According to historians and researchers, Ignatiev was a resourceful person who knew how to gain confidence in a partner and play on his weaknesses. The use of disagreements and contradictions between the opponents of Russia was one of the effective methods used by Ignatiev. There were legends about his cunning and deceit. Ignatiev himself noted that he had a Russian mind, "which people take for cunning and deceit."

Encyclopedic reference books said that in July 1864 Ignatiev was appointed envoy to Istanbul, in August of the following year he received the rank of lieutenant general, and in 1867 the rank of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary.

Ignatiev arrived in Constantinople with his young wife Ekaterina Leonidovna, born Princess Golitsyna, a very rich woman. According to contemporaries, she was a very beautiful and intelligent woman, she became a faithful friend and helper to her husband. The marriage of the Ignatyevs turned out to be happy. They had six children. The first son - Pavel - died in infancy, the third son was named the same name, who in 1916 became the Minister of Public Education.

The Russian ambassador Ignatiev managed to create a widely branched agent network in Constantinople. The informers were both Christians living here and Turkish officials. He was directly involved in the negotiations related to the creation of Romania, in the settlement of the Cretan question and many others related to the national liberation movement in the Balkans. Foreign statesmen and fellow ambassadors saw in him the "future of Russia." The Frenchman L. Gambett wrote: “Ignatiev seems to be a man of the future in Russia. I consider him the most insightful and most active politician of our time.”

In the summer of 1875, a popular uprising broke out in the vassal provinces of the Ottoman Empire of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which spread to Bulgaria. At the end of 1876, representatives of the powers gathered in Istanbul for a conference on the "Eastern Question". Russia was represented by Ignatiev, who was elected foreman of the delegates. On his instructions, the Russian diplomat A.N. Tsereteli, together with the secretary of the American mission, Y. Skyler, developed a "maximum project", which provided for the ministerial autonomy of Bulgaria with a Christian governor. Just in case, there was also a “minimum project”, according to which Bulgaria was divided into two autonomous provinces - western and eastern.

Having identified opponents of Bulgaria's independence during the negotiations, Ignatiev, agreeing to some concessions, achieved the adoption of the "minimum project". In doing so, he skillfully used the differences between the British representatives. The borders of supposed Bulgaria, although divided, included the territory in which the majority of Bulgarians lived.

Signing of the San Stefano Peace Treaty. 19th century engraving

In April 1877, Russia declared war on Turkey, nullifying the agreements over Bulgaria. Researchers of Ignatiev's biography argued that the Russian ambassador in Constantinople believed that the Russian government should have taken this step much earlier, when Turkey was not ready for war. Ignatiev subsequently noted with bitterness the indecision of the Russian state in this situation: “Instead, they were wasting time, and then they began to mobilize. They said “I’m coming at you,” but they themselves didn’t move. The Turks began to prepare, to buy weapons in England and America ... before our eyes they brought up Arabs, Egyptians, and we all waited ... "

During the Russian-Turkish war, Ignatiev was in the retinue of the king in Romania, and then in Bulgaria. The military-political situation changed in favor of Russia after the battle at Plevna in November 1877. The preparation of a peace agreement with Turkey was entrusted to Ignatiev and his fellow diplomats, with which they brilliantly coped.

In February 1878, a peace treaty between Russia and Turkey was signed in San Stefano. Serbia, Montenegro and Romania gained independence. Bulgaria, which included Macedonia, became an autonomous principality. Russia received Southern Bessarabia, and in the Caucasus, the cities of Batum, Kars, Ardagan and Bayazet passed into its possession. In 1881, Ignatiev, having been recalled from Constantinople, was appointed Minister of State Property, and then Minister of the Interior of Russia, but in 1882 he resigned, after which Nikolai Pavlovich took up social activities.

Scandal at dinner

The service as Ambassador Extraordinary in Istanbul turned out to be at the height of N.P.'s career. Ignatiev. It was then that Mr. S.N. met him. In early June 1865, returning from his wanderings to Constantinople, S.N. received an invitation ticket to the ball to Grand Vizier Fuad Pasha, which was to be held at one of the dachas of the head of the Turkish government, located on the Asian coast of the Bosphorus. With this ball, the Grand Vizier has been celebrating the anniversary of the accession to the throne of the Sultan for several years in a row.

Along with Mr. S.N. other embassy employees also received invitations. Exactly one week later, they were to go to the reception, led by the ambassador. The Russian delegation was a little upset, since the Sultan himself, due to illness, could not take part in the celebrations. He became very ill, noted S.N., with “gastric fever”, which is very dangerous for Eastern countries. However, the vizier's ball was a success. There were so many invited to the celebration that the Russian representatives, having switched from the steamer to the boats, could hardly squeeze through among the numerous caiques on the water to the pier. There were also many people in the palace itself. They passed "through no less dense crowds of military and policemen crowded in the front rooms, to the main hall, not large, but elegantly decorated with luxurious furniture and expensive plants, where right opposite the entrance, along the main wall, a seat was prepared for the Sultan." It was an impressive sight: three steps covered with bright red cloth, and the chair itself - gold, upholstered in white with crimson flowers damask. Above the chair hung a small portrait of the Sultan in a gold frame, painted in oils on canvas, a tribute to European fashion. Guardsmen stood on both sides, replacing the Sultan's bodyguards ...

From the notes of Mr. S.N. It can be seen that in the second half of the 60s of the XIX century, at the receptions of the Sultan and the Vizier, along with representatives of foreign embassies, there were an incredible number of petty officials and merchants from the Istanbul shopping districts of Galata and Pera, populated mainly by Europeans. In this regard, S.N. cited a curious incident that took place at this reception: “But a decisive scandal broke out at dinner. There were more than a thousand guests of both sexes, and the table was set in a small room for only fifty couverts. The organizer of the holiday (which had a completely official character), Chief of Ceremonies Kiamin Bey, with difficulty led only the ladies to this table, followed by a hungry crowd of gentlemen dancing with them, mostly clerks from the offices of Galata and the shops of Pera. With condemnation and shame (perhaps there were our compatriots among the so-called cavaliers - "clerks"? ..) observed Mr. S.N. a shameful picture when men, not embarrassed by the presence of ladies, squeezed into the dining room and hurriedly grabbed food from the table, which they managed to do ... Lord, what a familiar picture of modern presentation parties with buffet feasts, at which sometimes completely unfamiliar people and no one appear invited persons, the main purpose of whose arrival is the feverish absorption of dishes hospitably prepared by the organizers of the events!.. True, Mr. S.N. on the basis of this incident, he made another conclusion: the scarcity of the Sultan's treasury, which is no longer able to provide its guests with luxurious lunches and dinners. The author noted that most of the invited Europeans "left around three in the morning with empty stomachs and very bad ideas about Eastern hospitality ...".

Home / Humanitarian information portal “Knowledge. Understanding. Skill» / №4 2015

The article was supported by the Russian Humanitarian Foundation (Project No. 12-04-00410a, “The Classical Peninsula”: Crimea in Russian Travel Literature of the Late 15th - Early 20th Century).

The article was written with support from the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (project No. 12-04-00410, “„A Classical Peninsula‟: Crimea in the Russian Travel Literature of the Late 15th - the Early 20th Century”).

UDC 930.85; 93/94

Naumenko V. G. The History of Constantinople: The Diplomatic Relations of the Moscow State with the Crimean Khanate and Turkey

annotation♦ The article is based on documents from the “Embassy of E. I. Ukraintsov to Constantinople in 1699–1700.” and reveals the images of Russia, Turkey and Europe at the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries.

Keywords: Treaty of Constantinople, Black Sea, Russia, Crimea, Turkey, Europe, Peter I, Emelyan Ukraintsov, Pieter van Pamburg, ship "Krepost", A. Mavrokordato, M. M. Bogoslovsky.

Abstract♦ This article is based on the documents of “Yemelyan I. Ukraintsov’s Embassy to Constantinople 1699–1700”. The author reveals the images of Russia, Turkey and Europe at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries.

keywords: the Treaty of Constantinople, Black Sea, Russia, Crimea, Turkey, Europe, Peter the Great, Yemelyan Ukraintsov, Peter van Pamburg, ship “Fortress”, Alexander Mavrokordatos, Mikhail Bogoslovsky.

In blessed memory of Doctor of Philology,
Professor Vladimir Andreevich Lukov,
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bogoslovsky,
faithfully serving Science,
and the 315th anniversary of the Embassy
Emelyan Ignatievich Ukraintsov
on the ship "Fortress"

In the "Index of treatises and relations of Russia from 1462 to 1826" by S. Dobroklonsky, neither the Karlovitsky Truce for 2 years with the Port (December 25, 1698), nor the Peace Treaty of Constantinople (July 3, 1700), nor Peace Treaty of Prut with Porto (July 12, 1711). We will look for information about Moscow diplomats in the first third of the 18th century in the multi-volume work of Academician M. M. Bogoslovsky "Peter I" among the materials for his biography. From 1699, the Duma clerk E. I. Ukraintsov “with comrades” immediately swims out to meet them. It is he, Emelyan Ignatievich, who will become the very "not noble, but only a smart person" recommended by E. Tsar. Send Vel-va Voznitsyn as a messenger to Tsargorod. The RGADA does not have an article list of Ukraintsov, but there are replies “E. I. Ukraintsov’s embassy to Constantinople 1699–1700”. The same issues that Voznitsyn will present in his "Draft Treaty at the Karlovitz Congress" will be announced in Constantinople for the sake of, most likely, not eternal peace, but a long truce. Special embassy D. M. Golitsyn will be appointed to ratify the charters on December 30, 1700.

Interest in the Crimea at the turn of the 17th-18th centuries determines Russian-Ottoman relations. Dobroklonsky warns in the Introduction to the Index about “a whole chain of treatises and relations, these ties with which Russia strengthened her well-being”, that we will enjoy one more opportunity to make sure that “the true goal of Diplomacy is the well-being of peoples” (Dobroklonsky, 1838: XII ).

"Instead of three days - a year"- this is how Moscow's relations with Porto can be called from the end of August 1699 to November 10, 1700. It is interesting to find out how much pleasure Ukrainians received "with comrades" during the year spent on the road, and whether he received it. On August 28, 1699, the adventures of a Russian 46-gun ship with the reliable name "Fortress" began, on board which was the Embassy of E. I. Ukraintsov to Constantinople. That ship left the Kerch arm for the Black Sea. This trip remained in the replies to the RGADA, which M. M. Bogoslovsky called "extensive and thorough." On August 28–30, the ship circled the Crimea at 8–10 versts “from the shore in sight of Yayla”, moving not at full sail: they were waiting for the bailiff, who caught up with the Embassy on August 31 in the morning 50 versts from Balaklava. The bailiff, who offered to stop in Balaklava, was refused for the sake of direct walking to Constantinople by compass. Ship E. Tsar. Vel-va in sailing by sea was, according to the bailiff, "much better than the Turkish ships." The meeting with the bailiff added to the geographical knowledge of the Crimea by the crew and passengers of the ship. Is it possible to call the adventures of the ship and the crew extraordinary, if on it the Grand Sovereign was carrying the confirmed Letter of Borders by the Embassy, ​​which was escorted by the Sovereign himself? Good weather, calm, then stormy and again the mirror-like Black Sea - everything tuned in to the fact that "good business" is a profitable business.

So, the “Euxinopontian abyss” led the Embassy of Emelyan Ignatievich Ukraintsov to Constantinople. This is the first Russian warship in the open Black Sea, the Day of which is celebrated by all Russians on October 31 every year. From Bogoslovsky, who, as he said, studied the "Article List of the Ukraintsov Embassy", we learn that "that ship cost a good city." Ukrainians will say about him: "My ship." The Sultan did not expect the Embassy to appear so soon. On September 6, he watched the arrival of the ship with cannon salutes from the tower of his palace, and a lot of people in the streets and lanes of Constantinople. On September 7, the ship entered the city and anchored opposite the Sultan's palace itself. "Many thousands of Turks, Greeks, Germans, Armenians" - all praised the "Fortress". On September 9, the Sultan inspected the ship without going on deck. In an unsubscribe dated September 17, 1699, Ukraintsov reported to Moscow that everyone was surprised how the ship overcame the Black Sea abyss. And Ukraintsov’s answers made it clear that “a whole fleet” accompanied him from Taganrog to Kerch, therefore it is not surprising that “they were afraid of the arrival of a whole Russian fleet; they said that the Russian fleet of 10 warships and 40 small ships went to the Black Sea, reached the Anatolian coast and approached Trebizond and Sinop” (Bogoslovsky, 2007: 12). Indeed, there are ships, there is the sea. Let them get to know each other: they are made for each other.

On September 12, Mavrocordato appeared to find out the reasons for the panic and fear instilled by night firing from cannons on the orders of the captain of the Fortress, the Dutchman Pieter van Pamburg. But even on September 25 it was very difficult to appease the captain. The adventures of the captain on the ground and on the ship did not differ significantly. Everyone was against his removal and arrest due to firing. All of them are crew members: lieutenant, navigator, sergeant, 111 soldiers of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky regiments. On September 18, envoys from Russia were received at the grand vizier, on October 8 - at Reiz-Effendi with gifts. Cheredeev held the letter of the Sovereign. Then there was a visit by the ambassadors of the patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem to the joy of them and the great crowd, as on the feast of the Holy Resurrection of Christ, the visit of the Polish ambassador Rzhevussky, then the French.

