The case of a conspiracy against Queen Elizabeth. Baturin Nikolay Georgievich There is another version, more probable

(Alexander Krokovsky; c. 1648 - 07/1/1718, Tver), Metropolitan. Kyiv, Galitsky and all Little Russia. The place and exact date of birth of I. are unknown. The date 1648 is given by Archpriest. F.I. Titov, who calls I. a peer of gr. B.P. Sheremetev and considers them possible fellow students. Until 1670, Krokowski graduated from the Kiev-Mohyla College, then studied in Rome at the College of St. Athanasius (course of philosophy and theology). He converted to Uniatism, but in 1683, upon arrival in his homeland, he returned to Orthodoxy.

Under the influence of Archimandrite Varlaam (Yasinsky; later Metropolitan of Kiev) became a monk at the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. From 1683 he taught poetics and rhetoric at the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium; in 1685-1689. He held the positions of professor of philosophy and prefect. On July 25, 1687, he signed the Kolomatsky Articles given during the election of Hetman I. S. Mazepa. In 1689-1690 I. acted as rector of the Kiev-Mohyla College. Diploma of the Kyiv Metropolitan. Varlaam dated January 20. 1692 was appointed rector. He opened a theology class and was the first to teach a full 4-year theological course (1693-1697). He resumed the student congregation (meeting), which was active during the time of the Kyiv Metropolitan. Petra (Tombs). He paid attention to the economic situation of the college. 11 Jan 1694 Tsars Peter I and John V, in response to I.'s proposal (with the support of Mazepa), confirmed the status of the college as a higher educational institution. She was given the rights of internal self-government and her own court; military and civil authorities were not supposed to interfere in governance. These rights were reaffirmed on September 26th. 1701 To the beginning XVIII century the number of students reached a record number of 2 thousand people. In 1713, I. invited Sheremetev to philosophical debates at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy. Aug 1 In 1719, the construction of a student dormitory (bursa) was completed, which was built entirely at the expense of I. In addition, he donated a significant number of his books to the library of the educational institution.

Simultaneously with the service in the college in December. 1688 I. was elected abbot of the Kyiv Desert Nicholas Monastery (the station wagon from Mazepa was issued on January 10, 1689). At the request of the abbot, February 23. 1692 Mazepa gave the monastery a universal for ownership of the village. Trostyanets. Since 1693, I. simultaneously ruled the Kyiv Brotherhood Monastery in honor of the Epiphany. On the initiative of I., at the expense of Mazepa, stone churches were built in both monasteries: in the Nikolaevsky Monastery - St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, and in Bratsk - Epiphany. On May 17, 1693, I. initiated the compilation by representatives of the Kyiv Town Hall of an inventory of the monastery estates with a clear definition of their boundaries. On June 15 of the same year, Mazepa, with his universal, confirmed all the possessions of the Bratsk Monastery (January 11, 1694 I. received a royal charter in Moscow with a similar confirmation), on June 16 - the rights of the Nikolaev Monastery to the villages of Maksimovka and Gorodishche. The Hetman's decree of July 30, 1694 ended the long-standing conflict between the Bratsky Monastery and the Mezhigorsky Monastery in honor of the Transfiguration of the Lord for the ownership of the mills on the river. Koturke. In 1702, I., already in the position of archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, was forced to resolve a new conflict between these monasteries, which laid claim to lands in the Vyshgorod region.

On Nov. 1690 I. was one of the candidates for the post of archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, but Meletius (Vuyakhevich) was elected. Later, I. turned out to be a contender for service in the episcopal rank in the Pereyaslav diocese, the project for the creation of which was developed by Metropolitan. Varlaam and Mazepa. The latter mentioned I. as a future bishop in a letter dated March 9, 1695 to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Adrian. In 1697, I. was elected rector of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, and on June 29 of the same year in Moscow, Patriarch Adrian elevated him to the rank of archimandrite. In his new position, I. paid a lot of attention to the construction and decoration of churches. Under him, in 1698, the construction of a temple in the name of All Saints was completed at the expense of Mazepa. In 1700, a c. was built in the Near Caves at the expense of Poltava Colonel P. Gertsik. in honor of the Exaltation of the Precious Cross (consecrated on September 14 of the same year by Metropolitan Varlaam). In 1701, the construction of a fortress wall around the Lavra, 1190 m long and approx. thick, which began in 1698 with Mazepa’s funds, was completed. 3 m and height approx. 7 m with 4 towers and 3 gates. By order of Peter I of October 8. In 1706, construction of another rampart began around the monastery. At the request of I. November 30. In 1702, Preobrazhensky Zmievsky was assigned to the Lavra, and on January 2. 1703 - Pokrovsky Sennyansky mon-ri (both within the Belgorod diocese).

I. paid considerable attention to organizing the work of the Kiev-Pechersk printing house. A new stone building was built especially for it and equipment was purchased. With the direct support of I., approx. 40 books, including “The Book of Lives of Saints” by Met. Rostov Demetrius (Savich (Tuptalo)) (1689-1705), Kiev-Pechersk Patericon (1702), Altar Gospel (1707), etc. In addition, secular publications were printed here, for example. “Military article” (1705). I. wrote the preface to the “Kievo-Pechersk Patericon”, in which he praised the activities of Tsar Peter I and thereby supported the political reforms being carried out in the country.

Oct 19 In 1707, a council of the metropolitan clergy was held in Kyiv, at which I. was elected Metropolitan of Kyiv. The ordination took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin on August 15. 1708 with the participation of the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne of Ryazan, Metropolitan. Stefan (Yavorsky). 14 Sep. In 1708, I. was issued a charter from Peter I. In 1711, I. headed the consecration as bishop of Lutsk as abbot. Kirill (Shumlyansky). By his order, April 9. In 1714, the Onufrievsky Morovsky monastery was founded. I. continued the construction of the Kyiv St. Sophia Monastery, which was badly damaged in the fire of 1697. He actively defended the Kyiv monasteries in their disputes with the city magistrate, as evidenced by the letter of Hetman I. Skoropadsky dated June 2, 1712.

12 Nov In 1708, at the Trinity Cathedral in the city of Glukhov, at the request of Peter I, the Metropolitan led the service, at which anathema to Mazepa was proclaimed. At the same time, I. did not himself preach a sermon condemning Mazepa, entrusting this to Fr. Afanasy Zarutsky, and did not sign the act of electing the new hetman Skoropadsky. I.’s death was accelerated by the “case” of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich. The latter slandered the Metropolitan during interrogation, saying that he participated in the conspiracy. By order of Peter I, I. was summoned to testify in St. Petersburg, but died along the way, in Tver. Buried on August 24. in the Transfiguration Cathedral in Tver. D.N. Bantysh-Kamensky adhered to the version of I.’s poisoning, but did not provide any evidence. After I.'s death, until 1722, no one was appointed to the Kyiv department.

The development of I.’s philosophical views was influenced by the work of the Mogilev bishop. Joseph (Kononovich-Gorbatsky). I. belonged to the so-called. the Aristotelian-rationalist direction (its representatives are considered to be Archbishop Innocent (Gisel), Novgorod Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich), Mogilev Archbishop George (Konissky), etc.). The manuscripts preserve records in Latin of I.'s lecture courses on rhetoric (1683), philosophy (1686) and theology (1693-1697). The course in rhetoric is secular in nature, using as examples the texts of I. himself, the Kyiv Metropolitans Peter (Mogila) and Sylvester (Kosov), Archimandrite. Innocent (Gisel), etc. In the philosophical course there is a noticeable departure from Aristotelian philosophy and a tendency towards the separation of philosophy from theology. I. criticized Thomism and other movements of Western Christianity. thoughts, opposed the idea of ​​the primacy of reason over will. In addition, he is known for his works on history, for which ancient Russians were used as sources. chronicles, chronicle of M. Stryikovsky, “Synopsis” archim. Innocent, "Chronicle" abbot. Feodosius (Safonovich) and others. I. compiled a chronicler describing the events of world and Russian history, outlining the events of the 17th century. used his own memories. In 1698, having revised “The Tale of Glorious Miracles...” by Abbot. Feodosius, I. published an akathist for the Military Medical Center. Varvara.

Arch.: NBUV IR. F. 2. No. 260/152С; Disputes from logic / Transl. from Lat.: I. V. Paslavsky // LNB. V. r.; TsGIAC. F. 57. Op. 1. D. 40; F. 128. Op. 1 gram. D. 60; Op. 1a here. D. 28; F. 220. Op. 1. D. 210, 219; F. KMF-7. Op. 2. D. 3.

