They say that in 1754 the courtiers of the Russian imperial court whispered, which patronymic would be more suitable for newborn Paul, the son of Grand Duchess Catherine - Petrovich or Sergeevich? Later, this rumor turned into a question, was the Romanov bloodline interrupted on Paul I? You can answer it quite definitely - no, it was not interrupted. But definitely the history of the dynasty bent into the realm of fantasy and invention.
There is a funny historical anecdote: as if Alexander III instructed Pobedonostsev, his teacher and respected adviser, to check the rumor that the father of Paul I was not Peter III, but Sergei Vasilyevich Saltykov, the first lover of the future Empress Catherine II. Pobedonostsev first informed the emperor that, in fact, Saltykov could be the father. Alexander III was delighted: "Thank God, we are Russians!" But then Pobedonostsev found facts in favor of Peter's paternity. The Emperor, nevertheless, rejoiced again: "Thank God, we are legal!"
The moral, if it can be deduced from an anecdote at all, is simple: the nature of power is not in blood, but in the ability and desire to rule, the rest can be adapted to this. At least, this is the nature of imperial power - each empire carries with it a huge number of unresolved contradictions, one more - no big deal.
However, how could this plot arise, and with it numerous variations on this theme? Strange as it may seem, but it was largely created by Catherine II. In her Notes, she writes about the beginning of her romance with Saltykov in the spring of 1752: “During one of these concerts (at the Choglokovs') Sergey Saltykov made me understand what was the reason for his frequent visits. I didn't answer him right away; when he started talking to me about the same thing again, I asked him: what is he hoping for? Then he began to paint me a picture of happiness as captivating as it is full of passion, which he had hoped for …"
Further, all stages of the novel are described in detail, up to the rather intimate ones - the rapprochement in the fall of 1752, a pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage on the way to Moscow in December, a new pregnancy and miscarriage in May 1753, the cooling of the lover, which made Catherine suffer, strict supervision established for Grand Duchess in April 1754, which meant the removal of Sergei Saltykov. And Paul, as you know, was born on September 24, 1754. Peter is mentioned in this chapter of the notes only in connection with his drunkenness, courting the maids of honor of Catherine and other ladies, as well as the suspicions that arose in him about Sergei Saltykov. From this whole story it follows that Saltykov could have been Paul's father. Moreover, the author of the "Notes" creates this impression on purpose.
However, Catherine does not have much to be trusted. After all, she had to justify her seizure of power in various ways. After her husband's overthrow, she composed so many stories about him and their relationship that historians who analyze what's true and what's not will have enough work for a long time. (What is, say, Catherine's fable about a rat allegedly convicted and hanged by Peter on the gallows, who ate two of his toy soldiers. Hanging a rat like a man is impossible. The rat's neck is too powerful for that. And the rope will slip off of it. The bike is insignificant, and come on, historiographers since the time of S. Solovyov have been trustingly repeating it again and again.).
This story too - requires a study of the motives of Catherine, for some reason casts a shadow on her own son.
According to the historian S. Mylnikov, the author of the book about Peter III, Catherine was afraid of the potential supporters of Paul, who could demand the throne for a ruler with royal blood in exchange for a foreigner who had usurped power and had no right to it. Before the coup, a proposal was made (N. Panin, Paul's mentor) to declare Catherine not empress, but regent of the minor heir until his majority. Although it was rejected, it was not completely forgotten.
Promotional video:
The Empress's move was quite logical from the point of view of political struggle - she once again told her opponents that Pavel did not have this blood - not a drop! And she has no more rights to the throne than her mother. But maybe Catherine was motivated by other considerations. Maybe she once again brought to the fore herself, her needs, desires and talents instead of some kind of royal blood that created a husband she despised and, in general, worthless.
And S. Mylnikov convincingly proves that Peter III undoubtedly considered Paul his son. He compares the notification of the birth of a son, sent by him to Frederick II, with a similar notification of the birth of Anna's daughter, who was definitely from Catherine's next lover, Stanislav Ponyatovsky, of which Peter knew. Indeed, the difference between the two letters is great.
Another historian, N. Pavlenko, adheres to a different point of view. He writes: “Some courtiers, observing the family life of the grand ducal couple, said in a whisper that the baby should be called not Petrovich, but Sergeevich after the priest. It probably was."
So who should you believe? Peter? Catherine's hints? The whispering of the courtiers long ago? Perhaps these paths are already too trodden down and will not give anything new.
I wonder what materials Pobedonostsev used. Aren't they portraits of the participants in the story? After all, facial features are inherited and belong to one of the parents - this was known even before the advent of genetics as a science. We can also do a little analysis using portraits.
They are in front of us - and "freak" (as the Empress Elizabeth called her nephew in anger) Peter, and handsome Sergei and loving Catherine. The latter remembered herself young in the following way: “They said that I was as beautiful as day, and amazingly good; to tell the truth, I never considered myself extremely beautiful, but I liked me, and I believe that this was my strength. " The Frenchman Favier, who saw Catherine in 1760 (she was then 31 years old), subjected her appearance to a rather harsh assessment: “You cannot say that her beauty is dazzling: a rather long, not flexible waist, a noble posture, but a cutesy step, not graceful; the chest is narrow, the face is long, especially the chin; constant smile on the lips, but the mouth is flat, depressed; slightly hunched nose; small eyes, but the look is lively, pleasant; traces of smallpox are visible on the face. She is more beautiful than uglybut she can't get carried away."
