Cosmetic production in the context of modernization processes in the late Russian Empire.

Umanskii Leonid Alekseevich ORCID: 0000-0002-2528-7402 Postgraduate student; Institute of Social Sciences; Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 82 Vernadsky Ave., Moscow, 119261, Russia leonidioum@yandex.ru

This text is devoted to how the consumer practices of the population of the Russian Empire changed during the era of Witte-Stolypin modernization, which resulted in an increase in the level of urbanization, using the example of the development of the cosmetics industry — cosmetics, personal care products, perfumes — in the 1880s and 1910s. The population in both Europe and Russia is migrating from rural to urban areas, which not only changes consumer practices, but also shifts the focus to consumption from the previously dominant and structural framework of production ^{[1, pp. 167-170]}. As K. Bailey writes, urbanization "refers to a cultural shift, implying [the beginning of] the prevalence of urban values over rural ones" ^{[2, p. 184]}.

The urbanization that accompanied the modernization of Witte-Stolypin (although there are ongoing discussions about how these processes were inseparable, see, for example, ^{[3, pp. 168-179]}) assumed a significant increase in the urban population — and regardless of the ratio of the vectors of mutual influence of the city and the countryside, the urban vector existed and formatted the behavioral patterns and daily practices of those who came from villages that flocked to the city in search of work. It is clear that cosmetics are somewhere between taking care of health and solving purely aesthetic problems, and for each individual this pendulum could deviate in one direction or another in different ways, but in the general population it can be argued that in this case we are still talking about the fact that "... health was It is recognized as an independent supreme value — this belief was first strengthened among representatives of the middle class and gradually became the property of the rest of society ..." ^{[4, p. 206]}. A vivid example of Bailey's "urban values" is that in the twentieth century, zemstvo doctors would put the following statements into the mouths of peasants: "Well, if now <...> if it is written to someone who was sent for sins, shouldn't he receive it?" ^{[5, p. 11]}, adding later on his own: "Through systematic readings, it is possible to spread information among the people on medicine with hygiene, which the village so stubbornly does not recognize" ^{[5, p. 11]}. 32].

A number of collections, lists and indexes on the manufacturing industry of the Russian Empire are becoming a key element of the source base. 1879 ^[6], 1884 ^[7], 1890 ^[8], 1894 ^[9], 1900 ^[10] and 1908 ^[11], supplemented by the industrial census of 1910-1912 ^[12]. First of all, attention will be focused on the first (1879) and last (1908) indexes. The census no longer contains data on individual enterprises, only aggregated figures for the industry, while the collections consist of file cabinets describing the establishments themselves — however, in the case of the first three editions, the factory must have more than 2,000 rubles of annual output in sections with fragmentary reference to the remaining ones. Both the indexes and the census are well known to specialists, and the old but still relevant work of B. Y. Rybakov can be cited as an example of source criticism ^[13]. In both cases, we will be interested in the chemical production section (volume). We draw your attention to this, since soap factories in them are divided into different departments: toilet (hygienic) gets into cosmetic and, consequently, chemical industries, while household production goes to its own section in the processing group of animal products, and it will not be considered in this article. The body of statistical materials makes it possible to trace the dynamics of the production of cosmetic products (production means, among other things, the number of establishments and the number of workers) and directly the production in monetary terms.

When using it as an auxiliary source, it is interesting to refer to the literary canon. The authors, as contemporaries, very often testify about interesting everyday details, without thinking about it themselves. When working with literary material, the website of the National Corpus of the Russian Language (the Classics section) was used, therefore, in some cases, links will be given not to complete works or other printed publications, but with an indication of this resource (we would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to all the authors and contributors of the project). The literary canon, along with some other materials, suggests, albeit discretely, the dynamics of consumption and the entry of cosmetic products into the daily circulation of the population.

In a review of V. Lobkovich's album "The Golden Age of Russian Perfumery and Cosmetics" (2005) published by samizdat (100 copies) in Minsk, K. Gusarova rightly notes that "perfumery and cosmetics are still marginal subjects for the history of culture" ^{[14, p. 327]}, and the impression that in two years decades later, something has fundamentally changed — no. In parallel with this publication, a similar album "Russian Perfumery (XIX — early XX century)" mentioned in the same review ^[15] is being reissued. Kozharinova (1998), the preface to which also tries to work in broad strokes, but which, nevertheless, remains more of an album, a set of photographs of museum exhibits. As a rule, the authors prefer to refer to the history of individual enterprises and names. As an example, one can cite articles by E. Mishina ^[16] or A. Platitsyn about G. Brokar ^[17] or A. Stochik about A.M. Ostroumov ^[18]. The article by A. Pervukhina ^[19], largely built again around the figure of Brocard, is devoted to the consumption of perfumery products on local (on the example of the city of Kurgan) archaeological material.

***

As already mentioned, the focus is on the number of enterprises, the number of jobs they provide, and the annual output in rubles. In some cases, it is problematic to track the dynamics in physical terms, and in most cases it is impossible.

In 1879, 27 cosmetic establishments were included in the factory list ^[6]: nine in Moscow province, nine in St. Petersburg, four in Warsaw, and one each in the provinces of Kovno, Courland, Livonia, Penza, as well as in Odessa, at that time a separate municipality.

More precisely, in fact, only twenty-six are counted as cosmetic, since the latter is counted for soap factories. Another company is missing: the summary table says that there are five establishments in the Kingdom of Poland, but only four are mentioned further. Such discrepancies are often explained by the fact that the company turns out to be too small for a filing cabinet, without passing the 2,000 RUB annual production limit, but not in this case. The compilers give a total figure for all five plants, and arithmetic shows that both in terms of production and the number of workers, the plant was missed, the indicators of which not only pass this qualification, but also exceed those of the last institution that received its card.

