IN scientific papers very common in the 18th and 19th centuries. represent a special period in the historical development of our public life. Several names have been adopted for this period: some call it "Imperial", others "Petersburg", others simply call this time new Russian history.

New Russian history usually begins with the so-called era of transformations in our social life. The main figure in these transformations was Peter the Great. Therefore, the time of his reign seems to our consciousness to be the line that separates the old Russia from the transformed Russia. It is from this facet that we should begin our study of the latter and, above all, get to know the essence of the transformations and the transformative activity of Peter I.

But the activities of Peter I still do not have in our public consciousness one fixed assessment. His contemporaries looked at the transformations of Peter differently, we also look at it differently, people XIX and the beginning of the 20th century. Some tried to explain to themselves the significance of the reform for subsequent Russian life, others dealt with the question of the relationship of this reform to the phenomena of the previous era, others judged the personality and activity of Peter from a moral point of view.

Peter I. Portrait by J. M. Nattier, 1717

Strictly speaking, only the first two categories of opinions, as historical in their essence, are subject to the historian's knowledge. Getting acquainted with them, we notice that these opinions sometimes sharply contradict each other. There are such disagreements for many reasons: firstly, the transformations of Peter I, capturing to a greater or lesser extent all aspects of ancient Russian life, are such a complex historical fact that a comprehensive understanding of it is difficult for an individual mind. Secondly, not all opinions about Peter's reforms come from the same grounds. While some researchers study the time of Peter in order to reach an objective historical conclusion about its significance in the development folk life, others seek in transformative activities early XVIII in. find justifications for one or another of their views on contemporary social issues. If the first method of study should be called scientific, then the second one is most appropriately called journalistic. Thirdly, the general development of the science of Russian history has always influenced and will continue to influence our ideas about Peter I. The more we know our history, the better we will understand the meaning of the transformations. There is no doubt that we are in a better position than our ancestors, and we know more than they, but our descendants will say the same about us. We have thrown aside many previous historical misconceptions, but we have no right to say that we know the past without error - our descendants will know both more and better than us.

But by saying this, I do not mean to say that we have no right to study historical phenomena and discuss them. Obeying the desire inherent in our spirit not only to know the facts, but also to connect them logically, we build our conclusions and know that our very mistakes will facilitate the work of subsequent generations and help them approach the truth, just as both works and mistakes are instructive for us. our ancestors.

We were not the first to start talking about Peter the Great. His activities were already discussed by his contemporaries. Their views were replaced by the views of the closest posterity, judging by tradition, by hearsay; not a personal impression. Then the place of legends was taken by historical documents. Peter became the subject of scientific knowledge. Each generation brought with it its own special worldview and treated Peter in its own way. It is very important for us to know how this attitude towards Peter of our society changed at different times.

The contemporaries of Peter I considered him alone the cause and engine of the novelty that his reforms brought to life. This novelty was pleasant for some, because they saw in it the fulfillment of their desires and sympathies, for others it was a terrible thing, because, as it seemed to them, the foundations of the old way of life, consecrated by the old Moscow orthodoxy, were undermined. No one had an indifferent attitude to the reforms, since the reforms affected everyone. But not everyone expressed their views equally sharply. An ardent, bold devotion to Peter and his cause distinguishes many of his assistants; terrible hatred is heard in the reviews of Peter among many champions of antiquity. The former go so far as to call Peter an "earthly god", the latter are not afraid to call him the Antichrist. Both those and others recognize in Peter a terrible strength and power, and neither one nor the other can calmly treat him, because they are under the influence of his activities. Both Nartov, devoted to Peter, who served him for twenty years, and some fanatical schismatic who hated Peter I with all his being, are equally amazed by Peter and equally incapable of judging him impartially. When Peter died and his reform activities ended, when his successors, not understanding him, often stopped and spoiled what he started, Peter's work did not die and Russia could not return to its former state. The fruits of his activity - the external strength of Russia and the new order within the country - were in front of everyone, and the burning enmity of the discontented became a memory. But many people who lived consciously and long after the death of Peter continued to be surprised at him no less than his contemporaries. They lived in the civic setting he created and enjoyed the culture he so painstakingly planted. All that they saw around them in public sphere, led from Peter I. There are many memories of Peter; about the same that was before him, they began to forget. If Peter brought the light of enlightenment to Russia and created its political strength, then before him, as they thought, there was "darkness and insignificance." This is how Chancellor Count Golovkin roughly characterized pre-Petrine Russia when he presented Peter with the title of emperor in 1721. He expressed himself even more sharply, saying that by the genius of Peter we were "made from nonexistence into existence." In subsequent times, this point of view took root wonderfully: Lomonosov called Peter "God", a walking poem called him the "light" of Russia. Peter I was considered the creator of everything that they found good around them. Seeing the undertakings of Peter in all spheres of public life, his powers were exaggerated to supernatural proportions. This was the case in the first half of the 18th century. Let us remember that at that time the science of history did not yet exist, that the possibility of enlightenment given by Peter created only a few enlightened people. These few people judged Peter according to the tradition that has been preserved in society about the time of transformation.

But not everything that happened in Russia after Peter I was good. Not everyone, at least, was satisfied thinking people 18th century They saw, for example, that the assimilation of Western European education, begun under Peter, often turned into a simple renaming of cultural appearance. They saw that familiarity with the West often brought to us the vices of Western European society. Not all Russian people were able to accept from the West the healthy beginnings of his life and remained rude barbarians, however, combining with deep ignorance the graceful appearance of European dandies. In all satirical magazines, the second half of XVIII in. we constantly meet with attacks on this discord of appearance and internal content. There are voices against the senseless borrowing of Western forms. At the same time, the development of historical knowledge already allows people of the 18th century. look back at pre-Petrine times. And here are many advanced people (Prince Shcherbatov, Boltin, Novikov) dark sides of their era they oppose the bright sides of the pre-Petrine era. They do not debunk the activities of Peter I, but they do not idolize his personality either. They dare to criticize his reform and find that it was one-sided, instilled in us a lot of good things from the outside, but took away a lot of its own good from us. They come to this conclusion by studying the past, but this study is far from calm; it is caused by the shortcomings of the present and idealizes past life. However, this idealization is directed not against Peter himself, but against some of the consequences of his reform. The personality of Peter and late XVIII in. surrounded by the same halo as at the beginning of the century. Empress Catherine treats him with deep respect. There are people who devote their entire lives to the meeting historical material serving to the glorification of Peter - such is the merchant Golikov.

Evaluation of the reforms of Peter I by Karamzin

In the second half of the XVIII century. the science of Russian history is already emerging. But the historians of that time either diligently collect materials for history (like Miller), or are busy researching the most ancient eras of Russian life (Lomonosov, Bayer, Stritter, Tatishchev, Shcherbatov, Shletser). Peter I is still outside their jurisdiction. He receives his first scientific assessment from Karamzin. But Karamzin as a historian already belongs to the 19th century. A scientist by critical methods, an artist by nature and a moralist by outlook, he imagined Russian historical life as a gradual development of national-state power. A number of talented figures led Russia to this power. Among them, Peter occupied one of the very first places: but, reading the History of the Russian State in connection with other historical works of Karamzin, you notice that Karamzin preferred Peter as a figure to another historical figure - Ivan III. This latter made his principality a strong state and introduced Russia to Western Europe without any breaking and violent measures. Peter, on the other hand, raped Russian nature and sharply broke the old way of life. Karamzin thought that one could do without it. Karamzin's views became in some connection with the critical views on Peter I of the eighteenth-century people we mentioned. Just like them, he did not show the historical necessity of Peter's reforms, but he already hinted that the need for reform was felt even before Peter. In the seventeenth century, he said, they realized that they had to borrow from the West; "Peter appeared" - and borrowing became the main means of reform. But why exactly "Peter appeared" Karamzin could not yet say.

Portrait of N. M. Karamzin. Artist A. Venetsianov

In the era of Karamzin, a completely scientific study of our antiquity began (whole circles helped Karamzin learned people who knew how not only to collect, but also to research historical material). However, in the first half of the nineteenth century in Russian society, a conscious social life was awakening, philosophical education was spreading, an interest in our past was born, a desire to know the general course of our historical development. Not being a historian, Pushkin dreamed of working on the history of Peter. Not being a historian, Chaadaev began to reflect on Russian history and came to the sad conclusion that we have neither history nor culture.

The question of the activities of Peter I and Hegelianism

Turning to the past, Russians educated people did not have special historical knowledge and introduced into the interpretation of the past those points of view that they had learned in their studies of German philosophy. German metaphysics of the 19th century. greatly influenced the Russian educated youth, and especially the metaphysical system of Hegel. Under the influence of his philosophy, philosophical circles were formed in Russia in the 1930s and 1940s, which developed an integral worldview and had a great influence on the mental life of Russian society in the middle of the 19th century. In these circles the principles of German philosophy were applied to the phenomena of Russian life, and in this way a historical outlook was worked out. The independent thought of these "people of the 1940s", starting from those given over to German philosophy, came to its own special conclusions, which are not the same for different people. All followers of Hegel, among other philosophical propositions, took out two thoughts from his teaching, which in a simple presentation will be expressed as follows: the first thought is that all peoples are divided into historical and non-historical, the first participate in the general world progress, the second stand outside it and are condemned to eternal spiritual slavery; another idea is that the highest spokesman of world progress, its upper (last) step, is the German nation with its Protestant Church. The German Protestant civilization is thus the last word of world progress. Some of the Russian followers of Hegel fully shared these views; for them, therefore, ancient Russia, which did not know the Western Germanic civilization and did not have its own, was an unhistorical country, devoid of progress, doomed to eternal stagnation. This "Asian country" (as Belinsky called it) Peter the Great, by his reform, attached to a humane civilization, created for it the possibility of progress. Before Peter we had no history, no intelligent life. Peter gave us this life, and therefore his significance is infinitely important and high. He could not have any connection with the previous Russian life, for he acted in complete opposition to its basic principles. People who thought this way were called "Westerners". They, as you can easily see, agreed with those contemporaries of Peter I, who considered him an earthly god who brought Russia from non-existence into existence.

