April 6, 2002
Live on the radio station "Echo of Moscow" program "Not so!"
Away - Andrei Levandovsky, historian, Sergei Mironenko, director of the State Archives.
The broadcast is hosted by Sergey Buntman.
S. BUNTMAN And our joint program with the magazine "Knowledge is Power" "Dynasty of the Romanovs". Alexander the First died, an interregnum suddenly formed for some reason. And here there were disturbances. Andrei Lewandovsky is already in the studio, I hope that the director of the State Archives, Sergei Mironenko, will come up, we will continue our conversation about the Decembrists. Andrey, good afternoon.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Good afternoon, Seryozha.
S. BUNTMAN Chronicle of events. Here, Alexander the First died.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Well, firstly, it was so unexpected for everyone. The king was cheerful, healthy, not very cheerful last years life, but nothing chronic absolutely. He left for Taganrog as an absolutely healthy person and left, in general, for the sake of his wife, Elizaveta Alekseevna. And death, well, firstly, unexpectedly, and secondly, far from the capital, extremely far. Rumors immediately went incredible, but in principle, it’s well, in principle, it’s known, “the king is dead, long live the king!”
S. BUNTMAN Yes, and there seems to be a law.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Yes.
S. BUNTMAN Pavlovian law.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Pavlovian law of succession to the throne, absolutely true. And here it turned out that there was such a strong-willed impulse, there was a testament of Alexander, according to which the throne, in the event of his death, was to pass over the head of Constantine, the next brother in seniority - Alexander died childless - to Nicholas. About six months before his death, a little more, this was drawn up in the spring, lay in the Senate, in an envelope with the inscription “to be opened after my death. Alexander". This is what strikes me, this is what has always amazed me in Russian history, and now it strikes me, this is the atmosphere of mystery around what should be extremely public. It was a terrible secret, which was known only to interested persons, literally a few people from the royal entourage. Alexander Nikolaevich Golitsyn, beloved by Alexander, Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow, who then had a copy of this will. And everything, practically. That is, it was a complete surprise, no one, not society, was ready for this. Well, with society, in this case, it seems that God is with him. Well, the ruling structures were absolutely not ready for this. And since the death of Alexander took everyone by surprise, it turned out like this: the sovereign, who was supposed to ascend the throne by law, Konstantin, was in Warsaw, was the governor of the Kingdom of Poland, Nicholas was in St. Petersburg. The will was opened, everything was cleared up, and there was a very serious problem. I would formulate it this way: how to explain, say, to Russian soldiers, guardsmen, why instead of the legitimate, healthy, vigorous heir to Constantine, Nikolai suddenly ascends the throne.
S. BUNTMAN And how was it formulated in the will?
A. LEVANDOVSKY The fact was practically stated in the will, because, of course, the motivation of the state benefit, and so on. In principle, it is difficult to find a real explanation there.
S. BUNTMAN Sergey Mironenko joined us, good afternoon.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Now he will tell everything.
S. BUNTMAN Yes, he will tell everything. We stopped at the problem, we will now restore the chronology of events now, the death of Alexander, the opening of the will, and that, in general, the will only states the fact and it is almost impossible to explain why suddenly over Konstantin's head. To explain this, well, not so much to society as to the army, which must take the oath. Here, a will, what problem does a will pose to us?
S. MIRONENKO Well, I think that this can be explained. The whole problem is that this will, as well as the documents that were with this will, were not made public. Here is the question. Why, when everything had already been decided in the 22nd year, Constantine did not want to reign, spoke openly about it, persuaded him for a long time that he could reign, he turned out to be decisive. And they began to prepare papers. Constantine's refusal to accept the throne, Alexander's rescript that the succession to the throne passes from Constantine to the next brother, Nicholas, letters addressed to his mother, Empress Maria Feodorovna. This entire block existed, and the only question was, publish it, make it public, and there was no December 14, 25. For me, the question is why Alexander did not do this.
S. BUNTMAN That's how easy we talk about it, publish it. But there is always some kind of mystery. Maybe they were afraid of excitement?
S. MIRONENKO No, what are you! In an autocratic state, there is no greater misfortune than uncertainty about the heir.
S. BUNTMAN Well, this is understandable, this is objectively understandable. Why is it subjective?
S. MIRONENKO Well, I have an explanation, I can explain how I imagine it.
S. BUNTMAN Well, let's try to explain it right then.
S. MIRONENKO Come on. This is my hypothesis, I cannot say that I can prove it 100%, but it seems to me that I understand Alexander and understand why these documents were not made public. First, Alexander was 49 years old. He was not going to die, he was a healthy enough man, and who knew that he would go
S. BUNTMAN Well, this is the end of our previous program, Andrey and I are just talking about this
A. LEVANDOVSKY He was about to leave.
S. MIRONENKO I was about to leave. Good question. So, I was about to leave. The fact is that in 18-19, as you probably already said in the previous program, active work was underway on the constitution, Alexander dreamed of giving Russia a constitution, it was an idea from a young age. After the war of the 12th year, after foreign campaigns, after Congress of Vienna, after Russia became the arbiter of the fate of the then world in practice. And Europe, well, what can I say, at the beginning of the 19th century, there was practically the entire civilized world. I think that Alexander was sure that he would succeed, one way or another, in making his dreams of a constitution a reality, secondly
S. BUNTMAN Do you still think dreams continued? Because there was a very big break and a turn in Alexander's policy.
S. MIRONENKO Well, there’s nothing to think about here, there is a draft constitution, which, on behalf of Alexander Novoseltsev, was written, or rather, not by Novoseltsev, but under the guidance of Novoseltsev, one of his closest friends of his youth, this is the very intimate circle that arose after , as he ascended the throne, and existed even before that. The Frenchman de Champs wrote a constitution, it was really a constitution, it had 193 articles. Alexander corrected this constitution, reviewed it, approved it, moreover, manifestos were prepared in the 20th year for the introduction of this constitution in Russia, not in the Kingdom of Poland. It was she who was preparing in Warsaw, and the constitution was all-Russian, so here it was not a dream, but these dreams were already, as it were, being realized. And after the return of Alexander from Europe in the 16th year
A. LEVANDOVSKY Tellingly, at one time there was a plan for state transformation, Alexander approved it, corrected it, and out of all this magnificence, only the State Council was actually introduced.
S. MIRONENKO No, that's absolutely correct. I think that when Alexander realized, somewhere at the end of the 20th beginning of the 21st year, that Yes, Arakcheev wrote a project for the liberation of the peasants in parallel. Well, not Arakcheev, under the leadership of Arakcheev, I think that the author was Malinovsky, a famous one. Moreover, the plan, which was based on the redemption operation.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Yes, the plan is excellent.
S. MIRONENKO Participation of the state in this redemption operation. That is, those principles that were later, in a modified form, dissected, but implemented in the reform of the 61st year.
A. LEVANDOVSKY This makes a strong impression, especially when you find out that it is connected with the name of Arakcheev
S. BUNTMAN Well, I think that many listeners are no longer surprised by us, because in the last program we tried to dwell in detail on the personality of Arakcheev, and on his role, and on this interaction Alexander Arakcheev. Now, if we quickly move
S. MIRONENKO So, a man dreams that he will give Russia a constitution and the emancipation of the peasants, one way or another, a peasant reform, complete, not complete. Full constitution, not complete, paternalistic. That's another question, but dreaming about it. And he realizes that almost everything in his path is opposed to these dreams. I connect with this the spiritual crisis that overtook Alexander in these 20s, the 22nd, 23rd, mysticism, everything connected with this. That is, the testimonies of contemporaries that the person was tired, that he again returned to the idea that he would renounce. And now it seems to me that what is the best moment to implement, well, to try, in any case, in spite of everyone and everything, to try to implement these plans, this is the moment of renunciation. That is, if you abdicate and transfer your throne to someone, you can condition it on some things, maybe a limited constitution, maybe a peasant reform, and so on.
S. BUNTMAN The very moment, that is, to make such a frame in which the renunciation takes place, let's say so.
S. MIRONENKO Of course, of course, this is the most convenient moment. And Alexander, from my point of view, my hypothesis, I do not say that this is 100%. Why has it not been published? Because if these documents were published, then, in principle, one should have parted with dreams that at this moment renunciation and everything that you can do something. Because here is the moment when the new heir is named, the name of the new heir is not determined by anything, just the documents are ready. I think Alexander could not personally part with the dream that he once had those ideas that he absorbed from La Harpe, in this circle of intimate friends, the ideas that he carried with him through his whole life, they will not be him. implemented. And so it remained unpublished.
S. BUNTMAN That is, he was still waiting, this moment had not yet come for him in any way.
S. MIRONENKO Maybe.
S. BUNTMAN Maybe.
A. LEVANDOVSKY I have some doubts.
S. BUNTMAN Yes, please.
A. LEVANDOVSKY From Nikolai all this, Nikolai is so unsuitable for the role of a constitutional monarch, in principle. That is, this shift itself, instead of Konstantin, Nikolai, well, Alexander, of course, was far from Nikolai, this is obvious. The gap is big. How close were Konstantin
S. BUNTMAN Well, yes, this is the second pair of Pavel's children.
A. LEVANDOVSKY And, nevertheless, the figure of Nicholas is so definite. Here, change Constantine to Nicholas, and dream of handing over to him on constitutional grounds. From Nicholas, he does not look like a constitutional monarch, already at such a young age.
S. BUNTMAN Even at 20 How old is he? By the 25th year, 26 years old.
S. MIRONENKO Can I ask a question?
S. BUNTMAN Of course.
S. MIRONENKO What, does Alexander III look like a constitutional monarch?
A. LEVANDOVSKY No, it doesn't look at all, at all.
S. MIRONENKO I don't want to tell now, but we have just received a huge archive of Alexander II. His colossal correspondence with Yuryevskaya, his diaries, true copies of these diaries, which generally change, at least, my idea of the last year of the life of Alexander II, and his various reflections on the constitution of Loris-Melikov. And the opportunity to bring this constitution of Loris-Melikov to life. I won't talk about it now. But the hint, I hope everyone understood.
S. BUNTMAN I must tell the listeners, remind them what we have planned, this is now the first such stop for us, in the 19th century, the 25th year, the beginning of the 26th, these are the events of this strange interregnum. Our next reform of Alexander is the 60s, we will also make a stop, and then I will ask Sergei Mironenko to do it, come to us, tell us when we get there.
S. MIRONENKO I will do it with pleasure. What did I want to say? What you understand is suitable, not suitable, this is our subjective impression with you. I just had such an example before my eyes, when we consider one thing, the other is considered by people who live nearby.
S. BUNTMAN Yes, but it was Subjective opinion, what you have already extracted, Alexander II.
S. MIRONENKO Yes.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Because everything happened with Alexander III as it happened. There was no smell of any constitution even in the air. Well, it smelled the first two months, and then so on.
S. BUNTMAN Well, let's go back to the 25th year. Be that as it may, under any circumstances, whatever it may be, but there is no more Alexander the First. Even if we accept the story about Fyodor Kuzmich, which we spoke about in detail last time, he is not there as a king. There is Constantine, which automatically arises in the minds of people, since there is also a law on succession to the throne, Pavlovian, there is a new sovereign. Even the Konstantinovsky ruble is notorious, made. And there is no Nicholas yet.
S. MIRONENKO And, by the way, Konstantin's reputation in society and even in the guards was much better than that of Nikolai.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Of course.
S. MIRONENKO Especially since he was far away, he had not been seen for a long time.
S. BUNTMAN Well, yes, and the soldier's idea that the constitution is Konstantin's wife, we also know this legend.
S. MIRONENKO Explain to the soldiers that Constantine is worse than Nicholas, in my opinion, from the point of view of soldier psychology, the king is from God, according to the law, Constantine should be, which means he should rule. And there, that he has some kind of breakdowns, it doesn’t matter.
S. BUNTMAN Whether it's good or bad, it doesn't matter.
A. LEVANDOVSKY - In general, the problem is, of course, a serious one.
S. MIRONENKO - No, the problem is serious, and by the way, this is another argument for me that Fyodor Kuzmich was not Alexander the First. I deeply and respectfully relate to Alexander the First, I know that this is a man for whom Russia was not an empty word. And to leave, leaving behind unresolved the issue of succession to the throne for Alexander, it was simply impossible, you know.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Yes, by the way, this is a strong argument.
S. MIRONENKO You see, one must be well aware of this. But, of course, the whole country knew that it was necessary to swear allegiance to Constantine. In churches, take any pronunciation of the rank of the royal family, who followed the emperor? Of course, Konstantin, then all the others.
