Don't care. Interesting cases from the practice of the legendary F.N. Plevako. years of unfair reproach

One of the most famous lawyers in our history is Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako (1842 - 1908). He took part in the most famous processes of that time, including political ones, in particular, in the case of the Morozov strike of 1886.

Plevako was known for taking on the protection of both the rich and noble, and ordinary people, making no distinction between them and shining with his eloquence in the trials of the poor no less than in high-profile cases. Stories about the trials involving Plevako have survived to this day, turning into funny and witty anecdotes.

I took off my shoes!

Plevako defended a man accused of rape by a prostitute. The woman demanded a significant amount for the injury. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant lured her into a hotel room and raped her there. The man said that everything was in good agreement. The last word for Plevako.

"Gentlemen of the jury," he said. “If you award my client a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: “It's not true! I took off my shoes!!!

Laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

15 years of unfair reproach

One day, Plevako got a case about the murder of his wife by one peasant. Plevako came to court as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers and cribs. And so, when the turn came to the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Plevako again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

Gentlemen of the jury!
Here in the hall swept the discontented rumble of the long-awaited long-awaited spectacle of the people. And Plevako again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!

Here already the hall exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable public. And from the podium again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

Something incredible has begun. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally, Plevako raised his hand, urging the people to calm down.

The hall froze, then burst into admiring applause. The man was acquitted.

20 minutes

Plevako's defense lawyer is very famous for the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than it was supposed to, on the eve of some religious holiday. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was there, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. Ten minutes later, Plevako, without hurrying, entered the hall, calmly sat down at the place of protection and opened the briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and declared that it was only five past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman:

And how much is on your watch, Your Excellency?

The chairman looked and replied:

At my fifteen minutes past eleven.

Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

And on your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, obviously wishing to cause trouble for the defense counsel, replied with a sly smile:

It's already twenty-five past ten on my watch.

He could not know what kind of trap Plevako set up for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.

The trial ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked that the defendant be found guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:

The defendant was indeed 20 minutes late. But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and does not know much about watches. We are literate and intelligent people. How are you doing with your watch? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, the chairman has 15 minutes, and the prosecutor's clock has 25 minutes. Of course, the most faithful watch belongs to Mr. Prosecutor. So my watch was 20 minutes behind, which is why I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch very accurate, because I have gold, Moser.

The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

Absolution

Somehow one priest was tried for some offense. Plevako was asked before the court whether his defense speech was great? To which he replied that his entire speech would consist of one phrase.

And now, after the accusatory speech of the prosecutor, who demanded a decent punishment, it was the turn of the defense.
The lawyer stood up and said:

Lord! Remember how many sins your father has forgiven you in his life, so why don't we now forgive him a single sin?!!!

The audience's reaction was appropriate. Pop was acquitted.

Poor Russia!

One pillared noblewoman, being ruined, having lost her husband and son, deprived of her estate for debts, lived as a hostess with some lady, then rented a room, and since she did not have a kettle to boil water, she stole it in the market. And she was judged by the crown court (as a noblewoman).

The prosecutor, seeing Plevako, decided: “Yeah. Now he will beat for pity, for the fact that this is a poor woman who has lost her husband, gone bankrupt ... I’ll play on this too. He came out and said: “Of course, I feel sorry for the woman, she lost her husband, son, etc., her heart bleeds, he himself is ready to go to prison instead of her, but ... Lord, the crown court. The point is in principle, she swung at the sacred foundation of our society - private property. Today she stole a kettle, and tomorrow a wagon, and the day after tomorrow something else. This is the destruction of the foundations of our state. And since everything starts small and grows into a huge one, that’s why I ask her to punish her, otherwise it threatens our state with huge disasters, the destruction of its foundations.

The prosecutor broke the applause. Plevako comes out to his place and suddenly turned around, went to the window, stood for a long time, looked. Hall in suspense: what is he watching? Plevako came out and said:

“Dear Crown Court! How many troubles Russia has undergone: Batu trampled it with horses, and the Teutonic knights raped mother Russia, twelve languages, led by Napoleon Bonaparte, approached and burned Moscow. How many misfortunes Russia has endured, but each time she rose, rose like a phoenix from the ashes. And now a new misfortune: the woman stole the teapot. Poor Russia! Is something going to happen to you now?"

Hall laughed. The woman was acquitted.

Don't dare to believe!

One Russian landowner ceded part of his land to the peasants, without formalizing it in any way. After many years, he changed his mind and took the land back. Outraged peasants rioted. They were put on trial. The jury consisted of the surrounding landowners, the rebels were threatened with hard labor. The famous lawyer Plevako undertook to defend them. He was silent throughout the whole process, and at the end demanded that the peasants be punished even more severely. "What for?" - did not understand the judge. Answer: "To forever wean the peasants from believing the word of a Russian nobleman." Some of the peasants were acquitted, the rest received minor punishments.

The Omen

Plevako is credited with the frequent use of the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. Once, speaking in the provincial district court, he agreed with the bell-ringer of the local church that he would begin the evangelization for mass with special precision.

The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end Plevako exclaimed:

If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a verdict of not guilty.

Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako. Born April 13 (25), 1842 in Troitsk, Orenburg province - died December 23, 1908 (January 5, 1909) in Moscow. Russian lawyer, jurist, judicial orator, active state councilor.

Father - Vasily Ivanovich Plevak, customs official, court adviser.

Mother - Ekaterina Stepanova. According to one version - a Kalmyk, according to another - a Kyrgyz, according to a third - a Kazakh.

Fedor's parents were not married. In total, four children were born, but only two sons survived - Fedor and Dormidont.

According to legend, after giving birth to Fyodor, the mother wanted to drown herself, but the boy screamed and Catherine came to her senses, they remained alive.

The patronymic Nikiforovich was taken by the name of Nikifor, the godfather of his older brother.

Later, Fedor entered the university with his father's surname Plevak, and after graduating from the university he added the letter "o" to it, moreover, he called himself with an emphasis on the last letter - Plevako.

In the summer of 1851 the family moved to Moscow. The brothers were sent to the Commercial School on Ostozhenka. They studied well. Especially Fedor was given mathematics. By the end of the first year of study, the names of the brothers were listed on the "golden board" of the school. And six months later, Fedor and Dormidont were expelled - as illegitimate.

In the autumn of 1853, thanks to their father's long efforts, Fedor and Dormidont were admitted to the 1st Moscow Gymnasium on Prechistenka - immediately into the 3rd grade. In the same year, Pyotr Kropotkin also entered this gymnasium. Many Russian figures who later became famous studied at the same school.

Graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. He was a candidate for judicial positions in Moscow.

In 1870, Plevako entered the class of attorneys at law in the district of the Moscow Court of Justice, which improved his financial situation. He acquired ownership of a house at 35 Bolshoy Afanasyevsky Lane (the house was demolished in 1993).

He soon became known as one of the best lawyers in Moscow, often not only helping the poor for free, but sometimes paying for the unforeseen expenses of his impoverished clients.

Plevako's advocacy took place in Moscow, which left its mark on him. And the ringing of bells in Moscow churches, and the religious mood of the Moscow population, and the eventful past of Moscow, and its current customs resonated in Plevako's court speeches. They abound with texts of Holy Scripture and references to the teachings of the holy fathers. Nature endowed Plevako with a wonderful gift of words.

He was an excellent speaker. Plevako's first court speeches immediately revealed a huge oratorical talent. In the process of Colonel Kostrubo-Koritsky, heard in the Ryazan District Court (1871), Plevako was opposed by the barrister Prince A.I. Urusov, whose passionate speech excited the listeners. Plevako had to erase an unfavorable impression for the defendant. He countered the harsh attacks with sound objections, a calm tone, and a rigorous analysis of the evidence.

In all its brilliance and original strength, Plevako's oratorical talent was shown in the case of Abbess Mitrofania, who was accused in the Moscow District Court (1874) of forgery, fraud and embezzlement of other people's property. In this process, Plevako acted as a civil plaintiff, denouncing hypocrisy, ambition, criminal inclinations under a monastic cassock.

On December 14, 1874, a case was heard in the Moscow District Court about the event at the Montenegrin Hotel. Its essence was simple. The girl arrived in Moscow and settled in a hotel. Deep after midnight, a company of drunken men knocked on her room, located on the third floor. To a tough demand to let them in, the girl refused. Then they began to break down the door. At the very moment when the door creaked, a girl in one shirt jumped out the window into the street in twenty-five degrees of frost. Fortunately for her, she fell into a snowdrift and survived, although she broke her arm. When considering the case in court, the prosecution resolutely refused to understand what the crime of the male company was. After all, the girl jumped out of the window voluntarily and without coercion. Plevako, who defended the interests of the victim, said: “In distant Siberia, in the dense taiga, there is an animal that fate has awarded with a fur coat as white as snow. This is a stoat. When he escapes from the enemy, ready to tear him to pieces, on his way there is a dirty puddle, which there is no time to pass, he prefers to die, but not to stain his snow-white fur coat. And I understand why the victim jumped out the window.” Without uttering another word, Plevako sat down. The jury returned a guilty verdict against a group of men.

On March 23, 1880, the case of Praskovya Kachka, who killed her lover Bayrashevsky out of jealousy, was heard in the Moscow District Court. The essence of the matter was uncomplicated. On March 15, 1879, at a youth party, Praskovya became jealous of her lover for her friend Natalya Skvortsova. Out of her rage, she shot him. Realizing what she had done, Kachka tried to commit suicide, but could not. The court qualified her actions as murder out of jealousy. At the trial, Plevako gave a complete and clear psychological analysis of the accused - an orphan childhood, poverty, deceived love. And then he turned to the jury: “Open your arms, I give it to you. Do what your conscience tells you. If your heart tells you that she washed away sin, resurrect her. Let your sentence be her new birth to a better, wiser life of suffering. Do not judge with hatred, but with love, if you want the truth. May truth and mercy meet your decision." The court placed Praskovya Kachka for treatment in the hospital.

Often, Plevako spoke in cases of factory riots and in his speeches in defense of workers accused of resisting the authorities, of rampaging and destroying factory property, aroused a feeling of compassion for unfortunate people, “exhausted by physical labor, with spiritual forces dead from inaction, in contrast to us , minions of fate, brought up from the cradle in the concept of goodness and in full prosperity.

In his court speeches, Plevako avoided excesses, argued with tact, demanding from his opponents "equality in the struggle and battle with equal weapons." Being a speaker-improviser, relying on the power of inspiration, Plevako delivered, along with excellent speeches, relatively weak ones.

