The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

We order gennin and its role in creation of the mining industry of Russia (first half of xviii of century)



a okruga became main the supplier at this time- time Barnaul, and especially turn Novonikolayevsk -

mi commodity bread. Owing to this fact, from these counties foxes to powerful transport hubs where it was crossed on -

the leaders of the district began to pave new ways to current of various cargoes arriving here zheleznodo-

to railway stations and piers. In it rozhny, river and cartage.

Bibliography

1. V.A. Skubnevsky, Yu.M. Goncharov. The cities of Western Siberia in the second half of XIX — the beginning of the 20th century: Population. Economy. Building and improvement. — Barnaul, 2007.
2. M.A. Vinokurov, A.P. Sukhodolov Economy of Siberia. 1900 — 1928. — Novosibirsk, 1996.
3. Solovyova Je.I. Izvozny trade in Siberia in the second a half XIX century (1861 — 1893)//From the history of Siberia. Scientific I rub -

dy, Issue 64. — Novosibirsk, 1972.

4. V.B. Borodayev. Historical atlas of Altai Krai: cartographic materials on stories The top Priobye and Priirty-

shya (from antiquity before the beginning of the 21st century) / V.B. Borodayev, A.V. Kontev. — Barnaul, 2007.

5. History of Siberia. T. 2. — L., 1968.
6. History of road management in the Tomsk region / B.K. Andryushchenko, V.A. Buzanova, V.P. Zinovyev, V.G. Zykova, P.S. Quack doctors;

Under the editorship of V.P. Zinovyev. — Tomsk, 1999.

7. Center of storage of archival funds of Altai Krai (CHAF of joint stock company). FR. 10. Op. 1. 731.
8. CHAF of joint stock company. T. 4. 2540.
9. CHAF of joint stock company. T. 4. 416.

Article came to edition 11.02.08

UDC 902

I.A. Novikov, edging. used up. sciences, associate professor of ChGPU, Chelyabinsk

We ORDER DE GIENNIN AND his ROLE IN CREATION of the MINING INDUSTRY of RUSSIA (FIRST HALF of the 18th V.)

In article, on the basis of the documentary sources (published and archival) V.I. Gennin's activity in creation of the large-scale mining industry in Karelia and in the Urals and its contribution to formation of a system of local management of mining regions is analyzed.

Metallurgical industry, since 18th century, becomes, as we know, a basis of economic development of Russia and its certain regions (Ural, Olonets, Altai, Nerchinsk and South Russian). The metallurgy defined not only their further development, but also development of all mining industry of the country in general, having rendered enduring value on formation of its social and economic "shape" and its regional economy in particular.

Origin and the subsequent development of mining production, its modernization (in time interesting us and further — I.N.) was, without exaggeration, a direct consequence of those defeats which were suffered by the Russian army. If to glance in the 17th century, then here we will see that "to ironworks production" events of the Time of Troubles and Smolensky of "sitting" contributed to the development, at the beginning of the 18th century — failures of the first stage of northern war generated "Petrovsky modernizations". And if to continue such analogies, then in the 19th century those catalysts will be anti-Napoleonic fight and the Crimean war. On any of the specified stages, the Russian government undertook urgent measures to that the army in due time received good weapon and ammunition that, in turn, was possible only at the high level of development of the mining industry — bases of uninterrupted deliveries of the above. The solution of these tasks generated metalproduction and the relevant plants in Moscow area and in Karelia, and then in the Urals, in Western and Eastern Siberia. But, despite the measures undertaken by the government to create in Moskovia in

XVII did not manage large-scale metallurgical industry century. In different regions of the country there were small zavodik making primitive a way -

mi (a naprmer by means of manual bellows) not always quality metal from which produced "all necessary" for the country (including and for army) and also tools, house utensils, jewelry, etc. However fully to satisfy the needs of the country for metal growing from year to year, they were not able.

In other words, by the time of Peter I's introduction on a throne in Russia there were about 20 ironworks enterprises located in Tula and Kashirsky district and on the bank of Lake Onega. Owing to the shortage of metal, it had to be exported, mainly, from Sweden. However the war which began with it blocked this channel. Therefore before the Government of the Russian Federation there was an urgent task — to create (in that that became) at itself large-scale metallurgical industry.