Lit.: IRI. T. 1. Part 1. P. 163; History of the Rus or Little Russia. M., 1846. P. 225; Filaret (Gumilevsky). Review. Book 1. P. 299; Zakrevsky N.V. Description of Kyiv. M., 1868. T. 2. P. 535, 541; Chistovich I. A. Feofan Prokopovich and his time. St. Petersburg, 1868. P. 21, 107; Stroev. Lists of hierarchs. Stb. 7, 13, 18, 21; Vostokov A. From the past of Kyiv // Kiev antiquity. 1889. T. 27. No. 10. P. 185-190; Storozhenko N.V. From family legends and archives // Ibid. 1892. T. 36. No. 2. P. 347-348; Mukhin N. F. Kiev-Brotherly School Monastery. K., 1893. S. 104, 113-129; [Lazarevsky A.] East. little things // Kyiv antiquity. 1894. T. 45. No. 5. P. 357-360; Jabłonowski A. Akademia Kijowsko-Mohilańska. Kraków, 1899/1900. S. 153, 157, 162-164, 167, 172-173, 175, 177-179, 181, 191-193, 197, 208, 211, 215, 217-218, 230, 243; Golubev S. T. Kiev Academy at the end. XVII and beginning XVIII century K., 1901. P. 54-55. Note; Letter from Queen Catherine to the Metropolitan of Kyiv. Joseph Krokovsky // Kyiv antiquity. 1902. T. 77. No. 5. Dep. 2. P. 86; Letter from Hetman Skoropadsky to Metropolitan. Joseph Krokowski 1712 // Ibid. 1904. T. 87. No. 11. Dep. 2. P. 51-52; Joasaph Krokovsky, Metropolitan. Kiev, Galician and Little Russia (1708-1718) // Kyiv EV. 1905. No. 51. Part unofficial. pp. 1296-1304; Titov F.I., prot. Russian Orthodox Church in the Polish-Lithuanian state in the 17th-18th centuries. K., 1905. T. 1. P. 275-288; T. 2. P. 456-470; aka. Imp. KDA in her three-century life and work (1615-1915): History. a note. K., 20032. P. 102, 105, 125, 134, 136, 145, 174-175, 178, 211, 213, 215-216, 218, 220, 223, 244, 478-479; Denisov. pp. 295, 299; Lototsky O. Autocephaly. Warsaw, 1938. T. 2. P. 443, 444; Paslavsky I. V. The problem of universals in “Logic” by Joasaf Krokowski // Philosophical Thought. 1973. No. 5. P. 60-65; aka. Criticism of metaphysics to Thomism in the natural philosophy of Joasaf Krokowski // Ibid. 1976. No. 5. P. 94-108; Mytsyk Yu. A. Ukr. brief chroniclers of the con. XVII - early XVIII century // Certain problems of domestic historiography and source studies: Sat. scientific works Dnepropetrovsk, 1978. P. 34-41; Zapasko Ya., Isayevich Ya. Catalog of old hands, seen in Ukraine, 1765-1800. Lviv, 1981. Book. 1. No. 716, 729, 744; Stratiy Ya. M., Litvinov V. D., Andrushko V. A. Description of courses in philosophy and rhetoric taught by professors at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy. K., 1982. P. 14; Zahara I. S. On the subject and tasks of logic at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy // Domestic Society. Thought of the Middle Ages: Historical Philosophy. essays. K., 1988. P. 300-309; Inventory of the Kiev Museum of the 70-80s. XVIII century K., 1989. P. 34-35, 39, 187, 190, 198, 290, 321, 325; Vlasovsky I. Drawing the history of the UOC. NY; K., 1990. T. 3. P. 18; Berlinsky M. F. History of the city of Kiev. K., 1991. P. 134, 138, 146, 177, 188, 190, 192, 242; Bidnov V. Church anathema to Hetman Ivan Mazepa // Starozhitnosti. 1992. No. 15. P. 10-11; No. 16/17. P. 9; 1993. No. 2. P. 28-30; Bantysh-Kamensky D. N. History of Little Russia. K., 1993. S. 488-489; Krizhanivsky O. P., Plokhii S. M. History of the Church and religious thought in Ukraine. K., 1994. Book. 3. P. 104; Bolkhovitinov E. Vibrani praci from the history of Kiev. K., 1995. P. 62, 68, 73, 188, 203, 205, 227, 251, 258, 296, 318, 331, 348, 363-365; Blazheyovsky D. Hierarchy of the Kiev Church (861-1996). Lviv, 1996. P. 371; Krivtsov D. Yu. Preface by Joasaph Krokovsky to the edition of the “Kiev-Pechersk Patericon” of 1702: Lit. Features and ideological trends // Probl. origin and existence of ancient Russian monuments. writing and literature: Sat. scientific tr. N. Novg., 1997. P. 72-106; Verovka L. S. Krokovsky Oleksandr, Yoasaf // Kiev-Mohyla Academy in names, XVII-XVIII centuries. K., 2001. P. 297-299; Stepovik D. History of the Kiev-Pechora Lavra. K., 2001. P. 183-185; Kagamlik S. R. Diyach Mazepinskoï dobi: (Metropolitan Yoasaf Krokovsky) // Ukrainian Church History. calendar, 2003. K., 2003. P. 104-106; she is the same. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra: Holy Orthodoxy. spirituality and culture (XVII-XVIII centuries). K., 2005. P. 285-287; Khizhnyak Z. I., Mankivsky V. K. History of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy. K., 2003. P. 57, 59, 77, 83, 87-88, 97, 103, 111, 126, 129-131; Pavlenko S. O. The sharpening of Hetman Mazepi: Companions and followers. K., 2004. P. 260-261; aka. Ivan Mazepa yak budivnichy ukr. culture K., 2005. P. 95-96; Prokop "yuk O. B. Spiritual consistory in the system of diocesan administration (1721-1786). K., 2008. P. 55.

V. V. Lastovsky

Iconography

Large ceremonial portrait of I. 1st quarter. XVIII century (after 1718) was in the metropolitan house at the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv (in 1909 it was transferred to the TsAM KDA, since the 20s of the 20th century it has been in the collection of the NKPIKZ). I. is depicted in full bishop's liturgical vestments (sakkos, omophorion, miter, club), with a tall staff without a sulok in his right hand and with a small cross in his left, on his chest there is a cross and a panagia in the form of a double-headed eagle. The details of the vestment are richly decorated with floral patterns using folk art motifs. The figure on a dark green ornamented background is framed by a dark red draped curtain, on the right is a lectern with a standing crucifix (on it is a rosary), on the left is a folding chair. I. has a narrow face, a high forehead, sparse shoulder-length hair and a straight gray beard down to the middle of his chest. Under the image in the center is the coat of arms of I. with the initials of the name and title, on the sides in 4 columns is written a rhymed epitaph glorifying the wisdom and merits of the hierarch (the text is almost lost, published: Petrov. 1910. P. 536-538; Ukrainian Portrait. 2004 pp. 171-173).

In the Assumption (Great) Church. Among the images of the Lavra abbots of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra there was a portrait of I. 1st half. XVIII century (NKPIKZ). The Metropolitan is shown in a slight turn to the right, his hand with a rosary rests on a table with a crucifix and the Gospel. He is dressed in a bishop's mantle and a white hood with black trim, on his chest there is a cross and a panagia with the image of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, in his right hand - a rod; The bishop's coat of arms is placed in the upper right corner. I.'s facial features are recognizable - an elongated, even nose, a sparse gray beard and mustache, small eyes under dark eyebrows. Half-length versions of this portrait are known, 2nd floor. XX century (NKPIKZ), one of which was in the congregational hall of the KDA (mentioned see: Rovinsky. Dictionary of engraved portraits. T. 4. Stb. 293).

Lit.: For visitors to the portrait hall at the KDA: [Cat.]. K., 1874. S. 9. No. 25; Lebedintsev P. G., prot. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in its past and present state. K., 1886. P. 62; Petrov N.I. Collection of old portraits and other things, transferred in 1909 to the Central Academy of Arts at the KDA from the Kyiv Metropolitan House // TKDA. 1910. No. 7/8. pp. 536-538. No. 36; Zholtovsky P. M. Ukrainian painting XVII-XVIII centuries. K., 1978. S. 193, 195; Beletsky P. A. Ukrainian portrait painting of the 17th-18th centuries. L., 1981. S. 119, 121; Catalog of preserved monuments of the Kiev Church and Archaeological Museum 1872-1922 / NKPIKZ. K., 2002. P. 44, 155. No. 95; Ukrainian portrait of the 16th-18th centuries: Cat.-album / Author-ukl. : G. Belikova, L. Chlenova. K., 2004. P. 171-173. No. 153; St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov: Research and materials. Rostov, 2008. P. 76.

E. V. Lopukhina

Joasaph Baturin

An episode from the history of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna.

The years of 1748 and 1749 of Elizabeth’s reign should undoubtedly be included among the disastrous years experienced by long-suffering Moscow. It was the harshest time in the history of serfdom in Russia. The government, in order to ensure more correct payment of taxes, was forced to take, around that time, a number of measures that obviously tended to attach the tax-paying class and expand the limits of the lord's power. So, in 1742, it was ordered to carry out a new national census 1. The main goal of this measure was determined by the following words of the instruction given to the auditors: “so that no one is left without a position.” Thus, the law erased the last signs of personal freedom. A service person had to enroll in the service of the state, and a tax-paying person had to sign up for a capitation salary for anyone who would accept him and undertake to pay a capitation tax for him. People who were considered free until that time and were now obliged to find a master for themselves, could still at least choose this master for themselves, at their own request, and enter into certain conditions of enslavement with him, but they soon lost even this very modest benefit . The law of March 14, 1746, which granted the right to have serfs only to the small nobility 2, finally constrained the free poor: they now had to ask as alms, so that one of the nobles would take them into eternal slavery, with the obligation to pay taxes for them , and those who did not have time in this, those were assigned to someone else by the government itself, at its discretion, or sent to settle in Orenburg, or even to work in state-owned factories. The peasants protested against such an unnatural order of things in their usual way: they fled in droves from the hardships of serfdom to the Astrakhan and Orenburg steppes, to Siberia, to the Baltic provinces, to Poland, Prussia and even to Busurman Turkey. Of those who remained at home, some dutifully signed up for the eternal and unconditional fortress, others fled “for free work” to factories, plants, but there they ended up in deep bondage with the factory owners; finally, the most embittered ones broke all ties with society and cruelly took revenge on it with robberies, which at that time reached unprecedented proportions. The dark nooks and crannies of Moscow and the surrounding settlements have always represented a hospitable and safe haven for all sorts of “free, common and walking people.” At the time described, fugitive peasants and courtyard people from everywhere flocked to Belokamennaya and were not slow to make their presence known with a series of arson and open robberies that spread general panic. “All free people,” we read in a private letter from Moscow, dated May 26, 1748, “leave their homes and move into villages; those who don’t have villages, all went out to the fields and live there, and the poor, who have nothing to hire horses, Having pulled out their belongings on themselves, they settled down and live in wastelands, where there is little salvation from such fires, but where can they go? They dig great holes and hide their belongings there, which, I hope, never happened due to the Polish devastation... Moreover, there were great heat and whirlwinds, the rye dried up, and the spring crops did not sprout” 3 . How great were the misfortunes of Moscow at that time can be seen from the fact that even in St. Petersburg they recognized the need to place guards pickets near the palaces, in the squares and on the streets closest to the Moscow road, “so that no villain could creep in from the other side and commit the same evil.” , it is already known to everyone - as stated in the personal decree - that in Moscow, from the fiery ignition, as it has already clearly turned out, from the majority of the villains, a lot of destruction resulted through frequent fires” 4.

