Conservatives, liberals and radicals of the second quarter of the 19th century.

Introduction

The defeat of the Decembrists and the strengthening of the government's police and repressive policies did not lead to a decline in the social movement. On the contrary, it became even more animated. Various St. Petersburg and Moscow salons (home meetings of like-minded people), circles of officers and officials, and higher education institutions became centers for the development of social thought. educational establishments(primarily Moscow University), literary magazines: “Moskvityanin”, “Bulletin of Europe”, “Otechestvennye zapiski”, “Sovremennik” and others. In the social movement of the second quarter of the 19th century. The demarcation of three ideological directions began: radical, liberal and conservative. In contrast to the previous period, the activities of conservatives who defended the existing system in Russia intensified.

In general, the second quarter of the 19th century. was a time of “external work” and “internal liberation.” Some remained silent, frightened by government repression. Others insisted on maintaining autocracy and serfdom. Still others were actively looking for ways to renew the country and improve its socio-political system. The main ideas and directions that emerged in the socio-political movement of the first half of the 19th century century, with minor changes they continued to develop in the second half of the century.

Conservative direction

Conservatism in Russia was based on theories that proved the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. The idea of ​​the need for autocracy as a unique form that has been inherent in Russia since ancient times political power its roots go back to the period of strengthening the Russian state. It developed and improved during the 18th-19th centuries, adapting to new socio-political conditions. This idea acquired a special resonance for Russia after absolutism was ended in Western Europe. IN early XIX V. N.M. Karamzin wrote about the need to preserve the wise autocracy, which, in his opinion, “founded and resurrected Russia.” The speech of the Decembrists intensified conservative social thought.

"For the ideological justification of autocracy, the Minister of Public Education, Count S.S. Uvarov, created a theory official nationality. It was based on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality. This theory reflected enlightenment ideas about unity, the voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, and the absence of opposing classes in Russian society. The originality lay in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form government in Russia. Serfdom was seen as a benefit for the people and the state. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment inherent in the Russian people orthodox Christianity. From these postulates the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and unnecessaryness of indigenous social change in Russia, about the need to strengthen autocracy and serfdom."

These ideas were developed by journalists F.V. Bulgarin and N.I. Grech, professors of Moscow University M.P. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev. The theory of official nationality was not only propagated through the press, but was also widely introduced into the education system.

The theory of official nationality caused sharp criticism not only from the radical part of society, but also from liberals. The most famous was the speech of P.Ya. Chaadaev, who wrote “Philosophical Letters” criticizing autocracy, serfdom and itccii official ideology. In the first letter published in the Telescope magazine in 1836, P.Ya. Chaadaev denied the possibility of social progress in Russia, did not see anything bright in the past or in the present of the Russian people. In his opinion, Russia, cut off from Western Europe, ossified in its moral, religious, Orthodox dogmas, was in dead stagnation. He saw the salvation of Russia, its progress, in the use of European experience, in the unification of the countries of Christian civilization into a new community that would ensure the spiritual freedom of all peoples.

The government brutally dealt with the author and publisher of the letter. P.Ya. Chaadaev was declared crazy and placed under police supervision. The Telescope magazine was closed. Its editor, N.I. Nadezhdin was expelled from Moscow with a ban on engaging in publishing and pedagogical activity. However, the ideas expressed by P.Ya. Chaadaev, caused a great public outcry and had a significant impact on further development social thought.

Many Russian writers of the 19th century felt that Russia was faced with an abyss and was flying into the abyss.

ON THE. Berdyaev

Since the mid-19th century, Russian literature has become not only the number one art, but also the ruler political ideas. In the absence of political freedoms, public opinion is formed by writers, and social themes predominate in works. Sociality and journalism - distinctive features literature of the second half of the 19th century. It was in the middle of the century that two painful Russian questions were posed: "Who is guilty?" (the title of the novel by Alexander Ivanovich Herzen, 1847) and "What to do?" (the title of the novel by Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky, 1863).

