CC BY
29
B.M. Xawpy^^uH*
ON JUSTICE: WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT vs. FYODOR M. DOSTOEVSKY
Review. The research subject is justice in its narrower and broader senses. Human culture is aware of a number of categories that throughout its long history have been referred to the positive values. Such notions as humanism, truth, verity and justice belong here. Many spears have been broken in an attempt to define them: the investigations have gone as a hot line all through the history of humankind — starting with Ancient Greece and further on — through the Middle Ages up to the present time. The research method is primarily confined to a legal comparative one, which proves efficient for the purposes of the present paper. The scholarly innovativeness is in the topic itself, since the paper discusses two of the lesser known approaches to justice — one by the 19th century German lawyer, philosopher and philologist W. Humboldt and the other by one of the greatest Russian minds of the 19th century F.M. Dostoevsky. The basic conclusion of the article is that it draws attention to the problem of justice as it was tackled by W. Humboldt and F. Dostoevsky, and fills in the niche in legal studies.
Keywords: jurisprudence, justice, the state, penitentiary, freedom, a statute, law, coercive, punishment, a crime, society, consciousness.
Introduction
One of the most topical present-day problems is that of justice (fairness). Its relevance is quite obvious, since justice is a principle of law and a notion of life. Scholars argue that «the ideology of justice is ingrained in the conceptions of most lawyers and all lay men. (...) It is almost impossible to shake off the idea of justice (that) permeates everywhere»1.
The pursuit for justice started at the dawn of time, it goes back to antiquity and namely to ancient Greece. The essence of the antique concept of justice as expressed in Sophocles' Antigone and Aeschylus' The Eumenides may be described in the following words: «what is right must be related to what is true and what is good»2.
The concept of justice is rooted in Plato who maintained that all justice is merely conventional. In his Republic he demonstrated that there must exist an idea of justice that allows people in various political systems to recognize actions as just or unjust3.
After Plato, the notion was discussed by many a philosopher. One of the most reputed theories was
1 Krarup O. Justice and Legal Seismology // Blume P., Ditlev., Vibeke V. (eds.) Suum Cuique: Legal Studies from the University of Copenhagen Law Faculty. 2001. P. 120, 122.
2 Bondeson U.V Nordic Moral Climates. Copenhagen, 2001. P. 7.
3 Encyclopedia Americana. Vol. 16. Danbury, 1980. P. 785.
worked out by Aristotle who distinguished between justice as «complete virtue» («virtue... in relation to our fellow men») and justice «as a part of virtue» that deals with specific principles of distribution.
Aristotelian concept of fairness was later on borrowed by Cicero who sometimes mentions it as a source of law. In the use of fairness lies an attempt to soften what is considered to be strict positive law by means of a principle of justice, a notion of equal treatment equal. A similar approach emerges in Ulpian's famous definition of justice as the constant and eternal will to give each his due: «lustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi»4. These preliminary remarks are relevant since although my paper is about Wilhelm von Humboldt as a representative of Western legal culture and Fyodor Dostoevsky as a representative of the Russian culture, both these cultures emerged from very similar backgrounds. Both Russian and Western legal history must be recognized as having a common source in antique philosophy and Roman law5. Keeping all this in mind, I should like to proceed with the discussion of Wilhelm von Humboldt's conception of justice.
4 Tamm D. Roman Law and European Legal History. Copenhagen: DJ0F Publishing, 1997. P. 18.
5 See: Berman H.J. Law and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge, Mass., 1983. P. 189.
© Hairullin, V.l., 2015
* Hairullin, Vladimir Ihsanovich — Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Business Foreign
Language and Translation of the Bashkir State Unviersity.
450005, Russia, Ufa, ul. Dostoevskogo, 131.
The Background to Wilhelm von Humboldt's
Approach
In my research, I make a point of analyzing the conceptions that stayed in shadow, rather than those that belong to the stars of legal thinking. However, there are names in the history of law you cannot really do without, since they belong to outstanding theories and provided impetus to the further development of the theory of justice. So I should like to give a brief survey of the teachings that served the basis of Wilhelm von Humboldt's approach, because his conception did not appear in the vacuum.
The problem of justice kept scholars thinking about it for many hundreds of years. The discussion started all over again each time people encountered examples of injustice, which has always been a catalyst to develop the theory of justice.
In the 17-18th centuries the most typical was a corporate idea of law and justice. The main merit of the thinkers of that period was that they strove to give a dialectical approach to justice, which in its turn brought the problem up to a new paradigm. For example, according to Grotius, justice is the uppermost principle of community. Law was assumed to be based on this principle; law was defined as something that does not contradict justice.
Hobbes had a different opinion: he thought justice to be in subordination to the laws, a permanent wish to respect the law. Justice meant something performed in accordance with the law, while injustice meant something that contradicted the law.
Another theorist, Montesquieu, wrote in the traditions of natural law. He supposed that the relationships of justice preceded the law that set them up, that is, there exists a dualism in the relationships of justice: first, they precede the law; secondly, this very law sets them up.
Voltaire was not quite definite either. In one of his papers he poses a question: should one obey an unjust order of legitimate authorities? However, he does not give a direct answer to the question, he rather offers an indirect conclusion: one should not obey unjust laws.
Diderot approached justice from the legal perspective as well. He assumed laws to be both just and unjust. According to him, justice is a duty to give someone his/her due.
Holbach spoke of justice in the context of retribution. He believed laws to be just if and only if they rewarded and punished according to the good or evil a person brought to society, which means that here the idea of social relevance comes to the fore.
The basis of this idea was laid out in antiquity by Aristotle who spoke in a more general sense: selfishness is unjust, while care about social good is just. This idea was not forgotten, on the contrary, it developed further on. For example, Rousseau thought the purpose of any legislation to be care
about good for all the citizens. He believed every statute had to be based on equality and justice. The justice of legal acts is expressed by the common will embodied in these acts.
Thomas More had a very interesting opinion of justice. He wrote that justice was dependent on private property. In order to establish a just order of things, private property must be abolished altogether.
It should be kept in mind that complete justice is an ideal objective. Many thinkers strove to achieve it. For example, Kant supposed the achievement of justice to be the meaning and purpose of all human activities. He wrote: «If justice goes missing, human life will have no value». He thought the opposite notion, that is, injustice to be the worst evil, «other kinds of evil... are nothing compared» to injustice. He was of an opinion that in court disputes one has to listen to justice, and not only be taken by the law, that is, Kant emphasized that law was not necessarily just.
As opposed to Kant, Hegel maintained justice to be exclusively embodied in the law, and this would lead to state prosperity. According to Hegel, justice is something great, its source being the absolute idea, rather than realistic social relations. If More was for abolishing private property, which he thought would take the world to the triumph of justice, Hegel on the contrary was confident that the abolition of private property was the greatest injustice.
This short survey illustrates the dialectical approach to justice and injustice. There were hardly two scholars who shared one and the same conception. It also shows that the extensive notion of justice offers a wide field for multiple opinions and theories, one of the most interesting of which is a conception by a great German thinker and lawyer at the end of the 18th — beginning of the 19th century Wilhelm von Humboldt, who was brought up on Kant and was opposed to Hegel. His views are the most typical product of that epoch. His conception accumulated all the valuable ideas of that time.
