushin family in Moscow was called “professional philanthropists.” In 1882, the Bakhrushins donated 450,000 rubles to the city for the construction of a hospital. This action marked the beginning of a whole series of similar charities. And the family’s total donations (large ones only) amounted to more than 3.5 million rubles.
The Bakhrushin family had a tradition at the end of the year, if it was financially prosperous, to allocate a certain amount to help the poor, sick, and students. They carried out charitable activities both in Zaraysk, where their parents were from, and in Moscow. According to the memoirs of contemporaries, the Bakhrushin family never gravitated towards luxury. A free hospital with two hundred beds for the terminally ill, a city orphanage and a shelter for village children from poor families, a free house where needy widows with children and female students lived, kindergartens, schools, free canteens and dormitories for female students - this is far from full list their benefactions. Vasily Alekseevich wrote a will, according to which five universities (Moscow University, Moscow Theological Academy and Seminary, Academy of Commercial Sciences and a men's gymnasium) received money for scholarships for students. Four theaters, including the Korsh Theater, were built partly with the money of the Bakhrushins.
Alexey Alexandrovich Bakhrushin (1865-1929)
Alexey Alexandrovich Bakhrushin
Merchant, philanthropist, famous collector, founder of the famous theater museum, which he donated to the Academy of Sciences in 1913.
A. Bakhrushin graduated from a private gymnasium and took up the family business - “Partnership of leather and cloth manufactory Alexey Bakhrushin and Sons.” But gradually he became interested in collecting and retired. Under the influence of his cousin, Alexei Petrovich Bakhrushin, he became a collector, and his interest in theatrical antiquities did not immediately awaken. Posters, programs for performances, photographic portraits of actors, sketches of costumes, personal belongings of artists - all this was collected in Bakhrushin’s house and became his passion. His son recalled that they laughed at Bakhrushin: “People around him looked at this as a whim of a rich tyrant, mocked him, offered to buy a button from Mochalov’s trousers or Shchepkin’s boots.” But this passion gradually took shape into a serious hobby, and on October 29, 1894, Bakhrushin presented an entire exhibition to the public. It was this day that Bakhrushin considered the founding day of the Moscow Literary and Theater Museum. He tried to most fully present the history of Russian theater from its very origins. He organized “Bakhrushin Saturdays,” which were very popular among actors and theatergoers. A. Yuzhin, A. Lensky, M. Ermolova, G. Fedotova, F. Shalyapin, L. Sobinov, K. Stanislavsky, V. Nemirovich-Danchenko visited him. Soon a tradition arose of not coming empty-handed. For example, the star of the Maly Theater Glikeria Nikolaevna Fedotova presented Bakhrushin with all the gifts that she had accumulated over the years of her stage life. His collection, which gradually became extensive and diverse, had three sections - literary, dramatic and musical.
Over time, A.A. Bakhrushin began to think about the fate of his wealth. He really wanted all of Moscow to have access to them. But when he proposed to transfer his museum to the ownership of the Moscow city government, the city leaders, as soon as they heard about it, began to brush it off in every possible way: “What are you talking about?! The Tretyakov and Soldenko meetings and I have suffered enough grief. And here you are with yours! Excuse me, for Christ’s sake!..”
His son, Yu.A. Bakhrushin recalled: “My father was in despair - the huge collection, which even then cost hundreds of thousands, offered free to government institutions, turned out to be of no use to anyone. It turned out to be impossible to break the bureaucratic inertia.” Only the Academy of Sciences became interested in the unique collection. It took four years to settle the formalities, and only in November 1913 did the transfer of the museum to the Academy of Sciences take place.
Theater Museum named after A.A. Bakhrushin
Russian patrons of the arts were educated people, so they tried to develop priority branches of domestic science, open galleries and museums to educate the country's population, help in the construction of theaters...
In this regard, one can recall the Tretyakov Gallery, the Shchukin and Morozov collections of modern French painting, the Moscow Private Opera of S.I. Mamontov, Moscow private opera S.I. Zimin, the already mentioned Moscow Art Theater, the Museum of Fine Arts, for the construction of which the factory owner, large landowner Yu.S. Nechaev-Maltsov spent more than 2 million rubles, Philosophical and Archaeological Institutes, Morozov clinics, Commercial Institute, Alekseev, Morozov trade schools, etc. Let's look at at least one example.
Moscow Private Russian Opera (Mamontov Opera)
Savva Mamontov supported this endeavor financially and morally. At first, the private opera troupe consisted of Italian and Russian singers, among whom were F. Chaliapin and N. Zabela, and the scenery and costumes were created by M. Vrubel. The years of Chaliapin's performances at the Mamontov Opera (he remained a soloist for four seasons - from 1896 to 1899) saw the rise of his artistic career. Chaliapin himself noted the importance of this time: “From Mamontov I received the repertoire that gave me the opportunity to develop all the main features of my artistic nature, my temperament”. Mamontov's patronage made it possible for Chaliapin's talent to fully reveal itself. The singer himself said: “S.I. Mamontov told me: “Fedenka, you can do whatever you want in this theater! If you need costumes, tell me and there will be costumes. If we need to stage a new opera, we’ll stage an opera! All this dressed my soul in festive clothes, and for the first time in my life I felt free, strong, able to overcome all obstacles.”
Savva Ivanovich Mamontov (1841-1918)
I. Repin "Portrait of S.I. Mamontov"
S.I. Mamontov was born into a wealthy merchant family. He graduated from high school, and then entered St. Petersburg University, later transferred to Moscow University, where he studied at the Faculty of Law. Mamontov’s father was engaged in the construction of railways, but his son was not attracted to this occupation, he was more interested in theater, although at the insistence of his father he had to delve into the family business, the construction of railways, and after the death of his father, take the post of director of the Moscow-Yaroslavl Railway Society. At the same time, he actively supported various types of creative activities, made new acquaintances with artists, helped cultural organizations, and organized home performances. In 1870, Mamontov and his wife bought the estate of the writer S.T. Aksakov in Abramtsevo, it later became the center of artistic life in Russia.
Abramtsevo Estate
Russian artists I.E. lived and worked here for a long time. Repin, M.M. Antokolsky, V.M. Vasnetsov, V. A. Serov, M. A. Vrubel, M. V. Nesterov, V. D. Polenov and E. D. Polenova, K. A. Korovin, as well as musicians (F. I. Chaliapin and others) . Mamontov provided significant support to many artists, including financial support, but was not involved in collecting activities.
However, in the 1890s, Savva Mamontov became bankrupt. Of course, not without the “help” of the state and the intrigues of interested parties (Director of the International Bank A. Yu. Rotshtein and Minister of Justice N. V. Muravyov). Mamontov was arrested and put in Taganskaya prison, his property was described. Despite all the efforts of Mamontov's friends and the positive opinion of the workers, he spent several months in prison. The release of Savva Mamontov was deliberately prevented by N.V. Muravyov, who purposefully searched for information about Mamontov’s abuses, but could not find anything.
In prison, Mamontov sculpted sculptures of guards from memory. The famous lawyer F.N. Plevako defended Savva Mamontov in court, witnesses said only good things about him, the investigation established that he did not embezzle money. The jury acquitted him, after which the courtroom erupted in applause.
Yaroslavl. Opening of the monument to Savva Mamontov
S. Mamontov's property was sold out almost completely, many valuable works went into private hands. The railway became state property at a cost significantly lower than the market value; part of the shares went to other entrepreneurs, including Witte’s relatives.
All debts were paid off. But Mamontov lost money and reputation and was no longer able to engage in entrepreneurial activity. Until the end of his life, he retained his love for art and the love of his old friends - artists and musicians.
Savva Ivanovich Mamontov died in April 1918 and was buried in Abramtsevo.
Varvara Alekseevna Morozova (Khludova) (1848-1918)
Varvara Alekseevna Morozova
In memory of her husband Abram Abramovich Morozov, she built psychiatric clinic on Devichye Pole, which, together with the purchased plot of land, was transferred to Moscow University, marking the beginning of the creation of the Clinical Campus on Devichye Pole. The cost of construction and equipment of the clinic amounted to more than 500,000 rubles, a huge amount of money at that time. The construction of the clinic was one of its first charitable activities. Somewhat earlier, during the life of her first husband, Varvara Alekseevna established an elementary school and craft classes at them. Initially, the school was located in the house of A. A. Morozov on Bolshaya Alekseevskaya Street, but later moved to a new, special building built for it, on a site specially acquired for it in 1899, donated to the city in 1901. This school was one of the first vocational schools in Moscow. The buildings of the Rogozhsky female and male primary schools were also built at the expense of V. A. Morozova.
V. A. Morozova made a great contribution to the creation of educational institutions: Prechistensky Work Courses and the City People's University named after. A. L. Shanyavsky. He received 50 thousand rubles from V. A. Morozova. Thanks to her participation and active assistance, a dormitory was built for students of the Imperial Technical School. In 1885, V. A. Morozova founded the first free public reading room in Moscow named after. I. S. Turgenev, designed for 100 readers and had a rich book fund. She donated significant funds to the needs of Moscow University. At her factory there was a hospital, a maternity hospital, and a trade school for child workers.
Mikhail Abramovich Morozov (1870-1903)
V. Serov "Portrait of M.A. Morozov"
The largest philanthropist of his time. With his funds, the Institute of Malignant Tumors was established (currently the building houses the Moscow Scientific Research Institute of Oncology named after P. A. Herzen), the hall of Greek sculpture in the Museum of Fine Arts. Various amounts were allocated to the conservatory and the Stroganov School to support young artists, performers and musicians. In the collection of M.A. Morozov read 60 icons, 10 sculptures and about 100 paintings, including works by contemporary French and Russian artists.
M.A. Morozov is the successor of the Morozov dynasty of philanthropists, merchant, entrepreneur, collector of Western European and Russian paintings and sculptures. He is the eldest son of the famous Moscow merchant Abram Abramovich Morozov and Varvara Alekseevna Morozova (Khludova), the elder brother of the collector and philanthropist Ivan Abramovich Morozov, the husband of the famous philanthropist and hostess of the Moscow literary and musical salon Margarita Kirillovna Morozova, the father of Mikhail Mikhailovich Morozov (Mika Morozov), a scientist -Shakespeare scholar and pianist Maria Mikhailovna Morozova (Fiedler). Hereditary honorary citizen. Director of the Tver Manufactory Partnership, member of the Moscow City Duma, honorary justice of the peace, chairman of the merchant meeting, collegiate assessor. Director of the Russian Musical Society.
Ivan Abramovich Morozov (1871-1921)
V. Serov "Portrait of I.A. Morozov"
Replenished M.A., who passed on after his brother. Morozov collection of a large number of paintings by impressionists and post-impressionists. After the revolution, the collection was nationalized and on its basis the II Museum of the New Western art(I The museum was the Shchukin collection). In 1940, the collection was disbanded partly into the Museum of Fine Arts, partly into the Hermitage. For example, his collection included the famous painting by P. Picasso “Girl on a Ball” ».
P. Picasso "Girl on a Ball"
Pyotr Ivanovich Shchukin (1857-1912)
Petr Ivanovich Shchukin
He collected and donated to the state a collection that formed the basis of the collection of the Historical Museum. Until the end of his life he remained the curator of the museum and continued to bear all expenses, pay salaries to employees and replenish the museum’s funds.
Sergei Ivanovich Shchukin (1854-1936)
D. Melnikov "Portrait of S.I. Shchukin"
Moscow merchant and art collector, whose collection marked the beginning of the collections of French modernist painting in the Hermitage and State Museum Fine Arts named after. A.S. Pushkin.
He collected a rich collection of paintings of modern Western painting, recognized years later as masterpieces of world art. According to his will, he donated his collection to the state.
E. Degas "Blue Dancers"
Shchukin bought paintings according to his taste, preferring the impressionists, and then the post-impressionists. Shchukin managed to collect the best examples of contemporary French art. He confessed to his daughter: “If you experience a psychological shock after seeing a painting, buy it”. In the collection of S.I. Shchukin had, for example, the painting “Blue Dancers” by E. Degas, as well as paintings by Monet, Picasso, Gauguin, Cezanne.