At such an alarming time, Empress Elisaveta Petrovna decided to move with the entire court, synod, senate and collegiums to Moscow, where she stayed from December 1748 to December 1749. If it was intended to ensure order in the ancient capital, then this goal, it seems, was not achieved. Despite the presence of the court and the highest government institutions living in Moscow, “the lord’s people robbed and killed passers-by not only at night, but also during the day,” 5 and in the Moscow district “robbers burned ordinary people in their houses.” It is very significant that under such difficult circumstances, the empress apparently relied more on the power of a moral example rather than on repressive measures. She devoted most of her time to prayer and religious travel outside the city, following the example of her pious grandfather. The Chamber-Fourier journal of the sad year 1749 is almost exclusively filled with records about these royal trips, among which the so-called “Trinity Campaign” is especially remarkable. This pilgrimage to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, made by the empress, according to her vow, on foot, began on June 3rd and continued, intermittently, until Peter’s day. Such a quiet procession may also have occurred because after moving to Moscow, the empress constantly fell ill with spasms and colic, which caused her great suffering. Having walked two or three miles on foot, the empress got into a carriage or stopped in a passing village, and sometimes returned back; then she again “set out on a campaign” and certainly walked on foot the space that she had previously traveled in a carriage. Probably the weather was favorable for this journey, because not only lunch and dinner, but even overnight accommodations were prepared in the open air, in the meadow, in pitched tents. Thus, the empress reached the village of Bratovshchina (30 versts from Moscow) only on June 9th. After staying here for two nights, the empress hastily returned to the capital, “leaving in this village the officers on guard of the Life Guards” 6. Such an unexpected break in the journey was obviously caused by some emergency. And indeed, at that time, riots occurred at one of the most significant Moscow cloth factories, which apparently had a close connection with the general peasant movement. The workers of that factory suddenly left work and scattered to Moscow taverns and fortins, terrifying everyone with merciless robberies and murders. It must be said that the situation of factory workers at that time was truly desperate. This was ready-made material for any unrest, stored up by the government itself. Even during the reign of Anna Ivanovna, the owner of the Yaroslavl linen factory Ivan Zatrapezny, the linen and sailing factory - Afanasy Goncharov and a friend. The factory owners repeatedly presented to the Senate that the “reproduction and quiet maintenance” of the factories they had established was hampered by the lack of masters, apprentices, apprentices and working people. As a result, in 1736, a personal decree was issued, which ordered that “all those who had learned some kind of skill in the factories be left forever in the factories,” and for the future, “in those factories, all kinds of skills should be taught and the children described above should be made into masters.” given to them forever." For those “who of those forever given to the factories escape to their previous home or to other places, do not receive or hold them anywhere, but, having caught them, bring them and announce them to the governors in the cities, and inflicting punishment on them, send them to the same factories from which they fled.” ... And those of them who are incontinent and not diligent in any teaching, the manufacturers themselves, with a satisfied home punishment, are to report to the Commerce Board from where, according to the manufacturer’s testimony, they are to be sent into exile in distant cities or to Kamchatka to work, so that others have fear.” Thus, those unfortunates who had the imprudence to learn the skill were given over with their offspring to the full ownership of the manufacturer. All those who worked in factories “in menial jobs, give them away, and from now on, hire free people with passports for those jobs.” At the same time, it was given to the manufacturers “to continue to buy for their manufactories and factories people and peasants only without land and not entire villages” 7 . How difficult it was for factory workers to live, with such broad rights as a factory owner, is evidenced more eloquently than any description by “incidents in factories” like the one that forced Empress Elisaveta Petrovna to interrupt her pious procession to Trinity.

On June 12, 1749, the owner of the Moscow cloth factory, Efim Bolotin, and his comrades, submitted an announcement to the manufacturing board 8 that “the working people registered at that factory, by force of the personal decree of 1736, with unknown intent, abandoned the cloth business and Due to their stubbornness, they don’t want to work, and with such a stop, it’s impossible for them to put out cloth and maintain factories by any means” 9 . The factory owners demanded that “for their willfulness and disobedience, when caught, the workers should be punished with whips instead of whips for minors, and whips for minors instead of a whip.” The board summoned three workers, out of 120 people remaining at the factory, and asked them: “Why did so many artisans and working people, leaving the cloth business, leave the manufactory for the sake of that manufactory?” They answered that they did not know why “those working people, more than 800 people 10, left without permission and for the sake of fiction they left the cloth business and did not come to work... But they, including those who left the factory, received wages from their owners they receive everything in full, without deductions, and the factory owners provide work continuously.” The board reported the incident to the Moscow police chief's office, which, although at that time was in great trouble in the case of the famous thief-detective Vanka Kain, however, did not hesitate to appoint a special team to capture the fugitive factory workers. The head of this team, Captain Ivan Pavlov, finally managed to find 381 workers in various thieves’ dens, whom he returned to the factory on June 26, but on the same day the factory owners reported to the manufacturing board that the workers returned by the police “by their stubbornness to They don’t like their work and are disgusting to them.” The members of the board went to the factory as a whole and “strongly ordered” the workers to “get to work,” but they unanimously announced that “about the insults inflicted on them by the manufacturers and the incessant cruel punishments, they submitted a petition to Her Imperial Majesty and until the decree on their petition If it doesn’t follow through, they won’t go to work at that time.” The meeting began to admonish the disobedient people and invited them to explain their needs and displeasures directly to the board itself, without bothering the empress, but the factory workers, due to the primordial popular hatred of the “orderly people,” did not want to explain themselves to the officials and sought the royal court. Then the members of the board decided to punish the “furious factory owners” 11, for fear of others, with a whip, but first ordered that the other factory workers be taken to the wards, “so that during this punishment no indignation would be caused by them.” The workers did not want to go to the wards, “however, they were brought into those wards in captivity.” But as soon as they began to punish the first of the “breeders,” the weaver Terenty Afanasyev, “the working people from the wards rushed into the doors in a great uproar and beat off the team notably, although he, Afanasyev, was spared punishment.” If it weren’t for Captain Pavlov, who arrived in time with his team, the factory workers “hopefully would have committed no small atrocities.” The punishment of the instigators only irritated their comrades. All of them, with the exception of 20 people, “announced that they would not go to work and did not go and became nasty.” By June 30, Efim Bolotin’s affairs had improved somewhat. On that day, he reported to the manufacturing board that only 127 people “do not enter into work due to their stubbornness” and that 586 people were still on the run. Then, on July 7, a Senate decision was made, according to which the tenth person out of the 127 mentioned workers was ordered to be beaten with a whip, and after that, together with those previously punished by the board, “shackled, sent to Rogerwick to work,” and the rest of the disobedient people were to be punished with whips “and order to be brought into the chambers and forced to work.” According to this definition, on July 8, on the day of the celebration of the Kazan Mother of God, at the Great Cloth Yard, factory workers were publicly punished with whips and lashes, shackled and sent into exile... Such obvious disrespect for the holyly revered holiday should have made a grave impression on the residents capital Cities. Perhaps it even caused some new unrest; There are no direct indications of this, but it is only known that two days later a personal decree was issued stating that “from now on, no executions will be carried out on anyone on holidays or Victory Days” 12.

Meanwhile, on June 21, at the height of the factory riots, Empress Elisaveta Petrovna left for the village of Bratovshchina to continue the interrupted journey, ordering the leader. book Pyotr Fedorovich and led. the princess, who had previously remained in Moscow, to move, during the Trinity Campaign, to the Choglokovs’ estate - the village of Raevo, 11 versts from Moscow, along the Trinity road. This order, no doubt, had some connection with the rumors circulating at that time about the disturbed health of the empress and the possibility of her imminent death, rumors that gave rise to so many tempting assumptions and guesses about the future fate of the Russian throne. Repeating the name of Ivan Antonovich at this time seemed even dangerous, in view of the excited mood in which the residents of the capital were. Moreover, he led in his face. book Everyone saw Peter Fedorovich as the only grandson of Peter the Great, and therefore had more sovereign rights than Elisaveta Petrovna herself... All this, of course, irritated the empress and made her suspicious even of her family members. By sending the young court, during her absence from the capital, to such reliable people as the Choglokovs 13, she could calmly continue her pilgrimage.

After the empress's departure, the Moscow unrest intensified to such an extent that the government was finally forced to resort to decisive measures. A personal decree of June 25 ordered “to eradicate the villains, the Moscow police team should be reinforced with soldiers from field regiments.” Soon, from among these same troops, a man appeared on the stage, planning to take advantage of the Moscow troubles to carry out a coup d'etat. It was Joasaph Baturin, second lieutenant of the Shirvan infantry regiment.

Joasaf Andreevich Baturin, belonged to an old noble family, and received an education appropriate to his social status. He was brought up in the land gentry cadet corps, at the same time as A.P. Sumarokov, A.V. Olsufiev and Prince Mikh. Nikit. Volkonsky, such famous figures of Catherine’s reign, Baturin entered the corps in April 1732 and in April 1740 he was released into the army as an ensign, with the following certificate: “translates light authors from German into Russian; paints; graduated from geometry and practice; fencing counter; begins German oreography" 14. Baturin’s behavior is silent in the certificate, and this may very well be because it was not possible to say anything in favor of the person being certified.

Much later, Catherine, in her notes, described Baturin with very unattractive features. According to her, he was a debt-ridden gambler who was reputed to be a scoundrel, but had a very determined character 15 .

Even at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, Baturin, serving as an ensign in the Lutsk Dragoon Regiment, was sentenced, “according to the Ferger and Kriegsrecht held over him,” to death, “for obscene, nasty and discourteous words” against his colonel von Ekin, and also for falsely saying “words and deeds on the first point” to the same colonel and to the ensign Prince Kozlovsky. The military board somewhat softened this harsh sentence: Baturin was deprived of his ensign rank and patent and sent to Siberia for three years to do government work, so that after this period he would be assigned to serve as a soldier. From Siberia, Baturin again declared that Colonel von Ekin and Prince Kozlovsky were in charge of “word and deed,” as a result of which he was summoned to the secret chancellery, where he explained that once, in the presence of Ekin and Prince Kozlovsky, he said: “Where is how well built in Courland the palace of the former Duke of Courland! If only it were possible to move it to Moscow or St. Petersburg!” To this, Colonel Ekin, in the presence of Prince Kozlovsky, replied as if: “that palace was then well built, that Empress Anna Ioannovna loved the Duke...... but it’s none of our business”! This stipulation failed. Colonel Ekin and Prince Kozlovsky, interrogated in this case in the Siberian provincial chancellery, turned out to be innocent. Then Baturin tried to denigrate Ekin in another way. He reported “about the disorder and actions contrary to regulations allegedly being caused by him, Colonel Ekin.” This denunciation was reported, as appropriate, to the military college, where the informer was also sent. At the board, Baturin “showed no small interest in the Siberian province and in the Irkutsk province” and very successfully turned the matter to some projects and proposals submitted by the board for the conclusion of the Senate, which determined to “investigate through a special representative about the proposal” of Baturin and for that, submit such to the view of Her Imperial Majesty. Baturin himself, before the highest resolution on his stated “proposal” was issued, was released on bail. Unfortunately, it remains unknown what Baturin’s proposal was, which was apparently approved by both the military board and the Senate. One might think that after sufficient investigation, it turned out to be not worthy of the highest view, and was probably invented by Baturin only in order to delay time until the end of the period of exile, after which he was supposed to enlist as a soldier before serving. Be that as it may, in 1749 Baturin was already a second lieutenant and was a member of the Shirvan infantry regiment, stationed in the vicinity of Moscow, not far from the village. Raev, where they moved in June, by order of the empress, led. book Peter Fedorovich and the Grand Duchess.