But not all people of the 40s thought so. Some, accepting Hegel's theory of world progress, out of a sense of patriotism, resented his opinion that German civilization is the last stage of progress and that the Slavic tribe is an unhistorical tribe. They saw no reason why progress should stop at the Germans; from history they took away the conviction that the Slavs were far from stagnation, had their own historical development, their own culture. This culture was independent and differed from the German one in three respects: 1) In the West, among the Germans, Christianity appeared in the form of Catholicism and then Protestantism; in the East, among the Slavs, in the form of Orthodoxy. 2) The Germans adopted the ancient classical culture from Rome in the form of Latin, the Slavs - from Byzantium in the form of Greek. There are significant differences between the two cultures. 3) Finally, the state life in the ancient Germanic states developed through conquest, among the Slavs, and among the Russians in particular, through peaceful means; therefore, social relations in the West are based on age-old enmity, but we do not have it. The independent development of these three principles was the content of ancient Russian life. So thought some of the more independent followers of German philosophy, called "Slavophiles". Independent Russian life reached its greatest development in the era of the Muscovite state. Peter I disrupted this development. By his violent reform he introduced to us alien, even opposite principles of Western German civilization. He turned the right course of people's life onto the wrong path of borrowing. He did not understand the precepts of the past, he did not understand our "national spirit". In order to remain true to this national spirit, we must renounce alien Western European principles and return to original antiquity. Then, consciously developing our national principles, we can replace the German one with our civilization and become higher than the Germans in the general world development.

Such are the views of the Slavophils. Peter I, in their opinion, betrayed the past, acted against it. The Slavophils held Peter's personality highly, recognized the usefulness of some of his deeds, but considered his reform unnational and harmful in its very essence. With them, as with the Westernizers, Peter was deprived of any inner connection with the historical life that preceded him.

Of course, you have already noticed that none of the views we have considered about Peter was able to point out and explain the internal connection of his transformations with previous history. Even Karamzin did not go beyond a vague allusion. This connection of Peter I with the past was caught by instinct in the 40s of Pogodin, but not earlier than in 1863 he could express his thoughts about this. The reason for this was partly the lack of historical material, partly Pogodin's lack of an integral historical worldview.

Such a worldview was introduced into our universities at the end of the 1940s, when Pogodin had already finished his professorship. The bearers of new historical ideas were young scientists, whose views on our history at that time were called the "theory of tribal life." Subsequently, these scientists became known under the collective name of the "historical and legal school." They were the first to establish the idea that the reforms of Peter I were a necessary consequence of the entire historical development of Russian life. We already know that these scientists were brought up under the influence of German philosophy and historical science. At the beginning of our century historical science made great strides in Germany. The leaders of the so-called German historical school introduced extremely fruitful guiding ideas and new, precise methods of studying historical material into the study of history. The main idea of ​​German historians was the idea that the development of human societies is not the result of accidents and the individual will of individuals, on the contrary, that this development takes place, like the development of an organism, according to strict laws that human power cannot overthrow. The first step towards such a view was taken at the end of the 18th century. Fr. Aug. Wolf in his work. He was followed by historians - Niebuhr and Gottfried Miller, who studied the history of Rome and Greece, legal historians Eichhorn (historian of ancient German law) and Savigny (historian of Roman law). Their direction was created in Germany in the middle of the XIX century. the brilliant position of historical science, under the influence of which our scientists were formed. They assimilated all the conclusions and views of the German historical school. Some of them were also fond of Hegel's philosophy. Although in Germany the exact and strictly factual historical school did not always live in harmony with the metaphysical thinking of Hegel and his followers, nevertheless, historians and Hegel agreed in the basic view of history as the natural development of human societies. Both historians and Hegel denied chance, and therefore their views could coexist in one person.

Evaluation of the reforms of Peter I by Solovyov

These views were applied to Russian history by our scientists. Professors of Moscow University S. M. Solovyov and K. D. Kavelin were the first to do this in their lectures and printed works. They thought to show in Russian historical life organic development those beginnings that were given by the original way of life of our tribe. They believed that the main content of our historical life was the natural replacement of some forms of life by others. Having noticed the order of this change, they hoped to find the laws of our historical development. In their opinion, the state order was finally established in our country by the activity of Peter the Great. With his reforms, Peter the Great responded to the demands of national life, which by his time had already developed into state forms of being. Therefore, Peter's activity arose from historical necessity and was completely national.

So, for the first time, an organic connection was established between the transformations of Peter I and the general course of Russian history. It is easy to see that this connection is purely logical, devoid of factual content so far. direct historical succession between Russia XVII in. and the era of Peter was not indicated in the first works of Solovyov and Kavelin. In general, this succession was not given to our scientific consciousness for a long time.

Trying to find this direct succession, both Solovyov and Kavelin themselves, and their followers, legal historians, turning to the study of the pre-Petrine era, were inclined to think that Russia in the 17th century. lived up to the state crisis. “Ancient Russian life,” says Kavelin, “has completely exhausted itself. It has developed all the beginnings that were hidden in it, all the types in which these beginnings were directly embodied. She did everything she could, and, having completed her calling, she stopped.” Peter led Russia out of this crisis onto a new path. According to Solovyov, in the XVII century. our state has reached complete failure, moral, economic and administrative, and could get on the right track only through a drastic reform ("History", vol. XIII). This reform came with Peter I. This is how they judged the 17th century. and many other researchers. The view of Muscovite Russia as a country of stagnation, which did not have the strength for progressive development, spread in society. This country lived to the point of complete decay, an extreme effort was needed to save it, and it was done by Peter. Thus, Peter's transformations seemed to be a natural historical necessity, they were closely connected with the previous era, but only with its dark, negative sides, only with the crisis of the old system.

But this understanding of the historical continuity between old Russia and the reform in recent decades has been replaced by another. The same Solovyov introduced a new point of view into science. It should be noted that his views on the reform of Peter I from the very beginning of his scientific activity were somewhat ambivalent. In one of his early articles ("A Look at the History of the Establishment of State Order in Russia", 1851), speaking of the critical situation of the Muscovite state in the 17th century, Solovyov does not confine himself to pointing out the phenomenon of this crisis, but notes that the sovereigns of the 17th century in. to meet the new needs of the state began a series of transformations. “During the 17th century,” he says, “new needs of the state were clearly identified, and the same means were called for to satisfy them, which were used in the 18th century in the so-called era of transformations.” Thus, Peter I not only received from the old order one consciousness of the need for reforms, but had predecessors in this matter, acted in the previously outlined ways. In a word, he was solving an old problem, not set by him, and solving it in a previously known way. Later Solovyov brilliantly developed this view in his "Readings on Peter the Great" in 1872. Here he directly calls Peter I "the son of his people", the spokesman for the people's aspirations. Casting a general glance at the entire course of our history, he follows how the consciousness of impotence naturally developed among our ancestors, how gradually attempts were made to correct their situation, how they constantly strived the best people to communion with the West, how the consciousness of the need for change grew stronger in Russian society. "The people gathered on the road," he concludes, "and waited for the leader"; this leader appeared in the person of Peter the Great.

Expressed after a long and close study of the facts, this view of Solovyov strikes both with deep inner truth and mastery of presentation. Not only Solovyov in the 60s and 70s thought so about the historical significance of the reform (let us recall Pogodin), but Solovyov alone managed to formulate his view so convincingly and strongly. Peter I is an imitator of the old movement, familiar Ancient Russia. In his reform, both the direction and the means are not new - they are given by the previous era. What is new in his reform is only the terrible energy of Peter, the speed and sharpness of the transformative movement, selfless devotion to the idea, disinterested service to the cause to the point of self-forgetfulness. What is new is only what personal genius has introduced into the reform, personal character Peter. This point of view has now given the full historical content of the thought about the organic connection between the reform of Peter I and the general course of Russian life. This thought, as I have pointed out, appeared to us in a purely logical way, as an a priori conclusion from the general historical contemplation of some scientists. In Solovyov's writings, this historical conclusion has received a solid foundation; Peter's reform, so to speak, was concretely connected with previous epochs.

Results of the discussion of the activities of Peter I in Russian historical science

Developing our common historical consciousness, Solovyov's idea gave direction to many private historical studies. Historical monographs about the 17th century. and the time of Peter I, they now state the connection of transformations with previous eras and in certain areas of ancient Russian life. As a result of such monographs, there is always the same conclusion that Peter directly continued the undertakings of the 17th century. and always remained true to the basic principles of our state life, as it developed in the 17th century. The understanding of this age has become different. Not far off is the time when the era of the first Romanov tsars seemed to be a time of general crisis and disintegration, the last minutes of dull stagnation. Now the ideas have changed: the 17th century seems to be a century of strong social unrest, when they recognized the need for change, tried to introduce changes, argued about them, looked for a new path, guessed that this path was in rapprochement with the West, and were already reaching for the West. Now it is clear that the 17th century paved the way for reform and brought up Peter I himself in the idea of ​​reform. Fascinated by this point of view, some researchers even tend to downplay the significance of Peter himself in the transformations of his era and present these transformations as a "spontaneous" process in which Peter himself played the passive role of an unconscious factor. In P. N. Milyukov, in his writings on the Petrine reform ("The state economy of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century and the reform of Peter V." and "Essays on the history of Russian culture"), we find the idea that the reform often "came from second hand into the consciousness of the reformer," powerless to keep the course of affairs at his disposal and even to understand the direction of events. Needless to say, this kind of view is an extreme, not shared by subsequent researchers of transformations (N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky, "Reform Projects in the Notes of Peter V.'s Contemporaries.").

So, the scientific understanding of Peter the Great is based on the thought expressed most fully and justly by Solovyov. Our science managed to connect Peter I with the past and explain the need for his reforms. The facts of his activity are collected and examined in several scientific works. The historical results of Peter's activity, political and transformative, are also indicated more than once. Now we can study Peter quite scientifically.

Peter I. Portrait by P. Delaroche, 1838

But if our historical science has come to a more or less definite and justified view of Peter I, then our society has not yet developed a uniform and lasting attitude towards his transformations. In current literature and in society, Peter is still extremely diverse in their judgments. Slightly belated disputes continue from time to time about the degree of nationality and the need for Peter's reforms; a rather idle question is raised as to whether Peter's reform as a whole was useful or harmful. All these opinions, in essence, are modified echoes of the historical views on Peter, which I have tried to present in chronological order.