He won more than two hundred trials, including the trial in the case of Savva Mamontov. His case was heard in the Moscow District Court in July 1900. Industrialist and philanthropist Savva Ivanovich Mamontov, commissioned by the Russian government, began in 1894 the construction of a railway from Vologda to Arkhangelsk. He invested all his savings in it, but they were not enough. I had to borrow from banks. He hoped for the support of the Minister of Finance Witte, who, by government decree, gave him a contract for the construction of the St. Petersburg-Vologda-Vyatka railway. And everything could have turned out if the government had not suddenly abandoned its obligations. It withdrew the concession to build the road.

Mamontov found himself in debt, and shareholders demanded payment of dividends on their shares. The industrialist could not do this. Savva Ivanovich was arrested and taken to the Taganka prison. During a search in his apartment, they found 53 rubles with a note: “I am leaving with the knowledge that I did not intentionally do evil.” At the trial, it became clear that the money was directed to the business, and not to personal needs. The speech of the lawyer at the trial was, as always, brilliant and convincing: “This man is accused of willful embezzlement of millions. But theft and appropriation leave traces. Or is his past full of insane luxury? Or the present unrighteous self-interest? We know that no one, from the prosecution to the most vicious witness, pointed this out. These people believed in him. They believed in his plans, in his star. He was brought up in a school of broad entrepreneurial activity, primarily inspired by the idea of ​​social benefit, success and glory of the Russian cause. He made many mistakes, but these are human mistakes. Mamontov had no malicious intent."

By a court decision, Mamontov was released from custody on the same day.

In his younger years, Plevako was also engaged in scientific work: in 1874 he translated into Russian and published a course on Roman civil law Pukhta. After 1894, the famous singer L. V. Sobinov was his assistant. According to his political views, he belonged to the "Union of October 17".

Plevako owned a group of apartment buildings on Novinsky Boulevard; house 18A, built by the order of Plevako by the architect Mikini, was called “Plevako’s house”, retained its exterior and internal layout until the 21st century, and in 2018 received a conservation status.

Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako died on December 23, 1908 (January 5, 1909), at the age of 67, in Moscow. Plevako was buried with a huge gathering of people of all strata and conditions in the cemetery of the Sorrowful Monastery. In 1929, it was decided to close the monastery cemetery, and organize a playground in its place. The remains of Plevako, by decision of the relatives, were reburied at the Vagankovsky cemetery. Since that time, an ordinary oak cross stood on the grave of the great Russian lawyer - until 2003, when an original bas-relief depicting F.N. Plevako was created with donations from famous Russian lawyers.

Three secrets of the lawyer Plevako

Fedor Plevako's personal life:

Was married twice.

He had two sons from different wives, whose names were the same - Sergey Fedorovich. Later, both Sergei Fedorovich Plevako became lawyers and practiced in Moscow, which often caused confusion.

The second wife is Maria Andreevna Demidova. I met her during the divorce proceedings. Maria divorced millionaire Vasily Demidov from the famous clan of "linen kings". In marriage, Maria Andreevna had five legitimate children with the merchant Demidov. Undertaking to help Demidov's wife, who was seeking freedom from her unloved husband, he himself fell in love with her and created a family with her.

At first they lived in an illegal marriage - Maria was formally Demidov's wife. They had a daughter, Barbara. According to all the laws of that time, Varvara was documented as the daughter of Demidov. Then the son Vasily appeared.

The divorce proceedings lasted 20 years and Plevako lost it.

He registered his daughter Varvara and son Vasily as foundlings, and then adopted them. And the merchant Demidov did not care about all his worries, he even refused money for a "free" ex-wife. The situation was resolved by nature itself - the merchant Demidov died. Plevako himself wrote in a letter to a friend: “Well, my longest twenty-year and most unsuccessful process ended by itself. Vasily Demidov died. It's a pity, of course, he was a good person. Only very stubborn, he never gave a divorce. Washed the same Demidov Plevako, to be sure. Didn't let me win the case. But I don't hold a grudge against him. We should have a wedding."

Plevako owned a group of apartment buildings on Novinsky Boulevard; house 18A, built by the order of Plevako by the architect Mikini, was called "Plevako's house", retained the exterior and internal layout until the 21st century and in 2018 received a conservation status.

The image of Fedor Plevako in the cinema:

Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako (April 25, 1842, Troitsk - January 5, 1909, Moscow) - the most famous lawyer in pre-revolutionary Russia, lawyer, court speaker, real state councilor. He acted as a defender at many high-profile political and civil processes.

Possessing a lively mind, truly Russian ingenuity and eloquence, he won judicial victories over his opponents. In the legal environment, he was even nicknamed "Moscow Chrysostom". There is a selection of the most concise and vivid court speeches by a lawyer, in which there are no complex and confusing court terms. If you develop your oratory skills, structure and rhetorical techniques of F.N. Plevako can help you with this.

The lawyer F.N. Plevako defended the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than it was supposed to, on the eve of some religious holiday. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was there, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. After 10 minutes, Plevako, slowly, entered the hall, calmly sat down at the place of protection and opened the briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and declared that it was only five past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman:

“And how much is on your watch, Your Excellency?”

The chairman looked and replied:

— At my fifteen minutes past ten.

Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

- And on your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, obviously wishing to cause trouble for the defense counsel, replied with a sly smile:

“It's already twenty-five past ten on my watch.

He could not know what kind of trap Plevako set up for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense. The trial ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked that the defendant be found guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:

— The defendant was indeed 20 minutes late. But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and does not know much about watches. We are literate and intelligent people. How are you doing with your watch? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, the chairman has 15 minutes, and the prosecutor's clock has 25 minutes. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor has the most faithful watch. So my watch was 20 minutes behind, which is why I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch very accurate, because I have gold, Moser. So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor's clock, opened the session 15 minutes late, and the defense counsel appeared 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate saleswoman have better hours and better understand the time than the prosecutor and I? The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

Once, Plevako got a case about the murder of his woman by one man. Plevako came to court as usual, calm and confident in success, and without any papers and cribs. And so, when the turn came to the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Plevako again:

— Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Here in the hall swept the discontented rumble of the long-awaited long-awaited spectacle of the people. And Plevako again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Here already the hall exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable public. And from the podium again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Something incredible has begun. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally, Plevako raised his hand, urging the people to calm down.

— Well, gentlemen, you could not stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. And what was it like for this unfortunate peasant to listen for 15 years to unfair reproaches and the irritated itch of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!

The hall froze, then burst into enthusiastic applause. The man was acquitted.

He once defended an elderly priest accused of adultery and theft. By all appearances, the defendant had nothing to count on the favor of the jury. The prosecutor convincingly described the depth of the fall of the clergyman, mired in sins. Finally, Plevako got up from his seat. His speech was short: "Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right in everything. The defendant committed all these crimes and confessed to them himself. What is there to argue about? confess your sins. Now he is waiting for you: will you forgive him his sin?"

There is no need to specify that the priest was acquitted.

The court is considering the case of an old woman, a hereditary honorary citizen, who stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing that Plevako would defend her, decided to cut the ground from under his feet, and he himself described to the jury the hard life of the client, which forced her to take such a step. The prosecutor even stressed that the criminal causes pity, not resentment. But, gentlemen, private property is sacred, the world order is based on this principle, so if you justify this grandmother, then you and the revolutionaries should logically be justified. The jurors nodded their heads in agreement, and then Plevako began his speech. He said: "Russia had to endure many troubles, many trials for more than a thousand years of existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsians, Tatars, Poles. Twelve languages ​​fell upon her, took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, only grew stronger and grew from trials. But now ... The old woman stole an old teapot worth 30 kopecks. Of course, Russia will not be able to withstand this, it will die forever from this ... "

The old woman was acquitted.

In addition to the story about the famous lawyer Plevako. He defends a man whom a prostitute has accused of rape and is trying to get a significant amount from him in court for the injury. Facts of the case: the plaintiff alleges that the defendant lured her into a hotel room and raped her there. The man declares that everything was in good agreement. The last word for Plevako. "Gentlemen of the jury," he says. "If you award my client a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes."

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: "That's not true! I took off my shoes!!!"

Laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

The great Russian lawyer F.N. Plevako is credited with the frequent use of the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. One day, speaking in the provincial district court, he agreed with the bell ringer of the local church that he would begin the evangelization for mass with special precision. The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F.N. Plevako exclaimed:

— If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a verdict of not guilty.

The present case was considered by the Ostrogozhsky district court on September 29-30, 1883. Prince G.I. Gruzinsky was accused of premeditated murder of the former tutor of his children, who later managed the estate of Gruzinsky's wife, E.F. Schmidt. The preliminary investigation established the following. After Gruzinsky demanded that his wife stop all relations as a tutor, very quickly becomes close to his wife, with the tutor, and fired him himself, the wife declared the impossibility of further living with Gruzinsky and demanded the allocation of part of her property. Having settled in the estate allotted to her, she invited E.F. Schmidt. After the partition, two of Gruzinsky's children lived for some time with their mother in the same estate where Schmidt was the manager. Schmidt often used this to take revenge on Gruzinsky. The latter had limited opportunities for meetings with children, children were told a lot of compromising things about Gruzinsky. As a result, being constantly in a tense nervous state when meeting with Schmidt and with children, Gruzinsky during one of these meetings killed Schmidt by shooting him several times with a pistol.

Plevako, defending the defendant, very consistently proves the absence of intent in his actions and the need to qualify them as committed in a state of insanity. He focuses on the feelings of the prince at the time of the crime, on his relationship with his wife, on love for children. He tells the story of the prince, about his meeting with the "clerk from the store", about his relationship with the old princess, about how the prince took care of his wife and children. The eldest son was growing up, the prince was taking him to St. Petersburg, to school. There he falls ill with a fever. The prince experiences three attacks, during which he manages to return to Moscow: "Tenderly loving father, husband wants to see a family."

“It was then that the prince, who had not yet left the bed, had to experience terrible grief. Once he hears - the patients are so sensitive - in the next room, a conversation between Schmidt and his wife: they, apparently, perekoresh; but their quarrel is so strange: it’s like they are scolding, and not strangers, then again peaceful speeches ... uncomfortable ... The prince gets up, gathers strength ..., goes when no one expected him, when they thought that he was bedridden ... And well. not well together ... The prince fainted and lay on the floor all night. Those who were caught fled, not even guessing to send help to the sick man. The prince could not kill the enemy, destroy him, he was weak ... He only accepted misfortune in an open heart, so that he would never be with him not to know separation.