The life of the young court in Raev was not very diverse. According to Catherine, the Grand Duke amused himself with hunting from morning to evening, which, thanks to Choglokov’s helpfulness, was organized very carefully. It consisted of two packs: in one there were Russian dogs, which were looked after by Russian huntsmen, and in the other there were French and German dogs, which were looked after by an old French guard, a Courland boy and a certain German. The foreign pack was under the direct supervision of the Grand Duke, who was involved in all the smallest details of the kennel and was almost never separated from its attendants. Baturin found an opportunity to get along with the Grand Duke's foreign rangers and convinced them to tell, on occasion, the Grand Duke that, they say, in the Shirvan regiment there is an officer Baturin, extremely devoted to His Highness and that the entire regiment shares his feelings. The Grand Duke liked this and he asked the rangers about various details related to the regiment being praised. After such preparation, Baturin began to seek permission to introduce himself to the Grand Duke during the hunt. After some thought, the Grand Duke gave in to the request of the rangers and Baturin was shown a place in the forest where he was supposed to wait for the Grand Duke. As soon as Peter Fedorovich appeared, Baturin threw himself on his knees and began to swear that besides him, the Grand Duke, he did not recognize another sovereign over himself and was ready to fulfill everything that he ordered him. Pyotr Fedorovich, frightened by this unexpected confession, at that very moment spurred his horse and rushed further, leaving the prostrate Baturin behind him. This is how, at least, the Grand Duke himself told Catherine about this strange incident, some time later, assuring that he had no other relations with Baturin and that he warned his huntsmen to beware of this man, so as not to get into trouble with him. trouble. These assurances and the Grand Duke’s embarrassment led Catherine to suspect that her husband was not being completely frank, that there was something left unsaid in his story.

Soon, Catherine’s suspicion was justified, at least in the sense that the incident in Raev had a much more serious significance than that which the Grand Duke attached to it or tried to attach to it.

At the beginning of winter, when both courts, large and small, returned to Moscow, Baturin was arrested and taken to the terrible Preobrazhenskoye for interrogation following the denunciation of ensign Timofey Rzhevsky and sergeant Alexander Urnezhevsky, and a few days later the grand ducal rangers were also taken there. This circumstance extremely alarmed Pyotr Fedorovich. Catherine tried in every possible way to encourage him, assuring him that if he really had no other relations with Baturin, except for meeting him in the forest while hunting, then he could be calm that this whole story would go well for him; but the Grand Duke calmed down only when he learned from the outside that his name had not been disgraced during interrogations. This news even made him jump for joy.

In Preobrazhenskoe, where the terrible Peter’s dungeons still existed at that time, they interrogated, in addition to Baturin and the Grand Duke’s rangers or pickers, as they are called in the real case, also the clothier Kenzhin and employees in the Voronezh battalion: second lieutenant Tyrtov, with two grenadiers Khudyshkin and Ketov.

The investigation revealed the following: Baturin asked two rangers to hunt with dogs. book Pyotr Fedorovich to report to His Highness that he, Baturin, can incite all the factory workers, the Preobrazhensky battalion located in Moscow, and the life companies who participated in the installation of Elisaveta Petrovna to the throne, to revolt, “who are inclined to do this and have long desired this, and from His Highness they will be given a notable sum of money.” “All of us, together,” Baturin said to the Grand Duke’s rangers, “we will arrest the entire palace and Alexei Razumovsky, and in whomever we do not meet a like-minded person, we will chop him into small pieces. We will not let the Empress out of the palace until His Highness has a coronation, and if the bishops do not want that coronation, we will drag them all out, wherever they are, and force them to do so by force. Then, having taken the Grand Duke, we will bring him to the church and order him to be crowned, and whichever priest does not obey, we will cut off his head. “If it’s not a riot, then His Highness will never have a coronation, because Razumovsky won’t allow that coronation,” and therefore, Baturin believed that he would gather “at least a small party,” dress everyone in masks, put them on horses and, catch Razumovsky while hunting, chop him up or seek his death in some other way. Another time, Baturin asked the rangers to report to the Grand Duke that he had already collected about thirty thousand people, and that twenty thousand could still be prepared, and that great people would help him fulfill his intended “intention”: Count Bestuzhev and General Stepan Apraksin, who, allegedly , have already taken his side. Baturin explained during interrogation that he himself once wanted to go to the Grand Duke’s valet Ivan Nikolaev and ask him to report his intention to His Highness, but being drunk, he did not go.

The clothier Kenzhin, who was brought in for interrogation, may have been one of those fugitive workers from Efim Bolotin’s cloth factory, who in the summer caused so much trouble to both their owner and the manufactory board. Baturin, persuading Kenzhin “to persuade all factory workers to revolt,” encouraged him by leading him. the prince will give the cloth workers the withheld wages and also reward him from himself”; Baturin even assured that His Highness had already instructed him to “take five thousand rubles from one merchant to distribute to the factory workers to start a riot.” Baturin had already directly told Second Lieutenant Tyrtov that he had thirty thousand factory workers ready, with which he intended to “suddenly raid the palace at night and arrest the empress with the whole courtyard”; he convinced Tyrtov to be faithful to His Highness, to promote his coronation, and even announced to him a personal decree of His Highness that he, Tyrtov, should kill Razumovsky to death, explaining that during the Trinity campaign, he, Baturin, once wanted to he wanted to shoot Razumovsky himself with a pistol, but the Grand Duke kept him from doing so. Encouraging Tyrtov, Baturin also told him about 5 thousand rubles, which the Grand Duke supposedly ordered to be taken from the merchant and, “distributing them to the people, leading those people to revolt.” Baturin, apparently, did not reveal all these details of the planned enterprise to the rest of his like-minded people, i.e., the grenadiers Khudyshkin and Ketov. He only told them: we want to crown the Grand Duke, pester us and announce to your brother grenadiers that whoever of them will be for us, His Highness will grant him the rank of captain and assign him a captain’s salary, “since now there is a Life Company.” An example of the happy lot of the Life Companions was before everyone’s eyes, and their very feat was still fresh in memory, and therefore there is nothing surprising that Baturin’s seductive hopes captivated the grenadiers. They, together with second lieutenant Tyrtov and sergeant Urnezhevsky, venerated the folds 16 and swore before them that “if one of those named ends up anywhere, then not to tell anyone about it.” After this oath, Baturin went with Urnezhevsky to the Moscow merchant Efim Lukin and, calling himself “chief cabinet courier,” announced that His Highness the Grand Duke ordered that five thousand rubles be taken from him, Lukin. The surprised Lukin replied that he had recently arrived from St. Petersburg and had not seen the Grand Duke there, “and without seeing His Highness, he would not give him, Baturin, money.” This decisive answer did not bother Baturin. He demanded the paper and, writing a note addressed to His Highness in “Latin letters,” asked Lukin to hand it over to the Grand Duke. In this note, Baturin wrote that “he has fifty thousand people ready.” The file explains that Baturin, based on this note, “wanted to receive a rebuke from His Highness” and that if he had received the required money from Lukin, he would have distributed it “to the soldiers and factory workers who had declared a riot.” With the same Urnezhevsky, Baturin went “to one peasant about his intention to make a wish,” and he, as it is said in the case, “deceived them and made a wish.” It is not known what kind of fortune-telling happened to Baturin, but only the days of his freedom were already numbered and the plan of uprising he created collapsed as a result of denunciation. However, what considerations guided Baturin in his “evil intention of rebellion” in favor of the leader. book Pyotr Fedorovich? To this the defendant himself gave the following answer in the secret office:

“I spoke the words about the coronation in those discussions, so that Her Majesty would be in full power, as she is now, and His Highness, by order of Her Majesty, would have only State Government and would keep the army in better order, not so as it is (now). If the army were under the leadership of His Highness, then every soldier, seeing His Highness in the army, would give himself courage and, trusting that his monarch was present during the war, would do more brave things and deeds; and in the State Government, His Highness could protect every poor person against powerful people.”

When reading this testimony, one involuntarily recalls what M. F. Kamensky made in 1765, in a letter to V. book To Pavel Petrovich, a hint of forty years of patience, after which the Russian army was finally honored to see the face of their sovereign, i.e. Peter III 17. It is obvious that the thoughts expressed by Baturin during interrogation were shared by many military people of that time.

Catherine explains in her notes that she did not see or read Baturin’s case, but that she was told for certain that the latter wanted to take the life of the Empress, set fire to the palace and, taking advantage of the general embarrassment and confusion, to elevate Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich to the throne. We believe that this is exaggerated, because even after an inquiry with the usual passion, it was not discovered that Baturin’s plan was of such a destructive nature. It is difficult to assert this with complete confidence, since in the extract we have from the original case there is neither the testimony of the merchant Lukin about the money 18 and about Baturin’s note in “Latin letters,” nor the testimony of the Grand Duke’s rangers about whether they reported to His Highness about Baturin’s plan. The above testimony of Catherine about the joy of Peter Fedorovich at the news that his name was not disgraced during interrogations, of course, gives the right to conclude that the huntsmen really did not report to the Grand Duke about Baturin’s plan, but on the other hand, it is quite possible to assume that the huntsmen did not want to hand over the Grand Duke ; finally, the investigators themselves could avoid this sensitive issue so as not to disgrace the reputation of the heir to the throne. In any case, this matter seems very mysterious. Such was its denouement: Empress Elisaveta Petrovna, having read the extract from the case presented to her, for an unknown reason, did not order any confirmation, “and due to failure to confirm” (as stated in the case), Baturin was sent from the secret chancellery “to strong custody” in Shlusselburg, only in 1753, i.e. four years after he was arrested!

Of Baturin’s accomplices, the grenadiers Khudyshkin and Ketov were sent to Rogervik, to work, second lieutenant Tyrtov and clothier Kenzhin were sent there first, and then to Siberia “to prison, to live forever.” The Grand Duke's rangers, “who only heard about this intention and did not report it,” were released. Finally, the peasant, “for deceitful guessing,” was sent to Orenburg to determine the service “for which he is capable of reporting.”

In January 1767, the 4th company of the 3rd St. Petersburg border battalion entered Shlusselburg to occupy guard duty. The company commander, Captain Akinshin, immediately upon arrival at the fortress, made a proper calculation for the lower ranks and sent them to guard posts. Corporal Vasily Mikhailov, who had three soldiers under his direct command: Fyodor Sorokin, Alexei Petukhov and Grigory Evsyukov, was ordered to take up a post at barracks No. 1, in which the “nameless convict” was kept. Having replaced the old guard, Corporal Mikhailov read to his team the order of Commandant Berednikov, “not to ask about the name and rank of that convict, not to have any conversations with him, not to write letters to him, not to accept any letters from him and not to carry them anywhere, Also, don’t give any intoxicating drink.” As a result of this order, those stern, silent relations that are so contrary to the sociable character of the Russian man were established for a long time between the mysterious prisoner and his guards. The intolerable vow of silence was especially likely to tempt everyone. Both sides were bored and only at the end of the sixth month finally extended their hands to each other. On June 29, on the name day of Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich, the “nameless convict” suddenly decided to turn to Corporal Mikhailov with a request to allow him to bring wine to him, the convict, “for the birthday boy.” The corporal immediately left the fortress himself and bought a mug of wine, “and having bought that wine, he brought it to the convict, then he drank it himself and finally gave a glass to all three soldiers.” This circumstance emboldened the guards so much that they finally decided to ask the prisoner: “What is his name and what kind of person is he?” He, without hesitation, answered that “he is a colonel and the cabinet chief courier Joasaph Andreev’s son Baturin.”