If you look at the list of products produced by these enterprises, you will find:

- Soap of different grades: 18 establishments;

- Perfumes: 15 establishments;

- Lipstick: 13 establishments;

- Cologne (allocated separately): 5 establishments;

- "Cosmetic items": 3 establishments;

- "Powders" (as in the source, there can be a great many interpretations; most likely, we are talking about the so—called. "dry perfumes" - powders in sachet envelopes. It seems that this may be a prototype of shampoo, which also began with powders, but for the 1870s and 1880s this assumption still seems premature), whitewash, blush, scented oils, powder, Bormani balm (it is not very clear what exactly it is about, but given that the owner's last name is Borman, we can assume a certain unique recipe, kept secret, but clearly popular.: 17,500 rubles of annual production only on it) — for one institution.

It should be noted that the source does not contain a specific breakdown, whether in physical terms or in rubles, so the question of the ratio of items in this list for each individual enterprise can only be guessed, but it should be borne in mind that the process of making cosmetics could be common for different types of products: "Floral lipsticks are divided according to The degree of their saturation with essential oils is divided into several varieties, of which the highest are used to make perfumes, and the weakly perfumed ones are sold as various lipsticks" ^[20].

For example, the Yuzhakov encyclopedia (ed. 1904) will talk about the same list, along the way pronouncing the categorization of nomenclature from the point of view of chemistry: cosmetics are a compound of fragrant substances either with alcohol (perfumes, essences, etc.), or with fat (lipsticks), or with oil or vinegar., powder or soap. Flowers are primarily assumed to be scented substances ^[21].

It is noteworthy that all the enterprises are located within the city, despite the fact that the production of at least some products was quite odorous (although, of course, they should have been far from the tanners). However, if we turn to the sanitary legislation of that era [see e.g. 22], it becomes clear that the townspeople did not have any special levers of influence. From an economic point of view, this arrangement looks just logical.

In terms of the number of workers employed at one enterprise and, accordingly, the output per person, the industry is small: in 1879, out of 26 establishments, only one employed over one hundred and fifty (166) people, two employed about 80 (79 and 80), and five more employed about 30. The rest were even smaller; the median figure was 12 people. A total of 604 workers were employed at the factories in question.

The class-gender distribution of owners is interesting. In 1879, twenty—three of the establishments under consideration were run by men and three by women. The absolute number of the latter may be small, but if converted into percentages, the share will be noticeable — 12%. At the same time, it is out of the question that they account for the smallest production figures. They pale in comparison to the large enterprises of the same city of Brokar, for example, but at the same time they bypass some establishments owned by male owners. If the gender definition of owners is known to us in all cases, then the class definition, unfortunately, is not always represented. Of the twenty—six establishments, thirteen were run by merchants (in two cases by a firm), another by a foreign national (and we are not talking about a Broker who was already enrolled in the merchant class), one by a hereditary honorary citizen, another by a trading house, and the last known one was an apothecary. The source does not contain any information about the remaining owners.

***

If we take one of the intermediate sections, focusing on the collection for 1894 ^[9], it will contain only sixteen enterprises that can be classified as cosmetic: six in the Moscow province, five in Warsaw, three in St. Petersburg, and one each in Livonia and Kharkov. Apart from two villages — Rostokino of the Moscow district and the province and, twice, Varshavsky Village — they were located in provincial towns. Compared to 1879, the number of establishments is decreasing, the amount of production is growing — from 2.5 million to 4.3 million rubles. The number of workers will also be higher, but not so much — 845 versus 604 people.

Attention is drawn to the already casually noted reduction in the number of production regions — only five instead of eight in 1879: Moscow with villages, Warsaw with them, St. Petersburg, Riga and Kharkov. One would expect the opposite trend — a further expansion of geography, but no: the concentration of productive forces appears to be the dominant factor.

Let's return to the conversation about products and note that despite the apparent narrowness of the industry, it did not require any specific resources or, rather, allowed adaptation to local realities and markets. So, if you turn to the production of lipstick, you will notice that this product turns out to be free from geographical reference due to lard as a base, and as an alternative, the author of the article of the same name in the Brockhaus dictionary calls rose petals and lemon peel a little more demanding than lard, but still quite common. components. "The most delicate odorous substances, most appreciated in perfumery, are extracted from plants of temperate climate. Graz, Cannes and Nice are the main points of the current perfume industry. Nice is famous for its violets, Cannes for its roses, acacias, jasmine and orange blossom; It is famous for thyme, rosemary, lavender; Italy supplies iris and bergamot," another dictionary entry says, and it is clear that most of the plants do not look alien to Russia, especially if we talk specifically about the empire and the variability of the climate on its territory. The above Brockhaus shampoo recipe — soap, potash, water, alcohol, and perfume — does not contain any hard-to-reach ingredients. We do not discuss the effectiveness of certain cosmetics in this text (except for obvious suspicions of fraud), this is a separate interesting topic that requires a sufficient number of ego documents as a source base. Note, however, that the Garnet dictionary explicitly prescribes that there are useful cosmetics, there are useless cosmetics, but also harmless cosmetics (the authors primarily refer to hair restoration products as such), and there are harmful cosmetics; no specific nomenclature is given as examples, but substances that are considered dangerous are named: arsenic, lead and mercury ^{[23, p. 267]}.

