The future Emperor Nicholas I, the third son of Emperor Paul I and Empress Maria Feodorovna, was born on July 6 (June 25, old style) 1796 in Tsarskoye Selo (Pushkin).

As a child, Nikolai was very fond of military toys, and in 1799, for the first time, he put on the military uniform of the Life Guards Cavalry Regiment, of which he had been the chief since infancy. According to the traditions of that time, Nikolai began serving at the age of six months, when he received the rank of colonel. He was prepared, first of all, for a military career.

Baroness Charlotte Karlovna von Lieven was involved in the upbringing of Nicholas; from 1801, General Lamzdorf was entrusted with the supervision of Nicholas's upbringing. Other teachers included the economist Storch, the historian Adelung, and the lawyer Balugyansky, who failed to interest Nikolai in their subjects. He was good at engineering and fortification. Nicholas's education was limited mainly to military sciences.

Nevertheless, from a young age the emperor drew well, had good artistic taste, loved music very much, played the flute well, and was a keen connoisseur of opera and ballet.

Having married on July 1, 1817, the daughter of the Prussian King Frederick William III, the German princess Friederike-Louise-Charlotte-Wilhelmina, who converted to Orthodoxy and became Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna, the Grand Duke lived a happy family life, without taking part in state affairs. Before his accession to the throne, he commanded a guards division and served (since 1817) as inspector general for engineering. Already in this rank, he showed great concern for military educational institutions: on his initiative, company and battalion schools were established in the engineering troops, and in 1819 the Main Engineering School was established (now the Nikolaev Engineering Academy); The “School of Guards Ensigns” (now the Nikolaev Cavalry School) owes its existence to his initiative.

His excellent memory, which helped him recognize the face and remember even ordinary soldiers by name, gained him great popularity in the army. The emperor was distinguished by considerable personal courage. When a cholera riot broke out in the capital, on June 23, 1831, he rode out in a carriage to a crowd of five thousand gathered on Sennaya Square and stopped the riots. He also stopped unrest in the Novgorod military settlements, caused by the same cholera. The Emperor showed extraordinary courage and determination during the fire of the Winter Palace on December 17, 1837.

The idol of Nicholas I was Peter I. Extremely unpretentious in everyday life, Nicholas, already an emperor, slept on a hard camp bed, covered with an ordinary overcoat, observed moderation in food, preferring the simplest food, and almost did not drink alcohol. He was very disciplined and worked 18 hours a day.

Under Nicholas I, the centralization of the bureaucratic apparatus was strengthened, a set of laws of the Russian Empire was compiled, and new censorship regulations were introduced (1826 and 1828). In 1837, traffic was opened on the first Tsarskoye Selo railway in Russia. The Polish uprising of 1830-1831 and the Hungarian revolution of 1848-1849 were suppressed.

During the reign of Nicholas I, the Narva Gate, the Trinity (Izmailovsky) Cathedral, the Senate and Synod buildings, the Alexandria Column, the Mikhailovsky Theater, the building of the Noble Assembly, the New Hermitage were erected, the Anichkov Bridge was reconstructed, the Annunciation Bridge across the Neva (Lieutenant Schmidt Bridge), an end pavement was laid on Nevsky Prospekt.

An important aspect of Nicholas I's foreign policy was a return to the principles of the Holy Alliance. The Emperor sought a favorable regime for Russia in the Black Sea straits; in 1829, peace was concluded in Andrianople, according to which Russia received the eastern shore of the Black Sea. During the reign of Nicholas I, Russia took part in the Caucasian War of 1817-1864, the Russian-Persian War of 1826-1828, the Russian-Turkish War of 1828-1829, and the Crimean War of 1853-1856.

Nicholas I died on March 2 (February 18, Old Style) 1855, according to the official version - from a cold. He was buried in the Cathedral of the Peter and Paul Fortress.

The emperor had seven children: Emperor Alexander II; Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna, married Duchess of Leuchtenberg; Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, married Queen of Württemberg; Grand Duchess Alexandra Nikolaevna, wife of Prince Frederick of Hesse-Kassel; Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich; Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich; Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolaevich.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources

Nicholas I Pavlovich. Born June 25 (July 6), 1796 in Tsarskoye Selo - died February 18 (March 2), 1855 in St. Petersburg. Emperor of All Russia from December 14 (26), 1825, Tsar of Poland and Grand Duke of Finland.

Main dates of the reign of Nicholas I:

♦ 1826 - Founding of the Third Department at the Imperial Chancellery - a secret police to monitor the state of minds in the state;
♦ 1826-1832 - Codification of the laws of the Russian Empire by M. M. Speransky;
♦ 1826-1828 - War with Persia;
♦ 1828 - Founding of the Technological Institute in St. Petersburg;
♦ 1828-1829 - War with Turkey;
♦ 1830-1831 - Uprising in Poland;
♦ 1832 - Cancellation of the constitution of the Kingdom of Poland, approval of the new status of the Kingdom of Poland within the Russian Empire;
♦ 1834 - The Imperial University of St. Vladimir was founded in Kyiv (the university was founded by decree of Nicholas I on November 8 (20), 1833 as the Kiev Imperial University of St. Vladimir on the basis of the Vilna University and the Kremenets Lyceum, which were closed after the Polish uprising of 1830-1831);
♦ 1837 - Opening of the first railway in Russia, St. Petersburg - Tsarskoe Selo;
♦ 1837-1841 - Reform of state peasants carried out by Kiselyov;
♦ 1841 - The sale of peasants individually and without land is prohibited;
♦ 1839-1843 - Financial reform of Kankrin;
♦ 1843 - The purchase of peasants by landless nobles is prohibited;
♦ 1839-1841 - Eastern crisis, in which Russia acted together with England against the France-Egypt coalition;
♦ 1848 - Peasants received the right to purchase their freedom from the land when selling the landowner's estate for debts, as well as the right to acquire real estate;
♦ 1849 - Participation of Russian troops in the suppression of the Hungarian uprising;
♦ 1851 - Completion of the construction of the Nikolaev railway, connecting St. Petersburg with Moscow. Opening of the New Hermitage;
♦ 1853-1856 - Crimean War. Nikolai did not live to see its end - he died in 1855.

Mother - Empress Maria Feodorovna.

Nicholas was the third son of Paul I and Maria Feodorovna. Born a few months before the accession of Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich to the throne. He was the last of the grandchildren born during her lifetime. The birth of Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich was announced in Tsarskoe Selo with cannon fire and bell ringing, and news was sent to St. Petersburg by messenger.

He received a name unusual for the Romanov dynasty. The court historian M. Korf even specifically noted that the baby was given a name “unprecedented in our royal house.” In the imperial house of the Romanov dynasty, children were not named after Nikolai. There is no explanation for the naming of the name Nicholas in the sources, although Nicholas the Wonderworker was highly revered in Rus'. Perhaps Catherine II took into account the semantics of the name, which goes back to the Greek words “victory” and “people”.

Odes were written for the birth of the Grand Duke, the author of one of them was G.R. Derzhavin. Name day - December 6 according to the Julian calendar (Nicholas the Wonderworker).

According to the order established by Empress Catherine II, Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich from birth entered the care of the Empress, but the death of Catherine II, which soon followed, stopped her influence on the course of the Grand Duke’s upbringing. His nanny was the Livonian Charlotte Karlovna Lieven. She was Nikolai's only mentor for the first seven years. The boy sincerely became attached to his first teacher, and during early childhood, “the heroic, knightly noble, strong and open character of the nanny Charlotte Karlovna Lieven” left an imprint on his character.

Since November 1800, General M.I. Lamzdorf became the teacher of Nikolai and Mikhail. The choice of General Lamzdorf for the post of educator of the Grand Duke was made by Emperor Paul I. Paul I indicated: “just don’t make my sons such rakes as German princes.” In the highest order dated November 23 (December 5), 1800, it was announced: “Lieutenant General Lamzdorf has been appointed to serve under His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich.” The general stayed with his pupil for 17 years. It is obvious that Lamzdorf fully satisfied Maria Fedorovna’s pedagogical requirements. So, in a parting letter in 1814, Maria Feodorovna called General Lamzdorf the “second father” of the Grand Dukes Nicholas and Mikhail.

The death of his father, Paul I in March 1801, could not help but be imprinted in the memory of four-year-old Nicholas. Subsequently, he described what happened in his memoirs: “The events of this sad day remained in my memory as well as a vague dream; I was awakened and saw Countess Lieven in front of me. When I was dressed, we noticed through the window, on the drawbridge under the church, guards who had not been there the day before; the entire Semyonovsky regiment was here in an extremely careless appearance. None of us suspected that we had lost our father; we were taken down to my mother, and soon from there we went with her, my sisters, Mikhail and Countess Lieven to the Winter Palace. The guard went out into the courtyard of the Mikhailovsky Palace and saluted. My mother immediately silenced him. My mother was lying in the back of the room when Emperor Alexander entered, accompanied by Konstantin and Prince Nikolai Ivanovich Saltykov; he threw himself on his knees in front of mother, and I can still hear his sobs. They brought him water, and they took us away. It was happiness for us to see our rooms again and, I must tell the truth, our wooden horses, which we had forgotten there.”

This was the first blow of fate dealt to him at a very tender age. From then on, the care of his upbringing and education was concentrated entirely and exclusively in the hands of the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, out of a sense of delicacy for whom Emperor Alexander I refrained from any influence on the education of his younger brothers.

The greatest concerns of Empress Maria Feodorovna in the upbringing of Nikolai Pavlovich consisted of trying to divert him from his passion for military exercises, which was revealed in him from early childhood. The passion for the technical side of military affairs, instilled in Russia by Paul I, took deep and strong roots in the royal family - Alexander I, despite his liberalism, was an ardent supporter of the shift parade and all its subtleties, like Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich. The younger brothers were not inferior to the elders in this passion. From early childhood, Nikolai had a special passion for military toys and stories about military operations. The best reward for him was permission to go to a parade or divorce, where he watched everything that happened with special attention, dwelling even on the smallest details.

Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich received a home education - teachers were assigned to him and his brother Mikhail. But Nikolai did not show much diligence in his studies. He did not recognize the humanities, but he was well versed in the art of war, was fond of fortification, and was familiar with engineering.

Nikolai Pavlovich, having completed his course of education, was horrified by his ignorance and after the wedding tried to fill this gap, but the predominance of military activities and family life distracted him from constant desk work. “His mind is not cultivated, his upbringing was careless,” Queen Victoria wrote about Emperor Nicholas I in 1844.

Nikolai Pavlovich’s passion for painting is known, which he studied in childhood under the guidance of the painter I. A. Akimov and the author of religious and historical compositions, Professor V. K. Shebuev.

During the Patriotic War of 1812 and the subsequent military campaigns of the Russian army in Europe, Nicholas was eager to go to war, but was met with a decisive refusal from the Empress Mother. In 1813, the 17-year-old Grand Duke was taught strategy. At this time, from his sister Anna Pavlovna, with whom he was very friendly, Nicholas accidentally learned that Alexander I had visited Silesia, where he saw the family of the Prussian king, that Alexander liked his eldest daughter, Princess Charlotte, and that it was his intention that Nicholas I saw her sometime.

Only at the beginning of 1814 did Emperor Alexander I allow his younger brothers to join the army abroad. On February 5 (17), 1814, Nikolai and Mikhail left St. Petersburg. On this trip they were accompanied by General Lamzdorf, cavaliers: I.F. Savrasov, A.P. Aledinsky and P.I. Arsenyev, Colonel Gianotti and Dr. Ruehl. After 17 days they reached Berlin, where 17-year-old Nicholas first saw the 16-year-old daughter of King Frederick William III of Prussia, Princess Charlotte..

Princess Charlotte - future wife of Nicholas I in childhood

After spending one day in Berlin, the travelers proceeded through Leipzig and Weimar, where they met with sister Maria Pavlovna. Then through Frankfurt am Main, Bruchsal, where Empress Elizabeth Alekseevna was then located, Rastatt, Freiburg and Basel. Near Basel, they first heard enemy shots, as the Austrians and Bavarians were besieging the nearby Güningen fortress. Then, through Altkirch, they entered France and reached the rear of the army in Vesoul. However, Alexander I ordered the brothers to return to Basel. Only when news arrived of the capture of Paris and the exile of Napoleon I to the island of Elba, the Grand Dukes received permission to arrive in Paris.

On November 4 (16), 1815 in Berlin, during an official dinner, the engagement of Princess Charlotte and Tsarevich and Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich was announced.

After the military campaigns of the Russian army in Europe, professors were invited to the Grand Duke, who were supposed to “read military science in as complete a manner as possible.” For this purpose, the famous engineering general Karl Opperman and, to help him, colonels Gianotti and Andrei Markevich were chosen.

In 1815, military conversations between Nikolai Pavlovich and General Opperman began.

Upon returning from his second campaign, starting in December 1815, Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich continued his studies with some of his former professors. Mikhail Balugyansky read “the science of finance”, Nikolai Akhverdov - Russian history (from the reign to the time of troubles). With Markevich, the Grand Duke was engaged in “military translations,” and with Gianotti, he was reading the works of Giraud and Lloyd about various campaigns of the wars of 1814 and 1815, as well as analyzing the project “on the expulsion of the Turks from Europe under certain given conditions.”

