Peter became jealous of his ex-wife. The abbess of the monastery and several nuns were executed. It was a terrible inquest. In 1812, he was blamed for the fact that Napoleon was able to escape after the collapse on the Berezina. Allegedly, Chichakov had let him slip away. So it was definitely the Freemasons, the world government, and there was no getting away from it. He declared that he would rather be Tsar of Kamchatka than make peace with Napoleon. They split the profit, speaking in modern terms. They began to build a state that I would harshly call an apartheid state. The construction site was classified and the builders were forbidden to disclose even the very fact of where they were working. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century Good afternoon, dear friends. We continue our series of Stories from Russian History and today, according to tradition, I will answer questions from our regular viewers, subscribers, radio listeners and those who send questions to Culture TV channel, to my Telegram channel Vladimir Medinsky or to Dostoevsky Lecture Hall, or via VKontakte and Youtube. We select the most frequently asked questions about the history of the late 18th century and the 19th century, and we will talk about these today. But first of all, a small digression. Among the repeated wishes, for some reason, the following sounds: "do not sit on the table, it is not good to sit on the dining table." I will answer point by point. First of all, I don't sit, but often just lean on it or sit down slightly. The recording lasts a couple of hours and standing straight all the time is quite tedious. Secondly, it's not a dining table, but look carefully, it's a desk, and you can sit down on a desk, it's quite all right and permissible. Thirdly, I have quite a lot of teaching experience since the early ‘90s and it has always been uncomfortable for me to sit in the classroom. Here are students in front of you and you are sitting down like this and speak, of course it can be convenient, you can spread out papers and peek at them, but this table somehow separates you from people. And I've been used to talking to people since my postgraduate studies without being fenced off by tables, chairs and other bulky pieces of furniture. I'm used to standing in a classroom face to face with students, and if I can manage it, I'll talk to you without sitting down. Moreover, one wonderful historian who has been in charge of the History department of Moscow State University for several decades, Academic Karpov, recently called me and said, and this is a high assessment for a populariser of history, that he listens to my lectures with pleasure, but he has one remark: he also asks me not to sit on the table, so for the sake of Sergei Pavlovich and the entire History department, today I will just lean a little on the table. Well, let's move on to the questions and answers. Question from Olga Pomortseva: “Tell us about Peter the Great’s first wife, who was forcibly secluded in a monastery. Is it true that in the monastery she came closer to God?” Dear Olga, I honestly doubt that Evdokia Lopukhina, the first wife of Peter the Great, came so much closer to God while in a monastery. She was a young, beautiful woman, and she resisted exile to the monastery as best she could. She asked the Patriarch for intercession, but after the Streltsy uprising and against the background of the bloody massacre of its participants, Peter was furious, angry and outraged, and did not want to hear anything of the sort. He also ordered his sister, Tsarevna Sophia, to be forcibly tonsured as a nun. Previously, she had been kept in Novodevichy Monastery in fairly good conditions, but then she was not yet a nun. And Evdokia was exiled to Suzdal to a convent, but even while there, she resisted her husband's will. By the way, nowadays Suzdal is one of the most popular tourist destinations in Russia and I have been there dozens of times. There is a wonderful Vladimir-Suzdal Federal Museum-Reserve, I highly recommend you to go there and see the place where Peter the Great’s first wife was confined, to get a sense of the era, so to speak. There are many good hotels, inns, cafes, restaurants, etc. You will have a great time there, especially since next year our whole country will celebrate the millennium of the city of Suzdal, one of the ancient capitals of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality or Vladimir-Suzdal land, as it was called then. Go to Suzdal and maybe now, before the city has turned a thousand years old, your trip will be cheaper. So, Evdokia was living in Suzdal, but after six months in the monastery, she threw off her monastic dress, as they said then, and began to live as a laywoman. Moreover, she started an affair with Major Glebov. This officer was supposed to look after her, but affection arose and this relationship lasted for many years. In connection with the case of Tsarevich Alexei, it was revealed that she not only cohabited with Major Glebov, and here Peter became jealous of his ex-wife, but, what was most terrible, she was also revered not as a nun at services in the monastery, but as the Great Sovereign Tsarina. And what Great Sovereign Tsarina could she be when there was only one Sovereign - Peter the Great. There was a smell of betrayal in this this title; well, at least Peter felt it. Peter ordered an investigation and the unfortunate Major Glebov was put to a monstrously atrocious medieval death; here, I do not want to repeat myself and refer you to my lecture on Peter the Great. Major Glebov, I must give him his due, behaved like a real officer and a man and did not slander anyone even under torture. The abbess of the monastery and several nuns were executed. It was a terrible inquest. Evdokia's detention regime was severely tightened and only after the death of Peter the Great, did Peter II change her fate for the better. Grandson transferred grandmother to Moscow to Novodevichy Monastery and assigned her maintenance in accordance with her royal status. There is an interesting story about the fact that already in 1730, the members of the Supreme Privy Council, the famous Verkhovniki (Supreme Leaders), needed to choose who to invite to the throne after the unexpected death of Peter II. In the end, they invited Anna Ioannovna upon signing the appropriate terms and conditions. But choosing from several candidates, they seriously considered Evdokia, because according to Russian dynastic tradition, a spouse, even a former spouse, of a Sovereign had very serious rights to the throne, certainly greater than those descendants of Catherine born out of wedlock. I reckon she didn't care anymore and didn't want it herself, and therefore, the Verkhovniki made a different choice. In 1731, Evdokia passed away. The words she said before her death have been preserved in history: "God has given me to know the true value of greatness and earthly happiness." That's how, on a philosophical note, Evdokia Lopukhina, the first wife of Peter the Great, ended her life. Some historians say that Peter cooled towards her so quickly because she allegedly did not match his temperament and intellect, but one thing can be said for certain: by the end of her life Evdokia had gained earthly wisdom. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century Next question. In this case, the author is hiding behind a very complex digital name, some specifics of YouTube are strange in this regard, and not all of its users and subscribers have readable names, so I will not voice them. These are all live questions; they are more or less repeated and I am sure that the author will be able to identify his own question. So, here it goes: “Earlier you said that you might tell us more about the reasons for the unification of the lands around Moscow and not Poland. It is also very interesting how such ideas were planted that Muscovites are not real Russians. It was a revelation for me. Isn't that why Poland has such a fierce dislike for us?” There are many questions on this topic, a typical one was chosen, about why Moscow became the centre of the gathering of Russian lands. Hypothetically, one can imagine that Poland could also have become the centre of some kind of supranational Slavic community. But only hypothetically, because it would not have been a union, as in the case of Moscow. Most likely it would’ve been a friendly absorption or assimilation with gradual Catholicisation. For example, the lands of Galician-Volyn Rus ethnically, socially and administratively at first did not differ in any way from the Vladimir, Suzdal, Kiev and Chernigov lands. These lands had already been divided in the 14th century after the war with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Volyn went to Lithuania and Galich to Poland. They split the profit, speaking in modern terms. Let's not forget a very important factor: Poland was a Catholic country, but it was the factor of faith in those days that had a decisive, much greater significance than today. And much more than national. In terms of the possible unification of Russian lands around some centre, it would be more correct to speak not about Poland and Krakow, but about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, or, if you pronounce the full name of this state entity, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia. This state entity existed only for a short period of time though. After the Mongol invasion, it gathered around itself the former lands of the central and western principalities. Only the elites were Lithuanians there. The Lithuanians were actually pagans, but they assimilated very quickly with the Slavs, many of whom were Orthodox, and it was no longer possible to make out who was Lithuanian and who was Russian. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia is often confused with Poland because quite quickly, even in the 16th century, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth united into one state, which in fact was already a Catholic formation. Why was Moscow able to win back first from Lithuania, or the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, and then from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, historical Russian lands? Why Moscow? Moscow was able to do this because the Moscow Princes, the Rurikovichi, claimed for otchina (ancestral lands) or the entire Russian land as a whole - it was a colossal and ambitious goal. The Moscow Princes were already proclaiming themselves "The Grand Prince of Great, Small and White Russia" when they did just not control White and Little Russia, but also did not completely control Great Russia, even within those borders. But once in the title they were declaring their geopolitical claim and objective, announcing a programme of action, as it were. Do you know how psychologists explain this? Grand achievements are subject only to those who are able to set big goals for themselves and persistently push themselves to meet these goals. The Moscow Princes stubbornly, from generation to generation, strived for the macro goal - the gathering and unification around themselves of the entire otchina, that is, historically native Russian lands. Neither Lithuanian Gediminovichi dynasty nor Poles would set themselves such a macro task, since they had no idea of the Russian land as a fatherland. In modern terms, there was no ideological core, i.e. there was no state ideology that would motivate and explain their actions. Did Poland have a chance to become the centre of unification of Russian lands? Historically, no. Did Lithuania, or the Lithuanian part of Russia, have a chance? Yes. However, to put this into fruition, they needed to kick out the Catholics, intercept the idea of a Third Rome from Moscow, find a state ideology for generations to come and strive towards this goal. But, unfortunately, most of the Lithuanian princes and elite made a European choice, speaking in modern terms. Moreover, having united with Poland, they began to build a state that I would harshly call an apartheid state, without any modern analogies with the Baltic States. We are talking about the fact that Catholic elites and the overwhelming Orthodox majority lived separately in this apartheid state. And even the Orthodox elites felt like second-class citizens in relation to the ruling Catholic elites, and they did not like it at all. They were remembered only when it was necessary to wage war, but in general they were considered inferior to any Catholic gentry. The creation of two peoples, two different faiths and two different value systems within one state doomed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to a historic defeat and helped Moscow to unite all Russians, all Orthodox around itself. And, concluding this long answer... the question of which Russians are real and which are not, I consider completely unscientific and incorrect. Russians are all real, because being a Russian, in my deep conviction, is not an ethnic concept, but a spiritual, political, cultural, supra-ethnic and civilisational one. Russian is a concept that unites all the people of our country and all those who consider themselves to be part of the Russian world on the planet. "We, Russians" does not mean "we, Great Russians from Tver." No. "We, Russians" means all those who consider themselves part of Russian culture, Russian civilisation, Russian world, as well as all those who live and work for the benefit of Russia. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century Next question: “In one of the lectures you mentioned Taras Shevchenko. I really want to hear from you his story, an evaluation of his activities and, if possible, of his creative work.” I'll say right away that I won't talk about his creative work, because I'm not a literary critic; I'm sorry, but we'll talk about history. Continuation of the question: “The fact is that I studied at a Ukrainian school, where pride was almost burned out in our fragile minds about Shevchenko being involved as a fighter against the damned Muscovites. I would like to understand who this person really was, just as it was only thanks to you that I realised who Mazepa really was.” As far as I understand it, in school they burned pride in the subcortex of the young for the fight against the Muscovites. This is a question asked by our listener or viewer from Ukraine. By the way, I receive a lot of questions from various areas of modern Ukraine and I send big regards to all my fellow countrymen. By the way, when I used to go by train in the summer to visit my grandmother in Ukraine, the train usually made a stop at Shevchenko station, which is not far from the city of Smela. This is a large railway junction, and Taras Grigoryevich was born not far away from there in the Cherkasy region. Those who remember military history should know about the Korsun-Shevchenko operation during the Great Patriotic War that was a kind of very effective little Stalingrad. At that time though, it was considered a second-order battle in scale; after all, it was not one of Stalin’s main strikes, although by modern standards it was an enormous military operation. In the Soviet Union, Shevchenko was considered the originator and forerunner of Ukrainian literature as such, whose work laid the foundations of the literary Ukrainian language. He was also considered a fighter, but when we studied in the USSR, of course, he was not considered a fighter against Muscovites, but a fighter against the cursed tsarism. Shevchenko was indeed arrested and sent to military service as a recruit as punishment. He served for almost ten years as a soldier in the Orenburg region. But by no means was he exiled for Ukrainian nationalism as no one had ever heard of such a thing then. In fact, he was exiled for his revolutionary poems, sharp social criticism and political opposition. How he manifested his oppositionism and revolutionism at that time was through populism, and I do not mean terrorists from the Narodnaya Volya (People's Will), but populism as a general trend of social thought. Within the framework of this public populist movement, it was necessary to grieve over the harsh fate of the common people. How could Taras Shevchenko, a former serf, my countryman and a native of the Cherkassy region, express his populism? Naturally, in the language of the common people, and not in the language of the St. Petersburg parlours or those representatives of the imperial intellectual elite who had bought him out of serfdom at their own expense, and for a crazy amount of money, I must say. He was bought out for a lot of money, because his former owner understood perfectly well the real value of such a talented artist and poet. What was the national language in the case of Shevchenko? Of course, it was not the language of Vologda peasants or Arkhangelsk Pomors, but a dialect of the Russian language of the area where he was born and grew up, with certain dialect features that distinguished colloquial rural speech in, say, Kiev or Cherkassy region from the canonical Russian literary language, the language of St. Petersburg and Moscow. And this language had the same status as any vernacular, any regional dialect of the Russian language. It was considered the language of the common people with small dialectical features, nothing more. Shevchenko himself, as a person and a poet, was generally very far from what modern Ukrainian nationalists attribute to him. Regarding the Russian language of Shevchenko's time, i.e. the middle of the 19th century, I will immediately express my position. Are there many variants and dialects of the German language? Those who know German will answer me that yes, a lot. And even today, the difference between the Bavarian dialect or the dialects of southern Germany and northern Germany is huge and often people may not even always understand each other. The same huge difference, at least until the 19th, century existed in France. The Provencal language in general was a separate language, very different from the language of the French who lived in the north of the country. I am not a Sinologist, and I may be mistaken, but even today just one official Beijing version of one of the seven or eight mass variations of Chinese is being studied in the Chinese language as approved by the state. I'm not even talking about the individual languages of the outskirts, mountainous territories and deserts of China. Even these seven or eight variants of the Chinese language are so different that people from different areas may simply not understand each other at all. What am I leading this conversation to? There are no such major differences in Russian dialects and it is a unique feature of our great and mighty Russian language, which has united our whole country. Those who live in the Far East, in the Far North, in the south in Astrakhan or Orenburg, in the Urals or in St. Petersburg speak absolutely the same language, except for some minor nuances. Attention, here is a question: did the Russian language have dialects like German or French? Yes, it did, and there were two most common dialects, namely Malorossian, aka Ukrainian, and the one that got formed on the former lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Belarus, i.e. the Belarusian dialect of the Russian language. In the 19th century, all these were regional dialects, and not separate languages that were later invented