Fyodor Pavlovich Ryabushinsky (1886–1910)
F. Chumakov "Portrait of F.P. Ryabushinsky"
From a family of Russian industrialists and bankers. He was a passionate traveler and became interested in geography, an interest in which led him to the idea of organizing a scientific expedition to Kamchatka. With his plan, F. P. Ryabushinsky turned to several scientific institutions in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but did not find support from them. Only the Russian Geographical Society agreed to participate in its implementation.
At his expense, the expedition was carried out in 1908–1910. and named after him.
Organizational issues of the expedition were resolved by F. P. Ryabushinsky with scientists: oceanographer Yu. M. Shokalsky and cartographer P. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky. F. P. Ryabushinsky took over the financing of the expedition. He himself wanted to participate in it, but his illness did not allow him to do this. In 1910, he died of tuberculosis, but bequeathed to his relatives to see the expedition through to the end.
Yuri Stepanovich Nechaev-Maltsov (1834–1913)
I. Kramskoy "Portrait of Yu.S. Nechaev-Maltsov"
At the age of 46, Nechaev-Maltsov unexpectedly became the owner of an empire of glass factories, having received it in his will. His uncle, diplomat Ivan Maltsov, was the only one in Tehran who survived the events at the Russian embassy in Tehran, when the poet-diplomat Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov died. Maltsov left diplomacy and continued the family business: glass production in the town of Gus. He brought the secret of colored glass from Europe and began producing profitable window glass. This entire crystal and glass empire, along with two mansions in the capital, painted by Vasnetsov and Aivazovsky, was given to the middle-aged bachelor official Nechaev, and with them a double surname.
Professor Ivan Tsvetaev (father of Marina Tsvetaeva), who was organizing the Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, met him and convinced him to give 3 million for the completion of the Museum.
Yu.S. Nechaev-Maltsov not only did not want fame, but throughout the 10 years while the Museum was being created, he maintained anonymity. 300 workers hired by Nechaev-Maltsov mined white marble of special frost resistance in the Urals, and when it turned out that 10-meter columns for the portico could not be made in Russia, they chartered a steamship in Norway. From Italy he ordered skilled stonemasons.
With his money, a Technical School in Vladimir, an almshouse on Shabolovka and a church in memory of those killed on the Kulikovo Field were founded.
Entrance to St. George's Cathedral, donated by Yu. S. Nechaev-Maltsov to the city of Gus-Khrustalny
The Central State Historical Archive of the USSR contains many documents related in one way or another to charitable institutions. And all accompanying certificates to these documents end with the same words: “Abolished by the Great October Socialist Revolution.”
The work was in full swing - there was something to abolish. By the beginning of this century, the Office of the Empress Maria alone numbered 683 charitable societies and institutions, of which 645 were located in the European part of Russia - shelters, orphanages, almshouses.
In total, 11,040 charitable institutions operated in the Russian Empire by 1902. There were 19,108 parish boards of trustees. Yes, there were many people in need in Rus', but everyone received help and support from those who had it: not a single humiliated and insulted social group was left without attention. Many Russian charitable societies had their own distinctive signs. Believe me, their design, sophistication and originality were not inferior to military awards. To be accepted into society was considered a great honor. But, of course, it was not bravado with insignia that attracted wealthy people into the ranks of philanthropists. Let's say I. I. Betskoy is the son of the “last boyar” Field Marshal Trubetskoy and Baroness Wrede. He received his education in Paris and devoted his entire life to educational work in Russia. In St. Petersburg with light hand Betsky, based on Stasov’s project, the Smolny Institute for Noble Maidens was founded.
Under Alexander the First, Prince P. G. of Oldenburg shone in the field of professional charity: he devoted 42 years of his life to serving disadvantaged people. In St. Petersburg he founded the School of Law and the first night orphanage. Pyotr Georgievich spent more than a million rubles on charity. In 1889, a monument was erected to him on Liteiny Prospekt with the inscription: “To the blessed benefactor.” It's not hard to guess when the monument was demolished...
But for the most part, it was women who did charity work in Russia, and first of all, empresses. The great reformer Catherine the Second made charity a state industry.
Empress Maria Feodorovna advocated women's education and succeeded well in this direction.
Charity and patronage in Russia
In the old days, the word “charity” meant compassion for one’s neighbor, mercy. Various charitable institutions were built for those in need - hospitals, shelters, schools, colleges, almshouses. Charity was one of the main virtues of Christianity. In pre-revolutionary Russia, charity was usually not included in government programs to help the poor; it was carried out by private individuals and societies helping the needy. State aid was designated by the term “charity” (public charity). Charity was widespread in the state and public life of Russia. Even under Prince Vladimir, the poor and wretched could come to the prince’s court and receive there “all kinds of needs, drinks and food...”. This example was followed by Vladimir Monomakh, who outlined the prince’s duties towards the poor in the following words: “be fathers of orphans”; “do not leave the strong to destroy the weak”; “Don’t leave the sick without help.” Russian tsars and queens widely distributed alms during exits and trips, church holidays, and visits to prisons. Princely and royal charity was an example for the boyars.
The basis of charity in the pre-Petrine era were Orthodox churches and monasteries. Under the latter, almshouses were set up for the poor and elderly, and in lean years, food supplies were distributed from the monastery reserves to the hungry, and communal meals were organized for the poor.
In the 18th century The scale of Russian charity has increased significantly. In 1775, a special order for public charity appeared as part of the new provincial institutions. He was entrusted with the responsibility for education, treatment, the establishment of public schools, orphanages, shelters and almshouses for the elderly, workhouses and restraining houses. After 65 years, there were already about 800 such institutions in the country. In 1860-1870. concern for public charity was transferred to zemstvos and cities. In Moscow in 1894, district trustees for the poor were established everywhere.
Moscow occupied a special place in Russian charity. In Catherine's era, an orphanage (1763), a Widow's House (1772), the Catherine (1776) and Golitsyn (1801) hospitals, the Sheremetev Hospital for Strangers (1810) and many other large charitable institutions, often built according to the designs of famous architects, were opened here (Golitsyn M. F. Kazakov Hospital).
The rise and flourishing of charity in the second half of the 18th - first third of the 19th century. became a consequence of noble philanthropy (philanthropy). The construction of hospitals, shelters, almshouses for the poor population was a matter of honor and prestige. Rich noblemen D. M. Golitsyn, N. P. Sheremetev, A. N. Strekalova and others donated huge amounts of money for the establishment of various charitable institutions.
The system of charity in old Russia was distinguished by a variety of forms of institutions and societies. The activities of the institutions of the Department of Institutions of Empress Maria (1796), named after the wife of Emperor Paul I, were semi-governmental, semi-public in nature. By 1900, the Department of Maria consisted of more than 500 educational and charitable institutions, where tens of thousands of people lived, studied, and were treated. The largest institutions of Mary's Office included the council of orphanages, ladies' guardianship for the poor, the so-called Mariinsky hospitals for the poor, etc.
In parallel with the Office of Mary, in Russia there was a Philanthropic (from 1816 - Humane) Society created in 1802 on the initiative of Alexander I, the main goal of which was to provide voluntary, comprehensive assistance to the poor. In Moscow, the system of this society included famous almshouses - Maroseiskaya, Nabilkovskaya, Cherkasskaya, etc.
Church charity was widespread in Russia. Only in Moscow at the beginning of the 20th century. There were 69 church trusts for the poor. Moscow parish churches maintained more than 100 small almshouses.
Estate institutions were of particular importance in the system of private charity. In Moscow, at the expense of nobles, merchants, and priests, educational institutions, shelters, and almshouses were organized, where representatives of this class studied or lived.
Russian public and private charity since the second half of the 19th century. existed mainly on donations from merchants. The merits of this class are especially great for the development of charitable institutions in Moscow. Representatives of famous merchant dynasties: Alekseevs, Bakhrushins, Baevs, Boevs, Lyamins, Mazurins, Morozovs, Solodovnikovs, Khludovs and others - built dozens of charitable institutions and establishments at their own expense, and supplied them with modern medical equipment for those times.
In total, in Moscow by the beginning of the 20th century. there were 628 charitable institutions: almshouses, shelters, temporary shelters and hostels, shelters, free and cheap canteens and tea houses, houses of industry, communities of sisters of mercy, outpatient clinics, etc. The forms of assistance in them were also very diverse: provision of housing, overnight accommodation , free lunches, one-time or permanent cash and in-kind benefits, medical care, payment for medications. Charity in other cities of the Russian Empire had approximately the same structure.
The most important part of broad charity was patronage, which played a huge role in the formation and development of national culture. The word “patronage” comes from the name of the Roman statesman Gaius Cilnius Maecenas, who lived in the 1st century. BC e. and helped talented Roman poets of that time. The name of Maecenas, as a fan of fine arts and patron of poets, became a household name and entered the languages of many peoples of the world. We call patrons people who voluntarily donate money, fortune, etc. for the construction of various public buildings (temples, theaters, hospitals, educational institutions) that help artists, writers, poets, musicians. “In order for art to flourish,” wrote K. S. Stanislavsky, “we need not only artists, but also patrons of the arts.” It was through the efforts of patrons in Russia that vast collections of highly artistic monuments, museums, theaters and other centers of spiritual life were created.
Patronage as support by individuals for culture, science and art has developed in Russia since the 18th century, when the prerequisites for educational, museum-collecting and monument-preservation activities arose in the country. Wonderful collections of monuments of Western European art and extensive libraries were collected in city palaces and country estates of the nobility. However, only individual representatives of the Russian aristocracy of the 19th and early 20th centuries. - N.I. Rumyantsev, A.S. Uvarov and P.S. Uvarova, M.K. Tenisheva, Yu.S. Nechaev-Maltsev and others donated their collections to the state or donated large amounts of money for the establishment of new museums.
The heyday of philanthropy came in the second half of the 19th century. thanks to the Russian merchants, who adhered to the Orthodox traditions of helping their neighbors and supporting cultural public institutions. Patronage often became mandatory for many merchant families. Every big and small city had such patrons, but Moscow patrons were famous throughout Russia. The famous Morozov family of industrialists left behind many monuments of cultural and educational activities. Thus, at the expense of Maria Feodorovna and Feodosia Ermilovna Morozov, many Old Believer churches were built and decorated, Sergei Timofeevich Morozov built the Handicraft Museum in Leontyevsky Lane, and Savva Timofeevich built the magnificent building of the Art Theater.
Contemporaries called the Bakhrushin family of merchants professional philanthropists, who generously donated millions for the construction of churches and houses with free apartments. Alexander Alekseevich Bakhrushin donated a large sum of money for the construction of the Korsha Theater building (now the Gorky Moscow Art Theater on Moskvina Street). But most of all, Muscovites and Russians remember Alexei Alexandrovich Bakhrushin, the founder of the famous theater museum, donated by the owner in 1913 to the Academy of Sciences.
The Moscow merchants Shchukins were no less famous patrons of culture. Patronage and collecting are a long-standing tradition of this family. Pyotr Ivanovich, who collected huge collection monuments of Russian art, built a museum building on Gruzinskaya Street with his own money, and then in 1905 donated it to the Historical Museum with a collection of about 24 thousand items! His brother Sergei Ivanovich collected a remarkable collection of modern Western European paintings, which later became an adornment of the Museum of Fine Arts. A. S. Pushkin.
The basis of the world's largest museum of Russian art, the Tretyakov Gallery, was the collection of merchant Pavel Mikhailovich Tretyakov, which he donated to Moscow in 1892. The major railway industrialist Savva Ivanovich Mamontov, a multi-talented man, a great connoisseur and connoisseur of art, created a unique creative circle on his Abramtsevo estate, uniting such talented masters of Russian art as V.D. Polenov, M.A. Vrubel, V.M. Vasnetsov, V. A. Serov and others. On the stage of the Private Opera in Moscow, based on Mamontov’s funds, the genius of F. I. Chaliapin blossomed.
The first of them was apparently guided by religious motives. The norms of Orthodox morality, which placed Christian charity and helping all those in need at the forefront, prevailed among Russian business and merchants. Even those rich people who were not deeply religious were forced to dedicate significant sums to charity for the poor and to help culture for fear of being excommunicated from the Church on charges of money-grubbing and other vices.
