1. Introduction

Since ancient times, the art of eloquence has occupied an honorable place in culture, along with other types of creativity. The ability to convince and inspire listeners has always been considered a gift worthy of respect, and in judicial speech, where the fate of a person and the triumph of justice depend on words, the role of the speaker becomes truly colossal. Russian legal scholars — lawyers, prosecutors, judges — have created outstanding examples of judicial speeches, and one of the brightest Russian legal speakers of the 19th century was Anatoly Fedorovich Koni, who went down in history as an outstanding lawyer, statesman and writer. He diligently passed on his experience as an orator to a new generation, and his legacy is still relevant.

2. Material and methods

Born into the family of playwright and writer Fyodor Alekseevich Koni and writer and actress Irina Semenovna Koni, Anatoly absorbed the theatrical atmosphere from childhood, but his path to law was not straightforward. Coming from an educated family, he studied a lot and successfully: he completed a gymnasium course with seven awards and in May 1861 entered the mathematical department of the metropolitan University. During the trigonometry exam, Academician O.I. was so impressed by his masterful answers to tricky questions that went beyond the scope of the program. According to Somov, according to his recollections, he said: «No, you need to be shown to the rector,» «I’ll take you to him!» and was almost ready to carry the applicant to the rector in his arms. However, in December of the same year, the university was closed due to student riots. Koni went to Moscow, immediately enrolled in the second year of Moscow University, choosing not a mathematical, but a legal path. It is noteworthy that his work for the degree of candidate of Law «On the right of necessary defense» was not liked by the tsarist censorship because of the justification of A. F. Koni the rights of the people to revolution are violated if the government oppresses them with its illegal actions and violates the law [1, p. 21]. Anatoly Fedorovich managed to avoid serious consequences, but what happened largely determined his latent opposition to the government. (However, it should be noted that in his work A. F. Koni has always been guided solely by the ideas of justice and humanism, not succumbing to political views and considerations). After completing his studies, he joined the General Staff of the Military Department, but, feeling an irresistible desire for judicial activity, in April 1866 he moved to the St. Petersburg Judicial Chamber as an assistant secretary of the criminal department. Six years later, in 1871, Koni returned to the northern capital as a prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court. He worked fruitfully in this position for over four years, leading the investigation of complicated cases and making accusatory speeches. It was then that he gained fame as an outstanding court speaker: his speeches were published in the press and widely quoted, and in 1902, Kony was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Over the years, he also held the posts of Chairman of the Court, Vice Director of the Department of the Ministry of Justice, Chief Prosecutor of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Senate, senator and member of the State Council.

Konya’s uniqueness lay in the fact that he developed his talent simultaneously in three guises: a practitioner (fellow prosecutor, chairman of the court, senator), a theorist (author of fundamental works on ethics and process) and a legislator (participant in legislative work in the State Council and commissions). This triune nature allowed him to see the criminal process not as an abstract scheme, but as a living organism, where each norm breathes, stumbles and influences the fate of people. Unlike armchair scientists, Kony knew what the dock looked like from the courtroom, and how sincere remorse differed from a learned role. A special place in the legacy is occupied by the beginning of the thorough development of his theory of judicial ethics and its teaching in Russia, most fully described in the work «Moral Principles in Criminal Procedure» (1902). Here, Koni builds a coherent philosophical concept, where the judge is not an omnipotent ruler, but a wise steward, limited both by law and moral duty. AF Koni did not consider law and morality to be alien concepts, noting that they have a common source, and the difference is only in the compulsory obligation of law [1, p. 22]. He passionately promotes Kant’s idea that a person can never be a means, only an end. This is where the famous institutions come from: the right of the defendant to remain silent, the inadmissibility of testimony extracted by threats, the exemption of relatives from the obligation to testify against each other. Koni insisted: «The Court is a school for the people, from which, in addition to serving the law, they must learn lessons of serving the truth and respect for human dignity» [1, p. 23]. Creating the image of an ideal prosecutor, Koni painted an almost ascetic figure: calm, without personal bitterness, «neat» in his techniques, simple in language, objective, like a «publicly speaking judge.»