Fourteen years have passed since Baturin was sent from the secret chancellery “to strong custody in Shlyushin.” Much has changed over this long period of time, only the position of our strange Moscow agitator has not changed. He continued to while away his unhappy life in heavy imprisonment, delving deeper and deeper into the boundless world of hallucinations. In the case there is very fragmentary news that during the reign of Peter III Baturin was again condemned by the Senate for something to eternal exile to Nerchinsk for work and that a report on this had already been approved by the sovereign, but, after that, the secret secretary D.V. Volkov in a letter to Prosecutor General Glebov, he declared the highest will of Emperor Peter Fedorovich, “not to send this Baturin to Nerchinsk, but to leave him in Shlyushin, as before, in order to give him the best food there.” This is the only and, unfortunately, too vague news about Baturin for all fourteen years of his life in the fortress.

Corporal Mikhailov's team, having learned the name and rank of their convict, began to treat him more respectfully than before. Soldiers often came to talk with Baturin, “and also bought him wine with the money given from him.” In a frank conversation, Baturin told the guards that he was a “friend and confidant” of Emperor Peter Fedorovich and was his teacher, that, at the present time, he was enduring imprisonment for his faithful service to him, “for he, Baturin, is with his comrades , wanted to dethrone the late empress and tonsure her into a monastery, and elevate Tsar Peter Fedorovich to the throne.”

“If you showed such a service to Pyotr Fedorovich,” the soldiers objected, “then why didn’t he free you from here while he was still alive?”

“You’re lying,” answered Baturin, “The Emperor did not die, but was alive and went for a walk, and left me here under the guise.”

“No,” objected Corporal Mikhailov, “I myself saw the Tsar dead and how he was buried.”

“I know from the planets that he is alive and I see his planet; “Baturin assured, pointing to the sky, “you will see that in two years he will return to Russia.”

- “Where is the Emperor now, do you know?” - asked the soldier Sorokin.

- “Yes, I don’t have a planetary planet, so I can’t say where it is located; and if there were a planetary planet, I would also say the place where it is now” 19.

In such conversations, the time for a new changing of the guard at the Schlüsselburg Fortress imperceptibly approached. Two weeks before the shift, in the same 1767 or at the beginning of 1768, Baturin, taking advantage of the fact that the corporal had left the barracks and the other soldiers had gone for firewood, called soldier Sorokin and, holding two pieces of paper in his hands, said: “ Here, Sorokin, take these two pieces of paper; Give a small one to the Empress, on the road or wherever chance happens, for which you will receive a reward from her, and give this larger one to Pyotr Fedorovich when he arrives in Russia and from him you will receive an even greater reward.”

“Is it okay,” Sorokin replied, “to take letters from you to me; because for this I could perish.”

“Don’t be afraid Sorokin,” Baturin reassured, “why, brother, are you going to ruin; My villains are all already dead, but the Empress knows me; after all, I served her, as well as Pyotr Fedorovich.”

Sorokin, after much hesitation, finally agreed to hand over the papers to their destination, partly as a result of Baturin’s persistent request, “and moreover, flattered by the hope that he certainly would not be abandoned if the sovereign took him (Baturin) to himself.”

Here is the literal content of the “piece of paper” prepared by Baturin to present to the Empress:

“In 749, returning from Trinity, they had a station in Raev, Your Majesty went hunting. Then I cried out in front of your face: God grant that your dear husband may be seen in the Russian Imperial crowns, and the postman’s receiver blew a viva for you. And now Your Majesty's Chief Office of the courier was left faithfully in prison, in chains. Moreover, the same thing was done to you by real villains, supposedly I am the confidant and teacher of the Sovereigns. I’ve been in prison for 18 years, it’s important (?) and if it’s true, my aunt ordered everyone to be released; whenever there were villains, they have since been released.”

Another “piece of paper” contained a letter from Baturin to the now non-existent Emperor Peter III, with the following content:

“All-Russian Father, Great Sovereign Emperor Peter Fedorovich! One from your faithful and first servants, who, without sparing his life for Your Majesty and Your crown, out of love devoted from infancy to the Great Peter, and through him to Your Majesty, jealous of Your true inheritance, which Your Majesty deigns to know enough about.

To this day I find myself in Shlisselburg, under a strong guard, in arms and legs, in intolerable imprisonment for eighteen years. So, for Your Majesty and Your crown, I endure and trust if my science had not helped me, which on great bright nights brought me joy, when, looking at your planet, I forgot my sorrow and in your dearest belly I undoubtedly believed that this was all about the guards can testify. Has Your Majesty really been pacified! Why did they forget the poor man? Take, take, great Monarch, me before you as soon as possible! Don't let me fall into despair! Let me see you, my trembling great Monarch, and congratulate you on your resurrection! Do not let your enemies rejoice over me, your faithful servant, who starved to death in prison! Take me quickly before your face, so that your enemies will be consumed by my hand! When you leave me, God himself will leave you. I would wish from God peace and prosperity in this world. Entrust your health to me, a proven slave, and not others. I did not refuse to die and shed blood for you. I hope that you don’t have something like this with you now. In words, everyone will say that they will lay down their lives for Your Majesty, but in deeds and practice no one will prove himself as bad as I, the poor one, who left his wife, son and two daughters as orphans in infancy, killed his wife from sadness, made his mother cry and curse words to sister; I endure with the poor of my name, who renounce me. Koliko endured hunger, cold and all this for the crown of Your Majesty! Believe, believe, my great monarch, no one is more faithful to you than me! May God love me as much as I love you. When you leave me, God will not leave me for love: John. 15, there is no such love as anyone who would lay down his life for another.

Your Majesty’s first servant, faithful Colonel and Chief Cabinet-Courier Joasaf Baturin, I await mercy.”

Soldier Sorokin, upon returning to St. Petersburg, hid the letters he received from Baturin from everyone for a long time. He carefully kept them to himself and was already beginning to feel burdened by the secret forced upon him. Sorokin’s joy is understandable when, on Christmastide in 1768, he met his old colleague in the Smolensk infantry regiment and “sworn brother,” soldier Pyotr Ushakov. He could finally relieve his soul in a conversation with a loved one.

Having once gone to Ushakov’s apartment, Sorokin, after sitting for a while, took two cherished letters out of his pocket and said: “I, brother, was in Shlyushin with a convict who calls himself Colonel and Cabinet Chief Courier Joasaph Andreevich Baturin. One day, not long before his shift, he gave me two pieces of paper and asked me to give one of them, the small one, to the Empress, and the other, the larger one, to Pyotr Fedorovich, hoping that I would receive a great reward for this. Here, brother, read these pieces of paper, so you will see what is written in them.” With these words, Sorokin handed both letters to Ushakov. He first unfolded a large piece of paper and immediately noticed: “What, brother, this was written to the Emperor! After all, he died a long time ago; After all, brother, you remember we were still on a campaign, so it was already known there that he had truly died.”

“No, brother,” Sorokin objected, “Baturin knows the planets and he, looking through the window from the barracks at the sky, pointed out the sovereign’s planet and said that he was alive and now walking, and in a year or two he would come here.”

- “God knows, but is it true?” - Ushakov was perplexed. “However, we shouldn’t talk about this for now. We need to improve the time, submit a letter to the Empress.”

- “Well, brother, then take these pieces of paper with you and, if possible, give the small piece of paper to the Empress, and keep the larger one with you for the time being.”

“The Empress should pay it, perhaps somewhere on the road,” said Ushakov, putting both pieces of paper in his pocket 20 .

A few months after the described intimate conversation in the apartment of soldier Ushakov, the secret that had brought the two old friends even closer together came out under the most ordinary circumstances.

One ill-fated April night in 1769, Ushakov and Sorokin came “in a drunken state” to the corporal of the disabled company of the 3rd St. Petersburg border battalion, Anisim Golikov, and began, for unknown reasons, to beat him “without mercy.” Fortunately for Golikov, the corporal on duty appeared. Sorokin managed to escape, and Ushakov was taken under guard and immediately punished by the batogs for rioting. The next day, Corporal Golikov, “with purple marks on his face and black eyes,” came to the battalion commander, Prime Major Karl Neimch, and, informing him about the night attack by Ushakov and Sorokin, presented two letters already known to readers, dropped “during the battle” by a soldier Ushakov, as well as a “notebook written in prayers against the Church of the Greek confession” found during a search of his apartment. Prime Major Neymch, in a report dated April 28, 1769, No. 250, reported what had happened to the St. Petersburg Chief Commandant's Office, and also forwarded the letters and notebook presented by Golikov. Having learned from Ushakov that he had received those letters from Sorokin, he ordered an immediate search for the latter and “for the best consideration” he sent both, with the proper guard, to the same commandant’s office.

A correspondence began. The commandant's office demanded from Neimch information about the service and behavior of both soldiers sent there. Neymch, in a report dated April 29, No. 253, reported that soldiers Fedor Sorokin and Pyotr Ushakov were assigned to the 3rd border battalion from the Smolensk Infantry Regiment, the first on December 8, 1766, and the second on October 25, 1768, that in the form lists sent from the regiment there are no fines for them, that Sorokin was in St. Petersburg in 1767, in 1768 in the Schlusselburg fortress on guard, and after a shift from there he was “in the Cabinet House,” and Ushakov, from assignment to the battalion, I haven’t been away anywhere. To this, Neimch added that “it is impossible to know in detail about the better condition and life of the mentioned soldiers, especially about Ushakov, due to his dissatisfaction with his definition, as well as about Sorokin, due to his not always being with the battalion.”

After that, the whole case was transferred, according to the usual procedure, to the Prosecutor General Prince A. A. Vyazemsky.

