In 2003, the wonderful film “Girl with a Pearl Earring” was released. This is a touching love story between a maid (Scarlett Johansson) and the Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer (Koeleen Firth).
The screenwriter boldly adds events and emotions to the plot, without adhering to autobiographical information. Why?
Yes, because they simply don’t exist!
Johannes Vermeer is called the "Sphinx of Delft." Since we will never know the story of his life in detail. And only paintings allow us to glean at least some information.
What is known about Vermeer
It is known that the artist was born in the city of Delft (South Holland) on December 31, 1632. His parents were enterprising people, they ran an inn and sold paintings.
In 1653, Jan Vermeer, a born Protestant, converted to Catholicism in order to marry Katharina Bolnes.
With Katarina they gave birth to 15 children. Even for the 17th century this was a lot. The Dutch already knew methods of contraception. On average, families had 4-6 children. So the Vermeers were an exception.
In 1675 he dies of a heart attack. At the age of 43 years.
Due to the economic crisis in recent years, the large Vermeer family was forced to take out loans from banks. After the artist's death, his wife refused the inheritance in favor of creditors.
Only the painting “The Painter’s Workshop,” which Vermeer loved so much, Katharina kept for herself by hook or by crook.
Jan Vermeer. Artist's workshop. 1666-1667 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna That's all the known biographical information about the great artist.
Vermeer's artistic heritage is also meager. Only 35 paintings have survived to this day. For two reasons.
For a long time, Vermeer's works were not appreciated. At the end of the 19th century, his famous “Girl with a Pearl Earring” was bought for 2.5 guilders (in our time - about 100 rubles)! Ridiculously little.
The second reason: Vermeer worked for a very long time on each painting. For a year and even more (many of them are no more than 50x50 cm in size).
But even this amount of work was enough for Vermeer to be recognized as one of the greatest masters of all time already in the 20th century. On a par with , . Why?
What's unusual about Vermeer
In terms of plot, Vermeer created paintings that were quite typical for his time. Carefully designed interior. One, two or three figures are wealthy townspeople. Often his heroines read or write letters.
This is called the everyday genre. Many artists worked in this genre in 17th century Holland. At first glance, Vermeer did not stand out in any way.
Sometimes the subjects of different artists were very similar. For example, “Woman with Scales” by Vermeer.
Jan Vermeer. Woman with scales. 1662-1663 National Gallery of Art, Washington And this is “Woman with Scales” by another Dutch artist Pieter de Hooch, who also specialized in the everyday genre.
Pieter de Hooch. Woman weighing gold. 1664 Old National Gallery, Berlin What is the difference? It seems that Hoch’s picture is more colorful and cheerful. But if you look closely, it looks more like a colorized photograph.
Vermeer is more subtle with light and color. He paints the lighting so meticulously that his painting is imbued with supernatural verisimilitude.
The light falls unevenly. From a small window near the ceiling. Placing subtle accents. By saturating some objects with color and highlighting others. There is lyricism and even some mystery. And somehow it’s already difficult to call it a “everyday” genre. And for some reason the woman’s scales are empty...
Or here are two more works for comparison. Again the same plot. The girl reads the letter. This is the work of another contemporary of Vermeer, Gerard Terborch.
Gerard Terborch. Letter. 1660-1662 Royal Collection, London Maximum photographic ability. It’s amazing how skillfully the artist painted the fabric of the dress.
But for comparison, “Girl with a Letter” by Vermeer.
Jan Vermeer. A girl reading a letter by an open window. 1657 Old Masters Gallery, Dresden And again poeticization. I want to think about it again. After all, this is a whole tragic story. Here is a girl holding a letter in her hands, illuminated by light, as if by some kind of hope.
The meek, beautiful heroine glances impatiently across the page. But downcast eyes tell us about the collapse of all aspirations.
But the main character here is again light. Watch the fragment.
Jan Vermeer. A girl reading a letter by an open window. Fragment. 1657 Old Masters Gallery, Dresden Light pours softly through the window. But he behaves unusually. Breaking into small shimmering grains. It’s as if the girl’s hair, the sleeves of the dress, the curtain were covered with dew...
What can we say about Vermeer's character by analyzing his paintings? Perhaps he was a good-natured, gentle man. Perhaps modest and cautious... But not everything is so simple.
He was not afraid to use bright colors. Sometimes using the purest ultramarine and kraplak. Becoming an example in the boldness of color solutions for many artists of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Take his famous one, for example.
Jan Vermeer. Thrush. 1658-1660 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam Her apron and towel on the table are painted in pure ultramarine. The woman is depicted against the background of an almost white wall, which especially boldly emphasizes the rich color.
But Vermeer painted this heroine’s hat with pure speckled paint.
Jan Vermeer. Girl in a red hat. 1667 National Gallery of Art, Washington, USA. Girl with a pearl earring
Jan Vermeer. Girl with a pearl earring. 1665 Mauritshuis, The Hague Of course, it is impossible not to mention Vermeer's most famous masterpiece. “To the girl with a pearl earring.”
Vermeer wrote the usual “troni” for those times. This is a chest-to-chest image of a person in unusual clothing or with unusual objects.
Townspeople and wealthy peasants liked to hang paintings-troni, as well as paintings with everyday scenes, in their homes.
Vermeer's contemporary, Gerard Dou, especially specialized in troni. He painted a lot of girls and grandmothers looking out of the windows of Dutch houses.
Gerard Dou. Girl with a parrot. 1665 Kunsthistorisches Museum in Geneva That is, these are not portraits. Anonymous models or members of the artist's household posed for the throne. Who dressed up a girl or guy in an unusual outfit. In the case of Vermeer, this is an eastern block. Gerard Doe placed a parrot on his model's finger. Also unusual.
Since they posed anonymously for these works, only for the painting to be sold to completely unknown people, no one ever wrote down their names.
In the above-mentioned film, a version is put forward that this is Vermeer’s pretty maid.
But given the mores of Dutch society in the 17th century, such a version is unlikely. Then masters and servants kept very distant from each other. Status differences were emphasized as much as possible. And it’s hard to imagine that a maid would be called to pose for an artist.
After all, Vermeer had many household members. Therefore, it is more willing to believe in the version about his eldest daughter Maria. Who was 13 years old at that time. It is quite possible that it was she who posed for her father.
By the way, Vermeer painted another daughter, the youngest. Almost in the same spread and with the same earring.
Jan Vermeer. Portrait of a girl. 1665-1667 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York She, of course, is not as pretty as the eldest - a disproportionately large head, far-set eyes.
But Vermeer obviously loved the girl. Without embellishing it, but also writing it with special tenderness. Emphasizing the mischief in her eyes.
Vermeer ordinary. Pinhole camera
The painter masterfully mastered perspective and the ability to “expose” light in his paintings. Therefore, many believe that Vermeer used a camera obscura.
You may notice that sometimes in his paintings objects or faces are slightly out of focus. This effect occurs precisely when using a pinhole camera.
This is especially noticeable in the painting “Girl Writing a Letter.” Her face seems to be covered with a haze. Most likely, it just didn't come into focus.
Jan Vermeer. Woman writing a letter. 1665 National Gallery Washington In 2007, Tim Jenison, an engineer and entrepreneur from Texas, decided not to guess, but to prove it experimentally.
Using a camera obscura, the same mirrors and paints as Vermeer, he created a copy of the master's painting, The Music Lesson.
Surprisingly, he had never drawn before this experiment. This is what he did.
Tim Jenison. Music lesson. 2007 After this work, Jenison commented: he is 95% sure that Vermeer used a camera obscura. However, he admitted that creating such a thing is hard work. It took him 5 years to prepare. And he painted the picture itself for 100 days, almost around the clock.
And here, for comparison, is “The Music Lesson” by Vermeer himself. Decide for yourself whether Jenison managed to get closer to the genius of the master.
Jan Vermeer. Music lesson. 1662-1665 Royal Collection at St James's Palace, London In my opinion, it was successful. But this does not detract from the artist’s merits. The camera obscura was used by many artists. Especially in Holland. Just remember the photographic paintings of his 15th-century compatriot Jan Van Eyck.
In contact with
Possibly a portrait of the artist Johannes Vermeer
On October 31, 1632, Jan Vermeer (Vermeer of Delft, Netherlands) was born in Delft. Jan Vermeer van Delft is a Dutch painter, master of household painting and genre portraiture. Along with Rembrandt and Frans Hals, he is one of the greatest painters of the golden age of Dutch art.
An outstanding Dutch painter (real name: Joannes Vermeer van Delft), an unsurpassed master of the intimate domestic genre and landscapes, who was the first to use the method of living vibration of light and air.
Foreman of the Guild of Painters of St. Luke (1662-1671)
The small Dutch town of Delft. XVII century.
Quiet streets paved with brick, carefully washed sidewalks, well-kept houses, workshop buildings, cathedrals, narrow canals level with the pavement and water lilies blooming in them.
But this is not a sleeping, enchanted city. The famous Delft faience and beautiful carpets are produced here, crafts and merchants flourish. And for the soul, the townspeople breed songbirds, flowers, especially overseas tulips, and collect paintings; fortunately, the St. Luke’s workshop creates a lot of them.
The measured burgher life flows orderly but also calmly. No riddles... Although there is one - “The Sphinx of Delft” by Jan Wermeer of Delft, an artist who glorified his hometown with his work."
