Reasoning about the Masons' support of the monarchical power in Russia in 1817: source analysis

Dmitriev Aleksei Lecturer of the department of History of State and Law, Humanitarian University 620131, Russia, Sverdlovsk region, Yekaterinburg, Vikulova str., 38A, sq. 85 talveg@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The relevance of the research is due to the initial publication of the manuscript belonging to the Russian Freemasons of the first quarter of the XIX century. Based on the original source, the study shows what legal and political ideas were actually spread among Russian Freemasons. Y.E. Kondakov in the book "Secret Instructions of Russian Rosicrucians" writes that, arguing about the motives of S.S. Lansky's participation in the abolition of serfdom, Russian Rosicrucians were alien to political ideas, and S.S. Lansky was inspired by general liberal values after the prohibition of Masonic lodges in Russia ^{[1, p. 330]}. We can only partially agree with this opinion. Indeed, the Russian Rosicrucians sought to circumvent any political issues in correspondence with each other, but it is impossible to talk about their complete apoliticality. According to M.N. Longinov, the Russian Rosicrucians of the late XVIII century touched on political issues, for which they were persecuted by Catherine II ^[2]. As shown in their monographs by A.Y. Minakov, E.A. Vishlenkova, the Russian Rosicrucians of the first quarter of the XIX century influenced the conservative political choice of Russia, had a "hand" in the disgrace of M.M. Speransky ^{[3, pp. 348-362; 4, pp. 109-138]}. In another monograph, Y.E. Kondakov writes that such Rosicrucians as R.A. Koshelev influenced the policy of Alexander I ^{[5, pp. 445-449]}, an entire chapter is devoted to the question of the influence of Rosicrucians on Russian society in the first half of the XIX century ^{[5, pp. 317-506]}. A.Y. Minakov believes that "the formulation of the question of the connections and interactions between certain trends in Freemasonry and Russian conservatism are still unusual, but the problem is not far-fetched and needs serious study" ^{[3, p. 354]}.

The importance of the research is also indicated by the need for attribution of the published manuscript. Attribution of the manuscript has not been done by anyone before. The exception is the final qualifying work of T.A. Sokolova "The Moscow Lodge of the beginning of the XIX century "by Alexander the Triple Salvation": composition, professional and social activities" ^[6], in which a brief summary of the contents of the manuscript is given and the text belonging to S.P. Fonvizin is determined. According to T.A. Sokolova, who in 2013 got acquainted with the manuscript in the Research Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library, the monarch in the manuscript is considered the center of the state, the decline of morals is the cause of the destruction of the state.

The objectives of the study, therefore, will be: 1) establishing the reliability of the source and the accuracy of the information contained therein; 2) establishing the year, author, purpose, completeness and meaning of the source ^{[7, p. 287]}. The object of the study will be the text of the manuscript, and the subject will be its historical and legal characteristics. The object and subject of the study determined the research methods used – comparative-historical linguistic method, historical-genetic method, biographical, historical-legal, historical reconstruction, as well as for the purpose of attribution of the text – elements of syntactic, lexical-phraseological and stylistic analysis used in philology and textology.

The theoretical basis of the study was the research of A.A. Vasilchikov, G.V. Vernadsky, E.A. Vishlenkova, Yu.E. Kondakov, A.N. Lushin, A.Yu. Minakov, V.I. Semevsky, A.I. Serkov, M.I. Sukhomlinov, V.M. Syrykh.

Authenticity of the manuscriptIn the research department of manuscripts of the Russian State Library there is a fund 014 "Arsenyev 

Vasily Sergeevich: collection, XVIII - XIX century." with 1967 storage units. This fund is formed on the basis of Masonic manuscripts of the researcher on Russian Freemasonry N.P. Kiselyov (1884-1965), acquired by the library in 1965 after his death. N.P. Kiselyov, in turn, received materials from the prominent mason V.S. Arsenyev (1829-1915), and also bought at an auction organized by the publishing house "Zadruga", in 1922. Before being with V.S. Arsenyev, the foundation's materials were with S.P. Fonvizin (1783-1860), a famous mason of the first quarter of the XIX century, to whom they came according to the will of V.D. Kamynin (1776-1842), the head of the Order of the Golden Rose Cross, made in 1841 ^{[8, pp.10-11; 9, p. 27-34]}.

In the inventory of the fund there is a manuscript remarkable in many respects, which does not have an author ^[10]. However, on the manuscript itself, N.P. Kiselyov wrote in pencil on page 2 at the bottom: "by the hand of S.P. Fonvizin." The manuscript begins with the second sheet (which means that, most likely, the beginning was lost). The absence of some kind of introduction is also evidenced by a semantic lacuna: the manuscript begins with an already expanded thought. It follows from the text that the reader knows who is addressing him and for what reason. Often, in the introduction in Masonic texts, the author's appeal to the Masonic brothers, or a description of the manuscript, appears. There is no such introduction to this manuscript. The abstract nature of the manuscript (which also speaks in favor of the absence of an introduction) is indicated by a written message on the back of the manuscript "Dictated from the records of the deceased And:A:P:", and the text "from the records" is crossed out. Obviously, the manuscript was dictated by the author to the listener. There are no other editorial notes on the manuscript, and there are no traces of interference with the original text. The compiler of the inventory K.A. Maikova in 1974 determined the time of the manuscript – the first half of the XIX century.

These factual circumstances indicate that the manuscript was located where it should have been - in Masonic meetings, and was passed from mason to Mason. Then it was in the use of the researcher of Freemasonry N.P. Kiselyov, who carried out the initial attribution of the text. In 1965, the manuscript became the property of the State Library. Lenin in Moscow.

Author and title of the manuscriptThe document is a secondary source – a monologue written off by S.P. Fonvizin from one of his correspondents.

This explains the awkwardness of written speech, the inconsistency of individual parts of the sentence, which are characteristic of oral speech. The presence of appeals in the text to those present testifies to a monologue speech: "Therefore, each of us must," "for I dare say so." Let us turn to the phrases: "[d]ol my oath, conscience, duty, religion", "my inclination to love the center of unity", "encourages me to cave", "this should motivate everyone", "nothing tells me", "everyone who loves his fatherland should". They testify to the elements of confession, preaching or edification, which presuppose the presence of a listener or an invisible interlocutor. The manuscript is named by N.P. Kiselyov "Reasoning about the support of the monarchical power in Russia by Freemasons" (hereinafter – the Reasoning).