Wilhelm von Humboldt on Justice
Karl Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) belongs to the cohort of lawyers who were not only brilliantly educated at the best universities, but also used to constantly confirm their qualification by their practical activities.
Having attended a number of courses at the universities of Berlin, Frankfurt-upon-Oder, Goettingen, Meinz, Duesseldorf, Jena W. von Humboldt got a position as a court clerk in Berlin in 1790. This work gave him a wealth of experience about how justice was administered. Besides, he was a lawyer who possessed deep knowledge in the field of international law: in 1802 he was appointed by the Prussian Government first resident and minister plenipotentiary in Rome, in 1812 he was ordered to travel to Vienna as ambassador. In 1813, as Prussian plenipotentiary at the con-
gress of Prague, W. von Humboldt was instrumental in including Austria to unite with Prussia and Russia against France; in 1815 he was one of the signatories of the capitulation of Paris, and drafted the treaty between Prussia and Saxony. In 1817, he was an ambassador in London. He gave up his legal and political life in 1819, and from that time forward he devoted himself solely to studies. Humboldt's basic writings were published by his brother Alexander von Humboldt in the seven volumes of Gesammelte Werke (18411852). These volumes contain multiple creations of Wilhelm von Humboldt's prolific mind6.
During his lifetime, Humboldt enjoyed respect and high appreciation from his contemporaries because of his legal and diplomatic activity. For example, the king of diplomats Charles Maurice de Talleyrand (1754-1838) found a worthy rival only in Humboldt. His legal papers, such as «The Ideas Concerning the State Organization Invoked by the New French Constitution» (1791), «The Ideas on an Experience that Determines the Boundaries of State Activity» (1792), are also well — known. All these facts show that Humboldt was a lawyer of a deep and broad outlook. It is noteworthy he did not fail to write about the problem of justice. This problem found a very interesting approach in his writings.
The problem of justice is most extensively dealt with in his treatise of 1792 «The Ideas on an Experience that Determines the Boundaries of State Activity» (Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Granzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen). When he writes about justice, the author adheres to the principle of natural law: «The only basis for any law is natural... law and ... so we always have to proceed from it.»7. It should be pointed out that he actually proceeds from natural law when he tackles different aspects of justice. On the whole, he touches upon quite a number of items that can be grounded up as follows:
1. Justice and state
2. Justice and the individual right
3. Justice (as fairness) and the practice of justice
4. Justice and penitentiary practice.
As it follows, Humboldt's justice is much more concrete as compared to the conceptions of earlier epochs. He concentrated upon quite definite problems, whereas the problem of a just punishment attracts his intent attention.
Further, I shall discuss these four groups of problems in detail.
Justice and the State
Humboldt was a statesman, so it looks quite natural that in his conception he pays much attention to the state which he defines as a common will
of society members8. Moreover, he thinks much of society members, that is, people: «People provide a beautiful spectacle that elevates your soul»9. This humanistic approach to society and the state is relevant to understand their objectives, one of which is to «draw a borderline between what is just and what in unjust.»10. He determines the obligations of a state in this humanistic perspective. He writes in particular: «One of the primary state obligations is investigating litigation that occurs among citizens»11. This obligation is characterized from the standpoint of justice because the state «on the one hand, protects from unjust claims and it gives strength to just claims., on the other»12. In addition, there is an opinion that justice plays an extremely important part in state legal relationships because justice sets up a limit for these state legal relationships, that is, justice restricts this activity13.
It is care about human good and human rights that is at the basis of the state activity. The state should make sure that its citizens know their rights. The following statement is essential: «The state must never act stirring up fear that comes about when citizens are ignorant of their rights or when they are not confident whether the state respects these rights sufficiently»14. According to Humboldt, citizens should stay in a position when their rights are protected. He calls it a secure position. Thus, the author comes up to a very important quality of justice, namely, freedom15.
The citizens' confidence of their liberty and safety being just is one of the classical canons of statehood, cf. «I suppose that the citizens' position within a state is secure only in case nobody hampers to practice their rights — both personal rights and a right of property; consequently, security is the citizens' confidence of legality of their freedom»16. This idea looks surprisingly fresh, since at present, lawyers are especially active in approaching the state as a guarantor of personal freedom.
The state plays a tremendous part in providing security, because «a person cannot provide such a security himself/herself»17.
According to Humboldt, the purpose and contents of state activities is of a dual character: first, «the provision of security both from outside enemies and inner discords»18; secondly, drawing bor-
6 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. 11. L.; N-Y: The Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1932. P. 878-879.
7 Гумбольдт В. Язык и философия культуры. М.: Прогресс, 1985. С. 139.
8 Ibid. P. 100.
9 Ibid. P. 27.
10 Ibid. P. 100.
11 Ibid. P. 109.
12 Ibid. P. 109.
13 Черненко А.К. Философия права. 2-е изд. Новосибирск: Наука, 1998. C. 75.
14 Гумбольдт В. Указ. соч. С. 123.
15 Ibid. P. 30.
16 Ibid. P. 88.
17 Ibid. P. 52.
18 Ibid. P. 53.
derlines between what is just and what is unjust19.
Justice and the Individual Right
The notion of freedom is one of the basic notions in Humboldt's conception of justice. However, Humboldt's discussion may sometimes be contradictory. For example, he writes about the necessity of a free development of a person, but simultaneously, he points out that personal freedom cannot be restricted by social relations: «A free development of a person should be taken into account, this development should be connected with social relations as little as possible»20.
However, in my opinion this is impossible.
It is essentially impossible because it is unfair: a person lives in the society of other persons, everybody enjoying equal rights with everybody else. Ignoring these rights will lead to social imbalance, the latter in its turn, will lead to violation of just human rights and civil rights. As if he were trying to correct this misunderstanding, Humboldt writes what follows: «To suggest respect for another person's right is the only correct means of preventing crimes», it will be just if «every person who violates another person's rights shall be similarly restricted in the use of his own [rights]»21. This means that justice requires some limitation of freedom resulting from respect for other persons' rights.
A freedom limitation not only depends on every individual person, but it is also conditioned by social interests, which means a limitation of personal freedom is an objective notion independent of a person. The resulting notion is termed coercive (or forced) justice. This very quality guarantees nonviolation of a personal legal freedom. It warrants equal implementation of personal legal freedom. According to Vladimir Soloviev, a Russian legal philosopher of the 19th century, coercive justice is the ultimate essential quality of law22.
More often than not, a respect for other people's rights is achieved through coercive measures. Here Humboldt makes another notice and subdivides these measures into just and unjust: «... Coercion... is just and beneficial only in case, first, it limits a subject of will, and, second, if he/she acts in sane mind and out of his/her free will»23, that is, a person who performs an action, should do so out of his/her own free choice. «In all other cases, coercion. is unjust.» states Humboldt 24.
Further, Humboldt constructs a hierarchy of injustice. In this case, he is a supporter of private property. His views are quite typical of the system of values of the epoch he lived in: «... There are different degrees of injustice: ranging from an action that is
19 Гумбольдт В. Указ. соч. P. 100.
20 Ibid. P. 60.
21 Ibid. P. 114.
22 Черненко А.К. Указ. соч. C. 72.
23 Гумбольдт В. Указ. соч. С. 98.
24 Ibid. P. 98
within the limits of law but which brings ... harm to another person, through an action which . hampers another person to use his/her property, to a direct encroachment on somebody else's property.»25. You see that the ideas of private property are quite relevant in Humboldt's conception.