S. BUNTMAN Of course.
S. MIRONENKO The title of Tsarevich, heir, the whole country, at all church services, heard one name: Konstantin, Tsarevich, heir.
S. BUNTMAN Since 1801.
S. MIRONENKO Of course.
S. BUNTMAN That is, he then became the heir.
S. BUNTMAN Alexander, our listener, thank you, Alexander, I just made a reservation, of course, in the 25th year, Nicholas the First was 29 years old, Mikhail Pavlovich was 26 years old. He was born in the 99th. And the 96th is Nicholas the First. Thank you very much, that was the caveat. Well, according to the logic of things, Constantine in the minds of everyone should be Constantine. But here it turns out that unrest and confusion occur, it is superimposed on many plans, on reflections, on the coup attempts being prepared, and it only accelerates events. Or is it such a primitive picture of events that we endure from our school years?
A. LEVANDOVSKY Here different points view is, and different concepts. In general, as a first approximation, I have a sense of spontaneity with regard to the uprising on December 14, because here, in my opinion, even the Union of Salvation was more inclined, that is, what it all started with, 16 th year, was more inclined to take some radical measures. I have a feeling that after all, both societies have largely gone into programmatic issues. That, of course, is what the Southern and Northern societies have given, these are developments, for the first time, perhaps, in this newborn Russian movement there are more or less clear programs of what we want.
S. BUNTMAN Moreover, the controversy of the programs was going on.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Quite right. Before that, it was clear what we don't want, we don't want serfdom, we don't want autocracy. What we want is clearly stated for the first time. It took, in my opinion, a lot of time and effort, energy went here. After all, Sergei Vladimirovich knows better here, but I still have the feeling here that the decision for almost the entire mass of the rebels was made literally in a matter of
S. BUNTMAN For the mass of leaders, let's say, if I may say so.
A. LEVANDOVSKY For the mass of leaders, they are all almost leaders. Indeed, it was nevertheless adopted spontaneously. No?
S. MIRONENKO No, of course, it is enough to recall the words of Ivan Ivanovich Pushchin, which he said that "the opportunity is convenient, and that if we do not use it, we will deserve the name of scoundrels." The emotional intensity was absolutely extraordinary. But I must say that I completely agree that it is generally I just wrote an article that I hope will be published in the journal " National history”, where I am trying to convey a very simple idea that if the Decembrist movement itself is natural, I have no doubt about this, then the uprising on December 14 is an accident. This is an absolute coincidence. And I in this article simply analyze the well-known facts. After all, let's say, Alexander the First dies, that's the role of the State Council, on November 19 he died, on the 25th they received the news in St. Petersburg. If the Council of State decided to announce the will and all the papers of Alexander the First, there would be no Constantine, there would be no re-oath. Would swear allegiance to Nicholas and all.
S. BUNTMAN There would be no reason to
S. MIRONENKO There would be no reason to bring the rebellious regiments to the square.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Quite right.
S. MIRONENKO There's plenty more. Live, say, Alexander for another 2 weeks. You know that the order to arrest Pestel was issued by Dibich during Alexander's lifetime.
A. LEWANDOWSKY The French, famous atheists, have an expression: the power of things. It seems that the very force of things pushed the Decembrists to Senate Square, and not even the power of things, but the state structure itself. Here is the approach to the solution.
S. BUNTMAN This is the approach, if the State Council had decided differently, if the papers had been published. But, on the other hand, can we talk about the accident of the uprising itself precisely in the circle of circumstances that have developed, precisely Let's look from the other side. Despite the fact that the State Council did not publish, the oath, then the re-oath, this chain of circumstances, whatever you call it, and no matter whose hand these circumstances lead, could there not have been a speech on December 14 and a speech by the Chernigov regiment, which was, in my opinion, in general, a separate story is still here, although in the same chain of events, could this not have happened?
S. MIRONENKO Of course it could.
S. BUNTMAN Could? It is in these circumstances?
S. MIRONENKO Of course. What are you talking about! Well, let's recall at least the well-known facts: firstly, the Northern and Southern Societies were in constant negotiations about tactics. Andrey was right when he said that, of course, these policy documents, the constitution of Nikita Mikhailovich Muravyov, or Pestel's Russkaya Pravda, occupied the main place. A congress was planned for the 26th year, a unifying one, as it were, they wanted to get together, discuss everything. Yes, there would never have been any unification congress. Do not die Alexander, live, I repeat this to you again, for 2 weeks all the names of the conspirators were known, everyone.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Yes, Sherwood was the last person Alexander talked to.
S. MIRONENKO Sherwood, Mayboroda, all these denunciations, Bashnak, who knew all this. After all, everything was on hand.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Serezha, in my opinion, the last decree that Alexander signed was precisely about the arrest of Pestel.
S. MIRONENKO Of course! It's that Diebitsch has been leading it all. Dibich, adjutant general, went to the Second Army in order to understand what was happening there. Witte was called, the head of the southern military settlements, who also knew this. I mean, it's all here, here, here. This is an incredible set of circumstances.
A. LEVANDOVSKY So it happened.
S. MIRONENKO It happened so. It is difficult to imagine Russian history without December 14, it is practically impossible, because this is a phenomenon, not a movement itself, but those who took to the square, that they declared themselves that it was a rebellion in the heart of the empire, that it was a rebellion in the south, that it was the guards who mutinied here and the army regiments in the south. This shocked, of course, Russia. And I am deeply convinced that this could not be. And we would not have had Herzen, whom Herzen would have had, but there would not have been this phrase that the Decembrists had awakened Herzen.
S. BUNTMAN We will talk at the end of the program about whether we have lost or gained something extremely valuable due to the fact that the circumstances were such that the December speech was.
-
A. LEWANDOWSKY I just wanted to draw attention to the reverse side of the matter. Sergey Vladimirovich is absolutely right, and, by the way, this all great shows how important some fatal coincidences, oversights, unreasonable decisions, and so on play a big role in history. But here there is another side of the matter, the Decembrists were generally inwardly, psychologically, ready to take to the square. This is what needs to be taken into account. Circumstances were such that they were pushed out. They were ready for it. Here is what Ryleev from Nalivaiko famously says, in my opinion: “I know for sure that death awaits the one who first stands up against the oppressor of the people,” and a host of other testimonies. Yakushkin, in his notes, remember, wrote: "we were all skirmishers in this matter, or, as the French say, dead guys." That is, for the role of skirmishers, if not all, then very many, were internally ready, because the circumstances were circumstances, but to do what no one had ever done, and go to the square, lead the soldiers behind them, largely by deception, go to the violation of established concepts of honor, oath, and so on, here the Decembrist movement did not go through its cycle in vain. We were mentally prepared for this.
S. BUNTMAN Do you agree?
S. MIRONENKO I absolutely agree, that is why I think that this movement is natural, you understand, it was not born from somewhere, just like an infection brought from the West, or like Nikolai
S. BUNTMAN Well, yes.
S. MIRONENKO No, you know what explanations a group in tailcoats gathered and arranged something in the square.
S. BUNTMAN Ah, well, yes, this is an official message, if there was an agency, it would have written like that, but that was the message.
S. MIRONENKO No, it's not.
S. BUNTMAN Yes, there were "suspicious people", or "disgusting-looking people in tailcoats". There were few in tailcoats on the square, one can name the same Kakhovsky, and from the well-known, from the first people. Let's not talk about the course of the uprising now. For those who don't know it failed. And now let's talk about what the immediate consequences are. Yes, this day passed stormily, it is extremely curious that Nikolai, by the way, wrote curiously about this. Because we have that here, after all, a large collection of what the Decembrists themselves recalled, who did not die after that. And there is what Nicholas wrote.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Perception of the king.
S. BUNTMAN Yes, perception young man, no matter how old, 29 years old at that time, but still, a young man, extremely interesting, in 2 weeks we will take up his biography of his reign. The day has passed. Further.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Well, actually, the day has not yet passed, it was just ending, the arrests had already begun. And the investigation has already begun, right?
S. MIRONENKO Well, of course.
S. BUNTMAN Gathered almost immediately.
S. MIRONENKO No, as they gathered, Adjutant General Levashov was immediately called, and he, on behalf of Nikolai, and Nikolai also partially participated in this, interrogations began right there, on the evening of the 14th. Shchepin-Rostovsky, who led the Moscow regiment, was interrogated first. And in our archive, the State Archive Russian Federation, these first interrogations have been preserved, written by the hand of either Levashov or another Adjutant General Toll, here they are, here are these notes by Nikolai, “this one to the fortress, this one to the guardhouse, this one to be chained in iron, and this one to keep well”, and so on . I mean, it started right away.
S. BUNTMAN Well, they realized, that's the most important thing, what the authorities thought about it, and the rebels understandably, let's leave it for now. What did the authorities think about it? What is it, if we ignore tailcoats?
S. MIRONENKO You see, we still need to go back a few days.
S. BUNTMAN Let's go back.
S. MIRONENKO After all, on December 12, Nikolai had in his hands a large report from General Dibich, sent on the 4th from Taganrog, where Dibich, on the basis of those denunciations that we have just talked about, built a huge picture of a conspiracy that covered And guards regiments, and the south of the country, and the army. And he named the names of those Decembrists who should be in the capital. After that, we know, it’s still a question, what else happened, Yakov Rostovtsev, who also came to Nikolai on the 12th and warned that there would be an uprising. That is, Nikolai knew about the big conspiracy even before the 14th.
S. BUNTMAN Big? The word "big" is very important to me.
S. MIRONENKO A large, precisely a large conspiracy, which, in general, embraced significant layers. In these denunciations, by the way, there were many untruths.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Exaggerations.
S. MIRONENKO Yes, it was an exaggeration that later, during the investigation, it was refuted, but Nikolai did not dare to start with arrests on the 12th. This, too, he will describe well in his memoirs and they talked a lot about it, he grimaced, did not grimacing, so, not so, but the fact that he did not arrest anyone. That he did not begin his reign. He understood what would happen for him - to begin his reign with these arrests, and arrests among brilliant people. Volkonsky not last man in general for Russia.
S. BUNTMAN Prince Trubetskoy.
S. MIRONENKO Trubetskoy, Orlov, Mikhail Fedorovich, all the same names! Orlov accepted the surrender of Paris! People, you know, significant for the country. So, I knew. But what's next, next, of course, everyone, from my point of view, was busy trying to find out what it is. And only gradually it opened up. A whole story with how Russkaya Pravda was dug up, because Pestel, anticipating his arrest, buried this most important program document. And only during the investigation, after a few weeks, it turned out that this “Russian Truth” exists, it turned out that this is not just such a conspiracy, but this conspiracy has an ideological orientation, that it grew on the basis of both serfdom and the problem of how state power must be established.
A. LEVANDOVSKY You know, there is a very curious antithesis here, here is what we were talking about, a manifesto, disgusting-looking tailcoats, and in general, all this, so to speak, is a Western infection, these are random people who have broken away from Russia, this is the official side of the matter , that is, what the authorities spoke to the people and society officially. This is like an official perception by the authorities of the uprising, of the entire movement. And there is the famous set of opinions of the Decembrists, compiled by the secretary of the commission of inquiry, Borovkov, at the direction of Nikolai. And there is, well, the memory of Borovkov as Kochubey is known, on behalf of Nikolai Pavlovich, he expressed gratitude for what was done efficiently, wisely. And Kochubey himself, then the chairman of the State Council, in my opinion, yes, Nikolaev?
S. MIRONENKO Yes, yes.
A. LEVANDOVSKY He said that I have, I am not parted from this business. That is, in other words, by the way, very high quality, in my opinion, done, for that time just serious scientific work, summarizing.
S. MIRONENKO Borovkov is the man who conducted the investigation, he was the assistant to the Minister of War Tatishchev, he is a completely outstanding person.
A. LEVANDOVSKY That is, all this was perceived, that is, the authorities thereby indirectly admitted that they see the real reason in this movement. He understands that this movement is generated by the disorder of Russia. And the authorities were interested in the opinion of the opponent of the authorities on the structure of Russia.
S. MIRONENKO Moreover, if we can continue a little, if we look a little further, the famous committee of December 6, 26, created on the wave of the uprising, on the wave of this investigation, the committee in which Nikolai tried to collect all the projects previous reign, collect them, consider, systematize. But again, how to do it? It's a terribly curious thing, a mystery. That's what the autocracy has always been afraid of? Everything must be kept secret, there must be secret committees.
