In the 18th and early 20th centuries, a wide range of secret societies of all kinds operated in Russia. These include sects, Orders, Masonic lodges, political organizations. In addition, at different times in Russia there were secret societies, whose members hid their activities due to its inconsistency with moral norms. These included the "Evin Club" that existed under Catherine II and the "Pigs" society under Alexander I. Undoubtedly, similar organizations operated at the beginning of the 20th century. Clubs, student and trade unions could be secret. However, there is no need to talk about any of their influence on politics. Secret nationalist organizations that fought for the independence of various peoples of Russia stand apart. The Order of the Templars, Rosicrucians, Jesuits, and revolutionary organizations set themselves political tasks. The worldview of statesmen could be influenced by their long-term participation in Masonic lodges and sects. It is these secret organizations that will be at the center of this essay.
In a monarchy, influence on the country's politics could be achieved by influencing the emperor and major government officials. There was another way - the organization of social movements or the creation of certain moods among the masses. This is the path taken by revolutionary organizations, some sects and religious societies. Masonic lodges and Orders have used both methods in their practice. The results of this activity in Russia are to be assessed.
The growth in the number of secret organizations in Russia began in the second half of the 18th century. At this time, a number of "national" sects appeared in Russia - Dukhobors, eunuchs, Khlysty. Despite the fact that some of the sects, for example, the Dukhobors, could have been organized by the Quakers, they had no further connection with the foreign countries. Their followers set themselves purely religious tasks and acted in the lower strata of society. At the same time, Alexander I, who favored the sectarians, personally visited the head of the eunuchs, Kondraty Selivanov. Persons from the emperor's entourage were part of the sect of N. F. Tatarinova, who practiced elements of the practice of the Khlysty. At a certain stage, the indulgence of the authorities led to the expansion of the influence of the sects. A somewhat different situation developed in Russia around the sects, which included German subjects, they often occupied prominent positions. The Hernguthers played a significant role in this respect. In 1764, Catherine II presented a house in St. Petersburg to sectarians who came to Russia, and they received land on the Volga (the colony of Sarepta). At Moscow University, the Hernguthers acted simultaneously with the Rosicrucians. Gernguter I. I. Wiegand recalled that he was accepted into the service at the university under the patronage of the Rosicrucian J. G. Schwartz, who, before his death, expressed a desire to become a Hernguter.1 In the 19th century, Count K. A. Leven, a trustee of the University of Dorpat, was a political opponent of the Minister of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education A. N. Golitsyn. The clash took place precisely on religious grounds. In the last years of the reign of Alexander I, a number of high-ranking officials were members of the I. E. Gossner sect operating in St. Petersburg. At the beginning of the century, the society of "ghosts" "The People of God" in the capital was formed by Count T. Leshchits-Grabyanka. Although he himself was arrested and died in prison, one of his followers, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, continued the meetings of the society. Quite unexpectedly, the "Grabyanka Society" or "The People of God" continued their work under Nicholas I until the natural death of its participants. Despite the fact that the above sects were of foreign origin and involved high-ranking officials in their ranks, their members did not set themselves political tasks. There could be no talk of any unity among the sectarians. Each direction considered only themselves "God's chosen ones" and criticized competitors.
A different picture is presented by political organizations pursuing revolutionary goals. The Decembrist organizations "Union of Salvation", "Union of Prosperity", "Northern" and "Southern" societies were among the first to enter the Russian arena. Their tasks included changing the political system in the country through a military coup. During the reign of Alexander II, the largest revolutionary organizations were Land and Freedom, Black Redistribution, and People's Repression. At the end of the 19th century, underground political parties appeared in Russia, aiming to overthrow the monarchy. In a number of cases, opposition political currents received support from abroad. The theory, according to which a common governing center stood behind the backs of revolutionary organizations, has already become classical. Most often, the guiding force is called the Masons.
