Most pre-revolutionary historians considered the second half of the eighteenth century. "golden age" of the Russian Empire and considered this time as an important stage in the development of Russian statehood and further Europeanization of the country. In the historical literature, this period of Russian history has also been called "enlightened absolutism." This is how the Catherine era was assessed, for example, by N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky. A more critical position was taken by V.O. Klyuchevsky, A.A. Kizivetter, V.I. Semevsky.

In the studies of Soviet historians, the main attention was paid to the pro-noble nature of the policy of the government of Catherine II, the strengthening of serfdom and the police functions of the state, and the resistance of the peasantry to the serf policy of the autocracy. The enlightened absolutism of Catherine was seen as demagogy and maneuvering in the conditions of the disintegration of the feudal-serf system.

The modern view of the Catherine's era has freed itself from the "class approach" and has become more balanced, taking into account the nature of the era. In particular, in the works of A.B. Kamensky and N.I. Pavlenko's view of this period in the history of Russia is very close to the assessments of pre-revolutionary historians.

The personality and activities of Catherine II herself, who ruled Russia for 34 years, were also assessed differently by contemporaries and descendants, sometimes even diametrically opposed. If the moral image of the empress as a whole fits into the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky: “We pass in silence about the moral character of Catherine, which cannot be read without a mournful sigh,” then her contribution to domestic and foreign policy is controversial to the present. For example, the concept of "enlightened absolutism" is interpreted differently. Some historians prefer to call him "enlightened despotism", and Catherine - "enlightened despot", and in general the question is raised: is the concept of "enlightened absolutism" applicable to the reign of Catherine?

During the reign of Catherine II, the imperial character of Russia reaches its highest peak. There is a debate among historians about the extent to which the empire, as a form of organization of the human community, met the interests of its multinational population. A number of historians believe that the empire was an artificial formation based on the fear of the conquered population and its military power. Others hold a directly opposite opinion, noting that this form of statehood undermined the national isolation of the peoples inhabiting it and contributed to their inclusion in a single world process. Later, Emperor Nicholas I said: "A German, a Finnish, a Tatar, a Georgian - that's what Russia is."

Catherine II sincerely believed that she really managed to achieve prosperity, if not all, then at least the majority of her subjects. Under her rule, Russia became stronger and more powerful than ever, and the new laws were supposed to ensure universal prosperity. Historians have called her reign the time of "enlightened absolutism." The reign of her contemporaries is also called - Frederick II in Prussia, Joseph II in Austria and some others. But over time, more and more doubts began to arise in the correctness of this definition. On the one hand, some believe that it applies not only to Catherine, but also to some of her predecessors and successors. On the contrary, others are not sure that the political system of Russia of this time can be called absolutism at all. But it's not about the name. It is much more important to understand what this time was like in Russian history. Meanwhile, the opinions of both contemporaries and descendants on this matter differed, and sometimes diverged in the most radical way.

The most famous critic of Catherine from among her contemporaries was, of course, the famous historian Prince Mikhail Mikhailovich Shcherbatov. An educated and talented man, he, like many of his peers, was fascinated by philosophers-enlighteners and Freemasonry, but with the ideas of social equality preached by both of them, he failed to reconcile his spirit of a proud aristocrat, convinced of the usefulness of serfdom. In search of an ideal, he turned to the distant past of Russia, as it seemed to him, he found it and involuntarily began to compare it with what he saw before his own eyes. The comparison was not in favor of the great empress. In addition, the wounded vanity of a person who believed that, by his mind and birth, he was worthy to be one of the first persons of the state, was mixed in, but he saw his place occupied by random people, that is, who fell on him by chance. And now Shcherbatov's caustic tongue is scourging Catherine's court for exorbitant luxury, the pursuit of which, in his opinion, leads to a decline in morals. “Her morality,” accused Ekaterina Shcherbatov, “stands on the basis of new philosophers, that is, it is not approved on the solid stone of the law of God, and therefore, as it is based on the vacillating Svetsky principalities, it is subject to general fluctuations with them. On the contrary, her vices are: voluptuous and completely entrusting to her favorites, full of pomp in all things, proud to infinity, and unable to force herself to such deeds that can bore her, taking everything upon herself, has no care for the execution and, finally, she is so changeable that it is rare for even one month that she has the same system in the reasoning of government.

If Shcherbatov was a conservative by conviction and tried to find moral ideals in pre-Petrine Russia, then among the youth of the nobility there were many who, reading the same books as Catherine, drew completely different, radical conclusions from them. “Who could be so insensitive when the fatherland suffers from that, to look with cold blood? - asked in a letter to a friend of Pavel Petrovich's childhood games, Prince A.B. Kurakin Colonel and adjutant wing P.A. Bibikov. - This would be very funny, but out of misfortune the heart is torn and you can see in all its blackness the unfortunate situation of everyone, no matter how good-minded and still have a force acting in their souls ... I confess to you, as a person to whom I have always opened my heart, that I need all my philosophy, so as not to throw everything to hell and go home to plant cabbage ... ”Another, who also did not see anything encouraging in contemporary reality, a freethinker, the Yaroslavl landowner I.M. Opochinin, having decided to commit suicide, wrote in his suicide note that "the very disgust for our Russian life is the very impulse that forced me to decide my fate without permission."

But there was another point of view. great poet Derzhavin glorified Catherine in his famous odes:

There are rumors about your actions

That you are not at all proud;

Kind in business and in jokes,

Pleasant in friendship and firm;

What are you indifferent to misfortunes,

And in glory so magnanimous,

What renounced and be reputed to be wise.

They also say it's easy

What seems to be always possible

You and tell the truth.

Aspire to tears of pleasant rivers

From the depths of my soul.

O! If people are happy

There must be their own destiny,

Where is the meek angel, the peaceful angel,

Hidden in porphyry lordship,

A scepter was sent down from heaven to carry!

There you can whisper in conversations

And, without fear of execution, at dinners

Do not drink for the health of kings.

Also unheard of

Worthy of you alone

What if you boldly people

About everything and awake and at hand,

And let you know and think,

And you don't forbid yourself

And the truth and fiction to speak;

As if to the most crocodiles,

Your all graces to zoila,

You always tend to forgive.

There with the name of Felitsa you can

Scrape the typo in the line

Or a portrait carelessly

Drop her on the ground.

There are no clownish weddings,

They are not fried in ice baths,

Do not click in the mustache of the nobles;

Princes don't cackle with hens,

Beloved in reality they do not laugh,

And they don't stain their faces with soot.

Another poet, on the pages of the Vsyakaya Vsyachina magazine, formulated the idea, which was later repeated in many ways by many: “Peter gave bodies to Ross, Catherine gave souls.”

Very little time passed after the death of Catherine, and in the Pavlovian era, when the life and fate of a person again began to depend on a change in the mood of the sovereign, dissatisfaction with certain actions or, conversely, the inaction of his mother, began to be forgotten and the myth of Catherine's time arose quite quickly as a "golden age". Having ascended the throne in 1801, her favorite Alexander I swore to rule “according to the law and according to the heart of our grandmother.” bumped and his predecessor. But under him, there were even more of those who were disappointed by the slowness and moderation of reforms and who, with youthful maximalism, were ready to cross out all the legacy of previous decades.

Such was the young Pushkin with his "Tartuffe in a skirt and a crown." “The reign of Catherine II,” he believed, “had a new and strong influence on the political and moral state of Russia. Elevated to the throne by a conspiracy of several rebels, she enriched them at the expense of the people and humiliated our restless nobility. If to reign means to know the weakness of the human soul and use it, then in this respect Catherine deserves the astonishment of posterity. Her magnificence dazzled, her friendliness attracted, her bounties attached. The very voluptuousness of this cunning woman asserted her dominion. Producing a faint murmur among the people, accustomed to respect the vices of their rulers, it aroused vile competition in higher states, because no intelligence, no merit, no talents were needed to achieve second place in the state ... Humiliated Sweden and destroyed Poland - these are Catherine's great rights to the gratitude of the Russian people. But over time, history will appreciate the influence of her reign on morals, reveal the cruel activity of her despotism under the guise of meekness and tolerance, the people oppressed by the governors, the treasury plundered by lovers, will show her important mistakes in political economy, insignificance in legislation, disgusting buffoonery in relations with philosophers. her century - and then the voice of seduced Voltaire will not save her glorious memory from the curse of Russia.

