Текст книги "Alexander I, Ivan F. Kruzenshtern, Yuri F. Lisyansky, Nikolai P. Rezanov. Polycentrism of a successful project. Essay (СИ)"

Автор книги: Vladimir Zalesski

сообщить о нарушении

Текущая страница: 4 (всего у книги 5 страниц)

' The First skirmish has taken place in Copenhagen, where Резанов has refused to take in the retinue Лангсдорфа. But obstinate Крузенштерн categorically insisted, and, not wishing to aggravate the attitudes(relation), the envoy has conceded ' [Фирсов And. И.].

' ... After some weeks after departure from Kronstadt Резанов have declared the rights on a management(manual) of the First Russian round-the-world expedition(dispatch). Thus it(he) has showed(presented) Крузенштерну the instruction authorized Александром I. In it(her) the following was spoken: ' Сии both vessels with the officers and служителями, in a service of the company taking place, it are charged to the heads to yours '. However this instruction was latent from Крузенштерна. For the first time it(he) has seen her(it) on Тенерифе, when the ships were far from coast of Russia.

In turn at Крузенштерна there was an instruction Российско of the American company, which assigned to him(it) a management(manual) of expedition(dispatch) and general(common) командование by the ships. The application Резанова, announced on Тенерифе, that it(he) ' the chief of both courts ', deeply has exasperated Крузенштерна, and it(he) has refused to obey the envoy. However on an island Св. Екатерины Резанов again has started talking about the rights to a management(manual) of expedition(dispatch). Крузенштерн has put about these claims in popularity Румянцева and Чичагова and has addressed with the vast letter to Александру I, in which informed, that "'противоборствовать" to all attempts Резанова will interfere with his(its) management(manual) of navigation and. Never will agree to recognize legitimacy of the instruction of the envoy. Intense conditions created from behind the claims Резанова, it(he) continued, ' exhausts forces human '. In Петропавловске on Kamchatka Крузенштерн was going to hand over командование by courts to other officers. It is the ultimatum ' was [Пасецкий In. М.].

' Крузенштерн dissembled. It(he) perfectly knew about the decision Александра I. In Kronstadt it(him) has informed Резанов about highest will. The government of the company in the instruction wrote to it(him), Крузенштерну, about Резанове, that ' authorizing his(its) complete master's person not only in time вояжа, but also in America ', obliged Крузенштерна: ' you will not leave to be guided by his(its) advice(councils) in all ' ' [Фирсов And. И.].

So, we can ascertain, that on expedition(dispatch) three centres of authority (троецентрие) were objectively created.

Itself многоцентрие, but in a format not троецентрия, and двоецентрия, at all is not than that unique. In depth of a history we notice, for example, two Roman consuls. In epoch Александра I, ambassador of a beginning of Domestic war of 1812, we see concerning equal in rights Багратиона and Барклая де Толли. Probably, it is possible to recollect and commissioners, which in some periods could cancel the orders of the commanders.

С. Item. Мельгунов has named the book ' Александр I. A sphynx on престоле '.

In троецентрии we can see a mysterious smile of a Sphynx.

Whether was rational мотивировка троецентрия?

Probably, it is possible to speak about the following rational substantiations трехцентричного of management:

(1) Priorities of embassy (state task).

The note: after ' wars of nerves ' and self-isolation Н. Item. Резанова at itself in a cabin the management of expedition(dispatch) becomes двуцентричным де факто.

Двуцентричным де юре the management of expedition(dispatch) becomes from the moment of end of attempts of accommodation of embassy in Japan, оставления Резановым "of 'Hope" (1805) and direction Н. Item. Резанова in Russia through Siberia (in ways Н. Item. Резанов has died of illness in 1807).

Полицентричность (двуцентричность) "'обнуляется" after an output(exit) from Кантона and passage by the ships of cape of Kind Hope. The ships have lost each other from a kind, and further moved independently from each other on various trajectories.