Readers are already familiar with the testimony given during interrogations in the secret chancellery by soldiers Sorokin and Ushakov. It remains only to add that both Sorokin and Ushakov themselves had a hand in their testimony, therefore both were literate. The first of them was taken into the service “from the boyar children,” and Ushakov, as he himself testified during interrogation, “was before this (i.e. service), in the Siberian province, from the Reitar children, a spearman in the horsemaster’s office, from where, for a small theft and for drunkenness, he was written up as a soldier.” Ushakov confirmed Sorokin’s testimony in everything and explained that he took Baturin’s letters from him and did not announce them to anyone, firstly, out of regret for Sorokin, secondly, he himself was afraid of punishment and thirdly, because in his simplicity he thought that if one one of the letters he will give to the empress, and another to the empress, he will be rewarded for this.” Regarding the notebook found in his apartment, he testified as follows: “Whose notebook it is and by whom it was written, he doesn’t know and it has never been in his hands, but since his owner had many guards and sextons and people of various ranks, then perhaps isn't it them? Or is it not the owner's? However, the owner does not know how to read and write.”

In addition to Sorokin and Ushakov, Corporal Vasily Mikhailov, whom we knew, was also interrogated. He also confirmed Sorokin’s testimony in all respects and only added that at first, after arriving on guard duty in Shlusselburg, he did not see the convict Baturin, either ink or paper, but then, noticing that he had “a paper book sewn into a notebook, for example , two fingers,” he asked Baturin: where did he get this book? To which he replied that he himself wrote it here in the barracks.

- “Who gave you ink and paper?”

“I’ve been writing it for a long time,” answered Baturin, “and the previous guards allowed me to write. Yes, if you want, read it, there’s nothing bad written in it.” Mikhailov read the book and found that “nothing else is truly written in it, other than teaching how a Christian should live, and also about how landowners should deal with peasants.” This book, according to Mikhailov, was written “not very well,” and therefore he copied several sheets from it with his own hand and gave it to Baturin.

In conclusion, we present the ruling on the present case of the Prosecutor General, on which it is written in Empress Catherine’s own hand: “So be it.”

“On May 17, 1769, Prosecutor General Prince Vyazemsky, in fulfillment of Her Highest Imperial Majesty’s permission, about the convict Joasaph Baturin, who was kept in the Shlusselburg fortress, and about those sent to him, the Prosecutor General, from the St. Petersburg Ober-Komendant’s Office, The St. Petersburg border third battalion, soldiers Fyodor Sorokin and Petra Ushakov, ordered: 1) The said Baturin, for the important crimes committed by him during the life of the blessed and eternally worthy memory of the Empress Elisaveta Petrovna, as a rebel and troublemaker, according to the laws, was worthy of execution, but it was not committed to him, as much as can be seen from the essence of the crime, no differently than how time was left for him to repent of the evil he had committed and, after the searches that had taken place for him, he was sent to be kept, under a strong guard, in the Schlusselburg fortress. But this Baturin, as a person prone to all kinds of evil, and being there, not only did not repent of the evil he had committed, but also made his such a vile and serious crime a credit to himself and was not afraid of the established state laws, then he divulged his crime to his former friends. him on guard to the corporal and soldiers; and besides this, those corporals and soldiers, as if they had little sense, fearlessly and without remorse, fictitiously catching, assured that the supposedly deceased Emperor was alive and walking, and in two years he would return here; which, due to the weakness of their minds, they, in some way, believed; which is proven by the fact that he, Baturin, wrote a letter directly to the living Sovereign and gave it to the soldier Sorokin, in which he accurately explained his crimes by his length of service, and at the same time called himself a colonel and the Cabinet chief courier, which he had never been. And so, by the power of his now committed evil inventions, he, Baturin, according to the laws, deserves a grave punishment, but since this crime now committed by him came from him as from a man who had driven himself to despair by his crimes, it now seems no grave punishment cannot correct his character filled with evil, and for this reason, and especially out of Her Imperial Majesty’s sole mercy, punishment should not be inflicted on him, Baturin. And so that in future such harmful and false disclosures in the vicinity of the capitals of Her Imperial Majesty would not occur from him, and through this the soldiers on guard with him would not be able to subject themselves to fates that were ill-fated in their cowardice (as has now already followed), so that he, Baturin , no matter how much there is about the atrocities he committed, although at the end of his life he came to repentance, send him to the Bolsheretsk prison forever. He can earn his living there through his work, and at the same time keep a close watch on him so that he cannot leave there; however, no one should trust any of his denunciations, and no less, and his disclosures. 2) Soldier Sorokin for the fact that he, despising the order read to him about the maintenance of this Baturin by Colonel Berednikov, kept him completely contrary to it and treated him differently from how a State criminal should be treated and ordered, but even more than all, gave false such a criminal divulged his faith, and finally, taking letters from him, gave them to the soldier Ushakov; when giving those letters to this Ushakov, he made contemptuous and fictitious (albeit according to Baturin) assurances, which he, Sorokin, as a man obliged to serve with an oath loyal to Her Imperial Majesty, was not subject to, but should have done, if only more than aspirations and the corporal began to act with that Baturin in opposition to the given order, then in this case, both about this and about the false disclosure by that Baturin, supposedly the late Sovereign is alive, to announce to Colonel Berednikov; but he, Sorokin, not only did not do this due to him, but also, as said above, he willingly carried out all of Baturin’s commands. According to the established laws, Sorokin is worthy of heavy punishment and eternal exile, but since it is clear from the circumstances of the case that he committed all these crimes against his position solely through the seduction of the shown Baturin, out of one, it seems, lack of understanding, then in this reasoning, it’s the same he voluntarily confessed to this crime without any punishment, to spare him, Sorokin, from punishment and exile; and so that, however, this crime of his would not be left without a fine and the false and fictitious words he heard from Baturin could not be disclosed here, then he, Sorokin, should be assigned to the Tobolsk garrison as a soldier forever; from there he should not be sent to Moscow and St. Petersburg, nor should he be released, nor should he be dismissed. 3) Soldier Ushakov for having received from Sorokin letters announced on the case, written by Baturin, and seeing that they were completely fictitious, and even written by a prisoner, not only did he not announce them to his commander, but also knowing for sure that the late Sovereign had long died, believed the empty and false disclosure and assurance of the soldier Sorokin and did not declare this against him anywhere, and finally, taking those letters, he looked for an opportunity to give one of them to Her Imperial Majesty, and the other, as if the truly deceased Sovereign were alive, to give to him , is worthy of punishment, but as this crime of his, as can be seen from the case, also occurred from frivolity, according to the seduced words of Baturin, then for this reason that he, Ushakov, confessed to this crime he committed without any denial, and even after interrogating him So that he would show or divulge these words to anyone, it was not revealed that he, Ushakov, would be spared punishment. However, so that the words he heard from Sorokin were not disclosed here, then he should be assigned to the Arkhangelsk garrison, from where he, like Sorokin, should not be excommunicated. 4) What did the said Sorokin show that a corporal and two soldiers acted with Baturin in the same way as he did, contrary to the given order, and the corporal wrote a book together with Baturin, and therefore at least it was necessary about him to investigate, but since quite some time has passed since their shift, and no disclosures have been heard from those corporals and soldiers here until now, then for this reason, there is no investigation into this now; however, for the future, take news from the battalion about what kind of behavior these corporal and soldiers were and whether they were before that guard, since after changing from there, in what insolence and what turns out to be based on that news, then it will be possible to do it secretly there is a note behind their actions. 5) From the interrogations it turned out that Baturin was writing a book in the barracks, and therefore it is hoped that sometimes he still has it, then write to Colonel Berednikov so that he can search Baturin, as well as in the barracks, everywhere as much as possible to see if he has In addition to the book shown, if he found any other letters, he would, without reading them, seal them and send them to him, the Prosecutor General, immediately. 6) As for the conspiracy notebook sent from the Commandant’s Office, which is in fact filled with the most empty, extravagant words, as it is worthy by its very reason of being contempt, then about it, whose she truly needs to be sought further, she will not insist, for the sake of more information do not follow it, but burn it.”

According to this definition, Baturin, on November 14, 1769, was sent from Shlusselburg, on a mail cart, guarded by a non-commissioned officer and three soldiers of the Senate company, first to Moscow, to Field Marshal Count Saltykov, from there forwarded, with a letter from Prince Vyazemsky to the name of the Tobolsk governor, to the city of Tobolsk and further to Okhotsk, from where only in July 1770 he was sent to the place of his eternal imprisonment - to the Kamchatka Bolsheretsky prison.

The further fate of Baturin is known. In 1771, he took an active part in Beniovsky's rebellion and his brave voyage across the Pacific Ocean. We hope to present a detailed account of this curious and insufficiently explained episode. For now, let’s just say that Baturin was killed in August 1771 on the island of Formosa, during an attack by Beniovsky’s gang on a Chinese village.

Alexander Barsukov.

Heraldist and genealogist, younger brother of Nikolai Barsukov. His second brother, Ivan, is known as the author of the book “ Inokenty, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, according to the writings, letters and stories of his contemporaries"(Moscow, 1883) and the publisher of "Creations" Innocent (Moscow, 1887).

Biography

In 1868 he moved to the civil service in the Holy Synod, and then to the Senate, where until his death he was the manager of the armorial department of the department of heraldry. During his leadership of the Armorial Department, six parts of the General Armorial were compiled here (XIV - 1890, XV - 1895, XVI - 1901, XVII - 1904, XVIII - 1908 and XIX - 1914). The decorations of city coats of arms previously introduced by B.V. Köhne were removed, thanks to which they were simplified.

He was a historian of conservative views, firmly convinced of the enormous state benefit of his activities. In an analysis of P. N. Petrov’s study “History of the families of the Russian nobility” (St. Petersburg, 1886, part I), he wrote that the development of genealogies of Russian nobles is extremely necessary “to clarify the important role of our family surnames in the destinies of Russia”; these works, he believed, “have a beneficial effect on public self-awareness.” From 1883 to 1909 he was a member of the archaeographic commission.

