118 исторических миниатюр и 108 авторских текстов на 13 иностранных языках. Сборник
Шрифт:
A few arguments about the period of direct floating.
What were the functions of I. F. Kruzenshtern as head of the expedition - from the information sources is not clear. Joint sea marches of sailing ships - it was not always easy: as required a considerable time for coordination.
And "Victoria", under the leadership of Juan Sebastian del Cano, and "Golden Hind" of Francis Drake came to the finish alone.
The format partly of joint swimming, certainly, exerted some psychologically stabilizing impact on captains Kruzenshtern and Lisyansky.
The author does not have the opportunity to get acquainted with the text of the instruction defining I.F. Kruzenshtern's powers, but from information sources it follows that in fact he performed fragmentary coordinating functions.
Most interesting is that on the formal side, I. F. Kruzenshtern - it seems - was not the chief of the expedition.
"July 10, 1803 N. P. Rezanov was appointed the Russian Ambassador to Japan. He was given instructions approved by Alexander I. (...) In general since it became clear that Rezanov will personally participate in an expedition, both seamen appeared kind of in a shadow" [3].
"The first clash took place in Copenhagen where Rezanov has refused to take Langsdorff in the retinue. But stubborn Kruzenshtern categorically insisted, and, without wishing to fuel tension, the envoy has conceded" [2].
"... Several weeks later after departure from Kronstadt Rezanov has said the rights for the management of the First Russian round-the-world expedition. He showed Kruzenshtern manual, approved by Alexander I. It reads as follows: "These two vessels with officers and servants, in the service of the company, are entrusted to Your superiors".
However this instruction has been hidden from Kruzenshtern. For the first time he has seen it to Tenerife when the ships were far from coast of Russia.
In turn, Kruzenshtern had the instruction of the Russian-American Company, which entrusted him with the leadership of the expedition and the general command of the ships. Rezanov's statement, which declared in Tenerife that he "the head of both ships", deeply angered Kruzenshtern, and he refused to obey the envoy. However, on the island of St. Catherine Rezanov again started talking about his rights to guide the expedition.
Kruzenshtern has informed Rumyantsev and Chichagov about these claims and has addressed with the extensive letter to Alexander I, in which he reported that he "will confront" against all attempts of Rezanov to interfere with his (Krusenshtern) leadership in voyage and never will agree to recognize legitimacy of the instruction of the envoy.
The tense situation created because of the claims Rezanov, - continued Kruzenshtern, - "saps the strength of man." In Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Kruzenshtern was going to surrender command of the courts to other officers. It was an ultimatum" [1].
"Kruzenshtern play hypocrite a little. He was well aware of the decision of Alexander I. Even in Kronstadt he was informed by Rezanov about a will of the Emperor. The company's management in the instructions to him, Kruzenshtern, wrote about Rezanov that "empowering him with a rights of full manager not only during the voyage, but also in America," Required Kruzenshtern: "You will not leave to follow his advice in all things"" [2].
So we can note that the in expedition were objectively established three centers of power (Troyecentricity).
The multicentricity itself, but in format not Troyecentricity, but Twocentricity, is not unique.
In the depth of history we watch, for example, two Roman consuls.
During Alexander I's era, after the beginning of Patriotic war of 1812, we see relatively equal Bagration and Barclay de Tolly.
Probably, it is possible to recall also commissioners who during some periods could repeal orders of commanders.
S.P. Melgunov called the book "Alexander I. A sphinx on a throne".
In a Troyecentricity we can see a mysterious smile of the Sphinx.
Was there a rational motivation of a Troyecentricity?
Perhaps the following rationale can be found for management, which is using Troyecentricity:
(1) The priority of the Embassy (imperial task).
Note: After "war of nerves" and self-isolation N. P. Rezanov in his cabin, the expedition is becoming a two-centric de facto.
Control under an expedition becomes a two-centric (a twocentriate) de jure from the moment of completion of attempts of placement of embassy in Japan, Rezanov's step down out board the "Hope" (1805) and N.P. Rezanov's directions to Russia through Siberia (in way N.P. Rezanov died of a disease in 1807).
The Polycentrism (Twocentrism) "is nullified" after an output from the Canton and traverse of the Cape of Good Hope by the ships.
The ships lost each other from a view and further moved independently of each other on different paths.
(2) The polycentrism promoted complementarity. During certain periods of floating (especially during an initial stage) both captains acted jointly, that allowed novice captains (relatively novice) to lean on cooperation and mutual assistance, accumulating experience. In foreign ports two ships looked more seriously, than one.
(3) The polycentrism provided mutual monitoring (mutual control).
(4) The polycentrism created the atmosphere of competitive spirit. Though Lisyansky's aspiration to independent float can raise some questions, it, this aspiration, was programmed by the polycentrism of control of an expedition.
"The tense situation created because of Rezanov's claims, ... "exhausts forces human". In Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Kruzenshtern was going to hand over command of vessels to other officers. It was the ultimatum.