But let's go back to the Crimea for a while. A sense of duty, a feature of the generations of the era of Peter I, was noted at the very beginning of the path of the Embassy. The power of the Crimean land (Aisky Mountains) and the Black Sea aroused a desire to learn the secrets of Heaven, mountains, people of the region. This means: the August sky, greenery and man under that Heaven and among that greenery. Note that diplomat travelers look at the Crimea not from a horse - from the sea. And from above, the sun looks at the suddenly appeared ship and its passengers, at night - the stars. Only after 45 years will appear the "Catalogue to Navigators", composed by the Marine Fleet, Lieutenant Semyon Mordvinov, which speaks of "the majesty of day and night", of "noble stars". Russians and foreigners from the "Fortress" wanted to know how Yayla, the people living in the mountains and valleys, lived. How many of them and the settlements in those gorges, they also need to know. And the captain was busy: "the sea measured the same." In the role of interlocutors, the sky, the sun, mountains, "venerable trees" - only they are silent, says the bailiff. Good weather greeted the Russian ship, from which a young naval officer, Peter I, had recently left, escorting him to Kerch with a sea caravan. He, perhaps, could not even imagine that “often the initial Turkish people would come to the “Fortress” in Constantinople and look closely that he, the Sovereign, would like to come on that ship” (Ustryalov, 1858: 520). So Crimea, Kerch, the Azov and Black Seas met with him, as before Arkhangelsk and the White Sea, with the one who would be called the Great during his lifetime. Couldn’t the Great Tsar, with his own hands and the hands of Russian and foreign engineers, artisans, craftsmen, create that miracle ship that caused delight, fear, panic upon arrival in the Tsar’s city. Note that Constantinople was afraid of the “Fortress”, Crimea was not. The time will come and the turn of the descendants of this ship and its crew will prove that the Island, as Crimea was then called by many, is the Fortress, great, the best among all the fortresses in the world. So he remained in the famous novel by Count Alexei Nikolayevich Tolstoy "Peter the Great".

Russians, looking for the first time in many centuries from the sea to the Crimea, had many questions at the sight of this eternally beautiful land. And these questions are in no way and in no way similar to those that will be asked by the Cossacks who first appeared on the southern coast of Crimea from the replies of Tarbeev and Basov. Ukraintsov "with friends" was interested in how those mountains live among the flourishing world and people among the mountains? What are they? So ask those whose hearts are disposed to this region, and they want to know even more about it for years to come, of course, for others who are destined to see the Crimea. Those who built this ship together with Peter I ask to ask their questions directly near the shores of the island. And Crimea was silent, listened, remembered. Then, after the traveling diplomats, scientists will come and sail for new geographical and many other knowledge about him. They will glorify it together with writers, poets, artists, musicians, architects. There will be a lot of them, and they, like the embassy of Ukraintsov, will feel that this island is like nothing and no one. Because he is Human. Crimea will still form the spirit of a great number of Russian people and people of other nations, but for now it is only looking at the first diplomats who were not afraid of the Black Sea - they have not yet seen such. And they, those envoys of Moscow, had never yet looked at him from the sea. Did those ambassadors who were destined many years ago to return home from Tsargorod through Kerch or Kafa look? He is already united with them by every path of the Aisky mountains, water running in a whisper on the sand or stones, but they do not yet know this. They have ahead of them the first crossing of the waters of the Black Sea, with which the Russians have a common past and which a Russian person from the distant future century will call "the most festive of the seas." Crimea looked after the ship, flying "to the distant limits", remembering 75 ambassadors, envoys, messengers from Moscow who left their letters to their descendants, and 25 diplomats who wrote article lists about him for them - not only for their overlords.

225 years - is it a lot or a little? The peninsula knew that somewhere far away, where a beautiful ship with a beautiful name flew in full sail, there were already roads from it and to it - the Crimea. What an ancient land the Embassy of E. I. Ukraintsov saw off on the last August day of 1699! On the last day of summer, she also saw off the author of this work for more than one year to Western Ukraine, to Kamchatka, to Estonia, to Moscow - and she always looked back at her, because there, with her, the best people in the world remained.

The history that has flowed into the Crimean peninsula has kept and keeps it in the arms of two seas. Our parents, brothers and sisters, children, grandchildren, friends, school and university teachers, comrades, students are historical people. The great difficult past accompanies us today and fills us with faith and hope. And those who sailed to Tsargorod 315 years ago believed and hoped that they would return to these Aysk mountains with their green gorges under the azure sky. It seems to me that if I now remember those distant travelers, if on the Day of Unity and the Kazan Mother of God I light a candle for them in the Temple overlooking the Kremlin and Red Square, then my native Black Sea, which was once a long time ago, also remembers them. - has long been called the Russian Sea.

The road of ancestors - will it lead to success special Embassy with his instructions (memory)? What will be the path to it: short or long? Everyone believed: short. And who escorts the Embassy home, except for the Black Sea, which is eager to master the handsome Russian ship? Was that the first ship of the future Black Sea Fleet? It seems to me that I know a person who can put it in the right place at the right time. Since questions were born near Balaklava that Russian scientists would ask long before the Manifesto of Catherine the Great, it means that there he, the first warship in the waters of the Black Sea, should stand. In the "Fortress" with its immortal captain Peter van Pamburgh, the work of many enslaved and free people - Europeans, so different, but who were able to send that ship on a swan road, and all together today's Europeans to recreate it is much better than striving for the international isolation of Russia together with Russians. We are convinced that the ship "Fortress" also liked our Crimean land, he wanted to stay near it longer, but a sense of duty called to the sea. Someone who, but he should not have been afraid of the "Euxinopontian abyss": he went to Tsargorod along the path of his ancestors. From paradise to hell of bad weather and again to paradise. And ahead of him, with his restless and fearless captain Peter van Pamburg, a constable and soldiers of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky regiments, there are as many adventures as ... the Embassy has on board. They will be remembered for a long time, forever by Turkey, its capital, its Sultan's palace, cathedrals, streets and streets with cypresses and the Turkish fleet, which returned by November 16 from the White Sea with Admiral Captain Pasha Medzomort, which can be found in a letter from Ukraintsov to the Tsar dated October 17 1699 that he was a sea robber. Algerian.

Ukraintsev, like Voznitsyn, is one of the last diplomats of the first years of the 18th century, who had the Articles list of the Embassy. It makes sense to once again think about the boundaries of eras, creative individuals, the genre of the article list. Location "on the borders" of the Embassy 1699–1700 makes it possible to dwell on the aspects of Ukraintsov's work "with comrades", which are revealed only upon acquaintance with the Articles List of the Embassy. It is the diversity of the studied documents of Voznitsyn, Ukraintsov and others that makes it possible to see their commonality as dwindling phenomena, to get closer to understanding the essence of the “borderline” of the diplomatic process, without which it is impossible to build a truly modern history of diplomacy. Borders clarify the essence of the systems contained in them, transitions throw light on the content of epochs - past and future. It is not by chance that F. A. Golovin inserts into Ukraintsov’s order the lines about the appearance of a Russian ship with a shield in the 10th century: . And the Turkish state was formerly not in such strength and glory as it is now. There were such times and cases that the Russian peoples went by sea to Constantinople and took the annual treasury from the Greek kings, and then it changed ... ”(Bogoslovsky, 2007: 150).

Our task is to consider the transition option associated with the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. The transition can be compressed to a point, to a line - to one text: "The article list of the Embassy of Ukrainians", as before the Embassy of Voznitsyn. If we look at Historical time as a stream in which nothing is limited or isolated, but everything passes into each other, the past and the future are simultaneously imbued with each other, the present always productively contains the past and the future. Then the peace treaty of Karlovitsky turns into the Constantinople peace treaty, Karlovitsky and Constantinople are simultaneously imbued with each other, the Constantinople negotiations of Ukraintsov contain the Karlovitsky negotiations of Voznitsyn and the future ratification of the document by the military man Prince Golitsyn. But for all this to happen, the Russian envoys had to distinguish truth from plausibility. On November 4, they were invited to the Grand Vizier for the first conference, which, according to Mavrocordato, “should have mattered vestibule to further negotiations” (ibid.: 54). "In private, privately, and not publicly" in the presence of Vizier Reiz-Efendi and Mavrocordato as interpreter and treasurer and interpreter Semyon Lavretsky "yes to the record" clerk Lavrenty Protopopov (Bogoslovsky considered him the compiler of this part of the Article List) Ukrainians presented a letter to certify his authority. It becomes clear that the vizier is here for the sake of "renewal of friendship and love between the Sultan's Majesty and the great sovereign - with the Sultan with the Caesar of Rome, the King of Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth," this has already happened at the congresses in Karlovitsy. Here and now the vizier expressed his readiness to listen to "some initial articles" of the envoys related to "peacemaking". "Brief decision" Ukraintsov announced 4 articles:

1. Tsar. The king is ready to be in strong and unshakable friendship with the Sultan and conclude an agreement on eternal peace or on a long truce through his ambassadors by decree in Karlovitsy.

2. Upon the conclusion of such an agreement, the Crimean Khan and “every kind of Tatar”, who is in the power of the Brilliant Porte, should not cause any harm to the Russian state.

3. Exchange of prisoners.

4. About the desire of the Great Sovereign that in Jerusalem the holy places were given to the Greeks in accordance with many "imperious decrees" of the former sultans.

That was the end of the secret part of the conference, “a good and useful thing for both states” (ibid.: 57).

Between the First and Second and Third Conferences in Constantinople, an exchange of diplomatic visits and a review of the Turkish fleet took place. November 19, Sunday, became a day for work - not for prayer, which upset the Russian envoys. Turning to the study of two conferences: the Second and the Third, we will try to comprehend the processes associated with the rapprochement of the opposing poles of the diplomatic field, which include, on the one hand, the envoys of the Ukrainians and Cheredeev, and on the other, the great chancellor Reiz-Efendi Magmet and "in the internal secret secretary" Alexander Mavrocordato, who would later be joined by his son Nikolai.

The essence of the negotiations at the Second Conference, in the words of Bogoslovsky, was expressed in two questions:

1. About the type of agreement, namely: whether to conclude a peace or a lasting truce?

2. What should be put in the first place in the contract?

The opinion of the Sultan became known immediately: an agreement on eternal peace to establish "peace and silence between the peoples." However, how will it be. The envoys did not deny the possibility of "entering the eternal world." On the second issue, they completely disagreed with the Turkish side. Indeed, where did those peace negotiations begin? “The Turks said that, first of all, it is necessary to agree about frontiers , i.e., to establish borders between the two states, meaning by the question of borders the question of the areas conquered by the Russians: about the Dnieper fortresses and about Azov. For the envoys, the issue of borders, Bogoslovsky pointed out, did not exist: they did not allow the idea that the areas conquered by the Russians could be a subject of dispute, these areas were an integral part of Russia, its integral part. Therefore, the envoys demanded, first of all, an answer to the proposal made by them at the First Conference, to those four or, in fact, to three articles that they then came forward, declaring that they would not talk about anything else until they received an answer ... They came to Constantinople without any intention of ceding to the Turks anything they had conquered in the last war and interpreted the matter as follows: these conquered territories had already been ceded by the Turks to the Muscovite state at the Karlovitsky Congress ”(ibid.: 73–74). Then again, without Academician Bogoslovsky, you will not believe that you understand what you read correctly. Again, as with Karlowitz, the question arises: “Who won that Turkish war: St. League or Sublime Porta? “Meanwhile,” continues M. M. Bogoslovsky, “the Turks put the issue of borders in close connection with the question of the type of agreement. When the envoys asked what they wanted, an eternal peace or a lasting truce, Mavrocordato replied that in this proposal of the envoys "there are two things - either an eternal peace or a truce for happy years, and those things have two powers in themselves." Here, under the "forces" Mavrocordato probably meant the conditions that are the consequences of the adoption of one or another type of agreement. A truce could be concluded on the same terms - leaving at least part of the conquered in the hands of the Russians. In this case, the sultan, without giving up his rights to the lost places, ceded them to the king only for temporary possession, for a more or less long time. Eternal peace entailed other conditions - (sic!) the return of everything conquered to the Sultan. That is why the Turks linked the question of borders so closely with the question of the type of agreement” (ibid.: 74). It seems that one does not need to be Russian in order not to understand and accept such “dependencies” even today. According to Ukraintsov and Cheredeev, the main terms of the treaty could not depend on the agreement. One can understand the hysterical state of the old clever Reyse-Effendi. It became quite obvious that the Turks were ready to consider the issue of borders indefinitely, as it is obvious that the Russian envoys did not imagine that each of them could not have an attack of an unknown disease, but get sick for a long time - for the right to see the world ( land and water) and the contract with my own eyes. Maybe today that Constantinople history with a peace treaty is mastered by someone as a productive model?

“According to the Karlovitsky Instrument,” says the Treaties between Russia and the East, “Ukraintsov and Cheredeev were appointed to negotiate and resolve a peace deal with the glorious great chancellor Megmet Efendiy and with the closest secretary of the Ottoman state, Alexander Scarlati. It does not say what external conditions the glorious and great people created for the Kargopol governor Ukraintsov and the deacon Cheredeev (they settled them for a long time in a cramped corner, in the dead end of Constantinople, forbade meetings with other diplomats, even controlled their walks, etc.). There is no mention of the attempts of the side that lost the war to teach the plenipotentiary Embassy in the person of the extraordinary envoys, one of whom headed the Ambassadorial Order for ten years, how to write a peace treaty so that it would be “ratified” in 1700 and 1701 by the two sides. And they, in the role of invited guests, were interested, seeing the postponement of the “real business”, for which well-known Duma people called them. It was not by themselves that they sailed to Constantinople, but at the solicitation of the Turks at the Karlovitsky Congress. Emelyan Ukraintsov, having taken the articles in Latin from his friend Ivan Cheredeev, finally handed them over to the Turkish representatives on December 2 at the Third Conference. 16 articles contained the conditions proposed by the Russian side. Let's highlight the main questions in those articles:

1. Azov and Kazykermen with the cities belonging to them remain behind the Moscow state.

2. The security of the Muscovite state from the Crimean and other Tatars and the security of Turkey from the Cossacks.

3. Freedom of trade between merchants of both states.

4. Orthodox heritage rights in Turkey.

These are the questions that Voznitsyn touched upon in his "Draft Treaty" at the Karlowitz Congress. Started, although it was already announced earlier, the work of "peace" and had to be careful. Caution concerned the Turkish side. Obviously, in Turkey they were afraid that the ambassadors of St. The Union did not dare to support Russia. That is the "evil reason" for the ambassadors of the Porte. great deal should have been installed via 4 persons. At the same time, the persistent desire of the Turks to separate Russian diplomats from the rest attracts attention. For what kind of benefit? In this regard, of particular interest are the ways in which the Turks demonstrated their views on the articles.

