Notes of Empress Catherine II. Notes of Catherine II and E.R. Dashkova as historical sources

MM. SAFONOV

“Notes...” of CATHERINE II ABOUT HERSELF AND THE ROMANOVS

Safonov M.M. Catherine II and the Romanovs in her “Memoires”

Annotation

The article analyzes the “Notes of Empress Catherine the Second,” which are an outstanding monument of Russian culture of the last quarter of the 18th century. They represent a most valuable source on the history of the House of Romanov and contain unique material about four representatives of the Romanov dynasty, which was not reflected in other sources: Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, her nephew Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich, his wife Grand Duchess Ekaterina Alekseevna, their son Grand Duke Pavle. But the greatest value of these memoirs is that they allow us to get an idea of the personality of Empress Catherine II.

“Memoires” of Catherine II is an outstanding monument of the Russian culture of the last quarter of the XVIII century. It is a source of the great value about Romanov’s history. There is unique evidence about 4 members of the royal family: impress Elisabeth, her nephew impress gr. d. Peter, his wife Catherine, their son Paul. But the most interest of “Memoire” is a possibility to get a real notion of Catherine II herself.

Keywords

“Notes of Empress Catherine the Second,” Empress Elizabeth, Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich, Grand Duchess Catherine, Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich. “Memoires” of Catherine II, Empress Elisabeth, Grand Duke Peter, Grand Duchess Catherine, empress Catherine II, their son Paul.

SAFONOV Mikhail Mikhailovich – senior researcher at the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, candidate of historical sciences, St. Petersburg; 8-812-784-81-39; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

For almost a quarter of a century, Catherine II worked on her autobiographical notes. They were supposed to perpetuate the image of the empress in the memory of descendants. But on November 5, 1796, Catherine was struck down by an apoplexy. By the end of the next day, without regaining consciousness, the empress died. Sudden death thwarted her plan. More precisely, she did not allow it to be carried out as the empress had intended. And not because his unexpected death prevented him from finishing many years of work. It’s just that the apoplexy that struck Catherine that November morning did not allow the empress to prepare for death. Catherine intended to live until at least eighty years of age. She was sure that she still had time. If the empress wanted to remain in the memory of posterity as she described herself in the “Notes”, she had to, or rather was obliged to, destroy the drafts and preparatory materials. But she didn't have time to do this. Without wanting it, Catherine left the most valuable material to refute what she ultimately wrote about herself.

However, as strange as it may seem, none of the researchers took full advantage of this opportunity. Despite the fact that there is a study prepared by Academician A.N. Pypin is an authoritative academic edition of the French text “Notes...”, in which all the empress’s own texts are reproduced, including preparatory materials, as well as an accurate translation of this monument into Russian. The last publication was reproduced several times during perestroika and post-perestroika times.

Catherine created two editions of “Notes...”. And they differ very significantly from each other. The first edition dates back to the early 1770s. (1-194), that is, written by a woman who was in her fifties. This edition was created in an atmosphere of intense, but hidden from prying eyes, struggle for power that unfolded at the Russian court between adherents of Catherine II and supporters of her son Pavel Petrovich in connection with the approaching coming of age of the heir to the throne. Work on the second edition took place in the mid-1790s, when Catherine was in her seventies. (201-461) . This edition was written when Catherine’s power had already become sufficiently strong and the empress was faced with completely different tasks: first of all, to defend her historical right to the throne, when during the era of the French bourgeois revolution the very principle of monarchical power was called into question. The Empress was most concerned about presenting her ideal image to her offspring.

The first edition covers the period from the birth of Catherine to 1751. The second edition covers the period from the appearance of Sofia Augusta Frederica in Russia in 1744 to 1758. Thus, the time from the date of her arrival in St. Petersburg in 1744 to 1751 is described twice. And both in different ways.

In addition, another autobiographical note from the mid-1750s has reached us, written not by the empress, but by the Grand Duchess, the wife of the heir to the throne, who was yet to become emperor (467-499).

This note was intended either for the English envoy G. Williams or for his secretary S. Poniatowski. But, most likely, it is for the latter. It was written when Peter III was still Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich, that is, during the living heir of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. As the earliest, it differs very significantly from the first two and serves as an important aid for a correct understanding of the content of more complete memoir experiences.

Both editions, created in different political conditions, present two different self-portraits of the empress. This difference is due to the different tasks that the author of the memoirs set for himself. The main characters of “Notes...” are only accessories to the self-portrait of Catherine II. Since these self-portraits are different, their accessories are also different. All the characters in the memoirs of each edition constitute a strictly structured system of images, in which each image fulfills its strictly assigned function by the author. Since the overall layout of the first edition is different from the overall layout of the second edition, the functions of each character in both editions are completely different.

A comparison of these three texts reveals what Catherine wanted to hide at all costs. For a scientist, this is the most important aspect of the empress’s memoirs. Silences give the researcher a unique opportunity to ignore what Catherine tried to instill in her offspring and to determine what she was actually trying to hide. This approach allows us to restore its true appearance and determine the comparative authenticity of the image of each of the Romanovs presented in these texts. In turn, this opens up the opportunity not only to make significant adjustments to our ideas about the personality of Catherine and her “relatives,” but also to take a fresh look at the political struggle in the Russian elite.

Most of the episodes described in the “Notes...” are of such a personal nature that they are not reflected in any other documents. Therefore, only a comparison of their interpretations in both editions allows us to determine their comparative reliability. But the archive of the Secret Chancellery has been preserved. It contains material covering personnel changes in the Small Court. The documents of the Secret Chancellery concerning the lackeys serving the Grand Duchess and the Grand Duke, at first glance, do not have much historical significance. Therefore, these archival materials were of almost no interest to either historians of the imperial court or biographers of the Romanovs. It is these “minor” materials that make it possible to correctly understand the behavior of the main characters in “Notes...”, to explain the essence of the conflicts between the Small and Large Courts, and to restore what the memoirist tried to hide at all costs. Supplemented by reports from foreign diplomats, these materials make it possible to reconstruct the secret political struggle that was then unfolding in the St. Petersburg elite.

Both editions of “Notes...”, both the 1770s and the 1790s, differ so greatly from each other that one might even get the impression that they were written by different people. They created two completely different images of the author of the memoirs, that is, Catherine. And this in itself is a most important subject requiring the most careful research. Unfortunately, researchers, neither domestic nor foreign, did not recognize this most important circumstance and did not take advantage of the opportunities offered by the comparison of author's texts.

In the first edition of her “Notes...” Catherine II tries to create the image of a rather spontaneous girl, very lively and energetic, and most importantly, infinitely far from politics. She does not fight for the throne or for power, and is completely alien to any intrigues, conspiracies, or secret machinations. Providence itself destined her for the crown, but she herself believed in her destiny, but did nothing to master the scepter. This is a very pure and politically completely virgin creature. On the eve of marriage, she still does not know what “the difference between the two sexes” is. And remains so after the wedding. She is almost still a child. No wonder the doctor assured that seventeen-year-old Catherine had the head of a six-year-old child, since “the head bones have not yet fused.” She behaves accordingly: she loves to jump, gallop, loves blind man's buff, fussing, all kinds of childish pranks and children's games. Naturally, she is interested in dancing, dresses, and jewelry. She is opposed by the Great Court, led by Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, a rude, capricious, cruel, despotic woman. Undoubtedly, she is the main anti-hero of the first edition of “Notes...”. It is in her personality that all the misadventures and troubles that the Small Court, and above all Catherine herself, had to endure.

Almost constantly, the Grand Duchess is subjected to causeless harassment and insults. The Empress and the people she authorized to watch her daughter-in-law are disgusted by her cheerful and sociable character. She irritates them with her liveliness. The aging empress is shocked by the beauty of her youth. The Grand Duchess’s toilets also arouse Elizabeth’s jealousy. The Empress is unhappy that her daughter-in-law spends a lot of money on toilets and is constantly in debt. But her irritation is unjustified, because the origin of these debts is quite natural and cannot cause any criticism. However, Catherine is constantly subjected to undeserved humiliation and insults. To the point that, having seen her new beautiful dress, she is scolded for not having children, while only her husband is to blame for this, whose physical development did not allow him to become a father before the age of twenty-five. As a result of these reasons, the regime for maintaining the Small Court is constantly becoming more stringent. However, she cannot find a reasonable explanation for this, other than whim, caprice and tyranny. Every time Catherine is subjected to the empress’s escapades, this is caused by the character traits of the decrepit empress, a female despot who used her unlimited power over the destinies of her subjects. When Catherine is scolded for absolutely no reason, she never knows exactly why and what she was guilty of this time.

