Moisei Samuilovich Alperovich- an outstanding Latin American historian, whose life for more than half a century was associated with the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences (since 1968 - with the Institute of World History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, then - with the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences). Moses Samuilovich is the author of fundamental monographs on the history of the Mexican Revolution of 1910–1917, the Mexican War of Independence of 1810–1824, the revolution and dictatorship in Paraguay of 1810–1840, and also on the history of relations between Russia and Latin America in the last third of the 18th century. in. More and more generations of students continue to study the history of Latin America on the basis of generalizing works and textbooks by Moisei Samuilovich (including those co-authored with L.Yu. Slezkin). Among the latest publications of Moisei Samuilovich are chapters on Latin America in the 18th–19th centuries for volumes IV and V of World History, prepared by the IVI RAS (Moscow: Nauka, 2013, 2014). Until his death, he remained a member of the dissertation council of the Institute.

Moisei Samuilovich was born in Moscow and, after graduating from school and having worked for a year at the Krasny Proletarian factory, in 1936 he entered the recently restored history department of Moscow University. Comprehension of the craft of the historian began in the seminars of S.V. Bakhrushin (1882–1950) and V.V. Stoklitsky-Tereshkovich (1885–1962). Fascinated by the lectures of Vladimir Mikhailovich Miroshevsky (1900-1942), the student chose a romantic specialization in Latin America.

The news of the war found Moisei Samuilovich in the hall of the Fundamental Library for Social Sciences, where he was preparing for the entrance exams to graduate school. A recent graduate of the history department in the first months of the war, he built defensive lines near the Snopot station in the Bryansk region, and then was drafted into the army, where he first served as a battery gunner, and then as an interpreter in the intelligence department. Moisei Samuilovich ended the war with the rank of captain, head of the investigative unit of the intelligence department of the headquarters of the 3rd shock army. In May 1945, he participated in the interrogation of Vice Admiral G.-E. Foss, who revealed to the Soviet authorities information about the suicides of Hitler and Goebbels.

In August 1946, Moisei Samuilovich returned to Moscow and entered the graduate school of the Pacific Institute of the Academy of Sciences, where, despite the ongoing struggle against cosmopolitanism, in 1949 he defended his Ph.D. thesis on the topic “The Mexican Revolution and American Imperialism (1913–1917)” . In 1949–1954 Moisei Samuilovich taught at the Ryazan Pedagogical Institute, and from 1954 he worked permanently at the Academic Institute of History (since 1968 - the Institute of World History), remaining a member of its dissertation council until his death. In 1966–1968 Moisei Samuilovich was among the most energetic fighters against the persecution of an employee of the Institute of History A.M. Nekrich for his book June 22, 1941.

Moses Samuilovich is the author of the fundamental monographs “The Mexican Revolution of 1910–1917. and US Policy” (co-authored with B.T. Rudenko, 1958, edition in Spanish - México , 1960), “The Mexican War of Independence (1810–1824)”, 1964 (on its basis, a doctoral dissertation was defended in 1965), “ Revolution and dictatorship in Paraguay (1810–1840)”, 1975, “ Francisco de Miranda in Russia (1986, edition in Spanish - Mosc ú, 1989) , " Russia and the New World (the last third of the 18th century)”, 1993, essay “Soviet historiography of the countries of Latin America” (1968, published in Spanish - Caracas, 1969) and dozens of articles, many of which are essentially micromonographs.

Moses Samuilovich also created a number of generalizing works and textbooks on the history of Latin America: "The Formation of Independent States in Latin America" ​​(1804-1903)", 1966, "The Liberation Movement of the late 18th - early 19th centuries. in Latin America” (1966), “A New History of the Countries of Latin America” (together with L.Yu. Slezkin), 1970, “Spanish America in the Struggle for Independence” (1971), “History of Latin America (from ancient times to the 20th .”), together with L.Yu. Slezkin (1981, revised and additional ed. - 1991). Among the latest publications of Moisei Samuilovich prepared for publication are chapters on Latin America in the 18th–19th centuries. for IV and V volumes of "World History".

In the works of Moisei Samuilovich, careful, scrupulous consideration of the details deepens and gives a new understanding of the broad picture of the past. Until the last months of his life, Moisei Samuilovich readily passed on his vast experience and encyclopedic knowledge to the next generations of researchers, sharing rare books from his library. In his Methuselah age, the historian was carefully immersed in modern life, causing genuine admiration of those around him. In just ten months, Moisei Samuilovich outlived his wife, Elena Efimovna Atakova-Akselrud, with whom he had tied his fate since pre-war times.

Throughout his life, Moses Samuilovich embodied reason, tact and responsibility, those Faulkner's "honor, dignity and endurance of a person, which is why it is worth protecting him, which gives him a price" (honor and pride and discipline that make a man worth preserving, make him of any value), qualities so rare and valuable in any social system.

Moses Samuilovich was awarded two Orders of the Patriotic War of the II degree, two Orders of the Red Star, many medals, as well as the Mexican Order of the Aztec Eagle and the Venezuelan Order of Francisco de Miranda, first class.

Cm.: Alperovich M.S. From Moscow to Berlin // Archeographic Yearbook. 1990. M., 1992. S. 290–295; He is. From summer 41 to spring 45 // Public education. 2002. No. 4. S. 105–113. A record of Moisei Samuilovich's oral story about his student and war years, made in 2009, is stored in the archives of the Military Glory Room of the Faculty of History of Moscow University.

Moses Samuilovich spoke about his path as a researcher in a number of articles: Notes of a Latin Americanist // The Hispanic American Historical Review. 1982 Vol. 62. No. 3. P. 339–368; Reflections not only on the craft // American Yearbook. 1998. M., 1999. S. 281–307; Historian in a totalitarian society (historical and biographical notes) // Odysseus. Man in history. 1997. M., 1998. S. 251–274.

The book about Miranda and its Spanish translation were jointly republished in 2010 in expensive leather binding.

Recent examples include: South American dictatorship in the mirror of the European press in the 1920s-40s; The stay of Francisco de Miranda in Russia in the coverage of the press of the Old and New Worlds (XIX–XX centuries) // Myths and realities of American history in the periodicals of the XVIII–XX centuries. In 3 vols. / Rev. ed. V.A. Koleneko. M., 2008–2010. T. 3. S. 7–43, 45–86.

The discovery, exploration and development of the New World by Europeans is a long, multilateral process that lasted several centuries. Flowing in time and space, it was characterized by significant regional and stage specifics. In this regard, the author has already had to emphasize the need for a scientific analysis of all aspects of the problem, taking into account the peculiarities of the historical era under consideration and local differences1. In this sense, the final stage of the Spanish continent, which ended only by the end of the 70s of the 18th century, is of considerable interest.

During the conquest of America, the Spanish conquistadors by the end of the 20s of the 16th century. captured a vast territory stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, and in the first half of the 30s discovered the California Peninsula, which later became known as Baja California. Individual sailors explored the coast located north of Upper California.

In parallel, from Russia, there was a broad colonization movement through Siberia to the shores of the Pacific Ocean and further to the northwest of the American continent. However, the discovery of the Bering Strait by S. Dezhnev and F. Alekseev (Popov) in 1648 remained unknown for almost a long time, as well as the results of the voyage of I. Fedorov and M. Gvozdev, who approached the coast of North America in 1732. Only the results of the Second Kamchatka Expedition , during which V. Bering and A. I. Chirikov in July 1741 reached the American coast, respectively, at a latitude of 58 ° 14 "and 55 ° 20" 2, became public. Already in the second half of the 40s, information about Russian discoveries penetrated into Western Europe. By that time, Siberian industrialists and merchants rushed to the east in search of furs. From 1743 to 1755, according to R. V. Makarova, 22 fishing expeditions3 were undertaken. By the beginning of the 1960s, almost all the islands of the Aleutian ridge had been discovered.

The advance of the Russians towards America did not go unnoticed by the Spaniards, who saw in it a threat to their possessions on the Pacific coast. For the first time this was announced publicly in the second half of the 50s of the XVIII century. Jesuits Andres Marcos Burriel and José Torrubia.

In connection with the restoration of diplomatic and consular relations with Spain, attempts to develop trade with it and its American colonies in the 60s, the interest of the government of Catherine II in America increased. Efforts to explore its northwestern coast found expression in the voyage of I. Sindt in 1764-1766. and especially in the government expedition of P. K. Krenitsyn - M. D. Levashov, who examined in 1768-1769. Aleutian Islands and the southwestern tip of Alaska, up to about 54 ° N. sh.

At the beginning of 1774, the Russian academician Jakob von Stehlin, along with a map sketch, published a "Brief News of the Newly Invented Northern Archipelago"5, which immediately attracted attention in Western Europe. Already in February of the same year, the German geographer and cartographer A.F. Busching informed readers about the publication of the above-mentioned message, briefly outlining its content. In the spring of 1774, Academician G.F. Miller, on the pages of a weekly published by Busching, challenged many of the statements of his learned colleague regarding the geographical location and time of discovery of the lands discovered by the Russians in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, he specified their coordinates and names, the route of the Sindt expedition, the coastline of the American mainland, listing by name 56 islands belonging to the groups of Commander, Near, Rat, Andreyanovsky, Fox6. Nevertheless, as early as March of the same year, a German translation of the criticized work appeared, and three months later its English edition was published7.

The relatively wide spread of erroneous and inaccurate ideas that arose with the light hand of Shtelin aroused in the scientific circles of Russia the desire to bring complete clarity to this issue and restore the truth. For this purpose, a more or less detailed and reliable message was published in Germany under the title "New news about the newly discovered islands in the sea between Asia and America", signed by the initials J.L.S. ** 8 It contained information about 24 expeditions of Russian industrialists from the mid-40s until the end of the 60s, set out on the basis of original documents from the archives of the Academy of Sciences and other official sources.

The Krenitsyn-Levashov expedition was mentioned in Novye Izvestia only in passing. Much more attention was paid to this voyage by the royal historiographer of Scotland, William Robertson, who visited St. Petersburg in the process of preparing the work "History of America". There he managed to get acquainted with the translation of the ship's log and a copy of the map of the mentioned expedition, which the Admiralty kept secret even from the Academy of Sciences. Thus, the historian received, as he believed, the opportunity "to give a more accurate idea of ​​the course and boundaries of Russian discoveries than has hitherto been reported to the public"9.

Robertson did not use all the materials given to him by order of Catherine II. But he handed them over to chaplain William Cox, a member of the council of King's College, Cambridge. A tireless traveler who was interested in history and geography, Cox spent about six months, from August 1778 to February 1779, in Russia during his trip to Northern Europe. By order of the Empress, he received access to important documents relating to Russian expeditions in the North Pacific. Academician P.S. Pallas handed him a description of the islands discovered by the Russians between Kamchatka and America in the 40-60s, prepared earlier on the basis of the J.L.S.** publication, as well as a copy of the navigation map of Afanasy Ocheredin (1766-1770)10. Having collected many different materials, Cox compiled a detailed review of Russian discoveries "between Asia and America" ​​and, upon returning to England, published it at the beginning of 1780. and America"12.