Justice (Fairness) and the Practice of Justice
Having analyzed the problem of justice and coercive measures, Humboldt writes about the practice of justice. In this case, he deals with the statutes. Although Humboldt is for a free development of a person, he argues that «a statute must prescribe coercive obligations»26. So, he is again for a reasonable approach to freedom: personal behavior is limited in the framework of law.
Humboldt is a supporter of the truth and justice. He is indignant when he writes that the laws are sometimes concealed: «It is unjust if the laws are concealed in investigating a crime»27. However, he makes a notice bordering on slyness and even shrewdness. For example, sometimes he writes as a typical adept of a subjunctive truth, that is, truth within the limits set up by one of the litigants. In this sense, Humboldt's conception is no doubt subjective, the thesis of «the truth within certain limits» being raised by Humboldt to the height of the primary principle of justice administration: «The main principle of court practice must be the following one: you never look for the truth as such. rather, you look for the truth within the limits insisted upon by the party that has the right to demand an investigation»28.
The author goes on with this idea and writes that actually there has not yet been a single thorough investigation of a crime, which means: if we follow his «main principle», the truth has always been only within definite limits. He writes: «There has not been a single attempt to see what results a strict investigation of actual crimes may lead to»29.
The result no doubt may be like this one: «a just. and. inevitable punishment»30.
Justice and Penitentiary Practice
Humboldt admits the inevitability of punishment, but supposes «punishments must be an evil which scares a criminal»31, the latter «is obliged to admit justice of the punishment», he by no means can «judge whether the punishment is effective or not»32. This means the author believes every penalty to be just, or in other words, whatever a punishment for a committed crime is, it is always just, that is, and a crime must never stay unpunished.
25 Ibid. P. 87-88.
26 Ibid. P. 120.
27 Ibid. P. 123.
28 Ibid. P. 108.
29 Ibid. P. 86.
30 Ibid. P. 86.
31 Ibid. P. 111.
32 Ibid. P. 114.
One of the few penalties Humboldt considers unacceptable is the one spreading on to the children and relatives of a criminal: «A punishment that spreads not only on a criminal but also on his children and relatives cannot be permitted because it would contradict justice»33.
Humboldt writes about a peculiar regularity between punishments that cause corporal suffering and those that cause moral sufferings. In his opinion, «the less painful and horrible corporal punishments are, the severer they are morally; on the contrary, a strong corporal suffering will blunt a feeling of shame»34.
I suppose it is his personal subjective point of view. At any rate, there are no experimental data to support this view in the treatise. Humboldt also believes that mild punishments may be practiced more extensively, since in this case moral rather than corporal suffering is important. He thinks moral suffering to be quite strong under mild punishments: «Mild punishments may be practiced much more often because they are balanced by moral influence»35.
As for the actions that entail a just penalty, Humboldt offers the following comment: «only misdemeanors connected with the violation of citizens' rights and state laws can be investigated and punished»36. Here Humboldt writes about inviolability of citizen's rights, probably because he really thinks them to be of primary importance.
It can also be assumed that both civil rights and state laws are equally relevant in Humboldt's conception. To prove it, I can provide two quotations from one and the same page of the treatise. The author points out the necessity and justice of the severest punishment for the crimes against the citizens' rights and state laws: «The crimes against other person's rights must be punished more severely. The most severely must be punished those crimes that directly encroach on state laws»37. Both the rights and the laws seem intertwined. Respect for the former suggests respect for the latter, that is, citizen's rights and state laws occupy equally high positions in Humboldt's conception of justice: «He who does not respect state laws is incapable of respecting his co-citizens' rights, whose security is completely dependent on the state laws»38.
Humboldt touches upon other problems as well. For example, when he writes about the degrees of punishment, he suggests an unjust criterion being used there: «If we assume that the degree of punishment must always depend on how often at this very place and time these crimes are committed. this criterion. will be unjust»39. According
Гумбольдт В. Указ. соч. С. 113.
Ibid. P. 111.
Ibid. P. 111.
Ibid. P. 58.
Ibid. P. 115.
Ibid. P. 115.
Ibid. P. 113.
to Humboldt, it is unjust because « for example. a capital punishment could hardly be justified; besides, every criminal could avoid punishment. as it was in ancient free states where many offenders took a voluntary expulsion»40.
Humboldt is being contradictory again when he writes that local conditions should be taken into account before determining the capital punishment: «The capital punishment must be in conformity with the local conditions, depending on which a milder form of it can be chosen»41.
He is not at all against punishments; he is not against a capital punishment either. However, there is one form of punishment that he believes should be canceled. This refers to penalties that hurt human honor and dignity: «Only one form of punishment should be completely excluded; these are punishments that dishonor a person and blacken his/her reputation»42. He speaks as a real humanist whose primary values are a good name, honor and dignity, the notions that are fully in other people's power, rather than in the power of the state: «A person's honor and a good opinion of him are not in the power of the state»43. This attitude is extremely relevant because it is humanism that is essential part of justice. A humanistic component of justice presupposes both individual personal qualities44 and inviolability of personal honor and dignity.
Humboldt confesses a noteworthy opinion concerning the duration of punishment. He does not offer definite temporal boundaries, but he believes there should not be punishments without a timelimit, that is, for example life imprisonment, which also discloses Humboldt's personality as that of a true humanist: «How long should a punishment last? There is no doubt every person will want to bring it to a definite limit»45.
Humboldt argues a just punishment to be a necessity, since «the objective of punishment [is] prevention of any offence for the future»46, that is, a punishment is used not only for avenging a crime, but with the aim of preventing further crimes, the idea that goes back to Protagoras and Seneca, who maintained that the purpose of punishment was to frustrate the committing of future crimes47.
Dostoevsky's Just Society
In this part, I would like to show that the problem of justice was in the focus of attention with one of the most eminent Russian classics, namely Fy-
40 Ibid. P. 114.
41 Ibid. P. 111.
42 Ibid. P. 112.
43 Ibid. P. 112.
44 Черненко А.К. Указ. соч. C. 75.
45 Ibid. P. 112.
46 Ibid. P. 113.
47 Ross A. On Guilt, Responsibility and Punishment. L.: Stevens and Sons, 1975. P. 33.
Ill
53
56
odor M. Dostoevsky (1821-1881), who offered his own vision of the so-called just society.
At the beginning I would like to give a very short outline of the basic legal and political trends.
The Basic Legal and Political Trends in the 19th
Century Russia
Legal and political thinking in the 19th century Russia was diversified. The basic trends were as follows: conservatism, liberalism, legal positivism, natural law, psychological legal theory, anarchism.
Liberalism
Russian liberalism was of a special character. If the ideas of liberty in the West were born in the fight of independent aristocracy against the Royal power, in Russia all the social strata were oppressed by the absolutist state. Aristocracy was not liberally minded and was under the monarch.
The main characteristic of the Russian liberal ideology is that it was evolved and supported by the representatives of non-bourgeois strata, that is, nobility, statesmen, university professors, journalists, men-of-letter and intellectuals.
Russian liberalism was originally eclectic.
Russian liberals approved of capitalization of Europe, they approached bourgeoisie as an advanced class, they thought bourgeoisie would protect personal and property rights, and would set legal order. Russian liberals were for Europeanization of Russia, they were for doing away with serfdom, for further industrial and commercial development, limitation of the nobility privileges. Moreover, they were for representative power bodies (without limiting autocracy!), for establishing legislative basis of state, for equal court and responsibility of officials.
