Emperor Paul I was the first tsar, in some of whose acts a new direction and new ideas seemed to appear. I do not share the rather common disdain for the significance of this short reign; in vain they consider it some random episode of our history, a sad whim of fate unkind to us, having no internal connection with the previous time and giving nothing to the future: no, this reign is organically connected as a protest - with the past, but as the first unsuccessful experience new policy, as an edifying lesson for successors - with the future. The instinct of order, discipline and equality was the guiding impulse for the activities of this emperor, the fight against class privileges was his main task. Since the exclusive position acquired by one class had its source in the absence of fundamental laws, Emperor Paul began the creation of these laws.

The main gap that remained in the basic legislation of the 18th century was the absence of a law on succession to the throne that sufficiently ensured public order. On April 5, 1797, Paul issued a law on succession to the throne and an institution on the imperial family - acts that determined the order of succession to the throne and mutual relationship members of the imperial family. This is the first positive fundamental law in our legislation, for Peter's law of 1722 was negative.

Further, the predominant importance of the nobility in local government rested on those privileges that were approved for this class in the provincial institutions of 1775 and in the charter of 1785. Paul canceled this charter, as well as the simultaneously issued charter to the cities, in their most significant parts and began to squeeze the noble and city self-government. He tried to replace the noble elective government with crown bureaucracy, limiting the right of the nobles to replace well-known provincial positions with elections. This marked the main motive in the further movement of management - the triumph of the bureaucracy and the office. The local importance of the nobility also rested on its corporate structure; Paul also undertook the destruction of noble corporations: he abolished provincial noble meetings and elections; for elective positions (1799), and even their provincial leaders (1800), the nobility elected in district assemblies. The right of direct petition was also abolished (law of May 4, 1797). Finally, Paul abolished the most important personal advantage enjoyed by the privileged classes by grant of charter - freedom from corporal punishment: both nobles and the upper strata of the urban population - eminent citizens and merchants of the 1st and 2nd guilds, along with the white clergy by resolution of January 3, 1797 and by the decree of the Senate of the same year they were subjected to corporal punishment for criminal offenses on an equal basis with people of taxable status.

Equation is the transformation of the privileges of some classes into the common rights of all. Paul [turned] equality of rights [into] general lack of rights. Institutions without ideas are pure arbitrariness. [Paul's plans arose] from evil sources, either from a corrupt political understanding or from a personal motive.

Everyone suffered the most from the uncertainty and arbitrariness of the attitude of landowners towards serfs. According to its original meaning, the serf peasant was a tax-paying cultivator, obliged to draw the state tax, and as a state tax-payer he had to have from his owner a land allotment from which he could draw the state tax. But careless and unreasonable legislation after the Code, especially under Peter the Great, was unable to protect serf peasant labor from the tyranny of the lords, and in the second half of the 18th century. cases became frequent when the master completely dispossessed his peasants, put them on daily corvee and gave them a month, a month's food, like ownerless serfs, paying taxes for them. The Russian serf village was turning into a black North American plantation from the time of Uncle Tom.

Paul was the first of the sovereigns of the era under study who tried to define these relations by exact law. By decree of April 5, 1797, a normal measure of peasant labor was determined in favor of the landowner; This measure prescribed three days a week, more than which the landowner could not demand work from the peasant. This prohibited the dispossession of peasants. But this activity in the leveling and organizing direction lacked sufficient firmness and consistency; the reason for this was the upbringing received by the emperor, his relationship with his predecessor - his mother, and most of all the nature with which he was born. The sciences were difficult for him, and books amazed him with their tireless reproduction. Under the leadership of Nikita Panin, Pavel did not receive a particularly restrained upbringing, and the strained relationship with his mother had an unfavorable effect on his character. Pavel was not only removed from government affairs, but also from his own children, and was forced to imprison himself in Gatchina, creating here for himself a small little world in which it rotated until the end of the reign of matter. Invisible but constantly felt offensive supervision, distrust and even neglect on the part of the mother, rudeness on the part of temporary workers - exclusion from government affairs - all this developed embitterment in the Grand Duke, and the impatient expectation of power, the thought of the throne, which haunted the Grand Duke, intensified this is bitterness. The relationship that developed in this way and lasted for more than a decade had a disastrous effect on Paul’s character and kept him for too long in a mood that can be called moral fever. Thanks to this mood, he brought to the throne not so much well-thought-out thoughts as those that had boiled over with extreme underdevelopment, if not complete dulling of political consciousness and civic feeling, and with the hideously distorted nature of bitter feelings. The thought that power came too late, when there was no time to destroy all the evil done by the previous reign, forced Paul to rush into everything, without sufficiently thinking through the measures taken. Thus, thanks to the relations in which Paul was preparing for power, his transformative impulses received an oppositional imprint, a reactionary lining of the struggle against the previous liberal reign. The best-conceived enterprises were spoiled by the stamp of personal enmity placed on them. This direction of activity appears most clearly in the history of the most important law issued during this reign - on succession to the throne. This law was prompted by more personal than political motives. At the end of Catherine's reign, there were rumors about the empress's intention to deprive her unloved and recognized incapable son of the throne, replacing him with her eldest grandson. These rumors, which had some basis, increased the anxiety in which the Grand Duke lived. The French ambassador Segur, leaving St. Petersburg at the beginning of the revolution, in 1789, stopped by Gatchina to say goodbye to the Grand Duke. Pavel got into conversation with him and, as usual, began to harshly condemn his mother’s behavior; the envoy objected to him; Paul, interrupting him, continued: “Finally, explain to me why in other European monarchies sovereigns calmly ascend to the throne one after another, but with us it’s different?” Segur said that the reason for this is the lack of law on succession to the throne, the right of the reigning sovereign to appoint a successor to himself at his own will, which serves as a source of ambition, intrigue and conspiracies. “That’s true,” answered the Grand Duke, “but this is the custom of the country, which is not safe to change.” Segur said that for a change one could take advantage of some solemn occasion when society is disposed to trust, such as a coronation. “Yes, we need to think about it!” - Pavel answered. The consequence of this thought, caused by personal relationships, was the law on succession to the throne, issued on April 5, 1797, on the day of the coronation.

Thanks to Paul's unhappy attitude towards the previous reign, his transformative activity was devoid of consistency and firmness. Having begun the fight against the established order, Paul began to persecute individuals; wanting to correct wrong relationships, he began to persecute the ideas on which these relationships were based. IN a short time Paul’s entire activity turned into the destruction of what had been done by his predecessor; even those useful innovations that were made by Catherine were destroyed during the reign of Paul. In this struggle with the previous reign and with the revolution, the original transformative thoughts were gradually forgotten. Paul ascended the throne with the idea of ​​giving more unity and energy to the state order and establishing class relations on a more equitable basis; meanwhile, out of hostility towards his mother, he abolished provincial institutions in the Baltic and Polish provinces annexed to Russia, which made it difficult for the conquered foreigners to merge with the indigenous population of the empire. Having ascended the throne with the idea of ​​defining by law the normal relations of landowners to peasants and improving the situation of the latter, Paul then not only did not weaken serfdom, but also greatly contributed to its expansion. He, like his predecessors, generously distributed palace and state peasants into private ownership for services and achievements; his accession to the throne cost Russia 100 thousand peasants with a million dessiatines of government land, distributed to followers and favorites for private ownership.

This era differs significantly from previous periods, which is associated primarily with the personality of Paul I, the son of Catherine II and Peter III, in many of whose actions it is difficult to find continuity; his actions were sometimes completely unpredictable and devoid of any logic. Russian politics in those years fully corresponded to the personality of the emperor - a capricious man, changeable in his decisions, easily replacing anger with mercy, and also suspicious and suspicious.

Catherine II did not love her son. He grew up remote and alienated from her, entrusted with the upbringing of N.I. Panina. When he grew up and in 1773 married Princess Wilhelmina of Hesse-Darmstadt, who took the name Natalya Alekseevna, Catherine granted him the right to live in Gatchina, where he had a small army detachment under his command, which he trained according to the Prussian model. This was his main occupation. In 1774 Paul tried to get closer to the works government controlled, giving Catherine a note “Discussion about the state in general regarding the number of troops required to protect it and regarding the defense of all borders,” which did not receive the approval of the empress. In 1776, his wife died during childbirth and Pavel remarried the Wirtemberg princess Sophia-Dorothea, who took the name Maria Feodorovna. In 1777, they had a son, the future Emperor Alexander I, and in 1779 a second, Constantine. Catherine II took both grandchildren into her care, which further complicated their relationship. Removed from business and removed from the court, Pavel became more and more imbued with feelings of resentment, irritation and direct hostility towards his mother and her entourage, wasting the power of his mind on theoretical discussions about the need to correct the condition Russian Empire. All this made Paul a broken and embittered man.

