New materials about the secret supervision of A. I. Turgenev (reports of gendarmes and agents from the archive of the III Section)

Bochkarev Mikhail Mikhailovich ORCID: 0009-0004-3717-0238 Postgraduate Student, Department of Russian History of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119192, Russia, Moscow, Lomonosovsky Prospekt str., 27, building 4 robespierrist93@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

In the memoir essay by the poet Prince Pyotr Andreevich Vyazemsky (1792-1878) about an old friend — a prominent statesman and public figure of the first half of the XIX century, historian, archaeographer, traveler and writer Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev (1784-1845) — there are the following lines:

"He came to Moscow, I remember, 30 or 31 years old. At that time, an unfortunate minor official who served in the so-called secret police went to his Moscow friend [...]. One day he comes to him and says: “You [...] are well acquainted with A.I. Turgenev and often meet with him in society. My superiors have instructed me to keep an eye on and monitor him and deliver a daily report on his trips and actions. And how do I keep track of him? He travels all over the city from end to end from morning to late at night. [...] Help me: give me material for my reports.” So Turgenev's friend turned into a spy and his spy. [...] with minor changes, Turgenev's conduit and turnout lists were compiled over the course of two weeks. Most often there were names in them ...oh [E.A. Sverbeeva. — M.B.] and Metropolitan Filaret" ^{[16, pp. 336-337]}.

(... and this is how P.A. Vyazemsky encrypted the surname of the hostess of the famous literary and philosophical salon in Moscow in the 1830s and 1850s, Ekaterina Alexandrovna Sverbeeva (1808-1892), with whom A.I. Turgenev was in close friendly relations ^{[8, p. 427] [12, p. 124-125]}; cf. the same fragment in the publication, prepared by L.Ya. Ginzburg ^{[18, pp. 167-168, 355 (comm.)]}.)

Although many sources on the topic "A.I. Turgenev and the III Department" are well known and are successfully used in historical and literary works ^{[16, pp. 336-337] [24, pp. 302-339] [33, pp. 47-94] [35] [37, p. 527-543] [51] [53] [54] [60] [61] [76] [78] [89] [90]}, to "reporters" or "reports" ^{[63, No. 9, p. 193]} — gendarmerie and agent reports from the archive of the III Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery, which reflect the fact of covert supervision established for A.I. Turgenev in Moscow, — almost none of the researchers contacted.

In this article, we intend to introduce more widely into scientific circulation these materials deposited in the fund of the III Department in the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF. F. 109), and gendarmerie reports from Kazan and Simbirsk stored there (the Turgenev family estate, the village of Turgenevo, was located in the Simbirsk province). There is no doubt that Alexander Ivanovich was followed both in St. Petersburg and abroad, but we have no information about this.

As a result of the analysis of archival documents, we hope that it will be possible not only to correct the already well-known picture of A.I. Turgenev's relationship with the "Lazorev" department, but also to find out, using the example of Alexander Ivanovich, how effective the supervision of the "supreme police" over prominent cultural figures of Pushkin's time was, to determine the reliability and significance of information from the "reporters", and also to understand how it relates to the real facts of Alexander Ivanovich's biography (confirms, clarifies or contradicts them).

Overview of sources

The central place among the documents of interest to us should be given to the "case" "On the supervision of the actual state councilor A. Turgenev" ^[19]. Its extreme dates determine the chronological framework of this article: June 1831 — June 1840. The "case", which occupies 22 pages, opens with an illustrated letter from A.I. Turgenev to S.P. Zhikharev (manager of the Turgenev brothers' estates), then contains instructions from the chief of the III Department and the chief of the Gendarmerie Corps A.H. Benkendorf to the chiefs of the II (Moscow) gendarmerie district and (once) the Moscow chief of Police about strict secret surveillance of A.I. Turgenev, as well as the response reports of the Moscow gendarmerie chiefs and the report of the head of the V (Kazan) gendarmerie district, Colonel A.P. Maslov (October 20, 1831) correcting the position (hereinafter — I.D.) on the status of the Turgenev brothers' immovable property in the Simbirsk province.

In this work, we also use the report of the governor of the VI (Kazan) district of the Gendarmes Corps, Colonel Bulygin, dated August 29, 1834, "About ridiculous rumors spread in the Simbirsk province" ^[23], the attitude of the Simbirsk provincial staff officer E.I. Stogov to A.H. Benkendorf dated July 20, 1837 ^[20] (Bulygin writes about A.I. Turgenev's behavior in society and his influence on the minds of the Simbirsk nobility, Stogov — about the same in relation to Alexander Ivanovich's cousins, B.P. Turgenev and I.S. Arzhevitinov) and a document that is, apparently, a copy from an agent's note about the conversations of "chamberlain Turgenev" in Moscow high society ^{[22, L. 4]} (attached to the letter of I.D. Moscow Chief of Police Colonel S.N. Mukhanov to A.H. Benkendorf dated March 9, 1832 ^{[22, L. 1-2]}).

In order to understand how valuable the information from the documents of the III Department is, we will compare it with the known facts from the life of A.I. Turgenev, recorded mainly in the extensive correspondence of Alexander Ivanovich with friends ^{[33, pp. 47-94] [37, p. 527-543] [60] [61] [76]}, A younger brother N.I. Turgenev ^{[33, pp. 47-94] [50] [79]}, the long-term boss and patron of Prince A.N. Golitsyn ^{[30] [79] [80] [81]}, S.P. Zhikharev ^{[19, l. 1-8 vol.] [37] [85]}, in correspondence V.A. Zhukovsky with S.P. Zhikharev ^[2] and P.A. Vyazemsky ^[1], as well as the brothers A.Ya. and K.Ya. Bulgakov among themselves ^{[42] [43]} (both brothers knew Alexander Turgenev well from their youth and were well aware of the socio-cultural life of both capitals). We also consider the fragmentary published formulary list of A.I. Turgenev in 1839 ^{[80] [81]} and the letter of V.A. Zhukovsky to Emperor Nicholas I dated July 22, 1831 ^{[54, pp. 152-154]} (published without specifying the archival cipher ^[21]), which explains the reasons for Alexander Turgenev's arrival in Russia, to be important sources. and his current position.

Historiography Review

It should be said that the topic "A.I. Turgenev and the III Department" is quite well studied in historiography (see the works of N.F. Dubrovin ^{[29, pp. 259-262]}, M.K. Lemke ^{[48, pp. 254-258, 402-429]}, A.A. Dunin ^[35], A.I. Reitblat ^{[15, pp. 192-196]}, V.A. Milchina and A.L. Ospovata ^{[51] [53] [90, p. 319-320]}, P.P. Cherkasov ^{[84, pp. 192-194, 202-204]}, V.V. Sapova ^{[72, by decree]}, M.B. Velizheva ^{[13, by decree.]} and A.V. Morokhina ^{[55, pp. 91-93, 296-308]}), but the materials of supervision attracted the attention of researchers only twice.

For the first time, fragments from the "case" "On the observation of the actual State Councilor A. Turgenev" were quoted in an article by V.A. Gromov ^{[28, p. 212]}, which thereby showed that in Moscow in the early 1830s, secret surveillance was established not only for Colonel S.N. Turgenev (the father of the future writer), but also for his distant relative A.I. Turgenev. The two letters of S.N. Turgenev to A.I. Turgenev published here, according to the researcher, represent a kind of commentary on the information received by the gendarmes.

For the second time, the papers of the III Department about A.I. Turgenev were used in the work of V.V. Romanov ^[68] (we are grateful to K.A. Zhiltsov for pointing to this article), who considered Colonel Bulygin's report "On ridiculous rumors spread in the Simbirsk province" convenient for demonstrating the mechanism of information transmission (especially in the province) under censorship Nikolaevsky time. The researcher incompletely and inaccurately quotes the gendarme document, but conducts a detailed and meaningful analysis of text fragments from a legal point of view ^{[68, pp. 106-107]}. In this article, we will try to present a more accurate reading of a number of passages both in Bulygin's report and in an explanatory note in its margins, written in a pencil that is now poorly readable.

