Test / R-I

Chapter:

Disagreements

Headline:

Alexey Fedorov-Davydov. Russian art of industrial capitalism

Lid:

The most radical text of the famous Soviet art critic, not reprinted since 1929. About Russian art of the second half of the XIX - early XX centuries

Extracts to the text:

Only with the introduction of machines is the final separation of art production from the common product.

In the eighties, a new type of Europeanized bourgeois, a large shareholder and a banking businessman develops.

The idea of ​​mobile exhibitions was a focus on the expanded small -goods market of the province.

In the mid-70s, the crisis of the landlord economy began, caused by the competition of American wheat in the European market and stretching until the end of the 90s.

The patronage of the second half of the 80s-the first half of the 90s. can be considered a classic type of bourgeois philanthropy. It grew to the best of the weakness of the art market and continued to play the role until the end of interest to us.

The merchant’s commodity production created from the artist the “intelligent proletarian”, merchant philanthropy, which rested on monetary relations from the artist, could not change.

The scripture of the picture became a great and serious business, “feat”, “creativity”. Freedom from the market did this work in the artist’s eyes with an expression of only her own experiences and interests.

In the dominance of still life, the tendency of easelism, having reached its limit, begins to move into its own opposite. The desire for completeness and hard work arises with the first attempts from the image of things to move on to doing things.

Competition also played a role in a quick change in artistic directions and manners, as well as in all manifestations of artistic shocking.

Senses in the social network:

Fedorov-Davydov attracts the statistics of industrial production and print, analysis of the artistic market and the tastes of patrons of different social classes. In 1929, Fedorov-Davydov became the head of the department of the new Russian art of the Tretyakov Gallery and, together with his associates, tried to reorganize the entire presentation of the material in the museum in accordance with the principles of Marxist sociology. In 1933-1934, the Marxist sociology of art was criticized and condemned as the “vulgar-sociological approach to art”, Fedorov-Davydov left his post in the Tretyakov Gallery and never wrote texts, as radical and ambitious as the one we bring to your attention.

“Disagreements” are published by two chapters from the book of Soviet art critic Alexei Alexandrovich Fedorov-Davydov (1900-1969) “Russian Art of Industrial Capitalism” (1929). These chapters are central in the book for understanding the innovative method used by Fedorov-Davydov-Marxist sociology of art. Fedorov-Davydov as an art critic attracts the statistics of industrial production and print, analysis of the artistic market and the tastes of customers and philanthropists of different social classes. In 1929, Fedorov-Davydov became the department of the department of the new Russian art of the Tretyakov Gallery, in 1931 renamed the art group of the era of capitalism. The group tried to reorganize the entire presentation of the material in the museum in accordance with the principles of Marxist sociology. The result of these efforts was an experienced complex Marxist exposition.

In 1933-1934, the Marxist sociology of art, which was rapidly developing in the 1920s, was criticized and condemned as “in the Ulgar-sociological approach to art ”, Fedorov-Davydov left the Tretyakov Gallery and never again made such radical exhibition projects. As he did not write texts, equally radical in methodology and ambitious tasks in terms of a scale of tasks, like the one we bring to your attention.

The book "Russian Art of Industrial Capitalism" has not been reprinted since 1929 and has long become a bukinistic rarity.

The emergence and apparatus of style

The question of the question

Chapter VI

When considering such coups, it is always necessary to note the material, with natural-scientific accuracy as a stated coup in economic conditions from legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophical, in short: from ideological forms in which people recognize this conflict and fight it. As an individual one cannot be judged on the basis that he thinks of himself, it is impossible to judge in the same way the similar era of the coup on her consciousness.

(K. Marx. To criticism of political economy. Preface)

I'll try to take stock. An analysis of certain types of spatial arts shows us that the process of evolution was the same everywhere. But the unity of the style upon closer examination turned out to be the struggle of two diametrically opposite principles. An analysis of painting showed this process and its internal struggle of contradictions in formal-style categories. The sculpture and partly the artistic industry helped to understand the aesthetic essence of the process and, finally, the architecture of the problem of dialectics of formal categories posed as the problem of dialectics of artistic and production.

The formal-stylistic evolution, in total, consisted in the victory of the category of space over the category of volume and in the further evolution of this space. First, it is characterized by air, then turns into a pure phenomenon of light. The light, decomposing and compacting, passes into the color category. In this evolution, the formal categories of volume, space, light and movements are increasingly losing their objective-painting motivation and, “self-determining”, go into the category of production and technical. The art from realistic depiction first goes to the dominance of formal-analytical tasks, and then to technology and “production”.

