N and epanchin in the service of three emperors. On the birthday of Emperor Alexander III

Commented sources

Beletsky S.P. Interrogation of S.P. Beletsky May 12, 1917 - The fall of the Tsarist regime. L. 1929, v. 111 /
Berberova N. People and Lodges. New York, 1986
Voeikov V.N. With the Tsar and without the Tsar. M. 1994
Epanchin N.A. In the service of three Emperors. M. 1996
Gilliard P. Emperor Nicholas II and His Family. Vein. 1921 g.
Kandaurov L.D. An article on the history of Freemasonry in Russia, (typewritten manuscript) - TSKHIDK, b. Special Archives, f. 730, op. 1. d. 172. ll. 20-37.
Kerensky A.F. Russia at a historical turning point. Memoirs. Moscow, 1993
Markov S. Abandoned royal family. Vein. 1928 g.
Mikhailovsky G.N. Notes. M. 1993, book. 1-2.
A. A. Mosolov At the Court of the Last Emperor. Moscow, 1992
Letter of the "Mesori" lodge of the Rosicrucian Order to Tsar Nicholas II, marked on July 17, 1912 - TsGIAL USSR, f.157, d.390, ll. 35-42.
O.F. Soloviev Russian Freemasonry 1730 - 1917.M. 1993.
Spiridovich A.I. Great War and the February Revolution. New York, 1962, book. 1-3.
Tolstoy I.I., Count. Diaries 1906 - 1916.

COMMENTS ON THE SOURCES OF CHAPTER V

I. Beletskiy S.P. Interrogation of S.P. Beletsky on May 12, 1917. - The fall of the Tsarist Regime.L. 1925, t. Sh., P. 333-334.

Former Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Stepan Petrovich Beletsky showed during interrogation in the Emergency Commission of Inquiry Of the Provisional Government, of which, by the way, almost exclusively Masons were members, the following: “I had to come across a scheme of one of the Masonic organizations (in the Police Department - V.0.), not signed by anyone ...; from this scheme it was clearly possible to understand that, as if, the shift of the whole mood towards the public, under the chairman of the council of ministers, was due to the fact that Vitge was a representative of one of the lodges that sat in Petrograd, that, as if from here came even an act of religious tolerance April 17, 1904, (actually 1905 - V.O.), act of religious tolerance! As if His Grace Anthony, who at that time was a metropolitan and a supporter of Witte's liberation ideas, also belonged to this lodge. (...) Kurlov wanted to point out ... that Stolypin also belonged to one of the Masonic organizations. "

All this and other numerous information on Freemasonry was reported, says Beletsky further, to the Tsar. At the same time, myself grand Duke - probably Nikolai Mikhailovich means - told Beletsky that “among the officers guards units the Petrograd garrison has Masonic lodges ”. Undoubtedly, the Grand Duke himself, a Freemason, knew about this first-hand. In connection with this message, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that it was in this environment of the guard officers that military service and Nicholas II, being heir to the throne. Freemasonry in the guard has been going on since the time of almost Peter III, and Alexander I himself encouraged the existence of Masonic lodges in this environment in the first years of his reign ...

It is curious that the investigators in every possible way prevented Beletsky from testifying on the Masonic topic. Sensing this, Beletsky eventually became less talkative in his testimony on this topic, more cautious and began to “smooth out” sharp corners in every possible way. Hence it is his "as if", and further he speaks from the same considerations of "smoothing" that under the guise of Masonic lodges in the police department, ordinary occult circles were often accepted. Of course, there were no occult circles outside of Freemasonry, neither then, nor, by the way, now. The message about the Freemasonry of Witte, Stolypin, Metropolitan Anthony Vadkovsky is confirmed by other data. The right-wing press, and sometimes the left, also wrote a lot about this.

