Military Review

Diplomat and reformer. Prince Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn

15
"Yes, the descendants of the Orthodox
Earth's native past fate ... ".

A.S. Pushkin


In 1721, the Emperor of All-Russian Peter Alekseevich was given the title "Great". However, in the domestic stories this was not new — thirty-five years before Peter I, the so-called “near boyar, governor of the Novgorod and state ambassadorial affairs of the guardian,” Prince Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn, was so called. This was in many ways mysterious, ambiguous and invaluable person. In essence, Golitsyn was ahead of time, in the era of Sophia’s reign, embarking on many progressive transformations, then picked up and continued by Peter I. Vasily Vasilyevich’s contemporaries — both friends and foes — noted that he was an extraordinarily talented statesman. The eminent Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky called the prince "the closest predecessor of Peter." Similar views were shared by Alexey Tolstoy in his novel “Peter I”. So what really made Golitsyn famous?

Diplomat and reformer. Prince Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn


He was born in 1643 year in one of the most famous families of Russia, leading its lineage from the Lithuanian prince Gedimin, whose family, in turn, was built to Rurik. Vasily was the third son of Prince Vasily Andreyevich Golitsyn and Tatiana Ivanovna Streshneva, who belonged to the no less famous princely family of Romodanovsky. For several centuries his ancestors served the Moscow kings, occupied high positions at the court, were repeatedly awarded with estates and honorary ranks. Thanks to the efforts of his mother, he received an excellent education at home by the standards of that era. Since childhood, Tatyana Ivanovna has been preparing her son to work in high government positions, and she has been preparing diligently, not sparing any money for knowledgeable mentors, nor time. The young prince was well-read, fluent in German, Polish, Greek, Latin, he knew military affairs well.

At the age of fifteen (in the 1658 year) he, thanks to his origin, as well as his kinship ties, came to the palace to the sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich, nicknamed Tishayshim. He began the court service with the royal stolnik. Vasily served the sovereign at the table, took part in the ceremonies, accompanied Alexey Mikhailovich on trips. In connection with the aggravation of relations between Russia and Turkey, in 1675, Golitsyn was together with the regiment in Ukraine for "saving cities from the Turks Saltan".

His life changed dramatically with the arrival of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich to power. Entered the throne in 1676 year, the king granted him from the stolnik immediately in the boyars, bypassing the post okolnichy. The occasion for that time is rare, which opened Golitsyn, both the doors of the Boyar Duma and the opportunity to directly influence state affairs.

Already during the reign of Fedor Alekseevich (from 1676 to 1682), Golitsyn became a prominent figure in the government circle. He was in charge of the Vladimir and Pushkarsky court orders, standing out among the other boyars with his humanity. Contemporaries said about the young prince: "smart, courteous and gorgeous." In the 1676 year, being already in the rank of boyar, Vasily Vasilyevich was sent to Little Russia. The situation in the south-east of Europe at that time was difficult. The entire burden of military operations against the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire lay on Russia and Left Bank Ukraine. Golitsyn had to lead the second southern army, which defended Kiev and the southern borders of the Russian state from the Turkish invasion. And in 1677-1678, he participated in the Chigirinsky campaigns of the Russian army and Zaporizhzhya Cossacks.

In 1680, Vasily Vasilyevich became the commander of all Russian troops in Ukraine. With skillful diplomatic activities in Zaporozhye, the Crimean possessions and the closest areas of the Ottoman Empire, he was able to nullify military operations. In the autumn of the same year, Ambassadors Tyapkin and Zotov began negotiations in Crimea, which ended in January of 1681 with the Bakhchisaray Peace Treaty. At the end of the summer, Golitsyn was recalled to the capital. For the successful outcome of the negotiations, Tsar Fedor Alekseevich granted him vast landed estates. From this point in time, the influence of Prince Golitsyn at the court began to grow rapidly.

The wise boyar proposed to change the taxation of the peasants, to organize a regular army, to form a court independent of omnipotence, to organize the arrangement of Russian cities. In November 1681, Vasily Vasilyevich headed the commission, which received instructions from the tsar to “manage military affairs for the best of their sovereign dispensations and management”. In fact, this was the beginning of military reform, involving the reorganization of the noble militia into a regular army. And in January, 1682, a commission of elected nobles, headed by Golitsyn, proposed to abolish localism - “a truly Asian custom, which forbade descendants at the table to sit further from the sovereign than their ancestors sat. This custom, repugnant to common sense, was an inexhaustible source of strife among the boyars, reflecting on the actions of the government. ” Soon, bit books, sowing discord between noble families, were set on fire.

Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich’s illness brought Golitsyn closer to Tsarevna Sofya, the daughter of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich from her first marriage. Soon the court poet and monk-bibliographer Sylvester Medvedev and Prince Ivan Andreevich Khovansky, who led the Streletsky order, joined them. A group of like-minded people emerged from these people - the palace party of Sofia Alekseevna. However, Golitsyn stood closest to the tsarina. According to the historian Waliszewski: “Medvedev inspired the group, infected everyone with a thirst for struggle and passion. Khovansky provided the necessary armed force - a nervous regiment of archers. However, Sophia Golitsyna loved ... She pulled him onto the road leading to power, the power she wanted to share with him. ” By the way, Vasily Vasilyevich - an educated man of his time, fluent in major European languages, knowledgeable in music, keen on art and culture, aristocratic - was very good at himself and, according to his contemporaries, possessed a piercing, slightly cunning look that gave him “a big originality". It is not known for certain whether the relationship between the royal daughter and the handsome boyar mutual. Evil tongues argued that Vasily Vasilyevich came together with her just for the sake of profit. Although, perhaps, Golitsyn was led by more than just a naked calculation. It is a well-known fact that Sophia was not a beauty, but she was not a sullen, fat, unattractive woman, as seen in Repin's famous painting. According to contemporaries' notes, the princess was attracted by the charm of youth (then 24 went to her year, and Golitsyn was already under forty), vital energy, beating over the edge, and a sharp mind. It remained unknown whether Vasily and Sophia had common children, but some researchers claim that they were, their existence was kept in the strictest confidence.

After six years of rule, Tsar Fedor Alekseevich died in April 1682. The court gathered around Sophia, who took the side of the Miloslavskys, who are relatives of her mother. They opposed the group of supporters of the Naryshkins, relatives of the second wife of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and mother of Peter I. They proclaimed little Tsar Peter, bypassing his older brother Ivan, who was painful from birth and, as a result, was considered incapable of government. In fact, the entire power passed to the Naryshkins clan. However, they did not triumph for long. In mid-May, the 1682 in Moscow began an arrow riot. Supporters of Miloslavskiy used the archer's discontent, directing their rage on their political opponents. Many of the most prominent representatives of the Naryshkins clan, as well as their supporters, were killed, and the Miloslavskys became the masters of the situation. The first Sovereign of Russia was proclaimed sixteen prince Ivan, and the second - Peter. However, due to the infancy of the brothers, Sofia Alekseevna assumed the administration of the state. The regency of the princess (from 1682 to 1689 year), in which Vasily Vasilyevich occupied the leading position, remained a bright phenomenon in the history of our country. Prince Kurakin - a brother-in-law and brother-in-law of Peter I (and, therefore, an opponent of the princess) left an interesting comment in his diaries: “The board of Sofia Alekseevna began with all diligence and justice to all and to the pleasure of the people…. During her reign, the entire state came to the color of great wealth, all kinds of crafts and commerce multiplied, and the sciences were determined to revive the Greek and Latin languages ​​... ”

Golitsyn himself, being a politician very cautious, did not take any part in palace intrigues. However, by the end of 1682, almost all state power was concentrated in his hands. Boyar was granted to the palace governors, led all the main orders, including Reitarsky, Inozemny and Posolsky. In all matters, Sophia consulted with him in the first place, and the prince had the opportunity to realize many of her ideas. There is a record in the documents: “And then the princess Sofia Alekseevna, Prince Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn, appointed the courtier commander and appointed the first minister and judge of Ambassadorial to the order…. And he came to be the first minister and favorite and was a hefty person, a great mind and loved by everyone. ”

For seven years, Golitsyn managed to do a lot of useful things for the country. First of all, the prince surrounded himself with experienced assistants, and he put forward people not by "breed", but by fitness. Under his rule, typography was developed in the country - from 1683 to 1689, forty-four books were published, which was considered to be considerable for that era. Golitsyn was the patron of the first professional writers of Russia - Simeon of Polotsk and the aforementioned Sylvester Medvedev, who was later executed by Peter, as an associate of Sophia. Under him, secular painting (portraits-parsuns) appeared, and also iconography reached a new level. Vasily Vasilyevich described the formation of the educational system in the country. It was with his active participation in Moscow that the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was opened - the first national institution of higher education. The prince made his contribution to the mitigation of criminal law. The custom was abolished to bury the murderers in the ground and the penalty for "outrageous words against the authorities", and the conditions of servility for debt were alleviated. All this was resumed under Peter I.

Golitsyn also made extensive plans in the sphere of sociopolitical reforms, expressing thoughts on radical transformations of the state system. It is known that the prince proposed to replace serfdom by vesting the peasants with land, developed projects for the development of Siberia. Klyuchevsky wrote with admiration: "Such plans for resolving the serf question returned to the state minds in Russia not earlier than one and a half centuries after Golitsyn." A financial reform was carried out in the country - instead of a multitude of taxes, a heavy burden on the population, one was established, collected from a certain number of households.

