Mr Trubetskoy. FROM

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, such as to support his family. He took the position 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 through which 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 - his 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 justification of 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 logical consistency 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 pillars of philosophy - rationalism, empiricism and mysticism, by combining together their approaches to the cognition 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 by the Ministry of Public Education”, the University Council on September 2 elected the 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 indicating his 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; the materials collected in the course of this work, which continued until the revolution, perished during the Civil War (“gone in smoke”; however, the Soviet Caucasian expert E. Bokarev reported that he had seen them in Rostov shortly before World War II and were subsequently restored by Trubetskoy in exile by 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, in protest against the pro-Soviet and pro-communist orientation of the newspaper "Eurasia", he left the governing bodies of the 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 Slavic languages ​​and literature at the University of Vienna, was 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 requirements of loyalty to the Soviet government, “Prince N. S. Trubetskoy, who is the church warden of this church, immediately reported to Metropolitan Evlogy about the departure of Archimandrite Khariton from canonical submission 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 spoke in the press against National Socialism, 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, jurist, 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, 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 reports 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 an inner life, read, thought, rested, but now it’s 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 connection. 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 due to 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 editorial work 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 fogs” 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 a 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…” // Novy Mir. - M., 1993. - No. 9.

Margarita Kirillovna and Evgeny Nikolaevich carefully concealed their relationship from others, although from a letter from Morozova to E.I. They write 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 lived most of his time 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 joined the White movement in 1918, 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: “Going to his office to study, Pap seemed to leave the earth and go to some other, unearthly areas ... When Pap talked 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 Kyiv 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 the World War began, he, like many of his peers, was called to the front by a sense of duty to the Motherland. 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 the 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)

The ancient princely family of the Trubetskoys has put forward recognized thinkers, religious and public figures in the modern history of Russia. In this series of glorious names, the fame of Grigory Nikolayevich Trubetskoy (14. IX. 1873 - 6. I. 1930) - a diplomat, church and state politician, publicist - is somewhat in shadow. Only recently the creative heritage of the prince began to attract the attention of historians, researchers of cultural and religious processes of the critical era, embracing the pre-war and first post-revolutionary years. The texts of his writings have been collected and already published in the form of books: "The Years of Troubles and Hopes 1917-1919". Montreal. 1981; "Russian Diplomacy 1914–1917 and the War in the Balkans". Montreal, 1983. In memory of G.N. Trubetskoy was once published a collection of memoirs (Paris, 1930). So the biography of this bright personality, the nature of the diplomatic and ecclesiastical activities of the prince are presented in the literature quite fully. Briefly, the information available is as follows.

After graduating from the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, Prince G.N. Trubetskoy joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was appointed attaché to Constantinople. Since 1901, he has served as the first secretary of the embassy, ​​also engaged in searching for antiquities of the Middle East. His articles on "the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople began to appear on the pages of Vestnik Evropy, a liberal magazine, but not alien to Russian interests.

Ten years spent the book. Trubetskoy in Constantinople. In 1906, he left the diplomatic service and moved to Moscow, where, together with his brother Yevgeny Nikolaevich, he began publishing the Moscow Weekly, with the goal of uniting and synthesizing statehood with intellectual quests.

An ascetic of historical culture, a convinced monarchist, an adherent of religious and deeply moral values, he at the same time declared himself as a constitutionalist and preacher of the program of liberal imperialism. These views of his are reflected in the collections "Great Russia" published by him. Six years later, in 1912, Grigory Nikolayevich returned to serve in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as an adviser on Middle Eastern affairs. There was a hope to revive the fading interest in the fate of foreign Slavs.

At the beginning of the First World War, Prince G.N. Trubetskoy was appointed envoy of the Imperial Court to Serbia. He had to visit this country at the time of the most sorrowful trials. After the Austrian attack on Belgrade, the Serbian government, along with diplomatic missions, moved to the island of Corfu. Book. Trubetskoy was recalled to St. Petersburg, where he was offered to head the Middle East department of the ministry. The February coup, outbreaks of violence, and then the Bolshevik terror forced Grigory Nikolayevich to go over to active resistance: at the end of December 1917, he went to Novocherkassk, joined the first Council of the Volunteer Army, and gathered Russian forces to repel the Bolshevization of Russia. In February 1918, Prince. Trubetskoy again in Moscow, here he entered into the closest communion with the hierarchs gathered from all over the country for the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. Grigory Nikolayevich himself, elected to the Council from the Army in the field, participated in its work from the day of its opening, and even spoke at one of the first meetings, on August 17, 1917, with a welcoming speech in which he declared: “We believe that the spirit of the Christ-loving army does not completely flew away from the ranks of the Army, and that with the help of her valiant sons, free Russia will be resurrected. Allow me to ask the Local Council to support the Army with our prayers, kindle the flame of faith that we need." (Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church. Book 1, issue 2, M., 1918, p. 48). This was followed by a departure to the Don to organize armed resistance to the Bolsheviks, and no further participation was given in the meetings. Council communion was resumed only during Great Lent in 1918.