Returning directly to the section for 1894, it is interesting to note that Brockhaus, in a paper published in the following year — it is difficult to assume that the situation has changed radically — writes that "the most common cosmetic product at present should be considered perfumed powders used by women to give the skin a soft and matte appearance ..." ^[20], but from sixteen establishments produced it (in sufficient quantity for recording; recall that the collections separately mention key products for the enterprise), only seven — and among them there will be no leaders in terms of output in either Warsaw or Moscow provinces (in St. Petersburg — there will be). And again about the [non-]spread of cosmetic industries: "The main material [for powder] are various high grades of starch — rice and wheat, very often mixed with white (Venetian or Briancon) talc powder" ^[20]. Whatever crops predominate in the crops of a particular province, it is difficult to imagine that there would not be enough wheat for the factory. It is also not worth focusing on the declared foreign origin of talc, since it is produced by "many localities in the Urals, for example, near the Polyakovsky mine, in the vicinity of Yekaterinburg, the Nizhne-Saldinsky plant, etc." ^[24] or even "Because slate is known in Canada, the United States, Sweden, Norway, and some areas of Germany, but in a special way it is widespread in the Urals" ^[25], therefore, at least in the era of modernization and, consequently, the deployment of the railway network, it is hardly appropriate to consider it as something inaccessible.

***

A notable difference between the collections for 1894 and beyond will be the blurring of categorical frameworks. If Orlov's indexes assumed the existence of departments, each of which was divided into subsections (and cosmetic industries occupied just such a niche of the second level), then subsequent compilers limited themselves to only one level, therefore, the allocation of cosmetic establishments from the chemical group generally depends on the observer, in this case, the author of this text. In addition to removing the second level of classification, the situation is complicated by the fact that already in the collection for 1894 (and by 1908 nothing had changed), multidisciplinary institutions appeared in the indexes — or, more likely, began to be fixed. Therefore, it is impossible to say for sure how many cosmetic establishments there were in 1908. Our approximate estimate, which includes institutions that the author of a text on the history of pharmacy, for example, can also consider suitable, will be more than thirty — up to a maximum of thirty—two enterprises.

If we look at what kind of products we are talking about in 1908 ^[11], the breakdown will be as follows:

- Soap — up to 29 establishments;

- Cologne — up to 22 establishments;

- Perfumes — up to 19 establishments;

- Pudra — one establishment;

- Powders is one institution.

At the same time, it is clear that, as in the case of the corresponding list for 1879, we can only talk about the most significant and, accordingly, separately named positions by the compilers, in addition to which there are so-called "other cosmetics" and other similar formulations. It is noteworthy that the lipstick completely (!) disappears from the list. Perhaps its share was not very high before (although the 1910-1912 census later recorded from 170 to 190 thousand rubles of annual output), but it still catches the eye — probably not even a reduction in production, but a shift in emphasis. It is noteworthy that at the same time as the National Corpus of the Russian language in the classical literature section (in the beta stage at the time of writing the text. The upper chronological frame is not set on the site, but the texts for the 1910s are still found), which we use, gives its last mention in the text (Chekhov's "The Story of an Unknown Man") written in 1894.

Brockhaus's dictionary also suggests referring to cosmetics as various kinds of essences. We agree with him, but when extracting data from the indexes, we put them out of brackets, since the compilers of the indexes, as far as can be judged, more often combine them with pharmaceutical products, and an error of this level seems unnecessary. In the collection for 1908 they are mentioned twice, but once — in this particular coupling, once — separately, but with only 623 (!) rubles of annual output from the enterprise. If there are suspicions of missing at least one digit in the source, this institution is not taken into account. On the “census” sections of 1910-1912, essences are taken into account.

Between 1879 and 1908, the amount of annual production increased from 2.5 million to 16.4 million rubles. (As an assumption, even if we consider the institution to be cosmetic, its production still remains multi—component; nevertheless, the order can be imagined) in monetary terms, that is, six and a half times. The dynamics of the number of workers (with the same reservations) can be considered as an increase of about the same six times: from a few hundred to 3.6 thousand; at the same time, the median figure, in 1879, we recall, was 12, by 1908 it sharply increased to 80 people per enterprise.

By 1908, female surnames were disappearing from the owners' lists. The class or at least status definition is not known to everyone, at least nothing can be said about four. There are fewer merchants — if in 1879 we wrote about thirteen people, only four are recorded in this section. But the number (although definitions may overlap) of trading houses, partnerships and firms is growing — there are five, eleven and three (plus three joint-stock companies), respectively, against, let us recall, one trading house in 1879.

If you look at how production is distributed across enterprises, then two leaders will immediately catch your eye in the Moscow province. The shares that we will use next should be considered approximate due to the reservations made above about the maximum number of plants and production in general. Nevertheless, making such a remark and still looking at at least approximate figures seems to be a more interesting option than just putting the plot out of brackets. So, there are two leaders in Moscow: A. Rallet and G. Brocard with 29% and 25% of the total output, respectively; thus, in total they account for more than half (54%). A. is in third place. Witty with 14%, which brings the total share of the top three to 68%, definitely breaking the two-thirds mark. There are three establishments in the Livonia province, but the output is divided not into three, but into two parts — one of them accounts for only 3% of the total. There are five institutions in the St. Petersburg province, but two of them are again producing almost 80% of the output — the St. Petersburg Techno-Chemical Laboratory Partnership (35%) and the St. Petersburg Chemical Laboratory Joint-stock company, which previously operated under the banner of J. Dutfois (44%). The situation with specific indicators in the Warsaw province practically repeats the Moscow one — 28%, 25%, 14% in the first three institutions on the list. But it is interesting, at the same time, that if in Moscow such figures show old establishments — the same Broker started working almost twenty years before the first of the reference books we use, then in Warsaw these first 28% and 25% of factories, which were fixed by indexes for the first time in 1908 (so if they appeared and before, the output was not very noticeable). Finally, there are also three establishments in the Kherson province, but unlike in the Baltic region, the breakdown, still highlighting the leader, turns out to be a little fairer: 57%, 26% and 16% (a small technical remark – all three indicators are such that when rounded to whole numbers, one percent really disappears).