(At the beginning of the 18th century) to the mining industry (it will take place and in the first half of the 19th century — I.N.) paternalism of the state over the mountain plants, production for military needs and backwardness of domestic market became distinctive features created in Russia that, certainly, limited freedom of private business and quite often led to compulsory methods of creation of labor for development, for example, of the Ural metallurgy. On the other hand, together with formation in the region of mining production there was a formation and improvement in it and governing bodies of it, the principles and methods of the management were developed.

Speaking about it, it is necessary to emphasize also one more moment: success in development of the mining industry was impossible without competent experts. From the beginning of large-scale construction of steel works and the organizations of a control system of them the big part was assigned by the state "main and mountain

to chiefs" among which there were many outstanding and extraordinary personalities. Among them it is possible to call V.N. Tatishchev, V.I. Gennin, A.S. Yartsov, I.F. Hermann, A.F. Deryabin, V.A. Glinka and others, played really outstanding role in creation and further development of the mining industry of Russia. Along with direct duties, they had to be engaged also in the solution of many other — collateral — questions (economic, social, judicial, "civil improvement", etc.). Considering all this, also selected the government to these positions of the "versatily prepared people" capable to promote not only development of mining production, improvement of its hardware, but also increase in education level, qualification of the people subordinated to them and also "a raising of economic and welfare level of the region subordinated to the chief director". Owing to told, becomes quite justified development of a personnel of mountain administrators, the analysis of their activity especially as this subject was to this day remains one of the mining regions low-explored in the history in time interesting us.

One of the first mountain chiefs who made a noticeable contribution to formation and development of the mining industry to Karelia and in the Urals.

However its so versatile activity did not become, unfortunately, a study subject for domestic historians. The name of V.I. Gennin almost does not occur in their publications. Peculiar "exception" of the rule was made only by M.F. Zlotnikov's work which incorporated the biographic information about him [1, page 11-64]. And only in Post-Soviet time researchers showed interest in V.I. Gennin's identity, his contribution to formation of metallurgy of the Urals [2]. Due to told, it is only possible to be glad to the fact that V.I. Gennin was lucky with the first biographer. It became V.N. Berra. The main advantage of the work published by it in 1826 is existence in it of a large number of documents on the general [3, page 51-68].

But speaking about "inattention" of historians to V.I. Gennin, naturally, does not mean about porlny lack of his name in publications. No, it is mentioned in them, especially in historical literature in which the analysis of the reasons of origin and further development of the mining industry during a Petrovsky era takes place and V.I. Gennin's activity as practician and organizer of the Siberian oberbergamt, including and in pre-revolutionary literature is considered, in this regard, [4, page 108-110]. And, nevertheless, considering its considerable contribution to origin and formation of the mining industry of Russia still there is no complete and complex research about it, without exaggeration, the outstanding figure

XVIII century — V.I. Gennin.

As well as many other foreigners, Vilim Ivanovich it appeared on the Russian service "happy-go-lucky and good luck". There was it at the end of XVII — the beginning of the 18th centuries. During service it passed a way from a feyerverker of Armory to the chief of the Main artillery office. Arriving on service (at the end of 1697 — I.N.), V.I. Gennin specified in the application that he "thoroughly understands architecture civil... making of any amusing fire things — and also various "cunnings": to do "images from wax", of straw, by the colored "Japanese drying oil", from "paper to vyrezyvat" [5, l. 181].

His similar "abilities", naturally, could not but interest employers: his application was satisfied. And since May 10, 1698 he became a feyerverker of Armory, with "a salary in six rubles" [5, l. 181].

Having arrived in Moscow, the young engineer, received (in addition to the direct duties — I.N.) a task to train young Russian noblemen of artillery. It is necessary to add that his knowledge and of experience Peter I entirely made use during Northern war, especially at construction of serf strengthenings in Novgorod, Gangut and Kex-golme and at capture of Vyborg. V.I. Gennin (beginning (since 1712 — I.N.) and laid hands to completion of the foundry yard and powder mills in St. Petersburg.