The author N.P. Kiselyov has not been definitively established. This is evidenced by the entry made by him: "Dictated from the records of the deceased And:A: P:" and the subsequent correction (the phrase "from the records" is crossed out), which changes the meaning of the original phrase, but still points to the author. Under the initials I.A.P. hides, of course, Joseph (Osip) Alekseevich Pozdeev. Based on the name and content, the author of the text is a conservative monarchist, striving to preserve the old order. Among the conservative Masons of the first quarter of the XIX century, the greatest authority was possessed by I.A. Pozdeev (1742-1820), I.V. Beber (1746-1820), A.F. Labzin (1766-1825) ^{[8, p.291]}. I.A. Pozdeev enjoyed the greatest weight of them: after the fall of Novikov, he was considered the highest patron of Freemasonry and the interpreter of its secrets ^{[11, p.263]}. I.A. Pozdeev – a native of the nobility, from the family of a captain, began service with P.I. Panin during the peasant war under the leadership of E. Pugachev, later headed the office of the general-Governor of Moscow Z.G.Chernyshev in 1782-1784. Colonel, breeder ^{[12, pp. 283-284]}. Among Freemasons, I.A. Pozdeev was more of a rationalist than a mystic. That is why G.V. Vernadsky attributed his statements to the rationalistic trend of Freemasonry: "Many, striving for the one grace, do not care about reason," said Pozdeev to his disciple Rimsky—Korsakov, "but this is not so. Reason is a necessary link to the well-being of man, granted by God. In the same way, many would like to deal with angels, bypassing men; but the question is: are they consistent with them? — Many brothers would like to deal with higher authorities, but the question is: are they consistent with them? And do these people have time to deal with them? And so conformity and mediating links make up the order." In another letter: "Reason is a gift of God, which we must educate and bring to greater perfection," A. P. Rimsky-Korsakov wrote down Pozdeyev's teaching. "It can soon be proved that thoughts should not be neglected," said Pozdeev, "for every good and evil deed begins in us initially with thoughts. Everything that happened in the world: coups, wars, the foundation of states and their ruin, delusions, and everything that was done was originally the thoughts of those people who wanted to say something in the world, then thoughts turned into words, and finally the work followed into the work of what they had previously in the thoughts were arranged" ^{[13, pp. 157-159]}. The content of the manuscript demonstrates a rationalistic view of the state, which is similar to I.A. Pozdeyev's rationalistic way of thinking.

It was noticed that I.A. Pozdeyev had tactics of behind-the-scenes agreements and influence on statesmen: he was the spiritual mentor of the Minister of Public Education A.K. Razumovsky (1748-1822), gave advice concerning his official activities, and recommended acquaintances to government posts ^{[8, p.292; 14, p.302, 311-312]}. The disciples of I.A. Pozdeyev, the leader of the "Russian party" in Freemasonry, also became M.Yu. Vielgorsky (1788-1856), S.S. Lansky (1787-1862), A.P. Rimsky-Korsakov (1778-1862) ^{[14, pp. 324, 333-334]} – future leaders of Masonic lodges. I.A. Pozdeyev also initiated into Freemasonry in the lodge "Phoenix" I.A. Alekseev (1751-1816) – the future D.T.S. (since 1808), senator, member of the commission for drafting laws ^{[15, pp. 68-69; 16, pp. 62,71,199]}, was the chief supervisor in the theoretical degree for A.M. Lunin (1745-1816) – the future D.T.S. (since 1805) ^{[17, pp. 81-82]}, senator, from the family of a privy councilor ^{[12, pp. 61-62; 16, p. 22, 47, 48, 66, 73, 76, 118, 256]}. The reasoning refers to one of the evidences of I.A. Pozdeev's teaching and instruction of his followers.

I.A. Pozdeev at the end of the XVIII and at the beginning of the XIX century independently wrote many letters, copied various documents, composed his own works, translated literature from foreign languages, but in the last years of his life he mainly dictated speeches to his correspondents. The practice of recording their conversations (rough and white versions of texts) with I.A. Pozdeyev by his students was noted by Yu.E. Kondakov ^{[14, pp. 350-351; 18, p.365]}. For example, I.A. Pozdeev owns the authorship of the texts: "Something written under the dictation of [Osif] And [Lexeevich Pozdeev] in February 1817" ^[19] by S.S. Lansky; "Instructions and Orders" (the paper is listed in 1817) ^[20], written off by the hand of an unidentified person. The following sources also testify to the practice of conversations that were outlined by I.A. Pozdeev's relatives: "A monument from I.A. Pozdeev's Conversations of 1814-1816" ^[21]; "The fourth Conversation of 1820" ^[22], recorded by Alexey Osipovich Pozdeev; "Conversation with brothers" (the paper is listed in 1819) ^[23], read by I.A. Pozdeev; "Conversations of I.A.P." (paper is listed in 1817) ^[24], recorded by Yu.A. Zverev; "Theses from conversations of I.A.Pozdeev" (paper is listed in 1821) ^[25], made by the hand of A.I. Pozdeev; Speeches of I.A. Pozdeev, with which he spoke in Orpheus' lodge in 1818 ^[26]; Records of visits to the patient I.A. Pozdeyev and his conversations with Masons, held on March 3-5, 1820 ^[27].