If we once again mentally go over all the old and new views on Peter I, then it is easy to see how diverse they are not only in content, but also in the grounds from which they arose. Peter's contemporaries and immediate offspring, personally affected by the reform, judged him uneasily: their opinions were based on a feeling of either extreme love or hatred. Feelings guided just as much those people of the eighteenth century who, like Shcherbatov, sadly looked at the corruption of modern morals and considered it a bad result of a sharp reform. All of these are estimates of a journalistic nature. But Karamzin's view was based on an already abstract moral feeling: placing Ivan III above Peter I, he condemned Peter's violent methods during the reforms from the height of moral philosophy. In the views of the Westernizers and Slavophiles, we again observe a new basis - abstract thinking, metaphysical synthesis. For them, Peter I is less - historical person and more - an abstract concept. Peter I is, as it were, a logical premise from which one can go to one or another philosophical conclusion about Russian history. The first steps of researchers of the historical-legal school are not free from the influence of metaphysics; but the actual study of our history, which they carried out with great conscience, enabled our scholars to rid themselves of preconceived doctrines. Guided by facts, striving for rigorous scientific conclusion, they created a scientific attitude to the era of Peter the Great. This scientific attitude will, of course, be further developed in our science. But now its fruit is the ability to thoroughly and freely judge Peter I. His personality is not cut off from his native soil, he is no longer God and not the Antichrist for us, he is a certain person, with enormous powers, with high virtues, with human weaknesses and shortcomings. We now fully understand that his personality and vices are the product of his time, and his activities and historical merits are a matter of eternity.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Opinions of historians about Peter I

N.M. Karamzin: “Peter appeared ... He rushed through the storm and waves to his goal: he reached it - and everything changed! This goal was not only the new greatness of Russia, but also ... the appropriation of European customs ... The posterity paid zealous praise to this immortal sovereign and his personal virtues and glorious deeds. He had generosity, insight, unshakable will, activity, rare indefatigability: he corrected, multiplied the army, won a brilliant victory over the skillful and courageous enemy; conquered Livonia, created a fleet, founded harbors, issued many wise laws, brought trade, ore mines to a better state, started manufactories, schools, an academy, and finally put Russia on a famous degree in the political system of Europe. ... But we Russians, having our history before our eyes, will we confirm the opinion of ignorant foreigners and say that Peter is the creator of our state greatness? Shall we forget the princes of Moscow: John I, John III, who, one might say, erected a strong state out of nothing, and, what is no less important, established a firm, autocratic rule in it? And, glorifying the glorious in this monarch, shall we leave without comment the harmful side of his brilliant reign? ..

Our grandfathers, already in the reign of Michael and his son, appropriating many of the benefits of foreign customs, still remained in those thoughts that the orthodox Russian is the most perfect citizen in the world, and HOLY RUSSIA is the first state. Let them call it delusion; but how it favored the love of the fatherland and its moral strength! Now, having been in the school of foreigners for more than a hundred years, can we boast of our civic dignity without insolence? Once we called all other Europeans UNFAITHFUL, now we call brothers; I ask: who would it be easier to conquer Russia - infidels or brothers? That is, whom would she most likely have to oppose? Under Tsar Michael or Theodore, could a Russian grandee who owes everything to the Fatherland, with a cheerful heart, leave her forever to read calmly in the newspapers about our state dangers in Paris, London, Vienna?

We became citizens of the world, but ceased to be, in some cases, citizens of Russia. Blame Peter. He is great without a doubt; but he could still exalt himself more if he found a way to enlighten the mind of Russians without harming their civic virtues. Unfortunately, this sovereign, poorly brought up, surrounded by young people, recognized and fell in love with the Genevan Lefort, who, out of poverty, drove to Moscow and, quite naturally, finding Russian customs strange to him, spoke to him about them with contempt, and elevated everything European to heaven. . The free societies of the German settlement, pleasant for unbridled youth, completed the Lefortovo business, and the ardent monarch with a heated imagination, seeing Europe, wanted to make Russia - Holland ... "

CM. Solovyov: “Peter was not at all a conqueror of glory, and in this he was a complete representative of his people, a tribe that was not conquering by nature and by the conditions of its historical life. The genius of Peter expressed himself in a clear understanding of the situation of his people, he realized that it was his duty to lead a weak, poor, almost unknown people out of this sad situation through civilization. The difficulty of the matter seemed to him in its entirety upon his return from abroad, when he could compare what he saw in the West with what he found in Russia, which met him with a riot of archers. He experienced a terrible temptation, doubt, but came out of it, fully believing in the moral strength of his People, and did not hesitate to call him to a great feat, to donations and hardships of all kinds, showing himself an example in all this. Clearly realizing that the Russian people had to go through a difficult school, Peter did not hesitate to subject them to the suffering, humiliating position of a student; but at the same time he managed to balance the disadvantages of this position with glory and greatness, turn it into an active one, managed to create political significance Russia and the means to maintain it. Peter was faced with a difficult task: for the education of the Russian people, it was necessary to call in foreign mentors, leaders who, naturally, sought to subordinate the students to their influence, to rise above them; but this humiliated the disciples, whom Peter wanted to make masters as soon as possible; Peter did not succumb to the temptation, did not accept the offer to deal successfully with people who were learned, fully prepared, but foreigners, he wanted his Russians to go through an active school, even if it cost big losses, was accompanied by great inconveniences ... From whatever point no matter how much we studied the era of transformation, we must be amazed at the moral and physical powers of the reformer, whose field of activity would be so vast.

peter russia feat people political

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar Documents

The image of Peter I through the eyes of modern historians. General characteristics of the reforms of Peter I in the writings of modern historians. Creation and functioning of the Senate. Reform government controlled, reorganization of all its links. Strengthening the bureaucratic element.

term paper, added 05/22/2013


Childhood of Peter. The crowning of Peter to the kingdom. "Khovanshchina". Peter in Preobrazhensky. Innovations of Peter. Peter the diplomat. Engineering interests of Peter. The place and role of Russia in international relations. An emperor woven from contradictions.

abstract, added 11/28/2006


Significance of the transformations of Peter I for the Russian economy. Social struggle under Peter I. Law on single inheritance of 1714. Table of ranks of 1722 and its tasks. Measures for the development of industry and trade. Prerequisites for refusal of foreign goods.

term paper, added 02/12/2016


In the history of the Russian state, the period usually referred to as the Petrine era occupies a special place. The rise of Peter as king. His childhood. Image of Peter the Great. Craftsman king. The manners of Peter. Handling people. Family. Achievements of Peter in the development of Russia.

abstract, added 07/08/2008


Political and socio-social situation in Russia at the end of the 17th century, the main reasons for the state lagging behind its neighbors. Characteristics of the era of Peter I and its significance in the history of Russia, the directions of Peter's reforms, their main results and essence.

term paper, added 11/23/2009


The study of childhood and youth of Tsar Peter I. Characteristics of his relationship with his wife Sophia. Participation in public affairs and the government of young Peter. An overview of the prerequisites for Peter's transformations. The era of the "active" reign of Peter and his reforms.

abstract, added 10/05/2010


Comparative analysis personality and activities of Peter I based on the scientific works of historians V. Klyuchevsky, S. Solovyov, N. Karamzin. Evaluation of state reforms and their consequences, the foreign policy of Emperor Peter I, his way of life and thoughts, character.

abstract, added 12/07/2013


Reforms of the state structure of Peter I, the main stages of their implementation and historical significance. Social prerequisites for absolutism in Russia. Charters, regulations, decrees of equal legal force as a form of reforming activity of Peter the Great.

abstract, added 01/16/2013


The story of Peter's ascension to the throne. Streltsy rebellion and the struggle with Princess Sophia. Military reform as the primary transformative work of Peter I. Creation of a regular navy. The significance of Peter's reforms, the contradictions of his transformations.

abstract, added 10/26/2011


Peter the Great is the first arborist in Russia, the author of the first national forest instruction. Forest protection decrees of Peter I. The limit of free deforestation. Set of laws concerning others natural resources. Reforestation and afforestation under Peter.

Disputes about the personality and activities of Peter I, as well as disputes about the personality and activities of Ivan IV, were already started by contemporaries. The author of a number of historical and historical and philosophical treatises was the associates of Emperor F.

Prokopovich, P. Shafirov, A. Mankiev and others.

Feofan Prokopovich was a prominent political figure, one of the founders of the Synod, and a prominent publicist. His works, such as "The Word of the Power and Honor of the Tsar" and "The Gravestone of Peter I", were permeated with the praise of all the reforms carried out by the sovereign, all of his foreign and domestic policies. In the “Sermon on Power”, in addition, the idea of ​​the superiority of absolute monarchy over all others was persistently carried out.

forms of government. The opponents of Peter were subjected to unconditional condemnation. "The people cannot, - wrote F. Prokopovich, - command anything to their monarch."

The works covering the foreign policy of Peter I include "History of the Svean War" and "Reasoning, what are the legitimate reasons for His Royal Majesty Peter the Great ... to start a war against the king Charles XII Swedish in 1700 had. Both of these works were compiled by a well-known diplomat, President of the College of Commerce P.P. Shafirov. P.P. Shafirov interprets the Northern War as a completely natural consequence of the economic and political transformations that have taken place in Russia since the beginning of the 18th century. He emphasizes that the Russians waged a just struggle for their ancestral, "hereditary" lands. All successes in the war are attributed to the personal merits of Peter I.

The outstanding historian V.N. Tatishchev. The career of this scientist began precisely in the time of Peter the Great. He was well aware of the realities of the era, its positive and negative sides. Nevertheless, V.N. Tatishchev unconditionally approves all the transformations carried out and believes that it was this sovereign who led Russia to unprecedented power.

M.V. Lomonosov dedicated a number of works to Peter I. He most clearly expressed his attitude to the activities of the emperor in the “Word of Praise to Peter the Great”, pronounced at the solemn meeting of the Academy of Sciences in 1755. For him, Peter is “a man like God”, this is the ideal of an enlightened monarch that was so popular among philosophers XVIII century. The scientist approved of both the foreign and domestic policy of Peter I, his social transformations and, in particular, measures in the field of education, the dissemination of sciences. It is curious that M.V. Lomonosov also wrote "Notes" on Voltaire's manuscript "History Russian Empire under Peter the Great.

Other than V. N. Tatishchev and M. V. Lomonosov, position

occupied by Prince M.M. Shcherbatov. In 1782, he created the work "Looking at the vices and autocracy of Peter the Great." In it, the author, on the one hand, recognizes the emperor's merits in the field of economic and cultural development of the country, and on the other hand, strongly criticizes the socio-political side of his activities. M. M. Shcherbatov accuses Peter of humiliating the former importance of the noble aristocracy, infringing on their legitimate rights and privileges, is indignant at the rise of “vile” people and emphasizes that the expansion of industry and trade violated the patriarchal purity of rural life. Thus, this historian, as it were, contrasted the ancient "magnificent" Muscovite Russia and the new orders created by the arbitrary will of the emperor, who broke ties with the noble nobility. As in the assessment of Ivan IV, M.M. Shcherbatov, in his attitude towards Peter I, remains true to ideas that reflected the interests of the well-born aristocracy.