On the unfolding front of the Civil War, Prince. G.N. Trubetskoy joined the ranks of the White movement and took the most vital part in the campaigns. Having headed the Administration for Confessions in the government of General Denikin, he turned out to be a living conscience for many Orthodox at the forefront and in the rear - he was so able to create an atmosphere of goodwill and affection for people. From its spiritual heat and quiet radiance, the soul really warmed. One of the prince's contemporaries will later say about him: "He was a conscience in public affairs; he was extremely patient, kind and condescending with people - not out of weakness, but out of love; he treated people with great love - but he was always determined and is clear in his judgments, especially in everything that concerns conscience. Such people are a living testimony of God, the words of the prayer are fulfilled in them: "Hallowed be thy name" (Newspaper "Russia and Slavs", Paris, 1930, 18 Jan. Only to the persecutors of the Church, and later also to the Renovationists, did he treat with irreconcilable severity. In the anti-Bolshevik struggle, Prince Trubetskoy lost his son Konstantin (1903-1921), died at Perekop, and many people close to him.

In 1920, Grigory Nikolayevich joined the government of General Wrangel, heading the Department of Foreign Relations. The heroic Crimean standing began, marked by both success and betrayal of the allies, ending with the collapse of the Army. After the evacuation from the Crimea, Prince. G.N. Trubetskoy first settled with his family near Vienna, and at the end of 1923 he moved to France, to Clamart. Here, on his estate, he converted a capital garden arbor into a house church, in which the service began, to the delight of all believers in the Russian colony. A diplomat died in the church. A.V. Kartashev would later say at the wake of the prince: “Quiet, peace-loving, gracious and kind - he was like an old man among us, and not a worldly person. Not a layman, but a minister of the Church. A reader and a singer in his house church in Clamart - this was a symbol of his Russian church soul. The pathetic nerve of his soul in Abroad was undoubtedly churchly. From the time Grigory Nikolayevich entered the All-Russian Church Council of 1917 as its member, he, as it were, accepted initiation into church service. ("Russia and the Slavs", January 11, 1930).

A sincere follower of Patriarch Tikhon, he faithfully observed his hierarchal precepts, suffered hard from the internal church schism, and called on everyone to embark on the path of united church work.

To put it bluntly: during the years of emigration, Prince. Trubetskoy came especially close to the problems of the life and fate of Orthodoxy. Here he created a detailed study "Propaganda of godlessness and defense of faith in Soviet Russia." Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, who personified the remnants of Imperial Russia, often turned to the experience of his statesmanship. In any parties of the Russian Diaspora, Prince. Trubetskoy was not a member, but he sympathized with some ideological quests: he was no stranger to Eurasianism and inter-confessional rapprochement. In a historical perspective, all these searches turned out to be harmful to the Russian cause.

But on the resurrection of Russia, Prince. G.N. Trubetskoy believed and strongly, literally on the eve of the day of his death, he expressed this faith as follows: "Let's defeat ourselves, our cowardice and unbelief, and let us make the Star of Bethlehem light up in our hearts and the doxology of Angels be heard." (In memory of Prince G.N. Trubetskoy. Collection of articles. Paris, 1930. P. 33.). Grigory Nikolaevich died on Christmas Eve in a foreign land, in Clamart.

Note book. G.N. Trubetskoy's "Journey to Optina Pustyn" occupies the final pages of his book "Russian Diplomacy 1914-1917 and the War in the Balkans".

October 05, 1858 - October 04, 1911

prince, statesman and politician, landowner

Biography

Born October 5, 1858 in Moscow. Baptized on October 21 of the same year in the Church of St. Nicholas in Gnezdniki, his godparents were his grandfather - Lieutenant General Prince Pyotr Ivanovich Trubetskoy (1798-1871), the owner of the Akhtyrka estate near Moscow and his aunt - Countess S.V. Tolstaya, whose pupil P.N. Trubetskoy was with his sisters Sophia and Maria after the death of his mother. Their childhood passed in the Uzkoye estate. Their father, director of the Moscow branch of the Imperial Russian Musical Society (RMO), Prince Nikolai Petrovich Trubetskoy, remarried in 1861 - to Sofya Alekseevna Lopukhina (1841-1901), N. P. Trubetskoy had ten children from his second marriage - half-brothers and sisters P. N. Trubetskoy; the most prominent among them were the famous university professors and philosophers Sergei and Evgeny Nikolaevich Trubetskoy.