The English navigator James Cook, who during his third round-the-world voyage reached Cape Ice Cape northeast of the Bering Strait, on the way back on September 23, 1778, approached the island of Unalaska, where he discovered Russian industrialists. The captain and his companions met there with an experienced navigator Gerasim Izmailov. After the tragic death of Cook in the Hawaiian Islands, the ships of the expedition on April 18/29, 1779, anchored in the Peter and Paul harbor. The materials delivered by them were received in St. Petersburg in the spring of 1780.

Thus, information about the approach of the Russians to the northwestern coast of America, which received an impulse as a result of the Second Kamchatka Expedition and increased throughout the 40-60s of the 18th century, was widely disseminated. Having reached the most interested European courts, it especially alarmed the Madrid government, which used the restoration of diplomatic relations with Russia in 1760 in order to closely monitor its activities in the North Pacific. In a royal instruction to the newly appointed envoy, the Marquis Almodovar, dated March 9, 1761, he was ordered to establish "the boundaries of the discoveries made by the Russians during their attempts to sail to California", and fear was expressed that "in these attempts they succeeded more than other countries." The diplomat was given the task of preventing, as far as possible, the further advancement of Russia in this region13.

Upon arrival in St. Petersburg, the envoy hastened to report to Madrid that he did not currently see a real threat to Spanish interests in America from Russia, although he did not exclude its occurrence in the future. At the same time, in a report to the First Minister Ricardo Wall on September 26 (October 7), 1761, he pointed out that if Bering and Chirikov, approaching the American continent, did not turn to the northwest, but sailed south, they would have reached the possessions of Spain14 . Almost a year and a half later, the marquis announced the intention of the Russian government to equip a new expedition to the Pacific Ocean to explore America northwest of California15 (probably referring to the expedition of I. Sindt).

On March 19 (30), 1764, Almodovar's successor, Viscount de la Herreria, notified his minister, the Marquis Grimaldi, of the sailing of a Russian ship from Avacha Bay to the northeast (it can be assumed that it was about the St. Gabriel boat under the command of G. Pushkarev) and about another expedition, probably by N. Shalaurov, who, moving from the mouth of the Kolyma in an easterly direction, was to go around the Chukotka Peninsula and cross the Bering Strait. Six months later, he reported to Madrid about the preparation of another expedition, apparently by Krenitsyn-Levashov, in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean, attaching a map of Russian discoveries in the northwest of America indicating the routes of Bering and Chirikov's voyages. Three years later, the envoy reported with alarm that Russia had not abandoned its intentions towards America, and for this purpose, the Russians, having advanced through the Bering Strait into the Pacific Ocean, were already landing on the coast of the American mainland, presumably in the area of ​​the Seward and Alaska peninsulas.

The report dated November 19 (30), 1767, together with earlier information, greatly disturbed the Madrid government, which saw a potential danger to California in the approach of Russian navigators and industrialists to the coast of America. The latter, according to contemporaries, was located not far from Alaska. However, the Spaniards secured by that time only most of Baja California almost to the 30th parallel.

Grimaldi hurried to acquaint the Minister for the Indies and the Navy, Julián de Arriaga, with de la Herreria's message, and on January 23, 1768, he notified the Viceroy of New Spain, the Marquis de Croix, about his content. “The Russians tried several times to find a way to America and recently carried out their intention by undertaking a voyage in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean,” wrote the first minister. “We are sure that they were successful and reached the mainland, but we don’t know at what latitude they landed .. As a result of what has been said, we believe that they will equip new expeditions to continue their discoveries, allegedly made in those places. The viceroy was instructed to instruct the governor of California to closely monitor possible attempts to further advance the Russians and, if possible, prevent them.

On April 30, the head of the colonial administration forwarded the circular of the first minister to the auditor general (visitador general) José de Galvez, who arrived from the metropolis for the next inspection.

The latter was at that time preoccupied with the problem of suppressing the uprising of the Indians of the northwestern province of Sonora. To this end, the visitador and viceroy put forward the idea of ​​reorganizing the system of government of the colony. In connection with the possible attempts of the British, Dutch and Russians to penetrate California, a desire was expressed to establish a Spanish settlement on the shores of Monterey Bay or at another point on the Pacific coast.

On the way to the port of San Blas, Gálvez received the above-mentioned message from Grimaldi dated January 23rd. Having become acquainted with it, he interpreted this instruction as a direct order to occupy Monterey and build a fortification there. The visitador notified the viceroy of his intention to undertake such a task.

Describing the current situation, the North American historian Charles E. Chapman believes that the enterprising Galvez conceived an expedition to the north even before he learned about the activation of the Russians. Information about her could only hasten his actions. Another researcher, John W. Kahi, spoke even more clearly, who does not see a real danger to the Spanish possessions in America from Russia in the late 60s. “Anxious rumors emanating from the envoy in St. Petersburg,” he points out, “exaggerated the threat of New Spain ... The Spanish court was not alarmed to the extent that is commonly believed. An order was sent to the Viceroy of New Spain to find out about the Russian danger, but he was not instructed to colonize California. He conveyed this order to the Auditor General, and it was the said official who actually decided that Upper California should be colonized. Under this interpretation, the Russian threat looks like a mere pretext"20. However, according to the Spanish researcher Luis Navarro Garcia, the approach of the Russians to the American continent was the real reason that prompted Galvez "to hasten to advance the outpost of the empire to the very port of San Francisco"21.

Upon arrival at San Blas, which had become a naval base of operations in Upper California, the visitador convened a council of war on May 16, which approved a concrete plan of combined action. It provided for the simultaneous dispatch of ships and land expeditions to the north. Their preparation was led by Galvez himself, who landed in early July in the south of Baja California. In January-February 1769, the San Carlos and San Antonio ships sailed north from there one after the other, and in March the detachment of Fernando de Rivera y Moncada set out, followed in May by the expedition of Gaspar de Portola. Having founded the San Diego mission in July of the same year, the Spaniards continued further advance and in October at a latitude of 37 ° 48 "opened the entrance to San Francisco Bay. In May 1770, a mission was established and a fort was built on the coast of Monterey Bay, and then founded a number of other missions along the coast between San Diego and San Francisco.

For the subsequent development of Upper California, the news that continued to come from St. Petersburg, where in September 1772 a new Spanish envoy, Count Lacy, arrived, was important. The instructions given to him specifically referred to "the voyages that the Russians repeatedly made to California with greater success than other peoples." The envoy was charged with the duty to find out "whether such expeditions were undertaken again and with what result, or whether this idea was abandoned"22. Already on October 11 (22) Lacy reported to Madrid about the desire of Catherine II to stimulate the search for unknown lands in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean23. And during the first half of the next year, he sent several reports containing specific information.

On February 7 (18), 1773, Lacy informed Grimaldi about the events that had taken place in 1769-1771. sailing of Russian ships from Kamchatka to America and back, noting that his materials are kept in the strictest confidence. Apparently, it was about the Krenitsyn-Levashov expedition, although the envoy mistakenly called its leader Chirikov. In a lengthy report on March 19, a detailed description of the voyages of Chichagov and Krenitsyn-Levashov was given, received from a certain person who had access to the imperial archives. At the same time, as Lacy emphasized, the Russians considered the lands they discovered to be a continuation of California, which, in their opinion, stretched to the 75th parallel. According to the diplomat, in the mid-1960s, the empress allowed a merchant company operating in Kamchatka to establish a permanent settlement on the American mainland at a latitude of 64°24.

Confirming and specifying these data, on April 23, the envoy, with reference to a conversation with a certain resident of Kamchatka who arrived in St. Petersburg, specified that there were three Russian settlements on the islands located between Kamchatka and the American continent: two - on the Commander Islands about. Medny), and the third - on about. Semidok (probably meant one of the Semidi Islands, east of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately at a latitude of 56 °). On the latter there were allegedly 4 thousand hunters - mostly Cossacks and several forcibly relocated Americans. Considering the obvious creation of Russian settlements near the possessions of Spain in America, Lacy believed that this circumstance "deserves the most serious attention and requires timely action to counteract the successes of this nation"25.

On May 11, the Spanish diplomat informed Grimaldi about the proposal received by the Empress, after the end of the war with the Turks, to send part of the Russian squadron from the Mediterranean around the Cape of Good Hope to Kamchatka, and from there to America. According to the author of this project, Russia had more reason to claim American lands than any other power, since in the past they were settled by people from Siberia26.

Under the influence of disturbing news from St. Petersburg, doubts arose in Madrid whether the efforts made to colonize Upper California were sufficient to contain a possible onslaught of the Russians. On April 11, 1773, the Minister of Indies, Arriaga, instructed the Viceroy of New Spain, Bucareli y Ursua, to take the necessary measures to clarify the boundaries of their advance. On September 25, he sent to Mexico City copies of the above-mentioned reports of Lacy dated March 19 and May 11, instructing the head of the colonial administration to try to find out whether the Russians were advancing in those places and to report what was happening there. 27 True, four months later, in another message The Minister noted to the Viceroy that he does not attach much importance to Russian discoveries and sees no reason to worry about this yet, but considers the planned actions expedient, since they contribute to the spread of Spanish power to new territories.28 June 15, 1774, sending Bucareli a copy of Lacy dated April 23, Arriaga once again reminded of the need to closely monitor the actions of the Russians on the coast of America and report everything in detail to Madrid29.

Meanwhile, having received instructions from the government, on July 18, 1773, the Viceroy ordered the experienced naval officer Juan José Perez Hernandez to draw up a plan for a reconnaissance voyage along the coast of California in a northerly direction, which Arriaga reported on July 27. On September 1, Peres completed the development of the document, and on December 24, Bucareli signed the secret instructions that determined the mission of the expedition. It was entrusted with the exploration of the coast north of Monterey, at least up to 60 ° N. sh., i.e. approximately to the latitude reached at one time by Bering, and it was prescribed in places suitable for the foundation of settlements to build a cross on the shore and carry out a formal ceremony of taking possession of this territory. If foreign settlements are found anywhere along the way, their coordinates should be precisely established and, having landed to the north, in the name of the king, the corresponding stretch of coast should be declared to belong to the Spanish crown.