Plevako claims that he would not have dared to accuse the princess and Schmidt, condemn them to the prince's sacrifice, if they had left, had not boasted of their love, had not insulted him, had not extorted money from him, what is it "It would be a hypocrisy of the word." The princess lives in her half of the estate. Then she leaves, leaving the children with Schmidt. The prince is angry: he takes the children. But here the unthinkable happens. “Schmidt, taking advantage of the fact that children’s underwear is in the princess’s house where he lives, rejects the demand with a curse and sends an answer that without 300 rubles a deposit he will not give the prince two shirts and two pants for children. and children, and dares to call him a man capable of wasting children's underwear, takes care of the children, and demands a 300 ruble deposit from the father.

The next morning, the prince saw children in crumpled shirts. "My father's heart sank. He turned away from these talking eyes and - what father's love would not do - went out into the hallway, got into the carriage prepared for him for the trip and went ... went to ask his rival, enduring shame and humiliation, shirts for his children " . Schmidt, according to witnesses, loaded the guns at night. The prince had a gun, but it was a habit, not an intention. "I affirm- said Plevako, - that an ambush awaits him. Linen, refusal, bail, loaded guns of large and small caliber - everything speaks for my thought. He goes to Schmidt. "Of course, his soul could not help but be indignant when he saw the nest of his enemies and began to approach him. Here it is - the place where, in the hours of his grief and suffering, they - his enemies - laugh and rejoice at his misfortune. Here it is - a lair where the honor of the family, and his honor, and all the interests of his children were sacrificed to the animal voluptuousness of the swindler. Here it is - a place where not only was his present taken away, his past happiness was taken away, poisoning him with suspicions ... God forbid to experience such moments! In such a mood he rides, approaches the house, knocks on the door. They do not let him in. The footman speaks of the order not to receive. The prince conveys that he does not need anything except linen. But instead of fulfilling his finally, a polite refusal, he hears scolding, scolding from the lips of his wife's lover, directed at him, who does not do any insult on his part. You have heard about this abuse: "Let the scoundrel leave, don't you dare knock, this is my house! Get out, I'll shoot." The whole being of the prince was indignant. The enemy stood close and laughed so brazenly. The fact that he was armed, the prince could know from his family, who had heard from Tsybulin. And the fact that he was capable of all evil - the prince could not do not believe". He shoots. "But, listen, gentlemen, the defender says - was there a living place in his soul at that terrible moment. "" The prince could not cope with these feelings. They are too legal. The husband sees a man ready to defile the purity of the marriage bed; the father is present at the scene of the seduction of his daughter; the high priest sees the impending blasphemy, and, apart from them, there is no one to save the right and the sacred. It is not a vicious feeling of malice that rises in their souls, but a righteous sense of revenge and protection of the violated right. It is legal, it is holy; don’t get up, they are despicable people, panders, sacrilegious!”

Finishing his speech, Fyodor Nikiforovich said: “Oh, how happy I would be if, having measured and compared with your own understanding the strength of his patience and struggle with himself, and the strength of the oppression over him of the soul-disturbing pictures of his family misfortune, you would admit that he cannot be imputed to the charge that is being brought up, and his defender is all around to blame for the insufficient ability to fulfill the task he has taken on ... "

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, finding that the crime was committed in a state of insanity.

Another time a wealthy Moscow merchant turned to him for help. Plevako says: “I heard about this merchant. I decided that I would break such a fee that the merchant would be horrified. And he was not only not surprised, but also said:

- You just win my case. I'll pay what you said, and I'll give you pleasure.

- What is the pleasure?

Win the case, you'll see.

I won the case. The merchant paid the fee. I reminded him of the promised pleasure. The merchant says:

- On Sunday, at ten o'clock in the morning, I'll pick you up, let's go.

"Where to at this early?"

- Look, you'll see.

It's Sunday. The merchant followed me. We are going to Zamoskvorechye. I wonder where he's taking me. There are no restaurants here, no gypsies. Yes, this is not the right time for this. Let's go down some lanes. There are no residential buildings around, only barns and warehouses. We drove up to a warehouse. A man is standing at the gate. Not a watchman, not an artel worker. Got down. Kupchina asks the man:

- Ready?

"That's right, your lordship."

- Lead...

Let's go to the yard. The little man opened a door. Came in, look and do not understand anything. A huge room, on the walls of the shelves, on the shelves of dishes. The merchant escorted the peasant out, stripped off his fur coat, and offered to take it off for me. I undress. The merchant went to a corner, took two hefty clubs, gave me one of them and said:

- Start.

— Yes, what to start?

- Like what? Dishes to beat!

Why hit her?

The merchant smiled.

“Get started, you’ll understand why…

The merchant went up to the shelves and broke a bunch of dishes with one blow. I hit too. Also broke. We began to beat the dishes and, imagine, I went into such a rage and began to break dishes with a club with such fury that it’s even a shame to remember. Imagine that I really experienced some kind of wild, but spicy pleasure and could not calm down until the merchant and I smashed everything to the last cup. When it was all over, the merchant asked me:

- Well, did you enjoy it?

I had to admit that I did."

Thank you for your attention!

(1842-1908)

In the entire history of the domestic advocacy, there was no more popular person in it than F.N. Plevako. And experts, jurists, and the townsfolk, the common people, valued him above all lawyers as a "great orator", "genius of words", "senior hero" and even "metropolitan of advocacy". His surname itself became a household name as a synonym for an extra-class lawyer: “I will find another “Spitter,” they said and wrote without any irony.” Letters to him were addressed as follows: “Moscow. Novinsky Boulevard, own house. To the main defender Plevaka ". Or simply: “Moscow. Fedor Nikiforovich".

The literature about Plevako is more extensive than about any other of the Russian lawyers, a major two-volume edition of his speeches has been published, but so far his life, work and creative heritage have not yet been properly studied. Almost no consideration is given, for example, to his speeches at political trials. About how little Ple-wako is known even by his admirers from specialists - today's lawyers,lawyers, says such a fact. In 1993, a collection of his speeches was published in a 30,000th edition. The annotation to the collection (p. 4) states that “speeches, mostly not previously published,” are being printed, and the editor-in-chief of the collection, the well-known lawyer Henry Reznik, specifically noted Plevako’s famous speech at the trial of peasants p. Lutorichi: “Due to the fact that this speech was published, it is not included in this collection” (p. 25). Meanwhile all 39 speeches, included "in this collection" were published in two volumes in 1909-1910. and are now reprinted from there without reference to the two-volume edition. By the way, G.M. Reznik refers in the 1993 collection (repeatedly: pp. 33, 37, 39) to a brief essay on Plevako from V.I. Smolyarchuk "Giants and sorcerers of the word", not knowing that Smolyarchuk published a separate (ten times larger) book "Lawyer Fyodor Plevako" ...

Fedor Nikiforovich was born on April 13, 1842 in the city of Troitsk, Orenburg province (now the Chelyabinsk region). His parents were a member of the Trinity customs, court adviser Vasily Ivanovich Plea-wah from the Ukrainian nobles and the Kyrgyz serf Ekaterina Stepanova, with whom Plevak had four children (two of them died as babies), but did not legalize the marriage. As an illegitimate future "genius of the word" received a patronymic and surname ( Nikiforov) by the name of Nicephorus - the godfather of his older brother. Later, he entered the university with his father's surname Plevak, and at the end of the university he added the letter “o” to it, and he called himself with an emphasis on this letter: Plevako. “So,” the biographer of Fyodor Nikiforovich concludes on this occasion, “he has three surnames: Nikiforov, Plevak and Plevako.”

In Troitsk, from 1849 to 1851, Fedor studied at parochial and district schools, and in the summer of 1851, the Plevako family moved to Moscow. Here

Fyodor Nikiforovich will live his whole life from now on. From the autumn of 1851, he began to study at a commercial school.

The Moscow Commercial School on Ostozhenka was then considered exemplary. Even members of the royal family, upon arrival in Moscow, honored him with their visit, tested the knowledge of the students. Fedor and his older brother Dormidont were excellent students, and by the end of their first year of study, their names were listed on the “golden board” of the school. At the beginning of the second year, the school was visited by Prince Peter of Oldenburg (nephew of two tsars - Alexander I and Nicholas I). He was told about Fedor's ability to solve verbally and quickly complex problems with three-digit and even four-digit numbers. The prince himself tested the boy's abilities, praised him, and two days later sent him sweets as a gift. And on the eve of the new year, 1853, Vasily Plevak was announced that his sons were expelled from the school as ... illegitimate. Fedor Nikiforovich will remember this humiliation for the rest of his life. Many years later, he wrote about it in his autobiography: “We were declared unworthy of the very school that praised us for our successes and flaunted the exceptional ability of one of us in mathematics. God forgive them! They really didn’t know what these narrow-minded foreheads were doing, making a human sacrifice.

In the autumn of 1853, thanks to their father's long efforts, Fedor and Dormidont were admitted to the 1st Moscow Gymnasium on Prechistenka - immediately into the 3rd grade. During his studies at the gymnasium, Fedor buried his father and brother, who did not live to be 20 years old. In the spring of 1859, he graduated from the gymnasium and entered the law faculty of Moscow University. As a student, he translated into Russian the "Course of Roman Civil Law" by the eminent German lawyer Georg Friedrich Puchta (1798-1846), which he would later thoroughly comment on and publish at his own expense.

In 1864, Plevako graduated from the university with a degree in law, but did not immediately decide on the calling of a lawyer: for more than six months he served on a voluntary basis as an intern in the Moscow District Court, waiting for a suitable vacancy. When, according to the "Regulations" on October 19, 1865 on the introduction of the Judicial Statutes of 1864, from the spring of 1866, a sworn advocacy began to form in Russia, Plevako was one of the first in Moscow to sign up as an assistant to the sworn attorney M.I. Dobrokhotov. In the rank of assistant, he managed to prove himself as a gifted lawyer in criminal trials, among which stood out the case of Alexei Maruev on January 30, 1868 in the Moscow District Court. Maruev was accused of two forgery. Plevako protected him. Fedor Nikiforovich lost this case (his client was found guilty and exiled to Siberia), but Plevako's defense speech - the first of his speeches that has survived - has already shown his strength, especially in the analysis of witness slander. “They,” Plevako said of the witnesses in the Maruev case, “do not respond with memorization, and one ascribes to the other what the other, for his part, ascribes to the first.<...>So strong are the contradictions, so they mutually annihilate themselves in the most essential questions! What faith can they have? ?!»