The modeling of the text of the treaty becomes fundamental, taking into account the society in which they, diplomats, were located, and which included other statesmen, the sultan, vizier, treasurer, janissaries, also merchants, residents of Constantinople - people in houses and on the street. Reiz-Efendi and Mavrokordato organized the participation of the Ukrainian Embassy in the review of the Turkish fleet, where everyone was present. For this, they began to touch on the "people's word" in "conversations" with Russian envoys. It is easy to learn about that from the opening and closing conversations between them during two dozen conferences. The ambassadors from Moscow were especially touched by the mention of Reiz-Efendi that “the war against Porte is not terrible with the Muscovite state alone, de Porta stood with its own forces against four Christian states, and now it is possible for her to stand against one state much more.” Ukraintsev remarked, “that if the local ‘negotiators and unwishers of good’ had said this to the envoys themselves, they would have answered that the tsar, at least one, was not afraid of the war with the Turks, that’s why he lagged behind his allies, not being afraid of such war" (ibid.: 103).

The work on the articles of the peace treaty turned into an active rejection of the position of the Turkish representatives, who are still the same in the Articles list of the Ukrainian Embassy: Reiz-Effendi and Mavrocordato. At the end of the Sixth Conference on December 23, on the eve of the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, alone with the Russian envoys, Mavrocordato expressed his thoughts about the Tatars, which both Theological and modern researchers can perceive as an expression of hostility towards them. “They all know,” he said, “that every reason in the war is repaired from the Crimean Khan from the Tatars, and it’s absolutely time to calm them down from such robbery and bring them to obedience.<…>If an agreement is reached between the tsar and the sultan, the Tatars will be obliged to obey him. And if they disobey and disobey that agreement, and then, de, - Mavrocordato expressed himself decisively, - let them, the Tatars, and with the khan all disappear and disappear, and he, the Saltan, will not stand up for them! » (ibid: 88). The envoys, for their part, said that “many enmities and quarrels come from the Tatars, because they don’t want to go to work and do other field work, they always practice robbery and war. And it was possible for them to feed even without the fact that they have a lot of cattle and their land is grain-growing, and there are no taxes from them to Saltanov's majesty; and it will completely succeed in appeasing them from that self-will. It is curious what Count P. A. Tolstoy, the first permanent Russian ambassador in Istanbul, who appeared there since 1702, thought about the causes of the war. From the “secret articles” of Pyotr Andreevich Tolstoy and the “replies” to them, you can find out that “the Turks have a great friend of the Tatar Khan and they revere like a king and helper of the Mahometan faith. And they have a big oath to one another [a Turkish saltan with a Crimean khan] in every need to help against anyone, for all Turkish saltans have an oath that they should help the Tatars in every need, not for the sake of a position, but only for people ... ”(Russian ambassador ..., 1985: 46). Tolstoy wrote: “Royal Majesty of Russia, they revere the great<…>and they lay the blame on the Tatars, as if from their raids the reason was created that Azov was taken ... ". Later, a Russian resident in Turkey will write about the war and its cause: “But if it seems like a way for them to get more wealth from the war, then, without thinking about anything, they start a war, they have more care about collecting wealth than about anything else.” In the description for the third article, he will point out the surprise of the Turks “with horror” from rumors “about the structure of the new Moscow armies, and they have more fear from the newly built, royal majesty of the Moscow navy” (ibid.: 48–49.). Well, the ambassador turned out to be right: the third medal in the "Collection of medals for glorious deeds in Russia" will be the medal "Establishment and first actions of the Russian Navy", the fourth - "The Capture of Azov".

The serious suspicious illness of the envoys “from the air” (“were winded from the Polonians coming from different places,” as Mavrocordato said), the threat of war from “the rabble of gossip,” as he himself argued - in all this and more there was something sinister for negotiations . If there is any point in agreeing with Mavrocordato, it is with his statement that "one must think about treaties and speak and do with great consideration." "Great Consideration" obviously suggested a medium compromise solution. The article list of the Embassy of Ukraintsov calls such a decision "medium", which can satisfy both parties in the transition from the "world" instead of a peace treaty to a 30-year-old eternal peace? Looking ahead, we point out that the sixth medal in the "Collection of medals for glorious deeds in Russia" will be the medal "Thirty Years of Peace concluded with the Ottoman Porte." However, before that, you still had to live.

Be that as it may, but the records of preliminary and final conversations of four people about different subjects, as M. M. Bogoslovsky rightly noted, “displays the whole liveliness of the conversation, so that when reading it, one gets the impression of a conversation of living people with all the variety of its tones and shades ". Hence the noteworthy conclusion about the disappearing genre, to which we devoted a good part of the “diplomatic” chapter of our future “Crimean” book: “A list of articles is not a dry treatise with a business presentation of the course of negotiations; it preserves all the peculiarities and trifles, all the living details of every day of negotiations, of every conference. True, the compilers of the list developed a certain epic form of presentation with repetitions characteristic of the epic style and the use of the same expressions in the same cases; but this epic style does not deaden the breath of life in what it conveys” (Bogoslovsky, 2007: 108). And he conveys how “lengthy” the individual conferences were: from coffee they moved on to talking about tea, then to the customs of the Chinese - and, finally, to business. None of those present at the negotiations will know that in 37 years and even earlier, Russians will be compared with polite Chinese, for example, Fokkerodt, secretary of the Royal Prussian Embassy in Moscow. In 1700, however, they sometimes did not look like such, for the reason that "there is no end in sight to their work." The frosts have already ended, the snows have gone, the “radiant spring” has come, and the variety of interpretations of the articles of the treaty determined the conflict between Ukraintsov and Mavrocordato. Each of them continued to represent a complete whole. Somewhere Peter I remained with his impatient expectation of the end of Constantinople history and strong-willed efforts to build a fleet. And here we are talking about some four towns, but also by the water - the Dnieper, about which Voznitsyn said that "he cannot dump a single stone," and the Turks demand to ruin them so that "no stone is left on stone." The issue that became a "stumbling block" in the negotiations. Is it spatial or temporal distance? In Constantinople, the Turkish fleet and the people are happy, or vice versa. From countless "talks" one can understand that the most interesting role belongs to the street. Somewhere in the distance, the Dnieper towns, taken by the Russians with bloodshed, continued to remain, for some reason necessary for the Turkish street and the Turkish fleet. Why was such a "surprise" presented to Ukraintsov and his Embassy? Maybe during the negotiations, Reiz-Efendi and Mavrocordato fought to the point of illness for Kazykermen and other towns, that they were afraid that the Russians would come to ... Constantinople? Indeed, in the 10th century, Prince Oleg came on behalf of a powerful people with a brilliant culture. And it was not for nothing that Admiral F. A. Golovin wrote to Ukraintsov about Oleg’s campaign. The Russian state was strong, the prince of Kyiv took it and appeared with his army at the gates of Constantinople. And what will appear again? In a labyrinthine world, everything is possible. This construction of the world is also being developed in Ukraintsov's article list. It has a "anticipation" and there will be a postscript. Peter I will not stop dreaming about Russia joining the ranks of full members of Europe. The Holy Union is one of the dead ends of the labyrinth, which the allies persuaded to enter. Now the Russian Tsar looks at the world with different eyes.

The ship, which has never moved in front of the “Saltan seraglio”, despite numerous threats and arguments about it to the point of frenzy, is the first results of the activities of young Peter I. It is no coincidence that it continues to stand where it stood at the very beginning of September. In full view of the Sultan's palace and the ship, there is a bargaining for small towns, which, no matter how ornately the Turks say, force them to act as inventors of the “medium”, but all their proposals, especially “from Mavrocordato”, arouse firm resistance from the envoys. However, after the arrival of Sergeant Nikita Zherlov from Moscow with the tsar's instruction on concessions, Ukraintsov and Cheredeev offered their "medium" to the Turkish representatives, calling it "divine", but neither Reiz-Efendi nor Mavrocordato seemed like that. The offer of a 6-7-year stay of the towns in the possession of the Tsar, with subsequent ruin, was not accepted by the Turks, who understand that "six-year holding means like a hundred years." When the envoys agreed to destroy the Dnieper towns immediately after the conclusion of peace and cede the land to the Sultan forever empty, the battle began for the “cession residential, not empty. It came to the question not to himself, but to the Russians: “What will the Sultan boast to his people if in those towns there will be only“ a haven for all kinds of animals and birds, and not people? and completely presented another "surprise" to the envoys: to arrange a new transfer. Why they needed a "rural fence", which they called either "ditch", then "roller", then "trench", they could not explain and behaved like conspirators. This whole grotesque scene with the extortion of a new village was performed by brilliant actors, and for one of them, Mavrocordato, a medal must certainly have been invented. “The ruin of the Dnieper towns with the return of their territory to the Turks,” says Bogoslovsky, “was a heavy concession for Russia, which explains the stubborn struggle of the envoys for these towns. It was necessary to give up a significant share of the successes achieved with considerable difficulty in the Turkish war.<…>

What was done on the Dnieper without him (Peter. - V.N.), although on his own initiative, remained in the shadows; meanwhile, these results were no less important than those achieved by the acquisition of Azov. It can be said that these were equally significant parts of the same case. With the conquest of Azov, Russia approached the Sea of ​​Azov and through it to the Black Sea from the eastern side of the Crimea. With the conquest of the Dnieper towns located at the very mouth of the Dnieper, Russia approached the same Black Sea from the western side. Crimea, this age-old nest of predators, which for centuries kept the population of the Russian plain in alarm, was controlled from two sides. The Crimean anxiety was coming to an end. The Crimeans, squeezed from both sides, had to stop their destructive raids on the southern Russian spaces.

Now, with the rejection of the Dnieper conquests, it was necessary to lose a stronghold against the Crimea from the west, to move away from the approach to the Black Sea from this side. This sacrifice was made in the name of hopes for the future, for the new prospects that opened up in the north. The stronger the Russian side had to hold on to Azov ”(ibid.: 135).

Like Voznitsyn, who belatedly received a decree from the Sovereign, so Ukraintsov resolved the issue of townships more favorably for Russia than was stated in the letter brought by Sergeant Nikita Zherlov. Negotiations on Azov continued from the 14th conference on March 20 to the 21st on April 27. The reader should not forget the performance in a foreign state because of Azov taken by the Russians, from the expression of joy by the Turks at two conferences about the health of the Moscow Tsar, then the dispute about the cession of land to Azov in the direction of the Kuban, which took four conferences, the calculation of how many miles of driving fit into one a cannon shot, etc. In the course of the bargaining, it turned out that many subjects live in the east of the Sultan, and it is “indecent and shameful” to take away their land and give it to Azov. Not from each other, but from the Russian envoys, the Turkish representatives asked “What should we do now?” and came to the conclusion that they, the Russians, did not need much. The Russians were also ashamed of that. The Turks seem to have forgotten that the conversation is about that land, "without which it is impossible for the city of Azov to exist": the Azov inhabitants must own the land in the same way "as it used to be from time immemorial." Two conferences figured out how many hours to drive across that land to agree, and, in the end, they decided on 10. And it no longer seems surprising that after disputes over the territories, the articles about the “dacha” to the Crimean Khan and about the prisoners turned out to be “secondary”, or , as the Secretary of State put it, "some of the unfinished articles are not the most difficult."

It seems that Mavrocordato, who for this purpose came to the embassy court on April 29, May 2 and May 22, here surpassed himself. And before, the Turks perceived Ukraintsov's refusals as "biting words": they "ignited thought and heart." But, in our opinion, the comparisons that M. M. Bogoslovsky called "presented in a rough form" are deadly. This is when Mavrocordato, in an atmosphere of "popular suspicion" and not only popular gossip caused by protracted negotiations, which became such, thanks to the Turkish side, urged the Russians to treat his request “with love”. "With love" meant "leaving stubbornness". Ukrainians, however, having heard about the infringement of the freedom of the Azov inhabitants "to arable land and to haymaking and to other uses", immediately demanded that the article be corrected. But then Mavrokordato began to convince Ukraintsov, who had just left the post of head of the Ambassadorial Department, not to refuse the Crimean Khan to send him from time to time "some dacha", regarding which the Moscow government had already made a firm decision. In addition, Emelyan Ignatievich had before his eyes the lines added to Peter’s order by the hand of F. A. Golovin: “And about the annual dacha to the Crimean Khan, what was given to him from this royal majesty, if the vizier or close people learn to speak, and to him, envoy, to refuse them" (ibid.: 149). In addition, Golovin wrote: "And talk about that dacha, deducing lengthy conversations." It was necessary to recall on the basis of many article lists that the peace between the states was violated due to the raids of the Crimean Tatars, that there was no satisfaction for the statements of the Russian sovereigns, and that Russian messengers and envoys were detained many times in the Crimea and "beaten, tortured and dishonored." The dacha of the khans was canceled "for many of their untruths." At the center of the conversation were the "Tatar injustice" and the long-term "unappeasement of the Tatars" by the Turkish sultans. When the state E. Tsar. Vel-va "in strength multiplied", the Tatar war became not terrible. This is where the words of the envoy sounded about the changes in the Turkish state, not for the better at that moment, and about an event from the distant past, “when the Russian peoples went by sea to Constantinople and took the annual treasury from the Greek kings, and then it changed…”. Now it's come another time, and it was necessary for the Tatars from giving "to calm down and live with Christian sovereigns in peace, so that for their insolence they would not bring upon themselves and their dwellings what a military presence and ruin."