At midnight on January 25, 1774, the frigate "Santiago" under the command of Pérez sailed from San Blas, but left the harbor of Monterey only in mid-June. strong currents, headwinds and continuous fogs, he was forced to turn back on July 22. On the way back, following a course to the southwest along the western coast of Vancouver Island, which he took for a ledge of the mainland, on August 8, Perez discovered at a latitude of 49 ° 35 "the entrance to a narrow a bay separating from Vancouver a small island lying to the west of its central part. Naming his discovery "San Lorenzo Anchorage,"31 the navigator continued south and returned to San Blas early that year.

On November 26, 1774, Bucareli reported to Madrid that, although Perez did not fully fulfill the assignment given to him, it was possible to establish the absence of foreigners in the part of the California coast he had surveyed. However, even before this message was received in the Spanish capital, there followed an order to move on to more decisive action. The impetus for it was another report from Lacy dated January 25, 1774, to which a map was attached showing the archipelago discovered by the Russians in the Pacific Ocean. Sending copies of these documents to Mexico City in June 1774, Arriaga again reminded the viceroy of the need to closely monitor the behavior of the Russians, although he made the reservation that he considered the threat from them very remote. But on December 23 of the same year, the minister handed over to Bucareli the decree of Charles III, which proposed that if foreigners were found on the coast of California, they should categorically demand their departure, and in case of refusal, remove them by force32.

By the time this order reached the addressee, the Viceroy had managed to equip a new naval expedition. Having set before her basically the same task as before the previous one, he ordered to sail further north - to 65 ° N, avoiding foreign settlements, if any, would be anywhere.

The report on the results of Perez's voyage sent from Mexico City probably reassured the Madrid government to some extent. On June 1, Arriaga sent a report from the viceroy, along with the travel journal of the captain of the Santiago, to the astronomer Vicente Dos, who had been in Baja California a few years earlier, for review. Well acquainted with the descriptions of Russian discoveries in North America, Dos, in his conclusion, noting the long-standing desire of Russia to reach the Spanish possessions, stated the futility of the attempts made so far and expressed the opinion that so far Spain had nothing to fear33. Dos's optimistic outlook must also have had a calming effect on the establishment. And at the beginning of next year, the scientist's opinion was confirmed by news from America.

On March 16, 1775, three ships set sail from San Blas: the frigate Santiago already known to us, this time it was commanded by Bruno de Eceta, the schooner Sonora under the command of Captain Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Cuadra and a packet boat "San Carlos" under the command of Juan de Ayala. The new expedition, which lasted about eight months, reached 58°N. sh., never meeting the Russians. In the course of it, sailors landed at several points of the current Alexander Archipelago (Chichagov Island, Prince of Wales Island), following the usual procedure for taking these lands into the possession of the Spanish monarchy.

At the same time, the colonization of Upper California by land detachments took place. Back in May 1772, the commandant of the Tubac fortress, the northernmost in New Spain, Juan Bautista de Ansa, presented to the viceroy a draft campaign with the aim of laying a route to San Diego and Monterey. In September of the following year, this proposal, with the knowledge of the Madrid government, was approved, and in January 1774 Ansa, accompanied by the Franciscan friar Francisco Garces, set off. Moving northwest, he crossed the Colorado River and on March 22 went to the ocean in the San Gabriel mission area (on the site of which Los Angeles later grew), from where he turned to Monterey. In May Ansa returned to Sonora. But already in November, he received an order to deliver a large group of colonists and livestock to Upper California. In October 1775, the expedition led by him again set out on a long-distance campaign, passed the route already explored earlier and further along the coast to the San Francisco Bay, after which Ansa's detachment returned by June of the following year. And the colonists began to develop the territory and in September 1776 founded a fort, and after that the San Francisco mission.

An energetic and efficient search for a passage from Upper California to New Mexico was undertaken by the aforementioned Francisco Garces, who in 1776 crossed the Mojave Desert and discovered the California Valley.

While the news from New Spain did not seem to confirm the presence of a real threat from Russia, Lacy continued to send messages containing additional data on Russian interests and activities in the North Pacific. So, at the end of April 1775, he wrote from Moscow about the concern of the Russian government in connection with the voyage of Peres, which they learned about in St. Petersburg from a note in the Leiden newspaper dated March 21, on May 1, the envoy again touched on this issue. In addition, to confirm previous information about Russian activities in America, his report was accompanied by a Spanish translation of a document that included information about Russian trade on the northwest coast of North America. It said, in particular, that in this region the Russians discovered lands extending from northern California to about 67 ° N. sh. It was reported about the creation in 1763 of a merchant company to trade with Kamchatka and the newly discovered islands, as well as for further research. From 1768 to 1773, she allegedly equipped and sent seven ships to the western coast of North America36.

On June 15 (26), 1775, Lacy sent to Madrid a copy of the map of Russian discoveries in America, with a translation of the explanatory text attached. G. F. Miller, who compiled it, outlined the background, course and results of the study of the Aleutian archipelago in 1764-1767, gave a description of the islands discovered at that time, as well as Kamchatka37. In October 1775, Grimaldi forwarded these reports to Arriaga.

Intensification of Spanish operations on the northwest coast of America, along with fears caused by Russian discoveries, was facilitated by the fact that this region was attracting more and more British attention.

In connection with the preparation of Cook's third circumnavigation, Spanish agents found that one of the main tasks of the famous navigator's new voyage was to visit the northwestern coast of America in search of a northwestern passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. With this in mind, José de Gálvez, who, after the death of Arriaga, took over the post of Minister for the Indies, in May 1776 ordered the viceroy of New Spain, Bucareli y Ursua, to send an expedition next year to consolidate control over the coast discovered by the Spaniards in the first half of 70 -s. A few days after Cook's departure from Plymouth, Galvez notified Bucareli of this, and on October 18, 1776, Charles III ordered Cook and his people to be arrested at the first opportunity.

But the equipment of the Spanish ships was delayed, and in the meantime the Madrid government, closely following Cook's route, eventually lost sight of him. Meanwhile, on March 29, 1778, the English ships Resolution and Discovery entered San Lorenzo Bay, first discovered almost four years ago by Perez. At its mouth was a convenient bay, called by Cook "Friendly Harbor". Over time, the original Spanish designation, combined with that used by the locals, turned into San Lorenzo de Nootka (the English have Nutka sound). Continuing the voyage, Cook was killed by the Hawaiians on his return.

Only three days before his death, the Spanish frigates "Princess" and "Favorita", under the command of captains Ignacio de Arteaga and Bodega y Cuadra, finally sailed from San Blas and after five and a half months reached 61 ° N. sh. There, on the shore of the bay of Hinchinbrook Island, at the entrance to Prince William Bay, on July 22, 1779, they declared this land a Spanish possession, as a sign of which they built a cross. This was the northernmost point reached in the Americas by the Spaniards, whose claims subsequently extended to 61°N. sh.

So, over the course of a decade, the border of Spain's state interests on the American continent moved far north - to the 61st parallel. In the further study of this region, from the end of the 70s, there was a temporary pause due to the entry of the Pyrenean monarchy into the war with England.

Summing up the stage of Spanish expansion in northwestern America under consideration, it should be noted that the opinion often expressed in the historical literature that it was due exclusively to the "Russian threat"38 raises serious objections. It seems that historians who adhere to this point of view proceeded from a superficial assessment of the facts and purely logical conclusions. Since the exploration and colonization of Upper California by the Spanish was preceded by the advance of the Russians to the American Northwest, these authors, focusing on the chronological sequence of events, tend to consider the actions of Spain as a mere response to Russian discoveries.

In reality, however, things were not so simple at all. As shown above, the Madrid government in a number of cases did not attach serious importance to alarm signals from St. Petersburg, considering the fears of their envoys at the court of Catherine II to be exaggerated. This position also prompted the colonial administration of New Spain to set only research tasks for expeditions sent to the north, especially when it turned out that there were no Russians in the area under study.

In this sense, the eloquent testimonies of contemporaries deserve attention. It is noteworthy that in the daily journal of the second navigator of the schooner "Sonora" Francisco Antonio Morel there is not a single mention of Russia and Russians. The publisher of this publication, a member of the Royal Society of London and a corresponding member of the Academies of Sciences in Paris, Madrid and St. The Spanish sailings of the mid-70s along the coast of California were aroused by unfounded suspicions about the aggressive intentions of the British and their attempts to find a northwestern passage.

As a result of a thorough analysis of diplomatic correspondence and other sources, Ch. Chapman, already quoted above, came to the conclusion that the advance of the Russians was only one of the reasons that led to the Spanish colonization of Upper California. Sending expeditions to the north was conceived, according to him, even before the disturbing news came from the banks of the Neva, although the researcher admits that they could accelerate the actions of the Spaniards40. Developing and concretizing this idea, Chapman's compatriots John W. Kahi, Stuart R. Tompkins and Max JI. Moorhead, Anthony X. Hull, Spanish historian Enriqueta Vila Vilar and others, among other factors that stimulated the expansion of Spain in the North Pacific, in addition to intensifying the efforts of the British, name the desire for geographical exploration of California in the light of plans for its further development, the need for additional naval bases for the intermediate stops of the Manila galleon, the pressure exerted on the Madrid government by the Franciscan order, which needed territory for the deployment of missionary activities41.

Although the Spanish expeditions were carried out in secret and their results were not subject to publicity, something did get into the press. Thus, the discoveries made by the expedition of Gaspar de Portola were reflected in the travel notes of its participant Miguel Costanso and on the map he compiled, which included the California Peninsula, the Gulf of California and the coast of North America from 43 ° to 20 ° 24 "N. Lat. Peres appeared in Leiden in 1775 and London in 1776, and in 1780 F. A. Morel's logbook was published.

All these data became known in Russia. But even earlier, important information reached St. Petersburg through diplomatic channels. At the end of January 1774, a report from the Consul of Brandenburg was received from Cadiz about preparations for a long-range voyage of a 30-gun frigate under the command of Captain First Rank Juan de Langar. Presumably, the consul reported, the ship would head for the coast of Peru, and then research would be carried out along the coast of California42. Two weeks later, the Russian envoy in Madrid, S.S. Zinoviev reported the same, adding that "it was ordered to this captain to continue his journey along the California coast, as far as possible, to try with all his might to look for a passage to Kamchatka, also where it is possible to go ashore to discover new lands"43.

In April 1775, Zinoviev sent to St. Petersburg a French translation of two letters from New Spain, which were at the disposal of Brandenburg. One of them spoke about the arrival in San Blas of the frigate "Santiago", which reached the 55th parallel, in the other - about the upcoming departure from this port of the next expedition (Eceta-Bodega-i-Cuadra) to the north44. Less than a year later, a report from Madrid followed that "the expedition for the invention of new lands in Northern California continues with success. According to the latest news, the Viceroy of Mexico (under whose department this is being done) notifies that they have reached more than 58 degrees"45. In May 1776, the envoy, reporting on the return of the expeditionary ships, stated that, as is clear from the logbooks, the participants in the voyage "took possession of the lands from the port of Monterey to 58 ° altitude in the name of King Gishpansky, with the agreement of the inhabitants there"46.