A. LEVANDOVSKY This, after all, has remained with us, this, starting from admission committee some higher educational institution, and ending with a higher state structure, mystery, mystery and mystery. In those areas where there should be no secrets. You know, I have the feeling that if Nikolai Pavlovich could secretly serfdom cancel, he would cancel it.
S. BUNTMAN If only it could be done in secret!
S. MIRONENKO Unfortunately, this could not be done.
S. BUNTMAN But that's another story. But here it is surprising, of course, the struggle of secret commissions against secret societies, here it works. After all, societies are secret, and they called themselves secret. It’s wonderful, after all, it’s somehow called in French, “suck occulte.” I always remember at first how in my adolescence I could not find literature on secret societies for a long time, because it could not occur to me what French where I'm looking, it's called "socket occulte", that is, the occult here turns out. Tell me, the investigation really begins, the arrests are going on, the uprising of the Chernigov regiment, here the south is adding, the uprising is extremely dramatic and the story here, perhaps even more dramatic than the uprising on Senate Square, maybe.
S. MIRONENKO Let's not forget the Lithuanian Pioneer Battalions, this is the Society of Military Friends. Even the Baltics are affected!
S. BUNTMAN That is, such foci?
S. MIRONENKO Foci. It's a little different, but it's still the same.
A. LEVANDOVSKY The most terrible thing is that this is an army, that is, it seems to be the main support.
S. BUNTMAN And everything goes in the army. We spoke in previous programs about the situation in the Russian army, and here, it seems to me, we need to open the brackets, and here, in brackets, say a few words. The position of the Russian army. That is, it remained numerous, and, according to Alexander's idea, it was also necessary for her to remain numerous. The army began to somehow eat itself from the inside, very seriously. Now a lot of things are being clarified, which were under the Decembrists, and by the Decembrists themselves, officers, such as Pestel, how much he used the state of the army. To what extent was this explosion understood by the army? But the explosion was recognized by Nikolai, immediately.
S. MIRONENKO The first thing that can be said is military settlements. You know that, as it were, a dream, an idfix, using the French expression, Alexandra were military settlements, that is, perhaps, as always in Russia, the great words of Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin “we wanted the best, but it turned out as always”, this is also the most national trait. with military settlements. They wanted to reduce the cost of the army, they wanted not to separate the soldiers from their families, it would seem that they wanted to do better. But we know the reign of Alexander, in any case, the 10s were shaken by the performances of military settlers who protested against this cane discipline. It was completely unrealistic to combine agricultural labor
S. BUNTMAN Yes, it proved to be absolutely inefficient economically.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Psychologically almost impossible.
S. MIRONENKO Psychologically impossible. What did Nicholas do? He liquidated military settlements. Please, the first reform that was, is the elimination of military settlements.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Nikolai Pavlovich didn't like the grotesque at all, different kinds of fantasy, and so on. Then you know, here also in relation to the army, here, of course, just on the surface, such a psychological breakdown. The heroes return, having liberated Europe, taken Paris, and fall under the sticks.
S. BUNTMAN Yes, we talked about it.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Here is the famous discipline, we talked about it. I think that psychologically it had a terrible effect, both on the soldiers and on the officers. And this brought the Decembrists very close to the soldiers. The soldiers followed them, because, obviously, they felt their own, officers, dissatisfaction with what the authorities are doing from above, sympathy for themselves. This is such a rare occurrence for a soldier.
S. BUNTMAN Can we say that such strange thing, perhaps, despite the fact that Andrei Lewandovsky just said that the 25th year, with the investigation of the 26th, with the necessary not only reforms, but somehow reorganization in the army, because let's talk, there are difficult things, with the reform and the next reign with the army will be difficult. Is it possible to say that this was the last action, say, of the participants in the Napoleonic campaigns, Napoleonic Wars that this is the 25th year, the end is put here, is that it?
A. LEVANDOVSKY Active, right?
S. BUNTMAN The point is active, because here is the psychological breakdown of them, and here are the ideas, then here was an end to foreign trips?
A. LEVANDOVSKY Tynyanov's work is great, in "The Death of Vazir-Mukhtar", remember, there the beginning is just about those who survived December, remained at large, Yermolov, Orlov?
S. BUNTMAN Yes.
A. LEVANDOVSKII Herzen writes about Orlov: "a lion in a cage." That is, these people are thrown into a completely different era, because, of course, the reign of Alexander, with all its many troubles, it made it possible for individual expression in the army, even in the bureaucratic sphere, perhaps much more than under Nicholas. Nikolai nevertheless became great at cementing the whole thing, tightening the nuts and so on. Here is this famous one with Yermolov, here I bought it for something, I’m selling it for that, this is from Tynyanov in “The Death of Vazir-Mukhtar”, but he is a reliable writer, when Yermolov was dying, he squeezed with the words “my friend, I want to live” the doctor's hand that he fainted. These are people of great strength, deprived of air and oxygen by Nikolai.
S. BUNTMAN Begins new life. This is where it starts.
S. MIRONENKO You know, let's look at it more broadly. For example, Soviet historiography for decades sought to continue the work of the Decembrists in the circle of the Kritsky brothers, or in Cyril and Methodius. There was no actual sequel.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Yes, it's all over.
S. MIRONENKO We must say that in 1925 this movement, which captured not only secret societies, because secret societies are just a radical wing of it. There was a powerful liberal movement, caused by the French Great Revolution, and the Napoleonic reforms, wars, and the anti-Napoleonic coalition, and the Patriotic War of the 12th year, and an incredible explosion of patriotism. There's a huge amount here.
A. LEVANDOVSKY I would say that Decembrism is a state of mind, that is, it is not only specific members of the organization, but it is a whole class of people who think accordingly.
S. MIRONENKO Well, of course, and not for nothing Nikolai Ivanovich Turgenev, for example: "Decembrist without December", this is such a wonderful term that can be applied not only to Nikolai Ivanovich Turgenev.
S. BUNTMAN Yes, and not alone.
S. MIRONENKO So Decembrism is over. That's why it ended, that's a good question, which, it seems to me, is not enough in our, and in general, in the world historical literature, clarified. What was it, why did it suddenly cut off so instantly? Why did the end of one reign signify a complete change of scenery and everything? Why did the apogee of autocracy come? The book of Presnyakov, a remarkable Russian historian, was wonderfully named, this is the era of Nicholas the First, "Apogee of autocracy."
A. LEVANDOVSKY Yes, in general, one of the most striking works about Nikolai Pavlovich, small, but very strong.
S. BUNTMAN It didn't come right away. Here, let's now the last minutes of the program Yes, after all, but then this exaggeration begins, that half of Russia, but half thinking Russia after all, he goes somewhere, begins to think there, begins to write. And it's extremely interesting. So they didn’t die there, there are notes that they write later. Extremely important, however, they are not very important for contemporaries, they are more important for us.
A. LEVANDOVSKY - They are great. You know, in general, this makes a strong impression. Still, of course, there were severe cases, just like with one of the Borisovs, insanity, there were cases when people simply faded away before our eyes. But after all, if not the majority, then very many survived in the highest sense of the word. By the way, in my opinion, Gershenzon stated for the first time that the Decembrists are surprisingly harmonious people. They are not very complex, they are surprisingly solid. Here is the Decembrist Krivtsov, his brothers, a wonderful book in this respect, they do not yet have this self-reflection, which is so characteristic of future generations of the Russian intelligentsia. They committed a certain act, they, in principle, in my opinion, took what happened as a given, and they remained strong people, they remained by themselves in completely inadequate conditions. There is also the study of Siberia.
S. BUNTMAN They evolved somehow.
A. LEVANDOVSKY No, that's for sure.
S. MIRONENKO So I want to confirm what Andrei said. I had to deal with the Decembrist, Mikhail Alexandrovich Fonvizin, general, war hero of 12, nephew of Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. What did Mikhail Alexandrovich do in Siberia? He wrote. And one of his main works, which is called "Review of the manifestation political life in Russia”, this was another attempt to fit himself, his movement, in general into the liberal movement in Russia, starting almost from the Novgorod Republic. And to show, there is an epigraph that "this freedom is old, and slavery is new." That is, we who aspired to freedom, we are new. No wonder Fonvizin, for example, embraced the ideas of utopian socialism. Well, I did not perceive them, but, in any case, I reproduced them. In 1949, in Siberia, he wrote a work on socialism and communism. You see, of course, these were whole people who, thanks to the fact that they were whole and managed to survive in Siberia. 30 years. Now Siberia is far away, but imagine what it was like there at the beginning of the 19th century! To survive, to have an incredibly huge impact on the development of Siberia, moral, spiritual, cultural, and to remain true to ourselves.
S. BUNTMAN And the very phenomenon of exile is amazing. Precisely because they were in Siberia, so many of them considered themselves simply as state criminals exempt from many of the conventions that non-state criminals enjoy. That is, they could, knowing, perhaps, like Lunin, that they would read him, all letters to his sister, turning also to the third reader, now to the second, third reader, already from the gendarmes, they could write what they considered necessary, and not to think about how much this could damage their social position, because it was already the way it was. Well, minus all sorts of things there, such as, for example, what happened with the same Lunin, his further exile to Akatuy.
A. LEVANDOVSKY You know, there was another twist, by the way, in Tolstoy's materials for the novel, which was never written, "War and Peace" turned out instead, he did it great. He writes, 30 years have passed, Alexander II returns. This is a triumph, so he writes: “On December 14, some were at the monument to Peter, others were against them, some went to Siberia, others, as a rule, made an excellent career.” Here Nikolai never forgot those who were next to him, they all made a career. And so he writes, 30 years have passed, and let's see what happens. Some living corpses, dressed in uniforms, with orders that are of no interest to anyone. And the exiles, the heroes of our time, are returning. 30 years have passed, and their time has come. It's amazing, it makes an extremely strong impression.
S. MIRONENKO Do you want one detail, completely unusual?
S. BUNTMAN Yes.
S. MIRONENKO This is the distribution of photographic cards of the Decembrists who returned from exile.
S. BUNTMAN I just wanted to say!
S. MIRONENKO This is such an amazing thing in general. Dozens, hundreds, thousands of images of these people, these apostles of freedom, begin. After all, the term “apostles of freedom” appears. They did not disappear for Russian society, they did not disappear for the state power.
A. LEVANDOVSKY This is amazing, this is, by the way, thanks to Nicholas, who mothballed Russia for 30 years. They return to the place from which they departed.
S. BUNTMAN Well, almost, yes, yes, yes.
A. LEVANDOVSKY The people are different, the country is different, but from such a purely political, reformist point of view, everything is about the same thing that they were talking about, and it turns out that they were right. Only 30 years had to wait, and now this is on the agenda of the government itself.
S. BUNTMAN The attitude towards the Decembrists was different during these almost 200 years, 176, 177 will be in December. And what is loved Soviet power but not completely Soviet history.
A. LEVANDOVSKY About 15 years ago there were a lot of raids on the Decembrists.
S. BUNTMAN About 15 years ago, during the years of perestroika, it was the other way around.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Trampled simply.
S. BUNTMAN Yes, there were many Decembrists, people who killed the monarchy, and in general, tried to kill Russia.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Complete irresponsibility.
S. BUNTMAN Prior to this, on the contrary, a lot was important for people who disagreed with the authorities, it was important precisely in the image of the Decembrists, precisely in their behavior, their way of thinking. And a lot of people played with it. And they played seriously. So, if we now summarize, after all, the place of the Decembrists in Russian history? To what extent have we gained?.. Here we are now talking about what we have acquired and what we have seen psychologically, historically, for self-consciousness. What have we gained, and what, after all, has Russia lost, perhaps having lost a whole generation? And somehow making opponents of people who became opponents, did not build a state, but, on the contrary, tried to destroy it? Also another stamp.
A. LEVANDOVSKY - Psychologically, this is interesting. You know, there would be no December, there would be the Union of Salvation, the Union of Prosperity, I have a feeling that this could dissolve. This may be the selfish point of view of a historian, or a person who looks through almost two centuries, but it certainly was great what happened. This is really an explosion, which at first seemed to throw Russia even a little back. There were times, 10-15 years, very difficult. But they really woke up Herzen, it was Ilyich who hit the mark, he writes about it himself. A whole generation then grew up with their names. And then the cards were distributed. It's not completely accidental. That is, in general, it is wonderful when someone, perhaps prematurely, but speaks of things that are absolutely necessary, about those that need to be said. And if at the same time he still risks going out to the square so that everyone can hear it, this, of course, is strong.
