The deceased at the post. The mystery of the death of Pushkin
I understand that this title will seem to many too pretentious. Especially since we are talking about one of the topics utterly hackneyed - about the death of Pushkin. Scary has been written about her a lot - and yet ... In short, the author of these lines had until recently a feeling of some kind of inconsistency. Moreover, most of the research on this subject can be reduced to two categories: 1) "because of women" and 2) "liquidmasons." I must say that the representatives of both approaches have a lot of good and intelligent. But…
The first approach has to be thrown away almost immediately. And the point is not only that Natalya Nikolayevna Aleksandr Sergeevich’s spouse behaved quite respectably (which, we note, Pushkin had no doubt). They may say: yes, but the romantic time and all that ... But the romance was romance, and the ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the Netherlands (Holland) in Russia, Baron Geckern, and the vice-chancellor of Russia Nesselrode were involved in this matter. It should be added that the Netherlands was a state, Russia was very, very friendly (married to a Dutch ruler - shtgalgalom or, more precisely, a stathauder, usually called the Dutch king, Willem III was the sister of Nicholas I, Anna Pavlovna). On the other hand, Nesselrode was for quite a long time a vice-chancellor, despite the fact that there was no chancellor - that is, he was and. about. the prime minister. This means that Nicholas I had some grounds for not rushing to his appointment - and Nesselrode directed the policy of the Russian Empire, being himself, so to speak, on bird rights. Recall that in the libel, which was thrown both to Pushkin himself, and to many of his friends and acquaintances, there were very indecent for that time hints on the behavior of the late Alexander I. According to most researchers today, the libel came out of Nesselrode’s house (and said , and very affirmatively, for the first time none other than Alexander II soon after his accession to the throne - in 1857). Will a person who was raised to the highest post of the Empire from, one might say, non-being, be from the cipherkeepers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and built conditionally, in some way suspected, for the sake of some love affair to interfere in such a thing? Find out about his involvement, not Alexander II, but Nicholas I (who, incidentally, was enraged by the letter when he read this creation after the death of Pushkin) - what would be left of Nesselrode?
No, this does not mean, of course, that Alexander II, and most of the researchers today are wrong. Risk politicians so can. But not because of the intrigue, which, moreover, was not there - but for more important reasons. And do not talk about the enmity of the vice-chancellor with the poet. They were in different calibers - and besides, Alexander Sergeevich was under special suspicion of the emperor. And because of such a low (according to the table of ranks) standing, and even often conflicting with the sovereign of the chamber junker, this man, cunning, cautious, who is fabulously high, but in limbo, will he suddenly risk it? Dismiss ...
All the more so, at Göckkern, the consequences of this risk were fully affected. As it was said above, Nikolay, having become acquainted with the libel, became enraged. Gekkern was simply thrown out of Russia with a scandal. Willem III, having familiarized himself with the case thanks to the message of Nicholas, completely approved the tsar's behavior - and he threw Gekkern out of diplomatic circles - seriously and for a long time. Is it possible to assume that Gekkern, an experienced diplomat, did not foresee such an opportunity? Well, yes, of course, cupid, trujur, bonjour and everything else ... But did Dantes, being obliged to all to Heecker, so went about his alleged love (besides unresponsive) to Pushkin's wife? And an experienced, cautious diplomat suddenly became a pimp?
One of the historians (by the name of Abramovich, I think) explained this episode in a rather exotic way. As you know, under Nicholas I, a lot of homosexuals went uphill (it’s enough to recall Vigel - and the notorious Sukhozaneta who was in charge of the cadet corps - and was “clearing up” there). The historian believed that Gekkern also belonged to these unformals - and therefore adopted the handsome Dantes. And then, when Dantes was “normally” carried away by beautiful Natalia Nikolaevna, Gekkern decided to upset this hobby, thinking for some reason that the matter would end not in a duel - but in a scandalous explanation of her husband and her wife and her retreat. And allegedly because Gekkern played the inept role of the pimp - in order to outrage Pushkin and encourage him to lock up “Natalie” at home. Alas, it is unlikely. Could the ambassador not know that the tsar himself wanted Natalia Nikolayevna to shine at the balls at the court? And if he didn’t know, couldn’t he tell Nesselrode who was very friendly to him? And was the Pushkin’s furious nature really so unknown - and his constant readiness for tough actions? Especially since already one challenge barely managed to upset ...