The name Golitsyn was associated with an improvement in the military power of the state. The number of regiments, both the "new" and the "foreign" system, has grown, and dragoon, musketeer, and reytar companies, which served by a single charter, began to form. It is known that the prince proposed to introduce foreign studies of noblemen to the art of war, to remove the recruits for replenishment, which replenished the regiments of the nobility, recruiting from unsuitable to the military craft of people and slaves.

Vasily Vasilyevich is also credited with organizing the construction in the capital of three thousand new stone houses and chambers for official places, as well as wooden pavements. The most impressive was the construction of the famous Kamenny Bridge over the Moscow River, which became "one of the metropolitan wonders, along with the Sukharev Tower, the Tsar Cannon, and the Tsar Bell." This building turned out to be so costly that a saying appeared: “More expensive than the Stone Bridge”.

However, the prince was nicknamed the “great Golitsyn” because of his successes in the diplomatic field. The foreign policy situation for the beginning of 1683 was difficult for Russia - strained relations with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, preparation for a new war with the Ottoman Empire, the invasion of the Crimean Tatars in the Russian lands (in the summer of 1682). Under the leadership of the prince, the Ambassadorial Order established, and then maintained contacts with all European states, empires and khanates of Asia, and also carefully collected information about African and American lands. In the 1684 year, Golitsyn skillfully held talks with the Swedes, extending the Kardis Peace Treaty of the 1661 year without abandoning temporarily ceded territories. In the same year, an extremely important treaty was signed with Denmark on embassy ceremonies that raised the international prestige of both powers and corresponded to the new position of our country on the world stage.

By this time, the Holy League of Christian States was organized in Europe, nominally headed by Pope Innocent XI. The participating countries decided to wage a coalition war with the Ottoman Empire, reject any separate treaties with the enemy and involve the Russian state in the alliance. Experienced European diplomats arrived in Russia, eager to demonstrate their art to the Muscovites. Ambassadors were extremely imprudent, betraying the disloyal attitude of their governments to the interests of Russia, when they offered Vasily Vasilyevich to give Kiev to her in order to avoid conflicts with the Polish – Lithuanian Commonwealth. Golitsyn's response was categorical - the transfer to Kiev of the Polish side is impossible, because its population expressed a desire to remain in Russian citizenship. In addition, the Commonwealth of the Zhuravinsky world gave the Ottoman Porte the entire Right Bank, and the Port of the Bakhchisaray world recognized Zaporozhye and Kyiv region as possessions of Russia. Vasily Vasilyevich won the negotiations, after some time the Pope recognized for Russia the status of a great power and agreed to help make peace with the Commonwealth.

Negotiations with Poland were protracted - diplomats argued for seven weeks. Repeatedly, the ambassadors, disagreeing with the proposals of the Russians, were going to leave, but then again resumed the dialogue. In April, 1686, Vasily Vasilyevich, “displaying great art”, deftly using the contradictions between Turkey and Poland, diplomatic and military setbacks of Jan Sobieski, managed to conclude a long-awaited and beneficial for our country “perpetual peace” with Poland (Commonwealth), putting an end to the centenary contention between the two Slavic states. The Poles forever renounced their claims to Kiev, Left-bank Ukraine, cities on the right bank (Stayki, Vasilkov, Tripolye), and also Seversk land and Smolensk, together with the surrounding area. The Moscow state, in turn, joined the union of the European powers, taking part in the coalition struggle with Turkey along with Venice, the German Empire and Poland. The value of the treaty was so great that after signing it, Sofia Alekseevna began to call herself an autocrat, although she did not dare to marry officially the kingdom. And Golitsyn later also headed the Russian delegation, which arrived at the negotiations with the Chinese. They ended with the ratification of the Treaty of Nerchinsk, which established the Russian-Chinese border along the Amur River and opened the way for the expansion of the Pacific Ocean to Russia.

Possession of the main European languages ​​allowed the prince to speak freely with foreign ambassadors and diplomats. It is worth noting that until the seventeenth century, foreigners generally preferred not to consider Russians as a cultural and civilized nation. With his tireless activity, Vasily Vasilyevich strongly shaken, if not destroyed, this well-established stereotype. It was during his leadership of the country that Europeans literally poured into Russia. The German settlement flourished in Moscow, where foreign military, artisans, doctors, artists, etc. found shelter. Golitsyn himself invited famous masters, artisans and teachers to Russia, encouraging the introduction of foreign experience. Jesuits and Huguenots were allowed to hide in Moscow from confessional persecution in their homeland. Residents of the capital also received permission to purchase secular books abroad, art objects, furniture, and utensils. All this played a significant role in the cultural life of the society. Golitsyn not only developed a program for free entry to Russia by foreigners, but also intended to introduce free religion in the country, constantly told the boyars about the need to teach their children, procured permission to send the boyars sons to study abroad. Peter, sending to learn the noble offspring, only continued what was started by Golitsyn.