Other studies dealing with our topic are characterized by fragmentation in quoting sources and an almost complete lack of interpretation, which does not allow us to understand the point of view of researchers (see the works of N.Ya. Eidelman ^{[89, p. 89]}, V.I. Porokha and O.V. Roslyakova ^{[65, p. 39, 130]}, V.S. Izmozika ^{[44, p. 483]} and O.Y. Abakumova ^{[4, p. 203]}). In other publications, there are erroneous attributions of the authorship of documents, confusion in the Turgenev family ties, and even complete disregard for the figure of Alexander Ivanovich in the context of gendarme supervision of cultural figures of the era of Nicholas I (see monographs by A.G. Chukarev ^{[86, pp. 355-356]}, G.N. Bibikov ^{[10, p. 212]}, N.V. Makarova ^{[49, pp. 155, 162-165]} and V.S. Izmozika ^{[44, pp. 463-464]}).

In this article, we will try to correct at least a few inaccuracies and errors concerning the biography of A.I. Turgenev and found not only in the sources, but also in the historiography of the topic under consideration.

When did A. I. Turgenev first become a "supervised person"? Kinship/friendship with the Decembrists as a sign of political unreliability

Alexander Turgenev was "suspected by the government" even before the establishment of the III Department, at the end of the reign of Alexander I. The subject of correspondence between the monarch, Count A.A. Arakcheev and the Moscow military Governor-General Prince D.V. Golitsyn in November 1824 was the arrival of the brothers A.I. and S.I. Turgenev in Moscow due to the illness of their mother E.S. Turgeneva (Ekaterina Semenovna died before the arrival of her sons, on November 7 ^{[7, pp. 452-460]}). According to Arakcheev, the emperor believed that Alexander Turgenev in Moscow would be "disposed to any unfavorable disclosures for the government about the flood disasters that have been here so far" ^{[64, p. 232]}. Golitsyn assured that "he would not leave them to observe their [Turgenev brothers. — M.B.] deeds and speeches" ^{[34, pp. 393-394 (translated from French by N.F. Dubrovin)]}.

In general, intemperance in expressions was a distinctive feature of Alexander Ivanovich's character, friends pointed this out to him more than once and advised him to be more careful ^{[3, pp. 66-67] [17, pp. 287] [42, pp. 90, 139]}. As we will see below, a phrase spoken in the heat of controversy, or a careless action, attracted the attention of the III Department to A.I. Turgenev.

After the conviction of his younger brother in absentia in the "case" on December 14, 1825 (a member of the Welfare Union and one of the founders and leaders of the Northern Society, Nikolai Ivanovich Turgenev (1789-1871) refused to appear from abroad for trial and was sentenced to death in absentia; upon confirmation, the latter was replaced by "exile to hard labor forever" ^{[31, pp. 359-360] [32, pp. 180, 326] [47, pp. 332] [90, p. 39-41]}), Alexander Ivanovich's position became semi-fatal ^{[78, p. 453]}, he "lived as a wanderer" ^{[77, p. 11]}. At the same time, almost every visit of Turgenev to his homeland (he spent a lot of time abroad, where he collected sources on the history of Russia in foreign archives ^{[55, pp. 82-93] [80] [81]}) was perceived with caution by the highest authorities.

It should be noted that in the 1830s, even his distant relationship with the Decembrist families could become part of the negative characteristics of a person. Thus, the Simbirsk provincial staff officer, Lieutenant Colonel E.I. Stogov, wrote about landowners B.P. Turgenev (1792-about 1840) and I.S. Arzhevitinov (1792-1847), cousins of A.I. and N.I. Turgenev: "Among the nobles here the main screamers are Boris Turgenev and Ivan Arzhevitinov [...]. In the noble assemblies [...] criticism and slander against the authorities dissipate from them. [...] Turgenev has many relatives, among whom he is reputed to be the oracle of the mind; [...] It is enough to calculate his close kinship: the Ivashevs, Naumovs, Khovanskys, Yazykovs, Krotkovs, etc." ^{[20, l. 10-11 vol.]}.

In the gendarmerie reports about Alexander Turgenev himself, it will be emphasized that E.P. Yazykova, the younger sister of V.P. Ivashev, a member of the Union of Welfare and the Southern Society, belongs to his circle of communication in Simbirsk ^{[23, L. 54 vol.-55] [32, pp. 73, 260]}.

Illustrated letter by A. I. Turgenev to S. P. Zhikharev (1830). "The most Comprehensive explanation" by V. A. Zhukovsky on the return of A. I. Turgenev to Russia (1831)

Let us proceed to the analysis of the materials of the "case" "On the supervision of the actual State Councilor A. Turgenev" and begin with an illustrated letter from A.I. Turgenev to the chief prosecutor of the VIII Department of the Governing Senate and the manager of the Turgenev estates Stepan Petrovich Zhikharev (1788-1860) ^{[36, pp. 269-272] [41, pp. 274-275]} dated June 12-13, 1830. from Paris ^{[19, l. 1-8 vol.]} (Zhikharev's reply letter dated June 30 has been preserved ^{[37, pp. 438-441]}).

It must be said that the Paris letter was not the first to pass through the hands of officials of the Secret Expedition ("black cabinet") at the Moscow Post Office: in late 1826 — early 1827, Turgenev's letter to Zhikharev dated December 9/21, 1826 from Dresden was opened ^{[85, pp. 479-480]}. In general, the gendarmes knew about their correspondence ^{[89, p. 89]}, and from the printed letters "extracts were made for the emperor" ^{[44, p. 483]}.

What could have attracted the attention of the Third Department in the Turgenev letter of 1830?

The main topic of the letter is the search for opportunities to "get capital" to N.I. Turgenev in view of his imminent marriage in England; at the same time, Alexander Turgenev, showing self—sacrifice, is ready to be content with a small amount of income for life (10-12 thousand rubles per year), and in order to settle monetary affairs, decided to go to Russia, where, according to the instructions brother, "first of all, it is necessary to sell the estate, collect as much debt as possible, etc." ^{[19, l. 1-2, 3 vols.-4]}.

To conclude a marriage, Nikolai Ivanovich needed to present "a certain amount that the wife should use after [...] the death of [her husband], upon her death" ^{[19, L. 2]}. It was assumed that the future father-in-law would require "to present now at least 800 f[ounces] from [sterling] the annual income of the faithful." N.I. Turgenev had only 600 pounds, "there is nothing to say about 800, they do not exist and cannot be" ^{[19, l. 3]}.

Alexander Turgenev assured his brother that both Zhikharev and their cousin Alexandra Ilyinichna Nefedieva (1782-1857) "will not refuse to help us now", "that even now our capital is sufficient to make up 800 f[ounces] from [terlings] income" ^{[19, l. 3 vol.]}.

Until very recently, the plot of N.I. Turgenev's intention to marry an Englishwoman in 1830 did not come to the attention of researchers, but in 2022 an article by V.A. Milchina appeared ^[50], in which the picture of Nikolai Ivanovich's "unsuccessful matchmaking" is reconstructed on the basis of correspondence between the Turgenev brothers, as well as their letters "an old acquaintance", diplomat, public figure and publicist Prince Pyotr Borisovich Kozlovsky (1783-1840) ^[52]. Nikolai Turgenev's fiancee was Harriet (Henrietta) Lowell, the daughter of landowner Peter Harvey Lowell from Wiltshire. Prince P.B. Kozlovsky was actively engaged in matchmaking, but did not succeed, because the wedding did not take place: in mid-June 1830, "already capricious" ^{[19, l. 2 vol.]} Harriet's father did not delve into the financial difficulties of Nikolai Turgenev and refused "to give his daughter to a stranger, and even such a dubious status [political emigrant. — M.B.]" ^{[50, p. 58]}.