Another Russian historian of the 18th century made a great contribution to the study of the Petrine era. - I.I. Golikov. He compiled a 12-volume work "Acts of Peter the Great" and 18 volumes of "Additions" to it. In the first volume of "Acts" I.I. Golikov examined the economic development of Russia in the 17th century. and came to the conclusion that the actions of Peter were prepared by the entire previous history of the country. The assessment of the reforms in the works of I.I. Golikov was exclusively positive.

A.N. Radishchev. Without denying the merits of the sovereign in the foreign policy field, he accused Peter of excessively strengthening autocratic power and enslaving the peasants (recruitment kits, taxes). Explaining his position, Radishchev pointed out that the “autocracy” of Peter I led to conflicts between the authorities and the people.

N. M. Karamzin most thoroughly outlined his views on the reign of Peter I in the "Note" On Ancient and New Russia, compiled in 1811. He resolutely condemned Peter for too diligent imitation of European models. According to the historian, the introduction of new customs and cultural traditions has deprived Russia of its identity. Peter, in words

Karamzin, "wanted to make Russia Holland" and "humiliated the Russians in their own hearts." As a result, the Russian people "became citizens of the world, but ceased to be, in a sense, citizens of Russia."

N.M. Karamzin condemned the transfer of the capital from Moscow to St. Petersburg, the liquidation of the patriarchate, and the introduction of a table of ranks. Much more correctly acted, in his opinion, the father of Peter, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who also encouraged the rapprochement of Russia with Western Europe, but did it "gradually, quietly, barely noticeable ... without impulses and violence."

This view was largely due to the specific situation in which the "Note" was created. A wave of revolutions then swept through a number of European countries, and the staunch monarchist Karamzin feared, not without reason, any decisive break in social relations, on the one hand, and the “pernicious” influence of European ideas, on the other. Nevertheless, the historian could not fail to recognize the merits of Peter I in foreign policy, in the development of industry, trade, and education. He highly appreciated the personal qualities of the emperor, whom he called "a great husband."

There was no unity among the Decembrists in relation to Peter I. A. Bestuzhev and A. Kornilovich gave him an extremely positive response. However, M. Fonvizin, for example, believed that the methods by which the emperor pursued his policy were too cruel. "Torture and executions," he wrote, "served as the means of our glorious transformation of the state." This author also noted that the reverse side of the reforms was the strengthening of serfdom. In general, according to Fonvizin, "Peter did not pay so much attention to the internal well-being of the people, but to the development of the gigantic power of his empire."

Dually assessed the policy of Peter and A. S. Pushkin, the Poet admired the energy of the monarch, his military and political talent, but condemned Peter's despotism, regretted the suffering of the people.

In the middle of the XIX century. disputes about the historical role of Peter I

flared up with renewed vigor. The staunch panegyrists of the emperor were M.P. Pogodin and I.G. Ustryalov. A different, very specific position was taken by the Slavophiles K.S. Aksakov, I.V. Kireevsky and others. Their view of the Petrine era was closely connected with the general philosophical concept based on the idea of ​​delimiting the functions of the state and the people.

The state, according to the Slavophiles, has "the fullness of external power." It can adopt political laws, but must not interfere in the internal, spiritual life of the people. The Russian people were presented to the Slavophiles as apolitical, striving not for power, but for self-improvement. “Freedom of action and law - to the king, freedom of opinion and speech - to the people,” wrote K.S. Aksakov. However, according to the Slavophiles, Peter I upset the natural balance between the government and the people, tried to completely subjugate the people to himself and imposed alien European customs on them.

As a result, Russia was divided in two. The nobility and part of the townspeople adopted the new norms, and with them the corrupting craving for political fuss. Most of the peasants remained faithful to the precepts of their ancestors, although to some extent they also succumbed to "moral decay." Further following the European path could, according to the Slavophiles, lead Russia into the "abyss of revolution."

Thus, the Slavophiles approached the condemnation of Peter I, the conclusion that the rapprochement between Russia and Western Europe was unlawful, and that there was a special, specific path for the development of Russian society.

S. M. Solovyov devoted many pages of his fundamental History of Russia from Ancient Times to the reign of Peter I and several separate works, including Public Readings on Peter the Great (1872).

In the early works of the historian, the era of Peter appears as a turning point, as a line dividing the history of the fatherland into two periods. S. M. Solovyov even called the Petrine reforms "the revolution of the beginning of the 18th century." Later, in the 1870s, he also wrote about the historical readiness for reforms, a certain succession.

between the events of the second half of the 17th century. and the Petrine era. So, describing the situation on the eve of the accession of Peter Alekseevich, S.M. Soloviev noted: “The people got up and got ready for the road, but they were waiting for someone; waited for the leader - the leader appeared.

The historian saw the main reason for all Peter's transformations in the objective needs of the Russian economy. It was the economic needs of the country (access to the seas) that was caused, according to this historian, North War.

Even in the cultural policy of the sovereign, Solovyov saw an economic aspect: “The poor people realized their poverty and its causes through comparison with the rich people and rushed to acquire the means to which the overseas peoples owed their wealth.”

In general, S.M. Solovyov believed that the Europeanization of Russian life was natural and not only did not damage the national culture, but enriched it.

The historian also believed that all the reforms of Peter I were carried out according to a pre-planned plan and were interconnected. He treated the popular uprisings of the Petrine era extremely negatively, saw them as an “accidental rebellion” of people who did not understand the national benefit. Emphasizing the futility of these movements, S.M. Solovyov wrote: “All the displeasures that showed up in different areas were not, however, quite strong ... The reason was that on the side of the transformation were the best, strongest people who concentrated around the supreme converter ... the car was at full speed, it was possible to shout, complain, scold, but it was impossible to stop the car.

In the middle of the XIX century. V.G. devoted a number of articles to Peter I. Belinsky, a well-known literary critic and publicist, distinguished by his radical revolutionary convictions. According to Belinsky, the reforms of Peter I laid a heavy burden on the shoulders of the people, became "a difficult and formidable year." Sympathizing with the anti-government rebellions, the author nevertheless emphasized the need for the measures taken by the king. The main result of the reforms, in his opinion, was the growth of the country's military power in the face of the European powers that had already gained strength.

V.G. Belinsky believed that if it were not for Peter I, then Russia could well turn into a colony. Arguing with the Slavophiles, he wrote: "And without Peter's reforms, Russia, perhaps, would have drawn closer to Europe and adopted its civilization, but just like India did with England."

Similar views were held in the 1840s-50s by A.I.

Herzen. However, then his position changed. In the 1860s, A.I. Herzen began to criticize Peter's reforms quite sharply. He persistently emphasized the emperor's desire to strengthen the state machine and forget the interests of an individual human person. For Peter, according to Herzen, "the state was everything, and man - nothing." These views of Herzen subsequently became widespread among historians and writers of a liberal orientation.

V. O. Klyuchevsky was extremely critical of the activities of Peter. Without denying either the enormous influence of the reforms on all aspects of the life of Russian society, or the fact that the transformations were prepared by the entire course of Russian history, he was one of the first to declare that the measures taken by Peter were not subject to a single plan, but rather were of a spontaneous, unsystematic nature. Klyuchevsky considered the Northern War to be the main driving force behind the transformations. “Serving as the main driving force of the reform,” he wrote, “the war had the most unfavorable effect on its course and success. The reform was going on in the midst of confused turmoil... The war gave the reform a nervous, feverish pulse, a painfully accelerated pace.

Dually assessed V.O. Klyuchevsky and the personality of Peter I, he found in it many antipathetic features: cruelty, imbalance, pettiness. P. N. Milyukov, who worked at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, went even further in his criticism of the Petrine reforms. P. N. Milyukov was not only a well-known historian, but also a major political figure, one of the founders of the party of constitutional democrats. In 1892, he published The State Economy of Russia in the First Quarter of the 18th Century and the Reform of Peter the Great. Like V.O. Klyuchevsky, P.N. Milyukov believed

what main reason reforms was the Northern War and the financial difficulties associated with it. According to this author, the tsar did not have any unified plan for transformations. Moreover, many of the reforms seemed to Miliukov erroneous and contradictory. They were, as it were, a spontaneous reaction to the demands of the moment.

The price of Peter's innovations, according to the historian, was the "terrible ruin of the country" and the impoverishment of the people. The greatness of the emperor himself seemed to him more than doubtful.

P. N. Milyukov emphasized more than once that Peter was not aware of all possible consequences of his actions, and even wrote that in Russia at the beginning of the 18th century. there were "reforms without a reformer." In general, according to Milyukov, only the foreign policy activities of Peter I had positive sides, all his domestic policy was subordinated to the needs of the war, poorly organized and untimely.

The conclusions of P.N. Comrade Milyukov in the Cadet Party, the famous scientist N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky rated his work as "a bilious pamphlet on Peter I." In his study "Projects of reforms in the notes of contemporaries of Peter the Great" (1897), he emphasized that the emperor himself developed drafts of his laws and it was a big mistake to underestimate his personality.

At the same time, N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky wrote that Peter's reforms were not some kind of illogical coup, that they organically fit into the context of Russian history. “Peter's reform,” he wrote, “did not rebuild the old building, but gave it only a new facade ... The time of Peter the Great is only one of the stages in the development of the state of the new time, which in its main foundations took shape in our country in the 16th century. and lasted until half of XIX in.".

Historians criticized Milyukov extremely harshly. official referral for whom Peter I remained the absolute ideal of a statesman.

In Soviet times, the interest of historians in the Petrine reform did not fade away. However, the main attention - scientists now began to focus on economic processes and social struggle. One of the main tasks of the study was considered to be the clarification of the interests of which class Peter's policy corresponded to and what social consequences it led to.