At the beginning of 1816, the University of Abo of the Grand Duchy of Finland, following the example of the universities of Sweden, most submissively petitioned: “Will Alexander I, by royal grace, grant him a chancellor in the person of His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich.” According to the historian M. M. Borodkin, this idea belongs entirely to Tengström, the bishop of the Abo diocese, a supporter of Russia. Alexander I granted the request, and Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich was appointed chancellor of the university. His task was to respect the status of the university and the conformity of university life with the spirit and traditions. In memory of this event, the St. Petersburg Mint minted a bronze medal. Also in 1816 he was appointed chief of the horse-jaeger regiment.

In the summer of 1816, Nikolai Pavlovich was supposed to complete his education by taking a trip around Russia to get acquainted with his fatherland in administrative, commercial and industrial relations. Upon returning, it was planned to make a trip to England. On this occasion, on behalf of Empress Maria Feodorovna, a special note was drawn up, which set out the main principles of the administrative system of provincial Russia, described the areas that the Grand Duke had to pass through in historical, everyday, industrial and geographical terms, indicating what exactly could constitute the subject of conversations between the Grand Duke and representatives of the provincial government, which should be paid attention to.

Thanks to a trip to some provinces of Russia, Nikolai Pavlovich received a clear picture of the internal state and problems of his country, and in England he became acquainted with the experience of developing the socio-political system of the state. Nicholas's own political system of views was distinguished by a pronounced conservative, anti-liberal orientation.

Nicholas I's height: 205 centimeters.

Personal life of Nicholas I:

On July 1 (13), 1817, the marriage of Grand Duke Nicholas with Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna, who was called Princess Charlotte of Prussia before her conversion to Orthodoxy, took place. The wedding took place on the birthday of the young princess in the court church of the Winter Palace. A week before the wedding, on June 24 (6) July 1817, Charlotte converted to Orthodoxy and was given a new name - Alexandra Feodorovna, and upon her betrothal to Grand Duke Nicholas on June 25 (7) July 1817, she became known as the Grand Duchess with the title of Her Imperial Highnesses. The spouses were each other's fourth cousins ​​(they had the same great-great-grandfather and great-great-grandmother). This marriage strengthened the political alliance between Russia and Prussia.

Nicholas I and Alexandra Fedorovna had 7 children:

♦ son (1818-1881). 1st wife - Maria Alexandrovna; 2nd wife - Ekaterina Mikhailovna Dolgorukova;
♦ daughter Maria Nikolaevna (1819-1876). 1st husband - Maximilian, Duke of Leuchtenberg; 2nd husband - Count Grigory Alexandrovich Stroganov;
♦ daughter Olga Nikolaevna (1822-1892). Spouse - Friedrich-Karl-Alexander, King of Württemberg;
♦ daughter Alexandra Nikolaevna (1825-1844). Spouse - Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hesse-Kassel;
♦ son Konstantin Nikolaevich (1827-1892). Wife - Alexandra Iosifovna;
♦ son Nikolai Nikolaevich (1831-1891). Wife - Alexandra Petrovna;
♦ son Mikhail Nikolaevich (1832-1909). Wife - Olga Fedorovna.

Alexandra Fedorovna - wife of Nicholas I

The maid of honor A.F. Tyutcheva, who lived at court for a long time, wrote in her memoirs: “Emperor Nicholas had for his wife, this fragile, irresponsible and graceful creature, a passionate and despotic adoration of a strong nature for a weak being, whose only ruler and legislator he feels. For him, it was a lovely bird, which he kept locked in a golden and jeweled cage, which he fed with nectar and ambrosia, lulled with melodies and scents, but whose wings he would not regret cutting if she wanted to escape from the gilded bars of her cage . But in her magical prison the bird did not even remember its wings.”

Also had from 3 to 9 alleged illegitimate children.

Nicholas I was in a relationship with his maid of honor Varvara Nelidova for 17 years. According to rumors, the relationship began when, after 7 births of the 34-year-old Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (1832), doctors forbade the emperor from having marital relations with her out of fear for her health. The emperor's relationship with Nelidova was kept in deep secrecy.

Varvara Nelidova - mistress of Nicholas I

Decembrist revolt

Nikolai Pavlovich kept his personal diary irregularly; daily entries covered a short period from 1822 to 1825. The records were kept in French in very small handwriting with frequent abbreviations of words. His last entry was made on the eve of the Decembrist uprising.

In 1820, Emperor Alexander I informed Nikolai Pavlovich and his wife that the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, intended to renounce his right to the throne, so Nikolai, as the next senior brother, would become the heir. Nikolai himself was not at all happy about this prospect. In his memoirs, he wrote: “The Emperor left, but my wife and I remained in a situation that I can only liken to that feeling that, I believe, will amaze a person walking calmly along a pleasant road strewn with flowers and from which the most pleasant views open up everywhere, when suddenly an abyss opens up under his feet, into which an irresistible force plunges him, preventing him from retreating or turning back. This is a perfect picture of our terrible situation.”

In 1823, Konstantin Pavlovich formally renounced his rights to the throne, since he had no children, was divorced and married for a second morganatic marriage to the Polish Countess Grudzinskaya. On August 16 (28), 1823, Alexander I signed a secretly compiled manifesto, approving the abdication of the Tsarevich and Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich and confirming the Heir to the Throne of the Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich. On all the packages with the text of the manifesto, Alexander I himself wrote: “Keep until my demand, and in the event of my death, disclose before any other action.”

On November 19 (December 1), 1825, while in Taganrog, Emperor Alexander I died suddenly. In St. Petersburg, news of the death of Alexander I was received only on the morning of November 27 during a prayer service for the health of the emperor. Nicholas, the first of those present, swore allegiance to “Emperor Constantine I” and began to swear in the troops. Constantine himself was in Warsaw at that moment, being the de facto governor of the Kingdom of Poland. On the same day, the State Council met, where the contents of the 1823 Manifesto were heard. Finding themselves in an ambiguous position, when the Manifesto indicated one heir, and the oath was taken to another, the members of the Council turned to Nicholas. He refused to recognize the manifesto of Alexander I and refused to proclaim himself emperor until the final expression of the will of his elder brother. Despite the contents of the Manifesto handed over to him, Nicholas called on the Council to take the oath to Constantine “for the peace of the State.” Following this call, the State Council, Senate and Synod took an oath of allegiance to “Constantine I”.

The next day, a decree was issued on a widespread oath to the new emperor. On November 30, the nobles of Moscow swore allegiance to Constantine. In St. Petersburg, the oath was postponed until December 14.

Nevertheless, Konstantin refused to come to St. Petersburg and confirmed his abdication in private letters to Nikolai Pavlovich, and then sent rescripts to the Chairman of the State Council (December 3 (15), 1825) and the Minister of Justice (December 8 (20), 1825). Constantine did not accept the throne, and at the same time did not want to formally renounce it as an emperor, to whom the oath had already been taken. An ambiguous and extremely tense interregnum situation was created.

Unable to convince his brother to take the throne and having received his final refusal (albeit without a formal act of abdication), Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich decided to accept the throne according to the will of Alexander I.

On the evening of December 12 (24), 1825, M. M. Speransky drew up a Manifesto on the accession to the throne of Emperor Nicholas I. Nicholas signed it on December 13 in the morning. Attached to the Manifesto were a letter from Constantine to Alexander I dated January 14 (26), 1822, about refusal of inheritance, and a manifesto from Alexander I dated August 16 (28), 1823.

The manifesto on the accession to the throne was announced by Nicholas at a meeting of the State Council at about 22:30 on December 13 (25). A separate point in the Manifesto stipulated that November 19, the day of the death of Alexander I, would be considered the time of accession to the throne, which was an attempt to legally close the gap in the continuity of autocratic power.

A second oath was appointed, or, as they said in the troops, a “re-oath” - this time to Nicholas I. The re-oath in St. Petersburg was scheduled for December 14. On this day, a group of officers - members of a secret society - scheduled an uprising in order to prevent the troops and the Senate from taking the oath to the new tsar and preventing Nicholas I from ascending the throne. The main goal of the rebels was the liberalization of the Russian socio-political system: the establishment of a provisional government, the abolition of serfdom, equality of all before the law, democratic freedoms (press, confession, labor), the introduction of jury trials, the introduction of compulsory military service for all classes, the election of officials, abolition of the poll tax and change in the form of government to a constitutional monarchy or republic.

The rebels decided to block the Senate, send there a revolutionary delegation consisting of Ryleev and Pushchin and present to the Senate a demand not to swear allegiance to Nicholas I, declare the tsarist government deposed and publish a revolutionary manifesto to the Russian people. However, the uprising was brutally suppressed on the same day. Despite the efforts of the Decembrists to carry out a coup d'etat, troops and government institutions were sworn in to the new emperor. Later, the surviving participants in the uprising were exiled, and five leaders were executed.

“My dear Konstantin! Your will is fulfilled: I am the emperor, but at what cost, my God! At the cost of the blood of my subjects!” he wrote to his brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, on December 14.

The highest manifesto, given on January 28 (February 9), 1826, with reference to the “Institution on the Imperial Family” on April 5 (16), 1797, decreed: “First, as the days of our life are in the hand of God: then in the event of OUR death, until the legal majority of the Heir, Grand Duke ALEXANDER NIKOLAEVICH, we determine the Ruler of the State and the inseparable Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Finland as OUR Most Dear Brother, Grand Duke MIKHAIL PAVLOVICH...”

Crowned on August 22 (September 3), 1826 in Moscow - instead of June of the same year, as originally planned - due to mourning for the Dowager Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna, who died on May 4 in Belev. The coronation of Nicholas I and Empress Alexandra took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin.

On May 12 (24), 1829, in the Senatorial Hall of the Royal Castle, the coronation of Nicholas I to the Kingdom of Poland took place - a unique event in the history of Russia and Poland.

Full title of Nicholas I as Emperor:

“By the hastening grace of God, We are NICHOLAS the First, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Chersonis-Tauride, Sovereign of Pskov and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volyn, Podolsk and Finnish, Prince of Estland, Livland, Courland and Semigalsky, Samogitsky, Bialystok, Korelsky, Tver, Yugorsky, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others; Sovereign and Grand Duke of Novagorod Nizovsky lands, Chernihiv, Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavsky, Belozersky, Udorsky, Obdorsky, Kondian, Vitebsky, Mstislav and all north sides of the Ivraki, Kartalinsky, Georgia and Kabardinsky lands, and Armenian regions; Cherkasy and Mountain Princes and other Hereditary Sovereign and Possessor; Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstin, Stormarn, Dietmar and Oldenburg, and so on, and so on, and so on.”

Reign of Nicholas I

The first steps of Nicholas I after the coronation were very liberal. The poet was returned from exile, and V. A. Zhukovsky, whose liberal views could not but be known to the emperor, was appointed the main teacher (“mentor”) of the heir.

The Emperor closely followed the trial of the participants in the December speech and gave instructions to compile a summary of their critical comments against the state administration. Despite the fact that attempts on the life of the tsar were punishable by quartering according to existing laws, he replaced this execution with hanging.

The Ministry of State Property was headed by the hero of 1812, Count P. D. Kiselyov, a monarchist by conviction, but an opponent of serfdom. The future Decembrists Pestel, Basargin and Burtsov served under his command. Kiselyov's name was presented to Nicholas I on the list of conspirators in connection with the uprising case. But, despite this, Kiselev, known for the impeccability of his moral rules and his talent as an organizer, made a career under Nicholas I as the governor of Moldavia and Wallachia and took an active part in preparing the abolition of serfdom.

Some contemporaries wrote about his despotism. At the same time, as historians point out, the execution of five Decembrists was the only execution during the entire 30 years of the reign of Nicholas I, while, for example, under Peter I and Catherine II executions numbered in the thousands, and under Alexander II - in the hundreds. However, it should be noted that more than 40,000 people died during the suppression of the Polish uprising. It is also noted that under Nicholas I, torture was not used against political prisoners. Even historians critical of Nicholas I do not mention any violence during the investigation into the case of the Decembrists (in which 579 people were brought in as suspects) and the Petrashevites (232 people).

Nevertheless, in October 1827, on a report about the secret passage of two Jews across the river. Rod in violation of quarantine, which noted that only the death penalty for quarantine violations can stop them, Nikolai wrote: “The perpetrators will be driven through a thousand people 12 times. Thank God, we never had the death penalty, and it’s not for me to introduce it.”

The most important direction of domestic policy was the centralization of power. To carry out the tasks of political investigation, a permanent body was created in July 1826 - the Third Department of the Personal Chancellery - a secret service with significant powers, the head of which (since 1827) was also the chief of the gendarmes. The third department was headed by A. F. Orlov, who became one of the symbols of the era, and after his death (1844).

On December 6 (18), 1826, the first of the secret committees was created, the task of which was, firstly, to consider the papers sealed in the office of Alexander I after his death, and, secondly, to consider the issue of possible transformations of the state apparatus.

Under Nicholas I, the Polish uprising of 1830-1831 was suppressed, during which Nicholas I was declared dethroned by the rebels (Decree on the dethronement of Nicholas I). After the suppression of the uprising, the Kingdom of Poland lost its independence, the Sejm and the army and was divided into provinces.

Some authors call Nicholas I a “knight of autocracy”: he firmly defended its foundations and suppressed attempts to change the existing system, despite the revolutions in Europe. After the suppression of the Decembrist uprising, he launched large-scale measures in the country to eradicate the “revolutionary infection”. During the reign of Nicholas I, persecution of the Old Believers resumed, and the Uniates of Belarus and Volyn were reunited with Orthodoxy (1839).