Russian literature turns to the analysis of social phenomena, therefore the action of most works is contemporary, that is, it occurs at the time when the work is created. The lives of the characters are depicted in the context of a larger social picture. Simply put, heroes “fit” into the era, their characters and behavior are motivated by the peculiarities of the socio-historical atmosphere. That is why the leading literary direction and method the second half of the 19th century becomes critical realism, and leading genres- novel and drama. At the same time, unlike the first half of the century, prose prevailed in Russian literature, and poetry faded into the background.

The severity of social problems was also due to the fact that in Russian society of the 1840-1860s. there was a polarization of opinions regarding the future of Russia, which was reflected in the emergence Slavophilism and Westernism.

Slavophiles (the most famous among them are Alexei Khomyakov, Ivan Kireevsky, Yuri Samarin, Konstantin and Ivan Aksakov) believed that Russia had its own special path of development, destined for it by Orthodoxy. They strongly opposed the Western model political development, in order to avoid despiritualization of man and society. Slavophiles demanded the abolition of serfdom, wanted universal enlightenment and the liberation of the Russian people from state power. They saw the ideal in pre-Petrine Rus', where the fundamental principles of national life were Orthodoxy and conciliarity (the term was introduced by A. Khomyakov as a designation of unity in the Orthodox faith). The literary magazine "Moskvityanin" was the tribune of the Slavophiles.

Westerners (Peter Chaadaev, Alexander Herzen, Nikolai Ogarev, Ivan Turgenev, Vissarion Belinsky, Nikolai Dobrolyubov, Vasily Botkin, Timofey Granovsky, anarchist theorist Mikhail Bakunin also joined them) were confident that Russia should follow the same path in its development, as well as Western European countries. Westernism was not a single direction and was divided into liberal and revolutionary democratic movements. Like the Slavophiles, Westerners advocated the immediate abolition of serfdom, considering this as the main condition for the Europeanization of Russia, and demanded freedom of the press and the development of industry. In the field of literature, realism was supported, the founder of which was considered N.V. Gogol. The tribune of Westerners was the magazines “Sovremennik” and “Otechestvennye zapiski” during the period of their editing by N.A. Nekrasov.

Slavophiles and Westerners were not enemies, they only had different views on the future of Russia. According to N.A. Berdyaev, the first saw a mother in Russia, the second saw a child. For clarity, we offer a table compiled according to Wikipedia data, which compares the positions of Slavophiles and Westerners.

They tried to overcome the polarity of opinions of Slavophiles and Westerners soil scientists . This movement originated in the 1860s. in the circle of intellectuals close to the magazine "Time" / "Epoch". The ideologists of pochvennichestvo were Fyodor Dostoevsky, Apollo Grigoriev, Nikolai Strakhov. The Pochvenniks rejected both the autocratic serfdom system and Western bourgeois democracy. Dostoevsky believed that representatives of the “enlightened society” should merge with the “national soil”, which would allow the top and bottom of Russian society to mutually enrich each other. In the Russian character, the Pochvenniki emphasized the religious and moral principles. They had a negative attitude towards materialism and the idea of ​​revolution. Progress, in their opinion, is the union of the educated classes with the people. The pochvenniki saw the personification of the ideal of the Russian spirit in A.S. Pushkin. Many ideas of Westerners were considered utopian.

The subject of debate since the mid-19th century has been the question of the nature and purpose of fiction. In Russian criticism there are three views on this issue.

Alexander Vasilievich Druzhinin

Representatives "aesthetic criticism" (Alexander Druzhinin, Pavel Annenkov, Vasily Botkin) put forward the theory of “pure art”, the essence of which is that literature should address only eternal themes and not depend on political goals or social conjuncture.

Apollo Alexandrovich Grigoriev

Apollo Grigoriev formulated a theory "organic criticism" , advocating the creation of works that would embrace life in all its fullness and integrity. At the same time, the emphasis in the literature is proposed to be on moral values.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov

Principles "real criticism" were proclaimed by Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Dobrolyubov. They viewed literature as a force capable of transforming the world and promoting knowledge. Literature, in their opinion, should promote the dissemination of progressive political ideas and, first of all, pose and solve social problems.