Catherine appears completely different in the second edition of her “Notes...”. Not a trace remained of the former image of the immediate child. This is a morally crystal clear creature with a masculine mind and character, and at the same time with a charming feminine appearance, a “noble knight” whose only motivations in life have always been “the strictest honesty and good will” (444-445). Of course, there is no more jumping, no fussing, no childish pranks, no childish fun. This is a fully grown man, a “philosopher at fifteen”, developed beyond his years. The image of the frolicking infanta is “ceded” to the husband, but his childish spontaneity is of a completely different kind than the author had previously. It borders on infantilism. What was previously presented as a manifestation of Catherine’s lively childish spontaneity is now presented as the fruit of the delayed mental and physical development of her husband, who cannot conceive a child simply because he has not yet psychologically become an adult man. This “negative” infantilism serves as a magnificent background against which Catherine’s now intellectualism manifests itself even more clearly. She is smart beyond her years. In everything she demonstrates the mental superiority and intellectual strength of a precocious girl.

Of course, the new image of “smart” Catherine also required interests that corresponded to it. She is not interested in balls, decorations, or outfits. Her interests are not in the tinsel of court life, they are in a completely different intellectual area: she diligently studies the Russian language, reads books, loves intelligent conversations. At the same time, she is extremely pious, sincerely religious. She is considered a "diligent child." And indeed, it is even more alien to politics than in the first edition. She does not pretend to anything and in everything is in accordance with the will of the empress, doing what she is ordered. Even in those episodes where earlier, contrary to the author’s intention, interest in political affairs slipped in, now the slightest traces of this have been carefully erased. If in the first edition the childish and spontaneous Catherine, despite her inclinations, nevertheless finds herself drawn into a political struggle - during the dangerous illness of the empress, the great princess-laughing and jumping - however, a plan appears to save herself and her husband (145-146), then in of the second edition, the “smart” and sincerely pious wife of the infantile Peter - half-boy, half-man, does not even think about anything like that.

She, as before, is subjected to unfair oppression. Either she is accused of not loving her husband, or she is completely unreasonably suspected of having an affair with the chamberlain. She is being humiliated completely undeservedly. But conflicts with Elizabeth and her entourage occur on a different basis. The narrow-minded and narrow-minded empress with the habits of a real tyrant is irritated by her daughter-in-law's intelligence. She is scolded for thinking she is too smart.

Now the reason for the constant dissatisfaction of Elizabeth and the people supervising Catherine is not the excessive liveliness and gaiety of the small court. They are worried that the “smart” daughter-in-law spends money all the time. The Empress is worried about the debts of Catherine, young and richly dressed. But she is forced to spend money on outfits, not out of spiritual inclination, but because court etiquette requires that the heir’s wife be richly dressed, and this puts her in debt. Elizabeth is irritated by her debts, her daughter-in-law's outfits, and most importantly, the mental superiority of the Grand Duchess. Therefore, people devoted to her are constantly being removed from Catherine’s circle one after another, but not because they love fun, as was the case before. Now they are being removed solely because they are loyal to Catherine.

The similarity between the images of Catherine in both editions is only that she is absolutely alien to politics.

In the first edition of the memoirs, the confrontation between two courtyards is a conflict of ages: the elderly are irritated by the liveliness and mobility of the youth. At the same time, this is a clash between the whims, whims, and tyranny of adults and the childish spontaneity of youth.

In the second edition of “Notes...” the conflicts of the Small and Large Courts are presented differently. The Empress is not so much a capricious tyrant, as she was before, but rather a kind and affectionate woman who treats her daughter-in-law with great sympathy and even love. True, the empress is sometimes out of sorts, falls under the influence of “evil people,” and then she manifests herself as a capricious despot and commits unfair acts. In addition, she is disgusted by Catherine’s intellectualism, so it is very easy for “evil people” to convince the empress that the Grand Duchess considers herself smarter than others. And this sometimes becomes a source of unpleasant misunderstandings. However, the main reason why the Small Court is subjected to ever-increasing persecution is the reckless, sometimes ridiculous, and sometimes simply ugly behavior of Peter, his openly hooligan antics, which cannot but entail fair punishment. Peter is presented as a real monster. It is he who gives rise to conflicts between the Big Court and the Small Court. Catherine is trying to stop her husband’s insolence. But she doesn’t succeed, and she is forced to share his sad fate. They both end up in a “political prison.” But the Grand Duchess suffers innocently for her husband. In addition, she herself becomes a victim of ill-wishers. They denigrate the heir's wife in the eyes of the suspicious empress. They often succeed, but she is forced to suffer completely undeservedly.

Thus, in the first edition, the antipodes are Empress Elizabeth and Grand Duchess Catherine. Despot and her victim. In order to portray her innocence, Catherine does not spare black colors, painting the disgusting image of Elizabeth. Moreover, each passage about the tyranny of the empress, as a rule, is accompanied by a narrative about the unjust persecution of an innocent girl. In a word, the uglier the empress looks, the more advantageous her daughter-in-law looks. Denouncing Elizabeth is a technique for Catherine’s self-justification.

A completely different technique was used in the second edition. Here the antipodes are Peter and Catherine. The main “villain” is the Grand Duke. It is he who is the main source of evil. Peter, as it were, borrows from Elizabeth, now depicted quite attractively, the image of an anti-hero. The portrait of Peter, drawn with the tendentious pen of his wife, is almost a caricature. By portraying her husband as a moral and physical monster, Catherine thereby sought to rehabilitate herself.

Both editions reflect two attempts to construct this historical untruth. The memoirist’s efforts were not in vain. The image created in the latest edition is firmly established in historiography. In 1859, Herzen published the text of the latest edition and, as it were, sanctified with his authority the image of Catherine, presented by herself. Since then, it is this image that has entered literature. This is how she appeared from the pages of the works of S.M. Solovyov and V.O. Klyuchevsky.

V.A. Bilbasov, the author of the most detailed biography of Catherine before her accession, and to this day remains the most complete collection of factual material, made this image almost canonical. Although the historian noted a certain bias in the “Notes” and “deliberate untruths,” he nevertheless transferred almost all the main provisions and self-characteristics of Catherine from this text into his work. All subsequent researchers, in general, followed the path laid by V.A. Bilbasov. Academic publication of the first edition of the Notes, carried out by A.N. Pypin, as well as other preparatory materials for all editions, raised many questions, but did not change the image of Catherine, drawn by herself in the final edition. It was only slightly corrected, clarified, and deepened based on data from other editions, but fundamentally remained unchanged. In Soviet times, no one studied the “Notes...” of Catherine II as a historical monument, even for the purpose of propaganda exposure. Yes, it was impossible.

At the end of the 20th and in the 21st centuries. In Russia, a whole series of uncritical works about Catherine II appeared, in which, to one degree or another, the question of her “Notes...” was considered. These writings were superficial in nature and were distinguished by an openly panegyric spirit. And although for the most part they were written by professional scientists, their works were more reminiscent of popular science essays, with the goal of restoring the reputation of Catherine II, undeservedly tarnished during Soviet times.

All these works are characterized by faith in the reliability of Catherine’s memoirs as a historical source and in the absolute sincerity of their author, almost in the confessional nature of the queen’s memoirs, written “with the utmost frankness.” The authors of these works firmly believed that young Catherine was not involved in politics and only the reckless behavior of her husband forced her to do so in the mid-1750s. to save himself, his son and the fatherland, join the political struggle. None of them doubted the authenticity of this image. Moreover, wanting to “complement” the final edition, modern biographers transfer into their biographies individual episodes described in the earlier edition, creating a kind of “synthetic image”.

The same situation exists in foreign historiography.

Meanwhile, neither of these two images of the author of the memoirs, presented in various editions, corresponds to reality. The real Catherine is the woman who created these two images. Why did she do this? In order to hide your true appearance from posterity. The most important research task, which has not yet been set by anyone, is to, by contrasting the two images of Catherine, to recreate the true appearance of the empress and the characters from the Romanov dynasty who surrounded her.

Bibliography

Safonov M.M. Testament of Catherine II. St. Petersburg, 2002.

Diary of A.V. Khrapovitsky. St. Petersburg, 1901.

Works of Empress Catherine II based on authentic manuscripts and explanatory notes by Academician A.N. Pypin. T. XII. St. Petersburg, 1907.

Notes of Empress Catherine II. St. Petersburg, 1907.

Notes of Empress Catherine II. M., 1989.

Kryuchkova M.A. Memoirs of Catherine II. M., 2009.

Sexual revelations of Catherine II and the origin of Paul I // Reflextions on Russia in the Eighteenth Century. Edited by Jaachim Klein, Simon Dixon and Maarten Fraanje. Bohlau Verlag Koln Weimar Vien. 2001.

About the origin of Paul I // Emperor Paul I - a view of the 21st century. St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 5-20.

Safonov M.M. Anhalt-Zerbst virgin // Technology of power. St. Petersburg, 2005. pp. 208-242.

Pisarenko K.A. Daily life of the Russian court during the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna. M., 2003.

Safonov M.M. The Big Court against the Small // Russian Imperial Court and Europe... P. 95 -101.

Soloviev S.M. History of Russia from ancient times. Book XII. T. 23-24. M., 1964. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. Part V. // Works in nine volumes. T. V. M. 1989.

Bilbasov V.A. The story of Catherine II. T. XII. Part II. Berlin, 1900.