I wrote an article not about the artist, whose life is a complete mystery, but about perhaps the most mysterious portrait of that era. I would call this girl without a name, the most famous Dutch woman we know (although we can’t even guess her name) from the painting by the famous artist Johannes Vermeer “Girl with a Pearl Earring” or “Girl in a Turban”, or simply “Girl”.
Portraits such as Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci or Saskia by Rembrandt, living their own special life, having their own history, fascinate with their mystery, their assumptions and guesses. Yes, exactly, the mystery attracted me to this portrait, and also the film of the same name by Peter Webber, based on the novel by Tracy Chevalier. Of course, the amazing acting, the brightness of the images, the historical authenticity of the streets and interiors - perhaps all this gave the film popularity and left its mark on the girl’s personality. Who is she and who was she to the artist? Lover, maid, wife? Let's consider all versions, isn't this interesting to you?
So, version one is a mistress.
Some historians who have studied the artist’s life are inclined to believe that Vermeer most likely did not have a mistress. Unlike the film, where the image of his wife is not very attractive, biographers conclude that Jan Vermeer loved his wife, had 15 children and their marriage was considered happy. Even in the 17th century, for Holland such a number of children was large; it turns out that the Dutch already at that time knew about precautionary measures - contraception.
Version two - the artist's daughter
Maria, at the time when the work was created, was 11-12 years old. It is possible that this was the daughter of the philanthropist Ruyven, who patronized Vermeer, and in age, she was the same age as Maria. This assumption is real, but is not documented anywhere and remains only a guess.
Version three - wife.
Indeed, the wife, who was in fact beautiful and “clever,” served as a model for the artist’s works, more than once, and, in principle, could be depicted in a portrait. But by the time the portrait was painted, her age was no longer so young, so despite all her attractiveness and reality, this hypothesis also disappears.
Version four - maid.
This version is shaky and many biographers of John Vermeer consider it untenable. At that time, the class division was very strict and the servant most likely did not have a chance to “come” so close to the owner, who lived in a large family and had a wife. This option was possible, for example Rembrandt, but under certain conditions, for example, if the artist was lonely and lived in seclusion. The film, of course, shows a very attractive image of the maid; perhaps after the film’s release only one version will exist “among the people,” but, alas, it is historically unjustified. This is just a “free interpretation” of the author of the book on which the film was based.
Unfortunately, in fact, we are never destined to know the whole truth, unlike Mona Lisa and women like her, depicted on the canvases of great and not so great artists. Although, as in the case of Gioconda, no one knows the whole truth. A little more about the picture itself. Probably, many of us, looking at the enchanting portrait, were at least slightly surprised by the headdress in which the young creature was captured. This is a turban.
"Girl in a Turban" by Johannes Vermeer
On April 20, 1653, Jan Vermeer of Delft got married, the artist was only 21 years old. His chosen one was Katarina Bolnes, a girl from a wealthy family, the latter's father was the owner of a brick factory in Gouda. Katarina's life in her family was difficult and the girl was truly unhappy. Her father had a violent temper and often offended his wife and children. Eventually, Katarina's mother divorced her husband.
"Woman with a Red Hat"
The years of marriage, experts say, were the happiest for Katarina, although she was constantly pregnant and a nursing mother. When the artist turned 22 years old, the first child was born in the family - daughter Maria (1654), who is presumably depicted in the portrait “Girl with a Pearl Earring”. As a reward from his mother-in-law, Jan Vermeer receives 300 guilders, plus 200 for Maria, who was named after his wife's mother.
During this period, he creates the canvas “Diana with her companions” and loses a friend - the artist Karel Fabricius dies from an explosion at a gunpowder warehouse, which destroyed almost half of the city of Delft and claimed many lives
Painting "Diana with her companions"
At the age of 23, he painted three more paintings, two of which were lost. At the age of 24, the artist’s painting “The Procuress” allowed him to pay for his membership in the Guild of St. Luke. At the age of 25 (1656), he began the painting “The Sleeping Maid” and completed it in 1657. In 1658, the artist’s daughter Elizabeth was born and she was named after his mother-in-law’s sister.
"The Sleeping Maid"
Interestingly, Jan Vermeer did not name any of his children after his parents. At the age of 26, the artist creates two more paintings, “A Girl Reading a Letter at the Window,” completed only in 1659, and the painting “Small Street.” Experimenting with the camera obscura, the prototype of the camera, the artist painted two more paintings, “The Milkmaid” and “The Officer and the Laughing Girl.”
"The Officer and the Laughing Girl"
Another child is born into the artist’s family in 1660, but he soon dies and his name has not reached us. In the same year, Jan Vermeer created two works - “Girl with a Glass of Wine” and “Glass of Wine”. The artist lives with his family in the two-story house of Maria Thins, on the second floor of which his studio is located.
Vermeer painted his first landscape “View of Delft” in 1661, he was 29 years old, and at 30 two more paintings “Young Woman with a Jug of Water” and “Music Lessons” were born. Financial well-being The master reaches his dawn, in addition to which he becomes the youngest head of the Guild of St. Luke.
Young woman with a jug of water
1663, Vermeer creates a series of paintings dedicated to women who are absorbed in their affairs, these are “Lady with a Pearl Necklace” and “Lady in Blue Reading a Letter.” This year gives the artist a son, Yannis. Another curious detail about the artist is that there were no paintings of his own in his house, this is known from the statement of a French diplomat who visited the house of Jan Vermeer.
The only painting he found was in the baker's house. This indicates the demand for the artist during his lifetime, whose paintings sold well and were often painted to order. So, in 1682, the collection of the owner of the printing workshop Jacob Dissius contained 19 paintings by the artist
"The Lady in Blue Reading a Letter"
The famous painting “Girl with a Pearl Earring” was painted in 1666 and, if you check the facts, it turns out that his daughter Maria is only 12 years old and apparently, this is my personal opinion, she is not depicted in the painting. No matter how young the girl depicted in the picture is, she is clearly older than Mary. In the same year, another painting, “Concert,” was painted. As an artist, Jan Vermeer reaches his peak. The following year, the artist’s family bury another child and another painting was painted, and in 1668 the famous painting “The Astronomer”.
Astronomer
In 1669, another child of the artist died, and he again painted two paintings: “The Geographer” and “The Lacemaker.” In the same year, Rembrandt dies at the age of 63. On February 13, 1670, Vermeer's mother passed away, and a little later his sister. The artist inherits the Mechelen Hotel, where he lived for several years after his marriage, and for the second time he is elected head of the Guild of St. Luke.
In the same year, the painting “Love Letter” was born. The master noticeably changes his style, his paintings become more elegant and sophisticated. A year later, the artist receives an inheritance from his sister and paints the painting “A Lady Writing a Letter with Her Maid.”
"The Lady Writing a Letter with Her Maid"
In subsequent years, he painted three more paintings, and at the end of 1675, at the age of 43, the artist died suddenly. Rumor has it that as a result of the Franco-Dutch War, Vermeer's financial affairs went from bad to worse; he was in debt. The widow with 11 children was helped by her mother, who lived to be 87 years old and supported the artist’s entire large family. As you know, the eldest daughter Maria got married, son Janis became a lawyer, and Francis became a surgeon. The remaining daughters never married and lived their lives in poverty. Katarina, the artist's wife, survived him by 12 years.
"The Lacemaker"
43 years have passed before you, which were allotted to the artist by fate. Jan Vermeer of Delft, the famous Dutchman of the “golden age”, whose works are placed on a par with world masterpieces, did not even deserve a memorial stone on his grave from his contemporaries...
P.S. All photographs used for this article were taken from the Internet.
Ghost on watch Shigin Vladimir Vilenovich
Chapter Seven: The Mystery of the Battleship "Rusalka"
Chapter Seven The mystery of the battleship "Rusalka"
Probably, none of Russia's maritime tragedies received such a wide resonance in its time as the sudden and mysterious death of the Baltic Fleet coastal defense battleship Rusalka in 1893. The whole country followed the investigation of that long-standing tragedy. And even now, after a whole century, the tragedy of “The Mermaid” still worries people. For more than a hundred years we have been looking for an answer to the question: “What happened on a September night in the Gulf of Finland?”
To try to understand one of the most mysterious incidents in the history of the Russian fleet, we must move to the situation that developed in Russia after the end of the Crimean War.
Complete destruction of the sailing ship Black Sea Fleet and the prohibition of Russia from having more than a fleet on its southern borders forced the government to seriously think about protecting at least the Baltic coast. The Baltic Fleet, as is known, survived the war, defending itself under the cover of the coastal batteries of Sveaborg and Kronstadt, but the age of wooden sailing battleships was over. After the war, they no longer represented any real fighting force. The era of armor and steam was coming into its own. To protect maritime borders, it was urgently necessary to build a completely new fleet. For this, however, there was not a sufficient industrial base, and therefore at first it was decided to limit ourselves to the creation of at least a small flotilla of armored ships in the Baltic Sea. In England, the construction of the Pervenets armored battery was urgently ordered. Another such “Don’t touch me” battery began to be built in Russia with the help of English engineers. Later, the third one, the Kremlin, was built entirely on its own. In addition to the three armored batteries, it was decided to build a dozen small battleships of the monitor type, fashionable at that time. The program for creating these ships was called: “Monitor shipbuilding program of 1863.” According to it, eleven single-tower monitors were built in the shortest possible time at domestic shipyards. But they were clearly not enough to reliably cover the sea approaches to the capital. Therefore, already in 1864, another shipbuilding program was approved, according to which six armored frigates and two armored double-turret boats were to be built. One of these boats was named “Enchantress”, the second – “Rusalka”. By 1870, both programs were completed. As a result, Russia received a completely modern defensive fleet in the Baltic. From that time on, the Navy Ministry began to create an active fleet of ocean-going battleships and cruisers.