These lines were written by Pushkin in 1822, and somewhat earlier, another remarkable Russian thinker, N.M. Karamzin, addressing Emperor Alexander, wrote something completely different: “Catherine II was the true successor to the greatness of Petrov and the second educator new Russia. The main thing of this unforgettable monarch is that she softened the autocracy, without losing her strength. She caressed the so-called philosophers of the 18th century and was captivated by the character of the ancient republicans, but she wanted to command like an earthly God - and she commanded. Peter, forcing the customs of the people, had a need for cruel means - Catherine could do without them, to the pleasure of her tender heart: for she did not demand from the Russians anything contrary to their conscience and civic skills, trying only to glorify the Fatherland given to her by Heaven or her glory - with victories, legislation, education.

Years later, Pushkin, who seriously studied history XVIII centuries and horrified by the "rebellion senseless and merciless", apparently changed his mind, and on the pages of his "Captain's Daughter" a completely different Catherine appears before the reader - a wise and fair empress. Pushkin's friend P.Ya. Chaadaev, the most gloomy critic of Russia's historical past, believed that "it is superfluous to talk about the reign of Catherine II, which was of such a national character that, perhaps, no nation has ever been identified to such an extent with its government as the Russian people in these years victories and prosperity. Surprisingly, people of very different beliefs converged in such an assessment. So, the Decembrist A.A. Bestuzhev believed that "the merits of Catherine for the enlightenment of the fatherland are incalculable", and the Slavophil A.S. Khomyakov, comparing the eras of Catherine and Alexander, concluded that “under Catherine, Russia existed only for Russia,” while “under Alexander, it becomes some kind of service force for Europe.” “How strange our fate is,” P.A. Vyazemsky. - The Russian tried to make Germans out of us; the German woman wanted to turn us into Russians.” And he recalled with nostalgia the luxury of Catherine's time, so hated by Shcherbatov:

Catherine's century, her luxurious courtyard.

Constellation of the names of the companions of Felitsa,

Folk story shiny pages,

Dignitaries, leaders, a choir of selected singers,

Heralds of victories Derzhavin and Petrov -

Everything was clothed in life, in movement and in verbs.

Assessment of the reign of Catherine II.

(According to V.O. Klyuchevsky)

Each historian gives his own interpretation historical events. Consider the views of V.O. Klyuchevsky to the reign of Catherine II.

The main aspect according to which V.O. Klyuchevsky gives an assessment of the reign of a politician - how much the material and moral resources of the Russian state increased or decreased during the years of his reign.

1. Material resources.

Material resources have increased in enormous proportions. During the reign of Catherine, the state territory almost reached its natural borders both in the south and in the west. From the acquisitions made in the south, three provinces were formed - Tauride, Kherson and Yekaterinoslav, not counting the land of the Black Sea Army that arose at the same time. Of the acquisitions made in the west, from Poland, 8 provinces were made - Vitebsk, Courland, Mogilev, Vilna, Minsk, Grodno, Volyn and Bratslav (now Podolsk). So, out of 50 provinces into which Russia was divided, 11 were acquired during the reign of Catherine.

These material successes become even more tangible if we compare the population of the country at the beginning and at the end of Catherine's reign.

According to the III revision of 1762-63. it was believed that the population is 19-20 million souls of both sexes and all conditions. In 1796 according to the 5th revision, carried out according to the same calculation, the inhabitants of the empire were considered to be at least 34 million.

Consequently, the population of the state in the continuation of the reign almost doubled, the amount of state revenues quadrupled. This means that not only the number of payers has increased, but also state payments have increased, an increase in which is usually taken as a sign of an increase in the productivity of people's labor.

So, the material resources have increased tremendously.

2. Social discord.

On the contrary, moral means have become weaker. The moral means at the disposal of the state can be reduced to two orders of relations: first, they consist in the unity of interests linking the various tribal and social constituent parts of the state with each other; secondly, in the ability of the ruling class to lead society. In turn, this ability depends on the legal position of the ruling class in society, on the degree to which it understands the position of society, and on the degree of political preparation to lead it. These moral means of the state in the reign of Catherine fell greatly. First of all, the strife of interests of the tribal, constituent parts of the state intensified. Discord was introduced by the Polish population of the conquered provinces of the Commonwealth. This element became a force due to the fact that, in addition to the southwestern regions, some parts of real Poland were introduced into the Russian state. On the other hand, one of the important regions of South-Western Russia, organically connected with the rest, Galicia found itself outside the borders of the Russian state, intensifying the discord introduced into our Western international relations.

Further, the discord between the social components of the indigenous Russian society intensified; this strengthening was a consequence of the relations in which the two main classes of Russian society were placed by Catherine's legislation - the nobility and the serfs. The nobility was strengthened in power thanks to a series of palace coups. In exactly the same way, the serf peasant population also thought of gaining freedom: following the nobility, they also wanted to achieve freedom by a series of illegal uprisings. Such is the meaning of the numerous peasant revolts that began in the reign of Catherine II and which, gradually spreading, merged into a huge Pugachev rebellion. This should not have been allowed. The position of these estates had to be arranged in a legal way, by means of a lawful definition of relations to the land. This legitimate definition was not made by the government of Catherine. On the contrary, Catherine issues a number of laws that increase the role and rights of the nobility: 02/18/1762. - Law on the Liberty of the Nobility, 1775 - provincial institutions, 1785 - a charter to the nobility.

At the same time, Catherine adopted legislative acts, allowing us to say that serfdom had reached its peak. By decree of 1763. the peasants themselves had to pay the costs associated with the suppression of their speeches (if they were recognized as the instigators of unrest). 1765 - a decree allowing landowners to exile their peasants without trial and consequences to Siberia for hard labor, with these peasants counted as recruits. 1767 - a decree forbidding peasants to file complaints against their landlords to the empress.

Thus, the social disengagement became even sharper. Consequently, during the reign of Catherine, discord intensified both in the tribal and social composition of the state.

During the reign of Catherine II, the economic potential of Russia increased, cities grew, and consequently industry developed, and capitalist industrial relations began to take shape. In agriculture, the connection between landlord and peasant farms and the market was expanding. The international prestige of Russia has grown. But at the same time, trying to keep power in the hands of the nobility, Catherine contributed to the strengthening of class contradictions, which subsequently resulted in the peasant war of 1773-1775.

Used Books.

1. Klyuchevsky V.O. Works in nine volumes, volume V. - M. 1989.

2. Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Georgieva N.G., Sivokhina T.A. Russian history. - M.1999.

Firstly, Catherine finished the work begun by Peter, she carried out the Provincial reform, according to which the country was divided into provinces (But not by territory, but by population).
Thanks to Catherine, by the end of the eighteenth century, we increased our foreign trade by (!) 4 times! The first banks appeared, as well as paper money (banknotes). Domestic trade also became freer, absolutely everyone was allowed to open their manufactories without special permission from the government. Under her, the persecution of the Old Believers was stopped, Catholic and Protestant churches and mosques were built.
The war with Turkey ended in 1791. In 1792, the Treaty of Jassy was signed, which secured Russia's influence in Bessarabia and Transcaucasia, as well as the annexation of the Crimea. In 1793 and 1795, the second and third partitions of Poland took place, finally putting an end to Polish statehood.
In general, so to speak, Catherine completely and completely prepared us for entering the new, 19th century!

Reign of Paul 1

After death Catherine II her son Paul I ascended the throne. During her lifetime, Catherine actually removed Paul from power, their relationship was very cool. In 1794, she tried to deprive him of the right to inherit the throne and transfer power to her grandson. However, the empress could not fulfill her intention.