Anisimov E.V. “Notes” of Catherine II: syllogisms and reality // Notes of Empress Catherine II. Reprint reproduction of the 1859 edition. M, 1990.

Safonov M.M. “Young Catherine” in Russian historiography // Mavrodin Readings. 2004. St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 46-47.

Madaryaga I., de. Russia in the era of Catherine the Great. M., 2002.

The full material is published in the Russian historical and archival journal VESTNIK ARCHIVISTA. Read the terms of subscription.

Introduction

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

It is possible to obtain information about a person, society, events in a particular historical period only by relying on historical sources. These include literary works, documents, newspapers, private correspondence, diaries, and memoirs. They carry the most valuable information about a certain historical period of time and the events that took place during this period.

Currently, without researching historical sources, a historian will not be able to examine a particular era objectively from all angles. The reliability of many events is determined by the stories of direct participants in these events or their records. A historian will not be research in the full sense of the word if he does not turn to the sources, analyze and study them.

The number of historical sources is limitless, but “among all this multitude...scientists distinguish a large category of written sources, which are the main ones, the main ones in the study of the written history of mankind.” This type of sources includes memoirs and private correspondence, that is, sources of personal origin. Their specificity is that they are subjective and cannot consider all aspects of what is happening. The author analyzes this or that event, giving it his personal characteristics, making certain conclusions that do not always coincide with reality. So, the author conveyed what he knew, saw and felt, or what he wanted to “see, know and feel.” Therefore, such sources must be considered through the prism of the author’s personality, through likes and dislikes, and involvement. Often, sources of personal origin were destroyed by the authors or recipients themselves or were stored carelessly.

Analyzing the notes of two Catherines: the Great and Dashkova, it should be noted that they cover one historical period and describe the same events, but from different angles and positions. Together they formed “a single thematic whole, chronologically adjacent to each other.” The notes cover the history of the palace coup of 1762 and the enthronement of Catherine.

The main problem in source studies is the correct interpretation of sources. G.P. Enin emphasizes that there are “blank spots” in history, which are “caused by the lack of written sources...however, even with a sufficient number of completely accessible sources, there remains a lot of unknown in history.” Therefore, based on the interpretations of the notes of Catherine II and Catherine Dashkova by various authors, we will consider the course of historical events during this period and the subjective assessment of the participation of these two outstanding women in the fate of Russia, given by them. Notes of Catherine II and E.R. Dashkova as a subject of historical sources was analyzed by such scientists as A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, L.Ya. Lizovskaya, N.Ya. Edelman, V.L. Burtsev.

Chapter 1. Notes of Catherine II as a historical source

Catherine II (the Great), Prussian princess, Empress of Russia, is an extraordinary person who made a great contribution to the history of Russia. As a young princess, she “set” the Russian throne as her goal and did everything possible and impossible to ascend to it.

The Empress was an educated woman; she wrote many works concerning the political, economic and social structure of the state, which were published in magazines and caused discussions not only in Russia itself, but also in Europe. It was not for nothing that progressive contemporaries nicknamed her “the philosopher on the throne,” which is an undoubted quality, and was perceived completely adequately.

The manuscript of the “Notes” was found by Paul, the son of Catherine II, among the papers. There was an inscription on the package: “To His Imperial Highness, Tsarevich and Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich, my dear son.” Pavel kept his mother's manuscript a great secret, entrusting it exclusively to his friend A. Kurakin, through whom copies of the manuscript, after Pavel's death, began to be distributed. But this process was interrupted by Emperor Nicholas, who kept the original in the imperial archives and destroyed all copies.

The notes of Catherine II are unique. This is a memoir-autobiography, which was written over several decades and covers the reign of not only Catherine herself, but also Peter III and Elizabeth Petrovna. A.N. Pypin and Ya.L. Barskov at the beginning of the 20th century found out that Catherine II wrote “Notes” from the moment she arrived in Russia until her death. It was a fragmentary process, the intensity of which became apparent after 1771. Although Herzen says that the manuscript of the notes ends in 1759. “It is said that there were scattered notes that were supposed to serve as material for a sequel.” But I want to note that the date of the last records of Catherine the Great varies among different researchers by about two or three years. It is quite possible that this is due to the initial secrecy that the imperial family attached to these notes. But we can assume that this is connected with the time when the “Notes” were studied by different researchers.

The Empress did not have time to edit the Notes; this was facilitated by the scattered nature of the notes and autobiographical passages. Researchers have counted seven editions of Catherine’s memoirs, which complement and sometimes contradict each other. This speaks not only of her talent as a publicist, but also of her desire for perfection, as well as in justifying herself, “whitewashing” before the Russian people and before her descendants for some actions that seemed indecent and discrediting to the crown to her contemporaries. E.R. Dashkova in her “Notes” more than once mentioned “spots on her crown.”

The publication of Catherine II’s “Notes” is in itself a historical fact that can show and tell a lot. “Notes” of Catherine II existed for a long time only in handwritten form, and were published in 1859 in the same printing house where the works of the empress’s opponents – Radishchev, Fonvizin, Shcherbatov – were published. “First published in the Herzen Free Printing House; published in Russia after the 1905 revolution." Such a large time gap between the discovery of this work and its publication is due to the secrecy of the document. The first publication was made from a copy, not from the original. As a result, the published “Notes” of Catherine II were of great interest in European and later in Russian society. “There is not a single work devoted to the political history of the 1760s - 1790s, which would not directly or indirectly use materials from the “Notes” of Catherine II.”

Thus, we can confidently consider this work to be a historical source, not only because it was written by a historical figure, although this has some significance, but also because certain historical events are described. “Notes” of Catherine II is a kind of reproduction of the socio-political life of Russia in the 18th century.

Chapter 2. “Notes” of Princess E.R. Dashkova as a source of history

The “Notes” of Catherine II are incomplete, therefore, in order to further continue the analysis of the political history of the 18th century, it is necessary to consider the “Notes” of Ekaterina Romanovna Dashkova. They also cover the events of the palace coup, the accession of Catherine II and subsequent events that span more than half a century. “The Notes of Princess Dashkova are especially important now, after the publication of the Notes of Empress Catherine II: The Notes of the Empress were suddenly interrupted in mid-sentence at the beginning of 1759, so you involuntarily wait for the continuation... especially the story about 1762. The first part of the Notes of Princess Dashkova serves as a natural continuation and commentary of the Notes of Catherine II. Events continue with the same coverage from Dashkova...” Two Catherines lived through the same period, but they cover it so differently. Here you can clearly see the subjective analysis of the facts of both authors in the material presented. That is, many years later, after the coup, when both Catherines took up the pen to write their memoirs, they adhered strictly to their versions of participation in the overthrow of Peter III.

E.R. Dashkova sat down to write her memoirs at an advanced age. Most likely, the reason that prompted the writing of “Notes” is Katherine and Martha Vilmont, who not only persuaded their friend to write memoirs, but also took part in the work and copied it. Work on “Notes” lasted more than a year and a half. Dashkova set the end date - October 27, 1805. Dashkova's memoirs cover the reigns of Elizabeth Petrovna, Peter III, Catherine II, Paul I and Alexander I. She captured a huge amount of historical material in her Notes, which is confirmed by historical and archival sources.

Dashkova’s “notes” were found by the executor in her archives in 1810; he made a copy of the memoirs. The original “Notes” was taken by the Vilmont sisters to England, and many of Ekaterina Romanovna’s friends became acquainted with it. In Russia, the Notes became known from a manuscript in French written by Vilmont. The first edition of Dashkova's Notes appeared 30 years after her death, in 1840, translated from French into English. “The text of the Notes had one note by Miss Wilmont and was divided into 29 chapters.” This publication of notes interested A.I. Herzen. Herzen became a kind of autobiographer of Dashkova, studied her “Notes” and wrote an article in “Polar Star”. This article became the preface to many editions of the Notes in different languages. A.I. Herzen published “Notes” in his Free Printing House. He admired this woman, calling her “a new phenomenon in Russia in the 18th century.”

Lozinskaya notes that “Dashkova’s Notes are not a historical study. The scientist will find factual inaccuracies in them; they are subjective in many assessments and in the selection of material.” The author covers the facts from a certain angle, often contradicts herself, idealizes what has long ceased to be an ideal, and bypasses numerous important legislative acts. She describes the time of the palace coup the way she wants to see it. But despite this, “Notes” by E.R. Dashkova are a valuable historical source.

Chapter 3. Correspondence of two Catherines

Not only the memoirs of Catherine II and E.R. Dashkova are a historical source. There are letters from Catherine II to Dashkova. These letters show the relationship between Catherine: the empress and the cultural figure as two women, friends, supporting and trusting each other.