In 1777, Zinoviev sent to the Collegium of Foreign Affairs the map mentioned above and a handwritten copy of the description of "the last journey to California", which reflected the results of the land and sea expeditions of 1769-1770. 47 Following the publication of Morel's journal, Magellan immediately sent it with dedicatory inscription of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. On the basis of this publication, PS Pallas already in 1781 published in St. Petersburg a preliminary review of the voyage of Eseta-Bodega-i-Cuadra, and in 1782 a German translation of the journal itself.

The receipt of information about the discoveries of Spanish navigators in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean stimulated the efforts of the Russians to study and develop the region. At the same time, the government of Catherine II until the end of the 80s of the XVIII century. invariably considered the latitude of 55 ° 20 ", once reached by A. I. Chirikov, as the southern border of its American possessions. Only during the Nutka-Sund international crisis of 1789-1790 did it agree to recognize Spain's claims to the territory extending" beyond the Gulf Prince William" (i.e., south of 61°N).

But with the settlement of the Anglo-Spanish conflict (October 1790), accompanied by the weakening of the position of the Pyrenean monarchy in the northwest of America, the Madrid court was forced to actually limit its interests to about the 50th parallel. In the current situation, the government of Paul I did not want to consolidate the previous agreement with Spain with a formal act, and when the Russian-American Company was formed (1799), it officially announced the 55th parallel as the southern border of its sphere of activity.

Notes

1 See Latin America, 1987, 6. p. 57; New and Contemporary History, 1989, No. 2, p. 58; General history: discussions, new approaches. Issue. 2. M., 1989, p. 83.

2 For more details, see: Bolkhovitinov N.N. Russia discovers America. 1732-1799. M., 1991, p. 18-22.

3 Makarova R.V. Russians in the Pacific Ocean in the second half of the 18th century. M., 1968, p. 55.

4 Obras califomianas del Padre Miguel Venegas, t. 3, p. IV. La Paz, 1979, p. 12-13; Torrubia G. I Moscovilinella California... Roma, 1759. p. 4-5, 66-67.

5 See: Geographical Monthly Book for 1774. SPb., [b.g.]. The author called the Aleutian Islands "the New Northern Archipelago", limiting himself in the text to the description of the Andreyanovsky Islands, Umnak and Kodiak, explored by the Russians from the beginning of the 60s to 1767.

6 Wochentliche Nachrichten, P. 14, 1774, S. 56; 11/21/1774, S. 57-64; 28.P.1774, S. 65-70; 18.IV.1774, S. 122-124; 25.IV.1774, S. 129-132; 2.V.1774, S. 137-138.

7 Stahlin J. von. Das von den Russen in den Jahren 1765, 66, 67 entdekte nordliche Insel-Meer, zwischen Kamtschatka und Nordamerika. Stuttgart, 1774; Staehlin J. von. An Account of the New Northern Archipelage, Lately Discovered by the Russians in the Seas of Kamtschatka and Anadir. London, 1774.

8 J.L.S.** Neue Nachrichten von denen neuentdekten Insuln in der See zwischen Asien und America. Hamburg und Leipzig, 1776.

9 Robertson W. The History of America, v. 1. London, 1777, p. XU.

10 Sohe W. Travels in Poland, Russia, Sweden and Denmark. Dublin, 1784, v. 1, p. 285-199; v. 2; v. 3, 3-76. Russ. Transl.: Cox W. The Journey of William Cox (1778). - Russian starima, 1877, vol. 18. .No. 2. S. 309-324; vol. 19, -№ 5, p. 23-52.

11 Sohe W. Account of the Russian Discoveries between Asia and America. London, 1780.

12 Monthly Book of Historical and Geographic for 1781. SPb., [b.g.], p. 1-150.

13 Correspondencia diplomatica del Marques de Almodovar..., Madrid, 1893, p. 13-14.

14 Hull A. H Spanish and Russian Rivalry in the North Pacific Regions of the New World, 1760-1812.D. Dis... University of Alabama, 1966, p. 43-46.

15 Correspondencia diplomatica del Marques de Almodovar..., p. 295.

16 Hull A.N. Op. cit., p. 48-50, 57, 61-62, 271.

17 Treutlein Th. E. San Francisco Bay. Discovery and Colonization, 1769-1776. San Francisco, 1968, p. 2-3.

18 Priestley H.I. Jose de Galvez, Visitor-General of New Spain. Berkeley, 1916, p. 246.

19 Chapman Ch. E. The Founding of Spanish California. New York, 1973, p. 70, 84.

21 Navarro Garcia L. Don Jose de Galvez y la Comandancia General de las Provincias Intemas del Norte de Nueva Espana. Sevilla, 1964, p. 536.

22 Corpus diplomatico Hispano-Ruso (1667-1799), v. 1 Madrid, 1991, p. 185.

23 Volkl E. Russland and Lateinamerika 1741-1841. Wiesbaden, 1968, S. 73.

24 Badura B. Z pramenu k ruskym objevnym cestam v 2. pol. 18.stol. v mexickem archi "vm" m fondu. - Ceskoslovensky casopis historicky, 1963, JSs 6, s. 809-810.

25 Ibid., s. 812.

26 Ibid., s. 811. For a detailed account and analysis of these reports by Lacy, see: Chapman Ch.E.Op. cit., p. 224-226, 232.

27 Badura B. Op. cit., s. 809.

28 Chapman Ch.E. Op. cit., p. 227.

29 Badura B. Op. cit., s. 811.

30 Chapman Ch.E. Op. cit., p. 228-229.

31 Cook W.L. Flood Tide of Empire. New Haven - London, 1973, p. 63.

32 Chapman Ch.E. Op. cit., p. 235-240.

33 Ibid., p. 240-241.

34 Descubrimiento de Sonora a Califomias en el ano de 1774. - Noticias y documentos acerca de las Califomias. 1764-1795. Madrid, 1959, p. 137-157.

35 Diario del viaje del padre Francisco Garces (1775-1776). Mexico, 1968, p. 13-87. For the expedition of Ansa and Garces, see also: Hague H. The Road to California. Glendale, 1978, p. 58-98.

36 Barras y de Aragon F. de las. Los rusos en el noroeste de America. - Anales de la Asociacion Espanola para et Progreso de las Ciencias, ano XXI, No. 1. Madrid, 1956, p. 116, 124-126.

37 Ibid., p. 117-124.

38 See Miroshevsky V. M. Liberation movements in the American colonies of Spain from their conquest to the war of independence, 1492-1810. 1946, pp. 87-88; Makarova R.V. Decree. op., p. 147; Hernandez Sdnchez-Barba M. La ultima expansion espanola en America. Madrid, 1957, p. 292; Volkl E. Op. cit., S. 48, 70-71; Archer Ch. I. The Transient Presence: A Reappraisal of Spanish Attitudes toward the Northwest Coast in the Eighteenth Century. - Western Perspectives I. Toronto - Montreal, 1974p. 45; Bartley R.H. Imperial Russia and the Struggle for Latin American Independence, 1808-1828. Austin" 1978, p. 22.

39 Maurelle F A. Journal of a Voyage in 1775. , p. IV, VUI.

40 Chapman Ch. E. Op. cit., p. 70, 84, 174, 183, 186, 217.

41 Caughey J.W. Op. cit., p. 141; Tompkins S.R., Moorhead M. L,. Russia "s Approach to America, p. II. -The British Columbia Historical Quarterly, v. 13. Victoria, 1949, No. 3-4, p. 254-255; Hull A H. Op. cit., p. 72, 74-75, Vila Vilar E. Los rusos en America, Sevilla, 1866, pp. 65, 92.

42 Archive of the foreign policy of the Russian Empire, f. Relations between Russia and Spain, he. 58, d. 600, l. 11. I.F. Brandenburg - College of Foreign Affairs, 26 December 1773

Alperovich M.S. ::: Birth of the Mexican State

At dawn on September 16, 1810, while the inhabitants of Dolores, located northeast of Guanajuato, were sleeping peacefully, a loud bell was suddenly heard. Everyone understood that only an event of exceptional importance could cause the alarm to sound at such an inopportune hour. Excitedly asking each other what happened, people from everywhere hurried to the square, to the church. Soon, many townspeople gathered here, as well as peasants who came from nearby villages to the market.

An elderly, round-shouldered man of medium height, dressed in a black cassock, stepped out onto the porch. Lively greenish eyes stood out on his expressive swarthy face. He scanned the hushed crowd with an attentive glance and, without raising his voice, spoke. The words were clear in the silence that followed. Calling on his listeners to start a struggle for freedom and the return of the lands taken by the Spanish conquerors, to defend the native rights and the Catholic religion, trampled by the colonialists, the speaker said: “My friends and compatriots, neither the king nor the tax exists for us anymore. This shameful tax, which should apply only to slaves, weighed on us for three centuries as a symbol of tyranny and enslavement ... The time has come for liberation, the hour of our freedom has struck ”( Garcia P. Con el cura Hidalgo en la guerra de Independencia. Mexico, 1948, p. 50 - 51.). At the end of his short speech, he exclaimed: “Long live independence! Long live America! Down with the bad government! These words were met with unanimous cries of approval and exclamations of "Death to the Gachupins!"

The man who was breathlessly listened to by hundreds of people on an early September morning was Miguel Hidalgo, the local parish priest. He was born on May 8 in the family of the manager of the San Diego - Cora hacienda - Cristobal Hidalgo and Costilla belonged to the numerous stratum of the Creole pa-village. Already at a fairly mature age, he married the niece of his tenant - 19-year-old Creole Ana Marquis - de - Galyaga, who, having remained an orphan, was brought up by her uncle. A year after the wedding, the young wife gave birth to a son, Jose Joaquin, and soon a second child was born, who was given several names at baptism, as was then customary in wealthy Creole families: Miguel Gregorio Antonio Ignacio. His sons Mariano and José Maria followed him.

Miguel spent the first 12 years of his life in his native hacienda, located in the Bahio region, a vast area in the Lerma River valley and to the north of it.

In the era described, most of Bajio was part of the province of Guanajuato, famous for its richest silver mines. The largest of these was the famous mine "Valenciana", which gave a significant share of the silver production in the colony. For the development of the mining industry in Guanajuato, it was of no small importance that the haciendas, ranches, and Indian villages of Bahio supplied the mining villages in abundance with bread, meat, and other products. The land in these places is exceptionally fertile. Building materials and fuel were delivered from the surrounding forests. The populous population provided a constant influx of labor to the mines. The province of Guanajuato was at that time the most densely populated part of the viceroyalty and one of the most "Indian" provinces of New Spain. Everything here was created by forced labor of the Indians.