Beletsky's revelations about Freemasonry cost him dear: unlike other employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Police Department, Stepan Petrovich Beletsky was shot. This happened in Moscow, on September 5, 1918, in Petrovsky Park. Together with him in this party, the convicts were shot and Archpriest. John Vostorgov, and the famous author of works on the study of Judaism Lutostansky with his brother, and such wonderful people as the Minister of Internal Affairs N.A. Maklakov, A.N. Khvostov, who was also for some time the Minister of Internal Affairs, the former Minister of Justice Ivan Grigorievich Scheglovitov, is the last chairman of the State Council ... The new, Jewish-Bolshevik power showed purely Assyro-Babylonian, in the words of G. Mikhailovsky, cruelty and vindictiveness, without forgetting, however, to declare that it is with her that the “dawn of freedom and happiness” begins and that the main enemy of “progressive humanity” is not hunger and torture, not the destruction of the national foundations of life, but only anti-Semitism, because “progress”, “culture” and “ humanism "- this is the designation of Semitism, as well as" the conquests of the revolution. "

^ II. Berberova N. People and Lodges. (New York, 1986)

A) It is curious that Berberova draws attention to the fact of the government's indifference to the activities of the Masonic lodges: "It's surprising that the tsarist government was not too concerned about this state of affairs ..." (S.U.) She suggests that at least two police agents called upon to obtain information about Russian Freemasons in France could have been Freemasons and therefore their activities did not bring any real results. This assumption is not unfounded.

B) Attention should also be paid to the fact that, in fact, the foreign relatives of Nicholas II, with whom He in the first years, and the subsequent years, one way or another maintained close relations, were hereditary Freemasons. From this environment came His mother, Maria Fedorovna, his wife Alexander III, distinguished by exclusively liberal views. And from the same Wednesday was the wife of Nicholas II himself, Alexandra Feodorovna, who grew up, as it was said, at the English court, where Freemasonry was already hereditary for several generations and remains so. In this court, imbued with the Masonic spirit from top to bottom, the princess of Hesse-Darmstadt was brought up, who became the Russian Tsarina and the remaining Protestant. For her, the priests and bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church were just minor officials of the spiritual department. Growing up in a close court circle, she was afraid of the Russian latitude, the Russian vastness, the Russian expanses, and, feeling fear of this Russian immensity in everything, she was frightened and closed herself in her usual small family circle.

C) Other messages Bereberova makes from the words of the report of the book. VL Vyazemsky, which he did in the Union of Russian lodges of the Scottish Rite (in the premises of the Masonic lodge "Lotus") "Brother" Vyazemsky, having made a report on the history of Russian Freemasonry in the 18-19 centuries, said that Alexander II was in his youth, before his accession to the throne, by an English freemason. Count Panin and the Minister of Internal Affairs Loris-Melikov, whom many in St. Petersburg considered the culprit in the murder of Alexander II, were also Masons at that time. The liberalism of this cunning Armenian was, even in that milieu of "reformers", surpassing all likelihood. As for the Freemasonry of Alexander II, it does not hurt to remember that the poet Zhukovsky, who had a great degree in the order, was the Emperor's tutor, and M.M. was appointed a teacher to the heir in 1833. Speransky, the most active Freemason, as mentioned above in this essay.

According to L.D. Vyazemsky, the creation of the Hague Tribunal is an initiative of the Freemasons and their business. That is, Nicholas II acted on their inspiration.

^ III. Voeikov V.N. With the Tsar and without the Tsar. (M. 1994)

On the characterization of Nicholas II as a person in politics. Voeikov, palace commandant, last years was a real refined official and in reality did not resemble the image that he created in his memories, making himself almost a man of right-wing convictions, a Black Hundred. His memoirs reflect to a greater extent the influence of the émigré environment, where he found himself, and literature of the right wing. Meanwhile, as far as reports about the personality of Nicholas II and conversations with Him are concerned, they undoubtedly bear traces of authenticity. Literaryism begins where we see the stiltness of the characteristics given to him, the sweetness of his belated monarchism. And all the more valuable are some episodes where the breath of immediate impressions is felt.

Nicholas II was an incomprehensible person even for his entourage. And all the more often you get lost in understanding why He made certain decisions, Himself understanding their erroneousness and harmfulness. So, knowing that the meetings of the Duma arouse the masses of the people and give rise to revolutionary expectations, provoke riots and strikes, as well as bloodshed, He continues to calmly observe the work of the Duma, and does not go to disperse it, or at least to restrict the press. in terms of messages on its pages of the content of speeches of leftist deputies. Why, it seems, help the revolution? Moreover, during the war. Meanwhile, objectively, this is how things stood to the complete bewilderment of all His benevolent subjects. Voeikov, already after the Tsar's abdication, on March 5, 1917, at parting, asked why the Tsar had not made concessions to the Duma earlier, when everything could still be resolved peacefully. After all, as a result, the Tsar still agreed to all the demands of the left factions of the Duma and the "public".