In a letter of 1830, Alexander Turgenev expresses his ever-present confidence in the innocence of his younger brother, the Decembrist, believing that both Zhikharev and A.I. Nefedieva share this opinion: "I entrust all this to you and wish that Al[exandra] Ilya[nichna] knew that I am not ashamed to think that there [in Russia? — M.B.] the destroyer [?] the case of [u] the structure of happiness without guilt, cut off from the Fatherland, from relatives, from everything for which he lived and acted, her mother's favorite, she will do what God puts in her heart" ^{[19, l. 6 vol.-7]}.

Next, the alleged repeated summons of N.I. Turgenev to the trial in the "case" on December 14, 1825 is mentioned: "Of course, you were sure of his innocence before, but who dares now, when he appeared at the trial and he was not given a trial, he was certainly; who dares now to reproach him? He was always pure before God, and now he is pure before people, at least before impartial people" ^{[19, l. 7]}.

The question of appearing for a "retrial", as V.A. Milchina showed, had "matrimonial overtones". Although "the stigma of a state criminal burdened Nikolai Turgenev", "at first he did not intend to bother to appear at the "gossip"," but in the spring of 1830 he changed his mind, including because of the desire to get rid of the "dubious status" of the exile in order to freely marry G. Lowell ^{[50, p. 44-45]}.

On the evening of March 29, 1830, A.I. Turgenev unexpectedly received a January letter from V.A. Zhukovsky (who took on the role of lawyer N.I. Turgenev), which stated that the emperor agreed to the arrival of N.I. Turgenev if he, considering himself innocent, relied on the monarch's generosity ^{[33, p. 71]}. Alexander Ivanovich informed his brother of the emperor's decision, and he agreed to come to Russia ^{[33, p. 83]}, but N.I. Turgenev's trip to the "gossip" ultimately did not take place, because it turned out that Zhukovsky had misinterpreted the words of Nicholas I: "If my brother had appeared and unconditionally betrayed himself to the generosity of the sovereign then his Majesty would have decided for himself what kind of existence could be given to him, who was convicted in Russia without destroying the sentence that condemned him" ^{[33, p. 94]}.

At the end of the Paris letter, Alexander Turgenev declares his firm intention to come to Russia to arrange money matters for the sake of his younger brother's happiness: "I will come, no matter how it upsets my plans [?], yes, maybe it's not the time to remind myself of my return yet. [...] If my presence is needed, then I will come to Moscow, but not to St. Petersburg. If I knew the state of my capital and in general the price of a peupr?s [approximately (fr.)] of my estate, then I could have more resolutely begged my brother to present to my father about a larger income than he presented. I'm afraid that this uncertainty will upset the whole thing. I will never forgive myself for this" ^{[19, l. 7-7 vol.]}.

Alexander Ivanovich learned that his brother's wedding would not take place on June 18, but did not abandon the idea of "going to Russia for the final arrangement of affairs" ^{[50, p. 58]}. It can be assumed that he did not change his mind thanks to P.B. Kozlovsky, who in August 1830 wrote that Alexander Turgenev's trip to Russia would be useful for both brothers, since there one can "find means to achieve royal mercy, which is impossible to imagine." In addition, "The Sovereign hates that people live in foreign lands, and everything depends on the Sovereign" ^{[50, p. 61-62]}.

Considering the above, we believe that in the illustrated letter the gendarmes could be interested in quotes from two letters of the state criminal N.I. Turgenev (we omitted quotes from the second letter ^{[19, l. 4-5]}), words repeated by A.I. Turgenev more than once about his conviction of his brother's innocence, mention of the "failed" "the retrial" of N.I. Turgenev, phrases about Alexander Ivanovich's intention to return to his homeland.

It should be noted that the text of the opened Paris letter of 1830 will partly become a source of information for the reports received by A.H. Benckendorf in 1831-1834 from the Moscow and Kazan gendarmes.

Nicholas I, no doubt, read the extract prepared for him from the Turgenev letter of 1830, however, apparently, the emperor was still alerted (did it seem sudden?) Alexander Ivanovich's return to his homeland in early June 1831, the Monarch asked V.A. Zhukovsky about this, and on July 22 he "presented [...] the most reasonable explanation from himself" ^{[21, L. 1] [54, p. 52]}.

According to Zhukovsky, there were three reasons for A.I. Turgenev's return to Russia: 1) the Turgenev brothers wanted to thank the emperor "for what you, My Lord, have recently wished to do to ease their fate, and that they are both now convinced of the impossibility of justification for the convict, who, recognizing your generosity, finally resolutely submitted to his fate" ^{[21, l. 1] [54, pp. 152-153]}; 2) the arrangement of A.I. Turgenev's economic affairs (he needed to personally discuss with S.P. Zhikharev in Moscow plans for the sale of the estate in connection with the "delivery of capital" for his brother) ^{[21, l. 1 vol.-2] [54, p. 153]}; 3) the arrangement of the future fate of himself A.I. Turgenev, who wanted to engage in "some kind of useful activity for the fatherland, being outside of it" (for example, "to report their comments and views to the Ministry of Education in terms of educational and the Ministry of Internal Affairs in terms of institutions pleasing to God and prisons" ^{[21, L. 2-2 vol.] [54, pp. 153-154]} (highlighted in the text; we transfer the discharge of the original in italics. — M.B.)).

Vasily Andreevich, defending the good name of an old friend, tried to prove to Nicholas I not only that A.I. Turgenev "came to Russia without any harmful intention," but also that the real moral character of Alexander Ivanovich is much better than his social reputation. In an effort to make a convincing argument, Zhukovsky argues at the end of the letter that Turgenev "would not be harmful to Pushkin now, because in the old days, when ardent youth drove Pushkin from the straight path, no one tried to tame him more than A. Turgenev and put him on the straight road" ^{[21, l. 2 vol.] [54, p. 154]}.

Systematization and analysis of materials from reports IIIDepartments about A. I. Turgenev

Turning now directly to the consideration of gendarmerie documents, we consider it advisable to systematize and group the plots found in them in order to more clearly identify the characteristic features of the surveillance of A.I. Turgenev.

To begin with, let's focus on vacations from the two relationships of A.H. Benckendorf. One of the documents, dated June 10, 1831 and sent by the acting chief of the II (Moscow) District of the Gendarmes Corps to Count P.I. Apraksin, marks the beginning of the "Moscow" stage of supervision over A.I. Turgenev; another document on February 8, 1840 was addressed to the Moscow chief of Police L.M. Tsinsky (Tsinsky) with a note: "The same content is given to the head of the II District of the Gendarmes Corps, Major General Perfiliev. No. 703 / 268. February 9, 1840" ^{[19, l. 21]}.

Apraksin, the chief of gendarmes, "humbly requests" "to have the closest observation of Mr. Turgenev's connections and behavior at hand and not to lose sight of him," and Tsinsky — "to observe his studies and conversations," "informing [...] about every case that will deserve attention" ^{[19, L. 9, 21]}.

Benckendorf's orders appeared both times in connection with A.I. Turgenev's visits from abroad to St. Petersburg, from where (as the chief of gendarmes knew) Alexander Ivanovich always moved to Moscow. The reasons for the establishment of supervision, apparently, should be considered Alexander Turgenev's close relationship with a state criminal (Decembrist N.I. Turgenev) and Alexander Ivanovich's tendency to careless (including "unlawful") conversations in society. 