The number of I.A. Pozdeyev's letters, mostly handwritten, goes back to two hundred ^{[28, p.5]}. In a letter to A.K. Razumovsky dated March 1, 1811, we read the following reasoning: "Although now we have people who are reliable to the Sovereign, but if the ambiguous scholarship that Fesler preached in Berlin takes its origin and spread here in Russia, then it will not produce good; and therefore it is very unwelcome so that it will come out of your hands. And if you can no longer get rid of it, so as not to leave it, then you should be very careful: if possible, beg the Sovereign to get it to the person you have chosen, so that the Illuminati do not get into this state department under different clothes and, connecting with those foreign ones who envy Russia and do not want this connection, which Russia has strengthened and spread, i.e. by monarchical rule and dependence on a single Sovereign and reinforcers or props of his power, like ubiquitous police officers, nobles or attorneys from the court. That's what I can say in a confidential conversation with you" ^{[29, p. 490]}. From this passage it can be seen that I.A. Pozdeev points to the need to support the existing monarchy, as evidenced by the use of expressions – "strengthened and spread", "monarchical rule", "dependence on a single Sovereign", "reinforcers of power". In the text of another letter to A.K. Razumovsky dated June 02, 1814, I.A. Pozdeev uses the allegory of the state as a tree ^{[29, p. 511]}, and considers arable farming to be the "root" of state wealth: "Rumors are coming here from St. Petersburg about constitutions; they are praised and they believe some good: they will change and add judicial seats and they think to improve with some new laws, not fulfilling the old ones, but the people will be the same. Why did it happen to dictate an explanation about the indigenous parts of the state and how they should not be mixed, as there should always be (if this explanation is suitable; but I ask you not to say by whom it was written), because these are roots and stems and branches with fruits, which the state contains, things are transported, and branches with fruits cover it, because without that, the tree will wither: for the branches and leaves are the mouth of the tree, or receivers of moisture from above, without which the tree will wither. Everything has the likeness of a man, who is a means between God and nature; and the earth is a mother, giving birth to countless children, who for bread, essential food, giving more blood, the earth must be cultivated by the sweat of her brow. So it is said: in the sweat of your brow, take down or eat your bread. To be worked by slaves everywhere, i.e. unwillingly or unwillingly: for whoever willingly takes on difficult, sweat-like work; then if compulsion is taken away from them, which the Old Believers have long desired and are trying to do, although to deliver their equally superstitious, then farming, which is the root of state wealth, will fall." The ideas presented in the letter will be developed by the author later, when composing the Reasoning. The fact that the allegory of the state as a tree on the date of writing the letter (June 02, 1814) was not yet widespread among I.A. Pozdeyev's correspondents is evidenced by the author's phrases "if this explanation is suitable", "please do not say by whom it was written". It seems that the idea of allegorical likening of the state to a tree, as well as the political conviction that it is necessary to maintain a class monarchy, was formed by I.A. Pozdeev earlier than 1814, probably immediately after the civil war led by E. Pugachev 1773-1775, in which I.A. Pozdeev took part on the side of government forces. And the external expression of the idea – in letters, conversations, arguments – began in 1814.

Thus, the author of the text of the Reasoning about the support of the Masons of the monarchical power in Russia is Joseph Alekseevich Pozdeev.

Time of writing the manuscriptThe compiler of the inventory of the fund 014 "Arsenyev Vasily Sergeevich: collection, XVIII - XIX century. - 1967 ed. chr." The Research Institute of the RSL K.A. Maikova in 1974 established that the manuscript belongs to the first half of the XIX century.

Starting from the end of 1812, I.A. Pozdeev was busy thinking about arguments for the preservation of serfdom. A.A. Vasilchikov notes: "..Amidst the stunning spectacle of suffering and ruin, during the defeat of Moscow and the victorious cliques that followed it, Pozdeev was exclusively occupied with rumors that the Sovereign intended to free the peasants from serfdom and the rumor about it drove him to utter despair" ^{[30, p.46]}.

In 1814, concerning rumors about the liberating intentions of the government, I.A. Pozdeev wrote a note: "Thoughts against granting the so–called civil freedom to the common people" (hereinafter - "Thoughts"). It was printed by M. I. Sukhomlinov without specifying the author's name in the 5th issue of The History of the Russian Academy ^{[31, pp. 415-427]}. For the first time, the attribution of "Thoughts" was made by Ivan Davidovich in the Russian Biographical Dictionary of A.A. Polovtsev in 1905: the type of document was established – "note", the year was 1814 and the author was I.A. Pozdeev ^{[11, pp. 264-265]}. The correctness of this attribution has been confirmed in our time by A.I. Serkov and N.B. Yaroslavova-Chistyakova ^[32]. I.A. Pozdeev repeats the same thoughts in 1817 and 1818 in his letters to S. S. Lansky and A. K. Razumovsky, when rumors about the imminent liberation of the peasants spread again ^{[11, p. 264]}. If we take the text of "Thoughts ...", then, according to the observation of M.I. Sukhomlinov, it is made in the same handwriting as most of the texts of the fund 147: "The original, written in careful cursive of Alexander's time on 49 pages in 8, is kept in the Moscow public museum under No. 2142. He entered the museum in 1868 among the Masonic manuscripts acquired after Count S. St. Lansky. In the same handwriting as this manuscript, many manuscripts of the actual Masonic content are written in the Lansky collection." ^{[31, pp. 264-265]}. S.P. Fonvizin in the collection of S.S. Lansky (fund 147) left only 14 sheets filled in by his hand. Thus, we can conclude that S.P. Fonvizin did not copy the text of "Thoughts", another person did it. It is possible that the text was copied either by the owner S.S. Lanskaya himself (his hand was written off by 1110 ll.), or S.I. Gamaleya (his hand belongs to 627ll.), S.V. Yeshevsky (861 ll.), I.A. Pozdeev (626 ll.), A.P. Rimsky-Korsakov (897ll.), N.I. Safonov (822 ll.). S.V. Yeshevsky (1829-1865), who lived much later, is excluded.  If we take into account only the manuscripts, the author of the list of which is established, then there remain S.S. Lanskaya, S.I. Gamaleya, I.A. Pozdeev, A.P. Rimsky-Korsakov or N.I. Safonov. It can be assumed that the text was written by I.A. Pozdeev himself.

The reasoning is an abbreviated version (although it does not completely reduce to it) "Thoughts", the evidence of which is provided in Appendix 1.

To answer the question when S.P. Fonvizin, as established by N.P. Kiselyov, wrote down the reasoning of I.A. Pozdeev, it is necessary to turn to the history of the relationship between I.A. Pozdeev and S.P. Fonvizin.

Collegiate assessor I.A. Pozdeev, being one of the most authoritative Masons of the first quarter of the XIX century, "tried to choose the most worthy from among Russian Masons and create secret lodges out of them" ^{[1, pp. 328-329]}, as Y.E. Kondakov notes, according to the Rosicrucian system: the secret Scottish lodge in St. Peteburg and the lodge of "Seekers Manna" in Moscow. This activity of I.A. Pozdeyev occurred in the period 1814-1818 ^{[33, p. 1111]}. According to A.I. Serkov, in March 1818, I.A. Pozdeev removed the silanum from some higher degrees in order to "strengthen the position of the members of the lodge" Seeking Manna, in which S.P. Fonvizin was a member. I.A. Pozdeev justified the need for oral transmission of important information among the Moscow brothers, arguing that "all in the acts it is impossible to describe what is verbally openable" ^{[8, p.219]}.