But Koni did not only write about high matters — he took care of the practical education of speakers. For the new generation of Russian judicial rhetoricians, he prepared a unique work «Advice to Lecturers»(1844-1927), which has not lost its relevance today [2]. First, the outstanding lawyer suggested paying attention to careful preparation: it is necessary to collect interesting and important information related to the topic directly or indirectly, draw up a concise, but if possible complete plan and go through it several times. «Even better is to write a speech and, having carefully finished it stylistically, read it aloud,» wrote Koni. Interestingly, he emphasized his appearance: you should dress simply and decently, without being pretentious and flashy, but a dirty, sloppy suit makes an unpleasant impression. «The mental effect on the audience begins before the speech, from the moment the lecturer appears in front of the audience» [2].

Koni accurately noticed that a novice lecturer is greatly hampered by the fear of listeners, the fear of knowing that the speech will be unsuccessful. «To worry less, you need to be more confident in yourself, and this can only happen with better preparation. The amount of excitement is inversely proportional to the labor spent on preparation. Unseen by anyone, the preliminary work is the foundation of the lecturer’s confidence. This confidence will immediately increase during the speech itself, as soon as the lecturer feels that he speaks fluently, intelligently, makes an impression and knows everything that remains to be said.» He advised starting the speech with the address «Comrades» and changing the tone — raising and lowering it in connection with the meaning of the phrase. «You’re talking about Tolstoy, and the first sentence about his departure can be said in a low tone; this immediately emphasizes the greatness of the moment in the life of our great writer.» Gestures seem to enliven speech, but they should be used carefully: an expressive gesture (raised hand, clenched fist) should correspond to the meaning, and too frequent, monotonous, fussy hand movements are unpleasant and annoying. He did not advise walking around the stage — it is better not to do monotonous swaying from one foot to the other. «It is useful to look at individual groups of listeners: listeners look at the lecturer, and they are pleased if the lecturer looks at them. This attracts attention and wins favor. A lecturer should not have a single point to which the eye is drawn.» The lecturer should be sufficiently illuminated: the face speaks along with the tongue. No distracting reasons (binoculars, newspapers, rustling, crying of a child) should affect him — he should do his job [2].

Kony advised avoiding a speech pattern, especially dangerous at the beginning and at the end, and not using the same expressions at close range (Flaubert and Maupassant advised not to put identical words closer than 200 lines). The form of speech should be simple and understandable; foreign words should be explained briefly immediately. Lyrics are acceptable, but they should be few and sincere. In order for the «touching» to really touch the heart, it is necessary to speak about the touching calmly, coldly, dispassionately — then a contrasting background is obtained. In order for the lecture to be a success, it is necessary to win the attention of the audience and keep it to the end. Attention is aroused by something simple, interesting, and close to what everyone has experienced. The first words should be extremely simple, accessible and interesting. You can keep your attention focused by brevity, rapid movement of speech, and brief, refreshing digressions. «Brevity is the sister of talent. It is necessary to make sure that there are relatively few words, but a lot of thoughts, feelings, and emotions. Then the speech will fulfill the testament of Apollon Nikolaevich Maikov: words are cramped, but thoughts are spacious.» The rapid movement of speech obliges not to delay attention in approaching new parts, and the end should round off the speech, connect with the beginning, as in music the last chord: listeners should feel that there is nothing more to say. The flow of thought is important for success: if the thought jumps from subject to subject, it is almost impossible to listen to speech. The natural flow of thought brings deep aesthetic pleasure. «The best speeches are simple, clear, understandable and full of deep meaning. With a lack of one’s own deep thought, it is permissible to use the wisdom of the wise, observing the measure so as not to lose one’s face among the Lermontovs, Tolstoy, Dickens,» Anatoly Fedorovich concluded his «Advice to lecturers» [2].

