Koni Anatoly Fedorovich (January 28, 1844, St. Petersburg - September 17, 1927, Leningrad), Russian lawyer, public figure and writer, son of F. A. Koni.

Doctor of Law (1890), honorary member of Moscow University (1892), honorary academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1900), member of the State Council (1907), member of legislative commissions for the preparation of numerous laws and regulations, member and chairman of the St. Petersburg Law Society (1916).

He graduated from the law faculty of Moscow University (1865). Since 1866, he served in the judiciary (assistant secretary of the judicial chamber in St. Petersburg, secretary of the prosecutor of the Moscow judicial chamber, assistant prosecutor of the Sumy and Kharkov district courts, prosecutor of the Kazan district court, assistant prosecutor, and then prosecutor of the Petersburg district court, chief prosecutor of the cassation department of the Senate, Senator of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Senate).

A supporter of the democratic principles of legal proceedings introduced by the judicial reform of 1864 (trial by jury, publicity of the trial, etc.). In the field of the state and social system, he adhered to moderate liberal views.

He became widely known in connection with the case of V. I. Zasulich, who was accused of attempted murder of the St. Petersburg mayor, General F. F. Trepov. Koni's activities were of a progressive, humane nature. After the Great October Socialist Revolution, Koni continued his literary work, was a professor of criminal justice at Petrograd University (1918-22), lectured at scientific, public, creative organizations and cultural and educational institutions.

In literary works, Koni created vivid portraits of major statesmen and public figures of his time.

Of particular fame were his notes of a judicial figure and memories of everyday meetings (they made up 5 volumes of collections under the general title “On the Path of Life”, 1912-29), the anniversary (1864-1914) collection of essays and articles “Fathers and Sons of Judicial Reform”.

Books (10)

Collected Works in eight volumes. Volume 1

The first volume included: "The Case of Ovsyannikov", "From Kazan Memoirs", "Abbess Mitrofania", "The Case of the Forgery of Series", "Kolemin's Gambling House", etc.

Collected Works in eight volumes. Volume 2

An outstanding judicial figure and legal scholar, a brilliant orator and a talented memoir writer, Anatoly Fedorovich Koni was one of the most educated people of his time.

His theoretical works on questions of law and judicial speeches, without exaggeration, can be attributed to the highest achievements of Russian legal thought.

The second volume includes "Memories of the case of Vera Zasulich".

Collected Works in eight volumes. Volume 3

An outstanding judicial figure and legal scholar, a brilliant orator and a talented memoir writer, Anatoly Fedorovich Koni was one of the most educated people of his time.

His theoretical works on questions of law and judicial speeches, without exaggeration, can be attributed to the highest achievements of Russian legal thought.

The third volume included accusatory speeches, "Guiding parting words to the jury" and cassation opinions.

Collected Works in eight volumes. Volume 4

An outstanding judicial figure and legal scholar, a brilliant orator and a talented memoir writer, Anatoly Fedorovich Koni was one of the most educated people of his time.

His theoretical works on questions of law and judicial speeches, without exaggeration, can be attributed to the highest achievements of Russian legal thought.

The fourth volume includes: "Legal views", "Moral principles in the criminal process", "Memory and attention", "Techniques and tasks of the prosecutor's office", etc.

Collected Works in eight volumes. Volume 5

An outstanding judicial figure and legal scholar, a brilliant orator and a talented memoir writer, Anatoly Fedorovich Koni was one of the most educated people of his time.

His theoretical works on questions of law and judicial speeches, without exaggeration, can be attributed to the highest achievements of Russian legal thought.

The fifth volume includes essays on D. A. Rovinsky, V. D. Spasovich, K. K. Arseniev, and so on.

Analysis of the court speech by A.F. Koni "On the drowning of a peasant woman Emelyanova by her husband"

On November 15, at the bottom of the Zhdanovka river, the corpse of an unknown woman was found, in which the locals recognized the wife of Yemelyanov, who served as a number at the baths of the merchant Solovyov, located not far from this river. Upon examination and autopsy of the body, it was found that death was due to suffocation due to drowning. The death of Lukerya Frolova, Yemelyanov's wife, was considered a suicide, following Yemelyanov's sentence to seven days in prison for beating a student. But a second autopsy of Lukerya's body showed the presence of bruises on the left shoulder and thigh. In addition, Yemelyanov's wife turned out to be pregnant. In view of the circumstances and the testimonies of witnesses, the peasant Yegor Yemelyanov was put on trial on charges of deliberately taking the life of his wife, drowning her on the banks of the Zhdanovka River.

In this case, Anatoly Fedorovich Koni acted as a prosecutor. His accusatory speech, consisting of logical conclusions and conclusions, supported by proven facts, was read by him at the hearing of this case and resulted in a sentence by which the defendant was found guilty of murdering his wife with premeditated intent.

Further, he consistently and accurately provides the judges and jurors with all the facts of the case, revealing each as accessible as possible and proving the guilt of the defendant with clear and understandable conclusions. Speech by A.F. Koni has such a compelling character due to her compositional features. It is built with the help of logical connectives, sequentially connecting the individual facts of the case. Based on the testimony of witnesses, A.F. Koni talks about their truthfulness and competence, compares them. On this basis, he draws conclusions, which he supplements with an analysis of the psychological characteristics of the participants in the process. This analysis, carried out by Anatoly Fedorovich, is based on the events preceding the murder of Lukerya, and it is supported by logical arguments that more accurately describe the psychological state of the heroes that led to the accident. A.F. In his reflections, Koni himself developed and substantiated the motives for committing the crime so clearly that nothing could be said to the defense in their refutation. In addition to logic, facts and subtle psychological analysis, the text contains rebuttals of the only supposed objections on the part of the defense. With the help of logic, convincing arguments, consistent conclusions, A.F. Koni exposes facts that could help the defendant. In particular, Yemelyanov's statement that Agrafena Surina drowned his wife, not him. Comparing the facts and supplementing them with psychological moments, A.F. Koni convincingly proves the inconsistency of this assertion.

In conclusion, A.F. Koni recalls the complexity of this case, expresses full confidence in the competence of the judges and in the fairness of the sentence that they will pass on the defendant, taking into account all the facts of the case.

The specificity of Anatoly Fedorovich's accusatory speech is that he does not use dry facts or only emotional pressure on judges and jurors. Like an ideal court speaker, Anatoly Fedorovich skillfully combines facts and arouses the corresponding feeling in the hearts of the jurors. A.F. Koni combines a set of knowledge and skills in preparing and delivering a public judicial speech in accordance with the requirements of the law, the ability to build an objectively reasoned reasoning that forms scientific and legal convictions, and the ability to influence the legal consciousness of people. The task of the judicial orator is to persuade the judges to the decision he needs, and the jurors to the verdict he wants. To successfully complete this task, he needs knowledge of oratorical methods and techniques suitable for this type of eloquence and the ability to use them. Anatoly Fedorovich Koni tirelessly demonstrated in practice his competence in the field of judicial eloquence, proved his worth as a judicial orator and as a person of high moral and moral principles. His speech meets the standards of oratory and includes the basic principles of its presentation. A.F. Koni built the speech in such a way that it left the judges only one opportunity - to issue an uncompromising, fair verdict. This is a great merit of A.F. Koni as a court speaker and as a man of strict rules and high moral character.

A.F. Koni makes understandable and accessible with the help of consistent conclusions following one from the other, understandable phrases devoid of heavy terminology. The manner of A.F. gives liveliness of speech. Horses speak, narrating and at the same time reasoning about the subject of the utterance. His speech is replete with appeals not only to the judges, but to all those present. Addressing all listeners, he interests everyone, makes everyone understand the details together. ("Let's look now at his wife."). Using rhetorical questions, a question-answer form of presentation, he inclines to think about the answers to them (“Are there conditions in the testimony of Agrafena Surina?”, “Maybe this testimony has as its sole purpose an insidious desire to cast a criminal shadow on Yegor? Such a goal can be explained only by terrible hatred). In order not to make speech monotonous, the author often uses inversion, anaphora, many participial and participle turns.

Speech by A.F. Koni is rightfully considered a model of Russian judicial oratory at the beginning of the 20th century.

