[Arkhangelsk]. North-Western Book Publishing House. 1975. 183 pages. Circulation 35,000. Price 50 kopecks.
The book of Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor G. G. Frumenkov (Arkhangelsk Pedagogical Institute) is a popular science essay on the heroic past of the Russian North, designed, as stated in the introduction, to promote "education of Soviet patriotism, love for the Motherland, its heroic past and beautiful present" (p. 15). Naturally, the requirements for such publications are increasing. Popular does not mean simplified, and to justify its purpose, such essays must not only meet the principles of strict scientific content, but also meet certain artistic criteria.
G. G. Frumenkov sets himself the task of examining the military activity of the Solovetsky Monastery , this great spiritual feudal lord, to protect his possessions from external enemies, which, as the author rightly believes (p.162), had an all-Russian significance. Therefore, the main attention is paid to the history of the creation of fortifications in the Russian North, revealing the defensive significance of the monastery, showing the heroism of the Pomors in the fight against invaders.
page 159
The author drew on an extensive literature on the subject (mainly pre-revolutionary) and a wide range of printed and archival sources. The chapter on events in Pomerania during the Crimean War is thoroughly documented. It uses the funds of the Central State Archive of the USSR, the Central State Archive of the USSR and the State Archive of the Arkhangelsk Region. Much of the material already known to science has been successfully refined, detailed, enriched with additional examples and expanded.
The reader is confronted with the difficult centuries-old struggle of Russia with Sweden, England, Denmark and other states for the preservation of the northern territories, for retaining access to the northern seas. The events of the Swedish intervention in Pomerania in 1611 and the blockade of the White and Barents Sea coast by the British and French in 1854-1855 are described in more detail. The aggressive and expansionist intentions of the Governments of Sweden and England towards Russia are convincingly shown. A depressing impression is left by the pictures reproduced in the book of treachery, barbarism and cruelty of the interventionists, who deliberately carried out the destruction of cities and villages, the extermination of civilians. The data collected by G. G. Frumenkov on the defense of Pomerania and Solovki during the Crimean War serve as a vivid illustration of the statements of Karl Marx and F. P. Tolstoy. Engels on the actions of the Anglo-French fleet in the White Sea: instead of fulfilling its main task-to take Arkhangelsk, "the Allied squadron blocking the coast engaged in random attacks on Russian and Lopar villages and destroying the meager property of poor fishermen" 1 . Such actions are carried out by K. Marx and F. Engels was called shameful.
Although the author aims to cover mainly the military history of the Solovetsky monastery, the book also describes in general terms the economic activities of the monks, the Solovetsky Uprising of 1668-1676, the stay of Peter I in Arkhangelsk, the construction of the state-owned Solombal shipyard and the Bazhenin brothers ' first private shipyard in Russia in Vavchug, the construction of the Novodvinsk Fortress, and the socio-economic development of the the situation of archers and soldiers guarding monastic fiefdoms, etc. A lot of space in the book is devoted to military and labor exploits of the Pomors.
The work goes beyond the scope of local lore in content and descriptive in nature of research, because it contributes to a new solution of a number of scientific issues. The advantage of the book is that the author gives the story of the defense of the White Sea and the participation of the Solovetsky Monastery in it, without taking this story off from the fate of the country as a whole. But not all of the author's considerations are valid.
The author points out the sufficient independence of the Solovetsky Monastery in military affairs in the XVI-XVIII centuries. He writes that "for more than two centuries - from the XVI century to the 60s of the XVIII century-the Solovetsky Monastery was almost an independent state within a large Russian power" (p. 3), that "the abbot became the sovereign sovereign of the granted territories" (p. 59), that "the monastery is a state", " a spiritual state"It had its own territory, its own institutions, its own apparatus of power, etc. But after all, the immune privileges of the spiritual owner cannot be equated with state sovereignty. In the 17th century, the formation of the All-Russian market began and the process of political centralization of the country was completed. The Solovetsky patrimony, even after its separation into a special administrative unit in 1592, turned into an integral part of the Russian state, subordinate and controlled by the central government. Tsarist voivodes and troops were regularly sent to Pomerania, fortresses were built here with the knowledge and on behalf of the tsars, land grants were conditional on service, etc. Liquidation of the Solovetsky-Sumy voivodeship in 1637. it meant not an extension of sovereignty, but an even greater increase in the monastery's immunity rights. The granting of privileges and privileges to secular and spiritual feudal lords after the ruin in the XVI-XVII centuries was quite frequent.
