Many do not know how to write correctly. And typos and mistakes, grammatical and commas are arbitrarily put, and they try not to use a semicolon or a dash because of sin.
And I'm not ideal. The holy saints were honored by revealing to me that wonderful initial letters can be put into words, and that's fine.
They make remarks to me, and this is correct, but why does it not bother anyone when it turns out that Tsar Peter either wrote out of hand, or did not know how to write in Russian at all.
Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi?
It is impossible that the Russian tsar did not know how to write in Russian? And there are such thoughts … Are these assumptions about the literacy of Peter, in terms of the Russian language, connected with the version about the substitution of Peter the Great or with something else, let's see.
There are many versions. And the version of Romodanovsky's substitution after the death of Peter from a wound received near Moscow by a remote similar to him Dutch carpenter from a hired brigade on Lake Pereslavl. Both at birth and at the Grand Embassy. Now you can find a lot of materials on this topic. Whoever does not know yet will find a lot of materials on the net.
I just would like to voice some questions to which I have not found answers.
I'll start from afar. From the fact that somehow I came across a thick book of Stalin's correspondence with Koganovich.
Promotional video:
Here is the annotation for this book by the publisher:
“The book contains the correspondence of I. V. Stalin and his deputy for the party L. M. Kaganovich. Leaving in the summer-autumn of 1931-1936. for several months to the south, Stalin left Kaganovich to lead the work of the Politburo, but he himself received all the materials for the meetings of the Politburo and actually directed his activities with the help of letters and telegrams addressed to Kaganovich (some of them were addressed to all members of the Politburo). The published documents contain unique information about the mechanism of decision-making by the top Soviet leadership on issues of both domestic and foreign policy. Among the key topics of the correspondence are the famine of 1932, the adoption of the law on combating the theft of socialist property of August 7, 1932, conflicts with Japan, the war in Spain, preparation of an open trial in the case of the 'Trotskyite-Zinoviev Center' and others. The publication is intended for historians, as well as for a wide range of readers interested in the history of the USSR and the CPSU."
You know, it turned out to be the most addicting reading! I don't even see it possible to describe the amount of work and issues that were solved every day. Try to read, you will not regret it.
Here's an excerpt from a few quick posts:
Stalin to Kaganovich on August 6, 1931
1) Be objective about R. and S.
2) Millions 80 p. (For blanks) Kabakov.
3) Northern Channel = help.
4) Resolutions on cooperation = very important matter.
5) Resolution on Narpit = very important matter.
6) Determination and distribution of stocks of goods (manufacture, food products, footwear, etc.) by quarters and months to take into their own hands (not to leave undividedly in the hands of NKsnab).
7) The definition of funds for export should not be made dependent on the squabble between NKtorg and NKsnab, but taken into our own hands.
8) Throw on the bird: there will not be enough meat this year, the bird can take out (as well as rabbits).
9) Pay special attention to the gold mining (give Serebrovsky and Yakovlev and Chekh).
10) Remember about aluminum! The bourgeois approach to the question of profitability is to peck.
Or here's another
Stalin to Kaganovich on August 14, 1931
First. With regard to German companies, it is necessary to act more boldly up to the immediate cancellation of orders. Without refusing part of the orders, we will not achieve anything, they will rip us off like sticky. It is possible to conclude an agreement with the Japanese on fish on the basis of Troyanovsky's proposal, that is, for three years to provide the Japanese with 49 percent, and keep 51 percent for themselves.
Third. As for Argentina, it is better to wait.
Fourth. As for the participation of customers in giving orders, you can wait. Akulov's project is insufficient.
Fifth. Eight thousand tons of aluminum for next year is ridiculously small. We must take at least twenty thousand tons.
Sixth. The use of technical assistance is criminally neglected by our business executives. Draconian measures must be taken against such an attitude.
Seventh. I spoke with Yakovlev. He will enter the Politburo with some new proposals that must be supported unconditionally.
Eighth. Kuibyshev must be overworked. He should have been given leave until September 1st….
Where am I leading? Moreover, this task is not an easy task to govern the country. These are not all banquets for you. And not every cook!
It is clear that the twentieth century is not the eighteenth century, but the example I gave shows that the head of state faces a lot of questions every day, both large-scale and many everyday ones. And what do we see?
So far, I have managed to find 2-3 documents, make assumptions only on them, of course, it's stupid. But, oddly enough, nothing can be found! There are published correspondences and diaries of Peter, but I hardly found the originals. Still, let's take a closer look at what we managed to catch from the network….
This document is considered to be Peter's handwritten letter to his mother from Pereslavl on April 20th, 1689.