(2) Полицентричность promoted взаимодополнению. In the certain periods of navigation (both captains are especial in the initial period) worked in common, that allowed the beginning captains (rather beginning) to lean(base) on cooperation and mutual aid, accumulating experience. In foreign ports two ships looked more solidly, than one.

(3) Полицентричность provided the mutual control.

(4) Полицентричность formed an atmosphere соревновательности. Though aspiration Ю. Ф. Лисянского to independent navigation soon after passage of cape of Kind Hope also can cause some questions, it, this aspiration, was programmed itself полицентричностью of management of expedition(dispatch).

' Intense conditions created from behind the claims Резанова, ... ' exhausts forces human '. In Петропавловске on Kamchatka Крузенштерн was going to hand over командование by courts to other officers. It was the ultimatum.

In the letter to the sea minister of item. In. Чичагову Лисянский wrote: ' Предпринявши вояж around of light under командою of my friend, ... I токмо expected minute of this important subject, but in islands Маркизских all has turned to dream. There. Резанов has announced to us publicly, that it(he) is our chief. Рисковавши every minute by life for glory ours государя and Fatherland, whether it was possible to us to expect командующего of the so important expedition(dispatch), which before сим did not see almost sea? ' The Commander "of 'Neva" has addressed to the Main government Российско of the American company and to the minister of commerce Румянцеву with the request to dismiss it(him) from командования by a vessel ' or to exclude from command from which, except for the unfortunate end of all our works nothing can be expected '. However applications Крузенштерна and Лисянского about a resignation were not taken into account. Румянцев, at which the documents враждующих of the parties converged, not only has not made neither envoy, nor officers of any reproach, but even has taken care of, that they have received the awards. In comparison with success of navigation of the ships from Kronstadt to Kamchatka and северо this quarrel was represented to western coast of America not so already by significant event. Румянцев did not consider(count) Крузенштерна as the originator of misunderstanding. Moreover, Румянцев has made Крузенштерна by the scientific adviser on sea and polar researches and has kept the friendly attitudes(relations) with it(him) about last days of the life ' [Пасецкий In. М.].

It is complex(difficult) to tell, in what has constrained Н. Item Резанов And. Ф. Крузенштерна (but nevertheless instructions(indication) of the man not having sea experience and sea intuition, could be constraining).

Naturally, the instructions(indication) of the man not having sea experience which is not understanding of importance of special knowledge and seaworthy intuition, could be dangerous. In this sense And. Ф. Крузенштерн struggled for freedom of actions of the commander, for safe and successful navigation.

But to it общепонятным the reasons can add still such reflections.

That would be, if the expedition(dispatch) has come back in structure of two courts and with Н. Item. Резановым onboard one of them?

What name she(it) would receive? Round-the-world expedition(dispatch) Резанова? Резанова Крузенштерна? Резанова Крузенштерна Лисянского?

Гиперболизируя and dreaming, it is possible to tell, that on кону there was a place in a history.

So, the game went for important things:

(1) For safety of navigation,

(2) For успешность of navigation (not of ambassadorial mission and not компанейской – economic – mission), namely for success of round-the-world navigation and scientifically познавательной of mission.

(3) For a place in a history.

The sphynx is mysterious усмехнулся: ' Play! Your figures are your successes. Win! '

Energy соревновательности and creation of success

Certainly, полицентричность creates a specific psychological situation.

To retell in the given sketch the information, which is stated in sources concerning mutual relation And. Ф. Крузенштерна and Н. Item. Резанова, it is not expedient.

Let's note only culmination moments.

It is curious, that by one of the culminations the conflict has reached(achieved) after an output(exit) in Silent ocean, passage of a significant distance at Silent ocean, but before arrival on Kamchatka (and in Japan), and prior to the beginning separate плаваний "of 'Hope" (to Japan and Kamchatka) and "'Neva" (to Alaska).