On September 19, 1870, Plevako was accepted as a barrister of the district of the Moscow Court of Justice, and from that time began his brilliant ascent to the heights of advocacy glory. True, two years later it almost broke off because of his political "unreliability."

The fact is that 8 December 1872, head of the Moscow provincial gendarmerie department, Lieutenant General I.A. Slezkin reported to the manager of the III department A.F. Schultz that a “secret legal society” was uncovered in Moscow, created with the aim of “acquainting students and young people in general with revolutionary ideas”, “finding ways to print and lithograph prohibited books and distribute them, to have constant relations with foreign figures ". According to intelligence data, the society consisted of “students of the law faculty of all courses who declared themselves in favor of socialism, who completed the course and remained at the university, candidates of rights, sworn attorneys and their assistants, as well as former students, mostly lawyers.” “At the present time,” the chief of the Moscow gendarmerie reported, “the aforementioned society already has full members of up to 150 people.<...>Attorney-at-law Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako, who replaced the importance of Prince Alexander Urusov among students, is named among the main ones, and a number of names are listed below: S.A. Klyachko and N.P. Tsakni (members of the revolutionary populist society of the so-called "Chaikovites"),V.A. Goltsev (later a prominent public figure, editor of the Russian Thought magazine), V.A. Wagner (later a major scientist-psychologist), etc. .

Seven months later, on July 16, 1873, I.A. Slezkin notifiedA.F. Schultz that “named persons are subjected to the most strict observation and all possible measures are taken to obtain factual data that could serve as a guarantee for the discovery of both the persons who made up the secret legal society and all its actions” . As a result, such data, "which could serve as a guarantee ...", could not be found. The case of the "secret legal society" was closed, its alleged "full members" escaped reprisals. But Plevako from that time until 1905 emphatically eschewed "politics". The only one of the luminaries of the domestic advocacy, he never acted as a defender at political trials in the strict sense of the word, where Narodniks, Narodnaya Volya, Social Democrats, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Cadets, etc. trials in cases of various kinds of "riots" with political overtones.

The first of these cases was for him the so-called. The “Okhotnoryadskoe case” of 1878 about students who staged a demonstration of solidarity with political exiles in Moscow were beaten by the police and put on trial for resisting the beating. The authorities qualified the case as "street riots" and entrusted it to the magistrate's court. The political nature of the case was revealed at the trial by the defendants (among them was a well-known populist, since 1881, an agent of the Executive Committee of the "Narodnaya Volya" P.V. Gortynsky). They were actively supported by attorney at law N.P. Shubinsky is Plevako's comrade in advocacy and (in the future) in membership in the Octobrist Party. Fyodor Nikiforovich spoke cautiously at this trial, knowing thatnot only the courtroom (in the Sukharev tower), but also the approaches to it are filled with young radicals, and the alleys and streets around the tower are filled with police detachments. Much more boldly, he stood up for the peasant rebels in the sensational Luthoric case.

In the spring of 1879, the peasants from. Lutorichi of the Tula province rebelled against their enslavement by a neighboring landowner, the Moscow provincial marshal of the nobility in 1875-1883. Count A.V. Bobrinsky (from the Bobrinsky family - from the illegitimate son of Empress Catherine II A.G. Bobrinsky). The rebellion was suppressed by the troops, and its "instigators" (34 people) were put on trial on charges of "resisting the authorities." The case was considered by the Moscow Court of Justice with consular representatives in December 1880. Plevako took upon himself not only the defense of all the accused, but also "the costs of their maintenance during the three weeks of the process." His defense speech (1.300-312) sounded like a formidable accusation against those in power in Russia. Defining the position of the peasants after the reform of 1861 as “half-starved freedom,” Plevako, with figures and facts in hand, showed that life in Lutorichi had become “a hundred times harder than pre-reform slavery.” The predatory exactions from the peasants angered him so much that he exclaimed at Count. Bob-rinsky and his manager A.K. Fisher: “Shame on the time in which such people live and act!” As for accusing his defendants of inciting a riot, Plevako told the judges: “There were instigators. I found them and I give them to your justice with my head. They are- instigators they- perpetrators they is the cause of all causes. helpless poverty,<...>lack of rights, shameless exploitation, leading everyone and everything to ruin - here they are, instigators!

After Plevako's speech in the courtroom, according to an eyewitness, "applause thundered from excited, shocked listeners." The court was forced to acquit 30 of the 34 defendants. A.F. Koni believed that Plevako's speech at this trial "was, according to the conditions and moods of that time, a civil feat."

Plevako spoke just as boldly and loudly at the trial in the case of the participants in the historical Morozov strike of the workers of the Nikolskaya manufactory of the Morozov manufacturers near the station. Orekhovo (now the city of Orekhovo-Zuyevo, Moscow Region). This was the largest and most organized strike at that time (“a terrible riot of tens of thousands of workers”) with 7 until January 17, 1885, it was partly political in nature: it was led by revolutionary workers P.A. Moiseenko, b. C. Volkov and A.I. Ivanov, and among the demands of the strikers presented to the governor was "a complete change in the terms of employment between the owner and the workers according to the published state law” 1 . The strike case was heard at two trials in the Vladimir District Court in February (about 17 defendants) and in May 1886 (about 33 more). At the first of them, on February 7, Plevako defended the main accused - Moiseenko and Volkov.

And this time, as in the Lutoric case, Plevako justified the defendants, qualifying their actions as compelled"protest against lawless arbitrariness" on the part of the exploiters of the people and the authorities behind them (1.322-325). “The factory administration, contrary to the general law and the terms of the contract,” emphasized Fyodor Nikiforovich, “does not heat the institution, the workers stand at the machine at 10-15 degrees of cold. Do they have the right to leave, refuse to work in the presence of the illegal actions of the owner, or should they freeze to death as a hero? The owner, contrary to the contract, gives unspecified work, does not count on the condition, but on the arbitrariness. Should the workers be stupidly silent, or can they refuse to work separately and together, not on condition? I believe that the law protects legitimate the interests of the owner, against the lawlessness of the workers, and does not take under his protection every owner in all his arbitrariness. Having outlined the position of the Morozov workers, Plevako, according to the memoirs of P.A. Moiseenko, uttered words that were not included in the published text of his speech: “If we are indignant while reading a book about black slaves, now we have white slaves before us.”

The court accepted the arguments of the defence. Even Moiseenko and Volkov, the recognized leaders of the strike, were sentenced to only 3 months of arrest, 13 people - to arrest from 7 days to 3 weeks, and 2 were acquitted.

In the future, Plevako still, at least twice, acted as a defender in cases of workers' "riots" with a political connotation. In December 1897, the Moscow Court of Justice considered the case of factory workers N.N. Konshin in the city of Serpukhov. Hundreds of them rebelled against the inhuman conditions of work and life, began to smash the apartments of the factory authorities and were pacified only by the armed force, while putting up "resistance to the authorities." Here Plevako raised and explained a very important - both legally and politically - question of the relationship between personal and collective responsibility for a case under jurisdiction (I. 331-332). “A lawless and intolerable deed is done,” he said. The mob was the culprit. And the crowd is not judged. Su-dyat several dozen faces seen in the crowd. This is also a kind of crowd, but already different, small; the former was formed by mass instincts, the latter by investigators and accusers.<...>All predicates, most bitingly depicting the riot of the masses, were attributed to the crowd, the crowd, and not to individuals. And we judge individuals: the crowd has left. And further: “The crowd is a building, people are bricks. From the same bricks both the temple of God and the prison, the home of the outcasts, are built.<...>The crowd is contagious. Persons entering it become infected. Beating them is like fighting an epidemic by scourging the sick.” .

As a result the court and on this business has defined to defendants minimum punishments .

As for the process in the Moscow Court of Justice in the spring of 1904 in the case of workers' "riots" at the Moscow region manufactory A.I. Baranov, then the defenders, liberal representatives of the so-called. "young advocacy": N.K. Muravyov, N.V. Teslenko, V.A. Maklakov, M.L. Mandelstam. Together with them, at their invitation, Plevako defended the workers. Unlike his colleagues, who tried to turn the trial into "the first lesson in political literacy, a school of political education" for the defendants, Fyodor Nikiforovich spoke, according to Mandelstam's memoirs, outside of politics: "In his defense, not revolutionary sounded, but" universal "notes. He was not addressing the working masses. He spoke to the privileged classes, urging them, out of a sense of philanthropy, to extend a helping hand to the workers. It even seemed to Mandelstam that Plevako spoke sluggishly, that he was "tired of life," "the eagle no longer spreads its wings." But six months later, in November of the same 1904, Plevako again looked like an “eagle”.

This time the process was clearly political, although without the participation of any revolutionaries, and the accusation itself was formulated apolitically: "slander". The editor-publisher of the newspaper "Grazhdanin" Prince. V.P. Metsersky, the plaintiff was the Oryol marshal of the nobility M.A. Stakhovich (a close friend of the family of A.N. Tolstoy), and Plevako andV.A. Maklakov acted as attorneys for the plaintiff, supporting the accusation. The crux of the matter was that Stakhovich wrote an article protesting the torture to which the police subjected their victims. This article, after being rejected by three censored bodies, was published in the illegal journal P.B. Struve "Liberation" with the caveat: "without the consent of the author." Meshchersky, in No. 28 of his newspaper for 1904, angrily scolded Stakhovich and his "intention to cast an accusatory shadow on the administrative authorities", "collaboration with a revolutionary publication", "an insult to patriotism, almost equal to writing sympathetic telegrams to the Japanese government" (at that time the Russo-Japanese War was going on).

Plevako literally glorified Stakhovich, emphasizing "all the purity of intentions, all the correctness of the means by which a true citizen of his country fights against untruth, announces it and calls for correction", and condemned (in solidarity with Maklakov) Meshchersky's "police understanding of life" . He ranked Stakhovich with the "camp" of Minin and Pozharsky, and Meshchersky - with the "camp" of Malyuta Skuratov (I. 289). Plevako's final words about Meshchersky sounded like an anathema: “He will not prove to honest-minded Russian people that the Stakhoviches are undesirable and only the Meshcherskys are needed. Meshchersky alone is enough for us, God forbid, more people like Stakhovich!<...>Evaluate the act of the prince, and let him add the name of a slanderer to his ancient name! (I. 293).