Having perfectly executed all these instructions, the young advantage engineer was marked out: in 1713 he is appointed the Olonets commandant and the chief Petrovskikh, the Povenetsky and Konchozersky plants. This appointment was very responsible as the last were important because the specified plants were in close proximity to the battlefield, and therefore served as the chief suppliers of weapon, ammunition and military equipment for the Russian army. And V.I. Gennin brilliantly got along with the case charged to him. For this purpose, he, first of all, reconstructed factory production and improved their equipment: old blast furnaces were succeeded new, with a bigger performance. So, if before its arrival only one blast furnace, then a year later — already four worked at Petrovsky the plant. In his stay this plant reached the highest development, it became one of the most high-mechanized enterprises. Thanks to it, the release of guns was brought to perfection: from 1000 only 3 were broken off on tests. In a word, the Gennins-ky plants became the main supplier of guns, guns and shells for the Russian army and the fleet. For successful implementation of orders V.I. Gennin was made for army in 1716 in colonels [3, page 53-54, 57-58]. Considering a responsible attitude of V.I. Gennin to business, his knowledge and experience, the government charged to it in 1721 (in addition to in what he was engaged — I.N.) construction of Sestroretsk small-arms factory and development of the project of construction of the channel between Moscow and Volga [6, page 16].

However new duties did not "burden" V.I. Gen-nin. Moreover, he "looked for new cares". One of those was "establishment" in Olonets of school at which it trained ucheniik "domain, gun, anchor and to another factory matters" and also helped N.A. Demidov "shots": sent to the Urals workmen [6, page 118]. V.I. Gennin's efforts found around the Olonets plants mineral waters which were visited several times by Peter I.

The high quality of the products given by its plants did not stop their chief director. It continued to look for ways of its increase. For this purpose he made trips to Holland, Saxony and Prussia where he studied the European technology of mining and metallurgical production and hired foreign experts for work at the Russian plants. Having come back home, he was engaged in 1719 "in full reorganization of the plants and installation on them the foreign equipment [6, page 118].

The enthusiasm and V.I. Gennin's energy did not remain unnoticed: On March 6, 1722 he is made in major generals and is appointed (at the end of the month — I.N.) the head of mining administration in the Urals [7, page 667]. This appointment not really pleased him because at the Olonets plants he knew from experience of the work that on the new place it should face counteraction of local voivodes and the Siberian governor again. Except them, also private plant owners will not be glad to its activity. In addition to all this in the Urals (what V.I. Gennin knew for certain about — I.N.) to it will be not

to be enough competent experts. Therefore, agreeing with appointment, he "managed to get" for himself one condition: to take away from the Olonets plants and from St. Petersburg 36 masters, journeymen and pupils.

Having arrived to the Urals, he first of all examined local copper and iron mines, "made their test" which promised, in his opinion, "good profit". However the good impression of natural wealth of the Urals immediately ischet as soon as V.I. Gennin visited the state plants. "On it — he reported to Peter I — to look sozhalitelno. it... in kind the order is not given. nowadays [they] in very in a thin order". The reasons of it V.I. Gennin saw in not convenience of the locations of the plants, in a lack of water and supplies, and, the main thing — in "a bezdelnost and lack of training" masters [8, page 22-24, 30].

Having studied the state of affairs at the plants, V.I. Gennin tried to apply experience and the practice of work occurring at the Olonets plants here. For this purpose, he began to carry out not only technical, but also organizational reorganization at the plants, having transferred for this purpose the solution of administrative, judicial and financial matters to special officials, podve-domstveny to the Siberian oberbergamt. In other words, it began to lay the foundation of a local control system of the mountain plants.

As once in the Olonets region, it began the work with reorganization of the old plants. For the first two years the Uktussky, Alapaevsk and Kamensk plants were reconstructed and expanded it and also 8 new — Ekaterinburg, Lyalinsky, Pyskorsky, Egoshi-hinsky, Polevskoy, Verkh-Isetsky, Sinyachikhinsky and Uktussky (top) [3, l are constructed. 181, 292]. But now modernization of the plants goes taking into account the European experience: the sizes the domain increase, the design of their top part changes, blasting in a blast furnace is improved [9, page 64], also new productions appear at the plants. In particular, at the Ekaterinburg plant entered a system acting earlier unknown "enterprises" — tin and ludilny factories [10, page 76].

Along with construction and modernization of the plants, V.I. Gennin and the capital of the mining Urals — Yekaterinburg in which now, except church, "commander and masterful apartments", the school and hospital appeared equips [11, page 9]. Carrying out transformations, the chief commander was constantly anxious with one problem: construction of the plants and arrangement of the city demanded qualified specialists. Brought with themselves from the Olonets plants of workmen was obvious a little. Therefore V.I. Gennin does not cease to ask prisylka of new and new workmen of people.