To this moment ("'Hope" and "'Neva" were in area of the Hawaiian islands) steel (1) qualifications of the captains, (2) real prospects of success of round-the-world navigation are clear.

As to the ambassador Н. Item. Резанова, it(he) was still ' a thing in itself(himself) ', on any achievement or successes it(he) still refer could not.

И. Ф. Крузенштерн used stated Н. Item. Резановым in relation to it(him) (Крузенштерну) a word "'ребячитесь" for organization of collective trial (with participation Лисянского and representatives of officer structure "of 'Hope" and "'Neva").

' – the Economic businesses at all not your competence, приказчики exchange компанейские subjects. – Резанов slightly усмехнулся. – Is thought, it for you is not solid and is complete to you ребячиться.

Крузенштерн оторопело has stared on Резанова, the person it(him) became crimson, and it(he) has screamed:

– How you смеете how you смеете how you ребячусь?! ' [Фирсов And. И.].

From sources follows, that Ю. Ф. Лисянский has supported And. Ф. Крузенштерна.

И. Ф. Крузенштерн aggravates a situation up to a limit at the moment of collective trial of a word "'ребячитесь". In the conflict is involved Ю. Ф. Лисянский. Резанов shows the document signed personally by the emperor Александром I. Ю. Ф. Лисянский in запале makes inappropriate words: that the emperor did not write it, but only has signed.

' Is who wrote? – has asked Лисянский, looking on Резанова in an emphasis.

(...)

– Yes who wrote that? – has repeated Лисянский.

(...)

– That that also is! – has told Лисянский ironically. – we want to know, who wrote, and to sign ... it(he) all will sign. It is known to us ... ' [Штейнберг Е. Л.].

Like, Н. Item. Резанов – having received such opportunity – officially has informed(notified) of St. Petersburg on words Ю. Ф. Лисянского.

Formally Н. Item. Резанов of the rights, declaring about the powers, this correctness recognize all. But there is a psychological inertia: the officers possess experience of a sea service, and by the ship it is accepted единоначалие, the captain solely supervises over the ship.

Н. Item. Резанов or there is no right to displace the captain (such prospect arises only after arrival "of 'Hope" on Kamchatka), or there is no on it a determination, or simply is not able it to make (it(he) the man not naval). The officer structure is picked up personally Крузенштерном, some members of crew are it(him) (Крузенштерна) the relatives. Крузенштерн fairly announces to officer structure, that it(he) – commander of the ship, and that it(he) takes the responsibility for the conflict with Н. Item. Резановым on itself. The imperial document on powers Резанова is announced, it(he) (imperial document) is formally recognized, but in a rule(situation) Н. Item. Резанова it a little that changes, it(he) continues navigation in isolation.

The psychological pressure has appeared so strong, that the further way (up to Kamchatka) Н. Item. Резанов has done, самоизолировавшись, in the cabin.

' The Explanation was held, but simplification it has not brought. Резанов did not leave the cabin up to itself Петропавловска ' [Фирсов And. И.].

Nevertheless, after that conflict occur not so appreciable, but extremely important changes in a rule(situation) and in moods And. Ф. Крузенштерна and Ю. Ф. Лисянского.

Е. Л. Штейнберг is art – but is extreme realistic – домысливает of a word Крузенштерна and Лисянского:

' All this I take on myself, – has told Крузенштерн ... – ... пройдя third of way, owe we it(him) with glory finish ... whatever happened and on what victims it would be not necessary to go!

Лисянский has come back to "'Neva" in gloomy mood. (...)

– Yes! The officer has told aloud. – Крузенштерн of the rights: the travel needs to be finished with glory ... that happened! ' [Штейнберг Е. Л.].

Even in morning Ю. Ф. Лисянский was the person rather who has been not involved in the conflict Крузенштерна with Резановым. But, having stated careless words about the emperor in an exciting atmosphere of collective trial organized And. Ф. Крузенштерном, it(he) (Лисянский) should strain all forces for some kind of rehabilitations, ' on what victims it would be not necessary to go ', ' whatever happened '. The started mechanism троецентрия has worked: at Ю. Ф. Лисянского did not remain of other output(exit) except for obvious, distinct(clear) and indisputable success.