Masonic lodges, Knights Templar and Rosicrucian orders began to operate actively in Russia from the middle of the 18th century. The Order of the Jesuits stood apart, aiming to protect the Catholic Church, including from the Freemasons. The Jesuits infiltrated the organization of the Freemasons, tried to impose Christian dogma on them. There is still an opinion that the Jesuits were involved in the creation of the Orders of Neotamliers and Golden Rosicrucians. The Jesuits also took part in political intrigues. In 1762 the Order was banned in France, and in 1767 the King of Spain announced the abolition of the Order. Catherine II allowed the Jesuits on the territory of the Russian Empire to continue their work. The Jesuits tried to influence the political situation in Russia under Paul I and Alexander I. According to legend, on the day before Paul's assassination, the Jesuit General Gruber did not manage to sign his decree on the subordination of the ROC to the Pope. It is believed that before his death, Alexander I sent his adjutant Michaud de Boretour to the Pope for the same purpose. However, the more frequent seduction of the Orthodox to Catholicism led to the fact that in 1815 the Order was expelled from the capital of the Russian Empire, and in 1820 - from the country. At this time, the Pope had already resumed the activities of the Jesuits in Europe. Many anti-Masonic works belonged to them. The largest of them was the works of Augustin Barruel (1741-1820) - "The Volterians, or the story of the Jacobins, revealing all the anti-Christian malice and mysteries of Masonic lodges that have an impact on all European powers" in 12 volumes and their abridged version - "Notes on Jacobins, revealing all anti-Christian intrigues and mysteries of Masonic lodges that have an impact on all European powers”, translated and published in Russia. Most likely, the Jesuits compiled a document that was kept in the archives of the Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich. He was quoted in his article "Decembrists Freemasons" by Semevsky: "Freemasons must grow and multiply in the shadow of a secret and repeat the terrible vows about the right to take revenge even with a weapon for breaking the promise to keep it, while society should set a rule that they do not do anything contrary to the law of religion. and morals. And this secret of the greatest importance should be kept only in the lodge of the 5th degree, made up of some architects, assigned to the management and restoration of the construction of the Temple of Solomon. All the rest will only be told that in our society they are especially advised to provide help and mercy to each other. "How plausible this passage is from an unknown Masonic document will be seen from the following brief review of the history of Masonic lodges and Orders.
The Masonic movement that came to Russia in the 18th century was never united. Fierce rivalry reigned between the various currents. In Russia, in their development, the Masonic systems followed in the European channel. The first Russian lodges worked according to the "English" system under the leadership of IP Elagin. Their work took place in only three degrees, were simple and practically not documented. The foreign lodge, from which permits for work and installation documents were obtained, controlled only the compliance of the work with the Masonic statutes. Elagin did not receive any orders from abroad.
Everything changed with the advent of higher degree systems in Russia. The most influential of these was the "strict observation" charter, which hid the restored Order of the Knights Templar. In 1754 the charter was introduced in Germany by Baron K. Hund. The main idea was that the Knights of the Templar Order survived in Scotland and continued to keep the secret rituals and relics of the Jerusalem Temple. It was through their efforts that Freemasonry was allegedly created, which was also controlled by them. The leadership of the Order was called "secret chiefs". Already in the sixth degree, the initiate became a Knight Templar. The Order was ruled by strict discipline and the obligation to obey the younger to the elders; only Christians were accepted. The Templars dreamed of reviving the Order in full and returning the land to it. In this regard, directives were sent to various Provinces of the Order (to different countries), designed to consolidate the efforts of the knights. In Russia, German and Swedish Provinces of the Order opened their lodges. In 1763-1765 in St. Petersburg the chapter of the "strict observation" system was opened by I. A. Shtark. In 1779, the Berlin lodge of the Three Globes (strict observation) opened the Three Banners lodge in Moscow.
The "Swedish" system brought in by A. B. Kurakin in 1777 had a strong influence on the situation in Russian Freemasonry. Its arrangement resembled "strict surveillance" and also included the degrees of the Knights Templar. At the time when the "Swedish" system came to Russia, its head, Duke Karl of Südermanland, entered into an agreement with the "strict observation" system and became the grand master of a number of provinces (he reformed the "Swedish" system after the model of "strict observation"). Following this, the duke announced that Russia was subordinate to the Swedish province he headed. From the Russian lodges they began to demand reports on work, transfers of funds and the appointment of foreigners to leading positions. In 1780, the Duke of Südermanland led the Swedish fleet in the war with Russia. The contacts of Russian masons with Sweden aroused the indignation of Catherine II. Police checks began on the boxes, some of which were supposed to close. Feeling the fragility of their position, the leaders of the three lodges of mothers of different subordination, A. P. Tatishchev, N. N. Trubetskoy and N. I. Novikov, agreed in Moscow to get rid of Swedish rule. The actions of the Duke of Südermanland were also dissatisfied in Germany. The head of the Scottish lodges of the "strict surveillance" system, Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick, announced the convening of a Masonic convention in Wilhelmsbad to discuss the further development of the system. The convention was originally scheduled for 1781, but took place in the summer of 1782. The Russian "brothers" of the three lodges of mothers who had joined together sent IG Schwartz to Berlin, who convinced Braunschweigsky to represent their interests at the convention. Although the Wilhelmsbad Convention ruled that the Templars were not the founders of Freemasonry and instituted a new system, the "Swedish" system in Russia continued to exist intermittently in Russia until the banning of lodges in 1822.
