During the years of Soviet power, both historical science and historical novelistics have done a lot. A colossal fund, or, as they now say, a bank, of data on the past of the Fatherland has accumulated-thousands of books, publications, articles and reviews, hundreds of novels and novellas. Thus, the history of Russia and Russia from the time of Igor and Vladimir Monomakh to the era of Pugachev is reflected, according to the most conservative estimates, in no less than a thousand novels, novellas, poems and other works of art.
In the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On the creative links of literary and artistic journals with the practice of communist construction" of July 29, 1982, along with great achievements in the artistic understanding of the past, significant shortcomings are also noted:deviations from the truth of life, the inability of some authors to cope with complex material, to consider the phenomena of the past from the finally, ideological confusion 1 . In this regard, it should be noted that in Soviet historical prose, along with undoubted successes, there are still weak works containing errors, which are mentioned in the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU.
Among historical themes and figures, some enjoy constant attention among writers: Kievan Rus and Svyatoslav, Yaroslav the Wise and Vladimir Monomakh; Batu Khan's invasion of Rus; Alexander Nevsky and his sons; the Battle of Kulikovo and Dmitry Donskoy; the unification of Rus, the formation of Russia and Ivan III, Ivan the Terrible; the Polish-Swedish intervention and K. Minin, D. Pozharsky; the beginning of the Russian Empire and Peter I; finally, the era of "enlightened absolutism" and E. I. Pugachev, Catherine II. Epochs and faces are different, but they all represent important stages in our history. Recently, the history of Russia in the second half of the XVIII century, the time of Pugachev and Radishchev, Suvorov and Ushakov, Catherine II and Paul I has attracted increasing attention of scientists and writers.
Among the recently published works of fiction about this era is a new novel by Valentin Pikul 2, which focuses on the figure of Catherine II's favorite, the outstanding statesman G. A. Potemkin. The book has a subtitle: "A novel chronicle of the times of Catherine II", which implies the presence of a broad historical background. So it is in fact. In the novel, not only Potemkin and Catherine II live and act, but also many other real persons; it presents the era with all its complexity and diversity, difficulties and victories. The second essay about the same time - the story of Viktor Sosnora "Savior of the Fatherland"3-devoted to the conflict between Peter III and Catherine II, their historical role; the author's main attention is focused on the palace coup of 1762. These two works are dissimilar both in their style and in their approach to the epoch and its figures, in the historical and social determinism of literary characteristics and images, in the selection of facts and their explanation.
The history of Russia in the second half of the XVIII century is extremely rich in phenomena and processes that were important for the subsequent destinies of the country. The most important of these processes are the emergence of the capitalist system, the beginning of the crisis of the feudal-feudal system; the policy of "enlightened absolutism"; the further strengthening of Russia's position in the international arena; and the emergence of an opposition party.
1 Literaturnaya gazeta, 4. VIII. 1982.
2 Pikul V. Favorit. Tt. I-II. L. 1984.
3 Neva, 1984, N 12.
page 167
(enlightenment and noble-revolutionary) socio-political thought. This is the historical background of the artistic image of that era.
V. Sosnora's story is based on a historical drama that took place in June 1762. A writer, like a professional historian, should be able to look at the past not only from the windows of the palace chambers, but also from the window of a village hut. V. Sosnora also limited his field of vision to the imperial offices and bedrooms; on the first and only plan in the story - palace chambers, intrigues, alcove adventures. But there's more to it than that. And in the novels of Shishkov or Pikul, the reader will meet the same crowd of favorites of Elizabeth and especially Catherine II, descriptions of the relationship of Peter III and Catherine II, both of them - with their own metresses and favorites. All this happened, and not only in Russia, but also in all the courts of Europe at that time. Without this, the chronicle of the life of the ruling elite would obviously be incomplete. But while paying tribute to this aspect of reality at that time, we cannot limit ourselves to it or give it a self-sufficient meaning, but we need to talk about something more significant - about the state significance of the activities of Catherine II, Potemkin and many other representatives of that era; to show that, with all their vices and shortcomings and class limitations, their policies objectively contributed to the growth of Russia's power, economic, political, international, and cultural development. And subjectively, the traffic police were striving for this - after all, they were not limited to love affairs and acquisition. Yes, Catherine II and her associates, and many of them were talented people, put their hands into the treasury, seized estates and peasants, behaved in accordance with the spirit and morals of the nobles of that time. But there was something else, more important for the fate of the country - and the rapid development of industry (Russia took the first place in the world in iron smelting at that time, and almost the majority of sea vessels sailed under the sails of Russian linen), trade, and brilliant victories on land and at sea, and the development of Novorossiya, the annexation of Crimea, and the emergence of a galaxy of writers and artists, architects and sculptors. All this was done primarily by ordinary people. But Potemkin, with his big, though sloppy mind, and Catherine II, for all her vices, a far - sighted and purposeful politician, but painfully honest and slavophil, invested some share in the achievements and victories that glorified Russia.