Mavrocordato, however, for the sake of a positive result, was ready with the Russians "although to sit until night and all night." It is not for nothing that Ukrainians will write to the Sovereign: “Mavrocordat is a faithful slave of the Soltans in everything” (Ustryalov, 1858: 520). No matter how hard the Ukrainians and others tried to convince him that “now and never the Crimean Khan and the Tatars will have no dacha from the royal treasury,” the Greek continued to persuade them, pointing to some “obscenity” known to him alone, consisting in the fact that Impossible is the King. Vel-vu "for the neighborhood with the khan and the Crimean state, refuse to favor the khan and the Tatars with their salaries, as it used to be from time immemorial." In the course of the meeting, Mavrocordato agreed to the point that the refusal of the Sovereign V. Khan and the Tatars would lead to “complete despair”, and suddenly resorted to a comparison, which we wanted to point out: “And not only mercy is done to people, but dogs are fed but so that they are full and do not die of hunger ”(Bogoslovsky, 2007: 152). Against the backdrop of badly recovering envoys, who were isolated for almost a year in the same dark corner of Constantinople, and the unforgettable picture of the Tatar cavalry standing “along the coast and in the mountains” upon the arrival of the Embassy ship in Kerch, such a request is deadly. It turned out that only with the promise of a dacha “amusement will be made for the Tatars”: “The seas and great rivers have not been spilled, but the Busurman hordes have bred many.” Of these, the Crimean Khan is a close neighbor to the Royal Majesty. Some casuistry. And this is what a philosopher, a writer and a person of the same faith says with the messengers! Mavrokordato seemed to have forgotten who was defeated in the Turkish war, saying that the patience of the Porte should not be brought to the end. This is not surprising for the secretary of state, who earlier, in a dispute about the Dnieper towns, said: “For such small places, the sultan will give up the great and noble fortress of Azov.” However, not only he, but also Reiz-Efendi considered the cession of Dnieper towns by Peter I to Turkey after their ruin was considered "some kind of violence and ridicule." And the question remained for centuries: “Are the people of Reiz-Efendi and Mavrocordato peaceful?” Mavrocordato assured the Russian Embassy that everything in the article about Polonians "will be written without any dispute", however, the delay of the ship "Fortress" will take place precisely because of the presence of 150 Polonians on board. That article will be connected indirectly with the article on trade between the two states, according to which the Turks agreed to overland trade and the navigation of Russian ships from Arkhangelsk to the Mediterranean Sea to the Turkish shores, but they did not want to hear or talk about the Black Sea. “At the previous conferences, XXII and XXI, the words of the envoys about the royal sea caravan and about the voyage of this caravan with trading purposes along the Black Sea were met with the greatest irritation and the admission of Russian ships was decisively refused” (ibid.: 155), Bogoslovsky wrote. The motif of the Black Sea is one of the main spatial motifs of the Article List of the Ukraintsov Embassy.

Indeed, the articles on the list of Ambassador Extraordinary E. I. Ukraintsov are striking in their scope. Here is the whole modern life of the Russian state with the birth of the fleet, the creation of a regular army, the transformation of the soldiers of the Preobrazhensky Regiment into sailors, which even Korb, who had recently left Moscow, knew about, the work of different generations with the highlighting of the Crimean issue, the compositional arrangement of which in the speech of envoys is always associated with something else: Turkish. Russia is perceived not only by the French legate, but also by the Turkish representatives as a special world, approaching the shores of the Brilliant Porte at a menacingly close distance. Neither Reiz-Efendi, nor especially Mavrocordato hide their likes and dislikes. They understand that the Turkish war is an epoch-making event, and they must leave a memory of themselves - the Karlovitsky and Constantinople treaties. It was impossible not to understand the Grand Chancellor and Secretary of State that the Embassy from Moscow, from Ukraintsov to the captain of the ship, who received an order from the ambassador to prepare for the journey, affirm the value of responsibility by their words and actions. And so Pieter van Pamburgh remained in the story, which Constantinople will tell more than once to someone: uninvited guest. The capital of Porta, with its landscapes, from which the cypress alley, the villas in the gardens on the shore, are remembered, was replenished with the most beautiful warship of the E. Tsar Fleet. Vel-va, who dropped anchor right in front of the Sultan's palace, and he immediately entered the treasury of legends and traditions of Constantinople, and what will happen next? The history of the “Fortress” in Constantinople, the history of the envoys against the backdrop of beautiful nature and a huge number of people, is an integral historical canvas that reflects the history of relations between Turkey and Russia, Crimea and Russia, Europe and Russia. How to forget the words of the captain, “navigators” and soldiers, transmitted through Ukraintsov to the Great Sovereign: “Yes, the Saltan himself and the vizier came and watched ... And most of all, sails, ropes, ropes are praised on the ship for their strength. They blame the Dutch for teaching your people, and reprimanded the Dutch ambassador ... ”(Ustryalov, 1858: 518).

The main semantic beginning of the Article List of the Embassy of Ukraintsov is contained in its title: "1699-1700" is description of the Year of Russia in Turkey. And what a year! Without any doubt, the Embassy proved itself worthy of the award, as did the Voznitsyn Embassy in Karlovitsy. Yes, they are impossible to consider without each other. And yet, although they are historically connected, in the Diary of the Ukraintsov Embassy, ​​the Black Sea, the First Russian warship in its waters, the Crimea, which is watched from the sea by soldiers studying maritime affairs under the guidance of a captain, in conversations with foreigners in Constantinople respectfully called them: "Russian people". The life of ancient Constantinople is built as a change of epochs: X, XV, XVI, XVII centuries, the beginning of the XVIII century. Time can get stuck in the "answer chamber", or the vizier's palace, or at the embassy camp, where there are always disputes - they keep the colorful article list. Speakers from the long past face ambassadors - which of them is more interesting? They have and their russian young there were then such broad plans for trade in the southern seas. And not only in the south! It was necessary to adapt the military Azov fleet for other purposes - for the sake of economic profit. The transformations that could happen to the navy are not only the idea of ​​Peter I, this is the real space of the Article List.

Riding, sailing and riding again that unforgettable Embassy with its protracted negotiations is not at all chaotic. The plan to obtain eternal peace is a mandatory denial of tribute to the Crimean Khan and the Tatars, despite their insistence on having it, and the desire to develop the waters of the Black Sea, which the Turkish sultans so unexpectedly appropriated for themselves at the end of the 15th century. Everyone is remembered, but most of all - the captain of the "Fortress" van Pamburgh! Let's go back to messages ship to its fearless captain and crew. They are one with the ship. The stay of the "Fortress" in Constantinople and before leaving it became a torment for the Sultan and, according to rumors, his people. Not because Pamburg continued to live in peace and "repair many zeal". The captain with his ship may have shown the Turks and the Greeks and other peoples that the past did not die. That the heirs of that past have already arrived. What, how will others appear? "The entire navy" from such "Fortresses" and Pamburgs? Or Ushakov? Or the Senyavins? Who did not understand how this Black Sea can be the "inland sea" of the Turks, so this is a young volunteer captain. He showed his lack of understanding. The plot with the captain, who gave the order on the night of May 17, 1700 to go to the open Black Sea, was not a whim. The Turks unraveled their future, namely: Russia will never be without a Navy. Never! Peter was in a hurry. For the increase of Knowledge. Is it possible to live without it? The main thing for Peter I and his Russia was ahead.

"Army", "bastion", "navy", "politics", "patriot", "Victoria" - words that became the property of Russian speech at the turn of the 17th-18th centuries. Everywhere, everywhere Russians studied. Some went abroad, others came to them from abroad. What did the title of academician mean for Peter I in the future, and he will receive this high title from the French Academy of Sciences? To become worthy of it by spreading science in your Fatherland. Therefore, Captain Peter van Pamburg and the navigator of the ship Otto, being not on a one-day voyage, measure the depths of the Black Sea, doing scientific work. It is a pity that there are no Notes of a captain killed in a duel in a foreign land in 1702. Even today one can learn from the Dutchman Pieter Van Pamburg how to understand the world and how to work in it. Van Pamburg, in order to comprehend navigation, had to seriously get acquainted with physics, geography, mathematics, chemistry. It can be compared with ... his ship-worker, built by the hands of Russian and foreign people. It turns out that such a community can be of great use. In fact, is it possible, as Feofan Prokopovich, a young contemporary of that voyage from the Crimea to Constantinople and back, said, to stand above the water, watch the guests come and go, and not be able to do it yourself? Captain van Pamburgh, who arrived in Russia on hire by Captain Kreis, knows that maritime science is the path to honors, but for some reason he was criticized in Constantinople. Note that the captain did not cry. Wept Mavrokordato, "slave of the Sultan."

But what a creative person Peter van Pamburg turned out to be! He puzzled everyone all the time, activating their activities, including Mavrocordato, as he constantly created problem situations. He and the "Fortress" forever together. The ship had a lot to say about this volunteer, if he was given the floor. For example, about what dialogues sounded between the captain and navigator Otto, lieutenant Gendrichson when measuring the Black Sea depths. From that voyage, the ship returned with scientific research materials that will not be known to the world for many years, but will still be included in the experiments of Vice Admiral Cornelius Cruis. Ukraintsov reported to Peter I: “And Captain Pampurkh measured the sea in that place, and according to our measure of depth, not in many places it was 11 or half-11 feet, but in another place, I guess, which was much deeper” (ibid.: 507). Then it was learned: “From Kerch to Kafa by dry road, day and night driving, and there are many villages along that road Tatar and forests; and from Kafa to Bulaklava 2 days drive, and from Kerch 3 days drive to Karasev, and to Bakchisaray - 4 days, and to Perekop 5 days on a good horse. They were surprised that the Russian people were able to do what the Dutch did” (ibid.: 510).

The memory of the first warship "Fortress" with the Embassy on board and its captain will be more alive today when you see the Ship with the same name at Cape "Balaklava". A walk on it near the legendary Balaklava, and even along the southern coast of Crimea to Koktebel and Feodosia with a caravan of small ships that have already registered for the summer in Koktebel, will bring closer the distant past, wonderful people who were "both sailors and heroes." We believe that one day a sail will flash in the Black Sea distance - and one can imagine that after some time we will see Captain Pamburg in all his simplicity. He is still in his uninterrupted labors and "leisure" that amazed the Turkish court. It seems to us that he is our contemporary. And let his name remain among Potemkin, Suvorov, Rumyantsov, Kutuzov, Bagration, Ushakov, Senyavin. Crimea from this will only be more entertaining. The peninsula loves both the captain and the old ship of the Black Sea Fleet. I would also love the Museum of the Sea near Balaklava, if you take care to create it. We believe in it, because Sevastopol is nearby.

It would also be very useful if a Collection of article lists and letters of diplomas about the travels of diplomats to the Crimea and Turkey appeared. 60 years ago, the publication in the Literary Monuments series of “Travels of Russian Ambassadors of the 16th-18th Centuries”, representing a Collection of Article Lists, among which there was one Turkish: about the Novosiltsev Embassy, ​​aroused high approval. We know about this from the Germanist professor of the Department of World Literature of the Moscow State Pedagogical University, headed by the professor of English Nina Pavlovna Mikhalskaya, then the professor of philology and cultural studies Vladimir Andreevich Lukov, Boris Ivanovich Purishev, in whose house unforgettable postgraduate meetings were held 30 years ago. To this day, the scientific publication of the materials of that trip of I.P. Novosiltsev to Turkey (2008) remains the only one of the lists of the southern direction. (How glad we were to purchase the famous Collection at the XXVIII Moscow International Book Fair on September 4, 2015). The transition from the Article List of Ambassadors to the Article List of Embassies in 1698-1700. interesting problem, which is useful for historians, philologists, culturologists, philosophers. Recall, P. B. Voznitsyn: he paired “happiness” precisely with “benefit” and “hope”. The “clever girl” understood how important it is for a diplomat to be happy from a job well done.

Bibliographer. description: Naumenko V. G. History of Constantinople: from the diplomatic relations of the Moscow State with the Crimean Khanate and Turkey [Electronic resource] // Information Humanitarian Portal “Knowledge. Understanding. Skill". 2015. No. 4 (July - August). pp. 5–29. URL: [archived at WebCite] (Accessed: dd.mm.yyyy).

receipt date: 20.08.2015.

see also:

On February 19 (March 3, according to a new style), 1878, in the town of San Stefano (a suburb of Constantinople, since 1926 - Istanbul) occupied by Russian troops, a peace treaty was concluded between the Russian and Ottoman empires, which ended the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. By that time, as a result of hostilities, Russia had conquered almost the entire European part of the Ottoman Empire. Leading a non-stop offensive, in January 1878, Russian troops approached the walls of Constantinople. Lacking the strength to resist, the Turks admitted their defeat and were forced to turn to Russia with a request for a truce, which, according to the Turkish negotiators, meant "Turkey's death sentence."