Having become emperor, Paul changed the order that existed at the court of Catherine. His policy in all areas was extremely inconsistent. He restored the abolished collegiums, changed the administrative division of Russia, reducing the number of provinces, and returned the former forms of administration of the provinces of Russia. Pavel deprived the nobility of privileges, limited the effect of letters of commendation, and constrained local self-government. In 1797, he established the norm of peasant labor (three days of corvée a week), this was the first restriction of landlord power. However, during the 4 years of his reign, he distributed to the landowners more than 600 thousand peasants belonging to the state.

In all his activities, Paul I allowed extremes and pursued an inappropriate policy. He banned the words "club", "council", "fatherland", "citizen". Banned the waltz, some details of clothing. He granted amnesty to politically motivated prisoners arrested under Catherine II, but at the same time continued to fight against revolutionary manifestations in society. In 1797-1799. he established the most severe censorship, banning 639 publications. On July 5, 1800, many printing houses were sealed for censorship. Paul interfered in the affairs of religion, trying to introduce elements of Catholicism into Orthodoxy.

The emperor repealed the law prohibiting the purchase of peasants to work in enterprises. He, without any justification, contrary to the meaning, restored the collegiate system, abolished by Catherine II.

Among the innovations introduced by the emperor, the creation of the Medico-Surgical Academy, the Russian-American Company, and the school for military orphans stand out positively.

Emperor gave great value regulations in military relations. The drill in the army acquired unprecedented proportions, which caused discontent among the guards and among the senior officers.

In 1798, an anti-French coalition was created, which included England, Austria, Turkey and Russia. The Black Sea squadron under the command of F.F. Ushakov was sent to the Mediterranean Sea. The Russian fleet liberated the Ionian Islands and southern Italy from French occupation. In February 1799, a major battle took place for the island of Corfu, where a three thousandth French garrison was defeated. Russian troops entered Naples and Rome.

In 1799, Russia began the land phase of the war. At the insistence of the allies, the command of the troops was entrusted to A.V. Suvorov. For a month and a half of hostilities, Russian troops managed to oust the French from Northern Italy. Fearing the growth of Russian influence in Italy, Austria achieved the transfer of Suvorov's troops to Switzerland. On August 31, 1799, to assist the troops of General A.M. Rimsky-Korsakov, Suvorov makes a heroic transition from Northern Italy through the Alps to Switzerland. Russian troops in the battles at Saint Gotthard and Devil's Bridge defeated the enemy. But help came too late, and Rimsky-Korsakov's troops were defeated.

In 1800, Paul I makes a sharp turn in foreign policy. He stops hostilities, withdraws troops to Russia and breaks the alliance with England and Austria. Having made peace with France, Paul I enters into an alliance with Prussia against Austria and with Prussia, Switzerland and Denmark against England. The aggravation of relations with England caused discontent among the nobility, since England was Russia's main partner in trade and the purchase of bread.

But a palace coup on the night of March 11-12, 1801 interrupted plans for a war against England. Paul I was killed as a result of this coup, organized by the highest guard officers, who did not forgive him for the oppression and the will taken from them.

38) Alexander 1 - son of the emperor Paul I and Princess Maria Feodorovna, grandson Catherine 2. He was born on December 23, 1777. From early childhood, he began to live with his grandmother, who wanted to raise a good sovereign out of him. After the death of Catherine, Paul came to the throne. The future emperor had many positive traits character. Alexander was not satisfied with his father's rule and entered into a conspiracy against Paul. On March 11, 1801, the king was killed (despite the protest of his son) and Alexander began to rule. Upon accession to the throne, Alexander 1 promised to follow the political course of Catherine 2.

1 stage of transformation. The beginning of the reign of Alexander 1 was marked by reforms, he wanted to change the political system of Russia, create a constitution that guaranteed rights and freedom to everyone. But Alexander had many opponents. On April 5, 1801, the Permanent Council was created, whose members could challenge the king's decrees. Alexander wanted to free the peasants, but many opposed this. Nevertheless, on February 20, 1803, a decree on free cultivators was issued. So in Russia for the first time there was a category of free peasants.

Alexander also carried out an education reform, the essence of which was to create a state education system, headed by the Ministry of Public Education. In addition, an administrative reform was carried out (the reform of the highest authorities) - 8 ministries were established: foreign affairs, internal affairs, finance, military ground forces, naval forces, justice, commerce and public education. The new governing bodies had sole power. Each separate department was controlled by a minister, each minister was subordinate to the Senate.

2nd stage of reforms. Alexander introduces M.M. Speransky, who is entrusted with the development of a new state reform. According to Speransky's project, it is necessary to create a constitutional monarchy in Russia, in which the sovereign's power would be limited by a bicameral body of a parliamentary type. The implementation of this plan began in 1809. By the summer of 1811, the transformation of the ministries was completed. But in connection with foreign policy Russia (tensioned relations with France) Speransky's reforms were perceived as anti-state and in March 1812 he was dismissed.

There was a threat from France. June 12, 1812 began Patriotic War. After the expulsion of Napoleon's troops, the authority of Alexander 1 increased.

Post-war reforms. In 1817-18. people close to the emperor were engaged in the phased elimination of serfdom. By the end of 1820, a draft of the “State Charter of the Russian Empire” was prepared and approved by Alexander, but it was not possible to introduce it.

feature domestic policy Alexander 1 was the introduction of the police regime, the creation of military settlements, which later became known as "Arakcheevshchina". Such measures caused dissatisfaction among the broad masses of the population. In 1817, the "Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education" headed by A.N. Golitsyn. In 1822, Emperor Alexander 1 banned secret societies in Russia, including Freemasonry.

The death of Alexander 1 occurred from typhoid fever on December 1, 1825 in Taganrog. During the years of his reign, Alexander 1 did a lot for the country: Russia defeated French army, a lot of work was done to abolish serfdom, and a reform of the highest authorities was carried out.

40) The socio-economic development of Russia in the first half of the 19th century had the following features. The first of these is the unevenness of this development in different regions of the country due to the diversity of their natural, ethnic and local traditions. The second was that in Russia the role of the state in the economic life of the country was great. This role was expressed not only in numerous measures of regulation, guardianship, control and encouragement of industry and trade, in the customs policy that protected domestic entrepreneurs, in providing them with various benefits and subsidies. It was also expressed in the development of the state economy itself. The entire credit system was exclusively state. The third feature was the weak development of private property, primarily land ownership, and as a consequence of this, the weak development of the "third estate". In Russia, it was represented by a narrow layer of the urban bourgeoisie and artisans, partly by intellectual workers, while they were squeezed into the rigid framework of feudal class structures.
Although the new socio-economic processes undermined the feudal-serf system, it continued to be dominant until the fall of serfdom. Serfdom in Russia, due to historical conditions, lasted longer than anywhere else in the civilized world, and took on the most cruel and brutal forms - in practice it was not much different from slavery. In addition, serfdom could for a long time adapt to new phenomena in the country's economy and even use them to strengthen the material positions of the nobility and the absolutist state. Contradictory processes took place in the feudal economy of Russia: on the one hand, there was a process of decomposition, and before the reform of 1861, a crisis of its foundations; on the other hand, feudal relations continued to spread to the colonized outskirts by planting noble landownership in them. The autocracy, which preserved the feudal structure of society, also played a huge role in maintaining serfdom. Ultimately, all this significantly slowed down the pace economic development countries.
In foreign policy, Nicholas I followed the line of Alexander I.
The main idea is the need to fight the "revolutionary infection". This effectively excluded France after the revolution of 1830 from the circle of possible allies of Russia. Forced to constantly deal with eastern problems, Nicholas I hesitated between the policy of "status quo" - maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire - and the policy of dividing the inheritance of Turkey together with other European states
In relation to the annexed and conquered peoples, he pursued a restrained, differentiated policy, taking into account their national, religious and cultural characteristics.