In Sosnora's story, the wrong angle of the historical review and the shift of emphasis lead to the fact that the whole reality of the middle of the XVIII century appears to the reader as if in a crooked mirror. It seems that the author, first of all, chose from the sources and literature about the epoch only what interested him, what "worked" for his concept; secondly, he misinterpreted everything chosen. The very title of the story - "The Savior of the Fatherland" - is filled with irony, making this work a kind of literary, historical and political pamphlet. Indeed, in her autobiographical writings, Catherine II portrayed the coup that brought her to the throne as a miraculous salvation of Russia, and herself as the savior of the country. Similarly, such participants in the coup as the Orlov brothers, Count Panin, Princess Dashkova, and others praised themselves without restraint. This is not a rare thing in memoir writing. It doesn't really matter. It is important that the reign of Catherine II, which began after June 29, 1762, and lasted for a third of a century, was filled not only with her alcove adventures, but, what is much more interesting, with events and affairs of great importance for the state. They should not be forgotten, despite the mass reprisals against the oppressed and the persecution of dissenters, the huge debt of the treasury left after the death of Catherine II, and her disgusting buffoonery in relations with Western philosophers and her subjects, for example, in the Laid Commission. It is impossible not to admit that at the same time the Empress was concerned in her own way about the glory and power of Russia at that time.
Sosnora doesn't seem to notice. Much of his story is puzzling. After the words about the death of Elizabeth Petrovna, he stuns the reader with the statement: "Nothing happened in Russia for twenty years," and writes that life was not scary and boring, twelve grenadiers were doing Russian politics, there was a Seven-Year War (the author has a seven-year war!), etc. 4. The author did not notice anything else,
4 Ibid., p. 65.
page 168
after taking a quick look at the 20-year rule of the "daughter of Petrova"? Nor the elimination of foreign domination at court? No return to Peter's methods of management? Nor the restoration and strengthening of the fleet and army? No rapid development of manufactories? Nor the brilliant victories of Russian weapons in the Seven Years ' War, during which Russian troops took Berlin? Not even the efforts of the brilliant Lomonosov, who brought Russian science to the forefront in the world?
Further - more. For 42 days, during which Ekaterina Alekseevna invariably came to the coffin of the deceased, every day, the latter, it turns out, "became the most popular figure in St. Petersburg" - of course, she cried for 84 hours, although Elizabeth Petrovna hated her during her lifetime. 5 You might think that these 42 days decided everything: the fall of Peter III and the rise of the mourner-pretender herself. Meanwhile, and this is well known, Catherine's ascent to power lasted almost 18 years, i.e. from the time of her arrival in Russia, from February 1744. Calculating and intelligent, she became famous not only for the qualities that gave her every reason to call her a great harlot, but also for perseverance in achieving her goal. What happened at the turn of 1761 and 1762 is only the final chord in the struggle that the Grand Duchess waged for many years.
Reviewing the events related to the coup of 1762, Sosnora portrays them in a vaudeville spirit-Catherine does not know what is happening in the capital, but still puts on a guards uniform, rushes to the troops and takes power into her own hands; in the manifesto to the Senate, she calls herself the savior of the fatherland, which, in the person of the leaders of the coup, turned to the to her with a request to accept the power, and she de accepted. The revolution itself in the author's view is a chain of accidents, absurdities, impulsive actions of nobles and officers. At the same time, Sosnora writes that "the coup was well thought out, and the officers, yes, it is undeniable, and the soldiers had excellent organizational skills." However, a few pages below Sosnora describes another, equally "decisive" factor in the success of the coup: "Only Razumovsky acted" (Kirill Grigoryevich-graf, Hetman of Ukraine, President of the Academy of Sciences, commander of the Izmailovsky regiment; the latter is obviously the most important for the author); "Razumovsky's wild ride on the red fluttering (so!) kone decided, decided the fate of the Russian Empire for thirty-four years ahead. " 6 Here, it turns out, is how easily the fate of the state and the peoples inhabiting it are decided.