SAN STEFANO WORLD

IN THE HISTORY OF BULGARIA

The Peace of San Stefano was of great importance for the liberation of the Balkan peoples from the Ottoman yoke. Under its terms, Bulgaria received the status of an autonomous principality, independent in its internal affairs. Serbia, Montenegro and Romania gained full independence and significant territorial gains. Southern Bessarabia, torn away under the Treaty of Paris in 1856, was returned to Russia, and the Kars region in the Caucasus was transferred. Turkey pledged to pay Russia 310 million rubles. indemnities, to create in Epirus, Thessaly and Albania a management similar to that introduced in 1868 in Crete and to carry out reforms in Turkish Armenia.

According to the San Stefano Treaty, Russia's position in the Balkans was strengthened. Great Britain and Austria-Hungary could not reconcile themselves with this, demanding the convocation of a congress to discuss the terms of peace between Russia and Turkey. At their insistence, the Berlin Congress, which opened on July 21, 1878 with the participation of six powers (England, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey), replaced the San Stefano Treaty with a multilateral agreement that was much less beneficial for Russia and Bulgaria. The Western powers categorically objected to the creation of a unified Bulgarian state. As a result, Southern Bulgaria remained under Turkish rule. Russian diplomats managed to achieve only that Sofia and Varna were included in the autonomous Bulgarian principality. The territory of Serbia and Montenegro was significantly reduced. Congress confirmed the right of Austria-Hungary to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina. England negotiated for itself the right to send troops to Cyprus.

Russia, which found itself in a difficult situation, which, in case of intransigence, was threatened by war with England, was forced to abandon the fruits of its victories, which required so many sacrifices from it. In a report to the tsar, the head of the Russian delegation, Chancellor Alexander Mikhailovich Gorchakov, wrote: "The Berlin Congress is the blackest page in my service career." The king noted: "And in mine too."

The Russian public was all the more shocked, which did not know about the secret Budapest agreement of 1877 on the conditions for the neutrality of Austria-Hungary in the event of a war between Russia and Turkey, according to which the government of Austria-Hungary undertook to adhere to neutrality benevolent towards Russia and, “as far as it will be from to depend on it, to paralyze through diplomatic influence attempts to intervene or collective mediation" of other countries in the event of war, and also refused to participate in the implementation of agreements with Great Britain and France on guarantees of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire, promised not to interfere with the passage of Russian troops across the Danube, etc.

The failure at the Berlin Congress was entirely attributed to the mistakes of Russian diplomacy and personally to A.M. Gorchakov. An indignant speech thundered throughout Russia, delivered by the chairman of the Moscow Slavic Charitable Committee, Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, at a meeting on April 17, 1878, in which he attacked the cowardice, in his opinion, of Russian diplomacy, which had lost everything gained by Russian blood (“Russia is the victorious , who herself voluntarily demoted herself to the vanquished"). The speaker was outraged that "the arrogance of the West in relation to Russia and in general to Eastern Europe has neither limit nor measure." And there was no doubt for him that "the entire congress is nothing but an open conspiracy against the Russian people." For this performance, Ivan Sergeevich was expelled from Moscow to the village of Varvarino, Vladimir province, owned by relatives of his wife. The Slavic Committee was closed.

The Congress of Berlin undoubtedly did not embellish the diplomatic history of not only Russia, but also the Western powers. Driven by petty momentary calculations and envy of the brilliant victory of Russian arms, the governments of these countries extended Turkish rule over several million Slavs.

And yet the fruits of the Russian victory were only partly destroyed. Having laid the foundations for the freedom of the fraternal Bulgarian people, Russia has written a glorious page in its history. The Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 entered the general context of the Liberation era and became its worthy end.

WHO IS HE - NATIONAL

HERO OF BULGARIA?

One of the main authors of this page in the history of Russian and Bulgarian diplomacy was the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, Count Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev, who signed the Treaty of San Stefano together with the head of the diplomatic office of the commander-in-chief of the Russian army in the Balkans and the future ambassador Alexander Ivanovich Nelidov (from the Turkish side, the agreement was signed Foreign Minister Savfet Pasha and Ambassador to Germany Saadullah Pasha - V.V.).

Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev - Russian statesman, Russian envoy in Beijing, ambassador to Constantinople, Minister of the Interior, infantry general, adjutant general. A supporter of the ideas of pan-Slavism. Born January 29, 1832 in St. Petersburg. He studied in the Corps of Pages, in 1849 he entered the Life Guards Hussar Regiment of His Majesty; in 1851 he graduated from the Nikolaev Academy of the General Staff, in 1854 he was seconded to the commander of the troops in Estonia, Adjutant General Fedor Fedorovich Berg, in 1855 he was chief quartermaster of the Baltic Corps.

N.P. Ignatiev began with military diplomacy: in 1856, he was one of the first in the history of this service to be appointed a military agent (attaché) in London. His reports contained a brilliant analysis of British foreign policy in Persia and India, as well as valuable information about the state and prospects for the development of the British armed forces. In 1858, at an international military exhibition organized in London, Nikolai Pavlovich, being a purposeful and energetic person by nature, was caught red-handed ... while trying to seize a new sample of a unitary cartridge for a carbine from one of the stands. England had to be urgently and quietly left.

In the same year, N. Ignatiev was sent to Khiva and Bukhara through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where, having a unique personal gift of persuasion, he successfully signed an agreement with the local emir, placing Bukhara in a vassal position in relation to Russia. The leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the tsarist entourage highly appreciated the success of Ignatiev's mission, which was completely unexpected for everyone at that time. In 1860, he, only a 28-year-old colonel, was assigned to join the Franco-British expedition to China with a diplomatic mission as a Russian representative. In fact, he not only collected military statistics on China, but also played the role of an intermediary between the emperor, on the one hand, and the British and French, on the other, negotiating with the parties so subtly and cunningly that it was possible to avoid forceful resolution of contradictions. As a result of those who passed in the same period under the leadership of N.P. Ignatiev of Russian-Chinese negotiations, Russia received significant territories on the Pacific coast that it had mastered back in the 17th century. The mission was so successful that the tsarist leadership immediately appointed Nikolai Pavlovich director of the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which he successfully headed from 1861 to 1864.

Soon he was appointed first envoy, and then ambassador to the then key direction for Russian diplomacy - to Turkey, where he worked for a long 13 years (1864-1877). Russia, he thinks, needs the straits, needs, as Prince Oleg once did, “a shield on the gates of Constantinople” ... This is a man of seething energy, a great diplomatic mind, passionate conviction in his goals. Despite the resistance of the Western powers, on the one hand, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince A. Gorchakov, on the other, he, with rare persistence and temperament, tried to ensure the complete independence of Russian policy on the Bosphorus, in Herzegovina and Bulgaria, to strengthen the role of Russia as a major European power .

At the heart of Russia's Balkan policy, according to Ignatiev, should be the task of creating nation-states in the Balkans, which will be a reliable support for Russia and a means of pressure on Turkey. The federation of these states under the auspices of Russia, he believed, would help solve the problem of the straits in the interests of the latter and block the way for the expansion of Western countries to the East. Therefore, Ignatiev advocated the full support of Russia for the liberation aspirations of Christians and the unification of their forces in the fight against the Ottomans. But this position did not find understanding with Gorchakov, who was afraid that Russia's too active policy would cause the creation of a European coalition against it, as was the case during the Crimean War of 1853-1856. The minister preferred to act within the framework of the "European concert" in the matter of appeasing the Balkans. But he didn’t want to aggravate relations with Ignatiev either: the emperor treated the ambassador well, Ignatiev’s father, Pavel Nikolaevich Ignatiev, had been chairman of the Committee of Ministers since 1872. Ignatiev himself had support in patriotic circles, in addition, it was difficult for him to find a replacement. Several times Ignatiev, not finding understanding with the leadership of the Foreign Ministry, tried to leave Constantinople, but each time he was stopped by a sense of duty, a sense of responsibility for the work entrusted to him.

Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev left the most interesting memorandums, including a number of very instructive thoughts and advice regarding diplomatic activity. He owns the formula: "Exit from the inland sea (which is the Black Sea for us) cannot be equated with the right of entry into it of ships of non-coastal states." Despite the hostile attitude of many high-ranking officials towards him, Ignatiev is entrusted with the preparation of the San Stefano peace treaty. This treaty was concluded for Russia entirely on the terms of the victorious country.

But a year later, Nikolai Pavlovich, at the height of his activities, was nevertheless fired from the diplomatic service. Count Pavel Shuvalov is appointed as Russia's representative at the Berlin Congress, and all clauses of the San Stefano Treaty that are beneficial to Russia are annulled.

Nikolai Pavlovich had a hard time getting rid of him and transferring him to the Ministry of State Property (1881) and then to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (1882), where he worked for only a year. He was never able to recover from "the shock of triumphant dullness and injustice." The life of Nikolai Pavlovich ended at the age of 76, on July 3, 1908, in the village of Krupodernitsy, Kyiv province.

A LESS THAN HOLY

BUT MUCH MORE

THAN A NATIONAL HERO

The people's memory of the Bulgarians keeps memories of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 as a heroic deed of the Russians in the name of Bulgarian freedom. Over 400 monuments connected with Russia in one way or another have been erected in Bulgaria. Many streets, towns and villages are named after Russian statesmen and public figures and commanders who died in that war, as a result of which Bulgaria again, after five centuries of Ottoman rule, gained freedom.

A special place among them is occupied by memorable places dedicated to the creator of the San Stefano Peace Treaty, Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev. Nowadays, the name "Count Ignatiev" (as his name is written in Bulgarian) is carried by settlements, streets, squares and institutions throughout the country. Monuments are erected to him, performances and photo-documentary exhibitions are dedicated to him, and his works are actively published.

In the city of Stara Zagora, back in 1880, immediately after the liberation of the country from the Turks, one of the central streets was named after Ignatiev. In gratitude for the great public support for the national revival of the Bulgarians and for organizing humanitarian assistance for them in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, grateful Bulgaria also named the village of Graf-Ignatievo in the Plovdiv region and the village of Ignatievo in the Varna region, as well as the peak Ignatiev in Antarctica.

They say that in September 1902, the peasants stopped the carriage of the count, who was going to Plovdiv through the future village of Graf-Ignatievo after the Shipka celebrations. Nikolai Pavlovich came out, answered the greetings and asked what the name of their settlement was. “Cholluk,” answered the kmet (mayor of the village). The Count grimaced at the Turkish name. Then the residents asked for consent so that the village would bear his name. Ignatiev gladly gave such consent.

At present, not far from the village, the air force base of the Bulgarian Air Force "Graf Ignatievo" is deployed, which is part of the infrastructure of the NATO Joint Air Force. In 2000-2009, the head of the base was General Rumen Radev, who on January 19, 2017 officially took office as the new president of Bulgaria and, in his speech at the National Assembly, outlined a friendly attitude towards Russia.

In Sofia, in the center of the National Assembly Square, there is a monument to the Russian Emperor Alexander II, erected in 1907. On the four sides of the pedestal, on which the equestrian statue of the Tsar-Liberator is installed, there are sculptures depicting the Russian liberation army, the Bulgarian militia and the main heroes of the war. Among them stands out the figure of Ignatiev, sitting on a horse. Below the equestrian statue is a bronze medallion depicting the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano. In the background of the monument are the Bulgarian people in national clothes. The expressiveness of the figures of Russians and Bulgarians conveys the main idea and idea of ​​the author of the monument - fraternal friendship and disinterested help provided by Russian soldiers to the Bulgarian people. On three sides of the granite pedestal there are bronze bas-reliefs depicting the most important episodes of the war: the battle of Stara Zagora, the signing of the San Stefano peace treaty and the opening of the Constituent Assembly in Tarnovo.

Every year on March 3, Bulgaria celebrates its national holiday here with a solemn salute - the day of the signing of the San Stefano peace treaty.

In January 2008, on the eve of the 130th anniversary of the liberation of Bulgaria and within the framework of the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to Bulgaria, at the initiative of the Bulgaria-Russia Forum in the Doctor's Garden, at the corner of Shipka and San Stefano streets, a memorial sign was erected to the diplomat ( the author is sculptor Ivan Todorov). On one side of the monument is a bas-relief depicting the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano by Ignatiev, on the other, an image of a Russian soldier and a Bulgarian militia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took part in the opening ceremony of the commemorative sign. Every year on the Day of the Russian Diplomat, Russian diplomats lay flowers to him.

There is a long beautiful street in Sofia, named after the count at the beginning of the 20th century. And at the intersection of Ignatiev Street with 6 September Street there is a school number 6 named after Count Ignatiev. In May 1912, the Count's widow Ekaterina Leonidovna presented this school with a portrait of her husband painted from life, presumably by the great Ilya Repin. He still decorates the school to this day. The school celebrates the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano on March 3 every year.

In the city of Varna, in the square in front of the Drama Theater, there is a bronze bust-monument to Nikolai Ignatiev. It was created by the Bulgarian sculptor Zheko Spiridonov in 1906, during the life of the count, who shed tears when he learned about this monument. The monument is installed on a granite pedestal, where it is inscribed: “Count N.P. Ignatiev". Above the signature is a bronze coat of arms of the Russian Empire, and on the reverse side of the pedestal are inscribed the words: "From the Varna Council and the citizens of Varna." Near the monument there is a stone with a black granite commemorative plaque, on which a brief biography of Ignatiev and brief information about the creation of the monument are written.

In 2003, the monument was restored on the initiative of the civil committee "Varna". Funds for restoration were allocated by the Consulate General of the Russian Federation.