Russia liberalism saw its end in 1917. The most prominent names of Russian liberals are: Konstantin Kavelin, Boris Chicherin, Alexander Gradovsky, Py-etr Struve, Nikolai Mikhailovski, Vladimir Soloviev.
Positivism
The philosophy of positivism was quite popular in Russia. It influenced actually all the humanities. It was also popular with legal scholars. There were objective factors that promoted positivism: the Russian autocracy strove to make social and political life more stable, it was also necessary to regulate the new bourgeois relationships as well as regulate the growing state apparatus, new branches of law and the growing legislature.
Legal positivism was rather influential during the second half of the 19th century. The most obvious representative of the trend was Gavriil Shersh-enevich.
Two other names — Sergei Muromtsev and Maksim Kovalevsky — belonged to the representatives of sociological positivism. The latter possessed greater adaptive possibilities, it was able to explain complicated social processes. The followers of this trend usually shared liberal views.
Natural Law
The end of the 19th century saw a rebirth of natural law. On the basis of neo-Kantianism and neo-Hegelianism there came into being an influential school of natural law represented by Pavel Novgoro-dtsev, Bogdan Kistyakovsky, et al. The rebirth of natural law was due to the necessity to form an ideological foundation for liberalism and a struggle against the absolutist power of the emperor. Besides, it was a kind of reaction to materialist, positivist and socialist doctrines that prevailed in the 19th century. Natural law bridged a path to philosophical idealism.
Psychological Theory of Law
In the second half of the 19th century psychology was in a rapid growth. It influenced the humanities and law. Many followers of both positivist and natural law views adhered to psychological ideas. Psychological legal theory was worked out by Lev Petrazicki and Nikolai Korkunov.
Anarchism
Anarchism as a political and ideological school appeared in Russia later than in Western Europe. Chronologically, anarchism embraced the 19th century from the 60s and the beginning of the 20th century.
The social basis for anarchism in Russia was the development of out-of-town bourgeoisie (the kulaks), on the one hand, and village proletarians with allotments of land, on the other. Besides, there appeared broad marginal strata of underdeveloped town proletarians, lumpen proletarians and the poorest peasantry. Potentially, intellectuals who were the leading force of liberalization also formed the basis for anarchism. In their mentality, hatred towards autocracy was transformed into a denial of state altogether. A peasants' revolution was believed to be an abolition of both social economic and political organization. A future society was expected as a free union of communities. Political struggle was denied as unnecessary and diverting from the liberation of people. Anarchists believed in a peasants' revolution, because they were disappointed in bourgeois democracy. At that time there was a widespread opinion that civil liberties only were for the benefit of bourgeoisie, while for the people they were unattainable. The term 'anarchist' was used then to describe all the revolutionaries.
One of the basic factors that worked for anarchism was a huge territory of the Russian Empire. Russia in fact had never been a Unitarian state. It was a conglomerate of multiple lands and nations unified with the help of arms and church. For many of these peoples the state authority was zero, because they lived according to their own national traditions and customs. The country was basically a peasants' country. According to the first census of 1897, peasants made up 71.7 per cent of the Russian population. Russian anarchism was nourished by the patriarchal consciousness of peasantry who for ages dreamed of justice, land and freedom.
The school of anarchism was represented by Pyotr Kropotkin and the famous write Leo Tolstoy.
Conservatism
The other great Russian writer Fyodor Dosto-evsky belonged to a school of conservatism that came into being in the 1860s. The main characteristics of conservatism are as follows: national specificity of Russia and a special development of Russia. The supporters of this trend advocated a connection with the mother country, her traditions and national spirit. They were hostile to revolutionary radicalism. The Russian spirit, or the Russian idea emphasized such religious feelings as humbleness, renunciation (self-denial), being ready to suffer for the sake of eternal life. They strove to go separate from Europe. They believed the high mission of the Russian nation was to save the humanity. That is why a special attention was given to the national problem, to the role Russia played among Slavic nations, in Europe and in the world. An idea of panslavicism was widespread among conservatists, which meant unification of all the Slavs under the Russian czar. These two ideas, namely panslavicism and the connection with the mother country, made the main contents of conservative thinking. The term 'conservatism' is meant to show it was anti-liberal. The year 1881 was a borderline in the conservative movement. Emperor Alexander II died, and the epoch of reforms came to an end. The new czar Alexander III put his father's liberal inclinations aside. He strove to strengthen autocracy and in this he received a definite support of the whole conservative community.
Russian conservatism was represented by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, Nikolai Danilevski, Konstantin Leontiev and one of the greatest classics of the Russian culture Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.
Fyodor Dostoevsky did not confine himself only to literature. He participated in ideological trends and contributed much to the philosophical, political and legal thinking in Russia.
Although a conception by F.M. Dostoyevsky is taught at law faculties, some of its aspects still stay in shadow. The present paper attempts to emphasize those items in Dostoyevsky's ideology that have scarcely been approached by the scholarly legal community. Among them I should like to point out, first and foremost, his attitude to the problem of justice. His view of it tended to change. The events in Dostoevsky's life sometimes made him refuse some of his previous ideas. So, scholars argue that the years Dostoevsky spent in penal servitude as a result of his participation in an opposition M.V. Pe-trashevsky circle, dramatically changed his outlook. In the 1840s, at the very beginning of his literary career, Dostoyevsky exhibited a vivid interest to how a just society should be organized48. He also shared Utopian ideals of society at that time. However, af-
ter the long hard labor and exile years he did survive these ideals49. Hard labor turned out to be the event that made him think many of his views over.
What influenced the writer so much? What did he see in prison and exile? Why did he deny the ideas he had previously confessed?
To answer these questions, I subdivide the present part into two sections, namely, section 1 that reveals what experience Dostoyevsky gained in jail, and section 2 that discloses how, according to Dostoevsky, a pseudo-just society could be organized.
The Jail
The impressions and experience Dostoevsky had in jail in a Siberian town of Omsk were described in The Notes from the Dead House published in 1861-1862 in Vremya (Time) magazine.
In spite of all the horror of those years Dostoevsky believed penal servitude to be not only «the coffin» where he was «buried alive», but also purification through sufferings, of which he was so fond of talking50. Moreover, hard labor was a university of human psychology, a field in which there was no one equal to him. It is supposed that all Dos-toyevsky's creative work is penetrated by his deepest knowledge of a complicated human nature. He was very sophisticated in it. There was no other writer in the 19th century who could stand next to him, since nobody ever «achieved such bold frankness in observing ... human nature»51. It is the first book by Dostoevsky that analyzes criminal psychology as well as puts questions about the causes of a crime52.
The most relevant is the fact that Dostoevsky gives an almost documentary evidence of how people behaved in hard labor. The Notes from the Dead House is an encyclopedia of human characters under the conditions of freedom deprivation. The value of the book is that it is the first work about hard labor53; then, it permits to see the dynamics of penitentiary institutions, and allows us to observe prisoners' behavior and psychology. We can compare this behavior temporally and possibly determine stereotypes. Finally, this book can give an explanation to why Dostoevsky changed his original ideals about the organization of a just society. Many specialists believe it was after the period of hard labor that Dostoyevsky turned into an obvious opponent of Utopias54.