Still ahead were also thin diplomatic course And. Ф. Крузенштерна with initial call on Kamchatka, and relative failure of embassy, and decision Н. Item. Резанова to leave from the ship «'Hope», and the not holding meeting Резанова with «'Neva» on Alaska, but already in a latent kind has appeared – yet not formulated decision Ю. Ф. Лисянского, in the obvious form accepted later, at cape of Kind Hope – is independent, with the greatest possible speed to arrive in Kronstadt. INDEPENDENTLY! BY FIRST!

There is a question, on which there is no unequivocal answer: what variant actually would be is more safe? Variant joint or variant of separate navigation?

And unless the arrival one – anyone them two – ship would not become success in eyes of the emperor Александра I? Even under condition of неприбытия second? The world(global) experience allowed to believe: the safe end of a sea campaign even by one of the ships would indoubtedly be estimated as successful end of expedition(dispatch). But successfully both ships arrived!!! (' we owe it(him) with glory finish ... whatever happened and on what victims it would be not necessary to go! '). All has passed was successful (from this that in the competence of the captains): both navigation, and military help Российско of the American company, both trade, and research! Russia became in one number(line) with conducting world(global) sea державами. (' Instead of whether early in Куки, young man? ' (From words of the ambassador Воронцова. Цит. On [Штейнберг Е. Л.]).

But while the ship Крузенштерна "'Hope" is directed to Japan.

Magnificent дипломатичный a course Крузенштерна: Иван Федорович changes a sequence of achievement of the purposes. At first not delivery of embassy in Japan. At first visiting of Kamchatka. Мотивировка difficultly challenged: it is necessary urgently to deliver cargoes to Kamchatka. In first, the representatives of the Company expect cargoes, in second, the conditions of navigation can change. Н. Item. Резанов is compelled to agree.

Резанов is morally disorganized, in Петропавловске ' begins to let out of pairs ', the official trial begins. Крузенштерну the discharge threatens, but Крузенштерн does(makes) a new powerful diplomatic step: apologizes.

Н. Item. Резанов,maybe, also would like it(him) to discharge, but terms do not allow: the situation will be tightened(delayed). She(it) and so is tightened(delayed): unforeseen time stood, were under repair, in Brasil, unforeseen transition in Петропавловск (instead of Japan).

It is necessary to hasten with embassy.

The captains already have shown the qualification, and it was clear, that the success of expedition(dispatch) is real.

Н. Item. Резанов be praised by any achievement on the moment of trial of the conflict on Kamchatka could not.

If it is valid in Brasil Н. Item. Резанов sent the reports on "'disobedience" of the captains in St. Petersburg, it(he) could expect with what that of reaction, having arrived on Kamchatka. (This judgement, certainly, presumable. The author has no the information on speed of moving of the items of mail).

But in any case, the information sources do not contain the items of information on reception Н. Item. Резановым on What Kamchatka or distinct(clear) answers from St. Petersburg on the reports rather "of 'disobedience" of the captains.

Threat of the captains by a resignation and not obvious reaction имперского of a management(manual) on the messages Н. Item. Резанова were one of латентно of culmination items of expedition(dispatch).

Н. Item. Резанов has understood, that it is necessary ' to hand over back '.

Н. Item. Резанов accepts apologies And. Ф. Крузенштерна. The embassy terminates in relative failure. The Japanese emperor gifts has not accepted, to an establishment of the diplomatic attitudes(relations) has not agreed. In general(common), in it there was with no what that of especial failure. The policy(politics) of Japan was those in that time. As far as Japan in that time "'дистанцировалась" from all European countries (short of Holland) is possible to judge.