Selected works

• Autographs of famous and remarkable people (From the archive of S. Yu. Witte) / With a preface. and note. A. P. Barsukova. - St. Petersburg. : type. Stasyulevich, 1905. - 126 p.
• Barsukov A.P. Voivodes of the Moscow State of the 17th century (according to government acts). - St. Petersburg. : type. V. S. Balasheva and Co., 1897. - 17 p. - (Ot. from issue 11 of the “Chronicles of the Activities of the Archaeological Commission”).
• Barsukov A.P. All-Russian Patriarch Joachim Savelov: Read. at the meeting on December 21. 1890. - St. Petersburg. : Society of Spirit Lovers. Enlightenment, 1891. - 16 p. - (Appendix VI to the Reports on the meetings of the Island (Monuments of Ancient Writing and Art. 83)).
• Barsukov A.P. Coat of arms of August Schlozer: Chit. at the meeting on February 15. 1891. - St. Petersburg. : Society of Spirit Lovers. Enlightenment, 1891. - 7 p. - (Appendix VII to the Reports on the meetings of the Island (Monuments of Ancient Writing and Art. 83)).
• Barsukov A.P. Report extract 121 (1613) on fiefs and estates. - M.: Universitetsk. typ., 1895. - 24 p. - (From “Readings in the Imperial Institute of History and Russian Antiquities at Moscow University” for 1895).
• Barsukov A.P. Historical notes. - St. Petersburg. , 1893?. - 7 s. - (Reading by A.P. Barsukov in the Imperial Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing on April 17, 1892): I. Prince Gr. Gr. Romodanovsky. II. Alexey Fed. Turchaninov).
• Barsukov A.P. Review of sources and literature of Russian genealogy (About the book by P. N. Petrov “History of the families of the Russian nobility”). - St. Petersburg. : type. Imp. acad. Sciences, 1887. - 96 p. - (Appendix to the 54th volume of Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences; No. 4).
• Barsukov A.P. Stories from Russian history of the 18th century: According to architect. documents. - St. Petersburg. : type. t-va "Society" benefit", 1885. - 284 p. - (Contents: Joasaph Baturin; Prisoner of the Spaso-Euthimiev Monastery; Prince Grigory Grigoryevich Orlov; Gatchina legends about Orlov; Batyushkov and Opochinin; Shklov adventurers).
• Barsukov A.P. Sheremetev family. - St. Petersburg. : type. M. M. Stasyulevich, 1881-1904. - T. 1-8.
• Barsukov A.P. Genealogy of the Sheremetevs. - St. Petersburg. : type. M. M. Stasyulevich, 1899. - 36 p. - (From the 7th book of “The Sheremetev Family”).
  • . - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - St. Petersburg. : type. M. M. Stasyulevich, 1904. - 42 p. - (Appendix to the 8th book of “The Sheremetev Family”).
• Barsukov A.P. Russian noble meeting in Moscow, according to surviving archival documents: With adj. Rules Ros. noble collection 1803 and the Charter of 1849 - M.: Synod. typ., 1886. - 34+32 pp.
• Barsukov A.P. Information about the Yukhotsky volost and their former owners, the princes of Yukhotsky and Mstislavsky: With appendix. Art. about yuhot. falcon. washers. - St. Petersburg. : ed. gr. S. D. Sheremeteva, 1894. - 78 p.
• Barsukov A.P. The village of Chirkino, Kolomna district. - St. Petersburg. : type. M. M. Stasyulevich, 1892. - 16 p.
• Barsukov A.P.

he orders to set fire to the house of the Cossack Chernykh, the only one in all of Bolsheretsk who took up arms against the rebels, and then Panov defends the merchant Kazaritsov - he was in the Chernykh house and was almost killed by embittered industrialists and exiles.

Vasily Panov was one of those with whom Stepanov spoke “... about how to free the inhabitants of Kamchatka from the robbery and cruelty of the local authorities.”

But fate decreed that he himself was killed as a pirate and buried in a foreign land.

MAXIM CHURIN

Even if there had not been this famous voyage on the Petra from Bolsheretsk to Macau, the name of navigator Maxim Churin would have remained in history.

He appeared in Okhotek in 1761 - he was sent by the Admiralty Board to the disposal of the Siberian Prikaz - and took command of the galliot "St. Catherine", which was supposed to carry out cargo-passenger flights along the Okhotsk - Bolyperetsk route.

In August 1768, "St. Catherine", on board of which was the head of the secret government expedition, Captain Pyotr Kuzmich Krenitsyn, was already in the Isanotsky Strait off the coast of Alaska. Nearby, the gukor “St. Paul” was rocking on the waves, with Lieutenant M. Levashev on board.

On August 11, 1768, these ships separated. The crew of the “Ekaterina” spent the winter on Unimak Island, and the “St. Paul” went to Unalaska. The wintering of “Ekaterina” was difficult - several years earlier on the Fox Islands - Umnak, Unimak, Unalash-ka - the rebel Aleuts killed Russian trappers from four fishing boats, and therefore Krenitsyn’s relations with the indigenous population of Unimak were the most tense. There was no fresh food - they ate corned beef. Thirty-six graves appeared that winter on Unimak near the Russian camp.

On June 6, 1769, the galliot “St. Paul” arrived at Unimak. On June 23, both ships put to sea and headed for Kamchatka. At the end of July, the crews of both ships rested in Nizhne-Kamchatsk, and in August of the following year they returned to Okhotsk.

Here Churin received under his command a new galliot "St. Peter", built in Okhotsk and launched in 1768.

But when Maxim Churin met with Benyevsky, Vinbland, Stepanov and Panov, whom he was ordered to deliver to Kamchatka, everything turned out differently. Here is what S.V. Maksimov writes in the book “Siberia and Hard Labor”: “Turin’s (Churin’s) consent to escape - S.V.) is unconditional and reliable in the sense that he did not see any other way out; eid

He could not go to Okhotsk, without shame and danger, due to his unpaid debts; He gave his consent under the impression of his dissatisfaction with his superiors, who brought him to trial for disobedience and depraved behavior.” However, something here is questionable. For example, where do such debts come from if, since 1765, Churin has been on constant voyages, either with Sind or with Krenitsyn? Lastly, Churin leaves with his wife Ulyana Zakharovna...

And yet, without the navigator Churin, there would have been neither escape nor long wanderings in a foreign land of the galliot “St. Peter”. The fact is that this experienced sailor remained the only person in the entire Russian fleet who had by that time completed three voyages from Kamchatka to America and China. It was he, navigator Maxim Churin, who navigated the galliot along an untrodden sea road and put it, together with his assistant, navigator’s student Dmitry Bocharov, on a map, which to this day, perhaps not yet studied by anyone, lies in the Moscow archive, where Catherine ordered to hide all references to the Kamchatka rebels...

But Churin did not live to see this day - broken, like many, by the betrayal of Beyposk, he died in Macau on October 16, 1771.

JOASAPH BATURIN

It’s best to start the story about him with the words of Empress Catherine II after the death of Joasaph Andreevich: “As for Baturin, the plans for his case are not at all funny. I didn’t read after or see his work, but they probably told me that he wanted to take the life of the empress, set fire to the palace and, taking advantage of the general embarrassment and confusion, install the Grand Duke on the throne. After torture, he was sentenced to eternal imprisonment in Shlisselburg, from where, during my reign, he tried to escape and was exiled to Kamchatka, and escaped from Kamchatka with Benyevsky, robbed Formosa on the way and was killed in the Pacific Ocean.”

It is strange that in S. V. Maksimov’s book “Siberia and Hard Labor” there are only a few lines about Baturin: “In 1749, Lieutenant of the Butyrsky Regiment Joasaf Baturin was sent to Kamchatka for offering his services to Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich to elevate him to the throne during my aunt's lifetime." Very incomplete and inaccurate.

But here are some details from a modern source: “...Baturin was a second lieutenant of the Shirvan regiment. After demotion and exile to Siberia, he pulled the soldier's burden for a long time, again rising to the rank of second lieutenant, now in the Shuvalov regiment, stationed near Moscow. And again the arrest: the “crazy nobleman” tried to attract artisans to participate in the palace coup

people, 25 years before Pugachev, there was a popular revolt. During Elizabeth's stay in Moscow, in the summer of 1749, Baturin, an officer of the regiment called to pacify the workers of the Bolotin cloth factory, planned, with the help of soldiers and eight hundred striking craftsmen, to imprison Elizabeth, kill Razumovsky and elevate Peter Fedorovich - later Peter III - to the throne. “His Highness could have protected every poor person against the strong,” said Baturin.

“Moscow agitator” - Baturin was called in one of the Russian magazines at the end of the 19th century. The “agitator,” after being “closely held” in prison for another 16 years, from 1753 to 1769, served as a “nameless convict” in Shlisselburg. At night, Baturin looked for the star of his emperor in the prison window to talk to it. In 1768, Baturin wrote a letter to Catherine and for this, along the ancient route of convicts, through Siberia and the port of Okhotsk, he arrived in Bolyperetsk in 1770... - you can read all this in the book “The Image of a Distant Country” by A. B. Davidson and V. A. Makru-shina.

Alas... Much was completely wrong in this story. At least, the materials of the Central State Archive of Ancient Acts, which contains the case “On Second Lieutenant Joasaph Baturin, who planned to dethrone Empress Elizabeth in favor of Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich,” speak of something else.

Joasaph Andreevich was the son of a lieutenant in the Moscow Police Chief's Office. In 1732 he entered the Gentry Cadet Corps, and in 1740 he was released as an ensign into the Lutsk Dragoon Regiment and served here for seven years.

In February 1748, it so happened that the tenth company, in which Joasaph served, was left without a commander, and Baturin, on his own initiative, took command of the company, believing that he was fully worthy of it. But that was not the case - Colonel El-nin had already appointed a new company commander. Baturin received him with hostility and said to his regimental commander approximately the following: “It’s in vain, Mr. Colonel, you deign to offend me. I’m a good commander and I haven’t seen any unrest.” And, by the way, he added that if he is not appointed commander, then he will be forced to ask the inspector general, when he arrives at the regiment, for an audience and show the inspector general all the problems in the regiment, and also tell all the dragoon grievances. The colonel shouted furiously: “Arrest! Shackle! To Tikhomirovka!” “Tikhomirka” is a regimental prison where, in violation of the regulations, Colonel Elnin already once detained warrant officer Tikhomirov.

“I don’t deserve this, to be forged and put in prison,” Baturin answered sharply and refused to hand over his sword to the colonel.

The first Russian voyage around the world happened 235 years ago. It was not planned by the government, but happened against its will. There were no cards. And it was headed by an exiled Pole, not a sailor.

The rebels set sail and captured the ship. In some ways it is similar to the story of "Bounty", much more famous, although a film was also made about the main character of the Russian event - a joint Polish-Hungarian one: for Moritz-August Benevsky, being a Pole, came from Hungarian soil.

His last name is usually written “Benevsky”, and the loss of dots over the “е” also changed its sound in Russian. "Beniowski" - it is written in the original. The same thing happened with Roerich's surname - Roerich, originally pronounced Roerich.

Under Catherine, Poland finally lost its independence. The wounded Benevsky was captured and released. Having come to his senses, he took part in the war with Russia for the second time, the Cossacks “tangled the noses” of his horse and handed him over to the Russians; this time he was exiled to Kazan.

Moritz-August Beniowski

The Pole did not want to sit in exile. He organized a group of fugitives from captured Swedes and Austrians. Everyone was taken at night. They also came to Benevsky.
- Does the exiled Benevsky live here?
“Here,” Benevsky answered. - He is there.
And he pointed inside. The police rushed into the house. The Pole closed the door from the outside - and was gone.