The speeches of Plevako and Maklakov on the Meshchersky case made an even greater impression, since all educated Russia knew then: Prince Meshchersky not only symbolizes an extreme reaction, he - despite the odiousness of his reputation in society 2 - is reputed to be the "mentor of two sovereigns" (Alexander III and Nicholas II), who favored Meshchersky and subsidized his newspaper as a "royal organ", "table newspaper of the tsars". The court (to give him his due) did not become a politician: he found the tsar's "mentor" guilty of slander and sentenced him to a two-week arrest in the guardhouse.

Plevako's speeches at political (to one extent or another) processes make it possible to see in him a "democrat-raznochinets", as A.F. called him. Koni, especially since Fyodor Nikiforovich himself directly spoke about himself: "I man of the 60s. But, I think, V.I. Smolyarchuk exaggerated, believing that not only “according to his temperament”, but also “according to the prevailing worldview”, Plevako was a “deep democrat”. Koni had in mind not Plevako's worldview, but his democratic-raznochinsk "habit", responsiveness and simplicity of his communication "in all strata of Russian society" . The ideological democracy of Pleva-ko was not deep, but rather broad, not so much conscious as spontaneous. An illegitimate child from a mixed marriage, an "outcast", in his own words, he became a real state councilor (4th class of the Table of Ranks, corresponding to the military rank of major general), gained access to higher spheres, was friends with such bison from the powerful of the world, as the general controller T.I. Filippov (“a cynic in morality and vile subservience to those who could be useful to him”) and a fierce hater of any democracy, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev.

However, Plevako's friendship with Pobedonostsev had no ideological support. A.V. Volsky saw Plevako's own handwritten "evil" epigram on Pobedonostsev:

Victorious for the Synod,

Dinner-bearers at the court,

Bedonostsev for the people And informers he is everywhere

Pobedonostsev, for his part, was not in vain, "when I saw a photograph of Plevako with young lawyers (from the" unreliable. "-AND.T.), said: “They should all be hanged, not photographed.”

Avoiding after the case 1872-1873. about the "secret legal society" and before the 1905 revolution of any "politics", Plevako clearly showed himself not as a democrat, but as a HUMANIST. Convinced that “the life of one person is more precious than any reforms” (II. 9), he stood up for impartial justice: “Before the court, everyone is equal, even if you be a generalis simus!” (1.162). At the same time, he considered mercy necessary and natural for justice: “The word of the law resembles the threats of a mother to children. As long as there is no guilt, she promises cruel punishments to the rebellious son, but as soon as the need for punishment comes, the love of the mother's heart looks for any reason to mitigate the necessary measure of execution ”(1.155). But it was precisely as a humanist and truth-seeker that he denounced before the court any abuses, whether committed by spiritual tycoons “under the cover of a cassock and a monastery” or “dogs” of a police investigation under the command of the authorities “Atu him!” (I. 161, 175; II. 63).

The now forgotten democrat poet Leonid Grave (1839-1891 ) dedicated to Fyodor Nikiforovich the poem “In the Crowd of Fools, Soulless and Cold” with the following lines:

Look around: the whole world is bound by evil,

Enmity reigns in the hearts of people from time immemorial...

Don't be afraid of them! With a fearless brow Go fight for the right of man.

Let us return to the topic of politics in the life and work of Plevako. The tsar's manifesto of October 17, 1905 inspired him with the illusion that civil liberties were close in Russia. He rushed into politics with youthful enthusiasm: he asked his colleague in the bar V.A. Maklakov "record" him in the Constitutional Democratic Party. He (who was one of the founders and leaders of the party) refused, reasonably considering that "Spitting and the political party, party discipline are incompatible concepts." Then Plevako joined the Octobrist party. From them he was elected to the Third State Duma, where, with the naivety of an amateur politician, he called on the Duma members to replace “songs about freedom with songs of freeworkers erecting the edifice of law and freedom” (this speech on November 20, 1907 was his first and last Duma speech: 1.367-373). As appears from the memoirs of N.P. Karabchevsky, Plevako even considered the project of “modifying the royal title in order to emphasize that Nicholas II is no longer the absolute Russian Tsar by the grace of God, but a limited monarch”, but did not dare to declare this from the Duma rostrum.

The Dumsky (it turned out to be dying) turn of Plevako's career puzzled and upset his colleagues, students, friends as a "misunderstanding". Today lawyer GL4. Reznik is trying to dispute this fact, because, they say, “there are no (? - N.T.) grounds to suspect a solid (? - I. T.) in the convictions of a liberal ", which was Plevako. Alas, V.A. Maklakov and N.P. Karabchevsky knew better than Reznik that it was precisely Fyodor Nikiforovich's firmness in political convictions that was lacking.

So, in the sphere of politics, Plevako did not become any noticeable figure, but in the sphere of law he was truly great as a lawyer and judicial orator, who shone at trials mainly in criminal (and partly in civil) cases.

Plevako was a unique orator, as they say, from God. True, unlike other luminaries of the sworn advocacy - such as A.I. Urusov, S.A. Andreevsky, N.P. Karabchevsky (but to match V. D. Spasovich and P. A. Alexandrov), he was poor in external data. “The high-cheeked, angular face of the Kalmyk type with wide-set eyes, with unruly strands of long black hair, could be called ugly if it were not illuminated by inner beauty, which showed through now in a general animated expression, now in a kind, lion-like smile, then in the fire and brilliance of talking eyes. His movements were uneven and sometimes awkward; A lawyer's tailcoat sat awkwardly on him, and his whispering voice seemed to run counter to his vocation as an orator. But in this voice there were notes of such strength and passion that he captured the listener and conquered him to himself.

The secret of Plevako's oratorical irresistibility was not only and not even so much in the mastery of the word. “His main strength lay in intonations, in the irresistible, downright magical contagiousness of feeling, with which he knew how to ignite the listener. Therefore, his speeches on paper and in a remote way do not convey their tremendous power. The aphorism of F. La Rochefoucauld is very suitable for Plevako: “In the sound of the voice, in the eyes and in the whole appearance of the speaker, there is no less eloquence than in the choice of words.”

Plevako never wrote the texts of his speeches in advance, but after the trial, at the request of newspaper reporters or close friends, sometimes ("when he was not lazy") he wrote down the already delivered speech. These entries are undoubtedly among the best texts in his two volumes.

The spittle-orator was emphatically (like no other) individual. Far from being such an erudite as Spasovich or Urusov (and later 0.0. Gruzenberg), he was strong in worldly ingenuity and acumen, the “nationality” of the origins of his eloquence. Yielding to Spasovich in the depth of scientific analysis, Karabchevsky in the logic of evidence, Aleksandrov in daring, Urusov and Andreevsky in the harmony of the word, he surpassed them all in infectious sincerity, emotional power, oratorical inventiveness. In general, according to the authoritative opinion of A.F. Koni, “in Plevako, a tribune appeared through the outward appearance of a defender,” who, however, ideally mastered the threefold calling of protection: “to convince, to move, to propitiate.” "He was a master of beautiful images, cascades of loud phrases, clever lawyer tricks, witty antics that unexpectedly came to his mind and often saved clients from threatening punishment." How unpredictable were Plevako's defensive findings can be seen from two of his speeches, about which legends once circulated: in defense of a priest who was defrocked for theft, and an old woman who stole a tin teapot.

The first case according to the famous Russian and Soviet lawyer N.V. Kommodov was artistically described by the no less famous investigator and writer, the “classic” of the Soviet detective L.R. Sheinin. Three decades later, already in our time, ML. Aeshchinsky, referring to the fact that the late Sheinin once "told" him this story, verbatim reproduced Sheinin's publication (which took 15 pages) in his essay, as if from himself.

The essence of the matter with the stealing priest was also briefly stated by V.V. Veresaev and V.I. Smolyarchuk. The guilt of the defendant in the theft of the church hard money has been proven. He confessed to it himself. The witnesses were all against him. The prosecutor made a murderous speech for the defendant. Plevako, who made a bet with the manufacturer-philanthropist S.T. Morozov (with the witness Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko) that he would fit his defense speech in one minute and the priest would be acquitted, kept silent throughout the entire judicial investigation, did not ask any of the witnesses a single question. When his moment came, he only said, turning to the jury with his characteristic sincerity: “Gentlemen of the jury! For more than twenty years my client has forgiven you your sins. Once you let him go, Russian people!” The jury acquitted the priest.

In the case of the old woman who stole the teapot, the prosecutor, wishing to paralyze the effect of Plevako’s defense speech in advance, himself expressed everything possible in favor of the accused (she herself is poor, the theft is trifling, it’s a pity for the old woman), but emphasized that property is sacred, one cannot encroach on it, because it keeps all the improvement of the country, "and if people are allowed to disregard it, the country will perish." Plevako got up: “Many troubles, many trials have happened to Russia during its more than a thousand-year existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsy, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve languages ​​fell upon her, took Moskva. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, only grew stronger from trials and grew. But now, now... The old woman stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. Russia, of course, will not withstand this, it will perish from this. The old woman was acquitted.

Here is a little known case. A certain landowner ceded part of his land to the peasants by agreement with them - because they paved a convenient road from his estate to the highway. But the landowner died, and his heir refused to accept the agreement and again took away the land from the peasants. The peasants rebelled, set fire to the landowner's estate, and slaughtered the cattle. The rebels were put on trial. Plevako undertook to protect them. Judgment was swift. The prosecutor threw thunder and lightning against the accused, but Plevako remained silent. When the word was given to the defense, Fyodor Nikiforovich addressed the jurors (all from local landowners) with the following words: “I do not agree with Mr. Prosecutor and find that he requires extremely mild sentences. For one defendant, he demanded fifteen years of hard labor, and I think this period should be doubled. And add five years to this... And to this...To once and for all wean the peasants from believing the word of a Russian nobleman!”The jury delivered an acquittal.

A number of criminal trials with the participation of Plevako acquired, mainly thanks to his speeches, an all-Russian response. The first of these was the Mitrofaniev trial, that is, the trial of Mitrofaniya, abbess of the Serpukhov Bishop's Monastery, which aroused interest even in Europe. In the world, Baroness Praskovya Grigoryevna Rosen, daughter of the hero of the Patriotic War of 1812 and viceroy in the Caucasus 1831-1837. general of infantry and adjutant general G.V. Rosen (1782-1841), maid of honor of the royal court, in 1854 she had her hair cut as a nun, and from 1861 she ruled in the Serpukhov monastery. For 10 years, the abbess, relying on her connections and proximity to the court, stole more than 700 thousand rubles through fraud and forgery (a colossal amount at that time).