In the response reports of the Moscow gendarmerie authorities, the date of Alexander Turgenev's arrival in Moscow or the date of his departure from the Mother See is always indicated first. However, not all of them can be considered true.

If the date of Alexander Ivanovich's arrival in Moscow in 1831 — June 22 — seems indisputable (named in P.I. Apraksin's report dated July 14 ^{[19, l. 10]}; first published by V.A. Gromov ^{[28, p. 212]}), then the date of his departure from Moscow to St. Petersburg in early April 1832 to Apraksin I had to clarify. First, he informed Benckendorf that Turgenev "intends"to leave for the capital "in the first days of this April," and then the gendarme general corrected the initial information: "G. Turgenev left this April 5th [...]" ^{[19, L. 13, 14]}. This date is confirmed by the fact that already on April 9, Alexander Ivanovich paid a visit to the St. Petersburg post director K.Ya. Bulgakov ^{[43, p. 76]}.

In a report dated July 24, 1831 (without a signature, but, we believe, it can be attributed to P.I. Apraksin), we read: "On the 5th of July, Turgenev went 25 versts from Moscow to the village of Astafievo, to the estate of Prince Vyazemsky. I have not returned from where yet" ^{[19, l. 10 vol.]}. In fact, judging by A.Ya. Bulgakov's letters to his brother, after July 5 Turgenev and Vyazemsky returned to Moscow, visited the house of the Moscow post director on July 10 and invited him to Ostafevo for Vyazemsky's birthday on July 12, but Alexander Yakovlevich refused ^{[42, p. 74]}.

It is important to note that the dates from the reports of 1834 from the acting chief of the Moscow Gendarmerie district, Colonel N.P. Shubinsky, when compared with other documents, turn out to be inaccurate. So, in a report dated June 18, 1834, Shubinsky writes that Turgenev arrived "in Moscow from abroad" "on the 19th of last May" ^{[19, l. 15]}, however, this date is erroneous: K.M. Azadovsky notes that on May 18, Alexander Ivanovich had just left Vienna ^{[5, p. 337]} and he could hardly reach Moscow the next day; M.I. Gillelson dates his arrival on May 20 ^{[78, p. 473]}, which is more likely (both researchers rely on A.I. Turgenev's diary entries).

In another memo, Shubinsky dates Alexander Ivanovich's departure from Moscow "to his Simbirsk patrimony" on June 17, while, according to M.I. Gillelson, it happened on the 16th ^{[78, p. 473]}. The same document says that Alexander Turgenev left the Mother See, "as you can hear, only for three weeks, and then he will return to Moscow again" ^{[19, l. 17]}, i.e. around July 10. In fact, as the gendarme colonel himself reported in the following "report", Alexander Ivanovich returned to Moscow "on the 30th of last August" ^{[19, l. 19]}; but this date is disputed by M.I. Gillelson, calling the day of Turgenev's return to the second capital September 1 ^{[78, p. 474]}.

The following dates, named by Shubinsky in a memo dated October 6, are also inaccurate: "Turgenev, who is under supervision [...], left here on the 3rd of this month in a stagecoach to St. Petersburg, where, as they say, he intends to stay only two days, then he will return to Moscow again" ^{[19, l. 20]}. According to N.A. Khokhlova's reasonable assumption, the date of October 3 could have become known to the gendarme colonel from the materials of the perlustration: we have no documentary evidence, but perhaps Alexander's letter to Nikolai Turgenev dated October 3 was printed in the "black cabinet", which says that Alexander arrived in St. Petersburg on October 1; Shubinsky could It is a mistake to correlate the date of A.I. Turgenev's departure from Moscow with the date of the illustrated (?) letters (personal message from N.A. Khokhlova; see also her article ^{[79, p. 240 (and note 2)]}).

The information about the "two days" in St. Petersburg also does not correspond to reality. According to N.A. Khokhlova, Alexander Ivanovich went to St. Petersburg to present (through the mediation of Prince A.N. Golitsyn) a project to identify and copy "documents of the Vatican secret Archive related to Russia" ^{[81, pp. 66-68]}. The project was presented in late September — early October 1834 by A.N. Golitsyn without the participation of A.I. Turgenev (the prince did not know that Alexander Ivanovich was already in St. Petersburg), and "on October 4, an order was issued to the Main Treasury to issue [...] 5 thousand rubles for the purchase of copies of manuscripts in the Vatican Archive"", and Alexander Turgenev was "highly appointed to produce scientific research in foreign countries related to Russian history" ^{[79, p. 240] [81, p. 68]}.

Throughout October, Alexander Ivanovich informed his brother that he would soon "save up and go" to Moscow, but a bruised leg, the inability to establish a toboggan run due to the long autumn and the expectation of the monarch's approval of a "detailed work plan in the Italian archives" detained him in the capital ^{[79, pp. 240-241, 244]}.  

Turgenev returned to the Mother See only in mid—December ^{[67, p. 251] [79, p. 238]}, left it on January 27, 1835, crossed the Russian border on February 4/16 and headed along the Vienna—Rome — Paris — London-Paris route ^{[5, pp. 336-340] [78, pp. 474-477] [81, pp. 68-69]}.

In the last document postponed in the "case" of A.I. Turgenev — the report of the head of the II gendarmerie district S.V. Perfiliev dated June 14, 1840 — the date of Alexander Ivanovich's departure from Moscow to St. Petersburg was correctly named: June 11, 1840 ^{[19, l. 22]}. It corresponds to the date named by Turgenev in letters to friends ^{[61, p. 118] [76, p. 231-232]}.

Following the date of A.I. Turgenev's arrival in Moscow, three gendarmerie reports mention his permanent address: "in the Prechistenskaya unit, in the house of his relative Ms. Nefedieva" ^{[19, l. 10, 15 vol., 19]}. The small house of A.I. Nefedieva with a mezzanine in Bolshoy Vlasyevsky Lane (No. 11), unfortunately, has not been preserved ^{[26, pp. 74, 263] [69, p. 464] [73, p. 496]}.

In another "report" we read: Alexander Turgenev and Stepan Zhikharev "spend several days and nights together in the latter's house" ^{[19, l. 10-10 vol.]}. According to A.Ya. Bulgakov, in the summer of 1831 A.I. Turgenev did sometimes live with S.P. Zhikharev ^{[42, p. 70]}. It is a pity that it is not specified exactly where Alexander Ivanovich visited: in the house of Stepan Petrovich himself (modern address: Novinsky Boulevard, 27 ^{[56, p. 575]}) or in the house belonging to his wife, F.D. Zhikhareva (Novinsky Boulevard, 9; has not been preserved ^[83]).

Usually, the texts of the reports did not carry important information for the chief of gendarmes ("... since the arrival of G. Turgenev, nothing special has been noticed in his actions so far" ^{[19, l. 15 vol.]}; "during the entire time of his residence [...] in Moscow, both in his studies and in his conversations, there is nothing reprehensible it was not noticed" ^{[19, l. 22]}), but one day A.H. Benkendorf was presented with a "characteristic" of A.I. Turgenev.

It was partly contained in the report of the governor of the VI (Kazan) gendarmerie district, Colonel Bulygin, dated August 29, 1834, and partly in an anonymous explanatory note in the margins of this document. Bulygin, outlining the personality of Alexander Ivanovich, emphasizes his authority among the Simbirsk nobles: "The actual state councilor Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev is the brother of the escaped Turgenev, who participated in the December 14 conspiracy. [...] He is well educated and perfectly eloquent: he abruptly and freely declares his opinion even against government measures. In Simbirsk, they look at him as a Genius, and everything Turgenev said is beyond any doubt in general opinion" ^{[23, L. 54-54 vol.]}.