“The sovereign replied that, firstly, any breakdown of the existing system, during such an intense struggle with the enemy, would lead only to internal catastrophes, and, secondly, the concessions that He made during His reign at the insistence of the so-called social circles, brought only harm to the Fatherland, each time removing some of the obstacles to the work of harmful elements, deliberately leading Russia to death ”(p. 160-161).

If Voeikov correctly conveys the meaning of the words of Nicholas II, then it remains only to wonder: why was it necessary to go to harm his fatherland, for what and for whom? And even so, not in any particular case, but during the entire time of His reign, yielding to the "public" of the cadets. Of course, these words of the Sovereign, spoken by Him at a time when He had already ceased to be the head of state, lead to the most sad reflections, including those related to the topic of Freemasonry. As if someone forced the Tsar to such a policy. The psychological factor is also important. Long-term and diligent “work” in the box rebuilds the entire psyche of the “worker”, the Freemason, and this can be seen even in the entire appearance of some of our modern politicians: a dying country, the sight of ruined and perishing Russian cities and villages will not cause an adherent of Freemasonry from the number of professional politicians has no reaction. Their eyes are dead, and their speech is colorless and "weighed" ... until we are talking about own destiny or the fate of your own family. But it is precisely such an appearance as a whole that we have in front of us, looking closely at all the activities of Nicholas II. Family, wife, children and a senseless war with millions of victims, then taking care of the health of their children, personal, and the fate of millions of Russian children - what will happen to them, what awaits them? All this remains somewhere aside. And from here, I think, from such "work", such upbringing, this indifferent "balance" in the entire appearance of the Tsar. And this indifference and coldness was guessed by His close co-workers. However, He never had “close ones”.

^ IV. Epanchin N.A. In the service of three emperors. (M. 1996)

A) The opinion of General Epanchin, who for a long time was the director of the Corps of Pages, about the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich is of interest as a characteristic of the duality in the thoughts of society, even a loyal subject, due to the uncertain policy of Nicholas II. Epanchin calls the Grand Duke an enemy of Russia, the Tsar and the army. (p. 354) Meanwhile. The sovereign trusted the “enemy” of Russia to the highest posts in the state and even after his abdication he appointed, in an incomprehensible way, his uncle, who had betrayed him, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

B) Regarding Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, Epanchin conveys the attitude of the Petersburg public towards her: She was considered a German and she remained so in the eyes of the people. At least the people who lived in St. Petersburg and Moscow. The rest of the people, provincial, simply did not know her. And this played the worst role during the war. The isolation of the royal family did not increase its popularity and, for obvious reasons, was perceived as it should only be perceived - as contempt for their subjects or indifference to them. The conditions of the reign of the seigneur, especially the sovereign, require the dedication of all the reigning couple to their service. And the appearance on the people, bestowing a gracious smile, other signs of favor, is a simple duty of the Royal couple. Claims to love the people and at the same time the unwillingness to do anything in order to express their love to the people told the subjects that the Mother Empress did not love us and was a stranger to us. All the years of the reign of Nicholas II, the royal couple only used the monarchical feelings of their subjects without doing anything to strengthen them.

C) Epanchin draws attention to one essential aspect of the matter:

He writes that for all the shortcomings both in the character of the Sovereign and in the system of governing the country, "the contemporaries did not at all pay attention to one of the brilliant aspects of His reign, namely the gradually increasing prosperity of Russia, which reached a major development by the end of the reign." (p. 243).

Indeed, there is something paradoxical in the fact, in relation to others, which the memoirist noted. Officials, professors, engineers, and other estates who opposed the regime received large salaries, moreover, all of them increased over the years. The peasants, and those in the last decade have lived much better than just a few years ago. Workers, on the other hand, often did not know what to do with their money, squandering it either at the hippodrome or in a restaurant, if we are talking about Moscow and St. Petersburg. But throughout the country, well-being grew by leaps and bounds. Everyone saw it. For example, a worker had to work two or three days to buy himself a chic three-piece suit: the suit cost about 10 rubles. A fine wall clock by Pavel Bure's firm cost 34 rubles, and a worker in 1912-1913 earned five or more rubles a day. Etc. Professors received ministerial salaries. The war that cut off Russia from its natural partner, Germany, did not lead to an economic crisis, but, on the contrary, stimulated the domestic production of everything necessary, and even luxury goods. During a difficult war, there was an excess of food and it was about their correct distribution, storage and transportation.

