In the annals of the centuries - old friendship between the Russian and Moldovan peoples, a special place belongs to Dmitry Cantemir, an encyclopedic scholar, public and political figure of the Moldavian Principality and the Russian Empire, whose 300th birthday is celebrated this year. D. Cantemir played a great role in the development of Moldovan culture in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, and in strengthening fraternal Russian-Moldovan relations. The study of its rich heritage is of great interest for a correct understanding of the development of the philosophical, socio-political and scientific thought of Moldova at that time. D. Cantemir's attention to the history of Russia, as well as his state activities as an ally and associate of Peter I, reveal the true nature of Russian-Moldovan relations in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, which were repeatedly falsified in bourgeois historiography.

Dmitry Cantemir was born on October 26, 1673 in the village of Silishte, Falciu county, in the family of the future ruler of Moldova, Constantin Cantemir. In one of his earliest writings, he wrote that his father was descended from people of "simple, low rank" ¹ . D. Kantemir's mother, Anna Bantysh, belonged to an old family of minor boyars .

D. Cantemir received an excellent education for his time. His father, the lord of Moldavia (1685-1693), who, in all likelihood, had to hear the reproaches of the big boyars more than once because "he did not know letters and only learned to sign"³ , showed great concern for the education of children. As a home teacher of his sons, he invited the Greek Jeremiah Kakavela, under whose supervision Dmitry studied history, theology, classical, as well as Slavic and Moldavian languages. The development of abilities, as well as the desire for knowledge of young Cantemir, was also promoted by the atmosphere that reigned in the Gospodar palace. Many nearby boyars (for example, the brothers Miron and Velichko Kostin, Y. Ruset, K. Gavrilita, Khurmuzaki, etc.) were educated people and fought for the enlightenment of the country.

Since 1688, the period of D. Cantemir's long stay in Constantinople begins, where he stayed intermittently for 22 years-first as a hostage of his father (Moldavia was in vassalage to the Ottoman Empire), then as a representative of his older brother Antiochus during his first reign in Moldavia (1695-1700).

¹ Village of Kantemir. The history of hieroglyphics. Chisinau. 1957, p. 400.

² Anna Bantysh's relatives moved to Russia together with D. Kantemir in 1711 and laid the foundation for the Bantysh-Kamensky family, whose representatives became prominent scientists and statesmen in Russia (see A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky. Russkaya rodoslovnaya kniga [Russian Genealogical Book], Vol. I. SPB. 1895, pp. 31-34).

³ I. Nekulche. Letopisetsul Tserii Moldovei. Chisinau. 1969, p. 136.

page 34

While in Constantinople, D. Cantemir initially devotes himself entirely to teaching. He attends the Patriarchal School , the only higher education institution for Orthodox Christians in the Turkish capital. Subsequently, D. Cantemir in his" History of the Growth and Decline of the Ottoman Empire " spoke very flatteringly about the teachers of the Patriarchal School. Here he became familiar with ancient culture (history, philosophy, literature, ancient languages), acquired knowledge in the field of natural science and art, and studied theology.

Despite the fact that the Patriarchal School had many Italian university graduates among its teachers, it still remained a closed religious educational institution. Many of its teachers and graduates were theologians. All this, of course, could not but affect the worldview of the young Cantemir. Anti-Turkish sentiments prevailed among the teachers and pupils of the school (who came from countries enslaved by the Ottoman Empire), which also had a great influence on the formation of Kantemir's political views.

During his stay in Constantinople, the inquisitive prince very diligently studied the culture of the Eastern peoples. He mastered Turkish, Arabic and Persian, which helped him become one of the most famous orientalists of his time. Cantemir maintained an acquaintance with Turkish scientists and statesmen. The doors of foreign embassies were also opened to him, thanks to which he was able to join the Western European culture. Contacts with educated people and political figures in Istanbul gave Cantemir the opportunity to understand political life, gain experience, and navigate the international politics of that time. He showed a special interest in history. While in Constantinople, the young scholar collected epigraphic sources, rare books, manuscripts, studied Byzantine, Arabic and Turkish chronicles, explored the ruins of old palaces, and collected materials on the history of the Ottoman Empire.

After the death of his father (1693), D. Cantemir became involved in the political struggle that unfolded in Moldova. He closely followed its internal life, maintaining constant contacts with many people from Moldova; he was well aware of the events taking place there. In the political struggle with the big boyars and supporters of the Wallachian ruler K. Brankovanu, D. Cantemir twice sought the throne for his elder brother Antioch (1695-1700 and 1705-1707). Studying the past of his homeland from the chronicles of G. Ureke and M. Kostin, he became more and more imbued with the idea of its liberation. After seeing how low the morale and combat effectiveness of the Turkish army had fallen, observing the defeats it suffered in the last quarter of the 17th century, and the corruption of the state apparatus, Cantemir came to believe that the Ottoman Empire had entered a period of steady decline.