S.P. Fonvizin began his Masonic activity on 21.03.1809 in the Neptune lodge, where he was ordained on behalf of M.A. Dmitriev-Mamonov, on 14.07.1809 he was elevated to the second degree, to the third degree – on 14.1.1810, from 22.1.1810 to 1817 he served as the 2nd Overseer ^{[33, p. 1031]}.  In the Phoenix Lodge in Moscow, he was initiated into the Scottish masters on 13.10.1816, from 11/22/1816 to 3.3.1818 he served as the 2nd Overseer ^{[33, p. 1035]}. S.P. Fonvizin became the founder of the Hermes Lodge in Moscow on 18.02.1819, where he held the leadership positions of the 1st Overseer in 1819 and chairman in 1819-1822. ^{[33, p. 1026]}. On 5.3.1819, S.P. Fonvizin was initiated into the theoretical degree in Moscow ^{[33, p. 1034]}. In St. Petersburg, S.P. Fonvizin became a member of the 5th degree in the lodge of Alexander the Golden Lion on 16.03.1818 ^{[33, p. 1044]}. He was admitted to the Chapter of the Phoenix in St. Petersburg in 6 st. 4.12.1817, in 7 st. 28.4.1819. The Order's name is "Eq. a catena aurea", the motto is "Amicitia et virtute juncta" ^{[33, p. 1111]}. The name can be translated from Latin as "the golden chain of equality", and the motto is "Friendship and the power of unification". In 1820, he became a representative of the lodge of the Seekers of Manna in the Grand Directory Provincial Lodge in St. Petersburg ^{[33, p. 1051]}. He was an honorary member of the lodge in the lodge of Casimir the Great in Warsaw from December 1819, in the lodge of the Three Luminaries in 1820 in St. Petersburg and Elizabeth to Virtue in 1821 in St. Petersburg ^{[33, pp. 1063, 1105, 1137]}.

When exactly could S.P. Fonvizin write down the reasoning of I.A. Pozdeev? When he became a student of I.A. Pozdeev and began to maintain close relations with him. This happened, most likely, shortly before he received the authority to work in the lodge of the Seekers of Manna in Moscow, in the materials of which the text of the Reasoning was preserved and subsequently formed the fund 014 R&D RSL. According to A.I. Serkov, this lodge began work on 11/24/1817, while Prince A.I. Dolgoruky, I.A. Pozdeev, S.P.Fonvizin and some other Masons were founding members of the lodge ^{[33, pp. 1026-1028]}. According to A.M. Dmitriev-Mamonov, on 7.12.1817, S.P. Fonvizin was attached to the lodge and elected Deputy Master ^[34]. He held this position until 1818, and then was elected master of the chair for the period from 12/29/1819 to 1822 ^{[33, p. 1028]}. In 1820, S.P. Fonvizin, as of May 1, 1820, according to the information of the Grand Provincial Lodge, was: a master of the chair in lodge No. 5 of the Seekers of Manna in Moscow, leading work in the Russian language; an honorary member of the lodge of Elizabeth to Virtue, the lodge of the Three Luminaries and the lodge of Casimir the Great ^[35]. From 1817 to 1820, S.P. Fonvizin maintained a close relationship with I.A. Pozdeev, his mentor and teacher.

It is important to note that since 1815 S.P. Fonvizin also held the position of a member of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, and was also the leader of the nobility of the city of Klin of Moscow province with the rank of collegiate assessor, which indicates S.P. Fonvizin's interest in the history of Russia, political and legal institutions ^{[36, p. 406; 37, p. 30]}.

If we turn to other documents and works compiled by S.P. Fonvizin, we will find that S.P. Fonvizin took notes on the questions of A.A. Nartov (1783) and the answers to them by I.E. Schwartz (the paper on which the summary is written was made in 1818) ^[38], made extracts from letters to A.A. Rzhevsky from N.N. Trubetskoy, N.I.Novikov, etc. for 1780-1789 (the paper is listed in 1818) ^[39], from the letters of I.A. Pozdeyev to M.Yu. Vielgorsky (the paper is listed in 1819) ^[40], made extracts from Masonic and mystical writings from 1811 to 1818 ^[41], compiled a list of members of the Manna Seekers Lodge as of January 1, 1821 ^[42], signed the minutes of the meetings of the Manna Seekers Lodge on Dec 2.1817 – June 2, 1822 ^[43], authenticated the list of Extracts from the instruction to theoretical brothers for worthy brr.supervisors of the Theoretical degree of the Solomonic Sciences in 1822 ^[44], copied the Rules for free and accepted masons ^[45] and the Reasoning about the Masonic oath (the paper is listed in 1823) ^[46]. S.P. Fonvizin was at the center of Masonic activity, his hand belongs to the list "On the Masonic oath", "Rules for free masons", "Conversations of a theoretical degree", he was a great master of one of the most important Masonic lodges – the lodge "Seeking Manna" in Moscow, compiled lists of members, minutes of meetings, made extracts from books and articles, translations from a foreign language. That is, S.P. Fonvizin could write off secret information intended for a narrow circle of persons from the Masonic brothers, since this was part of his responsibilities.

Thus, the lower chronological limit of the compilation of the Reasoning is 1817-1818, when S.P. Fonvizin was intellectually and spiritually prepared to record the reasoning of his teacher and mentor – I.A. Pozdeyev.

Now let's set the upper chronological boundary.

24.04.1820 I.A. Pozdeev dies. On August 1, 1822, Freemasonry was banned in the Russian Empire. Of course, S.P. Fonvizin could not have had meetings with I.A. Pozdeev after the latter's death on April 24, 1820 (according to the old style). The possibility of a list from another document is excluded, since I have not found such a document in the collections 013, 014 and 147 of the Scientific Research Department of the Manuscripts of the Russian State Library. According to Y.E. Kondakov, in 1817 I.A. Pozdeev was ill, and his students visited him ^{[14, p. 355]}: S.P. Fonvizin, together with N.A. Dyakov and S.S. Lansky, visited I.A. Pozdeev on February 2, 1817 ^{[14, p. 356]} The main correspondence of I.A. Pozdeev with various it ends by the end of 1817 – the beginning of 1818 ^{[26,47;48;49;50;51;52;53;54;55]}. According to Y.E. Kondakov, in 1818, when the lodge of the "Theoretical Degree" was resumed, P.I. Schwartz and S.S. Lansky "claimed that Pozdeev had passed almost nothing on to his followers" ^{[1, p. 307]}. According to A.O. Pozdeyev, in 1818 the condition of his father I.A. Pozdeyev deteriorated sharply: in a letter dated August 8, 1818, he wrote that the priest was weakened in body and spirit, in a letter dated December 12, 1818, he reported that I.A. Pozdeyev said practically nothing about the activities of the Order, and in a letter dated 10 April 1819 indicated that the father only lay and was silent ^{[14, p. 356]}. In 1828, S.S. Lansky recalled that a year before his death (i.e., since the spring of 1819), I.A. Pozdeev "handed over the acts to Klyucharev, and since then he was ill and did not participate in the work" ^{[1, p. 308]}.

