Was Nicholas II a weak-willed ruler? It was real.

Dear readers, we bring to your attention a new translation from Polish well known source, which has attracted the close attention of historians for many decades. We hope that the new nuances and features of the source text identified by the researcher and translator will be useful to the reading audience.

About the article by M. Toporovsky “Meeting of Pushkin with the Tsar in the Kremlin”

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of A.S. Pushkin for Russian culture. The meanings and values ​​contained in his works have been playing a vital role in the formation of national self-awareness and the identity of the Russian people for two hundred years now.

And all these two centuries the debate has not stopped: who is he, Pushkin? Democrat, liberal, friend of the Decembrists? Or - a patriot, a statesman, a monarchist? It is enough to put two of his most famous sayings side by side:

“I, of course, despise my fatherland from head to toe - but I am annoyed if a foreigner shares this feeling with me” (letter to P. A. Vyazemsky dated May 27, 1826).

“I swear to you on my honor that I would never agree to change my homeland, or to have a different history than the history of our ancestors, which the Lord sent us” (letter to P. Ya. Chaadaev, October 19, 1836.)

It seems that it is wrong to perceive Pushkin’s personality as something frozen and unchangeable. Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, like any living person, changed over the years. Pushkin the lyceum student is very different from Pushkin in the 1830s.

How did the poet grow up, the transition from youthful frivolity to creative maturity?

In the book of the great Russian artist I. S. Glazunov, “Crucified Russia,” in the chapter “The Secret Becomes Revealed,” there is an episode that apparently played a key role in the formation of the personality of A. S. Pushkin. This is the meeting of the poet with the sovereign Emperor Nicholas I, which took place on September 8, 1826. As Pushkin himself said, “...I owed Tsar Nicholas the return of my ideas to a more correct, more reasonable path, which I would have been looking for for a long time...”

How reliable is this story? To answer the question, let’s look at where Glazunov got this information from.

As a source, Ilya Sergeevich refers to the book “The History of Russian Freemasonry” by emigrant Boris Bashilov, published in Argentina in the 1950s. The author's real name is Boris Platonovich Yurkevich, an ambiguous personality. He worked as a Soviet journalist. He was captured near Vyazma in 1941, after some time he found himself among the “Vlasovites”... Having avoided extradition to the USSR, he collaborated in Germany with the NTS, then in Argentina he worked together with I. L. Solonevich.

Of course, the authorship of the memoirs about Pushkin belongs not to Bashilov, but to Count Juliusz Strutynsky, or Strutinsky, mentioned here. The Count published his memoirs in Krakow in 1873. And an excerpt dedicated to A.S. Pushkin was reprinted by a Polish magazine in 1937.

Most likely, Boris Bashilov discovered this information in an article by Vladislav Felitsianovich Khodasevich “Pushkin and Nicholas I”, published in 1938. Khodasevich's authority as an outstanding Pushkin scholar is beyond doubt. It is important for us that he considered it possible to characterize Strutinsky as a reliable source.

Polish was Khodasevich's native language. He probably translated the article from the Polish edition himself.

Finally, it should be mentioned that on March 1, 1966, Professor V.V. Pugachev gave a report at the Pushkin Museum in Moscow on the topic “On the evolution of Pushkin’s political views after the Decembrist uprising,” largely based on the testimony of Strutinsky. The courage of the researcher, who Soviet time was not afraid to raise the question of Pushkin’s monarchist views. However, this event could not have caused a wide resonance then.

However, as far as we know, the complete publication of the article from the Polish magazine of 1937 in Russian has not been available until now. This material is intended to fill this gap.

So, our primary source is Berlich Saxon’s book “Moscow (Continuation of “Conversations”)” published in Krakow in 1873. "Berlicz Saxon" is the pseudonym of Count Juliusz Strutinski.

The article we are interested in was published in the Polish magazine “Wiadomosci Literackie” (“Literary News”), No. 52-53, December 26, 1937, under the title “Pushkin’s meeting with the Tsar in the Kremlin” (“Puszkin rozmawia z carem na Kremlu"). The author of the article is Polish Pushkinist Marian Toporowski (1901-1971).
The author of the translation presented below is Yuri Konstantinovich Bondarenko, director of the Russian-Polish Center for Dialogue and Harmony Foundation, president of the Support Fund historical traditions"Return".

As noted above, an excerpt from the memoirs of Count Strutinsky was previously published in a translation by V. F. Khodasevich. The translation into Russian of the preface and afterword to Strutinsky's text, written by Toporovsky, was carried out for the first time.

Editorial

M. J. Toporowski

MEETING PUSHKIN WITH THE TSAR IN THE KREMLIN

In a forgotten book by an author unknown to almost anyone today half of the 19th century century Berlich the Saxon, I found a large passage and sensational in its content concerning A.S. Pushkin. The book written by Berlich Saxon is called “Moscow (Continuation of “Conversations”)” (Krakow, 1873). The book was printed on separate sheets as a supplement to the Krakow “Edge” and represents one of the volumes of this author’s memoirs. The author publishes here the content of A. S. Pushkin’s frank statements on the topic of Russian reality, as well as the poet’s story about the course of his historical audience with Nicholas I in the Kremlin in 1826.

This publication is not registered in any of the Pushkin bibliographies known to me, as well as in any of the publishing sources, and for this fact alone it deserves attention.

I have no right here to critically evaluate A.S. Pushkin’s views on Russian reality and the content of his conversation with the Tsar. I leave this to the Pushkinists. For my part, I can provide some information about the personality of Berlich the Saxon, and this will certainly shed light on the reliability of his memories. The point is that with a high degree of probability these memories are based on the conversation that took place between A.S. Pushkin and Berlich the Saxon, and literary form These memories undoubtedly lack that harsh simplicity that, for example, Malinovsky’s notes about the statements of A. Mitskevich (and A. S. Pushkin too) have.

Under the pseudonym of Berlicz Saxon, a Polish aristocrat in the uniform of a Polish hussar, a poet, a novelist, and, above all, the author of vivid memoirs, Count Juliusz Strutinski, performed. With him and Elena Pilsudska from the house of Strutinski, the aristocratic family of Strutinski, settled in Lithuania, ended, which originated from Jan on Strutin Berlich Saxon Strutinski, Count de Guid, governor of Infland. Count Juliusz was born on July 1, 1810 to father Felix and mother Caroline from the Lubomirski family. He became related to the powerful family of princes Golitsyn through his cousin, who married Pavel Golitsyn, son of Prince Sergei. This relationship with high-ranking officials testifies to Strutinsky’s wide opportunities in the secular society of Moscow.

Strutinsky was first raised by the Jesuits in Romanov, and then by tutors opposed to the Jesuits. Already at a very young age, the career path was wide open for him thanks to his abilities and connections.

At the beginning of 1829, under the patronage of Field Marshal Dibich, Strutinsky was accepted into the political department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was immediately promoted to chamber cadet of the court. IN last moment he renounces this appointment and court title and enters the army. During the period of his acquaintance with A.S. Pushkin, we see him as an officer (or cadet) of the Mitavsky Hussar Regiment.

Based on the content of his memoirs, it can be assumed that the matter takes place in 1830, since further events about which we're talking about in the memoirs, unfold against the backdrop of a cholera epidemic, and they also talk about the impression that the news of the uprising that broke out in Warsaw made in Moscow. However, it is difficult to establish with certainty when the conversation described in the memoirs took place, since the author does not adhere to a strict chronological order and interweaves his story with digressions. However, as the author himself emphasizes, he was in Moscow several times and met with A.S. Pushkin more than once. It is clear that he was a frequent guest of his sister, Princess Teofilia Golitsyna, and that he was received in the best salons in Moscow, where the secular and literary elite gathered. Caroline Janisch introduced him to A.S. Pushkin at one of the receptions; where and from whom - Strutinsky does not mention. And now we move on to the memories themselves.

At one of the above-mentioned evenings I met A.S. Pushkin. The link connecting us was the poetic lady Caroline Janisch, whom A. Mickiewicz taught Polish, and who translated several of his works into German. It was she who introduced me to A.S. Pushkin. Her flattering recommendation won the favor of A.S. Pushkin. We became close to each other because in the nature of this great man, cordiality went hand in hand with the power of talent, and his openness was not constrained by the cold diplomatic arrogance characteristic of ordinary and stupid people.