From the first minutes of his reign, it became clear that he would rule with the help of new people. Catherine's former favorites lost all meaning. Previously humiliated by them, Paul now expressed his complete disdain for them. Nevertheless, he was filled with the best intentions and strove for the good of the state, but his lack of management skills prevented him from acting successfully. Dissatisfied with the management system, Pavel could not find people around him to replace the previous administration. Wanting to establish order in the state, he eradicated the old, but implanted the new with such cruelty that it seemed even more terrible. This unpreparedness for governing the country was combined with the unevenness of his character, which resulted in his predilection for external forms of subordination, and his temper often turned into cruelty. Pavel transferred his random moods into politics. That's why the most important facts its domestic and foreign policies cannot be presented in the form of a harmonious and correct system. It should be noted that all of Paul’s measures to establish order in the country only violated the harmony of the previous government, without creating anything new and useful. Overwhelmed by a thirst for activity, wanting to delve into all government problems, he got to work at six o'clock in the morning and forced all government officials to follow this schedule. At the end of the morning, Pavel, dressed in a dark green uniform and boots, accompanied by his sons and adjutants, went to the parade ground. He, as the commander-in-chief of the army, made promotions and appointments at his own discretion. Strict drill was imposed in the army and Prussian military uniform. By a circular dated November 29, 1796, accuracy of formation, accuracy of intervals and goose step were elevated to the main principles of military affairs. He drove out well-deserved, but not pleasing, generals and replaced them with unknown, often completely mediocre, but ready to fulfill the most absurd whim of the emperor (in particular, he was sent into exile). The demotion was carried out publicly. According to a well-known historical anecdote, once, angry at a regiment that failed to clearly carry out the command, Pavel ordered it to march straight from the parade to Siberia. Those close to the king begged him to have mercy. The regiment, which, in fulfilling this order, had already managed to move quite far from the capital, was returned back to St. Petersburg.

In general, two lines can be traced in the policy of the new emperor: to eradicate what was created by Catherine II, and to remake Russia according to the model of Gatchina. The strict order introduced in his personal residence near St. Petersburg, Pavel wanted to extend to the whole of Russia. He used the first reason to demonstrate hatred of his mother at the funeral of Catherine II. Paul demanded that the funeral ceremony be performed simultaneously over the body of Catherine and Peter III, who was killed on her orders. On his instructions, the coffin with the body of her husband was removed from the crypt of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra and exhibited in the throne room of the Winter Palace next to Catherine’s coffin. Afterwards they were solemnly transferred to Peter and Paul Cathedral. This procession was opened by Alexei Orlov, the main culprit of the murder, who carried the crown of the emperor he killed on a golden pillow. His accomplices, Passek and Baryatinsky, held tassels of mourning cloth. Following them on foot were the new emperor, empress, grand dukes and princesses, and generals. In the cathedral, priests dressed in mourning vestments performed the funeral service for both at the same time.

Paul I freed N.I. from the Shlisselburg fortress. Novikov, returned Radishchev from exile, showered favors on T. Kosciuszko and allowed him to emigrate to America, giving him 60 thousand rubles, and received the former Polish king Stanislav Poniatowski with honors in St. Petersburg.

"HAMLET AND DON QUIXOTE"

In Russia, in front of the eyes of the entire society, for 34 years, the real, and not theatrical, tragedy of Prince Hamlet took place, the hero of which was the heir, Tsarevich Paul the First.<…>In European high circles it was he who was called the “Russian Hamlet”. After the death of Catherine II and his accession to the Russian throne, Paul was more often compared to Cervantes' Don Quixote. V.S. spoke well about this. Zhilkin: “Two greatest images of world literature in relation to one person - this was awarded to only Emperor Paul in the whole world.<…>Both Hamlet and Don Quixote act as bearers of the highest truth in the face of the vulgarity and lies reigning in the world. This is what makes both of them similar to Paul. Like them, Paul was at odds with his age, like them, he did not want to “keep up with the times.”

In the history of Russia, the opinion has taken root that the emperor was a stupid ruler, but this is far from the case. On the contrary, Paul did a lot, or at least tried to do, for the country and its people, especially the peasantry and clergy. The reason for this state of affairs is that the tsar tried to limit the power of the nobility, which received almost unlimited rights and the abolition of many duties (for example, military service) under Catherine the Great, and fought against embezzlement. The guards also didn’t like the fact that they were trying to “drill” her. Thus, everything was done to create the myth of the “tyrant.” Herzen’s words are noteworthy: “Paul I presented the disgusting and ridiculous spectacle of the crowned Don Quixote.” Like literary heroes, Paul I dies as a result of treacherous murder. Alexander I ascends to the Russian throne, who, as you know, felt guilty all his life for the death of his father.

"INSTITUTION ABOUT THE IMPERIAL FAMILY"

During the coronation celebrations, in 1797, Paul announced the first government act of great importance - “The Establishment of the Imperial Family.” New law restored the old, pre-Petrine custom of transfer of power. Paul saw what the violation of this law led to, which had an unfavorable impact on himself. This law again restored inheritance only through the male line by primogeniture. From now on, the throne could only be passed on to the eldest of the sons, and in their absence, to the eldest of the brothers, “so that the state would not be without an heir, so that the heir would always be appointed by law itself, so that there would not be the slightest doubt about who should inherit.” To maintain the imperial family, a special department of “appanages” was formed, which managed appanage properties and peasants living on appanage lands.

CLASS POLITICS

The opposition to the actions of his mother was also evident in the class policy of Paul I - his attitude towards the nobility. Paul I liked to repeat: “A nobleman in Russia is only the one with whom I speak and while I speak with him.” Being a defender of unlimited autocratic power, he did not want to allow any class privileges, significantly limiting the effect of the Charter of the Nobility of 1785. In 1798, governors were ordered to attend the elections of leaders of the nobility. The following year, another restriction followed - provincial meetings of nobles were canceled and provincial leaders had to be elected by district leaders. Nobles were prohibited from making collective representations about their needs, and they could be subjected to corporal punishment for criminal offenses.

ONE AND HUNDRED THOUSAND

What happened between Paul and the nobility in 1796-1801? That nobility, whose most active part we conventionally divided into “enlighteners” and “cynics”, who agreed on the “benefits of enlightenment” (Pushkin) and had not yet diverged far enough in the dispute about the abolition of slavery. Didn't Paul have the opportunity to satisfy a number of general or private desires and needs of this class and its individual representatives? Published and unpublished archival materials leave no doubt that a considerable percentage of Pavlov’s “quick-fire” plans and orders were “to the heart” of his class. 550-600 thousand new serfs (yesterday's state, appanage, economic, etc.) were transferred to the landowners along with 5 million acres of land - a fact that is especially eloquent if we compare it with the decisive statements of Paul the Heir against his mother's distribution of serfs. However, a few months after his accession, troops will move against the rebellious Oryol peasants; at the same time, Pavel will ask the commander-in-chief about the advisability of the royal departure to the scene of action (this is already “knightly style”!).

The service advantages of the nobles during these years were preserved and strengthened as before. A commoner could become a non-commissioned officer only after four years of service in the rank and file, a nobleman - after three months, and in 1798 Paul generally ordered that henceforth commoners should not be presented as officers! It was by order of Paul that the Auxiliary Bank for the Nobility was established in 1797, which issued huge loans.

Let us listen to one of his enlightened contemporaries: “Agriculture, industry, trade, arts and sciences had in him (Paul) a reliable patron. To promote education and upbringing, he founded a university in Dorpat and a school for war orphans (Pavlovsky Corps) in St. Petersburg. For women - the Institute of the Order of St. Catherine and the institutions of the department of Empress Maria." Among the new institutions of Pavlov's time we will find a number of others that never aroused noble objections: the Russian-American Company, the Medical-Surgical Academy. Let us also mention the soldiers' schools, where 12 thousand people were trained under Catherine II, and 64 thousand people under Paul I. Listing, we note one, but characteristic feature: education is not abolished, but is increasingly controlled by the supreme power.<…>The Tula nobleman, who rejoiced at the beginning of Pavlov’s changes, poorly hides some fear: “With the change of government, nothing bothered the entire Russian nobility so much as the fear that they would not be deprived of the freedom granted to them by Emperor Peter III, and the retention of that privilege in order to serve everyone at ease and only as long as anyone wishes; but, to everyone’s satisfaction, the new monarch, upon his very accession to the throne, namely on the third or fourth day, by dismissing some guards officers from service, on the basis of a decree on the freedom of the nobility, proved that he had no intention of depriving the nobles of this precious right and force them to serve from under bondage. It’s impossible to adequately describe how happy everyone was when they heard this...” They didn’t rejoice for long.