The armored boat "Rusalka" began to be built in St. Petersburg on Galerny Island in 1866. She was launched in August 1867. The estimated cost of the ship was 543,263 rubles in gold. The main tactical and technical characteristics of the "Rusalka" were as follows: displacement - 1870 tons, length - 63, width - 12.8 meters, draft in the water - 3.3 meters. Steam engines were not very powerful, only 705 horsepower, and therefore the ceremonial speed of the Baltic monitor was no more than 9 knots, which, however, was considered quite acceptable for that time. The then new-fangled chart room (the so-called pilot house) was made in the form of an armored glass and had a height of 10 feet, but at the same time it was extremely cramped for a running watch. The Rusalka's armament consisted of four 229 mm caliber guns located in two rotating turrets of the Kolz system, and four rapid-fire small-caliber guns for self-defense. The thickness of the armor reached 115 millimeters, and the boat's crew consisted of 178 officers and sailors. At the same time, like all monitors of that time, “Rusalka” had a very small freeboard height - only 76 centimeters. On the one hand, this significantly reduced the possibility of being hit by the enemy, but on the other hand, it greatly worsened seaworthiness. By the time the “Mermaid” was built, the last drawback was already obvious to everyone, since on December 31, 1862, the founder of armadillos of this type, the famous North American “Monitor,” was overwhelmed by waves during a moderate storm off the coast of North Carolina and instantly sank. The death of the Monitor shocked the world, because before that it was considered almost the standard of a warship. However, the hypnosis of the “Monitor’s” victories during the American Civil War was so great that, despite the tragic death of the founder of the “Monitor family,” all the leading powers of the world continued to build his numerous “relatives.”
As for the Russian sailors, they were fascinated by the arrival in Kronstadt of the American "Miantonomo" on a friendly visit - the monitor crossed the Atlantic unharmed. After this, they began to say that the death of the “Monitor” was nothing more than an accident, and a great future awaited monitor-type ships. Few people knew that the Miantonomo passage was carefully planned and was carried out from port to port only in calm weather.
Meanwhile, tragedies with monitors began to occur more and more often.
First alarm signal came from England about the impossibility of using low-sided monitors. On the night of September 7, 1870, off the coast of Portugal, the turret-type monitor frigate Captain, considered at that time the most powerful warship of the British fleet, capsized and sank with almost its entire crew. At one time, it was even officially announced that the Captain was the most powerful (on the ship, the main caliber guns were located not in casemates, but in rotating towers) and unsinkable ship of the British Navy. But life showed the opposite...
Perhaps, for navigation in closed coastal waters, the Captain was indeed unsinkable, but not for the ocean expanses. As a result of the tragedy on the battleship Captain, out of a crew of five hundred, only a few sailors miraculously survived and remained on the water until the morning, holding on to the wreckage of the rigging. By chance, its creator, Captain Kauper Coles, was also on board the Captain. A grimace of fate - the child took its parent to the grave. Since the Captain was considered the best ship, representatives of the first families of England served on it, including the sons of the First Lord of the Admiralty, Childers and Lord Portbuck, who also died. All these circumstances caused a huge scandal. For many, it was a revelation that the much-advertised “Captain” sat so low in the water that its deck was only 9 feet from the surface of the sea, that the battleship had very little buoyancy and poor stability, that the crew members themselves called the “Captain” nothing else , like a “coffin”. In addition, the battleship had a very small width relative to its length, and therefore was extremely rolly. Storm waves rolled over the entire low-sided battleship. At the same time, the Captain was sailing under sails, which further increased the amount of roll. With the next gust of wind, the ship caught the oncoming wave with its side. This turned out to be enough... The Captain turned over and sank with such terrifying speed that most of the crew members did not have time to get out of the interior onto the deck. Their fate was terrible! Then the battleship floated upside down for some time until it gradually disappeared under the water.
At the naval trial held in Portsmouth, no perpetrators were identified, since both the creator of the Captain and his commander, Captain Burgoyne, died. The reason for the death of the battleship was said to be loss of stability due to the unacceptably low side. The court issued a partial ruling to the commander of the Mediterranean squadron, Admiral Milne, under whose command the “Captain” was located. In his justification, Admiral Milne said: “When accepting the Captain into my squadron from the English Channel squadron, I did not receive drawings of the battleship either from the Admiralty or from its builders. I don’t even know whether Captain Burgoyne or Captain Coles had such drawings, and whether they knew on what data the ship’s engineers based the Captain’s stability!
After this there were no questions for Admiral Milne. But other unsightly things were revealed at the trial. For example, it turned out that the "Captain" was built "contrary to public opinion expressed in Parliament, contrary to the views and opinions of many specialists in the fleet", that the original drawing of the "Captain", approved by the Admiralty, was then changed during construction, as a result of which stability deteriorated significantly ship, and the area of the standard sails became, on the contrary, excessive. On this basis, the Admiralty was recommended to henceforth refrain from creating ocean monitors, and not to release those in the fleet into the open sea. However, in addition to this very correct decision, a wrong one was also made.
Impressed by the death of the Captain, the British recognized the construction of battleships with turret artillery as a mistake and again began creating casemate battleships. They will return to tower ships much later, when their advantage has been undeniably proven throughout the world.
And the monitor disasters continued. From the “Official Department” section of the Marine Collection magazine No. 8 for 1887:
“The death of the Dutch monitor Adder.” Dutch and Swedish newspapers report that the Dutch monitor Adder, under the command of Captain Van der Aa, left Imuiden for Gelfetsluys on July 5 at 9:30 a.m., but did not arrive at its destination. Three days later, several corpses were found off the coast near Nieuwedieppe with life preservers bearing the name “Adder.” Until July 12, only 19 corpses were found, including one of the lieutenants of the Yonkers monitor. In the latter’s pocket a piece of paper was found with the following note in pencil: “At 10 o’clock. passed the lighthouse. Magnetic course south-west, compass south-west 1/4 west. The steam drive was disconnected from the steering wheel. The hatches were closed and everything was battened down like a storm. The pumps are ready. At 6 o'clock they tried to turn back to Imuiden, but the ship did not obey the rudder. Then they steered to the south so that it wouldn’t flood so much...” This ends the watch commander’s note. In total, there were, according to some news, 70 people on the monitor, and according to others, 63 people. Dutch newspapers claim that the monitor's poor seaworthiness has long been known. It was built for the defense of river mouths, but not for navigation on the open sea. Some time before leaving Imuiden, the commander refused to go to sea due to fresh weather. And only when it cleared up did the Adder put to sea, expecting to have calm weather on the upcoming short passage. But meanwhile the wind changed, and the monitor died. Five perfectly serviceable boats rose on the sides of the monitor, but none of them were found after the death. The overturned monitor case was found only on July 22, southeast of Skevening.
The Adder monitor was launched in 1871. Its displacement is 1566 tons. Armor thickness: maximum - 4.5 and minimum - 3 inches, with a wooden spacer of 9 inches. The machine is twin-propeller with 680 indicator power. Artillery: two 9-inch Armstrong guns and two rapid-fire cannons."
Similar messages began to appear more and more often, while sailors, trying to get to the bottom of the causes of the disasters, most of all sinned at the extremely low sides of the monitors.
The low height of the side also made itself felt during the tests of the “Rusalka”, since the sailing conditions on it during even a slight deterioration in the weather became very difficult. For example, the commander of the artillery training detachment, which included the Rusalka, Rear Admiral Burachek, described sailing on an armored boat in fresh weather as follows: “Already one blockage on the Rusalka in the complete darkness that settles on the deck, and the temperature ... make the condition of the crew, the operation of the boilers and the control of the machine difficult, because almost the entire crew must be below, with the exception of the watch, and the flow of air and its exchange are reduced.” In addition, when the hatches were closed, the air flow into the boilers sharply decreased, and it was extremely difficult to maintain the required steam pressure in them. But no special attention was paid to this. The authorities, in the person of Vice Admiral Krabbe, a comrade of the Minister of Naval Affairs, reasoned quite like a statesman: “The ship has already been built, and therefore, no matter how it turns out, you still need to sail on it! We are not so rich that because of every design flaw we can remove ships from service!”
Among other things, “Rusalka” and her “sistership” “Enchantress” were intended to operate exclusively in the waters of the Gulf of Finland and at the edge of the skerries, and therefore, according to the authorities, the boat could always have time to take shelter in the nearest port before the onset of stormy weather. Alas, practice, as we know, can be very far from theoretical conclusions...
Even before it entered service, “Rusalka” took its first victim. She became a commercial contractor, Advisor Kudryavtsev. It was as if he had made a terrible exchange, giving his life in exchange for the birth of a new ship.