Gentlemen of the judge, gentlemen of the jury! The most diverse cases in their internal situation are subject to your consideration; between them there are often cases where the testimonies breathe such common sense, are imbued with such sincerity and truthfulness, and are often distinguished by such figurativeness, that the task of the judiciary becomes very easy. It remains to group all these testimonies, and then they themselves will form a picture that will create in your mind a certain definite idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe case. But there are cases of a different kind, where the testimonies are of a completely different nature, where they are inconsistent, obscure, vague, where the witnesses are silent about many things, they are afraid to say much, presenting you with an example of evasive reticence and far from complete sincerity. I will not be mistaken in saying that the present case belongs to the last category, but I will not be mistaken in adding that this should not stop you judges from being strictly impartial and especially attentive to every detail in it. If there are many superficial elements in it, if it is somewhat obscured by insincerity and the lack of complete clarity in the testimony of witnesses, if some contradictions appear in it, then the higher the task of discovering the truth, the more efforts of the mind, conscience and attention should be used to find out the truth. The task becomes more difficult, but does not become unsolvable. I will not remind you of the circumstances of the present case; they are too simple to repeat in detail. We know that the young attendant married, beat the student and was put under arrest. The next day after that, they found his wife in the Zhdanovka river. The astute assistant bailiff saw in her death her suicide out of grief for her husband, and the body was committed to the earth, and the matter was the will of God. This, it would seem, should have ended, but in the neighborhood there was talk of a drowned woman. This conversation was grouped around Agrafena Surina, she was his knot, since she allegedly let slip that Lukerya did not drown herself, but was drowned by her husband. Therefore, her testimony is of primary and essential importance in the case. I am ready to say that, unfortunately, it has such a meaning, because it would be strange to hide from myself and unworthy to keep silent before you that her personality does not make a sympathetic impression and that even taken outside the circumstances of this case, by itself, she can hardly would have attracted our sympathy. But I think that this property of her personality does not in the least change the essence of her testimony. If we forget for a while, How she shows, without finishing, silent, cowardly, or in a patter, in indefinite terms, expressing what she considers necessary to tell, then we will find that something significant can be extracted from her testimony, which should contain its own share of truth. Moreover, her testimony is of particular importance in the case: it ends all the events that preceded the death of Lukerya, all subsequent events are explained by it, and, finally, it is the only testimony of an eyewitness. First of all, the question arises: is it reliable? If we determine the reliability of the testimony of those How man says How he keeps himself in court, then very often we will take testimony that is completely reliable for false and, on the contrary, we will take the shell of the testimony for its essence, for its core. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the testimony according to its intrinsic dignity. If it is given without compulsion, without extraneous pressure, if it is given without any desire to harm another, and if then it is supported by the circumstances of the case and the everyday life situation of those persons in question, then it should be recognized as a fair testimony. Details, architectural decorations may be wrong, we will discard them, but nevertheless the main mass will remain, that stone, the foundation on which these unnecessary, incorrect details are based. Is there a first condition in the testimony of Agrafena Surina? You know that she herself was the first to let it slip, from the first impetus given by Darya Gavrilova, when she asked: “Was it not you and Yegor who drowned Lukerya?” The very behavior of her when answering Darya Gavrilova and the confirmation of this answer during the investigation excludes the possibility of anything violent or forced. She became - willingly or unwillingly, it is difficult to judge this - a witness to an important and gloomy event, she shared a terrible secret with Yegor, but as a nervous, impressionable, lively woman, left alone, she began to suffer, like all people who have some mystery gravitates, something heavy that cannot be expressed. She must have been tormented by the unknown, vacillated between the thought that perhaps Lukerya had remained alive and the depressing consciousness that she had been mortified, and that is why she strove to find out what had become of Lukerya. When everything around was calm, no one knew about the drowning yet, she worries like a mentally ill person, working in a laundry, she asks every minute if Lukerya has come, if the drowned woman has been seen. Almost unconsciously, under the heavy yoke of an oppressive thought, she betrays herself. Then, when the news came about the drowned woman, when the fate that befell Lukerya was determined, when it became clear that she would not come to expose anyone, the burden fell off her heart for a while and Agrafena calmed down. Then again, a painful memory and the voice of conscience begin to paint for her a picture of which she was a witness, and to the first question of Darya Gavrilova she almost proudly expresses everything she knows. So, there can be no doubt that Surina's testimony was given without coercion. I turn to the second condition: can this testimony have as its sole purpose an insidious desire to cast a criminal shadow on Yegor, to destroy him? Such an aim can only be explained by a terrible hatred, a desire to destroy the defendant at all costs, but in what circumstances of the case will we find this hatred? It is said that she was angry with him because he married another; this is perfectly understandable, but she charged him money for it; let us suppose that, even taking the money, she was dissatisfied with it, but there is a whole abyss between displeasure and mortal hatred. All subsequent marriage circumstances were such that he, on the contrary, had to become especially dear and sweet to her. True, he exchanged her, with whom he had lived for two years, for a girl whom he had met only a few times before, and this should have hurt her vanity, but a week later, or, in any case, very soon after the wedding, he again , complains to her about his wife, says that he loves her again, yearns for her. Why, for a woman who continues to love - and witnesses testified that she loved him very much and endured his harsh treatment for two years - the greatest victory! The man who threw her comes with a guilty head, like a prodigal son, asks for her love, says that she, the other, is not worth his affection, that she, Agrafena, is more expensive, more beautiful, sweeter and better for him ... This could only strengthen former love, but not to turn it into hatred. Why would she want to destroy Yegor at such a moment when his wife is gone, when the obstacle to a long relationship and even to marriage has been removed? On the contrary, now she loves him when he belongs entirely to her, when she does not have to break "their law", and yet she accuses him, repeats this accusation here, in court. So, from this point of view, this indication cannot be suspected. Then, does it correspond in any way to the circumstances of the case, is it confirmed by the everyday situation of the actors? If so, then no matter how unsympathetic Agrafena Surina may be, we can believe her, because other, completely strangers, offended by her previous behavior, without testifying in favor of her personality, testify, however, in favor of the veracity of her present testimony. First of all, the witness, precious for the simplicity and crude sincerity of her testimony, is the sister of the late Lukerya. She draws in detail Emelyanov's relationship with his wife and says that when Emelyanov got engaged, she advised her sister not to marry him, but he swore that he would leave his mistress, and she, convinced by this oath, advised her sister to go for Emelyanov. At first, they live happily, peacefully and quietly, but then Emelyanov's connection with Surina begins. The defendant denies the existence of this connection, but a number of witnesses speak of it. We heard the testimony of two girls who went to the guests at the invitation of Yegor, who saw how, in the middle of November, he kissed in the street, and openly, with Agrafeno. We know from the same testimony that Agrafena ran to Yegor, that he often, several times a day, met with her. True, the main factual confirmation, indicating the place where this connection was fixed, belongs to Surina, but it is also supported by extraneous circumstances, namely, the testimony of a boy working at the Zoological Hotel and Darya Gavrilova. The accused says that on that day he sat at the World Congress until 6 o'clock, listening to the court and intending to file an appeal. Not to mention the fact that, having passed through two instances, he should have heard from the chairman of the world congress a statement, obligatory by law, that there is no appeal against the verdict of the congress, this person, regarding whom the verdict of the congress was unfair, not only in his opinion, but even according to his owner, who says that Yegor is not guilty, “yes, the court judged so,” this person goes to inquire into this very court and sits there for half a day. Indeed, he was not at home for half a day, but he was not at the congress, but at the Zoological Hotel. The boy Ivanov points to this. On Mikhailov's day he saw Surina in the rooms at about 5 o'clock. This is also confirmed by Gavrilova, whom Surina told on November 8 that she was going with Yegor, and then returned at 6 o'clock. So, part of Surina's testimony is confirmed. Thus, it is obvious that the former friendly, good relations between Lukerya and her husband have been shaken. Their place was taken by others, anxious. Such relations cannot, however, last long: they must change in one direction or another. They should have been constantly influenced by passion and former affection, which awakened in Yegor with such force and so soon. In such cases, there can be two outcomes: either reason, conscience and duty will defeat passion and suppress it in a sinful body, and then happiness is strengthened, former relationships are renewed and strengthened, or, on the contrary, reason will submit to passion, the voice of conscience will die out, and passion, captivating man, will master him completely; then there will be a desire not only to break, but forever destroy the former painful, embarrassing relations. Such is the general outcome of all human actions performed under the influence of passion; passion never stops in the middle; it either freezes, goes out, is suppressed, or, developing further, the faster, it reaches extreme limits. In order to determine in which direction the passion that seized Emelyanov should have gone, it is enough to look at the character of the characters. I will not talk about how the defendant appears to us in court; evaluation of his behavior in court should not be, in my opinion, the subject of our discussions. But we can trace his past life according to the testimony and information that is given and received here. At the age of 16, he comes to St. Petersburg and becomes a bathhouse attendant at the so-called family baths. It is known what kind of duty this is; here, at the trial, he himself and two girls from the house of brothel explained what one of the main functions of this duty was. By the way, Egor has been doing it since the age of 16. He has a constant, systematic debauchery going on before his eyes. He sees a constant shameless display of gross sensuality. Next to this is the acquisition of money not by real, real work, but by "tip". The means of subsistence are obtained not by hard and honest labor, but by the fact that he pleases the visitors, who, satisfied with the time spent with the woman brought, perhaps, sometimes without counting well, give him money for vodka. That's what his position in terms of work! Let's look at it from the point of view of duty and conscience. Can it develop self-control in a person, create barriers, internal and moral, to impulses of passion? No, he is constantly surrounded by pictures of the most shameless manifestation of sexual passion, and the influence of life without serious labor, in the midst of a far from moral environment for a person who has not become stronger in another, better sphere, of course, will not be particularly detaining at the moment when sensual desire takes possession of him. possession ... Let us look at the personal character of the defendant, as he was described to us. This character is firm, resolute, courageous. Yegor lives out of tune with his comrades, there is not a day that he does not quarrel, he is a “mischievous”, restless person, does not like to let anyone down. The student, who, having approached the bathhouse, began to violate the cleanliness, he beat painfully - and besides, he beat not his peasant brother, but the student, the "master" - therefore, a man who does not stop very much in his impulses. In domestic life, this is not a particularly gentle person, who does not allow his mother to cry when he is taken under arrest, treating his mistress "like an executioner." A number of testimonies depict how he generally treats those who are subordinate to him by law or custom: “Are you going?” - he shouts at his wife, calling her with him; “Hey, come out,” he knocks on the window; “Come out,” he shouts authoritatively to Agrafena. This is a person who is accustomed to rule and command those who submit to him, alienating comrades, proud, non-drinking, accurate and accurate. So, this is a concentrated, strong and firm character, but developed in a bad environment, which could not give him any restraining moral principles. Let's look at his wife now. There are also characteristic testimonies about her: this woman is short, fat, blond, phlegmatic, silent and patient. “I endured all sorts of tyranny from my wife, a capricious woman, she never said a word,” witness Odintsov says about her. "Words are hard to get from her," he added. So, this is what a person is: quiet, submissive, lethargic and boring, most importantly - boring. Then Agrafena Surina speaks. You saw and heard her; you can treat her not with sympathy, but you will not deny her one thing: she is lively and even here she does not climb into her pocket for a word, she cannot help smiling when arguing with the defendant; she obviously has a very lively, cheerful character, energetic, she will not give in for nothing, she has black eyes, ruddy cheeks, black hair. This is a completely different type, a different temperament. These are the three faces brought together by fate. Of course, both nature and the situation indicate that Yegor should soon get along with Agrafeno; the strong are always attracted to the strong, the energetic nature eschews everything sluggish and too quiet. Egor marries, however, Lukerya. Why did he like her? Probably freshness, purity, innocence. These qualities cannot be doubted. Yegor himself does not deny that she married him, preserving her girlish purity. For him, these qualities of her, this inviolability of her must have been a great temptation, a strong lure, because he lived in recent years in a sphere where virginal purity is not at all supposed; for him, the possession of a young, innocent wife must have been attractive. It had the charm of novelty, it so sharply and so well contradicted the general mood of the life around it. Let's not forget that this is not a simple peasant, rude, but straightforward, - this is a peasant who has been in St. Petersburg since the age of 16, in numbered baths, who, in a word, "sipped" St. Petersburg. And so he marries Lukerya, who, probably, could not have belonged to him otherwise; but the first outbursts of passion have passed, he cools off, and then ordinary life begins, his wife comes at night, quiet, submissive, silent ... Does he need this with his lively character, with his passionate nature, who experienced life with Agrafeno? And he, especially in his surroundings, had to see the views, and he, perhaps, desired some allure in his wife, youthful enthusiasm, briskness, liveliness. He, by his nature, needs a lively, cheerful wife, and Lukerya is the exact opposite of this. Cooling is understandable, of course. And then Agrafena scurries about, runs along the corridor, constantly pops into his eyes, laughs and is not averse to luring him again. She calls, beckons, fogs, annoys, and when he is again carried away by her, when she again allows her to be hugged, kissed; at the decisive moment, when he wants to possess her, she says: “No, Yegor, I don’t want to break your law,” that is, every minute she reminds him of the mistake he made, reproaches him with the fact that he got married without thinking about what he was doing, having not calculated the consequences, being stupid ... At the same time, he knows that she no longer depends on him in anything, that she can marry and disappear for him forever. It is clear that it remains for him to either give up on her and return to his boring and silent wife, or surrender to Agrafena. But how to surrender? Together, at the same time as your wife? This is impossible. Firstly, it will cost a lot in material terms, because sometimes you will have to express love for Surina in a material way; secondly, his wife constrains him; he is a self-loving, proud man, accustomed to acting independently, freely, and here you have to secretly walk around the numbers, lie, hide from your wife or listen to her scolding