N.Ya. Edelman. Edge of Ages

AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Paul's inconsistency also manifested itself in the peasant question. By the law of April 5, 1797, Paul established a standard of peasant labor in favor of the landowner, appointing three days of corvée per week. This manifesto is usually called the “decree on three-day corvee”, however, this law contained only a prohibition to force peasants to work on Sundays, establishing only a recommendation to landowners to adhere to this norm. The law stated that “the remaining six days in the week, generally divided by an equal number of them,” “with good management will be sufficient” to satisfy the economic needs of the landowners. In the same year, another decree was issued, according to which it was forbidden to sell courtyard people and landless peasants under the hammer, and in 1798 a ban was established on the sale of Ukrainian peasants without land. Also in 1798, the emperor restored the right of manufactory owners to buy peasants to work in enterprises. However, during his reign, serfdom continued to spread widely. During the four years of his reign, Paul I transferred more than 500,000 state-owned peasants into private hands, while Catherine II, during her thirty-six years of reign, distributed about 800,000 souls of both sexes. The scope of serfdom was also expanded: a decree of December 12, 1796 prohibited the free movement of peasants living on private lands in the Don region, the northern Caucasus and Novorossiysk provinces (Ekaterinoslav and Tauride).

At the same time, Paul sought to regulate the situation of the state-owned peasants. A number of Senate decrees ordered that they be satisfied with sufficient land plots - 15 dessiatines per male capita in provinces with many lands, and 8 dessiatines in the rest. In 1797, rural and volost self-government of state-owned peasants was regulated - elected village elders and “volost heads” were introduced.

PAUL I'S ATTITUDE TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

Paul was also haunted by the specter of revolution. Overly suspicious, he saw the subversive influence of revolutionary ideas even in fashionable clothing and, by decree of January 13, 1797, banned the wearing of round hats, long trousers, shoes with bows and boots with cuffs. Two hundred dragoons, divided into pickets, rushed through the streets of St. Petersburg and caught passers-by, belonging mainly to high society, whose costume did not comply with the emperor's orders. Their hats were torn off, their vests were cut, and their shoes were confiscated.

Having established such supervision over the cut of his subjects’ clothing, Paul also took charge of their way of thinking. By decree of February 16, 1797, he introduced secular and church censorship and ordered the sealing of private printing houses. The words “citizen”, “club”, “society” were deleted from the dictionaries.

Paul's tyrannical rule, his inconsistency both in domestic policy and externally, caused increasing displeasure in noble circles. In the hearts of young guardsmen from noble families, hatred of the Gatchina order and Paul’s favorites bubbled up. A conspiracy arose against him. On the night of March 12, 1801, the conspirators entered the Mikhailovsky Castle and killed Paul I.

S.F. PLATONS ABOUT PAUL I

“An abstract sense of legality and fear of being attacked by France forced Paul to fight the French; a personal sense of resentment forced him to retreat from this war and prepare for another. The element of chance was just as strong in foreign policy as in domestic policy: in both cases, Paul was guided more by feeling than by idea.”

IN. KLUCHEVSKY ABOUT PAUL I

“Emperor Paul the First was the first tsar, in some of whose acts a new direction, new ideas seemed to be visible. I do not share the rather common disdain for the significance of this short reign; in vain they consider it some random episode of our history, a sad whim of fate unkind to us, having no internal connection with the previous time and giving nothing to the future: no, this reign is organically connected as a protest - with the past, but as the first unsuccessful experience of a new policy , as an edifying lesson for successors - with the future. The instinct of order, discipline and equality was the guiding impulse for the activities of this emperor, the fight against class privileges was his main task. Since the exclusive position acquired by one class had its source in the absence of fundamental laws, Emperor Paul 1 began the creation of these laws.”