by nationalists, scientists and politicians, but we shall talk about this separately. Regarding Shevchenko's political views, I will give you a quote from the afterword by Taras Grigoryevich himself to his poem "Gaydamaki", which is dedicated to the struggle between the Cossacks and the Poles. Listen carefully to what the alleged Ukrainian nationalist, Shevchenko wrote: "It's amusing to look at a blind kobzar (grass mover) when he sits with a lad under a hedge and sings a song about what happened a long time ago, how the Lyakhs (Poles) fought with the Cossacks. Amusing, but... one will still say, "Thank God it's over." And especially when you remember that we are the children of the same mother, that we are all Slavs. My heart aches, but I must tell my tale: let sons and grandchildren see that their fathers were wrong, let them anew fraternise with their enemies. Let the Slavic land, covered with wheat like gold, remain forever undivided from sea to sea." Well, how do you understand all this? What nationalism? Shevchenko believed that even with Poles it was necessary to live together, since everyone was Slav and the lands, whether Russian, Polish or Cossack, should be inseparable – this is rather imperial pan-Slavism, speaking in modern terms. It would be better for schoolchildren in Ukraine to learn these quotes by Taras Shevchenko. By the way, most of his works, including the most intimate ones, in particular his diary, the so-called journal that Shevchenko wrote for himself, he wrote in a beautiful pure literary Russian language. So, Taras Grigoryevich was not a convinced fighter against the damned Muscovites, as he was exposed in the 20th century. Read his folk language, it is very easy to understand and it is absolutely not necessary to know Ukrainian for this. This is not the Ukrainian mova (modern Ukrainian language), which has been cultivated in the last twenty years by diligently separating it from Russian. The linguistic norms of modern mova were formed on the basis of the Galician, i.e. Western Ukrainian, version of the Russian language and due to the mass introduction of polonisms and, moreover, borrowed words from other European languages. Besides, this territory was under the Austrians for a long time. So, if the popular version spoken by Taras Shevchenko was taken as the basis of the modern Ukrainian language, then Russians and Ukrainians today would perfectly be able to talk to each other without dictionaries because everything would be clear. Just as we understand other variants of the regional dialect of the Russian language, we do not need translators and dictionaries for this at all. To sum up: Taras Grigoryevich Shevchenko is a great Russian poet of the 19th century. Russian in the sense as it was understood then, that is, there was one great Russian people, consisting of Velikorossy, Malorossy and Belorossy. Unfortunately, over time, Ukrainian nationalists privatised Shevchenko, put his legacy under their banners, just as they privatised Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Vladimir Monomakh and Yaroslav the Wise and many other of our common historical heroes. What else can I add about Shevchenko? He used the word Ukraine itself in a completely different sense than it is used now. Shevchenko's Ukraine was the right-bank part of the river Dnepr with the exception of Volyn, i.e. this was Kiev, a border town on the Dnepr, and then Poltava, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia, Kanev, Cherkasy, Belaya Tserkva, etc. Here is another quote from Shevchenko: "The confederates have scattered across Poland, Lithuania, Volyn, Moldova and Ukraine." Of course, Taras Grigoryevich did not include Crimea, Odessa, Kharkov, Nikolaev, or other regional and provincial cities of Novorossiya in his Ukraine. Shevchenko perfectly understood geography and Ukraine was the lands on the right bank of the river Dnepr. So, in fact, modern Ukrainian nationalists are simply forced to hide the true Taras Shevchenko from the people. They don't need him as such. They pull out a few lines from his literary work, where he seems to complain about the cursed Muscovites, but in reality, he has very few such poems. The most famous is where he laments about one unfortunate girl who was made pregnant by a Muscovite and subsequently abandoned. And, well, he urges not to fall in love with Muscovites. Probably this Muscovite was a Russian soldier from some military garrison, so we are not talking about the nation as a whole, but about a particular case - such things just happen. But then the most common manipulation begins - to snatch the juiciest quote from the huge creative heritage of a talented person and present it as the quintessence of his civic position as some kind of ideological testament. This is all untrue. Poet Shevchenko is our common talented Russian poet, just as Gogol is our great Russian writer. In 2014, I participated in the opening of a restored monument to Taras Shevchenko near the Ukraine Hotel in the very centre of Moscow. There, on an elevation, Shevchenko stands and looks at the Moscow River and the Government House. This is a beautiful monument, we have put it in proper shape, the ambassadors of the CIS countries were invited to the opening, and the ambassador of Ukraine was also in attendance. You will probably laugh, but he refused to make a speech, probably was shy, or maybe he was an educated and cultured person and knew that if he told the truth, he would simply be recalled and dismissed from his post, and he did not want to lie. I think that's how it was. And of course, talking about Taras Shevchenko, I can't help but draw your attention to this wonderful exhibit. Exactly in the same overcoat, Taras Grigoryevich served as a soldier from 1847 to 1857, for almost ten years, in the Orenburg Corps. He did not take part in military action, but there were various kinds of campaigns and troop movements - service is service after all. So, this is a genuine overcoat, carefully restored, and it is about two hundred years old. This is a Russian invention, and our soldiers stood in such overcoats on Senate Square, in such overcoats they fought in the Caucasus during the late Alexander I and Nicholas I, in such overcoats they fought with Turkey and Persia, pacified the Hungarian uprising of 1848 and the Polish uprising of 1830, and in exactly the same overcoats they stood on the bastions of Sevastopol during the Crimean War. That is, for almost forty years since 