Varna, more than other Bulgarian cities, owes its freedom to Ignatiev, since even before receiving the Supreme approval (it came later), he found the courage to supplement the draft San Stefano Treaty with a condition according to which the Turkish fortresses in Varna and Shumen should not only be liberated from troops, but also demolished.

On January 17, 2017, with the support of the Bulgaria-Russia Forum, an initiative committee was created to build a large monument to the count in the center of Sofia. The committee included writers, professors, public figures - the flower of the Sofia scientific and cultural elite.

Why is Ignatiev the idol of the Bulgarians?

As ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Nikolai Pavlovich rendered invaluable services to the Slavic Orthodox peoples, especially the Bulgarian people, who fought for their independence from the Turkish yoke. He took care of the Bulgarian settlers who settled in Bessarabia at various times. He achieved the opening in Belgrade of the "Bulgarian Military School", where the revolutionaries Vasil Levski and Mikhail Grekov mastered military affairs.

In the Constantinople hospital built by the count, St. Nikolai (led by his wife Ekaterina Leonidovna), mostly Bulgarians were treated free of charge.

With his most active participation, the Bulgarian Church was created, independent of the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Having headed the St. Petersburg Slavic Charitable Society in 1888, he fatherly took care of the Bulgarian students in Russia.

In the history of Russian, and indeed of all European diplomacy, Ignatiev was perhaps the only major diplomat who treated the oppressed Christian peoples of the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire with great sympathy and respect, especially the Bulgarian population, and tried to protect their interests as much as possible.

Despite the fact that the Berlin Congress, held later that year, significantly reduced the territory of Bulgaria, Ignatiev still remained in the eyes of the Bulgarian people their friend, liberator and defender. Therefore, the memory of him in Bulgaria is still alive.

Recently, repeated attempts have been made in Bulgaria to desecrate monuments to the Soviet army, but each time they ran into stubborn resistance from the Bulgarian public. Meanwhile, despite all the political changes, monuments dedicated to Russian soldiers during the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, which in Bulgaria is called the liberation war, have never been attacked. Neither streets nor settlements named after Russian military, political or public figures of that period were renamed. The Bulgarian people still deeply honor the memory of Russian heroes. This appreciation is evidence of the spiritual unity of our peoples, bound by Orthodoxy, writing and a complex but heroic history.

The next notable milestone in the development of ancient Russian diplomacy was the Russian embassy in 838-839. to Constantinople to the Byzantine emperor Theophilus (829-842) and to Ingelheim - the capital of the Frankish state - to Louis the Pious (814-841). Information about this is contained in the Vertinskaya Chronicle, written by Bishop Prudentius. The general outline of events is as follows. In 839, ambassadors of the Byzantine emperor Theophilus appeared at the court of the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious - Bishop Theodosius of Chalcedon and Spafarius Theophanes. Together with the Byzantines, Russian ambassadors arrived in Ichgelheim, returning to their homeland by a roundabout way from Constantinople. Byzantine ambassadors brought Louis gifts and a personal message from Emperor Theophilus, in which he offered to confirm the relationship of "peace and love" between the two countries. On May 18, 839, the Byzantine embassy was solemnly received in Ingelheim. Further, Prudentius reports: “He (Theophilus. - A. S.) sent with them (ambassadors. - A. S.) also some people who said that they (the people. - A. S.) are called Ros (Rhos) , and whom, as they said, their king, named Khakan (Chacanus), sent to him (Theophilus. - A.S.) for the sake of friendship. In the aforementioned message, Theophilus asked Louis to graciously provide the Russian ambassadors with the opportunity to return to their homeland and give them protection, since the paths by which they arrived to him in Constantinople "went among the barbarians, very inhuman and wild tribes," and he would not want to again expose their dangers. According to Prudentius, Louis the Pious asked the ambassadors about the reasons for their appearance in the land of the Franks and found out that they were “Sveons”. The ambassadors were suspected of espionage and detained until the true purpose of their arrival in Ingelheim was clarified, and it was noted that "they came rather to spy than to seek friendship." In a response letter to Theophilus, Louis said that if the ambassadors turned out to be innocent, he would either let them go to their homeland or return them back to Byzantium so that Theophilus would do with them at his own discretion. "This is where Prudentius' information ends. There is no information about the further fate of the Russian embassy .

During the long historiographical life of this message, it was evaluated from different points of view, and only one aspect - diplomatic, directly related to the very essence of the event, has not yet found detailed coverage either in domestic or foreign literature.

A. L. Shletser was the first to express the idea that determined the position of the Normanists in the interpretation of this particular historical fact. “People who are called Swedes in Germany ... - he wrote, - in Constantinople they call themselves Russians, - this is the main position that we deduce from this place.”

The title “kagan” was translated by Schlozer as a Scandinavian proper name Hakan. Finally, he stubbornly defended the thesis about the low prestige of the Russian embassy in Constantinople, since it represented a people unknown to Byzantium 2 .

Following Schlozer, the same point of view was expressed by N. M. Karamzin and S. M. Solovyov.

MP Pogodin shared the Normanist assessment of the Russian embassy in 839: “The Normans, from the tribe of Rus, came to Theophilus to conclude an alliance.” It is clear, he wrote, that “Rhos” is a northern tribe, and it is natural for such a tribe to seek the way of the western...”. W. Thomsen adhered to this point of view. F. I. Uspensky, solving the problem also in the spirit of Normanism, proposed a slightly different option. “Is it not possible to admit,” he wrote, “that in 838 part of the Varangians, ousted from Novgorod, with the assistance of Tsar Theophilus, made their way to their relatives in Scandinavia in order to gather new hunters and make a new attempt to establish themselves in Russia?” The version about the Scandinavian origin of the embassy was supported by M. D. Priselkov. He even believed that the Russians - the Scandinavians - could not return to their homeland precisely because of the hostile attitude of the Eastern Slavs towards them. S. F. Platonov considered the problem to be contradictory and practically unsolvable. The historian was confused by the fact that the ambassadors, calling themselves Swedes, represented the state of Russia, headed by a kagan, which corresponded to the Turkic sovereign terminology 4 .

The point of view of domestic Normanists found an echo in the works of foreign authors. Back in 1930, the German bourgeois historian G. Laer denied the Russian character of the embassy, ​​considering it Khazar only on the basis of the title “kha-kan” mentioned by Prudentius. A. A. Vasiliev, in accordance with his concept of “Norman Russia”, considered the members of the embassy to be representatives of the “Russian-Varangian-Swedish state on the Dnieper”. A. Stender-Petersen was convinced that the embassy of 839 was “a trade and diplomatic delegation of the Swedish tribe of Russia”, which, having settled in the Slavic lands, sent its mission through Khazaria to Byzantium and Ingelheim.

The English historian P. Sawyer in his general work “The Viking Age” wrote that the appearance in the west in 839 of the “Swedes”, called “Rus”, indicates an earlier stage of activity of the Scandinavians in the Russian lands than is recorded in the annals, where under 852 It is noted that the "Scandinavians" established "their power" in Kyiv 5 .

In recent years, the history of the embassy has been studied by D. Obolensky and E. Arweiler. D. Obolensky came to the conclusion that, although the Greeks knew Russia from the attack on Amastris, a Norman diplomatic or trade mission visited Byzantium and Ingelheim. E. Arweiler believes that in 838 a Khazar embassy appeared in Byzantium, which included Russians from the Novgorod region. They could not return to their homeland and “unexpectedly discovered” Constantinople for themselves. For the Greeks, “their Russian origin went unnoticed,” since 20 years later, Patriarch Photius, in his sermons on the attack of the Russians on Constantinople in 860, claimed that their name “was unknown in Byzantium.” “Only in 860, - writes E. Arweiler, - the Byzantines began to get acquainted with the Russians” b.

A special position on the issue of the 839 embassy was taken by E. E. Golubinsky and V. G. Vasilevsky. The first believed that the embassy was sent to Byzantium not by Kyiv, but by Tmutarakan, or Azov-Black Sea Rus, which had maintained relations with the empire since ancient times. Vasilyevsky, on the other hand, considered the ambassadors to be representatives of the Dnieper Rus, located closer to the Black Sea and under the rule of the Khazars. He admitted that by kagan one could mean both the Khazar supreme ruler and the Russian prince who bore this Khazar title 7 .

However, along with the formation of Normanist views on the embassy in 838-839. there was also a different point of view, according to which Prudentius mentioned representatives of Kievan Rus, Slavic Rus, the emerging ancient Russian state. Even G. Evers, arguing with A.L. Schlozer, noted that not a single Swedish ruler called himself a kagan and the Franks knew the Swedes under their own name long before the appearance of the Russian embassy in Ingelheim (in 829, the Swedish embassy asked for the same Louis the Pious to help spread Christianity among the Swedes). And the Russians were suspected of espionage only because they called themselves “Sveons”, since two years earlier the Scandinavians had made a frightening raid on the possessions of the Franks 8 .

A number of Russian historians of the XIX-XX centuries. both in special studies and in general works, they opposed the identification of the “hakan”, mentioned by Prudentius, with a certain Scandinavian Gakon. K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, D. I. Ilovaisky, V. S. Ikonnikov, D. I. Bagalei, V. I. Lamansky argued that the Slavs borrowed the title “kagan” from the Khazars, who ruled over the Dnieper region in VII- 8th century They saw traces of Khazar influence in the use of the title “Kagan” by the first Russian Metropolitan Hilarion in the “Sermon on Law and Grace” and “Praise” to Prince Vladimir. The idea of ​​a Kievan, Slavic representation of the embassy in 839 was defended by S. A. Gedeonov. He denied the so-called Swedish Rus and spoke of three or four Normans who "accidentally came to Kyiv in 839". Gedeonov considered it absolutely unbelievable that in Byzantium they would not guess the Swedish name Gakon under the Turkic title “Kagan” and that the Swedes called themselves not by the name of the people who sent them (Rus), but in accordance with their retinue name (Rods). Gedeonov drew attention to the fact that neither the Swedes nor the Danes used their squad names in political relations, but retained their ethnic ones. Prudentius, however, learned about the name of the people whose interests were represented by the ambassadors from Byzantine diplomats, for whom the word “Rus” has long been a collective word and meant sub-Neprovian and northeastern Slavic tribes. Gedeonov, noting the use of the title “kagan” in Kievan Rus in the 11th century, pointed out that Emperor Theophilus called the ruler of Russia a kagan from the words of Russian ambassadors 9 .

The discussion among domestic historians also influenced foreign bourgeois historiography. Some of its representatives actively defended the thesis about the Slavic origin of the state, which sent the "Swedes" to Constantinople in 838. I. Sventsitsky argued that the Vertinskaya Chronicle reports on the “Russian mission” at the Byzantine court, and considered it the beginning of diplomatic relations between Kievan Rus and Byzantium. A. V. Ryazanovsky defended this thesis most convincingly. He emphasized that the Russian Normanists replaced the essence of the issue with its superficial consideration, as they tried to establish the nationality of the ambassadors (who they are - Swedes, Goths, Slavs, Khazars), and not the state that sent them, the ruler. In his opinion, the title "kagan" was common among the Khazars, Danube Bulgarians, Avars and other Eastern European peoples. Ryazanovsky cites an excerpt from a letter dated 871 from the Byzantine Emperor Basil I the Macedonian to Emperor Louis II, from which it follows that the title “Kagan” was not known to the Normans, but was used by the Avars and Bulgarians. On the basis of an analysis of Hilarion's Lay, he came to the conclusion that "the Kagan of the Russians, who sent an embassy ... to Constantinople, was in fact the Prince of Kyiv." There was no need for the Black Sea-Russian or Russian-Khazar mission to return in a roundabout way, since the Black Sea region was under the control of the Khazars, friendly to Byzantium. If we accept the version about the Kiev origin of the mission, then the embassy's return trip from Ingelheim is justified, since it ran along the old trade road through Ingelheim - Krakow - Kyiv 12 . G. Vernadsky, who in some ways, as I. P. Shaskolsky noted, deviated from “traditional Norman concepts”, wrote that the 839 embassy was not Norman, but Russian, and it went to Constantinople to conclude an agreement between Russia and Byzantium 13 .

Soviet and foreign Marxist historians began to develop the problem from fundamentally different positions. The question of the emergence of the state in Russia began to be resolved in terms of studying superstructural phenomena, in close connection with the level of socio-economic and cultural development of the Russian lands. In the works of B. D. Grekov, M. N. Tikhomirov, B. A. Rybakov, P. N. Tretyakov, V. T. Pashuto and others, it is convincingly shown that in the 9th century. ancient Russia made the transition from the primitive communal system to the feudal one, that in the Russian lands there was a process of class formation, the formation of statehood, the formation of a feudal foreign policy, and the foundations of ancient Russian culture were laid 14 . The high level of political development of Russian lands in the 9th-10th centuries. revealed V. T. Pashuto. He convincingly proved that, in relation to this time, one should not talk about Russian tribes, but about a confederation or federation of tribes, about individual Russian principalities - glades, drevlyans, dregovichi, polochans, slovenes. “The whole structure of the then Russia turns out to be not ethnographic, tribal, but political ... - writes V. T. Pashuto. - The Slavic confederation came into contact with the northern countries, faced with the Norman "finders" and mercenaries" 15 . In his opinion, even in the earliest sources, the Russian principalities “act inside the country and in external relations as political organizations, predominantly having territorial and social (prince, nobility, people) divisions” 16 .

A significant contribution to the development of the problem was made by the Polish historian G. Lovmiansky, who, relying on a wide range of archaeological, etymological, ethnographic and written sources, showed the similarity of the processes of class formation and the development of statehood in the Slavic countries in the 1st millennium AD. e., including in ancient Russia 17 .