Miguel's playmates were brothers and Indian children - the children of peons who worked on the hacienda. Constantly in contact with the Indians, the boy learned early about their hard lot, complete lack of rights, daily worries and needs, about the unbearable conditions of exhausting labor in the fields and mines. He saw the flagrant arbitrariness of the landowners, overseers, royal officials.

Miguel was not even ten years old when, after another birth, his mother died, leaving her husband with four young sons in her arms. One of the aunts took care of the orphans, and soon Don Cristobal brought his second wife into the house. The father paid great attention to the upbringing of children and, sparing no time, did a lot of work with them. But the most he could do was teach the boys to read and write. In an effort to continue the education of Miguel and his brothers, he decided to send them to some educational institution. It was possible for this purpose to send sons to the provincial capital of Guanajuato, but Don Cristobal was embarrassed by the fact that Guanajuato was predominantly an economic and administrative, and not a cultural center. Therefore, he preferred the ancient Valladolid - the main city of the neighboring province of Michoacan, where there were several educational institutions that were famous throughout New Spain.

In 1765, Miguel and José Joaquín entered the Valladolid Jesuit Seminary of San Francisco Javier. For a number of years, the Jesuit historian Francisco Javier Clavijero, known for his educational activities, taught there. True, the Hidalgo brothers no longer found him in Valladolid, but the traditions laid down by Clavijero continued to be preserved in the seminary.

Miguel and José Joaquin studied with passion. However, their activities were soon interrupted. In connection with the expulsion of the Jesuits from Spain and its possessions in June 1767, educational institutions of the Jesuit order in New Spain were also closed. The young men had to return home to San Diego - Corralejo. But already in October of the same year, the father took the eldest sons to the Valladolid collegio (school) San Nicolás, founded in the first half of the 16th century. Bishop Vasco de Quiroga.

Shortly after returning to Valladolid, the brothers were eyewitnesses to the massacre of the rebellious Indians. 85 people were publicly executed in the town square, hundreds were subjected to corporal punishment. This cruel sight made a terrible impression on the 14-year-old Miguel.

Rhetoric, logic, ethics, Latin grammar and literature, the writings of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas were studied at the Collegio San Nicolás. In addition to the compulsory program, Miguel studied foreign languages ​​​​- Italian, French, and also Indian - Nahua and Tarascan. However, intensive training sessions and strict internal regulations did not prevent him from having fun, as a schoolboy was supposed to. During his student years, he became interested in music. Comrades loved a capable, sociable young man.

At the end of the course, Miguel, along with José Joaquin and a group of peers, went in March 1770 to take exams in Mexico City. This city, which grew up on the site of the ancient capital of the Aztecs, Tenochtitlan, destroyed and burned by the Spanish conquerors, seemed to a 17-year-old boy, accustomed to provincial silence, a particle of some unknown world. The magnificent splendor of the ancient cathedral and the magnificent palace of the viceroy, the motley crowds of people in the noisy streets and squares, the diverse overseas goods in the numerous malls and shops - all struck the imagination of the young provincial. In addition, Mexico City was the largest cultural center of the country. The local university, founded in the middle of the 16th century, was the oldest on the American continent. Even earlier, the first printing house in the Western Hemisphere arose here and the beginning of book printing was laid.

The Hidalgo brothers successfully passed the exams at the capital's university and received a Bachelor of Arts degree. Then they returned to Valladolid and took up the study of theology. In 1773, Miguel and José Joaquin again went to Mexico City and, having passed one more exam, were awarded a second degree - a bachelor of theology. Now we had to decide what to do next. A loving father has long dreamed of an honorable and financially secure spiritual career for his eldest sons. And they didn't mind.

For several years, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla consistently climbed the steps of the church hierarchical ladder, and in 1778 he was elevated to the rank of priest. Even earlier, he began teaching at his alma mater, the Collegio San Nicolás. Hidalgo not only taught grammar, philosophy, theology, but sought to change the system and methods of teaching, strongly opposed scholasticism, demanded a historical approach in studying the subjects of the curriculum. His aspirations were quite natural. They reflected the mood of the advanced part of Mexican society, caused by the crisis of the colonial regime and the impact of a number of external factors.

The ideas of the European Enlightenment, the revolution in North America and France, the unrest of the 80s in the South American colonies could not but have a serious influence on the formation of the views of the young priest.

No matter how hard the colonialists tried, it was impossible to isolate the country from the outside world and prevent the spread of information that contributed to the intensification of the struggle against the Spanish yoke. In particular, Hidalgo probably knew about the uprising of Tupac Amaru, since his younger brother Mariano, a lawyer by profession, acted in court as a defender of one of the participants in this movement. Knowledge of the French language also allowed Hidalgo to receive printed and oral information that many of his compatriots did not have.

He increasingly thought about the surrounding reality, but for the time being this did not interfere with his successful career. Pedagogical activity Hidalgo combined with administrative. He was appointed treasurer, then deputy rector, and then secretary of the school. And finally, in January 1790, he took the post of rector of the kolechio.

However, Hidalgo did not remain rector for long - only two years. Already in February 1792, he resigned - he preferred this important and "promising" post to the modest position of a parish priest.

What caused such a sharp turn in his life and destiny? What made Hidalgo, in the prime of his life, to abandon a brilliant career that promised honor and, if not wealth, then at least a well-to-do existence? The reasons and circumstances of this step are unclear, one can only guess and speculate about them ( For possible reasons for Hidalgo's resignation as rector, see: Hamill H. M. The Hidalgo Revolt. Gainesville, 1966, p. 65 - 67.).

Of course, as the head of a large educational institution and educator of the younger generation, the church authorities did not like a person of a critical mindset who enjoyed unquestioned authority among students. After all, earlier Hidalgo was afraid to openly express his views and did not have the opportunity to put them into practice. Having become a rector, he apparently tried to do something, in particular, to rebuild the teaching system, and this caused dissatisfaction among the higher clergy. It was aggravated by the fact that the political situation in the country became noticeably aggravated.

The ideas of the Enlightenment and revolutionary events in Europe increasingly attracted the attention of the advanced part of Mexican society. In the early 1990s, students of the Metropolitan Theological Seminary organized a circle where they studied French philosophy. This, from the point of view of the authorities, would be half the trouble: young people can be put on the right path, and in general, the hobbies of youth, as you know, often disappear with age. It seemed much more dangerous that those who are called to educate the youth in the spirit of unconditional obedience to the Catholic Church and the Spanish monarchy are infected with harmful free-thinking. What thoughts, for example, can the theology teacher José Antonio de Larrea y Troncoso inspire in his students if he himself shares the views of the French enlighteners, supports the principle of popular sovereignty, and questions the actions of the Holy Inquisition? According to the Inquisition Tribunal, some clerics kept engravings depicting the storming of the Bastille and other episodes of the French Revolution, copies of the French constitution and other materials prohibited in the colony.

The French who lived in New Spain played a significant role in promoting seditious views. Some of them gathered in the capital's bookstore Laroche, where progressive-minded Spaniards and Mexicans also came. Here secretly read and discussed the works of encyclopedists, French revolutionary pamphlets, foreign newspapers. Some French people received letters from their homeland, had the texts of the speeches of the leaders of the French Revolution, and were quite well informed about the events in France.

In the conditions of increased fermentation of minds, Hidalgo's stay as rector, apparently, seemed extremely undesirable, and they tried to get rid of him at any cost. Of course, the Bishop of Michoacan, to whom Don Miguel was subordinate, had no formal grounds for his dismissal. But Hidalgo could be pressured with a very strong argument: the priest's longstanding love affair with a young Valladolid Creole woman, Manuela Ramos Pichardo. True, the violation of celibacy - the obligatory celibacy of the Catholic clergy - was then a common and widespread phenomenon. Not surprisingly, the ban on marriage put many clerics in a difficult position and often pushed them into extramarital relationships with women. However, although cases of church ministers deviating from the norms of behavior prescribed by it were very frequent, if desired, Hidalgo could always find fault.

In this situation, he himself must have been weighed down by his ambiguous position. The events that took place in the world made us think about many things. It was difficult to constantly hide your thoughts, not to share them with others. And any frank conversation meant a huge risk. As rector, don Miguel was constantly in sight. Valladolid - a major administrative and cultural center, the main city of the diocese - was always teeming with secret agents and informers of the Inquisition. Well, his relationship with Manuela, of course, has been the subject of idle gossip and gossip for more than a year. Although Valladolid is a large city by Mexican standards, it does not even have 20,000 inhabitants. So everyone knows each other. And certainly not only in the city, but throughout the district is well known, Father Hidalgo, the rector of the oldest kolekhio San Nicolás.

After retiring, Hidalgo received the ecclesiastical parish of Colima in the southwest of New Spain, in the same Michoacan commissariat as Valladolid, but in a remote province, away from major centers and highways. However, Hidalgo did not stay there long. In January of the following year, he was transferred to San Feline (more than 80 kilometers north of Guanajuato), where he remained for a full decade.

Soon the intelligent, witty priest became the soul of the local society. An optimist by nature, an extremely mobile person, he loved fun and entertainment, knew how to appreciate the joys of life and use them. In the evenings, friends often gathered at his place, games and dances were arranged, music was played. There was also a casual conversation on literary and scientific topics, current events and newspaper news were discussed. Hidalgo spoke critically of the Spanish colonial authorities, expressed indignation at the despotism of the monarchs. He liked to repeat: “If France is ruled by the French, and England is ruled by the British, then why shouldn’t Mexico be. Manage the Mexicans? On the stage of the home theater organized by him, under the direction of the owner of the house, plays by Molière and Racine were staged. A small amateur orchestra performed symphonic works and dance melodies.

Hidalgo's knowledge was by no means limited to those subjects that were studied and taught at the Valladolid school, European and Indian languages. He also knew the history of Ancient Greece and Rome well, had a clear idea of ​​the events of the Great French Revolution. His erudition and curiosity amazed those around him. The Hidalgo library contained the French Encyclopedia of Sciences, Arts and Crafts, the works of Demosthenes, Cicero, Descartes, Corneille, Molière, Racine, La Fontaine, Buffon and many other books ( See: Ramos R. Libros que leyo don Miguel Hidalgo in Costilla. Guanajuato, 1953, p, 19 - 25.). He translated into Spanish Molière's comedies The Miser, Tartuffe, The Misanthrope and several tragedies by Racine: Andromache, Britannica, Phaedra, Berenice, Iphigenia.

His constant interlocutor and, perhaps, the closest friend in San Felipe was the young vicar José Martín García Carrasquedo. They met almost daily, often read together, and then talked for a long time. Friends read Clavijero's Ancient History of Mexico with interest, where much attention was paid to the history and culture of the Indians.