I understood that he was trying to stoop to my level, to reduce his genius to my measure of understanding of things and to give our relations a friendly character: equal to equal, Slav to Slav. I was still a milksucker, while he entered the period of manhood. I was nobody, while he was already the glory of his Fatherland and wrote his immortal name on the pages of history. However, despite my insignificance, I came into such close contact with his soul and awakened such trust in it that it completely opened up to me, unfolded in a long series of confidential confessions - as before a childhood friend, as before a dear brother. His open nature, fueled by the sympathy he felt for me, did not require much thought to open up to me. Less than two weeks had passed since our first meeting, and I already understood him very well and read him like an open book. I will give some of his revelations that are related to the subject of my story.

“Youth,” said A.S. Pushkin, “is fever, heat, passion.” The impulse that stimulates it is usually noble, even great in its moral significance, but more often than not it leads to stupidity or to a huge sense of guilt. You know, since they gossiped and wrote a lot about it, that I was considered a liberal, a revolutionary and a conspirator, in a word, one of the most furious antagonists of the monarchy, of tsarism? And I really was like that. The history of Greece and Rome had an exceptionally strong influence on my mind: the republican form of government, sanctified by the aura of great personalities, sages, philosophers, legislators, heroes, in my opinion, was the most perfect.

The philosophy of the 18th century, which sets the emancipation and freedom of man as the sole goal and strives towards this goal, denying all previous social and political rights, speaking with all the force of sarcasm against what has been accepted for centuries, against what generations of people have respected , - this philosophy of the encyclopedists, which brought so much good, but much more bad, to the world, and caused me a lot of harm.

Wild theories of absolute freedom, which does not recognize the supremacy of either earth or heaven; individualism, divorced from principles, traditions, customs, family, people, state; denial of any belief in the posthumous future of the soul, denial religious forms and dogmas - all this filled my head with some kind of seductive and illusory chaos of dreams, dreams, ideals, among which my mind wandered, awakening stupid intentions in me. It seemed to me that obedience to the law was a manifestation of weakness, that any power was an abuse, that any monarch was an oppressor, a tyrant of his country, and therefore it was not only permissible, but commendable to aim at him in word and deed. Is it any wonder that, under the influence of such a mental deviation, I acted unreasonably and wrote provocative things - with youthful bravado, which was dangerous for me and led to punishment? How happy I was when I was banned from entering both capitals and placed under strict police surveillance! I imagined that I was a great man and filling the devilish Peter with royal power. I imagined that I stood on the same level as Plutarch’s men and deserved a posthumous ovation in the Pantheon! However, everything has its time, and everything has its end.

Time has cooled the feverish ardor of youth. What was childishly immature has evaporated. What was unworthy disappeared. My heart turned to my mind with the words of revelation, and, obedient to the saving sign, my mind suddenly came to its senses, calmed down and cooled down. And when I looked around, when I looked more carefully and deeply into what I saw, I realized and realized that what I had previously considered to be true was a lie; that what I bowed to was a delusion, a deception; that what I set as the goal of my aspirations turned out to be guilt, fall, shame! I realized that absolute freedom, not limited by any God's law, by any social principles, the freedom that suckers or madmen dream and talk about is unthinkable, it would even be destructive, both for the individual and for society; that without legal authority, which cares about the life of the people, there would be no Fatherland, there would be no state, no political power, no historical glory and progress; that in a country like Russia, where there is a variety of state elements, vast spaces, darkness of the masses, and even the nobility, a powerful guiding impulse is required; this power must be unifying, harmonizing, protective and for a long time dictatorial, i.e. autocratic, because otherwise it would not be an impressive and formidable force! We still have the need to submit to it, to see in it the omnipotence of God’s mandate and to hear in it the voice of God himself.

Of course, this absolutism of tsarism, this self-government of one person, which is higher than the laws, since it itself is the law, cannot remain unchanged and still a mandatory norm; it must undergo gradual modernization and share half of its power with the people. However, this will not come soon, because it cannot and should not come soon.

- Why shouldn't it? - I asked in surprise.

“What happens suddenly is harmful,” answered Pushkin. - Eyes accustomed to darkness should be gradually accustomed to light. Those born into slavery should be gradually taught to use their freedom wisely. You understand? Our people are still dark, almost wild, give them free rein - they will go stunned. And our nobility is no better. Behind the outer shine lies a deep inner darkness. Among the people, at least you can get to the heart, but among them there is no heart! Who is the real oppressor of the people? It! Who is hindering its development, the development of its culture and the growth of its well-being? It! Who is nullifying all the government’s efforts aimed at improving the people’s lives? It! With us, every landowner is a despotic ruler of his subjects. He feeds on their sweat, revels in their blood! At the price of their labor, the nobility pays for wasteful trips abroad, from which they return with empty pockets and with a head filled with philosophical, philanthropic and progressive ideas, which they solemnly proclaim at home. All this is combined with a double robbery of the poor slave and with bestial mockery of him.

- What does the government have to do with this? - I asked.

- The higher authorities do not know about this, since the lower authorities have been bribed! - Pushkin answered, jumping up from his seat.

- But there are governors, leaders of the nobility, district gendarmerie commanders, through whom the truth must reach the very high levels control, right up to the king.

“Aren’t these governors,” Pushkin interrupted me, “themselves landowners?” Don’t these leaders of the nobility have subordinates? A raven will not peck out a crow's eye, my friend! To live with wolves is to howl like a wolf. This truth is eternal and undeniable.

- And this makes it even sadder! - I exclaimed.

“That’s right,” Pushkin continued, “it’s not fun, my friend, to look at what’s happening here.” However, it would be unfair to place all the blame on Tsar Nicholas. I know this better than many others because I have had the opportunity to experience it.

He did not bribe me either with the price of gold or with the price of flattering promises, since he knew that I was incorruptible and did not seek favor at court; he also did not blind me with the brilliance of a royal aura, since I was accustomed to seeing a much stronger brilliance in the high spheres of inspiration where my spirit hovers: the king did not force me to renounce my convictions, since apart from conscience and God I fear no one and will not tremble before anyone. by whom. I am the same as I was, as I will remain until the end of my days in the depths of my nature: loving my Motherland, admiring the freedom and glory of the Fatherland, respecting the truth and striving for it to the extent of the strength of my spirit and heart. However, I have to admit - why not admit it? - and you will understand me that I was indebted to Tsar Nicholas for returning my ideas to a more correct, more reasonable path, which I would have been looking for for a long time - perhaps in vain - since I looked at the world not with the naked eye, but through a prism that colored the simplest truths are lies. I looked at the world around me not as a person familiar with the analysis of the real needs of society, but as a youth, a student, a poet, to whom everything that misleads him, creates an illusion, everything that flatters him and captivates him seems good.

I remember that when the king’s order was announced to me to appear before him, my spirit became clouded and hardened - not from anxiety, not from concern, no, from something similar to hatred, anger, contempt.

My brain bristled with an epigram - a mocking mockery was ready to escape from my lips. My heart was shocked by something that seemed like a sign sent by fate itself. It seemed that this sign was calling me to the role of a stoic republican, Cato, and even Brutus!

It is difficult to convey all the shades of feelings that I experienced during my forced trip to royal palace. And what? They all burst like soap bubbles, sank into oblivion like ghosts in the night, when he appeared before me, when he turned to me. Instead of a proud despot, a tyrant with a whip, I saw a majestic monarch with knightly dignity and noble appearance. Instead of threats and insults, rude and harsh words, I heard a condescending reproach expressed in a benevolent tone.

- So what? - the king turned to me, - and you, too, are an enemy of your monarch? You, whom Russia raised and educated! Covered with glory! Pushkin! Pushkin! This is not good! It should not be!

I was speechless with surprise and excitement, the words froze on my lips, and it seemed to me that his sonorous voice was still echoing in my ears, that he was encouraging me to trust him, that he was calling me to come to my senses.

Minutes flew by and I didn’t answer.

- Why don’t you say anything? After all, I'm waiting?! - the king said and looked at me.

Sobered by these words, and still to a greater extent- with his gaze, I finally came to my senses, calmed down and calmly said:

- It's my fault. And I'm waiting for punishment.

- I'm not used to rushing to punishment! - the king objected sternly, - I am glad if it is possible to avoid this necessity. But I demand frankness and complete submission to my will. I demand from you that you do not force me to be harsh, that you help me be lenient. You did not object to the accusation that you are an enemy of your monarch, why?