Gennady Lvovich OBOLENSKY
EMPEROR PAUL I
Historical novel
The novel by G. Obolensky and the story by E. Karnovich are not accidental
appeared under one cover. Both works tell about the era
Paul I. The reader will find out why in our history it is so persistent
there was a legend about a narrow-minded, stupid, short-sighted king and what
was actually Emperor Paul I.
DEDICATE TO DEAR DESI
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
INSTEAD OF A FOREWORD
PART ONE
Chapter first. PARENTS
Chapter two. THE HEIR AND HIS TUTORS
Chapter three. POROSHINA'S DIARY
Chapter Four. PETER III
Chapter five. JUNE 28, 1762
Chapter six. CONSTITUTION OF PANINA-FONVIZIN
Chapter seven. GRAND DUKE
Chapter eight. GATCHINA
Chapter Nine. IN THE EARLY DAYS
PART TWO
Chapter ten. "ROMANTIC EMPEROR"
Chapter Eleven. ALEXANDER VASILIEVICH SUVOROV
Chapter twelve. FRANCO-RUSSIAN UNION
Chapter thirteen. NIKITA PETROVICH PANIN
Chapter fourteen. SON
Chapter fifteen. VON PALEN ACTS
Chapter sixteen. TO MIKHAILOVSKY CASTLE
Chapter seventeen. 11TH OF MARCH
Chapter Eighteen. REGICIDE
Chapter nineteen. THE NEXT DAY
RETRIBUTION. Instead of a conclusion
________________________________________________________________
INSTEAD OF A FOREWORD
I don't share quite the usual
disregard for the meaning of this
reign.
V. Klyuchevsky
A.S. Pushkin called him a “romantic emperor”, “the enemy of deceit and the ignorant” and was going to write the history of his reign. L.N. Tolstoy believed that “the character, especially the political one, of Paul I was a noble, knightly character.” In a letter to the historian Bartenev in 1867, he wrote: “I found my historical hero. And if God gave life, leisure and strength, I would try to write his story.” It was about Paul I.
The interest of two Russian geniuses in him was not accidental. The life of Pavel Petrovich was distinguished by such tragic features, “the likes of which are not found in the life of any of the crown bearers, not only Russian, but also world history".
On this occasion, the magazine “Russian Antiquity” wrote in 1897: “There is not the slightest doubt that the personality of Pavel Petrovich arouses in us not only great interest, but also some kind of strange sympathy for ourselves, not cooled by the darkest pictures of his time, sketched contemporaries. This sympathy cannot be explained by insufficient acquaintance with the character and actions of Paul I; on the contrary, in order to imprint in the minds of readers an unfavorable idea of ​​him, the colors are sometimes condensed too much. The character of Pavel Petrovich consisted entirely of contrasts of light and shadow, which appeared in him - these are purely Hamletian traits, and such characters everywhere and always aroused and arouse involuntary sympathy for themselves. People love impetuous, passionate natures and easily forgive them for their errors..."
Contemporaries noted his high spiritual qualities and called him a tyrant. They talk “about the enormity of the revolution that took place with his accession to the throne,” and write that the emperor was “damaged.” There are legends about how he exiled entire regiments to Siberia, and the soldiers loved him, and the hero Patriotic War General A.P. Ermolov claims that “the late emperor had great traits, and his historical character has not yet been determined among us.”
The serfs also take the oath to the new king, which means they are subjects, people. For the first time from the height of the throne, corvée was limited to three days a week, with serfs being given days off on holidays and Sundays. The Tsar is a despot, and the people say about him: “Our Pugach!”
Many anecdotes have been preserved about him, but no less about Peter the Great. When asked who would have access to the sovereign with requests, his answer followed: “All, all subjects are equal to me, and I am the sovereign to everyone.” Petitions are accepted daily by him personally at watch parades. And soon the surprised residents of the capital learn that in one of the windows of the Winter Palace there is a yellow box and everyone can throw a letter or petition addressed to the sovereign into it. The key to the room was kept by Pavel himself, who every morning himself read the requests of his subjects and printed the answers in the newspapers.
The most educated I.M. Muravyov-Apostol more than once spoke to his children, Matvey, Sergei and Ippolit, the future Decembrists, “about the enormity of the revolution that took place with the accession of Paul I to the throne - a revolution so drastic that descendants will not understand it.” Never before, even under Peter I, has legislation moved at such an accelerated pace: changes, new charters, regulations, ever new precise rules, “strict reporting everywhere.”
Order is being restored in the army and in the administration, “everywhere the power of individual commanders is being constrained.” In all directions, the old, outdated things are being demolished. Decembrist V.I. Shteingel: “This short-term reign generally awaits an observant and impartial historian, and then the world will know that it was necessary for the good and future greatness of Russia after the luxurious reign of Catherine II.”
Paul I is an enemy of class privileges and social injustice. “The law is the same for everyone, and everyone is equal before it,” he said, “a persecutor of any abuse of power, especially extortion and bribery.” And that’s why a general and a non-commissioned officer, a merchant and a senator are going to Siberia in the same caravan.
V. O. Klyuchevsky called him the first anti-noble autocrat. "A sense of order, discipline and equality was the guiding impulse of his activities, the fight against class privileges was his main task."
Judging by the quick and decisive actions of the emperor, the reform program was prepared by him in advance. It was based on the centralization of power, strict state economy and the desire to alleviate the hardships of the common people.
“Emperor Paul had a sincere and strong desire to do good,” recalled his interlocutor, the writer A. Kotzebue. “Before him, as before the kindest sovereign, the poor and the rich, the nobleman and the peasant, were all equal. Woe to the strong who arrogantly oppressed the poor! Road to the emperor was open to everyone, the title of his favorite did not protect anyone in front of him..."
He is extremely irritable and demands unconditional obedience: “The slightest hesitation in the execution of his orders, the slightest malfunction in his service entailed the strictest reprimand and even punishment without any distinction.” But he is fair, kind, generous: “benevolent, inclined to forgive insults, ready to repent of mistakes.”
“Many blatant injustices came to light, and in such cases Paul was adamant,” writes one of Paul’s most educated and principled contemporaries, Colonel N.A. Sablukov. “No personal or class considerations could save the guilty person from punishment, and one can only regret that he “The majesty sometimes acted too quickly and did not provide punishment to the laws themselves, which would have punished the culprit much more severely than the emperor did, and meanwhile he would not often have been subjected to the criticism that personal reprisal entails.”
A personal decree to the mayor, convicted of slandering an officer: “During the morning divorce of the guard, kneel before the offended person and ask for forgiveness.”
An officer is walking down the street, followed by a soldier who is carrying his fur coat and sword: “The Emperor, having passed this officer, returns back, approaches the aforementioned soldier and asks whose fur coat and sword he is carrying.” “My officer,” said the soldier, “ this very one who is walking in front." "An officer? - said the sovereign, surprised. - So that’s why it became too difficult for him to carry his sword and he apparently got bored with it. So put it on yourself, and give him your bayonet with a sword belt: it will be easier for him." With this word, the sovereign suddenly granted this soldier an officer, and demoted the officer to a soldier; and this example, having made a terrible impression throughout the entire army, had a great effect: all the soldiers were extremely pleased with this, and the officers stopped basking, but began to better remember their rank and respect their dignity."
Historian E. S. Shumigorsky claims that “the mass of the common people, who in a few months received greater relief from their painful lot than during the entire reign of Catherine, and the soldiers, who were freed from the oppression of arbitrary command power and felt themselves in the sovereign service, with hope looked at the future; they were little touched by the “lord’s” and “commander’s” anxieties.”
One can only deeply regret that the tsar’s best impulses and good undertakings were dashed against the stone wall of indifference and even obvious ill will of his closest employees, outwardly loyal and servile. Many of his orders were interpreted in a completely impossible and treacherous manner. Hidden discontent grew against the sovereign, who was completely innocent. There are many similar facts. Thus, Governor Arkharov gave the order to repaint houses and fences in the “color of barriers” and change the Russian harness of the horses to German, allegedly based on the personal desire of the emperor.
“You know what kind of heart I have, but you don’t know what kind of people they are,” Pavel Petrovich wrote bitterly in one of his letters about this.
“It is usually customary to speak of Emperor Paul as a person alien to any kind qualities, always gloomy, irritable and stern,” recalled Colonel N.A. Sablukov, who knew the emperor closely. “In fact, his character was not like that at all. He made a witty joke understood and appreciated no worse than anyone else, as long as no ill will or malice was visible in her...
Paul, by nature a generous, insightful and intelligent man, was in his views a perfect gentleman who knew how to treat truly decent people, even if they did not belong to the clan or official aristocracy; he knew languages ​​perfectly: Slavic, German and French, and was well acquainted with history, geography and mathematics.
Pavel Petrovich was full of life, wit and humor, was virtuous and hated debauchery; he was very strict regarding everything related to state economy, trying to ease the burdens on the people; in the persecution of extortion, injustice, injustice, he was adamant; was very generous in distributing pensions and awards. The deeply religious Paul highly valued truth and hated lies and deceit.
The character of this emperor was based on true generosity and nobility, and, despite the fact that he was jealous of power, he despised those who slavishly submitted to his will at the expense of truth and justice, and, on the contrary, respected people who fearlessly opposed his outbursts anger to protect the innocent."
And here is the testimony of Princess D. H. Lieven, close to the court: “He had excellent manners and was very kind to women; he had literary erudition and a lively and open mind, was inclined to jokes and fun, loved art; he knew the French language and literature "to perfection; his jokes were never in bad taste, and it is difficult to imagine anything more graceful than the short, gracious words with which he addressed those around him in moments of complacency."
Isn’t it true that everything that has been said does not correspond to the idea that we have about Emperor Paul I. How can one not recall the words of P. Chaadaev: “Reassessment of the past is necessary for more than one conscience. Reassessment of history is the only possible path...”
Paul I was a talented man, he knew and understood painting well, and he drew well. He studied architecture with the famous architect Brenna and was the author of the project for his beloved Mikhailovsky Castle.
Its original plan is illustrated by Paul’s pencil sketches, which were once kept in the papers of Maria Feodorovna and discovered by the Leningrad art critic and architectural historian B. L. Vasiliev back in the 1930s... Well understanding the professional imperfections of Paul I’s project, Brenna creatively reworked it, while maintaining the main idea. He produced more than twenty large-format drawings, providing them with appropriately designed title page with an appeal to the patron, beginning with the words: “Your Majesty. I have put in order the plans and drawings of the Mikhailovsky Palace designed by Your Imperial Majesty in accordance with the fundamentals and rules of art, and their execution, which has begun, continues at the present time”...
In his address to his patron, Brenna clearly exaggerated his role in the work, but this unique document is direct evidence that Pavel and Brenna were co-authors in the creation of the Mikhailovsky Castle project.
The foreign policy pursued by Paul I was entirely subordinated to the national interests of Russia.
Having ascended the throne, he told Chancellor Bezborodko: “Now there is not the slightest need for Russia to think about expanding its borders, therefore it is already quite extensive... and we will try to maintain our borders and will not allow anyone to offend ourselves; the emergence of this is all We will maintain ourselves on a military footing, but at the same time we will live in peace and tranquility." His foreign policy is one of peace, political balance and protection of the weak.
The betrayal of the allies in the coalition against France, who used Suvorov's unprecedented success in Italy for their own selfish purposes, as well as the restoration of strong power in France in the person of the first consul Bonaparte, caused a sharp change in the course of foreign policy. And although its goals remain the same - lasting peace and political balance - Paul I now sees their implementation in an alliance with revolutionary France.
It was necessary to have statesmanship and courage in order to turn the country’s foreign policy course so sharply, contrary to established traditions and the opinion of closest advisers. The interests of Russia were placed by the new emperor above the abstract principles of legitimism - revolutionary France became an ally of Russia. According to V. O. Klyuchevsky, “the two countries most separated by geography - revolution and extreme absolutism - stood at the head and guardian of the European order.”
The rapprochement between the great powers is proceeding at a rapid pace. Joint grandiose plans are already being made: landing troops in Ireland, military operations in the Mediterranean Sea, and a campaign in India. England finds herself alone: ​​France, Russia, Prussia, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Holland, Italy - everyone is against her. There is panic in London, there is no bread, European ports are closed. Denmark occupies Hamburg, Prussia occupies Hanover, Cossack regiments rush to the foothills of India. The government of the all-powerful Pitt fell. A declaration of war was expected any day now.
The opinion has taken root that the trip to India is a figment of the imagination of a half-mad king. It turned out that this is far from true. According to the plan drawn up by Napoleon himself, the Russian corps of 35 thousand people was supposed to concentrate in Astrakhan in June. From France along the Danube and the Black Sea to Tsaritsyn, a 35,000-strong corps headed by the talented and fearless General Masena, who, at the insistence of Paul I, was to lead the Franco-Russian troops, was moving to join with it. Through Astrabad, Herat, Kandahar along the path laid by the phalanxes of Alexander the Great, already in September they expected to enter the main regions of India.
Bonaparte asked Paul: “Are there enough ships? Will the Sultan let him through?” And he guaranteed the ships, his influence on Turkey and wrote in response: “The French and Russian armies thirst for glory; they are brave, patient, tireless; their courage, constancy and prudence of military leaders will defeat any obstacles.”