On August 31, 1867, “Rusalka” was launched from the boathouse on Galerny Island in St. Petersburg. Its first commander was Captain 2nd Rank Schwartz, one of the most brilliant Russian naval officers of that time and a great enthusiast of the monitor idea. At the same time, the boat "Enchantress" and the armored corvette "Prince Pozharsky" were launched. Admiral General was present at the launching of the ships Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich with his sons, the manager of the Naval Ministry, many other officials and the public, the honor guard of the 8th naval crew with a banner and the choir of the guards crew. Everything was extremely solemn.
In 1868, the St. Andrew's flag was raised on the Rusalka. From that time on, the armored boat was considered part of the Baltic Fleet. Then a big scandal occurred. According to a long-established ritual, a priest arrived to raise the flag. But at the very last moment, he categorically turned out to consecrate the ship, named after a representative of the world of evil spirits. The mermaid is a character in numerous fairy tales, that is, a real bastard who drags unwary people into the abyss. According to legend, drowned women became mermaids. At night, the mermaids climbed ashore and staged their orgies there - mermaids, trying to attract men and then destroy them in the water. When representatives of the church noticed Admiral General Grand Duke Constantine about his very strange choice of name for the new monitor, he just laughed:
– In our enlightened times, there is no place for prejudices and superstitions! If our “Rusalka” is destined to be “Toplyanka”, this means that she will send enemy ships to the bottom!
– But won’t she send her own team to the same bottom? – the Orthodox hierarchs cautiously noted.
- It's all empty! – the Grand Duke waved it off. – What relation can the name have to the fate of the ship!
The same story happened with “The Enchantress”. It is still not known whether the “Rusalka” was eventually consecrated or whether it sank into eternity without God’s grace. In addition to the “Mermaid” and “Sorceress”, at the same time, a whole detachment of destroyers was named after representatives of evil spirits. There were “Baba Yaga” and “Leshy” and “Vodyanoy”. The author of all these works was the younger brother of Emperor Alexander II, Admiral General Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, widely known for his liberal democratic views. However, the naval public did not accept this innovation. In the Russian fleet, starting from the era of Peter the Great, ships received the names of the most beloved and highly revered Orthodox saints, and suddenly such blasphemy! The church hierarchy once again tried to reason with the Admiral General, but he simply waved it off:
– Why are you rubbing “The Lives of the Saints” in my nose! Let with our evil spirits enemies are competing! Let's see who can beat whom!
Later, after the death of Alexander II and the removal of Constantine from the leadership of the fleet, all destroyers quickly stripped them of their profane names and assigned them completely neutral numbers. “Rusalka” and “Enchantress” for some unknown reason remained with the same names. Why this happened is not known exactly.
By the way, the officers did not like to sail on the Rusalka, considering the ship extremely unreliable; As for the sailors, they even called the “Rusalka” “Toplyanka” among themselves. This is understandable; Orthodox people are always uncomfortable around evil spirits. There was persistent talk among the crew that sooner or later, Toplyanka would drag its victim to the bottom. All that remained was to wait for this to happen.
The first bell sounded in June 1865, even before the Rusalka entered service. Then the monitor-type turret armored boat “Smerch” under the command of Captain-Lieutenant A. Kornilov was making the transition from Helsingfors. On the approach to Baresund, rounding one of the islands, the boat hit an underwater rock unmarked on the map. Despite all the measures taken, the ship quickly sank. Only thanks to good weather and proximity to the coast there were no casualties. Later, the Smerch was raised and put into operation, but as for the reasons for such a rapid sinking of the newest warship, no proper conclusions were ever made.
The consequences were not long in coming, and already in 1869 the tragedy of the “Tornado” was repeated with amazing accuracy, but now it happened to the “Rusalka”.
During that campaign, the Rusalka was on a practical voyage across the Gulf of Finland under the command of Captain 2nd Rank Mikhail Schwartz as part of the armored squadron of Vice Admiral Grigory Ivanovich Butakov. Everything went as usual, but before the end of the campaign, the Mermaid suffered an accident, as a result of which she almost died.
And it was like this. Following the skerries as part of a detachment of monitors and making a turn on a narrow fairway, the “Rusalka” suddenly touched an underwater rock with its starboard side. The impact turned out to be very insignificant; most of the crew did not even notice it. However, the experienced and cautious Schwartz ordered that all the holds be inspected. As soon as they removed the plugs from the bottom necks, water gushed out. All pumps were immediately turned on, but the water continued to rise rapidly. At Schwartz’s request, emergency parties from the nearby monitors arrived at the Rusalka, but they too could not cope with the rapidly increasing flow of water. In such a critical situation, Schwartz had no choice but to direct the armored boat to the nearest sandy shore and throw himself onto the sandbank. Then divers were lowered, who found and hastily repaired the hole, the water was somehow pumped out, and the damaged ship barely made it to Kronstadt, where it was repaired. We can say that the “Rusalka” in this case was saved by the experience of its commander and the presence of a close shore. There began to be talk among the sailors that this time the Toplyanka failed to profit from human lives, that Nikola Ugodnik averted the inevitable disaster.
The Rusalka accident, however, had a very unexpected continuation. The fact is that at the time of the accident, midshipman Stepan Makarov, who had just received his first officer rank, was on board. Having analyzed the causes of the accident and the structural features of the ship, the young midshipman published the article “Armored boat “Rusalka”” in several issues of the magazine “Morskoy Sbornik”. A study of boat buoyancy and means proposed to enhance this quality."
Let the reader forgive me for the rather lengthy quotation, but I think it is appropriate, since it fits well into the essence of our story. So, let's give the floor to midshipman Stepan Makarov.
“...During the last campaign, the armored double-turret boat “Rusalka”, following in a detachment of monitors, at one of the sharp turns, with the rudder “starboard”, touched the right cheekbone of a stone. The impact was so insignificant that no shudder occurred; the starboard side, as if driving up a mountain, rose slightly and then fell again... We touched the stone with such a quiet move and so smoothly that both the commander and everyone at the top were sure , that the boat did not suffer any damage, and when a piece of wood (side keel) soon floated up behind the stern, someone said that there must be a sunken ship lying here. Immediately, however, it was ordered to inspect all the holds. In the car, where water-measuring equipment and the bottom itself were at hand, the order was carried out earlier than in other places, and the watch was given to know that the water was not rising at all, which is why the admiral’s signal was answered: “Everything is fine.” Meanwhile, the inspection of the rest of the hold continued. In each compartment, they began by removing the neck of the second bottom and observing the water, listening for gurgling or other signs of leakage. There are no water measuring pipes, therefore, this is the only means by which you can ensure the integrity of the lower bottom. This is what they did, and when they opened the neck in the bow compartment, water from the hold began to flow to the second bottom. They started pumping a 9-inch pump, put the receiving hose of the only fire nozzle into the neck, and finally began to scoop it up with buckets, but the water kept coming and coming. We cannot use machine pumps for pumping out of the nasal compartment, since they are taken only from the machine. Other hand pumps are also not taken from this compartment. There are no bypass valves. All the means that we could use to pump water out of the nasal compartment have been applied, but the water is coming, therefore, we need to ask for help. If the Rusalka did not have impenetrable bulkheads, the water, spilling throughout the hold, would approach the engine rooms (or rather, the pumps), from where it could be easily pumped out by steam means, which take up to 700 buckets per minute, whereas the hole did not give more than 50. If we didn’t have a second bottom, we would have dealt with the hole in the same way as the “Latnik” monitor: we would have hammered it, caulked it, plugged it, but the second bottom makes it impossible to approach it, since the necks are covered with water, and the diver won’t fit into them... Help from the squadron was not slow to arrive, and we barely had time to drop anchor when fire hoses were sent from the monitors with the required number of commands for continuous action. But what does a fire hose mean? In its most efficient form, it takes 5 buckets per minute, and the hole is 1 square. inch at a depth of 10 feet. gives 18– per minute
20 buckets... A whole squadron, therefore, could give us the means to pump out 50 buckets per minute, while one centrifugal pump, standing a few feet away, could throw out 400 buckets ... "
At the end of the article, Makarov proposed a number of new means in case of a hole in the hull in the underwater part. The most important of them was a plaster made of stuffed canvas, which had to be ready for work in advance. The patch was pulled to the hole, blocked it, the flow of incoming water immediately decreased sharply, and it became possible to pump it out. In addition, the young midshipman proposed a system of drain pipes, with the help of which water from each compartment could be pumped out by machine pumps, and all holds, in his opinion, should be equipped with water-measuring tubes in order to know the water level in the inter-bottom space at any time. This was a real revolution in the organization of the fight for the survivability of the ship.
At the same time, Makarov was noticed by Vice Admiral Butakov. The squadron commander personally met the midshipman and immediately invited him to present his ideas at a meeting of the Marine Technical Committee. The performance was a complete success. The technical committee accepted all the recommendations of the still unknown midshipman yesterday and implemented them in the shortest possible time.
Without a doubt, the Rusalka accident was the first step in the brilliant career of the future famous naval commander. Four years later, Makarov visited the World Exhibition in Vienna, where he successfully demonstrated to the world community the patch he had invented. Subsequently, having already become a vice admiral, Stepan Osipovich Makarov wrote about the Rusalka accident:
“The incident with the armored boat “Rusalka” ... was of decisive importance for my entire subsequent service and led me to the conviction that in maritime technology in our transitional time we must be critical of everything and not take anyone’s word for it. You need to invent for yourself various situations in which the ship can be placed, and discuss all the means that will have to be used in these imaginary cases.”
And “Rusalka” continued its service. The team changed, the commanders changed, and the years passed. In 1877, the battleship was going to be excluded from the lists of the fleet for “unreliability for navigation,” but another war with Turkey began, and therefore it was decided not to weaken the fleet. The Rusalka was repaired, patched up, and she again became part of the combat core of the fleet.
In 1883, an insignificant, but, as it turned out later, very remarkable incident occurred with the “Rusalka”. At the end of the campaign, the boat had to move from Revel to Helsingfors, and then to Kronstadt for the winter. As soon as the then commander of the “Rusalka,” Captain 2nd Rank Dubrovin, took her out to sea, the weather suddenly worsened. Afraid to guide his monitor through the stormy bay, Dubrovin turned back, which caused great displeasure from his superiors and conversations behind his back about his not too courageous character.
Let us remember the action of Captain 2nd Rank Dubrovin, we will return to it later.
In 1892, the Russian fleet introduced new classification ships, associated with the entry into service of a new generation of squadron battleships and cruisers. According to it, the armored boat began to be called a coastal defense battleship.
During the 1893 campaign, "Rusalka" was part of an artillery training detachment under the command of Rear Admiral Burachek.
The “Rusalka” was commanded at that time by captain 2nd rank Viktor Khristianovich Yenish 2nd. In our further narrative, the figure of captain 2nd rank is very significant, and therefore let’s get to know him better.
The commander of the battleship was forty-two years old at that time. Yenish came from the family of an army doctor who died during the defense of Sevastopol. As the son of a fallen hero, he was admitted to the Naval School in 1867. After graduating, he attended a course of lectures at the Naval Academy, then another course of lectures, but at the Mikhailovsky Artillery Academy, which he later graduated from. Wrote science articles for the “Naval Collection” on artillery problems. I swam quite a lot. Under the command of Captain 1st Rank S.O. Makarova took part in a circumnavigation of the world on the Vityaz. Jenisch’s attitude towards service is evidenced by the fact that during his 22 years in the navy, he spent only 12 months on leave, that is, he served for 10 years without any leave at all! Agree, but such service zeal is not often encountered! Jenish had the following awards: the Order of Stanislav 2nd and 3rd degrees for service, the medal “For saving the dead” (being a midshipman, he jumped overboard and saved a sailor who had fallen into the sea), badges of the Artillery Academy and the Artillery Training Detachment. The commander of the “Rusalka” was married to the daughter of the nobleman Maslakovets, Maria Alekseevna, and had three sons and a daughter. Without a doubt, Captain 2nd Rank Yenisch was at one time one of the most knowledgeable naval officers in artillery, which, apparently, largely predetermined his appointment to the artillery training detachment, where at that time all kinds of experimental shooting were carried out new types of shells, new shooting techniques were developed, and artillery personnel were trained for new warships.
In addition to captain 2nd rank V. Yenish, the officers of the "Rusalka" included: senior officer captain 2nd rank N. Protopopov, watch commanders lieutenants V. Stravinsky, G. Burkhanovsky and I. Ivkov, watch officers midshipmen G. Mayer and V. Dolgov, artillery officer staff captain V. Alkimovich, navigator lieutenant M. Burov, senior mechanical engineer staff captain P. Kirillov, assistant senior mechanical engineer J1. Jan and court councilor doctor V. Sverchkov. The rank and file was also good, consisting mainly of old-time sailors who were capable of teaching young artillery students the basics of artillery skill.
During the naval campaign, the artillery training detachment, as in all previous years, was based in Reval (now Tallinn), making short trips to sea for artillery firing. In addition to the “Rusalka”, the detachment included the armored batteries “Pervenets” and “Kremlin” and the gunboat “Tucha”. All the ships of the artillery training detachment were far from new; they had weak engines, always failing boilers, and very slow speed. They no longer represented any combat value, and therefore were used exclusively for training purposes.
By the beginning of September, the artillery firing training program was successfully completed, and the detachment began preparations for returning to Kronstadt for the winter. It was impossible to delay, since the period of autumn-winter storms was beginning. Fearing for his monitors, which were not seaworthy, Burachek gave the order to the battleship Rusalka and the gunboat Cloud as soon as possible to follow the shortest route through the Gulf of Finland to Helsingfors (now Helsinki), and from there through the skerries to Biorka (now Primorsk), where wait for the remaining armored batteries to arrive from Revel. From Biorke the entire detachment had to go to Kronstadt. Due to the serious illness of the commander of the "Rusalka", captain 2nd rank Ienish, Burachek assigned the task of crossing only to the commander of the "Cloud", captain 2nd rank Lushkov, obliging him, however, to bring all instructions to the attention of the commander of the "Rusalka". Lushkov carried out the boss’s order. At the same time, Burachek, fulfilling the request of the commander of the “Rusalka”, transferred Lieutenant P. Ershov from “Tucha” to him as the watch commander, and from “Rusalka” to “Tucha” - Lieutenant I. Ivkov. The fact is that Ienish and Ershov were family friends, and the former had long asked for his comrade to be transferred to his battleship. So providence in an instant changed the fates of two unsuspecting people: it literally gave life to one at the last moment, and assigned death to the other.
Here it is necessary to dwell in some detail on the state of health of the Rusalka commander. Captain 2nd Rank Jenish was very seriously ill. He suffered from chronic severe headaches, at such moments he practically lost control of himself, and there was no question of any command of the ship. The commander of the "Rusalka" made no secret of his illness. Everyone knew about her, including the flagship doctor of the detachment, Smirnov, and the commander of the detachment, Rear Admiral Burachek. However, none of them even tried to raise the question of the unsuitability of captain 2nd rank Ienish for service on ships. It is difficult to say for sure why this happened. It is quite possible that everyone turned a blind eye to the illness of the Rusalka commander out of respect for his merits; in addition, the authorities probably tried to give him the opportunity to serve the swimming qualification, which was extremely necessary for promotion. It is quite possible that the authorities hesitated to write off Ienish also because his then very rare higher artillery education, passion for the practice and theory of the artillery department made him a truly indispensable specialist for training young artillerymen. Be that as it may, judging by Jenisch’s own admission, he could command a ship during a sea crossing with great difficulty.
After Pushkov’s visit to Burachek, correspondence began between the commanders of the “Rusalka” and “Clouds”.
“...At present, my health is still so bad that I have to take great care to gain any strength for the transition on the Rusalka, and in any case, it is desirable that this transition take place as quickly as possible. Therefore, if it is possible to obtain the admiral's consent, I would prefer not to enter Helsingfors. It is also advisable, due to the conditions of my still weak health, not to go out to sea at night, but to schedule it at 9 o’clock in the morning, if there is no unfavorable weather...”
Lushkov responds with full consent to all the requests of his sick comrade and offers to go to sea next Tuesday, in addition, he still proposes to cross the Gulf of Finland by the shortest route and spend the night in Helsingfors, and then go east along the Finnish skerries.
On September 6, captain 2nd rank Jenish sends a second letter to the commander of the Cloud by messenger, in which he writes:
“...I completely agree with you to go out on Tuesday, and if the weather does not allow, then on Wednesday. I also agree to plan the route for the first overnight stay in Helsingfors, the second in Rochensalm and the third in Biork, if possible. In order to get to Helsingfors before dark, I think I’ll take off at 9.30, but for you, as someone who has a shorter travel time, it might be useful to take off at 9 or 9.15. In any case, it is better for you to leave the harbor ahead. In Helsingfors, the only thing that confuses me is the question of representation to the port commander. It’s difficult to make a visit given my current health, but how to arrange it, I ask you to think and, if necessary, talk with Nikolai Nikolaevich (N.N. Protopopov - senior officer of the Rusalka - V.Sh.), whether he will have to go for me, or Only you will go and report that I am unwell. As for the responsibility for maintaining the Rusalka, I do not yet find it necessary to transfer it to a senior officer, since I will still have to be on the Rusalka. Do not refuse the courtesy to report all this to the admiral.”
After this, Captain 2nd Rank Lushkov went to Rear Admiral Burachek and expressed to him the general opinion of the commanders, and also reported on the extremely painful condition of his colleague. Burachek listened to Lushkov and sent the following written order to the sick Jenish at home:
“If the weather is favorable, tomorrow morning, if possible earlier, together with the boat “Tucha”, weigh anchor and sail together by skerries to Biorca, where we await the arrival of the entire detachment. But if the state of your health does not allow you to go tomorrow, then I propose to convey this order to the senior officer, captain 2nd rank Protopopov, who I order to take command of the battleship for the duration of your illness and go as intended.”
It is quite possible that the letter from his immediate superior and the order appointing him as a transition commander finally pushed Ienish to remain on the command bridge, despite his extremely difficult condition.
To understand such a decision, one should know the specifics of maritime service in the Baltic at that time and the situation that developed on the Rusalka. At that time there were still relatively few ships in combat formation, and, on the contrary, there was a significant surplus of officers. In this regard, many of them served in lower positions than they were worthy of in terms of experience and length of service, such as the senior officer of the “Rusalka” Protopopov, Ienish’s classmate in the Naval Corps. The return of the artillery training detachment to Kronstadt was also a particularly solemn moment of the entire naval campaign. Everyone's attention was focused on him. The arriving ships were met by the chief commander of Kronstadt, and if at that moment Jaenisch had been absent from the command bridge, this could have resulted in an almost automatic appointment of a well-trained senior officer in his place for the next campaign. Therefore, the commander of the “Rusalka” had to remain a commander, despite a serious illness. Moreover, there was a fully qualified doctor on the battleship, and the entire transition should have taken no more than three days.
On the evening of September 6, Rear Admiral Burachek, with a signal from the flagship Kremlin, ordered the Rusalka and Tucha to prepare for departure at 7.30 in the morning. Lieutenants Stravinsky and Ershov, staff captains Alkimovich and Kirillov went ashore to say goodbye to their families, who were supposed to go to St. Petersburg by train the next day. Jenisch saw off his wife and children earlier, and by the time the “Rusalka” arrived in Kronstadt, they should have already been there. Doctor Sverchkov went ashore to once again examine Ienish at his apartment.
On the morning of September 7, Burachek approached both ships in a whaleboat to find out their readiness for the transition. The senior officer, Captain 2nd Rank Protopopov, reported that the ship was ready to sail and was only waiting for the commander to arrive from the shore. The commander of the "Tuchi", captain 2nd rank Lushkov, reported that the gunboat had not yet raised the pair to mark. After this, Burachek went ashore without giving any new instructions. At the very last moment, doctor Sverchkov determined severe cold from the sailor Grigorenko, and the latter, to his great displeasure, was removed from the ship and sent to a local hospital. Could this sailor with a cold then think that his guardian angel saved him from death? Only a few days will pass, and not only he will understand this.
The weather at the time the ships left Revel was as follows: from midnight on September 7, the barometer fluctuated, and at 7 o’clock in the morning the south wind was indicated by three points on the ships of the detachment. By 9 o'clock in the morning on the battleship "Pervenets" the wind force was already shown as 3-4 points, and on the "Tucha" - as 4 points. On the floating Revelshtein lighthouse, the wind strength was assessed differently: at 7 o'clock - 3 points, at 8 o'clock - 6 points, at 9 o'clock - 7 points and, finally, at 10 o'clock - 9 points. There was a sharp deterioration in the weather before the real storm. But on the “Rusalka” and “Tucha” stationed in the harbor, the weather assessment by the floating lighthouse was not known. In addition, the commanders did not take into account that in the Gulf of Finland the weather change, as a rule, occurs closer to noon, and therefore it was best to weigh anchor at dawn in order to approach Helsingfors by noon. However, nothing of the kind was done. As follows from the investigative documents, “Rusalka” and “Tucha” weighed anchor only at 8.30. Precious time was lost.
The storm was approaching right before our eyes. In such a situation, Captain 2nd Rank Jenisch, having barely left the harbor and seeing a sharp deterioration in the weather, had to abandon the planned passage and return to the harbor. This is exactly what Captain 2nd Rank Dubrovin did ten years ago. By doing this, he displeased his superiors and earned the reputation of a “timid” commander, but he saved both the people and the ship. However, Jenish did nothing of the kind. Why? Didn’t want the same conversations that once went around about Dubrovin? But it is quite possible that due to feeling unwell Jenisch was generally in his cabin at that time and was unable to really assess the situation. The senior officer in command on the bridge was guided by his order and also did not want to appear too timid in front of his commander, because based on the results of the campaign and Jenisch’s presentation, he was supposed to receive a new assignment.
“The wind strength in the morning was only 2 points, and the entry about 3 points in the Pervenets logbook was made by mistake. In addition, throughout August there was not a single quiet day, and on September 2 there was a 10-point storm in the bay, and therefore I considered September 7 a relatively quiet day. That’s why I was in a hurry to send “Rusalka” with “Tucha”, because “Perbornets” and “Kremlin” with their old boilers and weak machines were still hanging on my neck. Given their slow speed, I had to rock in a stormy sea for more than 30 hours in order to somehow crawl from Revel to Biorke. That is why I tried to send the first couple of ships in the first weather window that appeared! However, understanding the possible difficulty of the transition, I urgently ordered both commanders to go together! Alas, they did not do this!
According to the Naval Regulations, sailing “in unison” meant following at such a distance from each other that in the thickest fog a signal from a neighboring ship could be heard. This unshakable rule has existed since the days of the sailing fleet, and no one has canceled it. In practice, such a distance, as a rule, did not exceed 2–3 cables.
How did the “connected” following of “Rusalka” and “Clouds” take place? So, the first to leave Revel harbor at 8.30 was the Cloud, which had a speed of six knots. At 8.40 the Rusalka also set sail, but its speed at that time did not exceed two knots. Yenish was clearly in no particular hurry.
Soon the distance between “Tucha” and “Rusalka” increased to one and a half miles. At 9 o’clock, taking advantage of the tailwind, “Tucha” set sail and immediately increased its speed to eight knots. Meanwhile the weather was getting worse.
Of course, the commander of the Cloud knew that when there was a big wave on the Rusalka, due to the low sides, they were forced to batten down the skylights and ventilation pipes, and at the same time it became very difficult to maintain the required steam pressure in the boilers. Moreover, due to its design features, the “Rusalka” always yawed strongly during a passing wave, which slowed down the speed even more. However, Lushkov made no attempt to wait for the increasingly lagging battleship to follow in unison. Subsequently, Lushkov stated that he walked ahead of the “Rusalka” by no more than three miles. “I didn’t do anything to get closer to the “Rusalka” only because I was always waiting for a signal from Ienish as a senior in rank!” - said Lushkov in his defense.
It is possible that it was not Ienish, but Protopopov who, due to his official position, was on the bridge of the Rusalka at that time, who, due to his official position, could not give orders to the commander of the Cloud.
Meanwhile, by 9 o'clock the wind reached force nine. But the barometer continued to fall, which meant that we had to expect the worst. By 11 o'clock the ships passed the Revelshtein lightship. By this time, the distance between “Tucha” and “Rusalka” was already more than four miles. According to the testimony of the lighthouse attendants, the Rusalka passed them half an hour after the Cloud. Lushkov, according to him, at that moment slowed down, since in the thickening fog he could hardly see the battleship coming behind him. By 11.40 the fog had thickened so much that the Rusalka was completely out of sight. At that time, “Tucha” was already separated from the Revelshteinsky lighthouse by about ten miles. Lushkov made out the faint outlines of the battleship in the fog for the last time - and that was all. From that moment on, the coastal defense battleship “Rusalka” was no longer seen by anyone...
Having lost sight of the battleship, Lushkov again increased its speed, fearing that the “Rusalka” following behind could ram it. Subsequently, justifying his actions, Lushkov wrote in the newspaper “Novoye Vremya”:
“As we approached the Revelshtein lighthouse, the wind and rough seas intensified every minute; At about 10:30 a.m. we met the Artelshchik transport. Its commander, captain 2nd rank Melnitsky, who went to sea shortly before our departure, preferred to return back to Revel because of the freshness of the wind. I was also expecting the signal of return, which was supposed to come from the battleship "Rusalka", and therefore I was closely watching all her movements. Of course, it was difficult for the “Tucha” boat to go back against the wind and waves, but to the Revelshtein lighthouse, if ordered, I could still safely try to do this. A certain lighthouse was roaring, I passed at about 11 o’clock and, seeing that the battleship “Rusalka”, having gone around it, was much behind me, I ordered to reduce the speed, since due to the cloudiness of the signals, even if they were made at that time, it was impossible disassemble.
At 12 o'clock, exactly at noon, frequent but light rain began to fall. A darkness immediately set in, which covered the battleship like a veil, and since then no one has seen it again... Left to my own devices, I no longer thought about returning; with the increased wind (8 points) and waves, the engine of the boat “Tucha” could no longer row out, and the boat was in danger of being flooded. Reducing the speed and waiting for the battleship "Rusalka" also turned out to be risky: with a decrease in speed, the following waves began to hit the stern, and I could easily lose the rudder... The "Cloud" flew up to the top of the wave, its bow or stern in turn rose upward and then headlong, as it were flew into the abyss. In a word, there was a state of the sea in which not a single commander, if part of his crew fell overboard, would think of saving her, so as not to increase the number of already dead people. Feeling completely powerless under such conditions to be of any use to the battleship "Rusalka", I decided to give full speed to the machine and turned all my attention exclusively to the preservation of the boat entrusted to me and the hundred crew members..."
At 12.40 "Cloud" passed the Eransgrund lightship, at 13.50 - the Grohar lighthouse, and at 15.00 it dropped anchor in the roadstead of Helsingfors.
Assessing the actions of the commander of the Cloud during the transition, Rear Admiral Skrydlov subsequently stated: “Captain 2nd Rank Lushkov claims that due to stormy weather he could not provide assistance to the Rusalka in the event of any accident. I find such a view to be completely unfounded and, coming from the commander of a warship, extremely dangerous. Unfounded because I do not recognize in this case such circumstances that would eliminate any hope of even picking up the dying people from the water. But even if “Cloud” did not have the opportunity to provide direct assistance, then Captain Lushkov, being present at her death, would have saved the fleet and the entire society from the feeling of painful uncertainty about the causes of this terrible incident... With a different course of action of Captain Lushkov, all doubts would have been dispelled , they would give way to a feeling of regret for the victims of the inevitable disaster in the naval service. Captain Lushkov would explain to us, if not the actual, then possible reason the death of the "Rusalka", or, according to at least, would indicate the place of her death.”
From the book Chronological-esoteric analysis of development modern civilization. Book 4. Behind seven seals author Sidorov Georgy Alekseevich From the book KGB - CIA: Who is stronger? author Atamanenko Igor GrigorievichChapter Seven The Mystery of Japanese Caravans According to the head of the analytical department of the FSB of Russia, Major General Vyacheslav Shironin, in 1980, having headed " crusade"against the USSR, the CIA prepared and purposefully carried out a strictly secret plan under
From the book The Resurrection of Perun. Toward the reconstruction of East Slavic paganism author Klein Lev Samuilovich From the book The Expulsion of the Normans from Russian History. Issue 1 author Sakharov Andrey NikolaevichChapter fifteen. Mermaids and mermaid
From the book The Unperverted History of Ukraine-Rus. Volume II by Dikiy Andrey“The Dniester Mermaid” And already in 1837 the first, timid literary experience in the native language appeared. Shashkevich, Vagilevich and Golovatsky are releasing a literary collection “Mermaid of the Dniester”. The direction of this collection is determined by the words of Shashkevich (“Ruslan’s Psalms”):
From the book Bridge Over the Abyss. Book 1. Commentary on Antiquity author Volkova Paola Dmitrievna From the book 7 secrets of Ancient Rus'. Detective Bygone Years author Savinov Mikhail AvenirovichChapter 3 THE SECRET OF OLEG Oleg is the first prince with whom “The Tale of Bygone Years” begins the history of Rus'. At the beginning of our oldest chronicle, a calculation of the years from the creation of the world to the beginning of Russian history is given - “and from the first summer of Mikhailov to the first summer of Olgov, the Russian prince
From the book Slavic gods, spirits, heroes of epics author Kryuchkova Olga Evgenievna From the book Slavic gods, spirits, heroes of epics. Illustrated Encyclopedia author Kryuchkova Olga Evgenievna From the book History of Russian Literature of the 19th Century. Part 2. 1840-1860 author Prokofieva Natalya Nikolaevna From the book The Assassination of the Emperor. Alexander II and secret Russia author Radzinsky EdwardThe secret of the Narodnaya Volya is a secret of the police? During the frighteningly successful activities of the Executive Committee, contemporaries constantly asked themselves one question - why have they not been caught yet? As Vera Figner recalled, in reality the Executive Committee had 24 members
From the book Land of Ancient Mesopotamia author Matveev Konstantin PetrovichChapter Four The Secret of Bab-Ilu If a wine seller receives silver instead of bread as payment or cheats the consumer, then she is subject to punishment: she should be thrown into the water... If a wine merchant allows drunken people to make trouble on his premises and does not take them to
From the book Great History of Ukraine author Golubets Nikolay“Mermaid of the Dniester” End of 1836 appeared in the Magyar Buda “Rusalka Dnistrova”. At its core, “Zorya” itself was just carefully trimmed and changed. But “Rusalts” was not destined to appear on home soil in the full extent of its small cost. Black spirits back
From the book 100 key themes of Ukrainian history author Zhuravlyov D.V.Issue of the almanac “Mermaid of the Dniester” Date and placeEar of the chest 1836 r. (dated 1837 on obkladintsі), Buda (lower part of Budapest, Ugorshchina). Diy individualsMarkiyan Semenovich Shashkevich (pseudonym Ruslan, 1811–1843; Greek Catholic priest, singer, interpreter and folklorist,
The monument to the battleship “Rusalka” appeared in Tallinn in 1902. Until recently, guides ended their stories with the words: “In peacetime, a warship and its crew disappeared without a trace in the waters of the Gulf of Finland. For more than a hundred years this case has remained a mystery.”The riddle of the "Mermaid" - a film that was never shown in Estonia.
At the end of July 2003, 25 miles south of Helsinki, an Estonian expedition led by researcher Vello Myass discovered a unique object in Finnish economic waters, the search for which lasted 110 years: the coastal defense battleship of the Russian Imperial Navy Training Artillery Detachment "Rusalka". Yes, yes, that same missing ship, the monument to which has become one of the most striking attractions of Tallinn! The sinking of the battleship in September 1893 claimed the lives of the entire crew of 177 people.
When in 1902, on the ninth anniversary of the sinking of the ship, the famous monument to the “Mermaid” was erected in Revel, a legend was born with it: after a hundred years and one year, the gilded cross with which the angel overshadows all the ships leaving for the sea will show the way to those who lies in the depths of the sea. True, on one condition - if by that time at least one mourner remains on earth. Maybe that’s why Russian sailors of all generations have developed a tradition: when they find themselves in Reval (Tallinn), they visit the “Rusalka”, performing the same ritual. You were supposed to walk around the monument and read all the names of the members of the dead crew - both officers and ordinary sailors.
The monument was erected at the end of July 1902 (then continued for about another month Finishing work). Exactly one hundred and one years have passed since the installation of the Tallinn “Mermaid”. Vello Myass's expedition had only a couple of days left to work; the research vessel "Mare", owned by the Estonian Maritime Museum, was supposed to return to the port of Tallinn. The square, which was combed by Estonian specialists, was chosen after a long period of work in the archives and seemed to be the most likely location of the “Rusalka”. Needless to say, after more than a century of searches carried out by a variety of teams and detachments, there was very little chance of finding the missing ship.
However, when a dark image of a strange shape appeared on the sonar screen, a premonition told the crew members that the “shadow of the golden cross” indicated the legendary grave. The next day there was a storm, and the dives had to be postponed. However, the crew could not think about anything else, returning again and again to looking at the sonar images. At a depth of 74 meters, stern up, almost vertically (at approximately the same angle at which the angel holds his cross above the monument), a dead ship towered. The very first dive of Estonian divers Kaido Peremees and Indrek Ostrat confirmed the assumption: this is the “Rusalka”.
Diving to the "Mermaid" in the Baltic Sea
“The ship stands almost vertically, like a thirty-meter house, with its sharp nose unusually deep into the clay bottom. We explored the stern, port side, starboard. Trying not to get entangled in the many trawls that wrapped the Rusalka, we quietly moved along the battleship and were amazed at how well it was preserved. Under the strong spotlights, the propellers with a specific shape and curved blades shone brightly. We filmed everything we saw with an underwater camera: a clean and strong hull, portholes, skylights,” say the divers.
Finnish divers at the Rusalka wreck site
A few days later, Vello Myass handed over the collected materials and photographic documents to the Russian embassy in Estonia: “We did not penetrate inside the ship,” he emphasized. - The underwater grave remained untouched. But the information collected is enough to make a final conclusion. All the parameters, the length and width of the ship, match, as well as the details seen indicate that an error is almost impossible. Finnish divers also helped us in identifying the “Mermaid,” who came to the same conclusion as us. The “Rusalka” managed to travel two-thirds of the way from Revel to Helsingfors when the tragedy occurred; the underwater grave is located in Finnish economic waters. Decide future fate The discovery will be on the Russian side, this is a warship, and members of its crew served in the Imperial Navy (Finland at that time, like Estonia, was part of the Russian Empire).”
The search, which began in the fall of 1893, ended only by September 2003. Exactly 110 years... On the third day after the death of the “Rusalka”, the tenth of September, the highest naval authorities of Russia became aware of her disappearance, after which the search began. Time was lost. The first disappointing news came in a very unusual way - from land. The Helsingfors police chief reported to the port of Sveaborg that a boat with the corpse of a sailor had washed ashore. Later, the rest of the boats from the “Rusalka” were found, empty and unused (judging by the fact that the rowlocks were not inserted), they were simply washed away by the wave during the crash. The death of a warship in peacetime plunged Russia into shock, and a wave of indignation swept across the country. The only corpse discovered, the wounded body of sailor Ivan Prunsky - apparently a watchman who was at the top at the time of the disaster - did nothing to help clarify the cause of the accident.
Battleship "Rusalka" and its captain
A powerful newspaper campaign was launched in Moscow and St. Petersburg, a collection of donations was announced for the families of the battleship’s crew, and demands were made to find traces of the “Rusalka.” Until October 16, 37 days, fifteen different vessels combed the last leg of the missing ship's voyage. The country still hoped that someone remained alive. The content of many articles boiled down to the words: “The people must know the truth.” As it later turned out, by the highest command Alexander III much earlier, he stated the loss of the battleship, and the crew of the “Rusalka” was deleted from the lists of the detachment.
All that washed up on a small Finnish island was a sailor’s cap with the inscription “Mermaid” on it, and a lot of life preservers. But Russia has not forgotten its sailors. In the early summer of 1894, under public pressure, the search was resumed; a commission was created that examined many proposed projects and organized the work. Special groups explored the coast, the Naval Ministry gave instructions to begin active operations at sea. Journalists of that time were outraged that the progress of the operation was being kept secret, and assumed that the search was being carried out carelessly. Neither the divers nor the representatives of the Kronstadt aeronautical detachment, who tried to discover the battleship with balloons, towed by small ships, found nothing - and at the same time they were obliged to remain silent.
Part of the battleship crew
In his diaries of the early twentieth century, one of his contemporaries (a certain S.R. Mintslov) made an interesting entry. In our opinion, it deserves to be quoted verbatim: “February 6. I talked with one of the sailors who participated in the search (and found) the battleship Rusalka, which died several years ago from its own disrepair. There were stories in the city at that time that they did not raise it only because the entire high naval authorities would have to be put on trial, the hull of the ship was so dilapidated and it was built so fraudulently. The sailor confirmed everything verbatim. For the same reason, “Gangut” also died at one time. This navigator of the merchant fleet, a man deserving unconditional trust, claims that the repairs of these ships, well known to him, were carried out on paper, but in reality they were only repainted on the outside. At Gangut, machines were always working, pumping out the water that had seeped into all the grooves. They say that all our other coastal defenses are in exactly the same condition, like the various “Admirals” and “Don’t touch me.” The last name is amusing: “don’t touch me, I’ll fall apart myself,” - this is how the sailors reinterpret it...” It’s hard to say what’s more here: outright “revolutionary” malice or untruth. This is a story from the same category as the assurances of some contemporary Russian “specialists” that the armored monitor “Rusalka” was not blessed when launched! They say that the Orthodox clergy did not like the names “Rusalka” and “Sorceress”, which smacked of demonism. Lies! One grandmother, it turns out, said it, and Soviet historiography for a good seven decades repeated in every possible way the bad fairy tale that suited her ideologically. Yes. “Rusalka” was old, but one should not exaggerate its dilapidation. An honest and principled officer of the Russian fleet (namely, V.H. Yenisch, the last commander of the battleship, was such) simply would not have allowed the “decrepit” ship to go out on this autumn voyage.
However, let's get back to the search. In 1932, it was unexpectedly announced that the Rusalka had been found by the Special Purpose Underwater Expedition (EPRON), which was “hunting” for the sunken Soviet submarine “number 9”. However, the information was not confirmed by documents from the expedition, and the crew of the Mare discovered the battleship this summer about three miles from the place indicated by Epron. Nevertheless, a lot was said about the find in the thirties. The writer Konstantin Paustovsky, having learned about this, included the story about “Rusalka” in his famous story “The Black Sea” (according to the content, a diver of the Black Sea Fleet who participated in the Baltic expedition tells the author about the search) and put forward his version of what happened. Paustovsky worked on the work in 1935, and therefore his main emphasis was on showing the advantages of the Soviet fleet over the imperial one and, again, stigmatizing the shortcomings of tsarism. “The death of two hundred sailors was inseparable from a mediocre era,” he wrote. “Everything is mixed up here - cowardice and stupidity of the bosses, carelessness and stupid indifference to real life and people. The Tsar listened to the report of the Minister of the Navy. On the report on the death of the “Rusalka”, he, sweepingly and without hesitation, wrote in blue pencil: “I grieve for the victims.”...
The main witness and, at the same time, accused in the “Rusalka” case was thirty-nine-year-old captain of the second rank Nikolai Mikhailovich Lushkov.
“As we approached the Revelshtein lighthouse, the wind and roughness of the sea intensified every minute,” testifies the captain. - The return signal, which was supposed to come from the battleship "Rusalka", was awaited, and observers carefully watched all her movements. Of course, it was difficult for the “Tucha” boat to sail against the wind and waves, but to the lighthouse, if ordered, I could still try to do this. I passed the Revelshtein lighthouse at about 11 o'clock, and, seeing that the battleship "Rusalka" was much behind me, I ordered the speed to be reduced, since due to the cloudiness that had set in, the signals, even if they were made at that time, could not be made out. At 12 o'clock, exactly at noon, frequent but light rain began to fall. A darkness immediately fell, which covered the battleship with a shroud, and since then no one has seen it again. Left to my own devices, I thought no more about returning; with the increased wind (8 points) and the excitement of the boat’s car, “Cloud” could no longer row out, and the boat was in danger of being flooded... “Cloud” flew to the top of the wave, its bow or stern in turn rose upward and then headlong as would fly into the abyss. In a word, there was a state of the sea in which not a single commander, even if part of his crew fell into the sea, would even think about saving her, so as not to increase the number of already dead. Feeling completely powerless under such conditions to be of any use to the battleship “Rusalka,” I decided to give the machine full speed and turned all my attention exclusively to preserving the boat entrusted to me and the hundred crew members.”
The prosecution did not agree with Lushkov’s arguments, and Rear Admiral Skrydlov, who spoke at the trial, branded him very harshly. If you carefully read the text of this speech, you can feel yourself in the role of an insightful detective, catching a number of revealing nuances of the admiral's philippics. Obviously trying to attribute all the sins to the commander of the Cloud, as the fleet leadership wanted, Skrydlov still cannot stifle the view of a realistic sailor in himself, constantly “lowering” the level of the accusations brought: “I do not recognize in this case such circumstances that eliminated to at least pick up the dying people from the water. But even if “Cloud” did not have the opportunity to provide direct assistance, then Captain Lushkov, being present at her death, would have saved the fleet and the entire society from the feeling of uncertainty about the causes of this terrible incident... With a different course of action of Captain Lushkov, doubts would have been dispelled , they would give way to a feeling of regret for the victims of the inevitable disaster in the naval service. Captain Lushkov would explain to us, if not the actual, then at least the possible cause of the death of the “Rusalka” and would indicate the place of her death.”
Having started with a statement that in any circumstances the Rusalka should have been saved, Skrydlov ends with the admission that Lushkov, if he had remained in place, would not even have been able to indicate the actual cause of the death of the battleship. However, Lushkov was disgraced; the court came to the conclusion that he behaved extremely unworthily. Much was said about the fact that during the transition there was a young cavalier’s wife on board the Cloud, whom he risked taking with him. Allegedly, Lushkov feared most of all for her life, “running away” from the armadillo in distress. Nikolai Mikhailovich was dismissed from service - and never returned to it. In 1979, the author of one of the brochures, I. Goldman, wrote: “Some information... was obtained from his (Lushkov’s) daughter-in-law Vera Sergeevna Lushkova, who lived in Tallinn. The former commander of "Tucha" ... after leaving the naval service, he lived first in the city of Nakhichevan, and later worked in Rostov-on-Don as the head of a river port. N. Lushkov died in the ward for the insane at the Kronstadt Military Hospital...”
“Weighing all the circumstances, one can understand how limited the choice of weather was for me for the departure of “Rusalka” and “Tuchi”, when “Perbornets” and “Kremlin” were still hanging on my neck with their old boilers, with which, given their weak machines, I had to pump up at sea for at least 25-30 hours,” said Rear Admiral Burachek, who was subsequently reprimanded.
The commission concluded that the ship was lost as a result of a storm, but the opinions of experts were largely divided. The shipbuilders were inclined to believe that everything happened because the machine stopped - the “Rusalka” could have been turned on its side to the wind and turned over: the hull tilted to one side and scooped up a large mass of water with its low side, which then through the open hatches, as well as the gaps of the towers and smoke the casings hit the living deck. At the same time on court hearing an act of a recent inspection of the ship was read out, which stated that “the drainage facilities on the battleship are in good working order and are more than sufficient to remove the water that accumulated from leaks through armor bolts, etc.”
Rear Admiral Skrydlov believed that due to damage to the rudder, the Rusalka lost control, and assumed that the battleship ran into an underwater rock and received a hole. However, in order for the flat-bottomed “Rusalka” with its shallow draft to run into a stone, it had to be very noticeable - and, nevertheless, for some reason, overlooked in daylight. A number of assumptions by other members of the commission were based on the fact that the ship was lost as a result of a boiler explosion or an explosion in the artillery magazine. But documents were presented that just before the voyage, Captain Jenisch demanded that a number of additional works be performed on the mechanisms, and then new boilers were installed on the ship.
Neither version was completely satisfactory, and there were some mysterious circumstances. The story of the hatches, for example, still remains a mystery. Judging by the fact that the Rusalka could not catch up with the Cloud, it was traveling with the hatches closed. This is also evidenced by the fact that the bodies of the crew members (except for the body of the watchman) were not found, as well as objects from the interior of the battleship. But Konstantin Paustovsky, for example, writes: “Owing to the usual negligence in the Tsar’s fleet, the Rusalka forgot on the shore the wooden lids with which the entrance and skylights are battened down during a storm.” By the way, further, contradicting himself, the famous writer explains: “The waves intensified, they began to rush over the bridge. Water got into the pipes. The clogged battleship, filled with water, lacked air. The traction has dropped..."
The commission named the cause of the death of the battleship as a combination of circumstances: an insufficiently correct assessment of weather conditions before going to sea; the late exit of the "Rusalka" from the port and - third - the indecisiveness of the captain Ienish, who could turn back after seeing signs of an approaching storm. Thus, in the order approved by the emperor, the deceased Ienish became practically the main culprit of the tragedy. It is curious that no one who knew the captain of the battleship mentions his “indecisiveness”; on the contrary, a lot is said about the fact that Viktor Khristianovich was a dutiful, firm and very skilled man in his work.
The discovery made by Vello Myass may put the final end to a complicated and extremely difficult investigation. Additional study of the ship's hull will probably help establish why the tragedy occurred and why none of the crew escaped. “We are guaranteed to have found the armadillo. It is so unique that it cannot be confused with any other vessel,” said Vello Mäss, captain of the Estonian research vessel “Mare”. - The ship entered the clay soil almost vertically. It is in good condition, the hull did not break, only one gun turret fell off when immersed in water...”
Based on materials
Loading...