46 letters from Catherine II to Dashkova have been preserved. They are signed: “Your devoted friend”, “Your constant friend”. There are only three letters left from Dashkova to Catherine II; they are kept in private collections. This is due to the fact that, as a precaution, the empress immediately burned the letters, since she was under constant surveillance in those years. It should be noted that the letters of 1761–1762 were tender. Historian D.I. Ilovaisky notes “Dashkova’s enthusiastic enthusiasm and play with feelings, artificiality, and the presence of ulterior thoughts in Catherine’s friendly outpourings.” This shows the distance of Catherine II, her frivolous attitude towards the young girl. Opposite E.R. Dashkova idolized her older friend. In later letters (from 1774 to 1782), Catherine discussed her printed and handwritten works, analyzed the public's reaction, and considered the activities of her opponents. From the letters we can learn about how Catherine II reacted to the printing of the works of Fonvizin and Radishchev. With the help of letters they discussed some of the affairs of the Academy when E.R. Dashkova took the lead.

I believe that the letters are an important source that gives us a more realistic picture of the relationship between the two Catherines and their attitude to what was happening in Russia in the 18th century. The letters most fully present to us the feelings and characters of the authors, their thoughts and motivations, their desires and dreams.

Conclusion

Thus, one of the main achievements of the socio-political and cultural life of Russia in the 18th century is the writing of memoirs of two great women: an empress and a cultural figure, two Catherines: the Great and Dashkova, as well as their correspondence.

In their works they pay the main attention to the events of the palace coup, that is, the change of power, and their participation in these events. These memoirs are a kind of continuation of each other, which shows some continuity and connection between the authors.

A.I. Herzen noted that his ideological plan was “to holistically present the outstanding memoirs of the 18th century.” I think he succeeded. In one book, collect the memoirs of Catherine II and E.R. Dashkova, as well as their letters in the original, in French, and translated into Russian with comments and remarks. “Notes” are bright, original literary and political documents, where autobiographies are presented in the historical context of the Elizabethan, Catherine and Pauline reigns, which in itself is a historical fact. As a result, the memoirs and letters of Empress Catherine II and Catherine Romanovna Dashkova are historical sources that show us the entire chain of events in Russia in the 18th century.

Literature

1. Dashkova E.R. Notes. 1743 – 1810. Kaliningrad: Amber Tale, 2001. 500 p.

Catherine II

Happiness is not as blind as it is imagined. Often it is the result of a long series of measures, true and accurate, not noticed by the crowd and preceding the event. And in particular, the happiness of individuals is a consequence of their qualities, character and personal behavior. To make this more tangible, I will construct the following syllogism:

qualities and character will be a greater premise;

behavior – less;

happiness or unhappiness is a conclusion.

Here are two striking examples:

Catherine II,

At the head of the educators of Peter III was the chief marshal of his court, Brümmer, a Swede by birth; Subordinate to him were Chief Chamberlain Bergholz, the author of the above “Diary,” and four chamberlains; two of them - Adlerfeldt, author of the "History of Charles XII", and Wachtmeister - were Swedes, and the other two, Wolf and Mardefeld, were Holsteiners. This prince was brought up in view of the Swedish throne at a court too large for the country in which he was located, and divided into several parties burning with hatred; each of them wanted to master the mind of the prince whom she was supposed to educate, and, consequently, instilled in him the disgust that all parties mutually harbored towards their opponents. The young prince hated Brümmer with all his heart, who inspired fear in him, and accused him of excessive severity. He despised Bergholz, who was Brummer's friend and admirer, and did not like any of his associates because they embarrassed him.

From the age of ten, Peter III discovered a tendency to drink. He was forced into over-representation and was not allowed out of his sight day or night. Whom he loved most in childhood and in the first years of his stay in Russia were two old valets: one - Kramer, a Livonian, the other - Rumberg, a Swede. The latter was especially dear to him. He was a rather rude and tough man, from the dragoons of Charles XII. Brümmer, and therefore Bergholz, who saw everything only through the eyes of Brümmer, were devoted to the prince, guardian and ruler; everyone else was dissatisfied with this prince and even more with his entourage. Having ascended the Russian throne, Empress Elizabeth sent Chamberlain Korf to Holstein to summon his nephew, whom the prince-ruler sent immediately, accompanied by Chief Marshal Brümmer, Chief Chamberlain Bergholz and Chamberlain Duiker, who was the former’s nephew.

Great was the joy of the Empress on the occasion of his arrival. A little later, she went to the coronation in Moscow. She decided to declare this prince her heir. But first of all, he had to convert to the Orthodox faith. The enemies of Chief Marshal Brümmer, namely the Grand Chancellor Count Bestuzhev and the late Count Nikita Panin, who had long been the Russian envoy in Sweden, claimed that they had in their hands convincing evidence that Brümmer had since seen that the Empress had decided to announce his nephew, the presumptive heir to the throne, made as much effort to spoil the mind and heart of his pupil as he previously cared to make him worthy of the Swedish crown. But I always doubted this vileness and thought that the upbringing of Peter III turned out to be unsuccessful due to a coincidence of unfortunate circumstances. I’ll tell you what I saw and heard, and this will explain a lot.

I saw Peter III for the first time when he was eleven years old, in Eitin, with his guardian, the Prince-Bishop of Lübeck. A few months after the death of Duke Karl-Friedrich, his father, the Prince-Bishop gathered the whole family in Eitin in 1739 to introduce his pet into it. My grandmother, the mother of the prince-bishop, and my mother, the sister of the same prince, came there from Hamburg with me. I was ten years old then. There were also Prince Augustus and Princess Anne, brother and sister of the guardian prince and ruler of Holstein. It was then that I heard from this family gathered together that the young Duke was prone to drunkenness and that his entourage had difficulty preventing him from getting drunk at the table, that he was stubborn and quick-tempered, that he did not like those around him, and especially Brümmer, which, however , he showed liveliness, but was of a weak and frail build.

Indeed, his complexion was pale and he seemed skinny and weakly built. Those close to him wanted to present this child as an adult and for this purpose they constrained him and kept him under duress, which was supposed to instill falseness in him, starting with his demeanor and ending with his character.

As soon as the Holstein court arrived in Russia, it was followed by the Swedish embassy, which arrived to ask the Empress for her nephew to inherit the Swedish throne. But Elizabeth, having already declared her intentions, as stated above, in the preliminary articles of the peace of Abo, replied to the Swedish Diet that she declared her nephew heir to the Russian throne and that she adhered to the preliminary articles of the peace of Abo, which appointed Sweden as the heir presumptive to the crown of the prince-ruler Holsteins. (This prince had a brother to whom Empress Elizabeth was engaged after the death of Peter I. This marriage did not take place because the prince died of smallpox a few weeks after the betrothal; Empress Elizabeth retained a very touching memory of him and gave evidence of this to the entire family of this prince .)

So, Peter III was declared the heir of Elizabeth and the Russian Grand Duke, following the confession of his faith according to the rite of the Orthodox Church; Simeon of Theodore, who later became the Archbishop of Pskov, was given to him as a mentor. This prince was baptized and brought up according to the Lutheran rite, the most severe and least tolerant, since from childhood he was always intractable to any edification.

I heard from those close to him that in Kiel it took the greatest effort to send him to church on Sundays and holidays and to encourage him to perform the rituals that were required of him, and that for the most part he showed unbelief. His Highness allowed himself to argue with Simeon of Theodore regarding every point; his entourage was often called upon to decisively interrupt the fight and moderate the ardor that they brought into it; Finally, with great bitterness, he submitted to what the Empress, his aunt, wanted, although he more than once made it felt - whether out of prejudice, out of habit, or out of a spirit of contradiction - that he would prefer to go to Sweden than to stay in Russia . He kept Brümmer, Bergholz and his Holstein associates with him until his marriage; to them were added, for the sake of form, several teachers: one, Isaac Veselovsky, for the Russian language - he occasionally came to him at first, and then he did not go at all; the other - Professor Shtelin, who was supposed to teach him mathematics and history, but in essence played with him and served him almost as a jester.

The most diligent teacher was Lange, the choreographer who taught him to dance.

In his inner chambers, the Grand Duke at that time did nothing but organize military exercises with a bunch of people given to him for room services; he either gave them ranks and distinctions, or deprived them of everything, depending on how he pleased. These were real children's games and constant childishness; in general, he was still very childish, although he was sixteen years old in 1744, when the Russian court was in Moscow. In this particular year, Catherine II arrived with her mother on February 9 in Moscow. The Russian court was then divided into two large camps, or parties. At the head of the first, which began to rise after its decline, was the vice-chancellor, Count Bestuzhev-Ryumin; he was incomparably more feared than loved; he was an extraordinary rogue, suspicious, firm and undaunted, quite domineering in his convictions, an implacable enemy, but a friend of his friends, whom he left only when they turned their backs to him, however, quarrelsome and often petty. He stood at the head of the College of Foreign Affairs; in the fight with the empress's entourage, before going to Moscow, he suffered damage, but began to recover; he adhered to the Viennese, Saxon and English courts. The arrival of Catherine II and her mother did not give him pleasure. This was a secret affair of a party hostile to him; Count Bestuzhev's enemies were numerous, but he made them all tremble. He had the advantage of his position and character over them, which gave him a significant advantage over the politicians in the front.

