So, on December 25, 1762, after the death of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Pyotr Fedorovich ascended the Russian throne. Soon he was to be 33 years old, almost 20 of which he spent in Russia. And now Peter could finally begin to realize his thoughts and plans.
If you believe the false memoirs of his killers, all 186 days after the death of Elizabeth, Peter was engaged only in drinking with the Holsteiners in Oranienbaum - they say, the man finally got hold of free and unlimited Russian vodka (just like Yeltsin in our 90s). And in short and rare moments of painful sobriety, he once again betrayed Russia to his beloved Friedrich (again Yeltsin comes to mind). These stories should be treated as nonsense, having nothing to do with reality.
Legislative activity of Peter III
It is known that during the time spent by Peter III on the throne, he prepared and published 192 laws and decrees - more than 30 per month. In this connection, an interesting question arises: when did he still manage to get drunk? Considering that "working for the good of Russia," Catherine II signed, on average, only 12 decrees per month, and Peter I - only 8.
But that's the amount. And what about the quality of all these decrees? Maybe they spoke exclusively about military articles and the number of buttons on overcoats?
The most famous, of course, was the "Law on the Liberty of the Nobility" - for this decree the Russian nobles were going to erect a golden monument to Peter III during his lifetime, but did not have time. Catherine, who came to power, corrected this law in 1763, again making the service of nobles compulsory, only in 1785 military service became optional.
Also, Peter III abolished the "Secret Chancellery" (which probably greatly facilitated the position of the conspirators and contributed to their success). Catherine took this sad experience into account by reviving the terrible "Chancellery" called "The Secret Expedition".
Catherine also canceled other progressive laws of Peter III: on freedom of religion, on the prohibition of church supervision over the personal life of parishioners, on the transparency of legal proceedings and free travel abroad. Peter III ordered an end to the persecution of the Old Believers, but, imagining herself a "philosopher on the throne" of the usurper, after coming to power, resumed them. Finally, Peter, for the first time in Russia, issued a decree on the "lack of silver service", prohibiting the awarding of officials with "peasant souls" and state land - only orders. Under Catherine II, as we remember, the peasants for gifts to her accomplices and favorites soon ended, so that "not to offend anyone" had to introduce serfdom in Little Russia (in 1783):
Gay, Queen Katherine, What have you done?
The steppe, the wide edge is cheerful, I gave away to Panam."
This song was heard in Ukraine at the beginning of the 20th century.
A. S. Pushkin wrote about this:
"Catherine gave away about a million state peasants (free farmers) and enslaved free Little Russia and the Polish provinces."
A. K. Tolstoy also did not ignore this topic. In the parody "History of the Russian State from Gostomysl to Timashev" of all the acts of Catherine II, only the introduction of serfdom in Little Russia is mentioned:
Madame, wonderfully with you
The order will bloom, -
They wrote to her politely
Voltaire and Diderot, -
Only the people need
To whom you are the mother
Rather give freedom
Hurry to give freedom."
"Messieurs," they objected
She is vous me comblez (you are too kind to me) -
And immediately attached
Ukrainians to the ground.
The decree of Peter III on limiting the personal dependence of peasants on landlords was canceled - instead, under Catherine II, for the first time in Russian history, they began to be sold separately from the land. It was then that serfdom turned into real slavery, and the Russian people were no longer sold by the Crimean Tatars in the Cafe, but by the Russian landowners, like cattle, in four All-Russian slave markets: in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara. And also - in many small local bazaars and advertisements in newspapers. The wife was sometimes separated from her husband, and the mother from the children.
The decrees on the non-obligation of military service and the non-obligation of observing religious fasts remained unfulfilled. However, Peter III managed to free some of the monastic serfs, giving them arable land for eternal use, for which they had to pay a monetary dues to the state treasury. In total, it was supposed to give freedom to 910.866 male peasants: add women to them and realize the scale of monastic slavery and the enormity of the reform. Deprived of slaves to the clergy, he appointed a salary as a "civil servant." Alas, Catherine will soon give away many of these peasants freed by Peter to her lovers.