Hidalgo's 50th birthday coincided with a big change in his life - his departure from San Felipe. Shortly before this, in September 1802, his elder brother José Joaquín died. Hidalgo deeply experienced the untimely death of the inseparable companion of childhood and youth, who for a long time was the parish priest in Dolores, who was in the same commissariat of Guanajuato.

In terms of population and church income, Dolores significantly surpassed San Felipe. In addition, this rich parish was much closer to the capital of the commissariat. After the death of his brother, Hidalgo achieved an appointment for a vacant vacancy and already in August 1803 he moved to Dolores. He was accompanied by his young daughters Micaela and Maria Josefa, born in San Felipe, younger brother Mariano, half-sisters Guadalupe and Vicente, and cousin José Santos Villa.

Hidalgo did not like the house in which the late José Joaquin lived for nearly 10 years. He donated it to the local municipality, and bought himself another - near the church, where he settled with his large family.

In Dolores, Hidalgo led, in general, the same way of life as in San Felipe. He spent a lot of time reading books, in intimate conversations with friends, listening to music. Despite his age, Don Miguel was still the initiator and indispensable participant in dances, games, and picnics. At the same time, he paid great attention to the development of agriculture and industry in his parish. Ignoring the existing official prohibitions, Hidalgo started a vineyard, started growing olives and silkworms, beekeeping and winemaking. He organized a pottery workshop, brick, tanneries and other enterprises and gave parishioners practical advice on caring for bees, making wines, tanning leather, etc. Hidalgo's special interest in household affairs was explained, of course, not only by the fact that he understood them importance and significance. Neither the performance of the functions of a priest, nor a cheerful pastime in the circle of friends could satisfy his ebullient active nature. He was looking for applications for his versatile abilities and extensive knowledge, and strove to put them to good use.

In the house of Hidalgo, along with a rich Creole, one could meet a modest mestizo and even a poor Indian. Ease and equality reigned here, in connection with which friends often called this house "little France" ("Francia chiquita"). In a short time, the new priest gained immense popularity among the population of Dolores and the surrounding area. But at the same time he attracted the attention of the authorities, aware of free-thinking.

Back in 1800, Hidalgo was denounced by the Inquisition. He was charged with freethinking, blasphemy and reading forbidden books. However, due to lack of evidence, the case against him was dropped the following year. But the denunciations continued to come. In July 1807, the priest Manuel of Castilblanqui informed the Inquisitorial tribunal, referring to information received from another priest, about the "heretical" statements of Hidalgo. Less than a year later, a certain Maria Manuela Herrera appeared to the Commissioner of the Inquisition in Querétaro and stated that she had allegedly heard him repeatedly express seditious thoughts. In March 1809, another denunciation followed - this time from the Franciscan friar Diego Miguel Bringas, who informed the tribunal that he had seen forbidden editions from Hidalgo.

Apparently, all these denunciations were not supported by sufficiently strong evidence, since they remained without consequences. The Inquisition limited itself to demanding that Hidalgo remove his daughters from the house, since their presence compromised him as a priest. But he flatly refused to part with the girls, saying that his sisters were raising them in his house. Although the church authorities did not punish Hidalgo, the very fact of repeated denunciations indirectly indicates that by the beginning of the 19th century. his freedom-loving thoughts had gone far enough.

The process of formation of the socio-political views of Hidalgo was long and complex. Due to the lack of specific data, we cannot yet say exactly how it proceeded, clearly identify its main stages. The fragmentary information available to historians allows only a general idea, to draw an approximate picture, without going into details. There is reason to believe that even during his stay in San Nicolás Hidalgo came to the conclusion that it was necessary to liberate New Spain from colonial oppression. But how to achieve this, he was then unclear. Only many years later did the idea of ​​armed struggle arise in his mind as the only means of ridding his homeland of foreign domination. She got stronger after moving to Dolores under the influence of the revolutionary upsurge that took place in the country at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries.

After the failure of the 1809 conspiracy in Valladolid, Hidalgo decided that the time had come to take up arms. He found a faithful associate and energetic assistant in the person of the officer of the garrison of San Miguel el Grande (the city next to Dolores), captain of the cavalry regiment Ignacio Allende. The son of a Spanish merchant and landowner from San Miguel, Allende entered the military as a young man. He was a 30-year-old man of great physical strength, a passionate lover of bullfighting, and an excellent rider. Allende met Hidalgo in December 1808, and they quickly became close. One of the friends and adherents of Hidalgo was also Allende's colleague - Juan de Aldama, who came from a wealthy Creole family. Under the strong influence of Allende was a young lieutenant of the same regiment, a native of Dolores Mariano Abasolo.

In late 1809 - early 1810, Allende, at the suggestion of Hidalgo, repeatedly traveled to Mexico City, Veracruz, Querétaro to study the political mood in these cities and establish contacts with local patriots. At the end of February 1810, Hidalgo and Allende traveled together to Querétaro, where they met with one of the participants in the Valladolid conspiracy, Doctor of Canon Law Manuel Iturriaga. By agreement with them, Iturriaga at the same time developed a plan that provided for the creation of revolutionary juntas in the most important centers. They were supposed to conduct secret agitation against Spain, and with the beginning of an armed struggle in the colony, raise an uprising, each in the corresponding area, remove the colonial administration, arrest wealthy Spaniards and confiscate their property. The government of the country was supposed to be transferred to a junta of representatives of the provinces, which would nominally act on behalf of Ferdinand VII, but in fact Spanish domination was meant to be completely eliminated.

In pursuance of this plan, preparations began in Querétaro for the formation of a junta. For the same purpose, Allende traveled to various cities and villages, while Hidalgo sought to gain supporters among the workers of manufactories and the rest of the inhabitants of Dolores, and corresponded with his like-minded people in other places. In July, a revolutionary junta was established in San Miguel, and soon juntas arose in Querétaro, Celai, Guanajuato, and San Luis Potosi.

Queretaro became the main center of anti-Spanish activity, which was largely due to its geographical position. This city was an important communication hub that connected it with the capital and provincial centers. Secret meetings of patriots often took place there. In addition to Allende, Aldama, Dr. Iturriaga, the priest Jose Maria Sanchez, the shopkeeper Epigmenio Gonzalez, the postal official Galvan, the captain of the militia Joaquin Arias and some other officers took part in them. The Patriots were sympathized with and maintained relations with the corregidor Queretaro Miguel Dominguez. An enlightened man, in the past a fellow student of Hidalgo in the San Nicolás Collegio, he enjoyed wide popularity among the working people for his speeches against the exploitation of the Indians by the owners of manufactories and the abuses of colonial officials. An indispensable participant in the secret meetings of the conspirators was the wife of the corregidor - Josefa Ortiz - de - Dominguez.

At meetings of the revolutionary junta, held under the guise of literary evenings, a plan of action was discussed, which was supposed to begin on December 8, 1810, the day when the largest annual fair in San Juan de los Lagos (northwest of Guanajuato) would culminate. Merchants, artisans, peasants from Queretaro, San Luis Potosi, Guadalajara, Celai, Valladolid, Zacatecas and other settlements gathered there ( The influx of visitors to the fair increased significantly after, in 1792, the trade transactions made at it were exempted from paying the alcabala. The fair began to gather up to 35 thousand people.). The fair lasted usually during the first two weeks of December. On December 8, celebrations were held in honor of the local saint. Her miraculous icon has always attracted many thousands of pilgrims to San Juan de los Lagos, most of whom were Indians.

Hidalgo was directly associated with the Keretari junta. Although his position as a priest prevented him from leaving the parish often, he made two visits to Querétaro in August and September. During the same period, Hidalgo also visited San Miguel el Grande and Valladolid. Allende and Aldama, in turn, came to Dolores more than once. While in his parish, Hidalgo continued his anti-Spanish agitation and corresponded with his friends in San Felipe and San Luis Potosi. On his initiative, weapons were made in the workshops and manufactories of Dolores.

Hidalgo became the soul and recognized leader of the patriotic organization. This was quite natural, not only because he indisputably surpassed his like-minded people in terms of intellectual level, breadth of outlook, organizational abilities, and life experience. His popularity among various segments of the population and his spiritual dignity were of great importance. In the lips of a respected priest, the revolutionary slogans, which he managed to give a religious color, linking them with the struggle for the purity of the Catholic faith against its defilers - the Spanish colonialists, sounded especially convincing. Clothed in such a form, they were understandable to many ordinary people who were not experienced in politics and social issues.

In early September, Hidalgo and his followers came to the conclusion that the preparations for the uprising would be completed faster than expected. Therefore, they decided to start more than two months ahead of schedule, hoping to perform on October 2 simultaneously in Querétaro and San Miguel. However, events outstripped their calculations and intentions.

As early as August 11, the authorities received the first denunciation of the existence of a conspiracy, but did not attach much importance to it. A month later, the Tribunal of the Inquisition received an anonymous letter from San Miguel, the author of which reported on the conspiratorial activities of Allende and Aldama. Meanwhile, Hidalgo, trying to win over the military units stationed in Guanajuato to the side of the patriots, revealed his plans to drum major Juan Garrido and two sergeants who promised him the support of their battalion. But on September 13, Garrido reported everything to the command. When the intendant Juan Antonio Rianho, personally acquainted with Hidalgo and having met with him several times, learned of the conspiracy, he exclaimed: “Trouble! If Hidalgo is involved, then New Spain will be independent!” ( Mendibil P. de. Resumen historico de la revolucion de los Estados Unidos Mejicanos. Mexico, 1955, p. 54.).

Rianho immediately ordered the subdelegate ( The subdelegates were the heads of the districts (partido), into which the commissariats were divided.). San Miguel, where Allende and Aldama were at that moment, to arrest them.

At the same time, in Queretaro, one of the conspirators, who turned out to be a traitor, denounced his accomplices. During a search, some of them found weapons, texts of revolutionary appeals, lists of participants. The arrests began. Having learned from the denunciation and interrogation of the detainees about the participation of the corregidor Dominguez in the conspiracy, the alcalde Ochoa, with the help of the head of the local garrison, Brigadier Garcia Rebolho, arrested Dominguez. Here, too, the order was given to take into custody Allende and Aldama.

The authorities of Querétaro and Guanajuato sent reports about the disclosure of the plot to the new Viceroy Francisco Javier Venegas, who had arrived in Mexico City shortly before.

As soon as news of the events in Guanajuato reached San Miguel, Allende did not wait until he was captured, but immediately went to Dolores and informed Hidalgo in detail. But they did not yet know what was happening in Querétaro, and therefore both were looking forward to hearing from there. Aldama remained in San Miguel el Grande. At the risk of being arrested every minute, he waited for news from Querétaro. However, only the next evening he was finally found by a courier sent by the wife of Corregidor Dominguez, who informed him of the arrest of the Keretari conspirators and the disclosure of their plans. After listening to the story of the messenger of Doña Josefa, Aldama a few minutes later was already galloping to Dolores.