48 Азаркин Н.М. Ф.М. Достоевский // История политических учений. Вып. 3. М.: Юристъ, 2000. С. 255.
49 Старикова Е. Роман Ф.М. Достоевского «Идиот» // Достоевский Ф.М. Идиот. М.: Худ. лит., 1983. С. 7.
50 Утехин Н.П. Комические повести и рассказы Достоевского // Достоевский Ф.М. Село Степанчиково и его обитатели. М.: Сов. Россия, 1986. С. 4.
51 Старикова Е. Указ. соч. С. 7.
52 Архипова А.В., Якубович И.Д. Примечания // Достоевский Ф.М. Собр. соч. В 15-ти т. Т. 3. Л.: Наука, 1988. С. 536.
53 Ibid. P. 535.
54 Азаркин Н.М. Указ. соч. С. 256.
According to Dostoyevsky's contemporaries and his analysts, «his attention was focused on the people, he only perceived their nature and characters»55, that is, the topic of a human character was dominant in his work. So in this paper, I pay much attention to this very problem, or to put it more precisely, to how human nature is described in The Notes from the Dead House.
I will dwell upon the following four problems in detail: 1) the description of the jail, 2) personal relationships among prisoners, 3) prisoners' private life, 4) the attitude of free population to the prisoners.
The Description of the Jail
Although there are specialists who suppose Dos-toevsky disregarded morality and misunderstood reality56, I should like to prove this viewpoint is far from correct. Dostoevsky, as it has been mentioned earlier, had a perfect command of human personality and realized the surrounding world to be multifaceted. He wrote, «reality is infinitely versatile, [it] strives to fragmentation»57. One of the examples of this versatility and fragmentation is offered, sad as it is, by prisons, hard labor and other ways of punishment. Although detention institutions are typical of any society, probably because humankind until present can neither get rid of crimes nor invent other sorts of penitentiary practice, Dostoyevsky approaches this kind of punishment quite soberly and believes «prisons and a system of hard labor [are meant] not to correct a criminal; they just punish him and protect society from further offences by the villain on its tranquility»58. This idea expressed in mid-19th century goes well with an opinion of many contemporary legal theorists who do not believe prisons to improve their inmates; moreover, prisons are believed to be universities of crime. This means prisons produce a conspicuous negative effect on prisoners. A convict who finds himself in detention for the first time, is approached by the prison community that tries to widen the criminal outlook of the newcomer and to pass on their criminal skills to him. This may result in recidivist offences and, consequently, in repeated detentions. Cf. here the following data: as of 1 January 2002 there were 980.6 thousand prisoners in Russia, or 680 prisoners per 100 thousand inhabitants. There were 748.6 thousand convicts in 739 correction colonies; 18.6 thousand young offenders in 64 educational colonies; 205 thousand defendants in 184 detention centers and 13 prisons (which made 165.8 per cent of the prison population limit). The number of the accused serving life sentences was 1300 people59. This problem is quite urgent at present. It was just as urgent during Dostoevsky's lifetime.
There was a strict hierarchy in the jail, at the top of which stood the governing body of the institution. The borderline between the bosses and the prisoners was very vivid. The opposition was supported both by the top and the bottom who accentuated the social difference. Dostoevsky writes about it: «The prisoners do not like to be treated by the bosses with familiarity and a too good-natured attitude. He [a prisoner] would like to have respect for his boss. For example, a prisoner likes his boss to have decorations, to be distinguished looking, to enjoy benevolence of some other big boss, to be strict and important, and just, and dignified. Prisoners have more respect for such kind of bosses, they believe these bosses to keep their own dignity and not to hurt prisoners. This means everything is good and beautiful»60.
Dostoevsky supposed Russians not to be scared of sufferings. Moreover, the Russian are able to love sufferings61. The above quotation is a kind of confirmation for the point that Russians are eager to receive sufferings, since jail with its governing body is nothing but a source of suffering. If we accept the point that Russians are ready to suffer, then we can understand Dostoevsky's paradoxical statements that prisoners have respect and affection to their bosses.
The prison sufferings were not just connected with the deprivation of freedom. There was another ordeal which, as Dostoyevsky puts it, exceeded all the other ones: «besides deprivation of freedom, besides forced labor, in penal servitude there is another torment, almost the worst of all. It is being forced to live together»62, which was burdened by the necessity «to live in an alien environment». Dostoevsky believed there was nothing worse than that63.
So we come close a problem of alienation, which is very vivid in The Notes from the Dead House.
Interpersonal Relationships in the Jail
Fyodor Dostoevsky left valuable observations about how people acted towards each other in the jail. Estrangement, lack of friendship, loneliness — that's how the life of prisoners can be described. Specialists share an opinion that The Notes... is all about disintegration of the upper and the lower strata of Russian society64. Cf. here a quotation «there is nothing like living in an alien community»65. It means there was social polarity in prison. Moreover, even people belonging to one and the same social stratum did not enjoy friendly relations: «There was almost no friendship among prisoners; I am not speaking about general friendship, but private, when a prisoner would make friends with another one»66. It is noteworthy that lack of friendship in penitentiary
55 Утехин Н.П. Указ. соч. С. 20.
56 Азаркин Н.М. Указ. сочС. 257.
57 Достоевский Ф.М. Записки из Мертвого дома // Достоевский Ф.М. Собр. соч.: в 15 т. Т. 3. Л.: Наука, 1988. С. 438.
58 Ibid. P. 217.
59 Известия. 2002. 24 авг.
60 Достоевский Ф.М. Записки из Мертвого дома... С. 309.
61 Азаркин Н.М. Указ. соч. С. 260.
62 Достоевский Ф.М. Записки из Мертвого дома... С. 224.
63 Ibid. P. 440.
64 Азаркин Н.М. Указ. соч. С. 257.
65 Достоевский Ф.М. Записки из Мертвого дома... С. 440.
66 Ibid. P. 329.
institutions is pointed out at present as well67. Probably this peculiarity, namely a lack of friendship, could be referred to as a permanent rather than variable characteristic of a prison community: it was and is typical of both the 19th century jails and the 21st century correction institutions. The cause of it can be found in the following: people being deprived of freedom, start exhibiting their negative features. Modern prison specialists point out that «the prisoners are cruel and sly»68. Dostoyevsky also wrote that «the majority of prisoners were silent and spiteful and hateful»69. So if a person has this kind of a character, friendly relations are out of the question.
In a number of cases, Dostoyevsky is contradictory. For example, on the one hand, there were no friends among the inmates, though on the other, the author writes that sometimes new prisoners tried to be trusted and liked by the jail community: «There is nothing as difficult as to be trusted by the people, and especially this kind of people, and deserve their affection»70. This wish should be regarded as a rudiment of a free life, a life outside of the prison. There was no friendship but nevertheless, the inmates reckoned with the opinion of the others and wanted to be trusted.
Sometimes, the rudiment of liberty had quite unexpected expressions: «Prisoners are generally inclined to boldness, to boasting, to comic and naive extolling their own personalities, illusory as it may be. All this has at least an apparition of life, at least a distant shadow of liberty»71. Freedom no doubt always was and is an absolutely attractive notion that was and is expected by each and every prisoner. «Freedom is paradise»72, that's what they think about freedom in penitentiary institutions.