At the same time, he noted the growing economic and military-political power of Russia and came to the conclusion that his homeland, like other Balkan countries enslaved by Turkey, could gain national independence only with the help of the Russians. He fully shared the aspirations of the Balkan peoples who gravitated towards Russia. "Then all Christians with hope and joy put their trust in the Muscovites" (that is, in the Russians - P. L.), - noted a contemporary and colleague of Cantemir, Hetman of the Moldavian troops, chronicler I. Not much better. Nicholas Mavrovkordat, Cantemir's rival in the struggle for the Moldavian throne, was also forced to recognize the Moldavians ' attraction to Russia, and told the Grand Vizier that upon his arrival in Moldavia, he "found more than half of the boyars surrendered to the Muscovites and imprisoned them" ⁴ . Subsequent events indicate that Cantemir became a staunch fighter for Moldova's rapprochement with the EU.

⁴ Ibid., pp. 235, 237.

page 35

Russia. While in the Turkish capital, he established secret ties with the Russian ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, P. A. Tolstoy, thereby laying the foundations for a future military-political alliance with Russia, concluded after D. Cantemir ascended to the Moldavian throne. He recalled this in a letter addressed to Peter I in September 1721: "While in Constantinople, I did not break the loyalty I promised to the most excellent Mr. Peter Andreevich Tolstoy... But when I arrived in Moldavia, before and after the coming of your Majesty to our land, I kept the same faithfulness... " ⁵

In November 1710, Sultan Ahmed III, after declaring war on Russia, on the advice of the Crimean khan, in a hurry, without the ceremonies and monetary contributions accepted in such cases, appointed D. Cantemir as the ruler of Moldavia. It seemed to the Sultan that Cantemir was a man capable of protecting the interests of the Ottoman Empire in Moldavia. When D. Cantemir became Gospodar in December 1710, he helped P. A. Tolstoy (imprisoned in the Seven-Tower Castle) to conduct secret correspondence with the Russian government through his lawyer in Constantinople, the "very resourceful" Greek Yano ⁶. "Such loyalty and service," a contemporary noted, "won Dumitrashko-voda (D. Cantemir - P. L.) the great honor and love of Peter Alekseevich, the Moscow Emperor, because no one else dared to render such services, since the ambassador was under strict protection." ⁷

Linking the future of Moldavia with Russia and taking into account the hatred of the Moldavian people for the enslavers and their sympathy for the Russian people, D. Cantemir, after secret negotiations, concluded a military - political agreement with Peter I in Lutsk on April 13, 1711, known as the "Diploma and Points" ⁸ . According to the treaty, Moldova retained its state independence under the auspices of Russia, which was obliged to protect it from foreign invasions. In turn, Cantemir swore allegiance to Peter I and pledged to unite his troops with the Russian army in a joint struggle against the Turkish sultan. The implementation of the treaty could put an end to the destructive Turkish and Tatar raids on Moldavia. In addition, it would cease to be the scene of devastating wars between the Ottoman Empire and Poland. Of great importance was the eighth article of the treaty, which stipulated that the lord "would not have any deduction or damage in all the revenues of this principality." ⁹ This meant that Moldavia was getting rid of the heavy tribute it paid to the Ottoman Porte.

The content of the treaty was in the interests of the broad strata of the Moldovan population ^.10 Its implementation would have freed the country 100 years earlier than it actually did, from the Turkish yoke, and would have contributed to its economic, socio-political, and cultural development. It is known that the welfare of the Ottoman Empire was based on the plunder of the peoples under its control. As the founders of scientific socialism rightly pointed out, the presence of Turks in Europe was a serious obstacle to the development of the resources that the Balkan Peninsula possesses. ¹¹ Russia, which entered the path of eco at the beginning of the XVIII century-

⁵ P. P. Pekarsky. Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petre Velikom [Science and Literature in Russia under Peter the Great]. Vol. I. SPB. 1862, pp. 374-375.

⁶ I. Nekulche. Op. ed., p. 237. After it became known in Constantinople that Cantemir had defected to Russia, Yano was arrested and beheaded. Not much better. Op. ed., pp. 247, 286).

⁷ Ibid., p. 238.

⁸ "Letters and Papers of Emperor Peter the Great", Vol. XI, issue I. M. 1962, pp. 173-177 (hereinafter - " Letters and Papers...").

⁹ Ibid., p. 175.

¹⁰ This thesis is convincingly revealed in Soviet historiography. See, for example, N. A. Mokhov. Moldavia of the feudal era. Chisinau. 1964.

¹¹ See K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 9, p. 6.

page 36

It was a state of economic and political transformation that was more advanced than the backward Ottoman Empire. In addition, "Russian aid was the only refuge from Turkish oppression." ¹² By signing the treaty with Peter I, Cantemir followed the long-established tradition of Moldavian-Russian allied relations, which were championed by Gospodars Stefan III, Peter Rares, George Stefan and Russian sovereigns: Grand Duke Ivan III and Tsars Ivan IV and Alexey Mikhailovich. An analysis of the content of the Russian-Moldavian treatise of 1711 shows the inconsistency of the claims of nationalist bourgeois historiography that, by concluding an alliance treaty with Russia, Cantemir did not take into account the highest state interests of Moldova for personal gain, that his alliance with Peter personifies the relationship between the ruler and the slave, that tsarism thereby gained the opportunity to interfere in internal Moldovan affairs and that the gospodar's political shortsightedness led him to swear an oath and betray the sultan.