Here ahead appeared the dark silhouettes of the first city buildings. The lathered horse, straining its last strength, ran at a large trot through the quiet, deserted streets of Dolores.

It was two o'clock in the morning when the exhausted Aldama drove up to Hidalgo's house. Dismounting, he ran to the window and knocked hard on it. The lightly sleeping priest immediately woke up, woke up Allende, his brother Mariano, Jose's cousin, and sent for his closest friends. When all of them, half-asleep, long before dawn gathered in Hidalgo's spacious office, Aldama, pale and barely on his feet from fatigue, reported what had happened. For a moment, everyone was silent. Then, somewhat recovering from the initial shock, they began talking loudly and excitedly, interrupting each other. A heated argument broke out about what should be done in connection with the disclosure of the conspiracy.

Allende, Aldama and some of the others present were clearly at a loss. Calling for maximum caution, they offered to refrain from any active actions until the situation was clarified, but for now, all the conspirators should, in their opinion, take refuge somewhere in a safe place. Hidalgo listened silently and outwardly calmly to these excited speeches. When everyone had spoken, he resolutely declared in his even voice that any delay was disastrous, since the only opportunity left to them in the current situation was to seize the initiative and strike without waiting for the defeat of the patriotic forces. Therefore, there is no time to waste, we must act immediately. “We have no other choice,” Hidalgo said, “but to oppose the Gachupins” ( Castillo Ledon L. Hidalgo. La vida del heroe. Mexico, 1949, vol. II, p. 4.).

This statement was based on a sober consideration of many circumstances. Although the authorities prematurely discovered preparations for an uprising, they were largely completed. Although the conspirators partly lost the advantage that the unexpectedness of the speech gave, quick and energetic actions, launched not where previously planned, but here in Dolores, still made it possible to use the factor of surprise to a certain extent. In addition, on the occasion of Sunday, the peasants of the surrounding villages usually gathered in the city from early morning, on whose support Hidalgo counted very much.

The firm position of Hidalgo encouraged his comrades-in-arms, breathed courage into them and helped to overcome hesitation. Soon a bunch of patriots gathered near the priest's house. They were his relatives and friends, workers of local manufactories and several residents of Dolores - about three dozen people in total. At the head of this small group, Hidalgo went to the prison and freed the prisoners, who immediately joined the detachment. Then the rebels, whose number increased to 80 people, moved to the barracks, where they seized weapons. Following that, they arrested colonial officials and other representatives of the Spanish elite. At 5 o'clock in the morning, Hidalgo, as the reader remembers, ordered the bell to be struck and from the church porch addressed the crowd with an inspired appeal, which went down in history under the name "Dolores Cry".

Hundreds of people responded to his call: residents of Dolores and neighboring villages, several dozen soldiers. That same morning, Hidalgo led his column south. It was joined by the peasants of the villages and haciendas that lay along the path of movement. The rebels were armed mainly with pikes, machetes, clubs, slings, and bows. Only a few had firearms. With the onset of darkness, the rebels, carrying as a banner the image of the Guadalupe Mother of God, considered the patroness of the Indians, reached the city of San Miguel el Grande, whose population joyfully greeted them. The local Spaniards did not dare to resist, and were arrested. The garrison, consisting of Mexicans, went over to the side of the rebels.

In an effort to take the colonial authorities by surprise and prevent them from taking measures to suppress the uprising, Hidalgo considered it necessary to quickly advance to the quartermaster's capital, Guanajuato. On the morning of September 19, his steadily growing army moved further south towards the important economic and administrative center of Celae. Upon learning of this, the garrison, as well as the Spanish elite, left the city, and on September 20 the rebels entered there. The next day they held a review of the revolutionary army and proclaimed Hidalgo "Captain General of America". On September 23, the rebels moved in a northwesterly direction, heading for Guanajuato.

There was already a feverish preparation for defense. Barriers were built on the main streets, and troops were concentrated on the approaches to the city. In order to enlist the support of the masses, Intendant Rianho, in accordance with the Decree of the Regency Council issued on May 26 ( See: Cinco siglos de legislacion agraria en Mexico (1493 - 1940). Mexico, 1941, t. I, p. 58 - 60.) (who replaced the Central Junta as the supreme authority in February 1810) on September 21 ordered the abolition of the poll tax. However, the people regarded this act as a concession caused by the colonial authorities' fear of an uprising. The garrison, the Spanish population and many wealthy Creoles settled in the stone building of the state-owned granary "Alondiga - de - Granaditas" (on the southwestern outskirts of Guanajuato), where there were significant supplies of food and water. The treasury, archives, property of the local rich, as well as weapons and ammunition were transferred there.

On September 28, Hidalgo's army, already numbering 14 thousand people, approached Guanajuato. The vanguard of the rebels, consisting mainly of Indian peasants armed with spears and clubs, soon entered the city, where they were joined by miners and the poor. After the demand for surrender was rejected, the rebels began to storm the enemy positions. The battle was personally led by Hidalgo. He appeared in various places, on horseback and with a pistol in his hand. During the battle, Rianho was killed, which caused great confusion among the besieged. The defenders of the barricades built around the Alondiga were forced to leave them and take refuge inside the granary.

All attempts to enter the building, the entrance to which was securely closed by massive doors, were unsuccessful. The defenders of the Alondiga fired intensely from the roof and from the windows, not letting the attackers close. At this critical moment, one of the patriots grabbed a large flat stone, shielding himself with it like a shield, with a torch in his hand quickly ran to the door and set fire to it. There was panic among the besieged. Some shouted that they had to surrender until they were burned alive, others continued to shoot back, others threw down their weapons and tried to flee. Finally, the head of the garrison ordered the white flag to be thrown out. The rebels began to quickly move forward and burst into the room. Soon they finally broke the resistance of the royalists ( During the War of Independence, supporters of the Spanish monarchy were called royalists in Spanish America).).

Thus, in a short time, the uprising covered a vast territory. This was facilitated by the agitation of Hidalgo's emissaries sent by him to Mexico City, Guadalajara, Queretaro, San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, Leon and other cities in order to urge the population to take up arms. The colonial administration, the higher clergy, the Spanish nobility, landowners and merchants were very alarmed by the success of the rebels. Believing that Querétaro could become the nearest object of their attack, Viceroy Venegas ordered reinforcements to be sent there. In Mexico City, military units from other cities were pulled together, the garrisons of San Luis Potosi and Guadalajara were put on full alert. On September 27, the viceroy placed high monetary rewards on the heads of Hidalgo, Allende and Juan Aldama.

Archbishop Francisco Javier Lisana y Beaumont, Hidalgo's former friend, Bishop Manuel Abad y Queipo of Michoacan (whose diocese included the commissary of Guanajuato) and other prelates, strongly condemned the uprising, declaring it contrary to the Catholic religion. "Servant of Satan", "forerunner of the Antichrist", "Napoleon's emissary" they called the rebellious priest. Hidalgo and the rest of the rebel leaders were excommunicated. “Know,” Bishop Gonzalez del Cam-Pillo of Puebla addressed his flock on September 30, “that the revolution is not a matter of reason; she is the daughter of vice, ambition, dishonor, betrayal ... She is accompanied by robbery, bloodshed, lust and all other evil. The Bishop of Oaxaca Bergosa and Jordan said that the rebels are associated with evil spirits. On October 13, the tribunal of the Inquisition issued an edict denouncing Hidalgo for heresy and apostasy and ordering him to appear before a church court within a month ( See: El clero de Mexico y la guerra de independencia. Mexico, 1906, p. 9 - 27, 29 - 31, 38 - 43, 60 - 70; Coleccion de docurnentos para la historia de la guerra de independencia de Mexico (hereinafter -CDHGIM). Mexico, 1878, t. II, p. 152 - 154, 167 - 169, 902; Mexico, 1879, t, III, p. 914 - 922.). At the same time, wanting to divert the Indian and “colored” population in general from participating in the uprising, the colonial authorities also resorted to other measures. On October 5, by order of the viceroy in Mexico City, the above-mentioned decree was published on the exemption of the Indians from the payment of the poll tax and the forthcoming granting of land to them. Venegas announced that these benefits also apply to people of African descent living in those localities whose residents will show loyalty to the metropolis ( See: CDHGIM, t. II, p. 137 - 141.) . But this belated step had no effect: three centuries of experience taught the masses not to believe in such laws, because, as a rule, they were not implemented.

Meanwhile, Hidalgo, having occupied Guanajuato, did not dare to go to the thoroughly fortified cities of Querétaro and San Luis Potosi, where many Spanish troops were concentrated. On October 10, the main body of his army, whose numbers continued to increase rapidly, began to march in a southerly direction and a week later reached Valladolid, which had already been abandoned by most of the Spaniards and the clergy. Met by the ringing of bells, the rebel detachments entered the city without a fight. They were joined by a significant part of the Valladolid garrison. Hidalgo appointed José Maria Ansorena corregidor of Valladolid and intendant of the province, who, at his direction, issued a decree on the emancipation of slaves, the prohibition of the slave trade and the abolition of the poll tax ( Ibid., p. 169 - 170.).

Moisei Samuilovich Alperovich
Date of Birth	November 22(1918-11-22 )
Place of Birth	Moscow, Russian SFSR
Date of death	September 3(2015-09-03 ) (96 years old)
Place of death	Moscow Russian Federation
The country	the USSR the USSR→Russia Russia
Scientific sphere	story
Place of work	;
Alma mater	history department of Moscow State University
Academic degree	Doctor of Historical Sciences (1965)
Known as	historian
Awards and prizes

Biography

Brother of the developer of Soviet anti-aircraft systems K. S. Alperovich (born 1922). Born in Moscow, after graduating from school and having worked for a year at the Krasny Proletarian plant, he entered the Faculty of History of Moscow State University in 1936. Introduction to the profession of a historian began during attendance at the seminars of S. V. Bakhrushin (1882-1950) and V. V. Stoklitskaya-Tereshkovich (1885-1962). Fascinated by the lectures of Vladimir Mikhailovich Miroshevsky (1900-1942), the student chose to specialize in Latin America. June 21, 1941 he defended his thesis.

In 1941-1946 he served in the ranks of the Red Army, a participant in the Great Patriotic War. Served as an interpreter in the investigation department of 3UA. Member of the CPSU (b) since 1944.

After the end of the war, Captain Alperovich served in Magdeburg, demobilized in 1946, returned to Moscow, entered graduate school and began a scientific career.

In 1949 he completed his postgraduate studies at the Pacific Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, then until 1954 he worked as a senior lecturer. Since 1954 he worked in (since 1968 - senior, then leading researcher).