41) The main reasons for the abolition of serfdom in Russia were the following:
- Firstly, serfdom held back the development of industry, the accumulation of capital was slow. Russia could move into the category of minor states;
- secondly, the peasant farms were ruined, as the landowners increased the corvée in the Black Earth region, and the quitrent peasants went to the factories, the basis of the serf economy, based on forced, extremely inefficient labor of serfs, was undermined;
- thirdly, the crisis of serfdom was one of the main reasons for the defeat of the country in Crimean War, which showed the military-technical backwardness of Russia. The financial system was undermined; the peasants were ruined because of recruiting sets, the growth of duties. A mass exodus of peasants from the landowners began;
- fourthly, the growth in the number of peasant unrest (in 1860 there were 126 actions of peasants) created a real threat of turning isolated actions into a new "Pugachevshchina";
- fifthly, the realization by the ruling circles that serfdom is a "powder magazine" under the state. From liberal landlords, scientists, even relatives of the king, in particular the younger brother of the Grand Duke Konstantin, proposals began to come to the government, projects for reforming land relations. Alexander II, speaking in 1856 to representatives of the Moscow nobility, said: "If we do not free the peasants from above, then they will free themselves from below";
- sixthly, serfdom, as a form of slavery, was condemned by all sections of Russian society.
The first years of the reign of Alexander II were called "the first Russian thaw". An amnesty was declared for political prisoners: Decembrists, participants Polish uprising, Petrashevists, arrears on taxes of peasants were written off, military settlements were liquidated, censorship was weakened, free travel abroad was allowed.
But Alexander II and his ministers did not have a well-thought-out reform plan. But in society, notes of various public figures containing projects of peasant reform. The “Note on the Liberation of the Peasants” by the historian K. D. Kavelin (1856) caused a special public outcry. He believed that the right to property should not be violated, while carrying out the reform it was necessary to take into account the interests of both peasants and landlords: to release the peasants with land and reward the landowners. The abolition of serfdom, in his opinion, will pave the way for other reforms: judicial, military, the elimination of censorship, etc. The feudal lords met Kavelin's "Note" extremely negatively, he was even fired from the university. But his "Note" largely determined the main provisions of the peasant reform.

The collapse of the serfdom in 1861 dictated the need for further reforms.

In 1864, a zemstvo reform was carried out, during which a system of bodies was created in the counties and provinces local government. The county zemstvo assemblies were elected every three years by the population of the county, the provincial assemblies were formed from representatives nominated at the county assemblies. At the same time, the elections to the county zemstvos were organized in such a way as to provide an advantage to the noble landowners. Zemstvos were in charge of the local economy, public education, medicine, and statistics. Zemstvo had no right to raise any problems of a national nature for discussion.

The shortcomings of the zemstvo reform were obvious: the incompleteness of the structure of the zemstvo bodies (the absence of a higher central authority), the artificial creation of a numerical advantage for the local nobility, the limited scope of activities. Important was the very fact of the emergence in Russia of a system of self-government, fundamentally different from the dominant bureaucratic system. However, the policy of the government in relation to the Zemstvo in the second half of the 1860s - 1870s. was aimed precisely at depriving him of any independence. The governors received the right to refuse to approve any person elected by the Zemstvo; Zemstvo doctors, teachers, and statisticians were expelled from the Zemstvo for the slightest reason. The central local authorities deliberately suppressed any encroachment of zemstvos towards independent activity.

In the same year, 1864, a judicial reform was carried out. The old class courts were abolished. Instead of them, a world court and a crown court were created. The magistrate's court with a simplified procedure was introduced in the counties to deal with cases of minor offenses. More serious cases were dealt with in the crown court, which had two instances: the district court and the judicial chamber. In case of violation of the lawful order of legal proceedings, the decisions of these bodies could be appealed to the Senate.

From the old courts, which conducted business in a purely bureaucratic manner, the new ones differed primarily in that they were public, i.e. open to the public and press. In addition, the basis of the judicial procedure was an adversarial process, during which the prosecution - the prosecutor - and the defendant's defender - the lawyer - had to find out all the circumstances of the case - interrogating witnesses, analyzing material evidence, etc. The decision on the case was made by jurors, who were elected according to special lists from persons of different classes. Finally, the investigators who prepared the case for trial, and the judges who directed the entire judicial procedure, although they were appointed by the government, were irremovable. But as soon as the new courts demonstrated their the best sides, the authorities immediately began to subordinate them to the dominant bureaucratic system. Innovations relating to political cases were especially characteristic: the investigation of these cases began to be conducted not by investigators, but by gendarmes; Judicial proceedings were carried out not by jury, but by military courts.

In 1860 - the first half of the 1870s. a series of military reforms was carried out in Russia, the central of which was the introduction in 1874 of universal military service, which replaced the pre-reform conscription. Military service extended to the entire male population over the age of 20, without distinction of class. In peacetime, no more than 25-30% of total number conscripts by lot. At the same time, the military command and control system was streamlined: Russia was divided into 15 military districts directly subordinate to the Minister of War. Instead of closed military buildings, military gymnasiums were established, close in program to high school and opened the way to any higher educational institution. Those who wished to continue their military education entered specialized cadet schools - artillery, cavalry, military engineering.

On March 1, 1881, in St. Petersburg, not far from Nevsky Prospekt, on the embankment of the Catherine Canal, Emperor Alexander II died from a terrorist bomb. The first bomb thrown by Nikolai Rysakov exploded near the carriage: several Cossack escorts were killed, accompanying guards and several bystanders were wounded.

Nikolai Rysakov

Alexander II got out of the stopped carriage. He coolly looked around the place of the explosion, then approached the captured Rysakov. After listening to the first report on the incident, the emperor, obeying the persuasion of the guards, headed back to the carriage. At that moment, a young man, who had been standing so indifferently, stepped forward, who, approaching the king, threw a bomb at his feet.

The results of the reign of Catherine II

Assessing the reign of Catherine II, first of all, it should be said that both domestic and foreign policy of Russia as a whole met the needs of society.

This is what ensured the internal political stability of Catherine's reign.

Consistent, without sharp fluctuations, the policy of the empress impressed the nobility and urban states more. The class courts introduced by her, as well as local self-government bodies, were placed under the control of the nobility. Catherine carried out an administrative reform that strengthened the principles of legality in administrative structures. Under Catherine II, public education became qualitatively different: by the end of the 18th century, there were 193 public schools in the country, in which about 14 thousand people studied. This was the beginning of the creation of a system secondary school. In total, by the beginning of the 19th century. In the country there were about 500 different secular educational institutions with 45-48 thousand students and 66 theological seminaries and schools with more than 20 thousand seminarians.

The reign of Catherine II was marked by impressive results in the foreign policy sphere. In all her practical actions, the empress proceeded from the conviction that "the true greatness of the empire lies in being great and powerful not only in one place, but in all places, everywhere to show strength, activity and order." This directly related to the country's foreign policy pursued by it. Here Catherine was very "stubborn": "She will lead her affairs only according to her own understanding" and no one "in the world will force her to do otherwise than as she does." The fruits of her firm and consistently pursued expansionist policy of “defending” the national interests of the Russian Empire were such that in her time, as Count A. A. Bezborodko said not without pride, not a single cannon in Europe could fire without the consent of Russia.

During the years of Catherine's reign, the borders of the empire in the west and south, as a result of the divisions of Poland and the annexation of Crimea, expanded significantly. The country's population increased significantly - from 23.2 million (according to the third revision in 1763) to 37.4 million (according to the fifth revision in 1796). Only on the lands conquered from Turkey and Poland lived about 7 million people. Russia in the 60s became the most populous country in Europe: it accounted for up to 20% of the population of the entire European continent. The population density also increased slightly - from 1.6 people per 1 km2 in 1762 to 2.3 - in 1796 (it lowered the population density of Siberia, where there were 0.1 people per 1 km2 in the second half of the 18th century) .

Concerning ethnic composition population of Russia, then as a result of territorial expansion, it became even more colorful. At the same time, in the multinational empire, the number of the state-forming nation was steadily decreasing. If in 1762 the Russians made up a little more than 60%, then in 1795 - already less than 50%. The second largest people were Ukrainians - about 15 and 20%, respectively. According to the demographer W. I. Brooke, the empire included up to 200 large and small peoples, differing in language, religion, way of life and culture.