The text of the letter in understandable language:
To my most lovable and even more bodily belly to my dearest mother Empress Tsarina and Grand Duchess Natalya Kirillovna, your son, Petrushka, who is at work, I ask blessings, but I wish to hear about your health, but everything is great with your prayers. And the lake was opened on this 20th, and the courts are all, except for the big ship in finishing: it will be just behind the ropes: and I ask you to be so kind that those ropes, seven hundred fathoms each from the Pushkar order, were sent without hesitation. And after them the case will be and our life will continue. For this I ask your blessings. From Pereslavl on April 20th, 1689
How 1689 can this be not clear to me if Peter introduced the reform and began to live according to the Julian calendar from 1700, that is, only after 11 years. Before that, Russia had a different calendar. Fake? If the first sign is not the number 1 but J, which is meant from the Nativity of Christ, then in general some kind of turbidity is obtained. A. H. 689? Indict? And where does the indictment ??? And if it is not J and 5. That is 5689 from SMZH, then again it does not come out because "In Summer 7208 (Creation of the World) Peter I moved the New Year, issuing a decree on December 20 to congratulate each other on January 1" … That is, if 1700 is 7208, then 5689 is not at any gate, as they say, or the letter is not Peter.
Note that the 20th is marked with the old style, namely the letter "K".
By the way, whoever thinks that everything is so simple and clear with this letter, the letters say about Pereslavl. But there were three of them. Pereslavl-Zalessky, Pereslavl-Khmelnitsky, Pereslavl-Ryazansky. Although it is believed that this is Pereslavl-Zalessky, if Peter built something, then most likely in Ryazan, because It became Ryazan only in 1778. (Although you can take a closer look at Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky), and ships were built in Pereslavl-Ryazansky long before Peter. This question needs to be brought into a separate topic.
That is, about this letter, not only "by whom" and "when" the question arises, but also "where". But here is such a topic that you need to write a book and not an article. My task is only to interest the reader in this topic.
Here, again, is Peter I's own handwritten letter to Bishop Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod and Alatyr (1719).
What can you say looking at these two leaves? Little. The difference, of course, is cosmic, one can say that two different people wrote, but on the other hand, I can write the same beautifully and scribble so that the devil himself will break his leg, but will I write to the bishop like that? Experts call this "style" of writing cursive writing. Well I do not know…..
Here's another, Decree of Peter the Great on the storage of ships from 1722. ORDER !!!!
Somehow, these drunken scribbles do not fit in with the image of the great Peter who was instilled from childhood.
So, the Great Embassy took place in 1697-1698. That is, the version about replacing Peter with a person who writes prescriptions in Russian as a doctor gains more weight with this paper.
Koganovich is not Koganovich, Peter had Menshikov's right hand. There are also many questions about his writing and reading skills….
Here is, as it is believed, a note by A. D. Menshikov to St. Petersburg chief commissar A. Sinyavin on the release of the forest for the arrangement of fireworks on the occasion of the arrival of the tsar (1714)
I just brought nothing documents and how many questions! Is this a note? On the occasion of the fireworks? That is, almost at the same time, the tsar is writing some scribbles to the bishop, and Menshikov is scribbling such a wonderful note about fireworks?
Here is another letter from Alexander Menshikov to Peter I dated July 16, 1703.
Also, we all know, at least from the films, that tsars themselves do not write anything, but scribes write. Tsars, they say, only sign decrees.
Senate's report to Peter I on the supply of salt by the Stroganovs from Nizhny Novgorod to the "riding towns"; with the resolution of Peter I "here" (to do) (1724)
And with the signing, it turns out, not everything is simple.
Why this document is interesting to me: firstly, there is a direct parallel with the above correspondence between Stalin and Kaganovich.
It can be seen that Peter was engaged in a wide range of different issues, even such as the supply of salt.
Second, you can see how in 1724 the scribes wrote, by the way "k" exactly as in Menshikov's papers, and as Peter wrote.
I am not an expert in handwriting recognition, unfortunately, I have questions about this, excuse me. I don’t even know how to react to "here". This is normal? Don't you need a signature? Let not print but just "Peter". No? Maybe it's just not on every page of such papers as “about salt”….
It seems to me that Menshikov's letter could have been written by anyone, the signature of "Menshikov" may have been made with the other hand, the ink is faded, there is no confident and sweeping handwriting as in the text of the document itself. An illiterate person can be taught to write one word. That is, he did not write, but he signed.
Then what the tsar wrote as a chicken's paw turns out to be nothing at all. By the way, about whether Menshikov was literate there is an article already in Science and Life. I am not the only one tormented by vague doubts.
The letter from 1703 is clearly the same hand. The same "m" and "p" the same leg in the "k" as in the first. If Menshikov knew how to write and read, then Peter's scribbles are difficult to explain, how difficult it is to explain the absence of the originals of his letters on the Internet, unless, indeed, only by a hidden substitution of the tsar.
But then it turns out that the figure that took his place was very, very talented. To lead such a huge country, not only to shake the age-old foundations of a huge state, but also to impose your own while not even knowing how to write!
It is clear that there are many incomprehensible even in the fairly recent past of our country. Whether this is a lack of education, my inferiority or a worldwide conspiracy, I do not know. Most likely all together. But, something does not suit me both in the very idea of replacing Peter and in the official version.
Author: Sil2