The volume lost its materiality and tactile, moving from the fact of reality into a simple phenomenon of vision. Analysis of sculpture-the art of volume-and partly architecture-the art of tectonics-with clarity showed that the essence of this formal evolution was the development of an illusory-visual, optical attitude to the outside world. Painting is a purely visual art, the art of optical effects. Therefore, it is completely clear that the formal-style evolution I traced is designated as the growth of “picturesqueness” and is characterized by picturesque categories.

Speaking about the growth of picturesqueness, I mean subordinating the methods of all arts of painting methods. This subordination is understood not as external-material, but as internal-formal, in which architecture, sculpture and art industry in their forming do not proceed from their own specific attitudes, but from the optical-illusory attitude of painting.

By the middle of the 19th century, in all European art, painting has become a dominant type of spatial arts, pushing all the rest into the background. Both the public and experts have more and more narrows to the concept of painting. One of the ideological reflections of this process is, for example, that idealistic aesthetics of “content”, which begins to take shape from the second half of the 18th century, and from the middle of the XIX century and up to this day, it is dominant to one degree or another, with one or another breaks along with the dominance of painting. In Russia, the term “artist” narrows in its volume to the concept of “painter”. All advanced artistic trends occur in the field of painting (naturalism of the 40s, the ideological realism of the 50-60s, “movement”, etc.), and even when in the 90s. Interest in other types of art is being revived-the advanced figures are again the artists-painting artists. The main type of exhibitions is picturesque exhibitions, architecture on them is usually absent [1] , and the sculpture is both qualitatively and quantitatively pushed into the background [2] . Exhibitions and publications in architecture appear relatively late and the methods of their artistic show are completely borrowed from painting (for example, the “Historical Exhibition of Architecture” of 1911; recall also the aesthetic-artistic nature of the architectural “annuals”, etc.). The dominance of painting is manifested clearly in the distribution of Rabsil through individual types of art. Over the 150 years of its existence, the Academy of Arts released 3523 people, architects - 1813 people, sculptors - 456 people, graveors - 236 people, mosaists - 60 people [3] .

Accordingly, the numerical superiority of their composition, the picturesque parts of art schools became the main and dominant. Thus, their teaching methods also turned out to be determining for the whole school, and the further, the more. This is eloquently evidenced, for example, already the memoirs of I. Ginzburg about teaching sculpture at the Academy of Arts in the 80s: "... from the professors who came in a day, we learned some little things and details relating to the drawing, actually modeling, i.e. How to sculpt and what, we were not taught. True, the property of the bas -relief is such that the drawing and perspective play an important role in it, but in round things, such a method of teaching was used, which rather killed the true sense of sculpture, and did not develop it. So, for comparing forms, the professor always advised to twist both the model and a copy and thereby check the external contour, based on the theory that there is a sum of points as a line, so a round surface is the sum of lines. According to this method, the student accustomed, copying, seeing only lines, and not to feel the form, and therefore the modeling came out dry, unconscious, and most importantly - the forms themselves were not imprinted in the student’s memory ”(I.Ya. Ginzburg. From my life. - St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 46).

Academic reform of the 90s. It was also a reform mainly by teaching painting and was carried out by A.I. Kuindzhi and I.E. Repin.

An analysis of architecture showed us the real nature of this aesthetics of visual-illusory. It is formed as a result of the perception of forms as self -sufficient entities, outside their practical significance, outside their official functions. The subject and its forms are perceived not in their primary almost everyday, but in their secondary abstract-symbolic meaning of the self-sufficient combination of categories of visual experience. Such an attitude - a purely visual order - is the result of separation of art from the production of objects of everyday material and ideological consumption. The aesthetics of visual-illusory is the aesthetics of art, which has finally switched from doing things to their display, from creating real objects to the creation of artistic illusions. The tool and method of these illusions was easel painting.

Within the painting itself in the era of interest in the era of "picturesqueness" was the growth of easelism. The “self -determination” of painting was the assertion of its easel form as the main and typical. The three stages of the formal-stylistic evolution of our “style” were nothing more than the stages of such self-affirmation of plantism, which, in the process of self-identification and self-awareness, dialectically passed into self-negative.