Failure of embassy – if those has happened at once after the conflict with Крузенштерном – Резанов could interpret on any other business, including having readdressed what that a share of the responsibility Крузенштерну. But formal reconciliation on Kamchatka was held. At Рязанова there were no bases and occasion in what that to reproach Крузенштерна.

Certainly, for success of embassy in Russia hoped, but, on the other hand, for anybody were not secrets policy(politics) and position of Japan. Most likely, the emperor Александр I took into consideration an opportunity неуспеха as rather real. And the results of ambassadorial mission have not upset it(him).

Intolerant conditions by the ship around Н. Item. Резанова, relative failure of embassy. Н. Item. Резанов it appears in a role of the unlucky ambassador. Objectively it(him) to reproach there is nothing. Н. Item. Резанов moves down from the ship (1805). Is directed on Alaska. There – "'Neva". Ю. Ф. Лисянский learns(finds out) about speed arrival Н. Item. Резанова. But the time does not suffer(bear). Лисянский hastens in China, in Кантон.

Н. Item. Резанов remains on Alaska. Remains in a rule(situation) of the man with double problems (1) history of the conflict by the ship and (2) fact of relative failure of embassy.

Н. Item. Резанов comes back through Siberia in St. Petersburg.

Objectively it(he) in anything is not guilty. Also it was formal it(him) to accuse there is nothing. The man with smaller vanity,maybe, and more easy would experience a situation.

Naturally, the rule(situation) of the man not seeked success, does not add vital forces. In ways Н. Item. Резанов dies (1807).

So, Н. Item. Резанов from expedition(dispatch) 'has "left".

Let's return to And. Ф. Крузенштерну and Ю. Ф. Лисянскому.

The meeting in Кантоне, and after the decision of trade tasks in Кантоне – joint navigation in Санкт of St. Petersburg is necessary them (bending around cape of Kind Hope).

And at presence on "'Hope" Н. Item. Резанова, and in his(its) absence the psychological mechanism троецентрия, given in action by a wise Sphynx, continues successfully to work in a direction of creation of success.

After involving in the conflict with Н. Item. Резановым and after careless words to address the emperor at Ю. Ф. Лисянского does not remain of other choice except for obvious and obvious success.

On some mentions in the books And. Ф. Крузенштерна and Ю. Ф. Лисянского it is possible to make a conclusion, that "'Neva" showed the large rapidity (in comparison with "'Hope"). (Is qualified were under repair? The knowledge корабела has had an effect?)

Ю. Ф. Лисянский writes in the book:

' On April 15. A wind fresh, юго east, weather пасмурная. The ship ' Hope ' has disappeared from us from a kind. At the night by gun shots and lit rockets I gave it(him) to know about a place, where we were. Поутру I have used вс ё сво ё diligence it(him) to find, but my efforts have remained vain. To полудню the rich fog has appeared and has forced me to hold an appropriate rate, as the wind blew favorable, which necessarily should use there, where some hours give sometimes greatest difference in navigation. So, we already in third times are separated by a sudden image.

(...)

April 24. Today we could ourselves congratulate, that not only safely have bypassed a southern extremity of Africa, but also have received юго east пассатные winds.

Having examined quantity(amount) of food supplies, I have seen, that, at the economic use, them would be enough for three months. Believing, that during this time we can reach(achieve) Europe, I have decided to leave former сво ё intention итти to an island Св. Елены, and has directed the way directly to England, being is sure, that the so brave enterprise will deliver to us the large honour. Still seafarer, any, similar to us, did not venture such far way, not coming where or for rest. To this courageous feat me induced as well desire mine subordinated, which, being in accomplished(perfect) health, only about that and thought to be distinguished than нибудь extreme. I regretted единственно for one, that the similar travel should us be separated from the ship By(with) 'hope) before most our arrival in Russia. But what to do(make)? Having a case to prove to light, that we deserve to the full that power of attorney, what was rendered us by(with) fatherland, it was necessary to offer this pleasure ' [Лисянский Ю. Ф.].

The events are described and And. Ф. Крузенштерном:

' April. 15

(...) the Course of the ship under зарифельными by Marseilles was of 9 1/2 units. But not looking on this fresh safe ветр, we were separated with Невою.

(...)

I ... did(made) repeatedly signals by gun shots, and during night жгли we фальшвеер in each two hours, but did not receive on that of any answer, and we have despaired to incorporate with Невою before arrival ours to an island Св. Елены, as to a place nominated for connection.

(...)

April 26 го we have seen two ships ... by First we have recognized Невою, but as the Hope went worse; that Neva soon left again from a kind, and we her(it) any more видали before our arrival in Кронштат. (...)

Четыредневное stay ours at islands Св. Елены ... (...)

After reception by me here of authentic news about the begun war between Россиею and Франциею, I much regretted, that Г н Лисянский, not having complied purpose(assignment) mine, has not gone to an island Св. Елены. The mutual safety required(demanded) by all means to be to us now together. The truth given us from француского of government паспорты, encouraged безопасностию from not friendly with us of acts of the military ships; however from каперов could we expect opposite. Сии quite often do not respect even commands of the government. In continuation of present war there were many examples proving a variety of their ideas from the chiefs of the ships of the militarians. (...)

In those circumstances not почел I reliable to pass Аглинским by the channel, about коего generally крейсеруют Француские каперы. And so, обошед of an island Азорские, we have directed a rate to northern extremity of Scotland that, having floated between оною and Оркадскими by islands enter Northern sea. This way долженствовал to be продолжительнее, as that has proved to be true and actually; but I have recognized as his(its) by most reliable on circumstances ' [Крузенштерн And. Ф.].

Whether 4. ' Early in Куки, young man? ' ' With Куком we disagree ... '. In a rank Фернана Магеллана, Хуана Себастьяна дель Кано, Фрэнсиса Дрейка and other round-the-world seafarers

' After opening America (Колумб, 1492) and sea way to India (Васко yes of Din, 1498) major geographical event of epoch of great opening is the first round-the-world navigation accomplished Фернандом Магелланом. (...) Second after Магеллана the round-the-world navigation was accomplished English капером Франсисом Дреком (1577-80). (...) From numerous imitators Дрека most ' outstanding ' it is considered That Кавендиш, made round-the-world navigation in 1586– 1588. The first Dutch seafarer who has made round-the-world navigation, is Де Ноорт ... (1598-1601) ... (...) the Attempt of search of a new way undertaken in 1615 амстердамским by a merchant Лемером together with the seaman Схоутеном, has crowned by success ... Right at the end 17 centuries the English pirate Демпир makes three round-the-world navigations (1679-1700). For first half 18 centuries are possible to note three round-the-world navigations of the Englishmen Роджерса (1708-10) and Ансона (1740) and Dutch Роггевена (1721). (...) During second half 18 in. Is totaled 8 round-the-world плаваний: the English expedition(dispatch) Джона Байрона (1764-66) – first round-the-world navigation undertaken with the scientific purposes; the English expedition(dispatch) Валлиса and Картерета (1766-69); the large French geographical expedition(dispatch) Бугенвиля (1706-09); three round-the-world navigations Джемса Кука; the tragically terminated navigation Лаперуза; expedition(dispatch) of Vancouver (1790-92). In first half 19 centuries are equipped 6 Russian round-the-world expeditions(dispatches): Крузенштерна (1803-06) ... '[] of Round-the-world navigation '].

' With Куком we disagree ... ' [Лисянский Ю. Ф.].

' The Round-the-world expedition(dispatch) has done in the beginning a lot of noise, – wrote Чичагов to the envoy in London With. Р. Воронцову. – All expeditions(dispatches), when or made in the world before this time, are covered in this with one, not excluding and Egyptian expedition(dispatch) Буонапарте, which in comparison with this – is simple children's game. For that had with itself(himself) scientific, естествоиспытателей, philosophers, and here one representative Лисянский, yes some schoolboys of one of our special schools replace with themselves all '. With. Р. Воронцов the thoughtless and excessively self-confident man answered in tone to the correspondent, that visited it(him) recently Лисянский – no more as. His(its) name (certainly, as well as name Крузенштерна) will not be brought in one list with a name Кука ... ' [Пасецкий In. М.].

' Not my fault, if with me there are such диковины ... It because I love to travel and eternally I search of adventures, and you sit at home and nothing see, except for four walls of the room ' (Э. Распэ. Adventures of baron Мюнхаузена).

5. Unceasing seafarer Ю. Ф. Лисянский. Between Дрейком and Блайтом

To number complex(difficult) sea плаваний concern both round-the-world navigation, and distant enough unceasing (without call in ports) navigation.

The unceasing distant navigation is excellent(different) check of sea art. Certainly, the allocation unceasing плаваний in a separate kind (or class) is conditional enough. Any navigation is in what that sense unceasing. The basis for application of such term arises then, when the special purpose – is put to pass the maximal, unusually long distance without call in port (mooring).

To number of the unceasing seafarers, probably, it is possible to attribute(relate) both Фрэнсиса Дрейка, and Ю. Ф. Лисянского, and it is ((indisputable) Чэя Блайта. Чэй Блайт in 1970-1971 years has carried out simultaneously both round-the-world, and unceasing (non stop) single navigation on a yacht ' Бритиш стил '.

' Five days after separation with ' by Hope 'commander' of Neva ' will carry out(spend) in meditation. It(he) recollects a history of navigation from times Магеллана, touches in memory all round-the-world вояжи of the Spaniards, Englishmen, rather recent navigation of the French Бугенвиля. Is not present, any of them has not made continuous navigation from east part of the Indian ocean to coast of Europe. Джеймс Кук has glorified Britain by two round-the-world плаваниями, Vancouver – вояжем on Great ocean, the French while have made one вояж by a circle of light. And in general it(he) does not remember, that who нибудь from мореходов should have decided to pass from Кантона in England without a respite. ' Than worse we, Russians? – the captain лейтенант Лисянский is set by a question. – Неужто we shall miss the chance? And when it(he) still will drop out? ' Besides how many time collided Лисянский with court вельможами and sea grades concerning with neglect and scepticism skill and training of the Russian seamen. By such, as the brothers of the column Воронцовы, their friend the admiral Павел Чичагов, whom on a post is determined пестовать Russian fleet. It is necessary on an example to prove to them, on what the Russian seamen are capable. Main – Лисянский considers(counts) as the first debt ' to deliver honour and glory to Russian flag ' ' [Фирсов And. И.].

' For 140 days ' Neva ' has passed without call in what or port and without anchor parking of 13 923 miles. Usually for such long distant плаваниям the seafarers prepare beforehand and not one month, the ships carefully equip, reserve провизию and water, select crew. At navigation ' of Neva ' such preparation was not. Especially значимы success and merit of the commander and his(its) subordinated.

The long unprecedented transition of the Russian seamen speaks about perfect sea training of the commander and all crew. The navigation has shown knowledge, skill and responsibility Лисянского for the charged business. You see leaving(abandoning) Кантон, it(he) did not assume such test, but, as always, скрупулезно prepared for an output(exit) in the sea "'Neva", which already has overcome of 30 000 miles of navigation in storm conditions and непогоду. Three and a half of one month the crew was in a separation from coast – and any нарекания on the part of the heads, discontent and complaints subordinated. Whether it is an example of stability(resistance) and courage Russian мореходов, making first round-the-world вояж?!

' Thus, we have finished rather long navigation directly from Кантона, not coming anywhere in ports. Thus the people, taking place by my ship, were completely healthy and did not suffer(bear) in anything slightest lack ', – the commander has noted.