In June 1711, in pursuance of the treaty concluded, the Russian army entered Moldavian territory for the first time.D. Cantemir saw his dream almost come true. He was the first Moldavian ruler to raise the banner of the struggle for the liberation of the motherland in alliance with Russian troops. When on June 1, a detachment under the command of Brigadier Kropotov arrived in Iasi (the detachment included the Moldovan volunteer regiment of A. Kigech), D. Cantemir openly declared his transfer to the Russian side. He addressed the population of Moldavia with a manifesto, in which, after listing the misfortunes and troubles brought to the people by the Turkish conquerors, he declared that Peter I had started the war to free the Christian peoples from Turkish slavery, and called on the inhabitants of Moldavia to unite with the Russians and go to the Danube to resist the Turks. The appeal of the gospodar found a wide response among the Moldavian population. I. Nekulche reports that " employees began to come from all sides and enroll in banners. And... not only employees began to enroll, but also shoemakers, tailors, furriers, shopkeepers. Household boyars left their masters and hurried to write in the banners " ¹³ .

The Moldovan people welcomed the Russian army as a liberator, expressing their desire to fight together with the Russian troops against the Turkish enslavers. One report from a Russian army officer to Peter I stated: "The Volokhs are constantly coming to us with great goodwill and desire, and the last peasants want to serve." ¹⁴ When the troops of Field Marshal B. P. Sheremetyev crossed the Dniester, local residents provided them with various services. "They rejoiced at our arrival," Major - General Weisbach wrote to A.D. Menshikov in September 1711 ^.15 On the army's way to Iasi, "the Orhei people, Sorochans, and Lapushnians rose up and went with him (B. P. Sheremetyev - P. L.) to the crossing of the Prut River." ¹⁶ All this testified to the fact that D. Cantemir's alliance with Russia found a positive response among the broad strata of the Moldovan people.

Peter I highly appreciated the transition of D. Kantemir to his side, notifying Russian statesmen about this. Expressing his personal gratitude for the decisive step taken by the Moldavian ruler, Peter I wrote to D. Cantemir on June 16, 1711: "... we were pleased with this statement, that your courtesy... I have fulfilled the promise that you made to us under the contract you signed, and I have added myself, my weapons, and my troops to it. We truly acknowledge this with a pleasant heart,

¹² Ibid., p. 32.

¹³ I. Nekulche. Op. ed., p. 249.

¹⁴ See "History of the Moldavian SSR", Vol. I. Kishinev. 1965, p. 309.

¹⁵ "Collection of military-historical materials", St. Petersburg, 1898, Issue 12, N 52, p. 277.

¹⁶ I. Nekulche. Decree op., p. 247.

page 37

and not only do we recognize this in any case as a matter of fact, but we will also remain in this, that your kindness will not deprive you of hope... but you will receive the fruit and benefit that you expect with your offspring and have with all your land. " ¹⁷ On June 24, Peter I arrived in Iasi. I. Nekulche, who was present at the reception given by D. Kantemir in honor of Peter I and his entourage, reports that the tsar paternally embraced the gospodar and kissed him "like a father to his son." ¹⁸ On June 30, Peter wrote to A.D. Menshikov that in Iasi "we are very much welcome from the gospodar of Volos and the rest of this land"¹⁹ was arranged. D. Cantemir made an impression on Peter I of a capable statesman. "This sovereign is a man of great intelligence and ability in the councils," the tsar wrote in his journal ²⁰ .

During the Battle of Stanilesti, D. Cantemir commanded the Moldovan troops and personally took part in the battle. Brigadier A. A. Yakovlev, a participant in the campaign, notes in his notes that at the moment when the Turkish troops "made a most severe attack "on General Janus's units," Prince Cantemir was sent to him for securs (to help) with Moldavians, with the help of which he (Janus) the enemy cavalry, consisting of 60 thousand. a man who, after holding on for three whole hours and driving them away, arrived safely at the camp at Stanilesti. " ²¹ During the peace negotiations between the Turkish and Russian commanders at Stanilesti, the first condition that the vizier put forward was the surrender of the Moldavian gospodar to the Sultan. Peter I strongly rejected this harassment. "I would rather cede to the Turks all the lands as far as Kursk," he said, " for there is still hope of reconquering them, than give up a prince who has sacrificed all his possessions for me. Lost weapons, weapons are returned, but the violation of this word is irrevocable. To depart from honor is the same as not being a sovereign. " ²²

After the failure of the Prut campaign of Peter I, D. Cantemir, accompanied by more than 4 thousand Moldovans, ²³ went to Russia, finding a second homeland in it. Bourgeois authors, as a rule, presented his position in Russia in a perverse way, claiming that, depressed by family concerns, the former Moldavian ruler led a closed, secluded lifestyle, was cut off from the political and cultural life of the country. Most nationalist bourgeois authors were silent about the beneficial influence of advanced Russian culture on the formation of D. Kantemir's worldview, and denied the influence of Peter's reforms on his socio-political and, to a large extent, philosophical views ^.24 And this was said about a man who showed great interest in Russia, held high state posts in it, and actively participated in its political life. "It was the conditions of Russia of the greatest transformations of the Petrine era that had a decisive impact on his work, giving it the appropriate orientation and purposefulness... The close interweaving of the scientific needs of Peter's Russia, the political passions that overwhelmed Kantemir and the plans he hatched aroused his thoughts, fueled his creativity.-

¹⁷ " Letters and papers...", Vol. XI, issue I, p. 292.