In the Volga region, forced Russification of local peoples was carried out on a large scale. Russification was accompanied by administrative and economic coercion and spiritual oppression of the non-Russian population of the Volga region.

Emperor Nicholas I paid a lot of attention to the army. The introduction of strict discipline in the army in the first years of the reign of Nicholas I, which was maintained subsequently, was associated with the extreme licentiousness that reigned in the Russian army in the last decade of the reign of Alexander I (after the end of the war with Napoleon). Officers often wore tailcoats rather than military uniforms, even during exercises, wearing an overcoat on top. In the Semenovsky regiment, soldiers were engaged in crafts and trade, and the proceeds were handed over to the company commander. “Private” military formations appeared. Thus, Mamonov, one of the richest men in Russia, formed his own cavalry regiment, which he himself commanded, while expressing extreme anti-monarchist views and calling the Tsar (Alexander I) “a brute.” Under Nicholas I, army “democracy,” bordering on anarchy, was curtailed and strict discipline was restored.

Drill training was considered the basis of military training. During the Eastern War, it often happened that for the construction of a minor field fortification, a sapper non-commissioned officer supervised the construction work, since the infantry officer (or even a sapper who graduated from the cadet corps, and not the Mikhailovsky or Engineering School) had no idea about the basics of field fortification. In this situation, “the sapper non-commissioned officer directed the work, the infantry soldiers were the labor force, and their officers were his overseers.”

There was a similar attitude towards shooting.

At the height of the Crimean War, due to a significant loss of officers at the front, one of the emperor’s orders was to introduce drill training in civilian gymnasiums and higher military sciences (fortification and artillery) in universities. Thus, Nicholas I can be considered the founder of basic military training in Russia.

One of Nikolai Pavlovich’s greatest achievements can be considered the codification of law. Involved by the tsar in this work, M. M. Speransky performed a titanic work, thanks to which the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire appeared.

During the reign of Nicholas I, the situation of the serfs became easier. Thus, a ban was introduced on exiling peasants to hard labor, selling them individually and without land, and peasants received the right to redeem themselves from the estates being sold. A reform of state village management was carried out and a “decree on obligated peasants” was signed, which became the foundation for the abolition of serfdom. However, the complete liberation of the peasants did not take place during the life of the emperor.

For the first time, there was a sharp reduction in the number of serfs - their share in the population of Russia, according to various estimates, decreased from 57-58% in 1811-1817 to 35-45% in 1857-1858, and they ceased to constitute the majority of the population. Obviously, a significant role was played by the cessation of the practice of “distributing” state peasants to landowners along with lands, which flourished under the previous kings, and the spontaneous liberation of peasants that began.

The situation of state peasants improved, whose number reached about 50% of the population by the second half of the 1850s. This improvement occurred mainly due to the measures taken by Count P. D. Kiselyov, who was responsible for the management of state property. Thus, all state peasants were allocated their own plots of land and forest plots, and auxiliary cash desks and grain stores were established everywhere, which provided assistance to the peasants with cash loans and grain in case of crop failure. As a result of these measures, not only did the welfare of state peasants increase, but also treasury income from them increased by 15-20%, tax arrears were halved, and by the mid-1850s there were practically no landless farm laborers eking out a miserable and dependent existence. everyone received land from the state.

A number of laws were passed to improve the situation of serfs. Thus, landowners were strictly forbidden to sell peasants (without land) and send them to hard labor (which had previously been common practice); serfs received the right to own land, conduct business, and received relative freedom of movement. Earlier, under Peter I, a rule was introduced according to which any peasant who found himself more than 30 miles from his village without a vacation certificate from the landowner was considered a runaway and subject to punishment. These strict restrictions: the obligatory nature of a vacation certificate (passport) for any departure from the village, a ban on business transactions, and even, for example, a ban on marrying off a daughter to another village (you had to pay a “ransom” to the landowner) - survived until the 19th century. and were abolished during the first 10-15 years of the reign of Nicholas I.

On the other hand, for the first time, the state began to systematically ensure that the rights of peasants were not violated by landowners (this was one of the functions of the Third Department), and to punish landowners for these violations. As a result of the application of punishments against landowners, by the end of the reign of Nicholas I, about 200 landowner estates were under arrest, which greatly affected the position of the peasants and the psychology of the landowners.

Thus, serfdom under Nicholas changed its character - from an institution of slavery it actually turned into an institution of rent in kind, which to some extent guaranteed the peasants a number of basic rights.

These changes in the position of the peasants caused discontent on the part of large landowners and nobles, who saw them as a threat to the established order.

Some reforms aimed at improving the situation of the peasants did not lead to the desired result due to the stubborn opposition of the landowners. Thus, on the initiative of D. G. Bibikov, who later became the Minister of Internal Affairs, an inventory reform was launched in Right Bank Ukraine in 1848, the experience of which was supposed to be extended to other provinces. The inventory rules introduced by Bibikov, mandatory for landowners, established a certain size of the peasant’s land plot and certain duties for it. However, many landowners ignored their implementation, and the local administration, which was dependent on them, did not take any measures.

Was first started mass peasant education program. The number of peasant schools in the country increased from 60, with 1,500 students, in 1838, to 2,551, with 111,000 students, in 1856. During the same period, many technical schools and universities were opened - essentially, the country's system of professional primary and secondary education was created.

The state of affairs in industry at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I was the worst in the entire history of the Russian Empire. There was virtually no industry capable of competing with the West, where the industrial revolution was already coming to an end at that time. Russia's exports included only raw materials; almost all types of industrial products needed by the country were purchased abroad.

By the end of the reign of Nicholas I the situation had changed greatly. For the first time in the history of the Russian Empire, a technically advanced and competitive industry began to form in the country, in particular, textile and sugar, the production of metal products, clothing, wood, glass, porcelain, leather and other products began to develop, its own machines, tools and even steam locomotives began to be produced .

From 1825 to 1863, the annual output of Russian industry per worker increased 3 times, while in the previous period it not only did not grow, but even decreased. From 1819 to 1859, the volume of Russian cotton production increased almost 30 times; the volume of engineering production from 1830 to 1860 increased 33 times.

For the first time in the history of Russia, under Nicholas I, intensive construction of paved roads began: the routes Moscow - St. Petersburg, Moscow - Irkutsk, Moscow - Warsaw were built. Of the 7,700 miles of highways built in Russia by 1893, 5,300 miles (about 70%) were built in the period 1825-1860. The construction of railways was also started and about 1000 miles of railway track was built, which gave impetus to the development of our own mechanical engineering.

The rapid development of industry led to a sharp increase in urban population and urban growth. The share of the urban population during the reign of Nicholas I more than doubled - from 4.5% in 1825 to 9.2% in 1858.

Having ascended the throne, Nikolai Pavlovich abandoned the practice of favoritism that had prevailed over the previous century. He introduced a moderate system of incentives for officials (in the form of lease of estates/property and cash bonuses), which he controlled to a large extent. Unlike previous reigns, historians have not recorded large gifts in the form of palaces or thousands of serfs granted to any nobleman or royal relative. To combat corruption, under Nicholas I, regular audits were introduced for the first time at all levels. Trials of officials have become commonplace. Thus, in 1853, 2,540 officials were on trial. Nicholas I himself was critical of successes in this area, saying that the only people around him who did not steal were himself and his heir.

Nicholas I demanded that only Russian be spoken at court. The courtiers, who did not know their native language, learned a certain number of phrases and uttered them only when they received a sign that the emperor was approaching.

Nicholas I suppressed the slightest manifestations of freethinking. In 1826, a censorship statute was issued, nicknamed “cast iron” by his contemporaries. It was forbidden to print almost anything that had any political implications. In 1828, another censorship statute was issued, somewhat softening the previous one. A new increase in censorship was associated with the European revolutions of 1848. It got to the point that in 1836, the censor P.I. Gaevsky, after serving 8 days in the guardhouse, doubted whether news like “such and such a king had died” could be allowed into print. When in 1837 a note about the attempt on the life of the French king Louis-Philippe I was published in the St. Petersburg Gazette, Count Benckendorf immediately notified the Minister of Education S.S. Uvarov that he considered “it is indecent to place such news in gazettes, especially those published by the government.” "

In September 1826, Nicholas I received Alexander Pushkin, who had been released from Mikhailovsky exile, and listened to his confession that on December 14, 1825, Pushkin would have been with the conspirators, but acted mercifully with him: he freed the poet from general censorship (he decided to censor his works himself) , instructed him to prepare a note “On Public Education”, called him after the meeting “the smartest man in Russia” (however, later, after Pushkin’s death, he spoke very coldly about him and this meeting).

In 1828, Nicholas I dropped the case against Pushkin regarding the authorship of the “Gabrieliad” after the poet’s handwritten letter was handed over to him personally, bypassing the investigative commission, which, in the opinion of many researchers, contained, in the opinion of many researchers, an admission of authorship of the seditious work after much denial. However, the emperor never completely trusted the poet, seeing in him a dangerous “leader of the liberals,” Pushkin was under police surveillance, his letters were illustrated; Pushkin, having gone through the first euphoria, which was expressed in poems in honor of the tsar (“Stanzas”, “To Friends”), by the mid-1830s also began to evaluate the sovereign ambiguously. “There is a lot of ensign in him and a little of Peter the Great,” Pushkin wrote about Nicholas in his diary on May 21 (June 2), 1834; at the same time, the diary also notes “sensible” comments on “The History of Pugachev” (the sovereign edited it and lent Pushkin 20 thousand rubles), ease of use and the tsar’s good language.

In 1834, Pushkin was appointed chamberlain of the imperial court, which greatly burdened the poet and was also reflected in his diary. Pushkin could sometimes afford not to come to balls to which Nicholas I personally invited him. Pushkin preferred to communicate with writers, and Nicholas I showed his dissatisfaction with him. The role played by the emperor in the conflict between Pushkin and Dantes is assessed by historians contradictory. After the death of Pushkin, Nicholas I granted a pension to his widow and children, while limiting speeches in memory of the poet, thereby showing, in particular, dissatisfaction with the violation of the ban on dueling.

As a result of the policy of strict censorship, Alexander Polezhaev was arrested for free poetry and was exiled to the Caucasus twice. By order of the emperor, the magazines “European”, “Moscow Telegraph”, “Telescope” were closed, its publisher Nadezhdin was persecuted, and F. Schiller was banned from publication in Russia.

In 1852, he was arrested and then administratively exiled to the village for writing an obituary dedicated to memory (the obituary itself was not passed by censorship). The censor also suffered because he allowed Turgenev’s “Notes of a Hunter” to go into print, in which, according to the Moscow Governor-General Count A. A. Zakrevsky, “a decisive direction was expressed towards the destruction of the landowners.”

In 1850, by order of Nicholas I, the play "Our People - Let's Be Numbered" was banned from production. The Committee of Higher Censorship was dissatisfied with the fact that among the characters brought out by the author there were not “one of those venerable merchants of ours in whom fear of God, uprightness and straightforwardness of mind constitute a typical and integral attribute.”

Censorship also did not allow publication of some jingoistic articles and works that contained harsh and politically undesirable statements and views, which happened, for example, during the Crimean War with two poems. From one (“Prophecy”), Nicholas I personally deleted the paragraph that spoke of the erection of the cross over Sophia of Constantinople and the “All-Slavic Tsar”; another (“Now you have no time for poetry”) was prohibited from publication by the minister, apparently due to the “somewhat harsh tone of the presentation” noted by the censor.

Having received a good engineering education in his youth, Nicholas I showed considerable knowledge in the field of construction equipment. Thus, he made successful proposals regarding the dome of the Trinity Cathedral in St. Petersburg. Later, already occupying the highest position in the state, he closely monitored the order in urban planning, and not a single significant project was approved without his signature.

He issued a decree regulating the height of private buildings in the capital. The decree limited the height of any private building to the width of the street on which the building was built. At the same time, the height of a residential private building could not exceed 11 fathoms (23.47 m, which corresponds to the height of the eaves of the Winter Palace). Thus, the famous St. Petersburg city panorama that existed until recently was created. Knowing the requirements for choosing a suitable location for the construction of a new astronomical observatory, Nikolai personally indicated the place for it on the top of Pulkovo Mountain.

The first all-Russian railways appeared in Russia, including the Nikolaev railway. It is likely that Nicholas I first became acquainted with the technologies of steam locomotive and railway construction at the age of 19 during a trip to England in 1816, where the future emperor visited the railway of engineer Stephenson.

Nicholas I, having studied in detail the technical data of the railways proposed for construction, demanded an expansion of the Russian gauge compared to the European one (1524 mm versus 1435 in Europe), thereby eliminating the possibility of delivering the armed forces of a potential enemy deep into Russia. The gauge adopted by the Emperor was proposed by the road builder, the American engineer Whistler, and corresponded to the 5-foot gauge adopted at that time in some “southern” states of the United States.

The high relief of the monument to Nicholas I in St. Petersburg depicts an episode of his inspector’s trip along the Nikolaevskaya Railway, when his train stopped at the Verebyinsky railway bridge.