By other decrees, Peter ordered the founding of a state bank, to whose accounts he deposited 5 million rubles from personal funds to ensure the issuance of the first bank notes in Russia, to replace damaged coins. The price of salt was also reduced, peasants were allowed to trade in cities without obtaining permission and paperwork (which immediately stopped numerous abuses and extortions). In the army and navy, it was forbidden to punish soldiers and sailors with batogs and "cats" (these are four-tailed whips with knots at the ends).
Everyone knows that under Elizabeth the death penalty was abolished. But, have you ever wondered how many people were beaten to death during the execution of "standard and ordinary" savage "punishments"?
Here is the famous resolution of Nicholas I on the report on two sentenced to death:
"To drive the guilty through 1000 people 12 times. Thank God, we have never had the death penalty, and it is not for me to introduce it."
(D. G. Bertram. The history of the rod. T. I. M., 1992, p. 157.)
What do you think, is there a lot of chances for a person to stay alive after 12 thousand punches with gauntlets? This is a metal ramrod or a long and flexible thick rod of vine dipped in salt water. I answer: there was no chance even after the appointment of 6 thousand such strikes. Therefore, the sentences often stated:
"Upon punishment of the criminals, hang their corpses at the crime scene."
Probably better to go straight to the chopping block, isn't it?
But back to the decrees of Peter III. For example, "for the innocent patience of torturing courtyard people" it was ordered that the landowner Zotova be tonsured into a monastery, and her property confiscated in order to pay compensation to the victims.
By another decree of the emperor, Voronezh lieutenant V. Nesterov was forever exiled to Nerchinsk for bringing a courtyard to death.
Peter III and John VI. Rendezvous of two emperors
Peter III also showed great interest in a rather dangerous person for himself - John Antonovich, the victim and prisoner of Elizabeth. On March 22, 1762, a meeting of two emperors took place in Shlisselburg - Peter III (who appeared incognito, dressed in an officer's uniform) and John Antonovich. They both ascended the throne on absolutely legal grounds, and both will die a violent death, and John will outlive Peter, but can his miserable existence be called life?
Whom did Peter see in Shlisselburg? A tall and strong young man, outwardly neat, keeping order in his cell. Somehow, against the strictest orders, he learned to write and knew his origins. John had a good memory and even remembered the name of the officer accompanying his family from Oranienburg to Kholmogory - Korf (N. A. Korf, now the Chief of Police of St. Petersburg, who accompanied Peter III to Shlisselburg and was nearby during this conversation. Participant in the conspiracy against Peter III). But the mind of the prisoner was, nevertheless, obscured by a long solitary confinement, because he declared: "Tsar John has long been taken to heaven, but he wants to preserve the claims of the person whose name he bears" (from the report of the British ambassador). Or, in another version: "Ivan is no longer alive; he knows about this prince, that if this prince were born again, he would not renounce his rights" (from a letter from the Ambassador of Austria).
According to some reports, Peter had intentions to release John in order to be assigned to military service. He abandoned these plans after the meeting, being dissatisfied with the prisoner's answers. He said that, if he returned to the throne, he would order Elizabeth to be executed (he did not know about her death), and according to one version, he would be expelled from the country, according to another, he would also execute. Having abandoned the intention to free the prisoner, Peter, nevertheless, on April 1 gave gifts for him (some clothes and shoes), and decided, nevertheless, to somewhat alleviate his situation. He ordered to equip a more comfortable room for Ivan Antonovich in the Shlisselburg fortress (it was not completed due to a coup d'état followed by the assassination of the emperor). This order, by the way, led to rumors that new cameras were being prepared for Peter's wife, Catherine.
Meeting of John VI and Catherine II
Catherine, who seized power, also visited the unfortunate John, but her visit led to a tightening of the conditions of his detention. In addition, she ordered to kill the prisoner if someone tries to free him. The jailers conscientiously complied with this order in 1764.