As for S.P. Fonvizin, since 1818, on the contrary, he has been increasing his activity in taking notes of the written heritage of I.A. Pozdeev, showing more independence and independence in the Masonic brotherhood. Since that time, S.P. Fonvizin began to make extracts from the letters of I.A. Pozdeyev ^{[40; 52]}. In the spring of 1819 – the spring of 1820, there was a period when S.P. Fonvizin received high initiations in Rosicrucianism (7th art.) and entered the highest management structures (the Phoenix Chapter), participated in the activities of Masonic lodges and unions in Warsaw, St. Petersburg and Moscow. By the summer of 1819, according to Y.E. Kondakov, there is a correspondence between S.P. Fonvizin, the managing master of the Manna Seekers Lodge in Moscow, and S.S. Lansky, one of the key members of the Supreme Directory – the governing body of the Grand Provincial Lodge in St. Petersburg, in which S.P. Fonvizin criticizes the regulations adopted by the Grand Directory on elections to lodges ^{[1, pp. 296-297]}. After the death of I.A. Pozdeyev, the Masonic papers were transferred to S.P. Fonvizin ^{[56, pp. 1651, 1652]}. By the order of S.S. Lansky dated August 11, 1822, S.P. Fonvizin closed the work of the lodge of "Seekers of Manna" ^{[1, p. 313]}. After August 11, 1822, secret meetings of Rosicrucians were repeatedly held at the estate of S.P. Fonvizin ^{[1, p. 321]}, denunciations began in 1827, searches were conducted in the house of S.P. Fonvizin and Masonic objects and literature were seized ^{[1, p. 322]}. Meetings of former members of the lodge were also often held at the director of the "inner Order" S.P. Fonvizin, who after the death of F.P. Klyucharev headed the meetings of members of the theoretical degree ^{[8, p.270]}. In 1841 S.P. Fonvizin received the papers of the archive of Masonic lodges from V.D. Kamynin ^{[8, p.10]}. These circumstances testify in favor of the fact that S.P. Fonvizin was actually the heir, like S.S. Lanskaya, of the Masonic heritage of I.A. Pozdeyev and his successor, who outlived his teacher for a long time (by 40 years).

Russian Russian Freemasonry and the Order of the Russian Rosicrucians in particular, and then led to death. Thus, the upper chronological boundary of the compilation of the Reasoning is 1817, in which S.P. Fonvizin visited I.A. Pozdeyev shortly before the complication of the disease, which prevented Joseph Alekseevich from continuing active activity in Russian Freemasonry and in the Order of the Russian Rosicrucians in particular. When connecting the lower (1817-1818) and upper chronological boundaries (1817), it becomes clear that the Reasoning was written down by S.P. Fonvizin under the dictation of I.A. Pozdeyev in 1817.The content and meaning of Reasoning

The reasoning refers to those documents that were prohibited from discussion in lodges belonging to the Grand Lodge of Astraea or the Grand Provincial Lodge (IDP).

According to the "Act of Mutual relations between the two Grand Lodges in the East of St. Petersburg" dated December 12, 1817, preserved in the scientific research department of the manuscripts of the Russian State Library ^{[57, l. 215-223ob.]}, the two Grand Lodges agreed "not to recognize in Russia any such Lodge as legitimate, which the Government will not be recognized, and the works its Union should not allow members with patents given by it" (paragraph 1 of Article 1) ^{[57, l.216]}. The Government could only recognize such a lodge as legitimate, which, in addition to meeting other requirements, does not discuss political issues at meetings. Such a requirement was contained in the Rules of Tolerance of Masonic Lodges of 1811 ^[58], which specified the norms of the Charter of the Deanery of 1782. According to section 1 of the rules, those "societies and fraternities" are prohibited: 1) whose occupations consist in "the intention to talk about the changes proposed in the state government, or about the means by which these changes can be put into action, or already about the measures that are acceptable at this end" ^{[59, pp.311-314]}.

Since S.P. Fonvizin was a member of the lodge that was part of the IDP, then, of course, he and other members of the lodge were obliged to comply with government rules. Lodges that were part of the IDP, as well as the IDP itself, fulfilled the requirements of the Rules of 1811. The main reporting period of lodges to the government falls on 1816-1822 . This is confirmed by extracts from the protocols of the Union of the Grand Provincial Lodge, compiled for the government from March 1817 to December 1820 on 277 sheets ^[60], as well as "official correspondence of Masons with the authorities, including on the closure of lodges in 1822 and in 1826 from 1816 to 1826" on 184 sheets ^[61].

However, the proximity of S.P. Fonvizin to I.A. Pozdeev, who did not shy away from interfering in politics, discussing political issues, explains the recording of S.P. Fonvizin's Reasoning. Another person in his place would be careful not to write down a political text. However, since S.P. Fonvizin was a student of I.A. Pozdeyev and, although he was not part of the triumvirate of young Masons A.P. Rimsky-Korsakov, M.Yu. Vielgorsky, S.S. Lansky, who ruled the Grand Provincial Lodge ^{[9, p. 28]}, had the necessary Masonic initiation, this became possible. In view of the requirements of the legislation, I.A. Pozdeev had to take measures to ensure that the content of the reasoning did not go beyond the narrow circle of persons, to which S.S. Lansky, S.P. Fonvizin, who had degrees of theoretical degree and were part of the higher Rosicrucian board, can be attributed.