And at the same time, all strata of the population were decidedly dissatisfied. Nobody linked their welfare to the regime. The regime itself, the government and Supreme power It did not occur to people to associate economic successes with "tsarism" in the minds of people and to plant in the hearts of citizens and subjects gratitude to their native Tsar-father for His daily concern for the prosperity of the fatherland. But as it turned out, all the prosperity of Russia was possible only under the Tsar-Father. And it turned out very soon. Yes, the government did not even have a propaganda machine: no newspapers, no employees, there was not even a proper understanding of the problem.

The regime did not even think of encouraging people who were loyal to duty and oath and easily gave these people to their enemies. Monarchists, "Black Hundreds" were tormented by courts, slander, slander, fines. The government has adopted a tone of eternal justification before the intelligentsia's "public". The Tsar hid not only his family from the eyes of the people, so no one knew what the heir and daughters of the Tsar looked like, but did not even think about the fact that His direct duty to inform his subjects how He lives, how He works, how modest in everyday life and how His working day lasts a long time. He did not even think, and did not ask himself, but whether His private life belongs only to Him, whether He should not be an example to follow for his subjects, through the means of information conveyed to every Russian person his exemplary life of a family man. The head of a huge state was sure that he had the right to privacy! The royal service He perceived the service as an official - from bell to bell, and then my personal time, my private life.

The weakness of power - this is what his subjects could not forgive the Tsar. The weakness of the state power in general is painfully tolerated by all citizens and subjects, and no material successes can save the authority of such a powerless power that does not itself know what it wants and has no leading state and national idea. Unfortunately, the government itself acquired a liberal character and therefore did not want to tie millions of its citizens and subjects to itself.

In October the seventeenth came new government, made everyone hungry, stopped standing on ceremony, set up prisons and concentration camps, began to lie and scream about freedom, and they began to work for her not for fear, but for conscience. This government immediately took over the printing, publishing and education business. She created a language of laudatory odes to herself, and made every citizen learn the words and recite them endlessly at home, at work, on the street. And, quite obviously, this was exactly what was expected from the tsarist power, just such “freedom” and such an iron hand in the name of realizing national-Russian interests. Russian society languished all hundred years from an excess of all kinds of "freedoms", and the authorities thought that there were really few "freedoms" ... and continued to feed society with these "freedoms".

D) The King's attitude to other confessions. As Emperor, the Sovereign was supposed to provide patronage to all religions permitted on the territory of the Empire, and periodically attend services in churches of other faiths. But as an Orthodox Tsar, as a person who received all the authority to rule from the Church, and only from Her, as a result of the wedding ceremony to the Kingdom, as the anointed sovereign of God, the Sovereign was an ordinary member of the Church, her obedient son and was obliged to observe all Her canons and therefore under fear exclusion from Orthodoxy, excommunication from the Church could not attend services, say, among Protestants or Catholics. Yepanchin says: Catholics, Lutherans, and Muslims were brought up in the Corps of Pages. Accordingly, there was a pastor, a mullah, and a Catholic priest. Was and catholic Church of the order of Malta in the case. And the Sovereign, together with the Empress, periodically visited her, attending divine services: “Their Majesties solemnly entered the temple. - General Yepanchin describes the ceremony of visiting the church of the Order of Malta by the royal couple, - to the sounds of the organ, and a short prayer was performed in front of the throne. So Russian orthodox Tsar respected the church of the Catholic confession, to which many millions of His subjects belonged ”(p. 286). However, the beginning of the process of apostasy was laid by Peter I, who, being in Western Europe loved to visit both synagogues and churches.

In the very office of the Sovereign, as Emperor, and as Tsar, there was thus an insoluble contradiction. As Emperor, he had pagan duties and the title itself was borrowed from pagan Rome. As Tsar, he had to protect the people not "religious tolerance" and liberal freedom of speech and elections to the Duma, but the piety and dogmas of Orthodoxy in the minds of Orthodox believers intact, demonstrating in everything the superiority of this particular religion, but certainly not indifference to it and not equal treatment to all faiths, characteristic of Protestant states with their cult of abstract man: In this case, we are talking not only about the personal attitude of Nicholas II to the canons of the holy Orthodox Church, but about the pernicious principle of the Empire itself, created on the pagan understanding of power, while the source of power was Christian and power received its authority only from the Church.

