Yes, there was, and mainly because he was a Freemason. This rash act (joining the Chisinau lodge “Ovid” in 1821), done partly out of boredom (in search of new sensations), partly in imitation of his friends and acquaintances, many of whom were Masons or were preparing to become one, had far-reaching consequences … It seems that it is no coincidence that in the play "Pushkin" (1864) by a little-known but well-informed Italian writer Cossa, the poet's murderer bears the surname "Inzov". The cause of Pushkin's death dates back to the time when he served in Chisinau under the supervision of the Freemason of foreign lodges, General I. N. Inzov.
We should not be confused by the fact that the activities of Freemasonry in Russia were banned by Alexander I in 1822. Russian lodges (including Chisinau) continued to live even after their official closure. The government decree only forced the Freemasons to make their usual maneuver. Change from legal to semi- or illegal. So everything remained in place. There were hundreds like Pushkin, and all of them potentially remained in the Masonic organization. If Pushkin were an ordinary, ordinary person, he might have lived to a ripe old age, and no Masons would have hurt him. But Pushkin, as they say, developed by leaps and bounds, he turned into a genius, into the ruler of the thoughts of all of Russia. This kind of Pushkin was very much needed by the Masons. First, to satisfy their pride - here, they say, what a great man, and also our "brother". And secondly, and this is the main thing, to attract Pushkin to serve the ideals of Freemasonry. It was then that a misfire came out.
Pushkin went his own way. His disagreement with Freemasonry was expressed both in relations with Freemasons (friends, acquaintances, bosses, officials, writers), and in creativity, which became more and more national from year to year and, therefore, less and less consistent with Masonic cosmopolitan ideas and interests.
Already in 1821, Pushkin had various kinds of disagreements. and sometimes just intolerant relations with the Freemasons. In Chisinau, this manifested itself, first of all, in relations with the grandmaster of the lodge. "Ovid" by PS Pushchin. The poet laughed at him, called him "the coming Kviroga," thereby hinting that a Russian general would never make a leader of the revolution, as happened in Spain with a freemason and general A. Kviroga. In the same place in Chisinau, the poet was familiar with the Masons V. F. Raevsky and M. F. Orlov, the future Decembrists. With the first, Pushkin did not have mutual understanding on the question of the purpose of poetry, with the general, the poet also had frictions, which he recalled in 1886. In Odessa, the poet came into conflict with the freemason M. S. Vorontsov. Relations between Pushkin and the future Decembrists, most of whom were Freemasons, were uneven. The conspirators were wary of the young poet. They may have been worried about his connection (since February 1821) with Karolina Sobanska, a police informant and cohabitant of the organizer of a secret search for secret societies in the south of the country. I. O. Witt. The existence of secret societies was hidden from Pushkin in the south, where the masons P. I. Pestel, S. G. Volkonsky, V. L. Davydov, and others set the tone, and in the north, where Pushkin was not trusted by his friend, freemason and lyceum student, I. I. Pushchin. For his part, the poet criticized some of the leaders of secret societies and even condemned the Decembrist movement as a whole after the events of 1825. The existence of secret societies was hidden from Pushkin in the south, where the masons P. I. Pestel, S. G. Volkonsky, V. L. Davydov, and others set the tone, and in the north, where Pushkin was not trusted by his friend, freemason and lyceum student, I. I. Pushchin. For his part, the poet criticized some of the leaders of secret societies and even condemned the Decembrist movement as a whole after the events of 1825. The existence of secret societies was hidden from Pushkin in the south, where the masons P. I. Pestel, S. G. Volkonsky, V. L. Davydov, and others set the tone, and in the north, where Pushkin was not trusted by his friend, freemason and lyceum student, I. I. Pushchin. For his part, the poet criticized some of the leaders of secret societies and even condemned the Decembrist movement as a whole after the events of 1825.