Let us especially note that many Russian entrepreneurs and philanthropists came from Old Believer families, where children were raised according to the ancient rules of deanery - in severity and obedience, in the spirit of asceticism and love of kindness. Thus, the millionaire philanthropist, the largest Russian publisher K. T. Soldatenkov (1818-1901) spent his entire childhood in the Old Believer environment of the Rogozhskaya outpost, and later was a member of the Rogozhskaya Old Believer community. Members of the Ryabushinsky family, a large clan of merchants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, also professed the old faith. The very fact of belonging to Orthodox and Old Believer families did not necessarily mean deep piety of certain patrons. However, even in this case, family traditions of goodwill played, in our opinion, a decisive role in their philanthropic activities.
The second most important motivating factor in the activities of patrons of art was, undoubtedly, their patriotism, “Russianness”. Thus, L. Tretyakov, according to I. Repin, “carried on his own shoulders the question of the existence of an entire Russian school of painting. A colossal, extraordinary feat.”
S. Mamontov created Russian opera in Moscow, wrote V. Stasov, “at his own expense,” having an invaluable influence on all Russian opera art.
The publishing company of K. Soldatenkov specialized in publishing the works of major Russian writers - I. Turgenev, N. Nekrasov, A. Koltsov, etc. At the same time, the capital's leading patrons of the arts actively collected and promoted Western European art. And this is no accident; their patriotism did not interfere, but helped to correctly evaluate the achievements of foreign culture in their relation to Russian culture.
Finally, the third group of Russian patrons acted, apparently, out of a desire to receive social benefits and privileges - ranks, titles, orders, nobility. This issue was considered quite fully by A. Bokhanov, who correctly pointed out that “charity often opened up the only opportunity for entrepreneurs to receive ranks, titles and other distinctions that were practically impossible to achieve in any other way (in particular, through one’s professional activities”). Ranks and orders were, of course, not an end in themselves - they provided an opportunity to increase class status. Thus, all orders of the 1st degree and Vladimir of the 4th degree (from 1900 - 3rd degree) made it possible to obtain hereditary nobility. From this point of view, the story of entrepreneur-philanthropist L. S. Polyakov is very characteristic (he contributed large amounts to the Rumyantsev Museum and the Museum of Fine Arts), who received the Order of Vladimir III degree and Stanislav I degree and achieved nobility on this basis. Some patrons “ordered” orders and honorary titles in exchange for contributions: for example, the directors of the Moscow Philharmonic Society on the eve of its 25th anniversary in 1903 indicated in a petition who should receive which award: D. Vostryakov - Order of Stanislav, 1st degree, B Vostryakov - the title of manufactory advisor, K. Gutheil - the Order of Vladimir, IV degree, etc. But these cases were still not typical for Russian philanthropy: for example, the mentioned directors of MFOs played, as we will see below, an important role in financing the Moscow Art Theater, but did not put forward such conditions.
Sources of patronage investments
An economic analysis of philanthropic activities requires a thorough analysis of the sources of charitable investments. Money is not taken out of thin air; it is, as a rule, withdrawn from the trade and industrial spheres and transferred to the cultural and artistic sectors. It is quite difficult to trace these financial flows, since under conditions of private ownership of the means of production, capital owners and patrons are reluctant to share their trade secrets with the public. Nevertheless, some conclusions can be drawn here from a comparison of the commercial and industrial activities of patrons of the arts and their charitable work. Specific examples show that the initial capital of patrons was created by their ancestors - grandfathers, fathers; the younger generation partly increased the inheritance, partly gave it a different purpose.
Thus, the founder of the Bakhrushin dynasty was Alexey Fedorovich (1800-1848), who founded a leather production in Moscow and had three sons - Alexander, Vasily and Peter, who also established a cloth factory in 1864. Peter's son, Alexey (1853-1904), became a famous collector who bequeathed his fortune to the Historical Museum, and Alexander's son, Alexey (1865-1929), financed the construction of the F.A. Korsh Theater, convened the First Theater Museum in Russia - now the State Central Theater Museum named after A. A. Bakhrushin.
K. T. Soldatenkov’s father traded in cotton yarn and calicoes. After his death, his son continued his business, expanded it and became a shareholder in a number of large companies, including the Nikolskaya Manufactory.
G. G. Solodovnikov’s father was engaged in manufacturing trade in Ukraine at the beginning of the 19th century. Gavrila Gavrilovich himself was the owner of the Solodovnikov Passage store on Kuznetsky Most in Moscow, a banker, and a large landowner.
The Tretyakov family has long traded linen. By the end of the 40s of the XIX century. The Tretyakovs owned 5 shops in the shopping arcades between Ilyinka and Varvarka. In the 50s, brothers Pavel and Sergei created trading house under the sign "Partnership of brothers P. and S. Tretyakov and V. Konshin" In the mid-60s, they managed to build several linen factories on the outskirts of Kostroma and establish the "Partnership of the Great Kostroma Linen Manufactory" with a capital of 270 thousand rubles. This production became the basis of their patronage and charity.
The Morozov dynasty is textile manufacturers. At the end of the 19th century. they owned four companies - the Partnership of the Nikolskaya Manufactory "Savva Morozov Son and Co", the Partnership of the Manufactory "Vikula Morozov with Sons", the Company of the Bogorodsko-Glukhovskaya Manufactory and the Partnership of the Tver Manufactory. The most important of them was the Nikolskaya manufactory - now the Cotton Mill named after K.I. Nikolaeva in Orekhovo-Zuevo, Moscow region. It was this manufactory that he headed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. the famous Savva, she became the source of his fabulous income and donations.
Savva Mamontov's father and uncle were wine farmers. Father, Ivan Fedorovich, was engaged in farming in Siberia - in Shadrinsk and Yalutorovsk. At the end of the 40s, he moved to Moscow to head the taxation economy of the Moscow province. At the end of the 50s, together with V. A. Kokorev, he founded the Trans-Caspian trading partnership, which traded silk with Persia, and in the 60s he built the Trinity Iron road to Sergiem Posad, is part of the management of the Company. Moscow-Yaroslavl railway. Ivan Fedorovich transferred all his capital and experience to Savva, who, after the death of his father, became director of the Moscow-Yaroslavl Railway Society, extended it to Kostroma and Vologda, received a concession for the Donetsk railway, which was finally built by 1882. Thus, by the middle In the 80s, Savva Mamontov’s capital, which arose from farming out, silk trading and railway construction, began to look for new areas for investment. And art became such an investment.
These are the most typical examples, showing the history of the emergence of capital of large patrons of the arts. The philanthropic activity itself was a form of “transfusion” of funds from the material and production sector of the economy into the cultural and artistic sector.
Patrons-organizers: K. Stanislavsky, S. Morozov and Moscow Art Theater
Vivid examples of the activities of the philanthropist-organizer were provided by the Russian theater and concert business of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, primarily the history of the famous Moscow Art Theater. This topic has already been covered in the book by Yu. Orlov. We will try to deepen the study of the patronage aspect of the activities of K. Stanislavsky and S. Morozov and offer the simplest classification of forms of patronage in connection with the history of the Moscow Art Theater organization. As history shows, a theatrical patron could act as a tenant, founder, shareholder, entrepreneur and landlord. We will consider these five forms of activity.
Even before the creation of the Moscow Art Theater, its founder K. Stanislavsky gained experience in philanthropy. In his memoirs, he noted that the activities of P. M. Tretyakav, K. T. Soldatenkov, S. I. Shchukin, A. A. Bakhrushin had a huge influence on him: “And with what modesty P. M. Tretyakov patronized the arts! I would have recognized the famous Russian Medici in an embarrassed, timid, tall and thin figure, reminiscent of a clergyman! With a kind word He also mentioned S.I. Mamontov, the creator of the Russian private opera: its artistic principles and organizational form were studied in detail by him back in the late 80s of the 19th century.
In 1888, he himself acted as a philanthropist-tenant. At the end of this year there was Grand opening Moscow Society of Art and Literature (MOIL); Stanislavsky not only prepared a draft agreement on the creation of MOIL, but also rented premises for it in the Ginzburg house on Tverskaya for three years for 26.1 thousand rubles. In addition to renting, he was obliged to bring the rented premises into decent shape, update the stage and props, buy furniture, etc. In response, the Company accepted all these expenses in the form of a debt, considering them as an open-ended loan; if the annual fee was not paid, the debt was transferred “to the following years until it is finally repaid.” Konstantin Sergeevich did not stipulate any rights for himself personally in this project, with the exception of the acquisition of all MOIL property in the event of its termination. Despite such preferential conditions, the enterprise actually failed: already in 1890, Stanislavsky’s debts grew so much that the question of closing the Company arose. But it didn't come to that; They only decided to sharply reduce rental costs by moving to a small apartment on Povarskaya.
Such a sad experience benefited the future business. When, during the famous meeting on June 22, 1897 in the Slavic Bazaar, and then in a letter dated July 12 of the same year, V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko suggested that K. Stanislavsky conduct the business “in the first years at his own risk,” through an enterprise , then the latter responded on July 19 with a refusal: “Taught by bitter experience, I promised myself never to conduct theatrical business at my own risk, since I do not have the right to do this, partly because I am not rich enough for this (my capital is 300,000, which are all entirely in business), and, secondly, because I am a family man...". Stanislavsky was a shareholder and co-director of the factory of the Vladimir Alekseev partnership; he knew well the economic philosophy of the Moscow merchant-philanthropist and therefore proposed creating not a theatrical enterprise, but a partnership on shares: in the first case, as he believed, merchants “on principle will not go to theater, and in the second case, only out of principle, they will shell out a lot of money and go to the theater to support “their business.” Thus, Konstantin-Sergeevich refused to become a philanthropist-entrepreneur, a philanthropist-tenant, and invited Vladimir Ivanovich Nemirovich-Danchenko to become philanthropists-founders. , that is, to take on the gratuitous work of preparing the constituent documents of the joint-stock partnership. And Nemirovich-Danchenko gave in, although he did not completely agree with this idea. Soon Stanislavsky showed him his draft charter of the Joint Stock Company "National Public Theatres", the second edition of which was made by him. back in 1895. Already in August 1897, Nemirovich-Danchenko made notes on it, agreeing in principle with the share partnership model. This project sets out the goals of public theaters, the form of their establishment, the composition of the founders, as well as a capital of 1 million rubles. out of 10 thousand shares at 100 rubles. each. These ideas were developed by Nemirovich-Danchenko a little later - in the report "Moscow Public Theater", read at a meeting of the Russian Technical Society on January 15, 1898. "It clearly reflected the three goals of the new theater - to provide comfortable seats for poor people at low prices , to bring performing arts out of routine, to give the opportunity to develop to young forces who received a theater education. Thus, Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko made an intellectual contribution to the formation of a new theatrical enterprise, acting as founding patrons.
But to create a new theater, patrons and shareholders were also required who could contribute initial capital. Attempts to find support from millionaire V. A. Morozova, the wife of S. Morozov’s cousin, as well as from other large Moscow merchants, did not yield results; An appeal to the Moscow Duma for help also remained unanswered. And here Nemirovich-Danchenko found a witty move, who, having studied well the philosophy of merchants and patrons of the arts, knew that in “Moscow cultural life, private initiative always tried to find support for itself in some kind of patronage.” Teaching at the Music and Drama School at the Moscow Philharmonic Society, under the patronage of Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna, Vladimir Ivanovich subtly used the high public assessment of his work by the princess and managed to attract to his side wealthy entrepreneurs who were directors of the Moscow Philharmonic Society. Already on April 10, 1898, the agreement on the establishment of a public theater was signed by 10 shareholders. The largest contributions were made by K. S. Stanislavsky and S. T. Moroeov - 5 thousand rubles each, and V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko entered with “personal labor”. Among the shareholders were also 5 wealthy directors of the Company - D. R. Vostryakov, N. A. Lukutin, N. A. Prokofiev, K. K. Ushkov and K. A. Gutheil, as well as a member of the Board of Trustees of the same company K. V. Osipov: their total contribution was 13 thousand rubles. The total capital of the future theater increased to 28 thousand rubles, which was enough to start a business. It is noteworthy that the contract was concluded “on the basis of V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko’s brochure “Moscow Public Theater” attached to this agreement.” Thus, the ideas of the founding philanthropists Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko were embodied in the form of a model that had no analogues - this there was a joint-stock company without shares, a mutual partnership: out of 10 shareholders, only 2 represented the theater itself, 8 others were outsiders, actually patrons and shareholders.