V. O. Klyuchevsky, describing the general state of the country at the end of the reign of Catherine II, wrote: “The army from 162 thousand people was strengthened to 312 thousand, the fleet, which in 1757 consisted of 21 battleships and 6 frigates, in 1790 considered in its composition 67 battleships and 40 frigates, the amount of state revenue from 16 million rubles. rose to 69 million, i.е. increased by more than four times, the success of Baltic foreign trade - in increasing import and export from 9 million to 44 million rubles, the Black Sea Catherine and created - from 390 thousand in 1776 to 1900 thousand rubles. in 1796, the growth of domestic turnover was indicated by the issue of a coin in 34 years of the reign for 148 million rubles, while in the 62 previous years it was issued only for 97 million. Under Catherine II, for the first time (1769), Russian paper money appeared - banknotes, which was required to cover the costs of the war with Turkey. True, the weight of the financial successes of the government during this period decreased due to the growing issue of banknotes, one ruble of which in 1796 was equal to 68 kopecks. silver, and also due to the fact that a third of the revenue part of the budget was the so-called "drinking fee" - during the reign of Catherine this fee was increased by almost 6 times. But still, it was not possible to make the budget deficit-free, and the amount of state debts left by her exceeded 200 million rubles, which was equal to the income of the last three and a half years of her reign.

The virgin fertile steppes acquired in the Northern Black Sea and Sea of ​​Azov regions, stimulated by the interests of the nobility, were quickly developed, and by the end of the century, about one million people cultivated fertile arable land, were engaged in crafts and trade in the cities of Nikolaev, Kherson, Yekaterinoslav, Mariupol, Sevastopol and others, and also served Russian merchant ships on the Black Sea. All this, first of all, must be credited to G. A. Potemkin, an outstanding statesman.

In the XVIII century. Russia retained the status of an agrarian country. In 1796, the townspeople accounted for 2290 thousand people, or 6.3% of the total population. Moreover, since 1730, there has been an increase in the absolute number of the urban population with a decrease in its share in the total population. In 1780 there were 543 cities in the country, of which 391 were small towns (with a population of 5 thousand people), 146 were medium-sized (from 5 to 25 thousand people), and 6 were large (over 25 thousand). most of it was made up of landlord peasants.

Due to the lack of specific quantitative indicators, it is difficult to judge the real results of agricultural development. It can only be stated that the hopes placed on improving the methods of agriculture and animal husbandry through the promotion of the achievements of agronomic science from the pages of the Proceedings of the Free Economic Society did not come true.

As L.V. Milov shows, in the vast expanses of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region, which had a decisive influence on the development of not only the economy, but also the entire Russian society and state, agriculture in the second half of the 18th century. was unprofitable, their bread in many counties was enough only for 6-8 months a year. Hence the development of various kinds of peasant crafts and the unprecedented growth of otkhodnichestvo: at the end of the century, almost every third adult man in the village, after completing agricultural work, went to work.

In turn, the government, realizing the need to ensure the livelihoods of a huge mass of the peasant population, through legislation encouraged its involvement in commercial and industrial activities.

The Catherine era left a noticeable mark on the industrial development of Russia. Thus, over four decades (1760-1800), iron smelting increased from 3,663,000 poods to 9,908,000 poods, or 2.7 times. Russia has taken the first place in the world according to this indicator. During the same period, the number of domains increased from 62 to 111. The growth in metallurgical production was caused by an increased demand for iron in the world market.

Foreign demand for high-quality Russian linen and canvas led to an increase in the number of sailing and linen manufactories, and especially enterprises in the cotton industry: if in the late 60s. there were 85 and 7 of them, respectively, then in 1799 there were already 318 and 249. In total, by the end of the 18th century. there were 1200 large enterprises in the country (in 1767 there were 663 of them).

Regarding the labor force, we note that almost exclusively forced labor was used in metallurgy. His share was also high in the cloth production that worked for the treasury, where most of the manufactories were owned by the nobles. Wage labor prevailed in the silk and cotton industries, as well as in the sailing-linen and cloth merchant enterprises founded after 1762.

The growth of the country's economic development also reflects the increased export of goods. If in 1760 the total amount of exports was 13,886 thousand rubles, then in 1790 - 39,643 thousand. Only industrial products for the same years were exported for 2,183 and 5,708 thousand rubles. respectively. Brilliant prospects were promised by the opening of permanent trade through the Russian ports of the Black Sea. Durum wheat has become one of the main export commodities here.

The merits of the Empress in the development of the Russian economy and education can hardly be overestimated. She, however, modestly assessed her role in striving to achieve the “true good”: “Whatever I do for Russia, it will only be a drop in the ocean.”1 But here is the opinion of her contemporary, memoirist A.

I. Ribopierre: Catherine "as a woman and as a monarch ... is quite worthy of surprise." The glory of her beautiful reign could not be overshadowed by any of the newest monarchs.

In their memoirs, all contemporaries who objectively assess Catherine unanimously admired her intelligence, charm and talents.

Many wrote that she marvelously combined qualities that are rarely found in one person. S. M. Solovyov did not at all absolutize the personal qualities of the empress when he gave a generalized description: “... the extraordinary liveliness of her happy nature, sensitivity to all issues, royal sociability, the desire to study each person, exhaust his mental content, his attitude to a well-known issue, communication with living people, and not with papers, not only with official reports - these precious qualities of Catherine supported her activities, did not allow her to lose heart for a minute, and this opportunity for a moment to descend morally from the height of her position and strengthened her power; difficulties always found Catherine in her place, in a royal position and worthy of this position, and therefore the difficulties were overcome. The depth and insight of thought, extraordinary hard work, constant striving for self-improvement - all these qualities, so important for a political and statesman, were inherent in Catherine II.

Contemporaries of the Catherine's century emphasize that the empress's aspirations and actions were based on concern for the welfare of the state, the path to which, in her view, lay through the triumph of reasonable laws, the enlightenment of society, the education of good morals and law abidance. The main means and reliable guarantee of the success of reform initiatives was seen by Catherine in the unlimited autocratic power of the monarch, who always, everywhere and in everything directs society on the right path.

The theme of favoritism deserves special discussion. Here we only note that favoritism in Russia differed little from its counterparts in other countries with autocratic regimes. But under Catherine there was one significant feature: she always parted with all the favored favorites of the empress kindly, even if they somehow did not live up to her expectations or even betrayed her.

In general, the whole life and work of Catherine II were subject to a wonderful formula: "Consistency in actions." An empress and a person, Catherine II firmly followed the once adopted rules. The main distinguishing feature of her 34-year reign was stability, although, as V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote, 17 years of the struggle "external and internal" accounted for "17 years of rest."

More than two hundred years ago, the reign of the Empress, who was called the "Great" during her lifetime, ended. Thanks to its sensible policy, Russia has firmly taken the place of the world's leading power.

Mysteries of history

Empress Catherine II

Empress Catherine II the Great (1729-1796) ruled the Russian Empire from 1762-1796. She came to the throne as a result of a palace coup. With the support of the guards, she overthrew her unloved and unpopular husband Peter III in the country and marked the beginning of the Catherine era, which is also called the "golden age" of the empire.

Portrait of Empress Catherine II
Artist A. Roslin

Before ascending the throne

The Autocrat of All Russia belonged to a noble German princely family Ascania, known since the 11th century. She was born on April 21, 1729 in the German city of Stettin, in the family of Prince Anhalt-Dornburg. At that time, he was the commandant of the Stettin Castle, and soon received the rank of lieutenant general. Mother Johanna Elisabeth belonged to the German Oldenburg ducal dynasty. The full name of the born baby sounded like Anhalt-Zerbst Sophia Frederick Augustus.

The family did not have a lot of money, so Sophia Frederic Augusta received her education at home. The girl was taught theology, music, dance, history, geography, and also taught French, English and Italian.

The future empress grew up as a playful girl. She spent a lot of time on the city streets, playing with the boys. She was even called "the boy in the skirt". Mother affectionately called her troubled daughter "Fricken".

In 1743, the Russian Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, choosing a bride for her nephew and heir to the throne, Peter, chose Fricken. In 1744, the newlywed girl came with her mother to Russia. She was baptized on June 28, 1744 and named Ekaterina Alekseevna, and the very next day she was engaged to Peter.