with Agrafena and with yourself - and so on forever! Of course, you need to find a way out of this. And if the passion is strong, and the voice of conscience is weak, then the outcome can be the most decisive. And here is the first thought that you need to get rid of your wife. This thought appears at the moment when Agrafena again began to belong to him, when he again tasted the sweetness of the old love and when Agrafena gave herself to him, saying that this, as they say in such cases, "for the first and last time." Agrafena Surina says about the appearance of this thought: “I will not go under arrest without Lukerya not being there,” Yemelyanov told her. We might not quite believe her, but her words are confirmed by another impartial and conscientious witness, Lukerya's sister, who says that on the eve of her death, a week after Yegor's meeting with Surina, Lukerya conveyed her husband's words to her: "you should go to Zhdanovka." In what sense this was said is understandable, since she answered him: “As you wish, Yegor, but I won’t lay hands on myself.” It can be seen that the thought pointed out by Agrafena ran the whole way over the course of a week and has already taken on a definite and clear form - “you should go to Zhdanovka”. Why exactly in Zhdanovka? Take a look at Yegor's environment and his relationship to his wife. We must get rid of her. How to do this? Kill... But how to kill? To kill her - there will be blood, obvious traces - after all, they are seen only in the bathhouse, where she comes to spend the night. Poison? But how to get the poison, how to hide the traces of the crime? etc. The best and perhaps the only remedy is to drown. But when? And when she goes to escort him to the police station, this is the most convenient time, because if a murder is discovered, he will be under arrest, and even as a gentle husband and unfortunate widower, he will later go to bury his drowned or drowned wife. This assumption is fully supported by Surina's story. It will be said that Surina speaks about the murder itself in a dark, foggy way, confused, confused. All this is true, but the one who, even as an outside spectator, witnesses a murder, often shakes his hands and his heart beats at the spectacle of a terrible picture; when the viewer is not completely outside, when he is even very close to the murderer, when the murder takes place in a deserted place, on an autumn and damp night, then it is not surprising that Agrafena cannot quite collect his thoughts and did not quite see what exactly and how Egor was doing . But the essence of her testimony still comes down to one thing, i.e. to the fact that she saw Yegor drowning his wife; in this she is firm and conveys the impression with force and perseverance. She says that, frightened, she rushed to run, then he caught up with her, but her wife was not there; so, she thought, he had drowned her; asked about his wife - Egor did not answer. Her testimony is then fully confirmed in everything related to her leaving home on the evening of November 14th. The defendant says that he did not come for her, but Anna Nikolaeva certifies the opposite and says that Agrafena, who left with Yegor, returned 20 minutes later. According to Agrafena, she just passed and ran through such a space, for which, according to the calculation, it was necessary to use about 20 minutes of time. We may be objected to Surina's testimony that Lukerya's death could have been due to suicide, or Surina herself could have killed her. Let us turn to the analysis of these possible objections. First of all, we will be told that there was no struggle, because the dress of the drowned woman was not torn, not soiled, that the boots of the defendant, who was supposed to enter the water, were not wet, etc. Look closely at these two points of objection and you will see that they are not at all as essential as they seem at first glance. Let's start with mud and wrestling. You heard the testimony of one witness that the mud was liquid, that there was slush; you know that the place where the murder was committed is very steep, a slope of 9 steps, at an angle of 45 °. It is clear that, having started to fight with someone on a slope, it was possible to slide down through the mud in a few seconds to the bottom, and if then the person who is pushed, stained with mud, into the flowing water remains in it all night, then there is nothing surprising that on a dress soaked through with water, the slush spreads and there will be no traces of it: nature itself will wash the dress of a drowned woman. They will say that there are no signs of a struggle. I will not argue that it was, although the torn half of the kutsaveyka suggests, however, that its existence cannot be denied. Then they will say: boots!. Yes, these boots, apparently, are very dangerous for the prosecution, but only apparently. Remember the clock: when Yegor left the house, it was three-quarters of ten, and he arrived at the station at ten minutes past eleven, that is, 25 minutes after leaving the house and 10 minutes after what he did, according to Surina. But he came to the unit where the prisoners were actually kept and where he was examined, at 11 o'clock, an hour after the case of which he was accused. During this time, he walked a lot, was in a warm room, and then they search him. When he was searched, you could infer from the testimony of the witnesses; one of the policemen explained that they did not pay attention to him, because he was brought for 7 days; the other said at first that he had searched him all over, and then explained that the defendant had taken off his boots himself, and he had examined only his pockets. Obviously, during this period of time he could have had time to dry, and if there was dampness on the dress and boots, then it did not differ from that which could form from slush and rain. Yes, finally, if you imagine the situation of the murder in the way Surina describes, you will see that he did not need to enter the water up to his knees. A struggle ensues on the slope, the defendant shoves his wife, they roll down in a minute through liquid mud, then he grabs her by the shoulders and, bending her head, thrusts her into the water. A person can suffocate within two or three minutes, especially if he is not allowed to emerge for a second, if he holds his head under water. In such a situation, which Surina describes, any woman in the position of Lukerya will be struck by a sudden attack - in the strong hands of an angry husband she will not gather strength to resist, especially if we take into account the position of the killer, who held her with one hand by the hand on which and there were bruises from his fingers, and with the other he bent her head to the water. How can she resist, how can she keep herself from drowning? She has only one hand free, but in front of her is water, which she cannot grasp, which cannot be leaned on. At the same time, Yegor's dress could be damp, spattered with water, soiled and a little dirty, but during a superficial examination that was done to him, this could go unnoticed. How likely this is, you can judge from the testimony of witnesses; one says that he is planted in a unit in boots, the other says barefoot; one shows that he was in a frock coat, the other says that he was wearing a coat, and so on. Finally, it is known that he was allowed to appear under arrest himself, that he was a friend in the police station - will such a person be searched and examined in detail? Let's see how possible the assumption of suicide. I think that they will not talk to us about suicide out of grief, that my husband was put under arrest for 7 days. You have to be childishly gullible to believe such a motive. We know that Lukerya accepted the news of her husband's arrest calmly, coolly, and even to come into such despair as to drown herself in view of a seven-day separation would be a rare, not to say impossible, example of marital affection. So there was another reason, but what? Perhaps the husband's cruel treatment, but we, however, do not see such treatment: everyone says that they lived peacefully, there were no obvious quarrels. True, she once, on the eve of her death, complained that her husband began to respond rudely, climbed with his fists and even advised her "to Zhdanovka." But, living in Russia, we know what cruel treatment of a wife is like in a simple class. It is expressed much more rudely and sharply, in it the husband, considering himself in his inalienable right, tries not only to hurt, but also to make a noise, break the heart. There was no such cruel treatment and could not be. It, for the most part, is a consequence of deep indignation by some side in the personality of the wife, which, in the opinion of the husband, needs to be corrected by punishing and torturing. There was another feeling here, stronger and always more terrible in its results. It was a deep, hidden hatred. Finally, we know that no one is so inclined to complain and cry about ill-treatment as a woman, and Lukerya just as much could not resist telling at least her relatives, at least her sister, that there is no life with her husband, as she told about him on the eve of her death . So there is no reason to commit suicide. Let's look at the execution of this suicide. She does not even hint to anyone about her intention, on the contrary, she says the opposite the day before, namely: that she will not lay hands on herself; then she takes from her sister - from a poor woman - a jacket: for what? - to drown in it; finally, she chooses Zhdanovka as the place of drowning, where the water is only an arshin. How can you drown yourself here? After all, you have to bend over, you need to hold on to the bottom with something so as not to float to the surface ... But the feeling of self-preservation will certainly have an effect - young life would rebel against its premature cessation, and Lukerya herself would jump out of the water. It is known that in many cases suicides die under water only because they either do not know how to swim, or the help that they usually call for will not come in time. Anyone who is familiar with the situation of suicide knows that drowning, as well as throwing from a height - two predominantly female methods of suicide - are carried out in such a way that the suicide tries to rush, rush, as it were, in order to quickly, immediately, without the possibility of hesitation and return to cut off contact with the outside world. They "throw" into the water, and do not look for a place where they would have to "enter" the water, almost like steps. Drowning in Zhdanovka, Lukerya had to enter the water, bend down, even sit down and not allow herself to get up until life flies away from her. But this situation is unthinkable! And why is it when the Neva flows ten steps away, which does not often give the lives of those who go to seek solace in its deep and cold jets. Finally, the time for suicide is chosen when fate itself sent her a seven-day reprieve, when she can breathe and live in freedom without a husband, near her sister. So it's not suicide. But, perhaps, this is the murder committed by Agrafena Surina, as the defendant alludes to this? I tried to prove that not Agrafena Surina, but Lukerya's husband might have wanted to kill her, and moreover, if we stop at the testimony of the accused, then we must take it in its entirety, especially in relation to Surina. Here he persistently demanded from witnesses to confirm that Lukerya was crying from Surina's threats to strangle her or grab her with an iron. The witnesses did not confirm this, but if you still believe the accused, then you must admit that Lukerya completely lost her mind in order to go at night to the dead bank of Zhdanovka with such a woman who is her enemy, who threatened to kill her! It will be said that Surina could have attacked her when she returned from seeing her husband off. But the facts, the inexorable facts, will prove the opposite to us. Yegor left the baths at three-quarters past nine, arrived at the station at ten minutes past ten, and therefore spent 25 minutes on the road. Simultaneously with leaving home, he called Agrafena, as Nikolaeva says. Therefore, Surina could attack Lukerya only after these 25 minutes had elapsed. But the same Nikolaeva said that Agrafena Surina returned home through twenty minutes after leaving. Finally, could Surina cope with Lukerya alone, as her husband and master could cope with her? Here there would be traces of that struggle, which the protection on the dress of the deceased was so vainly looking for. So, the assumption about Surina as the murderer of Lukerya collapses, and we come to the conclusion that Surina's testimony is essentially true. Then two circumstances remain unexplained: firstly, why did the accused call Agrafena when he went to kill his wife, and, secondly, why did he say, according to Surina’s testimony, that “he took a girl, and a woman came out”, and reproached his wife for the last moments of her life? Is Surina lying? But, gentlemen of the jury, it is not only external circumstances that hurt the eyes that determine the nature of a person's actions; in certain cases, one must also look at those spiritual manifestations that are characteristic of the majority of people in a certain situation. Why did he cast a shadow on the honor of his wife in the eyes of Agrafena? Yes, because, despite some of his depravity, he lives in a peculiar world where, with various, sometimes rude and not quite moral phenomena, there is a well-known, definite, simple and strict moral code. The influence of this code was expressed in the words of Agrafena: “I don’t want to break your law!” The defendant is a selfish, proud and domineering person; to come simply to ask Agrafena for forgiveness and pray for old love - it would mean to say directly that he does not love his wife because he married “foolishly”, without asking the ford; Agrafena would have laughed. It was necessary to be able to tell Agrafena that she could break the law, because this law No, because the wife brought dishonor into the house and dishonored law herself. He should not have come to Agrafena as a yearning and made a mistake, irreparable for life, but as an offended man, despising his wife, who could not “keep himself” before the wedding. Under such conditions, Agrafena would perhaps feel sorry for him, but he would not be ridiculous in her eyes. And besides - this is a universal human property, sad, but true - when a person unreasonably hates another, is unfair to him, then he tries to find in him at least some, albeit washed-out, guilt in order to justify himself in prying eyes, so that even in the eyes of himself hated to be, as it were, in his own right. That is why Yegor lied about his wife Agrafena and at a decisive moment in front of both of them repeated this lie, in the form of a question to his wife about whom she sold her honor to, although now she claims that the wife was chaste. Why did he summon Agrafena, going for the kill? You have become acquainted with Agrafeno Surina and, probably, you will agree that this woman is capable of bringing confusion and discord into the spiritual world of a person who is carried away by her. There is nothing to expect from her, that she will calm him down, she will speak like a kind, loving woman. On the contrary, she will most likely, in response to assurances of the strength of the newly arisen attachment, begin to tease, say: “Well, believe you, he wanted to marry me after all - he drove for two years, and married another.” It is clear that in a proud, young, passionate person who wants to acquire Agrafena, there should have been a desire to prove that he had a firm intention to possess her, that he was ready even to destroy his wife-a lover, but not in words that Agrafena does not believe and over which laughing, but really. Moreover, she has already experienced his infidelity once, she can get married, but she will not be under his yoke for a century; it is necessary to secure it for a long time, forever, by sharing with it a terrible secret. Then there will always be an opportunity to say: “Look, Agrafena! I will say everything, it will be bad for me, and you, tea, will not be sweet. Let's go to die together, because because of you Lukerya ruined his soul ... "That's why it was necessary to call Agrafena, removing at all costs the whining mother, who twice volunteered to go see him off. Then there could be practical considerations: going after her, he could later, if any traces of the murder were found, say: I was in the police station, and I went to the police station with Grusha, well - did I commit the murder in her presence? Ask her! She will remain silent, of course, and that will be the end of the matter. But in this calculation he was mistaken. He did not realize what impression Surina might have on what she would have to see, he forgot that the silence of such a receptive woman as Surina cannot be relied upon ... These are the considerations that I considered it necessary to present to you. It seems to me that they all boil down to the fact that the charge against the defendant has sufficient grounds. Therefore, I accuse him of hating his wife and having an affair with another woman, he took his wife at night to the Zhdanovka River and drowned her there. Concluding the accusation, I cannot but repeat that such a case as the present one will require great efforts of the mind and conscience to resolve its own. But I am sure that you will not retreat before the difficulty of the task, just as the accusatory power did not retreat before it, although, perhaps, solve it differently. I find that the defendant Yemelyanov committed a terrible deed, I find that, having passed a cruel and unjust sentence on his poor and innocent wife, he carried it out with all severity. If you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take from the case the same conviction as I did, if my arguments confirm this conviction in you, then I think that no later than in a few hours, the defendant will hear from your lips a sentence, of course, less severe. , but, no doubt, more just than the one that he himself pronounced over his wife.