Among the shareholders was the name of S. Morozov - a man who, in the words of Stanislavsky, “was destined to play in our theater the important and wonderful role of a patron of the arts, who knows how not only to make material sacrifices to art, but also to serve it with all devotion...”. Why was there a need for Morozov’s capital? The answer to this question is contained in the table
Already the first season of the Moscow Art Theater finished with a deficit of 38.9 thousand rubles. Part of this deficit was covered by reserve capital of 28 thousand rubles, in addition; Stanislavsky refused the salary of the director and chief director, which gave another 7 (2 thousand; the situation remained difficult, however. It worsened even more in the third season, when expenses jumped by almost 100 thousand rubles, and the deficit increased to almost 80 thousand rubles The increase in ticket prices did not help either, which increased the collections, but threatened the main principle of the theater - accessibility to the public. And at that moment Savva Morozov saved the theater.
Morozov assumed the functions of a philanthropist-entrepreneur. For the first four seasons, he was the largest shareholder and, in addition, covered the deficits noted above. In the fifth season, when the initial three-year contract expired, he drew up a new three-year “Condition” between the shareholders of the Moscow Art Theater, according to which a new “Partnership on shares of 15 shareholders with a capital of 65 thousand rubles was formed, where Morozov himself owned the largest share of 14 , 8 thousand rubles, while other shareholders were credited to him on very preferential terms. He retained the position of Chairman of the Board and the right to general control over the entire course of the business, but he intended to subsidize the theater in the following form: Morozov assumed an obligation to rent Lianozov’s house. Kamergersky Lane, rebuild the stage and hall for 1200 seats, and then transfer the entire premises to the theater for 3 years with a rent of 15 thousand rubles. The theater was rebuilt by the patron in a fantastically short time - no more than six months, with. April to October 1902, that is, just in time for the beginning of the fifth season, the renovation was expensive - 350 thousand rubles, but during it such technical innovations were implemented that were not thought about in the best theaters of the West - a rotating stage, a huge hatch, a counter ramp, a special lighting system controlled by an “electric piano”, and even individually equipped dressing rooms! The success exceeded all expectations: in the fifth and sixth seasons, the theater not only rose to a new creative level, but also achieved a positive balance sheet. A third of the profit received was distributed, according to the “Conditions,” among shareholders as a dividend, the rest replenished the working capital. The philanthropist-entrepreneur's calculation turned out to be correct: Morozov saved the Moscow Art Theater from financial disaster.
However, the victory of S. T. Morozov contained the grain of his future defeat. His breakup with the Moscow Art Theater was brewing. This first manifested itself in the 8 frequent conflicts between the philanthropist and V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, in the cooling of his relations with other shareholders, in Morozov’s desire to support M.F. Andreeva, who submitted a letter of resignation from the theater in February 1904. The internal reason for the break, however, was different - the contradiction between the philanthropist-entrepreneur's claims to the sole leadership of the organizational side of the Moscow Art Theater and the internal laws of the share partnership, which the theater actually was, was aggravated. This conflict broke out on April 21, 1904, when Nemirovich-Danchenko sent Savva Timofeevich a draft of a new Partnership to continue the work of the Moscow Art Theater from June 15, 1905: in this project, the form of partnership was recognized as more preferable than the entrepreneurial one, and there was no place for Morozov in it .
Savva initially responded with a complete refusal to participate in the case, but after persuasion he put forward counter conditions under which he agreed to the role of philanthropist-landlord. In a letter to V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko dated April 30, 1904, he reported an increase in rent from 15 thousand to 25 thousand rubles, which, however, only indicated a reduction in the subsidy, but not its termination: given that the cost of rebuilding the theater amounted to 350 thousand rubles, and the repayment period for this amount was determined at 9 years at 4% per annum, Morozov believed that the full rent should have been 40 thousand rubles. The patronage subsidy thus amounted to 15 thousand rubles. In the fall, November 29, S. T. Morozov, in a letter to K. S. Stanislavsky and A. A. Stakhovich, proposed to consider his share of 14.8 thousand rubles. either as a loan to the Partnership with the latter’s obligation to accrue interest, or as a share contribution with the right to receive a dividend on it. All these proposals were accepted by the Moscow Art Theater, which was enshrined in the “Conditions” between the 13 shareholders of the theater and the philanthropist-landlord S. T. Morozov dated January 5, 1905. In it, the rent was increased to 53 thousand rubles. per year, but at the same time Morozov assumed the costs of insurance, water and electricity supply to the building. In essence, the agreement indicated the transformation of the philanthropist into a commercial subtenant, renting Lianozov’s house to rent it out to the Partnership in order to cover losses from the restructuring and make a profit. It seemed that Savva’s philanthropic project had collapsed.
But fate decreed otherwise. Savva’s death, which followed on May 13, 1905, that is, 4 months after the signing of the last “Conditions,” freed the Moscow Art Theater from painful debt payments: having passed away, Morozov left his capital to the theater. Therefore, for posterity he remained not a landlord, but a philanthropist, a philanthropist, which is why he deserved eternal memory.
Patrons-collectors: the Tretyakov brothers and their gallery
The first attempt to organize the first Russian art gallery - the Russian Museum - dates back to the beginning of the 19th century. Its founder, P. P. Svinin (1787-1839), was forced to sell off his unique collection in 1829 due to financial difficulties. Svinin’s proposal, made to the state treasury in 1829, did not meet with a sympathetic response, and in 1834 the emperor refused the collector, allowing him to sell the collection abroad. After the collector’s death, some of his paintings were acquired by the Academy of Sciences, some were included in the collection of F. I. Pryanishnikov, and ultimately - in the Tretyakov Gallery. But all this happened against the will of the owner of the collection.
The art collection of N. D. Bykov (1812-1884), which began to take shape in the 30s of the 19th century, had a similar fate. After the death of the owner, it was divided between the heirs and a significant part of it was sold at auction in October 1884. Although part of Bykov’s collection went to the Tretyakov Gallery and some other museums, the collection as a whole ceased to exist.
A different, happier fate awaited the art gallery of F. I. Pryanishnikov, a minister, member of the State Council, who did a lot “to alleviate the miserable fate of our artists.” His gallery is the only Russian private art collection acquired by the treasury: it was purchased in 1865 for 70 thousand rubles. and left to Pryanishnikov for lifelong ownership. After 2 years it was added to the collection of the Academy of Arts, and a little later it was donated to the Moscow Public Museum. This interest of the government is explained not only by the high artistic significance of this gallery, but also, probably, by the high social position of its founder, F.I. Pryanishnikov, who, however, did not become a philanthropist: he sold his collection to the state, therefore, realized significant material interest.
Until now we have been talking about St. Petersburg collectors. Moscow collections had a similar fate. Back in May 1810, according to the will of Prince A.M. Golitsyn, an art gallery was opened at the Golitsyn hospital - the first public art museum in Russia. But after 6 years, her heir - Prince S. M. Golitsyn - decided to sell it in order to use the proceeds to expand the hospital.
The famous Moscow merchant-gatherer V. A. Kokorev (1817-1889) also failed in this field. The gallery was created by him at his own expense and was conceived very broadly - as a museum of old and new, Russian and Western European painting. The gallery was located in a mansion on Bolshoy Trekhsvyatitelsky Lane, equipped with the latest museum technology and which became the first special building in Moscow. But as a result of financial troubles, Kokorev was forced to sell it and in 1864 move the gallery to his mansion on Sofia Embankment. From that moment on, he began to sell off the collection. In 1866, he approached the Ministry of the Imperial Household with a proposal to buy part of the collection, in 1869 he had similar negotiations with P. M. Tretyakov, and the following year - with the heir to the throne, Alexander Alexandrovich. Buyers made a number of acquisitions, but abandoned “bulk purchases.” The remains of the collection were sold by the heirs of V. A. Kokorev in 1890-1910, and many valuable works went for next to nothing.
The fate of the collection of K. T. Soldatenkov (1818-1901), the largest private collector of the second half of the 19th century, who came from among the Old Believers merchants of the Rogozh outpost, turned out to be different. Already in the 60s of the XIX century. his gallery, located in the rich and famous Soldatenkovs’ house on Myasnitskaya, became an artistic landmark of the capital. In the 90s, towards the end of his life, Soldatenkov faced the same problem as most Russian collectors: what to do with his collection? He resolved this issue differently than his predecessors, bequeathing his extensive library and about 300 paintings, including 230 Russian paintings, to the Rumyantsev Museum. Thus, in the person of Kuzma Terentyevich Soddatenkov we see one of the first classical Russian philanthropists who created a collection and disinterestedly, according to a will, donated it to society. Soldatenkov failed in only one thing - he failed to create his own gallery, which could immortalize his name. This luck fell to the lot of the Tretyakov brothers, who showed the world the highest example of Russian philanthropy.
The economic philosophy of the Tretyakov philanthropists was best manifested in their wills. Pavel Mikhailovich's first testamentary letter was written by him at the age of 28, on May 17, 1860 in Warsaw. Of the total capital belonging to him, 266 thousand rubles. Pavel Mikhailovich bequeathed to give 150 thousand rubles - for the establishment in Moscow of an “art museum or public art gallery". The entrance fee to the gallery was supposed to be 10-15 kopecks in silver, and the fees, according to the testator, were to be "deposited into the reserve capital of the gallery and increased with interest as much as possible." Tretyakov intended to spend a third of the total capital on purchasing the collection F. Pryanishnikov, which was to merge with the Tretyakov collection and form the core of the gallery. With most of the remaining amount, a “society of art lovers, but private, not from the government, and most importantly, without bureaucrats” was to be organized: this society was to be governed in the future. gallery, buy a house for it, purchase new works, etc.
28 years later, on November 16, 1888, Sergei Mikhailovich Tretyakov wrote his will. In it, he joins his brother in his decision to transfer the Tretyakov house and the collection located in it to the Moscow City Duma, but on Pavel Mikhailovich’s terms; in addition, Sergei Mikhailovich donated 100 thousand rubles to the Moscow city government, the interest from which was to be used to purchase works by Russian artists in order to replenish the collection. This will was announced 4 years later - on July 25, 1892, when Sergei Mikhailovich died; a month later Pavel Mikhailovich writes a statement to the Moscow city council, in which he confirms the decision jointly with his brother to transfer the collection to Moscow and puts forward a number of conditions to the Duma: to retain the right of his family to use living quarters in the house, to reserve the place of lifelong trustee of the gallery, to provide free visits to the gallery at least 4 times a week and etc. It took the Duma only two weeks to accept the gift on the terms of a patron: the gallery became state, but retained the memory of its creators in its name - it became the Tretyakov Gallery.
Four years later, on September 6, 1896, shortly before his death, Pavel Mikhailovich wrote his second and last will, in which he contributed “one hundred thousand rubles to use interest for the repair of the Gallery, one hundred twenty-five thousand rubles to purchase, with interest from this amount, paintings and sculptures works of art to replenish the collection..." After 8 months, however, the philanthropist makes a codicil to the will, directing the specified amount of 125 thousand rubles. not for replenishing the collection, but “for repairs and maintenance of the gallery, together with the amount assigned above.”
What are the features of the Tretyakov brothers’ philanthropy, what is their economic philosophy? They carried on their shoulders and preserved for posterity the Russian national school of painting, thereby accomplishing, as already said, “a colossal, extraordinary feat.” Unlike their predecessors, from the very first steps they refused to use the collection for commercial purposes - they set the goal of donating it to Moscow, Russia. Collecting works of Russian fine art had been practiced before them - just remember the collections of Svinin and Pryanishnikov, but only the Tretyakovs managed to assemble a holistic, representative, comprehensive, characteristic collection. Having bequeathed it to Moscow, they repeated Soldatenkov’s step, but unlike him, they created their own gallery, immortalizing their name and business.