From the first months of her life in Russia, Catherine read a lot and developed her mind. She began to diligently learn the Russian language, studied local traditions, the history of the country and Orthodoxy. She was picked up by good teachers who gave their student deep and fundamental knowledge.

The marriage with the heir to the throne took place on August 21, 1745. The bride at that time was 16 years old, and the groom turned 17. They were each other's second cousins. Them family life failed from the first day. There were no love feelings between the newlyweds, and Catherine very quickly moved away from her husband. In 1754, she gave birth to a son, Pavel, and with this the marital duties of the future empress ended.

At the same time, the young woman did not waste her time. She possessed intelligence, tact, cunning, and gradually established useful contacts for herself in the high society of St. Petersburg and in the guard. Soon she began to hatch ambitious plans to come to power herself and take the throne. This was greatly facilitated by the fact that the spouse was of little use for state activity.

In 1757, Catherine gave birth to a daughter, Anna. To this, the husband remarked: "God knows what it is! I have already forgotten when last time slept with her, and she keeps giving birth and giving birth. "However, he recognized the girl as his daughter, but the baby died after 2 years. In 1762, the future All-Russian autocrat gave birth illegitimate son Alexei from communication with Orlov Grigory Grigorievich.

Portrait of a young Ekaterina Alekseevna

On December 25, 1761, Empress Elizaveta Petrovna died. On the Russian throne Peter III Fedorovich ascended. After that, the relationship between the spouses, almost completely stopped. The emperor began to live openly with his favorite Vorontsova, and his wife settled at the opposite end of the Winter Palace. Everything went to divorce, and in Russia it meant a monastery for a divorced woman.

Peter III ruled for only six months and during this time managed to turn against himself most of high society. As for Catherine, on the contrary, she gained more and more popularity both among the nobility and among the guards. It's all over palace coup June 28, 1762.

On this ill-fated date, the emperor with his court was in Peterhof. Early in the morning, the wife secretly left for St. Petersburg, where the guardsmen, raised by alarm, were already waiting for her. They greeted the sovereign's wife as an empress and swore allegiance to her. On the same day, Peter III was arrested and meekly signed his abdication. All power passed to his wife, Empress Catherine II.

Great imperial crown

Years of government (1762-1796)

It should immediately be noted that, thanks to her outstanding abilities, the woman who ascended the Russian throne became an outstanding statesman. She was well educated, prudent and able to learn. For many years she corresponded with Voltaire and other prominent figures of the Enlightenment.

Communication with philosophers for the Empress turned out to be extremely important. Many progressive ideas were included in her reform program and turned into laws. It was under this empress that such a concept appeared in Russia as estate rights. The Senate was significantly transformed, the system of local government was changed, and the hetmanship in Ukraine was abolished.

The empire was divided into provinces. They remained unchanged until the revolution of 1917. Riga and Revel provinces appeared in the Baltic states. Siberia was divided into Tobolsk, Irkutsk and Kolyvan provinces.

Church lands were secularized. They went to the state, and almost a million monastic peasants gained freedom. Nobles and townspeople received Letters of Companion who defended their rights. But at the same time, Empress Catherine II remained a full-fledged autocrat and had unlimited state power.

Foreign policy

The reign of Catherine II the Great was a time of significant expansion of the Russian Empire in the southern and western directions. This was facilitated not only by the smart and strong-willed empress, but also by the huge opportunities of the state. It had a good army led by such brilliant commanders as Rumyantsev and Suvorov, as well as a flexible diplomacy that skillfully used military victories to enhance the prestige of the empire.

After the first Turkish war (1668-1674), the lands at the mouth of the Don, Dnieper, and Kerch Strait were annexed to the empire. In 1783, the Crimea, the Kuban region and Balta joined. Second Turkish war(1787-1792) ended with the annexation of coastal lands between the Dniester and the Bug. Thus, the Russian Empire came to the Black Sea.

In the west, according to the first Polish partition, Russia received in 1773 part of Belarus. According to the second Polish partition in 1793, the empire included such regions as Volyn, Minsk and Podolsk. As a result of the third section of 1795-1797, Vilna, Grodno and Kovno Lithuanian provinces, the entire upper reaches of the Pripyat and the western part of Volhynia were acquired.

The Duchy of Courland was also annexed.

Russo-Turkish War

Activities within the empire

In 1774, Grigory Potemkin became the favorite of Empress Catherine II. This man had very good administrative and military abilities. In the Black Sea region conquered from the Tatars and Turks, he launched a gigantic construction. Such cities as Kherson, Odessa, Sevastopol, Nikolaev were built in the bare steppe.

Tens of thousands of peasants built factories, fortresses, canals, shipyards, planted forests. These new possessions were called Novorossiya. Streams of Russian, Ukrainian and German colonists rushed into it. They began to develop the southern steppes rich in chernozem. The Black Sea Fleet was also built. All these glorious deeds were carried out under the leadership of Potemkin.

But not all was well in the empire. In 1773-1775, a peasant uprising took place under the leadership of Emelyan Pugachev. It covered the Orenburg province, the Urals, Bashkiria, the regions of the Middle and Lower Volga regions and partly Western Siberia. Pugachev declared himself allegedly not dead, but alive and healthy Emperor Peter III. Bashkirs, Kazakhs, workers from the Ural factories, Tatars, serfs went under his banner.

All this mass of people fought for a better lot. However, hundreds of noble families were killed in the process. Moreover, the rebels spared neither children, nor the elderly, nor women. This rebellion had a pronounced social connotation, when the oppressed class rebelled against the exploiting class, and not against the local administrators.

At first, the rebels won one victory after another. They captured Kazan, Saransk, Penza. There was talk that the rebels were going to go to Moscow. But they turned south and captured such cities as Petrovsk and Saratov. The rebels were greeted everywhere with bell ringing, and the priests served prayers. However, the assault on Tsaritsyn failed, and on August 25, 1774, a battle took place at the Solenikova gang. In it, the rebels suffered a crushing defeat. 2 thousand rebels were killed, and 6 thousand were taken prisoner. Pugachev himself, with his closest associates, fled across the Volga.

Among the Cossacks who fled with the impostor were traitors. Near the Bolshoy Uzen River, on September 8, they captured Pugachev and took him to the Yaitsky town. He was brought there on September 15 and underwent the first interrogations. Then the main rebel was transferred to Simbirsk. They carried him in a cage on a 2-wheeled cart, shackled. Pugachev was executed on January 10, 1775 on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow with a huge gathering of people.

Culture and education

Under Empress Catherine II, classicism replaced the baroque in architecture. In St. Petersburg and other cities, majestic buildings built according to the designs of such architects as Jean-Baptiste Vallin-Delamote, Antonio Rinaldi, Matvey Fyodorovich Kazakov and others began to be erected. Sculptor Fyodor Shubin created sculptural portraits of his contemporaries, and Etienne Falcone created an equestrian statue of Peter the Great (The Bronze Horseman, but you should know that the monument is made of bronze).

Many state and serf theaters were founded. Their number reached 170. The best European plays and operas were staged on the stages of these cultural centers. It should be noted that the plays were composed by Empress Catherine II herself.

In 1764, the Smolny Institute for Noble Maidens for Girls and the Novodevichy Institute were founded. Schools at the provincial and county level began to open throughout the country. In 1781, the Commercial School for merchants was opened in St. Petersburg.

Document signed by Catherine II

Last years of reign

The last years of the reign of Catherine II were characterized by the weakening of her creative abilities and stagnation in public life. The Great French Revolution, which began in 1789, played a significant role in this. She frightened the empress, and she began to show conservatism and intolerance, previously unusual for her, to other people's opinions.

The aging All-Russian autocrat began to increasingly get involved in young favorites. The last in this row was Platon Zubov. It was a young, handsome, but completely empty and conceited dandy. He captured the heart of a mature lady who did not want to put up with her old age.

In general, it should be noted that under Catherine, rather loose morals reigned in the royal environment. In 18th-century Europe, this was typical of kings, but not of reigning queens. The Austrian Empress Maria Theresa and her daughter Marie Antoinette sharply criticized the debauchery that reigned at the court of the Russian Empress. She was compared with the loving French king Louis XV. By the way, he died, having contracted an infectious disease from one of his many mistresses.