Poetry also developed along different, diametrically opposed paths. The pathos of citizenship united the poets of the “Nekrasov school”: Nikolai Nekrasov, Nikolai Ogarev, Ivan Nikitin, Mikhail Mikhailov, Ivan Golts-Miller, Alexei Pleshcheev. Supporters of “pure art”: Afanasy Fet, Apollon Maikov, Lev May, Yakov Polonsky, Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy - wrote poems mainly about love and nature.

Socio-political and literary-aesthetic disputes significantly influenced the development of domestic journalism. Literary magazines played a huge role in shaping public opinion.

Cover of the magazine "Contemporary", 1847

Conservatism in Russia was based on theories that proved the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. The idea of ​​the need for autocracy as a unique form of political power inherent in Russia since ancient times has its roots in the period of strengthening of the Russian state. It developed and improved during the 18th–19th centuries, adapting to new socio-political conditions. This idea acquired a special resonance for Russia after absolutism was ended in Western Europe. At the beginning of the 19th century N.M. Karamzin wrote about the need to preserve the wise autocracy, which, in his opinion, “founded and resurrected Russia.” The speech of the Decembrists intensified conservative social thought.

For the ideological justification of autocracy, Minister of Public Education Count S.S. Uvarov created the theory of official nationality. It was based on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality. This theory reflected enlightenment ideas about unity, the voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, and the absence of social antagonisms in Russian society. The uniqueness of Russia lay in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form of government in it. This idea became the basis for conservatives until the collapse of the autocracy in 1917. Serfdom was seen as a benefit for the people and the state. Conservatives believed that landowners provide fatherly care for the peasants, and also help the government maintain order and tranquility in the village. According to conservatives, it was necessary to preserve and strengthen the class system, in which the nobility played a leading role as the main support of the autocracy. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to orthodox Christianity inherent in Russians. From these postulates, the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and unnecessaryness of fundamental social changes in Russia, about the need to strengthen the autocracy and serfdom.

28. Liberal direction of socio-political development in the 19th century

The theory of official nationality caused sharp criticism from the liberal-minded part of society. The most famous was the speech of P. Ya. Chaadaev, who wrote “Philosophical Letters” criticizing autocracy, serfdom and the entire official ideology.

At the turn of the 30s and 40s. In the 19th century, two currents emerged among liberals in opposition to the government: Slavophilism and Westernism. The ideologists of the Slavophiles were writers, philosophers and publicists: K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, I.V. and P.V. Kireev, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin and others. The ideologists of Westerners are historians, lawyers, writers and publicists: T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, S.M. Soloviev, V.P. Botkin, P.V. Annenkov, I.I. Pa-naev, V.F. Korsh and others. Representatives of these movements were united by the desire to see Russia prosperous and powerful among all European powers. To do this, they considered it necessary to change its socio-political system, establish a constitutional monarchy, soften and even abolish serfdom, provide peasants with small plots of land, introduce freedom of speech and conscience. Fearing revolutionary upheavals, they believed that the government itself should carry out the necessary reforms. At the same time, there were significant differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners.

Slavophiles exaggerated the peculiarity of the historical path of development of Russia and its national identity. The capitalist system that had established itself in Western Europe seemed to them vicious, bringing impoverishment of the people and a decline in morals. Idealizing the history of pre-Petrine Rus', they insisted on returning to those orders when Zemsky Sobors conveyed the opinion of the people to the authorities, when patriarchal relations supposedly existed between landowners and peasants. At the same time, the Slavophiles recognized the need to develop industry, crafts and trade. One of the fundamental ideas of the Slavophiles was that the only true and deeply moral religion is Orthodoxy. In their opinion, the Russian people have a special spirit of collectivism, in contrast to Western Europe, where individualism reigns. The struggle of the Slavophiles against servility to the West, their study of the history of the people and people's life had a great positive significance for the development of Russian culture.