S. MIRONENKO You understand, that's what Galich then: "it is difficult to go to the square, you need to go to the square at that appointed hour," this is a moral feat.
A. LEVANDOVSKY Now we can already speak about history, about Galich.
S. MIRONENKO Absolutely, of course. And this is “for ideals”, for their homeland, being a patriot and understanding the need for a peasant not to be a slave, for a soldier, a Napoleonic hero, so that his officer cannot beat him with a stick, and so on.
A. LEVANDOVSKY And here is another moment
S. MIRONENKO You understand, they will always remain so. How many of them, indeed, 10-15 years ago there were some 2-3 articles, 4, 5
S. BUNTMAN No, there were many.
S. MIRONENKO But all the same it died. Look at the internet now. I made an interesting selection. After all, the word “Decembrist”, now take it there, on the Internet, it does not go away, it has entered very firmly into our consciousness. Let's suppose that sometimes we even read in the newspapers that Chubais, say, a Decembrist, or someone else, well, it doesn't matter. Still, it's important that it stays with us.
A. LEVANDOVSKY I perceived the language, yes, quite right.
S. MIRONENKO Of course.
A. LEVANDOVSKY It just doesn't happen, it's no coincidence, no doubt.
S. BUNTMAN We touched the Decembrists, tried to appreciate it, because we stopped between two reigns. And we will return to this also in the next reign, of Nicholas the First, and under Alexander the Second, when they return, and when the reforms take place. There we will make our next stop, again. Next Saturday we will talk about Stolypin, for his birthday. Such an anniversary, not quite round, but an anniversary. And then we will return to the reign of Nicholas the First. Thanks a lot.
A. LEVANDOVSKY to you Thanks a lot, Seryozha.
S. MIRONENKO Thank you.
After the death of Alexander I, the time came for the actual interregnum. Since Alexander had no sons, and his daughter died, his brother Constantine turned out to be the main contender for the throne. But as early as 1819, he spoke to Alexander about giving up his rights to the throne in favor of a morganatic marriage to a non-royal Polish woman. In 1823, Alexander officially accepted this renunciation, preparing a manifesto that transferred the right of succession to his younger brother Nikolai. Although Nicholas himself was informed of this decision, the manifesto was kept secret. Sealed copies of this document, marked with the words "To be opened only after my death", were deposited in the Assumption Cathedral in Moscow, with the knowledge of the Senate and the State Council in St. Petersburg. Unsure of the allegiance of the guard regiments and aware of the potential threat from Constantine's Polish forces (Konstantine ruled Poland), Nicholas at first hesitated to accept the throne and swore allegiance to Constantine on 9 December, along with the guards and civil servants. Only after the public abdication of Constantine from the throne, Nicholas firmly decided to take power, and on December 24 guards units was ordered to take the oath a second time, now to Nicholas. In this situation, members of a secret organization known in history as the Northern Society decided to raise an uprising in St. Petersburg on December 26 (hence the “Decembrists”), formally in favor of Konstantin (who for some reason earned a reputation as a liberal) and demand the introduction of a constitution. A common legend says that the guards soldiers cheerfully exclaimed the word "Constitution!", believing that this was the name of Constantine's wife. About 3,000 people under the command of thirty officers came to Senate Square, but, chaotically controlled and confused, they did not pose a real danger, and most of the guards generally remained loyal to their sovereign. The "Rioters" were eventually dispersed with ease when the artillery opened fire (it was roughly estimated that the losses were 70–80 people). This unsuccessful performance was followed by an uprising in the South, raised by the Southern Society together with the Society of United Slavs, but it was easily suppressed by the tsarist troops, and by mid-January it was over.
Almost a month after the death of Alexander, new uprisings broke out, and, definitely, they were a protest against his heir, Nicholas I. It is clear that these uprisings greatly shocked Nicholas and his entourage (his mother kept repeating on the day of the uprising in St. Petersburg: “ Lord, what will Europe say?"). Nicholas was convinced that the revolution was part of the activities of European conspirators, that these low ideas were spreading from Western Europe, especially from France, which was traditionally presented as a hotbed of revolutions. Nikolay was convinced of this in the course of the work of the Investigative Commission, which dealt with the participants in both speeches; so: for example, the Decembrist A. N. Muravyov confessed to the Commission, saying that he acquired his "abnormal liberal ideas during his stay abroad." Nicholas showed great interest in the work of the Commission and for the rest of his reign kept copies of the reports on his desk, which reminded him of the threat of revolution. The Decembrist uprising, however, was important not only because it influenced Nicholas and his policies, but also because it was the result of the problems and failures of Alexander's reign. A reign that seemed to promise far-reaching domestic reforms and during which Russia became the dominant continental power ended with the departure of part of the educated elite of Russian society.
Alexander seemed to have much in common with the officers who led their units into the 1825 uprising (we know little about the motives of ordinary soldiers who followed their officers). Most of the leaders of the Northern and Southern societies came from privileged aristocratic families and received an excellent education with a Western bias. They knew foreign languages and were familiar with the works of the most prominent European figures of that time; the library of Pavel Pestel, leader of the Southern Society, contained books by Rousseau, Helvetius, Holbach, Diderot, Condillac, Voltaire, Madame de Stael, Beccaria and Bentham. Like Alexander, many Decembrists were delighted with the conquests of the French Revolution, also without any revolutionary experience (the Decembrists, while in exile in Chita, sang the Marseillaise). Many of them participated in the campaigns against Napoleon and entered Paris with Alexander in 1814. Many also remained in France (between 1814 and 1818 there were 30,000 Russian soldiers and officers there, and it is estimated that about a third of the Decembrists were officers), or, like the Tsar himself, traveled to other countries. They were interested in constitutional institutions in different countries, professed humanistic views and were imbued with disgust for serfdom. Some of them were no less religious than Alexander himself (for example, the Decembrist Mikhail Orlov was a member of the Russian Bible Society, and Mikhail Sergeevich Lunin converted to Roman Catholicism).
The common views of Alexander and many Decembrists were the reason why the tsar was never able to take decisive action against these secret societies, despite being aware of their existence. Indeed, he even seemed to share the views of the early secret Welfare Alliance. After reviewing the contents of the Union's constitution, the so-called "Green Book", which was based on the constitutions of the German patriotic secret society Tugendbund, Alexander noted that the constitution's rules were "wonderful", but warned that too many secret societies started with purely philanthropic goals and then led a conspiratorial activity against the state. According to Konstantin, after the death of Alexander, the tsar often talked with him about the Union of Welfare and in 1822 or 1823 gave him the charter of this union to read. Behind the seeming predominance of purely philanthropic tasks, the Welfare Union actually set the goal of creating a constitution for Russia, but Alexander did not know his exact plans. Not later than 1821 (after upheavals at home and abroad in 1820), having received a report on the activities of secret societies from Vasilchikov, Governor-General of St. Petersburg and commander of the Imperial Guard, Alexander said: “You, who served me from the very beginning of my reign You know for sure that I shared and approved of these illusions and mistakes!” . The historian Tsetlin wrote that Alexander "was the first Decembrist - the elder brother of those people who later hated him so much" and that "all his life, even moving with difficulty in the dark labyrinth of mystical searches, in his soul he remained their like-minded person." But Alexander was not so sympathetic to the future Decembrists as to ignore their activities, and approved Vasilchikov's proposal to establish a small secret police to monitor them in St. Petersburg and its environs.
The resemblance between Alexander and the Decembrists was actually superficial. Alexander died at the age of forty-seven, and the Decembrists represented, with some exceptions, a younger generation ( average age of them - between twenty and thirty years, and forty percent were under twenty-five). Alexander was educated at the end of the eighteenth century and brought up on the books of the French Enlightenment. The Decembrists were predominantly educated at the beginning of the nineteenth century and were no less influenced by the Napoleonic events than revolutionary France, in addition, they were followers of early romanticism (some Decembrists were prominent literary figures). The education that many of them received - in such educational institutions, like the lines in Tsarskoye Selo, the Moscow School of Artillery or Moscow University - excited the minds of students and was very different from the private one received by Alexander from La Harpe. The Decembrists were not only familiar with the constitution of revolutionary France, but they also knew the constitutions of the early nineteenth century, for example, the French constitution of 1814, which was published in the journal Son of the Fatherland. Russian journals also published translations of the Spanish and Norwegian constitutions and wrote about the form of government in England.
Although the events of 1812 greatly shocked Alexander, his experience was very different from that of many of the Decembrists who participated in the campaign against Napoleon (some of those who participated in the 1825 uprising were, of course, too young for this). They, unlike Alexander, met not only with the enemy, but also communicated with the peasants partisan detachments(Decembrist Mikhail Orlov fought in a partisan detachment under the command of General I.S. Dorokhov), which was unusual for them. The celebration of the expulsion of foreign invaders from the Fatherland gave rise to a general sense of pride and patriotism in young officers. The future Decembrist N. A. Bestuzhev wrote: “Great Russia rose as one person ... Popular anger in Russia was so great because it was people's war» . "We are the children of 1812," said the Decembrist Matvey Ivanovich Muravyov-Apostol. A mixture of admiration for foreigners with great pride in Russia was common for impressionable young officers. A. V. Chicherin, lieutenant of the Semyonovsky regiment, who died during the liberation of Europe from Napoleon, wrote from Bunzlau:
... the love that I feel for my Fatherland burns like a pure fire that ennobles my heart ... Here we constantly see the achievements of civilization, as they are manifested in everything - in the way the fields are cultivated, the construction of houses, folk customs- but despite this, never, not even for a single minute, will I wish to settle under a strange sky, on a land different from the one where I was born and where my ancestors rest.
The impressions of the Decembrists about abroad after 1815 also differ significantly from those of Alexander. Although he had both official and private contacts with foreign countries, he did not like the familiarity and familiarity of many young officers of the Russian army in dealing with foreign officers of the same age and position. Such contacts influenced the Decembrists of the Bestuzhev brothers. Mikhail Alexandrovich Bestuzhev wrote: "Our fleet, located in England in 1812, and our naval officers, who annually visit the warships of England, France and other foreign states, understood the form of government in these places." Nikolai Bestuzhev, his brother, spent 5 months in Holland in 1815, which allowed him "for the first time to understand the benefits of legality and civil rights." The Decembrist Baron Andrei Rosen (a Baltic German) wrote in his memoirs about the influence on young intelligent officers of their first stay in France: from a conversation about literature, poetry and prose, they involuntarily and imperceptibly moved on to a discussion of Jacobins and Girondins, Carbonari and Tugendbundgenossen ...
The extraordinary events of 1812 also testified to the extraordinary courage of the people of that time and a patriotism that is hard to imagine. Under a gentle sky in a new environment that bore the imprint of more high civilization, under the influence of softer manners and a more human outlook on life, many Russian officers acquired some new ideas about the government of their own country.
It cannot be said that Alexander had any contacts with the German Freemasons and secret societies, as some of his young officers did. General I. Dibich (a former Prussian officer who later served under the Russian General Staff) reported from Meissen about the spirit of "free thinking" among Russian officers who came into contact with German societies, and warned about "the so-called tugendbund, the spread of rumors, about the different attitudes of Prussian officers towards their ruler, about the connections of these societies with Frankfurt, Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, Bamberg, Munich, Warsaw and St. Petersburg". The acquaintance of some Decembrists with foreign Masonic lodges and secret societies was reflected in the constitutional drafts of the early secret societies in Russia. The constitutions of such societies as the Order of Russian Knights and the Unions of Salvation and Welfare repeated some of the rules and hierarchy of Masonic lodges. The influence of the German Tugendbund was especially well seen in the constitution of the Welfare Union.
Although Alexander shared the basic philanthropic ideas of some German societies, they did not have much influence on him, in fact he did not even fully know their goals. The Decembrists were filled with a feeling of deep patriotism, which increased as a result of the invasion of 1812, they were interested in new ideas of nationalism and the history of the romantic movement. early XIX century. These people understood historical traditions much better than Alexander and were proud of them. Although the Decembrists, no less than the tsar himself, followed Western Europe in developing new constitutional models for Russia, their projects reflected this new interest in and pride in Russian history. In the constitution proposed by the Northern Society, drawn up by Nikita Muravyov, the representative assembly was called the people's veche, which had existed in Novgorod and Pskov since the 10th century. The constitution proposed by the Southern Society, drawn up by Pavel Pestel, was called Russkaya Pravda - the name of the first Russian code of laws in the 12th century. Alexander never showed much interest in the past of Russia, its traditions, in addition to this, his Western orientation was the object of criticism. The poet K. F. Ryleev, a member of the Northern Society, described Alexander with the following words: “Our Tsar is a Russian German, wears a Prussian uniform.”