Sosnora doesn't spare any paint to blacken both Catherine and 35 (so he thinks) years of her reign. In many versions of her "notes" Catherine II does nothing, according to the author, that regales readers with fictions; and " it is significant that Catherine finishes all her memoirs long before 1762. And not without intent. The year 1762 put an end to fictions - the reign began. After 1762, it was necessary to write about their direct participation in executions, exiles, and murders... How to describe the coup of 1762? How to present the death of Peter III to posterity? " 7 . Why the Empress did not continue her memoirs is difficult to judge. But it is easy to imagine that such a memoirist as Catherine, with her sophisticated mind, would somehow be able to describe her reign - and praise herself and convince posterity that during her time there were not only tortures and executions, but also state affairs of the highest importance.
As for how the failed continuation of "notes" could tell about the coup of 1762 and the death of Peter III, Sosnora gives a very unambiguous answer: she cites Catherine's statements - this is both the explanation and the concept of the coup. References to the "will of God", then to the "desire of the people", to the" common good " of loyal subjects were repeatedly used by Russian tsars long before Catherine. Yes, and about the death of her husband, she explained everything - as she considered necessary, so that no one in Russia and abroad would doubt the true reasons for the death of the emperor. In a dispatch to Stanislaw Poniatowski, Catherine II attributed the incident to " diarrhea "(from too much "drinking"), "hemorrhoidal colic"," inflammation in the brain "and"apoplexy". Sosnora 8 writes about the same thing . So what are the arguments in this regard
5 Ibid., p. 66.
6 Ibid., p. 77.
7 Ibid., p. 78.
8 Ibid., pp. 84-85.
page 169
for a possible continuation of the "notes" were made immediately. Still, the Empress did not continue her memoirs - not because, one might assume, there was nothing to write about. Catherine II, to do her justice, knew how to hold a pen in her hand.
During her reign, Sosnora is sure, nothing significant was done. So, there were some things, but not that: "conscientious courts" - "one puppet game", rights and advantages for the nobility and cities (meaning the letters patent of 1775 and 1785) - their proclamation had only one goal: "Without in the least detracting from the strength of its autocracy, it will throw away the power of its autocracy." In short, these laws are not acts that have played a significant role in the development of public administration. "In March 1775," Sosnora continues, "the empress granted 47 favors to the people," among them "not a single one that was useful," and "from now on," i.e., from 1775, " Catherine stopped bothering herself too much and, having seen that the Russian people are the most obsessive and unsophisticated, set off enjoy the howl, without looking back. " 9
Meanwhile, after that, many important events took place that left their mark on both national and world history. And Sosnora is deeply mistaken about the" obsequiousness and insensitivity "of the Russian people - it was in 1775, as in the previous two years ,that "Marquis Pugachev" (as Catherine II called the leader of the Peasant War) and hundreds of thousands of rebels showed her and the entire Russian nobility the strength of the Russian people, brought out of patience by the most severe exploitation and violence serfs led by the "Kazan landowner", which the Empress declared herself during the Pugachev Uprising. A powerful grassroots movement shook the entire edifice of Catherine II's feudal-absolutist empire, and horrified the nobles. Many of them died at the hands of the rebels. Before and after Pugachev, peasants and factory workers, Cossacks and soldiers, true heroes of Russian history, rose up to fight all over Russia. And according to Sosnora, it turns out that they are all "obsessive and not ticklish"!
So the view from the palace rest, the dependence on sources such as" notes " of Catherine II lead the author very far. The facts of the alcove nature block out things in the story that are incomparably more important for the history of the country. The exposure of Catherine II is made easier in the story by the fact that the writer is busy solving a problem, as they said in the old days, of an "opposite" nature - the whitewashing of Peter III. True, Sosnora can not help but note some oddities in the character of her hero-from playing with dolls (in 30-odd years!) and everyday drunkenness to hatred of Russia, this extremely limited in spirit, Holstein. But for all that, the emperor in the story is a flighty man, but kind and sincere; he knows about the plot that is being prepared, but jumps and grimaces, drinks beer and knapster, plays the violin, and listlessly, even with a kind of wise doom and fatal insight, follows the intrigues and betrayals of his neighbors.