¹⁸ and. Not much better. Op. ed., p. 253.

¹⁹ " Letters and papers...", Vol. XI, issue I, p. 305.

²⁰ "The Marching Journal of Peter I, 1711", St. Petersburg, 1854, p. 49.

²¹ Extract from the journal of Alexander Andreyanovich Yakovlev, who was under the Emperor Peter the Great during the Battle of the Prut in 1711 "Otechestvennye Zapiski", 1824, part 19, N 51-53, pp. 18-19.

²² D. N. Bantysh-Kamensky. Dictionary of Memorable People of the Russian Land, Part III, Moscow, 1836, p. 38.

²³ T. Z. Beer. The story of the life and deeds of the Moldavian Gospodar Constantin Cantemir. Moscow, 1783, p. 364; P. P. Pekarsky. Edict. soch. Vol. I, pp. 570-571.

²⁴ See V. Ermuratsky. Social and political views of Dmitry Kantemir. Chisinau. 1956, p. 8.

page 38

They were inspired to create fundamental works that have not lost their scientific and cognitive significance to this day. " ²⁵

D. Cantemir knew the Slavic language, in which books were written and printed in Moldova at that time. In his work "The Life of Konstantin Kantemir", he recalls that during the long winter nights he translated church books from Slavic into the language of the country to his elderly father. His knowledge of the Slavic language allowed him to later study the original Russian chronicles, which he mentions in his "Chronicle of Old Times". As a member of the Senate and adviser to Peter the Great, D. Kantemir was undoubtedly fluent in Russian, communicating daily with Russian cultural and political figures.: "Prince Dmitry was a clever man... he spoke Turkish and Moldavian, knew a fair amount of French, and left behind several works in Latin, Greek, Moldavian, and Russian. " ²⁶

Bourgeois nationalist historians also denied the influence of Russian culture on the work of D. Kantemir, for which they distorted the picture of Russian reality at the beginning of the XVIII century. They, for example, believed that D. Cantemir, having moved to Russia, fell into a backward, uncultured environment, that Russia at the time of Peter I was at a lower level of cultural development than Moldova. According to them, it was a vast desert, where the highly educated Cantemir had no one to exchange even one idea with. These historians tried in every possible way to contrast Peter I and D. Cantemir, and they sinned against the truth even when they claimed that the Russian public was hostile to the Moldavian thinker, and called his position in Russia suffering.

In fact, D. Cantemir and the Moldovans who accompanied him were surrounded by the attention and care of Peter I and his entourage. Upon arrival in Mogilev in early August 1711. Peter I issued a special decree, the first paragraph of which read:: "His holy Royal Majesty deigns to grant his Prince Kantemir, the boyars and other officers and volokhs who are now with him, to have in his favor and to maintain the title of the Most serene Prince of Russia to Prince Dmitry and his heirs." Six points of the decree provided for the allocation of land and houses to Moldovans who arrived in Russia in the Kharkiv governorate ^.27 Chancellor G. I. Golovkin, in a letter dated August 5, ordered the Kiev Governor D. M. Golitsyn to "accept and treat him (Kantemir - P. L.) lovingly" ²⁸ . In September 1711, while abroad, the tsar ordered the Senate to find a house in Moscow for Kantemir "according to his dignity", since he "has the right to live by his surname in our state" ²⁹ . Kantemir received an estate with 1,000 serfs ' yards in the Orel province, and was awarded a high state pension of 6 thousand rubles ^a year30 . D. Cantemir constantly corresponded with the tsar and other statesmen of Russia, always meeting with their understanding and goodwill.

At the beginning of the XVIII century, a whole galaxy of talented, progressive thinkers, representatives of the "scientific squad" emerged in Russia: F. Prokopovich, V. N. Tatishchev, A.M. Cherkassky, I. Yu. Trubetskoy, P. A. Tolstoy, etc. They were highly educated people for their time, who knew classical and many modern foreign languages,

^25th anniversary Russev. Slavic contribution to the Old Moldavian culture. "Kodry", 1971, N 8, p. 146.

²⁶ V. G. Belinsky. Poly. Collected works, vol. VIII, Moscow, 1955, p. 616.

²⁷ "The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire", vol. IV. SBP. 1830, pp. 725-726.

²⁸ T. Z. Beer. Op. ed., p. 364, note "b".

²⁹ " Letters and papers...", vol. XI, vol. 2. Moscow, 1964, p. 154.

³⁰ I. I. Golikov. Acts of Peter the Great, vol. V. Moscow, 1838, pp. 124, 362.

page 39

They were familiar with Western European rationalist philosophy, with the heliocentric theory of Copernicus and Galileo, who opposed ignorance and advocated a more secular nature of education, and defended the ideas of" enlightened " absolutism. In their person D. Cantemir found friends and associates. He knew Prokopovich and V. N. Tatishchev from the time of the Prut campaign, in which they took part. The Moldavian scientist knew the works of Fr. Prokopovich and polemicized with him on issues of education and religion ³¹ . Cantemir knew the Russian diplomat P. A. Tolstoy from the time of his stay in Constantinople. Among the educated people close to D. Cantemir was" one of the best students of the Slavic - Latin Academy " I. Ilinsky, ³² who was invited by the Moldovan scientist as a mentor of his children in the Russian language. In addition, I. Ilinsky was D. Kantemir's personal secretary, and kept a diary reflecting his patron's state activities and achievements in Russia ^.33 D. Kantemir had warm relations with the Cabinet Secretary of Peter I, A. V. Makarov, and especially with the Chancellor, G. I. Golovkin, with whom he shared common intellectual interests ^.34

D. Kantemir's communication with leading thinkers and political figures in Russia, the situation of active economic construction and reforms carried out in Russia at that time, had a positive impact on the development of his scientific worldview, his philosophical and socio-political views. During his stay in Russia, D. Kantemir became known as a scientist in Western Europe. In St. Petersburg, he established contact with German scientists invited to Russia, and on their recommendation, on July 11, 1714, he was elected a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences.