The negative seme "absence of sounds" is neutralized in the story by components that express the semantics of sound, some of them break the silence (the voice rolled out in silence), others are included in it (silence and the gentle sound of water). One of the LSVs "quiet" directly refers to the sound (quiet music). Other cognates also connect with this semantics. The verb "subside" is used by the author when describing both the external and internal worlds of the hero. Also, Peter's mental state is also conveyed in other words with the root -tih(sh)-. The story contains the verb form (participle) "quiet", it is not in the dictionary; the prefix pre-indicates the incompleteness of the action, i.e. a reflection of incomplete silence, which also emphasizes the main motive of the work "The Blind Musician" - "sounding silence" that we have identified.

Bibliography

1. Korolenko V. Blind musician. - M., 1999.

2. Krasovskaya N. A. Artistic and visual properties of sounds in poetic speech: author. dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. - Novgorod, 1998.

3. Sulimenko N. E. Text word in the representation of the sound picture of the world // Functional semantics of the word. - Sverdlovsk, 1992. - S. 3-23.

S. A. Kotelnikova

The ability to "firmly rule the word": judicial speeches of the Russian lawyer A. F. Koni

The article deals with the methods and style of A. F. Koni's oratorical creativity on the example of court speeches, moral and ethical aspects of a lawyer's activity.

Key words: A.F. Koni, oratorical style, judicial speech.

The famous Russian lawyer Anatoly Fedorovich Koni (1844-1927) left a great legacy, which is still of outstanding importance for the history of Russian legal proceedings in general, for prosecutorial and legal practice, but, in addition, is of considerable literary and linguistic value. Everything created by him is united by the author's firm moral position, a heightened interest in the problems of conscience, the idea of ​​implementing in Russia a "conscientious" court based on law and justice. According to A.F. Koni, law and morality are not opposite concepts, but related,

having a common source - the moral ideals of the Russian people, ensuring the reasonable development of society, where the judge should be a servant, but not a lackey of justice.

The judicial reform of 1864 established Russian criminal justice on new procedural principles: oral, open, adversarial, equality of the parties in the process. A natural consequence of such innovations was the emergence of judicial orators who were able to skillfully master the word endowed with legal force. Their circle then included P. A. Aleksandrov, M. F. Gromnitsky,

S. A. Andreevsky, K. K. Arseniev, N. P. Karabchevsky, F. N. Plevako and others.

In the history of Russian judicial eloquence, Anatoly Fedorovich Koni occupies a special place, who was most directly related to the social, state-political and cultural life of pre-revolutionary, and partly Soviet Russia.

“Knight of the Law”, A.F. Koni passionately and successfully engaged in scientific and legal and judicial and prosecutorial activities: he was the chairman of the civil department of the St. For exceptional services in this area in 1890 Kharkov University awarded him the degree of Doctor of Criminal Law, and ten years later he was elected an academician in the category of belles-lettres of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.

The court speeches of the famous lawyer deserve special attention. They are distinguished by impeccable logic, carefully selected and convincingly built arguments, a subtle psychological analysis of the personality and behavior of the defendant, an objective, deep and detailed consideration of the evidence base. The techniques and style of his oratorical work can be demonstrated by the example of several court speeches.

In many articles and public speeches, A.F. Koni followed the conviction that the trial, the debate of the parties should serve the goals of the moral education of society, a kind of school of public morality. “All the main methods of judging,” he wrote, “should be subjected to<...>critical revision from the point of view of their moral permissibility. The criterion of this permissibility could be the consideration that the end cannot justify the means and that the lofty aims of justice<...>must be achieved only by moral means.<...>

The workers of judicial competition should not forget that the court is a school for peoples, from which, in addition to respect for the law, lessons should be learned in serving the truth and respect for human dignity.

A.F. Koni clearly articulated the requirements for a court speaker. Chief among them is education, and not only legal education itself, but general cultural education: for a real lawyer, a general humanitarian education goes ahead of a special one. A true professional should know domestic and world history, art, literature - only then he will not remain in his field only an "extra" (an expert on legislative articles), an executor of the letter of the law, then he will not miss the highest subject of justice - a person who is taken care of, as and about a fair decision of his fate, is the most important goal of legal proceedings.

Judicial speakers are required to unconditionally comply with three conditions: first, to know the subject of speech in detail, with all the positive and negative points; secondly, to know the native language perfectly and skillfully use all its means, involving in speech the necessary literary material; thirdly, to avoid lying, since it is the truth, stated with genuine sincerity, that distinguishes convincing, claiming to influence speech.

In public speech, special stimuli are traditionally used to help build a system of rational elements in defense of the chosen theses. Most often, psychological arguments are involved, influencing the emotions of listeners, facilitating their perception of the main content of the judicial speech. A.F. Koni always used these means not formally, but creatively, sometimes even artistically. Here, for example, is the beginning of the court speech “In the case of the drowning of a peasant woman Yemelyanova by her husband”: “Judges, gentlemen of the jury! Your consideration is subject to the most diverse cases in terms of their internal situation, among them there are often cases where testimony breathes such common sense, is imbued with such sincerity and truthfulness, and is often distinguished by such imagery that the task of the judiciary becomes very easy.<.. .>But there are cases of a different kind, where the testimonies are of a completely different nature, where they are inconsistent, unclear, vague, where the witnesses are silent about many things, they are afraid to say much, showing you an example of evasive reticence and far from complete sincerity. I'm not wrong-

bus, saying that the present case belongs to the last category.

In the same case, as in many others, the lawyer skillfully uses a psychological argument to the personality of the suspect, affecting his moral qualities, mental properties. From the standpoint of logic, such arguments are correct and invulnerable, from the psychological standpoint they are unexpected and very effective. Here is how A. F. Koni traces the past life of the suspected husband of a murdered peasant woman. “At the age of 16, he comes to St. Petersburg and becomes a bathhouse attendant at the so-called “family” baths.<...>Livelihood is not earned by hard and honest work, but by the fact that it pleases visitors.<...>That's what his position in terms of work! Let's look at it from the point of view of duty and conscience. Can it develop self-control in a person, create internal and moral barriers? No<...>Let's look at the personal character of the defendant<.>firm, resolute, courageous. Yegor lives out of tune with his comrades, there is not a day that he does not quarrel, he is a “mischievous”, restless person, does not like to let anyone down.

As you can see, having gone through all the stages of the prosecutorial and judicial hierarchy over a long life, Koni the lawyer remained objective and highly humane, subtle and skillful analyst of evidence, a psychologist - an expert on the movements of the human soul, able to give a correct assessment of actions and characters. If it was necessary to make a critical judgment about negative phenomena of social significance, there were harsh notes in the tone of Koni's speech. Then he did not avoid decisive expressions and harsh definitions, as happened at the court session in the case of the zemstvo head of the Kharkov district, candidate for rights V. Protopopov, who was accused of crimes in office. “We have seen how often anger darkened the defendant’s common sense, we are familiar with the characteristic ways in which he expresses his philanthropy, we know how the joy of his position turned into a joy of his power<.>He cannot, without fear of causing further harm to the work entrusted to him, remain a sailor on a ship of public service.