Konya’s oratorical talent was particularly evident in his accusatory speeches, where he skillfully constructed the legal reality. Researchers of his work note: «The narrative in judicial speech can approach the artistic one in terms of style and means of expression» [1, p. 72]. In the case of the drowning of the peasant Yemelyanova, he, according to the remark of the defender V. D. Spasovich, created a real «novel told by the prosecutor» [p. 71]. (In the case of the drowning of the peasant woman Yemelyanova, in his indictment, A. F. Koni begins the story as follows: «… we know that a young bath attendant got married, beat up a student and was put under arrest. The day after that, his wife was found in the Zhdanovka River. The astute bailiff’s assistant saw in her death suicide out of grief for her husband — and the body was buried, and the deed was the will of God. It would seem that everything should end there, but there was talk of a drowned woman in the neighborhood. This dialect was grouped around Agrafena Surina, she was a knot, as if she had let slip that Lukerya had not drowned herself, but had been drowned by her husband» [3, p. 7]. Further, adding figures of speech and mixing with dry facts, A. F. Koni connects the story with Agrafena Surin. However, the narrative suddenly switches to Egor Surin, and the speaker tries to «trace his past life» [1, p. 17], selecting those details that will create the image of a dissolute man working in numbered baths, where ladies from houses of tolerance are invited and where he sees «systematic debauchery.» «And here comes the first thought that you need to get rid of your wife.» Next, the prosecutor returns to Agrafena, the story of the unfortunate Lukerya is built separately. All three stories intersect at the moment when the murder takes place. The speaker skillfully brings everyone together in one place to paint the picture he wants to present to the jury: the accusation against the defendant has sufficient grounds. The defendant’s defense attorney, V. D. Spasovich, called A. F. Konya’s narrative version «a novel told by the prosecutor.» And based on the legal facts, he told a completely different story, the main version of which was Lukerya’s suicide. But the jury recognized the speech of the prosecutor A. F. The trial was more convincing and found the defendant guilty of murder with premeditated intent. The sequential sequence of factual circumstances with embedded circumstantial evidence woven into the fabric of the narrative and the visualization of the murder scene were so skillfully used by A. F. Kony that the jury had no doubt about the suspect’s guilt). And in the process of plundering Solodovnikov’s property, he managed to convince the jury by building a consistent series of factual circumstances supplemented by indirect evidence woven into the fabric of the narrative [pp. 70-71]: A. F. Koni tells about the financial situation of the defendant before the death of Nikolai Solodovnikov and declares: «… when he was searched seven months after Solodovnikov’s death, he turned out to be a rich man.» Assuming possible income based on the defendant’s account of the origin of these funds, A. F. Koni always puts forward a hypothesis and refutes it with factual circumstances, including witness testimony.: «The defendant, I think, was himself aware that the lack of a plausible explanation of the origin of his capital and the denial of the facts revealed by the witnesses were not enough» [4, p. 34] After talking about the intimidation of witnesses and the undermining of their testimony by the defendant, the speaker skillfully concludes his story: the accusations have sufficient grounds, «but enough is enough. This case, in my opinion, should be clear to you, gentlemen of the jury, and there is no need to explain it. I accuse Suslennikov of taking advantage of Solodovnikov’s death to steal, as far as he could, his property for a large amount, in any case many times more than 300 rubles, which is indicated by the punitive law» [4, p. 35]. A. F. Koni managed to convince the jury of Suslennikov’s guilt.

Kony remained an ardent supporter of the jury trial all his life. He saw in them a true reflection of the principle of dispositivity: «Jurors evaluate evidence based solely on their conscience. <…> Moreover, the jurors are not burdened with legal knowledge, which allows them to look at the situation from a slightly different perspective — from the side of justice» [1, p. 24].