In the 1920s, M.N. Pokrovsky made an attempt to consider the entire history of Russia from the standpoint of Marxism. Peter's time in his writings is characterized as the "spring of capitalism", the period when commercial (merchant's) capital creates a new economic basis for the life of Russian society. As a consequence of this, power, according to M.N. Pokrovsky, had to pass from the nobles to the merchants. Peter I, accordingly, seemed to the historian to represent the interests of the merchants, and all his foreign and domestic policy was explained by the needs of young capitalism. Little attention was paid to the personality of the sovereign. For Pokrovsky, the most important thing was to reveal the "class essence" of the Petrine reforms.

Pokrovsky's opponent in the 1920s was N.A. Rozhkov. In his opinion, the reforms of Peter I were dictated primarily by the interests of the nobles, although the needs of the bourgeoisie were taken into account to some extent.

The view of the reign of Peter I as a "dictatorship of the nobility" was dominant in Soviet historiography from the mid-1930s to the mid-1960s. This point of view was held by V.I. Lebedev, K.V. Bazilevich, V.V. Mavrodin, S.V. Yushkov and, in particular, S.V. Bakhrushin, who wrote in 1944 a special essay "On the class nature of the monarchy of Peter I". At the same time, most historians believed that the transformations were a natural continuation of the processes of the 17th century. Although the reforms themselves were assessed positively by researchers, their severity for the masses was constantly emphasized, and rebellions and riots were interpreted as a progressive phenomenon.

A special place in Soviet historiography is occupied by the work of B. I. Syromyatnikov “The Regular State of Peter I and Its Ideology”, published in 1943.

personal interpretation of the class foundation of the Russian state from his colleagues in the first quarter of the 18th century. According to Syromyatnikov, Peter's unlimited power was based on a specific situation: the nobility and the bourgeoisie achieved equality of economic and political forces during this period. This allowed the state to become a kind of mediator between them, to achieve independence from both classes.

The independence of power, of course, did not mean yet its impartiality. According to B.I. Syromyatnikov, Peter I, however, pursued a policy in the interests of the growing bourgeoisie and even sought to limit serfdom. These conclusions have not received support from other historians. Most researchers remained true to the thesis about the pro-noble nature of the policy of Peter 1.

In 1966-1972. On the pages of the journal "History of the USSR" a discussion unfolded about the essence and time of the emergence of absolute monarchy in Russia. Naturally, in the course of disputes, scientists repeatedly turned to the times of Peter the Great. A. Ya. Avrekh in his article “Russian absolutism and its role in the establishment of capitalism in Russia” expressed the opinion that absolutism arose and relatively established itself precisely in the reign of Peter I.

One of the leading reasons for this, according to the historian, was the low level of class struggle. Avrekh also emphasized that despite the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie, the government strove to pursue precisely the bourgeois policy. Most historians did not agree with A. Ya. Avrekh, accusing him of underestimating the class struggle.

Both during the discussion and in the writings of individual historians in the 1970s, the thesis about the certain independence of the Petrine state, its independence from the interests of any one class, began to be repeated more and more often. This point of view was expressed, for example, by I.A. Fedosov and S.M. Trinity. However, unlike B. I. Syromyatnikov, they considered the source of this independence not the balance of power between the nobility and the bourgeoisie, but the “intra-class” struggle between the old, well-born aristocracy and the young bureaucratized nobility. The bourgeoisie, which was gaining strength, according to researchers, acted only as

yuznik of the young nobility.

In general, in the 1950s-1970s, a lot of works were published devoted both to the Petrine era as a whole and to individual aspects of Russia's development in the first quarter of the 18th century. Socio-economic processes were studied by S.G. Strumilin, B.B. Kafengauz, E.I. Zaozerskaya, A.P. Glagoleva, S.M. Troitsky, I.A. Bulygin. The works of N.B. Golikova, I.G. Rosner. Military and diplomatic problems - P.P. Epifanova, V.E. Vozgrina, Yu.N. Bespyatykh, S.A. Feigina and many other historians.

A large amount of factual material was summarized in the works of N. I. Pavlenko. Based on the legislation of the 18th century, he showed that often Peter did not help, but rather hindered the development of the bourgeoisie as a class (creating, for example, conditions for the transition of the bourgeois to the nobility). By supporting the merchants, the sovereign pursued mainly fiscal goals: to replenish the state treasury. N. I. Pavlenko emphasizes in his work “Peter the Great” (1976) that, unlike Western Europe, absolute monarchy in Russia was built on the old, feudal foundation, and Peter’s policy “was aimed at exalting the nobility.” “Reforms,” he writes, “strengthened the dominant position of the nobility in feudal society. The nobility became more monolithic and educated, its role in the army and the state apparatus increased, and the rights to work of serfs expanded. The class orientation of the transformations does not exclude their enormous national significance. They put Russia on the path of accelerated economic, political and cultural development.”

A new interpretation of the problem was given in the 1980s by E.V. Anisimov. In his monograph "The Time of Peter's Reforms" (1989), the state given by the emperor is again considered as an independent force. Even the nobility, according to the historian, Peter assigned the place of one of the details of the state machine, while the state itself was considered the highest value. E. V. Anisimov analyzes the main legislative acts of the time of Peter the Great and shows how strict the reg-

all aspects of the life of Russian society were lamented by the tsar, as the government resolutely intervened in the most intimate corners of the life of its subjects. According to the author, the time of Peter the Great contributed to the formation of the totalitarian consciousness of the people. Similar ideas were expressed by N.Ya. Eidelman.

Disputes about the place and role of Peter I in Russian history are far from over even today. When evaluating his activities, in any case, one should avoid unambiguous and poster-like characteristics. The image of a “democratic” king-carpenter created by some filmmakers and writers, as well as the image of a ruthless tyrant, are quite far from the truth and by no means exhaust all the specifics of this colossal personality.

Literature

Anisimov E.V. Time of Peter's reforms. - L., 1989. Bagger X. Reforms of Peter the Great. - M., 1985. Zaozerskaya E.I. Manufactory under Peter I. - M.-L., 1947. Mavrodin V.V. Peter the First. - L., 1948. Pavlenko N.I. Peter the First. - M., 1976. Sofronenko K.A. Legislative acts of Peter I. - M., 1961. Tarle I.V. Russian fleet and foreign policy of Peter I. - St. Petersburg, 1994. Telpukhovsky B.S. Northern War 1700-1721 The military activity of Peter I. - M., 1946.

A significant part of the historical literature about Russia in the 18th century is devoted to the reforms of Peter the Great; this is explained, for example, by the fact that pre-revolutionary historians considered the knot of problems associated with them as a key, central one in the history of Russia.

After 1917, these problems faded into the background, but even in Soviet historiography, the Petrine era is considered one of the most important periods in the history of our state.

The interests of Western researchers focused primarily on the foreign policy of Russia and the biography of Peter the Great; after Napoleon, the tsar was characterized by them as the most striking person in the history of Europe, as "the most significant monarch of Europe of this century."

The main part of the literature on this topic is special works devoted to certain aspects of Peter's transformative activity. The conclusions contained in these works are for the most part incomparable due to differences in the objects of research, the approach of the authors to the topic, and similar factors.

Thus, only a small part of the literature on this topic can participate in general discussions about the reforms of Peter the Great, but even it contains an extremely wide range of assessments. Perhaps the explanation for the extreme dissimilarity of points of view lies in the fact that the complexity, the complex nature of the topic, makes it impossible for an individual scientist to fully disclose it, and therefore many historians turn assessments of individual aspects of reforms into an integral part. general characteristics transformations, while giving them very different weights.

No less diverse is the background against which researchers evaluate Peter's reforms. Three main directions can be distinguished here: some historians consider this topic mainly in comparison with the previous period of Russian history, most often immediately preceding the era of Peter the Great (late 16-17th century), others compare the current situation with the situation in Europe at the beginning of the 18th century, while still others evaluate historical meaning Peter's activities through the prism of the subsequent development of Russia.

The first of these points of view naturally raises the question of the extent to which the Petrine era meant a break with the past (or, on the contrary, continued the development trends of the 17th century).

The second makes it necessary to pay increased attention to the discussion about foreign prototypes of reforms and their adaptation to Russian conditions.

The third point of view, which actualizes the question of the consequences of the reforms and their suitability as a model, is inferior to the first two in terms of scientific fruitfulness: thus, the reforms of Peter the Great became a favorite topic for public debate in pre-revolutionary Russia. This topic was thus politicized long before its scientific development began.

Although there is an opinion expressed by P.N. Milyukov, that it is not the business of the historian to indulge in arguments about whether the events of the past were positive or negative, that the historian must concentrate entirely on “his activity as an expert” revealing the authenticity of facts, nevertheless, few historians have succeeded in trying to get away from endless publicistic discussions about how harmful or useful Peter's reforms were, reprehensible or worthy of imitation from the point of view of morality or the interests of the nation.

MM Bogoslovsky, in his factual biography of Peter, stated with regret that more or less generalizing assessments of the Petrine era were developed mainly under the influence of general philosophical systems that constantly intrude into the field of research sources.

Apparently, this characterization of Bogoslovsky is quite suitable for assessing the entire history of the study of the topic that preceded it.

In most review works, the Petrine period is regarded as the beginning of a new era in the history of Russia. However, strong disagreements reign among historians who are trying to answer the question to what extent the era of reforms meant a radical break with the past, and whether the new Russia differed from the old qualitatively.

The boundaries dividing the participants in this discussion are to a greater extent historically conditioned, since as more and more thorough research was carried out both in the 17th and 18th centuries, the number of supporters of the concept increased, according to which the reforms of the time of Peter the Great are a natural result of the previous development of the country.

There is also an opposite, "revolutionary" concept, according to which the reforms had almost nothing in common with the country's previous development. S.M. Solovyov, who with his "History of Russia" made a major contribution to the scientific study of the era of Peter's reign.

He interprets the Petrine period as an era of fierce struggle between two diametrically opposed principles of state administration and characterizes the reforms as a radical transformation, a terrible revolution that cut the history of Russia in two, and meant the transition from one era in the history of the people to another.

However, in contrast to the Slavophiles, Solovyov believes that the reforms were caused by historical necessity and therefore should be considered as entirely national.

Russian society of the 17th century was, in his opinion, in a state of chaos and decay, which led to the use of radical measures by the state power - "just like a serious illness requires surgical intervention."

Thus, the situation in Russia on the eve of the reforms is assessed negatively by Solovyov. Bushuev S.V., Mironov G.E. History of Russian Goverment. Historical and bibliographic essays. Book. 2. XVII - XVIII centuries. M., Enlightenment, 1994., p.187

Bogoslovsky, not adhering to a clearly materialistic position, presented the reforms as a radical and complete break with the past.