E) How hard the liberal decrees of the Tsar, including the decree “on strengthening the foundations of religious tolerance,” echoed in the hearts of well-meaning Russian people:

“On April 16, 1905, a decree on freedom of religion followed; this act was passed variously in different parts Russian society. The extreme right was indignant, and I was quite surprised when I heard the opinion of this decree of Alexander Alekseevich Naryshkin, a senator, former comrade Minister of State Property, an intelligent, noble man, in the highest degree educated, right-wing convictions, but not at all retrograde ... Speaking to me about the decree on April 16, 1905, Naryshkin said about the Tsar:

"He betrayed Orthodoxy." ... True, after this decree, the Catholic clergy intensified their agitation and had some success among the Uniates ... "(p. 239).

In fact, "some success" is, according to data on January 1, 1909, about 301,450 people falling away from Orthodoxy. Of these, about 233,000 converted to Catholicism, 14.500 to Lutheranism, 50,000 renounced Christianity and converted to Mohammedanism, 3.400 to Buddhism, 400 to Judaism, and 150 to paganism.

The success that Epanchin speaks of upon closer examination, when it comes to the western region, was expressed in the real terror of the Polish lords and priests, which began as soon as a message was received about this decree, the Russian rural population, in mockery of these fanatics of Catholicism. At the same time, the priests and priests on their fingers explained the meaning of the decree: your Tsar himself renounced Orthodoxy and accepted our faith. Indeed, in the popular mind, this is exactly how this strange apostate decree could be perceived, not caused by any real need, except for such an opportunity for the heterodox to carry on propaganda among the Orthodox, seducing them into their confessions. Articles of the law punishing such corruption of Orthodoxy were removed. In those places of the empire where the Russian population was subordinate to foreigners, as was the case in the western provinces, there this decree was expressed in the freedom of persecution of the Orthodox and forcing them to convert to Uniate and Catholicism, for which the peasants were promised concessions, otherwise pursued. It was not for nothing that S.Yu. Witte, and many years later remembered this with pride, placing this decree on a par with the manifesto of October 17, 1905.

Thus, in reality, for the first time, the Tsarist government refused to publicly defend the Orthodox faith and declared its indifference to religions in general. This was a purely Protestant view of things, essentially Judeo-Masonic, about which the missionary Aivazov wrote in the Moscow Collection (1909).

Righteous John of Kronstadt also spoke sharply about this royal decree. On May 14, 1905, in his preaching Lay, he said in particular: “Finally, an unpunished transition from Orthodoxy to whatever faith is allowed; meanwhile, as the same Lord, Whom we confess, in Old Testament determined the death penalty for those who rejected the Law of Moses. " (Heb. 10, 28). And then the righteous man recalled:

"Every kingdom divided within itself will be empty," says the Lord, "and every city or house will not stand." (Matthew 12, 25) If things go like this in Russia and atheists and anarchists-madmen will not be subject to the punishment of the law, and if Russia is not cleansed of a multitude of chaff, then it will become empty ... for its godlessness and for its iniquity. " (“Pillar of the Orthodox Church.” Petrograd. 1915, p. 402).

The sovereign, who grew up in an international environment and multilingualism, in an environment where spiritualism, occultism were fashionable and where they spoke a mixture of all major European languages, where education itself was in the hands of the British, Germans and French, just because of these circumstances, he was a real intellectual, a man of the most "Broad" views. What is the very form of address in the royal house: Nika, Zizi, Baby, Sandro, etc. Is it possible to imagine such a thing at the Court of the Moscow Sovereign, the Autocrat of All Russia? But something else is striking. The entire decree on religious tolerance, which from the first lines proclaimed the freedom of transition from Orthodoxy to any other religion, was prepared, as it was said above, exclusively in the depths of the Council of Ministers. The unforgettable S.Yu. Witte. Having visited several times at the meetings of the commission preparing the decree, the chief prosecutor of St. Synod Pobedonostsev, expressing his negative attitude towards him and seeing that he was superfluous and simply were not interested in his opinion, stopped attending the meetings of the commission. Even the liberal Metropolitan Anthony, a friend of Witte, gently remarked that this decree was fraught with a real threat to the Orthodox Church. He conveyed through Witte to the Tsar that in order to resolve such a volume of issues that radically change the position of the Church in the state, the members of the Synod consider it necessary to convene a Local Council. The opinion was conveyed to the Emperor, but there was no answer, but the decree of April 17 followed. Further discussion of the decree in the Duma for several years became the reason for endless attacks on the Church, undermining its authority. This decree demonstrated the falling away of the autocracy itself from the support that alone held power. Naryshkin's opinion is essentially true.