But the most famous case that made Kony famous was, of course, the story of Vera Zasulich. The trial began on March 31, 1878. Despite the established fact of an attempt on the life of Mayor Trepov, Koni emphasized in his parting words to the jury [1, p. 36]: «After listening to the arguments of the prosecution, the defense, and the chairman of the trial, A. F. Koni, who, in turn, urged the court to take into account the accumulated anger in the defendant’s personality when making a final decision on the case under consideration.» she is more impressionable towards life» [2, (5) p. 254]. Summarizing the results of the meeting, Koni, addressing the assessors, spoke as follows: «The instructions that I have given you now are nothing more than advice that can make it easier for you to sort out the case. They are not necessary for you at all. [1 (6)]. You can forget them, you can take them into account. You will have a decisive and final say on this matter. You will pronounce this word according to your conviction, based on everything you have seen and heard, and not constrained by anything except the voice of your conscience. If you find the defendant guilty on the first or all three counts, then you can find her deserving of leniency based on the circumstances of the case. You can understand these circumstances in a broad sense. These circumstances always matter, because you are not judging an abstract subject, but a living person, whose present is always directly or indirectly influenced by his past. Discussing the grounds for leniency, you will recall the life of Zasulich revealed to you» [4, (5) pp. 437-438]. The acquittal caused a split in society: the liberals approved, the conservatives condemned, and the newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti demanded that «terror be stripped of its heroic aura» [1, p. 37]. The Senate overturned the verdict on appeal and even demanded that Kony be put on trial, but this demand was not satisfied, and Zasulich managed to escape abroad [pp. 37-38].

No less dramatic was the crash of the Imperial train on October 17, 1888, which was commissioned by Kony. A technical examination conducted under his leadership established that the train of 15 wagons had 64 axles at a rate of 42, and the speed was increased to 67 versts per hour [6, Im, p. 30]. The experts unanimously stated that «the nature and nature of the damage to the train and track do not give any reason to assume a malicious attempt,» and the cause was a derailment due to the «stitching» of the track and exceeding the slope [7, Im, p. 31]. Koni personally petitioned the emperor for leniency towards some officials, arguing: «Where equal justice for all is impossible, equal mercy for all may be appropriate» [1, pp. 52-53].

A special page of Konya’s legacy was his participation in the Multan case (1892-1896), where Udmurt peasants were falsely accused of ritual murder in order to bring human sacrifice to pagan gods. The writer V. G. Korolenko personally met with Koni, who held the post of chief prosecutor of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Senate, and «reported to him about the deviations in the work of the investigative and judicial authorities» [1, pp. 78-79]. After Kony gave his opinion, the Senate overturned the convictions twice and eventually acquitted the defendants. Korolenko later wrote: «I am so convinced of the complete innocence of these people and of the most vile falsification of the investigation that I have no shadow of a doubt» [pp. 77-78].

After the 1917 revolution, when the entire empire’s justice system was eliminated, Koni accepted the new government favorably, seeing an opportunity to continue his education. Already in November 1917, he met with People’s Commissar of Education A.V. Lunacharsky, and in January 1918 he was elected professor of the Department of Criminal Justice at Petrograd University, where he taught extensive academic courses [1, p. 7]. Later, he taught at the Institute of the Living Word, where he developed a series of lectures on dormitory ethics, and also spoke at the Railway University and the Institute of Cooperators. In 1920, with the establishment of the All-Russian Writers’ Union, Koni assumed the position of judge of honor [p. 7]. He was one of the first to comment on the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 [9], noting that although the new code is «better» than the Charter of 1864 in some aspects (the right to call new witnesses, the expansion of the rights of the investigator), the defendant’s right to silence has been lost — the holy of holies for the old lawyer [8].

Not everyone knows that Koni showed a deep interest in labor law. In the article «The Tasks of labor assistance» (1897), he wrote: «Successful work requires a cheerful soul and a healthy body… Where the former is broken, exhausted, or perverted, because there is neither willingness nor ability to work; where the latter is exhausted and exhausted, there is no strength» [1, p. 47]. According to modern researchers, these ideas have anticipated many principles of occupational safety and health. As you can see, Anatoly Fedorovich outlined the problem for which the principles of labor law were created.

The epistolary heritage of Konya is of great historical and cultural value. It allows you to learn more about the creative process of the writer, his views on art and the world in general. It is a kind of window into the past through which one can see and understand the literary and cultural life of Russia in the 19th century. He himself wrote: «Letters… if they are not intended to be printed, are expressed with greater frankness… hot on the heels of thoughts and feelings that have arisen.» He left tens of thousands of documents, including more than 20,000 letters [1, p. 11]. Thanks to the correspondence, the psychological appearance of the lawyer, his proximity to the literary elite, and his active life position are revealed [pp. 11-12].