Portrait of Nikolai Novikov (artist D. G. Levitsky). 1790s
At different times, other systems operated in Russia - "melissino", "Reicheleva", "amended Scottish charter". Despite the fact that each of them was popular at one time, they had no consequences for the Russian Masonic movement and were no longer practiced in the 19th century (with the exception of a few lodges). The situation was completely different with the "Rosicrucian" system brought by J. G. Schwartz from Berlin in 1782. The Order of the Gold and Rose Cross appeared in Austria and Germany in the middle of the 18th century. Its leaders asserted that their brotherhood had operated secretly since ancient times and was known in Europe under the name of the Rosicrucians. The order had a complex structure and was bound by strict discipline. The main occupation of the Rosicrucians was alchemy, but they also had political goals. The Order assumed that the Second Coming was to take place in 1856 and it was necessary to prepare the world for this event. The Rosicrucians tried to recruit the crowned heads, to enter their entourage, and to direct politics. In 1782, the center of the Order was in Berlin, headed by the Prussian masons I. H. Velner, I. R. Bischofswerder and I. H. Teden. It was they who oversaw the new Russian section. Instructions, orders, information messages were sent from Berlin to Russia in a stream. Soon the Russian branch of the Order was headed by Baron G. Ya. Schroeder sent from Berlin. In a short period of time, the Rosicrucians were able to establish control over most of the Russian lodges and came into contact with the heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich. Such activity frightened Catherine II, and repressions fell upon the Russian Masons. In 1786, by an unspoken prohibition of the Empress, almost all lodges stopped working. However, the Rosicrucians did not obey the ban and continued their meetings in a "close circle." The result in 1792 was the arrest of their leaders and the imprisonment of N. I. Novikov in the Shlisselburg fortress.
With the accession of Paul I, the prohibitions from the Rosicrucians were lifted, some of them were rewarded and brought closer to the throne. But the new emperor did not allow the lodges to resume their work. Once again, the Freemasons began to gather openly only under Alexander I. During this period, the leaders of the "Swedish" and "French" statutes came to the fore. Freemasonry became a fashion and spread widely in high society. In the 19th century, the Rosicrucians did not manage to restore their influence, since their leaders N. I. Novikov and I. A. Pozdeev were unable to share power among themselves. During this period, Russian Masons did not have active ties with foreign centers. The danger came from the other side. Secret organizations created in the army and guards (Decembrists) took the structure of Masonic lodges as a basis and even tried to use some lodges for their own purposes. The result was a number of complaints to the emperor from the leaders of the Freemasons, who called to restore order in the movement. In 1822, lodges and secret societies were banned in Russia. Officials gave a subscription not to belong to them anymore. Since the ban passed, formally, it was not possible to terminate the meeting of lodges, or to prevent the uprising of the Decembrists.
After 1822, only the Rosicrucians continued to work in Russia. Their Moscow group existed until the beginning of the 20th century. There were no major officials and political figures among the Rosicrucians of that time, so they could only exert a moral and cultural influence on society. In the second half of the 19th century, Masons appeared among Russians, who had undergone initiation in European countries. In 1906-1910, with the sanction of the "Great East of France", the lodges opened works in Russia. This Masonic organization proclaimed an orientation towards the protection of liberal values, the fight against autocracy and admitted atheists into its ranks. Most of the Russians who entered the ranks of the Freemasons (mainly professors) did not want to actively engage in revolutionary work, limiting themselves to moral and ethical searches. For this reason, the radical leaders of the movement in February 1910 announced the euthanasia of Masonic lodges in Russia. As a result, only 37 people out of 97 Masons entered the new organization "The Great East of the Peoples of Russia". At the head was the cadet N. V. Nekrasov, in the new lodges they used a simplified ritual, made political reports and discussed political issues. Everything that concerns the "preparation of the February Revolution by the Freemasons" cannot yet be documented. It is believed that already in 1916 they prepared the composition of the new government. The "Great East of the Peoples of Russia" united under its leadership various political forces. Military men, grand dukes, writers, socialists were members of different lodges at the level of leadership. Taking advantage of the collapse of the autocracy, the Freemasons managed to bring their people to power in Russia (part of the members of the "Provisional Government"). Then the crash followed. I would like to note that, unlike the Bolsheviks, the Freemasons did not cooperate with the Germans, the enemies of Russia. On the contrary, the allies staked on them, interested in Russia continuing the war (and no less in the fact that Russia was not among the victor countries). However, it was the Masons, not the Bolsheviks, who did everything to end the monarchy. I would like to believe that these people were blinded by hopes for a new democratic future for the country and overestimated their own strength. Scattered Masonic groups continued to exist in the USSR until the early 1930s, until the OGPU ended them.