The investigation into the Mitrofaniya case was started in St. Petersburg by A.F. Koni (at that time the prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court), but tried her on October 5-15, 1874. Moscow Districtalreadynoah court chaired by P.A. Deyer. Plevako, as an attorney for the victims, became the chief accuser of the abbess and her monastic assistants during the trial. Confirming the conclusions of the investigation, refuting the arguments of the defense, he stated: “A traveler walking past the high walls of the lord’s monastery is piously baptized on the golden crosses of the temples and thinks that he is walking past the house of God, and in this house the morning bell raised the abbess and her servants not for prayer, but for dark deeds! Instead of a temple, there is a stock exchange; instead of people praying, there are swindlers; instead of prayer, there are exercises in drafting bills; that's what was behind the walls.<...>Higher, higher, build the walls of the communities entrusted to you, so that the world will not see the deeds that you do under the cover of the cassock and the monastery! (II. 62-63). The court found Abbess Mitrofania guilty of fraud and forgery and sentenced her to exile in Siberia.

At the sensational trial of P.P. Kachki in the Moscow District Court on March 22-23, 1880, Plevako flashed in the more familiar role of the defendant's defender. Here - not really, but in the circumstances accompanying it - a political aspect was partly visible. The fact is that the 18-year-old noblewoman Praskovya Kachka was the step-daughter of the populist propagandist N.E. Bitmida and rotated in the "red-molten" environment. March 15, 1879 at a youth party (gathering?) in the apartment of a prominent populist P.V. Gortynsky (in 1878, who was suing in the “Okhotnoryadsky” case), Kachka shot her lover, student Bronislav Bayrashevsky, and tried to kill herself, but could not. The court qualified the case as murder out of jealousy.

Plevako, having given a psychologically masterful analysis of everything experienced by the accused during her 18 years (orphan childhood, “physical illness”, deceived love), appealed to the mercy of the jury: “Look at this 18-year-old woman and tell me what is she an infection to be destroyed, or an infected to be spared?<...>Do not judge with hatred, but with love, if you want the truth. Let, according to the happy expression of the psalmist, truth and mercy meet in your decision, truth and love kiss each other!” (I. 43).

The court decided to place Kachka for treatment in the hospital. Probably the treatment wentherto the benefit. Five years later, V.G. Korolenko saw her on the pier in Nizhny Novgorod among the passengers - "blushed and powdered", cheerful.

Perhaps Plevako, as a defender, found himself in the most difficult position for himself at the trial of Alexander Bartenev in the Warsaw District Court on February 7, 1891, but it was here that he delivered one of his most brilliant speeches, which is invariably included in all collections of samples Russian judicial eloquence.

On June 19, 1890, Cornet Bartenev shot the popular actress of the Imperial Warsaw Theater Maria Wisnovskaya in his apartment. The investigation found that the killer and his victim loved each other. Bartenev was jealous of Visnovskaya, but she did not really believe in his love. According to Bartenev, confirmed by the notes of Visnovskaya, they agreed on the last evening to die: he would kill her, and then himself. Bartenev, however, having shot her, did not shoot himself. Not only did he not deny the fact of the murder, but he voluntarily reported it to his superiors immediately after the incident.

Plevako, at the very beginning of his three-hour (!) defensive speech (I. 136-156), explained what the defense was trying to achieve - not to acquit the defendant, but only to mitigate "the measure of the punishment deserved by the defendant." Not allowing himself to cast the slightest shadow on Visnovskaya's reputation (although even the accuser spoke of "dark spots" in her life), Fyodor Nikiforovich very subtly "anatomized" Bartenev's crime: "Bartenev all went to Visnovskaya. She was his life, his will, his law. If she led, he would sacrifice his life.<...>But she told him to kill her before killing himself. He carried out a terrible order. But as soon as he did this, he was lost: the owner of his soul was gone, there was no longer that living force that, at its own discretion, could push him to good and evil. At the end of his speech, Plevako exclaimed: “Oh, if the dead could speak on matters that concern them, I would give the Bartenev case to the court of Wisnovskaya!”

Bartenev was sentenced to 8 years of hard labor, but Alexander III replaced his hard labor with demotion to the soldiers.

Perhaps the greatest public outcry of all the criminal cases involving Plevako was caused by the unusual case of S.I. Mamontov in the Moscow District Court with a jury on July 31, 1900. Savva Ivanovich Mamontov (1841 - 1918) - an industrial magnate, the main shareholder of the railway and two factory companies - was one of the most popular patrons of art in Russia. His estate near Moscow, Abramtsevo, was an important center of Russian artistic life in the 1870s and 1890s. I.E. met and worked here. Repin, V.I. Surikov, V.A. Serov, V.M. Vasnetsov, V.D. Polenov, K.S. Stanislavsky, F.I. Chaliapin. In 1885, Mamontov founded the Moscow Private Russian Opera at his own expense, where for the first time he showed himself as the great singer Shalyapin, and N.I. Zabela-Vrubel, N.V. Salina, V.A. Lossky and others. In the autumn of 1899, the Russian public was shocked by the news of the arrest and imminent trial of Mamontov, his two sons and brother on charges of embezzlement (“embezzlement and misappropriation”) of 6 million rubles from the funds of the Moscow-Yaroslavsko-Arkhan- gel railway.

The trial in the case of Mamontov was conducted by the Chairman of the Moscow District Court N.V. Davydov (1848-1920) - an authoritative lawyer, close friend and consultant of L.N. Tolstoy, who suggested plots to the writerplays "The Living Corpse" and "The Power of Darkness". The comrade of the prosecutor of the Moscow Court of Justice, P.G. Kurlov (future commander of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes). Among the witnesses were the writer N.G. Gagarin-Mikhailovsky (author of the tetralogy "Childhood of the Theme", "Gymnasium students", "Students", "Engineers") and director of the Private Opera K.S. Winter is the sister of opera diva T.S. Ayubatovich and two revolutionary populists, convictsB. C. and O.S. Ayubatovich.

Protect his friends V.I. Surikov and VD. Polenov invited Plevako. Other defendants were defended by three more masters of the domestic advocacy N.P. Karabchevsky, V.A. Maklakov and N.P. Shubinsky.

The central event of the trial was Plevako's defensive speech (II. 325-344). With a trained glance, Fyodor Nikiforovich immediately identified the weakness of the main point of the accusation. “After all, theft and appropriation,” he said, “leave traces: either Savva Ivanovich’s past is full of insane luxury, or the present is unrighteous self-interest. And we know that no one pointed it out. When, looking for what was appropriated, the judiciary, with the speed caused by the importance of the case, entered his house and began to look for illegally stolen wealth, she found 50 rubles in her pocket, an obsolete railway ticket, a hundred-mark German banknote. The defender showed how grandiose and patriotic was the plan of the accused to build a railway from Yaroslavl to Vyatka in order to “revive the forgotten North”, and how tragically, due to the “unsuccessful choice” of the executors of the plan, the generously financed operation turned into losses and collapse . Mamontov himself went bankrupt. “But guess what happened here? Plevako asked. “Predator’s crime or calculation error?” Robbery or miss? Intention to harm the Yaroslavl road or a passionate desire to save its interests?

Plevako's final words were, as always, as resourceful as they were spectacular: "If you believe the spirit of the times, then -" woe to the defeated! But let this vile expression be repeated by the pagans, even if by metrics she was listed as Orthodox or reformers. And we'll say: "Spare the unfortunate!"

The court recognized the fact of embezzlement. But all the defendants were acquitted. The newspapers published Plevako's speech, quoted it, commented: "I freed the spit!"

Fedor Nikiforovich himself explained the secrets of his success as a defender very simply. The first secret: he was always literally filled with a sense of responsibility towards his clients. “There is a huge difference between the position of a prosecutor and a defense lawyer,” he said at the trial of S.I. Mamontov. - Behind the prosecutor stands a silent, cold, unshakable law, behind the defender - living people. They rely on their defenders, climb on their shoulders and ... it’s scary to slip with such a burden! (II. 342). In addition, Plevako (perhaps like no one else) knew how to influence jurors. He explained this secret to V.I. Surikov: “But you, Vasily Ivanovich, when you paint your portraits, you strive to look into the soul of the person who poses for you. And so I try to penetrate the souls of the jury with my eyes and pronounce the speech so that it reaches their consciousness.

Was Plevako always convinced of the innocence of his clients? No. In a defensive speech in the case of Alexandra Maksimenko, who was accused of poisoning her own husband (1890), he bluntly said: “If you ask me if I am convinced of her innocence, I will not say yes, I am convinced.” I don't want to lie. But I am not convinced of her guilt either.<...>When one has to choose between life and death, then all doubts must be decided in favor of life” (I. 223). However, lawyer Plevako, apparently, avoided obviously wrong cases. So, he refused to defend the infamous swindler Sofya Bluvshtein, nicknamed Sonya - the golden pen, and it was not in vain that he was known among the accused as Pravyka.

Of course, Plevako's strength as a court speaker was not only in resourcefulness, emotionality, psychologism, but also in the picturesqueness of the word. Although much has been lost on paper, his speeches still remain expressive. Plevako was a master at paintingcomparisons(about the purpose of censorship: these are tongs that “remove the na-gar from a candle without extinguishing its fire and light”);antitheses(about a Russian and a Jew: “our dream is to eat five times a day and not get heavy, it is five times a day and not grow thin”: I. 97,108); spectacularappeals(to the shadow of the murdered colleague: “Comrade sleeping peacefully in the coffin!”, to the jury in the case of P.P. Kachka: “Open your arms - I give it to you!”: I. 43, 164).

Critics attributed the compositional dispersion and, especially, the “banal rhetoric” of some of his speeches to the shortcomings of Plevako’s oratorical manner. The originality of his talent impressed not everyone. Poet D.D. Minaev, admitting back in 1883 that Plevako was a lawyer, "for a long time known everywhere, like a star of his native zodiac," composed a biting epigram about him:

Is there a scribbler somewhere,

Will there be a fight somewhere in the tavern,

Will it come to judgment from the darkness

Thieves of the public sewer,

Will the bully push the lady,

Will a dog bite someone

Does the spitting zoyl roar,

Who saves them all? —Plevako .

Ironically, although not without reverence (“on the field of abusive words, a frantic breter-slayer”), Plevako is also presented in the dictionary-album of P.TO.Martyanov, as well as in the epigram of A.N. Apukhtina: “To know, in the Lord’s wrath is destined to be tacos: in St. Petersburg - Pleva, and in Moscow - Plevako.”

Did not like Fedor Nikiforovich M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, who, by the way, slandered the bar as a "garbage pit". In 1882, he spoke about Plevako to the Moscow notary and writer N.P. Orlov (Severov): “I met him at A.N. Pypin and I say: “Is it true that you can put a glass of kvass on your head and dance?” And he goggled his eyes at me and answers: “I can!”