A.F. Koni was very critical of many of the methods of constructing speech and methods of controversy that were common in the then judicial practice. So, the famous pre-revolutionary lawyer

S. A. Andreevsky advised novice lawyers not so much to take care of the analysis of evidentiary material as research

to determine the mental state of the defendant during the commission of a crime. And at the same time - to tear the speech of the opposite side to shreds, not caring too much about the quality of their own constructions. Koni resolutely rejected such recommendations, repeatedly emphasizing that there are no justifications for illegal actions, just as there is no justification for the common formula: in the struggle all means are good.

In this regard, it is useful to recall one more requirement of A.F. Koni: the prosecutor in court must be an impartial and calm researcher of the guilt of the defendant, not limited to extracting only incriminating circumstances from the case, without exaggerating the significance of evidence of guilt. Therefore, it is possible to acquit persons who have committed crimes in which there were no specific victims. A similar situation is connected with Koni’s court speech “In the case of Stanislav and Emil Jansen, accused of importing counterfeit banknotes into Russia, and Herminia Akar, accused of issuing and circulating such tickets”: “I have already explained the absence of clearly injured persons in court. They could also demand a drive from us and those workers who worked on the railway, where Jouet laid sleepers and distributed false papers. But you probably won't need that drive to solve this case.<...>It is necessary to give a place to justice, which is expressed in justice.

K. I. Chukovsky, who personally knew Koni, in the preface to the 8th volume of the collected works of the latter, recalls that the outstanding lawyer “turned out to be an artistic nature with the temperament of a great artist. If he had not been a judge, a prosecutor, a famous orator, he could have become an outstanding actor or a storyteller - he had such an appetite for various everyday episodes, snatched straight from life, and for the artistic depiction of all kinds of characters, faces, situations. Of course, the court became his true passion, a vocation, where he almost always succeeded in the struggle for justice and truth. But Koni helped in this harsh field and his innate literary talent. No wonder the lawyer's contemporaries often called his court speeches detailed novels, where the thoughts, feelings and actions of the defendant are presented in detail. The features of Koni's official speeches are not only legal accuracy and stylistic impeccability, but also imagery, sometimes even picturesqueness - he skillfully subordinated these artistic means to the tasks of justice.

Here is a fragment of the speech “In the case of a false oath in the divorce case of spouses Z - nyh”6 “... the idea of ​​​​divorce came to Z - on a long time ago.<.>Mr. Z-n had long since fallen out of love with his wife, and, long ago, having left her almost to the mercy of fate, and apparently falling in love with another, he was looking for a divorce. But the wife did not agree to a divorce. She did not easily succumb to the requests of her husband. She, who brought her husband a huge dowry, had the courage to demand that he give her funds, she had the desire to be provided for and have a piece of bread in her old age. These immoderate desires prevented divorce. And in such an uncertain state of affairs, Mr. Z - n arrives in Petersburg. .

For A. F. Koni, the “virtuoso of virtue” (A. I. Urusov), the center of interest is a human personality with a variety of mental properties, destinies, and actions. His texts are full of curious figures of peasants, generals, blackmailers, landlords, embezzlers, poisoners - each has his own character, his own customs and habits. But the author of court speeches and human scientist was attracted to selfless guardians of the law, noble truth-seekers, to whom he himself belonged, appreciating fighting enthusiasm, militancy, readiness to defend his point of view. His favorite verbs are rebelled, fought, fought, fought, defended. And A.F. Koni himself fought many battles, defending the right court from the dictates of the supreme power. We can recall the acquittal of the revolutionary Vera Zasulich, who shot at the St. Petersburg mayor, General Trepov, known for his cruelty. A.F. Koni presided over this trial, where the jury acquitted the revolutionary, although the day before, Minister of Justice Palen demanded that V. Zasulich, the chairman of the St. Petersburg District Court, A.F. Koni, be convicted. After this process, Koni found himself in disfavor with Alexander II and the government for a long time, but, foreseeing such consequences, he showed the firmness of legal convictions, the independence of his professional and civil position.

During his more than half a century of activity, the outstanding lawyer invariably defended the democratic principles of the criminal process: publicity, orality, immediacy in

relation to the subject of the proceedings, free evaluation of evidence, mandatory adversarial, since it is in the judicial competition that both sides create new and old arguments are destroyed, not always expected points of view appear both on the application of the article of the law and on the personality of the defendant. “Publicity and orality brought into the judicial proceedings the beginning of a direct

th perception of material for judgment. They stirred and scattered<.. .>that pile of papers, reports, protocols, drafts, resolutions under which a living person was buried, becoming only the number of the case. He got up from under this pile of written work, which erased his personal colors, and appeared before the judge, along with his actual accusers and intercessors-witnesses.

Koni's courage also extended to the manner in which the texts of the accusatory and final speeches were presented. He categorically denied pre-composed business texts, their almost mechanical reading in court debates. Such an order, in his experience, undermined the impression of speeches, weakened the direct perception of the case by the participants in the process. "The spoken word is always more fruitful than the written word: it lives the listener and the speaker." The personality of the judge became for Kony a central figure in the trial, and he was especially interested in the problem of personal convictions. A connoisseur of the history of legal proceedings traces how the freedom of the personal conviction of the ancient judge is replaced by the bias of the personal conviction of the judge of the feudal era, since there is no protection in the criminal process of that time and there are silence, writing and clerical secrets. At the time of the dominance of the system of formal evidence, the dependence of the personal convictions of the judge on a number of extra-legal factors is noted. With the judicial reform of 1864, there were hopes for a return to the freedom of personal convictions of a judge who would direct all efforts to find the truth in the case, would follow the motto “I can not do otherwise”, and not “I want it that way”.

So, A.F. Koni is rightfully considered the founder of judicial ethics in Russia, giving a prominent place to the moral aspects of justice. His multifaceted experience convinced that next to the sophistication of technology in the criminal process, a worthy place will be occupied by “true and broad philanthropy, removed from depersonalization, from worn out professional techniques, from inertia, bureaucracy in the protection of public law and order. The center of gravity will shift from the flow of the process to the ethical and social-legal activities of the judge in all its diversity.

In this case, the importance of oratorical "hard" word, oratory is great. “The word is one of the greatest tools of man. Powerless in itself - it becomes powerful and irresistible, said skillfully, sincerely and in time. It is capable of capturing the speaker himself and blinding him and those around him with his brilliance.

com. Therefore, the moral duty of a judicial orator is to handle this weapon carefully and moderately and make his word only a servant of deep conviction, not succumbing to the temptation of a beautiful form or apparent logic of his constructions and not worrying about ways to captivate someone with his speech.

These considerations have not lost their relevance in our time.

Bibliography

1. Koni A. F. Collected works: in 8 volumes - M. 1967.

2. A brief synopsis of the course of criminal proceedings, read to pupils of the 1st class of the Imperial Alexander Lyceum by Doctor of Criminal Law A.F. Koni. - St. Petersburg, 1907.

E. B. Kotleva

Trends in the study of speech etiquette

The article discusses current trends in the study of speech etiquette, analyzes the work of the last decade from the point of view of research approaches to the phenomenon under study, and outlines ways to further develop the issue.

Key words: speech etiquette, formulas of speech etiquette, speech behavior, research directions of etiquette formulas.

The study of speech etiquette units is especially relevant at the moment, since recently there has been an active process of changing the Russian language in general and national speech etiquette in particular. Linguistics of recent decades has been paying more and more attention to the study of the human factor, since the subjective picture of the world, corresponding to the consciousness and mentality of the individual, is reflected precisely in the language. Language has an impact on the formation of personality, in connection with this, the ideas of studying the linguistic picture of the world received a "second wind". At present, the relationship between language and culture is being rethought, special attention is paid by researchers to the reflection in the language of the features of mentality, the identification of the national-cultural component of semantics.

Speech etiquette is an indicative element of any national culture. In modern Russian philology, the study of situational variation of speech behavior and influencing

ORATORY A.F. KONY

Introduction

A brief history of the life and work of A.F. Horses

1 Legal activity

2 Scientific and pedagogical activity

3 Cases of A.F. Horses of historical importance

The power of oratory A.F. Horses

1 The image of a court speaker

2 Features of judicial speech

3 Characteristic techniques of expressiveness of speech

4 Typical techniques for preparing and constructing speech

Conclusion

Introduction

In the context of the strengthening of Russian statehood, fundamental changes in the legal consciousness of citizens, reform of the judicial system, radical changes in the content and methods of lawyers, the revival and study of the traditions of the school of Russian (domestic) judicial eloquence is of particular importance.

In this regard, it is necessary to note such brilliant judicial orators as A.F. Koni, K.K. Arseniev, F.N. Plevako, V.D. Spasovich and many others, who possessed enormous power of influence, riveted the attention of the general public.

The purpose of this work is to identify the meaningful features of the domestic rhetorical ideal on the example of A.F. Koni, who shows his gift of persuasion, both in accusatory speeches and when considering cases as a presiding judge.

In accordance with the goal set, the following tasks have been identified:

presentation of personal characteristics of A.F. Koni, revealing the historical significance of his activities, by tracing the main events of the life and behavioral attitudes of the famous judicial figure;

description of the image of a court speaker, disclosure of the meaning of morality in legal proceedings, based on the scientific works of A.F. horses;

revealing the secret of success A.F. Horses in the field of judicial eloquence, demonstrating the special nature of his speeches;

presentation of the main artistic methods of expressiveness of speeches by A.F. Koni, as well as demonstrating his special approach to their preparation and direct speech in the courtroom.

To reveal the content of each of the tasks set, the general literature on rhetoric, literary sources devoted to the biography, selected works and speeches of A.F. Koni, as well as some periodicals devoted to the effectiveness of public prosecution.

1. A brief history of the life and work of A.F. Horses

A.F. Koni (1844-1927) was born on February 9, 1844 in St. Petersburg in the family of a literary and theatrical figure and history teacher F.A. Horses and actresses I.S. Yurieva. Until the age of 12 he was brought up at home, then in the German school of St. Anna, from where he moved to the Second Gymnasium; from the 6th grade of the gymnasium in May 1861, he took an exam for admission to St. Petersburg University in the mathematical department, and after the closure of this university, he moved to the 2nd year of the law faculty of Moscow University, which he graduated in 1865 with a candidate's degree.