Never before has Russia had such power and authority in international affairs: “Russia’s most brilliant appearance on the European stage belongs to this reign,” says V. O. Klyuchevsky.
Paul I fell victim to the worst part of the guard and courtiers, dissatisfied with the reforms he carried out. Ambassador Sir Whitworth and “English gold” played a significant role here. Catherine II was “merciful” to the nobility, and by the end of her reign, extreme licentiousness, abuse and extortion plagued the army, courts and chancelleries. In the apt expression of A.S. Pushkin, “the depraved empress corrupted her state. From the chancellor to the last protocol officer, everything was stolen and everything was corrupt.”
Paul I put an end to this. To a large extent, he managed to heal the empire from these “deep ulcers and abuses, introducing greater order into the guard and army, reducing luxury and dissipation, easing the burdens of the people, streamlining finances, and improving justice.” His short reign became transitional - it was in it that the foundations of the political, military systems for two subsequent reigns. “This reign is organically connected as a protest with the past, and as the first unsuccessful experience of a new policy, as an edifying lesson for successors - with the future.”
The murderers of Paul I were infinitely inferior to him in intelligence and character, but they glorified their victim as a “half-mad tyrant,” and no one objected to them. Rumors about his “oddities” and “cruelties” mostly came from the lips of people who sought to either justify the murder of the emperor, or at least reconcile with him. “He was condemned by his murderers - by condemning him, they justified themselves!” And for a whole century the government jealously guarded the memory of Emperor Alexander I to the detriment of the memory of his father. And only the lifting of censorship restrictions at the end of the last and at the beginning of our century made it possible to satisfy the enormous public interest in the life and work of this sovereign, who occupied a special place in the history of the reign of the Romanov dynasty. But rumors about his “cruelties” and “tyranny” continued to live in society, and especially intensified in Soviet time. This was the reason for the birth of this book.
Russia did not want and did not demand the death of the “romantic emperor.” Decembrist N.M. Muravyov, twenty years later, comes to the conclusion that “in 1801, a conspiracy led by Alexander I deprived Paul I of the throne and his life without benefit to Russia. And his epitaph can serve as the words spoken about Emperor Pavel Petrovich by P. Vyazemsky: “His trouble was, first of all, that he was too honest, too sincere, too noble, that is, he had knightly qualities that are contraindicated for successful political activity. “Loyalty”, “duty”, “honor” were absolute values ​​for him.
PART ONE
________________________
Chapter first
PARENTS
Parents are not chosen.
Aphorism
On April 25, 1742, coronation celebrations began in Moscow on the occasion of Elizabeth Petrovna’s accession to the throne. The Brunswick family, overthrown as a result of the coup, with the young Emperor John Antonovich, the great-grandnephew of Peter I, “to repay good for evil,” is sent home with honor.
In 1739, Empress Anna Ioannovna, the middle daughter of Tsar Ivan, gave her adopted niece Anna, who was 21 years old, to marry the Duke of Brunswick Anton Ulrich.
On August 12, 1740, Anna Leopoldovna and Anton Ulrich had a son, who was named John in honor of his great-grandfather. Dying, Anna Ioannovna declared two-month-old John emperor, and her favorite Biron as regent under him.
On November 8, 1740, Field Marshal Minich and eighty grenadiers carried out a coup in favor of Anna Leopoldovna. The hated Biron was arrested, and Anna was declared ruler under her son. In fact, the country was ruled first by Minich, then by the company - Osterman, Cherkassky, Golovkin, who managed to eliminate the ambitious and brave field marshal. Anton Ulrich was content with the rank of generalissimo of the Russian troops, and his pretty, narrow-minded wife spent her time expecting a child and in endless conversations with her favorite lady-in-waiting Mengden.
..."After much thought and hesitation, Elizaveta Petrovna finally made up her mind. Late in the evening of November 24, 1741, they sent for the grenadiers of their beloved Preobrazhensky regiment.
It was already two o'clock in the morning after midnight on November 25, when she, putting a cuirass on her ordinary dress, got into a sleigh and went to the barracks of the Preobrazhensky regiment, accompanied by Vorontsov, Lestok and Schwartz, her old music teacher. Arriving at the grenadier company, which had already been notified in advance of her arrival, she found it assembled and said: “Guys, you know whose daughter I am, follow me!” The soldiers and officers shouted back: “Mother! We are ready, we will kill them all.”
Puzzled by such a wild expression of zeal, Elizabeth said: “If you do this, then I will not go with you.” Having tempered her excessive zeal with these words, Elizabeth ordered the drums to be broken so that no alarm could be caused, then she took the cross, knelt down, followed by everyone present, and said: “I swear to die for you; do you swear to die for me?” "We swear!" - the crowd thundered. “So let’s go,” said Elizabeth, “and let’s just think about making our fatherland happy at all costs...” Entering the room of the ruler, who was sleeping with the maid of honor Mengden, Elizabeth told her: “Sister , it's time to get up!" The ruler, having woken up, answered her: “How! Is it you, madam?” Seeing the grenadier behind Elizabeth, Anna Leopoldovna guessed what was the matter and began to beg the crown princess not to harm either her children or the girl Mengden, from whom she would not like to be separated. Elizabeth promised her this, put her in her sleigh and took her to her palace; behind them, in two other sleighs, little Ivan Antonovich and his newborn sister Catherine were taken there. They said that Elizabeth, taking the emperor she had overthrown in her arms, kissed him and said: “Poor child, you are completely innocent, your parents are to blame.” Thus began this reign, which lasted twenty years, “not without glory, not even without benefit” for Russia. The Brunswick family, honorably sent home, was detained in Riga: the Empress was afraid that her nephew, the Duke of Holstein, might not be released from Kiel.
* * *
Fate has prepared two crowns for him
- Swedish, on my father’s side, and Russian,
on the mother's side; but she didn't spoil
him, and people tried hard to
help her with this.
V. Klyuchevsky
The only son eldest daughter Peter, Anna, and Duke Karl Friedrich of Holstein-Gottorp Peter Ulrich was the grandson of the sister of Karl XII. He lost his mother, who died of childbed fever when he was a few weeks old. At the age of eleven he was left without a father. He was brought up by rude, ignorant people in the Prussian barracks. He was severely punished for the slightest offense, taught to drink and use foul language. “Humiliated and embarrassed in everything,” wrote V. Klyuchevsky, “he acquired bad tastes and habits, became irritable, contentious, and stubborn.”
He was trained to be the heir to the Swedish throne, taught Latin grammar and Lutheran catechism. When the Empress’s nephew was given an exam in St. Petersburg, “everyone was surprised at the paucity of his knowledge,” and he declared in despair that he was incapable of science. The best teachers, headed by Academician Shtelin, were assigned to him, and a program for his education was drawn up. But things did not progress far: Peter was often ill, and being healthy, he preferred court festivities and amusements to serious studies.
“The Grand Duke forgets everything he taught,” we read in Shtelin’s notes, spends his time having fun with the ignorant... Everything is used for fun, for fitting Prussian grenadier helmets, for exercise with servants and pages, and in the evening for the game.” Peter loves to play toy soldiers and puppet comedies, trains dogs and enjoys playing the violin in the company of court lackeys. Kind by nature, he was timid, hot-tempered, but quick-witted, memorable and witty. Childishly trusting and ingenuous, he was unable to keep a single secret. He had an extremely developed imagination, hence the “sad tendency to lie with simple-minded enthusiasm, believing in his own inventions.” He obeyed the first feeling, the first alien thought, this got along with whims and stubbornness. “He was like a child who imagined himself to be an adult, but in reality he was an adult who remained a child forever.”
* * *
Choosing a bride - a question
state.
Mardefeld, Prussian ambassador
In December 1741, fourteen-year-old Peter Ulrich arrived in a distant, harsh country. On November 7 of the following year, he is declared heir to the throne, “as he is closest to us by blood,” with the title of Grand Duke. In December 1743, Peter became dangerously ill, and the Empress was in despair. We remembered Ivan Antonovich, who languished in the Dunamünde fortress near Riga. Peter recovered, but his state of health and fear of John force him to urgently search for a bride. In the meantime, just in case, the deposed Brunswick family is transferred to Rannenburg, and from there to Kholmogory near Arkhangelsk. In March 1745, Anna Leopoldovna gave birth to a son, Peter, a year later - Alexei, and died of childbed fever. She was buried in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, next to her mother Ekaterina Ivanovna. Anton Ulrich and his four children remained in Kholmogory. At the beginning of 1756, fifteen-year-old Emperor Ivan Antonovich was transferred to the Shlisselburg fortress.
In those days, marriage unions also expressed political unions, which is why the choice of a bride for the heir to the Russian throne caused such a struggle. At the end of 1742, the English ambassador Flich proposed one of the daughters of the English king as a bride, and France is also seeking the same. However, Chancellor Bestuzhev is working for the Saxon princess Marianne in order to oppose France and Prussia with an alliance with Austria and Saxony. Elizaveta Petrovna is inclined in favor of Ulrika, sister of Frederick II. But the Prussian king refuses under a plausible pretext, hoping to marry his sister off as the heir to the Swedish throne. And in order to have influence in Russia, the subtle politician and diplomat takes energetic measures and, through his ambassador Mardefeld and the tutor of the heir to Brümmer, Frederick II works in favor of the young daughter of Johanna Elisabeth, Princess of Holstein, especially since her brother Charles, Bishop of Lub, once was the groom of Elizaveta Petrovna. Their marriage had already been decided, but unexpectedly on May 19, 1729, the groom died of smallpox. Elizaveta Petrovna remained attached to her fiancé’s family and even corresponded with Johanna Elisabeth.
From the diary of Frederick II: “...nothing could be more contrary to Prussian interest than to allow the formation of an alliance between Russia and Saxony, and nothing worse than to sacrifice a princess of royal blood in order to push back the Saxon. They came up with another means. Of the German princesses who could be brides, the Princess of Zerbst was most suitable for Russia and corresponded to Prussian interests. Her father was a field marshal in the royal service, her mother, the Princess of Holstein, the sister of the heir to the Swedish throne and the aunt of the Grand Duke of Russia..."
The plan was a success, and Mardefeld received the warm gratitude of the king, who considered him “the culprit of his happiness.” On January 1, 1744, in Zerbst they received an offer to go to distant Russia; on the same day, a similar proposal was received from the Prussian king. The preparations were short-lived, Johanna Elisabeth and her fourteen-year-old daughter Sophia Augusta left for Berlin, and the next day, “shrouded in deep secrecy, under a false name, as if preparing for an evil deed, they hastily set off for Russia.”
* * *
I liked the crown better than
groom's person.
Catherine II
According to her mother, Sophia Frederica Augusta belonged to the Holstein-Gottorp princely family, and according to her father, to the even smaller Anhalt-Zerbst family. Her father Christian August served the Prussian king faithfully: he was a regiment commander, commandant of Stettin and rose to the rank of field marshal. Grandfather, Friedrich Karl, married to the sister of Charles XII, died in one of the battles, and his son married Anna, the eldest daughter of Peter I. Their son Peter Ulrich, who became Peter Fedorovich, heir to the Russian throne, was now her fiancé.
Sophia Augusta was born on April 21, 1729 in Stettin. She spent her childhood in the family of a Prussian general. Her parents did not burden her with their worries. The father is a zealous servant, and the mother is “restless and uncooperative, who was drawn to quarrels and slander, a walking intrigue, an adventure incarnate: she felt good everywhere, just not at home.” In her lifetime, she traveled almost all of Europe, “carrying out orders from Frederick II, which real diplomats were ashamed to undertake.”
The girl was raised by Mademoiselle Cardel, an intelligent woman who was well acquainted with literature. She was strict with her pupil, but fair. Sophie was taught languages, literature, music and dancing, and Monsieur Laurens, “although he was a fool, it was not for nothing that he took money for calligraphy lessons.” She grew up “a playful, playful, even troubled girl who loved to play pranks on her elders, flaunt her courage in front of the boys and knew how not to blink an eye when she was a coward.” The state lady of the tiny court in Stettin, Baroness von Frinzen, who enjoyed the confidence of the young princess, said: “During her youth, I only noticed in her a serious, calculating and cold mind, as far from everything outstanding, bright, as from everything that considered delusional, whimsical or frivolous..."
Sophie herself later wrote about one trait of her character: “It always seemed to me the most humiliating situation to be deceived: as a child, I cried bitterly when I was deceived, and meanwhile I hastily did everything that was demanded of me, and even what I didn’t like, when they explained the reasons to me..."
Sophie often visited her grandmother in Hamburg and in Berlin, where she saw the court of the Prussian king. “All this,” writes Klyuchevsky, “helped her collect an abundant supply of observations and experiences, developed in her everyday dexterity, the habit of recognizing people, and awakened reflection. Perhaps these everyday observations and thoughtfulness, coupled with her natural liveliness, were the reason for her early maturity: "At the age of 14, she already seemed like an adult girl, she amazed everyone with her height and development beyond her years. Catherine received an upbringing that early freed her from unnecessary prejudices that interfered with everyday success."
As a child, fortune tellers promised her three crowns and, by her own admission, “at the age of seven, the thought of a crown began to wander in her head.” In order to achieve the fulfillment of an ambitious dream so deep in her soul, she concludes that she needs to be liked by everyone. “Everything I did always tended toward this,” she admitted, “and my whole life was a search for means of how to achieve this... Only ambition supported me; in the depths of my soul I didn’t know what it was, what it was.” for a minute there was no doubt in my mind: that sooner or later I would achieve my goal, I would become an autocratic Russian empress...