The semantic source of Reasoning is F. 's political ideas . Prokopovich, V.N. Tatishchev, M.V. Lomonosov, I.N. Boltin. They agreed that the monarchy is the best form of government, that the monarchy saved Russia, and "fragmentation into parts and different powers almost destroyed" it ^{[62, pp. 226-227]}. M.I. Sukhomlinov in substantiation of the origins of the origin of political ideas of the early XIX century. a reference is made to the manuscript of 1785 "Reasoning about inconveniences in Russia to give freedom to peasants and servants or to make property of estates" ^{[31, p. 414]}. It follows a thorough discussion, with historical examples, about the losses incurred by the owner of the land, the state and the peasant himself, if the latter moves from one land to another and does not have care of the house, arable land, meadows and forests ^{[63, pp. 100-101]}. Revenue collection and recruitment meetings will decrease, there will be a shortage of bread, which "by its high cost will multiply state expenditures" ^{[63, p. 111,112]}. The freedom of peasants without land and without food will lead to slavery of their equals ^{[63, p. 131]}. On the contrary, "every landowner, trying to take care of his own peasants, benefits the state as well" ^{[63, p. 104]}. Therefore, the nobility is called "the most useful part of the citizens of the State" ^{[63, p. 133]}. The merchant class as a class, according to the author of the manuscript, "with its life-giving spirit reinforces and revives agriculture, needlework and all diligence in the State" ^{[63, p. 124]}. The excessive spread of merchants and artisans ("guild") leads to abuses, since they act "to the detriment of society" and are "useless" to the state ^{[63, pp. 125-128]}. Summarizing, the author appeals to natural law and asks a rhetorical question: "... is it fair to take away the acquired property from the owners, who make up the most useful part of the citizens of the State, with blood, service, labor and money," and thereby violate "the fundamental rights of natural justice, the very rights on which all societies are based"? ^{[63, p. 133]} M.I. Sukhomlinov notes that at the beginning of the XIX century, people "scientifically educated found it very natural to preserve serfdom for the time being" ^{[63, p. 229]}. We find the same thoughts in I.A. Pozdeyev: in an expanded form – in the "Thoughts against granting the so–called civil freedom to the common people" of 1814, in a more abbreviated form - in the "Reasoning about the support of the monarchical power in Russia by Freemasons" of 1817. This is the first group of sources (political and economic) of the thoughts presented in the Reasoning.

The second group of sources has a spiritual and moral character, filled with natural-scientific abstractions. I.A. Pozdeev was a student of Professor I.G. Schwartz of Moscow University. I.G. Schwartz believed that, by virtue of the mission assigned to a person, the main law for a person and any society is the law of obedience (fulfillment of one's personal, family, public and state duties) ^[64]. Whoever, according to I.G.Schwartz, obeys the authorities, "fulfills the law of God" ^{[65, p.28]}. Schwartz's ideas are developed from rationalistic positions by another professor of Moscow University A.M. Bryantsev, also a member of lodges and a mutual acquaintance of I.G. Schwartz and I.A. Pozdeyev ^[66]. In the teaching of A.M. Bryantsev, a significant place is given to love between people ("love communication"), which is expressed in the fact that "one person, following this generally useful inspiration of nature, finds his peace of mind in the happiness of another, this in the welfare of a third, etc." ^{[67, p. 376]} In "The Word about Universal and the main laws of nature ..." ^{[67, pp. 381-388]} A.M. Bryantsev discusses the "law of continuity" (italics A.M. Bryantsev), discovered by G. Leibniz, who is responsible for the harmony and consistency of the world. "There is no discontinuity anywhere in nature (Natura non facit saltum) [nature does not make leaps], there is no omission, there is no sudden passage from one extreme to another, there is nothing solitary or rejected" ^{[67, p. 383]}. According to A.M. Bryantsev, this law operates in the physical world, but "there is no doubt that it has its force in morality" ^{[67, p. 384]}. The scientist cites a statement deduced from political practice: "Great politicians consider the transition from a lack of leadership to tyranny as a very natural thing. Both the first and the other are extremes." And immediately complements it: "What seems to us to be a sudden passage, then with the most accurate attention and research, there is a natural thing, there is a passage, prepared through a continuous connection of natural causes" ^{[67, p. 384]}. "The limited human mind is always engaged in some trifle, not seeing the most important, finds only disorder outside of itself; it does not delve into a large and universal connection, does not see a whole concatenation of countless and special goals" ^{[67, p. 386]}. The same idea of the continuity of the circle, the connection of various political and legal institutions with each other, is revealed by I.A. Pozdeev in his Reasoning.

I.A. Pozdeev did not hide his thoughts about the political significance of Freemasonry in letters to the Minister of Education A.K. Razumovsky: the task of Freemasonry is to bring "to the Sovereign and the state the benefit that it should bring, forming those who study it into people loyal to the Sovereign and the Fatherland and by their examples more (and not arrogant words) weakening the vices in others, and especially the violence, disobedience, and audacity, and extravagance in his youth, crooked talk about freedom, in a word, everything that muddies the calmness of the Sovereign and the state" ^{[8, p.82]}. I.A. Pozdeev wrote that if true Masons are given "an inspection over the lodges, then you can be both the Sovereign and the state the deceased, that they are not only inconvenient to restlessness themselves, but also will warn and learn and will not allow anything to think against the Sovereign and the state" ^{[29, p.473]}. I.A. Pozdeev assured A.K. Razumovsky that his activity hinders "freethinking (to someone and from the Illuminati, which, if you if you move away, they will put you in your place) to put your throne and spread why states are dying..." ^{[29, p.498]}. I.A. Pozdeyev's efforts in this direction were not accidental. In 1816, Colonel I.I. Dibich reported to General Barclay de Tolly about the recruitment of Russian officers into secret societies abroad, about the spread of republican views, about the undermining of feelings of patriotism, religiosity, respect for property, serfdom and inheritance rights, about the disappearance of sovereigns and borders between states ^{[14, pp. 365-366; 69, pp.330-331]}. Russian Russian Freemasonry is experiencing a decline in the spread of freedom-loving ideas from the side, first of all, of the "Order of Russian Knights" ^{[8, pp.172, 294-296]} for the period of 1817-1820. For example, S.I. Turgenev, the local master of the lodge "Geogy the Victorious" was "a firm supporter of constitutional changes in Russia" ^{[8, p.172]}, and the development of the lodges of the United Slavs in Kiev and the Love of Truth in Poltava was mainly associated with the activities of the author of the first republican constitution in Russia – the Decembrist M.N. Novikov ^{[8, p.179]}. Until 1822, in the lodge of the United Slavs, the brothers were accustomed to the sound of freedom-loving speeches ^{[8, p.254]}. The Decembrists also increased their influence in some Masonic lodges, for example, the "Chosen Michael", and created their own structure – the "Union of Prosperity" ^{[8, pp.175-178]}. A number of members of the Moscow lodge "Seeking Manna" were closely associated with the Decembrists – P.A. Bolotov, D.D. Gradovsky, S.D. Nechaev, etc. ^{[8, pp.203-204]}. In 1818, Professor of the Vilna University, the leader of the lodge Diligent Lytvyn Reformed, the head of the secret Society of Shubravtsev Y. Shimkevich became the author of the project of transformation of Freemasonry, sought to "give it an explicit and open structure, eliminate all mystery and direct the occupation of society to a charitable and useful purpose, such as the establishment of educational homes, hospitals, factories and improvement of agriculture" ^{[8, pp.221-222]}, freed his serfs.