In a complementary short note for Benckendorf, it says: "Turgenev, Your Excellency, you know. — The report made about him [?] is quite similar. — He's an ungrateful man. Through the patronage of the book [yaz] A.N. Golitsyn, he received quite a significant amount of content outside the service and is always ready to slander the government" ^{[23, L. 52-52 vol.]}.

Analyzing the explanatory note, V.V. Romanov characterizes its potential author as "an employee of the Third Department who got acquainted with [Bulygin's] note" ^{[68, pp. 106-107]}. It can be assumed that this is a high-ranking official from the office of the III Department; perhaps it was A.N. Mordvinov himself, the then manager of the III Department (1831-1839).

The researcher further writes that the author of the explanation "limited himself to general remarks" about Alexander Turgenev, because, "firstly, there was nothing to accuse him of, and secondly, it was difficult to resist the gendarme staff officer in the province to representatives of aristocratic families who have material values, education, connections and influence on society" ^{[68, pp. 106-107]}. This judgment is completely fair and can be supported by the already quoted attitude of E.I. Stogov in 1837, which describes the "difficult confrontation of a gendarme staff officer in the province" with A.I. Turgenev's cousins ^[20]. We add that, unfortunately, in the published correspondence between A.I. Turgenev and A.N. Golitsyn ^{[30] [80] [81]}, there is no information about the amount of Alexander Ivanovich's salary.

 As part of the consideration of this group of subjects, I would also like to focus on the report of the I. D. chief of the II gendarmerie district, Lieutenant Colonel Brenzan (?) (the signature is unclear), in which we read: "After careful observation of him, at first nothing worthy of special attention turned out to be, and now it is heard that he has a way of thinking that is contrary to the government, and that he receives letters from other states, especially from France" ^{[19, l. 11]}.

It is curious that the gendarme replacing Count P.I. Apraksin only in the fourth month of surveillance (the document is dated October 14, 1831) clearly named two motives for the "establishment of secret surveillance in Moscow" for A.I. Turgenev: 1) his oppositional views and 2) his regular extensive correspondence, especially with France (Alexander Ivanovich, of course, did not interrupt the epistolary connection with his younger brother, who moved from England to France in September 1831 ^{[50, p. 42, 63]}). 

Next, it is necessary to analyze one of the cases when A.I. Turgenev conducted careless conversations in Moscow high society. This episode is recorded in a document that we date to March 1832 (according to the date of the letter — March 9, 1832 — to which it is attached ^{[22, l. 1-2]}) and consider to be a copy of an agent's note taken by the I.D. of the Moscow chief of police, Colonel S.N. Mukhanov himself (perhaps we are mistaken: on there is no date, no report number, no agent's name on the sheet):

"Chamberlain Turgenev declares here that he has an assignment from the Sovereign to travel around Europe and observe what is being done at foreign courts, and that he has been assigned a large allowance" ^{[22, l. 4]}.

It is not known whether Alexander Ivanovich actually said this or whether an informant heard it (note that in the 1840s false rumors circulated in Europe that Turgenev was a spy ^{[24, p. 338] [61, p. 368]}). In fact, in early February 1832, Turgenev received an official letter from Prince A.N. Golitsyn: at the request of the latter (and yielding to the desire of A.I. Turgenev), the emperor agreed that Alexander Ivanovich abroad could "be useful by giving information to the Ministry of Education and Internal Affairs on the charitable part" ^{[80, p. 85]}.

Fulfilling the "highest commission" entrusted to him, Turgenev in reports from Italy (1832-1833) "reported on charitable institutions, hospitals, monasteries, various schools, universities, libraries; sent their charters, regulations, announcements, prospectuses, etc. [...] But most of all he was attracted by libraries and archives" ^{[81, pp. 63-64]}. At the same time, the amount of Alexander Ivanovich's salary is unknown to us.

Another vivid example of how careless A.I. Turgenev was in his conversations and actions is found in the Kazan report of Colonel Bulygin, where Alexander Ivanovich is represented as a distributor of "ridiculous rumors in the Simbirsk province" ^[23]. It follows from the "report" that it was Alexander Turgenev "in a letter from the Moscow post director Bulgakov" who was the first in Simbirsk to receive "news of the accident that befell the city of Tula", "and spread a rumor among acquaintances that England, preparing to have a war with Russia, was trying to deprive it of all means to maintain it, therefore, the burning of the Tula and Izhevsk arms factories was carried out by people bribed by the British Ministry" ^{[23, l. 52]}.

Not a single letter from A.Ya. Bulgakov to A.I. Turgenev in the summer of 1834 appeared in print; in addition, we cannot comment in any way on rumors about the impending war between Britain and Russia and about arsonists bribed by the British cabinet who set large fires on Izhevsk (on the night of March 18-19) ^[14] and Tula (June 29) ^{[39, pp. 278, 281-283]} weapons factories.

According to Bulygin's report, the rumors spread by A.I. Turgenev also concerned the arson of houses in Moscow in the summer of 1834: "G. Turgenev also received news of the first fire in Moscow; finally, he received a second notification from G. Bulgakov about the fire that was in Moscow in the Rogozhsky part, and having printed it out at the Post Office, read it aloud: that in Moscow it is not known by whom the bribed incendiaries almost every day cause riots and set houses on fire, and that with all the efforts of the police, the perpetrators are not open. Soon this news, transmitted by idle people from one to another, spread throughout the city of Simbirsk and the province, and agreeing with the opinion of Mr. Turgenev, they began to tell that the incendiaries are people bribed by England. [...] [Provincial Gendarmerie staff officer] Major Stogov is trying by all means to stop these ridiculous rumors; however, he noticed that they did not have a special effect on minds" ^{[23, l. 52 vol.-54]}.

If we compare the above rumors with the report of the III Department for 1834, it turns out that some of them are confirmed by the gendarmerie authorities: "In Moscow, fires began in June, at first minor, but then burned out: part of Semenovskaya Sloboda, Lefortova and part of Rogozhskaya." Popular rumor attributed the arson to Poles living illegally in Moscow; high society believed "that fires occur for political reasons. They also grumbled at the government that it did not take measures to discover the villains." Fear grew, and "some signs of arbitrariness began to appear," which prompted Muscovites to guard their homes. After the arrival of the emperor in Moscow (early September), "some captured arsonists were immediately punished, and the fires stopped" ^{[71, p. 118]}.

The arsonists caught were sentenced to corporal punishment, branding and exile to hard labor ^{[25, pp. 190-193] [71, p. 125 (note 9)]}. Interestingly, according to the memoirs of A.I. Herzen, a special commission that worked for several months could not establish the causes of arson ^{[25, p. 193]}, and the author of the report of the III Department, on the contrary, records a clear conclusion of the commission: "... the incendiaries were only swindlers who came to Moscow from other lean provinces, who, having joined together in one gang, set fires solely out of self-interest" ^{[71, p. 118]}. Herzen summarizes: "The story of the incendiaries in Moscow in 1834 [...] remains a mystery" ^{[25, p. 194]}.

The highest gendarmerie authorities (and, possibly, the emperor himself) He was actively interested in the property affairs of the Turgenev brothers. So, Lieutenant Colonel Brenzan reported on October 14, 1831: "Upon his arrival [in Moscow], he [A.I. Turgenev. — M.B.] was in great friendship with chief Prosecutor Zhikharev, and now they quarreled in some monetary calculations, and, they say, Turgenev complained to Prince Dmitry Vladimirovich Golitsyn." ^{[19, l. 11-11 vol.]}.

As L.N. Kiselyova rightly noted, "it is very difficult to fully understand the history of Zhikharev's financial relations with the Turgenevs. [...] However, [...] his incorrectness in handling other people's money cannot be denied" ^{[36, p. 271]}.