- Forgive me, Your Majesty. By not answering your question right away, I gave reason to the fact that you misunderstood me. I have never been an enemy of my monarch, but I have been an enemy of absolute monarchy.

In response to this funny confession of mine, the king smiled and turned to me, patting me on the shoulder with his palm:

- Dreams of the Italian Carbonari and the German Tugendbund! Republican fantasies of all high school students, lyceum students, underdeveloped thinkers from university classrooms combined! They look tempting and attractive, but in essence they are empty and harmful! A republic is a utopia, it is a transitional, abnormal state that leads to end result to dictatorship, and through it - to absolute monarchy.

In history there was no example of a republic that, in difficult times, could have managed without the leadership of one person and that would not have perished if there had not been a right time worthy leader.

The power of the state lies in the centralization of power; for where everyone rules, no one rules; for where everyone is a legislator, there is no stable legislation, no unified political aspirations, no internal stability and agreement. What follows? Anarchy!

The king fell silent, walked around the office several times, then suddenly stopped in front of me and asked:

- What will you answer me, poet?

I answered:

- Your Majesty, in addition to the republican form of government, which is in conflict with the vast expanses of Russia and the diversity of its population, there is also another political form of government, namely the constitutional monarchy a r x and I...

- Such a monarchy is good for states that have finally formed, and not for those that are in the process of their development and growth. Russia has not yet emerged from the period of struggle for its existence. She didn't get everyone necessary conditions to develop your internal structure and culture. She has not yet reached the limit of her political destiny. She has not yet reached the limits corresponding to her greatness. It is not yet a completely complete formation, since the elements of which it consists are still not consistent with each other. They are brought together and united only by autocracy - the unlimited, and therefore omnipotent, will of the monarch. Without it, there would be no development, and any shock would collapse the state.

(A minute later.)

- Do you think that if I were a constitutional monarch, I would be able to break the neck of the revolutionary hydra, which you yourself, the sons of Russia, raised for the destruction of Russia? Do you think that the charm of the autocratic power given to me by God did not help to keep in line the part of the guard that remained loyal to me and to pacify the street rabble, always ready for rebellion, violence, robbery? This rabble did not dare to rebel against me, did not dare! For the autocratic king was for him the living embodiment of divine omnipotence, the representative of God on earth: this rabble knew that I understood the meaning of the greatness of the mandate obliging me, and that I was not a person without endurance and will, who bows before the storm and fears the rumble of thunder.

When the king said this, it seemed that he was growing and enlarging before his eyes, filled with a sense of self-worth and strength. He had a stern appearance and a sparkling gaze. However, these were not signs of anger - no! At that moment he was not angry, but measured his strength with the enemy, mentally fought with him and won. At the same time he was both proud and pleased with himself. Soon the expression on his face softened, the fire in his eyes went out, and he again walked around the office, stood in front of me and said:

- You haven't told me everything yet. You have not yet completely cleared your thoughts of the turbidity of prejudices and mistakes. Maybe something else is bothering and tormenting your heart? Confess boldly. I want to listen to you and I will listen.

- Sovereign! - I answered with inspiration, - you broke the neck of the revolutionary hydra. You have done a great thing - who will object? However... there is another hydra, a terrible and dangerous monster that you must fight; which you must defeat, otherwise it will defeat you!

- Explain yourself more clearly! - the king interrupted me, ready to listen carefully to my every word.

- This hydra, this monster is the arbitrariness of administrative power, the immorality of its institutions, the corruption of the courts. Russia groans in the arms of a hydra of abuse, violence and extortion, which mocks even the highest authorities. There is no place in the entire space of the state where this monster has not reached! There is no class that it would not touch. Our public safety is not guaranteed in any way! Justice is in the hands of the executioners! Thieves are selling conscience and family well-being! No one has confidence in the safety of either property, freedom, or life! The fate of every person hangs in the balance - for it is not the law that determines the fate of every person, but any official, informer or spy! Is it surprising, Your Majesty, that there were people who decided to destroy the current state of affairs? Is it any wonder that they, outraged by the sight of the humiliation and suffering of their Motherland, offended by the government, raised the banner of resistance, fanned the fire of rebellion in order to crush what existed and proclaim what was to arise from the old ruins. Instead of oppression and oppression - freedom! Instead of violence - safety! Instead of corruption - morality! Instead of abuse of official power - protection of everyone by law and equality of everyone before the law!

- You could, Your Majesty, condemn the logic of this plan, the illegal methods of its implementation, the excessive audacity of this undertaking - but you cannot condemn this noble impulse! You could and had the right to condemn the culprits who, in the madness of a patriotic impulse, set out to overthrow the Romanov throne. However, I am sure that even when punishing them, deep down in your soul you will not deny them either sympathy or respect! I am sure that if the king punished, then the person forgave.

- Your words are bold! - the king said sternly, but without anger, - does this mean you approve of rebellion? Are you justifying a coup d'etat? An attempt on the life of a monarch?

- Oh no! Sovereign! - I turned to him with excitement, - I justified only the purpose of this undertaking, and not the methods of its implementation! Your Majesty! You know how to look into the soul - look into mine, it is pure and open to you! In such a soul, malicious vice does not nest, crime does not mature!

- I want to believe that this is so, and I do! - the king turned to me affectionately, - you have noble principles and noble impulses, but you lack prudence, prudence, experience, thoroughness and stability. When you see evil, you become indignant and frivolously blame the authorities for not immediately destroying this evil and for not hastening to erect an edifice of general prosperity on its ruins! - Sachez que la critique est facile et que l "art est difficile - for the radical reform that Russia needs, the monarch’s will alone is not enough, no matter how energetic and powerful he may be. To achieve this goal, the monarch needs to act together with the people, it is necessary time. It is necessary to unite all the highest spiritual values ​​of the country into one great progressive idea; it is necessary to unite all efforts and all the ardor in one, praiseworthy effort to create a sense of national pride and dignity. talented people will unite around me. Let them believe in me. Let them tirelessly and unanimously go where I lead them. Then this hydra will be defeated, then this gangrene, corroding the forces of Russia, will retreat! For victory lies only in the unification of all forces, and salvation lies in the unity of noble hearts!

- As for you, Pushkin, you are free! I will forget what happened - I already forgot! I don’t see a state criminal here in front of me - I see only a man of heart and talent, I see a great poet-prophet of national glory, who is entrusted with the honorable mission of calling for virtue and inspiring to great deeds!

Now you can go! Wherever you settle - and the choice depends on you - remember what I told you and how I treated you. Serve the Fatherland with thought, word and pen! Write for your contemporaries and posterity. Write with inspiration and freedom, since I will be your censor.

This was the content of A.S. Pushkin’s story. Its most striking moments are deeply imprinted in my memory, and I have cited them almost verbatim.

Whether A. S. Pushkin’s works actually received further permission from the tsar for publication or went through the usual verification procedure by the censorship committee, I cannot say with certainty. Somehow it didn’t occur to me to ask A.S. Pushkin about this, and a supportive reader will easily explain this to himself when he tries to imagine that I was still very young then, and that other, more attractive topics aroused my interest.

The above story is too sensational in its content and significant in volume for the very fact of its existence not to awaken a feeling of mistrust and skepticism, not to mention the fact that this episode hid from the eyes of Pushkin’s bibliographers.

The very circumstances of the undoubtedly confidential story, which was addressed very young man, a casual acquaintance of A.S. Pushkin, and besides this, the form in which the conversation is presented, reconstructed forty years later - if we take into account the date of publication - its literary design and the detail of the story undoubtedly evoke justified criticism.

On the other hand, let's take into account that A.S. Pushkin's audience in the Kremlin continued more than an hour, as Baron Delvig points out, and more than two hours, as stated in the report of agent Locatelli, which means she could provide enough material for the story.

True, Strutinsky does not have the detail that Khomutov and Baron Korf mention, namely, Nikolai’s question about whether A.S. Pushkin would have taken part in the Decembrist uprising if he had been in St. Petersburg at that time, nevertheless, Strutinsky has a development of this theme.

I will allow myself to make these small remarks as if in the margins, since, as I mentioned, I am not a Pushkin scholar and cannot even consider myself an amateur in the field of extensive knowledge about A.S. Pushkin. It is difficult for me to make any judgment about the reliability of the story.