For ambassadors and numerous diplomatic delegations, Vasily Vasilievich liked to arrange special receptions, striking visitors with luxury and splendor, demonstrating the strength and wealth of Russia. Neither in appearance nor in circulation did Golitsyn want to give way to the ministers of the most powerful European powers, believing that extravagance pays off for the impression on the negotiating partners. According to contemporaries, ambassadors sent to Muscovy were not at all ready to meet such a courteous and educated interlocutor there. The prince was able to carefully listen to guests and maintain a conversation on any topic, be it theology, history, philosophy, astronomy, medicine or military affairs. Golitsyn simply suppressed the foreigners with his knowledge and education. In addition to official receptions and negotiations, the prince introduced informal meetings with diplomats in a "home" setting. One of the visiting ambassadors wrote: “We have already seen enough of the wild Muscovite boyars. They were obese, gloomy, bearded and did not know other languages ​​than pork and beef. Prince Golitsyn was a European in the full sense of the word. He wore short hair, shaved his beard, trimmed his mustache, spoke many languages ​​.... I didn’t drink at receptions and didn’t make him drink, I found pleasure only in conversations, in discussions of the latter News in Europe".

It should be noted golitsynsky innovations in the field of fashion. Even under Tsar Fedor Alekseevich, under the direct influence of Golitsyn, all the officials were obliged to wear Hungarian and Polish dresses instead of long-sided old Moscow clothes. It was also recommended to shave beards. It was not ordered (as later under the authoritarian Peter), but only recommended, so as not to cause particular unrest and protests. Contemporaries wrote: "In Moscow, they began to shave their beards, cut their hair, wear Polish polish and sabers." The prince himself carefully monitored his appearance, resorted to cosmetics, the use of which today seems ridiculous to men - he whitened, reddened, he balled his latest beard and mustache with different spices. This is how Vasily Vasilyevich A.N. Tolstoy in the novel “Peter I”: “Prince Golitsyn is a handsome man, short-haired, upturned mustache, curly beard with a bald patch”. His wardrobe was one of the richest in the capital - it included more than a hundred costumes made of expensive fabrics, decorated with emeralds, rubies, diamonds, rolled up with silver and gold embroidery. And the stone house of Vasily Vasilyevich, who stood in the White city between Dmitrovka and Tverskaya streets, was called by the foreign guests "the eighth wonder of the world." The length of the building was more than 70 meters, there were more 200 window shutters and doors. The roof of the building was copper and glittered in the sun, like gold. Near the house was a home church, in the courtyard were carriages of Dutch, Austrian, German production. Icons, engravings and paintings on the themes of Scripture, portraits of Russian and European rulers, geographical maps in gilded frames hung on the walls of the halls.

The ceilings were decorated with astronomical bodies - signs of the zodiac, planets, stars. The walls of the chambers were covered with rich fabrics, many of the windows were decorated with stained glass windows, and the walls between the windows were filled with huge mirrors. The house had a variety of musical instruments and artwork furniture. Imagination struck Venetian porcelain, German watches and engravings, Persian carpets. One visiting Frenchman wrote: “The princely chambers were in no way inferior to the houses of Parisian nobles .... They were furnished no worse, exceeded their number of paintings and, especially, books. Well, various devices - thermometers, barometers, astrolabe. There was nothing like my brilliant Parisian acquaintances. ” The hospitable host himself always kept the house open, loved to receive guests, often arranged theatrical performances, acting as an actor. Unfortunately, there is no trace of such magnificence today. In the following centuries, the Golitsyn palace house passed from hand to hand, and in 1871 it was sold to merchants. After a while it was already the most natural slum - in the former white marble chambers they kept barrels of herring, slaughtered chickens and stored all sorts of rags. In 1928, the house of Golitsyn was demolished.

Among other things, Vasily Vasilyevich is mentioned in the historical literature as one of the first native Gallomans. However, the prince preferred to borrow not only the external forms of foreign culture, he penetrated into the deep layers of the French - and even wider - European civilization. He managed to collect one of the richest libraries for his era, distinguished by a variety of printed and handwritten books in Russian, Polish, French, German and Latin. It contained copies of “Alcoran” and “Kiev Chronicler”, works of European and ancient authors, various grammars, German geometry, works on geography and history.

In 1687 and 1689, Vasily Vasilyevich participated in the organization of military campaigns against the Crimean Khan. Understanding the complexity of these enterprises, sybarite by nature, the prince tried to evade the duties of the commander, but Sofia Alekseevna insisted that he go on a campaign, appointing him to the position of commander. The Crimean campaigns of Golitsyn should be recognized as extremely unsuccessful. A skilled diplomat, unfortunately, did not have either the knowledge of an experienced governor, or the talent of a commander. Leading the hundred-thousandth army with hetman Samoilovich during the first military campaign, carried out in the summer of 1687, he failed to reach Perekop. Due to the lack of fodder and water, the unbearable heat, the Russian army suffered significant non-combat losses and was forced to leave the steppes burned by Krymchaks. Returning to Moscow, Vasily Vasilyevich used every opportunity to strengthen the international position of the crumbling Holy League. Its ambassadors worked in London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Copenhagen and Florence, trying to attract new members to the League and extend the fragile peace.