Current page: 1 (book has 32 pages in total)

Catherine II
Notes
Part I

qualities and character will be a greater premise;

behavior – less;

happiness or unhappiness is a conclusion.

Here are two striking examples:

Catherine II,

Mother of Peter III, daughter of Peter I [i]
Anna Petrovna(1708-1728), eldest daughter of Peter I, married Duchess of Holstein-Gottorp.

She died about two months after she gave birth to him, from consumption, in the small town of Kiel, in Holstein, from grief that she had to live there, and even in such an unsuccessful marriage. Karl Friedrich, Duke of Holstein
Karl-Friedrich, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp (1700-1739).

The nephew of Charles XII, King of Sweden, father of Peter III, was a weak, unprepossessing, short, frail and poor prince (see Bergholz's Diary
Bergholtz (Berghholz) Friedrich Wilhelm von(1699-1765), chamberlain of the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, author of the “Diary” containing valuable information about Russia in the last years of the reign of Peter I.

in Buesching's "Store"
Büsching Anton-Friedrich(1724-1793), German scientist and writer, publisher of the “Magazine”, in which he was published in 1785-1787. “Diary” of F.W. von Berchholtz.

). He died in 1739 and left a son, who was about eleven years old, under the tutelage of his cousin Adolf Friedrich, Bishop of Lübeck, Duke of Holstein, afterwards King of Sweden, elected by the preliminary articles of the peace of Abo at the proposal of the Empress Elizabeth [v]
Adolf Friedrich, Duke of Holstein-Eitin (1710-1771), cousin of Charles Frederick and uncle of Catherine II. In 1727-1750 Bishop of Lubeck, since 1751 King of Sweden.

At the head of the educators of Peter III was the chief marshal of his court, Brümmer
Brummer Otto, Count, tutor of Peter III.

Swedish by birth; Subordinate to him were Chief Chamberlain Bergholz, the author of the above “Diary,” and four chamberlains; two of them are Adlerfeldt
Adlerfeldt (Adlerfeld) Gustav, court historian of Charles XII, tutor of Peter III.

- were Swedes, and the other two, Wolf and Mardefeld, were Holsteins. This prince was brought up in view of the Swedish throne at a court too large for the country in which he was located, and divided into several parties burning with hatred; each of them wanted to master the mind of the prince whom she was supposed to educate, and, consequently, instilled in him the disgust that all parties mutually harbored towards their opponents. The young prince hated Brümmer with all his heart, who inspired fear in him, and accused him of excessive severity. He despised Bergholz, who was Brummer's friend and admirer, and did not like any of his associates because they embarrassed him.

From the age of ten, Peter III discovered a tendency to drink. He was forced into over-representation and was not allowed out of his sight day or night. Whom he loved most in childhood and in the first years of his stay in Russia were two old valets: one - Kramer, a Livonian, the other - Rumberg, a Swede. The latter was especially dear to him. He was a rather rude and tough man, from the dragoons of Charles XII. Brümmer, and therefore Bergholz, who saw everything only through the eyes of Brümmer, were devoted to the prince, guardian and ruler; everyone else was dissatisfied with this prince and even more with his entourage. Having ascended the Russian throne, Empress Elizabeth sent chamberlain Korf to Holstein
Korf Nikolay Andreevich, baron (1710-1766), general-in-chief, from 1760 St. Petersburg police chief general, from 1762 chief director of the police.

Summon the nephew, whom the prince-ruler sent immediately, accompanied by Chief Marshal Brümmer, Chief Chamberlain Bergholz and Chamberlain Duiker, who was the first nephew.

and the late Count Nikita Panin
Panin Nikita Ivanovich, Count (1718-1783), outstanding statesman, diplomat. Educator of Paul I.

Who had long been the Russian envoy to Sweden, claimed to have in their hands convincing evidence that Brümmer, from the moment he saw that the Empress had decided to declare her nephew presumptive heir to the throne, had made as much effort to corrupt the mind and heart of his pupil as he cared earlier to make him worthy of the Swedish crown. But I always doubted this vileness and thought that the upbringing of Peter III turned out to be unsuccessful due to a coincidence of unfortunate circumstances. I’ll tell you what I saw and heard, and this will explain a lot.

The sister of the same prince came there from Hamburg with me. I was ten years old then. Prince Augustus was also here
August - Friedrich, Prince of Holstein (1711-1785).

and Princess Anne
Anna, Princess of Holstein, married Duchess of Saxe-Gotha. Aunt of Peter III and Catherine II.

Brother and sister of the Prince Guardian and Ruler of Holstein. It was then that I heard from this family gathered together that the young Duke was prone to drunkenness and that his entourage had difficulty preventing him from getting drunk at the table, that he was stubborn and quick-tempered, that he did not like those around him, and especially Brümmer, which, however , he showed liveliness, but was of a weak and frail build.

To whom Empress Elizabeth was engaged after the death of Peter I. This marriage did not take place because the prince died of smallpox a few weeks after the betrothal; Empress Elizabeth retained a very touching memory of him and gave evidence of this to the entire family of this prince.)

So, Peter III was declared the heir of Elizabeth and the Russian Grand Duke, following the confession of his faith according to the rite of the Orthodox Church; Simeon of Theodore was given to him as a mentor
Simeon Theodore(Todorsky; 1700-1754), church leader, spiritual writer, translator.

Who later became Archbishop of Pskov. This prince was baptized and brought up according to the Lutheran rite, the most severe and least tolerant, since from childhood he was always intractable to any edification.

I heard from those close to him that in Kiel it took the greatest effort to send him to church on Sundays and holidays and to encourage him to perform the rituals that were required of him, and that for the most part he showed unbelief. His Highness allowed himself to argue with Simeon of Theodore regarding every point; his entourage was often called upon to decisively interrupt the fight and moderate the ardor that they brought into it; Finally, with great bitterness, he submitted to what the Empress, his aunt, wanted, although he more than once made it felt - either out of prejudice, out of habit, or out of a spirit of contradiction - that he would prefer to go to Sweden than to stay in Russia . He kept Brümmer, Bergholz and his Holstein associates with him until his marriage; to them were added, for the sake of form, several teachers: one, Isaac Veselovsky
Veselovsky Isaac Pavlovich(d. 1754), member of the College of Foreign Affairs. Brother of prominent diplomats of Peter the Great's time A.P. and F.P. Veselovsky.

For the Russian language - he came to him occasionally at first, and then he did not go at all; another - Professor Shtelin
Shtelin Jacob (Yakov Yakovlevich; 1709-1785), art critic, professor of eloquence and poetry at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, engraver.

Who was supposed to teach him mathematics and history, but in essence played with him and served him almost as a jester.

Lange was the most diligent teacher
Lange (Lende) Jean-Baptiste, court choreographer.

The choreographer who taught him to dance.

The party hostile to Bestuzhev adhered to France, Sweden, which enjoyed its patronage, and the King of Prussia
Frederick II the Great(1712-1786), King of Prussia from 1740

; Marquis de la Chétardie
Chétardy Jacques Joachim Trotti affairs, Marquis (1705-1758), French diplomat, in 1739-1744. envoy to Russia.

was her soul, and the court, who arrived from Holstein, was the matadors; they attracted Count Lestock
Lestok Johann-Hermann, Count (1692-1767), personal physician. In Russian service since 1713

One of the main figures in the coup that elevated the late Empress Elizabeth to the Russian throne. This latter enjoyed great confidence; he was her surgeon from the death of Catherine I, with whom he was present, and provided significant services to mother and daughter; he had no lack of intelligence, or cunning, or cunning, but he was angry and black and disgusting in heart. All these foreigners supported each other and pushed forward Count Mikhail Vorontsov
Vorontsov Mikhail Illarionovich, count (1714-1767), statesman, diplomat, chamberlain; from 1754 vice-chancellor, in 1758-1762. chancellor Brother of Count R.I. Vorontsov (see note 100).

Who also took part in the coup and accompanied Elizabeth on the night she ascended the throne. She forced him to marry the niece of Empress Catherine I, Countess Anna Karlovna Skavronskaya
Skavronskaya Anna Karlovna, married Vorontsova (1722-1775), cousin of Elisaveta Petrovna; State lady. Wife of Count M.I. Vorontsov (see note 23).

Who was raised with Empress Elizabeth and was very attached to her.

Count Alexander Rumyantsev also joined this party.
Rumyantsev Alexander Ivanovich, count (1679/1680-1749), statesman, diplomat. Father of Count P. A. Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky.

The father of the field marshal, who signed peace with the Swedes in Abo, about which they did not really consult with Bestuzhev. They also counted on the Prosecutor General Prince Trubetskoy
Trubetskoy Nikita Yurievich, prince (1699-1767), field marshal general; in 1740-1760 Prosecutor General.

For the entire Trubetskoy family and, therefore, for the Prince of Hesse-Homburg
Ludwig-Wilhelm, Landgrave (Prince) of Hesse-Homburg (1704-1745), in Russian service from 1723; Field Marshal General.