In close connection with the study of the socio-economic, political and cultural development of Russian lands in the 9th-10th centuries. Marxist historians also decide the Norman question. Without denying the role of the foreign element in the formation of the state in Russia, they emphasize that the Varangians were essentially not an external impulse for the formation of the ancient Russian statehood, but one of its internal factors. G. Lovmyansky, the author of a special work on the role of the Varangians in the formation of Slavic statehood, wrote: “It is not Kyiv that owes the Normans the beginning of its state organization, but the Normans, thanks to the development of the state system in Russia, and especially on the Middle Dnieper, found the conditions for participation in this process the main way as merchants and hired soldiers” 18 .

The same point of view was expressed by I. P. Shaskolsky, criticizing the views of the bourgeois Normanists A. Stender-Petersen, G. Pashkevich and others about the decisive importance of the Varangians in the formation of the ancient Russian state. “The Normans,” wrote I.P. Shaskolsky, “were only included in the grandiose process of the formation of class societies and the state on a vast territory from the Ladoga region to the lower reaches of the Dnieper.” At the Copenhagen symposium on the history of the Vikings in 1968, D.S. Likhachev, considering the question of the “calling” of the Varangians, also noted that in addition to “the Rurik dynasty, there were other princely dynasties in Russia, both of Scandinavian and local origin” 19 . At a session on the history of the Normans in Spoleto (1968), M. Hellmann said that “the formation of medieval Russia is depicted as a long and complex process. Indigenous and external factors played their role in this, not at all times equally intense, but they all contributed to the fact that the Kievan state grew into a significant political force within a century and a half” 20 . The only thing that raises an objection here is the motive of the equivalence of “native and foreign” elements in the formation of ancient Russian statehood, which contradicts the facts and the concept of the Soviet historical school based on them about the primary importance of Slavic elements and the secondary role of foreign elements in the genesis of the state in Russia.

From these methodological positions, one should evaluate the fact of the appearance of “Sveons” as part of the Russian embassy in Byzantium and Ingelheim.

At the same time, in Soviet historiography, the fundamentally correct definitions of this embassy as the mission of the Slavic Old Russian state have not yet found research confirmation. So, M. V. Levchenko essentially did not introduce anything new into the argument. M. I. Artamonov noted that the affiliation of the embassy to Kievan Rus “is also evidenced by the title of the head of this Rus - kagan, which is incredible for the northern Slavs, but quite understandable for the Slavs of the Middle Dnieper, who were under the rule of the Khazars. By accepting this title, the Kyiv prince declared his independence from the Khazars. The collective monograph “The Old Russian State and Its International Significance” also emphasized that the Old Russian state “began to liberate the Slavic lands that gravitated towards it from the foreign power of the kaganate, and then subjugated it, usurping (as the Muscovite tsars did later) the title of kagan.” Analyzing the references to the title “Khakan Russ” in the writings of Ibn-Ruste and al-Muqaddasi, A.P. Novoseltsev noted that the time to which the Russians and their Khakan are attributed by Eastern authors and Bishop Prudentius “approximately coincides”, which indicates the adoption of the head Russians of the title “khakan”, “in order to emphasize their power”. G. G. Litavrin considers the embassy as the beginning of direct contacts between Russia and Constantinople and an attempt to establish regular relations between ancient Russia and Byzantium. VT Pashuto characterizes the embassy as a Russian Slavic diplomatic mission, which confirms the existence of peaceful ties between Russia and Byzantium 21 .

This view of the history of the embassy was also reflected in general works 22 .

Let us consider the history of the embassy from the point of view of the diplomatic practice of the first third of the 9th century.

A few words about the chronology of the embassy. In Ingelheim, the Byzantine embassy, ​​with which Russian ambassadors appeared in the Frankish capital, was received in May 839. It arrived there, of course, earlier, since, according to the diplomatic practice of the early Middle Ages, the reception of ambassadors was not carried out immediately upon their arrival in the country, but after their establishment, a preliminary exchange of opinions regarding the reception ceremony, etc. Probably, both embassies, having traveled a long way from Constantinople to Ingelheim, appeared here in early spring. And this means that the Russian embassy spent the winter in the Byzantine capital. Consequently, the Russian ambassadors appeared in Constantinople no later than the autumn of 838 - the end of navigation, for only by water could the embassy get there. The very long stay of Russian ambassadors in Byzantium indicates their certain status: the Russians were not random wanderers, but a political mission, and the duration of her stay in the capital of the empire was typical of the then diplomatic practice.

What are the historical conditions for the appearance of the Russian embassy in Byzantium? This was the time when the emperor Theophilus fought a desperate struggle against the Arab Caliphate and turned to the countries of Europe for help, for the first time putting forward the idea of ​​a crusade against the Muslim world. In 837-838. the Byzantine army suffered a series of defeats in Asia Minor, and there was a threat of an Arab attack directly on Constantinople. There was also trouble in the north. The Khazars turned to Byzantium with a request to build a military fortress on the Don (the future Sarkel) in order to prevent the advance of new nomadic hordes - the Ugrians or the Pechenegs 24 who pushed them back, and perhaps fearing pressure from the Dnieper Rus, which, with its sea and land raids at the end of the VIII - first third of the ninth century disturbed the borders of both Byzantium and Khazaria. M. I. Artamonov believed that one attack of the Novgorod army on Surozh was enough to cause fear in Khazaria and speed up the agreement between the empire and the Khazar Khaganate on the construction of a fortress. Soon, Greek builders arrived on the Don, led by the spafar candidate Petrona. He spoke about this in detail in the X century. in his work "On the Governance of the State" Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. Sarkel was built not on a river, but on a land road, when crossing the Don, and was supposed to cover Khazaria (and the Crimean possessions of the Byzantines in the west and north-west. But the attempt of the Byzantines to use the construction of Sarkel to strengthen their influence in this area by planting Christianity met The Byzantines decided to create an independent theme (Byzantine territorial-administrative unit) in the Crimea, headed by the same Petrona, who received the rank of protospafarius 26 .

Thus, the Russian embassy appears in Byzantium precisely at the moment when a complex international knot is being tied in the Black Sea region. Byzantium seeks in these conditions to maintain and strengthen its influence on the northern shores of the Black Sea and at the same time enlist the support of its western neighbors in the fight against the Arabs. It was to this time that her embassies to Venice, Spain 2D, belong to the francs. Therefore, all versions about the random nature of the Russian embassy seem unjustified to us. Slavic embassy to Byzantium in the first third of the 9th century. was not an out of the ordinary event: the whole practice of political relations between the Ants, the ancient Slavs and their neighbors shows that they knew the embassy road to Constantinople well.

It is significant that the Russian ambassadors appeared in Ingelheim together with the official embassy of Emperor Theophilus, which pursued a very responsible goal - to confirm “peace and love” with the Franks in the face of the growing Arab danger. The practice of such accompaniments is typical of both the ancient world and the Middle Ages. In the future, this tradition was developed in Russia. Usually, the duties of the accompanying embassy included guarding foreign ambassadors on their way, observing them, helping them in providing them with means of transportation, food, and also in conducting a new round of negotiations in the capital of a foreign state. In those cases when it was a question of working out common decisions (for example, in the three capitals - Vienna, Krakow and Moscow), not two, but even three embassies or light Gonets missions traveled together. In this sense, the trip of the Russian embassy not only confirms the traditional practice for relations with a friendly state, but also indicates the commonality of issues that could be discussed with the Russians in Byzantium and with the Franks (in the presence of the Russians) in Ingelheim.

It is also important to note the fact that Theophilus personally informed Louis the Pious about the Russian embassy, ​​asked him to assist in returning to his homeland and provide protection, which also indicates a certain political status of the Slavic ambassadors. In Byzantium, according to the report of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the bureaucratic regulation of receptions and seeing off ambassadors was very zealously observed in accordance with the international prestige of their country or its role in current politics 28 . All this, in our opinion, allows us to conclude that neither the small Gothic-Norman centers in the Crimea, nor the random Scandinavian detachments have anything to do with this embassy. The situation dictated serious negotiations with a possible strong ally. Hence the corresponding status of the embassy at the Byzantine court.

The arguments of those historians who drew attention to the illogical nature of the characterization of the embassy as Khazar or Azov-Black Sea are also convincing, since in this case the return of the friendly Khazars through the lands would not present great difficulties for him. Another thing is the traditional route in the lower reaches of the Dnieper, which was intercepted by the Ugrians and Pechenegs. This circumstance could violate the original plans of the ambassadors.

The main argument against characterizing the embassy of 839 as a mission of Kievan Rus lies in the very fact of mentioning the ambassadors as “Sveons”. Indeed, the investigation carried out in Ingelheim forced the ambassadors, who introduced themselves on behalf of Russia, to recognize themselves as “Sveons”. Therefore, according to a whole group of historians, the “Swedes” should be identified with Russia. But to agree with this means to take a purely formal moment for the essence of the matter. The fact that the ambassadors were “Sveons” has nothing to do with the characterization of the state that sent them. As reigning IX-X centuries. were already mostly not ethnic, but political in nature, so the representation of these principalities or their federations had not ethnic, but political, state significance. Moreover, the newly organized state, little familiar with the diplomatic practice of resolving international issues, did not have people trained for this purpose (knowledge of diplomatic customs, foreign languages), could use the services of experienced and experienced Vikings. In those distant times, not the nationality of diplomats, but their knowledge of their business, service devotion to one or another throne determined the composition of the mission.

The members of the embassy were the Varangians - constant participants in both bold raids, and border negotiations, and squad service under the East Slavic princes, as well as at the Constantinople court.

The official function of the “Sveons” in the Russian embassy was noted by K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. M.V. Levchenko believed that “the Russian prince sent the Swedes because they were warriors with him and were known as people experienced in diplomatic negotiations.” I. P. Shaskolsky and V. T. Pashuto also wrote about them as “Normans” who served Russia. A. V. Ryazanovsky noted that in Russian history the Varangians repeatedly acted as part of embassies “from the Russian family”, and in particular during the negotiations between the ambassadors of Oleg and Byzantium in 907, as well as the Russian embassy to Constantinople in 911. Ambassadors 839 were Russian, as they represented the ancient Russian state, the Kyiv kagan-prince, although they were “Swedes” by nationality. G. Lovmyansky expressed the idea that at various stages of the history of ancient Russia, the Varangians performed different functions. Until the third quarter of the IX century. they acted primarily as merchants "due to their inherent dexterity in trade affairs, knowledge of foreign countries, which also facilitated their diplomatic functions." Russia used their skills in military affairs and navigation for their own purposes. And from the last quarter of the X century. The commercial and diplomatic role of the Varangians is declining, but their “military-hired” functions are increasing. B. Delmer also believed that the "Sveons" were Scandinavians in the service of the Russian prince.

Apparently, the very fact of representation of the Varangians in the Russian embassy points to a stable diplomatic tradition that existed, perhaps, until the end of the 10th century, when Russia in Byzantium - and perhaps in other countries - used their services in conducting diplomatic negotiations. The involvement of the Varangians in the service in Kyiv was caused by the needs of the country's internal development, the formation of the ancient Russian state, and the improvement of its foreign policy functions. The so-called vocation of the prince served the same needs.

The question about the goals of the Russian embassy that arrived in Constantinople is natural. A number of historians believe that it sought to conclude a union treaty 31 . More cautious assessments were also made: D. I. Bagalei wrote about the “relations” of Russia and Byzantium, G. G. Litavrin speaks about the beginning of the establishment of “regular relations” with the empire, he sees the goal of the embassy in establishing “peaceful relations between Russia and Byzantium”. T. Pashuto 32 .

In connection with these different assessments, attention should be paid to one more aspect of the history of the embassy, ​​which was not noted by the researchers. From the message of Prudentius it follows that the Franks suspected the ambassadors of espionage. The history of the ancient world and the Middle Ages knows many examples of embassy and trade missions carrying out reconnaissance functions 33 . The accusation itself is obvious. The embassy, ​​which appeared in Ingelheim under the dubious pretext of the impossibility of returning to their homeland because of the “inhuman and wild tribes” that blocked all routes, the unclear nationality of the Russian envoys could not but arouse suspicion among the Franks.

In our opinion, historians take too seriously Theophilus' version that the ambassadors were deprived of the opportunity to return home in the traditional way. K. Erickson even suggested that the ambassadors were Russian Christians, who feared an attack from their fellow pagans 34 . It seems that the Franks really appreciated the difficulties of the ambassadors and correctly defined the functions of the Russian embassy that came to them.

Prudentius says that the Russian khakan sent ambassadors to Theophilus “for the sake of friendship” (amicitiae causa). According to the international notions of the time, this formulation did not imply a specific political alliance, a military agreement, or the establishment of a stable relationship of "peace and love." By the way, it is precisely this kind of relationship that can be discussed in connection with the embassy to Ingelheim of Bishop Theodosius of Chalcedon and Spafarius Theophan. The Russian embassy, ​​in our opinion, performed a more limited task - to enter into friendly, peaceful relations with the Byzantine Empire, which may have been associated with the recent attack of the Russians on the Asia Minor possessions of Byzantium and the city of Amastrida.

Such an embassy could also perform supervisory functions. Apparently, the stay of the Russian embassy in the lands of the Franks (forced or purposeful) also took place under the sign of the establishment by Russia of relations of “friendship” with the Frankish court. It is possible that the purpose of the embassy was to collect certain information for the correct political orientation of Russia, which was looking for foreign policy contacts.