1818, it had been a typical overcoat of the Russian army. Shevchenko wore exactly the same, only without this red edging. Black collar meant a technical military unit, i.e. artillery, sapper or engineering, and the additional lower red edging signified special purpose technical units. The colour of the buttons also varied, there were simple metal ones, as well as yellow ones - these were also insignia of different military units. This overcoat is an exceptionally comfortable thing, because it could be worn both in summer and in winter. In winter, of course, the overcoat was supplied with a special warm lining, like this, and it was worn over a warm undershirt and tunic. And in the summer, it was worn right over the usual shirt. Since it is cloth, and without the lining, is quite light, and according to the army regulations it could be worn unbuttoned to the top button and its tails could be lifted up and fastened somewhat like this, i.e. it turned out to be like a jacket in length and was comfortable to wear. It was like wearing a robe in Central Asia - not too hot in summer and not too cold in winter. If you look at the old photographs from the bastions of Sevastopol, you can notice that this overcoat was often worn over a body shirt in the summer. Now, I will turn the mannequin and pay attention to the back. Here you could unbutton the flap, which later the Soviet overcoats had more for beauty, but then it had a purely applied purpose. The flap was unfastened and this width was obtained. In this way, the overcoat could serve as a large warm blanket, in which you could wrap yourself twice, or a tent if you stretched it and fixed it on sticks. A greatcoat for a soldier was his everything. The lower ranks were not issued tents, so after unbuttoning the overcoat, you could wrap yourself in it, put something under your head and sleep near the fire in relative warmth. Such was the greatcoat of the soldier, Taras Grigoryevich Shevchenko. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century The next question is: “Why was French widely spoken in Russia in the 18th-19th century? Where did such a trend come from and for what purpose?” Indeed, since about the middle of the 17th century, French had become the language of international communication in Europe. Why did this happen? Well, it happened because in the era of Louis XIV, the Sun King, France was the most potent power in Europe in industrial, economic and military terms. And naturally, French culture and language were part of the French expansion. When Russia, under Peter the Great, became a full-fledged subject of international politics or, as they would say now, part of the European community, knowledge of French became not only mandatory for Russian diplomats, but also fashionable among the Russian aristocracy, cultural figures and business people. It’s curious that to this day the language of international communication, i.e. the language used by people of different nationalities in communication with each other, is called lingua franca, that is, the language of the Franks or the French. Where did this expression come from? It is believed that this language, which was a mixture of Italian and Provencal as a variant of French, was then spoken by merchants of the Mediterranean. Gradually, lingua franca became the language of international communication, just as Latin was the language of scientific communication, Greek was the lingua franca for Eastern Christians, and Yiddish for a while was the common language for Jews living in all different parts of that world. Russian is now the lingua franca for all peoples of the former USSR. The relics of French language hegemony remain to this day, especially in diplomatic practice. French is the language of diplomats, for example, an attaché is a diplomatic rank and not a suitcase at all. At the end of invitations to diplomatic events, RSVP is always written, and this is not deciphered in English, but in French, i.e. 'respondez s'-il vous plait' or 'please reply and confirm'. The word demarche means just a diplomatic speech or a statement on some occasion, but now it has acquired a sharp connotation; for example, the departure of a delegation of one or more countries from a UN assembly meeting is called a demarche, as in ‘they took a demarche’. Jour fixe has nothing to do with journalism, and in French it is a ‘fixed day’, so initially, it was associated with diplomatic procedures and now it means ‘a meeting taking place on a fixed day of the week’, for example, a weekly briefing for journalists is called jour fixe in our Foreign Ministry. And etc., and etc. Those who have a driving license, look carefully - the Russian language is duplicated in French in them, which is also an echo of the lingua franca of the 18th-19th century when the main language of international communication was French and not only in our country. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century Among other questions, there is a large group regarding Pavel Vasilyevich Chichagov and admirals Chichagov, in general. The audience asks me to recall and talk about the son, Pavel Vasilyevich, and about the father, Vasily Yakovlevich. The Chichagov family was unlucky from the point of view of our historical memory. The most famous are two of them. The father, Admiral Vasily Chichagov, was the main hero of the Russian-Swedish War of 1788-1790. His victory in the naval battle near Vyborg was then dubbed the ‘Trafalgar of the Baltic’. However, Chichagov's triumph was overshadowed by the Russian-Turkish war of the same time (1787-1791), when Admiral Ushakov's star rose. Unfortunately, for the sake of a convincing victory in the war in the south, Catherine II decided not to push it, but to reduce to a draw the war she had almost won with Sweden in the north. Thus, naval hero Vasily Chichagov remained in our historical memory not as the winner of the Russian Trafalgar, but is better known thanks to a popular historical anecdote: allegedly, when delivering the report on his brilliant victory to the Empress, he got so carried away and agitated talking about the feat of Russian sailors, that he switched to non-literary language, to put it mildly. No one interrupted him, and somewhere in the middle of his story, he suddenly checked himself, became embarrassed and fell to his knees before the Empress with apologies. However, the wise Catherine said to him: "It’s quite all right, go on, Admiral, I don't know your marine