At the same time, if we go back to 1879 and look at similar indicators for it, it turns out that we can talk, if not about the alignment of shares, then at least about the corresponding trend. So, in the Moscow province, the institution of F. Dutfois (in 1908 — Rallet) provides 59% of the total output, the Brocard establishment — 20%. Further, P. Kozlov has 7%, and Sioux has 6%. The five remaining enterprises share the remaining 8%. In St. Petersburg, 74% is accounted for by a single (Zh. Dutfois) the institution following it is only 6%. Warsaw was also leveling off by 1908 — it came to the aforementioned 28 and 25 percentages from 62% and 21%.

It should be noted that such shares clearly explain why the authors of both the scientific articles we mentioned above and materials on various popular scientific websites focus on specific enterprises, most often choosing Brokar. These figures suggest that in the case of the cosmetics industry, we are talking about an oligopoly — and it is clear that key players seem preferable to less significant figures who need to find their own way to the researcher. For example, S. Chepelevetsky, a Jew by birth, turns out to be remembered most often precisely in connection with this fact (see, for example, at least the bibliography to the article about him in Wikipedia ^[26]).

If we talk about output, about the total amount of production, then from 1879 to 1908, as already mentioned, it grows from 2.5 million rubles to 16.4 million. But was it enough? Apparently not. So, if you look at the data on the foreign trade of the Russian Empire for 1904-1909, cosmetics cannot be found in the export part. Mendeleev will write about exports in relation to 1888-1889, but the figures will be modest against the background of the well—known output for 1890 of 2.2 million rubles - 141 (with reservations) and 208 thousand rubles, respectively ^{[27, p. 553]}. But cosmetics will be presented in the import section, and the figures in monetary terms will grow.:

- 1904 — 2.28 million rubles .;

- 1905 — 2.55;

- 1906 — 3.40;

- 1907 — 3.24;

- 1908 — 3.06;

- 1909 — 3.48 million rubles ^{[28, p. 315]}.

1. Dynamics of cosmetic products imports to the Russian Empire (1904-1909) Source: ^[28]

Figure 1 shows that the peak for this short period will be reached in the post-revolutionary year, after which the indicator will begin to decline, turning around again by the last year, 1909, but this does not negate the fact that in 1908 imports accounted for almost 20% of domestic production. It is clear that when converted to natural products, its share should decrease, but, nevertheless, such figures clearly allow us to make a statement about the excess of demand over supply. In addition, we note that it is 1908 that turns out to be an anomaly from the point of view of production, and if we compare 1909 with the nearest next cut, 1910, then 3.5 million rubles of imports will amount to 40% of domestic production. Returning to the issue of consumer categories, we note that the collection for 1894 contains two samples of advertisements from just foreign companies, the Parisian L. Legrand and Ed. Pinaud, and the first manufacturer has the entire text in French, there is not a word in Russian. It's easy to guess which audience they were targeting and how widespread this product was. Pinot's announcement is in Russian, but the good news about taking the Grand Prix at the 1889 exhibition also casts doubt on the availability of this supplier's products, although it is clear that the range could include different product lines, including cost differences. But it should be understood that the schedule refers to the time of the customs tariff of 1891, which was as severe as possible in relation to the industry in question. So, perfumes and lipsticks were "cleaned", as it was called then, with a duty of 35 rubles in gold per gross pound, i.e., with a container ^{[29, art. 119.2]}, therefore, it was hardly worth expecting affordable import items. Other cosmetics (as well as some individual perfumes) it was at a lower level — 16 rubles (and 7 rubles 20 kopecks ) . for cosmetic soap, both figures are also from the gross weight), but compared to most other goods, these duties still turn out to be high.

At the same time, the third announcement, by the domestic company Rall, on the contrary, focuses on accessibility: "... floral water [,] which has made the delicate fragrance of perfumes accessible to the poor ..." ^[30]. The same ad lists the distribution points of the Moscow company's goods.: Three stores in Moscow, two in St. Petersburg, and one each in Odessa and Kharkov; these included the largest Irbit and Nizhny Novgorod and other unnamed fairs (by 1909, according to another advertisement, branches had appeared in Warsaw, Yekaterinburg, and Tiflis, although Odessa had closed).

Perhaps it was the branches of large companies that proved to be an obstacle to the emergence of local production, which led to the above-mentioned features of the spatial location of enterprises producing cosmetic products. So, it was Nizhny Novgorod that was cited above as an example of the absence of such production, but maybe the well-known fair here turned out to be a factor working against, and not for, a regional producer? So, by 1909 (possibly earlier), R. Koehler's Moscow enterprise, according to another advertisement ^[31], had a branch even in Vladivostok (!), in addition to five outlets in Moscow proper, five in St. Petersburg and one at the Nizhny Novgorod fair. Would there be an entrepreneur in Nizhny Novgorod or the province who is ready to compete with such a competitor? But it was mentioned in the paragraph above that, even if not by a branch, the Rally product is also represented at the fair.… Or Ostroumov's company — in 1913, this Moscow institution had branches or warehouses, in addition to two Moscow stores proper, could be found at the same Nizhny Novgorod fair, in St. Petersburg, Odessa, Warsaw and Tashkent ^[32].