Westerners proceeded from the fact that Russia should develop in line with European civilization. They sharply criticized the Slavophiles for contrasting Russia and the West, explaining its difference by historical backwardness. Denying the special role of the peasant community, Westerners believed that the government imposed it on the people for the convenience of administration and tax collection. They advocated broad education of the people, believing that this was the only sure way to successfully modernize the socio-political system of Russia. Their criticism of serfdom and calls for changes in domestic policy also contributed to the development of socio-political thought.

Slavophiles and Westerners laid the foundation in the 30s–50s. XIX century the basis of the liberal-reformist trend in the social movement.

The defeat of the Decembrists and the strengthening of the government's police and repressive policies did not lead to a decline in the social movement. On the contrary, it became even more animated. The centers for the development of social thought became various St. Petersburg and Moscow salons (home meetings of like-minded people), circles of officers and officials, higher educational institutions (primarily Moscow University), literary magazines: "Moskvityanin", "Bulletin of Europe", "Domestic Notes", "Contemporary" and others. In the social movement of the second quarter of the 19th century. The demarcation of three ideological directions began: radical, liberal and conservative. In contrast to the previous period, the activities of conservatives who defended the existing system in Russia intensified.

Conservative direction. Conservatism in Russia was based on theories that proved the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. The idea of ​​the need for autocracy as a unique form of political power inherent in Russia since ancient times has its roots in the period of strengthening of the Russian state. It developed and improved during the 18th-19th centuries, adapting to new socio-political conditions. This idea acquired a special resonance for Russia after absolutism was ended in Western Europe. At the beginning of the 19th century. N.M. Karamzin wrote about the need to preserve the wise autocracy, which, in his opinion, “founded and resurrected Russia.” The speech of the Decembrists intensified conservative social thought. For the ideological justification of autocracy, Minister of Public Education Count S.S. Uvarov created the theory of official nationality. It was based on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality. This theory reflected enlightenment ideas about unity, the voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, and the absence of opposing classes in Russian society. The originality lay in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form of government in Russia. Serfdom was seen as a benefit for the people and the state. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to orthodox Christianity inherent in the Russian people. From these postulates, the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and unnecessaryness of fundamental social changes in Russia, about the need to strengthen the autocracy and serfdom.
In the early 30s. XIX century an ideological justification for the reactionary policies of the autocracy was born - theory of “official nationality”. The author of this theory was the Minister of Public Education, Count S. Uvarov. In 1832, in a report to the Tsar, he put forward a formula for the foundations of Russian life: “ Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality" It was based on the point of view that autocracy is the historically established foundation of Russian life; Orthodoxy is the moral basis of the life of the Russian people; nationality - the unity of the Russian Tsar and the people, protecting Russia from social cataclysms. The Russian people exist as a single whole only insofar as they remain faithful to the autocracy and submit to paternal care Orthodox Church. Any speech against the autocracy, any criticism of the church was interpreted by him as actions directed against the fundamental interests of the people.

Uvarov argued that education can not only be a source of evil and revolutionary upheavals, as happened in Western Europe, but can turn into a protective element - which is what we should strive for in Russia. Therefore, all “ministers of education in Russia were asked to proceed exclusively from considerations of the official nationality.” Thus, tsarism sought to solve the problem of preserving and strengthening the existing system. According to the conservatives of the Nicholas era, there were no reasons for revolutionary upheavals in Russia. As the head of the Third Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own office, A.Kh. Benckendorf, “Russia’s past was amazing, its present is more than magnificent, as for its future, it is above everything that the wildest imagination can draw.” In Russia it became almost impossible to fight for socio-economic and political transformations. Attempts by Russian youth to continue the work of the Decembrists were unsuccessful. Student circles of the late 20s - early 30s. were few in number, weak and subject to defeat.

Russian liberals of the 40s. XIX century: Westerners and Slavophiles In conditions of reaction and repression against revolutionary ideology, liberal thought received widespread development. In reflections on the historical destinies of Russia, its history, present and future, two most important ideological movements of the 40s were born. XIX century: Westernism and Slavophilism. Representatives of the Slavophiles were I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin and many others. The most outstanding representatives of Westerners were P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, A.I. Goncharov, T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, M.N. Katkov, V.M. Maikov, P.A. Melgunov, S.M. Soloviev, I.S. Turgenev, P.A. Chaadaev and others. On a number of issues they were joined by A.I. Herzen and V.G. Belinsky.