From the beginning of the 18th century, Freemasonry began to spread in Europe. From the very beginning, this caused a negative reaction from the official churches and monarchs. In 1738, Pope Clement XII issued an edict against Freemasonry. Catholics were forbidden to join the lodges on pain of excommunication. In subsequent years, Freemasonry was banned in Spain (1740), Portugal (1743), Austria (1766), in the latter case the ban also applied to the Rosicrucians. Despite the repressive measures, the European aristocracy continued to actively participate in the work of the Masonic lodges. The fashion for Freemasonry became so stable that European monarchs took part in the movement, and sometimes even tried to lead it. In Sweden, Duke Karl of Südermanland (later the Swedish king) became the head of the Masons. In Prussia, the brother of Frederick II, Duke Ferdinand of Braunschweig, headed the Scottish lodges of the "strict observation" charter. In France, the Duke of Orleans Louis-Philippe I became the great master of the "Great East of France". The Rosicrucians made the "largest acquisition". They succeeded in attracting the heir to the Prussian throne, Friedrich Wilhelm II, who became the Prussian king in 1786. The leaders of the Rosicrucians Welner, Bischofswerder, and Du Bosac became the ministers of the new government. Their dominion proved to be short-lived and unproductive. After the death of the king in 1797, they lost their positions, and with them their influence on politics.
Similar processes took place in Russia. Under Elizaveta Petrovna, the government paid attention to the Masonic lodges and waged a struggle against them. However, already Peter III, as a zealous follower of the Freemason Frederick II (an outstanding statesman and military leader), opened a box in Oranienbaum. The reign of the new emperor did not last long, and Catherine II, who removed him from the throne, undertook an investigation into her husband's Masonic activities (it is not known what ended). The Empress should have been unpleasantly struck by the fact that A. Ushakov, an associate of Lieutenant V. Mirovich (who drowned in the river and did not take part in the attempt to free Ivan Antonovich), turned out to be a freemason. It seems that it is no coincidence that in the first years of the reign of Catherine II the Russian masons were headed by her protege and confidant I. P. Elagin. At first, the Empress was calm about the Freemasons, especially since her favorite “enlighteners” were also in the boxes. Everything changed when systems of high degrees began to come to Russia. Already in the directives received by the Russian masons from Karl Südermanland, it was ordered to pay special attention to the heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich, it was supposed to elect him as the head of the Russian masons. The Empress had no intention of handing over the throne to her son. Major Masons were close associates of Pavel Petrovich A. B. Kurakin, N. I. Panin, N. V. Repnin. The head of the chapter "Phoenix" Beber, in his note on Freemasonry, said that the "Swedish" system aroused the suspicions of Catherine II. She ordered the publication in Russia of a French satirical brochure about Freemasons "Anti-absurd Society". Then the Chief of Police, a Mason himself, advised the "brothers" to close their boxes. The leaders of the "Swedish" system A. B. Kurakin and G. P. Gagarin were removed from St. Petersburg.2
The next round of participation of Russian masons in politics was associated with the introduction of the Order of the Rosicrucians in Russia. So far, no instructions have been found that were sent to Moscow from Berlin, but one can trace the main directions of the development of the Russian section of the Order. Even before the adoption of Rosicrucianism, NI Novikov and his comrades rented a university printing house and arranged the translation, publication and distribution of Masonic literature. The Translation and Philological Seminaries were opened, where university students studied. One by one, magazines were opened and various societies were created. By the decision of the Wilhelmsbad Convention, NI Novikov and his comrades received the monopoly right to open lodges of the "Amended Scottish Rite" in Russia. They formed the governing bodies "Province" and "Chapter". The place of the Provincial Grand Master was left vacant, in the hope that the heir to the throne Pavel Petrovich would deign to accept it. 3 The Rosicrucians managed to take control of most of the leaders of Russian Masonic lodges. They paid special attention to Pavel Petrovich and his entourage. The order structures included those close to the Grand Duke S. I. Pleshcheev and N. V. Repnin. The architect V. I. Bazhenov kept in touch with Pavel Petrovich himself.
During the investigation, N. I. Novikov said that V. I. Bazhenov brought him a recording of his conversation with Pavel Petrovich. Novikov considered the material delivered to him so dangerous that he immediately wanted to burn it, but rewrote it and sent it to the Berlin leadership. The note, drawn up by Bazhenov, was presented by Catherine II to the Grand Duke. Pavel Petrovich replied in writing: “On the one hand, this document is a jumble of meaningless words, on the other, it is clearly drawn up with malicious intent.” 4 The Empress agreed that the “note” contained slander. As the memoirs of G. Ya. Schroeder show, the Rosicrucian leadership in Berlin was very interested in Pavel Petrovich and his entourage. Catherine II was frightened by the contacts of the Freemasons with the Grand Duke. She closely followed what was happening in Prussia around Frederick William II. The empress was indignant at the fact that the new king was being fooled by his Rosicrucian advisers (they called the spirit of his father). The result was an unspoken ban imposed on the work of lodges in Russia in 1786. The police authorities went around the premises of the boxes and warned their foremen that if they did not stop working, the articles of the "Charter of the Deanery" would be applied to them. The lodges closed, but the Rosicrucians continued their meetings. The result was the arrest of N. I. Novikov and the involvement of his comrades in the investigation.