Enter a word and click Find Synonyms.

Sentences containing the word "neglect"

We found 80 sentences containing the word "neglect". Also look at synonyms for "neglect".
Meaning of the word

• I will leave him these pieces of paper, and in 300 years he will be delighted and neglect understand them.
• Behind this phrase there is something terrible neglect to individuality, to the personality of a person.
• Valk, on the contrary, treated Igor Pavlovich with some degree of neglect.
• Neither Christian longsuffering nor neglect to the sky, nor the beautiful play of purple tones.
• You cannot count on the enemy’s illiteracy and neglect them the meaning of Tsaritsyn.
• I recognized the unreasonableness of my own neglect to the Ifans after three victories.
• We wanted to save her from ingratitude, insulting neglect our party bureaucrats, for whom Matisse was somehow hostile.
• Hitler often held such nightly meetings, demonstrating his complete neglect to our well-being.
• And Konetsky decided that it was neglect an arrogant metropolitan filmmaker to an unknown (then) author.
• Nobody showed neglect, condescension or some kind of “stardom”.
• And for yours neglect For our meetings, the only thing I can do is to deprive you of the opportunity to see me.
• In its turn, neglect Ulugbek's adherence to religious canons had long been turned against him by the clergy.
• This neglect affected his upbringing.
• I will cross: both the glory of the Macedonians and my neglect to danger.
• They began to treat us without neglect, not as green youths, but as pilots of equal skill, comrades in arms.
• Started a kind of family tradition neglect civic duty.
• Nowadays he is often a second-class foreigner, whose treatment bears the stamp neglect or sympathy.
• I knew that the reason for this was not conscious neglect, but still found his situation very painful.
• Colorless queen, the king of France did not hide anything from her neglect, nor indifference.
• There was not an ounce in this title neglect.
• Centuries of culture and great artistic traditions breathe here. neglect any rules and regulations.
• Literary criticism spoke of Greene with shade neglect and somewhere on the edge, as if petite.
• Meanwhile, our half-successes during the last war are the result neglect this essential branch of military affairs.
• I know I can rely on you for little things like this, but neglect they can deprive us of our chances of success.
• I didn’t consider them an inanimate mass; I treated them without the ridicule that exists in professional circles. neglect.
• And she went against the “Nikonian” church because of the offensive neglect patriarch to her feelings.
• Carl snapped his fingers as a sign neglect to these derogatory words.
• Full neglect to everything material.
• Section "L" immediately protested to the OKW Chief of Staff against this neglect wartime demands, but to no avail.
• She reproached me for a public sign neglect, which I gave her without showing up for her dinner, which she called a dishonor.
• All tank crew comments were perceived by the instructors as an expression neglect to the infantry.
• Neglect the kindness that Madame de Bray showed me was redeemed by the kindness of her father-in-law, who finally paid attention to me.
• But the king remained their master, and they rarely dared to openly show their annoyance, neglect or hostility.
• Davis, who did not experience neglect towards the natives, noted their sensitivity.
• He did not hide his racism and neglect to them.
• The southerners did not enjoy the respect of the descendants of the Aryans, the Germans did not hide neglect to them.
• According to Kurbsky, all state disasters come from neglect to learning.
• What my parents had in common was neglect to earthly goods and respect for spiritual values.
• But this is by no means from neglect to clothes.
• As a child, he often experienced indifference or neglect from others.
• The waiter took it away with great displeasure, clearly finding our neglect To her.
• It is difficult to say whether this was a manifestation of enthusiasm, crude German humor or, as I sincerely hoped, neglect to the Nazis.
• Later there will be a collision with a clear manifestation neglect to Vladimir from his father's side.
• From the other end of the office, I watched as Kelly became prettier and radiated an aura of jubilant neglect to me.
• He placed personal independence above all else, and showed complete respect for external honors. neglect.
• And for neglect Oleg paid a cruel price for these principles.
• What happens in the case neglect This unwritten law was vividly depicted by George Orwell in his visionary novel “1984.”
• Neglect to the traditional formalities of accepting and handing over command of a formation?
• Such tragedies were seen as God's will, when in fact they were the inevitable result neglect and ignorance.
• First of all, his very arbitrariness, his very neglect The advice was both tactless and misunderstanding.
• I don't share quite the usual neglect to the meaning of this short reign.
• Moreover, at this time I was already seriously noticing from our propagandists from the cities neglect to the village.
• Having failed, he did not resign himself; on the contrary, he tried in every possible way to express his neglect to the newly elected monarch.
• Citizens are filled with neglect to monetary losses and to all kinds of life comforts that surrounded them in the villas.
• Of course, these words did not contain neglect to creative work.
• But with Trotsky's departure from the armed forces neglect the defense intensified.
• In 1924, in the spirit neglect to its own history, it was renamed Sverdlovsk.
• Freud seemed determined to believe that he was surrounded by emptiness and to expect nothing but misunderstanding and neglect.
• And she, the road, definitely deserves the closest attention and does not forgive even the slightest neglect to your person.
• After all, in Soviet times, when complete neglect about money, they tried not to attach such importance to it.
• How much neglect do you have to have one to say so?
• Because of their cynical neglect In relation to the old regime, we were at opposite poles, but became true friends.
• But there are several examples of this neglect to them when circumstances required strengthening the royal claims to the throne.
• I saw him neglect and contempt for rudeness and stupidity, as well as tender love for people close to him.
• And vice versa, neglect"cover" responsibilities have a negative impact on intelligence activities.
• It seemed that the commanders of the opposing armies were competing in displaying pride and neglect to each other.
• Since the Austrians and Germans were allies, it is quite obvious that neglect, if you can call it that, was unintentional.
• How deep does this blade go into the heart of green-eyed Musi? neglect.
• But there we are talking about the icy contempt for man under Stalin and how the ice of this contemptuous melting neglect.
• I view the figure of Stalin without “sacred” awe and no less “sanctified” erical neglect.
• So much sarcasm, deadly neglect and the father and founder of psychoanalysis received ridicule from a witty writer!
• Neglect universal human moral values ​​began to manifest themselves in him a long time ago.
• Neglect and even indifference to the soldier’s fate on the part of responsible officials caused indignation.
• Of course, in the depths of his soul Volodka felt neglect to Ryukha.
• It's full neglect and melancholy.
• Could this be possible? neglect will the Power Stone like it?
• Probably some neglect working man There were other friends in me, I didn’t get to know them.
• The same irritation was clearly generated in the Kremlin. neglect the American side with Russian arguments against the expansion of the alliance.
• Gradsky's behavior showed neglect to the public, arrogance.
• Subsequently, Newton considered a very significant gap such neglect to the geometry of the ancients.