Besides, liberty renders a possibility to act the way you like. It was also thought much about in the jail. Of course, they were limited in this respect. The only thing that offered this rare opportunity and allowed them to try the smallest amount of freedom, was money. Dostoyevsky writes about it: «Money. had a terrible importance and power in the jail.[.] The meaning of a word a prisoner is a person with no will; . spending money he acts out of his own will»73, that is, as a free man who can make independent decisions and perform independent actions.
The inmates saw this shadow of liberty very seldom, for example only on such big holidays as Christmas is: «On this holiday a prisoner could not be sent out to labor»74, but it happened rarely:
67 Коныгина Н. Снег в клетку и лампочка в сорок ватт // Известия. 2003. 22 марта.
68 Ibid. P. 7.
69 Достоевский Ф.М. Записки из Мертвого дома... С. 437.
70 Ibid. P. 229.
71 Ibid. P. 279.
72 Коныгина Н. Указ соч.
73 Достоевский Ф.М. Записки из Мертвого дома.. .С. 278.
74 Ibid. P. 326.
«there were only three such days in a year»75: besides Christmas, there ere only two more festive days of Easter76.
Prisoners' Private Life
In a letter of 30 January — 22 February 1854 Dostoyevsky wrote to his brother: «People are people everywhere. During hard labor in 4 years' time I taught myself to recognize people among robbers»77. These people proved to be far from primitive, each of them had his own private inner life. To support this point, I can give the following example: «We also had our special life, not only formal official one, but our own inner private life»78. Of course, no one was allowed in there, it was carefully kept. Nevertheless, Dostoyevsky who was a specialist in prisoners' psychology and who spent many years in penal servitude himself, knew that the major value of human character was its ability to hope, since «it is impossible to live with absolutely no hope»79. His hope helped Dostoyevsky very much to survive all the hardships of prison and hard labor. Besides, he points out another important feature of a Russian character, which allows overcoming the difficulties. This is an ability to give an unbiased estimation of a situation and approach it with a good sense of humor: «The Russian character has so much positivity and sobriety, so much irony at oneself»80.
These valuable characteristics were typical of inmates, who could keep these features due to the support of free inhabitants.
The Attitude of Free Population to Prisoners
The free population in The Notes... is represented by the jail doctors and the people, that is, settlers who lived outside. Both groups deserve Dostoevsky's warmest sympathy and gratitude for their kindness: «They [the doctors] never make difference between prisoners, as almost all other strangers, except simple people, do. The latter never reproach a prisoner for his crime, horrible as it may be, and forgive him because of the punishment and misfortune he suffers. It is not for nothing that the people all over Russia call a crime a misfortune while criminals are called the unfortunate»81. The most relevant in this quotation is that the author accentuates such characteristics of the people as compassion and forgiveness. It is essential both for the evaluation of Dostoyevsky from the humanistic perspective and the description of the Russian as a whole. This nation is sympathetic, generous, hospitable and lavish. All these marvelous features were fabulously exposed on holidays, when free inhabitants brought their cordial gifts to
75 Достоевский Ф.М. Записки из Мертвого дома... С. 326.
76 Архипова А.В., Якубович И.Д. Указ. соч. С. 554.
77 Ibid. P. 536.
78 Достоевский Ф.М. Записки из Мертвого дома. С. 438.
79 Ibid. P. 438.
80 Ibid. P. 437.
81 Ibid. P. 254.
the inmates: «It [the alms] arrived in extraordinary quantities. These were wheat meal and brown bread loaves, cheese cakes, spice cakes, gingerbread, pancakes and other fancy pastry. I do not suppose there was a single house-wife from merchant or petty bourgeois households in town who stayed away from bringing her loaf of bread to greet the unfortunate prisoners on the great holiday»82.
The above mentioned positive features of the Russian are far from exhaustive. According to the author, «a sense of justice and a thirst for it is the most obvious and superior characteristic of our nation»83. Probably, when Dostoyevsky wrote it, he wished to stress that the attitude of simple people to prisoners was based on this very sense of justice.
All this experience influenced Dostoevsky immensely, and resulted in a dramatic change in his previous views. In particular, as it has been mentioned, he became an opponent to any Utopias. His conception of a just society can be found in a story «A Funny Person's Dream» published in 1877. However, Dostoevsky right away within this story makes you understand that this is not for real, it is a dream about some quite fragile society, which is easy to destroy.
A Just Society
The plot of the story is uncomplicated. A man is asleep and has a dream that he finds himself on a planet inhabited by sinless people.
Although these people do not strive to know life, their knowledge is both deeper and higher as compared to the knowledge of our science, «since our science tries to explain what life is. Our science tries to understand what life is so that to be able to teach others how to live. [The people of the planet] knew how to live without science»84.
They had affection to everything that was alive, be it a tree, or an animal, or a human being. The planet population was compassionate, innocent and as happy as children. Their love that brought them kids was free of «cruel voluptuous-ness», which, according to Dostoevsky, «is the only source of almost every sin of humankind»85. They knew neither quarrels nor jealousy; their children belonged to all of them because all of them made up one family. There were almost no diseases but there was death, they were not afraid of it. These people had neither religion nor temples, but they «had absolute knowledge that when their earthly happiness would reach the brim of earthly nature, there would come for them, a still more intimate contact with the Entire universe»86.
Dostoevsky was absolutely aware that society was founded on moral principles. In The Diary of the Writer of 1876, he notes that until moral ideals stay in the people's souls, «the nation can live the strongest living life»87. Some of the items of Dos-toyevsky's just society call up the ideas of Plato's cosmology, the ideas of French Utopian socialists, and of course the classic Utopia by Thomas More. So the latter supposed you could never live in a just society unless you did away with private property. Dostoevsky shared this viewpoint when he wrote: «All of them were one family»88, that is, everybody made use of collective property.
There is a contradiction, however. In Dosto-evsky's society there is one big family, while with More a separate single family is both preserved and considered the major unit of society. It protects the principles of traditional morale and preserves patriarchal customs.
Both with More and Dostoyevsky work is obligatory for everyone, but More's Utopians have a six-hour mandatory working day, while for hard and unpleasant work they exploit slaves or even use religions, of which there is a multitude, so that every citizen is free to choose any religion. In Dos-toyevsky's society «people did little and easy work», they fed on «fruit of their trees, honey of their forests and milk of the animals that loved them»89. As for religion, there was none at all.
T. More thought much of science. In his Utopia, talented people were free from work to make research, for one thing. The Utopians elected their governors from among scientists, for another. In Dostoevsky's society there was no science because his people «did not wish anything and were calm, since their lives were complete»90.
Neither More's nor Dostoyevsky's society suffers from crimes. More believes the solution of the problem is in the abolition of social contrasts, caring about people and protection of their land allotments. He also brings forward such advanced ideas that punishment must re-educate rather than scare, that crime and punishment must be proportionate and death penalty must be abolished91.
Attractive as they may seem, both societies are infinitely far from reality. The authors understood it themselves. The following final words of Utopia show that Thomas More realized his dreams to be illusory: «I, wish it rather than I expect it».
Dostoevsky's society is also fragile. His society underwent the Downfall.
Of special interest for me as a person who makes research into the history of justice, is the fact that
82 Достоевский Ф.М. Записки из Мертвого дома... С. 330.