Thus, Catherine II, who usurped the throne of Russia, went down in history as the culprit of the death of two absolutely legitimate Russian emperors at once.
Peace treaty and alliance with Prussia
Now let us consider the most terrible "crime" of Peter III in the eyes of the patriots - the conclusion of peace with Frederick II and the abandonment of East Prussia. In fact, Prussia lost, having received nothing in return, namely Catherine II. Moreover, the hasty and unjustified withdrawal of the "Western Group of Forces" after the assassination of the emperor in 1762 resembles a strange "flight" of the Russian army from the territory of the former GDR. Let us clarify the situation: Russia had no rights to the Prussian kingdom, and this conquest would never have been recognized by other monarchs of Europe. Remember what difficulties Russia has always experienced when trying to retain at least something from the lands of the defeated Islamic Turkey. Even if it was the "Wild Field" - the land of the future Novorossia, empty due to the constant raids of the Crimean Tatars, to which the serfs of the central Russian provinces were brought, and also allowed to settle the Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, Armenians fleeing from Ottoman oppression. From scratch it was necessary to build not only villages and landowners' estates, but also big cities - Odessa, Kherson, Nikolaev, Mariupol, Yekaterinoslav (Dnepropetrovsk), Krivoy Rog, Aleksandrovsk (Zaporozhye) … Mohammedans ", but the Germans are Lutherans, and this is not an Ottoman province, but a European kingdom. These lands were separated from Russia by the traditionally hostile Rzeczpospolita and the Duchy of Courland, whose status had not yet been finally determined. The overland route to East Prussia could be blocked at any moment, supply by sea was problematic and depended on the position of Britain (primarily) and Sweden. There was not the slightest chance and no opportunity to hold this territory. But Russia had absolutely legal, uncontested rights to Holstein and Stormarn, as well as to Schleswig and Dietmarschen (which were temporarily captured by Denmark). The new Russian emperor, Peter III, was the duke of these lands. Thousands of young Holsteiners came to Russia to serve their duke, even when he was Grand Duke. At the same time, East Prussia was a rather poor and backward agrarian country, real backyards of Europe, Holstein and Schleswig were much richer principalities, and even with a unique geographical position that allowed them to control both the North and the Baltic Seas. Look at the map:
It was no longer the St. Petersburg "window to Europe", but "elite real estate" in the then "European Union" with a permanent "residence permit" - territories from which it was possible to freely obtain both the necessary specialists and technologies that were absent in Russia. And we know that the Europeans have always treated (and are) very negative about the transfer of advanced technologies to "barbaric" Russia. We have already spoken about the strategic position of these lands; powerful Russian military bases on their territory have changed a lot in the alignment of forces and in the further course of European history. Peter understood all this perfectly, and therefore, according to the agreement drawn up by him, Petersburg returned East Prussia to Frederick II, but only on condition that Schleswig and Dietmarschen returned to Russia, for the conquest of which Frederick undertook to allocate an army of 20 thousand people to help Russia: 15 thousand infantry and 5 thousand cavalry. Negotiations with Denmark were scheduled for July 1762. If they were unsuccessful, Russia and Prussia began military operations against the Danes, and no one doubted their success. And even after that, Peter retained the right, at his discretion, to stop the withdrawal of Russian troops from Prussia "in view of the continuing unrest in Europe." That is, the "Western Group of Forces" could remain in Prussia for many years and, perhaps, decades, guaranteeing the "obedience" of Frederick II and his "complaisance". While Peter III was alive, Russian troops, as before, controlled Prussia. Moreover, a Russian squadron from Revel, who had reinforced them, approached Konigsberg (the Kronstadt squadron was ordered to be ready for the campaign). Stationary weapons and food warehouses were organized. In addition, Frederick II undertook to support candidates convenient for Russia for the thrones of the Commonwealth and the still independent Courland. Now the lines of the German treatise quoted in the first article have become clearer for you - Ryzhov V. A. Peter III. Too good for your age ?:
First Peter is great, But the Third was the best.