He managed to reach the Baltic Sea. But here he was captured and sent to Tobolsk, then to Okhotsk. For escaping three times, he was awarded a long journey in the footsteps of Jozef Kopech, to Kamchatka. But if Kopech only traveled through it, writing his famous “Travel Diary...”, then Benevsky had to spend several years in Kamchatka.

Kamchatka is far, far from Europe. The route there, even from Yakutsk, took months in those days, and in some periods it was completely closed due to weather conditions. They were sent to Kamchatka - as if to the other world. Along with the growth of the territory of the Russian state, the places of exile moved away: in the 16th century it was Solovki, Menshikov was exiled to Berezovo, in the mid-18th century all of Siberia was filled with exiles, and by the end of the 18th it was Kamchatka’s turn.

Colonel of the Bar Confederation Benevsky was sent to the Bolsheretsky prison. For 70 people The garrison there consisted of 90 exiles. Among them was the old man Turchaninov, Anna Ioannovna’s chamberlain, who participated in the conspiracy to return Ivan Antonovich to the throne. Turchaninov's nostrils were torn out and his tongue was cut out. Joasaph Baturin was also here, he was supposed to suppress the workers' revolt at Bolotnikov's factory, but instead decided, with the help of soldiers and craftsmen, to overthrow Elizabeth and elevate her nephew Peter to the throne. For this he was demoted to soldier; but he again rose to the rank of officer - and again tried to place Peter on the throne. This time he spent 16 years in prison. Peter ascended the throne a long time ago, Catherine came to power after him, and only under her was Baturin released from Shlisselburg and sent to Siberia. Stepanov, a member of the Commission on the Code, convened by Catherine, was also there, in the Bolsheretsky prison. The commission was dissolved, and Stepanov, who belonged to the left wing of the opposition, was exiled to Siberia. Here, in a common barracks, lived the guards officers - Khrushchev and Guryev, and the Admiralty doctor Meider, and the captured Swede Vinblanc.

It was unthinkable to escape from Kamchatka, and the exiles enjoyed a certain freedom in the prison.

And only the tireless fugitive Benevsky considered escape conceivable. With his energy, he managed to convince the others.

It is believed that on April 27, 1771, the exiles rebelled. Commandant Nilov tried to kill Benevsky, and Panov wounded him. Nilov's workers finished him off. Bolsheretsk surrendered without a fight, except for a few shots from the house of the Cossack centurion Cherny, for which he was put on guard in the guardhouse. In the morning, Bolsheretsk residents were informed that the commander, Captain Nilov, had died from excessive consumption of fiery vodka. And although his drunkenness was officially recognized, they did not believe it, but, not wanting to share the fate of Cherny and the other arrested, they did not show curiosity or bewilderment.

By order of Benevsky, clerk Spiridon Sudeikin was brought to the office. He was ordered to write the text of the oath to Tsarevich Pavel, and then go to the church, where, with the priest Simeon, bring to her everyone whom Benevsky sent, which Sudeikin did “out of fear.”

The first to take the oath were the “naval servants,” led by the commander of the galliot “St. Peter,” navigator Maxim Churin. Somewhat earlier, perhaps even before the riot, one of the Russian exiles wrote an “Announcement” to the Senate, making a number of accusations against Catherine II, calling her rule illegal and sharply criticizing the state of affairs in Russia. In the materials of the investigative case, the text of the “Announcement” is located before the text of the oath and forms a single whole with it. Many authors claim that the “Announcement” was signed by all participants in the riot, with the exception of Peter Khrushchev, but no one mentions that some of the signatures are under the “Announcement” itself, and some are under the oath. Not a single person signed twice. As for the number of signatories, the simplest arithmetic calculation shows: if we exclude Khrushchev and seven women, nine more people did not sign the “Announcement” and the oath. Among them is Alexander Turchaninov. But it’s absurd to assume that Anna Ioanovna’s former chamberlain did not know how to read and write! And vice versa, under the “Announcement” there is a signature of the industrialist Alexei Savelyev (and not only for himself, but also for nine of his comrades), but his name is not in the lists of Benevsky’s associates. There are no explanations for these contradictions yet.

Benevsky compiled a “Manifesto” in Latin, outlining the history of his journey to Kamchatka. Under the “Manifesto” there are two signatures: Benevsky himself and Vinblanc.

On April 29, on the built ferries, taking with them weapons, gunpowder, food, cash treasury and “soft junk”, Benevsky’s team set off from Bolsheretsk along the Bolshaya River to its mouth. It took several days to free the government ship located in Chekavinskaya harbor from ice. And upon completion of all the work, the galliot “St. Peter”, under the command of navigator Maxim Churin, set out to sea on May 12, taking away 70 people from Kamchatka who did not want to remain subjects of Mother Empress Ekaterina Alekseevna.

Among them were not only exiles, but also 25 workers of the merchant Kholodilov together with the clerk Chuloshnikov, as well as merchants, soldiers, sailors, industrialists and their wives; Russians, foreigners, Kamchadals.

Few authors used the investigative case documents directly. Basically, works devoted to the history of the Bolsheretsk riot are written on materials from printed publications. First of all, these are the memoirs of Benevsky himself, published in many European languages: French, English, German, Czech, Polish - and were bestsellers for almost two centuries, but have not yet been translated into Russian. They became the very basis on which the literary legend and a kind of aura of a national hero around the name of Mauricius Benevsky were formed. The works of Juliusz Słowacki and Waclaw Sieroszewski played a major role in this. More than one generation of Poles was brought up on them.

In addition to Benevsky’s memoirs, which are very, very unreliable, it should be noted the partial publication by the Russian historian V.N. Berkh "Journal composed... by clerk Spiridon Sudeikin" in "Son of the Fatherland" for 1822, which he called "Notes of the clerk Ryumin." In addition to Sudeikin, navigator Bocharov helped Ryumin keep this journal. Subsequently, the journal came to the Russian resident in Paris, Khotinsky, and was transferred by him to the Foreign Collegium, and after the Empress became acquainted with it, it was archived and published only in 1822. Many authors use the works of A.S. in their research. Sgibnev, who sets out the official version of what happened and gives a list of those who fled from Kamchatka, but it is far from complete. And if the exiles and Cossacks are named by name, then the industrialists seem to be a solid, gray, amorphous and faceless mass. But they were the main force of the Bolsheretsk rebellion.

Benevsky sought to get to Europe. But the other fugitives had other intentions. Within a few days, disagreements began. But in any case it was necessary to go south.

Galiot - a small boat packed to capacity with people - was intended only for coastal voyages. There were no maps or directions. The rebels only had a report on the expedition of the English pirate Anson. From this book, Khrushchev drew sketches, and Churin and Bocharov steered the ship.

The navigating students Izmailov and Zyablikov and the sailor Faronov, who did not support the uprising, decided to cut off the anchor rope as soon as the fugitives went ashore and take away the captured ship. Benevsky landed the conspirators on a desert island, leaving them a supply of flour. A few months later they were picked up by a fishing vessel.

Galiot stopped at the Japanese islands. They were received cordially, brought food and water, but were not allowed ashore.

On August 16, the ship stopped off Taiwan. While the team was collecting water, the aliens were attacked. Panov and two industrialists were killed, several were wounded with arrows. Benevsky ordered the village to be shelled from a cannon. Perhaps the natives simply had bad memories of the Europeans: the Portuguese and Dutch landed here and took away slaves.

Leaving Taiwan, we were caught in a storm. After 10 days, we met a boat, the Chinese in it showed the way to the shore, to Macau.

So over the summer the ship, unsuited to long-distance voyages, sailed from Kamchatka to Southern China.

Benevsky was received by the governor. He spoke Latin and lied that the ship was Hungarian, so the language of the sailors could not be understood. On the ship, he ordered, praying, do not cross yourself in the Orthodox way - the danger of pursuit has not yet disappeared. Many have already repented of their deeds. Many were suspicious of Benevsky, a foreigner and a non-religious man.

The fugitives settled on the shore. Discord arose when Benevsky announced that he had sold the galliot - with cannons and all the rigging. Stepanov, who became the head of the dissatisfied, proposed to remove Benevsky from the commanders. He tried to explain to the governor of Macau that the ship was the property of the Russian government. Through Dutch agents, Stepanov conveyed the complaint to the Chinese Emperor.

Benevsky’s considerations, meanwhile, were reasonable: this ship, unsuited for long voyages, could no longer go further - and it was a miracle that he reached Macau. In addition, they were looking for fugitives, and on the long road to Europe the galliot could have been detained by the Dutch or the British. And with the proceeds from the sale of the galliot, Benevsky chartered two French ships.

While they were stationed in Macau, Turchaninov, Zyablikov, and navigator Churin died from the unusual climate. Stepanov remained in Macau: he was determined to return to Russia.

The tireless rebel Joasaph Baturin died in the Indian Ocean. On March 16, 1772, the ships arrived at Ile-de-France (now the island of Mauritius). Here Benevsky felt safe: France was on bad terms with Russia. The governor told the Pole about Madagascar, its pirate past, its convenient position on the way from Europe to India.

Already on July 7, the fugitives reached France. Of the 70, 37 men and 3 women remained. Most died; 4 were left in the Kuril Islands, Stepanov - in Macau, 4 - in Ile-de-France in a hospital.

This was the first arrival of a Russian ship in Macau and the first Russian passage across the Indian Ocean.

Benevsky went to Paris. He suggested that the French conquer Formosa (Taiwan) or Madagascar. Madagascar suited the French government.

The Pole returned to his fugitives and invited them to go to Magadascar. 12 people agreed with him: 7 workers, clerk Chuloshnikov, 2 sailors - Potolov and Andreyanov and his wife - and Benevsky’s faithful student, 15-year-old Vanya Ustyuzhinov.

For those who wanted to return to Russia, Benevsky issued travel tickets to Paris. The Russian resident in Paris, Khotinsky, has already reported the fugitives to St. Petersburg; The incredible voyage touched the empress, she read his journal and decided to show mercy. On September 30, 1773, 16 men and 1 woman, Ryumin’s wife, saw the forts of Kronstadt. Upon arrival in Russia, they dispersed, some to Tobolsk, some to Irkutsk, some to Okhotsk: no one remained in Central Russia, and it was like an expulsion - dangerous people should, in any case, be kept away. Navigator Bocharov also left for Irkutsk, but soon went out to sea again, met with members of Cook’s expedition and told them about his adventures.

The Swede Vinblanc did not return to Russia, of course, and did not go to win laurels in Madagascar: he went to his homeland, Sweden. Khrushchev, Kuznetsov and Meider entered the French service, the first became a captain, and the second, although he was a peasant, became a lieutenant.

The ending follows.