Source – introductory fragments of books from liters.

We hope that our service helped you come up with or create a proposal. If not, write a comment. We will help you.

Emperor Pavel I Petrovich

Reign. Emperor Paul I was the first tsar, in some of whose acts a new direction and new ideas seemed to appear. I do not share the rather common disdain for the significance of this short reign. It is in vain to consider it some random episode of our history, a sad whim of fate unkind to us, having no internal connection with the previous time and giving nothing to the future. No, this reign is organically connected as a protest - with the past, and as the first unsuccessful experience of a new policy, as an edifying lesson for successors - with the future. The instinct of order, discipline and equality was the guiding impulse for the activities of this emperor, the fight against class privileges was his main task. Since the exclusive position acquired by one class had its source in the absence of basic laws, Emperor Paul I began the creation of these laws.

The main gap that remained in the basic legislation of the 18th century was the absence of a law on succession to the throne that sufficiently ensured public order. On April 5, 1797, Paul issued a law on succession to the throne and an institution on the imperial family - acts that determined the order of succession to the throne and the mutual relationship of members of the imperial family. This is the first positive fundamental law in our legislation, for Peter's law of 1722 was negative.

Further, the predominant importance of the nobility in local government rested on those privileges that were approved for this class in the provincial institutions of 1775 and in the charter of 1785. Paul canceled this charter, as well as the simultaneously issued charter to the cities, in their most significant parts, and began to squeeze the noble and city self-government. He tried to replace the noble elective government with crown bureaucracy, limiting the right of the nobles to replace well-known provincial positions with elections. This outlined the main motive in the further movement of management - the triumph of the bureaucracy and the office. The local significance of the nobility also rested on its corporate structure. Paul also undertook the destruction of noble corporations: he abolished provincial noble meetings and elections; for elective positions (1799), and even their provincial leaders (1800), the nobility elected in district assemblies. The right of direct petition was also abolished (law of May 4, 1797). Finally, Paul abolished the most important personal advantage that the privileged classes enjoyed through charters - freedom from corporal punishment. Both the nobles and the upper strata of the urban population - eminent citizens and merchants of the I and II guilds, along with the white clergy, according to the resolution of January 3, 1797 and the decree of the Senate of the same year, were subjected to corporal punishment for criminal offenses on an equal basis with people of tax status.

Equation is the transformation of the privileges of some classes into the common rights of all. Paul turned equality of rights into general lack of rights. Institutions without ideas are pure arbitrariness. Paul's plans arose from evil sources, either from a faulty political understanding or from a personal motive.

Everyone suffered the most from the uncertainty and arbitrariness of the attitude of landowners towards serfs. According to its original meaning, the serf peasant was a tax-paying cultivator, obliged to draw the state tax, and as a state tax-payer he had to have from his owner a land allotment from which he could draw the state tax. But careless and unreasonable legislation after the Code, especially under Peter the Great, was unable to protect serf peasant labor from lordly tyranny. And in the second half of the 18th century. cases became frequent when the master completely dispossessed his peasants, put them on daily corvee and gave them a month, a month's food, like ownerless serfs, paying taxes for them. The Russian serf village was turning into a black North American plantation from the time of Uncle Tom.

Paul was the first of the sovereigns of the era under study who tried to define these relations by exact law. By decree of April 5, 1797, a normal measure of peasant labor was determined in favor of the landowner; This measure prescribed three days a week, more than which the landowner could not demand work from the peasant. This prohibited the dispossession of peasants. But this activity in the leveling and organizing direction lacked sufficient firmness and consistency. The reason for this was the upbringing received by the emperor, his relationship with his predecessor - his mother, and most of all the nature with which he was born. The sciences were difficult for him, and books amazed him with their tireless reproduction. Under the leadership of Nikita Panin, Pavel did not receive a particularly restrained upbringing, and a strained relationship with his mother had an adverse effect on his character. Paul was not only removed from government affairs, but also from his own children, he was forced to imprison himself in Gatchina, creating a small little world for himself here, in which he revolved until the end of his mother’s reign.

Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich's inspection of work on the Neva embankment in 1775.

From an 18th century engraving by Le Bi.

Invisible but constantly felt offensive supervision, distrust and even neglect on the part of the mother, rudeness on the part of temporary workers - exclusion from government affairs - all this developed embitterment in the Grand Duke, and the impatient expectation of power, the thought of the throne, which haunted the Grand Duke, intensified this is bitterness.

The relationship, thus established and lasting for more than ten years, had a disastrous effect on Paul’s character, keeping him for too long in a mood that can be called moral fever. Thanks to this mood, he brought to the throne not so much well-thought-out thoughts as those that had boiled over with extreme underdevelopment, if not complete dulling of political consciousness and civic feeling, and with the hideously distorted nature of bitter feelings. The thought that power came too late, when there was no time to destroy all the evil done by the previous reign, forced Paul to rush into everything, without sufficiently thinking through the measures taken. Thus, thanks to the relations in which Paul was preparing for power, his transformative impulses received an oppositional imprint, a reactionary lining of the struggle against the previous liberal reign. The best-conceived enterprises were spoiled by the stamp of personal enmity placed on them.

This direction of activity appears most clearly in the history of the most important law issued during this reign - on succession to the throne. This law was prompted by more personal than political motives. At the end of Catherine's reign, there were rumors about the empress's intention to deprive her unloved and recognized incapable son of the throne, replacing him with her eldest grandson. These rumors, which had some basis, increased the anxiety in which the Grand Duke lived. The French ambassador Segur, leaving St. Petersburg at the beginning of the revolution, in 1789, stopped by Gatchina to say goodbye to the Grand Duke. Pavel got into conversation with him and, as usual, began to harshly condemn his mother’s behavior; the envoy objected to him. Paul, interrupting him, continued: “Finally, explain to me why in other European monarchies sovereigns calmly ascend to the throne one after another, but with us it’s different?” Segur said that the reason for this is the lack of law on succession to the throne, the right of the reigning sovereign to appoint a successor to himself at will, which serves as a source of ambition, intrigue and conspiracies. “That’s true,” answered the Grand Duke, “but this is the custom of the country, which is not safe to change.” Segur said that for a change one could take advantage of some solemn occasion when society is disposed to trust, such as a coronation. “Yes, we need to think about it!” - Pavel answered. The consequence of this thought, caused by personal relationships, was the law on succession to the throne, issued on April 5, 1797, on the day of the coronation.

A. Benoit.Parade under Paul I.1907

Thanks to Paul's unhappy attitude towards the previous reign, his transformative activity was devoid of consistency and firmness. Having begun the fight against the established order, Paul began to persecute individuals; wanting to correct wrong relationships, he began to persecute the ideas on which these relationships were based. In a short time, Paul’s entire activity turned into the destruction of what had been done by his predecessor; even those useful innovations that were made by Catherine were destroyed during the reign of Paul. In this struggle with the previous reign and with the revolution, the original transformative thoughts were gradually forgotten. Paul ascended the throne with the idea of ​​giving more unity and energy to the state order and establishing class relations on a more equitable basis. Meanwhile, out of hostility towards his mother, he abolished provincial institutions in the Baltic and Polish provinces annexed to Russia, which made it difficult for the conquered foreigners to merge with the indigenous population of the empire. Having ascended the throne with the idea of ​​defining by law the normal relations of landowners to peasants and improving the situation of the latter, Paul then not only did not weaken serfdom, but also greatly contributed to its expansion. He, like his predecessors, generously distributed palace and state peasants into private ownership for services and achievements; his accession to the throne cost Russia 100 thousand peasants with a million dessiatines of government land, distributed to followers and favorites for private ownership.

Russian foreign policy in the 19th century. The reign of Emperor Paul was the first and unsuccessful attempt to solve problems that had come into play since the end of the 18th century. His successor pursued new principles in both foreign and domestic policy much more thoughtfully and consistently.