83 Ibid. P. 346-347.
84 Достоевский Ф.М. Сон смешного человека // Достоевский Ф.М. Село Степанчиково и его обитатели. М.: Сов. Россия, 1986. С. 528.
85 Ibid. P. 529.
86 Ibid. P. 529.
87 Утехин Н.П. Указ. соч. С. 27.
88 Достоевский Ф.М. Сон смешного человека... С. 529.
89 Ibid. P. 528.
90 Ibid. P. 528.
91 Мартышин О.В. Томас Мор // История политических учений. Вып. 1. М.: Юристъ, 1996. С. 106-111.
the events that led to justice, are as follows: a lie — voluptuousness — jealousy — cruelty — a crime. «When they became felonious, they invented justice and prescribed whole wide codes for them to preserve it. They put up a guillotine to secure the codes»92.
According to Dostoevsky, all the other stages of descending into injustice are as follows: people united into groups, one group against another, «there began reproaches and reprimands. They came to know shame, shame was elevated to a virtue. The notion of honor came into being. A struggle for separation began. for mine and yours. They began to speak different languages»93. Sorrow and torment led to the creation of science because they supposed the Truth, that is, the produce of science, to be achieved only through torment. «When they became malicious, they started to talk about brotherhood and humanism»94.
All these ideas are worthwhile, since they go together with an opinion of those scholars who suppose the positive and the negative to exist in absolute unity. The former is perceived only due to its opposition to the latter, for example, justice/injustice, humanism/cruelty, love/hatred, etc. Moreover, the negative notions in some of these pairs are a kind of a catalyst for the development of their positive counterparts. So, when people come across cases of injustice, they start talking of justice and strive for it.
The further evolution of Dostoevsky's society led to such perverted institutions as that of voluntary slavery, under which the weak members came of their own accord to be bent by the stronger ones «so that the latter would assist them to oppress those who were still weaker. There appeared arrogant men., who demanded either everything or nothing. They resorted to villainy to achieve everything. If villainy failed, they resorted to suicide. There appeared religions with the cult of non-existence and self-destruction for the sake of eternal tranquility in nothingness»95. Cf. More's and Dostoevsky's slavery and religions: with More, the two institutions belong to a just society, whereas with Dostoyevsky, both slavery and religion are attributed to an unjust society. It is noteworthy that Dostoyevsky is contradictory about religion: on the one hand, he shows the collapse of religious consciousness; on the other, he tries to convince that it is religious consciousness that will save the nation from destruction96.
When he places religion to an unjust society, Dostoevsky believes justice to be achieved on the basis of a Christian commandment. He underscores
92 Достоевский Ф.М. Сон смешного человека... С. 534.
93 Ibid. P. 531.
94 Ibid. P. 531.
95 Ibid. P. 532-533.
96 Утехин Н.П. Указ. соч. С. 27.
it at the very end of the story: «The main thing is to love the others as you do yourself. This is the main thing, you don't need anything else»97. It sounds as simple as that. However, this commandment is extremely difficult to follow, and besides, according to Dostoevsky, there should be a universal wish for social re-structuring: «If only everybody wants it, everything will be organized»98, which is no doubt unattainable.
Dostoevskyists are of an opinion that his genius is in understanding that if people do not longer support the high moral ideal of justice, there will come a day when the norm of society is the pathology of its evolution, as well as immorality and injustice99.
So Dostoyevsky devoted all his life to the high moral ideal.
Although the author is aware that injustice and evil are not normal for humans, the achievement of justice is also impossible. It can be achieved only in a dream.
This is the summing up of Dostoyevsky's marvelous story. According to him, a just, sinless and happy society is another Utopia. It is not without reason that there are so many analogies between T. More's and F. Dostoyevsky's works, although Dos-toyevsky is very individual so many times.
At the dawn of his creative work, he shared Utopian views, but the events of later years, namely his penal servitude and exile in Siberia, made Dostoyevsky think his attitude to a just society over. In my paper, the accent has been on the experience Dostoyevsky gained while in prison, which proved decisive in all his years to come.
Conclusion
The analysis of the material has shown that both Wilhelm von Humboldt and Fyodor M. Dostoevsky in their own time spoke out quite a few interesting and deep ideas that, regrettably, until present have not attracted a scholarly attention. My paper is, in particular, an attempt to fill in this annoying gap.
The analysis has also disclosed that Humboldt is more concrete in his attitude to justice as compared to Dostoevsky. The most important for Humboldt are the following aspects: 1) justice and state; 2) justice and citizen's rights; 3) justice (fairness) and the practice of justice; 4) justice and penitentiary practice. According to Humboldt, the primary objective of the state is «to draw a borderline between what is just and what is unjust». The state must protect its citizens, it must provide for their security.
As for Dostoevsky, his major concern is the organization of a just society and the events that shall lead to justice. In this case, Dostoevsky's thinking is positively dialectic, since he writes that the events
97 Достоевский Ф.М. Сон смешного человека... С. 535.
98 Ibid. P. 535.
99 Утехин Н.П. Указ. соч. С. 31.
that lead to justice are basically negative: a lie — voluptuousness — jealousy — cruelty — a crime — injustice. The latter makes people think and speak and strive for justice.
Sometimes Humboldt may sound contradictory, for example, he does so when he writes about justice and citizen's rights. He is for a free development of a person. This freedom is not limited by the relations of citizenship, which is by definition impossible: you cannot simultaneously live in society and stay free of this society. Nevertheless, Humboldt is for respecting other persons' rights, that is, respecting the rights of each and every person, which inevitably presupposes a limitation of personal freedom in virtue of observing other people's rights.
Dostoevsky is also humane in his just construction, which means he can be contradictory as well. For example he is contradictory about religion: he denies religion in a just society and simultaneously, believes religion will keep the people from the downfall.
Humboldt acts as a representative of the time he lived in: so, when he builds up a hierarchy of injustice, he is a regular supporter of private property who believes it unjust to hamper someone use his/ her property.
Dostoevsky is in opposition to Humboldt in this respect: his reasoning is that of a collectivist, his people live in one huge family and profit from collective property. It should be noted here that work, easy as it is, is obligatory for everyone.
Dostoevsky acts against private families. A just society boasts of one big family, whereas for Humboldt, a private family is a must.
Both Humboldt and Dostoevsky discuss the practice of justice. They are of an opinion that justice must be practiced towards offenders, which is of course logical. However they go separate ways
References:
about the truth. Humboldt is an adept of a subjective truth, that is, truth within the limits profitable for one of the litigants, while Dostoevsky believes the truth to be a product of science. Moreover, it is attainable through torment, which perfectly agrees with his general philosophy of suffering.
Alongside with the problems of mutual concern, there are individual items. For example, Humboldt pays much attention to the problem of a just penalty. He does not deny punishment. On the contrary, he is of an opinion that every crime must entail a just punishment. Humboldt argues that a penalty must (1) scare a culprit, and (2) prevent further offences. The only punishments that must not be practiced are the ones spreading on to the criminal's children and relatives, as well as those that discredit a person and hurt his/her dignity.
Dostoevsky ignores penalty altogether. He is interested in much more general concepts, like that of affection. His summing up of the story about a just society is all about it: love thy neighbor as you do yourself. It does look Utopian, doesn't it?