Freemasonry, culture and Russian history. Historical and critical essays Ostretsov Viktor Mitrofanovich

IV. Epanchin N.A. In the service of three emperors. (M. 1996)

a) The opinion of General Epanchin, who for a long time was the director of the Corps of Pages, about the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich is of interest as a characteristic of the duality in the thoughts of society, even a loyal subject, due to the uncertain policy of Nicholas II. Epanchin calls the Grand Duke an enemy of Russia, the Tsar and the army. (p. 354) Meanwhile. The sovereign trusted the "enemy" of Russia to the highest posts in the state and even after his abdication he appointed, in an incomprehensible way, his uncle, who had betrayed him, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

b) Regarding Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, Epanchin conveys the attitude of the Petersburg public towards her: She was considered a German and she remained so in the eyes of the people. At least the people who lived in St. Petersburg and Moscow. The rest of the people, provincial, simply did not know her. And this played the worst role during the war. The isolation of the royal family did not increase its popularity and, for obvious reasons, was perceived as it should only be perceived - as contempt for their subjects or indifference to them. The conditions of the reign of the seigneur, especially the sovereign, require the dedication of all the reigning couple to their service. And the appearance on the people, bestowing a gracious smile, other signs of favor, is a simple duty of the Royal couple. Claims to love the people and at the same time the unwillingness to do anything in order to express their love to the people told the subjects that the Mother Empress did not love us and was a stranger to us. All the years of the reign of Nicholas II, the royal couple only used the monarchical feelings of their subjects without doing anything to strengthen them.

c) Epanchin draws attention to one essential aspect of the matter:

he writes that for all the shortcomings both in the character of the Sovereign and in the system of government of the country, "contemporaries did not pay attention at all to one of the brilliant aspects of His reign, namely, the gradually increasing prosperity of Russia, which reached a major development by the end of the reign." (p. 243).

And at the same time, all strata of the population were decidedly dissatisfied. Nobody linked their welfare to the regime. It did not occur to the regime itself, the government and the Supreme Power to associate economic successes with "tsarism" in the minds of the people and to settle in the hearts of citizens and subjects gratitude to the native Tsar-father for His daily concern for the prosperity of the fatherland. But as it turned out, all the prosperity of Russia was possible only under the Tsar-Father. And it turned out very soon. Yes, the government did not even have a propaganda machine: no newspapers, no employees, there was not even a proper understanding of the problem.

The regime did not even think of encouraging people loyal to duty and oath and easily gave these people to their enemies. Monarchists, "Black Hundreds" were tormented by courts, slander, slander, fines. The government has adopted a tone of eternal justification before the intelligentsia's "public". The Tsar hid not only his family from the eyes of the people, so that no one knew what the heir and daughters of the Tsar looked like, but did not even think about the fact that His direct duty to inform his subjects how He lives, how He works, how modest in everyday life and how His working day lasts a long time. He did not even think, and did not ask himself, but whether His private life belongs only to Him, whether He should not be an example to follow for his subjects, through the means of information conveyed to every Russian person his exemplary life of a family man. The head of a huge state was sure that he had the right to privacy! The royal service He perceived the service as an official - from bell to bell, and then my personal time, my private life.

In October 1917, a new government came, made everyone hungry, ceased to stand on ceremony, set up prisons and concentration camps, began to lie and scream about freedom, and they began to work for it not for fear, but for conscience. This government immediately took over the printing, publishing and education business. She created a language of laudatory odes to herself, and made every citizen learn the words and recite them endlessly at home, at work, on the street. And, quite obviously, this was exactly what was expected from the tsarist power, just such "freedom" and such an iron hand in the name of realizing national-Russian interests. Russian society languished all hundred years from an excess of all kinds of "freedoms", and the authorities thought that there were really few "freedoms" ... and continued to feed society with these "freedoms".