If the painting was generally a form of art, which had a minimum of material and practical significance, then the easel picture did not have it at all. Freely moved, not related to the surrounding environment, it was an end in itself, the illusion of a piece of reality. The growth of space was the assertion of this properties, as it were, the “view from the window”, as well as the lighting from the inside, and the silhouette. Recall that just the growth of spatiality and the dynamics of the “accidentally seen” associated with it led to the fundamental statement of the frame, this typical feature of easelism. Thus, the disclosure of the values ​​of the space was the disclosure of the properties and values ​​of the easel shape as isolated from everything surrounding the visual self -worth. This self-worth reaches higher development in the formalistically analytical stage of style, where the whole world turns into a naked means to identify the properties and qualities of easel painting as such. Already one ease and invisibility of the transition from the emotional image of the world to the rationalistic formal schematization, the transition of categories of plot-visual in abstract-formal proves that the essence of the process was in the identification of these latter.

But the self -affirmation of easel painting was at the same time the beginning of its self -denial. The more efficiency realized his material and structural side, the more he was engaged in identifying himself as a certain artistic and production form, the more he denied his inner essence of the most abstract, most illusory, most abstract form of art. The third, “industrial”, the stage of the style was the suicide of the easel form, the picture, becoming three-dimensional in the counter-relief, introducing really painted materials instead of illusory color, from optical illusion turned into its opposite-a material-real thing. The image of things again wanted to replace them with the work.

As always and everywhere, the formal aesthetic process was only an external identification of the process of artistic and production. Understanding the origin and apparatus of the style of interest is to understand the nature and origin of the two trends that fight in it, conditionally designated as easel and decorative. If the easel was the result of the departure of art from material production and its technology, then the decorative arose and developed to the extent of the reverse exposure to the growing and capturing all sectors of the machine industry. In both cases, the issues of aesthetics rest on the attitude of artistic production to the process of production production process.

The dialectics of our style is, ultimately, the dialectics of economics and aesthetics. The artistic production of the era is always only part of social production, material and ideological. Its laws must be sought in the general laws of production. The era of the 1888-1910s of interest to us. There is, in general recognition [4] , the era of development and the formation of industrial capitalism. In his nature, we will look for the explanations of both of the tendencies of interest to us: easelism and decorativeness.

Chapter VII

Eatrovism

Eatkinism-flesh from the flesh of the bourgeois capitalist commodity-money economy. Studies by V.M. Frice, B. Arvatova and others. With sufficient certainty and persuasiveness, they revealed the economic nature of mashkovism as a commodity unit in art. The easel picture is a type of commodity movable value that arises together and exists in the extent of the growth of the commodity economy and the artist’s transition from production to order to production to the impersonal market. The former form, from the point of view of economic, an easel picture, from the point of view of production, is a form of artisanal and individualistical-synthetic [5] . The separation of art from production occurs along the line of an increasing lag in this artisanal and craft form of labor from the separation of labor and its increasingly mechanization in other types of material production.

Eatystalism is born and develops already with trade capitalism, but only the introduction of cars and the development of trade capitalism into industrial create prerequisites for its final deployment and dominance. These prerequisites are as follows.

Only the introduction of machines and the competition between factory and craft-stone forms of production finally commented on the entire economy. The quantitative scope of machine production and the same scope of trade associated with it has their qualitative result by the transformation of a number of new industries into the goods, not yet to be friendly, and the final commentation, so to speak, semi -dedicated. This in relation to ideological areas is perfectly noted by K. Marx in the “Communist Manifesto” [6] . One of these finally friendly industries becomes fine art.

Only with the introduction of machines is the final separation of art production from the common product. The machine step by step is displaced by manual handicraft work from all branches of material production. The growth of machinery simultaneously narrows the scope of the application of art, and tears out more and more the gap between the methods of artistic and common -goods production. On this basis, there is a “self -affirmation” and “self -determination” of machine toolism.

The growth of industrial capitalism leads to the political power of the carrier of easel aesthetics, the bourgeoisie. The political victories of the bourgeoisie create the “democratic” system in which the artist’s final emancipation and the formation of his bourgeois consumer - the public, take place. The “democratic” system increases and deepens the commodity market for art. Growing minor demand leads to a flicker of artistic commodity unit. Thus, the approval of the easel form as a form of chamber.

The easel picture as a production form and easelism as a stylistic category in its very nature are bourgeois and cannot be otherwise. But, bourgeois in their economic nature, in some stages of historical development, they can serve the ideological needs of both the nobility and the peasantry and the proletariat. In the point of view of Marxism, there is nothing surprising and, of course, there is no contradiction, since in such cases we always deal with a more or less oburiting or, in any case, living and acting against the backdrop of bourgeois economic relations, as well as with the proletariat and peasantry that exist within the framework of bourgeois democracy or only out of them [7] .