The naval defense of St. Petersburg under Admiral Traverse relied on a system of wood-earth fortifications near Kronstadt, armed with outdated short-range cannons, which allowed the enemy to destroy them from long distances without hindrance. Already in December 1827, by order of the Emperor, work began to replace the wooden fortifications with stone ones. Nicholas I personally reviewed the designs of fortifications proposed by the engineers and approved them. And in some cases (for example, during the construction of the fort “Emperor Paul the First”), he made specific proposals to reduce the cost and speed up construction.

Nicholas I, aware of the need for reforms, considered their implementation a lengthy and careful task. He looked at the state subordinate to him, like an engineer looks at a complex but deterministic mechanism in its functioning, in which everything is interconnected and the reliability of one part ensures the correct operation of others. The ideal of social order was army life, which was completely regulated by regulations.

Foreign policy of Nicholas I was concentrated on three main directions of the foreign policy of the Russian Empire: the fight against the revolutionary movement in Europe; the Eastern Question, including Russia's struggle for control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits; as well as the expansion of the empire, advancement in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

An important aspect of foreign policy was the return to the principles of the Holy Alliance. Russia's role in the fight against any manifestations of the “spirit of change” in European life has increased. It was during the reign of Nicholas I that Russia received the unflattering nickname of “the gendarme of Europe.” Thus, at the request of the Austrian Empire, Russia took part in the suppression of the Hungarian revolution, sending a 140,000-strong corps to Hungary, which was trying to free itself from oppression by Austria; as a result, the throne of Franz Joseph was saved. The latter circumstance did not prevent the Austrian emperor, who feared excessive strengthening of Russia’s position in the Balkans, from soon taking a position unfriendly to Nicholas during the Crimean War and even threatening to enter the war on the side of a coalition hostile to Russia, which Nicholas I regarded as ungrateful treachery; Russian-Austrian relations were hopelessly damaged until the end of the existence of both monarchies.

The Eastern Question occupied a special place in the foreign policy of Nicholas I.

Russia under Nicholas I abandoned plans for the division of the Ottoman Empire, which were discussed under the previous tsars (Catherine II and Paul I), and began to pursue a completely different policy in the Balkans - a policy of protecting the Orthodox population and ensuring its religious and civil rights, up to political independence . This policy was first applied in the Treaty of Akkerman with Turkey in 1826. Under this treaty, Moldova and Wallachia, while remaining part of the Ottoman Empire, received political autonomy with the right to elect their own government, which was formed under the control of Russia. After half a century of the existence of such autonomy, the state of Romania was formed on this territory - according to the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878.

Along with this, Russia sought to ensure its influence in the Balkans and the possibility of unhindered navigation in the straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles).

During the Russian-Turkish wars of 1806-1812. and 1828-1829, Russia achieved great success in implementing this policy. At the request of Russia, which declared itself the patroness of all Christian subjects of the Sultan, the Sultan was forced to recognize the freedom and independence of Greece and the broad autonomy of Serbia (1830); According to the Treaty of Unkar-Iskelesi (1833), which marked the peak of Russian influence in Constantinople, Russia received the right to block the passage of foreign ships into the Black Sea (which it lost as a result of the Second London Convention in 1841).

The same reasons - support for Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire and disagreements over the Eastern Question - pushed Russia to aggravate relations with Turkey in 1853, which resulted in its declaration of war on Russia. The beginning of the war with Turkey in 1853 was marked by the brilliant victory of the Russian fleet under the command of the admiral, which defeated the enemy in Sinop Bay. This was the last major battle of the sailing fleets.

Russia's military successes caused a negative reaction in the West. The leading world powers were not interested in strengthening Russia at the expense of the decrepit Ottoman Empire. This created the basis for a military alliance between England and France. Nicholas I's miscalculation in assessing the internal political situation in England, France and Austria led to the country finding itself in political isolation.

In 1854, England and France entered the war on the side of Turkey. Due to Russia's technical backwardness, it was difficult to resist these European powers. The main military operations took place in Crimea.

In October 1854, the Allies besieged Sevastopol. The Russian army suffered a number of defeats and was unable to provide assistance to the besieged fortress city. Despite the heroic defense of the city, after an 11-month siege, in August 1855, the defenders of Sevastopol were forced to surrender the city.

At the beginning of 1856, following the Crimean War, the Paris Peace Treaty was signed. According to its terms, Russia was prohibited from having naval forces, arsenals and fortresses in the Black Sea. Russia became vulnerable from the sea and lost the opportunity to conduct an active foreign policy in this region.

Generally During the reign of Nicholas I, Russia participated in wars: Caucasian War 1817-1864, Russian-Persian War 1826-1828, Russian-Turkish War 1828-1829, Crimean War 1853-1856.

Death of Nicholas I

He died, according to historical sources, “at twelve minutes past one o’clock in the afternoon” on February 18 (March 2), 1855. According to the official version - due to pneumonia (he caught a cold while taking part in the parade in a light uniform, being already sick with the flu). The funeral service was performed by Metropolitan Nikanor (Klementyevsky).

According to some medical historians, the death of the emperor could have occurred due to the consequences of a serious injury he received on August 26 (September 7), 1836, during a fact-finding trip to Russia. Then, as a result of a night traffic accident that occurred near the city of Chembar, Penza province, Emperor Nicholas I received a fractured collarbone and a shock contusion. The diagnosis was made by a random physician, who probably did not have the opportunity to diagnose the condition of the victim’s internal organs. The emperor was forced to stay for two weeks in Chembar for treatment. As soon as his health stabilized, he continued his journey. Due to these circumstances, Emperor Nicholas I, after a serious injury, was without qualified medical care for a long time.

The emperor maintained complete composure as death approached. He managed to say goodbye to each of his children and grandchildren and, having blessed them, turned to them with a reminder to remain friendly with each other. The last words of the emperor addressed to his son Alexander were the phrase “Hold tight...”.

Immediately after this, rumors spread widely in the capital that Nicholas had committed suicide. The illness began against the backdrop of disappointing news from besieged Sevastopol and worsened after receiving news of the defeat of General Khrulev near Yevpatoria, which was perceived as a harbinger of an inevitable defeat in the war, which Nicholas, due to his character, could not survive. The Tsar’s appearance at the parade in the cold without an overcoat was perceived as an intention to get a fatal cold; according to stories, the life physician Mandt told the Tsar: “Sire, this is worse than death, this is suicide!”

We can say with certainty that the illness (mild flu) began on January 27, noticeably intensified on the night of February 4, and during the day the already sick Nikolai went to withdraw troops; After that, he fell ill for a short time, quickly recovered, and on February 9, despite the objections of doctors, in 23-degree frost without an overcoat, he went to review the marching battalions. The same thing happened again on February 10 in even more severe frost. After this, the illness worsened, Nikolai spent several days in bed, but his powerful body took over, and on February 15 he was already working all day.

No bulletins were issued about the Tsar's health at this time, which shows that the illness was not considered dangerous. On the evening of February 14, a courier arrived with a message about the defeat near Yevpatoria. The news made the most overwhelming impression, especially since Nikolai himself was the initiator of the attack on Yevpatoria.

On February 17, the emperor’s condition unexpectedly and sharply worsened, and on the morning of February 18, painful agony began, lasting several hours (which does not happen with pneumonia). According to a rumor that immediately spread, the emperor, at his request, was given poison by his physician Mandt. Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna directly accused Mandt of poisoning her brother. The emperor forbade the opening and embalming of his body.

Nikolaevskaya Square in Kazan and the Nikolaevskaya Hospital in Peterhof were named in honor of Nicholas I.

In honor of Emperor Nicholas I, about one and a half dozen monuments were erected in the Russian Empire, mainly various columns and obelisks, in memory of his visit to one place or another. Almost all sculptural monuments to the Emperor (with the exception of the equestrian monument in St. Petersburg) were destroyed during the years of Soviet power.

Currently, the following monuments to the Emperor exist:

Saint Petersburg. Equestrian monument on St. Isaac's Square. Opened on June 26 (July 8), 1859, sculptor P. K. Klodt. The monument has been preserved in its original form. The fence surrounding it was dismantled in the 1930s and rebuilt again in 1992.

Saint Petersburg. Bronze bust of the Emperor on a high granite pedestal. Opened on July 12, 2001 in front of the facade of the building of the former psychiatric department of the Nikolaev Military Hospital, founded in 1840 by decree of the Emperor (now the St. Petersburg District Military Clinical Hospital), Suvorovsky Ave., 63. Initially, a monument to the Emperor, which is a bronze bust on granite pedestal, was opened in front of the main facade of this hospital on August 15 (27), 1890. The monument was destroyed shortly after 1917.

Saint Petersburg. Plaster bust on a high granite pedestal. Opened on May 19, 2003 on the main staircase of the Vitebsk station (52 Zagorodny pr.), sculptors V. S. and S. V. Ivanov, architect T. L. Torich.

Velikiy Novgorod. Image of Nicholas I on the “Millennium of Russia” monument. Opened in 1862, sculptor - M. O. Mikeshin.

Moscow. The monument to the “Creators of Russian Railways” at the Kazansky railway station is a bronze bust of the emperor surrounded by famous figures from the railway industry of his reign. Opened on August 1, 2013.

A bronze bust of Emperor Nicholas I was inaugurated on July 2, 2015 on the territory of the Nikolo-Berlyukovsky Monastery in the village of Avdotyino, Moscow region (sculptor A. A. Appolonov).

St. Nicholas Cathedral in the city of Starobelsk. In 1859, a location for the construction of the temple was determined - between Malaya Dvoryanskaya and Sobornaya, Classical and Nikolaevskaya streets. The temple was built in the Baroque style and was solemnly consecrated in 1862. The temple is considered an architectural monument of the 19th century and is protected by the state.

The following were named after Nicholas I: a battleship that took part in the Battle of Tsushima and surrendered to the Japanese after it, a battleship laid down in 1914 but unfinished due to the Civil War, and a civilian steamer on which Louis de Heeckeren and Georges Dantes arrived in Russia and sailed away to Europe Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol.

To commemorate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Nicholas I, according to the decrees of Nicholas II, state awards were established, namely two commemorative medals. The medal “In memory of the reign of Emperor Nicholas I” was awarded to persons who served during the reign of Nicholas I, the medal “In memory of the reign of Emperor Nicholas I” for students of educational institutions was awarded to students of military educational institutions who studied during the reign of Nicholas I, but the rights They didn’t have the right to wear the first medal.

The image of Nicholas I in the cinema:

1910 - “The Life and Death of Pushkin”;
1911 - “Defense of Sevastopol”;
1918 - “Father Sergius” (actor Vladimir Gaidarov);
1926 - “Decembrists” (actor Evgeny Boronikhin);
1927 - “The Poet and the Tsar” (actor Konstantin Karenin);
1928 - “Secrets of an ancient family”, Poland (actor Pavel Overlo);
1930 - “White Devil” Germany (actor Fritz Alberti);
1932 - “House of the Dead” (actor Nikolai Vitovtov);
1936 - “Prometheus” (actor Vladimir Ershov);
1943 - “Lermontov” (actor A. Savostyanov);
1946 - “Glinka” (actor B. Livanov);
1951 - “Taras Shevchenko” (actor M. Nazvanov);
1951 - “Belinsky” (actor M. Nazvanov);
1952 - “Composer Glinka” (actor M. Nazvanov);
1959 - “Hadji Murat - the white devil” (actor Milivoje Zivanovic);
1964 - “Dream” (actor);
1965 - “The Third Youth” (actor V. Strzhelchik);
1967 - “The Green Carriage” (actor V. Strzhelchik);
1967 - “Wake up Mukhin!” (actor V. Zakharchenko);
1968 - “The Mistake of Honore de Balzac” (actor S. Polezhaev);
1975 - “Star of Captivating Happiness” (actor V. Livanov);
2010 - “The Death of Wazir-Mukhtar” (actor A. Zibrov);
2013 - “The Romanovs. The seventh film" (actor S. Druzhko);
2014 - “Duel. Pushkin - Lermontov” (actor V. Maksimov);
2014 - “Fort Ross: In Search of Adventure” (actor Dmitry Naumov);
2016 - “The Monk and the Demon” (actor Nikita Tarasov);
2016 - “The Case of the Decembrists” (actor Artyom Efremov)

The death of a person is a mystery. The death of the Russian emperor is also a secret, a state secret, which both contemporaries and historians sought to penetrate. The last moments of the life of Russian rulers were always reliably protected from the excessive curiosity of their subjects. In the 18th century the secret of the royal death was simply necessary to maintain political stability, since the transfer of power was often carried out through palace coups, and the departure of the deposed monarch was sometimes accompanied by “inconvenient” circumstances that undermined the authority of the supreme power. The murders of Peter III and Paul I were presented as the sad consequences of “apoplexy” or “hemorrhoidal colic”. Naturally, such meager, doubtful information was more than compensated for by folk myth-making. Rumors, gossip, and speculation gradually acquired the undeniable force of fact. If the fantastic story about the “miraculously saved Tsar Peter Fedorovich” in the person of E. I. Pugachev remained in the field of folklore, then the beautiful legend about the elder Fyodor Kuzmich, under whose name Alexander I lived after his apparent death in Taganrog, is still widespread in popular and pseudo-scientific literature.
A similar kind of mystery surrounds the last days of Nicholas I. Many works have been devoted to the circumstances of his death, but the desired clarity on this issue has not yet been achieved. As a rule, two main versions are considered. The first version, the official one, said that the king died of a cold that caused paralysis of the lungs. The second version is “public”: the emperor, unable to bear the shame of the Crimean War, committed suicide (took poison, deliberately tried to catch a cold in order to die, etc.). There is also a “folk” version: “the damned German doctors poisoned (healed) the Tsar-Father.”

Historians who worked on this topic, relying on indirect evidence, tended to support the version of suicide, however, avoiding drawing definitive conclusions. Only N.K. Schilder, the author of an unfinished but extremely informative biography of Nicholas I, expressed his personal opinion categorically: “he was poisoned.” He left such a remark on the margins of the apologetic work of the courtier M.A. Korf, against the lines where it is said that “Emperor Nicholas died from his labors with the death of a righteous man” (1). Researchers still refer to this serious statement, the credibility of which is based on the well-deserved authority of Schilder. Schilder, however, did not leave any detailed argumentation for his opinion.
The first problem that arises in connection with the “mystery of death” of Nicholas I is chronological. They often point to the rapid development of the disease and the suddenness of the death of the autocrat. According to the official version (2), the disease began on January 27, 1855. This is confirmed by the diary entries of L.V. Dubelt, P.D. Kiselev and D.A. Milyutin (3). The king, as usual, did not pay much attention to his cold and worked intensively at his usual rhythm. On January 31, he was already “coughing occasionally and complaining of back pain.” On February 2, Nicholas I’s health deteriorated significantly, “chest tightness” and shortness of breath appeared; that day he no longer left his office. But on the 4th, despite the persuasion of the doctors, the tsar attended a review of the marching guards battalion and, as a result, the next day he felt a fever and pain in his side; he was overcome by a strong cough. On February 5-8, he did not leave the palace, followed a strict diet and medical orders, but, feeling a little better, he immediately (February 9 and 10) went to see off the guards battalions going to war. The deterioration of health was not long in coming: on the evening of February 10, a fever was detected against the background of mild “gout attacks.” On the morning of the 11th, doctors persuaded Nikolai not to go to church services and to remain in bed. Since February 12, the king no longer got out of bed, bouts of feverish fever were replaced by chills. On February 13 - 16, the patient's condition did not improve; doctors recorded damage to the lower lobe of the right lung. He complained of "gouty pains." On the 17th, the fever increased, and the doctors began to talk about the possibility of death. On February 18, Nicholas I died from paralysis (edema) of the lungs (4).
Some researchers, in order to emphasize the unexpected outcome of the emperor's last illness, tend to shorten its duration. This would greatly strengthen the case for suicide. E.V. Tarle, falling into subjectivism unusual for him, reduced the duration of Nikolai’s illness to six days - from February 12 to 18. He attributed data indicating the early development of the emperor’s illness to another, “initial” illness, which he dated from February 4 to February 11. His explanation that by February 16 this disease was “almost completely gone” (5) creates a difficult situation: what signs should be used to determine the dating of “diseases,” and is it right to interpret an improvement in well-being as a cure? The duration of Nikolai's last illness is precisely established - just over three weeks (from January 27 to February 17). For comparison: Alexander I died from an illness that lasted more than three weeks (an exact diagnosis has not been established), led. book Konstantin Pavlovich “burned out” from cholera in two days, led. book Mikhail Pavlovich died sixteen days after an “apoplexy” (stroke?). And, as B. A. Nakhapetov noted, the news of death was not so unexpected.
A conscientious memoirist, doctor of the Semenovsky Life Guards Regiment A.I. Ilyinsky, said that “dark, gradually increasing rumors” about Nikolai Pavlovich’s illness began to circulate around St. Petersburg with the beginning of Lent, that is, February 3-4. V.P. Meshchersky, at that time a student at the School of Law, recalled how on February 16 the director came to their class. He stunned the students with the news of the serious illness of Nicholas I, removed them from classes and took them to church to pray for the health of the emperor (6).
In those days, Russian newspapers published so-called bulletins on the state of the emperor’s health. Bulletins NN 1 and 2 appeared on February 18, when it became clear in the palace that the king was hopeless. The first document reported that on February 13 “His Majesty fell ill with a fever”, the second - about the patient’s well-being at 11 o’clock in the evening on February 17. Bulletin No. 3, published on February 19 with information from yesterday, spoke of the “very dangerous” state of the emperor’s health. On February 21, a manifesto was issued about the death of Nicholas I, three before the appearance of which the residents of the capital were aware of the Tsar’s serious illness. The delay in publishing the manifesto was explained by the fact that the description of the course of the disease was written by physician M. M. Mandt in German and it took time to translate. In addition, February 20 was Sunday and the newspapers were not published (7). Some clumsiness of the authorities and the press is obvious, but there is no need to talk about malicious intent. What are the reasons for the rumors surrounding the death of Nicholas I?
The transience of the death looked especially suspicious, given the fame of Nicholas I as a man of “heroic health” who “never suffered from anything.” Contemporaries unanimously speak of the good health of the emperor, “this hero of the body.” His “Apollo-Hercules design” (in the figurative expression of Dr. F. Ya. Carrel) (8), fit appearance, active lifestyle, seemingly inexhaustible energy strengthened the belief that the monarch’s body was not subjected to any serious tests . The “iron” health of the “iron emperor” was an additional illustration of the stability of the existing regime.
The facts, however, speak against this perception. The king was sick no less often than his subjects, and diseases sometimes posed a great threat to his health and life. In November 1829, Nicholas I fell ill with an “inflammatory nervous fever.” In three days, the illness weakened the king physically and mentally so much that doctors did not rule out death. The most prudent courtiers began to think about Nicholas's successor. Anxious expectations were reflected in the diary of a major dignitary A.S. Menshikov: “God forbid that we lose him and leave Russia a regency” (9). Shortly before this incident, in May 1828, the tsar also suffered from a fever while in the army near Brailov. In March 1847, the emperor again “developed something like a fever,” accompanied by stabbing in the side and a rush of blood. As Korf later recalled, “we owed only leeches and other energetic means for saving his life.” In the same year, Korf mentions the “catarrhal disease” of Nicholas I, associated with a disorder of the bile duct. The illness immediately took on “a character, if not yet completely dangerous, then at least very serious.” The tsar also suffered poorly from colds, the last of which brought him to his grave - in January 1833 he wrote in a letter to his “father-commander” I.F. Paskevich: “Having caught a cold at a masquerade, ... suddenly I was knocked to such an extent that he could force himself to fall off" (10). In 1844 - 1845 The king's legs hurt and were swollen - doctors suspected dropsy.
Some diseases passed into a chronic stage, which allowed Corfu, whose memories in some places take the form of Nicholas I’s sick leave, to talk about the monarch’s “frequent illnesses.” In recent years, the king was plagued by attacks of gout. Throughout his life, he suffered from severe headaches that brought him to a semi-fainting state. They were accompanied by dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and nosebleeds. Biographer of Nicholas I L.V. Vyskochkov believes that the “ebb and flow” of blood was caused by changes in blood pressure as a manifestation of vegetative-vascular dysfunction (impaired muscular regulation of the vascular wall). The emperor probably owed his headaches to psychophysical overload. Powerful stressful situations even changed the appearance of the king: in such cases, those around him noted his pallor, tired appearance, and a certain brokenness. This was the case in 1826 after the Decembrist uprising, when the tsar took over the affairs of the retiring A. A. Arakcheev; in 1844 after the death of her daughter Alexandra (according to Grand Duke Olga Nikolaevna, “it was truly terrible to look at Pap: completely unexpectedly he became an old man”). The same changes in the appearance of Nicholas I were noted after the suppression of the Hungarian revolution of 1848 - 1849: he looked “if not an old man, then, in any case, very aged.” This was the case during the failures of the Crimean campaign. A. F. Tyutcheva pointed out the monarch’s depression: “He has a kind of lifeless look, a leaden complexion, his forehead... every day is covered with new wrinkles” (11).
The above is far from a complete “medical record” of Nicholas I; it testifies to the discrepancy between the image of the “iron emperor” and the real state of his health. But, speaking about the fatal consequences of a cold in the winter of 1855, we must not forget about one important circumstance. The Tsar was on the verge of old age - in July 1855 he would have turned 59 years old. He outlived all his brothers, who died at an earlier age than him. Alexander I died at 48 years old, Konstantin - 52, Mikhail - 51. In comparison with other Pavlovichs, Nikolai is almost a long-liver. Of the reigning men of the House of Romanov, only Alexander II, who was killed by the Narodnaya Volya, lived longer - 63 years.
The impetus for suicide, according to supporters of the version of Nicholas’s “unnatural” death, was the failure of the Russian army in the Crimea, namely the defeat near Yevpatoria on February 5, 1855. A. I. Herzen hinted at this causal connection when he spoke, wittily parodying the official diagnosis, about “Eupatoria in the lungs,” which killed the emperor. Finding himself on the verge of a nervous breakdown, after the arrival of a courier with bad news from near Yevpatoria, the tsar allegedly decided to take his own life. Indeed, the events of the war affected the emotional state of the emperor. Tyutcheva noted that the sovereign was crying, “his nerves were in the most deplorable state.” The courtiers said among themselves that at night he “bowed to the ground before the church,” and in his office “he cried like a child when he received every bad news.” Minister of State Property Kiselyov recalled: “In recent months [the emperor] was tired, and no matter how much he wanted to overcome mental anxiety, it was expressed on his face more than in speeches, which, when talking about the most sad events, concluded with one ordinary exclamation: “Create, God, your will! "" (12)
Nicholas I had reason to be despondent; he rejoiced at the slightest success of the Russian army in Crimea. And yet one should not exaggerate the significance of the unfavorable news about what happened near Evpatoria. Hoping for the best, the king prepared for the worst. In letters dated early February 1855, Nicholas I pointed out to Adjutant General M.D. Gorchakov and Field Marshal Paskevich the possibility of “failure in Crimea” and the need to prepare the defense of Nikolaev and Kherson. He considered the likelihood of Austria entering the war to be very high and gave orders regarding possible military operations in the Kingdom of Poland and Galicia. The tsar did not have any special illusions regarding the neutrality of Prussia (13). The failure to storm Evpatoria dealt another painful blow to Nicholas’s pride and the country’s prestige, but was not an event that would have predetermined the outcome of the war. The fate of the campaign depended on the defenders of Sevastopol, who continued to fight until the end of August 1855.
There was also such an important circumstance as the tsar’s deep religiosity, which hardly allowed even the thought of suicide. In matters of faith (as, indeed, in other fundamental issues), the tsar, with his characteristic pedantry, attached great importance to the formal side, external rituals and observed all religious prohibitions. Unauthorized death is the gravest offense of a Christian, a “mortal sin” that surpasses even murder in criminality, and the 58-year-old emperor, with a long-established, one might say, ossified system of life coordinates, would not dare to step over this tradition. But for Nicholas I this is also a gross violation of subordination in relations with God. Defining the meaning of his own earthly existence, the emperor said: “I look at my human life only as a service, since everyone serves” (14). Therefore, adjutant V.I. Den resolutely rejected any suggestions of suicide: “Whoever knew Nikolai Pavlovich closely could not help but appreciate the deeply religious feeling that distinguished him and which, of course, would help him endure all the blows of fate with Christian humility, no matter how difficult, no matter how sensitive they may be for his pride" (15).
Apparently, we will have to agree with the conclusion of the writer A. Troyat, who claims that Nicholas I was “too pious” to commit suicide. But, reasoning in this way, this writer was unable to overcome the dramatic temptation and moved the suicidal aspirations of Nicholas I from the sphere of conscious choice to the region of the subconscious. They say, already suffering from a cold, the emperor ignored the advice of doctors and, in severe frosts, held a review of his troops. The secret desire to “accelerate the course of events without resorting to suicide” was evident. But this is the point of view of a fiction writer who has the right to fiction. Tarle took, in essence, the same position in relation to “all these incomprehensible trips in a summer raincoat and walks of a person with a high temperature in twenty-three degree frost” (16).
Here we are talking about cases that occurred during the development of the disease, on February 9 and 10. Nicholas I then neglected the persistent requests of his relatives and did not heed the persuasion of the doctors. Dr. Carrel especially insisted, convincing the highest patient to stay at home: “Your Majesty... there is not a single doctor in your army who would allow a private to be discharged from the hospital in the position you are in and in such cold (22 degrees); mine It is my duty to demand that you do not leave the room." Nicholas I simply ignored all the doctor’s arguments: “You have fulfilled your duty... let me fulfill mine” (17).
If we abandon a certain preconception in studying the issue, it becomes clear that there is nothing unusual in the behavior of Nicholas I. The emperor belonged to the common type of patients who neglect the recommendations of doctors, do not comply with bed rest and endure the disease “on their feet.” This is confirmed by many testimonies. At the end of 1847, Nikolai “got sick” so much that he could hardly move, but they managed to put him to bed only after much persuasion. In the winter of 1849, a story happened that repeated itself exactly six years later: Nikolai caught a bad cold, and Carrel, “despite the cruel suffering of the patient, could not persuade him to go to bed.” During his fatal illness, he led. book Mikhail Pavlovich, the tsar regularly visited his brother, overcoming another attack of severe headache. To help the king overcome his faintness, cologne and vinegar were constantly poured over his head (18).
Nicholas I once admitted to Corfu his distrust “of doctors and medicine in general” (19). Of course, he had a staff of personal physicians with him, but their professional skills were often of no use. Medical examinations and consultations turned out to be an empty formality (the emperor, as is known, attached enormous importance to maintaining the form). Assistant physician N. F. Arendt recalled that they “were obliged to appear to the sovereign at 7–8 o’clock in the morning, when tea or coffee was prepared, and at this time a simple conversation, rather than an official one, usually began” (20). During his illnesses, Nikolai was extremely reluctant to listen to doctors’ advice and continued to lead his usual lifestyle until the illness finally knocked him down. The king often resorted to methods of alternative medicine and self-medication. Having learned that Tyutcheva had a back pain, he immediately offered her a recipe he had tried on himself - to rub her back with ice (21). The emperor cured the “erysipelas” (inflammation) on his leg using “sympathetic means”, that is, in modern language, he turned to the services of a psychic. A certain General Rusconi “spoke” to Nikolai with a handkerchief, with which he rubbed his sore leg three times, and the “erysipelas” really went away (22). Naturally, with such disdain for medicine, Nikolai, even in the days of his last illness, still relied on “maybe,” guided by the rule so characteristic of a significant category of patients: “Everything will pass on its own.”
As for the summer raincoat in which he appeared before the troops in frosty weather, such an act can be explained by the tsar’s desire to demonstrate to the military units leaving for the theater of operations a certain prowess: they say, the Russian emperor is not afraid of anything - neither frost nor the enemy. Here one can see a kind of funky bravado, characteristic of all Pavlovichs. O Vel. book Konstantin Pavlovich P. S. Pushchin in his diary cited a characteristic episode from the history of the Patriotic War of 1812: “The Grand Duke, having become the head of the cavalry for the campaign, appeared in only one uniform without a coat, despite the severe cold. He wanted to set an example, but We felt cold looking at him." Alexander I also repeatedly appeared lightly dressed in parades and army parades in severe frosts. By the way, Alexander I’s horseback ride, wearing only his “uniform” in cold October weather, began the illness that ended with his death on November 19, 1825. Nicholas I, appearing at the military review in a summer raincoat, acted in the spirit of family tradition, and such demonstrations by the emperor have long become commonplace. In 1854, during a visit to Helsingfors, he came out to greet the assembled people without an overcoat, in only a uniform, despite the fresh March wind... (23)
Two main circumstances led to the fatal outcome of the last tsar’s illness: the frivolity of Nicholas I, which was usual for him during the treatment process, and the negligence of the court doctors, more precisely, one of them, Mandt, who was the only doctor who earned the absolute trust of the tsar. The royal favor towards him was so great that once, during a serious illness, the autocrat moved from his office to a room on the floor below, so that Mandt, whose leg hurt, would not bother himself too much by constantly going upstairs to see him (24). As you know, Nicholas I was extremely constant in his affections and trusted his favorites even when they did not deserve it (just remember the scandalous story with the theft of P. A. Kleinmichel). Mandt's colleagues and people who knew him spoke of him as an intelligent, talented person, with a strong character, and at the same time noted his careerism, vanity, and categorical judgment.
Mandt's professional integrity was doubted by many of his colleagues; he was accused (in a low voice, of course) of almost charlatanism. The life doctor’s biography notes a period of fascination with magical practice and “magnetism” (hypnosis), which should not be surprising: many scientific authorities of that time indulged in this kind of experimentation. As a result, Mandt created his own “system”, the so-called “atomistic method”. Despite official support, Mandt’s “system” did not receive real recognition either in scientific circles or among medical practitioners and was debunked immediately after the death of his highest patron. (The essence of the “system” was the then fashionable use of “waters” for patients, the use of homeopathic methods, the abandonment of complex recipes and the reduction of medicinal doses. Mandt also practiced a variety of diets and fasting treatment) (25). Mandt’s “method” hardly provided any tangible benefit to his clients, but it also did not cause any visible damage to their health.
The doctor did not attach due importance to the tsar’s illness, since it was a common cold, a “mild flu”, the epidemic of which swept throughout St. Petersburg. Mandt's fault lay mainly in his inability to insist on bed rest. However, Carrel, who joined Mandt on February 8, failed to do this. Carrel was reproached for weak character, for the fact that “he did not dare to make a word in front of Mandt, being at that time still quite young and inexperienced in court life” (26). But Carrel, as the empress’s attending physician, was formally obliged to obey Mandt, who also occupied the highest level in the court medical hierarchy (“life-medical consultant”). Mandt correctly diagnosed the disease, but his vaunted “atomistic method”, with such a rapidly progressing disease, naturally did not bring a positive result. The drug recipe was changed on the eve of Nikolai’s death, when Professor I.V. Enokhin joined the attending physicians, but it was too late.
The most thorough, and perhaps the only “author’s” evidence that speaks in favor of the version of poisoning is the memoirs of Dr. A.V. Pelikan, grandson of the director of the medical department and head of the Medical-Surgical Academy V.V. Pelikan: “On the day death of Nicholas, my grandfather came to see us as usual, was extremely excited and said that the emperor was very bad, that his death was expected any hour. Soon after my grandfather’s departure, my father unexpectedly appeared from the department and announced that the emperor was gone. My father was very excited , his eyes were heavily tear-stained, although, due to his mentality and character, he could not feel sympathy for the formidable Tsar... Soon after the death of Nikolai, Mandt disappeared from the St. Petersburg horizon. Subsequently, I heard his story more than once. According to his grandfather, Mandt gave poison to Nikolai, who wanted to commit suicide at all costs.These circumstances were well known to the grandfather, thanks to his closeness to Mandt, and also due to the fact that his grandfather had to endure some official troubles because of this. Shortly before the death of Nicholas I, the already famous anatomist Wenzel Gruber was invited from Vienna to become a professor of anatomy at the academy. On the instructions of his grandfather, who at the time of Nikolai Pavlovich’s death combined the positions of director of the military medical department and president of the medical-surgical academy, Gruber was entrusted with embalming the body of the deceased emperor. Despite his great learning, Gruber in everyday life was a very narrow-minded, naive, not of this world person. He did not fail to draw up a report on the autopsy of the body of the late emperor and, finding this report interesting from a forensic point of view, he printed it in Germany. For this he was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he was kept for some time, until his intercessors managed to establish simplicity of heart and the absence of any ulterior thoughts. Grandfather, as the then-chief of the ill-fated anatomist, had to justify his imprudent recommendation. Until the end of his life, his grandfather treated Mandt kindly and always considered it a virtue that he remained faithful to him in friendship, even when St. Petersburg society, following the example of the court, closed its doors to Mandt. Grandfather alone continued to visit and receive Mandt. The ethical question... was raised by us more than once during our student days in the presence of our grandfather. Many of us blamed Mandt for giving in to the Emperor's demands. They found that Mandt, as a doctor, was obliged to sacrifice his position, even his life, rather than fulfill the will of the monarch and bring him poison. Grandfather found such judgments too straightforward. According to him, no one would have dared to refuse Nikolai’s request. Yes, such a refusal would lead to an even greater scandal. The autocratic emperor would have achieved his goal without Mandt's help; he would have found another way to commit suicide, and perhaps more noticeable. Nicholas had no choice but to choose between drawing lots or signing a humiliating peace (his allies would not have given him anything else), admitting his guilt to the people and humanity, or committing suicide. Boundlessly proud and proud, Nikolai could not hesitate and save his life at the cost of shame" (27).
This, I repeat, is the only “author’s” version of the king’s suicide, which deserves the closest attention. The memoirist diligently avoids anonymous and impersonal phrases like: “according to rumors,” “they said in the city,” etc. His story is credible: it is full of plausible details and confident references to specific individuals. Perhaps this is why researchers constantly use the testimony of Pelikan Jr., however, avoiding its critical analysis. Meanwhile, this source needs criticism no less than others.
Firstly, the tone in which Nicholas I is spoken about attracts attention. Mentions of him are accompanied by the epithets “autocratic”, “proud”, “proud”. The Pelican family adhered to rather liberal views: Pelican the father, as well as the son, had no sympathy for the “formidable king,” judging by the ironic remark about the people’s groan and official Russia. Grandfather was not entitled to free-thinking by his position, but he, according to Pelikan Jr., had extremely dangerous conversations with students regarding the august suicide. Amazing courage on the part of a high-ranking official!
It was in liberal circles that the version of the emperor’s suicide became most widespread. It was presented in half-hints or direct speech by A. I. Herzen, N. A. Dobrolyubov, N. V. Shelgunov and other publicists of democratic convictions. For the Russian “progressive public,” the suicide of Nikolai Pavlovich was an indirect recognition of defeat in the Crimean War, a recognition of the depravity of the political “system” that he adhered to for 30 years, and a recognition of the need for change.
In the eyewitness accounts closest to the center of the palace events, rumors of the king’s suicide were not considered worthy of attention. In Tyutcheva’s diary, sympathetically critical of Nicholas I, there is an entry on this matter: “They talk about poisoning, they claim that the party hostile to the war wanted to get rid of the emperor, they blame Mandt, who has long been distrusted, in a word, thousands of ridiculous rumors, which often arise in moments of unexpected crises, rumors that are believed by the masses, always greedy for everything extraordinary and terrible. For them, everything seems possible, except for what really is" (28). Liberal-minded contemporaries chose one out of thousands of rumors.
Thus, the people were sure that the tsar was poisoned, liberal circles - that he was poisoned, at court they believed that Nicholas died from improper treatment. N. Ya. Eidelman noted that the question of how Nicholas I died was directly related to the political and ideological battles of the time (29) and reflected the psychology of certain social groups. Unfortunately, neither Eidelman himself nor other serious historians, such as Schilder, Tarle, escaped the temptation to follow the liberal tradition, which presented the personality and activities of Nicholas I exclusively in a negative way.
Secondly, it is very doubtful that Mandt, a man who had reached a high position, a life physician who knew a lot about palace intrigue, who was aware of many intimate aspects of the life of the emperor and his family, could decide to take such a brave and stupid step - to admit that that he helped a royal patient go to the next world. What motives prompted the life doctor to have frank conversations with Pelican - a desire to justify himself, a feeling of gratitude for the fact that he did not turn away from him, like everyone else? In any case, the spread of such a version put an end to Mandt’s career. Having lived in Russia for a long time, Mandt understood that divulging the secrets of the august family would entail repressive measures: at best, he would be made “not allowed to travel abroad.” However, no one stopped him, and he soon left the empire. Finding himself beyond the reach of the Russian authorities, Mandt published an article in Berlin about Nicholas's dying illness, which basically repeated the official version. And yet, just in case, the tsarist government banned the reprinting of the article in Russia, thereby facilitating the spread of a wide variety of rumors (30).
It is difficult to imagine an unlucky physician receiving Pelican with the intention of telling the story of the poison, and even at a time when people were gathering under the windows “and laughing, screaming, cursing” and demanding that he be handed over for execution. Dobrolyubov wrote in his diary: “If Mandt had been extradited, the people would probably have torn him apart” (31). Another contemporary, in fact, in the same words, described the tension that arose around the court doctor: “A dense mass of people crowded on Palace Square. The name of Dr. Mandt became hated; he himself was afraid to appear on the street, since there was a rumor that the people were going to kill this ill-fated German.. They said that the doctor prepared medicines for the patient with his own hands, and not in the palace pharmacy, bringing them with him in his pocket; they said that he gave the patient powders of his own invention, from which the sovereign died" (32). Lady-in-waiting M.P. Frederike: “The people saw an unnatural death here, and the crowds rushed to the Winter Palace, demanding reprisals against the doctor Mandt. The latter was saved; he fled from the Winter Palace through the back doors. Mandt was in imminent danger of being torn to shreds by the people” ( 33). The manager of the III department, Dubelt: “The people could still hear complaints about the doctors: “If they had given them to us, we would have torn them apart!”” (34) Therefore, the skepticism that arises about Mandt’s sincere outpourings to Pelican Sr. is quite appropriate. In such a heated atmosphere, confirmation of participation (or complicity) in the death of the king was associated with great risk to life.
Thirdly, the story with V.L. Gruber remains unclear. The article by the “ill-fated” Viennese anatomist, allegedly published in Berlin, has not yet been discovered by researchers. Nakhapetov, after his research, claims that in 1855 - 1856. Gruber did not publish anything abroad (35). If this article was published, it did not contain anything that could attract the attention of the general public. Otherwise, sensational details hinting at the emperor's suicide would have been repeated in European newspapers. The war had not yet ended, Nicholas’s reputation in Europe left much to be desired, and Russia’s opponents would not have missed the opportunity to use such an article. But there was no newspaper fuss: the public’s indifference to the ordinary protocol on the autopsy of a body, even an imperial one, is quite natural. Judging by the memoirs of Pelikan Jr., Gruber was not persecuted for the contents of the printed protocol. The very fact of the unauthorized publication of such an important document, according to the censorship realities of the Nicholas era, already constituted a serious offense. And yet, imprisonment in the Peter and Paul Fortress... Has Pelican Jr. exaggerated his colors? Or is this a fiction - after all, Gruber’s name is not on the list of prisoners of the Peter and Paul Fortress (36). Most likely, the autopsy report drawn up by Gruber did not exist at all, since it was carried out by other persons, while the anatomist only performed embalming. Thus, obviously, Pelican Jr. (he was still a child in 1855) brought a fair share of his own fantasies into his grandfather’s story.
The category of “grandfather’s stories” also includes information from a certain “Dr. N.K. Mosolov from Namibia,” given in an article by I.V. Zimin in support of the version of suicide. The doctor, relying on family legend, claims that his great-grandfather, life surgeon K. F. Bosse, having opened the corpse of Nicholas I, exclaimed: “What a strong poison!”, but he was ordered to remain silent about it. Zimin did not find the names of those who performed the autopsy (excluding Gruber, who embalmed the emperor’s body), but suggested that Doctor of Medicine Bosse, as a life surgeon, could be among them (37). Meanwhile, the list of persons present at the autopsy is recorded in the Chamber-Fourier journal; the name Bosse is not mentioned in it (38).
Supporters of the suicide version have a number of other circumstances and facts that require research.
They talked about the excruciating pain that accompanied the death of Nicholas I. book Elena Pavlovna, Frederica and Tyutcheva (39). The silence of this circumstance by official sources leads to certain thoughts that allow the action of poison. But, firstly, agony cannot necessarily be considered a consequence of poisoning. Secondly, the silence of newspapers about the terrible torment of the “most Orthodox Tsar” is easier to explain by censorship conditions. Apparently, Alexander II was guided by the same censorship considerations, giving instructions to edit the Chamber-Fourier journal in places relating to the last days of the life of Nicholas I. Even the obviously loyal “The Last Days of the Life of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich” by D. N. Bludov and “The Diary” were corrected "Korfa. This was the usual censorship practice of those years. Information about the health status of high-ranking patients in Russia is traditionally closed.
Another alarming point is that the emperor was embalmed twice. Former Colonel of the General Staff I.F. Savitsky explained the intense decomposition of the emperor’s body by the continued action of the poison. Like Pelican Jr., Savitsky claimed that he was personally told about the Tsar’s request to “prescribe” poison... by Dr. Mandt! The talkative physician could no longer refute or confirm the words of the memoirists, since he died abroad back in 1858. Savitsky described in his memoirs: “yellow, blue, purple spots,” “facial features cramped.” According to him, Alexander, seeing his father so disfigured, called professors of the Medical-Surgical Academy Zdekaner and Myanovsky and “commanded them to remove all signs of poisoning in any way in order to present the body in proper form four days later for public farewell. After all, all these fatal signs were confirmed would be the rumor that was already circulating in the capital about the poisoning of the emperor." Doctors “literally repainted, retouched his face, and his body was properly placed in a coffin,” surrounded by aromatic herbs (40). The last will of Nicholas I allegedly was a ban on the autopsy and embalming of his body; he “feared that during the autopsy they would reveal the secret of his death, which he wanted to take with him to the grave.”
The work of A.F. Smirnov, which claims to be sensational, is based on this short excerpt (41). But the memoirist’s outpourings are filled with all sorts of gross errors. Mandt's fabulous frankness need not be repeated. Having prohibited the autopsy of his body, Nicholas did not prohibit embalming. Professors N.F. Zdekauer, whose last name was distorted by Savitsky, and Myanovsky (unfortunately, it was not possible to find his first and patronymic) were therapists and never practiced embalming. Both the autopsy and embalming were performed by others. Signs of decomposition appeared not before embalming, but after it, and then embalming had to be repeated. One cannot rely on the objectivity of the memoirs of Savitsky, a former colonel of the General Staff, a participant in the Polish uprising of 1863-1864. and a political emigrant who called the emperor “a monster in huge boots with tin bullets for eyes.”
Tyutcheva’s diary gives a different interpretation of the events: Nicholas I “himself made all the orders in the event of his death and wished to be embalmed according to the Ganolo system, which consists in making a simple incision in the artery and introducing an electric current there.” The farewell to the emperor took place in a small room, where many people gathered who wanted to say goodbye to the king, and the heat was almost unbearable (42). It is easier to assume that the emperor’s body was exposed to these causes, rather than poison. Tyutcheva’s note, however, contains an inaccuracy due to the lady-in-waiting’s excusable incompetence in the field of medicine. Embalming according to the Ganolo system (in another transcription - Gannal) implied the introduction of special antiseptic solutions into the “object” without the need to open the body. Gruber punctually followed the instructions of this innovative method, but the organizers of the Tsar’s funeral did not heed his advice not to touch Nicholas’s body until the injected solution entered into a chemical reaction. “As the time for the funeral service in the Highest presence was approaching, those around them did not pay attention to Gruber’s warning and hastened to dress the deceased emperor, as a result of which one of the large veins burst, the solution injected into the veins poured into the body cavities and could not produce the desired effect. Remains the emperor soon fell into disintegration" (43). Professors P. A. Naranovich and I. V. Enokhin had to urgently embalm Nikolai’s body a second time.
Since Gruber failed to cope with the task assigned to him, a special commission headed by Naranovich conducted an “official investigation”, but did not find any violations of the procedure. The final conclusion of the commission read: “If the entrails had been removed during embalming, then preserving the body intact would have been much more likely; but since the entrails were left untouched, embalming began a considerable time after death, then used by prosectors Gruber and Schultz (Gruber’s assistant . - P.S.) we consider the method more correct" (44). Naranovich drew up a dissenting opinion, in which he attributed Gruber’s failure to the inexperience of the anatomist, associated with the novelty of the method. Posthumous innovation thus played a cruel joke on the conservative Nicholas I. For Gruber, this story ended without any consequences. All participants in the initial embalming were awarded, which completely refutes the story of Pelikan Jr. about the imprisonment of the Viennese anatomist in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Moreover, he made a brilliant career in Russia and for his numerous scientific works received the nickname “Pimen of the Russian anatomical school” (45).
So, the “mystery of the death of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich,” the answer to which is supposedly given by the version of the king’s suicide, is one of the persistent legends that have taken root in historical literature. The arguments advanced against the traditional view are drawn largely from dubious sources. About the true reasons for the death of Nicholas I, Tyutchev’s maid of honor probably said it best: “He was killed by recent political events, and not so much the war and its failures, but the bitterness and baseness of not only his enemies, but also those in whom he saw his friends and comrades on whom he considered himself entitled to count... All the last acts of his reign, marked by indecision and contradictions, testify to the painful struggle that took place in the soul of this man, truthful and noble even in his errors" (46). Rumors and speculation about the august suicide can only be of interest as material about the attitude of various layers of society to the death of Nicholas I and to himself. There are no sufficient grounds to reject the government version, which has understandable flaws and contradictions.

Notes:
1. See: EIDELMAN N.Ya. Herzen against autocracy. M. 1984, p. 13.
2. BLUDOV D. N. The will and last days of the life of Emperor Nicholas I. In the book: Nicholas the First and his time. T. 2. M. 2000, p. 416.
3. See: ZIMIN I.V. Doctors and autocrats: the mystery of the death of Nicholas I. - Domestic History, 2001, No. 4, p. 58; MILYUTIN D. A. The death of Nikolai Pavlovich. - Rodina, 1999, N 9, p. 60.
4. ZIMIN I. V. Uk. cit., p. 58 - 62; NAKHAPETOV B. A. Secrets of the doctors of the Romanov house. M. 2005, p. 70 - 91.
5. TARLE E. V. Crimean War. T. 2. M. 2003, p. 344.
6. NAKHAPETOV B. A. Uk. cit., p. 84; MESHCHERSKY V. P. My memories. M. 2003, p. 28 - 29.
7. NAKHAPETOV B. A. Uk. cit., p. 71 - 72.
8. KORF M. A. Notes. M. 2003, p. 451.
9. SHILDER N.K. Emperor Nicholas the First. T. 2. M. 1997, p. 245, 404.
10. See: VYSKOCCHOV L. V. Nikolai I. M. 2003, p. 494.
11. CORF M. A. Uk. cit., p. 293, 450, 493, 496; TYUTCHEVA A. F. At the court of two emperors. Tula. 1990, p. 104, 105.
12. TYUTCHEVA A. F. Uk. cit., p. 105.
13. Nicholas the First and his time. M. 2000, vol. 1. p. 192 - 195; see also: TARLE E.V. Uk. op. T. 2, p. 336 - 340.
14. SHILDER N.K. Uk. op. T. 1, p. 140.
15. Quote. by: NAKHAPETOV B. A. Uk. cit., p. 83.
16. TROYAT A. Nikolay 1. M. 2002, p. 211; TARLE E. V. Uk. op. T. 2, p. 340.
17. BLUDOV D. N. Uk. op. T. 2, p. 415.
18. CORF M. A. Uk. cit., p. 382, 451, 482.
19. Ibid., p. 54.
20. ZIMIN I. V. Uk. cit., p. 57.
21. TYUTCHEVA A. F. Uk. cit., p. 113. Nikolai instilled this original style of “treatment” in his sons. Korf, in one of his conversations with the grand dukes, complained of feverish chills. And he received advice from Mikhail Nikolaevich to “drink hot tea at night and cover yourself well with an overcoat” (see: KORF M.A. Uk. soch., p. 565).
22. See: VYSKOVKOV L.V. Uk. cit., p. 495 - 496.
23. Quote. from: ibid., p. 69, 285.
24. CORF M. A. Uk. cit., p. 392.
25. Nakhapetov B. A. Uk. cit., p. 173 - 176.
26. From the memoirs of Baroness M. P. Frederike. - Historical Bulletin, 1898, No. 2, p. 481.
27. PELICAN A. V. Change of reign. - Voice of the Past, 1914, N 2, p. 120 - 121; TARLE E. V. Uk. op. T. 2, p. 347 - 348.
28. TYUTCHEVA A. F. Uk. cit., p. 131.
29. EIDELMAN N. Y. Uk. cit., p. 18.
30. Ibid., p. 17.
31. Ibid., p. 15.
32. Quote. by: TARLE E. V. Uk. op. T. 2, p. 345.
33. FREDERICKS M. P. Uk. cit., p. 481.
34. Quote. by: ZIMIN I.V. Uk. cit., p. 62.
35. NAKHAPETOV B. A. Uk. cit., p. 89.
36. Ibid., p. 89 - 90.
37. ZIMIN I. V. Uk. cit., p. 64.
38. EIDELMAN N. Y. Uk. cit., p. 15.
39. FREDERICKS M. P. Uk. cit., p. 477 - 478; TYUTCHEVA A. F. Uk. cit., p. 121, 123.
40. Quote. by: NAKHAPETOV B. A. Uk. cit., p. 73 - 74.
41. SMIRNOV A.F. The mysterious death of Nicholas 1. - On the roads of millennia, 1991, issue. 4, p. 134 - 160.
42. TYUTCHEVA A. F. Uk. cit., p. 130.
43. Quote. by: NAKHAPETOV B. A. Uk. cit., p. 86, 88 - 89.
44. Quote. by: VYSKOVKOV L.V. Uk. cit., p. 597.
45. See: NAKHAPETOV B. A. Uk. cit., p. 89.
46. ​​TYUTCHEVA A. F. Uk. cit., p. 131.

Obviously, it was not the one who won, but the one who convinced who won. Convinced everyone of his victory. What the Anglo-Saxons are very good at doing.

The British also acquired the habit of poisoning or otherwise destroying Russian sovereigns, and then slandering them by publishing various little books. They did the first such experiment with Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible.

2 Highlighted in turquoise are what seemed strange to me:

– ban on opening;

– unusually rapid decomposition of a corpse (several hours);

– the reasons for the fuss of a third-rate person - an officer in the retinue of Tsarevich Savitsky - are unclear in pushing the version of the emperor’s suicide;

- the fact of writing a book, such a favorite way of British intelligence to cast a shadow over the fence;

– quick departure to civilized countries of the life physicianMandta (homeopath).

http://www.rmj.ru/articles_3960.htm

RMZh Independent publication of medical practitioners

Legends about the death of Nicholas I

1506

Gorelova L.E.

February 18, 1855* died suddenly NikolaiI. It was officially announced that the sovereign caught a cold at the parade and died of pneumonia.

On March 24, 1855, Count D.N.’s book was published. Bludov (chief manager II Department) “The Last Hours of the Emperor’s Life” Nicholas First." This book completely excluded the possibility of the emperor’s suicide “as a worthy member of the Church of Christ.” The official reason was published of deathNicholasI. “This precious life was put to an end by a cold, which at first seemed insignificant, but, unfortunately, was combined with other causes of disorder, which had long been hidden in a constitution that was only apparently strong, but in fact shocked, even exhausted by the labors of extraordinary activity, worries and sorrows , this common destiny of humanity and, perhaps even more so, of the Throne.”

But in the first days after death NicholasI and arose legends about the sudden of death emperor, which began to spread with lightning speed. First legend–NikolaiI could not survive the defeat in the Crimean campaign and committed suicide; second - physician Mandt poisoned the Tsar.

Let us turn to the life story of Nicholas I.

In 1826, shortly after ascending the throne, Nicholas I introduced himself to his contemporaries this way: “Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich was then 32 years old. He was tall, lean, had a wide chest, somewhat long arms, an oblong, clean face, an open forehead, a Roman nose, a moderate mouth, a quick look, a sonorous voice, suitable for a tenor, but he spoke somewhat quickly. In general, he was very slender and agile. Neither arrogant importance nor windy haste was noticeable in his movements, but some kind of genuine severity was visible. The freshness of his face and everything about him showed iron health and served as proof that youth was not pampered and life was accompanied by sobriety and moderation.”

And later, contemporaries paid attention to the “iron health of the emperor.” Nicholas I's health problems began in 1843. While traveling across Russia, on the road from Penza to Tambov, the sovereign's carriage overturned, and the tsar broke his collarbone. From that time on, Nikolai Pavlovich’s health generally began to fail, and, most importantly, nervous irritability appeared. Stories such as the cholera riot on Sennaya Square in St. Petersburg or the fire of the Winter Palace, when many valuables and important documents were lost, had a negative impact on the tsar’s health. After the fire, every time he saw fire or smelled smoke, Nikolai Pavlovich turned pale, felt dizzy and complained of heart palpitations. He felt especially bad in 1844-1845 - his legs hurt and were swollen, and doctors were afraid that dropsy would begin. He went to Palermo (Italy) for treatment.

In the spring of 1847, Nikolai Pavlovich began to experience severe dizziness. He looked gloomily at his personal life, at the future of Russia and at the fate of Europe. The Emperor was very worried death many figures of his reign - Prince A.N. Golitsyna, M.M. Speransky, A.Kh. Benckendorf.

Political and military events in Europe had a heavy impact on Russia. The French Revolution of 1848 could not improve the health of the Russian Tsar. But the last point in the life of Nicholas I was set by the Crimean campaign, the history of which is known to everyone. On September 11, 1854, the defense of Sevastopol began. The Crimean campaign was lost. The emperor's depressed state intensified.

This is how the emperor’s condition was presented in memoirs a month before of death. “Put into such a difficult situation, no matter how hard His Majesty tried to overcome himself, to hide his inner torment,” writes V. Panaev (director of the Emperor’s office), it began to be revealed by the gloominess of his gaze, pallor, even some kind of darkening of his beautiful face and the thinness of his entire bodies. Given his state of health, the slightest cold could develop a dangerous disease in him. And so it happened. Not wanting to refuse gr. Kleinmichel, in a request to be seated by his father with his daughter, the sovereign went to the wedding, despite the severe frost, wearing a red horse guards uniform with elk trousers and silk stockings. This evening was the beginning of his illness: he caught a cold. Returning, he did not complain about anything, but spent the night without sleep, trying to explain this to Grimm (the valet) not by illness, but by the awkward position in bed and the sheet that was often thrown off under him and did not allow him to sleep: he spent the second and third nights also restlessly, but continued to leave. Neither in the city, nor even at court did they pay attention to the sovereign’s illness; they said that he had a cold, was unwell, but was not lying down. The sovereign did not express concerns about his health, either because he really did not suspect any danger, or, more likely, in order not to disturb his kind subjects. For this last reason, he forbade the printing of bulletins about his illness. This illness continued with various changes from the last days of January until February 9th.”

From the entries in the Chamber-Fourier journal it is known that the emperor, having been ill for 5 days, became stronger and went to the Mikhailovsky Manege to inspect the troops. Upon returning, the emperor felt worse: his cough and shortness of breath increased. But the next day, Nicholas I went again to Manezh to inspect the marching battalions of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky reserve regiments. On February 11, he could no longer get out of bed.

From the records of the Chamber-Fourier journals it is clear that from February 10 to 15, the emperor’s illness waxed and waned. “His Lord slept little on the night of the 14th of February, the fever almost stopped. The head is free." February 15, Tuesday: “His Lord spent the night of February 15 a little better, although yesterday there was excitement. Pulse today is satisfactory. Cough: sputum eruption is not strong.” February 16, Wednesday: “Yesterday, after feverish movement, accompanied by rheumatic pain under the right shoulder, His Lordship slept that night, but not so calmly. There is no headache, mucus production is free, and there is no fever.”

It is necessary to pay attention to another important fact, namely the depressing impression that the telegram he received on February 12 about the defeat of the Russian troops near Evpatoria made on Nicholas. These days, from February 12 to 17, introduce a new element into the mood of Nikolai, who has almost recovered from the flu; physically healthy, he is experiencing a psychological crisis, physical malaise gives way to mental breakdown. He is overcome by despair, which is an unusual state for Nikolai, who prided himself on his equanimity.

Apparently, this news deals the emperor the final psychological blow. “How many lives have been sacrificed for nothing,” he repeated these words in the last days of his life (where did the information come from?, specifically, who did he tell? - he didn’t walk around the palace repeating all the time..).

On the night of February 17-18, Nicholas I became sharply worse. He began to experience paralysis. What caused the paralysis? This remains a mystery. If the emperor committed suicide, who gave him the poison? Two physicians took turns at the bedside of the sick emperor: Dr. Karell and Dr. Mandt. In memoirs and historical literature, suspicion falls on Dr. Mandt, although at the beginning of the development of paralysis he was not present under Nikolai. There were enough publications about the emperor’s suicide at that time. “The Bell” in 1859 (“Letters from a Russian person”) reported that Nicholas I poisoned himself with the help of Mandt.

The fact of suicide is confirmed by the memoirs of Colonel I.F. Savitsky, adjutant of Tsarevich Alexander. Savitsky writes: “The German Mandt, a homeopath, the tsar’s favorite physician, whom popular rumor accused of the death (poisoning) of the emperor, forced to flee abroad, told me about the last minutes of the great ruler:

“After receiving a dispatch about the defeat near Yevpatoria (the Crimean War, Savitsky specifically explains, was a struggle for hegemony in Europe. And Nicholas I took the failure of General Khrulev near Yevpatoria as a harbinger of the complete collapse of his greatness), Nicholas I summoned me and declared: “You have always been loyal to me, and therefore I want to speak with you confidentially - the course of the war has revealed the fallacy of my entire foreign policy, but I have neither the strength nor the desire to change and take a different path, this would contradict my convictions. Let my son after mine of death will make this turn. She is not able to and must leave the stage, so I called you to ask you to help me. Give me poison that would allow me to give up my life without unnecessary suffering, quickly enough, but not suddenly (so as not to cause misunderstandings).”. In the memoirs of A. Savitsky, Mandt refuses to give poison, citing his profession and conscience.

This conversation took place on the evening of February 17, and on the night of February 18, 1855, the emperor died. By morning, rapid decomposition of the body began. Yellow, blue, and purple spots appeared on the stern face of the deceased. The lips were parted, sparse teeth were visible. The cramped features of his face indicated that the emperor was dying in great agony.

In the morning, the sovereign heir Alexander was horrified to see his father so disfigured, and called two doctors: Zdekaner and Myanovsky - professors of the Medical-Surgical Academy, ordered them to remove all signs of poisoning in any way in order to present the body in proper form four days later for a general farewell according to tradition and protocol. After all, all these fatal signs would irrefutably confirm the rumor that was already circulating around the capital about the poisoning of the emperor. Two scientists called in, in order to hide the real cause of death, literally repainted, retouched the face, and it was properly processed and placed in a coffin. The new method of embalming the body they explored had not yet been worked out properly and did not prevent the rapid decomposition of the body; then they surrounded the latter with aromatic herbs to drown out the stench.

The last will of Nicholas I was prohibition on opening and embalming of his body, he feared that the autopsy would reveal the secret of his death, which he wanted to take with him to the grave (how do we know that this is Nikolai’s will!?) .

We have provided only some data regarding the death of Nicholas I. But the mystery remains a mystery, and it is unlikely that it will now be resolved. His reign began with a tragedy (the manifesto of July 13, 1826, announcing the verdict on the Decembrists) and ended in disaster. He did not survive the Crimean disaster (?!!!); it remained in the memory of posterity as one of the darkest periods of Russian history.

Literature

1. Presnyakov A.E. Nikolai I//Presnyakov A.E. Russian autocrats. –M., 1990.–S. 265,268,261.

2. Smirnov A.F. The solution to the death of the emperor // Presnyakov A.E. Russian autocrats. –M., 1990.–S. 435–462.

3. Smirnov A. The mysterious death of Nicholas I // On the roads of millennia: Sat. ist. Art. and essays. Book 4 / Comp. V.P. Yankov.–M.: Mol. Guard, 1991.–S. 134–160.

4. Chulkov G.I. Nicholas the First//Emperors: Psychological Portraits. – M.: Moscow. Worker, 1991.–S. 167–220.

Nikolai Pavlovich Romanov, the future Emperor Nicholas I, was born on July 6 (June 25, O.S.) 1796 in Tsarskoye Selo. He became the third son of Emperor Paul I and Empress Maria Feodorovna. Nicholas was not the eldest son and therefore did not claim the throne. It was assumed that he would devote himself to a military career. At the age of six months, the boy received the rank of colonel, and at three years old he was already sporting the uniform of the Life Guards Horse Regiment.

Responsibility for raising Nikolai and his younger brother Mikhail was entrusted to General Lamzdorf. Home education consisted of studying economics, history, geography, law, engineering and fortification. Particular emphasis was placed on the study of foreign languages: French, German and Latin. The humanities did not give Nikolai much pleasure, but everything related to engineering and military affairs attracted his attention. As a child, Nikolai mastered playing the flute and took drawing lessons, and this acquaintance with art allowed him to be considered a connoisseur of opera and ballet in the future.

In July 1817, Nikolai Pavlovich’s wedding took place with Princess Friederike Louise Charlotte Wilhelmina of Prussia, who after baptism took the name Alexandra Feodorovna. And from that time on, the Grand Duke began to actively take part in the arrangement of the Russian army. He was in charge of engineering units, and under his leadership, educational institutions were created in companies and battalions. In 1819, with his assistance, the Main Engineering School and schools for guards ensigns were opened. Nevertheless, the army did not like him for being excessively pedantic and picky about little things.

In 1820, a turning point occurred in the biography of the future Emperor Nicholas I: his elder brother Alexander I announced that due to the refusal of the heir to the throne Constantine, the right to reign passed to Nicholas. For Nikolai Pavlovich, the news came as a shock; he was not ready for it. Despite the protests of his younger brother, Alexander I secured this right with a special manifesto.

However, on December 1 (November 19, O.S.), Emperor Alexander I suddenly died. Nicholas again tried to renounce his reign and shift the burden of power to Constantine. Only after the publication of the tsar's manifesto, naming Nikolai Pavlovich as heir, did he have to agree with the will of Alexander I.

The date of the oath before the troops on Senate Square was set for December 26 (December 14, O.S.). It was this date that became decisive in the speech of participants in various secret societies, which went down in history as the Decembrist uprising.

The revolutionaries' plan was not implemented, the army did not support the rebels, and the uprising was suppressed. After the trial, five leaders of the uprising were executed, and a large number of participants and sympathizers went into exile. The reign of Nicholas I began very dramatically, but there were no other executions during his reign.

The crowning took place on August 22, 1826 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, and in May 1829 the new emperor assumed the rights of autocrat of the Polish kingdom.

The first steps of Nicholas I in politics were quite liberal: A. S. Pushkin returned from exile, V. A. Zhukovsky became the heir’s mentor; Nicholas’s liberal views are also indicated by the fact that the Ministry of State Property was headed by P. D. Kiselev, who was not a supporter of serfdom.

However, history has shown that the new emperor was an ardent supporter of the monarchy. His main slogan, which determined state policy, was expressed in three postulates: autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality. The main thing that Nicholas I sought and achieved with his policy was not to create something new and better, but to preserve and improve the existing order.

The emperor's desire for conservatism and blind adherence to the letter of the law led to the development of an even greater bureaucracy in the country. In fact, an entire bureaucratic state was created, the ideas of which continue to live to this day. The most severe censorship was introduced, a division of the Secret Chancellery was created, headed by Benckendorff, which conducted political investigation. Very close monitoring of the printing industry was established.

During the reign of Nicholas I, some changes affected the existing serfdom. Uncultivated lands in Siberia and the Urals began to be developed, and peasants were sent to raise them regardless of their desire. Infrastructure was created on new lands, and peasants were supplied with new agricultural equipment.

Under Nicholas I, the first railway was built. The track of Russian roads was wider than European ones, which contributed to the development of domestic technology.

A financial reform began, which was supposed to introduce a unified system for calculating silver coins and banknotes.

A special place in the tsar's policy was occupied by concern about the penetration of liberal ideas into Russia. Nicholas I sought to destroy all dissent not only in Russia, but throughout Europe. The suppression of all kinds of uprisings and revolutionary riots could not be done without the Russian Tsar. As a result, he received the well-deserved nickname “gendarme of Europe.”

All the years of the reign of Nicholas I were filled with military operations abroad. 1826-1828 - Russian-Persian War, 1828-1829 - Russian-Turkish War, 1830 - suppression of the Polish uprising by Russian troops. In 1833, the Treaty of Unkar-Iskelesi was signed, which became the highest point of Russian influence on Constantinople. Russia received the right to block the passage of foreign ships into the Black Sea. However, this right was soon lost as a result of the Second London Convention in 1841. 1849 - Russia is an active participant in the suppression of the uprising in Hungary.

The culmination of the reign of Nicholas I was the Crimean War. It was she who was the collapse of the emperor’s political career. He did not expect that Great Britain and France would come to Turkey's aid. The policy of Austria also caused concern, whose unfriendliness forced the Russian Empire to keep an entire army on its western borders.

As a result, Russia lost influence in the Black Sea and lost the opportunity to build and use military fortresses on the coast.

In 1855, Nicholas I fell ill with the flu, but, despite being unwell, in February he went to a military parade without outerwear... The emperor died on March 2, 1855.