Married to the princess of this house
Trubetskaya Anastasia Ivanovna, princess, daughter of Field Marshal Prince I. Yu. Trubetskoy, in her first marriage, Princess Cantemir, in her second, Landgrave (Princess) of Hesse-Homburg (1700-1755); see also note. 27, 145.

This Prince of Hesse-Homburg, who was then highly respected, was nothing in himself, and his importance depended on the numerous relatives of his wife, whose father and mother were still alive; this last one carried a lot of weight. The rest of the empress's close associates then consisted of the Shuvalov family, who hesitated at every step, Chief Jägermeister Razumovsky
Razumovsky Alexey Grigorievich, count (1709-1771), field marshal general; morganatic husband of Elisaveta Petrovna.

Who at that time was the recognized favorite, and one bishop. Count Bestuzhev knew how to benefit from them, but his main support was Baron Cherkasov
Cherkasov Ivan Antonovich, baron (1692-1752), cabinet secretary of Elisaveta Petrovna

Secretary of the Empress's Cabinet, who had previously served in the Cabinet of Peter I. He was a rude and stubborn man, demanding order and justice and compliance with the rules in every matter.

The rest of the courtiers took one side or the other, depending on their interests and everyday appearance. The Grand Duke seemed pleased with the arrival of my mother and mine.

I was fifteen years old; for the first ten days he was very busy with me; Immediately and during this short period of time, I saw and understood that he did not really value the people over whom he was destined to reign, that he adhered to Lutheranism, did not love his entourage and was very childish. I was silent and listened, which gained his trust; I remember he told me, among other things, that what he liked most about me was that I was his second cousin, and that as a relative he could talk to me to his heart’s content, after which he said that he was in love with one of the empress’s ladies-in-waiting, who was then removed from the court due to the misfortune of her mother, a certain Lopukhina
Lopukhina Natalya Fedorovna, née Balk-Poleva(1699-1763), state lady. In 1743 she was accused of conspiracy, whipped and exiled to Siberia.

Exiled to Siberia; that he would like to marry her, but that he submits to the necessity of marrying me because his aunt wishes it.

I listened, blushing, to these related conversations, thanking him for his quick confidence, but in the depths of my soul I looked with amazement at his foolishness and lack of judgment about many things.

On the tenth day after my arrival in Moscow, one Saturday the Empress left for the Trinity Monastery. The Grand Duke stayed with us in Moscow. They have already given me three teachers: one, Simeon of Theodore, to instruct me in the Orthodox faith; another, Vasily Adadurov
Adadurov Vasily Evdokimovich(1709-1780), mathematician, linguist, translator. From 1744 senator, from 1759 in exile; under Catherine II, curator of Moscow University, president of the Manufactory Collegium.

For the Russian language, and Lange, the choreographer, for dancing. To make faster progress in the Russian language, I got out of bed at night and, while everyone was sleeping, memorized the notebooks that Adadurov left me; Since my room was warm and I was not at all accustomed to the climate, I did not put on shoes - as I got out of bed, I studied.

On the thirteenth day I contracted pleurisy, from which I almost died. It opened with a chill that I felt on Tuesday after the Empress left for the Trinity Monastery: the minute I got dressed to go to dinner with my mother at the Grand Duke’s, I hardly received permission from my mother to go to bed. When she returned from lunch, she found me almost unconscious, in a high fever and with unbearable pain in my side. She imagined that I would have smallpox: she sent for doctors and wanted them to treat me accordingly; they argued that I needed to bleed; the mother never wanted to agree to this; she said that doctors let her brother die of smallpox in Russia by bleeding him, and that she didn’t want the same thing to happen to me.

The doctors and associates of the Grand Duke, who had not yet had smallpox, were sent to report exactly to the Empress about the state of affairs, and I remained in bed, between my mother and the doctors, who were arguing among themselves. I was unconscious, in a strong fever and with pain in my side, which made me suffer terribly and make moans, for which my mother scolded me, wanting me to patiently endure the pain.

Finally, on Saturday evening, at seven o’clock, that is, on the fifth day of my illness, the Empress returned from the Trinity Monastery and, right after leaving the carriage, entered my room and found me unconscious. She was followed by Count Lestocq and the surgeon; After listening to the doctors' opinion, she sat down at the head of my bed and ordered me to bleed. The minute the blood gushed out, I came to my senses and, opening my eyes, saw myself in the arms of the empress, who was lifting me up.

I remained between life and death for twenty-seven days, during which I was bled sixteen times and sometimes four times a day. Mother was hardly allowed into my room anymore; she was still against these frequent bloodlettings and loudly said that they would kill me; however, she was beginning to be convinced that I would not have smallpox.

The Empress assigned Countess Rumyantseva to me
Rumyantseva Maria Andreevna, Countess, née Countess Matveeva (1698-1788), lady of state. Wife of A.I. Rumyantsev (see note 25).

and several other women, and it was clear that the mother's judgment was not trusted. Finally, the abscess that I had on my right side burst, thanks to the efforts of the Portuguese doctor Sanhetz
Sanhetz (Sanche) Ribeiro, Life physician

; I spat it out with vomiting, and from that moment I came to my senses; I immediately noticed that my mother’s behavior during my illness damaged her in the opinion of everyone.

When she saw that I was very bad, she wanted a Lutheran priest to be invited to see me; they say they brought me to my senses or took advantage of the moment when I came to my senses to offer me this, and that I answered: “Why? You’d better send for Simeon of Theodore, I’ll be happy to talk to him.” They brought him to me, and in front of everyone he spoke to me in such a way that everyone was pleased. This greatly raised my opinion of the Empress and the entire court.

Another very insignificant circumstance further harmed the mother. Around Easter, one morning, my mother decided to send me and her maid to tell her that I should give her the blue and silver cloth that my father’s brother gave me before I left for Russia, because I really liked it. I told her to say that she was free to take it, but that, really, I loved her very much, because my uncle gave it to me, seeing that I liked her. Those around me, seeing that I was giving away the material reluctantly, and in view of the fact that I had been lying in bed for so long, being between life and death, and that I had only felt better for two days, began to say among themselves that it was very unreasonable of my mother cause the dying child the slightest displeasure and that instead of wanting to take away this matter, she would have done better without mentioning it at all.

We went to tell this to the Empress, who immediately sent me several pieces of rich and luxurious fabrics and, by the way, one blue one with silver; This damaged my mother in the eyes of the Empress: she was accused of having no tenderness or care for me at all. I was used to lying with my eyes closed during illness; they thought that I was sleeping, and then Countess Rumyantseva and the women who were with me talked among themselves about what was in their souls, and in this way I learned a lot of things.

When I felt better, the Grand Duke began to come and spend evenings in his mother’s room, which was also mine. He and everyone seemed to be watching my condition with the most lively interest. The Empress often shed tears about this.

Finally, on April 21, 1744, on my birthday, when I was fifteen years old, I was able to appear in society for the first time since this terrible illness. I think they were not too pleased with my appearance: I lost weight like a skeleton, I grew taller, but my face and features lengthened; my hair was falling off and I was deathly pale. I myself found myself scary, like a scarecrow, and could not recognize myself. The Empress sent me a jar of rouge that day and ordered me to put on some rouge.

With the onset of spring and good weather, the Grand Duke stopped visiting us every day; he preferred to walk and shoot in the vicinity of Moscow. Sometimes, however, he came to us for lunch or dinner, and then his childish frankness with me continued again, while his associates talked with his mother, who had a lot of people and all sorts of gossip went on, which did not like those who were not in them. participated, and, by the way, Count Bestuzhev, whose enemies were all gathering with us; among them was the Marquis de la Chetardie, who had not yet exercised any of the powers of the French court, but had his ambassadorial credentials in his pocket.

In the month of May, the Empress again left for the Trinity Monastery, where the Grand Duke and my mother and I followed her. For some time now the Empress began to treat her mother very coldly; in the Trinity Monastery the reason for this became clear. One day after dinner, when the Grand Duke was in our room, the Empress suddenly entered and ordered her mother to follow her into another room. Count Lestocq also entered there; The Grand Duke and I sat on the window, waiting.

This conversation continued for a very long time, and we saw Lestocq come out; as he passed, he came up to the Grand Duke and me - and we were laughing - and told us: “This noisy fun is now over”; then, turning to me, he said: “You just have to pack up, you will immediately set off to return to your home.” The Grand Duke wanted to know how it was; he replied: “You will find out about this later,” and left to carry out the assignment that was entrusted to him and which I do not know. He left the Grand Duke and I to reflect on what he had just told us; the first reasoned out loud, I - to myself. He said: “But if your mother is guilty, then you are not guilty,” I answered him: “My duty is to follow my mother and do what she orders.”

I saw clearly that he would have left me without regret; as for me, in view of his mood, he was almost indifferent to me, but the Russian crown was not indifferent to me. Finally, the bedroom door opened, and the empress came out with a very red face and an angry look, and her mother followed her with red eyes and in tears. Since we were in a hurry to get down from the window we had climbed onto and which was quite high, this made the empress smile, and she kissed us both and left.