Two years later (in the spring of 1689) a new attempt was made to get to the Crimea. This time they sent troops numbering over 110 from thousands of people with 350 guns. The management of this campaign was again entrusted to Golitsyn. On the lands of Little Russia, the new Ukrainian hetman Mazepa joined with the Russian Cossacks to join the Russian army. Having hardly passed the steppes and having gained the upper hand in the battles with the Khan, the Russian army reached Perekop. However, the prince did not dare to move to the peninsula - according to him, due to lack of water. Despite the fact that the second campaign also ended in failure, Russia played its role in the war - the 150-thousandth army of the Crimean Tatars was held down in the Crimea, which gave the Holy League an opportunity to quite noticeably press the Turkish forces on the European theater.

After Vasily Vasilyevich’s return from the campaign, his position at the court was greatly shaken. In a society, the irritation from failures in the Crimean campaigns has matured. The party of the Naryshkins openly accused him of negligence and taking bribes from the Crimean Khan. Once on the street, a killer rushed on Golitsyn, but was caught in time by the guards. Sofya Alekseevna, in order to somehow justify the favorite, arranged a sumptuous feast in his honor, and the Russian troops returning from the march were greeted as winners and generously rewarded. For many, this caused even greater dissatisfaction, even the closest circle began to be wary of the actions of Sophia. The popularity of Vasily Vasilyevich gradually weakened, and the princess had a new favorite - Fyodor Shaklovity, by the way, Golitsyn's nominee.

By this time, Peter, who had an extremely stubborn and contradictory character, did not want to listen to his powerful sister anymore. He often confronted her, reproaching him with excessive courage and independence not inherent to women. Government documents also said that the regent loses the ability to govern in the event of Peter’s marriage. And the heir by that time already had a spouse Evdokia. Seventeen-year-old Peter became dangerous for the princess, and again she decided to use archers. However, this time Sofia Alekseevna miscalculated - the archers did not believe her, preferring the heir. Having escaped to the Preobrazhenskoye village, Peter gathered his supporters and, without delay, took power into his own hands.

The fall of Vasily Vasilyevich was the inevitable consequence of the overthrow of the power-hungry Princess Sophia, imprisoned by her stepbrother in the monastery. Although Golitsyn never took part either in the rioters of the riots, nor in the struggle for power, nor, especially, in the conspiracies about the murder of Peter, his end was predetermined. In August, 1689, during the coup, he left the capital for his estate, and already in September, along with his son Alexey, arrived at Peter in the Trinity. By the will of the new king at the gates of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery 9 of September he was read the sentence. The prince’s fault was that he reported on the affairs of Sophia’s power, not Ivan and Peter, had the audacity to write letters on their behalf and print Sophia’s name in books without royal permission. However, the main point of the accusation was the unsuccessful Crimean campaigns, which brought great losses to the treasury. It is curious that Peter’s disfavor for the Crimean setbacks fell only on Golitsyn alone, and, for example, such a prominent participant in trips like Mazepa, on the contrary, was treated kindly. However, even Peter I recognized the merits of the prince, had respect for the defeated enemy. No, the ally of the young tsar in the affairs of the reorganization of Russia Vasily Vasilyevich was not destined to become. But cruel execution, like other minions of Sophia, he was not betrayed. The prince and his son were deprived of the boyar title. All his estates, patrimonies and other property was written off to the sovereign, and he and his family were commanded to go north to the Arkhangelsk region "for eternal life." According to the imperial decree, the disgraced were allowed to have only the most necessary property for not more than two thousand rubles.

By the way, Vasily Vasilyevich had a cousin, Boris Alekseevich Golitsyn, with whom he had been very friendly since early childhood. They carried this friendship throughout their lives, helping each other in difficult situations more than once. The piquancy of the circumstances was that Boris Alekseevich was always in the clan of the Naryshkins, which, however, had no effect on his relationship with his brother. It is known that after the fall of Sophia, Boris Golitsyn tried to justify Vasily Vasilyevich, even falling out of favor with the tsar for a short time.