terminology, so I didn't understand anything." His son, Pavel Chichagov, served under his father's command and also became a brilliant naval officer, awarded many times for bravery. He was a very independent man, studied seamanship for some time in England and was an Anglophile. There is a very interesting personal story about him - he had a lifelong love for an Englishwoman, Elizabeth Proby, the daughter of the captain of an English warship. He had not been able to reunite with his beloved for many years: she was an Englishwoman and a Protestant, and at first, her father was against her marriage to this Russian barbarian, then our authorities did not give him consent. In the end, already under Alexander I, having arranged his personal life, Admiral Chichagov served as a Naval Minister for many years. But it just so happened that this combat naval officer and a good administrator came to command a truly large army not at sea, but on land, and this experience was not very successful. Although it would be more correct to say that Chichagov's PR image became somehow tarnished. In 1812, all the blame was laid on him for the fact that Napoleon, after his final fiasco on the Berezina River, was still able to sneak away and allegedly, it was Chichagov who let him slip. Allegedly, being a naval commander, he could not properly dispose of the land forces in his charge. Chichagov commanded one of the units of the Russian army that pursued Napoleon. Unfortunately, this unfair sham of events became popular both at the imperial court and entered into the literature thanks to our famous fabulist, Ivan Krylov. He wrote such a sparkling fable ‘The Pike and the Cat’; you probably remember it from school, in which he unequivocally hinted at the military incompetence of Admiral Chichagov. Such examples are not unique in Russian literature: after Pushkin's brilliant ‘Boris Godunov’, there was no way Godunov could be washed of his alleged participation in the death of Tsarevich Dmitry. Also, after Pushkin's epigram on Count Vorontsov, the latter became "half-milord, half-merchant, half-sage, half-ignoramus and half-scoundrel." And after Ilya Repin's painting, who would doubt that Ivan the Terrible killed his own son, although in fact this famous painting is not called ‘Ivan the Terrible kills his son’ but ‘Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan on November 16, 1581’. Krylov also turned out to be unfair to Chichagov, who was subjected, in modern parlance, to such public hatred at court and such harsh bullying in society that he took deep offense and went abroad, to his wife's homeland England, and lived there for quite a while. He was offended to such an extent that he did not want to return home to Russia for a long time. Alas, such things happen... In future, given time, we shall certainly return to the figure of Chichagov, because he is really the most interesting and wonderful character in our military history. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century The next question is: “Why is a Masonic symbol depicted on the military medal "In memory of the War of 1812"? I have asked many history teachers and history lovers, but I have not heard a clear answer. Please, tell us about it, and thank you in advance.” Here, we are talking about the ‘all-seeing eye’ sign - an eye in a triangle, as on the US dollar. It is considered to be Masonic, especially since it is present on the US currency, and the logic is that if it is on the US dollar, it means that freemasons, read the world government, definitely had a hand in it - it's clear to everyone. In fact, the all-seeing eye symbol was used quite often in our award system, and not only on medals related to the Patriotic War of 1812. This sign is present on medals for the Crimean War, the medal was called ‘In memory of the Eastern War of 1853-1856’ and even on medals for the Russian-Japanese war of the early 20th century. There are several reasons. Firstly, the all-seeing eye is a symbol of God, who sees everything and from whom nothing will hide. This sign was very common in the intellectual environment at that time, so it was more likely plagiarism on the part of the Masons, and not vice versa. Secondly, and this is the main reason, Russia is a multi-confessional country. Medals were awarded to Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims and people of other faiths. If a medal had contained exclusively Christian symbols, then to some gentiles, first of all, of course, Muslims, a medal with a Christian cross might seem uncomfortable. Therefore, some neutral religious and confessional symbols were required, and our wise imperial authorities placed a neutral sign on the soldier's medal, namely the symbol of the all-seeing God. This symbol was non-canonical, but it was clear to everyone that God was one - different roads led to him, but God was one. This sign was suitable for everyone and did not offend anyone's religious feelings. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century The next question, or more precisely, a large group of questions of approximately the same content, and it concerns the relations within the Romanov family between Alexander, Konstantin, Mikhail, and their mother after the conspiracy and murder of their father, Paul I. To what extent was Alexander I involved in this conspiracy and whether other members of the imperial family blamed him for it. In one of the questions, it was clearly stated that Alexander I was guilty and involved in the murder of his father, Emperor Paul I. The fact is that we still do not know and do not understand what exactly lay behind this event. Being involved is a very vague concept and there is a big difference in wording, such as "was aware of the conspiracy" or "was aware of the possible moods of the conspirators" or "took part in the conspiracy". Moreover, there is a big difference between active and passive participation in a conspiracy, not to mention participation in a murder. All this concerns different degrees of awareness and involvement, and, accordingly, different degrees of guilt. Let me remind you that Speransky, who was at the head of the legal part of the indictment in the Decembrist case and, being an outstanding lawyer, divided degree of guilt into twelve categories according to the extent of participation in the conspiracy and, accordingly, twelve types of punishment ranging from dismissal from service and exile to the active warfare in the Caucasus up