According to D.P. Makovitsky, and A.N. Tolstoy in 1907 called Plevako "the most empty person." But earlier, in a letter to his wife, Sofya Andreevna, dated November 2, 1898, Lev Nikolayevich gave the following review: “Ple-vako is a gifted and rather pleasant person, although not complete, like all specialists.” According to the memoirs of P.A. Rossiev, Tolstoy “sent the men to Plevako: “Fyodor Nikiforovich, whitewash the unfortunate.”

Plevako's personality combined integrity and sweepingness, Razno-Chinsky nihilism and religiosity, worldly simplicity and rampant nobility (he arranged Homeric feasts on the steamboats chartered by him from Nizhny Novgorod to Astrakhan). Kind to the poor, he literally extorted huge fees from merchants, while demanding advances. Once a certain moneybag, not understanding the word "advance", inquired what it was. "Do you know the deposit?" Plevako answered a question with a question. "I know". - "So here's an advance - the same deposit, but three times more."

The following fact speaks about Plevako's attitude towards such clients. The merchant of the 1st guild, Persits, filed a complaint with the Moscow Council of Attorneys at Law that Fyodor Nikiforovich refused to receive him, beat him and lowered him down the stairs. The Council requested a written explanation from Plevako. He explained that he could not receive Persitsa for family reasons, appointed him another day and asked him to leave. “But Persits climbed into the rooms,” we read further in Plevako’s explanation. - Then<...>put out of patience by the audacity and insolence of the Persian, I took her by the hand and turned to the exit. Persitz abruptly pushed my hand away, but I turned his back on me, drove the impudent man out of the house, slammed the door and threw his fur coat into the lobby for him. There was no need for me to beat him." The council left the merchant's complaint without consequences.

In a comradely circle, among colleagues in the legal profession, Plevako enjoyed the reputation of an "artel man." His comrade, hiding under the pseudonym-initial "S", wrote about him in 1895: to everyone around you." From youth to death, he was in Moscow an indispensable member of various charitable institutions - such as the Society for Charity, Education and Education of Blind Children and the Committee for Assistance in the Construction of Student Hostels.

A nice feature of Plevako's character was his indulgence towards envious people and spiteful critics. At a feast on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of his lawyer career, he affably clinked glasses with both friends and foes. When his wife was surprised at this, Fyodor Nikiforovich sighed with his usual good nature: “Why should I judge them!”

The cultural demands of Plevako command respect. “His library is comprehensive,” testified the writer P.A. Rossiev. Plevako valued his books, but generously distributed them to friends and acquaintances to “read”, in contrast to “book misers”, like the philosopher V.V. Rozanov, who, on principle, did not give his books to anyone, saying: "The book is not a girl, there is nothing for her to go hands on."

Judging by the memoirs of B.S. Utevsky, Plevako, although "he was a passionate lover and collector of books", he himself allegedly "read little".

IN AND. Smolyarchuk refuted this opinion, proving that Plevako read a lot. True, he did not like fiction, but he was fond of literature on history, law, philosophy, and even “took with him on business trips” books by I. Kant, G. Hegel, F. Nietzsche, Kuno Fischer, Georg Jellinek. In general, “he had some kind of tender and caring attitude to books - his own and others,” recalled Plevako B.S. Utevsky, himself a big book lover. He liked to compare books with children. He deeply resented the sight of a disheveled, torn, or soiled book. He said that just as there is (it really existed) the "Society for the Protection of Children from Cruelty", it would be necessary to organize the "Society for the Protection of Books from Cruelty" and take them away from the perpetrators of such an attitude towards books how children are taken away from cruelly treating parents or guardians.

Fyodor Nikiforovich was not just well-read. From his youth, he was distinguished by a rare combination of exceptional memory and observation with the gift of improvisation and a sense of humor, which was expressed in cascades of witticisms, puns, epigrams, parodies - in prose and poetry. His satirical impromptu "Antiphon", composed "in a few minutes", P.A. Rossiev published in No. 2 of the Historical Bulletin for 1909 (pp. 689-690). Plevako published a number of his feuilletons in the newspaper of his friend N.P. Pastukhov "Moskovsky Leaf", and in 1885 he undertook the publication of his own newspaper "Life" in Moscow, but "the enterprise was not successful and stopped in the tenth month."

It is no coincidence that Plevako's circle of personal connections with the masters of culture was very wide. He communicated with I.S. Turgenev, Shchedrin, Leo Tolstoy, was friends with V.I. Surikov, M.A. Vrubel, K.A. Korovin,K.S. Stanislavsky, M.N. Ermolova, F.I. Chaliapin and other writers, artists, artists, with the book publisher I.D. Syty-nym. Fedor Nikiforovich loved all kinds of spectacles from folk festivals to elite performances, but with the greatest pleasure he visited two "temple of arts" in Moscow - the Private Russian Opera S.I. Ma-montov and the Art Theater of K.S. Stanislavsky and Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko. According to the memoirs of the artist K.A. Korovin, Plevako also "loved painting very much and visited all the exhibitions."

Great L.V. Sobinov, before becoming a professional singer, served as an assistant to a barrister under the patronage of Plevako and was introduced to M.N. at one of the charity concerts in the house of his patron. Yermolova. “She asked me,” Sobinov recalled, “if I was going to sing at the Bolshoi Theater.” Leonid Vitalievich soon began and until the end of his life (with short breaks) sang at the Bolshoi Theater, but forever retained a sense of respect for his mentor in the legal profession. On November 9, 1928, he wrote to Plevako's son Sergei Fedorovich (younger):"II think your idea is wonderful to organize an evening in memory of the late Fyodor Nikiforovich.

Paradoxically, but true: Fyodor Nikiforovich himself, who woredifferent timethree surnames, had two sons with the same name, and they lived and advocated in Moscowsimultaneously: Sergey Fedorovich Plevako Sr. (born in 1877) was his son from his first wife, E.A. Filippova, and Sergei Fedorovich Plevako, Jr. (born in 1886) - from his second wife, M.A. Demidova.

Plevako's first wife was a folk teacher from the Tver province. The marriage was unsuccessful, and probably through the fault of Fedor Nikiforovich, who left his wife with a young son. In any case, Sergei Fedorovich Plevako Sr. did not even mention his father in his autobiography. But with his second wife, Fedor Nikiforovich lived in harmony for almost 30 years, until the end of his days.

In 1879, Maria Andreevna Demidova, the wife of a manufacturer, turned to Plevako for legal assistance, fell in love with a lawyer and foreverpreferred him to the manufacturer. The famous two-volume speeches of Fyodor Nikiforovich was published the very next year after his death in the “Edition of M.A. Plevako.

His biographers consider religiosity to be one of the main personality traits of Plevako. He was a deeply religious man - all his life, from early childhood to death. Under his faith in God, he even summed up the scientific justification. The theological department in his home library was one of the richest. Plevako not only observed religious rites, prayed in church, loved to baptize children of all classes and ranks, served as a ktitor (church warden) in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, but also tried to reconcile the “blasphemous” views of L.N. Tolstoy with the dogmas of the official church, and in 1904, at a reception with Pope Pius X, he argued that since God is one, there must be one faith in the world and, therefore, Catholics and Orthodox are obliged to live in good harmony .. .

Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako died on December 23, 1908, at the age of 67, in Moscow. His death caused particular grief, of course, among Muscovites, many of whom believed that there were five main attractions in Belokamennaya: the Tsar Bell, the Tsar Cannon, St. Basil's Cathedral, the Tretyakov Gallery and Fyodor Plevako. But the whole of Russia responded to Plevako's departure from life: obituaries were published in many newspapers and magazines. On December 24, 1908, the newspaper Early Morning put it this way: “Yesterday Russia lost its Cicero, and Moscow its Zlatbust.”

Muscovites buried "their Chrysostom" with a huge gathering of people of all strata and conditions in the cemetery of the Sorrowful Monastery. In the 1930s, Plevako's remains were reburied at the Vagankovsky cemetery.

ON THE. Trinity

From the book "Luminaries of the Russian Advocacy"

Stolichnayaadvocacy. M., 1895. S. 108;Volsky A.V.The truth about Plevako: RGALI. F. 1822.On. 1. D. 555. L. 11. V.D. Spasovich, but he was less popular than Plevako.

Maklakov V.A.F.N. Plevako. M., 1910. P. 4. Admirers of the famous lawyer L.A. Kupernik was “glorified” by this verse: “Odessa lawyer Kupernik is a well-known rival of all Plevak”: GARF. F.R-8420.On. 1. D. 5. L. 11.

Cm.:Maklakov V.A.Decree. op.;Dobrokhotov A.M.Slava and Plevako. M., 1910;Podgorny B.A.Plevako. M., 1914;Koni A.F.Prince A.I. Urusov and F.N. Plevako //Coll. cit.: V 8 t. M., 1968. T. 5;Ayakhovetskiy A.D Characteristics of famous Russian court speakers (V.F. Plevako. V.M. Przhevalsky. N.P. Shubinsky). St. Petersburg, 1902;SmolyarchukIN AND. Giants and sorcerers of the word. M., 1984;He is.Lawyer Fedor Plevako. Chelyabinsk, 1989.

F.N. Plevako is our countryman.

In the entire history of the domestic advocacy, there was no more popular person in it than F. N. Plevako. Both specialists, and the legal elite, and the townsfolk, the common people valued him above all lawyers as a "great orator", "genius of words", "senior hero" and even "metropolitan of the bar". His surname itself became a household name as a synonym for an extra-class lawyer: “I will find another “Spitter,” they said and wrote without any irony.” Letters to him were addressed as follows: “Moscow. Novinsky boulevard, own house. To the main defender Plevaka. Or simply: “Moscow. Fedor Nikiforovich.

Fedor Nikiforovich was born on April 25 (13 according to the old style), 1842 in the city of Troitsk, Orenburg province (now the Chelyabinsk region) in the family of a member of the Trinity customs, court adviser Vasily Ivanovich Plevak.

At the age of six, Fedor already freely read the fairy tales of A. S. Pushkin, the poems of M. Yu. Lermontov, the fables of I. A. Krylov, at the age of nine he began to show interest in the History of the Russian State by N. M. Karamzin. The father annually went on vacation to Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan and brought new books to his sons. The children received firsthome education, from the age of seven, Fedor began to attend a parish school, and from 8 to 9 years old he studied at a district school. For academic excellence, he was appointed class auditor.