The end of the 18th century was the scene of a fierce struggle between supporters of various systems of Freemasonry. There is no need to talk about any general management of secret organizations during this period. The exposure of the Order of the Illuminati caused a particular resonance, as a result of which its name became a household name. Even in the 19th century, Russian Rosicrucians warned their followers about the machinations of the Illuminati. A striking example of the struggle among the Freemasons is the message of the Rosicrucian Lodge "Frederick to the Golden Lion" at the Wilhelmsbad Convention in 1782. The "brothers" fell upon their former comrades, who broke away from the Rosicrucians and created their own Order of the Knights of the True Light. The Rosicrucians called the "knights of light" "Satanic disciples, copying God in their miracles." They were convinced that the "knights of light" would infiltrate the convention and interfere with its work.5 Another example is IP Elagin's comments about the followers of the "Carlsbad system" (as he called the Rosicrucians). The main accusations against the "Carlsbad system" were the following: self-interest of its members, superstition, the involvement of high-ranking officials, the prohibition of the entry into lodges of Masons of other systems. Among the characteristic features of the society of IG Schwartz Elagin pointed out that its members are instructed to "incessantly" read the Old and New Testaments, to open schools where the "brothers" teach. Elagin compared the "Carlsbad system" with the Order of the Jesuits.6 The rhetorician of the "Three Banners" lodge IF Vigelin subjected the order in the Rosicrucian lodges to harsh criticism. In a letter to an unknown person, he condemned the hypocrisy and greed of the "brothers". “Now the brothers were prescribed prayer, fasting, mortification of the flesh, and other exercises. Dreams, superstitions, miracles, and extravagance around the adepts became the order of the day. Reason was rejected, war was declared on it; those who clung to him were pushed aside and even persecuted with hatred. The most vulgar, absurd tales were spread; the air was saturated with the supernatural; they talked only about the appearance of ghosts, divine influence, the miraculous power of faith, "wrote Wegelin.7 After the exposure of the Illuminati Order, the Rosicrucian leadership in Berlin sent out orders that the secret codes, passwords and slogans of the first three degrees of the Order fell into the hands of the Illuminati. In addition, some Rosicrucians joined the ranks of the Illuminati, passing on the secrets of the Order to them. It was prescribed for all those who would use the old codes and signs, consider them the Illuminati and expel them from communication. Anyone who joined the Illuminati Order was to be expelled from the Rosicrucian Order.
The situation with Freemasonry during the reign of Paul I is very characteristic of the coverage of the topic of the influence of secret societies on politics. After his accession, first Yu. N. Trubetskoy, and a year later, N. N. Trubetskoy were appointed senators of Moscow departments and received the ranks of privy councilor. The same rank in 1796 was received by M. M. Kheraskov. I. P. Turgenev was appointed director of Moscow University and State Councilor. IV Lopukhin became a state councilor and state secretary. SI Pleshcheev was promoted to vice admiral and appointed to serve under the emperor, NV Repnin became field marshal general. Z. Y. Karnaev and A. A. Lenivtsev received promotions. Rosicrucian M. M. Desnitsky was made presbyter of the court church in Gatchina. Most of all, the new reign affected the fate of N. I. Novikov, M. I. Bagryanitsky and M. I. Nevzorov. The former were freed from the Shlisselburg fortress, and the latter from an insane asylum. However, the personality traits of Pavel Petrovich did not allow the Masonic movement to unfold again and the Rosicrucians to fully revive. FV Rostopchin recalled that, realizing the danger of the Freemasons, he took advantage of the trip in the emperor's carriage and "opened his eyes" to the Order. He talked about the connections of the Martinists with Germany, their desire to kill the Empress and their selfish goals. “This conversation dealt a mortal blow to the Martinists,” Rostopchin declared.9 Such a report is hard to believe, since empty rumors and real facts were fancifully intertwined in Rostopchin’s Note. In the "Note on the Masons of the Special Chancellery of the Ministry of Police" it was indicated that Pavel Petrovich, having arrived in Moscow for the coronation, gathered the leaders of the Masonic lodges and demanded that they not gather until his special order.10 Masons obeyed the will of the emperor, but the Rosicrucians began to revive the lodges even before murder of Pavel Petrovich.