During the Great Patriotic War

In early July 1941, he was mobilized by the Kyiv RVC of Moscow for the construction of defensive structures in the Bryansk region. By mid-September, he returned to Moscow, and on October 16, according to the agenda, he appeared at the Kyiv District Military Commissariat. He was appointed gunner of the battery of 76-mm guns of the 698th regiment of the 146th rifle division, formed near Kazan. Defended Moscow.

In the summer of 1942, M. S. Alperovich, who was fluent in German, was enrolled as an assistant to the head of divisional intelligence with the functions of an interpreter. In the autumn of 1943, the 146th Rifle Division in which he served was transferred to the 2nd Baltic Front and became part of the 3rd Shock Army. Candidate member of the CPSU (b).

By order of the Military Council of the 3rd Shock Army No. 94 / n dated 03/20/1944, Captain Alperovich, the translator of the intelligence department of the headquarters of the 79th division of the corps, was awarded the medal "For Military Merit".

By order No. 293 / n dated 10/14/1944, Captain Alperovich was awarded the Order of the Red Star for saving the lives of two staff officers and the driver of the artillery commander of the corps headquarters during the bombing of the NP.

By order of the Military Council of the 3rd Shock Army No. 36 / n dated March 27, 1945, he was awarded the Order of the Patriotic War of the 2nd degree for courage and courage associated with the extraction of information on the battlefield.

Together with the 3rd shock army, Alperovich reached Berlin. Here, as the head of the investigation unit of the intelligence department of the headquarters of the 3rd shock army, he participated in the search for Hitler's corpse and in the identification of the corpse of Goebbels.

By order No. 93 / n dated 05/19/1945, Captain Alperovich M.S., head of the investigative unit of the intelligence department of the headquarters of the 3rd shock army, was awarded the Order of the Red Star for high diligence and a survey of over 5000 prisoners, which revealed valuable information.

He was the first to read (and translate for command) Hitler's political testament, handed over by the Fuhrer to Vice Admiral Voss before his suicide. He signed the protocols for identifying the corpses of Goebbels, his wife Magda and their children.

Scientific activity

In August 1946 M.S. Alperovich returned to Moscow and entered the graduate school of the Pacific Institute of the Academy of Sciences. In 1949 he defended his Ph.D. thesis on "The Mexican Revolution and American Imperialism (1913-1917)". In 1949-1954. taught at the Ryazan Pedagogical Institute.

He was a member of the Dissertation Council of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Author of a series of fundamental monographs on the history of Latin American countries, on the liberation movement in Latin America in the 16th - early 19th centuries, the history of Mexico and Paraguay. Among the latest published scientific works of M.S. Alperovich - chapters on Latin America in the 18th-19th centuries. for IV and V volumes of World History.

Selected writings

• Alperovich M.S. Mexican War of Independence (1810-1824). - M. : Nauka, 1964. - 479 p. - 1200 copies.
• Alperovich M.S.[Intro] // Lynch D. Revolutions in Spanish America, 1808-1826 / Per. from English: E. N. Feershtein, V. N. Pavlova. - M.: Progress, 1979.
• Alperovich M.S. Spanish America in the struggle for independence. - M. : Nauka, 1971. - 222 p. - 12,000 copies.
• Alperovich M.S. The Mexican Revolution and American Imperialism (1913–1917): Author. dis. … cand. ist. Sciences. - M., 1949. - 15 p.
• Alperovich M.S. The liberation movement of the late 18th - early 19th centuries. in Latin America. - M.: Higher. school, 1966. - 119 p. - 3000 copies.
• Alperovich M.S. Revolution and Dictatorship in Paraguay (1810-1840) = Revolucion y dictadura en el Paraguay. - M. : Nauka, 1975. - 392 p. - 1500 copies.
• Alperovich M.S. The Birth of the Mexican State. - M.: Nauka, 1979. - 168 p. - (Countries and peoples). - 34,000 copies.
• Alperovich M.S. Russia and the New World (the last third of the 18th century) / Ed. Ed.: L. Yu. Slezkin. - M. : Nauka, 1993. - 239 p. - 2000 copies. -

, The Russian Federation

Moses Samuilovich Alperovich(-) - Soviet and Russian Hispanic historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences (1965). Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation (1995).

Biography [ | ]

Brother of the developer of Soviet anti-aircraft systems K. S. Alperovich (born 1922). Born in Moscow, after graduating from school and having worked for a year at the Krasny Proletarian plant, he entered the Faculty of History of Moscow State University in 1936. Introduction to the profession of a historian began during attendance at the seminars of S. V. Bakhrushin (1882-1950) and V. V. Stoklitskaya-Tereshkovich (1885-1962). Fascinated by the lectures of Vladimir Mikhailovich Miroshevsky (1900-1942), the student chose to specialize in Latin America. June 21, 1941 he defended his thesis.

In 1941-1946 he served in the ranks of the Red Army, a participant in the Great Patriotic War. Served as an interpreter in the investigation department of 3UA. Member of the CPSU (b) since 1944.

After the end of the war, Captain Alperovich served in Magdeburg, demobilized in 1946, returned to Moscow, entered graduate school and began a scientific career.

In 1949 he completed his postgraduate studies at , then until 1954 he worked as a senior lecturer. Since 1954 he worked in (since 1968 - senior, then leading researcher).

During the Great Patriotic War[ | ]

In early July 1941, he was mobilized by the Kyiv RVC of Moscow for the construction of defensive structures in the Bryansk region. By mid-September, he returned to Moscow, and on October 16, according to the agenda, he appeared at the Kyiv District Military Commissariat. He was appointed gunner of the battery of 76-mm guns of the 698th regiment of the 146th rifle division, formed near Kazan. Defended Moscow.

In the summer of 1942, M. S. Alperovich, who was fluent in German, was enrolled as an assistant to the head of divisional intelligence with the functions of an interpreter. In the autumn of 1943, the 146th Rifle Division in which he served was transferred to the 2nd Baltic Front and became part of the 3rd Shock Army. Candidate member of the CPSU (b).

By order of the Military Council of the 3rd Shock Army No. 94 / n dated 03/20/1944, Captain Alperovich, the translator of the intelligence department of the headquarters of the 79th division of the corps, was awarded the medal "For Military Merit".

By order No. 293 / n dated 10/14/1944, Captain Alperovich was awarded the Order of the Red Star for saving the lives of two staff officers and the driver of the artillery commander of the corps headquarters during the bombing of the NP.

By order of the Military Council of the 3rd Shock Army No. 36 / n dated March 27, 1945, he was awarded the Order of the Patriotic War of the 2nd degree for courage and courage associated with the extraction of information on the battlefield.

Together with the 3rd shock army, Alperovich reached Berlin. Here, as the head of the investigation unit of the intelligence department of the headquarters of the 3rd shock army, he participated in the search for Hitler's corpse and in the identification of the corpse of Goebbels.

By order No. 93 / n dated 05/19/1945, Captain Alperovich M.S., head of the investigative unit of the intelligence department of the headquarters of the 3rd shock army, was awarded the Order of the Red Star for high diligence and a survey of over 5000 prisoners, which revealed valuable information.

He was the first to read (and translate for command) Hitler's political testament, handed over by the Fuhrer to Vice Admiral Voss before his suicide. He signed the protocols for identifying the corpses of Goebbels, his wife Magda and their children.

Scientific activity[ | ]

In August 1946 M.S. Alperovich returned to Moscow and entered the graduate school of the Pacific Institute of the Academy of Sciences. In 1949 he defended his Ph.D. thesis on "The Mexican Revolution and American Imperialism (1913-1917)". In 1949-1954. taught at the Ryazan Pedagogical Institute.

He was a member of the Dissertation Council of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Author of a series of fundamental monographs on the history of Latin American countries, on the liberation movement in Latin America in the 16th - early 19th centuries, the history of Mexico and Paraguay. Among the latest published scientific works of M.S. Alperovich - chapters on Latin America in the 18th-19th centuries. for IV and V volumes of World History.

Selected writings [ | ]

• Alperovich M.S. Mexican War of Independence (1810-1824). - M. : Nauka, 1964. - 479 p. - 1200 copies.
• Alperovich M.S.[Intro] // Lynch D. Revolutions in Spanish America, 1808-1826 / Per. from English: E. N. Feershtein, V. N. Pavlova. - M.: Progress, 1979.
• Alperovich M.S. Spanish America in the struggle for independence. - M. : Nauka, 1971. - 222 p. - 12,000 copies.
• Alperovich M.S. The Mexican Revolution and American Imperialism (1913–1917): Author. dis. … cand. ist. Sciences. - M., 1949. - 15 p.
• Alperovich M.S. The liberation movement of the late 18th - early 19th centuries. in Latin America. - M.: Higher. school, 1966. - 119 p. - 3000 copies.
• Alperovich M.S. Revolution and Dictatorship in Paraguay (1810-1840) = Revolucion y dictadura en el Paraguay. - M. : Nauka, 1975. - 392 p. - 1500 copies.
• Alperovich M.S. The Birth of the Mexican State. - M.: Nauka, 1979. - 168 p. - (Countries and peoples). - 34,000 copies.
• Alperovich M.S. Russia and the New World (the last third of the 18th century) / Ed. Ed.: L. Yu. Slezkin. - M. : Nauka, 1993. - 239 p. - 2000 copies. - ISBN 5-02-008692-4.
• Alperovich M.S. Soviet historiography of the countries of Latin America. - M. : Nauka, 1968. - 80 p. - 2000 copies.
• Alperovich M.S. Francisco de Miranda in Russia = Francisco de Miranda en Rusia / Resp. Ed.: B. I. Koval. - M.: Nauka, 1986. - 352 p. - 15,600 copies.
• Alperovich M. S., Rudenko B. T. Mexican Revolution 1910-1917 and US policy .. - M .: Sotsekgiz, 1958. - 330 p. - 5000 copies.
• Alperovich M. S., Slezkin L. Yu. History of Latin America: From ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century: [Textbook. for universities on special "Story"]. - M. : Vyssh.shk, 1981. - 30,000 copies. || . - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - 1991. - 286 p. - 25,000 copies. - ISBN 5-06-002003-7.
• Alperovich M. S., Slezkin L. Yu. New history of Latin American countries: [Textbook. allowance for ist. specialties of high fur boots and ped. in-tov]. - M.: Higher. school, 1970. - 384 p. - 16,000 copies.
• Alperovich M. S., Slezkin L. Yu. The Formation of Independent States in Latin America (1804-1903): A Teacher's Guide. - M. : Education, 1966. - 243 p. - 25,000 copies.
• Essays on the Modern and Contemporary History of Mexico: 1810-1945 / Ed. M. S. Alperovich and N. M. Lavrov. - M. : Sotsekgiz, 1960. - 511 p. - 10,000 copies.