G. G. Frumenkov writes that during the Crimean War, the defenders of the Solovetsky Monastery and other fortresses "won a military and moral and political victory over the British interventionists..."; "the aggressor was defeated by the heroism of ordinary Russian people" (p. 131). But at the same time, we must not forget that "the war showed the rottenness and impotence of serf Russia"2 . Tsardom suffered a defeat in it, which hastened the development of the Soviet Union.-
1 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 11, p. 522.
2 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 20, p. 173.
page 160
study of the revolutionary situation in 1859-1861. This assessment is quite applicable to Pomerania as well. The author himself believes that the Anglo-French squadron interrupted the trade relations of the Russian northern ports with Europe. The war undermined the economy of Pomerania, ruined the economy of local peasants, disrupted shipbuilding, trade, and crafts. The book rightly emphasizes that tsarism was not able to organize the defense of the North, the poor condition of the fortresses of the White Sea reflected the general unpreparedness of the country for war. The absence of the Russian navy in the North made this region defenseless in the face of the enemy. The government fully understood the consequences of the possible capture and transformation of Solovki into a British naval base on the White Sea. But not having sufficient forces and resources to organize an armed response to the enemy, the military command consciously appealed to the patriotism of the masses. In this regard, the behavior of the Arkhangelsk Governor R. P. Boyle, who is criticized by the author for "criminal negligence" in strengthening the defense of the North and for appealing to the population, does not arouse suspicion. It expressed just this tendency. Boyle assured the local population for a reason that the enemy was afraid of the Russians, "and if a woman, even in jest, turns around the corner, then the enemy's legs will give way, and something else will happen" (p. 116). Calling on the peasants to arm themselves with clubs and smite the enemy with them, Boyle did not so much justify his negligence in strengthening the coast, but rather sought a way out of the critical situation in the readiness of a Russian man with a club in his hands to go to the feat for the sake of the fatherland. Objectively, Boyle's appeals serve as an illustration of such a complex social phenomenon that doomed tsarism to defeat in the war as the crisis of serfdom.
The military merits of the Solovetsky monastery are generally somewhat exaggerated in the book. He really led the defense of the region, although he pursued primarily the interests of preserving and increasing his wealth. The masses of the people, defending their cities and villages, families and property, defended their native land, national wealth, honor and independence of their homeland.
The book contains a number of controversial provisions. The author believes, for example, that the secularization of 1764 "put a limit to the development of monastic feudalism in the North", but below he himself emphasizes that "serfdom and feudal exploitation prevailed in the monastic patrimony until the last days of its existence" (p. 6). One cannot agree with G. G. Frumenkov when he writes that "a closed monastic fiefdom was formed in the north of the country." The circle of" poverty "in the Solovetsky patrimony was" broken by the state's confiscation of church and monastery property " (p. 6). As is well known, the reform of 1764 did not save the peasants from feudal exploitation and ruin by the treasury. It would be desirable to give and justify in the book a periodization of the military history of Solovki.
In conclusion, we note that the revision and additions made by G. G. Frumenkov in the reviewed second edition of 3 of his book significantly improved it.
V. M. Vazhinsky
3 The first edition entitled "Solovetsky Monastery and the Defense of Pomerania in the XVI-XIX centuries" was published in Arkhangelsk in 1963.
page 161
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2014-2025, LIBRARY.EE is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Estonia |