At the same time, this act of Russian patrons should not be overly idealized - after all, they were entrepreneurs, people with practical savvy. Their views went through a complex evolution, which can most easily be traced by comparing the wills of the Tretyakov brothers. In the initial plan, the “museum” was supposed to be exclusively public, in the final version - public-state, under the control of the Moscow Duma, subject to a number of restrictive conditions: the whole business was to be managed by a public trustee, the composition of the collection was to remain constant, the premises galleries could not be rented out, etc. This model was developed by Pavel Mikhailovich in 1860-1888, for it was already recorded quite definitely in Sergei Mikhailovich’s will: The issue of increasing the collection was never resolved by Pavel Mikhailovich: a later note about the redirection of 125 thousand rubles. was made, according to experts, under the influence of the testator’s dissatisfaction with the contemporary state of Russian art of the late 90s of the 19th century; Tretyakov was afraid of formalistic tendencies, which he thought posed a threat to the integrity of the collection.
The thoughtfulness of the Tretyakovs’ plan, their selflessness and patriotism determined the success of their project. In the Regulations on the management of the gallery, approved by the Moscow Duma in June 1899 and October 1904, all the wishes of the brothers regarding trustees and the organization of the museum’s work were taken into account. Later, in 1913-1916, the new trustee I.E. Grabar slightly changed the exhibition, the gallery was replenished with new works, the building was reconstructed, but the main idea of the Tretyakovs remained - there was a public Russian national gallery in Moscow. Nowadays, when gallery management is tempted to raise the entrance fee or include alien works in the collection, one should more often turn to the conclusions of the gallery’s founders: their economic philosophy, we hope, will help determine the appearance of the present and future Tretyakov Gallery.
Summing up our study of the economic philosophy of the great Russian patrons of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, we note their decisive role in the development of domestic entrepreneurship and culture. By their nature, these are tragic figures: the transfer of huge sums from the commercial sector to the non-profit sector challenged the world of business and the laws of a market economy, and this inevitably entailed envy, ridicule, ostracism from fellow entrepreneurs, and sometimes the danger of ruin. Even the world of culture and art did not always correctly accept and evaluate these sacrifices: after all, in order to receive gifts it was necessary, as V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko recalled, “to humiliate ourselves in the living room... people whom we, speaking sincerely... did not respect , - neither them nor their capital." And patrons of the arts felt this cold, but the best of them still made sacrifices in the interests of culture as a whole, its future creators and performers. And it was the right choice: grateful descendants visiting galleries and theaters, libraries and museums created with the funds of old patrons of the arts sometimes remember people who took on a heavy cross and bore it in order to “become perfect.”
Departmental institutions of Empress Maria: provincial guardianship of orphanages
Since ancient times, mercy and virtue have been an important part of Russian self-awareness. The adoption of Christianity in Rus' put charity at a higher level, giving it, first of all, systematicity and ideological justification. Proof of this can be the theory of “Holy Rus'” that appeared in the 16th century, one of the postulates of which is that in order to achieve the Kingdom of God it is necessary to constantly do good in relation to the orphans and wretched of this world. However, the development of charity in Rus', and later in Russia, cannot be entirely credited to the Orthodox Church; the church only managed to use the features of the people that we know as “Russian”, and it does not matter here that a fairly significant part of it consisted not Slavs. Quite harsh climatic conditions, limitless spaces, and raids by hostile tribes prompted a form of community life that we know as “Rope.”
Representatives of all classes took a lively and active part in the daily care of the suffering. In the history of charity in Rus', two main periods can be distinguished, firstly, the period of pre-Petrine Rus', the main characteristic of which is the rather weak participation of the state in charitable acts. Russian princes and tsars, performing acts of charity, acted not as personifications of the state, but as private individuals. The second period was the period from the times of Peter the Great until the events of 1917-18. This period is characterized by the dominant role of the state in the matter of charity, which was determined, first, by the needs of the Russian Empire under construction, and then by the specifics of its existence; as a second feature of this stage, we can highlight the toughening of the attitude of officials towards the suffering.
This chapter makes an attempt to briefly highlight the issue of the formation of a system of charitable institutions in the Pskov land, using the example of orphanages.
History of the formation of orphanages in Russia
Since the 70s of the 18th century, a special place in the administration of each province was occupied by the Order of Public Charity, which was in charge of educational, medical, and also charitable institutions. The chairman of the Order of Public Charity was the governor himself. It also included the leader of the nobility, the mayor, 6 representatives from the nobility, merchants and state peasants. The order was subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Senate. However, despite the fact that the state began to take control of charitable institutions and everything connected with them, monasteries continued to make a great contribution to helping those in need, and in the 18th century, orphanages began to open en masse. The first Russian large industrialists also contributed to the cause of charity, so in 1837, in St. Petersburg, with the funds of P. G. Demidov, the first non-monastic shelter in Russia was opened. A year later, according to the order of Nicholas I, the Main Trusteeship of Children's Shelters was established under the Highest patronage of the Empress, and on December 27, 1839, the Regulations on Children's Shelters developed by the trusteeship were approved. According to the regulations, the shelters provided temporary shelter and primary education to young children.
In 1840, in April, the chairman of the Main Guardianship, Grigory Aleksandrovich Stroganov, recommended that all governors take the initiative and set up orphanages. So by 1843, 12 shelters were opened in one capital of Russia.
Pskov orphanage of St. Olga
In Pskov, the first orphanage was opened in 1844. On March 15, 1844, Major General Fyodor Fedorovich Bartolomei addressed through the Pskov Provincial Gazette with a special “Invitation to the charity of the existing children’s shelter,” in addition, it was reported that, at his request, the empress on January 31, 1844 assigned the first proposed shelter in Pskov, the name of the Pskov orphanage "St. Olga of Russia", in memory of Princess Olga, who was born in the vicinity of Pskov. Also, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna made a monetary gift for the future shelter in the amount of 300 rubles. The direct patronage of the shelter was provided by Princess Olga Nikolaevna, daughter of Nicholas I.
A clear example of assistance to the future shelter from the reigning persons, as well as the governor’s appeal to all classes and officials, had an effect; more than 3 thousand rubles were quickly collected. A native of the Pskov province, V. G. Zhukovsky (statesman, public figure, industrialist and philanthropist) also assisted in organizing the shelter. They were given 1000 rubles in banknotes for the needs of the shelter and in the future they were promised to donate 100 rubles in banknotes annually.
On July 11, 1844, in the winter cathedral of the Annunciation, where the Olginsky limit was located, Archbishop of Pskov and Livonia Nathanael 1st Pavlovsky, in the presence of all the provincial authorities, served the Divine Liturgy, thereby timing the opening of the shelter to coincide with the day of memory of St. Olga. After the service, the archbishop illuminated the premises of the shelter. The pupils were treated to a festive lunch. The guests of honor toasted the health of the Imperial House and the prosperity of the first shelter in Pskov, and at the same time made new donations.
Subsequently, the Olginsky orphanage existed on donations from wealthy Pskov residents. The management of the shelter in the first years of its existence was carried out on a voluntary basis, created for these purposes by local trusteeship. Elena Mikhailovna Bartolomei (the governor's wife) was appointed the first trustee of the shelter, and the director of the governor's office, Konstantin Ivanovich Pinabela, was appointed. From 1858 to 1859 The shelter's trustee was Varvara Stepanovna Perovskaya (mother of Sofia Perovskaya), wife of Vice-Governor Lev Perovsky.
When it opened, 40 children were accepted into the shelter, of which 31 were girls and 9 boys. However, since 1863, only girls were accepted into the orphanage. At that time, pensioners lived in the shelter until they were 12 years old. The pupils wore calico dresses and white dresses. And the rest of the children who came could visit the orphanage until they were 16 years old. Essentially, they only spent the night with their parents, and they spent the whole day at the orphanage, where they received food and education. The pupils were trained according to the 3-year primary school program. Special attention during training, handicrafts were emphasized. The pupils sewed linen for the orphanage, and from 1863, they began to accept private orders from townspeople.
The main task of the orphanage management, in addition to educating the pupils, was to find funds for the maintenance of the orphanage. In addition to events to collect private donations, concerts and charity performances were held, which brought in an income of 200-300 rubles, and lotteries were also held, for which items were donated by Pskov residents. Difficult times for the shelter came in the 60-70s. 19th century, when the volume of monetary donations sharply decreased, but thanks to the efforts of the shelter administration, the situation was corrected. And from the end of 1872, the shelter had regular donors who pledged to annually contribute an amount of at least 100 rubles and received in return the title of honorary members of the trusteeship.
In the first years of its existence, the shelter was located in the rented house of the Litvinovs on Sergievskaya Street. In 1848, the trusteeship purchased a house for 2,500 rubles. It was a one-story wooden house with outbuildings and a garden. Somewhat later, another two-story house was purchased. In 1905, not only the oldest Pskov orphanage of St. Olga under the direct patronage of Their Imperial Majesties (Maria Alexandrovna, Maria Feodorovna), opened in 1844, was under the jurisdiction of the Pskov Provincial Trusteeship of orphanages, and outside the provincial city the supervision of the Toropetsk District Trusteeship, opened in 1860, Kholmsky District Guardianship, opened in 1867. Porkhovsky District Guardianship, opened in 1900. And just as before, the Provincial Trusteeship took care of the material and spiritual development of the Pskov orphanage of St. Olga, which was under their care; as in previous years, the orphanage was exclusively for girls. There were 40 girls fully supported by the orphanage, the rest - 91 pupils - were visitors. It should be noted that the number of pensioners at the orphanage remained unchanged for decades, starting from 1844, and amounted to 40 pupils, but since 1872 their number was increased to 60.
The orphanage school taught:
1. God's Law
2. Russian language
3. Church Slavonic language
4. Reading
5. Arithmetic
6. Choral singing
As before, much attention in organizing the educational process was paid to teaching handicrafts and gardening.
The entire daily routine of the shelter was under the constant supervision of the shelter's trustee, the governor's wife, Countess Ekaterina Nikolaevna Adlerberg and her assistant, the wife of retired Major General Sofia Karlovna Ushakova. The director of the shelter, a Pskov merchant nephew, Ilya Aleksandrovich Safyanshchikov, was in charge of the economic part. The state of health of the pupils was monitored by a doctor, state councilor, Ludwig Tsarevich Byaloblotsky (and free of charge). The maintenance of each pupil cost 127 rubles per year. 50 kopecks, and for each person coming - 12 rubles. 50 kopecks The daily food allowance was 9 kopecks for each pupil.
On May 29, 1905, the 25th anniversary of the acceptance by Her Imperial Majesty the Empress Maria Feodorovna of the Office of the Institutions of the Empress Maria Feodorovna under Her August Patronage was celebrated by performing a prayer service of thanks to God in the presence of the chairman of the guardianship and their honorary members, the service and administrative staff of the orphanage and the children in care, to whom the religious teacher of the shelter, Archpriest Alexander Petrovich Korolev, addressed with a heartfelt word. And a telegram was sent to the Empress expressing the most faithful feelings from all those present, and to which Her Imperial Highness honored Count Alexander Vasilyevich Adlenberg with a highly merciful response.
This anniversary holiday evoked grateful memories of bright pages from the historical past on the part of members of the Pskov Provincial Trusteeship and the Olginsky orphanage. After all, the shelter owes a lot in its development and prosperity to the highly humane labors and concerns of the former trustees of the shelter - Countess E. K. Palen (from 1864 to 1868) and Baroness L. N. Ikskul-von-Hildenbandt (from 1886 . - until 1888). Subsequently, the above-mentioned persons became lifelong members of the Trusteeship, at the request of the Pskov Provincial Trusteeship of orphanages to the Empress and with her blessing.
Throughout the existence of the shelter, donations were constantly received, including in 1905, for example, a significant monetary donation was received (according to the spiritual will of the deceased widow of the Collegiate Secretary Anna Karlovna Matveeva) in the form of five temporary certificates of 5% of the state loan of 1905 for a nominal amount 3300 rub. And in cash in the amount of 39 rubles. 70 kop. The largest items of income, as in previous years, were:
1. Receiving interest from the capital of the Trusteeship.
2. Gatherings for the holidays of the Nativity of Christ and Easter.
3. Annual dues of honorary members.
4. Subsidies from the Pskov Provincial and Uyezd Zemstvos for the maintenance of scholarship recipients and for the establishment of an educational unit in the orphanage.
As stated above, the Olginsky shelter was located in a two-story wooden house on a stone foundation, with high white rooms, and like the first buildings of the shelter, it was located in the same block, on right side Sergievskaya street, between Ivanovskaya and Stennaya. Currently, this place is occupied by house number 15 on Oktyabrsky Prospekt, stretching from Gogol Street to Sverdlov.