The bourgeois economically, machine art is ideologically bourgeois, due to the and the Memorial of socio-political and general cultural weight and the role of large and small bourgeoisie.

These general laws of the emergence and evolution of machine toolism are, of course, entirely applicable to Russian art. For obvious reasons, I can not even outline the emergence and evolution of easingism in Russian painting from its origins in the most brief way. I will limit myself only to the period directly preceding the style of interest to us here. In its easelness, this style is to a certain extent connected with the previous style, just like industrial capitalism of the 1880-1910s. It is connected with its first steps and victories in the middle of the century. Just to the extent of these victories, we see there the manifestation of the beginning of easelism as such.

Enerfully began in the mid-40s. The growth of industry and trade [8] , which entailed the growth of cities and the urban population [9] , gives rise to the first in art, except for A.G. Venetianov and his school, a serious and significant statement of machine toolism. This is the so-called naturalistic genre of the 40s. in the person of A.V. Tyranova, S.K. Zaryanko, Kapkova and, finally, P.A. Fedotova, already denoting the transition to the ideological realism of the 50-60s. In this naturalistic genre, the easel picture is manifested in the most typical chamber form. 50-60s. They give us further development of this chamber, i.e. small -headed, easel painting. N.M. Kovalenskaya, which belongs to this distinction between the painting of the 40s. As a naturalistic from the ideological and realistic painting of the 50-60s, analyzing the formal-stylistic features of both currents, defines them as various stages of identification and approval of the principles of easelism.

This growth of plantism in the 50-60s. It is also due to the growth of capitalism and, as a consequence, the growth of bourgeois relations. Since the late 40s. The growth of bread export and bread prices begins, which, intensifying in the late 50s and in the late 60s. [10] , coming into agriculture, gives rise to bourgeois sentiments among the nobility and, together with the growth of industry [11], determines the “bourgeois” reforms of the 60s.

The growth of bourgeois sentiments and all the conversations about the destruction of estate privileges and the “self-focus of the nobility”, which reached their climax in the 60s. [12] , were nothing more than an ideological reflection of the need for a democratic system that flowed from the essence of the monetary economy. One of these ideologies was easel painting, bourgeois, in the extent of the bourgeoisness of relations between the manufacturer and the consumer of artistic values.

The court and aristocratic customer is replaced by a bourgeois private more or less small consumer. This is the oburiors of the nobility, moving to the cities, the most advanced and cultural part of the merchants and all the growing petty -bourgeois intelligentsia, recruited both from the nobility and from the "devices".

From the 40s. The growth of art exhibitions begins, this method of communicating the artist with his consumer. Free academic exhibitions and exhibitions of schools of painting, sculptures and architecture are gradually replaced by exhibitions paid. The income from exhibitions and deductions from the paintings sold becomes the main, except for membership fees, a source of funds for art societies (e.g., Moscow. Later, art societies themselves arise as purely professional associations that mainly pursue exhibition tasks.

At the same time, the composition of artistic societies is also being clarified and unified: from them, all the high aristocratic and bourgeois patrons disappear from them, and then all the so -called lovers, not artists. Societies become workshop, artistic and production associations, or rather, associations of the sale of their products. This was already a partnership of mobile exhibitions. That his ideologists like N.I. Kramskoy and V.V. Stasov, and after them all the subsequent “liberal” journalists wrote about movement as an ideological course, its foundations were economic, not ideological. This, in the end, was clear to the “comrades” themselves. V.G. Perov wrote in 1877 to Kramsky: “The partnership was founded in 1870 so that the artists themselves collect income from their labors at exhibitions, but now society decides to pursue another goal: to develop or instill a need for art in Russian society. But about the art and artists of the next century, the concern is not ours ”(Stasov. The twentieth anniversary of the Wanderers. - St. Petersburg, 1896, p. 13). The very idea of ​​mobile exhibitions was a focus on the expanded small -goods market of the province.

Another method of capturing the small consumer was artistic auctions that begin to arrange since 1845. “The receipts of persons who won the paintings for 1853 have been preserved: there were 25 merchants, 24 artisans and tradesman, 10 peasants, 2 courtyards, etc. And only 8 aristocratic surnames. This document confirms the instructions of contemporaries to the democratic nature of visitors to exhibitions ”(Kovalevskaya).