The only thing I can do is add a few more details from the biography of the author of the memoirs, which indirectly may be useful. Moreover, I must emphasize that when I became more familiar with part of Strutinsky’s literary heritage, this writer impressed me as an honest and trustworthy person. True, in Strutinsky’s memoirs there are inaccuracies and obvious errors, for example, he twice indicates 1826 as the date of the Decembrist uprising. However, these errors, as well as the fact that he omits those known from other sources historical details, can, in certain cases, testify in favor of the author, removing suspicions of deliberate hoax from him.

Strutinsky did not make a career either in life or in literature. His love of military craft conflicted with a certain idealism of his impulses and with greater, if less well-founded, literary ambitions. He lacked talent in poetry, and he wasn’t very lucky in the army. In addition, he was fraudulently deprived of a million-dollar inheritance, and until the end of his life he sued to get it back.

For some time he was an aide-de-camp to the Kyiv Governor-General Bibikov. It was then that, against his will, because of Mikhail Grabovsky, he became a hero loud scandal. Strutynsky was addressed to Grabowski’s sensational letter in its time, in which he outlined his treacherous idea of ​​moral condemnation of the partitions of Poland and enthusiastic approval of bondage through the consistent use of printed organs and fiction for these purposes. Strutinsky received this letter on duty and had to act as an intermediary between Grabovsky and government officials. The letter was stolen from his office before the addressee could read it. Thanks to numerous handwritten copies, the contents of the letter became known to the general public. There were rumors that the loss of the letter did not occur without the knowledge of Strutinsky. In any case, he did not feel good in this not particularly attractive position. After leaving Kyiv, he went to St. Petersburg, where he was appointed aide-de-camp to General Neidgardt, the governor and commander-in-chief of the army in the Caucasus. Soon his engagement to the general's daughter took place, but after the death of General Neidgardt it was terminated. He later married a Greek woman, Maria Mavrocordato.

Memories of the battles in the Caucasus formed the basis of the first volume of Conversations, in which we find a number of details that are significant for history, as well as episodes that are interesting from a literary point of view. It belongs to the same period of time geological research, dedicated to the Caucasus and published in Berlin. From Tiflis, Strutinsky traveled to Tehran as part of a delegation that presented gifts from the king to the Persian Shah; that's what he was for awarded the order Leo and Sun. Later, he also took part in the Crimean campaign, at the end of which he retired with the rank of major. He settled on his estate in the village, and then lived in St. Petersburg. In 1869 he moved to Lviv, where he collaborated with the magazine "Svit". From 1872 he settled in Krakow and here he wrote for Ludwik Gumplowicz's "The Edge". The Academy of Sciences elected him a member of the Archeology Commission. Since 1836, when “Essais poétiques” appeared in St. Petersburg, he published during his life more than ten volumes of poems (very weak), novels and stories, as well as interesting memoirs.

In Krakow, Strutinsky maintained close relations, including with the Slavist A. G. Kirkor, who at one time was the publisher of the Teka of Vilna. In 1874, A. G. Kirkor published his series of Krakow lectures “On the literature of the Slavic sister nations,” in which he devoted most of the space to Russian literature and A. S. Pushkin. I would like to emphasize here the amazing coincidence in time of two rather extensive statements about A.S. Pushkin in Krakow. After Strutinsky’s death in 1878, A.G. Kirkor wrote a large biographical obituary about him in Klosy, where he spoke very laudably about Strutinsky’s inherent culture and knowledge, while pointing out his extraordinary memory. This characteristic worthy of attention, as is the following information: “Before leaving Krakow, Strutinsky burned more than ten volumes of his notes, correspondence with the most famous people not only in Poland, but also in Russia and abroad. And these notes contained real treasures that were related not only to the history of literature, but also to the history of the last era of Lithuania and Rus'.”

“Wiadomosci Literackie”, No. 52-53, 12/26/1937

NOTES

The letter to Chaadaev was written in French; there are different versions of its translation. The above text was published in the magazine “Russian Bell”, published by I. A. Ilyin (No. 5, 1928).

For comparison, here is a translation from the collected works published in 1959-1962 by the Khudozhestvennaya Literatura publishing house: “...I swear on my honor that for nothing in the world I would not want to change my fatherland or have a history other than the history of our ancestors, the way God gave it to us.” Could Pushkin write the word “God” with a small letter in 1836? We will leave the answer to this question to the conscience of the editors of the Soviet publishing house.

The meeting took place in the Small Nicholas Palace in the Kremlin. The palace was demolished in 1929.
I. S. Glazunov erroneously stated that the meeting took place on September 18, 1826 in the Chudov Monastery. However, the Chudov Monastery was also destroyed in the same years.

Polish Juljusz Struty?ski. From the point of view of modern linguists, it is more correct to write “Strutinsky” in Russian.

See, for example, http://hodasevich.lit-info.ru/hodasevich/kritika/hodasevich/pushkin-i-nikolaj-i.htm. The article was published in the newspaper “Vozrozhdenie”, No. 4118-4119 for 1938.
Khodasevich writes that the meeting took place “in the Chudov Palace,” clearly confusing the Small Nicholas Palace and the Chudov Monastery.

V.F. Khodasevich is the son of a Pole and a Jewish woman. However, as biographers report, his mother was raised Catholic in a Polish family from childhood, so the poet’s native language was Polish.

See D. D. Blagoy " Creative path Pushkin (1826-1930)", M., 1967.

Berlicz Sas “Moskwa (Dalszy ciag “Gaw?d”)”.

I received a copy of this book from Mr. Jan Michalski during a search in his magnificent library of Polish sources related to A. S. Pushkin. A bibliography of these sources will be published in the near future.

Infland is a part of Livonia, which was transferred to Poland in 1660, and then to Russia in 1772. Then it was part of the Vitebsk province (the modern Republic of Belarus). (Hereinafter, editor's notes are in italics.)

Her maiden name was Teofila Petrovna Kreuer (1792-1882).

Golitsyn Pavel Sergeevich (1788-1837).

Nowadays the city of Romanov is in Ukraine, a regional center in the Zhitomir region (from 1933 to 2003 - Dzerzhinsk).

Count Johann Karl Friedrich Anton von Diebich, in the Russian manner Ivan Ivanovich Dibich-Zabalkansky (1785-1831) - Russian commander of Prussian origin, field marshal general. Died of cholera.

The first cholera epidemic in Russian history took place in 1830-1831 (with the accompanying “cholera riots”). It reached Moscow in the fall of 1830.

This refers to the Polish uprising of 1830-1831, which began in Warsaw on November 29, 1830.

Daughter of a general from engineering, later Mrs. Ryumin. (Strutinsky here makes the mistake of qui pro quo [Latin “who instead of whom”]. Caroline Janisch, the daughter of a professor of German, became the wife of the writer Pavlov - M. Toporovsky’s note is in parentheses here.).
Karolina Karlovna Pavlova (née Yanish, 1807-1893) - Russian poet and translator.

Adam Bernard Mickiewicz (1798-1855) - Polish poet, leader of the anti-Russian Polish national movement. Toporovsky alludes to the romance that took place between Mickiewicz and Janisch.

Know that criticism is easy, but art is difficult (French).

Baron Anton Antonovich Delvig (1798-1831) - Russian poet, friend of A. S. Pushkin.

I. Locatelli - secret agent (informant) of the Third Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery, the highest body of the political police of the Russian Empire during the reign of Nicholas I and Alexander II (1826-1880).

Khomutov Mikhail Grigorievich (1795-1864) - Russian general. In 1833-1839 - commander of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment. Friend of A.S. Pushkin.

Baron Korf Modest Andreevich (1800-1876, count since 1872) - Russian statesman. Friend of A.S. Pushkin.

Despite such a modest statement about himself (made in 1937), based on the results of his creative biography, Marian Toporowski (1901-1971) is recognized as one of the outstanding Polish Pushkinists.

Bibikov Dmitry Gavrilovich (1792-1870) - Russian statesman, Kiev governor-general in 1837-1852.

Mikhail Grabowski (Micha? Grabowski, 1804-1863) - Polish writer and publicist.

Neidgardt Alexander Ivanovich (1784-1845) - Russian general. Commander of the Separate Caucasian Corps and chief administrator of the civil part and border affairs of the Caucasian and Transcaucasian regions in 1842-1844 (Toporovsky mistakenly calls Neidgardt the “viceroy” in the Caucasus. The Caucasian viceroyalty existed in 1785-1796 and in 1844-1883)

Thus, Strutinsky moved to live from the Russian Empire to Austria-Hungary, which at that time included Lviv and Krakow.

Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909) - Polish sociologist Jewish origin. He lived and worked in that part of Poland that was part of the then Austria-Hungary.

Kirkor Adam Honors (1812-1886) - writer, publisher, figure in Russian, Polish and Lithuanian culture. Until the mid-1860s, he lived in the city of Vilna, which was part of the Vilna province of the North-Western region of the Russian Empire (now Vilnius, the capital of the Republic of Lithuania). In 1857-1858 he published the almanac “Teka Wile?ska” (“Vilna Collection”). In 1871, due to bankruptcy, he moved to Krakow, which was then part of Austria-Hungary.

The lover Lodyre meets the king of the Ethiopians Strafokamil, and it is unknown why both begin to repeat: “For battle, for mortal combat.” They fight but mysteriously they are stopped by a strong Merino and orders:
Lay down your swords before me
And stop this fight!
to which the king replies:
Who are you, dressed as a Papuan,
What broke our peace with the bass?
For some reason Strafokamil dies, and everyone sings his funeral:
On our knees, we praise the hero!
"Wampuka" (The African Bride) - an exemplary opera in all respects" was successfully provided by Ehrenberg with his own illustrative music and ran endlessly with constant success. The actors, led by the then young V. A. Lepko, performed their roles well. The name of the heroine Vampuka, formed from some kind of verse with the refrain: “You have a fart, you have a fart, we brought you a bunch of flowers,” became a common noun for all kinds of theatrical nonsense.
In the spring of 1928, the Crooked Mirror Theater was preparing to tour the USSR. Alexander Rafailovich was ill and could not accompany the theater. And he wrote a “Parting Word” to the theater, which, among other things, says:
“...“Curve Mirror” is a theater network that in no case allows: a) rudeness, b) vulgarity, c) negligence, “somehow”... The harsher and “rougher the situation,” the more delicately the theater must be treated. It happens here that they put butter on butter, and lard on lard, on comic device- a new, supposedly comic patch. It turns out to be bad taste and rudeness... You should especially avoid various inventions and improvisations in choral scenes. The chorus is funny only when it is strictly stylized... Now you are going on a long journey for several months, where you will not be stopped, where the audience is even less disciplined and sensitive, where a stupid burst of laughter may seem to you the true measure of success. This is not true. First of all, we need to find out whether the audience respects the theater where they will disappear. If yes, then you are on the right road; if not, you and the theater are heading into the abyss. Therefore, I ask you, comrades, to remember that you must respect the theater and yourself as an artist, and expect success from the public’s respect for the theater.
Secondly, don’t try to be “even better”, because such “the best is the enemy of the good” (Lessing), often not tested at rehearsal, is simply bad. Do not deviate a hair's breadth from the example of the first (not the first, but the first) performances......I ask you to listen to the impartial word of your comrades, not to be offended and to abandon the stupid “ethics”, as if good form in the theater is not to interfere with a friend’s performance. This must be taken with great restraint. And most importantly, there are no trifles in the theater. Everything is essential and important...
...Give me at least a little consolation, that out of a feeling of affection you will try to be artists, strict, scrupulous - it will still be easier for me...”
Kugel maintained this credo throughout his life.

Bus with a sign "Name of the tour."
Departure to Rostov Veliky at 8:15.(~200 km.)
New Year's travel excursion.
New Year's holidays are the most fun and memorable time of the year. How will you meet New Year, so you will spend it! But first it must be carried out with dignity! This is why we invite you to the fabulous Rostov the Great. The creative residents of this city are not asleep! And they want you to live this day of the passing year like a king and leave only good memories about the past year! And everything will begin with a festive, royal, majestic meeting...
The Tsar Father himself Ivan Vasilyevich with Queen Martha will greet you with Russian treats and sweet speeches. A excursion program "Rostov unknown" will introduce you to amazing places ancient city Rus', which remain outside the usual excursion routes. You will visit one of the most interesting museums Rostov the Great - Museum of Rostov merchants. This museum is located in the house of one of the richest and most prominent Rostov merchants of the Kekin dynasty. Luxurious interiors and authentic household items from the mansion will take us into the atmosphere of a rich merchant house of the 18th-19th centuries. And one can judge the fabulous wealth of this merchant if only because he left 8 million rubles as an inheritance to his native city, without prejudice to his other heirs! And the restoration of the Rostov Kremlin began at the beginning of the 20th century precisely at the expense of this unique person.
Next historical stop - Varnitsky Monastery- a real architectural pearl of Rostov and the greatest shrine of all Orthodox Russia. After all, the Trinity-Sergius Varnitsa Monastery was founded on the birthplace of one of the most revered Russian saints - St. Sergius of Radonezh. You will visit the revived Trinity Cathedral and the restored Vvedenskaya Church, admire the delightful panoramas of the monastery and be imbued with the grace of this holy place...
Now let's go on a theatrical excursion to Rostov Kremlin- in the footsteps of the heroes of the cult Soviet comedy film “Ivan Vasilyevich is changing his profession”. After all, all the episodes related to the time travel of the heroes Kuravlev and Yakovlev were filmed in the Rostov Kremlin. It was through the galleries of the Rostov Kremlin that their unlucky heroes ran, and it was on the real Kremlin belfry that the house manager Bunsha, entangled in the intricacies of ropes, performed the bell “Chizhik-Pizhik”.
Having bought Rostov New Year's souvenirs, we do not say goodbye to the heroes of the film, but go on a real New Year's revelry like a king! In one of the best establishments in Rostov, the hospitable hosts will prepare for you holiday dinner and excellent theatrical program. We won’t reveal all the secrets, let’s just say that you will have your own festive transformation, a meeting with a shocking Father Frost and the beautiful Snow Maiden, royal feast with dancing, disco of Prince Miloslavsky, New Year's miracles And original surprises! Everyone will be able to show their talents and ingenuity by taking part in funny competitions, and will also be able to “light up” in a dance with Queen Martha, with Miloslavsky, or even with Ivan the Terrible himself! The highlight of the evening will be a festive photo session in the throne room with the characters from the film “Ivan Vasilyevich Changes His Profession.” And by the way, we don’t promise baked hare kidneys on the festive dinner menu, but it will be very tasty, satisfying and home-made - that’s for sure! Real Russian New Year's Eve holiday- riotous, cheerful and a little intoxicated, as it should be!
Departure to

More than ten years before his appearance before the Tsar in 1905, Rasputin went through an enormous school of life and asceticism. It is enough to imagine what enormous efforts and trials the pilgrimage took. He went to distant places not in a carriage, not on an express train, not with a checkbook in his breast pocket. There was no money, no food, there was only one burning desire to find the path to the light, to the truth.

Walking for long weeks and months in any weather, enduring cold and hunger, covering hundreds and thousands of miles - only the pilgrimage on foot from Pokrovsky to the Kiev Pechersk Lavra lasted almost six months, during which he managed to cover almost three thousand miles! And having achieved the goal, at the altar in the Christian shrine you will find joy and new strength.

He ate whatever was available, whatever was served, and sometimes just grass, and several times he almost fell victim to “dashing people” and barely escaped with his legs. It was a feat of humility and self-sacrifice, which only truly believing people are capable of. Such pilgrimages could not bring any benefits, and Rasputin was often falsely credited with cunning prudence.

A close friend of the last Tsarina, Julia (Lily) Den, having lived many years after the revolution in England, in her memoirs tried to explain to the English reader the spiritual atmosphere of Russia. “If any pilgrim had decided to make the same journey from Edinburgh to London, he would have been convicted of vagrancy and, most likely, sent to a madhouse. Cases of this kind are unheard of in England, but in Russia similar things happened all the time. We are so accustomed to everything unusual that I believe that the average Russian would not be at all surprised if he met Archangel Gabriel on the street!”

Rasputin, for all his spiritual orientation, still had earthly interests: home, wife, children, taking care of the household. When his son began to regularly go traveling, his father did not approve and scolded him, but this did not stop Gregory. The father reconciled himself, especially since gradually voluntary helpers appeared on the farm (they did not take men into service), helping the owners for shelter and board.

It is quite possible that Rasputin, with his abilities and prayerful zeal, would have remained in best case scenario celebrity of his region, if Divine Providence had not been pleased to bring him together with persons who were at an incredible social height. An important clarification needs to be made here. Rasputin himself never deliberately “messed up” anywhere; He was helped everywhere by numerous patrons and admirers of his natural naturalness and unusual talents. Rasputin himself colorfully spoke about how he managed to appear at the residences of high-ranking officials.