National pride suffered when comparing Russia with foreign countries, especially after Russia saved Europe from Napoleon's tyranny. The following words served as a preface to the constitutional project of the Northern Society: “All European nations strive for a constitution and freedom. The Russian nation, greater than any of them, deserves one no less than they do. Decembrist Prince Sergei Grigoryevich Volkonsky wrote: “In general, all the events that took place in Europe from 1813 to 1914 aroused the feelings of all young people, who were convinced that Russia was completely behind in social political life.” Decembrist Mikhail Aleksandrovich Fonvizin believed that the influence of foreign countries on many young Russians was the cause of their discontent:
During the campaign in Germany and France, our young people got acquainted with European civilization, which made a huge impression on them, so they could compare everything they saw abroad with what constantly appeared at home. The slavery of the vast majority of Russians who do not have any rights, the cruel treatment of those in power, their bad manners and insults, general arbitrariness - all this aroused discontent, offended the patriotic feelings of educated Russians. Many of them realized this during the campaign, communicating with German officers and members of the Prussian secret society ... In frank conversations with them, our young people imperceptibly learned to think freely and wanted constitutional institutions, ashamed of Russia, in which humiliating despotism reigned.
One of the Bestuzhev brothers, Alexander, wrote about patriotism and the collapse of the hopes of many people:
Napoleon invaded Russia, and then for the first time the Russian people felt their power; at that time, a sense of independence awakened in all hearts, first political, then national. This was the beginning of freethinking in Russia... The military, from generals to ordinary soldiers, returning home, spoke only about how good it was in foreign lands. In this comparison, a natural question was born: why is it not the same as here?
Although the mentality and way of thinking of the Decembrists and Alexander were very different, in the first few years after the expulsion of Napoleon, it seemed that their aspirations coincided. Alexander's speech in 1818 in the Polish Sejm confirmed that he was thinking about introducing a constitution in Russia, and many Russians expected this in the near future. Like the tsar, the future Decembrists were familiar with the two main issues that needed to be resolved in Russia - the abolition or reform of serfdom and the establishment of a single law - and they were sure that this could only be achieved with the help of a constitution. The Decembrists hated serfdom no less than Alexander himself. M. M. Spirodov, for example, told the Commission of Inquiry that his liberal ideas were born as a result of observing the condition of the serfs:
I understood that the fertile province paid tribute only to the landowners; I saw the uninterrupted work of the peasants, the fruits of which were used only to enrich the landowners. I saw the richest harvests of grain, while by the end of the year the peasants did not have it left not only for sale, but also for food ... I felt my heart shrink from pity for them.
Both Northern and Southern societies understood that serfdom should be abolished, but they differed in the methods by which this was supposed to be done. Northern society advocated the liberation of serfs without giving them land (as was done in the Baltic provinces), but did not consider the problems that would arise if the serfs were deprived of this land, and the nobles - free work force. Society, no more than Alexander or Arakcheev, wanted to take risks, irritating the nobles, forcing them to give the land to the peasants. Pestel, on the contrary, defended the radical solution that was adopted by the Southern Society. He proposed that all lands be given to the state and divided into two categories. The land of the first category is divided into plots sufficient for a family of five and is given to the peasants or anyone else who wants to work it. This land remains with the state; it cannot be sold, exchanged or pledged. Land of the second category can be sold or leased to private individuals. This proposal was a radical and original attempt to solve a painful problem, although it did not coincide with the interests of the landowners, and it would have to be accepted by force, which neither Alexander nor the Northern Society were ready for. In fact, it was risky to force the nobility to release the peasants against their will, since representatives of the nobility made up almost the entire officer corps and a host of provincial officials.
The insurmountable obstacle facing Alexander the reformer was that the tsar had to voluntarily limit his power, and Speransky understood this very well. The Decembrists, too, should have recognized this problem, and the issue came to a head when Alexander's ability to carry out constitutional reform narrowed after 1820. The constitutional project proposed by the Northern Society provided for a monarch at the head of the state with power limited by the constitution. The tsar was to become "the highest official of the Russian government", retaining the right of veto, control over military forces and conduct of foreign policy. Legislative power, however, was vested in the National Assembly, which consisted of the upper and lower houses. When choosing to the lower house, the electoral qualification was very high (only educated men over twenty-one years old, possessing movable property worth at least 500 rubles, could be selected). The country was being transformed into a national federation, which was greatly welcomed by Muravyov, who admired the constitution of the United States, and completely denied by Pestel. The question of how to force the monarch to accept such a constitution, however, was not resolved.
The constitutional project of the Northern Society reflected the sober view of its leaders, but the majority of the Decembrists insisted on a more radical solution. Many became disillusioned with Alexander even before his retreat from the reforms in the first half of the 1820s. Among the members of the Northern Society there was talk of the desired murder of Alexander (A. I. Yakubovich and P. G. Kakhovsky announced their desire to carry it out), but for many such an act seemed like an extreme decision. Pestel was one of the Decembrists, confident that it would be impossible to persuade the ruler to limit his power. Its constitution stated that Russia would become a republic. All men over the age of twenty could put forward their candidacies for district assemblies; according to this, the assemblies themselves could choose representatives in higher institutions, and the national assemblies had the right to elect five members to the State Duma.
Rebellions in Spain and Italy, as well as the mutiny of the Semyonovsky regiment in 1820, forced the tsar to abandon attempts to fundamentally change the structure of government or the situation of serfs. The beginning of the 1820s was marked for Alexander by a retreat from the reforms; it was also critical period in the development of the ideas of the Decembrists and the complete divergence of their aspirations from the aspirations of Alexander himself. Events in Europe solidified the Decembrists' radical convictions at the same time that these events lessened Alexander's desire to reform.
Russian periodicals kept educated Russian people informed about events taking place in the Iberian and Apennine peninsulas. Nikolai Turgenev wrote about that time as follows: "We breathed in European news." The explosion of the revolution filled the Russian youth with optimism and confidence that a European-scale process had begun, in which Russia would take part and which would establish the freedom of all European people, including themselves. Vasilchikov told Prince Pyotr Mikhailovich Volkonsky in 1821: “The news of the Piedmont uprising made a strong impression here. Sane people are in despair, but most of the youth are delighted with what has happened and no longer hide their ideas. Alexander's answer was decisive. He ordered Arakcheev to increase the readiness of the guards regiments and in early 1821 he established the secret police.
The Spanish uprising had a special impact on the Decembrists. They were romantic about the fate of this country, partly due to the same feeling of hatred for France in 1812. The Decembrist A.P. Belyaev witnessed the defeat of the Spanish revolution, as he served naval officer Russian frigate in 1824. Even the defeat of the uprising inspired "an even greater desire for freedom" in him and his comrades. Especially many Decembrists were interested in the tactics of the Spanish uprising, the initial success of which could be achieved without bloodshed and with the use of a small number of soldiers. This was relevant for Russia, which had precedents for the overthrow of tsars by small military groups. The Decembrists learned another lesson from the behavior of the Spanish king Ferdinand VII, who first adopted the constitution put forward by the rebels, and then, three years later, canceled this agreement and defeated the rebels with the help of French troops. Many of the Decembrists decided that the rulers could not be trusted and that reform in cooperation with the monarch was impossible. Confidence in this was strengthened by Alexander's attitude towards the Spanish uprising. In 1812 he adopted the same constitution that the rebels had demanded in 1820; but now he was openly on Ferdinand's side. In his testimony to the Commission of Inquiry, Pestel wrote:
The events in Naples, Spain and Portugal at that time had a huge impact on me. I saw in them undeniable evidence of the instability of monarchical constitutions, and I found enough reasons not to believe in the sincere consent of the monarchs who adopted the constitution. These considerations fully strengthened my confidence in the correctness of my republican and revolutionary ideas.
He helped Ferdinand circumvent the legal rights of the Spanish people and did not foresee the harm he caused to his royal position. This made the whole of Europe scream: there can be no agreement with the kings!
Portraits of Riego and Quiroga, the leaders of the Spanish uprising, were featured in St. Petersburg books during the failed December uprising. In the South, Sergei Ivanovich Muravyov-Apostol's "Orthodox Catechism" (a series of questions and answers, similar in form to a catechism, but clearly intended to use religious language to debunk in order to resist royal authority) was modeled on the political catechism used in Spain, to explain to the soldiers the foundations of the constitution. Muraviev-Apostol used a dramatic version of the Spanish catechism described in the French novel on the eve of the Decembrist uprising. Mikhail Pavlovich Bestuzhev-Ryumin, who worked with him on the catechism, stated: “The idea of such a work existed in society for many years. Its origins were the catechism prepared by the Spanish monks for the people in 1809.
The Greek uprising had less of an impact on the Decembrists, but strengthened the belief that all the people of Europe were demanding change. Ypsilanti was in contact with members of the Southern Society, founded in Chisinau and Tulchin, and the uprising strengthened ties between the Southern Society and the Union of United Slavs, founded by the Borisov brothers, which aimed to establish a republic in Russia, abolish serfdom and liberate, and then federate all Slavs (including former Slavic Bulgarians).
At the same time, the situation in the army worsened. Military settlements aroused the hatred of soldiers, officers and the peasants driven into them. G. S. Batenkov, a former assistant to Speransky, sent to serve in the military settlements by Arakcheev, proposed that the Northern Society act not only in the center of St. Petersburg, but also on the Pulkovo Heights, in the south of the city. In this way, it was possible to get help from the military settlers of the Novgorod province (where the main uprising took place in 1831). Indeed, this feeling of "unbearable hardship and hateful work in the military settlements" was instrumental in his condemnation of the existing regime and his decision to join the Northern Society. In peacetime, soldiers (including military settlers) were exhausted by tiring drill and pre-parade exercises. The largest army mutiny, of course, was the uprising of the Semyonovsky regiment in 1820, although the term "mutiny" is not really quite suitable; it was an erupted spontaneous response to the excessive disciplinary demands of Colonel F. E. Schwartz, but the event was interpreted by the authorities as a mutiny. The regiment was disbanded and many officers moved to the South, where they fully shared the ideas of the Southern Society. In addition, it is roughly estimated that between 1820 and 1825 there were at least fifteen collective military protests in all.
Frustration with gradual domestic reform led many people to join the Decembrist movement shortly before the uprising. Batenkov, for example, still believed in the possibility of gradual changes in the summer of 1825. He wrote an Essay on the Theory of Government Ordinances, which he intended to submit to Alexander for consideration. Batenkov proposed the establishment of a Deputy Council with limited power to inform the tsar about the "needs of the people" without "violating the rights of the autocracy." But growing doubts about the likelihood of reform from above, as well as dismissal from office due to careless remarks, resulted in his entry into the Northern Society on the eve of the uprising. Deep indignation at Alexander, who promised so much and did so little, was in the hearts of many Decembrists. Here is what Kakhovsky wrote about the tsar: “He lit the spark of freedom in our hearts, and didn’t he put it out so rudely in the end?” . The complete disillusionment of many educated Russian people by 1825 was expressed in a letter from Alexander Bestuzhev after his arrest to Nicholas I; he put these words into the mouths of soldiers returning from the European campaign:
We shed blood, and now we are again forced to sweat in back-breaking work. We have liberated our homeland from tyranny, but now the sovereign has become our tyrant... Why did we liberate Europe, really in order to shackle ourselves? If we have given a constitution to France, why should we not dare to speak of it? If we have proved by blood our superiority over other nations, then why are we oppressed at home?
Bestuzhev's words became an accusation against Alexander's rule. Despair and disappointment of many representatives Russian elite rose not only because Alexander failed to live up to their expectations, but also because Russia's position in Europe was stronger than ever before. While Russia saved Europe from Napoleon and played a decisive role in all European issues, she could not take, as the Decembrists believed, a natural step towards choosing Western European forms of government and social organization.