After graduating from the law faculty of Moscow University, P. N. Trubetskoy began his service under the department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In 1883, for the first time, he “executed the position” of the Moscow district marshal of the nobility, replacing Count A.V. Bobrinsky, at the same time, the Uzkoye estate near Moscow passed to him from S.V. Tolstoy (formally it was sold for a fairly small amount for such a possession). In 1884, he replaced the provincial marshal of the nobility. Subsequently, P.N. Trubetskoy received the posts of district and provincial leaders through elections.

After the wedding on October 1, 1884 with Princess Alexandra Vladimirovna Obolenskaya (1861-1939), they went on a trip to Europe.

P.N. Trubetskoy was the Moscow provincial marshal of the nobility in 1892-1906. At the same time, he received court and civil titles, having gone from chamber junker to Jägermeister and becoming a full state councilor in 1896.

P.N. Trubetskoy owned a number of estates in the southern regions of the country: in the village. Kozatsky of the Kherson province, Dolmatovo of the Tauride province, Sochi (Arduch) of the Black Sea province. As a major winemaker, he was one of the founders (in 1901) of the Viticulture and Winemaking Committee of the Imperial Moscow Society of Agriculture. In Kozatsky, in addition to numerous vineyards planted in 1896, there was fine-wool sheep breeding - one of the best in Russia and a large stud farm.

On July 31, 1900, in Uzkoy, where Sergey Nikolaevich Trubetskoy then lived, the famous philosopher Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov died in the office of P. N. Trubetskoy. P.N. Trubetskoy attended his funeral, which took place in the Novodevichy Convent.

In the spring of 1905, P. N. Trubetskoy, together with Prince A. G. Shcherbatov, Counts Pavel and Pyotr Dmitrievich Sheremetev, publicists N. A. Pavlov and S. F. Sharapov and others, became the founder and main figure in the monarchist Union of Russian people in Moscow ( after the defeat in the elections to the 1st State Duma, the activity of the Union declined sharply; many of its members became members of other Black Hundred-monarchist organizations).

In 1906, he was elected from the noble societies to the State Council (P.N. Trubetskoy and the St. Petersburg provincial marshal of the nobility Count V.V. Gudovich, supported by the Minister of the Interior P.N. Durnovo, owned the idea of ​​a separate representation from the nobility in the State Council. In the State Council, P. N. Trubetskoy subsequently headed the Land Commission.At one time he was the chairman of the Center Party, which was seen as a well-known liberalism, since, as a rule, only persons who got into the upper house of the Russian parliament, not by election, became chairmen of groups and parties, but by appointment of Nicholas II.

P. N. Trubetskoy died on October 4, 1911, being killed in Novocherkassk by one of his own nephews, Vladimir Grigorievich Christie. The families of Trubetskoy and Christie arrived there for the solemn ceremony of transferring the ashes of Don military leaders, among whom was their ancestor Count V. V. Orlov-Denisov, to the tomb of the newly completed military cathedral. After the ceremony, P. N. Trubetskoy went for a ride in a car with his nephew's wife Maria (Maritsa) Alexandrovna Kristi, nee Mikhalkova (1883-1966) and arrived in his car at the Novocherkassk station. V. G. Christie also came there, who shot P. N. Trubetskoy. On October 7, his body was transported to Moscow and buried in the Donskoy Monastery. At the request of the widow of P. N. Trubetskoy, Nicholas II stopped the investigation of this case, V. G. Christie was exiled to the estate of his parents Zamchezhie (Kishinev district, Bessarabia province).

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 the feeling of the possible, but not realized, historical role of 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. Kreyman, 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. The Russian Empire perished. 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 of a change in course. the people, and that public forces would be called to joint work 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.

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. A king who, in the current state of state life and state economy, can know about the benefits and needs of the people, about the state of the country and various branches of state administration, only what they do not consider it necessary to hide from him, or what can reach him through a complex system 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 the great Muscovite sovereigns realized in the old days. 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 gathering with exile to 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 ... Since 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, upholding its autonomy, upholding the corporate rights of students and standing up for the old "Union Council", a man who was almost exposed 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 upon a time 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 themselves, 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 another direction, organize term papers 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 course 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 character 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 Nikolaevich 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 the highest 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 an 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 and 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 and 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 strata 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 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 was of 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 was in Soviet times that societies of this kind were persecuted. Participants in philosophical circles and societies were expected to be inevitably arrested, and it’s 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" - 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 restrain 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 all around the reaction intensifies, 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 young people. But what he was talking about the university, wasn't he talking about the whole of Russia?.. And didn't he have reason to say that?.. 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 everyone was constantly 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 moods. 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 it was not enough, the people gathered got into some locked rooms... Then the Council of the University, under the chairmanship of S.N., found it necessary 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 possession of it, and at the university it was noticed that he could not speak calmly, without deep inner excitement ... Before leaving for Petersburg, he, yielding to Praskovya Vladimirovna's requests, 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.