During the reign of Catherine II, there were major government officials among Russian Masons. According to G. V. Vernadsky, the Imperial Council included four Masons in 1777, and three in 1787. Masons were in the Senate and the court staff (1777 - 11 chamberlains, in 1787 - six).11 The lodges included high-ranking military men, such as SK Greig and NV Repnin (headed the "marching" lodge). Among the Masons there were many representatives of the titled nobility and officials of the "middle hand". It is necessary to mention the curator of the Moscow University M. M. Kheraskov, the chairman of the Moscow provincial criminal chamber I. V. Lopukhin, the commander-in-chief in Moscow Z. G. Chernyshev, who served under his command S. I. Gamaley and I. A. Pozdeev. These people could provide patronage to the Freemasons, but they did not have enough strength to influence big politics.
The authorities tried to control the activities of the Freemasons. Police checks in lodges are known in 1780 and 1786. During the investigation, NI Novikov talked about attempts to introduce police agents into the lodges. It was about accepting an official of the secret office V. P. Kochubeev (the future Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs V. P. Kochubei) as a Freemason. “The search on our part or the intention of which in this case, truly I say, as before God, there was no; but they thought that he was ordered to do this by the commander-in-chief, in order to know what was going on in our boxes … By this very guess, they decided to introduce him into all the degrees that depended on us, so that he could see and know everything,”Novikov showed. 12 Thus, the alleged police agent was introduced to the fifth degree of the "Theoretical Degree of Solomon Sciences".
Joseph Alekseevich Pozdeev. Engraving by an unknown author
A completely different situation developed in Russia during the reign of Alexander I - during the "golden age" of Masonic lodges. At this time, the lodges of the "French" and "Swedish" systems became widespread. Freemasonry became a fashion, and nobles entered the lodges en masse. The Rosicrucians were still the most active. Preserved information about their attempts to influence officials. I. A. Pozdeev became the Masonic mentor of the Razumovsky brothers (A. K. Razumovsky - since 1810 the Minister of Public Education) and subdued the young leaders of the Freemasons S. S. Lansky and M. Yu. Vielgorsky. I. V. Lopukhin took care of M. M. Speransky for some time, N. I. Novikov and A. F. Labzin led D. P. Runich. Among the advice given by the Rosicrucians to their wards, we see mainly moral and ethical recommendations. The mentors concerned politics only when it came to the situation in Freemasonry. For example, in 1810, when the reform of the Masonic lodges was being prepared and A. K. Razumovsky entered the Committee developing it, Pozdeev gave him appropriate recommendations. Pozdeev was afraid of the official permission of the lodges, since random people could "pour" into Freemasonry en masse. He dreamed of the tacit resolution of Freemasonry and the creation in Moscow and St. Petersburg of two independent centers of control - Provincial Lodges. However, the reform was never carried out. The rivalry between the two leaders of the Rosicrucians - N. I. Novikov and I. A. Pozdeev - did not allow the full restoration of the Order of the Golden and Rosy Cross in Russia.
Alexander Nikolaevich Golitsyn. Portrait by K. Bryullov. 1840 g.
The closest friend of Alexander I, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, was involved in the Avignon Society. For a decade, the freemason R. A. Koshelev became the ideologist of reforms in the spiritual sphere. With his direct participation, events were held in Russia very reminiscent of the actions of the Rosicrucian ministers in Prussia. The English "Bible Society" was attracted to Russia. Membership in it has become almost mandatory for officials. In 1817, the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education was established, headed by A. N. Golitsyn, who received the nickname "extinguisher of education."The main problem is that no one was able to prove the fact that A. N. Golitsyn was accepted as a Freemason, and R. A. Koshelev, after his entry into power, had no Masonic connections. Golitsyn was an ideal executor of the emperor's will. He tried not to interfere in the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and was concerned about improving the welfare of the clergy and raising their prestige. There are cases when Freemasonry served as an obstacle to the career of those who served under Golitsyn's control. So D. P. Runich did not get the position of the director of the department, since it turned out that he was a member of the "Dying Sphinx" lodge.