to, pardon me, quartering, which Emperor Nicholas I subsequently replaced by hanging. As for Alexander I, historians generally agree that he knew about the existence of the conspiracy, but was not privy to the details and certainly could not have imagined that it would come to the murder of his father. To be honest, we don't know much about Alexander I's subsequent relationship with his mother. We do know that Maria Feodorovna sought from her son to investigate and prosecute the participants in the conspiracy. There were no direct repressions at that time, but gradually all the conspirators were removed from power and, for the most part, removed from the capital. How did she feel about it? Well, what could a spouse and a widow feel? In this regard, there is evidence from Nikolai Sablukov, I quote: "Maria Feodorovna, dressed in deep mourning, wandered at night among marble monuments and weeping willows, shedding tears during long, sleepless nights." There is also evidence that years later she tried to participate more actively in politics and promoted some ideas, but Alexander I was a clever, cunning and treacherous sphinx, a northern Talma, as Napoleon called him - he was polite and respectful, but did what he himself considered necessary. Therefore, his mother, Maria Feodorovna, had no real influence on state policy. For example, it is known that in 1812, she was actively involved with the peace party and, along with a large part of the court and family, insisted on concluding peace immediately after the invasion of Napoleon. But Alexander, as we remember, showed his classic stubbornness and declared that he would rather be Tsar of Kamchatka than make peace with Napoleon, and acted as he saw fit. And today, two hundred years later, we can say that he did the only right thing. All in all, you can tell a lot of interesting things about all Russian Empresses, starting with Maria Feodorovna. To be honest, my plans provide for such a story, but whether it will be implemented is difficult to say, it all depends on the availability of time. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century The next question is: "Tell us about the title ‘Prince of the Imperial Blood’ and why was it introduced by Emperor Alexander III? This is an interesting topic, because the concept of ‘Prince of the Blood’ appeared in France during the Middle Ages. Dumas' novels feature many Princes of the Blood. This was the name for the legitimate descendants of French Kings in the male line, who stood somewhere at the end of the queue and could theoretically inherit the French throne. The closest relatives and heirs of the King, that is, sons and grandsons were called differently, namely members of the royal family. In Russia, the situation was different - there was a problem with direct heirs to the throne in the male line for a long period of time. And we have seen in our course of Russian history of the 18th century who just did not rule in our country then, for there were no direct legitimate heirs. Accordingly, there was simply no need for any special titles separating heirs of the first line from the second and third. The situation began to change after the reign of Paul I. Paul I had ten children and, with the exception of one daughter, all lived quite long lives at that time. He had several sons, although Alexander I and Konstantin Pavlovich, in turn, had children, but illegitimates, so they had no rights to the throne, but Nicholas had four adult sons. And these sons also had sons and daughters. Thus, there really appeared quite a few members of the imperial family, Grand Dukes, who were in line for the throne. And here I shall tell you a story that will certainly be unpleasant for monarchists to hear. By the way, there are quite many of those open and/or latent supporters of the monarchy in our country. The fact is that maintenance of the imperial family cost the state a tidy sum. Each Grand Duke or Grand Duchess received an annual allowance thirty-six times the salary of, say, a major general. Moreover, maintenance of Grand Duchesses cost the Treasury even more, because they did not work, while Grand Dukes at least served in the army, albeit with a large salary. And when getting married, Grand Duchesses received a dowry of one million rubles, a colossal sum for those times. When the time of the reign of Alexander III came, this issue was raised on the agenda, since all these numerous Grand Dukes were expensive for the country and the Treasury to sustain. As Secretary of State Polovtsev wrote in his diary after a conversation with Alexander III: "In the interest of the importance of the supreme power, it is necessary to limit the number of persons using the position assigned to imperial highnesses. There were only 5 such persons forty years ago, now there are 23 of them, therefore in another forty years there will be 115 of them. Will Russia be able to withstand such a number?" Well, there was no Forbes list then, otherwise Secretary of State Polovtsev and Alexander III would have known that Russia could withstand a lot. As a result, by a decree of 1885, for reasons of savings in the state budget, Alexander III limited the circle of persons entitled to the title of Grand Duke and the corresponding monetary allowance. Only direct descendants, i.e. children and grandchildren of those who were on the throne, could have the status of Grand Dukes. But the brothers and sisters and the descendants of these brothers and sisters became just Princes of the Blood. This new law hit the descendants of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and many others. There were two stages of budget sequestration. Firstly, Alexander III was a thrifty monarch; well done, and reduced the size of the monetary allowance of his own Grand Dukes, i.e. his own children, as well as his father's children and grandchildren. It was set at about fifteen thousand rubles a year before reaching adulthood and one hundred and fifty thousand rubles thereafter. Proportionally, it was two times less than before. As for the Princes of the Blood, the allowance was even less - it was about one and a half to two times less than that of Grand Dukes, but then they were allocated a certain rental business from which they could receive rent without having to work. Although they all served in one way or another, because it was not customary to just do nothing, that is, they received a fixed rent from the rental business, or received a certain package of securities from which they could also live on interest. In general, this rental business, real estate, and securities packages were considerable and far exceeded the salary of an army general, so they did not suffer. Of course, pearls were too small for the Princes of the Blood, and life against the background of the Grand Dukes seemed to them too hard and unsightly, but no one died of hunger, as they say. Well done, Alexander III. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century The next question is: "Were the terrorist cells of the 19th century Russia connected with the special services of other states?" Well, it is a trendy theme - to link our internal opposition necessarily with foreign intelligence. However, the answer is no, the activists of our Narodnaya Volya (People's Will) were connected neither with the CIA, nor with the Mossad, nor with MI5, especially since these special services did not even exist at that time. They did have some connection with the Polish conspirators, but they were not foreigners, because then, I'm sorry, Poland was an integral part of the Russian Empire. And in general, Poland did not exist as such at that time, but there were several Russian governorates on the territory of modern Poland. Therefore, no, it was a purely domestic phenomenon. I do not know, maybe nowadays some new declassified documents will appear in the archives of our special services, proving the connection of Khalturin, Zhelyabov, Perovskaya and other regicides and terrorists with the British or French special services... I don't know. I shall ask Sergey Naryshkin, he should definitely know better than anyone, especially since he himself is brilliantly versed in Russian history and loves it very much. Interesting question, I'll find out. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century Next: "Will the Transpolar railway be built anew? And please tell us the history of its construction.” Well, you can tell a long story here. The idea of building a railway along the north of the Empire from Murmansk to Arkhangelsk and further all the way to Chukotka, arose around the same time when the Trans-Siberian railway to the Far East began to be built. This future highway was called transpolar and it was a grandiose idea for that level of technology. The most interesting thing is that this idea did begin to be undertaken. Stalin decided to start its construction a year before the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, in 1940, and its construction began from the North Pechersk branch to Vorkuta. The construction was carried out by Gulag prisoners and at an accelerated pace. This pace was especially accelerated during the war, because we had lost the Donbass coal basin and it became vital to deliver Vorkuta coal to the central parts of the country. Some researchers believe that the builders of this railway line lived off better than ordinary prisoners in other parts of the country, since they received a certain part of the supplies via the Lendlease that went through Arkhangelsk. Therefore, instead of black bread, they allegedly ate white American rolls, there was a lot of canned beef in their ration, so much so that they began to make barracks roofs out of cans, and prisoners were dressed in some unthinkable American tracksuits and yellow rubber-soled shoes. It would all be funny if it wasn't so sad. Anyway, after the war, construction continued towards Norilsk, but this branch remained unfinished. Nevertheless, several hundred kilometers of this railway really did exist. This construction site was classified and the builders were forbidden to disclose even the very fact of where they were working. Well, after the mass amnesty under Khrushchev, this project was closed as economically unfeasible, and the line was simply abandoned. In the mid-60s, the Urengoy gas field was discovered in Siberia and suddenly it turned out that the Stalin railway had been laid just where it was needed. However, over the years everything had fallen into disrepair and it had to be started all over again, and in the end nothing came of it. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that only one section of this railroad to Vorkuta, built before the war, is still operational, and several small sections are still preserved, but I will not bore you with the names of little-known northern settlements. In addition, I will say only one thing: if we strive to be a great northern power and develop the boundless riches of the Arctic Ocean, especially since our ancestors provided us with the opportunity to use the entire richest shelf of the Arctic Ocean, and if we really believe that due to the gradual climatic warming, we will objectively have to move north to develop these lands, then, of course, we will have to return to the construction of the Transpolar railway. And the plan that was conceived in the conditions of almost complete absence of construction equipment and modern technologies, and that our ancestors were able to successfully commence to realise, either we or our children, sooner or later, will have to continue to implement it. And Russia will definitely have a transpolar railroad; this is inevitable and objectively necessary. Ending our series of questions and answers with a question about the future of railway construction, I would like to say that railways are the staples that bind our country. In our climate, the mostpreferred, economical and efficient roads is the railway. Therefore, we will definitely build the Transpolar line, which was conceived under the Tsars and began under Stalin on the eve of the war. The task of developing the north is becoming more and more urgent and perspective, and complaining about climatic difficulties, you know, is just a shame, especially with the current level of technology development. Our ancestors 70-80 years ago with a pickaxe and a shovel were able to build hundreds of kilometers of railway tracks in the Far North. Well, can't we do it? Without this, Russia will never become a great northern power. So, since we have the Trans-Siberian and Baikal-Amur mainlines, we will also have a Transpolar mainline. At this point, we shall perhaps put an ellipsis... As promised, I have stood in front of you during the whole programme without actually leaning on the table, but I'm afraid I can't do it anymore. Thank you for your love of Russian history and see you next time. Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
19th Century