Koni consistently opposed formalism and indifference. He noted bitterly: «Sometimes I simply despair when I see this crowd of officials without any love for the cause, without a true understanding of the goals and purpose of the court — officials who are ready to destroy with their own hands the building created by judicial regulations» [1, p. 24]. At the same time, he himself has always served as an example of selfless service. Even in situations that were questionable from the point of view of the letter of the law, he was able to find a humane solution. A. F. Koni, being a judicial and prosecutorial figure, always remained primarily a human being. He was able to see the hidden, hidden strings of the soul, which allowed him to influence the offender in the most humane way, forcing the latter to reflect on his behavior and actions. This is clearly evidenced by the example of the Nechaev case. In the 19th century, in Russia, on the day of the celebration of the Christian feast of the Annunciation, there was a tradition of releasing birds into the wild [13]. A certain elder Chernov decided to take advantage of this tradition, but instead of a bird, he decided to release a man: he bailed the prisoner Nechaev. Chernov brought Nechaev to his house and provided him with everything he needed. Nechaev did not appreciate Chernov’s good intentions. When he refused to indulge Nechaev’s sentiments, the latter killed Chernov. Moreover, the murder was committed in a brutal manner. Nechaev, back in prison, behaved brazenly and defiantly, did not express any signs of remorse for what he had done. At the same time, the prisoner turned to A. F. Koni with a request to give him two kittens from a cat that had accidentally given birth in his cell. A. F. Koni granted the request. However, when the jury sentenced Nechaev: guilty, he does not deserve leniency — he began to rampage in the cell. For this, he was threatened with being shackled in hand and foot shackles. It would seem that such a decision looks quite fair and justified in relation to Nechaev. However, A. F. Koni ordered a different course of action: he advised the caretaker of the prison castle to take the kittens from Nechaev. And this measure worked! Three days later, the caretaker again came to A.F. Koni with a request to give the kittens to Nechaev, since the latter tearfully asked to return the animals to him on condition of correction. Nechaev committed a grave, inhuman crime, showing all his basest motives. But even in it, A. F. Koni saw a man, even if he was a criminal, but still a man!

1. F. Koni believed that a lawyer should not judge based solely on the provisions of the law. He noted that it is necessary to study the internal component – the internal development of the crime, «to judge by conscience.» The story of the prisoner Nechaev, who killed his savior and raged in his cell, but was subdued… by kittens, which Koni ordered to be taken away from him and then returned on condition of correction, has become almost a parable about the power of mercy.
2. Results and discussions

During the study:

1) the issues of Koni’s formation as a lawyer have been  considered;

2) his contribution to the development of the criminal process at the beginning of the 20th century has been assessed;

3) significant lawsuits in the history of lawyers with the participation of Anatoly Fedorovich Koni have been mentioned; his educational activities after the 1917 revolution has been analyzed.

4. Conclusion

Anatoly Fedorovich Koni was not just an outstanding lawyer and a brilliant speaker, but the creator of the moral concept of justice, where ethics, humanism and respect for human dignity were placed above the formal letter of the law, which he successfully implemented in judicial practice, lawmaking, educational activities [14] and after the revolution.

This article aims, through the prism of Kony’s ideas about leniency and humanism towards the defendant, to open up to young lawyers the high moral standard on which real justice has always been held, and to inspire them to follow not the letter, but the spirit of the law.

Our goal is to expose the very core of A. F. Koni’s legal philosophy: the belief that the court should be merciful, and the criminal is not an object of punishment, but a person worthy of understanding. And to make this value the property of a new generation of Russian lawyers.

Konya’s unflagging interest in criminal procedure, judicial ethics, and public speaking shows that he was a central figure in Russian justice. Many of his ideas, from informing the jury about punishment to the prosecutor’s duty to drop charges in case of doubt, survived the empire, the revolution, and today continue to live in modern Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes. Koni built a bridge between dry dogma and living ethics, between law and conscience, and those who consider law to be an instrument of justice rather than an instrument of repression are still crossing this bridge. And his advice to novice speakers remains a desktop guide for anyone who wants to convince not by shouting, but by telling the truth.