“I leave the Alexander Nevsky Lavra and ask a certain bishop of the Theological Academy, Sergius. The police approached, “what a friend you are to the bishop, you are a hooligan, buddy.” By the grace of God, I ran through the back gate and found the doorman with the help of the gatekeepers. The doorman showed me the mercy of punching me in the neck; I knelt before him, he understood something special about me and reported to the bishop, the bishop called me, saw me, and then we began to talk.”

In his lifetime, Rasputin managed to charm and conquer the souls of several major church leaders who had deep faith, an outlook, and versatile knowledge. It was they who brought this man into the light, giving him the best certifications. True, later, under the influence of public hysteria, some not only broke off their relations with Rasputin, distanced themselves from him, but even took part in a campaign to discredit, or, more simply put, to defame Rasputin.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, certain chronological guidelines have appeared in the biography of Grigory Rasputin, making it possible to systematize his path to the top. He first came to St. Petersburg in 1903, having already managed to “conquer the heart” of the Kazan Bishop Chrysanf (Shchetkovsky), who recommended him to the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky), who, in turn, introduced Rasputin to the professor, Hieromonk Veniamin and inspector of the academy (then rector), Archimandrite Feofan (Bistrov). The latter was an affable man, a kind Christian, entirely occupied with pious service.

Rasputin moved in the circles of church hierarchs and students of the academy for quite a long time, went through “his own universities” here and, possessing a lively, tenacious mind and an excellent memory, learned a lot from communicating with them. Already by the beginning of 1905, Feofan felt deep sympathy for this Siberian peasant preacher, seeing in him the bearer of a new and true power of faith.

"Elder Gregory" produced strong impression and on a preacher famous at the beginning of the century, who had enormous moral authority in Russia - righteous John Kronstadtsky (1829–1908), who blessed him. Rasputin revered the memory of the “people's father” and called him “a great lamp and miracle worker.” In Pokrovskoye, on Rasputin’s table there was a large portrait of Father John. When Gregory was in St. Petersburg, he certainly visited the Ioannovsky Monastery on Karpovka, founded by John of Kronstadt, where the lamp of faith was buried. Grigory Rasputin not only prayed there, it was there that he found refuge when he arrived in St. Petersburg in 1904.

Confessor of Grand Duke Peter Nikolaevich and his wife Grand Duchess Militsa Nikolaevna Feofan introduced the “Siberian elder” into the grand ducal chambers. Around the Montenegrin princesses - Milica and her sister Anastasia (Stana) - there was a small circle of “seekers of faith”. The center was Milica, passionately devoted to the search deep meaning in the irrational, and even, in order to become familiar with the writings of Eastern mystics, she specially studied the languages ​​of the peoples of the East.

From Militsa's salon it was just a step to the Royal Palace. The meeting was supposed to take place, and it took place. This happened on November 1, 1905 in Peterhof. In Nicholas II’s diary for that day we read: “We drank tea with Militsa and Stana. We met the man of God - Gregory from the Tobolsk province."

Spiritual experience, search for the righteous life path, which occupied and worried Rasputin, made an impression on all Orthodox natures. He was far from academic theology; he brought to people a reverent perception of the simplicity of the heart, which was dear and appreciated. As A.A. Vyrubova said in her testimony to the ChSK, he “preached the Word of God, spoke constantly. It was quite interesting. I even wrote down... Explained the Holy Scripture... He knew all the Holy Scripture, the Bible, everything. He told me a lot about his travels, a lot, to Jerusalem... all over Russia he walked in chains... All over Russia on foot in chains.”

Munya Golovina expressed her extremely emotional impression of meeting Rasputin. “For me this was the entrance to new world: I discovered my mentor in a peasant from Siberia, who, from the very beginning of our first conversation, struck me with his insight. The regal look of his gray eyes was tantamount to his inner strength, which completely exposed the person standing in front of him. It was a great day for me: before telling me the truth regarding spiritual life, Grigory Rasputin forced me to renounce spiritualism..."

Until the end of 1907, meetings of the Imperial Couple with “Elder Gregory” were random and quite rare. The second meeting took place many months after the first, in the summer of 1906, when, having visited the estate of Anastasia Sergievka, they “saw Gregory” there. There was a joy from communication, as always in such cases. Here, for example, is Nikolai Alexandrovich’s entry dated June 19, 1907: “At 3 o’clock we went with Alix in her gig to Znamenka... We met Stana on the terrace in front of the palace, entered it and had the joy of seeing Gregory. We talked for about an hour and returned to Seba.”

We can confidently point to the time of rapprochement between the Royal Couple and the Siberian wanderer. This happened in October 1906, when Rasputin met the Tsar’s Children. Initially, Nicholas II agreed to briefly accept Gregory, who was going to transfer the miraculous image of Simeon of Verkhoturye to the Crown Bearers. Unexpectedly, the meeting dragged on, and Gregory for the first time conquered the Lord of the Power with his revelations and reflections.

The Emperor wrote about Rasputin to Prime Minister P. A. Stolypin “Peter Arkadyevich! The other day I received a peasant from the Tobolsk province, Grigory Rasputin, who presented Me with an icon of St. Simeon of Verkhoturye. He made a remarkably strong impression on Her Majesty and Me, so that instead of five minutes, the conversation with him lasted more than an hour!” So Rasputin entered Royal House and became a welcome guest there.

From the book of Doctor of Historical Sciences A. Bokhanov “The Truth about Grigory Rasputin.”

Was Emperor Nicholas II a weak-willed ruler who led Russia to a revolutionary catastrophe? Who was guilty of the execution on January 9, 1905 and the Khodynka tragedy? - About the most frequent complaints against the latter Russian Emperor and about how fair and adequate they are, we talked with Doctor of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov Fyodor Gaida.

We have agreed to discuss with you some of the “painful points” of the reign of Nicholas II, those aspects or events of his reign that are still the subject of public controversy and contention. I will list the main complaints that are most often made against the Emperor. The first of them is the terrible tragedy on the Khodynka field (a stampede on the day of the coronation and the death of more than 1,300 people) and the visit of the Emperor and Empress to the ball of the French ambassador on the same day. It is often said that this behavior of the young Tsar was insensitive and completely wrong. What do you think about this?

Here it is necessary to clearly separate the two plans. There is a situation related to human relationships, issues of empathy, compassion and mercy. On the other hand, there are issues of diplomacy and diplomatic protocol. And then one thing is layered on top of the other. There was an official reception with the French ambassador, and it was necessary to demonstrate good relations with France. It was quite obvious that if Nicholas II for some reason ignored this event, it would have a negative impact on Russian-French relations. As you know, he attended the ball purely officially, did not stay there and spent very little time.

An official reception is not an entertainment event

Couldn't this visit be canceled altogether? After all, today entertainment events are canceled in the country and mourning is declared when large-scale tragic events occur.

An official reception does not have the character of an entertainment event as such. This is work. There are things that need to be done, despite the fact that something tragic happened at the same time.

- So the Tsar didn’t dance there and, for example, didn’t drink champagne?

There was no casualness expected there. He fulfilled his duties and received a certain European political resonance. The domestic Russian context is a slightly different story. It is known that he sympathized with the victims and helped them from his personal, not government funds. For example, all orphans received a pension and were raised at state expense. Everything was done to show that he sympathized with the victims of the Khodynka tragedy.

The events themselves were not his personal fault. It is clear that he himself does not organize the ceremonial events associated with his coronation. This is a matter for completely different people.

- Were those responsible for organizing the coronation punished?

The Minister of the Imperial Household resigned. The Moscow police chief was fired. An investigation was conducted and those responsible for the stampede were identified. This was criminal negligence, although it is clear that there was no malicious intent here.

You also need to keep in mind that no one expected such an influx of people; this was a fairly new phenomenon for Russia. This is a traditional place for celebrations, and everyone is accustomed to the fact that celebrations are held on Khodynskoye Field. Of course, it is necessary to ensure a certain security, but no one has encountered any serious excesses before.

Although this does not justify anyone, nevertheless, cases of mass crushes at ceremonial events in the world are not so rare, and they happened not only in Russia. For example, in England, shortly before this, at the next anniversary of Queen Victoria, there was also a stampede, and many more people died there. But no one began to call her Victoria the Bloody.