Not entirely smooth were Pushkin's relations with the leaders of this movement (at the same time extreme Masons): N. I. Turgenev (clashes between them were observed both during meetings in St. Petersburg and in absentia, during a long stay of the latter in England), P. I. Pestel (according to the memoirs of I. L. Liprandi), K. F. Ryleev and A. A. Bestuzhev (relations with these writers were characterized by a long correspondence polemic on literary and social issues). There was no complete understanding between Pushkin and an ordinary member of the society, the freemason V. K. Kyukhelbecker (the poet's mockery of the lyceum student is well known) and with the large masons involved in the conspiracy A. S. Griboyedov and P. long controversy on social and political topics). Note thatthat the polemic of Pushkin with some Decembrists and Chaadaev was preceded by a period of friendly relations with them.
In 1826, Pushkin signed a subscription not to belong to any secret societies, including Masonic ones. Thus, the poet, as it were, formalized his actual relationship to these societies.
The period of his life from 1826 to 1837 passed for Pushkin under the sign of confrontation with such masons as A. H. Benckendorff, P. V. Dubelt, S. S. Uvarov, A. S. Shishkov (an old rival in literary groups), M A. Dondukov-Korsakov, S. V. Bulgarin, N. I. Grech and others
The same period was marked by constant contacts between the poet and the new Tsar Nicholas I. This rapprochement significantly weakened the position of Pushkin's enemies. Benckendorff was wary of a major conflict with the poet, and Bulgarin's denunciations almost turned into a shame and moral death of the latter. And in other situations, unpleasant for Pushkin, Nicholas I invariably helped "his" poet.
Promotional video:
The poet's work, excluding the "freedom-loving" works of 1817-1820, ran counter to Masonic ideals. The Russian poet never "got infected" to the end with these ideas, he "sang" the greats of his Motherland, was proud of its history and culture, figures of different times and generations, shared with it its sorrows and failures.
In The History of the Pugachev Uprising, the poet discovered another facet of his talent. The next step in the plans of Pushkin the patriot, Pushkin the historian was the outstanding personality of Peter the Great. The plans of the poet-historian also included the illumination of the personality (and time) of another Russian emperor - Paul I. These were only dreams, but they did not bode well for a certain part of the Russian public - after all, Paul fell victim to a Masonic conspiracy.
Pushkin in general systematically criticized the West - the citadel of world Freemasonry. France with its endless Masonic revolutions, as well as Poland and, in particular, the Polish uprising of 1830-31, which, as you know, enjoyed the full support of Western political circles, fell under special criticism of the poet.
Another unpleasant feature of Pushkin's work for Masons was his interest in forbidden topics. Touching them, the poet exposed some Masonic secrets. Here, first of all, one should point to his opinion about A. N. Radishchev. In two of his works (the article "Alexander Radishchev" and the essay "Travel from Moscow to St. Petersburg") the poet not only "point by point" refuted the thoughts and views of his compatriot, but also publicly announced for the first time that Radishchev was a freemason ("Martinist") and that his famous "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow" is the fruit of the Masonic tree. “Radishchev, - wrote Pushkin, - got into their (Masons - NB) society. The mystery of their conversations sparked his imagination. He wrote his "Journey" … a satirical appeal to indignation … ". Pushkin's article, from where these lines are taken, was roughly completed in April 1836 and was intended. for Sovremennik,in August of the same year she was detained by the censor, and a few days later it was finally banned by the freemason S. S. Uvarov. The same Uvarov did his best to prevent the appearance of Pushkin's "History of Pugachev" from publication. Perhaps he feared that the pro-Western and even pro-Masonic orientation of the leader of the uprising in southeastern Russia would become public knowledge.
Another major Mason M. M. Speransky, as the chief of the II department of the Chancellery of His Majesty, carefully watched the publication of the "History of Pugachev" and, when the first copies were already ready, he nevertheless once again asked the Tsar for permission to publish this work. Nicholas reaffirmed his will, and the Masons had no choice but to obey. Pushkin continued in 1835 archival research on this topic. Unfortunately, this work, like the history of Peter I, was not finished. And what colors the poet would add to the portrait of Pugachev!
It is very possible that questions concerning forbidden Masonic topics were raised by the poet in the last years of his life in private conversations with friends and acquaintances. One can imagine what a reaction this caused in Masonic circles!
Yes, the Freemasons were concerned with Pushkin: they had to either tame him or take him away from the road.