At the moment, we do not have an answer to the question of what a branch is in terms of production as such. Was the same Koehler transporting goods from Moscow to Vladivostok, or was it produced on his behalf directly on the spot, without being included in statistics at all or being considered for Moscow? This is a fundamental issue, but at the moment it requires further expansion of the source base. Probably, the answer will lie somewhere in the middle - something was being transported, something was being hindered on the spot, but for now let's leave this assumption at the level of a hypothesis.

Therefore, it is possible that there were no barriers between the product and the consumer, and new practices spread throughout (figuratively, of course) the empire, while production turned out to be localized quite compactly, and those who had already managed to occupy a niche in their territory occupied the general imperial market, preventing new production points from appearing in the empire. regions. Probably, in the era of steam — again, you can return to the plot with Chekhov, from Yalta, asking his wife from Moscow to send the missing — there were no special problems with this.

***

It is worth noting that the concepts that are familiar at first glance do not always correspond to expectations, which Gusarova will also briefly mention ^{[14, p. 329]}. So, for our reader, the word "lipstick" will primarily suggest a lip product, but contemporaries in the 1850s and 1880s would really think more about hair styling: "Pyotr Vasilich's mustache seemed almost black from the frill, and his hair, curled steeply in front in the form of two oblong sausages., glistened brightly with lipstick" ^[33], can be found at Turgenev's. Or as Saltykov-Shchedrin would write: "Maybe they're putting truffle lipstick on their heads, sir? Polovinkin doubted."^[34] "On this day, he shaved, washed his face with soap, smeared his hair with lipstick, put on his boots with a creak, as if he were going to communion."^[35] Technically, Brockhaus in 1898 defines lipstick as "pork, bovine, or any other kind of fat perfumed with aromatic substances" ^[36]. Although they also knew the lipstick: "He wants her to like him, he puts lipstick on his nose, and she says, 'It's even worse this way.'"^[37] It is not possible to consider these varieties as separate items in the statistical material used.

There are no such discrepancies with cologne, but it could have another purpose — to serve as a medicinal drug.: "At night he coughed, and she gave him raspberries and lime blossom to drink, rubbed him with cologne, wrapped him in her soft shawls" ^[38] at Chekhov's. Or, in his case: "The cook advises him to rinse his teeth with vodka, the mother — to apply grated horseradish with kerosene to his cheek; the sister recommends cologne mixed with ink, the aunt smeared his gums with iodine..." ^[39]. The Brockhaus dictionary will write about the same thing: "... which in the old days, and even now, still partially retains the glory of a medicinal remedy, due to the refreshing and cooling properties inherent in good varieties of this kind of perfume..." ^[20].

It is worth making a small remark here and recalling that for most of the 19th century, the miasmatic theory prevailed in the minds of people far from science, according to which bad smell, bad air turned out to be a source of infections and epidemics. Therefore, when talking about manufacturing, we consider cosmetics and pharmaceuticals as separate industries — but in the minds of people of that era, this line was much more fluid, and both industries worked to create a "hygienic person", as Osterhammel calls it ^{[4, p. 206]}.

Soap, it should be noted, also had tasks that do not always come to mind for today's reader.: "Immediately after these words, the executioners — there are several of them, one cannot handle such a difficult task — dilute the soap and soap the rope loops so that they tighten better, take hold of the chained ones, put shrouds on them, lead them to a platform with gallows and put rope loops around their necks" ^[40]. To put it a little more seriously, it was with soap that they washed their hair. Shampoo's victorious march across Europe, including Russia, dates back to the twentieth century, already during the Soviet period, although Brockhaus also provides recipes ("1 part pure mild soap, 2 parts potash, 20 parts water, 2 parts alcohol and some kind of perfume" ^[20]). In the meantime, "But I'm glad of the soap, I'll wash my hair today" ^[41]. The same applies to teeth. In America, toothpaste appeared in the 1870s, but the novelty reached the Russian Empire slowly and was not reflected in statistical collections. "I brush my teeth with your soap and remember you every time," ^[42] Chekhov writes, although the paste slowly appears in advertising publications and pharmacies: "Then he saw rubber circles, balls, syringes, jars of toothpaste, drops of Pierro, drops of Adelheim, cosmetic soaps, ointment for hair growth..." ^[43]. It is noteworthy that the issue of brushing teeth was raised separately at the Pirogov congresses — D. Zhbankov writes about this, in particular, summarizing his impressions of the VIII Congress ^[44], which took place in 1902 and became one of the most numerous ^[45].

I would also like to include in the literary tradition an incomprehensible balm named after the owner of the institution and presented — like the institution itself — in only one collection, for 1879. We do not know who or what became the source of inspiration for the writer, which newspaper article or advertisement he came across shortly before starting work on this work, but Chekhov has a short story about a hero who, since childhood, "devoted his life to finding new means to cure suffering horses, and if he has enough abilities, then people. He mixed sand with honey, honey with wax, wax with lard and stirred these and many other substances until a perturbation was obtained that had neither smell nor appearance, but was suitable for any use" ^[46]. "Having smeared himself with this ointment and not dying from it, A. I. concluded very reasonably that this ointment was healing and that it should be sold for 2 rubles per jar. Having concluded this, he published advertisements in newspapers, and from that time (1875) his fame began. But where there is glory, there are envious and ill-wishers. The ointment, which can cure all kinds of diseases and at the same time is used successfully instead of lipstick, wax, tar and putty, has led many small-minded minds into confusion. Accusations of charlatanism, impudence and exploitation of ignorance began to pour in."^[46] Who knows if the same fate might not have befallen Ms. Borman? This year fits perfectly into our story, and it seems logical to draw certain parallels. "Because I not only used his new ointment for acne, but also treated myself with it for binge drinking and used it for bedbugs and other parasites" ^[46] — well, who among our readers would not buy such an advertisement?