In August 1831, Turgenev wrote to Zhukovsky: "I was in a terrible situation, from which God and Prince D.V. Golitsyn partially brought me out" ^{[37, p. 527]}. In another letter: "I did not complain to anyone and sought advice and help only from Dmitriev, Vyazemsky and k[nyaz] Golitsyn. Otherwise, I would be without a piece of bread, even if I delayed for one day" ^{[37, p. 531]}. We know that the Moscow military governor-General found an intermediary in Turgenev's lawsuit with Zhikharev and followed the development of this conflict ^{[2, pp. 543, 546] [37, pp. 536-537]}.

There is a pencil mark on Brenzan's report, possibly made by the hand of A.H. Benckendorf: "He is selling part of his estate and wants to go to England to get married" ^{[19, l. 11]}.

Apparently, based on these words, the St. Petersburg authorities asked the local ranks of the Gendarmes Corps for information about the Turgenev brothers' property in the Simbirsk province. The response of the I. D. chief of the V (Kazan) gendarmerie district, Colonel A.P. Maslov, was as follows: "In the Simbirsk province, in the Stavropol district, there is an immovable estate belonging to Turgenev, who is among the state criminals, which, although now listed as his own brother, but all income from it, as is known, is sent to England. — This estate, on the occasion of the intention of the first to marry in London, is scheduled for sale. The brother, not wanting to use it, turning it into money, transfers the proceeds abroad" ^{[19, l. 12-12 vol.]} (underlined in the text. — M.B.). (The Simbirsk estate, which belonged to N.I. Turgenev, is the ancestral village of Turgenev, which will be sold to cousin B.P. Turgenev only in 1837 ^{[9, pp. 15, 39, 56] [78, p. 486]}. In 1834, clearly relying not only on the information gathered in the Simbirsk high society, but also on the report of A.P. Maslov, Colonel Bulygin will present similar information ^{[23, L. 54]}.)

Maslov's report also most likely has the following written in pencil by the chief of gendarmes: "I knew [this]. He confessed it to me himself. — It's a pity, but there's nothing to do" ^{[19, l. 12]}.

If we are not mistaken about the authorship of both pencil droppings, it turns out that, firstly, Benckendorf knew about Zhukovsky's letter to Nicholas I or even read it (recall that the letter was preserved in the secret part of the archive of the III Department; could it have got there, bypassing the hands of the chief administrator?); secondly, The chief of the gendarmes had a frank conversation with A.I. Turgenev about his property affairs. It seems that this conversation, retold in Turgenev's letter to Zhukovsky dated November 27, 1831, took place on November 22 (dated by the mention in the letter of a concert at Prince D.V. Golitsyn's, which was given "the next day", November 23 ^{[42, pp. 151-153] [57]}):

"[Benkendorf] asked why I was selling villages, I replied that I had sold only one near Moscow, that I was selling because I could not manage them, especially in my current relationship" ^{[37, p. 539]} (Turgenev's Moscow suburb is most likely a village of Knyazhevo, Dmitrovsky district, Moscow province ^{[37, p. 517]}).

Let us note in general that, although the wedding of N.I. Turgenev with G. Lowell was upset in the middle of June 1830, according to the documents it seems that in 1831 Nikolai Ivanovich still needed "wedding capital". In fact, now the money was needed in order to "arrange for him an independent fortune" abroad ^{[73, p. 493]}. 

The "reports" of both the "Moscow" and "Simbirsk" stages of supervision provide information about who A.I. Turgenev communicated with in Moscow and Simbirsk.

In Moscow, these were S.P. Zhikharev, Prince D.V. Golitsyn, "Norov, Nikolai and Sergei Sheremetyev and Pashkov, with whom, as well as with the former Kriegskommissar General of the 4th class, who lives with the Pashkovs at the dacha near the Petrovsky Palace, Putyatoyu, sees very often either in his apartment or in their apartment houses" ^{[19, l. 10-11 vol., 15 vol.-16]}.

We already know about A.I. Turgenev's relations with Zhikharev and Golitsyn. Unfortunately, it was not possible to establish which of the members of the Norov family we are talking about; the Pashkov family are old Moscow acquaintances of Turgenev ^{[17, p. 221] [42, p. 88, 124, 151]}, and their country guest, Vasily Ivanovich Putyata (1780-1843), in 1824-1827, actually held the position of general-Kriegskommissar (head of the Commissariat Department in charge of supply issues) of the War Ministry and a member of the Military Council, and in the early 1830s he was under police supervision ^{[27] [66] [70]}. We do not know for sure who Alexander Ivanovich communicated with from the Sheremetev family. They could have been brothers Sergei Vasilyevich (1792-1866) and Nikolai Vasilyevich (1804-1849) Sheremetevs. The elder brother was a participant in the Patriotic War of 1812, the suppression of the uprising on Senate Square on December 14, 1825 and the Polish campaign of 1831; commander of the 2nd Brigade of the I Light Cavalry Division (from April 2, 1833); "dismissed from service for domestic reasons" (from May 29, 1835); Nizhny Novgorod provincial leader nobility (1837-1839) ^[88]. The younger brother was a Decembrist, a member of the Northern Society, who spent almost a month and a half in the Kronstadt Fortress, and then was sent to the Caucasus (he was under secret supervision from March 27, 1826 to May 29, 1831); after being dismissed from service with the rank of staff captain of the Life Guards of the Moscow Regiment (December 17, 1832), he was a trustee Nizhny Novgorod Alexandrovsky Noble Institute and the provincial gymnasium ^{[32, pp. 200, 338-339]}. It is possible that another Sergei Vasilyevich Sheremetev (1786-1834), who headed the Council of the Hospice in Moscow in 1826-1834, is meant ^{[87, pp. 217-218 (comment 5)]}.

In the documents of the III Department for 1831, it was particularly noted that A.I. Turgenev traveled several times to the Vyazemsky Ostafevo near Moscow, where he lived with P.A. Vyazemsky's half-sister and the widow of the historiographer N.M. Karamzin Ekaterina Andreevna (ur. Kolyvanova, 1780-1851): "G. Karamzin, who this summer lived in a village near Moscow her brother Prince Vyazemsky and to whom G. Turgenev went there," Lieutenant Colonel Brenzan reported on October 14, "the third day from this village she went to St. Petersburg" ^{[19, l. 11 vol.]}. The Karamzin family left Moscow for Ostafevo on June 10, where they stayed with Vyazemsky until the end of September ^{[1, p. 444 (approx. 1 to No. 298)]}. Alexander Turgenev stayed in Ostafiev in early — mid-July (with interruptions) ^{[1, p. 137] [62, p. 74-75]} and on September 6, 1831 ^{[37, p. 532]}.

In Simbirsk in the summer of 1834, as indicated in Colonel Bulygin's memo, A.I. Turgenev "has a rather short acquaintance with the governor, but his usual company consists of: chairman of the chamber of the civil court Tatarinov, landowner Arzhevitinov and landowner Elizabeth Yazykova, the sister of Vasily Ivashev, exiled to hard labor for the December 14 conspiracy" ^{[23, L. 54 vol.-55]}. The Simbirsk governor A.M. Zagryazhsky, the younger sister of the Decembrist V.P. Ivashev and the wife of the ethnologist and geologist P.M. Yazykov E.P. Yazykov, as well as relatives of A.I. Turgenev are listed here: apparently, N.I. Tatarinov, the husband of the cousin of A.S. Tatarinova (ur. Arzhevitinova) ^{[31, p. 577]}, and our already familiar cousin I.S. Arzhevitinov.