Caring for development of the state plants, V.I. Gennin does not lose sight also of the private enterprises operating here. As opposed to the predecessor (to V.N. Tatishchev — I.N.), he maintains the friendly relations with private manufacturers: Demidov, Stroganov, A.D. Turchaninov who found acting through the new chief not only the good "adviser, but also the well-wisher" in development of their business.

Adjusting mining business in the Urals, V.I. Genin found "sympathy and support" almost at all people involved in it business, except for local nomad tribes which were not reconciled with increase in number of the plants leading to reduction of their pasturable, hunting, fishing and trade grounds in any way. Protesting against this "approach", they continually attacked the plants and villages adjoining to them. Natives and activity of rudoznatets opposed, "which the opening promoted the birth of new robbers". Not to allow rudoznatets on the territories, they in every possible way disturbed them,

expelled them from "the possession", and and unshakable beat the most persistent and even killed. [8, page 103]. To protect the plants from attacks of nomads, V.I. Gennin builds the Ekaterinburg fortress in which places infantry and dragoon regiments for "protection of edge and the Russian population". But "it", by its recognition, were present "for form's sake", the chief was a supporter of carrot and stick policy. Making advances to Bashkirs, he suggested to divide into their childbirth and associations which heads "to present with gifts and ranks", and "— to take out rebellious to the Central Russia or to build the Russian fortresses in their territories.

Increase in number of the plants in the Urals led to formation of bodies of mining management here. Except the Siberian oberber-gamt which was already mentioned above, in Yekaterinburg began to be created, thanks to V.I. Gennin's initiative, and local bodies of mining management — mountain the administration (Perm, Kazan and Nerchinsk). He was also an initiator of drawing up in Russia of the first factory states. However he did not like to be engaged in affairs of management. Therefore V.I. Gennin entrusted them to the adviser. When made him remarks on this subject, he reasonably noticed: "During reproduction, the plants, manufactories and factories which from each other have distance submultiple I to one over all suddenly (i.e. at the same time — I.N.) cannot look and go" [8, page 67].

But, increasing number of the plants, the chief director, acquired to himself "a natural headache" — they should be provided with labor. It in the Urals, as well as in other mining areas) constantly was not enough. In the solution of this problem he was a firm supporter of attraction on the plants of civilian workers. And those times was not enough, the addition of "villages to the plants" was the only exit from the situation. Understanding complexity of position of assigned peasants, V.I. Gennin tried to facilitate it: watched that paid them for work in time and on prices and also did not burden peasants performance of other duties. However despite all efforts, it was not possible to avoid complaints. Therefore the work people dissatisfied with a low payment for work ran from the plants. The chief director did not suffer it and regarded escapes as crime which has to be punished strictly. For edification of others, it was ready even to execute fugitives [8, page 132]. Nie was too soft he and on the runaway soldiers involved in construction of Yekaterinburg. For edification of others, it, according to a source, "punished guilty persons of a shpitsrutenama", and "hung up certain villains and even kolesovat" [8, page 136137]. In the same way it punished and the natives opposing to construction of the plants.

The competent expert and the skillful administrator had broad communications. He corresponded not only with foreign scientists and public figures, but also with the Russian. So, in messages to Peter I and Caterina I he brought up not only questions of economic development of Russia, but also Berg board in which activity he saw only bureaucratic red tape expressed the opinion relatively ("agrees with opinion, and the decree on realization of it is never gives") [8, page 244].

Nie was without V.I. Gennin and in "folding of special mining estate". In 1731 he petitioned before the Senate for "the equation of factory employees a rank and a salary with officers of military service". The "Sheet of mountain ranks" submitted to them, found support from it and is processed, three years later (in 1734, V.N. Tatishchev) and approved as "The state of ranks at the Siberian mountain plants" [12, l. 28-28ob].

Vigorous and productive activity of V.I. Gen-nin was appreciated by the government: in

1727 it was made in lieutenant generals, and in l. 1.334]. In these positions V.I. Gennin "consisted" till 1731 — is awarded the order to Saint Alexander Nie- 1742 when it "behind an old age and a disease" was "from -

vsky. However at the beginning of the 30th it was already not so akti- stavlen from weapon and factory affairs" [13, l. 330].

veins. The main reason of it became "intolerable", on it Summing up the result of the aforesaid, occupation "mandative affairs" is possible with full for expression, [8, page 15]. the right to note that thanks to professional-

They also forced it to leave (in 1734 — And. H.)., to ny knowledge, experience and personal initiative of V.I. Gennin

Urals. About what was made by it V.I. Gennin opi- here systematic developments ore me-began in Russia

Sal in the report (known nowadays to researchers as hundred-births, and the Olonets plants turned into a croup -

"The description of the Ural and Siberian plants" — I.N.), a ny industrial complex on production of metal

which it presented to Anna Ioannovna [1, page 63]. and arms. The same was made by it also in the Urals.