In Byzantium, the embassy was greeted kindly, since the establishment of friendly relations with Russia corresponded to the goals of the empire. Hence the help in carrying out the further tasks of the Russian mission - establishing contacts with the Franks. The appearance of the Russian embassy in Constantinople can also be regarded as the beginning of the end of that period of isolation in which the East Slavic tribes found themselves after the attack of the Avars, and later in connection with dependence on the Khazars. The sending of the first Russian embassy to Byzantium and its appearance in the lands of the Franks marks a new stage in the formation of ancient Russian statehood.

1. Diplomatic preparation of the Russo-Turkish war

From the point of view of world politics, the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. is the culmination of the so-called "Eastern question" (looking from Europe) in the last quarter of the 19th century. The struggle of the Greeks, Romanians, Serbs, Montenegrins and Bulgarians against the Turkish yoke began with the conquest of the Balkan Peninsula by the Turks in the 14th century and continued until the 20th century. In the 19th century, a powerful rise in the national liberation movement of all the Christian peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, conquered and oppressed by the Turks, began.

On the other hand, the occupying Turkish empire began to decline. The endless wars in its history - with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the papal throne, Venice, and later with the powerful Russian state, which intensified especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, contributed a lot to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, once formidable for Europe. In turn, the historical process of the decay of the Ottoman Empire, which, according to the apt expression of Emperor Nicholas I, turned into a "sick man", intensified the rivalry between the great countries for the division of the legacy of the dying Sultan's power.
Crimean War 1854-1856 - the result of this rivalry between Russia and the Western powers, whose goal was to snatch part of the Turkish territories for themselves and, of course, stop the Russian Empire in its advance towards the straits and the Mediterranean Sea. Twenty years have passed since the difficult for Russia Peace of Paris in 1856. Russia grew stronger and could no longer put up with those humiliating conditions. Russian diplomacy was faced with an almost insoluble task: on the one hand, the imminent war with Turkey was supposed to restore the lost world prestige of Russia after the Crimean War, on the other hand, to advance Russia to the straits and to the Mediterranean Sea, creating in this region of the world instead of a hostile Turkey, brotherly blood and according to faith, the South Slavic state - Bulgaria, restoring it in ethnic boundaries, that is, Bulgaria, which under Simeon the Great in the tenth century and under Ivan Asen II in the XIII century - stretched from the Danube in the north to the Aegean Sea in the south and from the Black Sea in east to the Adriatic Sea in the west.

However, Russia had to act very carefully in this case in order to avoid a second war with the Western powers: with England (where Prime Minister Disraeli had very anti-Russian views), Austria-Hungary of Emperor Franz Joseph and his chancellor Count D. Andrássy, with Germany of Emperor Wilhelm I and Chancellor Bismarck, who would again be joined by Italy and France, which became a republic ... Emperor Alexander II himself directed the entire foreign policy with his brilliant employees: the elderly chancellor Prince A.M. Gorchakov, envoy in Constantinople Count N.P. Ignatiev and envoy in London Count P. Shuvalov. Russian diplomats, if they could not complete the most difficult task, nevertheless achieved considerable results.

In the summer of 1875, an anti-Turkish uprising broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which Serbia and Montenegro supported with all their might, sympathizing with their fellow tribesmen. 5 thousand Russian volunteers and the same number of Bulgarian volunteers under the command of Russian officers or Bulgarians - officers in the Russian service also participated in the uprising. The Chancellor of Austria-Hungary, Count D. Andrássy, supported by Germany and England, closely followed the events, since Austria-Hungary hoped to annex these Slavic lands, tearing them away from Turkey. Andrassy was especially worried that the Russian General M.G. was appointed the commander-in-chief of the Serbian army. Chernyaev is the hero of the annexation of Turkestan.

At that time, the so-called April Uprising of 1876 broke out in the Bulgarian lands - the most significant nationwide uprising of the Bulgarians against the Turkish yoke. It was suppressed by the Turks - the regular army and the so-called "Bashi-Bazouks", that is, Muslim fanatics, mainly Circassians, who fled to Turkey from the Caucasian regions occupied by Russia, who brutally exterminated the civilian population of the rebellious Bulgarian villages, including the elderly, women and children. According to the Turks themselves, more than 30 thousand people were killed during the April uprising. (At the same time, the Turks staged the first wave of massacres of Armenians who desired autonomy.) As expected, the April uprising found the most lively response in fraternal Russia. Already at the end of April, the entire Russian press started talking about it. Russian newspapers and magazines covered the course of the uprising in detail and indignantly reported on Turkish atrocities. The committees organized by the Slavophils printed appeal after appeal all over Russia, collecting aid in support of the Bulgarians.

Such well-known cultural figures as F.M. Dostoevsky, I.S. Aksakov, I.S. Turgenev, the great chemist D.I. Mendeleev. Likewise, many prominent Christian writers in the West resented the atrocities of the Turks. All these authoritative voices stirred up public opinion and forced the Western powers to make concessions to Russia on the Bulgarian question.

Meanwhile, the Turks crushed the Serbian uprising in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By agreement with Austria-Hungary, Russia, after partial mobilization, presented an ultimatum to Turkey, demanding a truce with Serbia. This ultimatum was accepted by Turkey. At the initiative of Russia, on December 11, a conference of ambassadors of the great powers was convened in Constantinople. The conference suggested that Turkey immediately grant autonomy to Bosnia, Herzegovina and Bulgaria. Under British pressure, Turkey rejected this demand. On March 19, 1877, again at the initiative of Alexander II, a protocol was signed by six European powers, again insisting on reforms in the Slavic regions. The government of Mimthad Pasha also rejected this memorandum under the old pretext that the new constitution, just granted by the Sultan, grants all these rights to Slavic and other Christian subjects of the Sultan ... On April 4, 1877, Russia signed a secret convention with Romania on the passage of Russian troops through its territory . The declaration of war became a matter of days...

2. Commencement of hostilities

On April 7, the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, Count Ignatiev, informed Turkey that "His Majesty the All-Russian Emperor decided to comprehend by force what could not be achieved by the joint efforts of the Great Forces ..." - and returned to St. Petersburg. On April 12, Chancellor Prince Gorchakov summoned the Turkish chargé d'affaires and handed him a note with which Russia declared war on Turkey. On the same day, Emperor Alexander signed a manifesto declaring war. In Chisinau, where the headquarters of the Russian command was located, the Tsar received a solemn parade of troops. The declaration of war was greeted with unprecedented enthusiasm by all the Russian people and with great joy by all the Slavic peoples, of course, above all by the Bulgarians.

Russian troops numbered 48 infantry divisions, 19 cavalry divisions, 52 artillery brigades and 5 engineering brigades. Thus, on the Danube, Russia had an army of 193,000 people. There was, in addition, an army of 72,000 men guarding the shores of the Black Sea, and a reserve army of 73,000 men stationed in the province of Kyiv and ready to start hostilities at any moment. In addition, an impressive army of 122,000 people was concentrated on the Asian border in the Caucasus to prevent Turkish sabotage.

However, we must not forget that as a result of the Crimean War and under the terms of the Peace of Paris in 1856, Russia lost the Black Sea Fleet.

Turkey fielded a significant army against Russia - 494,400 people, armed with modern German, English and even American weapons. This weapon, bought with generous loans received in England and other Western countries, was better than the Russian one.

On June 14-15, 1877, Russian troops successfully crossed the Danube and on June 25 occupied the first Bulgarian city - Svishtov. The 50,000-strong Romanian army and over 5,000 Bulgarian volunteers also participated in the operation, the number of which constantly increased during the campaign. The advance detachment of General Gurko, having defeated the Turkish army of Reuf Pasha, took the city of Tarnovo and captured the three mountain passes of Staraya Platina. Gurko then took the Bulgarian cities of Kazanlak, Novaya Zagora, Staraya Zagora and Kalofer. On July 3, in northern Bulgaria, the Russians took Nikopol and approached the strongest Turkish fortress in this part of the country - the city of Plevna. Actions near Plevna dragged on with varying success until November 28 and were accompanied by heavy losses on both sides.

Meanwhile, the 45,000-strong army of Suleiman Pasha, operating in southern Bulgaria, taking advantage of the employment of the Russians in the battles with the army of Osman Pasha at Plevna and the inability to send reinforcements to Gurko's forward army, using their significant numerical superiority, attacked Gurko's army and managed to repel the troops taken by it. cities. The Russians were forced to retreat to the Shipka Pass. Almost the entire Bulgarian population left with them, leaving their houses and property to be plundered by the Turks, who brutally beat the remaining Bulgarian residents. Russian soldiers and Bulgarian militias fought heroically and, retreating, inflicted significant losses on the enemy in hand-to-hand combat.

The goal of Suleiman Pasha was to break through with his army through the Shipka Pass and come to the aid of Osman Pasha in the besieged Plevna, surrounded on all sides by Russian and Romanian troops. He knew that only this would save Turkey from defeat and ensure victory. On August 9, Suleiman Pasha approached the Shipka Pass with his remaining 27,000 army, which was defended by General Stoletov with his detachment of 6,000 people, among whom were the Bulgarian militia squads, exhausted by battles. For four days and nights they heroically repelled the onslaught of the Turks together, without allowing Suleiman Pasha to take Shipka and connect with Osman Pasha. The feat of these brave men decided the outcome of the war, because the word Shipka became famous in Russian-Bulgarian fraternal relations.

On the morning of November 28, 1877, Osman Pasha's army in Plevna made a last attempt to break through the Russian encirclement, but was forced to capitulate and surrender Plevna. Nevertheless, on the personal order of Emperor Alexander II, General Gurko returned the saber to the wounded Turkish general for the courage and bravery shown by the Turks in battle ...

3. Peace of San Stefano and Congress of Berlin

On December 28, the Russian commander-in-chief, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, received a telegram from the Turkish Minister of War that Sultan Abdul-Hamid was sending his representatives with a proposal to immediately begin negotiations on a truce. At this time, another Russian army under the command of General Gurko, having liberated Sofia, approached Plovdiv. Nikolai Nikolaevich was in no hurry to receive Namik Pasha and Server Pasha, who had already arrived at the Russian headquarters, and Sultan Abdul-Hamid personally turned to Emperor Alexander II, insisting on a hasty start of negotiations. On January 9, 1878, the Russians entered Adrianople without a fight, where the commander-in-chief arrived with his staff.

Now that the road to the Turkish capital was open, Nikolai Nikolayevich received Turkish envoys. The Grand Duke dictated to them his terms of a truce: the immediate granting of autonomy to Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the complete independence of Romania and Serbia, huge military indemnities not only for Russia, but also for allied Romania. Turkish parliamentarians tried to soften the terms of the truce, especially protesting against the autonomy of Bulgaria, saying that this meant the complete collapse of the Ottoman Empire. They proposed to accept the memorandum of the London Conference proposed by him in 1877, which was then so arrogantly rejected. However, the Grand Duke refused to make any changes to the terms of the armistice.

On January 18, Turkish parliamentarians again came to the Grand Duke, urging them to move the demarcation line to a greater distance from Constantinople. However, the Russian commander-in-chief, on the contrary, instead moved his headquarters to San Stefano, located 13 kilometers from the Turkish capital. To the question of Nikolai Nikolaevich whether Constantinople should be taken in the event of Turkish obstinacy, the Emperor answered in the affirmative, but gave instructions not to enter into disputes with representatives of the Western powers, especially with England and Austria-Hungary. The Russian ambassador in London, Count P. Shuvalov, had already notified the Tsar of the militant plans of Lord Disraeli-Beaconsfield.

On February 19, 1878, peace was signed with Turkey at San Stefano. In addition to the autonomy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a united autonomous Bulgaria was created, including almost all the lands of the Ottoman Empire, inhabited by Bulgarian-speaking Bulgarians and from 1870 included in the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian exarch. According to the Treaty of San Stefano, Bulgaria included Northern and Southern Bulgaria, Dobruja, a significant part of Thrace and almost all of Macedonia. One can imagine the rejoicing of the Bulgarian people, liberated at the cost of fraternal Russian blood after five centuries of Muslim yoke...
However, England handed Russia a note stating that the new treaty should remain within the framework of the Peace of Paris in 1856 and the Treaty of London in 1877. Austria-Hungary believed that the Treaty of San Stefano violated the agreement reached in Reichstad between Franz Joseph and Emperor Alexander. At the insistence of the German Chancellor Bismarck, Russia, not wanting a new war with the West, agreed to revise the Treaty of San Stefano and convene the Berlin Congress of the Great Powers with the participation of Turkey in Berlin, which took place from June 13 to July 13, 1878.
As a result, Bulgaria, united within its ethnic boundaries by the Peace of San Stefano, was liquidated. Instead, two artificial political formations were created: Northern Bulgaria with the capital Sofia and Southern Bulgaria with the capital Plovdiv. Northern Bulgaria became a free principality, nominally dependent on the Turkish sultan and paying an annual tax to Turkey. It was supposed to elect a prince and a parliament on the Belgian model. Southern Bulgaria, under the name of Eastern Rumelia, although it received a certain autonomy, remained a province of the Ottoman Empire, governed by a Christian governor appointed by the sultan and local popular representation. Macedonia was still a Turkish province. Austria received the right to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the western Bulgarian lands were again torn away from Bulgaria, transferred in the form of compensation to Serbia.
True, Russia received compensation in the Caucasus: Kars, Batum and Ardagan, with all their provinces, are the most important strategic areas.
Thus ended the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. And I must say that, despite all the injustices of the decisions of the Berlin Congress, which caused disappointment in Russian society, Russian fraternal sacrifice and the blood of valiant Russian soldiers became the basis for the coming Bulgarian liberation. In 1878, the Bulgarians erected in Sofia a monument to Russian soldiers with the inscription: “To Tsar-Liberator Alexander Nikolayevich. By His will and love, Bulgaria was liberated.”
Academician Vsevolod Nikolaev