Moreover, a man with the outlook of a Prussian corporal and a Holstein burgher, who despised "cursed" Russia, was afraid of it and all Russians ("Holstein devil", as the Empress Elizabeth called him), turns out to be almost a reformer and savior of Russia in the image of Sosnora: he proclaimed the secularization of monastic estates, made allowances for schismatics, declared freedom of religion and non-obligatory fasts, abolished the Secret Chancellery, was going to disband the guard, but it is a pity that he did not have time to do more, because the same guards and immoral Catherine prevented him. "Peter III was a flighty, but honest officer"; " Peter III was the first of the Russian emperors (and the last) to take off the masquerade mask from this talking shop (meaning the entire state system of Russia. - V. B.) and said to the face of the entire system that eats and steals everything and everything that it is in the West. He is " forever branded by history: a Holstein and a drunkard. The formula was invented by Ekaterina, and the formula is good. " 10 Sosnora concludes her defense speech with the words: "Peter III was weak in character and sentimental, otherwise he would not have allowed himself to be killed. Neither as a leader nor as a reformer, Peter III did not take place." So - failed state act-
9 Ibid., p. 88.
10 Ibid., pp. 85, 91-94.
page 170
tel, reformer, searchlight, sentimental person, weak character. "What would have happened if... History is not interested, it records only what is there, " concludes Sosnora 11 . But history as a science not only records facts, but also reveals the causes and consequences of events, the motives of the actions of those who participated in them. Not only according to the testimony of Catherine II, Dashkova, Panin, but also by analyzing many other sources, historians have established that Peter III is by no means the figure who can be attributed to the category of heroes, although failed. It has long been known, for example, that Holstein on the Russian throne immediately after the death of Elizabeth began to return from exile Bironov, Mengdenov and other foreigners, who under Anna Ivanovna, according to the caustic remark of V. O. Klyuchevsky, fell on Russia like garbage from a leaky bag, robbed the treasury, drank and ate the country with the milking money that was extracted from the "mean" people 12 . All this was resumed under the "weak-willed" Peter III, who summoned from Holstein a horde of relatives, generals, etc., up to the soldiers, and together with them and those close to him from the Russian courtiers, the "searchlight" was having fun and drinking, rowdy and amorous at the state expense.
He announced some measures - some out of a fanfaronic desire to do "in their own way", in spite of "these damned Russians"; others-under pressure from Russian nobles from his entourage; others - under the pressure of circumstances. And this last, without a doubt , is the most important thing. This includes the secularization of church possessions, the end of the persecution of schismatics, and the destruction of the Secret Chancellery. All these measures were connected with the wide scale of peasant and other uprisings that filled the 1750s-1760s. Catherine II, having come to power, abolished the secularization of ecclesiastical estates, but mass uprisings of monastic peasants began, and two years later she was forced to carry out the same secularization again, this time completely.
These measures of the failed reformer sowed illusions in the common people - both schismatics entered his name in their prayer books, and Pugachev's rebels went into battle under the banner of Peter III Fedorovich. These points are noticed by Sosnora, but not really explained. Imposture, tsarist sentiments have deep historical roots, long-standing traditions and are quite understandable by the conditions of the time. Peter III in this sense is far from an exception, but, on the contrary, only one of many examples. His measures, forced and convulsive , are the result of complex and deep processes of development of Russian society in the middle of the XVIII century. In their preparation and implementation, the role of Peter III , one of the "insignificant heirs of the northern giant"13, was really insignificant. Other people did their jobs. Prosecutor-General A. I. Glebov, for example, drew up a manifesto on the freedom of the nobility, and the emperor, to the great joy of the nobility, highly approved this act, which legitimized the idleness and parasitism of an entire class, which his grandfather still forced, for better or worse, to serve the fatherland. In addition, the manifesto tightened their power over the peasants to the extreme.