Both Westerners and Slavophiles were ardent patriots, firmly believed in the great future of their Russia, and sharply criticized Nicholas's Russia.

Slavophiles and Westerners were especially harsh against serfdom. Moreover, Westerners - Herzen, Granovsky and others - emphasized that serfdom was only one of the manifestations of the arbitrariness that permeated all Russian life. After all, the “educated minority” suffered from unlimited despotism and was also in the “fortress” of power, of the autocratic-bureaucratic system. Criticizing Russian reality, Westerners and Slavophiles sharply diverged in their search for ways to develop the country. The Slavophiles, rejecting contemporary Russia, looked at modern Europe with even greater disgust. In their opinion, the Western world has outlived its usefulness and has no future (here we see a certain commonality with the theory of “official nationality”).

Slavophiles defended historical identity Russia and singled it out as a separate world, opposed to the West due to the peculiarities of Russian history, religiosity, and Russian stereotypes of behavior. Greatest value Slavophiles believed Orthodox religion, opposed to rationalistic Catholicism. Slavophiles argued that Russians special treatment to the authorities. The people lived, as it were, in a “contract” with the civil system: we are community members, we have our own life, you are the government, you have your own life. K. Aksakov wrote that the country has an advisory voice, the power of public opinion, but the right to make final decisions belongs to the monarch. An example of this kind of relationship can be the relationship between the Zemsky Sobor and the Tsar during the period of the Moscow State, which allowed Russia to live in peace without shocks and revolutionary upheavals, such as the Great French Revolution. Slavophiles associated the “distortions” in Russian history with the activities of Peter the Great, who “cut a window to Europe,” violated the treaty, the balance in the life of the country, and led it astray from the path outlined by God.

Slavophiles are often classified as political reaction due to the fact that their teaching contains three principles of “official nationality”: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. However, it should be noted that the Slavophiles of the older generation interpreted these principles in a unique sense: by Orthodoxy they understood a free community of Christian believers, and they viewed the autocratic state as external form, which enables people to devote themselves to the search for “inner truth.” At the same time, the Slavophiles defended autocracy and did not attach much importance to the cause of political freedom. At the same time they were convinced democrats, supporters of spiritual freedom of the individual. When Alexander II ascended the throne in 1855, K. Aksakov presented him with a “Note on internal state Russia." In the “Note,” Aksakov reproached the government for suppressing moral freedom, which led to the degradation of the nation; he indicated that extreme measures can only make the idea of ​​political freedom popular among the people and generate a desire to achieve it through revolutionary means. In order to prevent such a danger, Aksakov advised the tsar to grant freedom of thought and speech, as well as to bring back to life the practice of convening Zemsky Sobors. The ideas of providing the people with civil liberties and the abolition of serfdom occupied important place in the works of Slavophiles. It is not surprising, therefore, that censorship often subjected them to persecution and prevented them from freely expressing their thoughts.

Westerners, unlike the Slavophiles, Russian originality was assessed as backwardness. From the point of view of Westerners, Russia, like most other Slavic peoples, for a long time was, as it were, outside of history. They saw the main merit of Peter I in the fact that he accelerated the process of transition from backwardness to civilization. Peter's reforms for Westerners are the beginning of Russia's movement into world history.

At the same time, they understood that Peter's reforms were accompanied by many bloody costs. Herzen saw the origins of most of the most disgusting features of contemporary despotism in the bloody violence that accompanied Peter’s reforms. Westerners emphasized that Russia and Western Europe are following the same historical path, so Russia should borrow the experience of Europe. They saw the most important task in achieving the liberation of the individual and creating a state and society that would ensure this freedom. Westerners considered the “educated minority” to be a force capable of becoming the engine of progress.