During the First World War, the shelter experienced difficult times and was evacuated in September 1915 to Novgorod, but already in November 1916, it was transferred back to Pskov.
Toropetsk orphanage of St. Olga
On December 6, 1860, another orphanage, St. Olga, was opened in the district town of Toropets. The orphanage was opened with capital bequeathed for this purpose by State Councilor V.L. Nefedyev. The shelter was located on the second floor of a stone two-story house, which also belonged to him. The orphanage raised exclusively girls aged from 3 to 12 years. The shelter existed on interest from the founder's fixed capital, and from the capital that was formed from the lottery and donations from private individuals in the amount of 3,200 rubles, as well as interest on capital in the amount of 3,600 rubles, donated in 1903 by captain 2nd rank Vladimir Nikolaevich Skvortsov and his widow Captain 1st Rank N.N. Kiseleva for the maintenance of two scholarship recipients named after. L.N. Skvortsova. In addition, there was a capital of 1000 rubles, donated in 1891 by the hereditary honorary citizen Pyotr Petrovich Kalashnikov, intended for the purchase of a sewing machine for one of the graduates of the orphanage using interest from it. All of the above capital was kept in the Pskov Provincial Trusteeship of orphanages. The local Uyezd Zemskaya Administration annually allocated 300 rubles for the maintenance of the orphanage, and the Toropetsk City Society also allocated funds for the maintenance of 4 pupils.
In 1905, the shelter housed 11 fully supported girls and 37 visiting girls. Of those who came, 17 girls studied for a fee, which was 12 rubles per year.
The daily maintenance of each of the pupils cost the shelter 18 kopecks. The annual budget of the shelter was 737 rubles per year.
The teacher of law in the orphanage was the priest of the local Annunciation Church, Nikolai Prokopievich Knyazev, the caretaker of the orphanage was Natalya Timofeevna Grigorieva, and her ball assistant was Varvara Fedorovna Grigorieva. Various methods were used in the educational process, for example, teaching literacy was organized according to the Tikhomirov method, spelling according to the Nekrasov method, and the Law of God - Cheltsov. The educational process was carried out in accordance with the program for public primary schools approved by the Ministry of Public Education. The main attention during training was given to the formation and development of students’ management skills household. Incentives were provided for those who successfully mastered educational intricacies; for example, one of the graduates was awarded for her success in learning to use a sewing machine.
Upon completion of the course of study, the pupils were transferred to the care of their parents or persons in their place. In conclusion, I would like to mention that at the time in question in the Pskov province there were other shelters under the patronage of Empress Maria, for example, there was the Kholmsky “Kushelevsky” orphanage, opened on January 1, 1867 with funds donated by the Kholm landowner, Major retired from cavalry Luka Ivanovich Kushelev. There was also an orphanage in Porkhov, opened in 1900, with a fixed capital of 4,000 rubles.
Summarizing this paragraph, we can highlight the following features of the formation and functioning of orphanages in the Pskov province in the 19th century.
1. At first, the initiative in creating shelters came from the state; the reforms of the 60-80s, as a result of which the country began to switch to capitalist development, led to the emergence of a sufficient number of wealthy people who began to participate on an equal basis with the state in the opening and support of orphanages.
2. There is a large role of private individuals and various charitable societies in supporting the existence of orphanages.
3. The orphanages that opened were mainly aimed at girls, while when constructing the educational program, the main emphasis was on teaching economically oriented subjects (handicrafts, home economics, etc.). This circumstance was determined by the position of women in the structure of Russian society of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
4. A particularly rapid growth of orphanages was observed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; this circumstance was caused by an improvement in the general economic situation in the country and increased public interest in the situation of its needy members.
The role of the state in the development of charity in the Russian education system in the late 19th - early 20th centuries.
The modernization of Russian reality that unfolded in the last decade of the 20th century affected all its aspects - political, social, economic, cultural, spiritual. A natural revaluation of many established ideas began. Decided on Soviet period from a class perspective, values began to be supplemented by universal human values, which had not recently been recognized. Among these values is such a humane phenomenon as charity. Its true meaning is only being comprehended today, although Russia has had centuries of historical experience in this regard.
Until recently, historical experience in the field of charity was rejected and not studied, since the official Soviet ideology did not find a place for it in the social process. With the establishment of Soviet power, public and private charity were replaced by a state system of care. The official position on this issue is clearly illustrated by the state publication of 1927 Bolshoi Soviet encyclopedia: “Charity is a phenomenon characteristic only of class society. The concept of charity is alien to the social system of the USSR.”
Nowadays, the traditions of charity are increasingly becoming in demand for the following reasons. As a result of the radical reforms carried out, Russian society in a short period of time found itself in a completely different socio-economic space. The emerging qualitatively new social relations were accompanied by an accelerated stratification of people's property, and the distance between the well-off strata and the low-income strata increasingly increased. An objective need has arisen to provide assistance to the latter, for which appropriate mechanisms are needed, which were not available. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that no traditions as such appeared during the Soviet period, and the experience that had been formed in the past was artificially interrupted by the well-known events of 1917. Thus, the current modernization, having proclaimed a radical breakdown of the previous social institutions of the Soviet model, has made many little-studied aspects of the pre-Soviet period in demand. Among them is the charitable practice that has existed in Russia throughout its history.
Of particular interest in this regard is the activity of the Russian state in developing charity, improving the care system in the field of education, and analyzing the effectiveness of organizational and legislative initiatives of government bodies. This activity was built in three directions: First, the legislative direction, i.e. creating a legal space for the activities of all forms of charity; secondly, the development of incentive measures that would stimulate the activity of philanthropists; thirdly, direct charity, i.e. assignment of funds from the treasury for the needs of the education system. Undoubtedly, each of these directions does not exhaust the entire variety of practical approaches, although the latter for the most part constituted the content of these particular directions.
Legislative direction of activity
The historical roots of charitable practice go back to the ancient Russian era. In particular, Prince Vladimir Monomakh, addressing his sons in 1117, punished: “The most important thing is do not forget the poor and feed them as much as you can!” . In fact, charity became an element of life from the very beginning of the formation of the Old Russian state, the norm of behavior of the propertied class.
Subsequently, the phenomenon becomes increasingly widespread, including integral part into public policy, reaches the general public and individuals. There is a very solid legislative basis for this phenomenon. For better understanding historical roots activity of the Russian state in the field of charity, it is useful to recall some earlier stages of its development.
First of all, this is the 18th century, the time when, in fact, the first attempt was made to organize a state system of charity. Thus, the Manifesto of Catherine II of September 1, 1763 announced the creation of the first educational home in Moscow. Then similar institutions began to appear in other provincial cities, including Kazan. It was assumed that in these houses the children in need would not only be fed, but also taught labor skills. Then in 1781 private charity was officially allowed. As a rule, the donors were noble nobles, members of the reigning house, and wealthy industrialists. But the main act of this period was the creation in 1775 of public charity orders, which lasted until 1864, when zemstvo institutions were introduced. They were entrusted with the tasks of maintaining public education, protecting public health, and public charity.
Undoubtedly, in many ways all these efforts were a kind of tribute to the policy of “enlightened absolutism,” but at the same time one cannot help but see something else: an attempt by Catherine’s reign to give the cause of charity a certain systemic character. This was precisely the special significance of the second half of the 18th century. The next thing that is fair to note is the nature of the material sources of charity. Provided that the prevailing practice provided for liability, both on the part government agencies, and on the part of private benefactors, in reality the largest share of expenses was borne by the latter.
In all respects, the 19th century was a milestone for Russian charity. Continuing in many ways the work of the previous century, this period at the same time introduced fundamental additions. Thanks to a number of legislative measures, all forms of charity - state, public and private - taken together are beginning to take on a certain systemic form. As for charity in the field of education, legal coordinators appeared here in the person of the Ministry of Public Education, established in 1802, as well as in the person of the Trustee of the educational district, whose position was introduced in 1803. And since 1835, according to the Regulations on educational districts, the latter becomes the head of all educational institutions of a particular district entrusted to him. Around the same time, in 1828, the title of Honorary Trustee was established for persons who made large donations. With all these measures, the autocratic state demonstrated attention to the problems of education in general, and charity in particular.
Simultaneously with legislative rule-making, the government carried out organizational measures. Thus, in 1816, the Imperial Humane Society was created, for which the priority task was to care for orphans and children of the poor. Over time, this Society became one of the most influential charitable organizations, with a wide range of powers and capabilities.
The zemstvo structures that appeared in 1864 largely took charge of public education. In particular, the Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions dated January 1, 1864 entrusted them with taking care of the condition of urban and rural educational institutions. By implementing this reform, the state relieved itself of a significant part of its responsibilities on a whole range of issues, primarily of a material and financial nature. However, the autocratic state retained the control and permitting function. For example, the circular of the Minister of the Interior dated October 12, 1866 explained that general supervision of the local education process is assigned to governors, who in their actions are obliged to rely on the trustees of educational districts and relevant government departments.
The socio-economic situation that developed in autocratic Russia by the end of the second half of the 19th century was remarkable in many ways. The originality of the period was determined not only by the well-known reforms of the 60-70s or the process of the rapid entry of the economy into the capitalist fold, but also by the intensified offensive of liberal ideas. The growing confrontation in socio-political life demanded from the state completely different approaches and decisions in management, and appropriate actions. The historical fact that a significant “majority of the Russian Tsar’s subjects lived in a world of ideas and norms very far from pragmatism, rationalism, individualism - characteristic features of capitalist socio-economic systems” was not yet a guarantor of the stability of previously formed conservative orders. Therefore, in the current conditions, the state sought to strengthen its presence at all levels of socio-political life, one of the components of which was charity.
During the liberal reforms of the 60-70s, charity continued to develop, developing new forms in accordance with changing real conditions. The procedure for opening charitable organizations was fundamentally changed in 1862. According to the adopted Law, the Highest Permission gave way to the procedure for approving the charters of created charitable societies by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Emphasizing the desire to further promote the cause of public education and charity in its field, the government issued a number of legislative acts improving the existing ones: Regulations on primary public schools, gymnasium Charter, university Charter.
Then, at the end of the 19th century, it was decided to streamline the business of charity, to provide a modern legal basis for it, for which a special Commission was created in 1892, headed by K. K. Grot. It was believed that the Charter on public charity adopted in 1857 was outdated, so the Commission was obliged to prepare a draft of a new document. Specific tasks put forward to her included clarifying the contingent of those receiving charity, systematizing sources of financial resources, and preparing a proposal on the question of what type of charity to be - class or non-class.
State activity in this area noticeably decreased at the beginning of the 20th century. We can point out only a few initiatives that have had a certain impact on the state of the charity and trusteeship system. In particular, the Law of 1902 transferred all bodies responsible for public education from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the disposal of the Ministry of Public Education. By the beginning of the 20th century, the system of charity had formed in its basic outlines and remained virtually unchanged until the well-known events of 1917.
At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, the legislative side of the problem of charity was dispersed in separate elements in such legal documents as the “General Charter of the Imperial Russian Universities of June 18, 1863”, “Regulations on City Schools of 1872”, “Regulations on Primary Public Schools of May 26 1874", "Rules on the establishment of personalized scholarships in educational institutions in 1876", "On some measures for the development of primary public education on May 29, 1864", "Regulations on trustees at primary schools on March 25, 1907", "Law on higher primary schools on June 25, 1912" and others. Concretizing the problem of charity from different perspectives, all these legislative acts formed the legal framework for its resolution.
Speaking about the legislative activity of the state, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the bureaucratic apparatus of Russia at all times sought to place any phenomenon within a regulated framework. Suffice it to say that on the issue of donation for the purpose of charity alone, the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire contains almost 300 articles. They describe in detail the rules of donation. For example, according to Art. 21. Accounting Charter of 1857 “the money of benefactors is not mixed with treasury money, it is in a special account.” And in accordance with Art. 980. The Code of Laws published in 1887 allowed donations “not only of movable property and capital, but also of populated lands in favor of charitable, educational and other institutions.” However, in the case of a donation of a large building, permission from the Minister of Internal Affairs was required.