Moscow "reports" enrich our understanding of A.I. Turgenev's daily activities: he spends a lot of time with Zhikharev ("in houses and on festivities, one almost does not happen without the other" ^{[19, l. 10]}), whom D.V. Golitsyn complains about in connection with money frauds; in general, he maintains extensive acquaintances in Moscow he travels to Ostafevo to Vyazemsky and Karamzin; receives letters from abroad and responds to them ^{[19, l. 10-11 vol., 15 vol.-16]}. It is interesting to note (and this was not unusual for A.I. Turgenev) that sometimes epistolary studies take up almost all of his time, obscuring other household chores: "... in Nefedieva's house [...] they say that he constantly wrote something in French both at tea and at breakfast, and even then, he got up to write several times when they shaved him" ^{[19, l. 17-17 vol.]}.

This quote from the report of Colonel N.P. Shubinsky (June 21, 1834) allows us to raise the question of who the III Department attracted to supervise suspicious persons. The indisputable fact of domestic servants spying on their masters is made by comparing the "report" of 1834 with one of the letters of M.Ya. von A note to Benkendorf ^{[63, No. 10, p. 315]} and a diary entry by A.I. Turgenev dated October 6, 1831: "And the valets were sent to me by the gendarmes" ^{[78, p. 468]} (cf. the opinion of O.Y. Abakumov: "The police received some information from domestic servants" ^{[4, p. 203]}).

The materials of the III Department do not always correctly reflect the realities of the Turgenev brothers' life together abroad. Thus, A.P. Maslov (report dated October 20, 1831) mistakenly believed that "all income from this [Turgenev family estate. — M.B.], as is known, is sent to England" ^{[19, L. 12]}. In fact, by that time N.I. Turgenev, for whom the money was intended, was living in France.

N.P. Shubinsky's memo (June 21, 1834) says that "there are rumors that G. Turgenev went abroad for the last time to meet his brother, who, according to his letter, deliberately came from America to London, where they lived together, and then both went to Vienna, and there his brother he allegedly married some mar [k] countess who has a huge fortune" ^{[19, l. 17 vol.-18]} (cf. Bulygin's report ^{[23, l. 54]}). In fact, Alexander Ivanovich traveled abroad to fulfill the "highest commission" to collect and provide information for two ministries and, of course, to see his younger brother, but not in England (Nikolai Turgenev's unfulfilled intention to leave there for America dates back to 1829 ^{[2, pp. 519-520] [59, 158]}), and in Switzerland: in Geneva, the wedding of Nikolai Ivanovich with Clara Viaris (1814-1891), the penniless daughter of Gaetan Viaris, a native of Piedmont, was being prepared ^{[6, pp. 229-239] [50, p. 64-66] [81, p. 66]}. The civil marriage took place on October 12, 1833, and the church marriage was concluded the next day ^{[6, pp. 352-359]}.

Concluding the consideration of groups of plots from gendarmerie reports, it must be said that the "reports" to Benckendorf often give an erroneous idea of Alexander Ivanovich's future life plans both in Russia and abroad. In part, we noted this above, talking about the discrepancy between the dates of arrival / departure of our hero and analyzing a copy of the agent's note of 1832, however, we will give a few more examples.

The litter of Benkendorf (?) on the report of Lieutenant Colonel Brenzan (October 1831) reports about Alexander Turgenev: "He [...] wants to go to England to get married" ^{[19, l. 11]}; but it was not Alexander who was going to marry an Englishwoman, but Nikolai, and the whole plot refers to 1829-1830.

P.I. Apraksin's information (April 1832) that Alexander Turgenev would leave St. Petersburg for France ^{[19, l. 13]} is also erroneous: Alexander Ivanovich was not in France during that period of stay abroad (June 1832 — May 1834) ^{[78, p. 505]}.

Finally, the information of Colonel Bulygin (August 1834) is incorrect: A.I. Turgenev, "it seems that he intends to sell his entire estate and leave Russia forever" ^{[23, L. 54]}. As we know, the village of Turgenevo was sold only in 1837. Alexander Turgenev's friends suspected that he, "suddenly having dealt with everyone and everything," would "leave Russia forever," but this was in 1831, when Alexander Ivanovich was busy about "delivering capital" to N.I. Turgenev (see correspondence A.I. Turgenev with A.Ya. Bulgakov and the latter with his younger brother during this period ^{[42, p. 139] [76, p. 186-187]}). In 1834, our hero did not want to permanently move abroad, but only to spend a long time there, living next to his brother and engaged in archaeological activities.

Most likely, the gendarmerie reports about A.I. Turgenev were largely based on information provided by the Moscow post director A.Ya. Bulgakov (N.A. Khokhlova's assumption). Always in close contact with Turgenev, actually leading the perlustration in Moscow and having a penchant for printing and reading other people's letters ^{[44, p. 378] [86, p. 284-285]}, he could receive and transmit to the gendarmes information about Alexander Ivanovich's personal life from his correspondence. Extracts from the opened letters would eventually have to go to the III Department ^{[4, pp. 255-256] [44, pp. 119-120] [86, pp. 283-284, 298]}, but they are not in the fund of the "supreme police" (the exception is the Paris letter of 1830). We also recall that the ranks of the Corps of gendarmes they did not bear any responsibility for the reliability of the information that was transmitted "upstairs" ^{[58, p. 63, 66, 68] [86, p. 327]}, and "there were no formal procedures for verifying gendarmerie reports" ^{[10, p. 230]}.

A. I. Turgenev's awareness of self-surveillance by the III Department

It is time to answer the question: did A.I. Turgenev know about the observation of himself by the III Department? Undoubtedly, Alexander Ivanovich knew about this. Let us recall the diary entry of October 6, 1831: "The gendarmes also sent valets to me" ^{[78, p. 468]}. In addition, back in August, Alexander Turgenev wrote to V.A. Zhukovsky in nervous excitement that for final settlements with Zhikharev "it takes time and peace of mind, and I am under police supervision, how...!" ^{[37, p. 527]} (so in the publication. — M.B.). Later, In a letter dated November 27, 1831, Alexander Ivanovich recounted to an old friend two of his conversations with A.H. Benckendorf. The first conversation, as we have already noted, could take place on November 22, and the second on the 23rd:

"Wishing to see him before Benckendorf left and to find out if there was any new nonsense against me, I went to him and was well received; but he told me that he had been informed that, speaking of Poland, I had said ? peu pr?s that the revolution must faire le tour de monde [go around the world (French)]. I did not say this, and from one conversation about the Polish war, in which you were present, I left and was silent all the time, which the hostess noticed to me the next day; and this time nothing was said, and we listened only to the fanfare of the military narrator. I told B—fu [Benckendorf. — M.B.] that I had not said and was not saying anything [...]. B. [Benckendorf. — M.B.] assured me that he had not said a word about denouncing me to the emperor, that there would not be the slightest trouble for me [...]; he said goodbye to He tried to calm me down in a friendly way, but the next day, at a concert at the Book of Gol. [D.V. Golitsyn. — M.B.] [...] he was colder again; but I again assured him that no one talks about Poland less than mine" ^{[37, pp. 539-540]}.

It is unclear which "one conversation about the Polish war" A.I. Turgenev recalls, but it is clear what is hidden behind the lines about "this time" when "they listened only to the fanfare of the military narrator."

We are talking about the evening at Prince P.A. Vyazemsky's on October 31. Zhukovsky described him in his diary very briefly: "At Vyazemsky's: Golitsyn, Turgenev, Davydov" ^{[38, p. 317]}, and Turgenev — in more detail and very emotionally: "... After lunch and at lunch at the book Vyazem [skogo] with Zhukov [skim], with kn[yaz] [D.V.] Golits[yin] and with Denis Davydov, who boasted of his brutality and probably charlatanized them as the exploits of a horseman. And Zhuk [ovsky] listened to him with attention and some kind of approving feeling! Vyazemsky alone felt and spoke like a European. — I just felt and was silent! Before whom and for whom would I give vent to my indignation? — Davydov was talking, gesticulating — about the gallows! He told about his visits with the army in the devastated villages and saw one meanness in the Poles! [...] From there [from Vyazemsky's house. — M.B.] to Bravura, where he was courteous to a sweet beauty, forgetting his heart, saddened by brutality and lack of enlightenment" ^{[77, pp. 275-276] [78, pp. 520-521]} (cf. Turgenev's letter to Vyazemsky dated March 19/31, 1838 ^{[77, pp. 223-224]}; positions the participants in the dispute are analyzed in detail in the work of G.S. Zobin ^[40]; Maria Bravura is a Moscow beauty, Italian by origin, was familiar with many writers of the Pushkin circle ^{[82, by decree]}).

Alexander Ivanovich's awareness of the surveillance of the III Department is also supported by references in letters to friends named after Nikolai Andreevich Kashintsov (Kashintsev, 1799-1870), once an amateur poet who served in the III Department as an official "to supervise periodicals [...] [in Moscow]" ^{[11] [45] [46] [74, p. 350 (approx. 49)]}. On October 8, 1842, Turgenev simultaneously sent letters to Prince P.A. Vyazemsky and Prince I.S. Gagarin, in which he told that Kashintsov had overheard his hour-and-a-half conversation with Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) ^{[24, p. 313] [61, p. 178]}.

Even earlier, in the midst of the "Chaadaev affair", on October 31, 1836, Kashintsov sent S.V. Perfiliev a secret report in which he outlined his suspicions about A.I. Turgenev and his hasty departure from Moscow shortly after P.Ya. Chaadaev was declared insane: "According to rumors, for the secret of the publication of Chaadaev's article, Philosophical letters are attributed a lot to his prompting, as if apart from Nadezhdin, especially Alex. Iv. Turgenev, who seemed to have already chickened out and from that, under the mask he always wore to hide false rules, he rode off to St. Petersburg" ^{[82, p. 533]} (italics source. — M.B.).

As V.A. Milchina and A.L. Ospovat write, "let's leave Turgenev's awareness of Kashintsov's "secret" story to guess, however, it was hardly worth worrying about his "slanderous tales [...]" ^{[51, pp. 167, 171 (approx. 60)]}.

Indeed, it is unknown whether Alexander Ivanovich knew about the document, which says about his involvement in the "telescope story". Let us only clarify that A.I. Turgenev left Moscow for St. Petersburg not at the end of October, but on November 21, 1836 and arrived in the capital on November 25, which is confirmed by diary entries and letters to A.Ya. Bulgakov ^{[51, p. 172] [75, p. 234] [76, p. 195]}.

Conclusion

Let's summarize the results. As a result of the analysis of the materials of the III Department on the surveillance of A.I. Turgenev in Moscow and Simbirsk, it can be said that the surveillance of him was not effective. Although the authorities were wary of every visit of the brother of a state criminal to Russia, and numerous "rumors and rumors" were regularly transmitted "by the authorities," there was no reason to take concrete measures against our hero. As can be seen from the predominance of brief neutral litters on documents, most often the information was only taken "into account" and filed "to the case" ^{[19, l. 10-15, 19-20, 22]}. Let's add that Alexander Ivanovich himself was well aware of the surveillance of himself.

This state of affairs can be explained, first of all, by the fact that in Moscow Alexander Turgenev did not behave provocatively, and his behavior in Simbirsk society, which sometimes attracted attention, was only recorded in gendarme reports, but in essence Turgenev "had nothing to blame."

Nevertheless, according to the documents of the III Department, Alexander Ivanovich's behavior was distinguished by several negative features: 1) adhering to "views contrary to the government", Turgenev could "sharply and freely" publicly object to the political course; 2) Alexander Ivanovich did not break ties with his Decembrist brother, transferred money from the sale of the estate to him, and also corresponded and met abroad; 3) Alexander Turgenev is an "ungrateful man": he "I am ready to slander the government," despite the fact that the emperor has assigned him a "fairly significant" salary.

Trying to explain the low effectiveness of monitoring Alexander Turgenev, it must be borne in mind that in the 1830s there was still no clear concept of "illegal activity": the reasons for the establishment of secret surveillance could be (as in the case of A.I. Turgenev) and close kinship with a state criminal, and careless conversations. Even a distant relationship with the Decembrists or communication with their relatives was considered suspicious.

Add to this the low quality of intelligence reports. In one of the memos of the chief of the II gendarmerie district (1832-1834), Lieutenant General S.I. Lesovsky (Lisovsky) Benckendorf, we read: "All these rumors and rumors are collected from the echoes of various judgments and conversations, for many of which it is impossible to make a thorough conclusion with confidence, and only time can reveal the truth of them" ^{[29, p. 270]} (cf. the reports of M.Ya. von Fock ^{[63, No. 10, pp. 309, 311]}). As we can see, on the one hand, the highest ranks of the "azure" department tried to absolve themselves of responsibility for the reliability of the information sent to the chief of gendarmes (it was difficult to quickly verify them), and on the other hand, they pointed out the impossibility of unambiguously determining what kind of "sedition" should be fought.

The reasons for this have already been noted in historiography: in the 1830s, the organization of supervision was still weak, the formation of the agent network of the III Department was still taking place; informants did not have not only professional skills in collecting information, but also instructions that would prescribe appropriate methods ^{[4, pp. 200-237, 343, 489] [10, pp. 132-141] [58, pp. 63-68] [65, pp. 130-142] [71, pp. 10-12] [86, pp. 137-140, 229-282]}.

In this regard, it is significant that the informants of the "supreme police" were such "unskilled personnel" as domestic servants or "supervised persons" or their relatives. Evidence of this is the words of Colonel N.P. Shubinsky that the servants in the house of A.I. Nefedieva observed the speeches and actions of A.I. Turgenev and informed the III Department about them. This information is supported by Alexander Ivanovich's diary entry about spying valets and an identical earlier remark by M.J. von Fock.

For A.H. Benckendorf, the significance of the information received was expressed in the fact that he knew when and from where Alexander Ivanovich came to the Mother See and when and where he left it (although this information was not always accurate), what addresses he lived at, what his daily business consisted of, who made up his circle of communication in Moscow and Simbirsk. The "reports" give partially or completely inaccurate information about the intra-family and property relations of the brothers A.I. and N.I. Turgenev, about their life abroad, as well as about Alexander Ivanovich's plans for the future.

When studying any of these subjects, A.I. Turgenev's biographer should be attentive and careful, checking information from gendarmerie papers with information from sources of personal origin, as well as from other office documents (for example, form lists). Unfortunately, rechecking the facts does not always help to "discover the truth of them."

We must also admit that we do not know how reliable the story of P.A. Vyazemsky, who opens our article, is; it is impossible to confirm or deny it: among the materials of the surveillance of A.I. Turgenev in Moscow, there are no "reporters" described by the memoirist. If they existed, then such hoaxing activity, of course, is a "unique case, but indicative" ^{[4, p. 203]}.

In general, information about the "Moscow" and "Simbirsk" stages of gendarmerie supervision of A.I. Turgenev is of interest both to Alexander Ivanovich's biographer, adding additional touches to the picture of our hero's daily life in Moscow and Simbirsk, and to a specialist in the history of the III Department, who will discover previously unknown details about the organization of the "supreme police" secret surveillance of cultural figures of Pushkin's time.

Thanks

We are deeply grateful to D.A. Tsygankov, who encouraged us to develop this topic, E.N. Mukhina for various invaluable assistance in working on the article and constant support, N.A. Khokhlova for a number of valuable comments and explanations, A.V. Latonova and K.A. Zhiltsov for their great help in deciphering pencil droppings, useful tips, important comments (including on the bibliography) and constant friendly support, as well as V.A. Milchina, E.O. Larionova and A.P. Savchuk for their great interest in the topic, constant diverse assistance and constant participation.