When she came out, we found out approximately what was the matter. The Marquis de la Chetardie, who previously, or rather, on his first trip or mission to Russia, enjoyed the great favor and trust of the Empress, was greatly deceived in all his hopes on this second visit or mission. His conversations were more modest than his letters; these latter were full of the most caustic bile; they were opened and the code was broken; they contained details of his conversations with his mother and many other persons about contemporary affairs; conversations about the empress contained unwary expressions.

Count Bestuzhev did not fail to hand them over to the Empress, and since the Marquis de la Chetardie had not yet declared any of his powers, the order was given to expel him from the empire; The Order of St. Andrew and the portrait of the Empress were taken from him, but all the other gifts of diamonds that he had from this empress were left. I don’t know whether mother managed to justify herself in the eyes of the empress, but, be that as it may, we did not leave; the mother, however, continued to be treated very reservedly and coldly. I don’t know what was said between her and de la Chetardie, but I know that one day he turned to me and congratulated me on having my hair combed en Moyse; I told him that, to please the Empress, I would comb my hair into all styles that she might like; when he heard my answer, he pirouetted to the left, walked away in the other direction and did not address me again.

Having returned to Moscow with the Grand Duke, my mother and I began to live more secluded; We had fewer people and they prepared me for the confession of faith. June 28 was appointed for this ceremony and the next day, Peter's Day, was for my betrothal to the Grand Duke. I remember that Marshal Brummer addressed me several times at this time, complaining about his pupil, and wanted to use me to correct and bring his Grand Duke to reason; but I told him that this was impossible for me and that this would only make me as hateful to him as all his associates were already hated.

At this time, the mother became very close to the Prince and Princess of Hesse and even more to the latter’s brother, Chamberlain Betsky
Betskoy Ivan Ivanovich(1704-1795), statesman, chamberlain, president of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, director of the Office of Buildings. The bastard son of Field Marshal Prince I. Yu. Trubetskoy, brother of Anastasia, Landgravess of Hesse-Homburg, born. Trubetskoy; see note. 28.

Countess Rumyantseva, Marshal Brummer and everyone else did not like this connection; while the mother was with them in her room, the Grand Duke and I were busy in the hallway, and she was completely at our disposal; we both had no shortage of childish vivacity.

In the month of July, the Empress celebrated peace with Sweden in Moscow, and on the occasion of this holiday she prepared a court for me, as the betrothed Russian Grand Duchess, and immediately after this holiday the Empress sent us to Kyiv. She herself went a few days after us. We traveled little by little during the day: mother, me, Countess Rumyantseva and one of my mother’s ladies-in-waiting - in one carriage; the Grand Duke, Brümmer, Bergholz and Duker - in the other. One day the Grand Duke, bored with his teachers, wanted to go with his mother and me; since he did this, he did not want to get out of our carriage anymore. Then my mother, who was bored of traveling with him and me all day, came up with the idea of increasing the company. She conveyed her thought to the young people from our retinue, among whom were Prince Golitsyn
Golitsyn Alexander Mikhailovich, prince (1718-1783), chamberlain, later military leader, field marshal general, St. Petersburg governor general, senator.

Subsequently field marshal and count Zakhar Chernyshev
Chernyshev Zakhar Grigorievich, count (1722-1784), chamberlain, later military leader, field marshal general, Moscow governor general.

; they took one of the carts with our beds; they arranged benches all around, and the next day the mother, the Grand Duke and I, Prince Golitsyn, Count Chernyshev and one or two other younger ladies from the retinue fit into it, and thus we made the rest of the trip as much fun as possible touched our cart; but everything that did not have an entrance there rebelled against such an idea, which was especially disliked by Chief Marshal Brümmer, Chief Chamberlain Bergholz, Countess Rumyantseva, mother's maid of honor and also the rest of the retinue, for they were never allowed there, and, meanwhile As we laughed along the way, they scolded and were bored. In this state of affairs, we arrived in Kozelets three weeks later, where we waited for another three weeks for the Empress, whose journey was slowed down by some adventures. We learned in Kozelets that several persons from the empress's retinue had been exiled from the road and that she was in a very bad mood.

Finally, in mid-August, she arrived in Kozelets; we still stayed there with her until the end of August. Here they played a big game of pharaoh from morning to evening in the large hall in the middle of the house; in the remaining rooms, everyone had to be very crowded: my mother and I slept in one common room, Countess Rumyantseva and her mother’s maid of honor slept in the hallway, and so on. One day the Grand Duke came to his mother’s room and to mine as well, while my mother was writing, and an open box stood next to her; he wanted to rummage through it out of curiosity; his mother told him not to touch him, and he, indeed, began to jump around the room on the other side, but, jumping here and there to make me laugh, he touched the lid of an open box and dropped it; the mother then became angry, and they began to quarrel loudly; his mother reproached him for deliberately knocking over the box, and he complained about the injustice, and both of them turned to me, demanding my confirmation; Knowing my mother’s disposition, I was afraid of getting a slap in the face if I didn’t agree with her, and, not wanting to lie or offend the Grand Duke, I was between two fires; nevertheless, I told my mother that I did not think that the Grand Duke did it on purpose, but that when he jumped, he touched the lid of the box, which stood on a very small stool, with his dress.

Then my mother attacked me, because when she was angry, she needed to scold someone; I fell silent and cried; The Grand Duke, seeing that all my mother’s anger fell on me because I testified in his favor, and, since I was crying, began to accuse my mother of injustice and called her anger rage, and she told him that he was an ill-mannered boy ; in a word, it is difficult, without, however, leading the quarrel to a fight, to go further in it than they both did. From then on, the Grand Duke disliked his mother and could never forget this quarrel; his mother also could not forgive him for this; and their behavior with each other became forced, without mutual trust, and easily turned into strained relations. Neither of them hid from me; No matter how hard I tried to soften them both, I succeeded only for a short time; they were both always ready to use a barb to spite each other; my situation became more delicate day by day.

I tried to obey one and please the other, and, indeed, the Grand Duke was more frank with me then than with anyone; he saw that my mother often attacked me when she could not find fault with him. This did not harm me in his eyes, because he was convinced that he could be confident in me. Finally, on August 29 we arrived in Kyiv. We stayed there for ten days, after which we went back to Moscow in exactly the same way as we went to Kyiv.

When we arrived in Moscow, the whole autumn was spent in comedies, court balls and masquerades. Despite this, it was noticeable that the empress was often very out of sorts. One day, when we, my mother, myself and the Grand Duke, were at the theater in a box opposite that of Her Imperial Majesty, I noticed that the Empress was speaking to Count Lestocq with great heat and anger. When she finished, Lestok left her and came to our box; he came up to me and asked: “Did you notice how the Empress spoke to me?” I said yes. “Well,” said Lestocq, “she’s very angry with you.” “At me!” For what?” - was my answer. “Because you,” he answered me, “have many debts; she says that this is a bottomless barrel and that when she was the Grand Duchess, she had no more support than you, that she had to support the whole house and that she tried not to go into debt, because she knew that no one would take care of her. will pay." He told me all this with an angry and dry look, probably so that the Empress could see from her box how he was carrying out her instructions. Tears welled up in my eyes and I remained silent. Having said everything, he left.

The Grand Duke, who was next to me and approximately heard this conversation, asked me again what he did not hear, and made it clear to me by his facial expressions more than by words that he shared his aunt’s thoughts and that he was pleased that I was scolded. This was a fairly common technique of his, and in such cases he thought to please the empress by catching her mood when she was angry with someone. As for my mother, when she found out what was the matter, she said that it was a consequence of the efforts that were made to snatch me from her hands, and that since I was placed in such a way that I could act without being asked her, she washes her hands of this matter; so they both turned against me. I immediately decided to put my affairs in order and the next day I demanded an invoice. Of these, I saw that I owed seventeen thousand rubles; Before leaving Moscow for Kyiv, the Empress sent me fifteen thousand rubles and a large chest of simple materials, but I had to dress richly.

In the end, it turned out that I only owed two thousand; It seemed to me like an unknown amount. Various reasons brought me into these expenses. Firstly, I came to Russia with a very meager wardrobe. If I had three or four dresses, that was already the limit of what was possible, and this was at court, where dresses were changed three times a day; a dozen shirts made up all my linen; I used my mother's sheets. Secondly, they told me that in Russia they love gifts and that by generosity you make friends and become pleasant to everyone. Thirdly, the most wasteful woman in Russia, Countess Rumyantseva, who was always surrounded by merchants, was assigned to me; Every day she presented me with a lot of things that she advised me to take from these merchants and which I often took only to give to her, since she really wanted it. The Grand Duke also cost me a lot because he was greedy for gifts; Mother’s bad mood was also easily pacified by some thing that she liked, and since she was then very often angry, and especially with me, I did not neglect the method of pacification that I had discovered. The mother's bad mood was partly due to the fact that she did not at all enjoy the favor of the empress, who often insulted and humiliated her.