Having retired in June 1851, V. I. Plevak decided to move to Moscow to continue his sons' studies. On June 19, having said goodbye to Troitsk, the whole family set off and a month later arrived at the white-stone.

In Moscow, young Plevako continues his education at the gymnasium, located on Prechistenka, and immediately enters the third grade. After graduating from the gymnasium with a gold medal, Fedor enters the law faculty of Moscow State University.

By that time, Fyodor Nikiforovich's father had died. For the first three years of university, F. Plevako was listed as a volunteer, and only in the senior years did he begin to study full-time. Many researchers attribute this to the need to financially support an impoverished family, earning money by tutoring and translations. It was then that Fedor translated the book of the German lawyer G. F. Pukhta “The Course of Roman Civil Law”. Later, having already become a well-known lawyer, he published a translation at his own expense, accompanied by numerous commentaries.

In 1864, F. N. Plevako graduated from the university and, having received the degree of candidate of law, began looking for work. At that time, the main provisions of the judicial reform of 1864 were being approved. Later, Fyodor Nikiforovich recalled: “My comrades were from the sphere that bore lawlessness on their shoulders. These were raznochintsy or young people who got acquainted with science as "subjects" of young barchuks, who overtook them in mastering the course of sciences. We, the students, still had some idea of ​​the beginnings that the Judicial Reform carried;ongoing Judicial Reform". For six months, Plevako worked on a voluntary basis, writing documents for the newly formed institution, in the office of the chairman of the Moscow District Court, E.E. Luminarsky. The latter advised a capable employee to go to work in the bar.

Judicial reform, perhaps the most progressive and consistent of the undertakings of Alexander II, proclaimed the principles of all estates, openness and competitiveness of the parties. The formation of these principles in the judicial process required the creation of a new special institution - the bar (sworn attorneys). Plevako was one of the first to sign up as an assistant (for independent work, one had to be over 25 years old and have at least 5 years of legal experience) to the barrister M. I. Dobrokhotov. Here he proved himself in criminal trials as a gifted lawyer and on September 19, 1870, he was admitted to the sworn attorney of the Moscow Court of Justice. Since that time, his brilliant ascent to the heights of advocacy glory began.

F. N. Plevako was one of those lawyers who began to develop the foundations of judicial rhetoric in Russia. He made many speeches in the courtroom, which later became public knowledge and passed from mouth to mouth. The lawyer countered the sharp attacks of his opponents in the trials with reasonable objections, a calm tone and a strict analysis of the evidence.

In their court F. Plevako touched on acute social issues in his speeches. For example, his participation in the defense of a group of "Lutoric" peasants (1880), Sevsk peasants (1905), participation in the case of the strike of the workers of the "S. Morozov Partnership" factory, who rebelled against inhuman exploitation (1886), was at that time a civil feat. At trials in the case of factory riots in defense of workers accused of resisting the authorities, of rioting and destroying factory property, Plevako aroused compassion in the audience for people “exhausted by physical labor, with spiritual forces dead from inaction, in contrast to us, minions of fate, brought up from the cradle in the concept of goodness and full prosperity.

As a badge recognized F. N. Plevako received the rank of real state councilor (IV class, corresponding to the rank of major general in the table of ranks), hereditary nobility, was awarded an audience with the king. The increased fame and fees strengthened his financial position. Like other sworn attorneys, he had a staff of assistants. Plevako bought a two-story mansion on Novinsky Boulevard. The library was the decoration of the house. He was fond of books on history, law, philosophy and constantly took them with him on trips. Fyodor Nikiforovich was known for the fact that he did not refuse the court cases of the peasants, which he conducted, as a rule, for free.

F. N. Plevako was a sincere believer. In his home library, theological literature occupied the largest place. He served as a ktitor (church warden) in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. He tried to reconcile the views of L. N. Tolstoy with the dogmas of the official church, and in 1904, at a reception with Pope Pius X, he argued that God is one, which means that there should be one faith in the world, and Catholics and Orthodox are obliged to live in good harmony.

Fedor Nikiforovich loved all his life and recalled his native city of Troitsk: “I hardly see you, and even if I see you, there is little left in you of the old, dear. They tell me and confirm what was said by the sent album, that you grew up, got prettier, became a person with a position: instead of parish and district schools, youwas a classical and female gymnasium, a real school. On the benches of your schools, Tatar, Kirghiz and Bashkir children sit next to Russian boys and girls and compete in success with the indigenous population, sometimes exposing such talented young men as any tribe in the fields of the boundless Russian kingdom would be proud of. There is a Russian city, and the Russian heart is beating in the chest of your chicks - my dear countrymen. Have you, my native city, preserved the seeds from this seed, so that the harvest of the one for the needs, for the salvation of Russia, deeds and ideals would not be reborn? ... And I want, and I’m afraid to see you after half a century of separation ”(Smolyarchuk, V. I. Lawyer Fyodor Plevako... .S. 18-19).

In 1901, he, a lawyer of all-Russian fame, acted in a local court as a defender of a wealthy and influential Kazakh in the city. The courtroom of the Trinity Court was full. Plevako carefully prepared for the performance at home. As a basis, he took the last phrase from the prosecutor's speech that the court is not afraid of the rich. According to Plevako, the prosecutor asked for a guilty verdict not because he was obviously guilty, but to prove the power of the court. Fedor Nikiforovich embellished his speech with quotations from the Gospel, references to judicial charters, and examples from the judicial practice of the West. The lawyer's two-hour speech captivated both the hall and the judges. The essence of the matter was satisfiedabout the complex: contradictory and false testimonies of witnesses, incorrect examination, which found out the cost of burnt bread. However, Plevako so skillfully “sorted everything out on the shelves” that the court decided the case without much difficulty and determined the measure of responsibility of the perpetrator.

F. N. Plevako was distinguished by a rare combination of the gift of improvisation and a sense of humor, which manifested itself in many of his witticisms and puns. He often set out his epigrams and parodies on paper. It is known that he was published in Moscow magazines under the pseudonym Bogdan Poberezhny. In 1885, he tried to publish his own newspaper Zhizn in Moscow, but quickly went bankrupt.

The circle of friends and acquaintances of the lawyer included writers, artists and artists, including: M. A. Vrubel, K. A. Korovin, K. S. Stanislavsky, V. I. Surikov, F. I. Chaliapin, M N. Ermolova, L. V. Sobinov. From time to time, Plevako arranged grand dinners or concerts at home with the invitation of colleagues, scientists and artists.

Our great compatriot devoted almost forty years to human rights activities. Excellent examples of his judicial oratory entered the golden fund of Russian culture, became its historical spiritual heritage. diem.

Shortly before his death, Plevako became involved in political life and became a deputy of the 3rd State Duma from the Octobrist Party. Is it any wonder that after 1917 they tried to forget about him, taking into account the unflattering review of Plevako in one of the articles by V.I. Lenin, dedicated to proving the reactionary essence of the program of the Octobrist Party.

Indeed, Plevako believed in the tsar's Manifesto of October 17, 1905, but it is absurd to consider him a reactionary. His ideals have always been universal human culture and the dignity of the human person. He had all-Russian recognition, but he never enjoyed love in the highest dignitary circles for his audacity and protection of the poor, for his commitment to truth and law. “Up there,” he said from the podium of the Tauride Palace, “luxury reigns and gorges itself, indifferently listening to stories about a starving and humiliated brother, whose labor is reviving Russia ... Let us replace the songs about freedom with the songs of free workerswho are called by history to erect palaces of law and freedom in a renewed Russia!”

Plevako's last speeches became his testament to the future, which he warned against revolutionary surgery and drew attention to the old truth: history repeats itself, and not necessarily as a farce, but maybe as an even greater tragedy. It turned out that not only contemporaries, but also us, the distant descendants of Plevako, needed his polished arguments about the advantages of humane legislation over cruel punishments, his idea of ​​truth and right for a country ruled for centuries by unlimited administrative violence.

On December 23, 1908, sad news swept over Moscow: Plevako had died. On the day of his funeral, thousands of people came to see the great public defender on his last journey. Representatives of all classes and ranks walked in an endless funeral procession. People were united not only by a feeling of deep sorrow and deep gratitude, they understood: on such sons of Russia as F.N. Plevako, and in the memory of them Russia is kept. Today I would like to believe that it will continue to hold on to the greatness of this memory. F.N. Plevako was buried at the Vagankovsky cemetery.

The name of the great lawyer is not forgotten even today, in 1996, in memory of the outstanding fellow countryman, the Chelyabinsk Regional Bar Association established an annual award named after F.N. Plevako with a diploma, a badgeas well as a bronze bust, a photograph of the laureate is placed on a special stand in the office of the chamber, in 1997 the lawyers' community of Russia established the Gold Medal named after F.N. Plevako, and in 2003 the Silver Medal named after F.N. members of the legal community of Russia, as well as state, public and political figures, legal scholars, journalists, cultural figures, educational institutions and the media for their major contribution to the development of the legal profession and human rights activities. In 2003, a Diploma was established with the award of the Bronze bust of F.N. Plevako.

A conference dedicated to the 165th anniversary of the birth of F.N. Plevako was held in Troitsk and Chelyabinsk

April 26 marks the 165th anniversary of the birth of the great Russian lawyer Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako. In e that day in the homeland of the court speaker on the building of the former District Cossack Court (now it is still urban administration), where Plevako spoke in one of the trials, a memorial plaque was installed.

The initiator of the celebrations was the Chamber of Lawyers Chelyabinswhich area. beginning would lo was supported by the Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation. Pay tribute to the memory of the great predecessorlawyers from many Russian regions and descendants of the F.N. Plevako - Natalia Sergeevna Plevako and Marina Sergeevna Martynova-Savchenko.

The participants of the celebration were greeted by the mayor of Troitsk M.I. Blueok. He noted that the name of Plevako is as dear to Troitsk as the name of the founder of the city, Count Neplyuev. The opening of the memorial plaque on the building of the city administration is not only a memorable, but also a deeply symbolic act. Lawyers of the Chamber of Advocates of the Chelyabinsk Region and residents of Troitsk are unanimous in assessing the merits of their eminent countryman. And the city leadership, paying tribute to Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako, also expresses its respect for fundamental democratic and human values: the rule of law, guarantees for everyone of qualified legal assistance in protecting their rights, protecting good name, honor and dignity.

The conference participants supported the proposal of the Chelyabinsk lawyers to hold corporate events every five years in the homeland of Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako, aimed at cultivating the best traditions of the Russian legal profession.