That is, despite the tragedy of the Khodynka situation, it could have been used as a weapon in the opposition struggle, or it could not have been used. And in this case, of course, those people seized on this for whom it was important to show that Nicholas II was a “bloody” monarch.

The next, very painful point is the execution on January 9th. In your opinion, were there any perpetrators on the part of the authorities there, and were they punished?

Yes, of course, there were culprits on the part of the authorities. The main culprit was the Tsar's uncle - Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, commander of the St. Petersburg Military District, who said that he would ensure order at any cost. And who really didn’t care at what cost to ensure order. According to the ideas of that time, the 19th - early 20th centuries, the army could be used in internal affairs to restore order. At the beginning of the twentieth century, troops in Europe were very often used to shoot a variety of demonstrations: in Italy, Ireland, and shortly before that in France. Probably, any general of that time could easily say that if I encountered any internal unrest, I would suppress it at any cost.

The revolution began at the end of 1904

- But people walked with icons and portraits of the Tsar.

The situation was actually very difficult. It must be borne in mind that this event was subsequently overgrown with numerous myths. The first myth is that the revolution began on January 9, 1905. This is not so: the revolution began already at the end of 1904. Myth number 2: Gapon is almost a tsarist provocateur, an secret police agent who specially brought out the workers in order to nip the revolution in the bud.

If we discard these two myths, the picture begins to change. Firstly, indeed, already at the end of 1904 the authorities did not control the situation in the country. The Minister of Internal Affairs Svyatopolk-Mirsky made concessions to the moderate and liberal opposition, but only achieved further radicalization of the zemstvo movement. Already in November 1904, protesters raised the question of changing the political system, introducing universal voting rights and the legislative parliament. In November there was a “banquet company” where all these demands were voiced publicly, and, in fact, it was from this moment that the revolution began.

Moreover, the people who organized the “banquet campaign” at the end of 1904 knew perfectly well what they were doing, because it was with the banquet campaign that the French Revolution of 1848 began. It was a conscious copy of those events. The banquet company demonstrates the powerlessness of the authorities, and thus the country is called to action. Gapon heard the call to action. At that time, he headed a huge legal labor organization in St. Petersburg, which was initially created under the supervision of the police. Then the police lost control of this organization. And after the founder of this workers’ organization, the head of the Special Department of the Police Department Sergei Zubatov, was dismissed, Gapon no longer worked for any police. He kicked out all the police agents from his organization long before the January events. When drawing up a petition to the Tsar, liberals, Socialist-Revolutionaries, and Social Democrats actively helped him, because Gapon communicated very closely with opposition circles. Moreover, this petition was rewritten and supplemented even after it began to be signed by workers who believed in Gapon as their leader. The petition was framed as a plea, a request. But what does this request sound like? It contains very radical demands.

Essentially, this is an ultimatum. There, in an ultimatum, covered with demagogic rhetoric, they demand the immediate release of all those convicted in political cases, the responsibility of ministers to the people, the separation of Church and state, and complete freedom of the press and assembly.

Absolutely right, this is an ultimatum, and not just a political one. After all, the political system can be changed with the stroke of a pen. But they also demand a change in the economic system. If they tried to implement the list of these requirements in practice, the Russian economy would not be able to withstand it and would lose its competitiveness.

It was like a peaceful demonstration, but at the same time the workers were armed with sticks, and not just banners. The revolutionaries and Socialist Revolutionaries who were in the crowd had weapons. Walking with Gapon was Pyotr Rutenberg, an acquaintance of his, an activist of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. By the way, he came to Gapon with a plan of the city and explained to him how to bypass military barriers and break through to the Winter Palace.

So, the petition actually says that either the Tsar fulfills all our demands, or he is “no longer our father.” The workers walk with sticks and are not afraid of being dispersed. There are tens of thousands of them. Gapon said in advance that they wouldn’t dare disperse us. But if they dare, then we no longer have a father.

When the shooting began, one volley was not enough; no one began to run away at first.

“Nevertheless, this does not negate the savagery and tragedy of what happened.

No, of course, but it explains that the situation was provoked. The authorities, of course, acted extremely badly and cruelly, but at the same time they were driven into a dead end. She was first driven into a dead end, and then forced to act the way she eventually acted. What was the alternative in this situation?

- At least, don’t give the order to shoot right away. Moreover, there were children and women there.

There were not only children and women there. There were also police there, who walked in the first line because they were guarding the demonstration. The crowd walked towards the line of soldiers, and they were ordered to stop and warned that there would be further shooting. The crowd didn't stop. What could the troops do next? They act according to the charter and cannot allow the crowd to approach them closer than the distance specified by the charter. Because if you let the crowd get closer, the troops lose the initiative, and the crowd simply crushes the line of soldiers.

- Were there any warning shots in the air?

There were warning commands, but no shots were fired into the air. But the shots were fired after unsuccessful attempts to disperse the cavalry. And the police received the first bullets. The soldiers used their weapons in a situation where they were facing a demonstration that was being guarded by the police. This is already a situation of disaster. The soldiers have only one alternative: do not shoot and disperse.

- Couldn’t you have given the soldiers another command?

For example, there should be warning shots in the air, so that lethal fire should be opened after the first line of soldiers has broken through. That is, act more subtly?

In the Russian Empire - no. No one could allow anyone to break through the line of soldiers.

- But why couldn’t it have been fired at least a few warning shots into the air?

As sad as it is, most likely nothing would have changed.

- But why?

Let's simulate the situation.

- At least the women and children would leave.

No. Everyone is led by Gapon, who says that they won’t dare shoot. And that everyone should go to the Winter Palace.

- So they started shooting in the air. Gapon's words have been refuted.

When they started shooting, it took several volleys at point-blank range for the crowd to waver and start running away. So neither shots in the air nor a bloodless breakthrough of the first rank of soldiers would have given anything.

Perhaps then there would not have been the wild impression of a cruel and unmotivated execution. The provocative nature of the demonstrators’ actions would have been clearer. That is, “this is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.”

If they had simply broken through the first line of soldiers, and only then started shooting, the impression would have been exactly the same. Because the question for the demonstrators was stark: either we go to the Winter Palace and the Tsar meets with us, or from now on he is nobody to us and there is no way to call him.

- Nevertheless, today even, for example, such a respected modern historian as Modest Alekseevich Kolerov, believes that it was a completely “senseless and paranoid execution”.

I have been arguing with him on this topic for a long time. Modest Alekseevich repeats what Pyotr Bernhardovich Struve (a Marxist and former ally of Lenin who switched to liberal positions) wrote; he looks at this event through the eyes of a man whom he studied a lot.

- What would happen if the demonstrators were allowed to go to the Winter Palace, and the Tsar came out to them?

Most likely, the revolution would have continued. They would occupy the Winter Palace, build barricades, and announce the transfer of power into the hands of the workers and Gapon.

- Was it real?

The fact of the matter is that everything was built exclusively under one alternative: either you completely capitulate, or use force. For the authorities, this is a dead end; they lose in any case. The authorities on January 9 could only either do as they did, or simply leave St. Petersburg and the Winter Palace and give it up for plunder. And there was no other option.

The Tsar was asked to go out to the demonstration in person and risk himself, because there were also armed revolutionaries in the crowd. Meet with the workers and swear that he will do everything that is written in the petition.

- What if you come out and say that here are some things I can do, but some I can’t.

No. It was suggested that he swear that he would do everything written in this paper. It was necessary to go out and capitulate - or not to go out. There was no other option.

But why then do we even talk about the guilt of the authorities and the fact that someone should be punished? What if there was no other option?

I would say that the fault of the authorities is second only to the opposition. The provocation was organized by the opposition. Despite the fact that the blood was shed by the authorities, it was the opposition that did everything to ensure that it was shed. But the fault of the authorities is that at the end of 1904 they lost control over the situation in the country.

In your opinion, can we say that Gapon’s march was a kind of prototype of the methods of the “color revolutions”?

I think yes.

“But now we’ve learned to cope with them without such brutal executions, thank God.”

By and large, then the authorities were faced with an unusual phenomenon. We call the first Russian revolution that way not only because it is the first chronologically, but also because it is the first experience. No one in Russia has ever encountered anything like this before.

Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich was removed from the post of commander of the St. Petersburg Military District. Also, the post of mayor was replaced with the post of palace commandant, appointing Trepov to it. He clumsily tried to reach a compromise. That is, they gathered representatives of workers from different factories and organized a meeting with the Tsar. In general, from the point of view of the authorities, she was not to blame. That is, she acted as she should have acted.