Empress Catherine II died on November 6, 1796 in winter palace Petersburg at the age of 67, having been in power for 34 years. The cause of death was a stroke. Emperor Paul I ascended the Russian throne.

Alexey Starikov

In the political program of the reign of Catherine II, three directions are distinguished, in which she saw a combination of "ideas of the century" with the "fact of place": patriotic foreign policy, which led to the strengthening of Russia's authority in the international arena and a significant expansion of its territory, the liberalization of methods of government in accordance with advanced ideas of that era, administrative reform involving the nobility in local government.

Catherine II began her reign with trips around the country to meet the people she wanted to see close, and not from a palace or a carriage. The impressions received from these trips were reflected both in the reforms and in the "Instruction", which contains the legal justification for the policy of "enlightened absolutism."

"Instruction", on the compilation of which Catherine II worked for two years (1765 - 1767), was an extensive philosophical and legal work, where the most significant problems of the state and social structure, as well as the tasks of domestic policy were considered. It contained articles on the repository of laws (the Senate), on the equality and freedom of citizens (with the exception of serfs), on harmonizing punishment with crime (criminal law and legal proceedings), on serfdom (multiplication of people in the state), on crafts (needlework) and trade, education, the nobility, the middle class of people, etc. Based on this document, the Legislative Commission was to develop a new legislative code. "Instruction" consisted of 20 chapters (then two more chapters appeared) and 655 articles. This work was of a compilative nature and was based on the works of C. Montesquieu "On the Spirit of Laws" and C. Beccaria "On Crimes and Punishments".

1) Russia is a European power, therefore the last and best fruits of European thought must find their application and embodiment here;

2) the main instrument of transformation is power, the state;

3) the rights (liberties) of a citizen are limited only by law and nothing more;

4) the main task is to expand the class of owners;

5) laws must correspond to the natural state of the people for whom they are written, and Russia must be governed only by an autocratic sovereign.

In the spirit of the "Instruction" it was also discussed at meetings of the special Legislative Commission for the codification of laws (June 30, 1767 - December 17, 1778). In fact it was representative body, in which all estates took part, except for serfs. 564 deputies were elected, who brought with them 1.5 thousand orders, reflecting the basic requirements of the estates. The “order” of Catherine II demanded from the Commission a set of laws of a liberal nature, and orders from the localities were mostly aimed at strengthening serfdom, corporatism, etc. The commission, which was under the influence of these mutually exclusive factors, was doomed, therefore, under the pretext of the Russian-Turkish war Catherine dismissed the deputies for an indefinite period. The regulation was never created.

The empress significantly reduced the reform program, sincerely considering them just a drop in the ocean. She realized the peculiarities of the country, the difficulties of reforming it. At this stage of Catherine's reign (1762 - 1775), Russian society was politically enlightened, the balance of power was clearly revealed, but no major transformations actually took place. At the second stage of the reign of Catherine II (1775 - 1796), transformations were carried out, which, although not as radical as previously thought, significantly expanded and strengthened the Western way of life. These include:

1) provincial reform (in order to strengthen local power, the country was divided into 50 provinces (300 - 400 thousand inhabitants each), which in turn were divided into counties (20 - 30 thousand inhabitants each)). The provincial government concentrated the functions of executive power. In the hands of the governor were the police and the troops. The Treasury Chamber was in charge of economic affairs in the province. The order of public charity helped the police maintain order and at the same time was in charge of public education, health care, charity, almshouses, orphanages. The highest court in the province were two chambers - for civil and criminal cases. They were subject to courts for nobles and merchants and philistines. The state peasants had their own court;

2) Letter of Complaint to the nobility (1785), which defined the main privileges of the nobility: exemption from compulsory service and personal taxes; possession of estates on the rights of full ownership; the transformation of the nobility into a separate estate, etc.;

3) "Charter on the rights and benefits of the cities of the Russian Empire" (1785) - a new "city position", according to which the population of the city was divided into six categories: I - "real city dwellers", II - merchants (3 guilds), III - workshops artisans, IV - out-of-town and foreign guests, V - "eminent citizens", VI - "townspeople". In addition, bodies of administrative control, estate self-government and courts were introduced in cities;

5) strengthening the state apparatus, strengthening unity of command at all levels of government;

6) reforms in social sphere, culture, science and education.

The era of Catherine II became the time of the formation of national consciousness, the formation of concepts of honor and dignity in society, the spiritual and cultural growth of Russian society. Undoubtedly, in her younger years, Catherine II was sincerely fascinated by the ideas of the Enlightenment, but the Great French Revolution and the execution of Louis XVI forced her to break off all relations with revolutionary France, to become the soul of the counter-revolutionary European anti-French coalition. Palace enlightenment came to its natural and logical conclusion. The empress finally established herself in her view of the complete inapplicability and particular harmfulness of educational models for absolutist Russia. In addition, the peasant war led by Emelyan Ivanovich Pugachev (1773 - 1775) - the largest spontaneous uprising of peasants in the history of Russia - also influenced the change in the views of Catherine II.

The enlightened Catherine II was unable to carry out her program. In fact, she was a true hostage of the nobility, whose interests she was supposed to express. Catherine II, with all her enlightenment, became the persecutor of those very true representatives of Russian enlightenment thought of the second half of the 18th century, with whom she had flirted before, whose ideas about the need for a genuine change in the feudal-serf system approved: N. I. Novikov (mason, publisher of satirical magazines " Drone", "Ridder", "Painter", "Purse", a representative of the opposition to the government of the noble community) and A. N. Radishchev (representative of the extreme left radical wing of social thought in Russia - noble revolutionaryism, author of "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow") turn out to be behind bars.

Such was the sharp contrast between the liberal beginning and the protectively conservative end of the reign of Catherine II. Nevertheless, many events of the Catherine's government (and sometimes carried out on the initiative of the empress herself) bear the stamp of "enlightened absolutism." Its most striking manifestations were the secularization of church lands, the legislation on the peasants of the Baltic, the "Instruction", the Legislative Commission, the Free Economic Society, the reform of local government, the abolition of monopolies in trade and industry, letters of grant to the nobility and cities, etc. The practical expression of "enlightened absolutism" there was a system of educational institutions in the country: a school was opened at the Academy of Arts, Orphanages in Moscow and St. Petersburg, a commercial school, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the first public library in St. Petersburg, the Hermitage Museum, etc.

In general, Catherine II did less than she wanted, but she left the state in a much more favorable state than she received, which was expressed in: an increase in the population (from 19 million people to early XVIII in. up to 36 million by the end of the century) due to the annexation of new territories and natural growth, in an increase in the amount of state revenues (from 16 to 69 million rubles), in an increase in the number of factories and factories (up to 2000 by the end of the 18th century), in the creation of a banking system, in increasing the number of owners, including from the peasants.

At the same time, the diversity of structures was preserved and the civilizational heterogeneity of society intensified: the Western way of life received more favorable conditions for development, but corporatism did not weaken, since it was not possible to go beyond the framework of the system that had developed under Peter I.