***

Russian classical literature is mainly noble and non—noble literature. And according to the quotations that illustrate the text, it is clearly visible that for these classes cosmetics in the second half of the 19th century had already become something familiar, an integral part of everyday life. However, habits don't mean accessibility, probably not always financially. If you look at Chekhov's letters from Yalta, the refrain is either sadness about the lack of cosmetics, or joy at finding them, and often through the mailings of their correspondents; apparently, there was no opportunity to buy on the spot. And what about the workers (as in the case of the city above, let's omit the difficulties of definition) and the peasants?

For those social groups that were primarily affected by modernization and the accompanying urbanization as a complex of social rather than economic processes, the relationship with cosmetics could be different. "They heat it with straw, or the women chop the firewood. They rarely wash themselves with soap. Thrush from uncleanness, nipples hurt" ^[47], Tolstoy would write about the peasants even in 1910. "In the next town, I already bought two pounds of soap and distributed it to the women and children again, but Pyotr Semyonov was angry with me for this: he found that if you give soap, you have to give many other things that you can't do without, and then you can't put an end to the necessities" ^[48]. It was written on behalf of a man of a higher class and about twenty years earlier, in the 1890s, and it is clear that the situation among the peasants has changed little. Therefore, the following excerpt, taken from the memoirs of a factory inspector, looks like slyness on the part of the director and the shopkeeper, who do not want to lose face in front of the author.:

«...Finally, we entered the last, third, part of the shop, where there was a huge store of manufactory, haberdashery and perfumes for the provincial hinterland. Here you could find everything from cheap chintz to Sioux and Brocard perfumes.

— Why are you holding such things? Vasily Vasilyevich asked, pointing to an expensive perfume product.

—But you can't," they ask. By God, even the craftsmen are asking. They love, you know, too, for example, to bring perfumes or soap to their darling; and the surrounding residents also take it, some of the station landlords..." ^{[49, pp. 108-109]}.

However, Brocard's name is primarily associated — which also applies to articles published relatively recently — not with expensive perfumes, but, on the contrary, with the cheapest soap, which made a significant contribution to the sanitary revolution: "Both the untouched soap with printed letters, and towels, and she herself — all this was equally clean, fresh, untouched, pleasant" ^[50]. It is recognized by the very letters by which, according to legend, they could learn to read. Moreover, this surname could even be used as a synonym for soap: "Malades [sick] — I don't know, but (plugging my nose) Brocar is needed" ^[51]. Although cheapness had a downside to the coin: "My dear horse, did I write to you about my failure: Brocar powder does not soap, i.e. it does not foam" ^[52]. How can I not remember the slogan of the Warsaw Pulse factory: "It is not prices and conditions that compete, but the quality of products" ^[53].

It is probably also worth recalling that people arriving in the city in search of work faced the problem of unresolved housing issues during this and subsequent modernizations, and in the case of sanitary and hygienic practices, this meant that they were collective, not private: "Now the long-haired one will come out of the bathhouse, - he turned to the guy who was standing behind the counter and selling soap, — so you, tovo ... take a look at him" ^[54]. Soap came into circulation gradually: "My uniform was examined and praised for the kindness and satininess of the cloth; my collar was felt and assured that it could not be distinguished from a real beaver; my soap was shown to each other and, in a fit of enthusiasm, the whole piece was soaped at once" ^[55], Saltykov—Shchedrin would write years ago. ten years before the period we are considering.

It is clear that it will be difficult to consider a limited number of disparate quotations as a representative sample that answers the question of the relations of the lower classes with the products of the cosmetics industry. But they can be reinforced by referring to statistics. From the tables given by S. Prokopovich in his essay "The Budgets of St. Petersburg workers", it follows that in 1908, depending on the income level, a worker spent from 6.94 to 24.17 (15.57 on average) rubles per year. single and from 9.06 to 40.60 (24.57) rubles. family (on the whole family, the cost per person in this case will be lower than for single people) ^[56]. And this is taking into account the fact that Prokopovich specifically notes that his sample is not just from St. Petersburg, i.e., the capital, but also consists of workers who are more prosperous, if they can be described in this way, than the average representative of this class (in St. Petersburg).

Good soap turns out to be a marker of prosperity, and in the quote we are probably not even talking about workers, but already about philistinism.: "Chizhik, a new samovar pipe and fragrant glycerin soap are the symptoms by which a married man's apartment is recognized..." ^[57]. Although whether it gets to the married themselves is a question, soap turns out to be a symbol, albeit somewhat ironic, of economical farming.: "That's right, my son. What do wives do without soap? — The heads of husbands" ^[58]. But at the same time, she could also be a marker of social contradictions: "People, women, weak sick children worked 12 hours a day, killing their lives, doing some unnecessary nonsense for the rich: sweets, perfumes, bronzes and all sorts of rubbish, and these rich people calmly took into their bursting excess coffers are the money extracted by these expenditures of human lives" ^[59] or even more sharply: "But in Moscow, very soon, this reassurance collapsed, and questions about why people's lives turned out to be such that some people buy perfumes for three rubles, while others go days without eating, and bells ring in churches and icons and brocaded vestments shine with gold, began to come more and more often"^[60]. One could say that the late Tolstoy is a rather harsh author, and can exaggerate to achieve the desired effect, but Prokopovich can also find such quotes from his questionnaires: "[to cover the budget deficit] I'm cutting down on food, i.e. instead of a hot lunch, you'll buy a pickle, that's lunch; besides it happens that you would go to the sauna, but there is no money, you will stay until another time; also with laundry, you go dirty for another week" ^{[56, p. 55]}. From the questionnaires collected, Prokopovich deduces a direct correlation between the income level of a worker and his family status — earnings below a certain (400 rubles per year) bar do not allow us to think about starting a family in principle, this money is barely enough for one person. The income level between 400 and 600 rubles allows you to get married, after 600 you can already think about one child. At the same time, the average salary in St. Petersburg is 300 rubles per year. And here — perfume for three rubles.