Territory expansion. The phenomena of foreign policy develop extremely consistently from international situation Russia, as it developed during the 18th century from the time of Peter the Great. These phenomena are so closely related to each other that I will review them up to the last Turkish war, 1877–1878, without distinguishing between reigns. In continuation of the 18th century. Russia is almost completing its long-standing desire to become part of natural ethnographic and geographical boundaries. This endeavor was completed at the beginning of the 19th century. the acquisition of the entire eastern coast of the Baltic Sea, the annexation of Finland with the Åland Islands under the treaty with Sweden in 1809, the advancement of the western border, the annexation of the Kingdom of Poland, according to the act of the Congress of Vienna, and the southwestern border, the annexation of Bessarabia under the Treaty of Bucharest in 1812.

But as soon as the state became its natural borders, Russia’s foreign policy bifurcated: it pursues different aspirations in the Asian, eastern and European southwest.

The difference in these tasks is explained mainly by the dissimilarity of the geographical conditions and the historical environment that Russia encountered when it reached its natural borders, in the east and in the southwest. The Russian borders in the east were not sharply defined or closed: in many places they were open; Moreover, beyond these boundaries there were no dense political societies, which with their density would restrain the further spread of Russian territory. That is why Russia soon had to step beyond natural boundaries and delve deeper into the steppes of Asia. This step was taken by her partly against her own will.

According to the Belgrade Treaty of 1739, Russia's possessions in the southeast reached the Kuban; Russian Cossack settlements have long existed on the Terek. Thus, having positioned itself on the Kuban and Terek, Russia found itself in front of the Caucasus ridge. At the end of the 18th century, the Russian government did not even think about crossing this ridge, having neither the means nor the desire. But beyond the Caucasus, among the Mohammedan population, several Christian principalities vegetated, [which], sensing the proximity of the Russians, began to turn to them for protection. Back in 1783, the Georgian king Heraclius, pressed by Persia, surrendered under the protection of Russia; Catherine was forced to send a Russian regiment beyond the Caucasus ridge, to Tiflis. With her death, the Russians left Georgia, where the Persians invaded, devastating everything, but Emperor Paul was forced to support the Georgians and in 1799 recognized the successor of Heraclius George XII as the king of Georgia. This George, dying, bequeathed Georgia to the Russian emperor, and in 1801, willy-nilly, he had to accept the will. The Georgians worked hard to ensure that the Russian emperor accepted them under his authority. The Russian regiments, having returned to Tiflis, found themselves in an extremely difficult situation: communication with Russia was possible only through the Caucasus ridge, inhabited by wild mountain tribes. Russian troops were cut off from the Caspian and Black Seas by native possessions, of which some Mohammedan khanates in the east were under the protection of Persia, others, small principalities in the west, were under the protectorate of Turkey. For safety, it was necessary to break through both to the east and to the west. The Western principalities were all Christian, that is, Imereti, Mingrelia and Guria along the Rion. Following the example of Georgia, and they, one after another, recognized, like her, the supreme power of Russia - Imereti (Kutais) under Solomon [in] 1802; Mingrelia under Dadian in 1804; Guria (Ozurget) in 1810. These annexations brought Russia into conflict with Persia, from which it had to conquer numerous khanates dependent on it - Shemakha, Nukha, Baku, Erivan, Nakhichevan and others. This clash caused two wars with Persia, which ended with the Treaty of Gulistan in 1813 and the Treaty of Turkmanchay in 1828. But as soon as the Russians stood on the Caspian and Black Sea shores of Transcaucasia, they naturally had to secure their rear by conquering the mountain tribes. From the moment of the appropriation of Georgia, this long conquest of the Caucasus begins, ending in our memory. Based on population composition, the Caucasus Range is divided into two halves - western and eastern. The western one, facing the Black Sea, is inhabited by Circassians; eastern, facing the Caspian Sea, by Chechens and Lezgins. Since 1801, the struggle with both of them begins. Previously, the Eastern Caucasus was conquered by the conquest of Dagestan in 1859; in the following years the conquest of the Western Caucasus was completed. The end of this struggle can be considered 1864, when the last independent Circassian villages were conquered.

Such a complex series of phenomena was caused by the will of George XII of Georgia. In waging this struggle, the Russian government quite sincerely and repeatedly admitted that it did not feel any need and any benefit from the further expansion of its southeastern borders. The territory expanded beyond the Caspian Sea, in the depths of Asia, in exactly the same way. Southern borders Western Siberia has long been troubled by the nomadic Kirghiz who inhabited Northern Turkestan. During the reign of Nicholas, these Kirghiz were pacified, but this pacification brought Russia into conflict with the various khanates of Turkestan - Kokand, Bukhara and Khiva. Supported by their fellow tribesmen, the population of these khanates began to increasingly disturb the southeastern borders of Rus'. Near the campaigns of 1864–1865. Under the command of Chernyaev and Verevkin, first the Khanate of Kokand and then the Khanate of Bukhara were almost conquered. From the conquered possessions, the Turkestan Governor-General on the Syr Darya was formed in 1867. Then the predatory role, which both khanates had to abandon, was assumed by the Khivans, separated from the new borders of Russia by sandy steppes. In a series of campaigns, begun in 1873 under the command of Governor-General of Tashkent Kaufman and completed by the Tekin expedition of Skobelev, 1880–1881, Khiva was also conquered. Thus, the southeastern borders of Russia themselves reached either powerful natural barriers or political barriers. Such barriers are: the Hindu-Kush, Tien Shan, Afghanistan, English India and China ranges.

Eastern question. So, in the continuation of the 19th century. Russia's southeastern borders are gradually being pushed beyond natural limits by the inevitable confluence of relations and interests. Russia's foreign policy on the southwestern European borders has a completely different direction. Here, since the beginning of the century, new tasks have been mastered.

Having completed the political unification of the Russian people, the territorial gathering of the Russian plain, Russia is undertaking the political liberation of other nationalities related to the Russian people by kinship, either tribal, or religious, or religious-tribal. But this task was not immediately given to Russia; it was developed and internalized gradually, not even without outside inspiration. In the 18th century, during the reign of Catherine, they did not yet understand the religious and tribal tasks of foreign policy, and did not deliberately strive for the political liberation of related nationalities. In foreign policy in relation to Turkey and Poland, one simple goal prevailed, which can be described by the words: “territorial reduction of a hostile neighbor in order to round off one’s own borders.” Adjacent lands were simply taken away from enemies in order to correct their own limits.

Correcting their borders, they finally reached limits in the south beyond which it was impossible to carry out the previous policy, precisely for two reasons. Now the Russian troops stopped in front of such regions of Turkey that either could not be annexed to the empire without arousing terrible alarm in the West, or it was inconvenient to annex them due to the lack of direct geographical connections with the empire. Thus, from the policy of territorial reduction of the neighbor, another plan developed - the policy of fragmenting the neighbor. Having looked closely at Turkey, we saw that it is not a single body, but a bunch of different nationalities. Then they decided to gradually isolate these component parts in two ways: either by dividing them among the strong powers of Europe, or by restoring from them the states that once existed within the borders of present-day Turkey. Hence, a double policy towards Turkey develops - the policy of its international division, similar to the Polish ones, and the policy of historical restorations. Both of these aspirations were sometimes bizarrely mixed in the same plans, but both of these aspirations were completely alien to religious-tribal principles.

A curious example of this mixture is the famous Greek project of Catherine. In preparation for the second war with Turkey, in 1782 Russia entered into an alliance with Austria on the following terms: Moldavia, Wallachia and Bessarabia would be formed independent state Dacian (a term read from medieval chroniclers). From the indigenous regions of European and, if possible, Asian Turkey, a restored Byzantine Empire. Bosnia and Serbia are given to Austria along with the possessions of Venice on the mainland, which in retribution receives the Morea, Crete and Cyprus. It is impossible to imagine greater chaos in political concepts and greater foolishness in international combinations: a non-existent state (Dacia of some kind) is restored, Slavic lands are given to German Austria, Orthodox-Greek regions are annexed to Catholic Venice.

The plan proposed in 1800 by Rostopchin to Emperor Paul is characterized by similar chaos. Considering Turkey incapable of existing, Rostopchin thought that it was best to divide it with Austria and France. Russia takes Moldova, Bulgaria and Romania, gives Wallachia, Serbia and Bosnia to Austria, and Egypt to France. Morea with its archipelago of islands becomes an independent republic. This plan has everything - the division of Turkey, political restoration with borders that had no support in history, and disregard for religious and tribal interests and relations. This chaos forced some politicians to oppose any division of Turkey; This was our envoy in Constantinople, Count Kochubey. In 1802, he wrote to the emperor that the worst thing was the division of Turkey, the best thing was its preservation: “The Turks are the calmest neighbors, and therefore for our good it is best to preserve these natural enemies of ours.”

Catherine II, Paul I and Alexander I in a medallion.

From an engraving by Beldt