These and other assessments can be found in the book by N. Pavlenko "Catherine the Great". Interesting in themselves, they confirm the correspondence between the descriptions and the portrait, we can use it with confidence.
Sergey Vasilyevich Saltykov is also long-faced, his facial features are proportional, his eyes are almond-shaped, his lips are small, graceful, his forehead is high, his nose is straight and long. Catherine wrote about him: “he was as beautiful as day, and, of course, no one could equal him, either in a large court, and even less so in ours. He had no lack of intelligence, or that storehouse of knowledge, manners and techniques, which is given by the great light and especially the courtyard."
Paul I (child portrait).
Paul I adult (graphic sketch).
Figure: 1. "Parents" and son (fragments of portraits are used).
In comparison with them, Petr Fedorovich, of course, catastrophically loses outwardly - and differs in a number of features that only he could leave to his descendant. His face is rather round, even cheekbones. The forehead is sloping, the nose is shorter than that of Ekaterina and Sergei Saltykov, very wide at the bridge of the nose, the mouth is large, the eyes are narrow and set wide apart. And he was also cheeky.
The portraits of Paul show a clear resemblance to Peter. Especially adult portraits. The same face shape, sloping forehead, large mouth, short nose - even remembering the possibility of the existence of recessive signs, Saltykov and Yekaterina (both "beautiful as day") of such an ugly descendant, whom Admiral Chichagov called "a snub-nosed Chukhon with the movements of a machine gun", would not have done. If Pavel's father were Sergei Saltykov, the shape of the face and forehead would have been different, the lips and nose would have been different - since they were similar in Ekaterina and Saltykov, sharply different from the features of Peter. And, one must think, the character would have been different. There is so much devil Peter in the face of Pavel that even a DNA analysis is not needed to say definitely - yes, Sergei Saltykov was not Pavel's father. It was Peter III.
By the way, according to the date of birth, it is clear that the heir turned out to be a typical fruit of the holidays - so Catherine recalls that she celebrated the New Year with the empress - of course, with her husband. Apparently, on that night, after the celebration, the future Paul was conceived.
The opinion of S. Mylnikov is confirmed that the paternity of Saltykov was deliberately played on by Catherine. Who was the real father of her son, no doubt - she knew very well. Probably for this reason she behaved extremely coldly towards Paul. As a child, she calmly left him in the care of nannies and did not see him for weeks. Already an adult son, she wanted to force him to renounce the right to the throne in favor of his grandson, Alexander.
This little story once again confirms the characteristic that the historian Y. Barskov gave to Catherine: “Lying was the tsarina's main tool: all her life from early childhood to ripe old age, she used this tool, wielded it like a virtuoso, and deceived parents, lovers, subjects, foreigners, contemporaries and descendants. " Records of Catherine's lies were her stories about the situation of the Russian peasants: "Our taxes are so easy that there is no peasant in Russia who does not have a chicken when he wants, and for some time they prefer turkeys to chickens" (letter to Voltaire, 1769) and “It used to be, when driving through villages, you see little children in the same shirt, running with bare feet in the snow; now there is no one who does not have an outer dress, sheepskin coat and boots. The houses, although still wooden,but most of them have expanded into two floors”(letter to Bielke, mother's friend, 1774). Peasants living in two-story huts, with kids dressed in sheepskin coats and boots, preferring turkeys to chickens - there is, of course, an almost Manilov dream and not only an element of deception, but also self-deception.
It was he who added to the two fathers of Pavel a third contender - Emelyan Pugachev. An amazing, I must say, irony of history: three fathers from one future emperor. The phantom Potemkin villages that made his mother's rule famous. The phantasmagoria of his own reign with the non-existent, but making a career Lieutenant Kizhe (even if this is Tynyanov's fiction, but quite, as they say, authentic). A parricide son who either died in Taganrog or in Siberia. Everything seems to be saturated with that initial fantasy of Catherine. Really, the lie has long legs.
But what could Catherine do? Her role was that of a tightrope walker. Who in those daring times did not understand that power must be shared with a fairly wide circle, ended badly - take at least Catherine's husband and son. The empress with her big plans, will and hard work was, according to the results of her reign, not the worst of the Russian monarchs. But she had to give up most of her good aspirations. You should also not attribute the merits of Russia of that time to her alone - the people with whom she had to get along and trust important posts were no less responsible for the country's successes.
However, the authorities, which must constantly resort to lies and create illusions, are skeptical. Acting well in the external sphere, Catherine turned out to be decidedly weak in solving internal problems. Having given the imperial framework, created by Peter the Great, an external splendor, she was unable to do anything with the negative aspects of his reforms. So I had to close my eyes to the state of the country, to deceive and deceive.