We have no information about the connections of the 19th century Masonic lodges with European centers. As before, the lodges were self-financed and lived off membership fees and money paid for initiation and promotion in degrees. There is no information about the receipt of money by Russian Masons from abroad, on the contrary, in the 18th century the leadership of the "Swedish" and "Rosicrucian" systems demanded that part of the acceptance fee be sent to Stockholm and Berlin. The paths of government officials to the lodges were different. Often they entered in their youth, before taking high positions, often following the dictates of fashion. In this respect, the lodge of the "French" system "United Friends" is characteristic (there are more than 500 members in its list, compiled by A. I. Serkov). The box included Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, Duke Alexander Virtemberg, Count Stanislav Pototsky, Count Alexander Osterman, Major General N. M. Borozdin, I. A. Naryshkin (master of ceremonies of the court), A. H. Benkendorf and A. D. Balashov (Minister of Police). The police authorities gave the lodge the following characterization: “the acts of teaching had little, but the subject and purpose were none.” 13 Another remarkable phenomenon is the “Polar Star” lodge, created by direct order of Alexander I by the reformer of Freemasonry IA Fessler summoned to St. Petersburg … The lodge included officials of the Commission for the Drafting of Laws M. M. Speransky, M. L. Magnitsky, A. I. Turgenev, P. D. Lodiy, G. A. Rosenkampf, S. S. Uvarov, E. E. Ellisen and etc. It is curious that a short time spent in the lodge led Speransky to the fact that he wrote works on Masonic themes all his life. In the same way, in his youth, DPRunich, PDMarkelov, Yu. N. Bartenev, F. I. Pryanishnikov, V. N. Having long ceased visiting the lodges and taking up major government posts, they continued to study Masonic literature in their free time and even write their own Masonic writings. An even more interesting example is the student and pupil of I. V. Lopukhin A. I. Kovalkov. He was not officially a member of the lodges, but left behind him the deepest alchemical writings (he finished his service as a privy councilor). There is no need to talk about any influence of Freemasonry on the official activities of all these people.
No matter how favorable the liberalism of Alexander I was for the Masons, they never received official permission for their work. Moreover, in 1822, the only decree in Russian history was issued prohibiting the activities of Masonic lodges and secret societies (repeated by Nicholas I). Some leaders of the Freemasons also insisted on the introduction of the ban, worried about revolutionary elements getting into the lodges. Indeed, the Decembrists tried to use some lodges as branches of a secret society ("United Friends", "Chosen Michael"). However, they abandoned their plans, preferring to create their societies like lodges. Researcher VI Semevsky compared the statutes of the Russian lodge "Astrea" with the "Masonic old duties or basic laws" of 1723 and came to the conclusion that the Freemasons of the lodge "Astrea" were "faithful slaves of the Russian government." The researcher wrote that the statutes of the Astrea Lodge demanded the immediate expulsion of any "brother who rebelled against the state."The old English laws, on the other hand, did not provide for exclusion from the lodge for political views (although it was prescribed not to approve of "indignation"). Covering the conservative and pro-government views of the Russian Masons, Semevsky wondered how the Decembrists could have joined them, even for a short time.
In reality, lodges in Russia have never been secret organizations. Most often, they worked with the direct permission of the authorities. At the first request, they provided their acts for verification. The secrecy was largely formal. The meetings of the "circles" of the Rosicrucians were really secret. Grains of information have been preserved about their activities. They all testify to the fact that it was a religious and not a political organization.
The specific weight of Masons in the bureaucratic environment of the Alexander reign was great. At the same time, Masonic officials in their official activities were guided by personal and official, and not at all Masonic interests. This fact is most convincingly proved by the subscriptions collected from the Freemasons according to the decrees of 1822 and 1826. In both cases, the collection of information about Masons, officials and the military was of a formal nature (the authorities did not believe that they were a danger to the state). Many of them withheld information about membership in lodges and higher Masonic structures and did not bear responsibility. Even Nicholas I, who almost lost his throne as a result of the Decembrist uprising, calmly tolerated Masons in ministerial posts. He allowed A. N. Golitsyn to gather the Masons in a special office of the Post Department and gave them important assignments. Repressive measures were not taken against the Rosicrucians who were gathering in Moscow, although there were police reports on this score. It must be assumed that the Russian emperors did not believe in the possibility of a worldwide Masonic conspiracy. They paid tribute to the business qualities of the Freemason officials, "turning a blind eye" to their original hobbies.
The October Manifesto of 1905 opened up opportunities for legal party and parliamentary activity in Russia. In the context of the World War, the idea that the country could not win under the rule of Nicholas II was successfully introduced into Russian society. Opposition to the monarchy has developed in almost all strata of society (especially in the politicking "elite"). However, it was very difficult for the Duma liberal leaders, generals, grand dukes and socialists, who equally wanted the fall or change of the monarch, to unite and work out a common line. The point of contact of heterogeneous political forces was found thanks to Freemasonry. There is still debate over whether the “Great East of the Peoples of Russia” was a regular Masonic lodge. This organization was virtually devoid of ritualism, the "brothers" pursued political goals, no documentation was kept. The network of lodges uniting groups of Russians of different social, professional and political affiliations made it possible to coordinate the activities of the opposition.14
Masons-Duma leaders were guided by the political program of the parties to which they belonged; the military was in a completely different position. The very critical situation required them to leave the political struggle until the conclusion of peace. However, the generals M. V. Alekseev, N. V. Ruzsky, A. S. Lukomsky played a central role in the abdication of the emperor. In the event that these people were participants in a conspiracy, their act has no justification. It seems that membership in Masonic lodges played a key role in the political struggle of the period of the Provisional Government. The country artificially supported "dual power" until AF Kerensky became the head of the government. At a certain moment, this leader ceased to suit the “brothers”, and then the persons united under the “February conspiracy” - MV Alekseev, AM Krymov, NV Nekrasov - acted as a united front against him. They used L. G. Kornilov to remove the unpopular head of government from power and cleanse Petrograd of socialist elements.15 The failure of their enterprise predetermined the coming to power of the Bolsheviks.