***

Let's return to statistics, referring to the dynamics of the basic indicators — the number of establishments, the amount of output, the number of workers — for the entire period under review, from 1879 to 1912. Below are graphs showing the dynamics of these indicators.

Fig. 2. Dynamics of the number of cosmetic factories and related ones (1879-1912) Source: ^{[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]}

The graph shown in Fig. 2 allows us to talk about two stages of the development of cosmetic industries. At the first stage, between 1879 and 1894, consolidation took place, and the number of establishments decreased. In the second period, from 1894 to 1912, their number began to grow again. The final figure, however, will still not be very different from the initial one — 41 versus 26. An increase of one and a half times, but for an empire that is rapidly changing its habits and practices, it does not seem to be something serious.

The collection for 1908 turns out to be the last edition with a card file, which contains data on individual institutions. The number of enterprises by the 1910s can only be estimated from approximately one of the summary tables of the corresponding volume of the industrial census for 1910-1912, in which cosmetics are combined with pharmaceuticals. The combined figures for the two groups, however, suggest that there are no fundamental changes — after 32 maximum assumptions for 1908, they look like 34, 37 and 41, respectively. It can be said that one enterprise in the Livonia province has definitely closed — two of them after three in 1908, one in St. Petersburg (4 against 5), probably one in Kherson (3 in 1908 and 2-2-3 according to the census) and the same in Warsaw province (8 against 7-7-8). The industry remains small in terms of the number of workers, with 3804 people employed in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals at their peak in 1910.

In addition, there are certain issues related to the census that are predetermined by its structure — information on products is placed in one table, on the number of establishments and workers in another, and these tables do not always relate to each other in an understandable way. So, for lack of an opportunity to follow the logic of the authors and, consequently, challenge it, we are forced to talk about fourteen provinces by 1912 and the corresponding number of factories shown in the graph above. But among them there is, for example, the Elizavetpol province, the entire chemical industry of which was reduced to lubricating oil. In that case, what kind of establishment was it, classified as cosmetics-pharmaceuticals? The story is similar with the Minsk province. At the moment, it is not possible to answer questions of this kind, and it can only be noted that the graph overestimates the real indicators with a noticeable degree of probability.

Fig. 3. Dynamics of production of cosmetic plants and related ones (1879-1912) Source: ^{[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]}

According to the graph in Fig. 3, it is clearly noticeable that the process of increasing the amount of production is progressive. Small fluctuations between 1879 and 1890, followed by a smooth rise with one exception in the form of 1908, the data for which turn out to be an anomaly that disappears on the next slice, which again shows approximately the same growth rates as before.

Table 1. The chain increase in the production of cosmetics plants and related ones (1879-1912)

The data is calculated by the author based on ^{[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]}

What is happening by 1908? When working with a set of sources, the first thought is different approaches to the categorical apparatus and other issues of a source—based nature. But the list of product types mentioned by the enterprises from which we form the list of "cosmetics" in 1908 remains approximately the same. It contains products that are not related to cosmetics, but this is an assumption that cannot be avoided. However, there is always the possibility of confusion between toilet soap and household soap, according to which, in 1908, not very many enterprises were registered in the relevant department of processing animal products. Perhaps some soap factories moved to the chemical department with the stroke of an author's pen - it is not possible to test this hypothesis on the material of the collection itself.

If we look at how the indicators of the amount of production are growing in the period 1900-1908, it should be recognized that they are growing in almost all regions, albeit unevenly:

- Across the empire, the total is 2.7 times;

- In the Warsaw province — 1.7 times;

- In Kiev — by 6.9 times;

- In Livonia — 2.1 times;

- In Moscow — 3 times;

- In St. Petersburg — 3.3 times;

- In Kherson region, it is halving, and the growth is 0.6 times.

It is noticeable that the figures for individual provinces are comparable to those for the empire as a whole. There are two exceptions, but they are quite easily explained, primarily by size.: these are the regions that go to the bottom two lines in terms of production (in 1908, the newly emerged Lublin province among those with cosmetic industries should be placed under them, but due to its absence in the cut to 1900 and the tiny size of production, it is not taken into account); in 1900, the Kherson region is five times smaller than the next Petersburg province, Kievskaya is two times smaller than Kherson, in 1908 Kievskaya is four times smaller than the next Livonia, and Kherson Kievskaya is five and a half times smaller. And [and this applies not only to the cosmetics industry], the lower the total output, the higher the importance of various factors and accidents that can be offset by the size of production.

However, the growth itself should not be considered as the main anomaly. If a number of conditions are met, then it turns out to be self-evident. The fall in the period 1908-1910 turns out to be more interesting. We wrote above that the anomaly is winding down, and the growth rate is returning to about the same numbers as before. Maybe. That's exactly what follows from the graph. But can this pullback be considered natural and the "old" growth rates be considered as a kind of norm after the peak of 1908? In addition, it should be borne in mind that the reduction in output occurred simultaneously with the expansion of the geography of production — if in 1908 we are talking about seven provinces, in 1910 — already about twelve.