Despite all the differences in assessing the prospects for Russia's development, Westerners and Slavophiles had similar positions. Both of them opposed serfdom, for the liberation of peasants with land, for the introduction of political freedoms in the country, and the limitation of autocratic power. They were also united by a negative attitude towards the revolution; they performed for the reformist path solutions to the main social issues of Russia. In the process of preparing the peasant reform of 1861, Slavophiles and Westerners entered into a single camp liberalism. The disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles had great importance for the development of socio-political thought. They were representatives of the liberal-bourgeois ideology that arose among the nobility under the influence of the crisis of the feudal-serf system. Herzen emphasized the commonality that united Westerners and Slavophiles - “a physiological, unaccountable, passionate feeling for the Russian people” (“The Past and Thoughts”).

The liberal ideas of Westerners and Slavophiles took deep roots in Russian society and had a serious influence on subsequent generations of people who were looking for a path to the future for Russia. In disputes about the paths of development of the country, we hear an echo of the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles on the question of how the special and the universal are related in the history of the country, what Russia is - a country destined for the messianic role of the center of Christianity, the third Rome, or a country that is part of of all humanity, part of Europe, following the path of world-historical development.

In politics, as in everything public life, not to go forward means to be thrown back.

Lenin Vladimir Ilyich

The theory of official nationality arose during the reign of Nicholas 1; this theory was based on the principles Orthodox faith, autocracy and nationality. This ideology was first voiced in 1833 by Count Uvarov, who Russian Empire served as Minister of Public Education.

The main content of the theory

The government of Nicholas 1 sought to create in Russia an ideology that meets the needs of the state. The implementation of this idea was entrusted to S.S. Uvarov, who on November 19, 1833 sent a special report to the emperor entitled “On some general principles that can serve as a guide in strengthening the Ministry.”

In this report, he noted that in Russia there are only three unshakable concepts:

• Autocracy. Uvarov sincerely believed that the Russian people do not share such concepts as “tsar” and “country”. For people, this is all one, guaranteeing happiness, strength and glory.
• Orthodoxy. The people in Russia are religious, and respect the clergy on an equal basis with state authorities. Religion can solve issues that cannot be solved by autocracy.
• Nationality. The foundation of Russia lies in the unity of all nationalities.

The general essence of the new concept was that the Russian people are already developed, and the state is one of the leading ones in the world. Therefore, no fundamental changes are necessary. The only thing that was required was to develop patriotism, strengthen autocracy and the position of the church. Subsequently, supporters of this program used the slogan “Autocracy. Orthodoxy. Nationality."

It should be noted that the principles that were set out in the theory of the official nationality were not new. Back in 1872 A.N. Pypin in his literary works came to exactly the same conclusions.

Disadvantages of the new ideology

Uvarov's theory was logical and many politicians she was supported. But there were also a lot of critics who, for the most part, highlighted two shortcomings of the theory:

• She refuted any creation. In fact, the document stated a fact that is important for Russian people, and what brings him together. There were no proposals for development, since everything was perfect as is. But society needed constructive development.
• Concentration only on on the positive side. Any nationality has both advantages and disadvantages. The official blog theory focused only on the positive, refusing to accept the negative. In Russia there were many problems that needed to be solved; the ideology of the official nationality denied such a need.

Reaction of contemporaries

Naturally, the shortcomings of the new ideology were obvious to everyone. thinking people, but only a few dared to voice their position out loud, fearing negative reaction states. One of the few who decided to express their position was Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev. In 1836, the Telescope magazine published a “Philosophical Letter,” in which the author noted that Russia was actually isolating itself from Europe.

The state created in the country an atmosphere of self-confident nationalism, which was based not on the real state of affairs, but on the stagnation of society. The author emphasizes that in Russia it is necessary to actively develop ideological trends and the spiritual life of society. The reaction of the government of the Empire was paradoxical - Chaadaev was declared crazy and put under house arrest. This was the official position of the state and personally of Emperor Nicholas 1, under whom the theory of the official nationality was long years became the main ideological document in the country. This theory was propagated by everyone who had at least some connection with the state.

Literature

• History of Russia 19th century. P.N. Zyryanov. Moscow, 1999 "Enlightenment"
• Uvarov's reports to Emperor Nicholas 1.
• Official nationality. R. Wortman. Moscow, 1999.