However, in spite of all the specificity of the two conceptions both Wilhelm von Humboldt and Fyodor M. Dostoevsky approach justice in their own ways, and quite frequently touch upon similar problems as the great minds who adhere to humanistic principles and who highly respect other persons and believe that people «provide a beautiful spectacle that elevates your soul»100. The analysis of seemingly different conceptions is productive indeed — you come to understand that basic human and legal problems are a matter of concern for almost all the greater representatives of humankind who may sometimes share opinions or have their own approaches. Moreover, polar conceptions allow a better comprehension of the problem of justice, since these conceptions are regarded as mutually complementary.
1. Азаркин Н.М. Ф.М. Достоевский // История политических учений. — Вып. 3. — М.: Юристъ, 2000. — С. 255-266.
2. Архипова А.В., Якубович И.Д. Примечания // Достоевский Ф.М. Собр. соч.: в 15 т. — Т. 3. — Л.: Наука, 1988. — С. 503-574.
3. Гулыга А.В. Философская антропология Вильгельма фон Гумбольдта // Гумбольдт В. фон. Язык и философия культуры. — М.: Прогресс, 1985. — С. 7-23.
4. Гумбольдт В. Идеи к опыту, определяющему границы деятельности государства // Гумбольдт В. Язык и философия культуры. — М.: Прогресс, 1985. — С. 25-141.
5. Достоевский Ф.М. Записки из Мертвого дома // Достоевский Ф.М. Собр. соч.: в 15 т. — Т. 3. — Л.: Наука, 1988. — С. 205-481.
6. Достоевский Ф.М. Сон смешного человека // Достоевский Ф.М. Село Степанчиково и его обитатели. — М.: Сов. Россия, 1986. — С. 517-535.
7. Мартышин О.В. Справедливость и право // Право и политика. — 2000. — № 12. — С. 4-15.
8. Мартышин О.В. Томас Мор // История политических учений. — Вып. 1. — М.: Юристъ, 1996. — С. 106-111.
9. Мор Т. Утопия. — М.: Наука, 1976. — 138 с.
10. Соловьев В.С. Спор о справедливости // Вестник Европы. — 1894. — № 4. — С. 785-797.
11. Старикова Е. Роман Ф.М. Достоевского «Идиот» // Достоевский Ф.М. Идиот. — М.: Худ. лит., 1983. — С. 5-24.
12. Утехин Н.П. Комические повести и рассказы Достоевского // Достоевский Ф.М. Село Степанчиково и его обитатели. — М.: Сов. Россия, 1986. — С. 3-32.
13. Черненко А.К. Философия права. — 2-е изд. — Новосибирск: Наука, 1998. — 153 с.
14. Berman H.J. Law and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. — Cambridge, Mass., 1983. — 340 p.
15. Bondeson U.V. Nordic Moral Climates. -Copenhagen, 2001. — 131 p.
100 Гумбольдт В. Указ. соч. С. 27.
16. Encyclopaedia Britannica. — 14th ed. — Vol. 11. — L.-N.Y.: The Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1932. — 1000 p.
17. Encyclopedia Americana. — Vol. 18. — Danbury: Encyclopedia Americana, 1980. — 791 p.
18. Krarup O. 1993. Justice and Legal Seismology // Blume P., Ditlev T., Vibeke V. (eds.) Suum Cuique: Legal Studies from the University of Copenhagen Law Faculty. — 2001. — P. 21-28.
19. Ross A. On Guilt, Responsibility and Punishment. — L.: Stevens and Sons, 1975. — 183 p.
20. Tamm D. Roman Law and European Legal History. — Copenhagen: DJ0F Publishing, 1997. — 277 p.
Материал поступил в редакцию 5 ноября 2014 г.
О СПРАВЕДЛИВОСТИ. ВИЛЬГЕЛЬМ ФОН ГУМБОЛЬДТ ПРОТИВ ФЕДОРА МИХАЙЛОВИЧА ДОСТОЕВСКОГО.
Хайруллин Владимир Ихсанович — доктор филологических наук, профессор, заведующий кафедрой делового иностранного языка и перевода Башкирского государственного университета. [[email protected]]
450005, Россия, г. Уфа, ул. Достоевского, д. 131.
Аннотация. Предметом исследования является справедливость в широком и узком смыслах. Культура человечества знает ряд категорий, которые на протяжении всей ее истории относились к позитивным ценностям. Таковыми являются понятия гуманизма, правды, истины и справедливости. Много копий было сломано в попытке дать им определение: например, исследования справедливости проходят красной нитью через всю историю — начиная с Древней Греции, далее через Средние века — вплоть до наших дней. Метод исследования сводится в основном к сравнительно-правовому, который оказывается эффективным для целей настоящей работы. Научная новизна состоит в постановке непосредственно самой проблемы, поскольку в статье обсуждаются два из наименее известных подходов к понятию справедливости, а именно: концепция правоведа, философа и филолога XIX в. В. Гумбольдта и позиция одного из величайших умов русской культуры XIX в. Ф.М. Достоевского. Основной пафос статьи сводится к тому, что она привлекает внимание к проблеме справедливости, так как последняя трактовалась В. Гумбольдтом и Ф.М. Достоевским, что позволяет заполнить имевшуюся в этом отношении научную нишу.
Ключевые слова: юриспруденция, справедливость, государство, пенитенциарный, свобода, закон, право, принудительный, наказание, преступление, общество, сознание.
Bibliography:
1. Azarkin, N.M. F.M. Dostoevsky // History of political teachings. — Issue 3. — M.: Yurist, 2000. — P. 255-266.
2. Arkhipova, A.V., Yakubovich, I.D. Comments // Dostoevsky F.M. Collected works.: in 15 v., V. 3. — L.: Nauka, 1988. — P. 503-574.
3. Gulyga, A.V. Philosophical anthropology of Wilhelm von Humboldt // Wilhelm von Humboldt. Language and cultural philosophy. — M.: Progress, 1985. — P. 7-23.
4. Von Humboldt, W. Ideas on the experience defining the limitations to the state activities // von Humboldt, W., Language and cultural philosophy. — M.: Progress, 1985. — P. 25-141.
5. Dostoevsky, F.M. Notes from the Dead house // Dostoevsky F.M. Collected articles: in 15 v., V.3. — L.: Nauka, 1988. — P. 205-481.
6. Dostoevsky, F.M. Dream of a funny person // Dostoevsky, F.M. Stepanchikovo Village and its Inhabitants. — M.: Sov. Rossiya, 1986. — P. 517-535.
7. Martyshin, O.V. Justice and law // Pravo i politika. — 2000. — N. 12. — P. 4-15.
8. Martyshin, O.V. Thomas Moore // Istoriya politicheskikh ucheniy. — Vyp. 1. — M.: Yurist, 1996. — P. 106-111.
9. Moore, T. Utopia. — M.: Nauka, 1976. — 138 p.
10. Soloviev, V.S. Dispute on justice // Messenger of Europe. — 1894. — N. 4. — P. 785-797.
11. Starikova, E. «Idiot» by F.M. Dostoevsky // Dostoevsky F.M. Idiot. — M.: Khud. lit., 1983. — P. 5-24.
12. Utehin, N.P. Comic novels and short stories by F. Dostoevsky // Dostoevskiy F.M. Stepanchikovo Village and its Inhabitants. — M.: Sov. Rossiya, 1986. — P. 3-32.
13. Chernenko, A.K. Philosophy of law. — 2nd. Ed. — Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1998. — 153 p.