Under him Russia was great, The envy of a pacified Europe."
But Catherine's position was extremely precarious, and on Frederick II's desk were letters incriminating her, with obligations to "be grateful." And therefore she did not dare to demand from the king the fulfillment of his part of the obligations, while continuing to fulfill the obligations of the Russian side - in exchange for the recognition of her rights to the Russian throne. By order of Catherine II, the Russian army, without any conditions, was withdrawn from Prussia. This was accompanied by unrestrained patriotic chatter, the Prussian king was even called a "monster" in the manifesto, to which the pragmatic Frederick did not pay any attention: even call it a pot, just do what is required of you. And two years later, Catherine had already openly concluded an alliance treaty with Prussia - not as profitable as Peter III, but, in general terms, very similar. This was the inglorious finale of Russia's participation in the Seven Years' War, which was absolutely unnecessary for it.
And what about Holstein and Schleswig? Schleswig was never conquered from Denmark, but in Holstein the power of the son of Peter III was not disputed by anyone. When Pavel grew up a little, thousands of his German subjects voluntarily came to serve him - despite the terrible and sad fate of their predecessors from the Petershtadt garrison (this will be discussed in detail in the next article). But in 1767, Catherine forced Paul to abandon the Holstein and Stormarn, which belonged to him by right, in exchange for the counties of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, located in northwestern Germany. This unequal and extremely disadvantageous for Paul, the exchange of territories took place in 1773 - after his coming of age. Catherine deliberately deprived her unloved son of loyal and loving subjects. In Kiel, this decision was taken very painfully, there even began to appear prophecies about the return of Pavel's father, Peter (for more details, in the following articles, which will also tell about the "posthumous adventures of the murdered Russian emperor). And Oldenburg and Delmenhorst Catherine (again, on behalf of Paul) already 4 years later - in 1777, "presented" the hereditary sovereign possession to the former prince-bishop of Lubeck Friedrich August, mediocrely losing all the European possessions of her husband and son. And after all this she called herself "Great".
Russia lost such an emperor as a result of a coup d'état organized by Catherine. And what kind of "mother-empress" did our unfortunate country acquire?
Age of Golden Catherine
The old lady lived
Nice and a little prodigal
Voltaire was the first friend, She wrote the order, the fleets burned, And she died while boarding a ship. (The ship, in this case, is not a ship).
A. S. Pushkin.
Catherine II never learned to speak Russian correctly - many memoirists report that she distorted even the simplest words, a multitude of "crudely Russified French expressions", and an accent that she could not get rid of. By the way, Ekaterina also spoke and wrote in German, by her own admission, "badly." The empress knew French better than the other two, but, according to the recollections of educated contemporaries, speaking it, she used a large number of Italian and German words, and some even report Catherine's "tabloid jargon". This is not surprising, since the parents did not pin great hopes on the girl, and, as Catherine herself said, as if apologizing, already in Petersburg:
"I was raised to marry some small neighboring prince, and I was taught accordingly."
And she also remembered her mentor - Mademoiselle Cardel, who knew almost everything, although she herself never studied, almost like her student."
According to K. Valishevsky, the main merit of Mademoiselle Cardel was that she saved the future empress "from slaps in the face lavished by her mother on every most trifling occasion, obeying not reason, but mood." And also - "from the spirit of intrigue, lies, low instincts, petty ambition, reflecting in itself the whole soul of several generations of German small princelings, inherent in the wife of Christian Augustus."
The former lady of state of Catherine, Baroness Printen, told everyone that
"Closely following the course of the teachings and successes of the future empress, I did not find any special qualities and talents in her."
It is not surprising that in Catherine's story about her first meeting with Peter (then still Karl Peter Ulrich), we hear outright envy:
"For the first time I saw the Grand Duke, who was really handsome, kind and well-mannered. Miracles were told about an eleven-year-old boy."