After Golitsyn and his family went into exile in the city of Kargopol, several attempts were made in the capital to toughen the punishment of the disgraced prince. However, Boris managed to protect his brother, who was ordered to move to the village of Erensk (in 1690 year). The deportees arrived there in the deep winter, but they were not destined to stay in this place either. The accusations against Vasily Golitsyn multiplied, and by the spring a new decree was received - to exile the former boyar and his family in the Pustozersky ostrog, located in the Pechora river delta, and inflict a salary on them for “thirteen altyn day food for two money a day.” With Boris Golitsyn's efforts, the punishment was again managed to be mitigated; instead of the distant fortress, Vasily Vasilyevich found himself in the village of Kevrol, standing on the far northern river Pinega about two hundred kilometers from Arkhangelsk. The last place of his exile was the village of Pinega. Here, the prince, together with his second wife, Evdokia Ivanovna Streshneva, and six children spent the rest of his life. From exile he repeatedly sent tsar to the tsar, asking, no, not pardon, only an increase in the pay. However, Peter did not change his decision, although he turned a blind eye to the parcels sent to the disgraced boyar by his mother-in-law and brother. It is also known that Boris Alekseevich visited his brother at least once, during the tsar’s trip to Arkhangelsk. Of course, without the permission of Peter I to do this was unthinkable.

Over time, the life of Vasily Vasilyevich returned to normal. Thanks to his relatives, he had money, and knowing about an influential brother, local authorities treated him with respect and made all kinds of relief. He received permission to visit the Krasnogorsk monastery. In total, Vasily Vasilyevich lived in the northern wilderness for a long twenty-five years, on May 2 1714, Golitsyn died and was buried in an Orthodox monastery. Shortly after, Peter forgave his family and allowed him to return to Moscow. Currently, the Krasnogorsk-Bogoroditsky Monastery is inactive and completely destroyed. Fortunately, the tomb of the prince managed to save, now it lies in the local museum. It reads: “Under this stone, the body of the servant of God, Prince Vladimir of Moscow, was buried. Golitsyn. April 21 died on the age of 70 years ”.

The companions of Peter I tried to do everything so that this charismatic leader and the first minister of the regent’s sister, hated by the new tsar, would be forgotten. However, there were other opinions. The ardent supporters of Peter Franz Lefort and Boris Kurakin spoke highly of Prince Vasiliy. The administration of Golitsyn received high marks from the sophisticated politician of Empress Catherine II. One of the first in Russia, the prince not only proposed a plan for the restructuring of the traditional way of life of the state, but also proceeded to practical reform. And many of his undertakings did not disappear in vain. Willingly or unwittingly, Peter's reforms were the embodiment and continuation of the ideas and ideas of Vasily Golitsyn, and his victories in foreign affairs for many years determined the policy of Russia.

Based on the books: L.I. Berdnikov "The Great Golitsyn" and V.O. Klyuchevsky "Prince Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn".
Author:
15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nicholas C.
    Nicholas C. 14 May 2014 09: 35
    +1
    "It should be noted that until the seventeenth century foreigners generally preferred not to regard Russians as a cultural and civilized nation."
    Yeah. It is worth recalling, for example, the letter of Queen Anne to her father in order to clarify who was considering whom whom.

    Another empty surface propaganda anti-Russian Svidomo article.

    The article mentions the Jesuits. They were then freely operating under Sophia in Moscow. Sophia’s pro-Catholic pro-government government, including Golitsyn, was so treacherous (the then Gorbachevs, Kerensky) that the party of Protestant foreigners behind Peter could easily carry out a pro-protest coup. (How? See, for example, Brickner). And then by the hands of the Jew Shafirov ban the Orthodox patriarchate.

    And demagoguery about serfdom. Yes, it was then just under Alexei Mikhailovich was introduced in Russia. Before that there was no serfdom in Russia. The landowner (the royal treasury (monasteries still owned the land)) allocated land to the nobles for use. They leased it to the peasants (who at that time, before "Quiet", were a free "black" draft estate), and the nobles served on the funds received. But in Europe, then serfdom, slavery and many other forms of enslavement flourished. Since the days of the Roman Empire.
    1. alebor
      alebor 14 May 2014 11: 13
      +2
      I liked the article. The biography of a man about whom we know very little. And I did not find anything anti-Russian in it.
      The article shows very clearly that the transformation of Peter I did not arise from scratch, not at the whim of the autocrat, but was a necessary and logical result of the previous development of Russia. The predecessors of Peter sought to carry out similar transformations, but not as decisively, consistently and firmly as Peter. (No matter how you relate to Peter's reforms, but after its reforms, Russia has become much stronger. If, under Aleksei Mikhailovich, Russia hardly confronts Poland, then after Peter it becomes a great European power, becoming on a par with France, Austria and England, next to which Poland is a second-rate state).
      As for serfdom, by the time it was legally enshrined in Russia, in Western Europe, for example in France, it was already dying, and in Central Europe it was in full swing. In Russia, the peak of serfdom, with all its cruelties, falls on the second half of the 18th century, i.e. one hundred years after the time described in the article.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. ImPerts
    ImPerts 14 May 2014 12: 59
    0
    It's hard to talk about that time. You have to be a professional historian and study documents. And we (and myself included) judge those times by reading "Peter I" and watching "The Youth of Peter" together with the film "At the beginning of glorious deeds."
    Around the same, we represent France from the books of Dumas.
  3. parus2nik
    parus2nik 14 May 2014 13: 35
    +2
    Quote: Nikolai S.
    But in Europe then serfdom, slavery and many other forms of enslavement flourished.