For 70 years Soviet power Catherine II was practically expelled from national history. Russia of that time was studied as if the Empress did not exist. Her personality was invoked in order to throw another critical arrow. It turned into a kind of symbol of serfdom and, from the standpoint of the class approach, was subject to merciless censure for that. Most of the works of the Soviet era are characterized, firstly, by a class approach and, secondly, by considering Catherine's transformations within the framework of the concept of "enlightened absolutism". At the same time, a rather negative assessment prevails. From the pages of many works, the empress appears as a staunch serf-owner, pursuing a purely pro-nobility policy, and if flirting with liberal ideas, then only in the first years of her reign. Special attention Soviet historians paid to the peasantry and its class struggle, the history of the Pugachev region, which was considered in the light of the concept of peasant wars, urban uprisings, the development of trade, manufactory, the Russian city, and land ownership. To a large extent, the discussions in Soviet historiography of the 1960s-1980s about the genesis of capitalism, absolutism, peasant wars and urban uprisings. However, the focus on the concept of “enlightened absolutism”, a purely sociological approach from the standpoint of the class struggle, the emergence of stable historiographic clichés such as “noble empire” practically excluded the personality of Catherine II, her work, and many facts of political history from scientific topics. The origins of the negative assessment of Catherine should be sought in the works of the founder of Soviet historiography M.N. Pokrovsky. In the mid-1930s, Soviet historians abandoned his historical concept, but for the previous decade, Pokrovsky had been a generally recognized trendsetter in historical science. The late historian and writer N.Ya. Eidelman cites the words of one of the followers of Pokrovsky Ya.L. Barskov, discovered by him in the archive of the latter. Barskov described Catherine as follows: “The lie was the main weapon of the queen, all her life, from early childhood to old age, she used this tool, owning it like a virtuoso, and deceiving her parents, lovers, subjects, foreigners, contemporaries and descendants.” Although these lines have not been published, they synthesize the assessment of Catherine that existed in the literature, which has been preserved in a softened form until very recently. Although at the moment scientists have proven that the initiative to divide Poland came from Frederick.

In the post-Soviet period, interest in the reign of Catherine II continues to grow, as evidenced by the fact that in 1996 in a number of countries of the world several large international conferences dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the death of the Empress. Among the historians who paid attention to the empress, it is worth noting those who paid attention to both the external and internal policies of the queen and those who focused their attention on certain issues of government. Among the researchers of the era of Catherine II, one should single out O.G. Chaikovskaya, A.V. Kamensky, N.I. Pavlenko, N. Vasnetsky, M.Sh. Fanshtein, V.K. Kalugina, I.A. Zaichkina, V.N. Vinogradova, S.V. Koroleva, I.I. Leshilovskaya, P.P. Cherkasov.

Since 1991, views on the policy of Catherine II have been changing. In the Soviet period, the image of the Empress as a power-hungry and despotic debauchee took shape in the mass consciousness. Many historians of the period we are considering are trying to refute this opinion. They are trying to present us with a new Catherine - an educator and legislator, a brilliant politician and diplomat.

Let us first turn our attention to the views of O.G. Tchaikovsky on the policy of Catherine II, which she outlined in her monograph “The Empress. The reign of Catherine II. The author pays only little attention to the foreign policy of Ekaterina Alekseevna. And this is no coincidence. Yes, Tchaikovsky agrees that Catherine was a strong diplomat, and her wars were victorious. But, describing the foreign policy of the Empress, the scientist agrees with the opinions of memoirists of the 18th century about the deheroization of war. In our opinion, that is why she paid little attention to this issue, referring to the fact that Catherine's wars were not honest and heroic.

Next, we turn to the views of the scientist on internal politics empresses. The researcher, like many historians, writes that, having come to power, Catherine found the state system in complete collapse. Also Chaikovskaya O.G. considers the issue of serfdom, referring to the fact that the ruler of the XVIII century cannot be assessed without understanding how he solved this problem. As soon as Catherine II ascended the throne, the historian writes, unrest of factory peasants was everywhere in the country. Catherine’s decision was as follows: “The disobedience of the factory peasants,” she recalls, “was pacified by Major General A.A. Vyazemsky and A.A. Bibikov, having considered on the spot complaints against the plant owners. But more than once they were forced to use weapons against them, and even to cannons.

Chaikovskaya notes that for historians hostile to Catherine, these words of hers were a godsend and the main proof of her serf nature, hidden behind liberal conversations. The author on this occasion speaks very harshly: “The blood of the innocent cannot be compensated in any way and cannot be compensated for in any way. And if she, the enlightened one, did this, then this cannot be justified even in the name of the most progressive activity.

Further in her work, Chaikovskaya notes that Catherine, the great rationalist, like all the figures of the Enlightenment, was convinced: if it is reasonable, then it will work out. It's all about the law - happy is the society where the law rules, which, in the eyes of Catherine II, had extraordinary power. That's where her legislative obsession comes from.

Also, Tchaikovskaya did not bypass the judicial reform of Catherine II in her study. She was amazed at how accurately Catherine understood the problems of justice. Especially, Chaikovskaya praises Ekaterina when she touches on the issue of torture. She sympathizes with the position of Catherine, which was outlined in the Instruction. Here is what Tchaikovsky writes: “Well, isn’t she smart? Not only clever, but also a born educator, she calls not only to the mind, but also to the heart of the reader, to his imagination, she needs him to imagine the real, what it is like to be tortured and what can be expected from him when he is in serious trouble. in agony, half-conscious, delirious.

It is also interesting that Tchaikovskaya refutes the postulate that there was no chapter on the peasantry in Catherine's Nakaz. She writes: “Catherine's order raised the question of the abolition of serfdom. So, it still had a chapter on the peasantry. But the fact is that the Order was edited, and edited barbarically. Thus, Tchaikovsky puts forward a serious conjecture, which must be tested in the future.

It is worth noting that Chaikovskaya also acquitted Catherine for the 1767 decree prohibiting serfs from complaining about their landowners. She argued that the queen was in mortal danger. And then she writes: “The autocratic ruler of Russia, she absolutely did not accept her socio-political system, her serf foundation; maybe she tried to hide it, but she gave herself away all the time - either by a trick in the Free Economic Society, or by the Order in its first edition.

Referring to the decree on the liberty of the nobility. Tchaikovsky stated that it had a dual social effect. On the one hand, it had a terrible effect on society as a whole, and it was especially detrimental to the nobility. But then O. Chaikovskaya writes that there can be no doubt that this decree was at the same time beneficial for the nobility and for the country: it gave the nobleman independence. Under the conditions of this independence, among the nobles, the process of a kind of differentiation went stronger - not at all along the lines of land ownership and ranks. The worldview, the understanding of one's social duties served as a watershed.

Next, we turn to the views of N.I. Pavlenko, set forth in his work "Catherine the Great". In his work, Pavlenko points out that Ekaterina Alekseevna was clearly unlucky with the assessment of her reign, and even more so in Soviet historiography, but this assessment, in his opinion, was not accurate. The researcher notes that even during the years of her reign, contemporaries noted many dark spots that overshadowed in their eyes the positive that was associated with her name. Firstly, she was a purebred German, and, apparently, national pride did not allow her reign to be objectively assessed. Secondly, and this is perhaps even more important, she had no rights to the throne and usurped the crown from her own husband. Thirdly, on her conscience, if not directly, then indirectly, lies the seal of responsibility for the death of not only her husband, Emperor Peter III, but also the legitimate pretender to the throne, John Antonovich. Finally, the morality of the empress did not cause delight either among contemporaries or historians. And yet, the historian notes, the reign of Catherine, first of all, is associated with virtues and achievements that allow her to be elevated to the rank of outstanding statesmen of pre-revolutionary Russia, and put her name next to the name of Peter the Great.

Based on this, it is clear that N.I. Pavlenko considers the empress an outstanding statesman. In his monograph N.I. Pavlenko compares Catherine II with Peter I. Further, he draws the following parallels. Peter I stood at the origins of the transformation of Russia into a great power, Catherine II established Russia's reputation as a great power. Peter the Great "cut a window to Europe" and created the Baltic Fleet, Catherine established herself on the shores of the Black Sea, created a powerful Black Sea Fleet, annexed Crimea. According to N.I. Pavlenko, one can easily discover the main thing that was equally inherent in Peter and Catherine: both of them were “statists”, that is, monarchs who recognized the enormous role of the state in the life of society. Since they lived in different eras, significantly differing in the way of economic, political and cultural life, the efforts of the state they ruled were aimed at fulfilling diverse tasks. According to N.I. Pavlenko, Catherine the Great holds an outstanding place in the history of Russia in the second half of the 18th century. This German woman turned out to be more Russian than, for example, the Russian empresses Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna. It is her prudence, caution and courage that the country owes both foreign policy successes and the implementation of the ideas of the Enlightenment.

Enlightened absolutism is a policy pursued in the 18th century by a number of monarchical countries in Europe, including Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, the Commonwealth, Russian empire and others, aimed at eliminating the remnants of the medieval system in favor of capitalist relations, i.e. universal legal equality and freedom of enterprise.