The commodity-money nature of the artistic economy is completely clear in the organization "Artel" of the 60s. Its members “came to the conclusion to arrange (with the permission of the government) artel artists, something like an artistic company, a workshop and an office receiving orders from the street, with a sign and a charter” (I.E. Repin. Memories). The failure and collapse of the “artel” were not due to the fact that the bet on the creation of the “art firm” was incorrect, the rate on the unknown commodity market, but the fact that in this market the form of the artel was already archaic, outdated. The exhibition company turned out to be a more suitable and therefore stable form. Exhibitions of the Wanderers are growing from year to year, their material base is slowly but surely increasing (see table. On page 17).

The same economic reasons, but already postponed into ideological forms of worldview, were the basis of the famous exit of 13 competitors from the Academy. It was a desire for personal freedom, the protest of the bourgeois artist against the methods of state-bureaucratic command and patronage that had not been obsolete and not corresponding to the real living conditions. Now “there was no higher as the complete independence of the artist, complete independence of his orders, rewards and awards” (Stasov). As reminds of this protests against the Academy of Alexander Ivanov in the 40s.

However, it would be completely incorrect to build an evolutionary theory of the development of painting from the 60s to the 80-90s. Based on the supposedly gradual growth of the small consumer, commentary and, therefore, the macing of art. Although during the 70-80s. And together with the general growth of capitalism, the strengthening and growth of the commodity-money economy of art, however, compared with the energetic deployment that occurs in the 1890-1900s, this growth seems almost stable. Here we are not dealing with a simple supposedly evolution, but with a dialectical jump, the transition of a sharply increasing amount to a new quality. Eatkinism of the 40-60s. He grew up in the conditions of dominance of commodity capitalism-machine tools of the 1890-1900s. was the brainchild of already developed industrial capitalism. Only now could the impact on the art of those properties of industrial capital, about which in general terms I already spoke above and about the specific manifestation of which will still be ahead, could completely unfold.

If the bourgeois art with its principle of easelism is opposed to the receipt or semi-equal art of the nobility, then, of course, you can consider all painting since the 40s, and maybe somewhat earlier as a single stylistic complex. But with a decrease in the scale, and therefore, when deepening the details and specification of analyzes and comparisons, this complex is found in the internal dialectics, by virtue of which it is possible and should be anti-painting of the machine painting of the 40-60s. easel painting of the 1890-1910s. As various and even opposite styles. Between the two stages of the approval of plantism in a chamber shallow form we see a temporary revival of large and “monumental” paintings, which comes along with the restoration of philanthropy and the principle of order.

In fact, even if in the 70s, and especially in the 80s. We are observing the steady growth of exhibitions, their attendance, the number of paintings sold and the like signs of democratization and coming of art, but not this process is determining here. Socio-economic situation of the 70-80s. It was by no means favorable to significant democratization and growth of the commodity market for art. The half-hearted nature of the reforms of the 60s, which did not actually create the free hired worker, which was necessary for the merchant factory and the advanced capitalized land ownership, was its consequence initially the slowdown in the growth rate of both industrial and agrarian capitalism [13] .

Illustrated catalog of the XVI mobile art exhibition. SPb., 1888

[1] The exception is only the artistic departments of industrial exhibitions (for example, 1882 in Moscow, 1896 in Nizhny Novgorod), on which, along with painting, a sculpture was exhibited, but in a relatively small amount. According to the catalog of 1882, 669 numbers of painting, drawing, engravings and 64 sculpture numbers account for only 158 architectural numbers.

[2] At exhibitions of the Wanderers, the sculpture has always been random and isolated. But even in the 1900s, despite the "revival" of the sculpture, the situation does not change. So, at the 1905 union exhibition, 328 paintings account for 4 sculptures, at the exhibition “Mosk. T-va ”1906 for 169 painting-3 sculptures. K1910. The number of sculptural work at exhibitions is absolutely increasing, but with a total increase in the volume of exhibitions, the proportions remain the same. So, for example, even the “record” in the number of sculpture the exhibition “Soyuz” of 1913. gives us - 14 sculptures for 473 picturesque work; “Mosk. T-in artists ”(at the exhibitions of which sculptors were especially eagerly exhibited)-23 sculptures for 385 painting; As for the "world of art", here and in 1913 - 4 sculptures for 343 painting. Independent exhibition of sculptures A.S. Golubkina in 1915 was one of the few, if not the only exception.

[3] calculated according to the anniversary directory of the Academy of Arts of Arts in 1914.