    Let's just say ... serfdom in England was abolished already in the 14th century after the uprising of Wat Tyler, but the main reason was the plague ... in France, serfdom was also abolished after a large-scale uprising of peasants called "Jacquerie" and also somewhere in century 14 ... Magdeburg law (self-government) flourished in Europe .. Slavery, but I do not argue, the largest slave market for slaves in Marseille, France ... traded in Africans, Slavs (Great Russians, Little Russians), Peter I even signed an agreement with the French king Louis, that France will ransom the Russians, and Russia will compensate ... On December 6, 1590, the tsarist decree of Fyodor Ioannovich abolished the possibility of voluntary change by the peasants of their landowners, which was called by the people of St. George's Day. peasants. Now even the very possibility of changing the landowner was officially prohibited.
    1. parus2nik
      parus2nik 14 May 2014 14: 24
      +3
      Less for what? Because Marseille had the largest slave trade market? Or because Fedor Ivanovich Yuriev canceled the day? For the fact that as a result of peasant uprisings there in the West, their feudal lords abolished serfdom?
    2. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 14 May 2014 15: 14
      0
      Quote: parus2nik
      in France, serfdom was also abolished after a large-scale uprising of peasants called "Jacqueria" and also somewhere in the 14th century


      Minus-for Svidomo lies.

      Serfdom in France was abolished only in 1793. Kropotkin P. A.: The Great French Revolution 1789-1793 www.aitrus.info/node/941

      From Galitsyn V.V. to this date much more than from her until the abolition of the Communist Party in Russia.

      St. George's Day has nothing to do with serfdom. These WEEKS were intended to pay the tenant with the land owner and the state and, if necessary, to leave the peasant tenant to another place.

      In England, a special case. There, sheep became more important than humans. Therefore, people were driven away from the plots and, accordingly, emancipated. A classic of history. It’s a shame not to know.

      Romanov historians have spent a lot of effort to prove that serfdom was introduced not by them (the Romanovs), but by Godunov or even Fedor. But in the texts of the decrees of Godunov and Fedor there is nothing about serfdom. There is about the LIMITATION of the investigation of those who did not pay off on "St. George's Day" and fled with their earnings (ie, those who broke the law) for FIVE years. And in some years St. George's Day was canceled, because the territory of Russia increased at times and the mass resettlement of peasants to new free lands led to the impoverishment of the nobles and to the impossibility of their service.

      By the way, serfdom, even under the Romanovs, was far from covering the whole territory of Russia, and where it was, not all peasants.

      PS. The law on racial segregation in your USA was repealed only in 1964. Formally. In fact - not really.
      1. Turkir
        Turkir 14 May 2014 17: 31
        0
        And I thought that in France serfdom disappeared by the end of the XNUMXth century. There remained land taxes, but personal addiction was gone. The last rights of the nobility to land remained until 1793.
        Kropotkin - who is this?
        1. parus2nik
          parus2nik 14 May 2014 21: 15
          0
          And I thought that in France serfdom disappeared by the end of the 1793th century. Land taxes remained, but there was no personal dependence. The last rights of the nobility to land remained until XNUMX.
          Kropotkin - who is this?

          Here, we, according to Nikolai S, are deeply mistaken .. Kropotkin PA - Russian revolutionary, theorist of anarchism, geographer, geomorphologist, historian ... as you see, great authority ... in addition, the prince ... But our opponent and him apparently did not read carefully ..
          1. Turkir
            Turkir 14 May 2014 21: 59
            0
            Kropotkin is not credibility for me.
            Simply, when WE talk about serfdom, first of all we mean human trafficking. I honestly did not hear that French peasants were sold as greyhounds, even in the XNUMXth century, not to mention the XNUMXth century.
            We do not touch on all the subtleties of French serfdom from a legal point of view. Not enough space. But in the form in which we had it in the 19th century, they did not have it in the 17th century.
            ---------------
            Regarding the article:
            a) she has no definition of any anti-Russian orientation. History has FACTS, not emotions.
            c) The facts are correct. And V. Golitsin, a really very interesting historical figure.
            c) V. Golitsin, modern historians, put in the shade according to tradition, in order to contrast him with the figure of Peter I, who did not finish a single thing.
            The article is undoubtedly interesting for all lovers of Russian history.
      2. parus2nik
        parus2nik 14 May 2014 20: 41
        0
        Serfdom in France was abolished only in 1793 — yeah, the feudal laws that still existed were abolished, and the peasants were no longer the property of the feud ..
      3. parus2nik
        parus2nik 14 May 2014 20: 49
        +2
        In England, a special case. There, sheep became more important than humans. Therefore, people were driven away from the plots and, accordingly, emancipated. A classic of history. It’s a shame not to know.
        It’s a shame not to know that sheep ate people in the 17th century .. and in the 14th century the dependence of the peasant on the feudal lord was canceled .. in England on June 14, 1380 in the London suburb of Mile End, a meeting of peasants with King Richard II took place, during which they They put forward demands (the so-called Meyland program) for the abolition of serfdom and corvee, the establishment of uniform and moderate cash rents, free trade, amnesty for all participants in the uprising. The king was forced to accept these demands. The uprising, despite the defeat, helped to accelerate the liberation of the peasants from personal dependence and the replacement of corvee with cash rents.
      4. parus2nik
        parus2nik 14 May 2014 21: 18
        0
        Nikolay, you can’t explain simple things and stupidly put cons .. With Baaaaaaaaaaaalshim scientist, how do you argue is not worth it more expensive .. laughing
        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 14 May 2014 22: 34
          0
          I minus SOMETIMES because you are a liar. And insolently pretend that you do not understand the meaning of the written and continue to lie. Typically for Svidomo.