The years of his life in Russia were very fruitful for D. Kantemir. Here he wrote most of his works, including such fundamental historical works as "History of the Growth and Decline of the Ottoman Empire", "Historical and Geographical Description of Moldavia", as well as "Chronicle of the ancient Romano-Moldo-Vlachs". While in Constantinople D. Cantemir was primarily interested in philosophical and religious subjects, in Russia he was mainly engaged in history. The works written here are performed at a higher level, are distinguished by their documentation and more mature scientific concepts, as well as a pronounced political commitment. Unlike the works written in Constantinople and intended for a narrow circle of people close to the author, the works created in Russia were addressed not only to compatriots, but also to the educated people of Russia and Western Europe, and pursued far-reaching political goals.

All Kantemir's works written in Russia are imbued with attention to the country that has become the author's second homeland. In the "Description of Moldavia" he uses socio-political comparisons of Moldavia and Russia, in the "History of the Ottoman Empire" and "Chronicle of Antiquity" the victories of Russian weapons in the Northern War are mentioned; "The Book of Sistim or the state of the Mohammedan religion" was written at the request of Peter I in connection with the Persian campaign; the unpublished work "Preeminent places in the Catechism" reflected the problems that arose in Russia in connection with the church reform of Peter I. All this indicates that the Russian reality of the first quarter of the XVIII century had a strong influence on the formation of D. Kantemir as a scientist.

³¹ and. Izvekov. One of the little-known literary opponents of Feofan Prokopovich. Zarya, 1870, August, ed. II, pp. 1-35.

³² "History of the USSR Academy of Sciences", Vol. I. M.-L. 1958, p. 119.

³³ D. N. Bantysh-Kamensky. Edict. op. Ch. II. Moscow, 1836, p. 430.

³⁴ See Prince Dmitry's letter. Kantemir to Count Gavril Golovkin. "Reading in the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities", Book Three, Moscow, 1909, pp. 25-27.

page 40

D. Cantemir's life in Russia was very multifaceted, not much like the behavior of a desk scientist, as the Romanian bourgeois historiography tried to present him. He traveled extensively in the European part of the country, studying the history and language of its peoples. Having married in early 1720 Princess A. Trubetskoy, daughter of General I. Y. Trubetskoy, D. Cantemir became even closer to the highest spheres of Russian society ^.35 He was often visited by Peter I, Prince A.D. Menshikov, Chancellor G. I. Golovkin, Prosecutor-General P. I. Yaguzhinsky, Admiral F. M. Apraksin, P. A. Tolstoy, V. N. Tatishchev, Major-General F. I. Yaguzhinsky. Cantacuzino and other statesmen with whom he has established friendly relations ³⁶ .

D. Cantemir himself became a prominent statesman of Russia and took an active part in the implementation of its domestic and foreign policy. By decree of February 20, 1721, he was appointed Privy Councilor and member of the Senate . ³⁷ Cantemir actively participated in the work of this supreme government institution; his signatures are on many Senate decrees concerning important military and civil affairs ^.38 He corresponded extensively with various statesmen ^.39 During the Persian campaign, D. Cantemir, as a connoisseur of Oriental languages, not only headed the royal chancellery, but also took part in the work of the military council, where the upcoming military actions were discussed , ⁴⁰ conducted scientific observations. The fact that D. Kantemir was considered one of the most likely candidates for the post of president of the future Russian Academy of Sciences is an indication of how highly appreciated he was in Russian scientific circles ^.41 These data eloquently indicate that D. Cantemir organically got used to Russia, became its prominent figure.

Occupying a very high position in his second homeland, D. Cantemir did not forget, however, the long-suffering Moldavia, and maintained constant contact with its political figures, who turned to Russia for help through his mediation. He closely followed the events of international life, received information from Constantinople about the state of affairs in Turkey through trusted persons. As mentioned above, while in Russia, D. Kantemir did not stop his scientific research. He writes "The Book of Sistima or the State of the Mohammedan Religion", develops his "Chronicle of Antiquity" in Moldovan, and collects materials for its second part. During the Persian campaign, D. Cantemir studies the nature and way of life of the peoples of the Volga region ⁴² . Upon his arrival in the Caucasus, he undertook a series of geographical, ethnographic, historical and archaeological studies, intending to write a history of Dagestan ^.43

Thus, D. Cantemir found in Russia a favorable cultural environment that corresponded to his socio-political views, spiritual needs and contributed to his further growth as a scientist, statesman and public figure. To his second homeland, which he served faithfully, D. Cantemir prophesied a leading me-

³⁵ "Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society", vol. 40, St. Petersburg, 1884, pp. 337-338; vol. 41, St. Petersburg, 1884, p. 176.