A similar point of view, but from the standpoint of Marxist historiography, was cited by M.N. Pokrovsky and B.I. Syromyatnikov - both of these historians base their opinion on the revolutionary nature of the transformations on changes in the balance of class forces at the beginning of the 18th century.

In Western literature, there are also isolated examples of the assessment of reforms as a revolution, or at least "transformation".

There is another view on this problem, more neutral, namely, the “evolutionary” concept.

Among the scientists who defend this concept, it is necessary to single out V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov. These historians, who have studied the pre-Petrine period in depth, and in their published courses of lectures on national history persistently carry out the idea of ​​continuity between the reforms of Peter and the previous century. They are categorically against Solovyov's characterization of the 17th century as an era of crisis and decay. In contrast to this view, they argue that in this century there was a positive process of creating the prerequisites for reform activity, and not only the ground was prepared for most of the transformative ideas of Peter the Great, but also a “general desire for novelty and improvement” was awakened.

“The 17th century not only created the atmosphere in which the reformer grew up and breathed, but also outlined the program of his activity, which in some respects went even further than what he did. Peter in the orders of old Russia did not fundamentally change anything, he continued to build a building in the development of already existing trends. The renewal consisted only in the fact that he altered the existing state of the constituent parts.

According to Klyuchevsky and Platonov, if there was something “revolutionary” in Peter's reforms, it was only the violence and ruthlessness of the methods he used.

Today, the prevailing opinion in science is that Peter's reforms did not mean a radical break with the past, although in the twentieth century some major historians, such as Klyuchevsky's students - M.M. Bogoslovsky and M.N. Pokrovsky was in solidarity with Solovyov on this issue.

Since the mid-thirties, Soviet historians have been characterized by the conviction that the essence of Petrine Russia has not changed compared to the 17th century. Syromyatnikov's point of view is an exception in this sense. But at the same time, both Soviet and Western historians are unanimous in their opinion that Peter's reforms gave a sharp impetus to the acceleration of important trends in the development of Russia, it is this feature that primarily gives the Petrine era its special character.

The second of the most clearly posed problems in the general discussion about the reforms of Peter contains the question: to what extent were planned and systematic character of the reform activity?

Solovyov presents reforms as a strictly sequential series of links that make up a comprehensively thought-out and pre-planned program of transformations, which is based on a rigid system of clearly formulated goals: “In this system, even war is assigned a predetermined place among the means of implementing the general plan.”

In this regard, Solovyov's work was influenced by the historiography and journalism that preceded his writing. His main ideas can in many cases be traced back to the work of the immediate post-Petrine era.

Long before Solovyov, the opinion became universal that Peter's activity and its results were the product of an almost superhuman mind: the implementation of the devil's plan or the manifestation of higher wisdom, the reformer was traditionally characterized as "Antichrist" (schismatics) or "a man like God" (M.V. Lomonosov ).

But not all historians adhere to such a flattering view of reforms for Peter. The point of view regarding the obvious planlessness and inconsistency of Peter's transformations is shared by V.O. Klyuchevsky, who emphasizes that the war was the driving force behind the transformations. Klyuchevsky believes that the structure of the reforms and their sequence were entirely due to the needs imposed by the war, which, in his opinion, was also carried out rather stupidly. In contrast to Solovyov, Klyuchevsky denies that Peter already in the early period of his life felt himself called to transform Russia; only in the last decade of his reign, Peter, according to Klyuchevsky, began to realize that he had created something new, at the same time his domestic policy began to lose the features of hasty and incomplete decisions. This view gave rise to a number of other points of view, focusing more on the various nuances of the reforms.

In Soviet historiography, there was also no unified view on the issue of planned reforms. As a rule, a deeper meaning of the transformations was assumed than just an increase in the effectiveness of military operations.

On the other hand, it was widely believed that the course of the war had a decisive influence on the nature and direction of Peter's reforms. It was also noted that the reforms were acquiring an increasingly distinct character of plannedness and consistency as Russia steadily increased its superiority over Sweden in the Northern War.

The authors of such studies are characterized by the desire to draw a line between the first “feverish” phase of the war, when internal reforms were chaotic and unplanned, and the last decade of Peter’s life, when the government had enough time to think about more promising solutions. The most effective and significant transformations belong to this period.

There is another topic that causes strong controversy - this is the historical essence of the reforms. The understanding of this problem is based either on views based on Marxist views, that is, those who believe that the policy of state power is based and conditioned by the socio-economic system, or the position according to which reforms are an expression of the sole will of the monarch. This point of view is typical of the “state” historical school in pre-revolutionary Russia.

The first of this multitude of views is that of the monarch's personal desire to Europeanize Russia. Historians who adhere to this point of view consider the “Europeanization” to be the main goal of Peter.

According to Solovyov, the meeting with European civilization was a natural and inevitable event on the path of development of the Russian people. But Solovyov considers Europeanization not as an end in itself, but as a means, primarily stimulating the economic development of the country.

The theory of Europeanization, of course, did not meet with the approval of historians who seek to emphasize the continuity of the era of Peter in relation to the previous period.

An important place in the debate about the essence of the reforms is occupied by the hypothesis of the priority of foreign policy goals over domestic ones. This hypothesis was first advanced by Milyukov and Klyuchevsky.

Conviction in its infallibility led Klyuchevsky to the conclusion that the reforms were of varying degrees of importance: he considered the military reform the initial stage of Peter's transformative activity, and the reorganization of the financial system as his ultimate goal. The rest of the reforms were either the result of changes in military affairs, or prerequisites for achieving the mentioned ultimate goal. Klyuchevsky attached independent importance only to economic policy. Klyuchevsky V. O. “Historical portraits. Figures of historical thought. -- Moscow: Pravda, 1991, p.195

The last point of view on this problem is “idealistic”. It is most clearly formulated by Bogoslovsky - he characterizes the reforms as the practical implementation of the principles of statehood perceived by the monarch. But here the question arises about the "principles of statehood" in the understanding of the king. Bogoslovsky believes that the ideal of Peter the Great was an absolutist state, the so-called “regular state”, which, with its comprehensive vigilant care (police activity), sought to regulate all aspects of public and private life in accordance with the principles of reason and for the benefit of the “common good”.

He, like Solovyov, sees in the introduction of the principle of rationality, rationalism, a radical break with the past. His understanding of Peter's reforming activity, which can be called "enlightened absolutism", has found many adherents among Western historians, who are inclined to emphasize that Peter was not an outstanding theorist, and that the reformer, during his foreign trip, took into account, first of all, the practical results of contemporary politics. science.

Some of the adherents of this point of view argue that the Petrine state practice was by no means typical of its time, as Bogoslovsky proves.

According to such historians, Russian absolutism in everything related to its role and impact on the life of Russian society took a completely different position than the absolutism of most European countries. While in Europe the governmental and administrative structure of the state was determined by social order, in Russia, the opposite case took place - here the state and its policy formed social structure.

In this regard, it should also be noted that in the discussion about the essence of Russian absolutism that began in Soviet historiography, there were supporters of the point of view that the state power in Russia occupied a much stronger position in relation to society than the European regimes. But this point of view was not dominant in Soviet historiography. Soviet historians, who sought to characterize the Petrine state and its policies, as a rule paid special attention to economic and social transformations; with class relations serving as the starting point. The only difference here was in the understanding of the nature of the class struggle and the correlation of the opposing forces in this period.

Pokrovsky was the first to attempt to define the essence of Peter's reforms from a Marxist standpoint. He characterizes this era as an early phase in the birth of capitalism, when commercial capital begins to create a new economic basis for Russian society.

As a result of the transfer of economic initiative to the merchants, power passed from the nobility to the bourgeoisie (ie, to these same merchants). The so-called “spring of capitalism” has come. The merchants needed an efficient state apparatus that could serve their purposes both in Russia and abroad.

That is why, according to Pokrovsky, Peter's administrative reforms, wars and economic policy in general, are united by the interests of commercial capital.

Some historians, attaching great importance to commercial capital, associate it with the interests of the nobility. And although the thesis about the dominant role of commercial capital was rejected in Soviet historiography, it can be said that the opinion regarding the class basis of the state remained dominant in Soviet historiography from the mid-1930s to the mid-1960s. During this period, the generally accepted point of view was that the Petrine state was considered a “national state of landlords” or a “dictatorship of the nobility”. His policy expressed primarily the interests of the feudal lords, although attention was also paid to the interests of the bourgeoisie, which was gaining strength.

As a result of the analysis of political ideology and social position state, the opinion was established that the essence of the idea of ​​the “common good” is demagogic, it covered the interests of the ruling class. Although this position is shared by most historians, there are exceptions. For example, Syromyatnikov, in his book on the Petrine state and its ideology, fully agrees with the theological characterization of the state of Peter as a typical absolutist state of that era. New in the controversy about the Russian autocracy was his interpretation of the class foundation of this state, which was based on Marxist definitions of the prerequisites of European Absolutism. Syromyatnikov believes that Peter's unlimited powers were based on a real situation, namely: the opposing classes (the nobility and the bourgeoisie) achieved during this period such an equality of economic and political forces, which allowed the government to achieve a certain independence in relation to both classes, to become a kind of intermediary between them.

Thanks to a temporary state of equilibrium in the class struggle, state power became a relatively autonomous factor in historical development, and was able to benefit from the growing contradictions between the nobility and the bourgeoisie.

The fact that the state thus stood in a certain sense above the class struggle did not in any way mean that it was completely impartial. An in-depth study of the economic and social policies of Peter the Great led Syromyatnikov to the conclusion that the tsar's reforming activities had an overall anti-feudal orientation, "manifested, for example, in measures taken in the interests of the growing bourgeoisie, as well as in an effort to limit serfdom."

This characterization of the reforms, given by Syromyatnikov, did not find a significant response from Soviet historians. In general, Soviet historiography did not accept and criticized his conclusions (but not the facts) because they were very close to Pokrovsky's previously rejected positions.

In addition, many historians do not share the opinion about the balance of power in the Petrine period, not everyone recognizes the bourgeoisie, which was barely born in the 18th century, as a real economic and political factor capable of resisting the local nobility.

This was also confirmed during the discussions in national historiography in the 70s, as a result of which a relatively complete consensus was reached regarding the inapplicability of the thesis of the “neutrality” of power and the balance of classes in relation to specific Russian conditions.