          Quote: Turkir
          serfdom in disappeared by the end of the XV century. Land taxes remained, but there was no personal dependence anymore

          Quote: parus2nik
          .Propotkin P.A.- Russian revolutionary, theorist of anarchism, geographer, geomorphologist, historian ... as you can see great authority ... in addition, and the prince .. But our opponent and apparently did not read it carefully ..

          "Finally, in 1779, the 'right of the dead hand' ** and personal serfdom on the king's estates were destroyed; and the following year it was decided to abolish torture." This is a link to Kropotkin. This is only 15 years before the complete cancellation. What a 15 century. By the way, in addition to serfs (surfers, etc.), there were also slaves in France (their own, not Slavs and not Negroes). And the abolition of 1793 concerns only the territory of indigenous France (not colonies and overseas territories).

          Quote: parus2nik
          Yes, the calculation of the peasant, that would go to another owner .. And why was it canceled? How did he interfere?

          Do not understand the meaning of what was written before? Hard case.
          Not canceled, but canceled in some years. It is written why. Actually because the peasants were free, Russia settled so widely.
          The nobleman was the same user of land as the peasant renting his land. The owner (owner) was the state. This is the fundamental difference between Russia and the West.

          Quote: parus2nik
          Why did they prove to whom? are these Romanov historians and who are they? .. and then Fedor Ivanovich canceled the right to transfer the peasants to transfer from one owner to another — the so-called St. George's Day.

          I understand that you have not read any historians. And calm down, liar, about St. George’s Day. Most of the work will not be able to find out that St. George’s Day was fully functioning under Godunov.

          Quote: parus2nik
          not on the whole territory, there was no Don in the Urals, there were no Cossack lands in Siberia, neither was there in Siberia, there was no Kuban, there were no Terek .. But not all were Cossacks .. In the Arkhangelsk lands in Pomor was .. And you know why in the Russian North

          And there were state peasants, black-haired, soup ladles, arable, single-palace, ascribed, and much more. Never even 50% of Russian peasants (not Cossacks!) Were serfs. By the way, the most difficult corvée in Russia is 3 days. A panschina in the same Poland (and on the Polish lands of modern Ukraine) and 5, and 6 days a week. Moreover, it was also necessary to pay both cash and in-kind tax.
  4. parus2nik
    parus2nik 14 May 2014 20: 43
    0
    Quote: Nikolai S.
    St. George's Day has nothing to do with serfdom. These WEEKS were intended to pay the tenant with the land owner and the state and, if necessary, to leave the peasant tenant to another place.

    Yes, the calculation of the peasant, that would go to another owner .. And why was it canceled? How did he interfere?
  5. parus2nik
    parus2nik 14 May 2014 21: 09
    +1
    Romanov historians spent a lot of effort to prove that serfdom was introduced not by them (Romanovs), but by Godunov or even Fedor.
    Why did they prove to whom? these Romanov historians and who are they? .. and then Fedor Ivanovich canceled the right to transfer the peasants to transfer from one owner to another, the so-called St. George's Day ..St. George's Day has nothing to do with serfdom.Why was it canceled? I ask again ... toeven under the Romanovs, reposting law did not apply to the whole territory of Russia, and where it was, not all peasants.Of course, it wasn’t all over the Don territory, there were no Cossack lands in the Urals, there weren’t in Siberia either, there wasn’t in the Kuban, there weren’t on the Terek .. But not all were Cossacks .. In the Arkhangelsk lands in Pomerania also wasn’t .. And you know why there was no serfdom in the Russian North? Wheat does not grow ..