Reformers like Speransky and the Decembrists saw that Russia's development was hampered by serfdom and by the very nature of Russian absolutism. Alexander, of course, was also against serfdom and believed that Russia should be governed by a just law. But ultimately he was not ready to abolish serfdom and decided that Russia was not yet ripe for a constitution. Alexander, Speransky, Novosiltsev, the Decembrists and other figures of the nineteenth century faced the same dilemma: how to free the serfs so as not to offend the nobility and not cause social unrest; how to introduce a modern Western European form of government and force the king to voluntarily limit his power? In turn, this raised the question: what should come first - political reform or the abolition of serfdom? IN early years reign, Alexander's "young friends" believed in the absolute power of the king and, therefore, were opposed to its being limited to the Senate or any other body. Speransky thought the best course of action would be to bring about political change in Russia in 1809 by postponing the emancipation of the serfs, but in the end he could not persuade Alexander to accept his constitutional project. Alexander seriously considered improving the situation of the serfs and introducing constitutional reform until the 1820s, setting up commissions to consider various proposals on both issues; but he was always aware of the hostility of the nobility to the emancipation of the serfs, and was always cautious in the matter of limiting his power. He then feared the possibility of revolution and social unrest, and even became disillusioned with the effectiveness of "gradual change" and with the future stability and tranquility of the European states.
Alexander made Russia a more powerful and influential European power than it had been before, but in doing so he disappointed the educated Russian people who expected the transformation of Russian international relations to take place simultaneously with the transformation of its political and social structures.
Pestel and many other Decembrists finally believed that a fundamental change was impossible as long as tsarism existed, and that even a constitutional monarchy could not be trusted. By 1825, the hope of these Russian people that reform would come from above had died. The rift between the tsar and at least part of the educated elite that plagued Russia in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had occurred by the time of Alexander's death.
Pavel I, Alexander I
and - Decembrists
(The note)
1.
Well, now let's try to talk - since we have several times touched upon the murder of Emperor Paul the First by Russian Catherine's nobles-masons (through the British and Prussians!)! - more specific. Yes, and the promise to talk about the mysterious death of Emperor Alexander I - also given by us, several times, in the proposed three essays of our first book! - it is necessary, at least somehow, but, nevertheless, to fulfill.
This conversation is very important. I would even say - superimportant. For some confirmation of Pushkin's historical concept, - which we are carefully revealing to you here! - only quite recently (October 29, 2006.) was given or presented to us - on the STB TV channel! - the authors of the TV program "Searchers". Pushkinists, especially those of the Soviet era, did not even dare to think that the “Decembrists” were Freemasons!
Moreover, they, that is, the "Searchers", came so close - due to some arguments and circumstances! - precisely to this topic, that I even, at the beginning, did not quite realize it. For the specifics of their version, about the "disappearance" of Emperor Alexander I, seemed to me - according to the works of official historians, of course! - yet somewhat different.
And let's start this conversation, approximately with the following. The conversation itself highlighted here seems to me to be only an outline to a larger topic. In other words, I am introducing here my Note on the Catherine-Alexander coup, 1801 - and on the death of Alexander I in Taganrog! - First of all, in order for professional historians in the relatively near future - considering, already, Pushkin's material on this topic! - have already created a concept (not a version!) - exactly on this topic.
Or they came - according to the topic highlighted here! to some common denominator. By the way, the need to develop this particular topic has matured - for the Russian public and for Russia as a whole! - a long time ago. And it began to be developed by us, namely A.S. Pushkin. And, then, and A.I. Herzen. And the content itself, my notes, something like this.
Having poisoned Princess Wilhelmina of Darmstadt and remarried Paul, already to the native niece of the Prussian king Frederick the Great (For more details, see about this in the first two chapters of our essay.), Catherine the intriguer did not calm down on this, of course. She is practically from Pavel's "honeymoon trip" to Europe! - I decided to introduce him, through Count A. Bezborodko, and into the Freemasons.
Enter precisely in order to then ride him, "past the Russian throne." “Ride past the throne”, by the way, because of: his imbalance, some naivety in the field of foreign and domestic policy and, most importantly, due to the fact that he will not hold on to her policy during his accession. According to Pushkin, all this looks, by the way, like "our romantic emperor."
This was the main meaning of the whole plan, Catherine II, precisely in relation to her son Paul. The plan, which she - at the beginning, of course - and, then, her closest associates, will put into practice. Or bring it to its logical conclusion. Here we include, by the way, her “Notes”, personally intended by the Empress, as you will see below, specifically to Pavel.
And the main core of the plan of Catherine II - in relation to Paul, of course! - was what Paul himself would break during his accession - and during his short reign, of course! - too "a lot of firewood" (Here, by the way, simply excellent knowledge, by Catherine II, of precisely the character of her son is clearly visible.). And, of course, the fact that he will always be surrounded - even after her death! - her like-minded people precisely for the overthrow of Paul. In this regard, of course, her grandson, in his future, Emperor Alexander I, was not overlooked either. This is all we actually see (or observe!), It is during the accession and short reign of Emperor Paul I.
And the beginning of the real embodiment of Catherine's plan, in relation to Paul, we are seeing, for example, already from the end of the summer of 1796, when the health of Catherine II began to deteriorate sharply. And she, in connection precisely with this circumstance, began to conduct secret conversations - with Count A. Bezborodko, who had already introduced Pavel, as you already know, into Masons. The continuation of Catherine’s plan lies in the fact that it was this count who not only immediately organized, after the death of Catherine II, the Privy Council, but also proposed, as you already know, the candidacy of Paul I.
Further, to embody Catherine's plan, into life, it began, already, precisely - as Catherine the Second predicted exactly! - Paul I himself. He, - in a very short period of time! - so many "broken firewood" that Catherine II turned out to be absolutely right here too. According to Pushkin, this, by the way, "... but Paul reigned and indignation increased." So here too (that is, at this stage of the history of Russia!) our poet-historian is absolutely objective.
And Paul I "broken the woods", as you also already know, in domestic politics (Introduced the "Prussian order" not only in the army, but also in the guard, designed to protect the emperor.). And in foreign policy(He not only quarreled with all his (that is, Catherine's!) "allies", but even, as you already know, went on a sharp rapprochement with Napoleon.).
And besides, he self-proclaimed himself Master of the Order of Malta, which caused an international scandal. And so on. By the way, Paul is interesting here - precisely by this act of his. You can even unambiguously interpret it, not so much as Paul's folly, as official historians like to do, to the present time! - how much a clear desire, Paul, to obey, to them, namely the Masons. Which, of course, he failed to do.
As a result, he directly let himself down - as a politician, of course! - precisely to the palace conspiracy. It remains only to highlight that the term of the Alexander's coup was due, most likely, precisely to the "processing" by the Russian Masons - and the English and Prussians standing behind them! - Alexander I himself (Who was also outraged by the orders that reigned under Paul I.).
In other words, the date of the coup was postponed several times by the conspirators, probably precisely because of Alexander I, who nevertheless had some filial feelings for his father. It was postponed precisely until the term of four years, four months and four days. What Alexander I could, by the way, not know about. For the date of the coup was determined not by him, but by Catherine's grandees-masons. And they defined it precisely as the Masonic "black mark". Quite possibly suggested by them, the English ambassador in Russia of that time (Here we again strengthen, we note, precisely the version of the “Searchers”.).
By the way, with the consent of Alexander I, to the palace coup, on March 11, 1801, he asked the conspirators not to kill his father during the coup. By the way, this is also historical fact. Which, of course, was not done. From here comes, in fact, the psychological breakdown of Alexander I. The breakdown, which could lead him, after many years, to the “flight” in question to the “elders”. Here we are also strengthening, by the way, the version of the "Searchers".
And Pushkin, too, by the way, touched upon - in his study of Russian History! - and this topic. He touched it through his diary entry dated May 17, 1834: “Recently, at a ball, he had the regicide Skaryatin; Ficquelmont did not know this sin behind him. He marvels at the oddities of our society. But the late sovereign was surrounded by the murderers of his father. This is the reason why, during his lifetime, there would never have been a trial of the young conspirators who perished on the 14th of December. He would have heard too cruel truths. N.B. The sovereign, now reigning, the first of us had the right and opportunity to execute regicides or thoughts of regicide; his predecessors were forced to endure and forgive.”
Yes, four years, four months and four days - just allocated to you, above! - are real. And mysticism - how not to look at this period of the reign of Emperor Paul the First! - Generally speaking, they don't. Yes, this is indeed the "black mark" of the Masons. The label, "presented" - to Paul I and allocated, to us, precisely by the Masons.
And its purpose, we have already highlighted to you several times, by the way, not only in the paragraphs highlighted above, but also in other chapters of our essay. This is, first of all, the fact that, having allowed Paul I to reign for a little while, then to raise him to the Russian throne - as if on legal grounds! - precisely his son, Alexander I. The British did exactly the same with the Prussians, as you remember, and with Emperor Peter III, giving him a little reign. Then he erected, on the Russian throne, namely Anhalt Zerbst.
The British and Prussians needed a certain period of the reign of Paul I - let's highlight it again! - and for compromise, - and blackening! - exactly him. Through which the coup was made, on March 11, 1801, precisely as the logical conclusion of the reign of Paul I, that is, the Despot Tsar. And to compromise - and to denigrate! - her husband, Emperor Peter III, Anhalt Zerbskaya began - as you remember! - from the moment of rapprochement, her, with Grigory Orlov in May 1759. Her "Notes" were also intended, in many respects, for this purpose. Reception, as you can see for yourself, is also not new. And this, once again, is the first thing in our conversation about the “Decembrists”.
It became unbearable - the British and Prussians, of course! - and at the break, Paul I, with his "allies". Always, once again, we will single out you, cunning and predatory "allies". And, of course, with the beginning of a sharp rapprochement, Paul I, precisely with Napoleon.
Well, it played a negative role here, of course! - the very despotism of Paul I. Holding all of it - that is, even Catherine! - the noble environment - in constant tension. And this did not cause, in this environment, benevolence, him, towards him. Yes, plus a very real threat of being taken away by Paul I from this environment - compiled by Catherine II! - Numerous and huge, moreover, estates.
The introduction to them, once again, of the “Prussian order”, both in the guard and in the army, because of which many officers began to retire. Yes, and numerous other Pavlovian "innovations", which also clearly did not please both Catherine's noble entourage and the Russian officers. There are really many reasons for this. And this is the second and, probably, the last thing that brought Paul I as emperor to the overthrow of him from the Russian throne.
2.
Well, now it’s about the just-designated version of the “Searchers” about the mysterious, as you already know, “death” of Alexander I, promised to you above. This version has the same as the official version, by the way! - also quite a lot of "weak points". We will touch on them, perhaps, a little lower. Also connected - no matter how it seems to you, paradoxical on this moment! - with the murder, by Russian masons, namely Paul I. They probably also have a sketch for a more voluminous historical theme. And it is stated by the authors of the TV program "Searchers" approximately in the following logical "key".
Founded by the authors of the TV program as a version, probably from the 19th century! - about the “flight” of Tsar Alexander I - precisely to the “elders”, and the fact of knowledge, repeatedly mentioned, by Emperor Alexander I, of the existence of a conspiracy, “Decembrists”, against him.
Psychological basis: Alexander I decided to pray - parricide. Turning himself into an old monk. And on the real existence of a certain “old man-monk”, Fyodor Kuzmich, who could be and - Emperor Alexander I.
Pushkin, by the way, talks about the death of Alexander I - in his open works, of course! - very carefully, that is, always correct, and, no less remarkable, extremely rarely. I traced this both through his correspondence and through his articles and notes.
But it was the death of Alexander I in Taganrog, on November 19, 1825, that significantly accelerated the performance of the Decembrists on Senate Square. Which, in general, is also amazing. For the poet-historian simply could not pass - or bypass! - precisely the Taganrog events highlighted here. Definitely, this is connected with the poet-historian with the ferocious gendarmerie regime that unfolded under Nicholas I. And with the fact, probably, that the poet has already "served", under Alexander I, two exiles.
By the way, the question of the Freemasons was clearly hushed up - about their negative role in the history of Russia! - and all the official historians of the tsars of the Catherine's branch. Only the writer L.N. Tolstoy dared - when writing, by him, the novel "War and Peace"! - to talk very dull - namely about the Masons. Soviet official historians, mistaking the Decembrists for revolutionaries, also clearly hushed up this issue.
A main point, this version, is reduced, by the authors of the TV show, approximately to the following. I reproduce their version, from memory, which does not exclude some inaccuracies. However, not so significant specifically for the version of "Searchers" highlighted here.
The version highlighted here will be curious, especially for professional and, most importantly, objective historians. Which nevertheless, I hope, will be able, on the basis of this version - and just stated to you, above, about Paul I and Pushkin as a historian! – to come precisely to the true course of Russian History. Of course, during the period of its flow, from the reign of Paul I to the reign of Emperor Alexander I.
And the authors of the just-mentioned TV program proceed, in constructing their version, from the fact that Alexander I gave the Russian Freemasons a promise "to renew Russia through progressive reforms." He made this promise - according to my, already, assumption! - not to Catherine's nobles, but to their peers. What I started, it was, to carry out - through Speransky. By the way, this is a real historical fact.