In Russian legislation, approaches to the problem of charity were built mainly from two positions: on the one hand, charity was considered as a social phenomenon that made it possible to attract additional funds to the education system, it was welcomed and encouraged; on the other hand, it was recognized as necessary to put this phenomenon under the control of administrative bodies. There is probably no particular thing that is not regulated by all sorts of documents, and any deviation from the established requirements is quickly suppressed. For this reason, there was extensive correspondence between various authorities regarding every little detail.
Thus, the Regulations on City Schools of 1872 determined that these educational institutions could be supported by the government, zemstvo institutions, city societies, estates and private individuals. Provided that the sources of funding are zemstvos, public or private philanthropists, such schools are opened only with the permission of the trustee of the educational district. The latter also controls the structural organization. For example, only with his consent can a boarding house subsidized by benefactors appear.
The legislation approached the issue of participation of persons associated in any way with the education system in various political parties. Even distant affiliation was prohibited, not to mention direct actions. But at the same time, there were no restrictions based on class; benefactors could legally be representatives of a wide variety of classes. It is no coincidence that in their composition we see nobles, merchants, employees, people of clergy, as well as from the peasant environment.
Stimulating activities of the state
The Russian state stimulated the development of charity and encouraged those involved in this work with all kinds of signs of attention. In autocratic Russia, all forms of public activities, such as service in city, zemstvo or professional organizations, participation in the activities of charitable societies, membership in the boards of trustees of higher educational institutions, schools and colleges were considered a state matter and were welcomed by the authorities. Philanthropists who donated large sums of money or donated real estate were awarded honorary titles, insignia and various class privileges.
Members of the boards of trustees enjoyed the right to wear the VIII category uniform of the Ministry of Public Education, which corresponded, according to Peter’s “Table of Ranks,” to the rank of collegiate assessor and made it possible to receive the title, and with it the privileges of a hereditary nobleman. A similar prospect opened up when awarding government orders of the 1st degree or the Order of St. Vladimir, IV degree. According to the Regulations on Awards, the Order of St. Anne could be awarded to philanthropists who made the most significant contribution to the care of the education system. A special type of reward was developed for benefactors of the merchant class: the rank of general, who complained for donating a significant collection to the Academy of Sciences.
At the same time, the administrative apparatus tried very carefully to regulate the award process. In particular, one of the circulars of the Ministry of Public Education directly stated that “the judgment about the work and merits of each employee belongs to his superiors, and therefore no one can ask for a reward for his service.” The number of awards was also strictly determined. If we talk about trustees, then in this category there was one award per five persons from secondary and higher educational institutions and also one award per 20 persons from primary schools.
As for the position of the official authorities, there is complete clarity on this issue. Interested in attracting additional funds to the public education system, the state stimulated this process, providing the opportunity for this circle of people to “go beyond class and social isolation.”
But it is very important to understand the positions of the other side, the philanthropists themselves, how they themselves assessed the significance of the existing incentive system for themselves. To begin with, we note that Russian society of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, despite quantitative and qualitative socio-economic changes, remained strictly ranked. Accumulated material wealth did not yet guarantee an appropriate place in the social hierarchy; the lack of privileged pedigree roots was not always and not always compensated for by property status. In these conditions, for many, charity was a real opportunity to move up the social ladder, a way of self-affirmation.
In connection with the above, it would be appropriate to cite the following fact. The full-time caretaker of the Khvalynsky school in the Saratov province wrote to the board of the Kazan educational district: “With my diligent efforts to fill the indicated position (guardian of the Blagoveshchensk school), I found one for the position of guardian worthy person, who agreed to take this position with the obligation to donate 150 rubles annually to the school, but, unfortunately, this person told me that he would only take the position of a guardian, if only this position gives the right to receive ranks, and when I announced to him, that the position of a guardian does not give this right, then he refused to take this position." Therefore, the district official petitioned the district inspector of public schools and schools of the Kazan educational district to grant guardians the right to receive certain ranks in charitable service.
In fairness, it should be noted that the motivation for charitable activities was not only the desire to occupy a certain social position, but also reasons of a moral nature. Some researchers of charity issues in their works link it with the liberal ideas of the late 19th century. This phenomenon is seen not only effective remedy smoothing out the severity of the social issue, but also an expression of the responsibility of the intelligentsia for the disastrous state of the masses, the path to social reconciliation. The zemstvo idea about the welfare of the people and charity are determined by phenomena of the same order, related in their very essence. Many researchers place the moral factor at the head of the incentive mechanism and regard charity as almost the decisive “condition for personal moral health” of a person. At the same time, it is often emphasized that charity was more needed by the person who directly carried it out than by the person to whom it was intended. Indispensable elements in such an approach are the motives of public duty, selfless service to the cause of caring for the poor.
The government understood that charity needs not only a legislative basis, but also public recognition, attentive attention from government agencies, and pursued a policy of transparency in this matter. Glasnost was considered one of the most important conditions for the development of charity. Moreover, on the one hand, it was a form of encouragement for philanthropists, and on the other hand, it ensured control on the part of society and its trust in the activities of charitable organizations and individual donors.
The names of philanthropists were included in special books of honor, published in newspapers indicating the purposes for which their donations went, in reports on the state of public schools, for example, the Simbirsk province allocated a special place to the description of the charitable activities of citizens in favor of public education, indicating their names and surnames, social status, place of residence and type of assistance provided.
The Russian government demanded full information the state of charitable activities in society and special cases were reported to the Emperor of Russia. The trustees even received gratitude personally from the Emperor of Russia. For example, the message dated March 31, 1873 says: “...On behalf of the Sovereign Emperor and Sovereign Empress, gratitude was expressed for the establishment of a house church in the building of the Mariinsky Women's Gymnasium and the creation of a capital of 600 rubles for the maintenance of the scholarship of the Heir to the Tsarevich... Actual State Councilor Isakov, Fatyanov and his wife, Khvoshchinsky and his wife, ... Mrs. Bychkova, ... merchant Sapozhnikov." In a message dated August 2, 1875. it says: "...The Empress,...on the 9th day of last July 1975, most mercifully deigned to appoint Isakov, a retired active state councilor, for the significant benefits he provided to the Simbirsk Mariinsky Women's Gymnasium, as an Honorary Guardian of that institution..."
Charitable activities of the state
If we talk about charity in the literal sense, then help from the treasury, as a rule, was assigned mainly to the maintenance of charitable institutions, namely: orphanages of various types, houses of industriousness, educational homes, prison guardians, night shelters, etc. As for educational institutions directly, then here charity developed more along the lines of provincial and district zemstvos. It should also be pointed out that initially expenditures on public education were considered optional for zemstvos, and this provision greatly emphasized the humane meaning of their activities in this regard.
Thus, according to our calculations, in the 1880s, funding for public education by zemstvos exceeded the volume of funds allocated by the treasury in the Kazan province by 4.6 times, in the Simbirsk province by 4.7 times, and in the Saratov province by 14.8 times. . In total, in the Kazan province alone, out of 427 primary schools, 350 (or 82%) were supported by zemstvo institutions in 1882. A detailed description of the state of affairs is given by sources for the Simbirsk province in 1889. It is very clear that out of the total amount of money, the lion's share of expenses fell on zemstvos. In percentage terms, it accounted for 65.6% of total costs, while only 14% fell on treasury expenses. It is also striking that the amount of donations from public and private benefactors noticeably exceeded treasury allocations, amounting to 20.4%.
The above facts clearly demonstrate the place and role of zemstvo institutions in the development of the education system. All this had its own historical logic, since zemstvos, called upon to solve mostly current practical problems, objectively had to deal with everything related to the public education system. Among these tasks, many were of a charitable nature, for the solution of which special monetary savings were created in the estimated capital.
Now it is logical to look at what specific items were allocated by zemstvos. financial resources. A typical situation is revealed by an analysis of the practice of the Saratov provincial zemstvo. Here, for the years 1899-1900, funds were distributed as follows: 5,760 rubles were spent on additional salaries for teachers during this entire time, 2,000 rubles on student benefits, and 18,700 rubles on charitable assistance to state-owned educational institutions. The nature of allocations has remained virtually unchanged after a decade and a half (see table). Judging by the given indicators, the largest part of the money went to pay teachers' salaries, in second place are expenses for the economic needs of educational institutions, mainly for repair work. Far from it last place There were direct costs for charitable purposes, which included paying for tuition and renting apartments, buying clothes, shoes, and providing the opportunity to use educational aids for free.
Table. Items of the expenditure budget for education in the Saratov province, %
| Expense Items | Years | ||
| 1913 | 1914 | 1915 | |
|
Teachers' salaries For economic purposes Tutorials Teacher training Charitable benefits Entertainment events For the needs of school libraries Repair work Others |
31,3 15,1 4,6 0,9 7,9 0,3 1,2 38,5 0,2 |
32,9 13,2 4,5 0,6 9,5 0,2 1,1 37,8 0,1 |
46,2 20,3 5,6 0,3 10,0 0,2 1,1 16,3 0,1 |
Compiled from: Public education in the Saratov province on January 1, 1915: Statistical review. - Saratov, 1915. P. 130.
The situation in the Kazan province was characterized in many ways in a similar way. Here, too, in the scale of priorities, great importance was attached to the maintenance of teachers and school premises. And there were reasons for this: in 1897, in such districts as Cheboksary, Laishevsky, Kosmodemyanovsky and Tsarevokokshaysky, out of 183 schools, 101 (55.2%) were in unsuitable premises.
Within the framework of zemstvo charity, a significant place was given to the issues of training and retraining of teaching staff. In actual practice, zemstvo assistance in resolving personnel issues largely came down to supporting teachers' seminaries and pedagogical courses, maintaining scholarship holders who studied at teachers' institutes and other educational institutions. Each of these areas was attractive to zemstvos due to their inherent characteristics: they provided the opportunity to cover the broad masses of the local population with training, were generally accessible to people of any class, educational process lasted a short time, etc.
In particular, the Saratov provincial zemstvo financed the holding of summer teacher courses in 1895, 1896, 1897 and 1900. Each time, the zemstvo assigned an amount ranging from 1,500 to 2,100 rubles. But at the same time, provincial officials said that one-time assistance does not solve the problem of training teachers; this requires a systematic approach. Similar facts occurred in other provinces of the Volga region.
All of the above was of fundamental importance if you look at the real situation with the teaching staff that developed at the beginning of the 1890s. Thus, in the Kazan province, more than a third of primary school teachers had only a lower education; in the Simbirsk province there were 26.5% of them. The picture was no better in the Saratov province, where every fifth teacher had only home training.
A significant place in the zemstvo's care for the education system was occupied by assistance to pupils and students who had limited financial resources. According to the vowels themselves, this form of assistance was the most preferable, since it was targeted in nature and applied directly to a specific person. The guiding document was the Rules for the Establishment of Personalized Scholarships at Educational Institutions, published in 1876. The main thing that attention was paid to was that any assistance was fully secured by a contribution in cash or government-guaranteed interest-bearing securities. An indispensable requirement was that the scholarship recipient be considered the poorest and distinguished for the better in academic success and diligence. In addition, at the request of the founders, class affiliation, nationality, religious worldview, gender, and age could be taken into account.
As a rule, the amount of assistance in the form of a scholarship was the amount that should have been paid for a year's study. Most often, the scholarship was transferred to the account of the educational institution where the candidate for its receipt took courses, but in some cases it could also be issued in person. Depending on the previously discussed conditions, the scholarship holder could use part of the money to purchase teaching aids, clothes and shoes, and pay for living in an apartment.
In general terms, the mechanism for awarding scholarships, with minor adjustments to local conditions, was as follows: public commissions at zemstvo councils or the councils themselves collected information about the social composition of the student population, the financial situation of the latter, their academic performance and behavior; Based on the information received, recommendations were made for assistance to specific individuals; the proposals developed were submitted to meetings of zemstvo assemblies, which adopted relevant resolutions and entrusted the same councils or public commissions with the implementation of decisions. Almost throughout the entire period under study, this mechanism did not undergo any major changes.
Assistance in the form of scholarships was also typical for private benefactors, but in the latter case, as a rule, when assigning monetary benefits, in addition to the above conditions for providing assistance (property insolvency, academic performance, diligent behavior), the class factor also played a significant role. Each of the benefactors, when determining the scholarship, indicated from which class the candidate should be selected. Depending on the class of the donor, among the scholarship recipients one could meet people from the nobility, merchants and townspeople.