All this does not at all speak of Catherine's natural stupidity. Awareness of her shortcomings, as you know, is the first step in solving the problem, and her constant half-joking statements about her lack of education were supposed to "disarm" her interlocutors and make them condescend to a girl from a German backwater. In Russia, Catherine read a lot, trying to compensate for the shortcomings of her education, and achieved some success.
Worse was something else. Corresponding with the great French philosophers, Catherine argued that
"Slaves and servants exist from the creation of the world, and this is not at all disgusting to God. Therefore, the rabble should not be educated, otherwise it will not obey us."
And she said that "drunken people are easier to manage."
Mark Aldanov wrote that Catherine:
"I knew perfectly well that under no laws did not have the slightest rights to the imperial throne of Russia … She, a Zerbst German woman, occupied the Russian throne only thanks to the seizure carried out … by a bunch of crazy guards officers."
and
“She understood well that she could hold on to the throne only by pleasing the nobility and officers in every possible way in order to prevent or at least reduce the danger of a new palace coup. This is what she did. Her whole internal policy was to ensure that the life of the officers at her court and in the guards units was as profitable and pleasant as possible."
And this is an absolutely fair opinion. It is known that the empress herself was rather modest in food preferences: they say that she loved boiled beef with lightly salted cucumbers, apples, her favorite drink currant juice. However, in order to please the courtiers, the palace kitchen spent 90 rubles a day on the preparation of various dishes. For comparison: the annual salary of a drummer in the police office was 4 rubles 56 kopecks, a cabby of the General Army Staff office - 6 rubles, an employee of a linen manufactory - 9 rubles, a barber - 18 rubles, an army sergeant - 45 rubles, a painter of the imperial porcelain factory - 66 rubles.
However, 90 rubles a day - it was still "godly". Catherine's favorite Grigory Potemkin spent 800 rubles a day on the "table" - more than the doctor earned in a year (249, 96 rubles) and even an official of the 6th rank of the Table of Ranks - a collegiate adviser (750 rubles).
The empress was also indulgent towards high-ranking embezzlers. Catherine II replied to the president of the military collegium, petitioning for a poor officer:
"If he is poor, it is his fault, he commanded a regiment for a long time."
(Kirpichnikov A. I., Bribery and corruption in Russia. M., 1997, pp. 38-40.)
When Paul came to power, he discovered that there were 1541 fictitious officers in the Horse Guards alone. And in the Preobrazhensky regiment (in which only nobles served), there were 6,000 non-commissioned officers for 3,500 privates, while only 100 of them were in the ranks. And here we are all talking about some mythical "second lieutenant Kizhe".
Even "sweeter" was the life of Catherine's favorites, the last of whom, Platon Zubov, held 36 government positions at once, for each of which he received a good "salary." Here are some of them: General Feldzheikhmeister, General Director of all fortifications of the Empire, Commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Voznesenskaya Light Cavalry and the Black Sea Cossack Army, Adjutant General of Her Imperial Majesty, Chief of the Cavalry Corps, Governor General of Yekaterinoslavsky, Voznesensky Military Collegium. His services in bed, apparently, were so great that he was a Knight of the Orders of St. Andrew the Apostle, St. Alexander Nevsky, St. Vladimir Equal to the Apostles, 1st degree, the Royal Prussian Orders of the Black and Red Eagles, the Polish Orders of the White Eagle and St. Stanislav, the Grand Duke of Holstein Order Saint Anne.
But the official "salary" is a mere trifle compared to the "gifts". For 6 years of "chance" Platon Zubov received from Catherine II more than Grigory Potemkin in 20 years, without spending (as contemporaries say) "not a single ruble on the needs of society." Closer to old age, his stinginess took on completely disgusting features, it is assumed that it was he who became the prototype of "The Covetous Knight" in one of Pushkin's "Little Tragedies".
The English envoy James Harris (he was ambassador to Russia from 1778 to 1783) in one of the reports reported to London the alleged spending of Catherine on the maintenance of her favorites (modern researchers consider the data given by Harris to be quite reliable). According to Harris, the Orlov family received from 1762 to 1783 from 40 to 50 thousand "souls" of serfs (recall that only the "souls" of male peasants were taken into account, add more women) and, in total, 17 million rubles - in cash and palaces, jewelry, dishes.