Nonsense, it would seem. But in every such nonsense there is something. The ineptitude of the behavior of an experienced Geckern; the cheeky behavior of the unstable Dantes ... Did everyone go crazy? Or ... or some kind of intentionality? But then it turns out that - the machinations, the conspiracy?
May be. But immediately the question arises: what about? There are a lot of assumptions - but, alas, everyone I know does not shine with consistency. Up to the point that, allegedly, Pushkin, who was a freemason at one time, revealed some Masonic secrets - and was destroyed for it. A. Bushkov logically asked: so what are the secrets and to whom did Pushkin reveal? Add: Alexander Sergeyevich, as a person of poetic, enthusiastic, not very trusted. Well, if his friends did not trust the secret of the Decembrist conspiracy to him - what could they have given him seriously-Masonic? So, some general reasoning used to attract simpletons - maximum ... Another thing is that, yes, it all looks like a conspiracy - the participation of very influential people, and the suspicious awkwardness of the behavior of a number of people who are deft by definition. But what a conspiracy?
Let's try to reason. Firstly, for people involved in politics and having achieved considerable heights, the priorities for which they will take risks may be primarily, if not only, political tasks. Here they can take the risk of a very, very, including not only a career, sometimes life. This time. Two: usually such people for their own purposes, among which may be the “removal” of some undesirable figure, someone is hired or pushed. “Why climb, for example, Himself!” - especially if this “himself” is an ambassador or, even more, and. about. Chancellor. And if they “climbed for themselves”, it means that something urgent and urgent is happening, when there is no time for a long intrigue, pushing or hiring someone. And, yes, such a desperate situation can be the threat of disclosing some mystery (in this the conspiracy therapists are right). And from this point of view, it is necessary to reconsider all the more than familiar events in the life of Pushkin before the duel pores.
Has Pushkin ever touched international politics? Yes. And it was precisely at this time that he began to touch her all the more insistently, having received an opportunity to do so — taking up the publication of Sovremennik.
What aspect of politics did he cover?
Russophobia. It was in 1830 in Europe that its new wave rose. At that time, in particular, a fake “Testament of Peter the Great”, allegedly extracted from Russian archives, was published for the first time - and so on and so forth. Pushkin saw it. Back in 1831, he wanted to repel this wave, to publish, so to speak, countermaterials. But he did not succeed, in particular, also because he did not have his own organ of the press. And in 1836, he already had a “Contemporary”. And the materials that Pushkin published or planned to publish were sometimes quite peculiar: the poet denounced many sides of Europe, and sometimes went in his techniques “beyond the limits of a foul” - such as in the material on Voltaire and the descendant of Joan of Arc. In a word, he reflected how he could (and as censorship allowed) “unscrupulous attacks of Europeans on Russia”.
And what was terrible about this? - may ask me. The materials published in the not too readable Russian magazine - and even about the wave that has spread widely in the West? What is this specifically political? Especially since there is another example. Already after the death of Pushkin, another remarkable poet — and, besides, a remarkable diplomat, Tyutchev — also spoke out against the wave of Russophobia. He published anonymously his interesting articles not in Russia, but abroad - and they were written not in Russian, but in French. They, yes, made quite a splash, they were answered by the best publicists of the West, such as the famous Michelet. Subsequently, some of these publicists admitted that Tyutchev saw much deeper than they. But ... but Russophobia as it was-and remained, not at all weakening. The question is, what could Pushkin do here?
Yes, against this wave, he could not do anything. Well, if Tyutchev ... But, one wonders, why, then, was Tyutchev's case so accepted with hostility? Why did it cost him to start his activity to repel Russophobia, his boss Nesselrode (again he!) Literally kicked him out of work? In addition, some rumors (let us remember it!) Rushed after Tyutchev about the loss of the cipher ... The documents raised did not contain anything like that. But there was a rumor. And the dismissal was. And then ... further events developed even more intriguing.