On the contrary, zemstvo institutions did not recognize such a condition; scholarships were established solely for reasons of the financial status of students in educational institutions. For example, in 1905, the Karsun district zemstvo of the Simbirsk province, in memory of the late Yu. D. Rodionov, who held the position of chairman of the local district assembly for 12 years, allocated 1,500 rubles to the account of the Simbirsk men's gymnasium for the purpose of “establishing, with a percentage of this amount, a scholarship for the payment of fees for the right studies in the gymnasium of a scholarship student from natives of the Karsun district, without distinction of belonging to the class."
Noting all these facts of zemstvo care for the education system, at the same time it is fair to admit that in general the participation of zemstvos in material support did not cover real needs. The humane aspirations of zemstvo councilors were not always supported by real opportunities; moreover, expenses of this nature were legally defined for zemstvos as optional. This gave the right to a part of the public, primarily of a conservative persuasion, to periodically raise the question of the advisability of charitable assistance to educational institutions. The big picture financial expenses can be illustrated using a typical example, again, of the Saratov zemstvo. Here, at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, expenses under the item “public education” looked as a percentage of the total amount of expenses as follows:
1898 - 3.9%
1898 - 5.3%
1900 - 4.1%
1901 - 5.7%
Finally, one cannot help but say that peasant societies provided little assistance in the matter of charity, for example, to district zemstvos. Unlike the urban ones, they did not have sufficient funds for this; almost all worldly fees were spent on meeting everyday needs. In addition, charity of this kind was not traditional for the peasantry; it stood out from generally accepted ideas about the essence of welfare. “The situation is completely different in the villages.
The charity that exists there is organized by the people themselves and in a completely different way, having its own everyday forms: helping fire victims, widows and orphans, during reaping, field work, feeding homeless old men and women in turn or for payment from society. Assistance to students in any form is not included in these usual forms,” wrote N.V. Chekhov at the beginning of the 20th century.
Another area of care is the orphanages of industriousness. They were organized with the aim of supporting street children left without parents or living in dysfunctional families. The famous researcher P.V. Vlasov wrote about this: “Difficult social and living conditions, frequent epidemics, high morbidity and mortality among the poorest population constantly replenished the army of street children.” State administrative bodies did not sufficiently coordinate the activities of these institutions; they tried to shift the care of them to zemstvo institutions, peasant societies, volost authorities and the public. In the houses of industriousness, the educational process was inseparable from the labor process, and, in its content, it was closer to the professional one.
In Simbirsk, the first house of industriousness appeared back in 1820 on the initiative of public figure V.I. Ivasheva. The institution was under the patronage of the Women's Society of Christian Charity, which in turn was patronized by Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna. In 1836, Emperor Nicholas I visited Simbirsk and got acquainted with the house of hard work of V. I. Ivasheva. He found the institution in good condition and granted 10 thousand rubles for maintenance. The founder of the cause of hard work herself was awarded special imperial favor for her noble work.
Despite such obvious positive characteristics However, such charitable institutions have not become widespread in the Volga region. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were 3-4 of them in different years, each, as a rule, for a short time. The situation was no better in other regions of autocratic Russia, and, apparently, it was no coincidence that the problem became the subject of active discussion by participants in the Congress on Children's Charity, convened on May 11-16, 1914 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The congress recognized educational and labor shelters as a promising form of education and upbringing of street children. At the same time, special importance was attached to the selection of educational personnel and the importance of creating a warm home environment in the team. Therefore, in order to increase the effectiveness of this form of charity, the Congress considered it “necessary to introduce into the matter the preservation of family principles by all possible measures.”
At the same meeting, a program for a primary education course was developed, which included such subjects as national studies, drawing, drawing, arithmetic, reading, Russian, singing; and for the physical development of children - labor and gymnastics. The guardianship bodies were determined by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, provincial and district zemstvo institutions, as well as district trustees.
Thus, the considered areas in which the state developed charity in the education system provide grounds for drawing some conclusions. One of them is that state charity should be perceived as one of the components of a single phenomenon of care. While recognizing the important role of this species, at the same time it cannot be considered exhaustive. Basically, this role, in our opinion, boiled down to creating the necessary conditions for charity in general, not only by government agencies, but also by public organizations and individuals. Therefore, in the organization of the matter, much depended on how effective the organizational and legislative initiatives of the state were, whether they met the requirements of a particular stage, and how they contributed to the improvement of the care system in the field of education.
Direct confirmation of this conclusion is the fact that the sources of charity in monetary terms were far unevenly distributed. In particular, at the first All-Russian Congress of Charity Workers in 1910, it was noted that of the total amount spent for charitable purposes, only 25% came from appropriations from the state treasury. The rest of this amount came from other sources of funding. The material factor of state charity began to narrow especially noticeably with the advent of zemstvo institutions. It was on them that the state assigned the largest share of charitable expenses, primarily regarding those items of attention that were entrusted to the care of local governments - public education and public health care, almshouses, libraries, orphanages, etc.
Here we have come, through reasoning, to the following conclusion regarding the place and role of zemstvo institutions in the development of charity. It would be fair to immediately answer that through the efforts of the zemstvos, the matter of welfare and charity has changed quantitatively and qualitatively for the better. It has become systemic and purposeful, covering a fairly wide range of pressing issues of the education system, including such as the financial condition of educational institutions, the provision of the learning process with visual aids, the organization of public catering in canteens, the ability of pupils and students to pay for their education, etc.
It seems to us that the content of this component in charity was largely determined by the zemstvo idea of serving the people. It was understood by many vowels absolutely specifically: to come to the aid of those in need, to alleviate the situation of the needy. “The main, fundamental character of all measures is the same; these measures must be imbued with concern for the disadvantaged person, concern understood in the broadest and best sense of the word,” spoke out at an emergency provincial zemstvo meeting in May 1895, the vowel of the Saratov district of the same province of the same name E.A. Isaev.
It should also be noted that of all educational institutions, zemstvos provided assistance most of all to colleges and primary schools. In a certain sense, such an approach was determined by the elementary desire of zemstvo assemblies and councils to improve the situation, primarily in those educational institutions where the majority of peasant children studied. Recognizing the peasant question for his practical activities core, zemstvo institutions tried to direct forces and resources to him over the entire range of unresolved problems.
Finally, it is impossible not to point out the fact that in resolving issues of assistance in the zemstvo environment, no serious contradictions were observed. Zemstvo councilors of different classes, especially those with liberal views, were unanimous in assessing the unsatisfactory state of public education and in allocating appropriate material resources for its needs.
In general, state charity in any of its manifestations at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century was not only a continuation of previously established traditions, but also an integral element of general socio-economic processes.
Let us summarize the study of the role of guardianship in education in the 19th - early 20th centuries, their relationship, ways further development. Having set foot on the throne, Paul very soon issues the following decree: “As by our will, Her Imperial Majesty, the most kind wife, out of urgent love for humanity and wanting to promote the common good, accepts upon herself the main authority over educational homes in both of our capital cities established with all the institutions belonging to them ; then, as a result of this, we command the trustees to treat Her Majesty in whatever way they should!”
Maria Feodorovna was actually appointed the first minister of charitable institutions, after her (this soon became a tradition) the wives of the emperors began to head the department, and each made her contribution to the matter. Let's say, Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna, wife of Alexander the First, contributed to the creation of two societies - the Imperial Philanthropic and the Women's Patriotic. Each of them deserves special mention.
“...To be moved by the outward and very often deceptive appearance of poverty and squalor is not yet a blessing. We must look for the unfortunate in their very dwellings - in this abode of crying and suffering. With affectionate treatment, saving advice, in a word, with all moral and physical means, try to ease their fate: this is what true good deed consists of” - these words of Alexander the First became the motto of every member of the Humane Society.
On his account there were almshouses, houses of free and cheap apartments, shelters, public canteens, sewing workshops, outpatient clinics and hospitals. The primary concern was “to bring out of poverty those who can support themselves through their labors and industry.”
Minister of Commerce Count Rumyantsev, court councilor Shcherbakov, merchant Fan der Fleet become the first members of this society. For them, people of high rank, charity was a necessity and a kind of privilege. The Humane Society, founded in 1802 “to help the poor of all kinds,” by 1900 extended its assistance to 160 thousand poor people.
The idea of creating a Patriotic Society was born in the St. Petersburg circle of high society ladies (V. A. Repnina, M. A. Vorontsova, E. A. Uvarova, M. V. Kochubey, M. D. Nesselrode, A. I. Orlova, S. P. Svechina, E.V. Novoseltseva, E.I. Baherakh, S.G. Volkonskaya, A.P. Vasilchikova, E.M. Olenina - these are the names of the founders) after the war of 1812, when Moscow burned down and people deprived shelter, poverty.
The financial basis was contributions. The Sovereign Emperor was the first to make his contribution - 50,000 rubles. In just one year, expenses for the benefit of the victims amounted to 287,201 rubles 15 kopecks. By the way, Russian statisticians kept records of funds brilliantly. You can find out everything from the statements. Let's say, the maintenance of the school for orphans in 1812 cost 15 thousand rubles annually. Over the course of a hundred years, dozens of similar schools have been opened.
The voluminous “Directory of Charitable Institutions Operating in the City of St. Petersburg” (St. Petersburg, 1913) describes the activities of each. Here, for example: “Protection of “Women”: “The activity is aimed at combating trafficking in women for the purpose of depravity. The society is a member of the International Union of National Committees fighting the same evil, maintains two dormitories for 80 women, a cheap canteen and a library at the department for the care of Jewish girls, and also helps with money and places those in need in places in charitable institutions.”
I look at the table: members and employees - 670; expected - 400; annual receipt of money from institutions and individuals - 6,321 rubles. Of course, this is a very small society. And yet, 670 St. Petersburg residents were rooting for the fate of former prostitutes. And they contributed some money from year to year to mitigate their fate.
Here is the annual table of the directory. What was the income of money for charity in 1913 for all establishments in St. Petersburg? A stunning figure: 7,918,160 rubles. Royal!
Who hasn't donated funds to charity! Even organ grinders donated money to set up orphanages, and then received the right to walk the streets with an organ grinder. There was a sale of forgotten items for the benefit of the poor. Club gatherings were very popular. Iron mugs hung on the walls of shelters, shops, and markets - people willingly threw their dimes there.
Card production was monopolized for charitable purposes. The only factory that produced playing cards was the property of the Imperial Orphanage and was under the jurisdiction of the St. Petersburg Board of Trustees. The income was impressive. A note from the Arkhangelsk mish-mash V.F. Kuplinsky to the chief manager of the institutions of the Empress Maria dated March 10, 1895 is curious: “Every year in Russia they play in three hundred clubs, the amount of winnings per year is 5 million 400 thousand rubles. I propose to tax the clubs - ten percent in favor of the Red Cross...”
By 1913, there were 1,200 monasteries and even more churches operating in Russia. There was no church institution that did not maintain hospitals, almshouses or orphanages. It is no coincidence that these institutions were called godly. Love for God was affirmed through love for one's neighbor, and the second biblical commandment (“Love your neighbor as yourself”) was fulfilled as if by itself.
Trusteeship in the 19th century should be considered as an emerging social institution of public participation in educational management. Such participation was necessary both for reasons of the education system acquiring modern economic, social and cultural significance, and for reasons of consolidation of society and Russia’s choice of its new historical path development. Sometimes the trustees invested their capital and soul only out of mercantile interests. Education can and should become a sphere that takes an active part in the formation of the state and civil society.
In the history of Russia, this problem is perceived as a kind of order to the education system: not only the raw material orientation of economic injections not only from Russian philanthropists, but also from foreign investors has been recorded. In the last years of the 19th century, there was a tendency towards a social orientation of education, its participation in meeting the needs of the local community. The focus of education on the development of culture is manifested through the innovation movement and the establishment of independence of schools in determining the content of education.
Emergence social institution Guardianship in this regard should be understood as a specification of the mission of the education system in the changing economic, social and cultural conditions of the country.
In this regard, the main purpose of the trusteeship is as follows: - to be a public institution for the examination of educational development strategies, to orient the content of educational reforms to ensure social well-being and cultural development; - attract additional resources to the education system to implement innovative educational programs; - initiate the development of an institute for examination and monitoring of the education system; - promote the development of forms of public participation in education management.