- There is still an impression of some unreasonability and, to be honest, even a little sanity.

I'm saying that everything was done rather ineptly. The authorities did not want to admit to mistakes. But, I repeat, she was not the main culprit and acted as best she could. I am not going to justify the authorities, but I am saying that there are more guilty in this situation.

The opposition acted very skillfully, but the government acted very ineptly

What was the role of the events of January 9 in unleashing the revolution? Were they really the trigger for her?

On January 9, the revolution, which had already begun at the level of educated society, moved to the workers. Essentially, what is January 9, 1905? Workers joined the banquet campaign.

To summarize, we can say that the opposition acted very skillfully, and the authorities acted very ineptly. The initiative clearly belonged to the opposition, which had the blood of the workers in the first place, because the revolutionaries knew perfectly well what would happen and understood perfectly well how it would end. Including blood on Pyotr Berngardovich Struve, who, starting in 1902, with the founding of the magazine “Osvobozhdenie,” did a lot to ensure that the revolution began, although it was quite obvious that it would be bloody.

The revolutionaries knew perfectly well how it would end.

When Gapon led the demonstration, did he understand that they might start shooting? Of course I understood. Did the Socialist Revolutionaries and Social Democrats, who actively worked with Gapon and helped draw up the petition, understand that there would be an execution? Undoubtedly, they understood and really counted on it.

Were there any statements or articles by any publicists who would have approved of the actions of the authorities then, or at least not condemned them? They said that the blame lies primarily with the revolutionaries?

The situation at the beginning of 1905 was that the authorities had no support at all, from anywhere. In principle, no one stood or spoke for her. And if you look at what our famous conservatives of that time write, they all advocated the need to seriously change the regime.

Was Nicholas II a weak-willed ruler?

Nicholas II is often spoken of as a weak ruler who did not know how to behave harshly and powerfully. Is there some truth in these words?

Emperor Nicholas II was an ordinary person of his time, and his interests were also typical of that time. He was an avid motorist, photographer, tennis player, film buff, etc. He ordered the construction of a swimming pool in the Winter Palace. He was a normal aristocrat of his time, but without some of the aristocratic stupidity, without deviance, deviations and tyranny, which is sometimes generally characteristic of aristocrats.

And this one, in general, a common person found himself in such a high position as an autocratic ruler, and found himself in a rather unusual situation for himself. The fact is that no one expected Alexander III to die so quickly, at only 49 years old. One could safely assume that he would live another quarter of a century. Roughly speaking, until about 1917. Nicholas II had every chance of growing old as an heir. And indeed, the heir to the throne did not even manage to become a general, and remained a colonel. At this point he had very little experience government activities. I do not think that Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, with whom Nicholas II was very friendly, came up with this phrase, which the young Emperor allegedly told him when ascending the throne: “Sandro, I don’t know how to reign, I don’t even know how to talk to ministers.” He really didn't know how to talk to ministers, he just didn't have that kind of experience.

With all this, it must be borne in mind that the transfer of royal power in 1894 was one of the calmest in the entire history of the Romanov dynasty. A young man ascends to the throne at the age of 26 not in extraordinary circumstances, when there is no Crimean War, no regicide, no Decembrists, no palace coup. It would seem that everything is wonderful. Relative calm both outside and inside the country.

“Nevertheless, after a few years the situation swayed to the point of revolution.

I would not say that this is personally the fault of Nicholas II. Europe has come a long way since 1894 big way towards a serious crisis, and here little depended on him. Still, it was not his fault that the world war began in 1914.

On the other hand, there is already a certain tradition within the country domestic policy, formed under the father. Nicholas II did not change this course. There are advisers that he inherited from his father and whom he tried to keep. In a situation where there are already authority figures who advise something, all he can do is gradually gain experience and gradually increase his personal influence.

- What kind of manager did he ultimately become?

I would say this: he really gradually gained experience and changed seriously, especially during the first revolution. He became much more careful, more circumspect and mature in his actions. I began to act very carefully in terms of selecting people.

It is often said that he was under the thumb of his wife, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, and that the evil genius Rasputin also acted through her.

No no. Alexandra Feodorovna’s real influence on politics appeared only in 1915, but even then her influence was far from dominant. This can be clearly seen from their personal correspondence. The Empress gave the Tsar a huge amount of advice, but he essentially ignored most of it.

As for Rasputin, if we look at what advice he gave regarding domestic and foreign policy, almost none of it was put into practice. Yes, Rasputin tried to play politics, tried to take the side of one or another power group or, rather, one or another person in power. But its real influence was small.

This is true. He really was so delicate that he was afraid to tell the person directly that he was fired, and if he fired, then “behind his back.” The person received a resignation package. These are features of nature. As a person, in this sense he was quite shy, but he had to periodically dismiss someone.

- Doesn’t this indicate a timid nature and low managerial qualities?

In the end, what difference does it make how exactly a person formalizes the decision to resign? If it is difficult for him to say this in person, he does not do it in person.

Nevertheless, is the opinion that Nicholas II was a weak ruler, whose reign ended disastrously, including because of his personal managerial qualities, justified or not?

I don't think so. It seems to me that the situation is much more complicated, and ultimately it is not a matter of the personal qualities of the last Emperor. The most significant thing is, perhaps, how people who are called to government, perform their duties. It is desirable that they do not conflict with each other too much and that they understand that, having authority and having taken a personal oath to a certain person, they should not act treasonably towards that person. But often statesmen At the beginning of the 20th century, this is exactly how they behaved. There are a significant number of examples where a person with the rank of minister could spread slanderous rumors about the Emperor while holding a high government position. I'm not even talking about the period when he retired.

By 1905, a steam boiler exploded

But what really happened after the death of Alexander III? Why did the situation go downhill and why did a kind of “unfreezing” occur?

The point is not the death of Alexander III, but the policy that he pursued. Because if you pursue this policy of freezing, exclude any participation of society in the political sphere, but at the same time you have universities that these social forces are constantly growing, then the situation will ultimately be a dead end. What do we have in Russia turn of XIX-XX centuries? A rapidly growing economy and industry, a rapidly growing number of educated people. These people can't help but be interested political sphere, and she is completely closed from them. The same censorship regime that does not allow discussion of political topics in the press. This is being discussed “in kitchens”, and the further it goes, the more radical it becomes. Political views are radicalizing, and the authorities, closed by the censorship regime, do not know what is happening. WITH late XIX century, we have a very sad picture when a gap arises between official and unofficial Russia. And by 1905, the steam boiler exploded.

- But why did the cauldron begin to fill precisely with the death of Alexander III?

It started filling up earlier. Social revival began at the turn of the 1880-1890s. After all, we often judge those years at the level of stereotypes. They say that Alexander III came in 1881 and brought order with a harsh hand. Nothing like this. After the events of March 1, 1881, there was a strong change in sentiment in the public environment. The regicide was perceived as a terrible, nightmarish, dirty absurdity. This very event turned people away from politics and joining the revolution. The outflow in the 1880s was mainly natural. And the authorities considered it to be their merit.

But even during the life of Alexander III, public interest in politics began to return, which the authorities were unable to restrain. And if the regime had been able to build relationships with these people, then a return to politics could have occurred in a more moderate manner. But the authorities did not at all set themselves the task of making political contact with educated people who could no longer help but be interested in politics. You run universities and educate a large number of European educated people. They have very different political views, and very often they are quite well-intentioned, but you still treat them like little children. And they are ready for a certain interaction, but not ready for the fact that they will not be taken into account at all.

There was a moderate-liberal zemstvo movement with which it was quite possible to find a common language. At first they did not raise the question of any constitution, but talked about the need to increase zemstvo fees and the zemstvo budget. And this is objectively overdue. It was necessary to increase the zemstvo budget. They also wanted to be able to organize all-Russian zemstvo congresses to exchange experiences on issues of agronomy, fire prevention, etc. But the authorities were categorically against it. And people like Struve and the magazine “Osvobozhdenie” began to take over the situation.

And after a quarter of a century of tough policies, the authorities suddenly decide that they need to make concessions. But this “suddenly” was very costly, because if you make belated concessions, they are always perceived as weakness. As a result, supporters of radical approaches take power among the zemstvo. Instead of a moderate majority, suddenly, unexpectedly for the authorities, a radical majority arises, which demands a change in the political system. So it was necessary 10 years ago to negotiate with those, and not with these. It's no use with these. Time has passed.