1.1 Legal activities

Anatoly Fedorovich Koni (1844-1927) occupies a special place among the great Russian judicial orators, whose activity falls on the period of the middle and end of the 19th century. He began his path in society in the "epoch of reforms" of the 60s of the XIX century. and completed it during the years of Soviet power.

In 1864-1865. in connection with the abolition of serfdom, a progressive Judicial reform was carried out, the statutes of legal proceedings were adopted, and new judicial institutions were created. A.F. Koni was first appointed to the post of secretary of the St. Petersburg Court of Justice (April 18, 1866), then - secretary of the Moscow Prosecutor's Office (December 23, 1866).

In the autumn of 1867, A.F. Koni was sent to Kharkov to the post of assistant prosecutor of the district court, in 1870 he was transferred to St. Petersburg, then he was sent - with a promotion - to the provincial prosecutor to Samara, and then the prosecutor of the district court to Kazan . A year later, at the age of twenty-seven, he returns to St. Petersburg to assume the duties of the prosecutor of the capital district. In these posts, as in Kharkov, A.F. Koni fearlessly pursued the "powerful of this world" who had broken the law.

In the summer of 1875, Minister Count K.I. judicial supervision, leadership of the prosecutor's office, etc. Over time, the relationship between A.F. Koni and K.I. Palen, which reached its peak on July 13, 1877 during the events in the house of preliminary detention. The center of these events was the imprisoned student A.S. Bogolyubov, who was subjected to a flogging by the St. Petersburg mayor, General F.F. Trepov, because of not worshiping this person a second time, which was accompanied by beatings of other prisoners who expressed their indignation on this occasion, by the hefty policemen. All these events were approved by K.I. Palen. A.F. Koni, who was absent during the described events in St. Petersburg and learned about them upon his return, declared to his minister that the unjustified violence he had allowed was an illegal thing, a political mistake that would have terrible consequences.

January 1878 A.F. Koni was appointed chairman of the St. Petersburg District Court. And at the same time, the events that began with the incident with Bogolyubov entered a new stage of development, which consisted in an attempt on the life of F.F. Trepova by a certain woman who introduced herself as Kozlova (later, as it turned out, V.I. Zasulich), who was driven by a desire to avenge Bogolyubov's section. The case of V.I. Zasulich was considered by a jury. As a result, the decision of the jury on the innocence of V.I. Zasulich was unanimous.

After this case, the name of A.F. Koni sounded not only in Soviet periodicals, but also in all newspapers in Western Europe and the USA. Publicists discussed the role of A.F. Horses in justification V.I. Zasulich, expressing opinions about his participation in the selection of jurors and pushing them to an acquittal.

Responding to the attacks from the “right”, A.F. Koni, referring to his summary, published in all the newspapers, wrote: "... Those who reproach have not read it or viciously distort its meaning." And further Koni A.F. rather focuses on its accusatory tone: "It is necessary to admit guilt in inflicting a wound and give leniency." As you can see, indeed, A.F. Koni "bent" to the recognition of V.I. Zasulich guilty, but deserving of indulgence. And the jury acquitted V.I. Zasulich because the factors of dissatisfaction with the foreign and domestic policy of the tsarist administration, admiration for the heroic deed of V.I. Zasulich, as well as the excellent skill of the lawyer P.A. Aleksandrov, worked.

However, after the failure of the prosecution in the case of V.I. Zasulich, A.F. Koni was subjected to four years of persecution by officials (first during the reign of Alexander II, then his son Alexander III). These persecutions had a particular effect on his teaching at the School of Law, which he had to stop in connection with the agitation of the pupils of the school against him. Despite all these provocations, A.F. Koni stood his ground in the name of the principle of the irremovability of judges as a guarantee of their independence, without which there is no true justice, no fairness in court. The chairman of the district court entered the battle for the highest, in his opinion, social values, which, however, did not matter to the tsar and his ministers.

A turn for the better was outlined when I.K. Palena, Minister D.N. Nabokov, having overcome the initial prejudice inspired by ministerial officials, from personal observations formed an opinion about A.F. Koni, appreciated his honesty, deep knowledge and ardent devotion to the cause. And in the autumn of 1881 A.F. Koni was appointed to the post of chairman of the department of the St. Petersburg Court of Justice. However, A.F. The horses were nevertheless withdrawn “from the army in the field”, since it was not about the criminal, but about the civil department. Due to the lack of experience of A.F. Koni studied lectures, educational and scientific literature, civil law for several months and, finally, confidently began to consider very complex civil cases.

A.F. Koni headed the civil department of the Judicial Chamber for more than three years, after which, despite the memorable case of V.I. Zasulich was appointed Chief Prosecutor of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Senate. This position was one of the highest, if not the highest position in the criminal justice system, since the Senate at that time was the highest judicial body, overseeing the activities of all judicial institutions. Chief Prosecutor, and then Senator A.F. Koni served in the Criminal Cassation Department for sixteen years - from February 1885 to 1900. Many cases considered in the Senate with the participation of A.F. Horses entered the annals of Russian legal proceedings.

In 1900, A.F. Koni was elected an Honorary Member of the Academy of Sciences and left judicial activity, although he continued to serve as a senator in the general meeting of the Senate, and since 1907 also a member of the State Council. But during these years he paid more attention to scientific and literary, as well as social activities. After the October Revolution, A.F. Koni remained out of public service, because he could not accept the new social system, it was difficult to adapt to a meager, hungry, cold life in a devastated country.

Thus, A.F. Koni played an important role in the formation and development of Russian (Soviet) legal proceedings, based on the principles of publicity and oral communication, putting judicial figures face to face with a living person. And in this field A.F. Koni, despite all the complexity and insidiousness of the situations that fell to his lot, remained a lawyer to the marrow of his bones and always acted as a fighter for justice, fundamentally defending the most humane and democratic ideas.

1.2 Scientific and pedagogical activity

A. F. Koni's interest in science was awakened while still a student. Lectures on the disciplines of the criminal cycle at the university did not satisfy him, and A.F. Koni began to study criminal law on his own, getting acquainted with foreign and poor domestic literature at that time. So the idea arose to write a Ph.D. thesis on the right of necessary defense. And in the future, having entered the civil service, A.F. Koni continued to engage in scientific work.

Since 1865, he has been publishing articles on criminal law and criminal proceedings in the Journal of the Ministry of Justice, in the Moscow Legal Bulletin. During the life of A.F. Koni, which falls at the beginning of the 20th century, new editions of Judicial Speeches, a collection of materials about the life and work of progressive Russian lawyers Fathers and Sons of Judicial Reform, the first volumes of the collected works On the Path of Life, commented on the Charter of Criminal Proceedings, are published. The developments of A.F. Koni in the field of judicial ethics are especially significant. Suffered by many years of judicial and prosecutorial work, his provisions on the moral foundations of legal proceedings and criminal policy largely retain their theoretical and practical significance today. A historical and biographical essay by A.F. Koni about the great philanthropist of the 19th century, the Moscow prison doctor Fyodor Petrovich Gaaz, also adjoins this direction. In 1924, the work of A.F. Koni "Techniques and tasks of the prosecutor's office (from the memoirs of a judicial figure)", which served as a practical guide for employees of the young Soviet prosecutor's office.

In addition, during the period of life at the beginning of the 20th century, A.F. Koni also devoted a lot of time to teaching criminal justice at the Alexander Lyceum and gives a course of public lectures at the St. Petersburg People's University (Tenishev courses). He showed particular enthusiasm for his teaching activities in the last years of his life (1919-1927). He taught courses on "applied ethics", "history and theory of the art of speech" (at the Institute of the Living Word), "criminal justice" (at Moscow University), "ethics of the hostel" (at the "Railway Institute"). In addition, he gave a series of lectures at the Museum of the City and occasionally spoke publicly for charitable purposes. The activity of A.F. Koni at that time was a real feat in the name of love for his people.

In January 1924, the Academy of Sciences celebrated the 80th anniversary of A.F. Koni with a solemn meeting. To commemorate this event, a commemorative collection was published. And having stepped into the ninth decade, A.F. Koni tirelessly continued his literary and educational activities: he prepared his unique memoirs for publication, gave lectures. In the spring of 1927, while giving a lecture in a cold, unheated auditorium, A.F. Koni caught a cold and fell ill with pneumonia. They couldn't cure him. September 17, 1927 A.F. The horse was gone.

Thus, the scientific activity of A.F. Koni is of exceptional importance for enlightenment, education and upbringing in beginners and even experienced judicial figures of the moral and psychological principles of legal proceedings. His works, devoted to the importance and fundamentals of judicial technique, forensic psychology and judicial ethics, to this day serve to strengthen the rule of law, develop legal culture, and protect individual rights.

1.3 Cases of A.F. Horses of historical importance

One of the first cases in which A.F. Koni acted as a prosecutor in Kharkov, there was a case of beatings by the provincial secretary Doroshenko to the tradesman Severin, which caused the death of the latter. The murder of Severin took place on the eve of the introduction of the Judicial Reform of 1864. Doroshenko, using his official position, tried to prevent the further course of events, however, due to publicity in the newspapers and in connection with the complaint of Severin's widow in 1868, a criminal case was nevertheless initiated. Despite the unfavorable situation created in connection with this case by certain circles in Kharkov, A.F. Koni boldly pursued his investigation and firmly set aside his findings during the prosecution. As a result, the jurors found Doroshenko guilty.

Later, A.F. Koni just as selflessly conducted and considered cases, most of which fell on the period of his service as chief prosecutor and senator in the criminal cassation department (1885-1900). Among them, one can single out the case of Vasily Protopopov, the zemstvo head of the Kharkov district, a candidate for rights, who, taking advantage of the dual nature of his power (the police service and the court), enshrined in the law of July 12, 1889, committed incredible arbitrariness among subordinates and peasants. An attempt by Protopopov to appeal against the verdict of the court, which was rather lenient (dismissal), was stopped by A.F. Koni, who left no shadow of doubt that the holder of the title "candidate of rights" actually turned out to be a "candidate of lawlessness". This was the first case of malfeasance by a Zemstvo chief. Public attention to it and responses in the press went far beyond its scope and declared a natural result of the anti-people policy of the administration. The Ministry of Internal Affairs drew its own conclusions: not a single case against the Zemstvo chief was initiated after that.