Sergey Vasilyevich Trubetskoy (1814-1859) belonged to the number of Lermontov's friends, was a second in the poet's duel with Martynov. The warm friendly attitude of the poet towards him is evidenced by an entry in the diary of Yu. F. Samarin dated mid-April 1841.

“I remember his [Lermontov’s] poetic story about the case with the highlanders, where Trubetskoy was wounded ... His voice trembled, he was ready to shed a tear ...” Biographical information about Sergey Vasilyevich Trubetskoy is in the book by S. A. Panchulidzev “History of the cavalry guards”.

"Kn. Sergei Vasilyevich Trubetskoy ... entered the service on September 5, 1833 from chamber pages as a cornet in the cavalry guard regiment; September 12, 1834 "for his well-known emperor. Highness a prank "was sent to L-Guards. Grodno Hussar Regiment, from where it was returned to the cavalry guards on December 12 of the same year. On October 27, 1835, “for causing disorder at night in Novaya village with two other officers and on the complaint of the inhabitants,” he was transferred with the same rank to the Order Cuirassier Regiment, in 1836 he was promoted to lieutenant, in 1837 he was transferred as a cornet to the l-guards. Her Majesty's Cuirassier Regiment; January 13, 1840 appointed to consist of cavalry, seconded to the Grebensky Cossack regiment; participated in the expedition of Gen. Galafeev and in the case at the river. Valerike (July 11, 1840) shot in the chest with a bullet; in 1842 he was transferred to the Apsheron Infantry Regiment; On March 18, 1843, he was dismissed from service due to illness, with a determination to state affairs. He was married to Ekaterina Petrovna Pushkina, they have a daughter, Sofia.

The above extract reflects the hardships that overtook Trubetskoy during his stay in various guards and army regiments. In the same source we find an explanation of the causes of these hardships. Count P. X. Grabbe, who commanded the troops on the Caucasian Line and in the Black Sea, speaks of S. V. Trubetskoy in this way: “With his mind, education, appearance, kinship connections, he spent almost his entire life, as most happens with us people , happier than others who are gifted.

“He was one of those witty, cheerful and kind fellows who remain Misha, or Sasha, or Kolya all his life. He remained Seryozha to the end and was especially unhappy or unlucky ... Of course, he was all around to blame for all his failures, but his pranks, no matter how unforgivable they were, get away with many who are not worth poor Sergei Trubetskoy. In his first youth, he was extraordinarily handsome, dexterous, cheerful and brilliant in all respects, both in appearance and in mind, and he had a warm, kind heart and that youthful carelessness with some kind of daring, which borders on courage and therefore maybe captivating. He was a daredevil, he was knee-deep in the sea, alas, for the reason to which this saying refers, and he ended his life randomly, as he spent it, but he was never evil, nor greedy ... It is a pity for such a gifted nature, who died from -for nothing..."

To have an idea of ​​Trubetskoy's "pranks" that Bludova talks about, let's use the penal magazine of the cavalry guard regiment:

Not to mention misconduct of an ordinary nature: smoking a pipe at the wrong time in front of the front of the regiment, walking next to the ensign, absenteeism from the place of duty, etc., we will dwell on only two cases that are most characteristic of Trubetskoy.

The first offense committed by him together with the staff captain Krotkov is described in the penal journal under the date August 14, 1834:

“On the 11th of this month, having learned that Countess Bobrinskaya and her guests were supposed to take boat trips along the Bolshaya Neva and the Black River, they set out to jokingly go towards them with lighted torches and an empty coffin ...”

The consequence of this joke for both of its participants was an arrest with detention in a guardhouse. The second case of “prank” with the participation of two more officers, mentioned by Paichulidzev and which served as the reason for the transfer of Trubetskoy to an army regiment, is set out in an entry dated September 1, 1835: “For the fact that after the evening dawn at two o’clock on the street in New Village they made various games not with due silence, arrested with detention in the guardhouse until ordered. About the risky trick of S. V. Trubetskoy in the Kislovodsk restaurant on August 22, 1840, at a ball held on the occasion of the day of the coronation of Nicholas I, recalls E. A. Shan Giray:

“At that time, on solemn days, all the military had to be in uniforms, and since the youth, released from expeditions for the shortest time to rest on the Water, did not have uniforms, they could not participate in the ceremonial ball, which happened exactly 22 August (the day of the coronation), 1840. Young people, including Lermontov, stood on the balcony by the window ... At the end of the evening, during the mazurka, one of those who did not have the right to enter the ball, namely Prince Trubetskoy, bravely entered and solemnly walking through the hall, he invited the girl to make one round of the mazurka with him, to which she readily agreed. Then, having brought her to the place, he also marched back and was met with applause from his comrades for his heroic deed, and the door closed again. Many laughed at this bold trick and nothing more; and book. Trubetskoy (the same one who was in 1841 during the duel of Lermontov) could have paid with the guardhouse.”

Trubetskoy showed the same propensity for risk in 1841. We know about this from later explanations about the circumstances of the duel, reported by A. I. Vasilchikov to Viskovaty

“Actually, the seconds,” recalled Vasilchikov, “were: Stolypin, Glebov, Trubetskoy and myself. During the investigation, they showed: Glebov was Martynov's second, I was Lermontov's. We have hidden others. Trubetskoy arrived without a vacation and could have paid more seriously. Taking on the duties of a second, S.V. Trubetskoy obviously risked, since this could end extremely unfavorably for him. We find interesting information about S. V. Trubetskoy in the article by E. G. Gershtein “Lermontov and the circle of sixteen”.

"FROM. V. Trubetskoy, she writes, is interesting for us because Lermontov chose him as his second in a duel with Martynov. In addition, Trubetskoy was closely connected by friendship with N. A. Gervais. Mentioning the story of Gervais's expulsion in 1835, I have already said that Trubetskoy, who was exiled at the same time, was taken under secret supervision. From the time of this expulsion until the death of Trubetskoy, his fate passed under the sign of a special dislike for him of Nicholas I and all the “tops”. This is found out from the correspondence of the secret part of the inspection department. In January 1840 Trubetskoy was deported for the second time, this time to the Caucasus. Together with Lermontov and members of the "circle of sixteen" he participated in the battle of the river. Valerik was seriously wounded here. Despite this, he was denied the award, just like Lermontov. In February 1841, he went on vacation to St. Petersburg to say goodbye to his dying father and treat his wound. Nicholas I personally imposes house arrest on him. Throughout the stay of Lermontov and his friends in the “circle of sixteen” in St. Petersburg, Trubetskoy was hopelessly at home, “not daring to go anywhere under any pretext,” and in April, following the “highest command” of the tsar, still sick, was sent back to the Caucasus . Here he settled with Lermontov and a month later was his second in a duel with Martynov.

Here now is given approximately everything that was known about S.V. Trubetskoy until now.94 In addition to this information, one can also mention two unpublished archival documents relating to him.

“In pleasant confidence,” writes the old man Trubetskoy, “that Your Excellency has not yet forgotten me, your former comrade, and in this flattering hope of a friendly favor to me, I now turn to you and entrust the son of my lieutenant Prince Sergei Trubetskoy to a gracious your patronage; I humbly and most convincingly ask you to accept it with gracious participation. The desire to serve under "Your superiors and take advantage of opportunities for distinction in the military field prompted the young man to move to the Caucasian Corps, and in this position, my paternal heart can only console myself with the pleasant thought that he will find in you a patron, father-commander and deserve your attention "...

The second document is an order for the troops of the Caucasian Line dated February 8, 1840 on the enrollment of Prince. SV Trubetskoy to serve.

Here is his text: “They are appointed: the Life Guards of His Majesty’s Cuirassier Regiment, Kornet Prince Trubetskoy, to be a lieutenant in the cavalry with secondment to the Caucasian Line Cossack Host.”

Both documents cast doubt on the assertion of E. G. Gershtein that in January 1840 Trubetskoy was again deported to the Caucasus

It is impossible to assume that the father of S.V. Trubetskoy, speaking of his son exiled to the Caucasus, could write that "the desire to serve under your command and take advantage of opportunities for distinction in the military field forced the young man to go to the Caucasian Corps." The old man Trubetskoy was, of course, well aware that the commander of the troops on the Caucasian Line, General Grabbe, could not help but know on what grounds this or that officer was coming to him, and therefore the prince would hardly have dared to mislead the general.

The fact that S.V. Trubetskoy went to the Caucasus voluntarily in 1840 can also be concluded from the above order along the Line, in which not only there is no hint of exile, but even a promotion in rank is noted, which could not have happened during exile . This order, which followed the letter of the old prince, may also testify to how attentive Grabbe was to his former colleague.