However, some historians, while generally disagreeing with Syromyatnikov's opinion, share his view of Peter's autocracy as relatively independent of class forces. They substantiate the independence of the autocracy by the thesis of equilibrium in a new version. While Syromyatnikov operates exclusively with the category of social balance of two different classes - the nobility and the bourgeoisie, Fedosov and Troitsky consider the contradictory interests within the ruling class as a source of independence of the political superstructure. And if Peter the Great was able to put into practice such an extensive set of reforms contrary to the interests of certain social groups of the population, then this was explained by the intensity of that very “intraclass struggle”, where on the one hand the old aristocracy acted, and on the other, the new, bureaucratized nobility.

Another controversial point of view was put forward by A.Ya. Avrekh, the initiator of the debate about the essence of Russian absolutism. In his opinion, absolutism arose and was finally strengthened under Peter the Great. Its formation and unprecedentedly strong position in Russia became possible thanks to the relatively low level class struggle combined with stagnation in the social - economic development country.

Absolutism should be regarded as a form of the feudal state, but the distinguishing feature of Russia was the desire to pursue, in spite of the obvious weakness of the bourgeoisie, precisely the bourgeois policy, and to develop in the direction of the bourgeois monarchy.

Naturally, this theory could not be accepted in Soviet historiography, because it contradicted some Marxist principles.

This resolution of the problem did not find much recognition in the course of the ongoing discussion of Soviet historians about absolutism. Outside of the discussion about absolutism, historians discussed the problem of Tsar Peter's personal contribution to the reforms. The figure of Peter has long attracted the attention of many authors, but most of them were limited to general, and predominantly positive psychological portraits of the controversial personality of the king (and such works also appear in Western historiography). Zueva M.N. History of Russia: a textbook for universities. Ed. M.N. Zueva - M., 2003., 200

Almost all of these characteristics arose on the basis of the assumption that the extraordinary personality of Peter left an imprint on the entire political activity of the government, both in a positive and negative sense.

Although such an assessment is interesting enough in itself, it is only occasionally confirmed by serious studies concerning the extent and nature of Peter's influence on the process of transformation. More often, scientists are content with definitions of the role of the monarch, based on ideas about the presence or absence of a framework that limits the activities of great people, and their functions in the historical process (here it is interesting to note that attempts to recreate the psychological portrait of Peter the Great were made even on the basis of records of his dreams.)

The first to openly doubt the greatness of Peter P.N. Milyukov. Based on the findings of his study of transformative activity in the fiscal - administrative area, which he considered quite representative for assessing the personal contribution of the tsar to the reforms, Milyukov argues that Peter's sphere of influence was very limited, the reforms were developed collectively, and the ultimate goals of the transformations were only partially realized by the tsar, and even then indirectly by his entourage.

Thus, Milyukov, in the course of his research, discovers a long series of "reforms without a reformer."

At one time, Milyukov's point of view attracted great attention, however, it became widespread later, when the generalizing works of M.N. Pokrovsky, in which Peter appears as a completely weak-willed instrument of capital. The challenge posed by Milyukov was accepted by other historians. For example, already in 1897, the Russian historian Pavlov-Silvansky published two works with a completely opposite assessment of the role of Peter in the transformations.

One of these two works was devoted to the theme of the tsar's attitude to a number of reform projects, the other to the legislative activity of the Supreme Privy Council immediately after the death of Peter. These archival studies allowed Pavlov-Silvansky to conclude that in the field of reforms, it was Tsar Peter, and no one else, who was the motivating and driving force. Peter often acted without regard to the opinions of his advisors; moreover, after the death of the king, his closest assistants during his lifetime often behaved as principled opponents of reforms.

But, if Pavlov-Silvansky, like Milyukov, studied relatively limited archival complexes, then the Soviet historian N.A. Voskresensky devoted his whole life to studying a huge mass of legislative acts of the Petrine era, during which he sought, by analyzing drafts and drafts, to establish which specific persons, administrative bodies and social groups influenced the formation of individual legal provisions. This methodologically remarkable work strengthened the positions of Pavlov-Silvansky, since in it Voskresensky came to the conclusion that the cabinet, that is, the personal office of the tsar, had a decisive influence on the legislation, the role of the monarch himself in the transformational activity was “leading, multilateral, full energy and creativity. He formulated all the most important norms that reflected the main trends, tasks, content and methods of the reforms he was undertaking.

Voskresensky, naturally, in the course of his work could not collect all the materials related to the topic, covering the question of who was the initiator of the creation of many legal provisions, and the controversy about the personal role of Peter in the development of individual laws of the era of transformation continues.

Peter's influence on the foreign policy of the state has not become the subject of systematic research, but, according to the generally accepted opinion, the emperor used most of his time and energy precisely to change the relationship between Russia and the outside world; in addition, many historians documented, on the basis of foreign policy materials, confirmed the active and leading role of Peter in this area of ​​state activity.