³⁶ "Ivan Ilinsky's Journal". "Collection of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences", vol. 72, St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 296-303.

³⁷ N. A. Voskresensky. Legislative Acts of Peter I. T. I. M.-L. 1945, p. 239.

³⁸ "The Journal of Ivan Ilinsky", pp. 296-303; N. A. Voskresensky. Edict op., p. 155, 173, 176 - 177, 240 - 241, 242.

³⁹ "The Journal of Ivan Ilinsky", pp. 306-311.

⁴⁰ "The Marching Journal of Peter I, 1722", St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 52 - 53, 141, 147 - 148.

⁴¹ "History of the USSR Academy of Sciences", Vol. I, p. 36.

⁴² N. N. Novikov. Selected Works, Moscow: L. 1951, p. 305.

⁴³ D. Trunov. Light from Russia. Makhachkala. 1956, pp. 29-30.

page 41

srt in the development of world civilization. "The times are approaching," he wrote, "when the mother of science will come (to Russia - P. L.) and greater things will shine forth than in the three preceding monarchies." ⁴⁴

D. Cantemir was an encyclopedic educated man. He left a rich legacy reflecting the diversity of his research interests. He created works on history, philosophy, geography, logic, and music. He began his scientific career in Constantinople. Here were created his first works " The Divan or dispute of the sage with the world or the dispute of the soul with the body "(published in Iasi in 1698 in Greek and Moldavian) and " The Indescribable Image of Science "(1700, in Latin), written in the spirit of Orthodox theology and ancient philosophy, especially stoic. However, they already contain elements of rationalism and social criticism. Having accepted the biblical legend about the creation of the world and the structure of the cosmos, in the "Indescribable Image of Science" D. Cantemir makes an attempt to explain some natural phenomena from the standpoint of natural sciences, expressing deistic ideas. In 1701, he wrote in Latin "Universal Abbreviated Logic", which is a short textbook, in which, unlike his previous works, he recognizes the role of reason in the process of cognition, emphasizes the importance of logic in the process of acquiring knowledge. In the same years, he wrote a treatise on Turkish music in Turkish and created sheet music for it. It should be mentioned that he himself was a good performer and later, while in Moscow, invented a musical instrument ⁴⁵ .

Among the works of the Constantinople period, the most important is the "Hieroglyphic History", created by D. Cantemir in 1704-1705 in the Moldavian language. It contains a detailed account of the power struggle between the boyar groups of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1703-1705. This work reveals the struggle of the Cantemirs against the Multan ruler K. Brancovanu, who interfered in the affairs of Moldavia. But Cantemir does not limit himself to describing this struggle, "but tries to present a broad picture of the political and social life of Moldavia and Muntenia at the beginning of the XVIII century." ⁴⁶ The value of this work also lies in the fact that it reflects the evolution of the worldview of D. Kantemir, who expressed here progressive socio-political ideas for that time. Of great importance is also the development of his philosophical ideas in the direction of deism and rationalism, as well as elements of spontaneous materialism. D. Cantemir's allegorical "Hieroglyphic History" laid the foundations of the Moldovan novel.

D. Kantemir wrote most of his works, including fundamental historical works, during his 12-year stay in Russia. In 1714, having visited St. Petersburg at the invitation of Peter I, Cantemir addressed to him two small works - "Panegyric" and "Discourse on the Nature of the Monarchy", in which the idea of Russia's liberation mission in the Balkans was expressed. In 1715-1716, he created a "Description of Moldavia", equipped with a geographical map. In this work, D. Cantemir described the climatic conditions and natural resources of the region, its economic, socio-political, administrative and cultural situation at the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries. The "description" is imbued with fervent patriotism and hatred of the Turkish enslavers. It has been translated into many European languages, including Russian.

European fame was brought to D. Cantemir by his work "History of the growth and Decline of the Ottoman Empire", written in 1714-1716.

⁴⁴ Village of Kantemir. Monarchies are fisical reasoning. Manuscript of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Leningrad, N I, 5-28, l. 27.

⁴⁵ D. Kantemir. The Book of Sistima or the state of the Muhammadan religion. St. Petersburg, 1722, p. 354.

⁴⁶ "The History of Moldovenesti Literature", Vol. I. Chisinau. 1958, p. 91.

page 42

translated into many languages. The monograph has been the main source of information about Turkey for a century. It was used by Voltaire, Byron, and Hugo. The "History of the Ottoman Empire" also contains information on the political history of Moldavia, the liberation war of the Ukrainian people in the mid-17th century, and Russian-Turkish relations in the 17th and early 18th centuries. At the same time, the Life of Constantin Cantemir, a work dedicated by D. Cantemir to his father, was created in Latin. It contains many facts about the family life of this hospodar, including the situation of D. Cantemir in Constantinople.