When Tyutchev, who had flown in from everywhere, arrived in Russia, he suddenly found that Count Benkendorf was very, very interested in him. Yes, yes, that one. Gendarme chief. And not interested in the subject of surveillance or the collection of compromising. No, the count offered Tyutchev ... COOPERATION. Far from the line of "knocking" and in general the internal affairs. No, Tyutchev had to find promising and hard-nosed Western Russophobes (first of all, Falmerayer, a rather strong Byzantologist of that time) and give them the opportunity to speak out in print to Russia and its traditions without common polity, as they really thought. What would come of this is clear already from the fact that a significant part of anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox statements still in circulation came from Falmerayer. Well, for example: "the soulless emptiness of the Orthodox faith." And from Tyutchev's letters it becomes clear that all this was meant for Nicholas I.
Here we come to the topic: what secrets were kept from the king. More E. V. Tarle found out: Nicholas managed to completely ignore the wave of Russophobia in the West until the Crimean War. And smearing this Russophobia, disorienting the Tsar was precisely ... NESCELRODE! This is not me - this is academician Tarle says ...
At times, something still reached the sovereign. The famous book of the Marquis de Custine surprised him a lot. And it was Benkendorf who tried to explain to the king that this is the opinion that is prevalent in Europe about Russia - and not only among the left. And it was after this that Benkendorf and with Tyutchev tried to provoke prominent Russophobes to speak out in such a way that even Nicholas could understand: yes, that’s how Europe looks at Russia! But then it began ...
Soon after the start of Tyutchev’s negotiations with Fallmerayer and the latter’s agreement to act on Benkendorf’s subsidy, the count himself ... suddenly dies on the steamer. Heart, you see. Wow, if not in time. Or, on the contrary, in time - if from the point of view of Nesselrode? And again there is a rumor behind the event - ostensibly before his death Benkendorf converted to Catholicism. And Nikolai could not bear those. And, of course, the king quickly forgot, threw away everything that Benkendorf tried to introduce into his consciousness. Classic intrigue. Like today, an airplane or a helicopter launches heat balls to disorient a rocket homing at heat — so did someone “shoot out” the rumors. First, to hide Tyutchev, and then to hide, why this healthy, strong man suddenly took and died — not in his bed, but on the ship, as if in a microcosm, distant from his surroundings ... If you take into account that Benkendorf and Nesselrode openly feuded, given that Nesselrode assured the king in a completely different way than it was in reality and he tried to open his eyes to King Benkendorf ... then who could be at the head of this grand intrigue?
And now back to Pushkin. It is clear how he could be dangerous to the clique Nesselrode - and perhaps to himself. Of course, Pushkin’s materials on Russophobia would hardly have been perceived by a wide circle of readers. But the poet had one most attentive reader who did not trust him. King. And even if not a single material of Pushkin would go to print, the king would still know everything about them. And, therefore, he would have known what he did not know, and what led him and Russia to the catastrophe of the Crimean War — about the wave of Russophobia in the West, which swept then both left and right circles. It is in the light of this that all the fuss about the poet is understood. "Contemporary" started to go out! Materials on Russophobia have already gone - if not all to print - then to the selection and, consequently, after a while on Nicholas's table! So, those who protected the king from the truth, had to hurry. They were in a hurry - there was no time for a more cunning intrigue, I had to act on my own, to take risks. And at the same time, again, "shot the balls." One scandal, another ... A duel will be ... No, the duel is settled - Dantes will marry Natalie's sister ... No, it will still be ... A letter to me ... And in the letter there are hints of a royal house ... Is Natal and himself - hee-ruler? If only to occupy the minds of chewing all sorts of dirty tricks ... Quite a subtle psychological game. Unreasonable risk in any other case - but here - that is what intrigues need.
And the last question: why was it necessary to protect the king from the truth? He did not treat Europe very well anyway. What happened to this and Nesselrode and Gekkernu?