d) The attitude of the Tsar to other confessions. As Emperor, the Sovereign was supposed to provide patronage to all religions allowed on the territory of the Empire, and periodically attend services in churches of other faiths. But as an Orthodox Tsar, as a person who received all the authority to rule from the Church, and only from Her, as a result of the rite of wedding to the Kingdom, as the anointed sovereign of God, the Sovereign was an ordinary member of the Church, her obedient son and was obliged to observe all Her canons and therefore under fear rejection from Orthodoxy, excommunication from the Church could not attend services, say, Protestants or Catholics. Yepanchin says: Catholics, Lutherans, and Muslims were brought up in the Corps of Pages. Accordingly, there was a pastor, a mullah, and a Catholic priest. There was also a Catholic Church of the Order of Malta in the corps. And the Sovereign, together with the Empress, periodically visited her, attending services: “Their Majesties solemnly entered the temple. - General Yepanchin describes the ceremony of visiting the church of the Order of Malta by the royal couple, - to the sounds of the organ, and a short prayer was performed in front of the throne. This is how the Russian Orthodox Tsar respectfully treated the church of the Catholic confession, to which many millions of His subjects belonged ”(p. 286). However, the beginning of the process of apostasy was laid by Peter I, who, being in Western Europe, loved to visit both synagogues and churches.

In the very office of the Sovereign, as Emperor, and as Tsar, there was thus an insoluble contradiction. As Emperor, he had pagan duties and the title itself was borrowed from pagan Rome. As Tsar, he had to protect the people not "religious tolerance" and liberal freedom of speech and elections to the Duma, but the piety and dogmas of Orthodoxy in the minds of Orthodox believers intact, demonstrating in everything the superiority of this particular religion, but certainly not indifference to it and not equal attitude to all faiths, characteristic of Protestant states with their cult of abstract man: In this case, we are talking not only about the personal attitude of Nicholas II to the canons of the holy Orthodox Church, but about the pernicious principle of the Empire itself, created on the pagan understanding of power, at that time as the source of power was Christian and power received its authority only from the Church.

e) How hard the liberal decrees of the Tsar, including the decree “on strengthening the foundations of religious tolerance,” echoed in the hearts of well-meaning Russian people:

“On April 16, 1905, a decree on freedom of religion followed; this act was adopted differently in different parts of Russian society. The extreme right was indignant, and I was very surprised when I heard the opinion of this decree of Aleksandr Alekseevich Naryshkin, a senator, a former assistant minister of state property, a smart, noble man, highly educated, right-wing convictions, but not at all retrograde ... about the decree on April 16, 1905, Naryshkin said about the Tsar:

"He betrayed Orthodoxy." ... True, after this decree, the Catholic clergy intensified their agitation and had some success among the Uniates ... "(p. 239).

Righteous John of Kronstadt also spoke sharply about this royal decree. On May 14, 1905, in his preaching Lay, he said in particular: “Finally, an unpunished transition from Orthodoxy to whatever faith is allowed; while the same Lord, Whom we confess, in the Old Testament determined the death penalty for those who rejected the Law of Moses. " (Heb. 10, 28). And then the righteous recalled:

"Every kingdom divided in itself will be empty," says the Lord, "and every city or house will not stand." (Matthew 12, 25) If things go like this in Russia and atheists and anarchists-madmen will not be subject to the punishment of the law, and if Russia is not cleansed of a multitude of chaff, then it will become empty ... for its godlessness and for its iniquity. " ("Pillar of the Orthodox Church". Petrograd. 1915, p. 402).

From the book Ecumenical Councils the author Kartashev Anton Vladimirovich

From the book Hammer of the Witches author Sprenger Yakov

Chapter XVI. The Three Types of Male Witchcraft, dealt with in three chapters, and the last of them on archers. Speaking of the types of witchcraft practiced by men, we will touch on their seven horrific crimes. First, on the day of mortal suffering

From the book History early period Buddhism and Bon in Tibet the author Berzin Alexander

From the book The Orthodox World and Freemasonry the author Ivanov Vasily Fedorovich

The reign of the Emperors Nicholas I and Alexander II During these reigns, the minds of the intelligentsia were seized by philosophical irreligious sentiments hostile to Orthodoxy. The dominant trend is the pantheism of Schelling and Hegel, which considers Christian

From the book of the Age of Constantine the Great author Burckhardt Jacob

The reigns of the Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II These reigns are the completion of the work of the Masons over two hundred years of history, from Peter I to the Tsar-Martyr. The Masonic ideas of skepticism and disbelief that prevail in the highest aristocratic society penetrated from here

From the book Sounds of the Shofar by Rivers Francine

From the book Life of Constantine the author Pamphilus Eusebius

10. 1996 - Great! Go! Paul sat in the backseat of a rented white convertible. He patted his youngest assistant on the back. “Let's go, Ralph. Let the city know we're here! ”Ralph Henson pressed his horn as he pulled away. Behind them in the direction

From the book Expressing the Monastic Experience author Elder Joseph

From the book History of Magic and Occultism author Seligmann Kurt

11 About the three states of nature to which man ascends and descends: natural, unnatural and superior. And about three images of divine grace that he can receive by compelling human nature: cleansing, enlightening and

From the book Veyanier of the Star Council the author Bogachev Mikhail

1. Magic in the era of the Roman emperors In 77 AD. e. Pliny the Elder dedicated his work "Natural History" to the emperor Titus. While recognizing here that magic has had and still has a powerful influence on many peoples, Pliny, nevertheless, declares that all magicians are either

From the book Father Alexander Men: Life. Death. Immortality the author Ilyushenko Vladimir Ilyich

PECHERY PSKOVSKY (1996

From the book Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church. Volume III the author Bolotov Vasily Vasilievich

January 22, 1996 Father Alexander left a colossal legacy. These are many thousands of pages. But this is the kind of teacher who did not teach in words. More precisely, he taught not so much in words as in life. With my life. And he left us a spiritual message. It seems very significant to me

From the book Agiology the author Nikulina Elena Nikolaevna

September 10, 1996 Fragility and grandeur are incomprehensibly combined in man. It's so easy to kill him. He cannot be killed if he is great in spirit. The attempt to kill Alexander's father ended in failure. It sounds, it seems, paradoxical: after all, he was killed. But the goal was to cross it out

From the book of Myths and Traditions Ancient Rome the author Lazarchuk Dina Andreevna

From the author's book

Martyrs during the reign of Julian the Apostate and the Arian emperors But the history of martyrdom did not end there. St. ap. Paul that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3.12) continued to be confirmed in subsequent centuries.

IV. Epanchin N.A. In the service of three emperors. (M. 1996)

c) Epanchin draws attention to one essential aspect of the matter:

In the very office of the Sovereign, as Emperor, and as Tsar, there was thus an insoluble contradiction. As Emperor, he had pagan duties and the title itself was borrowed from pagan Rome. As Tsar, he had to protect the people not "religious tolerance" and liberal freedom of speech and elections to the Duma, but the piety and dogmas of Orthodoxy in the minds of Orthodox believers intact, demonstrating in everything the superiority of this particular religion, but certainly not indifference to it and not equal attitude to all faiths, characteristic of Protestant states with their cult of abstract man: In this case, we are talking not only about the personal attitude of Nicholas II to the canons of the holy Orthodox Church, but about the pernicious principle of the Empire itself, created on the pagan understanding of power, at that time as the source of power was Christian and power received its authority only from the Church.

To narrow your search results, you can refine your query by specifying the fields to search for. The list of fields is presented above. For instance:

You can search by several fields at the same time:

Logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values \u200b\u200bin the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a request, you can specify the way in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search with morphology, without morphology, search for a prefix, search for a phrase.
By default, the search is based on morphology.
To search without morphology, just put a dollar sign in front of the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the request:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include a word in the search results for synonyms, put a hash " # "before a word or before an expression in parentheses.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthesized expression, a synonym will be appended to each word if found.
Cannot be combined with non-morphology search, prefix search, or phrase search.

# study

Grouping

In order to group search phrases, you need to use brackets. This allows you to control the boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search, you need to put a tilde " ~ "at the end of a word from a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

The search will find words such as "bromine", "rum", "prom", etc.
You can additionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1 or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

By default, 2 edits are allowed.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity, you need to put a tilde " ~ "at the end of a phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Expression Relevance

Use " ^ "at the end of the expression, and then indicate the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the rest.
The higher the level, the more relevant the expression is.
For example, in this expression, the word "research" is four times more relevant than the word "development":

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Allowed values \u200b\u200bare a positive real number.

Interval search

To indicate the interval in which the value of a field should be located, you should specify the boundary values \u200b\u200bin brackets, separated by the operator TO.
Lexicographic sorting will be performed.

Such a query will return results with an author ranging from Ivanov to Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in an interval, use square brackets. Use curly braces to exclude a value.