The case of the so-called Multan sacrifice was also of historical importance. Eleven peasants of the village "Old Multan", Udmurts by nationality, were prosecuted on charges of murder in order to sacrifice to pagan gods. One of them died during the investigation. The court, which considered the case for the first time, acquitted three defendants and found seven guilty. The conviction was overturned. When the case was retried, the same seven were convicted again. And again, according to the complaints of the defenders, the case was heard in the Senate. Despite the external pressure caused by the interest in the triumph of Orthodoxy over the pagans, A.F. Koni scrupulously checked the case and revealed a number of serious procedural violations committed by the court. A.F. Koni drew special attention of the senators to the fact that the very fact of the existence of the custom of human sacrifice among the Udmurts, disputed by ethnographers and other scientists, did not receive reliable confirmation in the case materials. The statement of such a custom by an authoritative verdict of the court would mean the creation of a dangerous precedent. Having persuaded the majority of the Senate to repeal the verdict, A.F. Koni not only protected the defendants from unlawful punishment, but also protected the small oppressed people from conjectures that attributed terrible bloody customs to them. The case was considered for the third time by the court of first instance, which acquitted all the defendants.

In cases inaccessible to A.F. Koni, he used his connections to achieve an acquittal or mitigation of the fate of the convicts (for example, the case of the old man Kiryukhin, the case of Chicherin, etc.). In some cases, the actions of A.F. Koni in this direction are striking in their fearlessness. At the end of the 19th century, in the Baltic states, tsarist Russifier officials, in alliance with Orthodox churchmen, launched a campaign against Protestant pastors. They were charged with "seduction into heterodoxy", entailing exile to Siberia with the deprivation of all rights of state. The first such accusation was against the elderly Pastor Grimm, after which 55 more such cases were to follow. Having considered the case in the first instance, the pastor was condemned accordingly. After this, his actions, not without the participation of A.F. The horses were reclassified on appeal under another much more lenient article, providing for the first case of temporary removal from the place of service, and for the second - deprivation of dignity and return to police supervision. However, against this decision, the Prosecutor of the Judicial Chamber A.M. Kuzminsky submitted a protest to the Senate. A.F. Koni was convinced of the correctness of the decision of the Judicial Chamber, and, despite the doubts of the Minister of Justice N.A. Manasein, without waiting for the king's resolution to his letter with the rationale for the above decision, spoke with his conclusion at the hearings of the case and the majority of senators, after a heated discussion, accepted his point of view. As a result, the protest in the Grimm case was dismissed, which was subsequently approved by the Tsar. Thus, A.F. Kony prevented the political consequences of turning pastors into martyrs for the faith, as well as the expression of violent indignation against the government on the part of the local population, which would certainly have turned all their sympathies to the persecuted. One more thing should be noted - the case of the collapse of the royal train in Borki, which occurred on October 18, 1888. The leadership of the investigation of this case was entrusted to A.F. Koni, despite the fact that his competence did not include supervision of the preliminary investigation. And here, tirelessly striving for the truth, A.F. Koni did not miss the opportunity to make influential enemies. He concluded that the main culprits of the disaster were major railway officials and members of the board of the joint-stock company that owned the railway. The king pardoned the guilty. But the number of enemies in the court environment did not decrease with A.F. Koni. Thus, all the cases investigated and supported by the prosecution in the person of A. F. Koni testify to his principled position, consistency of beliefs and actions. Defending the principles of justice, humanity, freedom of conscience, religious tolerance and other democratic principles dictated by a high level of morality, and neglecting any goals other than ensuring the rule of law, A.F. Koni acted without looking back and did not pay any attention to pressure from officials and other interested parties.

2. The power of oratory A.F. Horses

2.1 Image of a court speaker

Since ancient times, theorists and practitioners of oratory, communication specialists have attached and attach great importance to the moral position of the speaker. A.F. Koni attaches particular importance to moral principles in the activities of a judicial orator, which is the subject of his article "Moral Principles in Criminal Procedure". The main idea of ​​this article lies in the adversarial beginning of the process, nominating the accuser and the defender as necessary assistants to the judge in the study of the truth, whose combined efforts illuminate different, opposite sides of the case and facilitate the assessment of its details. At the same time, A.F. Koni focuses on the moral foundations of permissible (inadmissible) behavior in judicial debate, the measure of which is the achievement of the high goals of the just protection of society and, at the same time, the protection of the individual from unfair accusation by exclusively moral methods and techniques.

In his article, A.F. Koni highlights such basic ethical norms that regulate the behavior of a judicial speaker in judicial debates and, accordingly, make up his image, such as a respectful and conscientious attitude towards the court, respect for the procedural opponent, as well as a correct attitude towards all other participants in the process, including the victim. and the defendant. This is evidenced, first of all, by the following statement by A.F. Koni: “Judicial statutes give the prosecutor sublime instructions, indicating to him that in his speech he should neither present the case in a unilateral form, extracting from it only the circumstances that incriminate the defendant, nor exaggerate the significance of evidence and evidence or the importance of the crime ... ".

In other words, the prosecutor does not have the right to always and under any circumstances accuse at all costs. The law and professional ethics require the prosecutor to drop the accusation if it has not been confirmed by the judicial investigation.

In emphasizing the special significance of the rule of conscientious attitude to the court in the defense speech of the lawyer Koni A.F. notes such characteristics of the defender as "armed with knowledge and deep honesty, moderate in methods, disinterested in material terms, independent in convictions, steadfast in his solidarity with comrades." At the same time, A.F. Kony emphasizes that the defender “... is not a servant of his client... He is a friend, he is an adviser to a person who, in his sincere conviction, is not at all guilty or not at all guilty of what he is accused of. Not being a servant of the client, he, however, in his public service, is a servant of the state ... ". In other words, the rights and legitimate interests of the client are above all for the lawyer, but strict adherence to the norms of professional ethics should keep him from trying to deceive the court. Defending the legitimate interests of the client, the lawyer is obliged to act by legal means and to ensure that his client behaves properly.

It should also be noted that A.F. Koni in his article, emphasizing the practical significance of the service of the prosecutor-prosecutor to the most important state task of protecting society, relying on the words of the famous Moscow Metropolitan Filaret about Christian love and indulgence towards the criminal, notes: “... if this should be the attitude towards the convicted criminal, which is one of the most beautiful moral traits of the Russian people, then there is no reason to treat the defendant differently. And this should inevitably be reflected in the forms and methods of the accusatory speech, without in the least weakening its legal and factual evidence.

To the main features of the typical image of a judicial orator (in the person of the prosecutor-prosecutor) A.F. Koni attributes "calmness, the absence of personal anger against the defendant, the neatness of the prosecution's methods, which are alien to both the arousal of passions and the distortion of the facts of the case, and, finally, which is very important, the complete absence of hypocrisy in voice, in gesture and in the way of bearing oneself in court." Complementing this image, A.F. Koni emphasizes: “To this we must add the simplicity of the language, free, in most cases, from pretentiousness or loud and “pathetic” words. The best of our judicial orators have understood that in the pursuit of truth, the deepest thoughts always merge with the simplest word.

It is interesting to note the fact that the image of the current judicial orator, to put it mildly, is far from ideal. Employees who own oratory, without exception, both in district and regional prosecutor's offices.

In this regard, the issue of conducting educational and methodological work in relation to state prosecutors is relevant, in the solution of which the works of A.F. Horses devoted to the principle of competition in the Russian (Soviet) criminal process.

Thus, the image of the court speaker according to A.F. Koni is determined by his central position in the conflicts of law and morality, and incorporates such characteristics as the guardian of the law, a highly moral personality, a model of citizenship and morality for everyone with whom he has to communicate, and, accordingly, moral and social responsibility, honesty, competence and decency. Legality and morality - this is the spiritual atmosphere in which a judicial orator (lawyer) must act.

2.2 Features of judicial speech

To the Russian Society Koni A.F. known in particular as a judicial orator, whose art he mastered during his prosecutorial activities. Courtrooms where A.F. The horses, as an accuser, were filled to overflowing with the public, and the content of his speeches was so logical and conclusive that the court most often took his side. The reason for this success is Koni A.F. due to his personal qualities.

In this regard, it should be noted the statement of Academician S.F. Platonov, with which he characterized A.F. Koni on his 80th birthday. “Nature,” he said, addressing the hero of the day, “gave you a special ability to build speeches beautifully and powerfully, and a broad, exceptionally broad education enriched this speech with images of poetry and sparks of philosophical thought, one might say, of the whole world. But the inner strength of the educational edification hidden in your word did not suffer from this elegant attire, but only increased the mental pleasure that people endured from communicating with you. Those who happened to listen to A.F. Koni, noted the originality of his speeches, the absence of a template.

In the personal archive of A.F. Koni preserved many different notes on oratory, on the problems of which he worked all his life. So, in the note “Content of Speech in Form and Methods” (1927), the following separate phrases are noted: “logic is a premise. Thesis”, “consistency, stiffness of the listener and the speaker”, “images. Independent creativity”, “inspiration”, “external instrument of speech. Facial expression and gesture. Signal and symptom of mental movements. Children's gesture. The contagiousness of the gesture for the crowd ... ". “You don’t have to swing very much, as if you are rowing with an oar, or clench your hands in fists, or rest against your sides.”

Regarding the court speeches by A.F. It was customary for horses to say: "These speeches cannot be imitated, but one must learn from them." It is also noteworthy that he, the prosecutor, does not put pressure on the judge, does not smash the defendant, but only skillfully groups the evidence, analyzes it, eliminates possible doubts, and from his convincing speech the guilt of the defendant gradually becomes obvious and indisputable.

Speeches of Koni A.F. always distinguished by a high psychological interest, developed on the basis of a comprehensive study of the individual circumstances of each given case. He assessed the character of a person who carried out his will in a crime not only from the side of external layers, but also took into account the special psychological elements that make up the “I” of a person. A.F. Kony found out the influence of these elements on the emergence of a given will, carefully noting the degree of participation of favorable or unfavorable conditions in the life of a given person, thereby finding the most optimal material for a correct judgment about the case.

The power of oratory A.F. Koni manifested itself in the fact that he was able to show not only what is, but also how it was formed. This is one of the strengths and noteworthy aspects of his talent as a judicial orator.

Speeches of Koni A.F. have always been simple and alien to rhetorical embellishments. His word justifies the accuracy of Pascal's saying that true eloquence laughs at eloquence as an art that develops according to the rules of rhetoric. In his speeches Koni A.F. did not follow the methods of ancient orators who sought to influence the judge through flattery, intimidation, and generally arousal of passions. His moderation, however, did not exclude the use of caustic irony and harsh evaluation, which made an indelible impression, especially on the persons who called them up. The sense of proportion expressed in his words and methods finds its explanation in the fact that in him, according to the fair remark of K.K. Arsenyev, the gift of psychological analysis is combined with the temperament of the artist.

Thus it is judicial speech Koni A.F. was built on the basis of a thorough comprehensive analysis of the everyday situation and personality of the defendant, a truly humane attitude towards him and, accordingly, had clarity, logic, accuracy, expressiveness, conciseness, relevance, sincerity. The abundance in his speeches of images, comparisons, generalizations and well-aimed remarks that gave them life and beauty, the original manner of expressing his thoughts expressively, in relief and gracefully, determine the aesthetically perfect style of A.F. Koni, allowing him to turn his speech into a mesmerizing work of art every time.