The likely answer may lie in the fact that it was during this period that the revolution of 1905 occurred. According to A. Finn-Enotaevsky, one of the prominent Russian specialists, this event had a more noticeable impact not on production, but on consumption, which was facilitated by concessions to workers from the government and manufacturers, which raised the purchasing power of the population ^[61]. And then, automatically, on the wave of demand growth, production and supply crept up. At some point — we're talking about the cutoff for 1908, but we don't know what happened in 1907 and 1909. — This growth reaches a peak, after which it begins to fade.

Returning to the story of import substitution and the draconian duties of 1891, one can ask the question, did Mendeleev and other authors of the tariff manage to push the development of the domestic chemical industry, in this case— its cosmetic branch? Realizing that this reason is unlikely to be the only one, one can still answer: it is quite likely. The graph and, accordingly, the table clearly show that after 1890 there has been a steady increase in annual output, with the 1894 figure doubling that of 1890, and almost one and a half times that of 1900 and 1894.

Fig. 4 Dynamics of the number of workers in cosmetics factories and those classified as such (1879-1912) Source: ^{[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]}

The third graph (see Fig. 4), reflecting the dynamics of the number of workers, is divided into three parts. The first segment, from 1879 to 1894, is characterized by fluctuations at approximately the same level, let's call it M. Then there was a sharp increase in the number of workers between 1894 and 1908, after which there were more fluctuations, but at a new level, let it be N. At the same time, it can be seen that in part of the M-period, in 1879-1890, the fluctuations are visually identical to those on the output graph. At the same time, the last piece of the M-segment, 1890-1894, is an excellent illustration of the modernization processes in general: let us recall that during these years the number of establishments was sharply decreasing, while the number of workers, on the contrary, was growing, albeit not very much. Further, it follows from the graph that there was no abnormal growth or similar decline in the 1908 cut — there was growth, and it was very significant, but at a rate comparable to the 1894-1900 step. Accordingly, the decline in the period 1908-1910 is also observed, but not as dramatic as on the production schedule. N-fluctuations turn out to be more noticeable than M, but it should be borne in mind that they occur in a larger number of provinces and, albeit only slightly, institutions, which cannot but affect the number and heterogeneity of the factors that determine them. Summarizing the graph as a whole, we can say that if in 1879 the industry provided jobs for less than a thousand people, by 1912 this figure will be about four times higher, but the bar of four thousand will not be broken.

The results of this work can be considered the construction of dynamic series for 1879-1912 based on the basic indicators of the cosmetic group of the chemical industry based on a number of indexes of factories and plants and the industrial census — the amount of production, the number of factories, the number of workers. The following theses can be considered as conclusions.

The amount of production in the analyzed segment is increasing, but this trend can be considered positive only for the cosmetics industry as a whole and a number of the largest enterprises; these cumulative figures — from 1879 to 1912. production increases from 2.5 million to 11 million rubles. — each time, in each considered section, accounted for a new set of enterprises. From the point of view of nomenclature, cosmetic products at the beginning of the period under consideration are primarily cologne, perfumes, lipstick and toilet soap.

The number of employed workers also increases by about the same four times, from a conditional thousand to a conditional four. This is not a lot — in the same provinces where cosmetic and/or pharmaceutical production was recorded in 1912, the total number of workers in the chemical industry in the same year was 38.5 thousand people.

The number of establishments itself is also small and amounts to four dozen at its peak (final, 1912) according to the most optimistic estimate. The cosmetics industry is predictably the most developed in the metropolitan provinces, while the total number of regions in which it is represented is small (twelve as the maximum estimate) and noticeably less than expected. Enterprises are located mainly in cities (for obvious reasons, taking the issue of their borders beyond the scope of this text). As mentioned above, instability can be considered a distinctive feature of the industry — the dry figures of the dynamics of the number of factories reflect an incomplete picture, leaving behind the scenes the closure of some enterprises and the opening of new ones. At the same time, it is worth remembering that the number of establishments in the case of the cosmetics industry is the beginning of a fractal, these are production points from which the network of branches and other sales outlets diverges. The text mentioned specific examples, but there were undoubtedly more. From this point of view, cosmetic production can be considered a supra—regional plot that exists within not just one province, but the empire as a whole, taking into account imports, even more broadly. In this regard, cosmetics can also be considered as a kind of equalizer, if we assume that, say, the Vladivostok branch supplied the same product that was sold in Moscow (at least in terms of quality, not quantity of articles), we can talk about a certain blurring of the boundaries between the center and the periphery.

Such an arrangement of production correlates with consumption: as far as can be judged, the conclusions here turn out to be predictable, if not trivial. Among the well—to-do urban stratum of the older generation, and along with them, the use of cosmetics is becoming the norm, as far as can be judged from the texts of contemporaries, but the philistines, the peasantry, and factory workers are reluctant to accept cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, partly for financial reasons, partly for ideological reasons.

The question remains about the reason for the relatively modest spread of production points — the manufacturing processes described by contemporaries do not allow us to talk about insurmountable obstacles at the production stage, which suggests limitations either at the distribution stage or at the consumption stage. The import figures suggest that, despite what was said in the paragraph above, it is impossible to consider the market full. As a likely answer, we consider the distribution stage, which in this case implies physical delivery, as overly developed — branches and sales outlets of enterprises in the wealthiest regions may make attempts to start production on the spot meaningless. Most likely, consumers were not too concerned about this — perhaps the Moscow (St. Petersburg...) origin of the products even added symbolic value to it, but the list of available drivers of economic growth in specific regions was decreasing.