[4] The characteristics of the economy of the 1880-1910s. See in the works of V.I. Lenin "Development of capitalism in Russia", M.N. Pokrovsky “Russian History”, vol. IV, 7th ed., GIZ, 1925, and “Essays on the history of Russian culture”, 4th ed., Giz, 1925; S. Piontkovsky “Essays on the history of Russia in the XIX-XX centuries”, M., 1928, P. Berlin “The Russian Bourgeoisie in the Old and New Time”, 2nd ed., L.-M., 1925, which I use mostly in the further presentation. In addition, statistics on the economy of Russia in the era of interest are in compilation works: N. Vanag and S. Tomsinsky, “Economic Development of Russia from the second half of the XIX century. Until the February Revolution of 1917 ”, Rostov/d., 1925, I.A. Borgman and B. Vasiliev, “The development of economy and public forms in Russia from the era of the origin of trade capital in the XX century”, L., 1926, and others.

[5] Synthetic in the sense of the absence of labor division in its production, except for the manufacture of canvas and colors, which in our era is not part of artistic work itself. The canvas and paint for a modern painter are a kind of raw material, while the process of developing things from this “raw material”, the goods are made in all its stages from beginning to end with one face.

[6] “The bourgeoisie deprived of charm all those honorable genera of activity that they still looked at with reverent trepidation. She turned the doctor and lawyer, priest and poet, man of science into her hired workers. The bourgeoisie tore off their touching-family cover from family relations and turned them into a matter of simple monetary settlement ”(Ch. I.“ Bourgeois and proletarians ”).

[7] See the latter in Lenin: “State and Revolution”, ch. about. ch. V “Economic foundations of the death of the state”, §3, “The first phase of the Communist Society”, and §4, “The Higher Phase of the Communist Society”.

[8] “In the second quarter of the 19th century, especially in the middle of the forties, Russian industry began to develop rapidly and grow rapidly. In 1825, the number of workers taken into account reached 210 568 and was scattered into 5261 factories; By 1861, the number of workers rose to 522,500, the number of factories - to 14,148. The rapid growth of Russian industry during this period was accompanied by its technology - a change in the structure of capital invested in it. Not only industry grew in general, not only the number of factories and factories - the use of machines grew. Trade capital, shimmering into industry, seized one industry after another, and the structure of the capital invested in industry began to change ”(S. Piontkovsky, p. 54).

[9] “Over the second quarter of the 19th century, the population of St. Petersburg almost doubled. In 1830, it reached 435,000, and in 1860 - 546,000. According to the calculations of the Ministry of the Interior, the urban population in 1825 amounted to 3,521,042 people, and in 1840 - 4,526,954. The urban population of European Russia, according to the collection of statistical information about Russia, which was published in 1851, constituted in relation to the entire population of European Russians. 9.12%”(ibid., P. 58).

[10] Considering the prices of the 20s. for 100, we get the following progressive increase for the next decades:

decades wheat rye

1831-40 113.84 115.70

1841-50 138.06 141.26

1851-60 174.14 190.13

Explanatory growth

The three -year period is a thousand quarters

1848-50 3.896

1851-53 7.569

1857–59 8.780

1860-62 8.859

1863–65 8.708

1866-68 13.154

(M.N. Pokrovsky, "Russian History", vol. IV, p. 51 and 99).

[11] Cast iron mining in the 40s. - 11-13 Mill. Pood.

50s. - 12-16 mil. Pood.

60s. - 13-18 Mill. Pood.

(V.I. Lenin, “Development of capitalism in Russia”, p. 385)

[12] Noble privileges were given an honorable place - next to blood feud and province: they thought in 1862, we repeated, not enemies of the nobility, but the defenders of his interests. В это самое время более экспансивный и более искренний Иван Аксаков предлагал собравшемуся на выборы московскому дворянству «выразить правительству свое единодушное и решительное желание: чтобы дворянству было позволено, торжественно перед лицом всей России, совершить великий акт уничтожения себя как сословия».

(М.Н. Покровский, там же, стр. 117).

[13] Суконное производство:

Годы Число фабрик Число рабочих Ежегод. производ. в тыс. рублей

1860 432 94 721 26 204

1863 365 71 797 26 083

Выплавка чугуна:

1860 г. 20 468 т.п. 1861 г. 19 451 т.п. 1862 г. 15 268 т.п. 1869 г. 20 104 т.п.

(М.Н. Покровский, «Общая политика правительства с 1886—1892 г.», «Русск. история», изд. «Гранат», т. V, стр. 8).