The most important communicative quality of A.F. Horses are their expressiveness, the most common means of which are speech tropes (epithets, metaphors, comparisons) and figures (repetition, inversion, antithesis, gradation).

Consider their application on the example of the case of drawing up a false spiritual will on behalf of the deceased captain of the guard Sedkov (1875). So, in the introductory part of his speech, A.F. Koni notes: “... The case in which you have to pronounce the verdict has some characteristic features. It is the fruit of the life of a big city with a huge and diverse population, it is the creation of St. Petersburg, where a certain layer of people has developed ... ". In this case, his favorite metaphor “fruit” is used, which is a means of emotional impact on listeners, a means of revealing the meaning, a means of accurate, capacious and concise transmission of the speaker’s thoughts.

And further A.F. Koni continues: "Not only the defendants belong to this layer, but also the late Sedkov - this experienced and honored usurer ... and even some witnesses." This statement contains such an epithet as "honored usurer", which serves as an evaluative definition that conveys the attitude of the speaker to the person in question.

In the main part of his speech, A.F. Koni notes: “Each crime committed by several persons by prior agreement is a whole living organism that has hands, a heart, and a head. You have to determine who in this matter played the role of obedient hands, who represented the greedy heart and the head that planned and calculated everything. In this part of speech, a figurative comparison is used (“crime ... a living organism”), through which the speaker conveys his feeling, mood, expressive assessment of the subject of thought, expresses the perception of the world and attitude towards people.

The most common rhetorical figure in the speeches of A.F. Koni is repetition, which gives speech dynamism and rhythm. Its most common form in the accusatory speeches of A.F. Koni is an anaphora (repeats at the beginning of a phrase). So, in the main part of the speech under consideration, A.F. Koni notes: "He alone carried the menial work, he alone had the right to everything that was acquired by him after the wedding."

Very characteristic of A.F. Koni is the use of such a speech figure as inversion, first of all, as a way of emphasizing an important meaning for the speaker. So, in the introductory part of his speech on the case of the forgery of a receipt of 35 thousand rubles in silver on behalf of Princess Shcherbatova A.F. Koni notes: "... Crimes belonging to the category of diverse forgeries are distinguished ... by one sharp characteristic feature: ... the accused become more or less in a clearly hostile attitude towards the person of the victim." In this case, the inversion is presented as a permutation of the definition and the word being defined inside a simple sentence (“to face the victim”).

In the speeches of A.F. Koni is widely used antithesis (opposition of compared concepts) to characterize any phenomena, provisions, the criminal act itself. So, in the case of drawing up a false spiritual will on behalf of the deceased captain of the guard Sedkov, in the introductory part of his speech, A.F. Koni notes: “All of them ... are not deprived of the means and ways of honest labor to defend themselves from the dock ... And all of them were brought to the dock by greed for other people's, unearned money.” In this case, by means of antithesis, the possibility of the defendants to earn money by honest labor and self-interest in other people's, unearned money is opposed.

Gradation, a stylistic device consisting of two or more units, placed according to increasing intensity of action or quality, has great expressive power. This allows you to recreate events, actions, thoughts and feelings in development. In the speech of A.F. Horses in the case of the drowning of a peasant woman Emelyanova by her husband, the gradation creates a characterization of Yegor Emelyanov’s wife: “So, this is what kind of person: quiet, submissive, lethargic and boring, most importantly, boring.”

It should also be noted that A.F. Horses are dramatization techniques based on various ways of dialogizing speech (question constructions, quoting, etc.). So, in the main part of his speech on the case of the murder of Hieromonk Hilarion, A.F. Koni notes: “Why, if he wanted to see Father Hilarion, did he not go to him as soon as he left the railway? Why did he go exactly at 6 o'clock, when there was no one in the corridor and could not be? I think because he needed to find Father Hilarion alone. In this case, A.F. Koni dialogized using a question-answer construction. In the main part of his speech on the case of the drowning of the peasant woman Emelyanova by her husband A.F. Koni focuses on the words of the defendant: “Are you going?” - he shouts at his wife, calling her with him; “Hey, come out,” he knocks on the window, “come out,” he shouts authoritatively to Agrafena. After that A.F. Koni concludes: "This is a man who is accustomed to rule and command those who submit to him." In this case, Koni A.F. creates the exact characteristics of the defendant, using quotation, reproducing exactly those of his words, in which the most significant features of his personality are clearly manifested.

Thus, the artistic techniques used by A.F. Horses are based on the optimal combination of figurative means (comparisons, metaphors, etc.) and rhetorical figures (antitheses, repetitions, etc.), due to which his speech is sufficiently and coherently developed in all its parts (introduction, main part, conclusion). All this contributes to their denunciation as truly works of art, thereby providing an effective solution to the problems associated with the process of persuasion.

2.4 Typical techniques for preparing and constructing speech

Judicial speech by the nature of the preparation is distinguished by the possibility of pre-recording. On this occasion, A.F. Kony spoke as follows: “I, who have never written speeches in advance, allow myself, as an old judicial figure, to say to young figures: do not write speeches in advance, do not waste time, do not rely on the help of these lines composed in the silence of the cabinet.” A.F. Kony did not advise writing down the entire text, since the case in court could change and the written speech would be unusable from beginning to end.

Here is what A.F. Koni: “Having familiarized myself with the case, I proceeded ... to the mental construction of the defense, putting forward in front of me sharply and definitely all the doubts that arise and may arise in the case, and decided to support the prosecution only in those cases when these doubts were destroyed by intense reflection and in ruins. they had a firm conviction of guilt ... After ... I began to think in images ... ".

Based on the texts of speeches by A.F. Horses, given in accordance with 2.3, one can note a number of his characteristic techniques used in the course of direct speech in the courtroom.

In the introductory part (in the course of establishing contact with the audience, creating favorable conditions for the perception of speech, accepting the main provisions and conclusions of the speaker), A.F. Koni used such an effective technique as drawing attention to the characteristic features of the case (its distinctive features that make it possible to immediately update the problem, emphasize the complexity of the case, and set the listeners in a certain way).

In addition, A.F. Koni resorted to a direct description of the picture of the crime, which facilitated the transition to the main part and made it possible to immediately state the controversial point. For comparison, we can cite the techniques used by other speakers in their opening remarks: an assessment of the moral and ethical significance of the case, the presentation of the speech program, etc.

2 When describing the main part (in the course of presenting the facts of the case, analyzing and evaluating the collected evidence, characterizing the personality of the defendant and the victim, substantiating the qualification of the crime, etc.), the following characteristic techniques should be noted:

a mixed method of presenting the circumstances of the case with elements of chronology (indicating the way to clarify the circumstances) and systematization (description of the circumstances in the order in which they are presented to the prosecution);

critical analysis of evidence based on the difference between the concepts of “made” and “guilty”, providing for consideration of the everyday side of the matter, the practical conditions of the hostel, dominant views, the influence of the environment, etc., a description of the moral environment in which the personality of the defendant was formed;

description of the psychological portrait of the victim, the victim and another person related to the case, for the most prominent characterization of the defendant

In the final part (summing up the results of the trial) A.F. Koni uses such a characteristic technique as the logical (close) connection of his final part of the speech with other parts of the accusatory speech.

Thus, A.F. Koni, in preparing his speech, first, through intense reflection from logical, everyday and psychological positions, determined for himself the indisputable guilt of a person and, accordingly, possible extenuating circumstances, calculating for himself the possible scenarios for the development of events in the courtroom. And then, directly during the consideration of the case, being capable and disposed to improvisation, he defended his position using "favorite" and original techniques.

court session horses speech

Conclusion

Guided by the goals and objectives set at the beginning of this work, we can draw the following conclusions:

Personal portrait of A.F. Horses are his broad education, a strong analytical mind, meticulousness and painstakingness, a sensitive, always restless conscience, a particularly picturesque and imaginative sense of the world. All this served him as a reliable support in his struggle for justice and truth, and throughout his life allowed him to defend the sanctity of the law in the highest sense of the word and fair justice.

All the scientific and literary work of A.F. was permeated with aspirations for legality and justice. Horses. In his writings, he attached particular importance to the principle of competitiveness, based on the positions of morality and equality of the rights of the parties to defend their opinions before the court. This principle determines the image of a rhetorical ideal, the most important features of which are a special tact and restraint, a fair and humane attitude towards all participants in the process.

A.F. Koni had an impeccable command of the word, shone with the grace of the syllable, knew the value of the spoken word. His speeches were of an improvising nature and were based on a deep comprehensive analysis of the situation and the psychological background of its occurrence, thanks to which they possessed exceptional clarity and intelligibility, special artistic expressiveness and poetry. A.F. Horses with their speeches not so much captivated those to whom they were addressed, but mastered them.

Thus, the power of oratory A.F. Horses are his outstanding personal qualities, focused on the highest moral ideals, according to which he fought the contradictions of arbitrariness and legality, immorality and morality, violence and individual rights, etc. Such contradictions are also inherent in our time, and overcoming them is one of the most important tasks of our time, in the solution of which the spiritual heritage of A.F. Horses can play an invaluable role.

List of used sources and literature

1. Smolyarchuk V.I. Anatoly Fedorovich Koni. - M.: Publishing house "Nauka", 1981. - 216 p.

Russian Judicial Orators in Famous Criminal Trials of the 19th Century Compiled by I. Potapchuk. - Tula: Publishing house "Autograph", 1997. - 816 p.

Koni A.F. Selected works and speeches. - Tula: Publishing house "Autograph", 2000. - 550 p.

Vvedenskaya L.A. Rhetoric for Lawyers: Study Guide L.A. Vvedenskaya, L.G. Ed. 5th. - Rostov n / a: Phoenix, 2006. - 576 p.

Koni A.F. Selected works: In 2 vols. Vol.1. - M., 1959. - 78 p.

Demidov V., Saninsky R. Efficiency of public prosecution / V. Demidov, R. Saninsky // Legality. - 2004. - No. 8. - S. 19-21.

Fundamentals of judicial eloquence (rhetoric for lawyers): Textbook N.N. Ivakin. Ed. 2nd. - M.: Jurist, 2007. - 464 p.

Koni A.F. Collected works: In 8 volumes. T.3. - M., 1967. - 355 p.

Koni A.F. Collected works: In 8 volumes. T.4. - M., 1967. - 543 p.

Smolyarchuk V.I. A.F. Koni and his entourage: Essays. - M.: Legal literature, 1990. - 400 p.