The addressee of the Reasoning was I.A. Pozdeyev's inner circle – his students, who controlled the Grand Provincial Lodge, the Order of the Russian Rosicrucians and some Masonic lodges in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The influence of I.A. Pozdeyev just led the members of the lodges to abandon radical ideas ^{[8, p.204]}. However, S.P. Fonvizin was personally concerned with this reasoning. The fact is that the practice of studying political and legal ideas has spread among the members of the "Manna Seekers" lodge. So, in 1826, during a search, the former housekeeper of the lodge, P.E. Kotelnikov, had a "Discourse on Indispensable state Laws" by D.I. Fonvizin, copied by the Mason and Decembrist I.A. Fonvizin ^{[8, p.284]}. In response to D.V. Golitsyn's demand to give a third subscription of non-membership in Masonic lodges, S.P. Fonvizin wrote in a reply dated December 31, 1831: "I have never had relations with members of the former Masonic society <...> my relations with some of them are based on long-standing acquaintance, friendship and even kinship, and during our meetings no rituals belonging to the Masonic lodge were performed" ^{[8, p.284]}. S.P. Fonvizin, as can be seen, Russian russians were interested in politics and influenced by both M.A. Dmitriev-Mamonov, the founder of the Order of Russian Knights, the forerunner of the Decembrist organization and the author of constitutional projects, and I.A. Pozdeyev, one of the few authoritative leaders of Russian Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, who adheres to ultraconservative positions.  The consequences of the influence of Reasoning on the worldview of Russian Freemasons are expected. This is, first of all, proof of the existence of conservative political ideas of Russian Freemasonry, traditionalism, adherence to the class structure of society, the monarchical form of government, social peace based on "good morals" and conscientious performance of class duties. Secondly, the spread of such speeches in the Masonic environment by I.A. Pozdeyev's disciples – A.P. Rimsky-Korsakov, S.S. Lansky, M.Yu. Vielgorsky – predetermined, according to A.I. Serkov, the defeat of the Decembrists in the struggle for power in Masonic lodges ^{[8, p.297]}. And the ideas of I.A. Pozdeyev (in particular, the idea that peasants should not be freed without appropriate economic conditions), implemented decades later by S.S. Lansky when he was Minister of Internal Affairs (from 1855-1861) and a member of the Secret Committee on Peasant Affairs (1857-1858), when he prepared the official draft of the peasant reform, "they were able to change life in the country for the better" ^{[8, p.300]}.

If we compare the text of the Reasoning with the published text of I.A. Pozdeyev "Thoughts against granting civil freedom to the common people", then we find out a lot in common (see Appendix 1).

Reasoning and "Thoughts" contain such words and phrases as "especially", "cave", "dependence", "Roman monarchy", "constitution", "guild", "multiplied", "voluntarily", "sweat business", "bread", "tree", "fruits", "merchants", "peasants", "nobles", "products", "indigenous", "clergy", "envious neighbors", "connections".

Both Reasoning and "Thoughts" are permeated with general ideas:

1. it is necessary to "take care of the integrity of the "state" and the power of the monarch, since this integrity consists in class dependence, "approved for so many centuries and strengthened by so many Sovereigns," in such a vast State as Russia;

2. the history of the "Roman monarchy" is an example of successful and unsuccessful statehood;

3. the state consists of the indigenous estates of peasants, merchants and nobles, including the clergy, the merchant class is the "most despicable", therefore it should not grow;

4. bread is the "root of state wealth", the main product of "every land", obtained by the "hard and sweat work" of peasants, on the cheapness and high cost of which the welfare of all estates depends – peasants, merchants delivering products, nobles ensuring the purity of morals (see Appendix 1).

There are no detailed ideas in the text of the Reasoning, unlike "Thoughts. The text of the Reasoning bears mainly the signs of an abstract oral speech. The text mentions new words and expressions compared to "Thoughts":

1) the integrity of the circle, the center of unity;

2) support of the One-man government;

3) "agents senators" and "other rulers";

4) "small circle";

4) "cheapness" and "high cost" of bread.

The main topic for "Thoughts" is the preservation of serfdom, the main topic for Reasoning is the preservation of the estate monarchy.

The emotional background of the Reasoning largely testifies to the sincerity and objectivity of its author. This is evidenced by synonymous words and expressions: "[d]ol my oath, conscience, duties, religion and my inclination to love the center of unity", the verbs "to encourage", "to untie", the expressions "loving Sovereign and State", "to shake, untie, weaken" are repeatedly used. The sincerity is also evidenced by personal expressions indicating the author's empathy with the content of the speech: "to violate my loyalty to him", "nothing tells me", "because I dare to say", "and therefore every one of us should wish". The reasoning is saturated with natural-legal argumentation – an appeal to God, "the Being Above", to "nature", using the words "earth", "love", "morals". The text of the Reasoning also involves elements of traditionalism and references to historical examples (the history of Rome, the history of Russia) to substantiate the author's point of view.

The Meaning of Reasoning. I.A.Pozdeyev's opinion on state and legal issues can be considered representative of the entire Russian Freemasonry of the late XVIII and the first quarter of the XIX century, since he had 13 years of membership in Masonic lodges of the XVIII century, held senior positions in Masonic lodges of the XVIII century and unions of lodges, a bearer of high degrees, founder of lodges and chapters ^{[12, pp.283-284; 16, p. 22, 23, 26, 47, 54, 67, 73, 76, 119, 147, 256]}.  The reasoning in its content is in accordance with the requirements of the Masonic statutes. The universally recognized source for the leadership of most Masonic lodges in the XVIII-XIX centuries were "The Commandments of a Freemason, extracted from the ancient protocols of overseas lodges, as well as lodges of England, Scotland and Ireland, and offered for use in lodges in London, as well as intended for reading at the initiation of new Brothers or at the direction of the Venerable Master", briefly referred to as the "Anderson Constitution", by the name of the developer – D. Anderson ^[69].

The 2nd Commandment "On the Secular Power, Supreme and Appointed" states that "A Freemason is a loyal subject of the secular authorities, wherever he lives and works; he should never participate in conspiracies and secret evil thoughts against the peace and welfare of the people, as well as behave improperly in in relation to the appointed representatives of the authorities" ^{[69, p. 164]}.