On the arrival of it in 1735 to St. Petersburg, it was nazna- Along with it, he became also a pioneer in business formi-

Chen chief of the Main artillery office, rovaniye of a system of local management mining

member of Military board and managing director Sestrorets- industry.

Kimi, and since 1737 — and the Tula plants [13;

Bibliography

1. M.F. Zlotnikov. The first description of the Ural and Siberian plants / M.F. Zlotnikov//V.I. Gennin. The description of the Siberian and Ural plants — M., 1937
2. Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev and Villim Ivanovich Gennin in the Urals. — Yekaterinburg, 1999.
3. W.N. Berra. Biography of the lieutenant general V.I. Gennin, founder of the Russian mountain plants//Mountain magazine. — 1826.— No. 1.
4. Bers A.A. Ekaterinburg in the description of travelers / A.A. Bers//Yekaterinburg in 200 years. 1723-1923. — Yekaterinburg, 1923.
5. Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RSAAA). T. 248. Op. 4. 161.
6. Mountain magazine. — 1826. — Book III.
7. Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire (PSZ). T. VI. No. 3986. — SPb., 1830.
8. V.I. Gennin. The Ural correspondence with Peter I and Caterina I. — Yekaterinburg, 1995.
9. N.V. Tekhnika's cormorants of metallurgical production of the 18th century in the Urals//News of Academy of history of material culture. — M.; L., 1935. — the Issue 134.
10. V.I. Gennin. Description of the Ural and Siberian plants. — M, 1937.
11. Akishin M.O.V. Gennin and his Ural donosheniye in Peter I's Office//V.I. Gennin. The Ural correspondence with Peter I and Caterina I. — Yekaterinburg, 1995.
12. RGADA. T. 271. Op. 1/6. 3380.
13. RGADA. T. 248. Op. 8. 458.

Article came to edition 18.02.08

UDC 902

D.I. Sidorenko, the graduate student of BPGU of V.M. Shukshin, Biysk

IMPLEMENTATION of the DECREE of SNK "ABOUT DISESTABLISHMENT AND SCHOOLS FROM CHURCH" IN ALTAI (1917-1921)

In article on the basis of for the first time the documentary sources introduced for scientific use activity of the Soviet state and its bodies for implementation of the decree of SNK "About Disestablishment and Schools From Church" in Altai in 1917-1921 is analyzed".

The February revolution of 1917 liquidating autocracy in Russia changed position of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in the country, its relationship with Provisional government radically. A bigger dissonance in its existence introduced October, 1917 when on the one sixth part of the earth was born and there began the existence the state of workers and peasants. Already the first resolutions of its government — the Council of People's Commissars (CPC) — affected almost all spheres of activity of ROC. So, the decree known to all "About the earth", generated then land committees, ordered them to begin already on December 4, 1917 withdrawal (in favor of the state) church and monastery lands. After this, nationalization of deposits of ROC and the clergy stored in private banks followed. Then decrees about transfer "all business of education in maintaining the National commissariat of education, and registration of acts of the birth, marriage and death — in exclusive maintaining the state organizations" were adopted [1, page 47-49]. After this, at the end of December, 1917 — the beginning of January, 1918 over the country the wave antireligioz-swept

ny actions (the attendance order closed palace and house temples, the Synod printing house, etc. is withdrawn) preceded as it will become clear only then, the being prepared law on disestablishment. And as result of it, in a number of places there were collisions of Red Guards with believers. That occurred, for example, on December 19, 1917 in Petrograd, in attempt of the first by force "to requisition premises of the Alec-sandro-Nevsky Monastery" [2, page 71].

To eliminate "not the necessary opposition with Church" and to conduct "legal dialogue with it", SNK adopted on January 20, 1918 two decrees ("About freedom of conscience, church and religious societies" and "About Disestablishment and Schools from Church") which legalized further disestablishment and nationalization of its property and also the laid foundation of future powerless position of Church [1, page 25-27]. In other words, from this point existence of church, its activity were put by the new power in a rigid framework of the various bans and restrictions that was regarded by ROC as "malicious on -

Vogt Tomas
Other scientific works: