Mr Trubetskoy. Trubetskoy

In the history of our country, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Prince Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy was a prophet [ 7_1 , 7_2 ].

On June 6, 1905, Prince Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy stood in the Alexandria Palace in Peterhof in front of Nicholas II and, on behalf of the Zemstvo delegation, spoke to him about the situation in the country. The situation in the country was terrible. In January, Port Arthur fell. January 9 - a peaceful demonstration near the Winter Palace was shot. In May - Tsushima - the Russian navy was killed. Workers' strikes, student unrest, peasant riots.

The situation with universities was catastrophic. The students were worried. Gendarmes and Cossacks beat them at demonstrations. The instigators were given to the soldiers. Unrest grew. S.N.'s speech about the situation in the country, about the futility of repression, about the need for the participation of people's representatives in governing the country, shocked the tsar.

He promised to respond positively to the calls made. And then he went up to Trubetskoy and thanked him for his words. But, in addition, he asked if it was possible to count on the resumption of classes at the university and was surprised that "a bunch of strikers are terrorizing the majority who want to study." S. N. said that the reason for the unrest lies in the general discontent. Nikolai asked S.N. to draw up a memorandum and submit it to him through the Minister of the Court, Baron Frederiks.

S.N. Trubetskoy wrote his considerations on the "university issue" (they were filed on June 21, 1905). Central to them was the call to grant (return!) autonomy to the universities. Give professors the right to correct the situation themselves, to convince students of the paramount importance of academic studies and the incompatibility of these studies with revolutionary unrest. ... The king did not fulfill his main promise - to convene people's representatives, representatives of all strata of society, and not just two estates - the nobility and the peasantry.

It's been about two months. It seemed that Nicholas II, as had happened more than once, would not keep his promises on the "university issue." But, contrary to these expectations, the tsar decided to agree with the proposals of S. N. Trubetskoy. Universities were granted autonomy and the right to elect a rector. Trubetskoy was elected rector of Moscow University. He was in this post for 28 days and died of a stroke in St. Petersburg at a meeting with the Minister of Education. The coffin with his body in St. Petersburg was escorted to the station by many thousands of people. The funeral in Moscow became, as they say now, a national event. This is what the "summary" of these events looks like.

How many tragic circumstances are hidden behind this synopsis! Why is this death of the inhabitants of the country so excited? I think it's about feeling possible but not realized historical role this man, the feeling that if Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy had not died in 1905, the history of Russia could have been different.

What was it in the Alexandria Palace? Two people, two representatives of the ancient Russian families - the Trubetskoy and the Romanovs - Prince S.N. Trubetskoy and Tsar N.A. Romanov - stood in front of each other. The prince tried to convince the king to change course - to move from a regime of suppression to cooperation with his people. To enable representatives of all strata of the people to participate in the administration of the state. Give freedom to the press. Remove class restrictions. The prince was a supporter of "ideal autocracy" based on the unity of the king and the people. If the king had followed this impression that shocked him, we would have had a different story. Who were these two people on whom the fate of Russia depended? Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy was born on August 4, 1862. On October 5 the following year, 1863, his brother Evgeny Trubetskoy was born. The brothers were very close to each other, the family had 3 more brothers and 8 sisters. A large role in the family belonged to the mother Sofya Alekseevna (Lopukhina), convinced "of the equality of people before God." These were the years after the abolition of serfdom, and the ideology of humanism corresponded to the general mood of a cultural society. Music played an important role in the life of the family.

In the autumn of 1874, Sergei entered the 3rd grade of the Moscow private gymnasium F. I. Kreiman, in 1877, in connection with the appointment of his father as the Kaluga vice-governor, he moved to the Kaluga state gymnasium, which he graduated in 1881.

In his gymnasium years, he read Darwin and Spencer, to his mother’s advice to live more with his heart, he answered: “What is the heart, mother: it is a hollow muscle that accelerates blood up and down the body” (Trubetskoy E. N. Memoirs.). During these years, he and his brother experienced an acute psychological crisis - they rejected religion. However, after a while they again became deeply religious people. Biographers note the influence on the brothers of books on philosophy (4 volumes of the "History of New Philosophy" by K. Fischer) and especially religious brochures by A.S. Khomyakov.

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov was born in 1868. He was 13 years old when his grandfather, Tsar Alexander II, was killed. His youth was spent in an atmosphere of constant fear and apprehension of new attempts on the life of his family members, and attempts to fight terror (now we are talking about the fight against "terrorism" ...). His father - Alexander III - was a constant target of terrorists. This atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, these events, the search for ways to overcome revolutionary sentiments, greatly influenced the character of the future tsar - Nicholas II.

Naturally, this atmosphere also influenced the Trubetskoy brothers. S. N. looked for answers to the main problems of human life in religion, in the philosophical foundations of religious ideology. Nicholas II - considered his main task to preserve the foundations of autocracy. S. N. was looking for answers to "eternal", "naive" questions: Does human life have any reasonable meaning, and if so, what does it consist of?

Does all human activity, the whole history of mankind, have a reasonable meaning and a reasonable goal, and what is this meaning and purpose? Does the whole world process, finally, have a meaning, does existence in general have a meaning? These questions are devoted to his main book "The Doctrine of the Logos in its history."

He believes that:

Man cannot think of his destiny independently of the destiny of mankind, that higher collective whole in which he lives and in which the full meaning of life is revealed. The evolution of the individual and society and their reasonable progress mutually determine each other. What is the purpose of this progress? S. N. writes:

For many thinkers, a perfect cultural state, a legal reasonable union of people is the ideal goal of mankind. The state is a supra-personal moral being, the embodiment of an objective, collective mind: it is the Leviathan of Hobbes, the earthly deity of Hegel. For others, the state is only a step in the unification or gathering of humanity into a single whole, into a single Great Being, le Grand Etre, as Comte called it. But in what form will the Great Being of the future humanity appear? In the image of a spiritualized Man, the "Son of Man", who will "shepherd the nations", or in the image of a many-headed "beast", a new world dragon that will trample the peoples, swallow them up and enslave everything to itself.

I stop - questions about the meaning of life and the existence of our world in general are too serious and deep to be considered in my book. The answers to these questions are by no means obvious. S.N. rhetorically answers these questions with a question - an alternative: either "The Son of Man" or "The Dragon that will trample, swallow, enslave everything." The solution of this alternative depends on the direction of history - the path that humanity will take depends on the course of specific historical events ...

So from ideal philosophy, from thinking about the meaning of life, the transition to active social activity becomes relevant - to an attempt to direct the course of history to the "Son of Man", and not to the "Dragon", and S.N. begins this activity.

Heroic idealism! High ideas, in a word, can influence only a very small, spiritualized part of "humanity". This is not the part that makes history! We know that the dragon subsequently won. During the terrible First World War and subsequent revolutions, millions of people died. The most cruel figures in world history - the fascists and the Bolsheviks - won. died the Russian Empire. Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family - wife, daughters, son - and servants loyal to them, including personal doctor E.S. Botkin, were brutally killed. (Son of S.P. Botkin!) The Russian Empire perished. Many people close to S.N. Trubetskoy died. His son Vladimir (Sergeevich) was shot, his granddaughters, the princesses, were arrested and died, and his grandsons Trubetskoy Grigory Vladimirovich and Trubetskoy Andrey Vladimirovich went through hard labor concentration camps). In the Soviet Union many millions were sent to hard labor, millions of innocent people were shot, the peasantry was annihilated. And in Germany, the Dragon used poisonous substances for murders at the front in the First World War, and in the 2nd one he created death camps for prisoners and civilians, and for the first time in history purposefully destroyed tens of thousands of children ...

Prophet Sergey Nikolaevich Trubetskoy. His whole life in those years was the life of a prophet.

He sees an impending disaster. He sees a way out. He is trying to inform the king and society about upcoming events. Tsars rarely hear prophets... Blok's poem "On the Kulikovo Field" ends with the words: Now your hour has come. - Pray! For Nicholas Alexandrovich Romanov, this hour came after the unexpected death of his father Alexander III on October 20, 1894. He became Tsar Nicholas II. The new Tsar Nicholas II was not ready for the difficult role of autocrat. The country hardly knew him. There were hopes for liberal change. O.S. writes wonderfully about this time. Trubetskaya - the sister of Sergei Nikolaevich - in the book "Prince S. N. Trubetskoy. Memoirs of a Sister", published in 1953 in New York by the Chekhov Publishing House. This book was given to me by Mikhail Andreevich Trubetskoy, the son of my university friend Andrei Vladimirovich Trubetskoy, the grandson of Sergei Nikolaevich. This is a very valuable and rare book, and I quote large passages of text from it almost unchanged. O. S. Trubetskaya:

“The accession to the throne of Tsar Nicholas II, whose appearance was still completely unclear, revived in many the hope for a change in course. people, and that social forces would be called to work together with the government, etc. Moscow revived, zemstvo addresses began to circulate in society, of which Tverskoy enjoyed special attention and success.But this revival and hopes soon came to an end: the speech of the sovereign , who gathered in St. Petersburg on January 17, 1895, spread all over the country and made the most painful impression on everyone: moreover, the end of the speech, said in a raised tone, directly offended many of those present "[7_1]. At the end of his speech, Nicholas II called “meaningless dreams” the hopes for the participation of zemstvo representatives in the affairs of the state: I know that in recent times the voices of people were heard in some zemstvo assemblies who were carried away by senseless dreams about the participation of zemstvo representatives in internal government affairs. Let everyone know that, devoting all my strength to the good of the people, I will protect the beginnings of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as my unforgettable late Parent guarded it. In response to this speech, many messages and protests from Zemstvo organizations were sent to the tsar. The most striking was the "Open Letter", which "went from hand to hand". I think the text of this letter is very relevant today. and, as in other chapters of this book, it is important to hear the original words - texts and style of the time. Here is the text of the "Open Letter" (all from the same book [ 7_1 ]). Get into it:

Student unrest increased. By 1899, they covered almost all higher educational institutions in Russia. To analyze the causes of these unrest, a government commission was created headed by the Minister of Public Education - the former Minister of War - General P. S. Vanovsky (a respected man). The question of university reform seemed to have been raised. Many professors were ready to discuss these problems. S. N. considered it necessary to proclaim the autonomy of the university. Free discussion of these problems in the press was prohibited. However, after the publication of the conclusions of the Vanovsky commission, which noted "the Emperor's dissatisfaction with the fact that" the professors could not acquire sufficient authority and moral influence to explain to students the limits of their rights and obligations, "it seemed that such a discussion was becoming possible. S. N. wrote a number of articles in "Peterburgskie Vedomosti" on problems of freedom of the press and university autonomy.... His most poignant articles were not allowed to be published.

IS HE. Trubetskaya cites part of the text of his uncensored article "At the Turn":

There is an autocracy of police officials, an autocracy of zemstvo chiefs, governors, head clerks and ministers. A single tsarist autocracy in the proper sense does not exist and cannot exist. The king, who, in the current state of state life and the state economy, can know about the benefits and needs of the people, about the state of the country and various industries government controlled only what they do not consider it necessary to hide from him, or what can reach him through a complex system of bureaucratic filters, is limited in his sovereign power in a more significant way than a monarch who is aware of the benefits and needs of the country directly by its elected representatives, as this was recognized even in the old days by the great Moscow sovereigns. The king, who is unable to control government activities or direct them himself according to the needs of the country, unknown to him, is limited in his sovereign rights by the same bureaucracy that fetters him. He cannot be recognized as an autocratic sovereign: he does not hold power, he is held by the all-powerful bureaucracy, which has entangled him with its countless tentacles. He cannot be recognized as the sovereign master of a country that he cannot know, and in which each of his servants rules with impunity, hiding behind his autocracy in his own way. And the more they shout about his autocracy, about the miraculous, divine institution necessary for Russia, the more they tighten the dead loop that binds the tsar and the people. The higher they exalt the royal power, which they deify falsely and blasphemously, the farther they remove it from the people and from the state.

S. N. himself is for autocracy, he continues: Meanwhile, the people do not need the idol of Nebuchadnezzar, not the imaginary mythological autocracy, which does not really exist, but really powerful and living royal power, free, building, giving order and law, guaranteeing legality and freedom, not arbitrariness and lack of rights. The duty of a loyal subject is not to burn the idol of autocracy incense. And in denouncing the lies of his imaginary priests, who sacrifice both the people and the living king to him (Collected works. Vol. 1. S. 466-468.)

"... On February 9, 1901, Moscow students passed a resolution on the need to embark on the path of socio-political struggle, and openly admit the entire inconsistency of the struggle for academic freedom in an unfree state ..." Moscow students paid for the meeting with exile in Siberia. S.N. went to St. Petersburg to take care of his students. He turned to Minister Vanovsky. And he turned out to be powerless not only to stop this decision, he was even denied an audience (with the tsar ...) and this only increased the unrest among the students ... From the autumn of 1901, riots resumed in all higher educational institutions and in the most insignificant occasion (as O. N. Trubetskaya writes) - as a result of the article of the book. Meshchersky in "The Citizen" about the relationship between male female students. The article was taken as an insult ... and students and female students demanded satisfaction from the book. Meshchersky. In view of the fact that the director of the Moscow Women's Courses, prof. IN AND. Guerrier did not speak in print against Meshchersky; the students were preparing to stage a hostile demonstration against Guerrier. S.N. managed to influence the students to prevent the scandal that they were going to make Guerrier ... How did he manage it? What is the secret of the effectiveness of his speeches? I think his main weapon is sincerity. This can be seen in this example. Here is another necessary passage from the book of O. S. Trubetskoy:

“On October 25, 1901, after a lecture, S.N. invited students who wanted to talk with him about the case of Professor Guerrier to a small verbal audience.

Unfortunately, I heard that among students of all courses and faculties a rather intense excitement prevails. Any student unrest worries me extremely, you always warmly take them to heart: you worry about the fate of the university, for the fact that many will actually suffer as a result. But here I don't know... It hurts for our students, because, in fact, how to suggest such an unworthy act! A man who walks one straight path from the university bench, upholding the honor of the university, defending its autonomy, upholding the corporate rights of students and standing up for the old "Union Council", a man who was almost put up for this intercession. Who never changed his beliefs, and suddenly!., why insult him so undeservedly?

Is it really because he did not begin to argue with one of the most vile organs ... One cannot forget the merits of Vladimir Ivanovich and women's education, which in any case are enormous.

You cannot imagine what kind of agitation is going on against (women's) courses, and what empty excuses the government sometimes gives for their closure. In this regard, V. I. Ger'e had a heavy duty to defend them, and many of Vladimir Ivanovich's actions are caused by eternal fear for their existence.

It seems to me that it is our direct duty to prevent the impending demonstration.

I am sure that if it were in the hands of the students of the Faculty of Philology, the majority would be for him ... Once I was a student, and I had very big clashes with him, because of which I even left the department of history. .. But then I appreciated it. I don't know what I would be ready to do to prevent a scandal, For Moscow University, and I'm sure that the majority of philologists, not only those who are here, but also all the former pupils of our faculty, will condemn us for it. The fact is that students from other faculties often have absolutely no idea either about Vladimir Ivanovich Ger'e or about his activities. It seems to me that it is necessary to act in that direction in order to acquaint students with the true state of affairs. To be frank, this man never had a chance to betray his university duty! - After all, not all professors have such a worthy reputation. But not only did he not cheat, he was never indifferent, he always led the way, and suddenly the students are going to shame this man in his old age. It's hard to even think about it. Who do they want to protest against? Against Meshchersky or against Guerrier?

You can not mix such opposite personalities: Guerrier and Meshchersky. There are people with whom it is impossible to argue. I asked myself: if I were in Guerrier's place, what would I do? Maybe if I had listeners who would ask me about it, I would have given in, but on my own I would not have done it. After all, you probably don't read The Citizen, do you? Arguing with him is the same as arguing with Moskovskie Vedomosti on the university question. And you don’t attack each of us because we don’t argue with them, because every day the devil knows what they write there.

I would not condemn V. I. Guerrier if, yielding to the demands, he wrote in refutation of Meshchersky, but this would prove something bad: a person must do what he is convinced of, but this is violence.

It seems to me that the students can choose another way: to protest to Meshchersky. And it would be natural... should now turn to individual professors: let them talk to their listeners. Let's talk about this together...

Impressed by this speech, a group of students immediately organized, setting out to prevent riots ... They succeeded not without a difficult struggle ... thanks to the friendly assistance of the most popular professors, who directly addressed the students directly from themselves, they managed to direct discontent in a different direction, organize coursework meetings to develop a form of protest at the address of Meshchersky. A specially authorized commission of professors was established under the chairmanship of P. G. Vinogradov, which, together with elected representatives from the students, worked out a form of protest: but the ministry left this matter without satisfaction ... "

Again, violence was chosen. The professors who supported the students found themselves in a difficult position... "... P.G. Vinogradov, feeling that the ground was slipping from under his feet, and that the moral authority of the professors could not but suffer from the comedy they had to play... decided to leave Moscow University and go abroad ... He saw the university on the eve of the greatest crisis and could not find words to condemn the tactics of the government, blindly and consciously digging the grave of the future Russian culture. S.N. was in the same state. finding a place for himself: he went to Vinogradov, persuading him not to leave, finally, he himself was going to leave the university in despair and anguish ... and yet he stayed.

The tsarist government continued the suppression: on December 29, 1901, the famous "Provisional Rules" were issued ... These rules introduced constant inspection control, assigned police functions to professors and students, introduced petty regulations and completely ignored the existing coursework and student organizations. The university council unanimously opposed the application of these rules, and the students decided to convene a general meeting on February 3 in order to draw up a resolution with a clearly expressed political nature of the demands. In all higher educational institutions of the country "riots" began. Of course, not all students wanted to take part in them, and many were burdened by the inability to study. After the story with Guerrier in the senior years of the Faculty of Philology, the party of supporters of academic freedom began to grow stronger and stronger, which became known among students under the name of the "academic" or "academic" party. Sergei Nikolayevich entered into the closest friendship with the supporters of this party, read their ballots and expressed his opinion about them. At the same time, the party "University for Science" was born in St. Petersburg. Outraged by the Provisional Rules, the Moscow academicians considered a strike in the classroom to be a completely acceptable method of struggle, while the Petersburg ones unconditionally rejected it, and Sergei Nikolayevich tried to convince the Moscow academicians of the inadmissibility of such an anti-academic means of struggle.

He believed that it was necessary not to divide, not to disorganize, not to oppose the natural desire for mutual communication, but, on the contrary, to rally the students into a purely academic organization, morally strong, in solidarity with the university, to unite it in the name of a higher goal - the best preparation for the common service of the native land. .

On February 24, 1902, S.N. held a meeting in his apartment of representatives of the academic party and several professors, and here some agreement was worked out on the question of the further resumption of studies. The main result of these meetings was the foundation of the Historical-Philological Society, which was met with ardent sympathy from the students ... Already in March, the society numbered up to 800 members ... The approval of the charter of the Student Historical-Philological Society took place in March 1902, and at the first meeting, S. N. was unanimously elected chairman, and A. A. Anisimov as secretary of the Society. The public solemn opening of the Society took place in the autumn of October 6 in the completely overcrowded Great Physics Auditorium of Moscow University. In his speech, SN told the students that the fate of the Society was entirely in their hands. He believed that such a society is necessary in order for "the university to fulfill its real mission and make science a real and life-giving social force, creative and formative, which extends its action to all layers of the people, raises and enlightens the lowest of them." (How relevant this task is even a hundred years later! How the prestige of high science has fallen in our time...) This romantic, ideal, utopian goal corresponded to the romantic, ideal mood of youth, and the ideas of S. N. Trubetskoy influenced many students. The Historical-Philological Society, according to the adopted charter, is intended not only for historians and philologists, but for all students who wish to complete their education in the field of humanities, philosophy, social and legal sciences. The charter provided for the possibility of creating any number of sections. S. N. said in a speech at the opening of the Society:

You have been given an academic organization, free, unrestricted, broad, in accordance with the charter that you yourself have worked out; you are given the opportunity for a wide academic activity within the walls of the university; you have been given extensive means to achieve your goals... but at the same time you have to show before the university how mature you are in the social sense, and how much a free academic organization represents a stronger guarantee of order than any other. I (S.Sh.) have underlined here the words containing the main idea in the alternative under discussion: the free academic organization of the university, as a guarantee of the maintenance of order ...

S.N.'s speech was greeted with thunderous applause by hundreds of students. (And I would have behaved the same way if I were in their place. I can easily imagine myself in this - Big Physical - auditorium in the courtyard of the "old" University on Mokhovaya. We listened to lectures on physics in this auditorium 45 years after these events, in 1946-1948 ... How wonderfully Professor Yevgeny Ivanovich Kondorsky read them to us ...). "The success of the Society exceeded all expectations. Shortly after its foundation, it broke up into numerous sections, where classes continued until the unrest of 1905." S. N. was fascinated by the activities of this society. He combined his religious and philosophical research with pedagogical activity. He realized his ideal - direct close communication between the professor and students in the study of the deep problems of being. Probably, the culmination of this activity was the trip of S.N. at the head of a large group of students to Greece, to a country with monuments of ancient Hellas.

This society had great importance in the life of the country in those years. The reactionary "Provisional Rules" provoked students, causing protests and unrest. In this environment, the possibility of in-depth study of "academic science" was very attractive to many "academic" students and was an important alternative. (It's in Soviet time societies of this kind were persecuted. The participants of philosophical circles and societies were expected to be arrested, and it would be good if the case was limited to prison and a concentration camp, and did not end with execution. See the chapter "V. P. Efroimson", biographies of D. S. Likhachev, my father - E. G. Shnol - and thousands of others.)

However, the situation in the country became more and more complicated. Terror flared up. In 1901 the Minister of Education N. P. Bogolepov was assassinated; in 1902 - Minister of the Interior D.S. Sipyagin was killed; in 1904 - Minister of the Interior V. K. Plehve and the Governor-General of Finland N. I. Bobrikov were killed; in 1905 - Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich and many more.

Tension in society has become "outrageous." It was necessary to drastically change the "vector" of interaction between the government and the people. Violence only caused violence. Despite this, January 9, 1905 became "Bloody Sunday" - the troops fired on an unarmed demonstration of workers marching with a petition to the tsar. Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, a friend of S. N. Trubetskoy, in a letter about this time: Events are moving quickly and sometimes it seems as if they are directed by an invisible hand ... The autocratic bureaucracy is not the bearer of the interests of the Russian state; the country is exhausted by poor business conduct. Civil feelings have long been suppressed in society: Russian citizens, adult thinking men capable of state building, are beaten off from Russian life; The Russian educated intelligentsia, full of intellectual, original life, lives in the country as foreigners, for only in this way does it achieve some peace and acquire the right to exist. But at such moments, the absence of the habit of civic feeling affects especially hard. Finally, hundreds and thousands of people are worn out in the country by the treacherous activities of the police, among whom individuals who should have been the stronghold of the country, and who cannot be born again or cannot be replaced ... And so for decades and around more and more hatred rises, contained only by brute police force; every day losing the last respect. Under such circumstances, will we be able to contain the touched East by the frivolous and ignorant policy of the government? Or are we facing a collapse in which the living forces of our people will be broken, just as strong and powerful public organizations perished more than once in the history of mankind ...

Just like you, I wholeheartedly, with all the fibers of my being, wish victory for the Russian state and for this I am ready to do what I can ... I am physically unable to rejoice at Russian defeats ... The mood here is heavy, since the war is just beginning to impose its a seal on life, and the reaction intensifies all around, a mass of searches, arrests, gross and wild violations of the most elementary conditions of human existence.

"September 1, in the evening, brother Sergei Nikolaevich left Menshov for Moscow and drove straight from the train to Nikolai Vasilievich Davydov, who at that time had several professors: V. I. Vernadsky, P. I. Novgorodtsev, A. A Manuilov, B. K. Mlodzeevsky, M. K. Spizharny, A. B. Fokht and V. M. Khvostov N. V. Davydov says that S. N. did not arrive for a long time, because the train was late for some reason .

“The bell rang at the front door: it was clear that this was Trubetskoy; we all fell silent and waited in great excitement for his appearance, and when he entered, everyone, without saying a word, by some general irresistible impulse, greeted him with applause.” The next day, elections were held: as a result, it turned out that S.N. received 56 electoral and 20 non-electoral balls, in response to noisy, long-lasting applause and greetings, S.N. said:

You, gentlemen, have done me a great honor and entrusted me with a great duty by electing me as rector at such a difficult and difficult moment. I highly appreciate that honor and understand all the responsibility placed on me and I am aware of all the difficulties that fall to my lot. The situation is extremely difficult, but not hopeless. We must believe in the cause we serve. We will defend the university if we unite. What are we to fear? The university has won a great moral victory. We got at once what we expected: we defeated the forces of reaction. Should we really be afraid of society, our youth. After all, they will not remain blind to the triumph of the bright beginning at the University. True, everything is raging around ... the waves are overflowing: we are waiting for them to calm down. We may wish that the reasonable demands of Russian society receive the desired satisfaction. Let's believe in our cause and our youth. The barrier that previously prevented us from allowing the youth to organize freely and enter into correct relations with them has now fallen. The order, which could not be implemented before, was given the opportunity to be implemented. We must implement it with our combined efforts. We need to be in solidarity and believe in ourselves, in the youth, and in the holy cause we serve! I ask, I demand active help from you. The Council is now the master of the University!

The thunder of incessant applause, quite unusual in business secular meetings, was his answer.

“Everyone was shocked to the core,” recalls P. Novgorodtsev, and approached him to thank him, shake hands and say that they believe, like him, in the bright days of the university, due to the comradely solidarity and love of youth. But what he was talking about the university, was he not talking about the whole of Russia?.. And didn’t he have reason to say so?.. It’s no secret to anyone that the requirements of the universities were satisfied only thanks to his moral influence. How could he not believe in the strength of a bright beginning in relation to all of Russia?"

The extreme stress of these days further undermined his health. Olga Nikolaevna took his election to the rectors as a death sentence. She saw his condition. He was tormented by prophetic nightmares. He's writing:

“All summer he suffered from hot flashes in his head and some kind of special nausea. His face was constantly red and his eyes were red ... In addition to hard work on university and public affairs, the whole last year he was greatly depressed by the state of his own affairs: he did not know how to make ends meet... And, most importantly, he was clearly aware of what abyss we were flying into ... I remember how one day, returning from Moscow, tired and exhausted, he rushed around the room in some kind of anguish, throwing himself on the sofa , then on an armchair, with some groans. To my question: “What is the matter with you?” He, with a terrible longing in his eyes, answered:

"I can not get rid of the bloody nightmare that is coming upon us" ... Nightmares haunted him at night. I remember one dream, about which he told me more than once, with the same mystical horror ...

He saw himself at night at the station, with a suitcase, at the platform post, waiting for the train. Lanterns were burning, and by their light he saw a huge crowd that hurried past him. All the familiar, familiar faces, and all were continuously moving in the same direction towards the huge, dark abyss, which, he knew, was there, in this hall, where everyone was hurrying and striving, but he was unable to tell them this, to stop them ... "[7_1, p. 158]. The proclamation of the autonomy of the University, the rejoicing of students over the choice of the rector could no longer stop the revolutionary mood. The University auditoriums were filled with many people who had nothing to do with the university. There were rallies. On September 19, assistant to the rector A.A. Manuilov (greeted with applause!) addressed the students with a speech about the inadmissibility of gatherings in classrooms during the hours when lectures should take place in them ... The gatherings, however, continued ... On September 21 ... the influx of masses of outsiders began again ... when the premises were was not enough, the audience penetrated into some locked rooms ... Then the University Council, under the chairmanship of S.N., recognized the need to temporarily close the university ... The next day (September 22 brya) on Mokhovaya Street, students began to gather at the university gates ... At the request of the students to allow them to gather in one of the auditoriums to discuss the situation, S.N. agreed, but under the indispensable condition of preventing outsiders from entering the university. 700-800 students gathered in the Legal Auditorium... The appearance of S. N. and A. A. Manuilov was greeted with friendly applause. S.N. addressed them with a speech. He said that during yesterday's rally, the Moscow authorities called in troops to the Manege, who were supposed to use weapons if the external order was violated by the participants ... temporarily close the university. If phenomena like yesterday's continue, this will lead to the destruction of the university and the students will be responsible for this ... The university cannot and should not be a people's square, just as a people's square cannot be a university, and any attempt to turn a university into such a square or turning it into a meeting place would inevitably destroy the university as such. Remember that he belongs to Russian society, and you will answer for him. This speech, delivered with extraordinary spiritual enthusiasm, caused a thunder of applause that did not cease for a long time. Instead of a scandal, which many feared, the students gave the rector an ovation.

It was a great moral victory, which the Moscow University Council appreciated and in the evening of the same day, in turn, gave him an ovation. ...Unrest in Moscow intensified. S. N. decided to go to St. Petersburg to petition for permission for students to gather somewhere outside the walls of the university: he hoped that by opening an outlet in another place, he would draw the outside public away from the university ... He was tired to the point of exhaustion ... Lately he a special nervous excitement took hold, and at the university it was noticed that he could not speak calmly, without deep inner excitement ... Before leaving for Petersburg, he, yielding to the requests of Praskovya Vladimirovna, announced his ill health ... Nevertheless, he left for Petersburg on 28 September. I will not retell the circumstances of S.N.’s death. I will only say that on September 29, Minister of Education Glazov listened with great attention to his story about the events at Moscow University and his opinion on the need to provide the population with the opportunity to discuss social problems outside the walls of the University. He died at a meeting of a ministerial commission discussing a draft university charter.

The prophet died, trying to prevent the movement of national history into the abyss he foresaw. He knew that this attempt could cost him his life, and he died a hero. Articles and memoirs of many remarkable people were dedicated to his memory. Among them is an article by V. I. Vernadsky, who in subsequent years witnessed the terrible events predicted by his friend. The prophet is dead. His prophecies came true. Nicholas II did not follow the advice of the prophet. And together with his loved ones and his country he fell into the abyss.

Links:
1. Lopukhin Alexey Alexandrovich (1864 - 1928)
2. S.N. Trubetsky and V.I. Vernadsky
3. Trubetskaya Olga Nikolaevna
4. Soros George among the heroes of Russian science and education
5. Shnol S.E.: on the state of science in Russia and the USSR
6. Trubetskoy Nikolai Petrovich
7. Shanyavsky Alfons Leonovich (1837-1905)
8.

In No. 3 of "The Way" there is an interesting polemic between G. Petrov and N.A. Berdyaev on the question of the monarchy. G. Petrov substantiates the religious nature of the monarchical principle. N.A. Berdyaev disputes this point of view and simultaneously attacks the monarchists. This question is so significant from the general principled and our Russian point of view, and the views expressed by N.A. Berdyaev contain such a resolute condemnation of monarchism that, for my part, as a convinced Russian monarchist, I do not consider it possible to pass them over in silence. A calm and objective attitude to this issue can help eliminate misunderstandings and misjudgments. I do not undertake to say anything new on this question, but I would be happy if it could at least show the groundlessness of certain prejudices against the monarchy and monarchism in Russia.

The first justification for the religious nature of the monarchy is found in the Bible, in the story of the establishment of the kingdom in Israel. The initiative to establish the kingdom came from the elders of the people, who turned on this matter to the prophet Samuel, seeing him as a mediator before God. Samuel warned the people about the hardships that would fall on him and about the responsibility that he would take upon himself if he insisted on the fulfillment of his desire. But, when the elders declared that these difficulties did not stop them, Samuel, by the command of God, anointed Saul to the kingdom and the Lord revealed to the prophet about Saul, “He will save My people from the hand of the Philistines, for I have looked upon My People, since his cry reached me” (I Book of Kings, IX, 16).

Two points cannot be overlooked in this account of the Bible: (i) the people ask for a kingdom and consciously accept the burdens and responsibilities that come with it; 2) under such conditions, the request of the people is recognized as worthy of attention. Royal power is not imposed on the people from above, but receives the blessing of God when it is accepted by the people with a full awareness of the duties that follow from this. At the same time, royal power acquires the character of sacred service, and its bearer becomes God's anointed. The "will of the people" becomes a subordinate moment explaining the historical origin of the forms of government, but not the source of its sanction: the king is consecrated to his service by God's servants, he reigns by God's grace, and not by the will of the people. This is the essential difference between democracy and monarchy. In the rule of the people, the content, form and sanction of power have one common source - the will of the people, and its criterion is the correlation of forces or the will of the majority. In a monarchy, the sanction of power is religious. In the order of duty, the monarch is the spokesman for the conscience of the people in the historical continuity of its development; royal power is a living link between past and future generations, rising above transient passions, parties and classes. That is why the person of the king, the anointed of God, is surrounded by a halo in the eyes of the people. The constitution and legislation voluntarily adopted by him preserve for the Monarch as well as for the people the character of a sacred obligation, but no external norms can exhaust the organic

and the moral nature of the royal office and the responsibility of the monarch to God. Of course, there may be unworthy holders of power, no holy order provides from sin, but we distinguish between the idea of ​​royal service and the personality of its bearer.

This shows why at all times the Church has not been indifferent to the form of government and has given preference to one that binds power with the idea of ​​religious anointing. This does not mean, of course, that monarchy is the only acceptable form of government. It would be wrong, first of all, from a political point of view. Recognizing the monarchical form as the best, or the only desirable one for Russia, one can hold on to a completely different assessment when applied to, say, America. As for the Church, her realm is an eternal, unconditional "kingdom not of this world," while the forms of government are transient. Here is the line between the Church and the state. Under normal conditions, their relationship is determined by the blessing of the Church and the desire of the state to assimilate these higher principles of justice and mercy. This is how relations between Church and State developed in the ancient period of our history,*) and the best pages of our recent past are marked by the seal of the same relationship. All the great reforms, beginning with Yaroslav's Truth and ending with the emancipation of the peasants, were carried out under the beneficial influence of the Christian ideal, the custodian of which was the Church. Most of our wars, right up to the last world war, were sanctified by the religious idea, the defense of fellow believers and fellow tribesmen. In important historical moments of responsible decisions, a common impulse united the Tsar and the people. This mood was also observed in the last war, until the decay disturbed the moral and religious balance of the people's soul. All echo is not an idealization, but a recognition of the basic facts of the past. But in the life of a people, as well as an individual, heroic moments are mixed up with gray everyday life, in which it is most difficult to keep the moral ideal inviolable. The best Russian people and the most ardent patriots, Khomyakov, Aksakov, Dostoevsky and others mercilessly castigated these sins and called the authorities and the people to repentance.

In his response to the monarchist, N.A. Berdyaev does not want to reckon with what the monarchy of Russia has given. He turns a blind eye to her greatest political and state merits, to the creation of a great state, which was the work of generations of Moscow princes, tsars and emperors, and in this he reveals extreme one-sidedness. That in this matter the political element is inextricably linked with the ecclesiastical and religious idea, this is evidenced by the attitudes of a number of saints towards princes and monarchs, not to mention the above-mentioned practical achievements and reforms. An impartial study of the history of Russia cannot fail to confirm this: yes, there were sins and falls, but positive achievements and evidence of a never-ceasing influence are even more important for assessing the past. Orthodox faith in the direction of public life.

I don't know what N.A. Berdyaev understands by "recognizing the ecclesiastical dogmatic significance of an autocratic monarchy." It seems to him "the real heresy, for which we suffer cruel punishment." From these words we can conclude that such recognition was part of the teaching of our Church. Such a statement is usually in the hands of foreigners who are not sufficiently familiar with the essence of the matter, but it sounds strange in the mouth of a Russian religious writer. After all, we cannot all endure "cruel punishment" for the opinions of individual writers. If it were otherwise, then I want to hope that N.A. he would have been more careful in his judgments, if only out of compassion for his fellow men.

The author preaches apoliticalism, but in fact falls into politics, which is dictated not by arguments of reason, but by moods. He speaks of the monarchy and monarchists only with a feeling of irritation. In his opinion, people of the “right-monarchist direction” “usually love violence in the name of” their understanding of the good and are easier to shed blood and kill a person than most other people.

____________________

*) See prof. Klyuchevsky: "The Church's Contribution to the Successes of Russian Civil Law and Order" (Essays and Speeches, 2nd Collection of Articles, Petrograd, 1918, pp. 88-114).

governments, except for the communists, who excelled everyone in the practice of violence and murder. All these accusations were at one time stencils in the mouths of the opposition intelligentsia. From N.A. Berdyaev, who so often calls for a revision of the stencils, one could expect more impartial assessments. Jewish pogroms were always considered the work of the hands of the right, but N.A. Berdyaev, having looked closely enough at Soviet reality, could, it would seem, amend such judgments and admit that the sad phenomena he speaks of are, unfortunately, much deeper. household and social roots. In addition to observing Russian reality, we can draw some lessons from the situation around us here abroad. Where does the hatred for Christian denominations come from, here in France - from the right or from the left? Turning to the question of the easier attitude towards murder and shedding of blood among the monarchists than among other parties, it is more than strange to forget the system of terror practiced by our revolutionaries and anarchists. Here again the remnant of the old intellectual leaven in assessments comes into play, and again the analogies that can be drawn from European history. After all, the "great" French revolution and the Jacobin terror, with all the will, cannot be attributed to the right.

Generalizations and estimates of N.A. are clearly urgent. What can be said, for example, about such an assertion: "We have never had a completely independent, ideological, social monarchism." What will N.A. with the Slavophiles, Khomyakov, Samarin, the Aksakov brothers, Dostoevsky, Konstantin. Leontiev Westerners Chicherin, Vladimir Solovyov and a host of other writers, what will he finally do with Pushkin, Tyutchev, Glinka? Why weren't all these people representatives of "independent ideological, social monarchism"?

N.A. Berdyaev’s judgments about the Orthodox Church in tsarist times evoke very similar remarks. The author repeats himself here too, the old assessments and references to the authority of Aksakov and Dostoevsky do not change things. In their time, there was a lot of bitter truth in their statements, and the most exaggerations were appropriate when one had to awaken one's conscience and fight against the official guardianship of the Church. Then it took courage to say all this out loud and real zeal for the position of the Church. Now this requires... imprudence, for such judgments only play into the hands of the enemies of the Church. If Aksakov and Dostoevsky had survived to this day, they certainly would not have dared to assert that "the old pre-revolutionary system is very reminiscent of a living church."

Insufficient caution is what I allow myself to reproach N.A. Berdyaev for using the term “bourgeois” in the article “On Spiritual Bourgeoisness”. If he has in mind only the concept of spiritual philistinism, then there would be no need to argue about a negative attitude towards such a phenomenon, but in this case is it worth breaking through an open door? The very persistence of condemnations of the "bourgeois", to whom the author ascribes all sorts of crimes, creates the impression that the matter is not so simple, and that we are talking not always only about the “spiritual”, but sometimes also about the true bourgeois, that is, about a certain economic class. His arguments could be fully used by the Council of the Living Church, which at one time proclaimed “capitalism a mortal sin? and the fight against him is sacred for Christians. In such a statement there is a mixture of two plans and two kingdoms, against which N.A. Berdyaev rebelled more than once. In order not to be unfounded, I will quote the following excerpts: "The righteousness of the bourgeois never surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees." "It is the bourgeois who loves to give alms... in the synagogues and on the streets, to be glorified by the people." “The bourgeois wants to acquire the whole world,” etc. N.A. Berdyaev says all this. True, he stipulates that “bourgeoisness is determined not by the economic situation, but by the spiritual attitude towards this situation. Therefore, in every class it can be spiritually overcome,” however, the author immediately adds: “History is considered the level of the bourgeois when it creates the state, law, economy, customs and mores, the idol of science.” Is it not clear that, having begun about spiritual bourgeoisness, the author strays into the concept of the bourgeoisie as a certain economic

of a class that history really reckon with?

If such inconsistency is possible in a writer, then what can be demanded from poorly educated readers, and whether it can serve the benefit of malicious people. I was led to these thoughts by an old newspaper clipping, which, however, retained all its freshness. Things are happening not now, when we read the articles of N.A. Berdyaev, but three years ago in the village. Chestovetka, Izyumsky u. Kharkov province. A living church priest presides over a meeting where the "purge of the saints" is discussed.

“You leave Sergius of Radonezh as a saint,” the priest asks.

— Exclude, down with. He blessed the kings for bloody slaughter.

- Joseph of Belgorod.

- Wow, landowner. Colonel's son.

The meeting passes a resolution: "Exclude from the number of saints all the so-called righteous of bourgeois origin." (Last Nov. 1923, Feb. 14) Let N.A. not complain about us. for this excerpt, which is only intended to emphasize how much care is necessary in the formulation of estimates, in order to avoid bona fide misunderstandings and the unfair use of vague or imprecise expressions.

If we discard them, then, of course, there will still be ground for ideological divergence and dispute. Such disputes are inevitable, even between people who are close on many other significant issues. They have nothing to fear when they are based solely on the desire to get closer to understanding the truth.

Book. Grigory Trubetskoy.

Page generated in 0.05 seconds! Trubetskoy. Spiritual aristocracy. Philosopher brothers S.N. and E.N. Trubetskoy and their descendants.

3.2.1.2.4.4. prince Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy(1862-1905) - Russian religious philosopher, publicist and public figure. Philosopher's Brother E. N. Trubetskoy and father of the philosopher N. S. Trubetskoy

Trubetskoy, Sergei Nikolaevich (before 1905)

Born and spent his childhood with numerous brothers and sisters in the Akhtyrka estate near Moscow. In 1874, together with his brother Evgeny, he entered the private gymnasium of F.I. Kreiman, and in 1877, he entered the Kaluga Men's State Gymnasium, where the family moved in connection with the appointment of the father of the family as vice-governor. Maria Mansurova writes in her memoirs that “grandfather gave almost all his fortune, sold Akhtyrka and a house in Moscow in order to save his brother from misfortune, who squandered his large fortune. Grandfather had to enter the service, more serious than before that time, such as to support his family. He took the place of vice-governor in Kaluga. My grandmother moved to Kaluga with all the children. The Trubetskoys settled in the Country House (as they called this house) with a large neglected garden. "She also mentions that" in Kaluga home performances were staged. The plays were composed jointly by Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy and Sollogub "(Count Fyodor Lvovich Sollogub is a distant relative on the maternal side of S. N. Trubetskoy, the Lopukhins).

Trubetskoy brothers - Sergei Nikolaevich and Evgeny Nikolaevich. Moscow, 1866

In 1881, the brothers Sergei and Evgeny entered the law faculty of Moscow University, but two weeks later Sergei moved to the Faculty of History and Philology, where he studied first at the historical and then at the classical department. From the 4th grade of the gymnasium, he became interested in philosophy, at the age of 16 he experienced a period of passion for Anglo-French positivism; in the 7th grade, reading 4 volumes of K. Fischer's "History of New Philosophy" marked the beginning of a critical study of philosophy; the turn to religious philosophy took place under the influence of reading the pamphlets of A. S. Khomyakov. And in his student years, he got acquainted with the works of V. S. Solovyov, who became his friend.

In 1885 he graduated from Moscow University and was left at the Department of Philosophy to prepare for a professorship. The following year, he passed his master's examinations and from 1888 began to lecture as a Privatdozent.

On October 5, 1887, Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy married Praskovya Vladimirovna Obolenskaya(1860-1914). This marriage took place after eight years of mutual love. The obstacle was that brother S.N. Trubetskoy - Pyotr Nikolaevich(from the first marriage of N.P. Trubetskoy) was married to the sister of Praskovia Vladimirovna. According to Orthodox canons, marriages of brothers to sisters were not allowed. “My doubt was heavy: am I doing well, sacrificing happiness to the letter of the canon, and maybe the life of a beloved suffering creature,” he wrote to his brother Evgeny ... “you alone can understand the moral and religious torments that I went through.” and S.N. Trubetskoy decided to cross the canon. To perform the ceremony of marriage, not an ordinary parish priest was invited, but a military one, less dependent on the spiritual authorities.

Prince Sergei Nikolaevich Troubetzkoy with his sons and wife Praskovya Vladimirovna

In 1889 he defended his master's thesis "Metaphysics in Ancient Greece”, and in 1900 - a doctoral “The doctrine of the Logos in its history” and received the post of extraordinary professor. Since 1904 he has been an ordinary professor. S. N. Trubetskoy taught almost all historical and philosophical courses: the philosophy of the Church Fathers, the history of ancient philosophy, the history of modern philosophy, the history of Christian thought in the first centuries, the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.

Prince Sergei Nikolaevich Troubetzkoy. Photo of 1905. Above the image is an inscription in his hand: "We must live in such a way that everyone is happy, so that there are no destitute. Prince S. Trubetskoy."

In the summer of 1895, Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy settled with his family in the Uzkoye estate. His sons, Nikolai and Vladimir, were immortalized here by their great-uncle, the famous sculptor Paolo Troubetzkoy who also visited Uzkoye in 1895.

Trubetskoy P., prince. Sculptural group "Children" (princes Nikolai and Vladimir Sergeyevich Trubetskoy). 1900 Bronze. timing..

The Trubetskoy brothers - Nikolai and Vladimir Sergeyevich. Menshovo, 1990

He was approved in the rank of State Councilor from 1902. In 1903 he was sent abroad. In 1904 he received the Greek Order of the Savior of the 4th degree. He was the editor of the journal Questions of Philosophy and Psychology (1900-1905).

A follower of the Russian philosopher V. S. Solovyov, Trubetskoy paid special attention to the issues of the correlation and interconnection of philosophy and religion, the rationale for Christian doctrine, including the issues of immortality.

Particular attention in the religious philosophy of "concrete idealism" of Sergei Nikolayevich was paid to the development of the law of "universal correlation", which boiled down to the statement that "knowledge acquires a logical sequence only when it is a consequence of the universal mind or the second hypostasis of the divine Trinity." Through the law of "universal correlativity", Trubetskoy made an attempt to overcome the "one-sidedness" of the approaches of the three whales of philosophy - rationalism, empiricism and mysticism, by combining together their approaches to the knowledge of being: reason, experience and intuition, respectively.

Solovyov Vl. S., Trubetskoy S. N., Grot N. Ya., Lopatin L. M.

In 1900, Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy, together with his wife, Praskovya Vladimirovna, and their children, who had already become almost adults, again came to Uzkoye for the summer. In addition to them, Praskovya Trubetskoy's cousin, Agrafena Mikhailovna Panyutina, nee Princess Obolenskaya (1860 - 1936), as well as the sons and daughters of the owner of the estate, lived in the estate. In this refined society, Vladimir Solovyov was going to celebrate his name day, which fell on July 15th. However, having arrived in Moscow, he felt unwell and went to the apartment of the cousin of S.N. Together they set off on their journey.

"Our trip to Uzkoye was not only difficult, but downright nightmarish; Vladimir Sergeevich was completely weakened, and he had to be held, and meanwhile the movement of the cab aroused seasickness in him again; the rain intensified and wetted our feet, and, thanks to the wind, it became cold ", - recalled N.V. Davydov. - We drove very quietly, as sticky mud dissolved on the highway, and the cab slid on its side, and it was already dark. In one place of road B<ладимир>FROM<ергеевич>asked to stop to rest a little, adding, "otherwise, perhaps I'll die now." And it seemed, judging by the weakness in<ладимира>FROM<ергеевича>absolutely possible. But soon he asked to go further, saying that he felt the same thing that a sparrow should feel when he is plucked, and added: "Of course, this could not happen to you." In general, despite weakness and suffering, during the intervals when he was doing better,<ладимир>FROM<ергеевич>, as always, joked, ridiculed himself and apologized for tormenting me so much with his ill health.

Davydov and Solovyov reached Uzkoye only late in the evening. The patient turned out to be so weak that he could not get out of the carriage on his own. He was carried into the house and laid on a sofa in the nearest free room, which turned out to be the office of the owner of the estate, who was away at the time. Gradually, Solovyov felt better and, without getting up, he talked for a long time with Sergei Trubetskoy.

Doctors diagnosed him with atherosclerosis, cirrhosis of the kidneys and uremia, as well as complete exhaustion of the body, but they could not help. V. S. Solovyov, after a two-week illness, died in Uzkoy, in the office of P. N. Trubetskoy on July 31 (August 13, according to a new style), 1900.

During the illness of the philosopher, a personal tragedy suddenly struck the Trubetskoys. On July 19, in the estate of the Menshov estate (Podolsky district), Prince Nikolai Petrovich Trubetskoy, his father, died of a heart attack. Peter, Sergei, Evgeny and Grigory Trubetskoy. To the funeral, which took place on July 22 in the Donskoy Monastery, P.N. and A.V. Trubetskoy. Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy arrived at the ceremony without his wife, who remained at the estate, to look after the terminally ill.

On the same day, the Moskovskie Vedomosti newspaper published an article about the whereabouts of V.S. Solovyov. This caused an influx of his admirers into Uzkoye.

Prince Sergei Nikolaevich Troubetzkoy with his mother

Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy, after the death of V.S. Solovyov, no longer spent the summer months in Uzkoy. He focused on teaching at the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. The epochal year 1905 was the culmination of S.N. Trubetskoy’s social activities, on June 6, at the Reception of the deputation of zemstvo leaders by Nicholas II, the prince delivered a bold speech in which he noted the intolerance of the current internal situation of the country, substantiated the principles of the coming popular representation and demanded their wide discussion in the press and society, that is, in fact, freedom of assembly and the abolition of censorship. The tsar answered S.N. Trubetskoy and M.P. Fedorov, the vowel of the St. Petersburg City Duma, who spoke after him, rather faded and streamlined, without refuting any of the speakers and expressing hope for the renewal of the country, and asked Trubetskoy to prepare a note on the current position of the highest educational institutions and on measures to restore order in them. On August 6, a manifesto was published on the establishment of the State Duma on principles that only caused disappointment among all who expected it.

After Nicholas II, by decree of August 27, 1905, introduced the "Temporary rules on the management of higher educational institutions Ministry of Public Education”, On September 2, the University Council elected 43-year-old Prince S. N. Trubetskoy as rector. This was a vivid expression of the authority he enjoyed in the university staff. The prince had to take on heavy administrative work, which undoubtedly hastened his death.

However, the election of the rector did not stop student unrest, student gatherings at the university continued, and a lot of outsiders took part in them. And already 20 days after taking office, Trubetskoy was forced to close the university in order to prevent troops and police from entering its territory.

At the end of the month, S.N. Trubetskoy came to St. Petersburg for an appointment with the Minister of Public Education, General V.N. Right at the meeting on September 29, 1905, S.N. Trubetskoy's heart could not stand it. On the same day he died of a heart attack. His body, delivered to Moscow, was met by a crowd of thousands with red flags. The students accompanied their rector to the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery. A huge number of people wishing to say goodbye to the deceased delayed the funeral until the end of daylight hours. Therefore, the coffin was lowered into the grave already by candlelight. VI Vernadsky delivered a heartfelt speech. Students and teachers spoke. The journalist and public figure I.V. Gessen, who knew S.N. Trubetskoy, recalling the events of that turbulent year, wrote that “... the youth propagandized by the revolutionary parties turned the high school into a building for nationwide stormy rallies that made provocative resolutions, and the sudden death of the first elected rector of Moscow University, Prince S.N. Trubetskoy, which struck him during a meeting at the Ministry of Public Education, was a clear consequence of the emotional unrest caused by the university unrest, and served as a formidable symbol of the hopelessness of the situation. demonstration".

The funeral of Prince Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy

Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy was buried in Moscow at the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.

Sergei Nikolaevich and Praskovya Vladimirovna had three children: Nikolai, Maria and Vladimir. Their little father constantly admired them in letters to relatives. But he was not destined to see them grow up.

Family of Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy. Sergei Nikolaevich, Praskovya Vladimirovna (ur. Obolenskaya) and their children - Maria, Vladimir (in the center), Nikolai. Mid 1890s.

3.2.1.2.4.4.1. Maria Sergeevna Trubetskaya(Khreptovich-Buteneva) (1888 - 1934). Husband - Apollinary Konstantinovich Butenev(Khreptovich-Butenev) (1879 - 1945) Diplomat. In 1909-1911 secretary of the embassy in England, then an official of the 1st Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Photos from the wedding of Maria Sergeevna Trubetskoy and Apollinary Konstantinovich Khreptovich-Butenev. Moscow, 1910. Photo from the archive of V.S. Trubetskoy.

Praskovya Apollinariyevna Khreptovich-Buteneva (1911 - 1969)

Konstantin Apollinarievich Khreptovich-Butenev (1912 - 1963)

Maria Apollinariyevna Khreptovich-Buteneva (Svyatopolk-Mirskaya) (1913 - 1973)

Elizaveta Apollinariyevna Khreptovich-Buteneva (Gagarina) (1915 - 1989)

Ekaterina Apollinariyevna Khreptovich-Buteneva (Lvov)(b. 1917)

Mikhail Apollinarievich Khreptovich-Butenev (1919 - 1992)

Sergei Apollinarievich Khreptovich-Butenev (1922 - 1974)

3.2.1.2.4.4.2. prince Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy(April 4 (16), 1890, Moscow - June 25, 1938, Vienna) - an outstanding Russian linguist; also known as a philosopher and publicist of the Eurasian trend

Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy, Austria, 1920s

From the age of 14 he attended meetings of the Moscow Ethnographic Society; at the age of 15 he published the first scientific articles on Finno-Ugric paganism. The study of folklore was accompanied by an acquaintance with the corresponding languages.

At the age of 15, N. S. Trubetskoy wrote a letter to the ethnographer Bogoraz, in which he shared his scientific ideas(without specifying your age). Bogoraz, admiring the ideas of the young scientist, came to his house, found a boy there, with whom the tutor was studying and for a long time could not believe that this was not a hoax.

In 1907, he began comparative historical and typological studies of the grammatical structure of the North Caucasian and Chukchi-Kamchatka languages; materials collected in the course of this work, which continued until the revolution, in the years civil war perished (“gone in smoke”; however, the Soviet Caucasian expert E. Bokarev reported that he had seen them in Rostov shortly before the Second World War and were subsequently restored by Trubetskoy in exile from memory.

Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy. con. 1900—early 1910s

In 1908 he graduated as an external student from the Fifth Moscow Gymnasium (where he studied only in the senior class, and all the rest of the years he studied with tutors at home and only at the end of the year passed exams at the gymnasium) and entered the Moscow University at the Philosophical and Psychological Department (where then he had great influence L. M. Lopatin).

Future poets also studied at the 5th gymnasium B. L. Pasternak And V. V. Mayakovsky. Pasternak was the same age as N. S. Trubetskoy and they were familiar and even a little friendly. Mayakovsky studied three years later, most likely they were familiar with each other. According to B. L. Pasternak, Trubetskoy was then fond of Russian religious philosophy and the neo-Kantianism of the Marburg school. Then he transferred to the department of Western European literatures and finally to the department of comparative linguistics, where he became a student of F. F. Fortunatov.

From left to right: Vladimir Sergeyevich Trubetskoy, Elizaveta Vladimirovna Golitsyna (sitting), Tatyana Vladimirovna Golitsyna, Nikolai Sergeyevich Trubetskoy. Menshovo, 1911

In 1912 he graduated from the first graduation of the department of comparative linguistics and was left at the university department; sent to Leipzig, where he studied neogrammar school. Returning, he taught at Moscow University from 1915 to 1916. After the revolution of 1917 he left for Kislovodsk; then for some time he taught at Rostov University.

In 1920 he emigrated to Bulgaria. In 1905, the Bulgarian historian and public figure Ivan Shishmanov, who was an acquaintance of S. N. Trubetskoy, presented the 15-year-old N. S. Trubetskoy with his book with the inscription: the future historian of the ancient Bulgarians (in connection with the young scientist's passion for the history of the Proto-Slavs). In 1920, once in Sofia, Trubetskoy turned to Shishmanov, who recommended him for the post of assistant professor of comparative linguistics at Sofia University. Thanks to this, the emigrant Trubetskoy got a job. At the same time, the 30-year-old scientist had only 8 printed works, of which there was not a single one in linguistics. His main course "Introduction to Comparative Linguistics with Special Attention to the Major Indo-European Languages" brought together only three students at Sofia University. But a little over a year later, Trubetskoy had already made a name for himself with publications on linguistics and cultural history, and he was invited to a professorship at the University of Vienna. In 1923 he moved to Vienna. At the First Congress of Linguists, A. Meie called Trubetskoy the greatest mind of modern linguistics.

In Sofia he published the essay "Europe and Humanity", in which he came close to the development of a Eurasian ideology. The discussion of this book in the Sofia seminar, which was attended by P. P. Suvchinsky, G. V. Florovsky, P. N. Savitsky, led to the birth of the Eurasian ideology, which was announced in the collection “Exodus to the East. Premonitions and Accomplishments. The approval of the Eurasians. Book 1 "(Sofia, 1921).

In the 1920s - 1930s - an active participant in the Eurasian movement, one of its theorists and political leaders. Along with P. P. Suvchinsky and P. N. Savitsky, he was a member of the governing bodies of Eurasianism (Council of Three, Council of Five, Council of Seven). Until 1929, he participated in all programmatic Eurasian collections, in the periodicals of the Eurasians (magazine "Eurasian Chronicles", the newspaper "Eurasia"). Co-author of collective Eurasian manifestos (“Eurasianism (the experience of a systematic exposition)” (1926), “Eurasianism (formulation of 1927)”). He published a number of books in the Eurasian Publishing House (The Legacy of Genghis Khan (1925), On the Problem of Russian Self-Consciousness (1927)). As an ideologist of Eurasianism, he developed the concepts of a multipolar world, Slavic-Turanian cultural interactions, Mongolian influence on Russian political history and culture, ideocracy, and the doctrine of ruling selection in the state.

In 1929, as a sign of protest against the pro-Soviet and pro-communist orientation of the newspaper Eurasia, he left the governing bodies Eurasian movement. He did not participate in the creation (1932) and the work of the Eurasian Party, but continued to maintain personal contacts with P. N. Savitsky, participated in the work of theoretical Eurasian seminars, and in the 1930s began to be published in Eurasian publications (magazine "Eurasian Notebooks" and others. ). At the same time, together with R. O. Yakobson, he developed the theory of the Eurasian linguistic union and, in general, the Eurasian doctrine of language in connection with the geographical factor, on the basis of ontological structuralism, which was formed in the ideological space of the Prague Linguistic Circle.

In parallel, in the 1920-1930s. taught at University of Vienna Slavic languages ​​and literature, engaged in scientific activities. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, he developed a phonological theory. He was one of the participants and ideological leaders of the Prague Linguistic Circle, one of the founders of the school of Slavic structuralism in linguistics. In his lectures on the history of Russian literature, he expressed revolutionary ideas about the need to “discover” ancient Russian literature (like the discovery of a Russian icon), about the application of the formal method to works of ancient and medieval literature (in particular, to Afanasy Nikitin’s “Journey Beyond the Three Seas”), about metrics Russian epics.

Trubetskoy wrote works on linguistics with great inspiration and, with great reluctance, propaganda articles on Eurasian topics. He complained that Eurasian propaganda ruined him as a scientist by taking too much time

He was an implacable opponent of communism, a church-going Orthodox Christian. He served as headman of the Russian St. Nicholas Church under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) (in the late 1920s, under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate). On July 1, 1928, the rector of the church, Archimandrite Khariton (Drobotov), ​​left the jurisdiction of Evlogy, due to the impossibility of fulfilling the political demands of loyalty Soviet power, “Prince N. S. Trubetskoy, who is the church warden of this church, immediately reported to Metropolitan Evlogy about the withdrawal of Archimandrite Khariton from canonical subordination to Metropolitan Evlogy and the latter, according to one report from a layman, contrary to the sacred canons,<…>dismissed Archimandrite Khariton from his post, with the prohibition of priestly service and bringing him to the church court.

In the 1930s opposed National Socialism in the press, seeing in it a kind of "biological materialism", as incompatible with the Orthodox worldview as Marxist "historical materialism". In response to the attempts of the former Eurasianist A. V. Meller-Zakomelsky, who lived in Germany, to bring together the positions of right-wing Eurasianism and Russian National Socialism, N. S. Trubetskoy published a theoretical anti-Nazi article “On Racism”. He criticized the "Aryan theory in linguistics", arguing that the Indo-European proto-language did not exist, and the similarities of the languages ​​​​of the Indo-European family can be explained by their influences on each other in the course of historical development. These ideas, expressed by him in the article “Thoughts on the Indo-European Problem”, became the reason for a denunciation to the Gestapo by a pro-Nazi Austrian linguist.

N. S. Trubetskoy suffered from depression and sought help from a psychotherapist
At the end of his life, from the drugs that Trubetskoy took to treat a sick heart, he acquired a stomach ailment. On this occasion, the scientist joked: it is inconvenient that a person has so many organs.

In 1938, after the Anschluss of Austria, he was harassed by the Gestapo, was summoned for interrogation, was arrested for three days, and his apartment was searched. According to P. N. Savitsky, only the title of prince saved him from the concentration camp. However, a significant part of his scientific manuscripts were confiscated during the search and subsequently lost. Unable to bear this loss, Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy died of a myocardial infarction in the hospital.

N. S. Trubetskoy was going to move with his family to the USA after the Anschluss of Austria, but this was prevented by illness and sudden death

Prince N. S. Trubetskoy, being a political conservative and Orthodox traditionalist, loved the poetry of V. V. Mayakovsky
Philologist P. Bogatyrev called Trubetskoy, whom he knew personally, a real aristocrat and a real democrat

Trubetskoy did not like Russian religious philosophers of the older generation (primarily the Vekhi Berdyaev, Struve, and Bulgakov). In private correspondence, he called them "old grimz" and strongly opposed the publication of "grymz" in Eurasian publications.

In 1973, a memorial plaque was installed at the University of Vienna in honor of N. S. Trubetskoy

In 1914, N. S. Trubetskoy married Vera Petrovna Bazilevskaya(1892 - 1968). Their kids:

3.2.1.2.4.4.2.1. Elena Nikolaevna Trubetskaya (Isachenko) (1915 - 1968)

3.2.1.2.4.4.2.2. Alexander Nikolaevich Trubetskoy(b. 1917)

3.2.1.2.4.4.2.3. Daria Nikolaevna Trubetskaya(1920 - 1976)

3.2.1.2.4.4.2.4. Natalia Nikolaevna Trubetskaya(1925 - 1982)

3.2.1.2.4.4.3. prince Vladimir Sergeevich Trubetskoy(1892, Moscow - (October 30) 1937, Uzbekistan) - Russian Soviet writer(pseudonyms V. Vetov, Vladimir Vetov), ​​memoirist; son of the philosopher and public figure Prince Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy

3.2.1.2.4.5. prince Evgeny Nikolaevich Trubetskoy(September 23 (October 5), 1863, Akhtyrka - January 23, 1920, Novorossiysk) - Russian philosopher, lawyer, publicist, public figure, brother of S.N. Trubetskoy.

Evgeny Nikolaevich Trubetskoy (1890s)

Evgeny Nikolaevich was only a year younger than his brother. His life is closely connected with the life of his brother Sergei Nikolaevich. In 1874, both brothers entered the 3rd grade of the private gymnasium F.I. Kreyman, in 1877 - in the 5th grade of the gymnasium in Kaluga, where their father was appointed vice-governor. Huge spiritual treasures were invested in the life of the family by their mother, S.A. Lopukhina.

A strong influence on the formation of religious mood in the family was exerted by the monasteries located near the Trubetskoy estate - Akhtyrka. Thirteen versts from it is the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and five versts is the Khotkovsky Convent.

Khotkov and Lavra are full of all our memories of Akhtyrka. We, the children, made frequent pilgrimages to the Lavra, grandfather Trubetskoy was also buried there, and the image of St. Sergius hung over each of our children's beds.

Trubetskoy E. N. From the past. Memories. From a refugee's travelogue

In 1879, both brothers, carried away by the ideas of Darwin, Spencer, Buckle, Buchner, Belinsky, Dobrolyubov and Pisarev, experienced an acute religious crisis. The brothers overcame this crisis rather quickly, thanks to Kuno Fischer's book "The History of New Philosophy" from the gymnasium library, the reading of which marked the beginning of their serious study of philosophy. Now the works of Plato, Kant, Fichte, Schelling became the subject of their study. Then followed A. S. Khomyakov, V. S. Solovyov, the novel "The Brothers Karamazov" by F. M. Dostoevsky. An unexpected revelation was given to E. N. Trubetskoy during the performance of Beethoven's 9th symphony conducted by Anton Rubinstein. The perception of the Beethoven Symphony led him to faith, which was revealed to him as a source of supreme joy.

In 1881, the Trubetskoy brothers entered the law faculty of Moscow University. Evgeny Nikolaevich, like his brother, was fond of studying the history of philosophy. However, unlike his brother, he did not transfer to the Faculty of History and Philology. In one of the letters he explained that he could get a master's degree in philosophy of law here too: “I don’t need anything else, since I need a master’s degree only in order to have a position that gives a piece of bread and a full opportunity to indulge in scientific research.”

After graduating from the university in the spring of 1885, E. N. Trubetskoy entered the Kyiv Grenadier Regiment stationed in Kaluga as a volunteer; in September he passed the officer's exams and already in April 1886 he received the title of Privatdozent at the Demidov Lyceum in Yaroslavl (where he taught), defending his dissertation "On slavery in ancient Greece."

In 1887, E. N. Trubetskoy, during one of the "Wednesdays" in the house of L. M. Lopatin, met V. S. Solovyov. Being a student and successor of V. S. Solovyov, E. N. Trubetskoy did not agree with many aspects of his teaching, especially with his ecumenical ideas.
He was "... not even a Solovyovite, but his active and often invincible opponent." ( Losev A.F., "Vladimir Solovyov")

In the same year, 1887, he married Princess Vera Alexandrovna Shcherbatova, daughter of the Moscow mayor. From this marriage they had three children. The family almost always spent the summer in Nara (Vereisky district), on the estate of A. A. Shcherbatov.

In 1892, after defending his master's thesis "Religious and social ideal of Western Christianity in the 5th century. The Worldview of Blessed Augustine" E.N. Trubetskoy received the position of Privatdozent, and in 1897, after defending the work "The Religious and Social Ideal of Western Christianity in the 11th century. The idea of ​​the Kingdom of God in Gregory VII and publicists - his contemporaries" - professor at Kiev University of St. Vladimir.

At the end of 1905, Count S. Yu. Witte, who formed the new cabinet of ministers, wanted to offer E. N. Trubetskoy the post of Minister of Public Education, but at the meeting he realized that Trubetskoy was a pure person, full of philosophical views, with great knowledge, an excellent professor , a real Russian person, but a naive administrator and politician.

Since 1906, he has been a professor of the encyclopedia and the history of the philosophy of law at Moscow University.

At the end of May 1905, he met the philanthropist M. K. Morozova, when a thirty-two-year-old widow with four children gave her house to the delegates of the All-Russian Zemstvo Congress, where the brothers Sergei and Evgeny Trubetskoy also spoke. At her expense, E. N. Trubetskoy began to publish the socio-political magazine Moscow Weekly (1906-1910).

Margarita Kirpllovna Morozova, before the marriage of Mamontov (October 22 (November 3), 1873, Moscow - October 3, 1958, Moscow) - a well-known Russian philanthropist, one of the largest representatives of the religious, philosophical and cultural enlightenment of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century (1907).
Acquaintance with Prince Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy happened in 1902-1903 thanks to Alexander Scriabin. Scriabin considered himself a student of Trubetskoy, who led the philosophical reading of the composer. Morozova's rapprochement with the younger brother of Sergei Nikolaevich - Evgeny - occurred later, after the All-Russian Congress of Zemstvo leaders, which took place in her house on Smolensky Boulevard in May 1905. Evgeny Nikolaevich took an active part in the affairs of the congress along with Sergei Nikolaevich. The Trubetskoy brothers were part of the backbone of the Moscow Psychological Society (A.N. Skryabin was also a member). The society had its own organ - the journal Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, subsidized by the merchant Alexei Alekseevich Abrikosov. The journal was the only purely philosophical periodical published in Russia. Margarita Kirillovna also began to allocate her funds for the publication of this magazine. And after the revolution, she still took part in the affairs of the Moscow Psychological Society, being its treasurer since 1921..

In November 1905, the Moscow Religious and Philosophical Society in Memory of Vladimir Solovyov (MRFO) was organized. The founding members of the society, in addition to Margarita Kirillovna, were S. N. Bulgakov, Prince E. N. Trubetskoy, N. A. Berdyaev, S. A. Kotlyarevsky, L. M. Lopatin, priest P. P. Pospelov, G. A. Rachinsky, A. V. Elchaninov, V. P. Sventsitsky, P. A. Florensky and V. F. Ern are the flower of Russian religious philosophy. Morozova was directly involved in the work of the society along with Prince Yevgeny Trubetskoy.

Initially, he was one of the prominent members and founders of the Cadet Party of People's Freedom, then left it and became one of the founders, on the basis of the “peaceful renewal” faction in the 1st State Duma, of the peaceful renewal party, whose unofficial organ was the Moscow Weekly . More than three hundred leading articles by E. N. Trubetskoy were published here. Already in 1907, in the article “Two Beasts,” Trubetskoy foresaw the impending catastrophe of the Russian Empire:

At the first external shock, Russia may turn out to be a colossus with feet of clay. Class will rise up against class, tribe against tribe, outskirts against center. The first beast will wake up with a new, unearthly power and turn Russia into hell

In 1907-1908 (and then in 1915-1917) he was a member of the State Council.

Valentin Aleksandrovich Serov (1865-1911). Portrait of Margarita Morozova. (1910. Art Museum of Dnepropetrovsk)
Margarita Kirillovna met Yevgeny Trubetskoy shortly after returning from Switzerland in the spring of 1905, most likely at the end of May. On what grounds their rapprochement took place is unknown. In a letter dated August 4 from Biarritz, Margarita Kirillovna tells the most intimate details of her life to her closest friend (mother) Elena Polyanskaya: “I love“ him ”very deeply and don’t be upset by this, but rejoice.” From the same letter it becomes clear that she had long been inwardly ready for a new feeling: “I lived inner life, read, thought, rested, but now enough. I want life and activity. Perhaps this rapprochement took place abroad, namely in Biarritz:
… we are too close. Especially we experienced strong and some kind of sacred moments here, abroad. I assume victory only in the fact that such a keen desire will fade away, but that light with it that is so dear and irreplaceable to me will remain. It depends on his strength and on mine. The end will be, even if there is a known event, but the bright heavenly side of everything will be lost. I assure you that even my hair turned gray, I suffered so much here. I suppose it is possible for me now, as a last resort, some other person, just to calm this storm.
M. K. Morozov, letter to E. I. Polyanskaya,<4.8.1905. Биарриц — Москва>.
“Another person” is, according to V. Kaidan, P. N. Milyukov. To test her feelings for Trubetskoy, Morozova decides to get to know the famous historian and future leader of the Cadets better. It is as if she is still choosing whom to prefer to her, Milyukov (Stolz) or Trubetskoy (Oblomov), but the main choice in favor of overcoming loneliness has already been made: “As for Oblomov and Stolz, you are right and wrong. In everyday life it is so, Stolz could give me a lot, but he could never give what “he” can give. Apart from “him,” only Christ can.” So, M. K. Morozova trusted her feelings wholeheartedly and remained faithful to him despite the fact that she never lacked admirers. Under the influence of Prince Evgeny Nikolaevich Trubetskoy (or rather, for his sake), she became interested in socio-political issues. She studied the works of Lotze, Kant, V.S. Solovyov, Schelling's "System of Transcendental Idealism" in order not to be boring to her chosen one and, on occasion, to reveal her cultural awareness.

By mutual agreement, they undertook in Moscow to publish the weekly socio-political newspaper Moscow Weekly. The newspaper began to appear in March 1906 with the support of M. K. Morozova and was published until the end of August 1910.

Over the years, the relationship between the publisher and the editor has undergone changes caused by a period of cooling and outbursts of feelings, but at the same time it has always remained the relationship of two close people. In the letters of 1906, Yevgeny Nikolaevich still reservedly and in a businesslike way addresses Morozova as “you”, and in subsequent years the tone of the letters was exceptionally friendly and sincere. He called his correspondent none other than “my dear and dear Harmosya”, shared his creative and family plans with Morozova, asked her advice, sought her support in his spiritual quest. Margarita Kirillovna answered him in the same tone: “My angel Zhenichka!”, “Dear, dear, my priceless!”, “I kiss you tightly and tenderly ...”. But Trubetskoy was older than Margarita Kirillovna, he had been married for twenty years, had three children and did not want to leave his family (P. N. Milyukov was also married).

As is clear from Trubetskoy's messages, his wife Vera Alexandrovna knew about his relationship with the beautiful patron of the arts and reacted very painfully to their relationship. She knew everything from the stories of her husband, who on principle avoided the vulgarity of philistine betrayals, deceptions and squabbles. Moreover, according to Trubetskoy, she wanted a meeting with Margarita Kirillovna and an explanation with her. Defending his wife, he wrote about her Morozova:

My dear friend! How glad I am that you do not need to explain all this, that you are my assistant in all this and that you understand me perfectly. What an angelic soul my wife is! For two days now she has reminded me several times that I should send the letter today, so that it will certainly be in time for your arrival, I myself do not know for sure; and how many times she repeats that she wants to see you! My God, why am I so spoiled by love! ... but God helped everything. Again he sent his infinitely clear bottomless blue azure over us. Again light and bright in the soul ...

And you and I should think together, no matter how the hair falls from her head; without this, neither you nor I have a blessing ... Remember that for her I am everything. Her self-denial is boundless; but just as boundlessly she feels me - every word of mine, not even spoken, every feeling that is just emerging. Every letter received by me and not shown to her is heard by feeling. Every change I have towards me [myself?] feels like torment and illness… and then you will understand why there were such terribly difficult moments here, when I saw no way out and plunged into gloomy despair. For you and me to be joyful, she must be joyful.

Margarita Kirillovna was also disgusted by the hypocrisy and lies of vulgar adultery, she is sincere in her feelings: “Do you really want my life to be resolved by a bourgeois-prosperous connection with deceit. For my soul to stop there!<…>With Stolz it is possible. And here, where my whole soul is, and suddenly into its shrine - lies and deceit! “Never!” she writes to a friend. She experienced her feeling tragically: “I am never destined to have two joys: to be yours before God and to see a child in which your and my features would miraculously unite! There will be nothing left of our love!” she wrote to Trubetskoy.

In moments of despair and loneliness, thoughts came to her to break this triangle, to end her "sinfulness" and even to explain herself to Trubetskoy's wife in order to be able to start living anew: "I feel very disgusted, my angel, mommy! I'm alone in Moscow in an empty house and alone, alone! I feel myself in the ruins of a building built with such love! I am alone and here I am writing to you again,<…>not to see this darkness of loneliness! Gradually, Margarita Kirillovna comes to the conclusion that decisive changes are needed in her life: “You need to change your feeling! It’s all God punishing me for sinful wishes!”. In her letters, she desperately pleads with Yevgeny Nikolaevich: “I will make all the sacrifices, I want one minute, one small minute of joy, my joy in life! Just think, because this is my only minute when I live - it's with you! But only completely, completely with you, alone with you in the whole world, at least for a minute! I know that I will give everything for this and endure everything! But her answer was a long discussion about Christian ethics: "With sin, God can not have any deals and compromises: unconditional laws are laid here."

But the situation, when, from the philosophical principle of denying sinfulness, Trubetskoy allowed himself to be loved by both women, did not suit either of them. “It is not interesting to be the second beloved woman ...<…>I would like to be the only one, ”wrote Margarita Kirillovna. And then, in order to relieve tension and calm the jealousy of Vera Alexandrovna, turning the tide of events in her favor, Morozova decided to close the Moscow Weekly newspaper, allegedly because of financial problems. In fact, she did this to alleviate the suffering of Vera Trubetskoy. This conclusion of the researcher Alexander Nosov directly contradicts the somewhat straightforward conclusion of former Soviet historians about the true reasons for the closing of the newspaper, according to which the financial failure of the Moscow Weekly was due to the bankruptcy of liberalism against the backdrop of "acute class struggle in the country." Morozova sacrificed regular meetings with her “editor” (the work of the editorial staff also took place under the roof of the Morozov mansion), because, having conceived a new joint publication, she decided to return Trubetskoy to the family, leaving herself only the possibility of personal correspondence with him. The rationale for her never-ceasing feeling for Trubetskoy was her thought: "Our love is needed by Russia."

In such an unusual way, one of the outstanding results of this, in the words of A. A. Nosov, "lawless love" was the Moscow publishing house "Way" for the release of religious and philosophical literature. It began its work in February-March 1910. Nominally, Prince Trubetskoy in the publishing affairs of the "Way" was equal in relation to other founding members of the publishing house, in fact, his voice sometimes became decisive. This, for example, happened during the discussion of the publishing concept and policy of book publishing. As a result, the works of Vladimir Solovyov, N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, E. N. Trubetskoy, V. F. Ern, P. A. Florensky saw the light here. M. O. Gershenzon published in it the works of P. Ya. Chaadaev and I. V. Kireevsky. The works of V. F. Odoevsky, S. I. Shchukin, A. S. Glinka, S. N. Durylin were also published here. The first book published by the publishing house was a collection of articles "About Vladimir Solovyov". As the researcher of E. N. Trubetskoy A. A. Nosov writes:

Their romance unfolded in the cultural paradigm of the past century: the feeling they experienced was too sincere, deep, whole for its time, and most importantly, it was too authentic; and it lacked precisely that for which the 20th century had a special demand - the actual literacy, the game, which always presupposes a spectator, albeit a single one. It cannot be said that they remained completely immune to the “poisonous mists” and “Dionysian ecstasies” of Russian decadence (M.K. was more susceptible to them), but if they were destined to become literary heroes then the heroes of the classic novel; perhaps the author of Past and Thoughts could tell about their love drama. But the classic novel died with the century that gave birth to it, and the new century simply lost the language that was required for such a story.

Nosov A. A. “Russia needs our love…” // New world. - M., 1993. - No. 9.

Margarita Kirillovna and Evgeny Nikolaevich carefully concealed their relationship from others, although from a letter from Morozova to E. I. Polyanskaya on July 20, 1908, one can understand that the loneliness of a young, wealthy and beautiful woman evoked natural questions from others: “How annoying it is for me that everyone writes to you about“ this ”, about my personal!”. The impossibility of marriage weighed heavily on both of them. The ambiguous situation gave rise to quarrels and misunderstandings. In the same letter to her friend, Morozova repeatedly complains about the character of her lover: “He, in my opinion, has a very difficult, withdrawn and memory character”; “I approach him with kindness and selflessness, and he with pride, wife and pride! It's not easy. Although he is right, then why did he get into all this?”

The year 1910 was in many ways a turning point for them, especially for Margarita Kirillovna. This year she had to change a lot in her life. She donated most of her husband's collection to the Tretyakov Gallery. She sold a luxurious mansion on Smolensky Boulevard and moved to a more modest house in Dead Lane. She abandoned the publication of the "Moscow Weekly" and founded the publishing house "Way"; and most importantly, she decided to stop regular meetings with Yevgeny Trubetskoy, giving rest to his family. But that was not all.

In 1911, Evgeny Nikolaevich Trubetskoy, together with a large group of professors, left Moscow University, disagreeing with the violation of the principles of university autonomy by the government. In this regard, the Trubetskoy family moved to the Kaluga province - to the estate of Begichevo. Here Trubetskoy was engaged in housekeeping, and also wrote philosophical articles for the publishing houses "Way" and "Russian Thought". He came to Moscow only to give lectures at the A. L. Shanyavsky People's University and participate in some meetings of the Religious-Philosophical and Psychological Societies.

Trubetskoy Evgeny Nikolaevich (1910)

Trubetskoy most of his time lived in Begichevo, M. K. Morozova lived in Moscow. In 1909, she acquired the Mikhailovskoe estate not far from Begichev. All these decisions were closely related to each other and were carefully thought out by her. From that moment on, correspondence with her beloved becomes perhaps the most important thing in her life. But having moved away from Trubetskoy at his own insistence, Morozova felt even more alone than before.

Morozova Margarita Kirillovna (1910s)
Since 1909, the intensity of their correspondence has increased significantly: from June to August 20, 1909, Morozova wrote about 60 letters to Trubetskoy, that is, about two letters every three days.
Letters of M. K. Morozova to Prince E. N. Trubetskoy - of course, not a love story in the interiors of the Silver Age<…>, and not only a monument to the deep and sincere feeling of a particular person: this is probably the most extensive, most intimately experienced religious and philosophical treatise on love that has ever appeared in the history of Russian culture and Russian thought.
— Letters from Margarita Kirillovna Morozova. Foreword Alexandra Nosov. // Our heritage. - 2000. - No. 52. - P. 91.

The long-term correspondence between Morozova and Trubetskoy (from 1906 to 1918) contains several hundred letters (the total number of Morozova's correspondence approaches ten thousand letters). Nothing would have been known about the true relationship of these two people if Margarita Kirillovna, shortly before her death, had not transferred her archive (several thousand letters) to the Lenin Library - GBL. The intensity of the correspondence suggests that both, forced to live apart, put all their feelings into almost daily messages.
The relationship between the two people was interrupted by the revolution and the Civil War. Margarita Kirillovna opposed the entry of the prince into an active political life: "Drop it all! For politics, you have to be Milyukov ... or Kerensky, then you should give everything to him. However, in spite of everything, Evgeny Nikolaevich in 1918 joined the White movement, finally said goodbye to Margarita Kirillovna near Moscow and died of typhus near Novorossiysk in 1920.

In 1914, in connection with the outbreak of the World War, he, having experienced patriotic enthusiasm, thought about the meaning of life, which was manifested in articles and books of this period. at the same time, under the influence of impressions from the exhibition of ancient Russian painting from the collection of I. S. Ostroukhov, he wrote three essays on the Russian icon: “Speculation in colors” (1915), “Two worlds in ancient Russian icon painting” (1916) and “Russia in her icon" (1917).

In 1917-1918, E. N. Trubetskoy took part in the work of the All-Russian Local Council as a Comrade Chairman. At this time, on May 19, 1918, E. N. Trubetskoy was the official opponent at the defense of I. A. Ilyin’s dissertation on the topic “Hegel’s philosophy as a doctrine of the concreteness of God and man.” The immediate threat of arrest forced him to leave Moscow: he arrived in Denikin's Volunteer Army, where his brother, G. N. Trubetskoy, in the government of Denikin, he served as head of the Department for Confessions.

Having got to Novorossiysk together with the retreating army, he fell ill with typhus here and died on January 23, 1920.

Trubetskoy is one of the main representatives of the metaphysics of unity created by V. S. Solovyov. He critically reviews Solovyov's philosophy, defines a certain core and sets the task of developing from this core an integral and systematic philosophy of God-manhood. Outside the core are, first of all, Solovyov's "utopias": a sharp exaggeration of the role in the Divine-human process of individual private spheres and phenomena: Catholicism, theocracy. The central object and at the same time the main instrument of research in Trubetskoy's philosophy is the concept of Absolute consciousness. It arises in the course of epistemological analysis. According to Trubetskoy's ideas, every act of cognition is aimed at establishing some unconditional and obligatory (and therefore transsubjective, superpsychological) content - meaning or truth - and, therefore, presupposes the existence of such; there must be truth in everything that exists. Truth, by its nature, is neither a being nor being, but precisely the content of consciousness, moreover, it is characterized by unconditionality and super-psychological.

He was married to Princess Vera Alexandrovna Shcherbatova and had two sons and a daughter. The house had a special atmosphere. His son Sergey recalled: “When Pap went to his office to study, it was as if Pap was leaving the earth and going to some other, unearthly areas ... When Pap was talking to us, we felt completely simple, but when he “began to think about something”, and even more so he went to his office, the relationship between us completely stopped. We were forbidden to enter Pap's office when he was busy, but we wouldn't have dared to go there anyway. In Pap's office, he was surrounded by some kind of mystical atmosphere for us ... ".

Prince Evgeny Nikolaevich Troubetzkoy with his sons Sergei and Alexander

3.2.1.2.4.5.1. prince Sergei Evgenievich Trubetskoy(February 27, 1890, Moscow - October 24, 1949, Clamart) - Russian philosopher and writer

S. E. Trubetskoy

Born February 27, 1890 in Moscow, in the house of his maternal grandfather Prince Alexander Alekseevich Shcherbatov.

He received his primary education at home. He traveled a lot with his parents in Europe. Until 1906 he lived in Kyiv, in the summer - in the Shcherbatov Nara estate near Moscow. In 1905 he entered the 6th grade of the Kiev First Gymnasium. In 1906 he moved with his family to Moscow.

He graduated from the 7th Moscow gymnasium with a gold medal and the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University (1912). He studied with professors L. M. Lopatin and G. I. Chelpanov. He taught at Moscow University.

Participated in the Kaluga noble assembly, was elected a deputy from the nobility.

With the outbreak of the First World War, he tried to go to the front as a volunteer, but did not get there due to health problems. He worked as an assistant commissioner in the ambulance train, assistant head of the Control Department in the Committee of the North-Western Front, deputy chairman of the front committee, authorized in the Zemgor Representation, in the Liquidation Commission for the Kingdom of Poland.

In 1917 he moved to Moscow, lived with his aunt S. A. Petrovo-Solovovo. He served as an authorized representative in the financial department of the Main Committee, later as a senior clerk in the Moscow Union of Cooperative Societies.

After the October Revolution, Trubetskoy took an active part in the activities of secret organizations - the National Center and the Tactical Center, which provided assistance to the White Army from Moscow.

January 20, 1920 was arrested, kept in the inner prison of the Special Department of the Cheka in the Lubyanka. His case was led by an investigator, specially authorized Agranov. He was transferred to solitary confinement. At the same time, he learned about the arrest of his sister Sophia and the death of his father in Novorossiysk. He was transferred to Butyrka prison.

The Supreme Tribunal of the RSFSR (the chairman of the Tribunal, Krylenko, acted as the accuser) sentenced Trubetskoy to death, which was replaced by ten years of strict isolation. He was transferred to the Taganka prison, participated in the church services of Metropolitan Kirill, who was also kept in this prison.

In 1921, the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, Grushka, petitioned for Trubetskoy to be sent to the university. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee granted the petition and the prince was sent to the university and left in prison. At the same time, Trubetskoy learned that his sister and mother had been moved to a communal apartment.

In the summer of 1922, he was again arrested and kept in the internal prison of the GPU in Lubyanka. There he saw Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov), the philosophers S. L. Frank and N. A. Berdyaev. At this time, the investigator for the first time offered Trubetskoy to sign a request to leave abroad, but he refused. Subsequently, the prince nevertheless signed a petition for departure, together with his mother and sister.

He left Moscow for St. Petersburg in order to sail on a German steamer to Stettin. Upon arrival, met with his brother Alexander. Moved to Berlin.

In 1922-1938 he worked in the Russian All-Military Union: he compiled bulletins on the state of affairs in the USSR, was a political adviser to Generals Kutepov and Miller. In 1938-1949 he was engaged in translations and journalism. He left memoirs "Past", in which he described his imprisonment in the first years of Soviet power.

In 1923 he married Princess Marina Nikolaevna Gagarina(August 5, 1897 - December 14, 1984).

3.2.1.2.4.5.1.1. Marina Sergeevna Trubetskaya(1924 - 1982)

3.2.1.2.4.5.1.2. Vera Sergeevna Trubetskaya(Khreptovich-Buteneva) (b. 1926)

3.2.1.2.4.5.1.3. Tatyana Sergeevna Trubetskaya(Khreptovich-Buteneva) (1927 - 1997)

Born in Yaroslavl, where his grandfather taught at the Demidov Lyceum. He studied at Moscow University, wanted to become a lawyer. He spent his childhood and youth on the estate of his parents, not far from Kaluga, where he was fond of equestrian sports, hunting and photography (photo albums of amazing quality with views of the estate, family, Donets horse and beloved dog, Ralph's setter, have been preserved). When did it start World War, he, like many peers, a sense of duty to the Motherland called to the front. He wanted to go there as a simple soldier, but he was persuaded to enroll in an accelerated officer course. After graduating from the Nikolaev Cavalry School with a "guards score", he was sent to the Life Guards Horse Grenadier Regiment. Nicholas II took the oath in Peterhof. He took part in the hostilities from the beginning of 1915 and earned the Order of St. Stanislav III and II degree, St. Anna III degree. In 1918 the regiment was disbanded. In front of A.E. Troubetzkoy was hoisted up by several officers on bayonets. He got lucky. One of the soldiers said: "Don't touch him, he treats our brother well!" Only the staff captain's epaulettes were torn off. Alexander Evgenievich returned to Moscow. There he took part in street battles, commanded the defense of the main post office. Then they had to hide the weapons under the floor of the family house of the princes Shcherbatovs (the house was located on the site of the current American Embassy). Then he joined one of the secret officer organizations to fight the Bolsheviks. These organizations came into contact with the Volunteer Army, which began to be created in the south of Russia. It was decided to send a group of officers to Tobolsk in order to save royal family. In the 1930s, A.E. Trubetskoy described his participation in this expedition in the magazine "Hour", which was published in exile. This article was republished in the book "Princes Trubetskoy" - Russia will rise" (M.: Voenizdat, 1996).

Then he was evacuated along with the remnants of the White Army to Constantinople, studied at the University of Prague, worked as a carriage driver, taxi driver

Married October 30, 1934 in Clamarthe, France Alexandra Mikhailovna Golitsyna(Osorgina) (August 8, 1900 - October 25, 1991)

I. Short story kind of Trubetskoy

As already mentioned in the introduction, the history of the remarkable family of the Russian princes Trubetskoy begins in the 14th century.

This is an old Lithuanian-Russian princely family, descended from the great Lithuanian prince Gediminas. Their surname comes from the city of Trubech (Trubets, now Trubchevsk, Bryansk region), which became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1368–1372 and was transferred by the Grand Duke Olgerd Gediminovich, the son of that same Gedimin, to his son, Prince Dmitry of Bryansk and Chernigov Olgerdovich - a participant in the Battle of Kulikovo (1380), killed in a battle on the Vorskla River (1399). Here, in fact, from this grandson of Gediminovich, the Trubetskoy family begins.

All modern representatives of the genus are descended from Lieutenant General Yuri Yuryevich Trubetskoy (1668–1739). But it will be discussed further.

The descendants of Dmitry Olgerdovich are the specific princes Trubechsky (Trubetskoy): Mikhail Dmitrievich (ruled 1399-about 1420), Semyon Mikhailovich (about 1420-1460), Ivan Semenovich (about 1460-1490), Andrey Ivanovich (about 1490-1500). In 1500, Prince Andrei Ivanovich entered the service of the Grand Duke of Moscow, and his inheritance was annexed to the Russian state. In the middle of the 16th century, the guardsmen of Ivan IV the Terrible, Princes Fyodor Mikhailovich and Nikita Romanovich Trubetskoy, were known.

On the Vorskla River, not only Prince Andrei Olgerdovich, his brother, Prince Dmitry Olgerdovich, died, but also Dmitry's son Ivan.

Boyarin Fyodor Mikhailovich Trubetskoy (died in 1602), as a governor, participated in the Livonian War and in the fight against raids Crimean Tatars. He played a prominent role at the courts of Ivan the Terrible (he was guardian of the throne!), Fyodor Ivanovich, Boris Godunov. In the absence of the tsar, Fyodor Mikhailovich remained the ruler in Moscow. Before his death, he took the tonsure under the name Theodosius.

Boyarin Nikita Romanovich Trubetskoy, voivode of Vologda, nicknamed Oblique (died in 1608), distinguished himself in the war with the Swedes.

During the stay in power of False Dmitry I, Prince Nikita became one of his close associates, after the death of the impostor, he supported the candidacy of Vasily Shuisky for the Russian throne.

The last representative of the older branch of the clan was the boyar and voivode Andrey Vasilyevich Trubetskoy (died in 1611). Having entered the service in 1573, he participated in the campaign of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible against Serpukhov, took part in the final battles Livonian War, in military operations of Russian troops with the Swedes (1590). Andrey Vasilyevich was the governor in Tula, Novgorod-Seversky, Novgorod, Smolensk, took part in diplomatic negotiations. Prince Andrei enjoyed the favor of the tsars Ivan the Terrible, Feodor Ivanovich, Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky. After the overthrow of Shuisky, Prince Andrei Vasilievich became part of the Seven Boyars, but soon died.

Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy - "savior of the Fatherland" - (died in 1625) actively participated in the events of the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century, took part in hostilities against the Polish-Lithuanian interventionists, was one of the leaders of the First and Second Militias, before being elected Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich was the temporary ruler of Russia, that is, he was actually the ruler of Russia in 1612-1613!

Aleksey Nikitich Trubetskoy (died 1680) was a prominent statesman during the reign of Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich, who played an important role in the process of reunification of Ukraine with Russia. For the suppression of the uprising in Moscow (1662), the tsar granted Alexei Nikitich the possession of the ancestral Trubchevsk and the title of "ruler of Trubchevsky." In the 1660s, Prince Alexei brought Yuri Petrovich Trubetskoy from Lithuania to Russia, the grandson of his own brother, Prince Yuri Nikitich Trubetskoy (died in 1634), who came to the service of the king of the Commonwealth during the Time of Troubles. And already in 1611, Yuri Nikitich left for Poland, where he converted to Catholicism, marrying a Pole Elizabeth Drutskaya and making a successful career at the royal court. Not wanting to give his possessions to the offspring of Prince Yuri Nikitich, Prince Alexei bequeathed Trubchevsk to his godson, Peter I the Great, although he fussed "excessively" about the return of his great-nephew to Russia. Boyar Yuri Petrovich Trubetskoy (died in 1679) became the ancestor of the later representatives of the Trubetskoy.

Boyar Yuri Yuryevich Trubetskoy (1668–1739) began his court service as a room steward of Tsars Fedor Alekseevich and Peter I the Great. In 1700, he negotiated with the Prussian elector on the accession of Russian lands to the Northern Union. Yuri Trubetskoy took part in the construction of the Peter and Paul Fortress and the Trubetskoy Bastion was named in his honor.

Later, a descendant of its builder, also Prince Sergei Trubetskoy, would sit in this Trubetskoy bastion. True, the occasion was very romantic - he took someone else's wife away! He was Lermontov's second in the poet's duel with Martynov. Here they are the intricacies of fate!

In 1720, Prince Yuri was appointed president of the Magistrate, the highest body of city government in Russia, in 1727, governor of Belgorod, and in 1730, senator.

His brother, Field Marshal Ivan Yuryevich Trubetskoy "Big" (died in 1750), so nicknamed in contrast to his namesake and nephew, the President of the College of Justice, was a favorite of Peter I the Great and began serving in the Preobrazhensky Regiment. In 1698 he became governor of Novgorod; at the very beginning of the Northern War (1700-1721) he participated in the Battle of Narva, was wounded and taken prisoner by the Swedes. The King of Sweden, Charles XII, allowed Ivan's wife, Irina Grigorievna Naryshkina, to come to her husband and live with him in Sweden. Nevertheless, in captivity, an illegitimate son, Ivan Ivanovich, was born to the prince from a Swede, who was given the surname Betskoy.

It was quite a common practice of the time. People loved, gave birth to children and were not always legally married. Since the laws of recognition of paternity were quite severe - property, land, last name, finally, had to be protected from bastards, but it was "ugly" not to recognize illegitimate children at all, and they were often smarter and sweeter to the heart than the official ones - "gave" sometimes part of their last name or came up with something suitable. And there are a great many examples of this both then and in later history.

The wonderful Russian writer Alexander Ivanovich Herzen is the fruit of the love of a wealthy landowner Ivan Alekseevich Yakovlev, who descended from Andrei Kobyla, like the Romanovs, and a 16-year-old beautiful German woman, the daughter of a petty official.

The marriage was not formalized, and Herzen bore the surname invented by his father: Herzen - "son of the heart" (from him. Hertz).

In 1718, Peter I exchanged Trubetskoy for the captured Swedish Field Marshal Karl-Gustav Renschild. After his release, Ivan Yurievich received the rank of lieutenant general and the post of Kiev governor. Upon the accession to the throne of Anna Ioannovna (1730), Prince Ivan "Bolshoy" acted as an ardent opponent of "conditions", for which the empress granted him the title of senator, and in 1739 appointed him governor-general of Moscow. Prince Ivan managed to earn the favor of the Empress Elizaveta Petrovna. He was the last boyar who outlived the Boyar Duma by almost fifty years.

Field Marshal Nikita Yuryevich Trubetskoy (1699–1767) began his service in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, until 1740 he participated in almost all wars in Russia; He was President of the Military Collegium and for about 20 years Prosecutor General of the Senate. A prominent statesman, a man of a vast and enlightened mind, Prince Nikita was friends with A. D. Kantemir and M. M. Kheraskov, and was the patron of Ya. P. Shakhovsky.

Prince Pyotr Nikitich Trubetskoy (1724-1791) is known as an employee of I. I. Betsky, an honorary member of the Academy of Arts. He began his service in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, in 1761 he was appointed chief prosecutor of the Senate, and three years later he became a senator.

Peter Nikitich enjoyed influence at the court of Catherine II the Great, he is the author of a number of poems and literary translations. General Sergei Nikitich Trubetskoy (1731–1812) distinguished himself in combat operations on the territory of Poland during the reign of Catherine II the Great.

Nikolai Nikitich Trubetskoy (1744–1821) is known as a friend of Nikolai Novikov, a journalist, publisher, Russian educator, and one of the leaders of the Martinist society (a branch of Freemasons). In 1796, Emperor Pavel I Petrovich exiled him to the Voronezh province, but soon appointed him a senator in Moscow. Nikolai Nikitich owns a number of poetic and prose works, the comedy "The Spender". His correspondence was published in 1874.

Adjutant General, senator, member of the State Council Vasily Sergeevich Trubetskoy (1776–1841) began with civil service, but in 1805 he switched to military service; participated in the Russian-Turkish wars, the Napoleonic wars, distinguished himself in the battles of Lutzen, Dresden, Leipzig.

After the end of the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829, he was appointed chairman of a special committee to draw up a regulation on the establishment of correctional institutions. In 1830, Vasily Sergeevich headed the embassy to London; the next year he was the temporary military governor of the city. Around 1839, at his suggestion, a charity committee for the poor was established in St. Petersburg.

Decembrist Sergei Petrovich Trubetskoy (1790–1860) participated in Patriotic war 1812 and foreign campaigns, was a colonel. Being one of the organizers of the Decembrist movement, he was sentenced to eternal hard labor, which he served in the Nerchinsk mines, in 1839-1856 he lived in a settlement in the Irkutsk province. His brother Pyotr Petrovich Trubetskoy also took part in the Decembrist movement, and managed to escape punishment.

Their nephew Sergei Nikitich Trubetskoy (1829–1899) devoted his life to military service. In 1889, he was entrusted with the management of the Hermitage, but Prince Sergei paid little attention to him, and for ten years in charge he was not even approved as director of the Hermitage.

Sergei Vasilyevich Trubetskoy (1815–1859) served in the cavalry guard regiment from the age of eighteen, participated in hostilities in the Caucasus, was Mikhail Lermontov's second in a duel with Martynov. In 1842 he resigned with the rank of captain. Nine years later, Sergei Vasilievich took away someone else's wife - Lavinia Zhadimirovskaya. In Nikolaev time, this was considered a serious offense. Sergei Trubetskoy was placed under arrest in the Trubetskoy bastion of the Peter and Paul Fortress, and then "without a title, rank and insignia, he was sent as a private to an infantry regiment in Petrozavodsk under the strictest supervision."

One of the most famous representatives of the family, Pavel (Paolo) Petrovich Trubetskoy (1866–1938) is an outstanding Russian sculptor, whose works stand out for their amazing picturesqueness.

Among the numerous representatives of the Trubetskoy family in late XIX- At the beginning of the 20th century, the names of four siblings stand out: Pyotr Nikolayevich Trubetskoy (1858–1911), after the death of his mother, was brought up by his aunt Sofya Tolstaya, who gave him her hereditary estate Uzkoye, which in Soviet times became the sanatorium of the Academy of Sciences. In his youth, Peter was fond of liberal ideas, but during the First Russian Revolution (1905–1907) he became one of the founders of the Union of the Russian People. In 1911, out of jealousy, he was murdered by his nephew W. G. Christie.

His brother Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy (1862–1905) was a Russian religious philosopher, publicist, and public figure.

He became famous for his journalistic articles in defense of constitutional reforms. In the autumn of 1905, he was elected rector of Moscow University, but soon died.

His eldest son Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy emigrated from Soviet Russia, lived abroad in Vienna and was known as a researcher of history Slavic languages. The younger son Vladimir Sergeevich Trubetskoy (died in 1937) remained after in Russia, was arrested, died during the period of mass repressions. His wife, two sons and two daughters were also repressed.

The third of the brothers, Evgeny Nikolaevich Trubetskoy (1863–1920, Novorossiysk), was known as a religious philosopher and jurist, during the Civil War he supported the White movement. His son Sergei Evgenievich Trubetskoy (1890–1949), associate professor at Moscow University, was expelled from Soviet Russia in 1922.

The youngest of the brothers - Grigory Nikolayevich Trubetskoy - after graduating from Moscow University, served in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, emigrated abroad in 1920, lived in Yugoslavia, Vienna, Paris. He is known as a prominent theorist of Eurasianism.

This is a short dynastic tree of the Trubetskoy family, and we will try to talk about these wonderful people, surprising and sometimes tragic fates of some of them.

This text is an introductory piece. From the European book. Brief history of the twentieth century author Arranger Patrick

A Brief History of Europeana Author of the book Europeana. A Brief History of the Twentieth Century, published in 2001 in the Czech Republic, has been living in Paris since 1985. French by mother and Czech by father, he is fluent in both languages. The manager edits the section on literature in

From the book The Fall of Tenochtitlan author Kinzhalov Rostislav Vasilievich

Aztecs. A Brief History The Aztecs are comparatively late arrivals in the Valley of Mexico. Many centuries before their appearance, cultured peoples had already lived here, cultivating the land, erecting majestic buildings, creating wonderful works of art. But besides

From the book Napoleon's Buttons [Seventeen Molecules That Changed the World] author Lecuter Penny

A Brief History of Pepper Pepper, the fruit of the tropical climbing plant Pipernigrum, native to India, is still the most popular spice. Now this product is mainly produced in the equatorial regions of India, in Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia. This is a strong plant

From the book Secret Societies that Rule the World the author Sparov Victor

From the book The Complete History of Secret Societies and Sects of the World the author Sparov Victor

A Brief History of Freemasonry The word "mason" comes from the English mason - "mason", "masons", and in this form it was borrowed by other European languages, but after it had lost its original meaning in England. Indeed, until recently,

From the book Drama and Secrets of History, 1306-1643 author Ambelain Robert

A Brief History of the Order It is not our intention in this chapter to recount the history of the Order of the Temple (or the Knights Templar), which has been written about so much for over 100 years. Moreover, we are not going to remove the charge of heresy from him - not only fair, but

From the book Wars of the Roses. Yorkies vs Lancasters author Ustinov Vadim Georgievich

A Brief History of the Princes Both princes spent their childhood at Ludlow Castle, in the Marches of Wales, under the care of the queen's brother, Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers. Their father Edward IV died on April 9, 1483. Princes of the Tower In a will drawn up as early as 1475, he entrusted

From the book A Brief History of Turkey by Stone Norman

Short story

From the book Ancient Cities and Biblical Archeology. Monograph author Oparin Alexey Anatolievich

From the book Egypt. The return of a lost civilization by Tyldesley Joyce

A Brief History of Egypt Readers who are just beginning to take an interest in the history of Egypt are often confused by the method of reckoning used: instead of the traditional calendar, the duration of the reign or dynasty is used. Why is this applied

From the book Petersburg women of the XIX century author Pervushina Elena Vladimirovna

Interlude 3. The story of one life A girl from the Eliseev family Our heroine was born in 1870 in the famous merchant family of the Eliseevs and was the only daughter of Alexander Grigoryevich Eliseev. Her mother, Praskovya Sergeevna, nee Smurova, died when she was little

From the book of Athena: the history of the city author Llewellyn Smith Michael

A Brief History of the Acropolis At the time of the first human settlements, the Acropolis was both a city and a fortress, a place of accumulation of small houses and primitive wooden temples. Then it will become a Mycenaean fortress-palace, traces of walls and fortifications of which date back to the end

From the book Trubetskoy. Aristocrats in spirit author Mukhovitskaya Lyra

V. The beginning of a new era of the Trubetskoy family

From the book Russian Belgrade author Tanin Sergey Yurievich

A Brief History of Serbia Let's make a reservation right away that the history of the country that we used to call Serbia dates back to the 6th century. After the division of the Roman Empire, the territory of present-day Serbia became part of Byzantium. In 879, the Serbs converted to Orthodoxy, and in 969, Serbia

From the book Return. The History of the Jews in the Light of Old and New Testament Prophecies author Grzesik Julian

1. A Brief History of Israel In the entire long history of mankind, only one people, after a thousand years of national independence and two thousand years of bitter exile, returned to their homeland to build a modern democratic state there. This state is

From the book of Vorontsov. Nobles by birth author Mukhovitskaya Lyra

The history of the origin of the clan The official genealogy of the Vorontsovs, an old Russian noble family, begins with the Varangians. The ancestor is African or Afrek, brother of Yakun the Blind, Varangian jarl. Jarl (dr. - Scandinavian) - a noble person, the governor of the king in

The official opening of the 2nd solo exhibition of the artist Valentin Georgievich Trubetskoy, a member of the Creative Union "LIK" (Krasnogorsk), a member of the Creative Union of Artists of Russia and the International Federation of Artists ("IFA"), took place on November 30
2002

V.A. Trubetskoy took part in exhibitions: 1992 - the exhibition "Russian Opening Day" (Goirle, the Netherlands).
2001 - exhibition hall "On Kashira".
2001 and 2002 - showroom in Tushino. These are quite large exhibitions. They were attended by about 150 artists from Moscow, Yaroslavl and other regions. These exhibitions are organized by the Nash Izograf society.
2002 - gallery "Vykhino", on Tashkent street.
2002 - an exhibition organized by the All-Russian Fund of Culture in
M. Milyutinsky per.

Valentin Georgievich Trubetskoy is an active participant in all exhibitions dedicated to the "City Day" (Krasnogorsk).
Artist V.G. Trubetskoy was born into a peasant family. In the village of Snegiri, Istra district, the house in which he was born has been preserved. Now my sister lives there. As a child, he loved to draw, at school he designed wall newspapers. Study, family, work did not allow me to give myself up earlier artistic creativity. And in 1976, it would seem a chance meeting (does everything in our life happen by chance).

In the hospital ward, V.G. Trubetskoy met with the artist Pyotr Nikolaevich Reshetnikov, who over the years became the “Honored Artist of Russia”. “My maestro,” Valentin Georgievich calls him. From this meeting, the creative life of our fellow countryman began. Prior to that, he sometimes painted, painted in oils.

In 1977 - 1979, Valentin Georgievich studied with the artist Nikolai Ivanovich Kasatkin at the People's University. “Fortunately, under the Soviet regime, education was free,” the artist comments. Now he has about 200 works - mostly landscapes and still lifes. The artist's paintings are bought at exhibitions. One of the five works presented was sold at an exhibition in the Netherlands.

This is the second personal exhibition of the artist in the exhibition hall of the Krasnogorye Cultural Center. He wanted to organize art exhibitions with a musical program, like the December evenings at the Museum fine arts them. A.S. Pushkin. So far it doesn't work.

The current solo exhibition features 25 oil paintings. Here is our native nature: even listen to the names themselves - “Winter Theater of the Funnel”, “On the Zhizdra River”, “Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in Pushkino”, “Autumn on the Mozhaisk Reservoir” ... After all, this is our native ... With what love and warmth it was written " Sunset”, peace and tranquility pours from the canvas. "Winter Morning" is a fairy tale spied on by an artist-poet.

In the article “Spring Thaw in the South-East” of the newspaper “Nash Izograf” (2002), artist Sergey Isaev notes: “V. Trubetskoy presents a landscape painting as a theater with a ramp, a screen and a stream of light - "Winter Theater". This painting is in our exhibition. Indeed, you look, and it seems that now, against the background of these scenery, the fairy tale “Twelfth Night” will be played out, or the trees themselves will float in a round dance.

The artist has wonderful still lifes. "Still life with a jug" - how each element is written out! Juice-filled fruit, cup golden glitter. This is how the old masters wrote. Cozy bouquets "Lilac" and "Peonies" catch the eye. An aura of kindness emanates from the artist's paintings.

I have been to the exhibition three times. She invited her neighbor Natalya Ivanovna Ovcharenko to the exhibition. It turns out that under the leadership of V.G. Trubetskoy, her husband worked at his main job. She has a painting by Valentin Georgievich “Pure Water”, a gift from him. How many warm words I heard about the hero of my essay, his family. How he helped my neighbor in difficult times. It seems that this could not be written about. But after all, in this way, I understood where this aura of goodness and light came from from the artist's paintings. It is his kind soul that guides his imagination and brush.

I don't want to leave the show. No matter how much I write about her. Better to come and see for yourself.
Valentin Georgievich continues to work at his main job. He writes a lot, visits Moscow exhibitions. Improves his skills. “Exhibitions are good lessons in craftsmanship. Now I look at my early works, and I think - today I would have done it differently. Better,” says the artist.

In Russia, the surname Trubetskoy has been known since 1500 - princes, boyars and governors, a Decembrist and jurist, linguist, philosopher and sculptor. Trubetskoy people, of high spirit, who devotedly loved Russia. The artist Valentin Georgievich Trubetskoy, our contemporary and countryman, a peasant son, is among just such people of this famous family.