And Pushkin reflected this historical fact, not only through his diary, but also through one of his articles, in which, apparently reflecting the opinion of Catherine's nobles, about Speransky, he would call him "an agile priest."
However, later - most likely, under the influence of their true masters! - made a "rollback" - to Catherine's positions. And, of course, on its external and internal politics. This, by the way, is also my assumption, reinforcing the version of the "Searchers".
"Kickback": through Count Arakcheev; the noble environment created by Catherine the Great, etc. “Replacing” them, in 1812, Speransky, Arakcheev, by the way, is also a real historical fact. And also given by him, the promise - and Catherine's nobles! - "leave everything as under Catherine II."
The main essence, their versions, consists approximately in the following. The younger generation of Russian Freemasons, mindful of the highlighted promise of Emperor Alexander I, somehow agreed with him that he would leave - in the "elder". He will leave, we will single out once again, because of his real desire to step back from the reign, which he repeatedly expressed to his closest, that is, young, environment. There is also evidence from his contemporaries that he considered himself a parricide. Through which he suffered or suffered. Here we are also trying to strengthen the version - namely the "Searchers".
About this promise - that is, about the Constitution for Russia! - says, by the way, Pushkin in the poem, as you already know from the second chapter of our essay, "Noel". He says, as you already know, satirically. Here we note that Pushkin, apparently still in St. Petersburg, was in contact with A.F. Orlov, who promised to record the poet for military service.
Most likely, two links, the poet, prevented the implementation of this plan. An idea in which the poet would be directly and directly involved - precisely in the environment of the Decembrists. Becoming, at the same time, precisely the Decembrist. This is how you can make an addition to the biography of our Great poet. By the way, A.F. Orlov, as you will see a little later, Pushkin dedicated the poem "Orlov".
But here we note that this is - that is, an agreement, or collusion, between the Decembrists and the tsar! - and the weakest point of the version of "Searchers" highlighted here.
Weak because during the coup:
- Alexander I swore, as you already know from the first chapter of our essay, to continue the policy of “not Paul I, his father, but Catherine the Great”;
- following the instructions of the Prussians and the British - he went to Europe, "to defeat Bonaparte" (Which, he did not succeed.);
- in 1812 he not only fired Speransky, but also exiled him into exile;
- became one of the organizers of the so-called reactionary "Holy Union" (which was also given to us by A.S. Pushkin.);
- having nominated Arakcheev, he began to organize, throughout Russia, military settlements (What the poet also highlights, to us, not only in the secret tenth chapter of "Eugene Onegin", but also, for example, in an article about the pacification, by Nicholas I, of a riot in a military settlement in the Novgorod province.); And so on.
In other words, the version of the "Searchers" in this place is the most and weakest. However, let's continue the conversation about the Decembrists, not all of whom, by the way, were from among the Masons (Most of them turned out to be just officers Patriotic War 1812.).
And they - taking advantage of his departure from the political arena! – seize power in Russia. And they will begin to transform it, precisely in a European way (Constitution, limited monarchy, etc.). In other words, there was a conspiracy, according to the "Searchers", between the young Russian Freemasons and Emperor Alexander I. The conspiracy, according to which they promised him, to successfully become "elders", and he provided them with a successful palace coup, precisely in their favor .
For this, they agreed, with Emperor Alexander I, on the date of his “departure” from life. At the term, which they indicated through the Roman numerals LXXI (Number 71 in Arabic numerals). Through the Roman numerals, denoting, by the authors of the TV show, the cipher and, as you will soon see for yourself, March 12, 1826. On our own behalf, we will add, denoting exactly 25 years of royal "experience" of Emperor Alexander I (By the way, "black archaeologists" found - as they tell us, the same "Searchers"! - and a ring with the same Roman numerals, apparently belonging to , at one time, to one of the leaders of the Decembrist conspiracy.). The cipher counted out by the conspirators-Decembrists - according to the authors of the TV program! - from the beginning of January 1826.
For: in January - 31 days, and in February - 28 days. The total is obtained - if you make a small mathematical calculation (31 + 28 + 12 \u003d 71, where the number 12 is - March 12th.)! - March 12th. 1826, of course! From myself we will add and, already, we will especially highlight - what the authors of the TV show did not do! - that exactly before March 12 there is such a historical day as March 11th. In other words, it is the day of Catherine and Alexander, March 11, 1801, the coup, during which, as you already know, Emperor Paul I was killed.
And, note, also Masons. Which were secretly led under Paul I, as you already know from our first chapter, by the British and Prussians. This is where it lies, in my opinion, main connection allocated, here, conspiracies. It was concluded - precisely through the Masonic “black marks” that I now highlight for both emperors, that is, Paul I and Alexander I. And here, perhaps, the most important thing in my entire Note is concluded.
Which can be reduced to approximately the following: historians have finally turned their attention, in the study of Russian History, to Masons. On the Freemasons, not so much as a secret society, but as a subversive organization capable of: changing monarchs, producing palace coups, etc. Of course, in someone's favor. However, let us continue the conversation about the development of the events highlighted here.
What could happen in reality, if, - as the authors of the TV show say! - there was no traffic accident (accident) during the return of Emperor Alexander I, from the Crimea, from the St. George Monastery (Apparently, through the St. George Monastery, Alexander I agreed on his departure to the "elders".
This is already my guess. Also, by the way, reinforcing the version of "Searchers".). Therefore, in fact, he was chosen - the city of Taganrog. So say, in any case, it is the “Searchers”. And after which, an accident, events began to develop - just rapidly. And they began to develop rapidly, according to "Searchers", precisely because of the "death" of the Russian autocrat.
And the main essence of this ill-fated - for the Decembrists! - swiftness was, - from selected authors! - in the fact that Emperor Alexander I instantly "fell", then, precisely in the "elders". In other words, it was the accident that took advantage of, in which, as you already know, a huntsman who was very similar to the emperor died. In other words, fulfilling an agreement with the Decembrists, he disappeared from the political arena of Russia. But at the same time, of course, he could not stand the term of his departure to the “elders”, appointed by him. It turned out - and here! - two-faced or "cunning Byzantine". This is already my addition to the version of "Searchers".
It was precisely because of this that the Decembrists-performers, who were in St. Petersburg, were completely confused (Without their highest secret leadership, of course. Leadership, living at that time in Moscow, in the Moscow region and - in other places.
Directly connected, by the way, with the location of their estates in the central provinces of Russia. In any case, this is what the "Searchers" say.). And, therefore, they went out to Senate Square on December 14, 1825, completely unprepared. Yes, more, and - completely bewildered. Which allowed Nicholas I to easily deal with them. This is the main essence of the version of "Searchers" highlighted here.
3.
It contains, of course, the details of all of the above. But for the sake of brevity, we will name only the most significant of them. And the authors of the TV show indicate that the "Order of Russian Knights" arose, in Russia, in 1730. Which is positive, since it specifies precisely the appearance of Freemasonry in Russia (True, here, it is necessary to double-check - historians, of course! - It is the appearance of Freemasons in Russia.).
The authors of the TV program objectively name the time and homeland of the emergence of Freemasonry: the end of the 17th, the beginning of the 18th century, London, England.
They probably objectively reveal the structure of the Russian Freemasons, whom they called, as you already know, the “Order of Russian Knights”. This also needs to be rechecked not only in Russian, but also, for example: in English, Prussian and other archives.
In general, they are almost objective, and in the fact that most of the Russian Masons were - precisely the Decembrists. By the way, they are “almost objective” also because the old, that is, Catherine's generation of nobles! - is almost gone. Yes, and she lost her unlimited power - precisely because of old age.
And their new generation - not at all connected by ties, both with Catherine II, and, in fact, with the Prussians and, moreover, with the British, and, moreover, went on a military campaign precisely in Western Europe, - where it saw, with its own eyes, precisely the backwardness of Russia from Europe! - completely transformed.
Which led the Decembrists precisely to the benefit of Russia (and not to the detriment, as was the case with the accession of Catherine II to the Russian throne and, of course, with the assassination of Paul the First).
In other words, it made them exactly the defenders of their homeland. What Pushkin noted - in one of his articles. Speaking, in it, that the Decembrists, having overpowered personal egoism, came close, then - through the Patriotic War of 1812! - to true patriotism.
In other words, they became defenders of their Motherland. What happened, by the way, with themselves - as you have already seen from the material presented to you above! - Catherine's kings. Examples, to that, Alexander II, Alexander III, and, in part, Nicholas II. Partly, by the way, because, having married a German woman, he simply had to keep in touch - precisely with his numerous German relatives.
And confirmation, to this, gives us, it is A.S. Pushkin. He gives general confirmation through his own - that is, precisely Pushkin's! - modern history Russia. And he gives, for example, through his works: "Journey from Moscow to St. Petersburg", "Alexander Radishchev", "Table Talk", and others.
But confirmation that the Decembrists were Freemasons is given through the following sentences and passages: “What follows from this? The ascension of Catherine II; December 14th, etc.” (Here he directly connects Catherine's coup, 1762, - and the performance of the Decembrists, December 14, 1825! - precisely with the Masons. And, in addition, he puts - these two conspiracies! - exactly, as they say, "on the same board."
In other words, here again, with our poet-historian, it is the Masons. And, under these upheavals, both political decisions on the nobility, Peter I and Anna Ivanovna, and the impoverishment of the nobility, due to its fragmentation.
An example from Pushkin's article: “Peter. Destruction of the nobility by ranks. Majorities - destroyed by Anna Ivanovna's chicanery. By the way, it was during her reign that Masons arose in Russia, as you already know from the version of the Seekers (More precisely, - as you, by the way, also already know! - The Masonic network was thrown over by the British and the Prussian king, and on Russia. ). Directly subordinate, because of the German Biron, the lover and favorite of the Empress Anna Ivanovna! - specifically to the Prussians.).
The poet has fragmentary notes, and specifically for Catherine II and the Decembrists - and, we will especially highlight, precisely for the reign of Alexander the First! - we observe, with the poet, in his diary for 1833-35. Yes, and in many of his other articles and notes.
Here, at least, are a few of them, taken by me from his diary: “Sitting together with the envoy and his wife, I started talking about March 11”; “Last Sunday I dined at Speransky's. He told me about his exile in 1812…”. And, further: “Speransky is very kind at his place. I told him about the wonderful beginning of Alexander's reign: You and Arakcheev, you stand at the doors opposite this reign, as geniuses of Evil and Good. He answered with compliments and advised me to write the history of my time”; “The spar was then dissatisfied and told me:“ This is how he wrote to me: he treated me like a friend, trusted me with everything, but I was devoted to him. But now, really, I'm ready to take off my own scarf.
Or, here: “Emperor Nicholas is more positive, he has false ideas like his brother, but he is less dreamy"; "Troshchinsky at the end of Paul's reign was in disgrace"; etc. (See the poet's diary entries, greatly abridged by me, on your own.).
By the way, he says, in his diary, about the Decembrists. Here are at least two excerpts from his diary: “At Uvarov's funeral, the late sovereign followed the coffin. Arakcheev said loudly (it seems to A. Orlov) ... ". Or, here: “The sovereign did not like Arakcheev. This is a monster, he said in 1825…”; “But there were exceptions: Count Chernyshev (Minister of War) ...” (Also see, greatly abridged diary entries, by the poet, on your own.). But the conversation about the Orlovs or, for example, about Chernyshev, will be, with us, a little lower. However, we will continue to disclose, to you, exactly the version of the "Searchers".
By the way, they objectively divided the structure named above, “Order of Russian Knights”, into an external structure. A structure in which each member was associated with only three or four "brothers" and which was the executive part of a secret society. I - on internal structure, which was the leading core of the secret community.
And their leaders included:
- Count Mikhail Fedorovich Orlov (According to a significant list, it was recorded by the Decembrists, “Searchers”, under No. 1. And, as I understand it, a strategist and leader of the Decembrists. Pushkin, by the way, highlights several times in his notes (Example: “Only a revolutionary head "; "On the nicrology of the cavalry general N.N. Raevsky.") It was him, calling him, in the last note, "a man versed in military affairs." Who, as I understood from the TV show, accepted the surrender of Paris (He lived to the events unfolding here, by the way, in Moscow on Prechistenka.);
- Dmitry Matveyevich Mamonov (According to the list of Decembrists, as I understand it, under No. 2), in charge of military technical support conspiracy. The conspiracy, whose headquarters, by the way, was in Dubrovitsy (40 kilometers from Moscow), that is, on his estate;
- Zakhar Grigoryevich Chernyshev (Recorded according to a significant list, among the Decembrists, under No. 4. The poet, as you already know, singled him out in his diary.);
- Mikhail Sergeevich Lunin (According to a significant list, it passes, among the Decembrists, under No. 5. He was an adjutant to the Grand Duke Konstantin. The prince, who automatically became, after the death of Alexander I, Russian emperor). And so on.
