Alexander I, Ivan F. Kruzenshtern, Yuri F. Lisyansky, Nikolai P. Rezanov. Polycentrism of a successful project. Essay
Phased translation from Russian into English. Владимир Владимирович Залесский "Александр I, И. Ф. Крузенштерн, Ю. Ф. Лисянский, Н. П. Рязанов. Полицентризм успешного проекта. Очерк".
Alexander I, Ivan F. Kruzenshtern, Yuri F. Lisyansky, Nikolai P. Rezanov. Polycentrism of a successful project. Essay
(Phased translation from Russian into English).
Vladimir Vladimirovich Zalesski
1.And whether there was Washington? Short preface
Almost 210 years have elapsed since the completion of the first Russian round the world navigation of Kruzenshtern (Krusenstern) and Lisyansky (Lisianski).
Many publications was written About this expedition (a bibliography is given, for example, in the books of V. M. Pasetsky and I. I. Firsov [1] [2]).
But, however, a well-known and popular theme has slippery fragments. Why do these fragments exist? The reasons are different. One of the reasons is a certain "loyalty" of the author to one of the circumnavigators.
However, even "equidistance" does not always add certainty, clarity, indisputability.
Another reason is the tendency towards "fictionality" of the first Russian round-the-world expedition. It seems that the author writes about real events, but - sometimes, perhaps against his will - the characters become characters of a legend or a fairy tale, and readers can only guess how things really were.
Like nobody would deny that Yu.F. Lisyansky met the president of USA George Washington.
But we open one of the books for children about I.F. Krusenstern and we read, that the president of USA George Washington met ... with Kruzenshtern. This book in the given episode about Yu.F. Lisyansky at all does not mention.
We read in detailed, information rich, books by E. L. Steinberg and I.I. Firsov: U.S. President Washington met Yuri F. Lisyansky. Moreover, this meeting occurred during a sufficiently long multi-episode journey. Kruzenshtern is not mentioned as a satellite Lisyansky in this journey across U.S. [3] [2].
But here's a new version. We open the book of V. M. Pasetsky. "Between the sailors, who later was to command the ships of the First Russian round-the-world expedition, established friendly relations. They visited the U.S.President George Washington. This meeting has made a lasting impression on the Russian officers" [1]. And what, with U.S. President met together both Kruzenshtern and Lisyansky?
"Having returned to hotel, Lisyansky first opened his diary: "... The president Washington was very kind to me. I am grateful to him for the rest of my life. I am convinced that he one of the greatest people. Its clarity and and favor in the course of communication are surprise"" [2].
The theme has another "turnover". The records of Heinrich Schliemann's diary about meetings with the United States Presidents. And the modern commentaries on these records.
"In December 1850, Heinrich Schliemann, taking with him $ 30,000 in cash (50,000 thalers), traveled to the United States via Amsterdam and Liverpool. (...) Schliemann's diary contains numerous descriptions. Biographers have proved that their basis was newspaper publications. The visit to the White House and communication with the U.S. President Millard Fillmore were completely fictional - Schliemann was neither known nor rich enough to be of interest to the President of the United States of America" [4].
Biographers Heinrich Schliemann more or less amicably are consolidated: a meeting with Millard Fillmore, allegedly, was invented by Schliemann. Schliemann was, it turns out, insufficiently significant person.
And the officer Yu. F. Lisyansky was not the highest military rank (at that time). But he was so considerable figure that had an opportunity to meet and talk to the U.S. President.
Suppose that U.S. presidents communicate with people of different social status.
Let's return to the descriptions of the first Russian circumnavigation. The bias of the authors, the ambiguity of the presented information: this is "bad" or "good"? More probably "good" than "bad": it means that the topic is still of interest, that the topic continues to excite new generations, that the topic is relevant and interesting.
After reading the various books about Lisyansky and Kruzenshtern, comparing the read, the author decided to present some thoughts, conclusions, generalizations in this essay.