What awaits Russia? The truth about the predictions of the monk Abel (4 photos)
What the wandering monk actually spoke about and whether his prophecies came true.
“Having studied all the pre-revolutionary publications about Abel, we do not find any of his predictions about the reign of the last Tsar Nicholas II, but they only talk about the reign of the emperors Pavel Petrovich and Alexander,” says historian Nikolai Kaverin.
On March 11, 1901, on the day of the death of his great-great-grandfather Pavel, Emperor Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra Feodorovna left for Gatchina in good spirits. According to the will of Paul I, on this day, his descendant should have opened a certain casket. What secret could he be hiding? The imperial couple was in joyful anticipation. They spent half a day in Gatchina, and returned to the capital in a very depressed mood …
The letter, allegedly written by Paul after a conversation with the wandering and prophesying monk Abel, told the fate of all the emperors from the Romanov dynasty. So, Abel at one time predicted the imminent death of Catherine II, then told Paul about his own fate and death at the hands of his subjects. He pointed out that under Alexander I, Moscow would be burned by the French, and the reign of Nicholas I would begin with a “Voltairian rebellion.” His son, Alexander II, will free the peasants, but he himself will become a victim of terrorists. Alexander III will restore peace in the country, but he will not rule for long. But the saddest events fell on the share of Nicholas II. Abel allegedly saw that the king would change his crown to a martyr’s crown of thorns, be betrayed by his people, and the dynasty would end on him …
All this impressed Emperor Paul so much that he immediately believed all the predictions on paper and ordered the letter to be opened to his descendant on the centenary of his death. That is, knowing what troubles await his children and grandchildren, he deliberately withholds the truth from them? And this is the first inconsistency with the writer Sergei Nilus, who told this very story to a wide range of readers at the beginning of the 20th century.
The author should be mentioned separately: Sergei Nilus is the publisher of the “Protocol of the Elders of Zion” – a forged anti-Semitic document, the origin of which he could not clearly identify. And now – a new story, based, according to the author, on the memoirs of Ober Kammerfrau Empress Maria Geringer.
But the fact is that there were meticulous people who carefully studied the memoirs of the Kammerfrau and did not find anything like that there! Further more. The researchers studied the chamber-Fourier journal, which on this day reads: “At eleven o’clock in the morning, in the presence of Their Majesties, Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna and the adjutant wing of Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich, who was replaced, a liturgy was served in the camp church, set in the corner living room of the Alexander Palace. <…> The centenary of the death of the reposed Emperor Paul I in Boza.
That is, there was no trip to Gatchina, there was no mysterious casket, and there was no letter from the distant past. But was the monk Abel in this case?
In general, not everything is so unambiguous in this story, especially since it is documented extremely sparingly. It is known about the monk that in the world his name was Vasily Vasiliev and he was a serf of Count Naryshkin. Then he begged him for freedom and secretly fled from his native village, according to some reports, leaving his wife and three children there. He wandered for a long time, and then took monastic vows.
At some point, he decided that he was being visited by visions, and began to write them down in notebooks, which he somehow showed to his church leadership. Since his notes were about Empress Catherine II, the leadership decided to tell the relevant authorities about this. The monk was arrested and reported to the queen. Moreover, in the records of Abel they saw incitement to rebellion, blasphemy against the Lord and the Church.
In the records of interrogations, which were carried out very carefully during the time of Catherine, it is said that the monk claimed that the empress would reign for 40 years, and then Paul would overthrow her: “His mother, Ekaterina Alekseevna, our most merciful Empress, reigns for 40 years: for so God revealed to me” , and then “the son will rise against the nude . ”
The death penalty came out all over the monk, but Catherine had mercy and sent Abel forever to the Shlisselburg fortress. And, as we know, these predictions of his did not come true: Catherine II ruled the empire for 34 years, and Paul ended up on the throne in a natural way.
He also freed Abel, becoming emperor. But soon he was again behind bars – now in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Alexander I transferred the monk to the Solovetsky Monastery and granted freedom. After living on Solovki, Abel again went to wander, without stopping his strange prophecies and teachings about some great spirits. Already under Nicholas I, he was again caught and sent to the Serpukhov monastery, where, apparently, he ended his days.
Modern researchers, however, pay attention to the political nature of the prophecies, arguing that much of what is attributed to the monk appeared much later. In particular, predictions about the last Romanov.
“Having studied all the pre-revolutionary publications about Abel, we do not find any of his predictions about the reign of the last Tsar Nicholas II, but they only talk about the reign of the emperors Pavel Petrovich and Alexander ,” says historian Nikolai Kaverin.
Nicholas II with his family.
The first mention of the martyrdom of Nicholas appears in the 30s of the last century, and with the next reprint they are overgrown with new details. As a result, there is a feeling that all “prophecies” are, as they would say today, an anti-government order, black PR aimed at inciting rebellion. Another thing is that the question remains whether the monk himself created an unhealthy atmosphere or someone else was the initiator of the targeted spread of rumors about “predictions”.