In the "Laws for the highly Esteemed Assembly of Theoretical Philosophers" in Section 3 "On due obedience to the authorities" it is established: "Every member of this society must be a loyal subject to his Sovereign, a kind subordinate to his superiors, a peaceful citizen and resident of his place of residence, a conciliator of disagreements and an affirmer of calm and unity. For this reason, he should be extremely wary of entering into any conspiracies against the State. For this reason, as well as for the indestructible immaculacy of their actions, this society has always been patronized by kings, rulers and states" ^{[70, l. 4 vol.]}.

Thus, the reasoning of I.A. Pozdeyev can be attributed to the original monuments of the organic theory of the state, in which the state is compared with a living organism, the parts of which are interdependent and interdependent, and each of which performs a separate function. At the same time, it contains natural-legal argumentation, and also fully complies with the requirements of the Masonic statutes, which allows us to attribute the reasoning to the monuments of political and legal thought of Russian Freemasons.

Conclusion and conclusionsThe reasoning about the support of the monarchical power by Freemasons in Russia was recorded by S.P. Fonvizin from the words of the author – Joseph Alekseevich Pozdeev in 1817.

The reasoning related to documents and materials passed down by Russian Freemasons from generation to generation, until it got to the researcher N.P. Kiselev and, eventually, until it turned out to be in the research department of manuscripts of the Russian State Library.

The reasoning demonstrates the continuity of the state-legal ideas of the domestic political and legal thought of the XVIII and XIX centuries. The text of the Discussion is addressed to the Masonic brothers involved willy-nilly in political discussions about the liberation of peasants and the establishment of Basic Laws (Constitution) in the Russian Empire in 1814-1818. The reasoning is aimed at supporting among the Masonic brothers the estate statehood of Russia and the monarchical form of government in the first quarter of the XIX century . It is fully consistent with Masonic rules and regulations. The reasoning demonstrates a commitment to social peace based on "good morals" and conscientious performance of class duties. The reasoning is rich in elements of the organic theory of the state and natural-legal argumentation.

Concluding the study, let us turn to the authoritative opinion of A.N. Lushin, who conducted a special study on the state-legal views of Russian Freemasons at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. With all the Masonic reflections on the natural equality of people, both the educator N. I. Novikov, and the conservative I. A. Pozdeev, and the liberal Count A. S. Stroganov agreed on one thing: in Russia, the system of serfdom should remain inviolable and be strictly protected by state power ^{[71, p. 64]}. This position is fully confirmed by the work of I.A. Pozdeyev "Reasoning about the support of the monarchical power by Freemasons in Russia", recorded in 1817 by S.P. Fonvizin (Appendix 2).

Appendix 1Text by I.A. Pozdeyev

            Appendix 2Pozdeev Joseph Alekseevich.

Speech to Sergei Pavlovich Fonvizin 1817 "Reasoning about the support of the Masons of monarchical power in Russia" (the original manuscript is located in the Research Institute of the RSL. F.014. No. 455 "Reasoning about the support of the Masons of monarchical power in Russia". l.2-3ob.)

..."[D]ol my oath, conscience, duty, religion and my inclination [–] to love the center of unity, or the Head of State t:e: my Sovereign, for he is the center in the circle of the State, encourages me to take care of the integrity of the circle t:e: State.

This should encourage every loving Sovereign and the State, so that this may be and exist in dependence[,] for so many centuries approved and strengthened by so many Sovereigns and habitual for so many centuries, which the State has strengthened[,] spread out and is contained. –

To shake and unleash these dependencies is the same as weakening the power and strength of the center [,] or the Head of State. –

Then on the relaxation of this dependence between the nobles, or the faithful of the court of the State, which are [,] whether they have a settlement in the state, which are His bodyguards; then to unleash their dependence on him and the same dependence of the lower class of the people on these faithful of the court of the State: then to act towards the destruction of these ties [,] Is to violate my loyalty to him and thereby undermine His power and authority in such a vast State as Russia; nothing tells me.

Even the very history of the Romans makes it clear that they could be ruled by constitutions or people's governments in a small circle.

But as soon as the Roman monarchy began to spread, then a single authority was required, and it had its agents senators and other rulers, and they had the most despicable class of the people [,] similar to the current [,] called guild [,] and precisely so that they would not multiply. –

The integrity of the state consists of three states – 1st nobles, whose head [,] t:e: Sovereigns[,] rule the state and protect it from internal and external

2/ Merchants, who [,] as in [the sap Tree] the state consists of [,] transport the products obtained by the third state[,] t:e: farmers, who [and] for hard work, what is tillage [,] and will never voluntarily exercise in such a sweat business without coercion. –

Consequently [,] if their dependence is weakened, or even multiplied only against the current ones, then 1/ there will soon be a shortage of bread: for bread is more important than the life of any earth, from its cheapness and multiplicability all things become cheaper[,] and the lower class is always convenient to eat and maintain; and as soon as bread decreases, it will become more expensive; then all things come to an impossible position [,] due to the high cost of the content of all states: for I dare say. –

The State is like a tree,

1) its root is the essence of the lower class of the people [,] or peasants, whose products are taken out of the ground. –

2) merchants, whose products are delivered to all states, of course [,] and from external, or neighbors of the State, since the juice from the root and

3) states [,] t:e: nobles, which in the Tree mean branches, foliage and fruits. –

Consequently, [,] all these three states are fundamental, by which every State exists. –

The guild state also belongs to the family of merchants. –

The clergy belong to the family of nobles; for they care as [,] as the nobles [,] about morals [,] which are the main acceptability from the Upper world [,] bringing strength, so that the State is not lost in the Being of the Highest [,] to preserve It and keep It intact. –

For all the states [,] that history clearly shows[,] were then destroyed when they were distorted in their morals, and the nobles did not maintain the purity of morals[,] and therefore take all the falls of the former States; it is clearly seen that the morals [,] that came to extreme corruption[,] were the cause of their fall. –

Therefore, each of us should desire a One-man power, and especially in such a vast State, so that it can contain all states depending on how many centuries it has been fortified and even [in] familiarity. –

For familiarity itself is applied in nature, then all these [ties], which for so many centuries contain a whole circle [,] if relaxed, then it will come to destruction [,] which all external neighbors have long desired out of envy; and therefore everyone who loves his fatherland should not want to relax these ties and the power of Sovereigns should not to reduce, to which the duty of every loyal subject consists and the laws oblige. –"