AS Vasilchikov in less than two years - 100 thousand rubles in silver, 50 thousand rubles in gold "trinkets", a house with full furnishings worth 100 thousand rubles, an annual pension of 20 thousand rubles and 7 thousand "souls" of peasants.
GA Potemkin only in the first two years of the "case" received 37 thousand peasants and about 9 million rubles.
On our own behalf, we add that Potemkin received gifts from Catherine in the amount of about 50 million rubles in total, but this was not enough - after his death it turned out that he owed creditors 2 million 600 thousand rubles, most of these debts were paid from the state treasury.
Let us return to Harris' report:
In a year and a half P. V. Zavadovsky received 6 thousand "souls" of peasants in Little Russia, 2 thousand - in Poland, 1,800 - in Russian provinces, 80 thousand rubles in jewelry, 150 thousand rubles in cash, a service worth 30 thousand rubles and a pension of 10 thousand rubles.
SG Zorich, in one year of his "service" in the Empress's bedroom, received estates in Poland and Livonia, the command of the Order of Malta in Poland, 500 thousand rubles in cash and 200 thousand rubles in jewelry.
IN Korsakov for sixteen months - a total of 370 thousand rubles and 4 thousand peasants in Poland.
The favorites and confidants of the empress, the rich landowners-slave-owners and their sons - the officers of the guards regiments, could indeed call the "age of Catherine" "Golden", but how did the people live under this empress? This is what Boris Mironov writes in his article "When was life good in Russia?" (Motherland. No. 4. M., 2008, p. 19):
"The standard of living of the taxable population most intensively declined under Catherine II, less sensitive under Elizabeth Petrovna and Peter I, and, contrary to popular belief, increased under Anna Ioannovna."
That is, Catherine II with her voracious and insatiable favorites in the ruin of the people of Russia surpassed even Peter I, about whom V. Klyuchevsky said that he "ruined the fatherland worse than any enemy."
One of the indicators of the impoverishment of peasants during the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna and, especially, Catherine II, was the decrease in the average height of Russian men by 3.5 cm. Therefore, in 1780-1790. when recruiting recruits, the growth qualifications had to be lowered - in order to recruit at least someone into the army.
The English ambassador Harris, already mentioned by us, wrote in 1778:
"I find that Catherine's good qualities were exaggerated and her shortcomings belittled."
K. Valishevsky noted that "in the art of managing the modern press, Catherine has reached perfection" and points out that there was no shortage of people willing to sell their pen profitably:
"The success of Diderot (from whom Catherine bought a library at a high price in 1765) thundered all over Europe, and everywhere, wherever there were poets or philosophers in need, compilers of the Encyclopedia or employees of the Almanac of the Muses, there were those who wanted to more profitably settle down to the new Olympus, who presented such tempting hopes … To be well received in Petersburg, one had to praise without measure and flatter without looking back."
Catherine's exactingness to sycophants was so high that when
in 1782, Leveck's History of Russia (L'Histoire de Russie, de L'Evesque) appeared, the first complete story published in Russia and compiled according to solid documents, in which the author calls on posterity flattery, genius, talents and good deeds of this monarch”, Catherine felt dissatisfied with this response … What did these pitiful compliments mean for the goddess who eclipsed Alexander the Great in history and ousted Minerva from Olympus? Catherine was indignant; Leveque and his collaborator - Leclerc - appeared in her eyes as "scoundrels who humiliate the importance of Russia", "unpleasant annoying animals."
When
Senac de Meilan, who was striving to receive the title of the official historiographer of the great reign, in his efforts went so far as to compare Catherine with the temple of St. Peter in Rome … the empress announced that the comparison "is not worth ten sous."
(K. Valishevsky, "Catherine II and the Opinion of Europe".)