At the time it was popular this wording: Russia under Nicholas I was the "gendarme of Europe." This, of course, is to a considerable degree a biting liberal phrase. But not only a phrase. Russia, yes, was - only more likely not a gendarme, but simply a policeman, the "city" of Europe. Already for a long time, the notorious European development of a free and courageous personality has put Europe more than once, if not to the brink of death, then at least to the brink of historical failure. So it was at the end of the brilliant era of the Renaissance, when the development of the free personality of one or another ruler ended with a mountain of corpses (see the comments of A. F. Losev about Shakespeare's Hamlet). So it was in the XVII century, when the German people almost disappeared in the unprecedented bloody Thirty Years War, when France and Spain devastated each other, and at the same time also a number of other countries in the wild wars for the Spanish inheritance, and Cromwell in revolutionary England cut out at least a third of Ireland (according to some information - more than half). It was in this century that the Turkish danger was again manifested with great force - Turkey sensed the European focus on suicide and rushed to Europe - to help the Europeans in this “noble” business ... With the entry of Russia into Europe this danger began to withdraw. Russia pacified these strong European personalities, ready to cut almost half the world. So it was during the days of Pushkin's boyhood, when Russia managed to undermine the power of Napoleon. So it was in the XX century - in the Great Patriotic War. The responses are heard today, and in our time, when, it would seem, there is little left of traditional Russia, our leaders have to do peacemaking in Syria again - otherwise the whole East will catch fire from the freedom-loving Europeans ...
In the light of this, it becomes clear: a significant part of the brilliant and unprecedented development of Europe, progress is ensured by Russia, the Russian extinction of European fires. The hatred of Russia is also understandable: whoever loves the “cop of the nasty,” even more so of this, without which nothing can be done? But at the same time a thought arises: do we need it? The development of Europe! Yes, it is brilliant. But if you remember that its foundation is sealed, on the one hand, with unmeasured Russian blood, and on the other - with spitting that Russia constantly receives from the “enlightened world” for its mission of policeman’s dash, then involuntarily comes the thought: gentlemen, if you are developed and cultural, unlike us, the dark ones - maybe take care of yourself a little? Is it worth Russia to fulfill its mission like this in order to receive such “gratitude”?
Did Pushkin think about this? Yes. In his verses 1830 of the year and later there are exactly the formulas that the Russians “With their own blood redeemed Europe with freedom, honor and peace”, and in his letters and appeals both to relatives and the king often contain indignation about Russophobia and generally ingratitude of Europe.
Did Nesselrode think about this? Yes. Then the lazy one did not say that Nesselrode is an agent of influence of Austria - and only the king did not see it. Even an elegant anecdote was invented. As I said, the king, as if sensing something was wrong, did not make Nesselrode a full chancellor for a long time. And the courtiers supposedly said this: “Why is he still only the vice-chancellor? “How is it possible otherwise, because the Chancellor is alive.” It was so, respectfully, as if with a capital letter, it was customary to call the Austrian Chancellor Metternich. But for Austria, oh, how Russian help was needed - in 1848, it would simply crumble without Nikolai’s troops. At the same time, it should be noted that the king again seemed to sense that something was wrong - and did not want to give “good” to the invasion of Austria, blazing with fire by revolution. The Austrian envoy on his knees begged for this decision. It was an embarrassment to come true later - when, during the Crimean War, Austria occupied hostile neutrality towards Russia. This was such a betrayal that one of the Austrian leaders, Prince Schwarzenberg, according to some sources said: "We obviously want to surprise the world with our ingratitude." The world was not surprised. So it needs her, this barbaric Russia ...
Did Thackern think about this? If he was a little bit a diplomat, and not a donut hole, he could not help but think. The fact is that by the decision of the Congress of Vienna, Belgium was annexed to Holland. But in 1830, due to the French Revolution and many others, Belgium separated from Holland. Nicholas wanted to restore order here, but at the same time an uprising in Poland flared up, troops were needed there — and Nicholas could not help her sister and her husband, Willem, and Belgium withdrew from revolutionary France, which the renowned grabber, hypocrite and traitor Talleyrand. The Dutch diplomat did not have to say what the non-interference of the Russian tsar threatened. The disaster. So both Nesselrode and Geckern should have been convinced that, by eliminating Pushkin, they were protecting the interests of Europe. Maybe even the interests of progress, which by no means can not be pumped with Russian blood - often the best Russian blood ...
Pushkin also tried to stop this bloody orgy - and died. He died honestly, on the line of duty, trying to obscure Russia. And the harder it was for him to die, that he didn’t even understand it - so the intrigue was twisted ...
Is it not time today to unwind all these intrigues - and stop paying even the most wonderful European successes with Russian blood? Moreover, the precedents of such decisions in our stories there were - and one of them was associated with our other great poet, Tyutchev.
But this is a special story ...
Information