This manifesto was announced on February 18, 1762. And on June 19, a week and a half before the fall of Peter III, another manifesto was published: "We intend to preserve the landlords with their estates and possessions intact, and keep the peasants in due obedience to them." Another decree ordered that workmen who evaded their duties and were guilty of "indignation and unrest" should be punished without mercy .14 Things went on in their own way - as life dictated, as the serfs who sat in the Senate and colleges, authorized representatives of the noble class, wished and demanded. Peter III, of course, tried to make some changes of his own, for example, insulted the guards, intending to replace them with his Holsteins, stupidly and absurdly trampled on the religious beliefs and national feelings of Russians by wild antics in churches and other places: he did not take off his hat and gloves at divine services, and neglected Russian rites and customs. Indignation in Russia, which had just defeated the "old Fritz" - Frederick II-during the Seven Years ' War, caused the decision
11 Ibid., p. 94.
12 Klyuchevsky V. O. Soch. T. 4. Moscow, 1958, p. 294.
13 Pushkin A. S. Poly. Collected works, vol. 6. Moscow, 1954, 60.
14 Essays on the history of the USSR. The period of feudalism. Russia in the second half of the XVIII century, Moscow, 1956, pp. 270-272.
page 171
his ardent admirer Peter III to declare peace with him and march against Denmark, yesterday's ally of Russia and enemy of Prussia.
The anti-Russian policy of Peter III, which took the wildest and most unpredictable forms in his execution, decided his fate, and not his "public speech at the Synod" on June 25, as Sosnora believes .15 The nobility, the ruling elite of Russia did not forgive him for such twists. By their will, Peter III was sent to Ropsha, where a week later he ended his days-as ingloriously as he had lived all his life.
Turning to the review of V. Pikul's novel, it should be noted that some of his previous works were criticized in the press for factual errors, length, repetition, and uncritical use of data taken from unreliable sources. There were also reviews of "Favorite"; moreover, reviewers again point out factual errors and typos. But, I think, it should be about the main thing - about the correct representation of an important epoch of Russian history from a scientific and historical point of view-the second half of the XVIII century, about the author's patriotic position, "a sense of belonging,"according to A. Gulyga," to what is being discussed " 16 . In Pikul's novel, the biographies of the main characters - Potemkin and Catherine-are interwoven into a review of the fate of Russia, its people, and the affairs of government officials. The reader sees a broad panorama of the country's life. The action of the novel covers many lands and faces. First, we see the backwater Smolensk domain of A.V. Potemkin, the second-major and disabled father of the future all-powerful favorite of the Empress, and another backwater, but already German-Anhalt-Zerbst principality and Pomerania, from where their native Princess Sofia-Charlotte will begin her journey to the Russian throne. It is well shown in the novel that both heroes began their life journey with a huge reserve of energy and ambition, prudence and foresight. The future Empress of All Russia, then still 15-year-old Fike, as her relatives called her, arrived in Russia and immediately endeared herself to the Russian nobles. Having set herself the goal of achieving the crown, she tried to show everyone that she would not be German, but Russian-in terms of knowledge of customs, respect for the country to which she had come and which she was going to serve, of course, for her own benefit and well-being, pleasure and glory. And those people from the court and government circles, from the army and the guard, with whom she had to face, understood and appreciated this. All of them are representatives of the ruling, military elite of the Russian nobility, they were the ones who directed Russian policy, and their interests were served from the very beginning to the end of their lives by Princess Sophia Charlotte, who became Grand Duchess Ekaterina Alekseevna, then Empress Catherine II.
Much the same can be said of Potemkin, whom fate and chance brought into contact with the clever and calculating Grand Duchess and linked to the Empress for a long time. Pikul does not idealize his hero at all. Statesmanship, courage and scope, vigorous activity, talent as an organizer and administrator, far exceeding his abilities as a commander (although on the battlefield he showed both courage and qualities of a commander), the ability to listen to the opinions of other people were combined in Potemkin with unbridled ambition, envy of other people's glory (first of all - to Suvorov), rudeness, wildness, and cruelty. Such, in Pikul's description, are the features of a man whose actions as a statesman in most cases objectively benefited the country.
As shown in the novel, Potemkin's path was not easy - here is the envy and anger of the Orlovs and other temporary workers who were not as capable as he was, and the dislike of outstanding people, such as P. A. Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky, his boss, and then subordinate, the great commander, who ironically followed the rise of another Catherine's favorite, but, by the way, he also singled out his outstanding general from their series. The Empress's attitude towards Potemkin was also uneven at the time when his favor passed and new favorites came to replace him, one more insignificant than the other.