Jean-Paul Marat, who, unlike Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau and other less famous philosophers and writers, did not receive handouts from Catherine, wrote about Semiramis of the North:
"Thanks to her vanity and the instinct of imitation … she took some measures, which, however, have no value for the happiness of society, but contributed only to the ruin of the state … to satisfy vanity and love of pomp … She gave herself credit: without waiting for the public to create her glory, she hired venal feathers that sing her praises."
A. Pushkin, too, did not flatter himself with the false gold of the "century of Catherine." Here is what he says about her in his Notes on Russian History of the 18th Century:
"Over time, history will assess the impact of her reign on morals: it will reveal the cruel activity of its despotism under the guise of meekness and tolerance, the people oppressed by the governors, the treasury plundered by lovers, will show important mistakes in its political economy, nullity in legislation, disgusting buffoonery in relations with philosophers her centuries - and then the voice of the deceived Voltaire will not rid her glorious memory of the curse of Russia."
And this is the opinion of Alexander Herzen:
"What an amazing era, the imperial throne is likened to Cleopatra's bed! A crowd of oligarchs, strangers, favorites brought an unknown child to Russia, a German woman, they elevated her to the throne, and gave her name to whip blows to anyone who decided to object and oppose."
Here Herzen is in solidarity with Frederick II, who said that the role of Catherine in the conspiracy was minimal: truly "serious" people used her as a battering ram against the legitimate emperor inconvenient for them. It was assumed that she would take the place of the regent with her son and would live for her own pleasure, without interfering in anything. It sounds funny, but even 19-year-old "Yekaterina Malaya" - Dashkova, then considered herself a very important political figure and insisted on the regency of "Catherine the Bolshoi". But Catherine II twisted everyone around her finger: relying on the "janissaries" controlled by Orlov, she declared herself empress. Dashkova, unlike many others (the same N. Panin), did not orientate herself in time, for which she paid when Catherine "came into power" and felt confidently on the throne. In 1764, under the pretext of observing mourning for her deceased husband, the empress sent Dashkova to Moscow, and in 1769 - to "bring up children" abroad. In 1783, it seems, there was a rapprochement of old friends: Catherine II allowed Dashkova to return to Russia and appointed her director of the Academy of Sciences, but in 1794 she dismissed her, and Paul I was sent to a village near Novgorod.
But back to Catherine II and her "golden age".
In her work "Catherine II, her origin, intimate life and politics", published in 1903, A. V. Stepanov (who, by the way, talking about Peter III, repeats all the "jokes" of his predecessors and calls the emperor a "half-idiot") wrote:
“The court of the“great”Catherine appears to a historian studying Russia as a huge hotbed of moral contagion, which spread from the steps of the throne to all strata of Russian society … a monument to human vileness and dissipation … Neither the people nor the government cared about each other. The first completely ignored the opinion of its people, and the latter, being crushed morally and physically, and burdened with unbearable taxes and taxes, represented a silent mass, standing outside any laws … A gang of ungodly insolent … now pounced on the state treasury and began to endow themselves with different insignia and honorary positions. And this bastard, who surrounded the harlot who was enthroned, shamelessly and impudently called herself the new government."
Ya. L. Barskov, student of V. O. Klyuchevsky and teacher G. V. Vernadsky, one of the few who was admitted to the analysis of the manuscripts of the palace archive, editor and commentator of the 12-volume academic edition of the works of Catherine II, also speaks of her extremely critically:
"Lying was the queen's main tool; all her life, from early childhood to ripe old age, she used this tool, wielding it like a virtuoso, and deceived parents, governess, husband, lovers, subjects, foreigners, contemporaries and descendants."
Oddly enough, many Soviet and contemporary Russian historians turned out to be more lenient towards Catherine II than the researchers of Tsarist Russia. This is a manifestation of the notorious "Stockholm Syndrome": in our country, the descendants of serfs often identify themselves with the oppressors of their ancestors. At that time, they imagine themselves, at least, as lieutenants of the capital's guards regiments (or better, at once colonels) or young countesses dancing a mazurka at imperial balls with cinematic guards. Even V. Pikul in his novel "With the Pen and the Sword" deceives us:
"What would we do, reader, if you and I lived at that time? Probably, we would have served, yes! A hard, silver-laced scarf around the neck (does not warm), on the side there is a wobbly skewer."