Behind the scenes of history Sokolsky Yuri Mironovich

"Notes of Catherine II"

Empress Catherine II loved to engage in literary creativity. She wrote a dozen moralizing plays that were staged at the court theater. For her grandchildren, Alexander and Konstantin, she wrote several children's fairy tales. Then she decided to write memoirs about the years she had lived (however, in the description she limited herself to only the years of her youth - up to 30 years old).

Usually in the memoirs of historical figures, the facts of their biography are accompanied by the author's subjective assessment and even a certain amount of fiction. The author allows fiction either due to memory lapses or to look more sympathetic. In the memoirs of Catherine II, there is, perhaps, more fiction than there should be, and more not in volume, but in meaning.

The Tsarina wrote her “Notes” not for the general public, but for a very narrow circle of people. The accompanying envelope shows a single addressee:

Catherine II, Paul I and Alexander I

"To His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich, my dear son." Probably, Catherine II assumed that her “Notes” would be read by other family members. Since she did not love her “dear son” at all, she considered it possible to include in her memoirs information that would be extremely unpleasant for Pavel. At the same time, she presented herself in an unattractive light, without being embarrassed at all, because she knew that the Notes would be read only after her death.

What was so terrible in the “Notes” of Catherine II? The queen wrote in her own hand about her love affair with Prince Sergei Saltykov, who was the father of Tsarevich Paul (and not Peter III, as was officially believed). It looked pretty plausible. From one of her favorites, Grigory Orlov, she had a son, named Alexei Bobrinsky. From another favorite, Grigory Potemkin, a daughter was born, named Elizaveta Temkina. These two, as natural children of the empress, had no rights to the Russian throne. From childhood, Pavel was raised as a crown prince - the court, the guard, the whole country and abroad perceived him in precisely this capacity.

Why did Catherine II need to incriminate herself? After all, it is enough to look closely at the portraits of Peter III and Paul I to find many similar facial features inherent in close relatives.

Of course, no one knows the true intentions of Catherine II, but it seems very likely that this was subtle revenge on her unloved son. Catherine II herself took the Russian throne, eliminating two more legitimate contenders - Peter III, who was killed with her knowledge, and Ivan VI, who was killed according to instructions drawn up by her (while trying to free him). Paul, considering himself the son of Peter III and, therefore, the great-grandson of Peter I, considered himself a more legitimate contender for the Russian throne than his own mother. Pavel thought that Catherine would rule the country temporarily, only until he, Pavel, came of age. When this did not happen, Paul's supporters began to plot against the queen. And Catherine II herself, knowing this, removed her son-Tsarevich from all state affairs, removing him to Gatchina.

Nicholas I

Review of guards units on Palace Square. 1810s

But if what Catherine II wrote in her “Notes” is true, then Paul I is not at all the great-grandson of Peter I and his claims to the throne become unfounded.

Paul I, having read this passage in the “Notes” of his unloved mother, became confused. First, he sealed the manuscript with a special royal seal and ordered it to be hidden until further notice. Then he suddenly decided to consult on this delicate matter with his childhood friend, Prince A. B. Kurakin, who was the vice-chancellor at the imperial court. The prince received the manuscript to read for just a few days and swore that he would not tell anyone, would not show anything. However, having arrived home from the palace, Prince Kurakin immediately divided the manuscript into several parts and ordered experienced clerks to copy each part (the manuscript was written in French). And only then did he return the Notes to the Tsar, once again assuring him that no one except himself had read the text.

Both Paul I, Alexander I, and Nicholas I thought that the “Notes”, sealed with a special royal seal, were unknown to anyone. But in fact, the text was distributed in various copies among many noble families where they could read French. The daughter of Paul I, Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, read the “Notes” in a copy that was given to her by A. S. Pushkin, which the poet wrote about in his diary on January 8, 1835.

Seeing “Notes” in the list of papers of Pushkin, who died in a duel, Tsar Nicholas I wrote against them: “To me.” This handwritten copy is now kept in St. Petersburg, in the Pushkin House. Literary scholars have found that several sheets of text were written by the hand of the poet’s wife, Natalya Nikolaevna. Consequently, she also read, perhaps also her sisters, Catherine and Alexandrina, etc.

Tsar Nicholas I turned to his noble subjects with an urgent request to return copies of the Notes. He considered his grandmother's memoirs a “shameful document.” Many returned their copies to the king, but not all, and even those who returned tried to acquire copies of the copy.

In 1859, “Memoirs of Catherine II, written by herself (1744–1758)” were published abroad in French, Swedish, Danish and Russian. These books were published by A. I. Herzen, who was in exile in London at that time. The St. Petersburg authorities ordered their ambassadors in the respective countries to buy up and destroy the seditious book. In response, Herzen increased the circulation of the publication, and thus this revolutionary even made good money at the expense of the royal treasury.

Tsar Alexander III, having familiarized himself with the contents of the Notes from a foreign edition, prohibited their reprinting in Russia. Tsar Nicholas II thought the same. And only after the First Russian Revolution, when the yoke of censorship was weakened, the “Notes” of Catherine II were openly published in the country where she reigned for 34 years.

From the book Eternal Traces author Markov Sergey Nikolaevich

KOROBITSYN'S NOTES A happy accident helped the All-Union Geographical Society acquire the original handwritten “Notes of the clerk of the Russian-American Company N. I. Korobitsyn” from one of the bookstores in Leningrad. These notes were published in the collection “Russian

From the book The Path to the Mainland author Markov Sergey Nikolaevich

From the book Black Legend. Friends and foes of the Great Steppe author Gumilev Lev Nikolaevich

L.-F. Segur. Notes about his stay in Russia during the reign of Catherine II. (In the book “Russia of the 18th century through the eyes of foreigners.” L., 1989) 1. “St. Petersburg presents a dual spectacle to the mind: here at the same time you encounter enlightenment and barbarism, traces of the 10th and 18th centuries, Asia and Europe, Scythians and

From the book From Rurik to Paul I. History of Russia in questions and answers author Vyazemsky Yuri Pavlovich

Chapter 8. From Catherine to Catherine Question 8.1 In 1726, Menshikov abolished salaries for minor officials. On what basis? How did you explain? Question 8.2 Who was the last to be buried in the Archangel Cathedral? Question 8.3 They say that under Anna Ioannovna Elizaveta Petrovna, the future

From the book Amazing Archeology author Antonova Lyudmila

Notes on birch bark During excavations of ancient Russian cities, letters and documents are still found on pieces of birch bark, which date back to the 11th–15th centuries. A significant number of birch bark letters are well preserved due to the fact that they often ended up in layers

From the book History of Russian Literature of the 19th Century. Part 2. 1840-1860 author Prokofieva Natalya Nikolaevna

From the book Kurbsky against Grozny or 450 years of black PR author Manyagin Vyacheslav Gennadievich

NOTES ABOUT RUSSIA Guagnini A. A complete and truthful description of all regions subordinate to the monarch of Muscovy... In the book: Foreigners about ancient Moscow. M.: Capital, 1991. Horsey D. The Journey of Sir Jerome Horsey. // In the book: Foreigners about ancient Moscow. M.: Stolitsa, 1991. Gorsey D. Abbreviated

From the book The Tragedy of Russian Hamlet author Sablukov Nikolay Alexandrovich

Notes by N. A. Sablukov I The other day I had to re-read Leveque’s “History of Russia,” which talks about the differences in opinions that exist to this day regarding False Demetrius, and I was especially struck by the paucity of information about this wonderful era in

From the book Notes on the Bukhara Khanate author Demaison P I

I. V. Vitkevich. Notes

From the book Grave Notes author Chateaubriand Francois Rene de

From the book Legends were of the Kremlin. Notes author Mashtakova Clara

NOTES OF DIFFERENT YEARS Hallowed be your name... In the whirlwind of today's events, in the whirlwind of affairs, let's stop for a moment and touch the forgotten pages of our native history, telling about the great asceticism of a little-known Russian woman, whose name can glorify and not

From the book National History. Crib author Barysheva Anna Dmitrievna

26 ENLIGHTENED ABSOLUTISM OF CATHERINE II. REFORM OF CATHERINE II Catherine II ruled almost the entire second half of the 18th century. (1762–1796). This era is usually called the era of enlightened absolutism, since Catherine, following the new European enlightenment tradition, was

From the book History of St. Petersburg in traditions and legends author Sindalovsky Naum Alexandrovich

From the book Conversations with the Mirror and Through the Looking Glass author Savkina Irina Leonardovna

From the book From the Varangians to Nobel [Swedes on the banks of the Neva] author Youngfeldt Bengt

From Catherine to Catherine: Karl Karlovich Anderson Stockholm boy Karl Anderson was one of those numerous foreigners whose talent blossomed in St. Petersburg; in this sense, his fate is typical. But the beginning of his life's journey was far from ordinary;

From the book 100 banned books: the censorship history of world literature. Book 1 by Souva Don B

Notes of Empress Catherine II. Notes of Catherine II and E.R. Dashkova as historical sources

Catherine II Notes Part I

"Notes of Catherine II"

Catherine II
Notes
Part I