The question of the influence of Masonic lodges on personality, society and politics has been repeatedly discussed in the literature. The influence of Freemasonry on each individual who joined the lodge was very selective. For example, N. V. Suvorov or N. M. Karamzin, who entered Freemasonry in their youth, did not participate in the work in the future. The situation was different with people who for many years visited the lodges, changed systems and received high degrees. Among the Rosicrucians S. I. Gamaleya, N. I. Novikov, I. A. Pozdeev, R. S. Stepanov, this secret sphere of their life supplanted and overshadowed everything else. These people lived the deepest spiritual life, practically giving up everything material. The statement of Metropolitan Platon (Levshin) is quite applicable to them: “I pray to the all-generous God that there will be Christians like Novikov all over the world.” 16 Other cases can also be cited. Priest Job (Kurotsky), who joined the Dying Sphinx lodge, went mad and defiled his church. According to the testimony of Archimandrite Photius (Spassky), the head of the lodges of the "French" system, AA Zherebtsov, committed suicide. Mason I. F. Wolf, according to the memoirs of S. T. Aksakov, went crazy and starved himself to death. Some of them were repressed for their hobby for Freemasonry: N. I. Novikov and M. I. Bagryanitsky spent four years in the fortress, M. I. Nevzorov spent the same amount in an insane asylum, his friend V. Ya. Kolokolnikov died in prison, was sent in exile A. F. Labzin, A. P. Dubovitsky spent many years in prison in a monastery (for organizing a sect).
The influence of Freemasonry on Russian society is visible with the “naked eye”. NI Novikov, AF Labzin, MI Nevzorov and other lesser-known Masonic publishers and translators have done a lot to promote and disseminate Masonic ideas. At the end of the 18th, beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries, Masonic literature was actively introduced in Russia, and after that the fashion for Freemasonry also spread. A. S. Pushkin became a striking example of such influence. Just before the prohibition of Freemasonry, he joined the Ovid lodge, which had not yet received official permission to work. It is obvious that the influence on the creativity of the "sun of Russian poetry" was not made by fleeting participation in the box, but by the social circle, where Masonic motives were fashionable. Anti-Masonic literature also had an impact on society. From the end of the 18th century, the thesis of a worldwide Masonic conspiracy began to spread in Russia. In some respects, this kind of propaganda drew attention to Freemasonry as much as it did to a phenomenon. Masons were traditionally characterized by wide religious tolerance (in the 18th - early 19th centuries in relation to various directions of Christianity). This led some of them to sects.
It is easy to see that when the English lodges of I. P. Elagin came to Russia, they practically had no influence on society. Things went differently after the establishment of the Templar and Rosicrucian Orders. They established lively contacts with foreign centers, tried to attract officials and the heir to the throne. At the beginning of the 19th century, revolutionary conspirators took advantage of the Masonic movement, the result was the uprising of the Decembrists. In the third arrival of Freemasonry in Russia, it already wore a bright political connotation and, according to some researchers, became the basis of a conspiracy that led to a coup d'etat.
To the layman, the Masonic movement is often presented as one. In fact, both in the 18th and 19th centuries, and today there are many directions that do not recognize each other. According to their constitutions, regular lodges (three degrees) should not be involved in political and religious matters. Until the beginning of the 20th century, this was the case in Russia. However, such restrictions were not imposed on themselves by members of organizations affiliated with Freemasonry - irregular lodges and Orders. It was they who most often took part in the political struggle. The political activities of regular Masons were not associated with their Masonic activities. Each of them in his official activities was guided by his own calculations and reasons. Joining the lodge already had established views, and further "work" allowed him to develop in the desired direction ("Freemasonry makes good people even better"). Anyone who did not like the Masonic "works" could leave the box as a bad experience and no longer remember this page of his life. In other words, the freemason officials were free in their political activities. The legends that MI Kutuzov missed Napoleon from Russia due to his Masonic sympathies, or that Admiral PS Nakhimov (whose Freemasonry is not confirmed), on the instructions of the Masonic "center" deliberately lost the Crimean War, are a funny anecdote. In fact, during the hostilities, the Freemasons could pick up and save the wounded "brother" of the enemy (as was the case with GS Batenkov), but this is no longer a political, but a moral step.