In 1717, D. Cantemir wrote in Latin the Chronicle of the Ancient Romano-Moldo-Vlachs, which was later translated into Moldavian with significant additions. It covers the history of the Danubian Principalities from the earliest times to the 13th century. The author tried to find out the origin of the Eastern Romanesque people. Having decided to consider the history of the Moldavian people as part of the world history, he also pays attention to neighboring countries and peoples, in particular the ancient Slavs. He considered it a special honor and duty to write about the Old Russian state in the Chronicle of Antiquity, to which he devoted a separate chapter. According to the number of sources used and their interpretation, this work gives the most complete picture of D. Kantemir as a historian, about the method of his scientific research.

In the work created in 1720, "Preeminent Passages in the Catechism" (in Latin), D. Cantemir polemicized on some religious problems that worried Russia during Peter's reforms, and also expressed a number of progressive thoughts on the education of adolescents. In December 1722, the aforementioned extensive work of D. Cantemir on the Muslim world, written by the author in Latin ("The Book of Sistim or the State of the Mohammedan Religion"), was published in Russian.

In his numerous works, D. Cantemir touched upon various philosophical problems. Although he was generally idealistic, he also expressed a number of progressive ideas that showed that he also had elements of spontaneous materialism. D. Cantemir recognized the objectivity of the world, raised the question of causality and regularity, about movement, about changes in nature and society, expressed confidence in the power of the human mind. In the "Divan or dispute of a wise man with the world", he wrote about a person that God did not set him up as a slave, but as the ruler of the world, and therefore he should rule over the world. In the field of epistemology, D. Cantemir repeatedly emphasized the role of sensations and experience. "All science," he said, "proceeds from the guidance of the senses; everyone knows that it is not the blind, but the sighted, who judges colors, and the hearing, and not the deaf, who listens to the beauty and sweetness of melodies." ⁴⁷ Attaching importance to practice in the process of cognition, the thinker noted: "The experience and testing of an object can be more reliable than all the calculations of the mind." ⁴⁸

The most advanced ideas for their time are contained in the socio - political views of D. Kantemir. As a supporter of strengthening the central government, he severely condemned the seditious boyars, castigated the moral corruption of the representatives of the oligarchy of Moldavia and Wallachia, their narrow class interests, greed, treachery, ignorance, political shortsightedness, embezzlement and arbitrariness. In his Hieroglyphic History, the great boyars are deliberately depicted as predatory animals and birds, inflicting "incurable wounds" and rejoicing in "innocent bloodshed." ⁴⁹ Exposing the ignorance of the boyars, domogav-

⁴⁷ Cantemir village. History of hieroglyphics, p. 38.

⁴⁸ Ibid., p. 52.

⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 30.

page 43

for those who hold the highest state positions and use their nobility and family connections for this purpose, he wrote: "You can hardly imagine what freaks sometimes reach the highest ranks." Such people "are not only completely ignorant in the administration of state affairs, but also without good morals and decent behavior." ⁵⁰ The pillars of the boyar oligarchy, according to Kantemir, are devoid of a sense of patriotism. He saw the reason for the establishment of the Turkish yoke in Moldavia in the enmity that tore apart various groups of the ruling class. He castigated the arrogance of the great boyars, who believed that human dignity is determined by noble origin ^.51 The negative attitude towards the big boyars was dictated by the fact that it was the main obstacle to the establishment of absolute power, which D. Kantemir was a supporter of.

Unlike many contemporary historians, he also paid some attention to the masses of the people in his writings. In the face of the peasants, he saw first of all producers of material goods. In the Hieroglyphic History, peasants are allegorically depicted as bees, whose labor creates the "common heritage" ⁵² . A humanist by education and upbringing, D. Kantemir sympathized with the peasants, spoke out against their excessive exploitation, the arbitrariness of the boyars and state power in relation to them. He considered the enslavement of the" free peasants "to be" unjust", ⁵³ because he saw in them a force that could support him in the struggle both against foreign enslavers and partly against the boyar oligarchy to strengthen the central power ^.54

However, it would be wrong to think that, while condemning the big boyars and sympathizing with the peasants, D. Cantemir was an opponent of the feudal system as such. He considered the division of people, on the one hand, into "sovereigns and senators, dignitaries and administrators", and on the other - into "ploughmen and millers, gatekeepers and housekeepers"⁵⁵ natural, reasonable and fair, that is, he justified social inequality with all its consequences. D. Cantemir did not demand the release of serfs. Moreover, he believed that the masses of the people were incapable of political activity; attracting a wide range of people to run the state would, in his opinion, only bring harm. "In the mouths of many," he wrote, "there is little practical advice"; he compared the will of the common people to "the running of an untrained and unbridled horse." ⁵⁶ D. Kantemir's sympathies were on the side of small and medium-sized feudal lords, in whom he saw the main support of a strong state power.

D. Cantemir was a supporter of the absolute hereditary monarchy, which in those historical conditions was " a progressive element... she was a representative of order in disorder. " ⁵⁷ The power of the monarch, according to D. Cantemir, is natural and necessary. "Just as many limbs need one head," he wrote, "so many crowds need a sound mind." ⁵⁸ D. Cantemir associated the fate of peoples and states with the moral qualities of the sovereigns who headed them. In establishing the absolute power of an enlightened monarch, he saw the way to preserve independence and achieve the greatest possible success.

⁵⁰ d. Kantemir. Istoricheskoe I geograficheskoe opisanie Moldavii [Historical and Geographical Description of Moldova], Moscow, 1783, p. 295.