The author leads the reader through the offices of dignitaries, military camps and theaters of military operations. On the pages of his novel there are great scientists, writers and artists.
15 Neva, 1984, N 12, p. 93.
16 Gulyga Arseniy. Education by history. - Moscow, 1985, N 7, p. 198.
page 172
military leaders who glorified their country and time. Pikul also depicts foreign courts and their intrigues. It also shows the web that its enemies tried to entangle Russia with.
Pikul emphasizes the idea that Russia's victories in the second half of the 18th century were determined by the power achieved by the labor of the people. Catherine II in the image of Pikul, for all her shortcomings and class limitations, also takes care of strengthening the country in her own way. She disliked her German relatives and European potentials, including Frederick of Prussia and Maria Theresa of Austria, ironically referring to one as "Herod" and the other as "Mamma"; in the fight against them, she defended the interests of her empire. All this is well shown by the author.
From the standpoint of recognizing the role of the class struggle in an antagonistic society, Pikul briefly and expressively describes the main stages of the Peasant War under the leadership of Pugachev, the confrontation between two camps - the insurgent, popular, and noble, government. The author is only wrong in assuming that Pugachev's delay at Orenburg prevented him from breaking out "into a strategic space that would undoubtedly have been victorious for him." 17 Trampling under Orenburg really was a miscalculation, a mistake of the rebels. However, it is doubtful that Pugachev's campaign to the center of European Russia, to Moscow, would have been victorious if the rebels had not besieged Orenburg. The general situation in the country, the balance of power between the two camps, of which the noble one had a powerful punitive apparatus and huge material resources; the poor organization and armament of the rebels - all these long-term factors were not in their favor. Ultimately, Pugachev's victory was not possible.
One cannot but agree with the author in his interpretation of a number of other problems of Russia's domestic and foreign policy. In particular, the reader is convinced by the pages devoted to the sections of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that Russia did not want, having agreed to them under the pressure of circumstances, primarily the actions of Prussia and Austria. During these divisions, Russia annexed only the Old Russian lands and did not take an inch of the Polish lands proper, which was done, among other things, by the Austrian emperor and the Prussian king. However, even so, Catherine II and her government bear their own, and considerable, share of the blame for the liquidation of the statehood of the Polish people, restored a century and a quarter later, after the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia.
The story about the announcement of the "Declaration of Armed Neutrality" is also a success of the author. Just as it was in reality, the diplomatic action of Russia (which most of the European states joined) played a major role in the fate of the newly formed United States of America, in fact, in saving them from defeat by England. This action is considered in the novel as a decision that had a huge impact on world diplomacy and the law of the sea.
In general, we can agree with Yu. A. Limonov, the author of the preface, that the novel "raises a huge layer of historical reality", correctly describes the personalities of Potemkin and Catherine II, issues of internal life and foreign policy of Russia at that time, and that ultimately the main creator of history in the work is the people; "it is no coincidence that the best episodes of the novel are those where ordinary Russian people act" 18 . The fact that we have before us a broad and truthful picture of the life of Russia in the second half of the eighteenth century has already been noticed by our central press .19
The dialectic of history, among other things, consists in the fact that antagonistic societies, and feudal Russia among them, develop and move forward through the efforts of all classes and strata. The contribution of the latter varies. The decisive role is played by the producing classes, they are the driving force, the creators of history. But the ruling classes, represented by rulers, politicians, administrators, diplomats, military leaders, ideologues, and cultural figures, also contribute in one way or another to the solution of national problems. The ruling elite, along with fulfilling the will of the ruling class, protecting its class interests, poorly or well, but performs another function,
17 Pikul V. Uk. soch. Vol. 1, p. 554.
18 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 5-14.
19 See. Soviet Russia, 9. VI. 1985.
page 173
an important function not only for this class, but also for the whole country, is the organization and mobilization of its forces to achieve the next goals in the field of domestic and foreign policy. In general, the policy of Catherine II and her government objectively contributed to solving these problems. It is the duty of historians and writers who write on historical topics to work together to give a true picture of the era of Pugachev and Radishchev.
page 174
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2019-2025, LIBRARY.MD is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Moldova |