4. OPINIONS ON THE ACTIVITIES OF PETER I. The diversity and inconsistency of assessments of the personality and activities of Peter I have survived to this day. Three main groups of opinions and assessments can be distinguished: A. “Panegirists” (panegyrics to Peter appeared during his lifetime) B. “Revealers” (denunciations of Peter also appeared during his lifetime) C. “Objectivists” (recognizing merits in the activities of Peter, but showing, at the same time, many shortcomings of his actions). Nevertheless, the personality and activities of Peter I are constantly in the center of public attention. In one of the domestic pre-revolutionary works, a characteristic scientific paradox was noted: on the one hand, “the era of Peter the Great has long become the property of the past,” but, on the other, “we seem to still be under the spell of this time, as if we are still not survived this anxious, feverish time and are unable to treat it quite objectively. The reasons for this situation were seen in the fact that “the great emperor raised questions point-blank, which we still have not finally resolved ...” (E.F. Shmurlo). This was also reflected in the literature devoted to Peter's reforms, which "more closely resembles court speeches in defense or in accusation of the defendant than a calm analysis of scientific historical criticism." GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSONALITY AND ACTIVITIES OF PETER I A. "PANEGIRISTS": Peter the Great is a unique personality in all of Russian history. Peter completely destroyed the image of the Russian Tsar that had developed over the centuries. Peter introduced many innovations that amazed his contemporaries into court life and the daily life of the nobles. He himself amazed his contemporaries with his clothes, behavior, manner of communication. Unlike all previous Russian sovereigns, he personally participated in all his undertakings. It was he who was in the heat of battles, not sparing his belly. It was he who won brilliant victories over a strong enemy. It was he who wandered across the impassability of Russia, as well as in the capitals of Western European courts, in order to elevate the country to the rank of European states, it was he, along with other shipbuilders, who worked with an ax, mastered to perfection navigation and artillery, fortification and urban planning. Many contemporaries were impressed by the simplicity of the king, his unpretentiousness, ability, straining his will, physical and moral strength, to overcome obstacles. Contemporaries were amazed that the tsar, as a simple bombardier, participated in the siege of Azov, and during the solemn procession in Moscow on the occasion of the capture of Azov, he walked in a common column with a protazan on his shoulder. His father, Alexei Mikhailovich, never left his own chambers without a retinue accompanying him. But Pyotr Alekseevich did not disdain to ride in a gig without retinue and guards. Surprise was caused by the fact that in 1697 Peter did not head the Great Embassy, ​​but went on a trip abroad as one of the members of this embassy, ​​and even under a false name - Peter Mikhailov. But the contemporaries were even more discouraged by the fact that abroad the tsar, having acquired the equipment of a simple carpenter, himself worked hard on the construction of the ship, studied this skill and even received a shipbuilder's diploma. Not afraid of death, exposing his own life, Peter, showing miracles of personal courage, was often in the thick of battle, and during the Battle of Poltava, in general, only his personal example inspired the soldiers when he led the troops on a counterattack. The tsar ignored the old custom, according to which physical labor was considered shameful for the sovereign and for the boyars. With complete dedication and zeal, he mastered a variety of crafts from carpentry and blacksmithing to the craft of a surgeon and dentist (he could pull out a bad tooth from someone!). Testimonies of foreigners: Elector Sophia of Hanover: “... He admitted to us that he does not like music very much. I asked him: does he like hunting? He replied that his father loved him very much, but that from his youth he had a real passion for navigation and fireworks. He told us that he himself was working on the construction of ships, showed his hands and forced us to touch the calluses formed on them from work ... We must admit that this is an extraordinary personality ... This sovereign is both very kind and very evil, he has a character - completely character his country. If he had received a better education, he would have been an excellent person, because he has a lot of dignity and an infinite amount of natural intelligence. Italian singer Filippo Baltari: “Tsar Peter Alekseevich was tall, rather thin than full; his hair was thick, short, of a dark brown color, his eyes were large, black, with long eyelashes, his mouth was well shaped, but his lower lip was a little spoiled; the facial expression is beautiful, at first sight inspiring respect. With his great height, his legs seemed thin to me, his head often jerked convulsively to the right. B. “REVIEWERS”: Peter I completely destroyed the tradition that has been going on since antiquity in the ideas about the personality of the Russian sovereign. His ostentatious simplicity, clothing, behavior, manner of communication - all this was borrowed, alien, contrary to the national and religious traditions of Russia. But all this was done by Peter quite consciously, he sought to destroy traditions, to destroy everything traditionally Russian. His personal life and behavior can cause nothing but condemnation. Peter first legitimized moral licentiousness in the royal court. It was he who, in his youth, having established the “Most drunken cathedral”, introduced rampant drunkenness and public revelry as the norm at the royal court. Peter was distinguished by debauchery, for him the bonds of marriage meant nothing, he had many mistresses. Debauchery, encouraged by the king, also dominated the imperial court. The terrible thing is that Peter did not even hide his base passions, on the contrary, he demonstrated them publicly in every possible way. Thus, Peter destroyed in the eyes of his subjects the image of the Orthodox Russian Tsar, which had been created over the centuries. And, therefore, Peter's own behavior gave rise to the process of destruction of the moral foundations of Russian statehood. Under Peter, there is a desacralization of both the person of the king and the idea of ​​power and state power itself. Unlike his predecessors on the Russian throne, Peter did not set any spiritual goals for the Russian Empire. Consequently, there was a break with the previous spiritual Russian tradition, according to which the Russian state is, first of all, the state of the true Orthodox faith. The refusal to fulfill spiritual tasks by the state led to a different understanding of the relationship between the state and the Church. In his desire to subordinate everything to state expediency, Peter I violated another ancient Russian tradition - he completely subordinated the Church to himself, turning it into one of the structures of the general state apparatus. This happened in the course of the church reform, which was carried out throughout the first quarter of the 18th century. The destruction of the independence of the Church had a tragic effect on all subsequent Russian history. Opinions of historians: N.M. Karamzin: “Peter appeared ... He rushed through the storm and waves to his goal: he reached it - and everything changed! This goal was not only the new greatness of Russia, but also ... the appropriation of European customs ... The posterity paid zealous praise to this immortal sovereign and his personal virtues and glorious deeds. He had generosity, insight, unshakable will, activity, rare indefatigability: he corrected, multiplied the army, won a brilliant victory over the skillful and courageous enemy; conquered Livonia, created a fleet, founded harbors, issued many wise laws, brought trade, ore mines to a better state, started manufactories, schools, an academy, and finally put Russia on a famous degree in the political system of Europe. ... But we Russians, having our history before our eyes, will we confirm the opinion of ignorant foreigners and say that Peter is the creator of our state greatness? Shall we forget the princes of Moscow: John I, John III, who, one might say, erected a strong power out of nothing, and, what is no less important, established a firm and autocratic rule in it? And, glorifying the glorious in this monarch, shall we leave without remark the harmful side of his brilliant reign? .. Our grandfathers, already in the reign of Michael and his son, appropriating many of the benefits of foreign customs, still remained in those thoughts that the orthodox Russian is the most perfect citizen in the world, and HOLY RUSSIA is the first state. Let them call it delusion; but how it favored the love of the fatherland and its moral strength! Now, having been in the school of foreigners for more than a hundred years, can we boast of our civic dignity without insolence? Once we called all other Europeans UNFAITHFUL, now we call brothers; I ask: who would it be easier to conquer Russia - infidels or brothers? That is, whom would she most likely have to oppose? Under Tsar Michael or Theodore, could a Russian grandee who owes everything to the Fatherland, with a cheerful heart, leave her forever to read calmly in the newspapers about our state dangers in Paris, London, Vienna? We became citizens of the world, but ceased to be, in some cases, citizens of Russia. Blame Peter. He is great without a doubt; but he could still exalt himself more if he found a way to enlighten the mind of Russians without harming their civic virtues. Unfortunately, this sovereign, poorly brought up, surrounded by young people, recognized and fell in love with the Genevan Lefort, who, out of poverty, drove to Moscow and, quite naturally, finding Russian customs strange to him, spoke to him about them with contempt, and elevated everything European to heaven. . The free societies of the German Quarter, pleasant for unbridled youth, completed the Lefortovo business, and the ardent monarch with a heated imagination, seeing Europe, wanted to make Russia - Holland ... "S.M. Solovyov: “Peter was not at all a conqueror of glory, and in this he was a complete representative of his people, a tribe that was not conquering by nature and by the conditions of its historical life. The genius of Peter expressed himself in a clear understanding of the situation of his people, he realized that it was his duty to lead a weak, poor, almost unknown people out of this sad situation through civilization. The difficulty of the matter seemed to him in its entirety upon his return from abroad, when he could compare what he saw in the West with what he found in Russia, which met him with a riot of archers. He experienced a terrible temptation, doubt, but came out of it, fully believing in the moral strength of his People, and did not hesitate to call him to a great feat, to donations and hardships of all kinds, showing himself an example in all this. Clearly realizing that the Russian people had to go through a difficult school, Peter did not hesitate to subject them to the suffering, humiliating position of a student; but at the same time, he managed to balance the disadvantages of this position with glory and greatness, turn it into an active one, managed to create the political significance of Russia and the means to maintain it. Peter was faced with a difficult task: for the education of the Russian people, it was necessary to call in foreign mentors, leaders who, naturally, sought to subordinate the students to their influence, to rise above them; but this humiliated the disciples, whom Peter wanted to make masters as soon as possible; Peter did not succumb to the temptation, did not accept the offer to deal successfully with people who were learned, fully prepared, but foreigners, he wanted his Russians to go through an active school, even if it cost big losses, was accompanied by great inconveniences ... From whatever point no matter how much we studied the era of transformation, we must be amazed at the moral and physical powers of the reformer, whose field of activity would be so vast. EVALUATION OF THE REFORM OF PETER I cultural life, in the life of the population, in the system of government, in the construction of the armed forces. As a result of Peter's reform initiatives, the little-known Muscovy turned into the Russian Empire, an influential European power. The formation of the Russian Empire was accompanied by the introduction of at least three innovations that allowed Russia to take its rightful place among European states. First of all, this is the creation of the navy, as a result of which Russia has become a maritime power. The second innovation was expressed in the creation of a regular army, which had a single system of equipment, uniform rules for training and equipment, a uniform structure, weapons and military uniform . The third innovation is the organization of a regular diplomatic service, the creation of permanent missions in European countries and the establishment of permanent missions of European states in Russia. This meant the acquisition by Russia of the status of a European state. The opinion of historians: M.P. Pogodin: “Yes, Peter the Great did a lot in Russia. You look and do not believe, you count and miss. We cannot open our eyes, we cannot move, we cannot turn in any direction without him meeting us everywhere, at home, on the street, in church, at school, in court, in the regiment, on a walk. - everywhere he is, every day, every minute, at every step! We are waking up. What day is it? January 1, 1841 - Peter the Great ordered to count the years from the Nativity of Christ, Peter the Great ordered to count the months from January. It's time to get dressed - our dress is sewn according to the style given by Peter the Great, the uniform is according to his form. The cloth was woven in the factory he started, the wool was sheared from the sheep he bred. A book catches your eye - Peter the Great introduced this typeface and cut out the letters himself. You will begin to read it - under Peter the Great this language became written, literary, displacing the former, ecclesiastical one. You decide to travel - following the example of Peter the Great; you will be well received - Peter the Great placed Russia among the European states and began to inspire respect for her, and so on, and so on, and so on. B. DISCOVERERS: The reforms of Peter the Great brought many problems to Russia. The nobility received the greatest benefit from the reforms. Moreover, thanks to Peter's policy in the 18th century, for the first time in the entire existence of Russia, the nobility in social, political, and cultural terms separated from its own people, turned into a closed estate, brought up in non-Russian traditions. In addition, Peter, providing, on the one hand, the political support of the nobility, and on the other hand, solving the problem of greater economic independence of the state, completed the final enslavement of the peasantry. It happened in 1718-1724. in the course of the tax reform. Not only did the tax reform increase the tax burden on the population by 1.5-2 times, but in order to control the receipt of taxes, strict police control was established in the country - a passport system was introduced and a network of control over the movement of the population was created. The person paying the tax turned out to be almost forever attached to his place of residence and, without special permission, did not even have the right to move. Another problem, generated by Peter and significantly affecting Russian history, is the creation of a powerful bureaucratic system of governing the country, subordinated solely to the will of the king. The bureaucratic system, created on the basis of the principle of unconditional subordination of the younger to the elder, to a large extent suppressed the initiative of the people. Moreover, subordinated to the "mania of the tsar", such a system gave rise to relations when, according to one of Peter's contemporaries, Prince D.M. Golitsyn, not "laws govern persons, but persons govern laws." In other words, it created conditions for the complete arbitrariness of those in power. Favoritism, which literally struck Russia in the 18th century, also follows from such a political system. Already under Peter, all-powerful temporary workers plundered the country as best they could. The same A.D. Menshikov, for all his military and state merits, there were no fewer sins, and perhaps more, because he constantly confused the state and his pocket, and his personal budget at one time exceeded the budget of everything Russian state ! The system of state administration that arose under Peter determined for many years the dominance of foreigners in the Russian bureaucracy. Finally, Peter I completely subordinated the Church to the state, turning it into one of the state institutions. The sovereign looked at the Russian Orthodox Church itself also purely rationalistically. The main task was the complete subordination of the Church to the secular power of the tsar and the seizure of the material values ​​​​of the Church, so necessary to ensure the numerous undertakings of Peter. The destruction of the independence of the Church gave rise to many spiritual and social problems, which soon reverberated in Russian history with tragic consequences. V. "OBJECTIVISTS": The transformations of Peter I took place in real historical conditions. The only educated class at that time was only the nobility, moreover, it was the nobility that constituted the only support of the state, including the royal power, the basis of the army. Therefore, it is natural that Peter, acting in a real historical situation, could rely primarily on the nobility. But, at the same time, he tried to make access to the nobility more open and legal. That is why the Table of Ranks was adopted, which determined the system of public service: if a person from the lower classes brought benefit to the state with his service, he could rise in ranks and reach first personal, and then hereditary nobility. The creation of a powerful state apparatus, a bureaucracy, was also necessary, because the bureaucratic state system created an additional support for the autocratic power of the tsar. Relying on the state apparatus, dependent only on the will of the sovereign, open to people from different classes, Peter I received considerable freedom in relation to the nobility, ceased to depend only on him. Thus, the bureaucratic apparatus of state power became the second, along with the nobility, support of the Petrine autocracy. And as a result, the king received considerable freedom of action, thanks to which he could carry out his own will during the reforms. And the bureaucratic apparatus was the executor of the royal will. If we talk about the strengthening of serfdom and the exploitation of the peasantry during the reign of Peter I, then, again, this was inevitable. Russia is in such natural and climatic conditions that do not allow obtaining a free surplus product for solving significant state problems, for ensuring security within the country, for the defense of huge borders. Therefore, at one time, quite naturally, a system arose for the forced withdrawal of surplus product from the main producer of material goods - from the peasantry. This system was serfdom. Other systems for ensuring the material existence of the state in that historical period simply did not exist. Therefore, it is natural that Peter used the opportunities that were at his disposal, namely, the strengthening of the serfdom of the peasantry. The church in pre-Petrine times represented the most powerful feudal owner in Russia. The Church had vast lands and other material wealth at its disposal. Peter treated the Church very rationally, he needed resources to carry out his reforms - he found these resources, among other things, in the possession of the Church. Therefore, the offensive against the Church was largely determined by Peter's desire to place church property and church people in public service (it was not without reason that young men were forbidden to be tonsured monks - they had to serve in the army, navy, etc.). In addition, the Church, which always enjoyed a certain independence from secular authorities, was an obstacle for Peter in carrying out his undertakings. This also served as the reason for a rather tough policy towards the Church, as a result of which the Church was officially subordinated personally to the emperor and turned into just one of state institutions along with other colleges.