The same lieutenant, only an army one, I guess. No, Valentin Savvich, the absolute majority of modern Russians at that time would have bent their backs in corvee in the estates of these lieutenants and cavalry guards near Smolensk or Tula. Or they hunched over at the Demidovs' iron foundries or the linen factories of the relatives of Pushkin's wife, the Goncharovs. Some of the angry and capricious lady scratched their heels, as in this engraving:
Frederic Lacroix. "Pastime", 1840s The serfs scratch the heels of the lady
And if someone served, then a private, and the whole village would cry on the wires for him - as if dead, knowing that his life awaits him a little better than hard labor. The poor fellow will be branded with a cross in the palm of their hand, and will be given to the regimental non-commissioned officers who "train" the soldiers according to the principle: "beat ten recruits, but learn one."
And then - on a campaign against the Turks or Swedes, and, during this war, the probability of dying from typhus or dysentery will be several times higher than from a Turkish saber or a Swedish bullet. Here are the data at the disposal of historians for the army of Nikolayev's time: from 1825 to 1850. the Russian army consisted of 2,600,497 soldiers. 300,233 people died in the battles, 1,062,839 died of diseases.
(Bershtein A. Empire of facades. // History. No. 4. M., 2005, p. 17.)
There is no reason to think that it was different under Catherine II.
And the sailors' situation is no better - it is not for nothing that galleys in the Russian fleet were officially called "hard labor" (this is a literal translation of the Italian word galera into Russian).
There are no direct and legitimate descendants of princes and counts among modern Russians, nothing can be done.
Recognizing the obvious things - the low moral qualities of Catherine II, the double usurpation of power (not having the rights to the Russian throne, she took the crown from her husband and did not give it to her son), the murder of two legitimate emperors, the transformation of serfdom into classic slavery and the dumping of the country into a real civil war ("Pugachevshchina"), now they often talk about this in a tongue twister. The emphasis is on Russia's victories in the wars with Turkey, the annexation of the Crimea, and the development of the lands of Novorossia. However, at that time Russia was going through a heroic phase of its ethnogenesis - a stage of ascent. PA Rumyantsev, AV Suvorov, MF Kamensky, FF Ushakov, Russian soldiers and sailors would have won under any emperor. And the vector of natural age-old interests of Russia pushed it precisely to the Black Sea - in order to once and for all solve the problem of the wasp nest of the Crimean Khanate, to develop empty black earth lands, to get free access to the Mediterranean Sea.
However, how many people, both in Russia and around the world, read the works of serious historians? The main apologist for Catherine II in our country was V. S. Pikul. Before the publication of his famous novel Favorite, this empress was known to the overwhelming majority of the population of our country mainly for scabrous "anecdotes" (anecdote in its original meaning is a short story about an interesting case, the literal meaning of the word is "unpublished"). The most indecent (and popular) of them is the bike, which became widespread in the French royal court after the death of Catherine; among serious researchers, it was mentioned by the Polish historian K. Waliszewski, as a result of which a version even arose that he was its author. This historical legend was referring to the British actress Helen Mirren, who played the title role in the TV series Catherine the Great, when she said in an interview with the Sun newspaper:
"I have friends, by the way, feminists, who said: What will you have with the horse there, in the film?"
Due to the widespread occurrence of this kind of "jokes" in the imperial House of the Romanovs, they did not like talking about this empress, the topic of Catherine II was taboo in their circle, any mention of it in the presence of Nicholas I, Alexander II or Alexander III was considered a terrible "bad manners".
But Valentin Pikul did the almost impossible - he completely rehabilitated not only Catherine II, but even some of her favorites.
But enough about Catherine for now. In the following articles we will talk about the conspiracy against Peter III, and then about the circumstances of the assassination of this emperor and his "posthumous adventures".