By the way, at Mamonov's, in Dubrovitsy, there was also Alexander's spy-valet, a certain Grigorovsky, who allegedly denounced the Decembrists - as I understood from the TV show! - personally to Alexander the first.
D.M. Mamonov, apparently sensing something was wrong, burned it back in 1823 - as the "Searchers" singled out! - all your papers. And, therefore, Nicholas I never found out - even during personal interrogations of the Decembrists and a personal investigation of the conspiracy itself! - practically nothing true (The authors of "The Seekers" here refer to form No. 48, - that is, to the "Mamonov case"! - located - in the Russian archive.).
4.
Well, at least briefly, about the performance of the Decembrists. The authors of the TV show sharply reject: the cowardice of the Decembrists; the cowardice of Prince Trubetskoy. And - in general, all the slander that is poured out on them, the modern media, apparently by someone's order (Which I support, too, because they were military officers of the Patriotic War of 1812.).
And the failure of their conspiracy is explained to us, we will single out once again, because of: the swiftness of events indicated above. Swiftness, because of which the Decembrists found themselves - without their top leadership, located at that time in Moscow, in the Moscow region and - in other places of their permanent residence, connected mainly with their family estates.
And the Decembrists-performers - most of which were not even Freemasons! - upon receiving news from Taganrog about the "death" of Alexander I, they gathered on December 13, 1825, at Ryleev's apartment. And, although they were absolutely not prepared for the performance, - yes, still, they were completely confused due to the lack of top management! - nevertheless decided to speak - for tomorrow. We decided not to miss the moment. Prince Trubetskoy, by the way, was on Senate Square. But only, according to the Seekers, early in the morning of December 14, 1825.
And Lieutenant Kakhovsky, who shot him at Count Miloradovich, killed him! - shot, it turns out, at a member of the Decembrist organization. In other words, he shot - also at the Decembrist. Namely, after the murder of the just named count, Nicholas I ordered to shoot, at the Decembrists, from cannons. This is how the performance of the Decembrists ended ingloriously, this time promising Russia - and the Russian people! - good change.
It remains only to single out the steadfast behavior of the Decembrists, even under the ferocious Nikolaev investigation (In any case, it is the “Seekers” who say so). Nicholas I did not really know anything about the conspiracy. Although he felt that during the investigation he had not achieved the main goal of this investigation - the discovery of the guiding core of the conspiracy.
This is what the "Searchers" noted, as through thirteen exclamation points set by Nicholas I, during interrogation, by him, Count M.F. Orlov, and through his creation, the day after the execution of the Decembrists - that is, on July 14, 1826! - the famous III Division headed by Count Benckendorff. Here, the newly-made tsar, through the number 14, remembers, by the way, also about December 14, 1825.
And he created it, in order to still reveal - it was a conspiracy. This is how the “Searchers” explain these circumstances to us. Which, he, too, failed. And he hung up - as they are already highlighting, to us, "Searchers"! - almost ordinary Decembrists. In all cases, he never "reached out" to the leaders, the Decembrists. Even though he longed for it.
And the last thing, probably, that I would like to single out is according to the version of "Searchers". The coffin of Alexander I turned out to be empty - if we proceed from the version just revealed to you, the "Searchers"! - probably, and because it was not the emperor who lay in it, but the huntsman indicated above. That the royal family could not, of course, allow it.
And can you imagine how furious, then (that is, when the body of the "emperor" was brought to St. Petersburg!), Nicholas I, when he did not recognize, was furious - in the huntsman! - his older brother. And not only furious. For the matter here was already moving towards regicide. That is why, probably, the very ferocity of the new tsar, Emperor Nicholas I, towards the Decembrists arose. It remains only to point out that after thirteen exclamation marks, Nicholas I could already mark out the date of his execution, July 13, 1826, of the Decembrist leaders.
5.
Here we will definitely highlight the almost official version of the death of Alexander I. And it says that when returning from the Crimea, Alexander I caught a cold and then died in Taganrog. There is also a report that, upon returning from the Crimea, he fell ill with typhus. And besides, during the transfer of his body to St. Petersburg, he turned black all over.
And this may already be the plague. The plague, which was a frequent guest, at that time, in the Crimea. And then, or because of typhus (or because of the plague!), That is, a more terrible disease! - the coffin, his, and turned out to be - empty!
Due to the fact that "Decembrism" was born in Russia, immediately after the Patriotic War of 1812, the version of "Searchers" just highlighted above seems to us somewhat different. The version in which the conspiracy of the king, with the Decembrists, of course (that is, because of the worldview and views of Emperor Alexander I, already detailed to you, above), is absent. But the date of March 12, 1826, as the date of the speech of the Decembrists, is quite real precisely because of the very development of Decembristism in Russia.
Decembrists - in connection with the preparation of a conspiracy and a coup d'état! - it is quite possible that they appointed - this is the deadline. And we were getting ready for that date. Therefore, the real sudden death of Emperor Alexander I - November 19, 1825! - and caught them by surprise, leading them to a defeat, highlighted above. In general, historians need to carefully double-check everything in this whole story.
Paying attention, in this story, to the city of Taganrog itself. Why exactly did he find himself, then, in the center of the events highlighted here? According to the official version, Emperor Alexander I went to Taganrog to treat his wife, Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna, with whom, in recent years, he became close again. Then why did he go to the Crimea, to St. George's Monastery?
And why A.S. Pushkin admirers of his work - who are the strongest and most active, to the present, in Moscow and St. Petersburg! - also currently attributed, for example:
- and the so-called Don or "Taganrog archive", the poet (Which is considered by them, also to this day, the most secret "Collected Works" of our Genius.);
- and, for example, his poem is a dedication to his own poem "Ruslan and Lyudmila", known in Pushkin studies as "At the Lukomorye there is a green oak ...", also attributed - mainly to the Pushkin amateurs mentioned above! - precisely to the city of Taganrog.
Referred, more precisely, not to the city itself, but to its sea bay, which forms precisely an arc or the shape of a bow, that is, the shape of an ancient weapon. By the way, we will try to raise all these questions, before you, already in our second book.
As you can already see for yourself, there are still questions - about the mysterious death of the "cunning Byzantine", which entailed: the performance of the Decembrists on Senate Square, and the emergence of the "Taganrog Archive" of the poet! - quite a lot. And they, too, should not fall out of the field of view of modern historians and literary critics.
It remains only to highlight that at one time they were divided - and the English Freemasons, giving birth, through the already American Freemasons, to the USA. In addition, the British, during the victory of the Russians over Napoleon, waged a fierce war against the United States in 1812-14 in order to return this state to the rank of their colonies.
As for historians, I will also speak a little. Just don't be offended! To begin with, Pushkin was also not a professional historian, like, for example, N.M. Karamzin. The king only allowed him to the archives! Yes, twice he threatened to excommunicate the poet from the archives! More precisely, he immediately stood up in a threatening pose in relation to the poet.
The first time was when a poet resigned from service. The second time - if he wants to go to the village.
But how different Pushkin's History of Russia turned out to be from Karamzin! And this, briefly, is the first.
Second. A historian is also a person (Here I am not being ironic.)! And, like any person, he perceives and evaluates archival materials and documents purely: in essence, position in society, worldview, views, and so on.
Third. You yourself know what kind of history they created for us - Soviet historians! A complete lie and deceit. And, moreover, often in multi-volume works! Pushkin, apart from the "History of Peter I" and "History of Pugachev", in contrast to them, did not create multi-volume books. But what exactly is his History of Russia! Yes, there is no price! And it is not only Objective, but also created - by a brilliant analyst!
Fourth. historians both here and in the West are subject to those in power! That's why they create - biased Stories. And so on and so forth.
Well, briefly about the Masons. I also pointed out in one of my works that Pushkin tried to join the Freemasons while still in St. Petersburg and joined, then, in Chisinau.
As for the Masons themselves, I also disagree with you. Especially with the wording "Masonry has an occult meaning." It - - hides behind the occult! Yes, and other rituals.
In fact, this is the purest water - a subversive organization! And it was created by the British and Prussians due to the fact that monarchical France and, then, Napoleon completely owned the Catholic Church with its Jesuits and other orders. The division of the Masonic profane into degrees also had, and still has, a meaning. For the figures with the highest degrees were usually assigned the role of undermining the statehood in one or another country of the World. And these are, as a rule, the richest and most influential people of this or that state! By the way, the oath of the Masons was, and is, with blood! I also took this oath in one of my works. And the meaning of it is something like this: "Let me cut my throat, if I ...".
All Alexander. I don't get into an argument anymore. Sincerely,
If not for the complacency of the emperor Alexander I
then no rebellion known as "Decembrist revolt"
would not have happened.
Of this I am absolutely sure!
Did the tsar know about the existence of secret organizations in Russia? Of course he knew. This was reported to him several times.
So, even before the departure of Alexander I to Verona for the next congress of the Holy Alliance (1822), A. H. Benkendorf
informed him about the existence of the Union of Welfare.
This report listed the names of the conspirators, among whom were many people whom Alexander knew personally: Muravyov, Trubetskoy, Pestel, N. Turgenev, F. Glinka, M. Orlov, Fonvizin, Kuchelbeker and many others. And the emperor read this long list, but left it unattended.
Why?
And the answer to this question was given by the emperor himself.
When the adjutant general V. A. Vasilchikov
again informed the emperor about the conspiracy and about the existence of secret societies in Russia with the goal of limiting or even overthrowing the monarchy, attaching a memorandum listing the members of these secret societies to this, Alexander I, after a long silence, said to the astonished informant:
- Dear Vasilchikov. You have been in my service from the very beginning of my reign. You know that I shared and encouraged these illusions and delusions... It is not for me to punish them...
By the way, these words of Alexander I were used in the wonderful 1975 film directed by Vladimir Motyl "Star of Captivating Happiness" (in the role of the emperor - actor Boris Dubensky ):
And Alexander I, who knew perfectly well both the "Northern" and the "Southern" societies, did not take any measures to eradicate these organizations, which, by the way, were preparing a military coup that did not exclude regicide (Colonel Pestel generally proposed the complete destruction of all members royal family to exclude the possibility of restoration of the monarchy).
It seems that if Alexander had been replaced by his younger brother Nikolai, who unexpectedly became emperor at the moment when the conspirators nevertheless brought the regiments to Senate Square, then the uprising on December 14, 1825 would be impossible in principle.
It's only in Motyl's movie Nicholas I
shown in a caricature form (performed by a perfect unlike him Vasily Livanov
):
And the real Nikolai Pavlovich, unlike, by the way, from his older brother Konstantin, was not a coward and a dumbass:
Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich,
future emperor Nicholas I before accession to the throne:
Yes, and with the conspirators, he acted quite mercifully by the standards of that (and not only that) time: only five of them were executed, which was extremely surprising to the "enlightened" European countries, in which, in a similar situation, repressions with a fatal outcome would have covered hundreds, if not thousands of people.
As for the film "The Star of Captivating Happiness", for all its implausibility and romanticization of the conspirators, most of whom, by the way, Alexander I himself, were members of Masonic lodges of various degrees, it was and remains one of my favorite Soviet films. Just do not take it for a historical source.
Thank you for attention.
Sergei Vorobyov.
The book of the famous Russian historian and archivist, scientific adviser State Archive Russian Federation, Professor, Head of the Department of History Faculty of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov Sergey Mironenko is devoted to the history of Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century. The author explores the problems political history, tries to find an answer to the questions: why at that time Russia did not become a constitutional monarchy, and serfdom was not abolished. It seemed that there were all the prerequisites for this. As the author proves, Alexander I understood the need for a radical transformation of the obsolete foundations of Russian life - unlimited autocracy and serfdom. By his order, a draft constitution for Russia and draft decisions were prepared peasant question. Forefront of the then Russian society- young officers, rallied in secret societies, aspired to the same. The Decembrists did not immediately decide to achieve their goals by force. Only when they finally realized that the government had retreated from reforms did they decide on an armed uprising. Neither Alexander I nor the Decembrists succeeded. What are the reasons for this? The present book is dedicated to finding an answer to this question.