⁵¹ D. Kantemir. History of hieroglyphics, p. 59.

⁵² Ibid., p. 164.

⁵³ Village of Kantemir. Discrierea Moldovei. Chisinau. 1957, pp. 170, 162.

⁵⁴ V. Ermuratsky. Op. ed., p. 66.

⁵⁵ Kantemir village. History of hieroglyphics, p. 66.

⁵⁶ Ibid., p. 102.

⁵⁷ K. Marx and F. Engels, Op. 21, p. 411.

⁵⁸ Kantemir village. History of hieroglyphics, p. 158.

page 44

the power of the country. He illustrated this idea with examples from the history of the Roman and Byzantine Empires, Moldavia during the reign of Stephen the Great, and other countries. A clear example of the effectiveness of a strong central government was Russia in the time of Peter I, in whose person he saw the ideal of an absolute enlightened monarch ^.59 After becoming the ruler of Moldavia, Cantemir sought to put his political ideas into practice, as the content of the Treaty of Lutsk of 1711 eloquently testifies.

D. Cantemir tirelessly fought with sword and pen for the liberation of his homeland, whose interests he put above all else. He noted in his "Chronicle of Old Times" that "for the defense of the fatherland, one should work no less and sweat no less than in one's own interests, because the struggle for the motherland is considered more honorable." D. Cantemir considered the struggle for the liberation of the motherland a sacred duty. "To die with honor for the sake of freedom and the motherland," he said, "is much more useful and praiseworthy than to live long and dishonorably." ⁶⁰ He saw his duty as a historian in glorifying the heroic past of Moldova, in educating its people on examples of former greatness, courage and sacrifice in the name of high ideals. He repeatedly recalled the feats performed by Moldovans in the struggle against Turkish and other conquerors. "How many times and how many Mahomets, how many Bayazites, and how many Murats, "he proudly wrote in the Chronicle of Old Times," were defeated on the Moldavian fields (the Moldavian people - P. L.) and a thousand thousand Turks were swallowed up by the waves of the Danube, Siret, Byrlad and Dniester."

Striving to awaken the Moldovan people's sense of national dignity, D. Cantemir, being a sober politician, at the same time clearly realized that his country could not get rid of the foreign yoke without outside help. D. Cantemir sought to give this idea a theoretical justification. In his epistle to Peter I, "A Discourse on the Nature of Monarchy, "he described the historical process as the successive succession of four monarchies (eastern, southern, western, and northern), which go through stages of rise and fall, according to"the laws of nature." By the fourth (northern) monarchy, he meant Russia, which was beginning to rise and with which he pinned his most cherished hopes for the liberation of the motherland from the foreign yoke. According to him, the Russian state is called upon to put an end to the" degenerate", that is, the Ottoman Empire, which arose illegally. "Adhering to the view that prevailed in the Middle Ages of the course of history as a consistent succession of world monarchies, Cantemir ...he paid great attention to the natural factors of this process and thus made a significant step forward in comparison with his predecessors. " ⁶¹

Kantemir's other historical works are also imbued with faith in the liberation mission of Russia in the Balkans. In the "History of the Ottoman Empire" and the "Chronicle of Antiquity", he repeatedly mentions the success of Russian weapons in the fight against Turkish and other conquerors, speaks with enthusiasm about the capture of Azov, about the victories of Russian troops over the Swedes at Lesnoy and Poltava, whose courage and bravery he personally saw in the battle of Stanileshty in 1711 and during the battle of the city of During the Persian campaign, D. Cantemir never left the idea that his country would gain freedom with the help of Russia. In his letters to Peter I, he urged the tsar not to leave the Moldavian people, who had shown loyalty to Russia, to the mercy of the Turks, Tatars and Austrians, and not to let his principality perish.

⁵⁹ Kantemir village. Monarchies phisical reasoning, l. 27 vol.

⁶⁰ D. Kantemir. History of hieroglyphics, p. 68.

⁶¹ "History of Philosophy in the USSR", Vol. I. M. 1968, p. 457.

page 45

D. Cantemir defended the progressive idea that all peoples are inherently endowed with the same mental abilities and none of them has an advantage over the other. He respected the achievements of all peoples, regardless of their origin, antiquity, or numbers. In his works, the scientist "put forward the idea that peoples master culture by borrowing one from another." ⁶²

Moldovans rightly saw Russia as their only liberator. That is why they repeatedly appealed to accept them as Russian citizens; that is why they warmly welcomed the Russian army, which entered Moldavian land several times in the XVIII - early XIX centuries; that is why they took an active part in the victorious Russo - Turkish wars, fighting side by side with Russian soldiers against the common enemy - the Ottoman Empire.

D. Kantemir's cherished dreams came true at the beginning of the 19th century. With the help of Russia, the Moldovan people achieved the long-awaited freedom that D. Cantemir prophetically hoped for. As a statesman who stubbornly fought for the liberation of Moldavia from foreign rule, as a scientist who glorified his homeland far beyond its borders, as a champion of friendship and union between the Moldavian and Russian peoples, D. Cantemir deservedly took a prominent place in the history of both peoples, to whose culture he made such a significant contribution.

⁶² "Din istoriya gyndiri sochial-politiche si filozofiche yn Moldova" Chisinau. 1970, p. 100.

Permanent link to this publication: