Opinions about the personality and activities of Peter I. Personality of Peter I

Detailed solution to paragraph §12 on history for 8th grade students, authors N.M. Arsentiev, A.A. Danilov, I.V. Kurukin. 2016

Questions and tasks for working with the text of a paragraph

1. What features, according to Peter 1, should a “regular state” have?

The state, in Peter's understanding, was the embodiment of the common good, for the achievement of which both each subject and he himself were obliged to work. Society seemed to the tsar as a huge and complex mechanism, something like a ship, where all crew members have the necessary qualifications, are in their places and perform clearly established duties. Peter called such a structure a “regular state” and sought to create a system of laws regulating not only public but also private life.

2. Why, under Peter 1, was it the state, and not private entrepreneurs, who acted as the most active merchant and industrialist?

The state had the necessary resources and administrative capabilities to open enterprises, distribute orders, control the quantity and quality of products, issue loans, and provide enterprises with workers under the rule of serfdom. Basically, industry provided the needs of the army and navy, and the state apparatus.

3. What innovations of Peter 1 opened up new life prospects for Russian citizens?

The reforms made society more mobile - the Table of Ranks allowed talented people from the lower classes to advance in the public service.

4. Why did Peter’s reforms lead to a deepening of the split in Russian society?

Hasty “changes in customs” caused a cultural split in the nation - mutual alienation of the upper and lower classes of society. For a peasant, a gentleman in a German wig and caftan, living in newfangled chambers and speaking a foreign language was the same as a foreigner.

5. What means did Peter 1 use to strengthen Russia’s international authority?

Permanent diplomatic missions, “marriage diplomacy”, concluding alliances, strengthening the army and navy, expanding territory.

6. How did the leading world powers react to the growing international authority and power of Russia? Explain the reasons for this reaction.

The rapidly growing power of Russia could not but arouse fear and opposition in the West. Our country began to be feared as a possible enemy, since changes in Russia were happening so quickly that no one knew what to expect from us.

Working with the map

Studying the document

1. Determine, based on quotes, the author’s attitude towards the hero of his memoirs.

2. Select examples from the text that show the emperor’s trust in his subjects.

“He walked,” he could approach a passerby, take his caftan, he walked along the rows in Gostiny Dvor, he traded, “he wouldn’t fail to buy pretzels and drink kvass.”

The document is quite reliable when it comes to the author’s – soldier’s – own impressions of Peter 1: what he was wearing, how he behaved with passers-by.

We think, compare, reflect

1. Together with your classmates, prepare a presentation on the topic “Russian merchants and their trade routes under Peter the Great.”

Trade development

Peter also paid attention to trade, to better organization and facilitation of trade affairs on the part of the state, a very long time ago. Back in the 1690s, he was busy talking about commerce with knowledgeable foreigners and, of course, became no less interested in European trading companies than in industrial ones.

By decree of the Commerce Collegium in 1723, Peter ordered “to send the children of merchants to foreign lands, so that there would never be less than 15 people in foreign lands, and when those who are trained, take back and new ones in their place, and order those trained to train here, first of all.” it is impossible to send; why take from all the noble cities, so that this is carried out everywhere; and send 20 people to Riga and Revel and distribute them to the capitalists; These are both numbers from the townspeople; In addition, the college has the task of teaching commerce to certain noble children.”

The conquest of the sea coast, the founding of St. Petersburg with its direct purpose of being a port, the teaching of mercantilism adopted by Peter - all this made him think about commerce, about its development in Russia. In the first 10 years of the 18th century, the development of trade with the West was hampered by the fact that many goods were declared a state monopoly and were sold only through government agents. But Peter did not consider this measure, caused by the extreme need for money, to be useful, and therefore, when the military anxiety calmed down somewhat, he again turned to the thought of companies of trading people. In July 1712, he ordered the Senate to “immediately strive to create better order in the merchant business.” The Senate began to try to organize a company of merchants to trade with China, but the Moscow merchants “refused to take this trade into the company.” Back on February 12, 1712, Peter ordered “to establish a collegium for the correction of the trade business, in order to bring it to a better state; Why is it necessary to have one or two foreigners who need to be satisfied, so that the truth and jealousy in that can be shown with an oath, so that the truth and jealousy in that can be better shown with an oath, so that order can be better established, for without controversy it is that their bargaining is incomparably better ours." The board was formed and developed the rules for its existence and actions. The Collegium worked first in Moscow, then in St. Petersburg. With the establishment of the Commerce Collegium, all the affairs of this prototype were transferred to the new trade department.

In 1723, Peter ordered the formation of a company of merchants to trade with Spain. It was also intended to establish a company for trade with France. To begin with, Russian state-owned ships with goods were sent to the ports of these states, but that was the end of the matter. Trading companies did not take root and began to appear in Russia no earlier than the middle of the 18th century, and even then under the condition of great privileges and patronage from the treasury. Russian merchants preferred to trade on their own or through clerks alone, without entering into companies with others.

Since 1715, the first Russian consulates appeared abroad. On April 8, 1719, Peter issued a decree on freedom of trade. For a better arrangement of river trading vessels, Peter forbade the construction of old-fashioned ships, various planks and plows.

Peter saw the basis of Russia's commercial importance in the fact that nature destined it to be a trade intermediary between Europe and Asia.

After the capture of Azov, when the Azov fleet was created, it was planned to direct all Russian trade traffic to the Black Sea. Then an attempt was made to connect the waterways of Central Russia with the Black Sea through two canals. One was supposed to connect the tributaries of the Don and Volga Kamyshinka and Ilovlya, and the other would approach the small Ivan Lake in Epifansky district, Tula province, from which the Don flows on one side, and on the other the Shash River, a tributary of the Upa, which flows into the Oka. But the Prut failure forced them to leave Azov and abandon all hopes of capturing the Black Sea coast.

Having established himself on the Baltic coast, having founded the new capital of St. Petersburg, Peter decided to connect the Baltic Sea with the Caspian Sea, using the rivers and canals that he intended to build. Already in 1706, he ordered to connect the Tvertsa River with a canal to Tsna, which, by its expansion, forms Lake Mstino, leaves it with the name of the Msta River and flows into Lake Ilmen. This was the beginning of the famous Vyshnevolotsk system. The main obstacle to connecting the Neva and Volga was the stormy Lake Ladoga, and Peter decided to build a bypass canal to bypass its inhospitable waters. Peter intended to connect the Volga with the Neva, breaking through the watershed between the rivers Vytegra, flowing into Lake Onega, and Kovzha, flowing into Beloozero, and thus outlined the network of the Mariinsky system, implemented already in the 19th century.

Simultaneously with the efforts to connect the Baltic and Caspian rivers with a network of canals, Peter took decisive measures to ensure that the movement foreign trade left the old familiar path to White Sea and Arkhangelsk and took a new direction to St. Petersburg. Government measures in this direction began in 1712, but protests from foreign merchants complained about the inconvenience of living in a new city like St. Petersburg, the considerable danger of sailing in wartime on the Baltic Sea, the high cost of the route itself, because the Danes took a toll for the passage of ships , - all this forced Peter to postpone the abrupt transfer of trade with Europe from Arkhangelsk to St. Petersburg: but already in 1718 he issued a decree allowing only hemp trade in Arkhangelsk, while all grain trade was ordered to move to St. Petersburg. Thanks to these and other measures of the same nature, St. Petersburg became a significant place for export and import trade. Concerned about raising the trade importance of his new capital, Peter negotiates with his future son-in-law, the Duke of Holstein, regarding the possibility of digging a canal from Kiel to the North Sea in order to be independent from the Danes, and, taking advantage of the confusion in Mecklenburg and wartime in general, he thinks to establish a stronger foundation near the possible entrance to the designed channel. But this project was implemented much later, after the death of Peter.

The items exported from Russian ports were mainly raw foods: fur goods, honey, wax. Since the 17th century, Russian timber, resin, tar, sail cloth, hemp, and ropes began to be especially valued in the West. At the same time, livestock products - leather, lard, bristles - were intensively exported; from the time of Peter, mining products, mainly iron and copper, went abroad. Flax and hemp were in particular demand; The grain trade was weak due to poor roads and government bans on selling grain abroad.

In exchange for Russian raw materials, Europe could supply us with the products of its manufacturing industry. But, patronizing his factories and plants, Peter, through almost prohibitive duties, greatly reduced the import of foreign manufactured goods into Russia, allowing only those that were not produced at all in Russia, or only those that were needed by Russian factories and plants (this was a policy of protectionism)

Peter also paid tribute to the passion characteristic of his time to trade with the countries of the far south, with India. He dreamed of an expedition to Madagascar, and thought of directing Indian trade through Khiva and Bukhara to Russia. A.P. Volynsky was sent as ambassador to Persia, and Peter instructed him to find out if there was any river in Persia that would flow from India through Persia and flow into the Caspian Sea. Volynsky had to work for the Shah to direct all of Persia’s trade in raw silk not through the cities of the Turkish Sultan - Smyrna and Aleppo, but through Astrakhan. In 1715, a trade agreement was concluded with Persia, and Astrakhan trade became very lively. Realizing the importance of the Caspian Sea for his broad plans, Peter took advantage of the intervention in Persia, when the rebels killed Russian merchants there, and occupied the shore of the Caspian Sea from Baku and Derbent inclusive. Peter sent a military expedition to Central Asia, to the Amu Darya, under the command of Prince Bekovich-Cherkassky. In order to establish themselves there, it was supposed to find the old bed of the Amu Darya River and direct its flow into the Caspian Sea, but this attempt failed: exhausted by the difficulty of the journey through the sun-scorched desert, the Russian detachment was ambushed by the Khivans and was completely exterminated.

It is difficult to disagree with the famous historian Immanuel Wallerstein, who argued that the Muscovite state (at least until 1689) should undoubtedly be placed outside the framework of “European Europe”. Fernand Braudel, the author of the brilliant monograph “The Time of the World” (Librairie Armand Colin, Paris, 1979; Russian edition M., Progress, 1992), fully agreeing with Wallerstein, nevertheless argues that Moscow has never been absolutely closed to European economy, even before the conquest of Narva or before the first settlements of the British in Arkhangelsk (1553 - 1555), Europe strongly influenced the East with the superiority of its monetary system, the attractiveness and temptations of technology and goods, with all its power. But if the Turkish Empire, for example, diligently stayed away from this influence, then Moscow little by little moved towards the West. Opening a window to the Baltic, allowing the new English Moscow company to settle in Arkhangelsk - this meant an unambiguous step towards Europe. However, the truce with the Swedes, signed on August 5, 1583, closed Russia’s only access to the Baltic and preserved only the inconvenient Arkhangelsk port on the White Sea. Thus, access to Europe was difficult. The Swedes, however, did not prohibit the passage of goods imported or exported by Russians through Narva. Exchanges with Europe also continued through Revel and Riga. Their surplus for Russia was paid for in gold and silver. The Dutch, importers of Russian grain and hemp, brought bags of coins, each containing from 400 to 1000 riksdalers (the official coin of the Netherlands after the Estates General of 1579). In 1650, 2755 bags were delivered to Riga, in 1651. - 2145, in 1652 - 2012 bags. In 1683, trade through Riga gave Russia a surplus of 832,928 riksdaler. Russia remained half-closed in itself not because it was allegedly cut off from Europe or opposed to exchanges. The reasons were rather in the moderate interest of Russians in the West, in the precarious political balance of Russia. To some extent, the experience of Moscow is similar to the experience of Japan, but with the big difference that after 1638 the latter closed itself to the world economy through a political decision. The main foreign market for Russia in the 16th - early 17th centuries was Türkiye. The Black Sea belonged to the Turks and was well guarded by them, and therefore at the end of the trade routes passing through the Don Valley and the Sea of ​​​​Azov, goods were transshipped exclusively onto Turkish ships. Horse messengers regularly traveled between Crimea and Moscow. Mastery of the lower reaches of the Volga (the capture of Kazan and Astrakhan in the middle of the 16th century) opened the way to the south, although the waterway passed through poorly pacified areas and remained dangerous. However, Russian merchants created river caravans, uniting into large detachments. Kazan and, to an even greater extent, Astrakhan became the control points of Russian trade heading to the Lower Volga, Central Asia, China and Iran. Trade trips included Qazvin, Shiraz, and the island of Hormuz (which took three months to get to from Moscow). The Russian fleet, created in Astrakhan during the second half of the 16th century, was active in the Caspian Sea. Other trade routes led to Tashkent, Samarkand and Bukhara, all the way to Tobolsk, which was then the borderland of the Siberian East. Although we do not have exact figures expressing the volume of Russian trade exchange between the south-eastern and western directions, the predominant role of the markets of the South and East seems obvious. Russia exported raw leather, furs, hardware, rough canvas, iron products, weapons, wax, honey, food products, plus re-exported European products: Flemish and English cloth, paper, glass, metals. To Russia from the eastern states, spices, Chinese and Indian silks are in transit through Iran; Persian velvets and brocades; Türkiye supplied sugar, dried fruits, gold items and pearls; Central Asia provided inexpensive cotton products. It appears that eastern trade was positive for Russia. In any case, this applies to state monopolies (i.e. to some part of exchanges). This means that trade relations with the East stimulated the Russian economy. The West only demanded raw materials from Russia and supplied them with luxury goods and minted coins. But the East did not disdain finished products, and if luxury goods made up some part of the flow of goods going to Russia, then along with them were dyes and many cheap goods for public consumption.

Source: http://histerl.ru/periudi_istorii/petr_pervie/torgovlia.htm

2. Explain with facts the statements of historians:

“Yes, Peter the Great did a lot for Russia. You look and don’t believe, you count and you’ll come up with the number” (M.P. Pogodin): Peter the Great went down in the history of the Russian State as the Greatest Reformer. The transformations carried out by him affected all aspects of the life of the huge state and covered all areas of domestic and foreign policy. As a result of Peter's activities, Russia became an empire and took its place among the leading European powers.

“Peter had the old Russian heroic nature, he loved breadth and space” (S.M. Solovyov): The personality of Peter the Great stands apart in the history of Russia, since neither among his contemporaries, nor among his successors and descendants was there a person who could to make such profound changes in the state, to become so deeply embedded in the historical memory of the Russian people, at the same time becoming semi-legendary, but its most vivid page.

3. Did Russia have at the end of the 17th – beginning of the 18th centuries? the opportunity to make a sharp leap in economic development without using the force of state power? Support your answer with specific facts. Write an essay on this topic.

If our historical science has come to a more or less definite and substantiated view of Peter I, then our society has not yet developed a uniform and lasting attitude towards his transformations. In literature and in society, Peter is still judged in extremely varied ways. From time to time, slightly belated debates continue about the degree of nationality and the need for Peter's reforms; a rather idle question is raised about whether Peter’s reform as a whole was useful or harmful.

If we once again mentally go through all the old and new views on Peter I, then it is easy to notice how diverse they are not only in content, but also in the grounds from which they flowed. Peter's contemporaries and immediate descendants, personally affected by the reform, judged him uneasily: their reviews were based on a feeling of either extreme love or hatred. The feeling also guided those people of the 18th century who, like Shcherbatov, sadly looked at the corruption of modern morals and considered it a bad result of drastic reform. All of these are assessments most likely of a journalistic nature. But Karamzin’s view was based on an abstract moral feeling: placing Ivan III above Peter I, he condemned Peter’s violent methods in carrying out reforms from the heights of moral philosophy. In the views of Westerners and Slavophiles we again see a new basis - abstract thinking, metaphysical synthesis. For them, Peter I is less a historical figure 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 and legal school are not free from the influence of metaphysics; but the actual study of our history, which they carried out very conscientiously, gave our scientists the opportunity to get rid of preconceived doctrines. Guided by facts, striving for a strictly scientific conclusion, they created a scientific attitude towards the era of Peter the Great. This scientific attitude will, of course, further develop in our science. But now its fruit is the opportunity to thoroughly and freely judge Peter I. His personality is not torn off from his native soil, for us he is no longer God or the Antichrist, 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 a product of his time, and his activities and historical merits are a matter of eternity.

4. Give a comparative description of Peter 1 and any of the statesmen of other countries known to you. Why do many scholars believe that in world history it is difficult to find a figure who can be compared with Peter 1 in terms of his significance for the further development of his country?

Peter I and Charles XII (comparative experience)

Having started a war with the 17-year-old Swedish king as a mature 28-year-old husband, Peter found in him an enemy who, at first glance, was strikingly different in character, direction of political will, and understanding of the people's needs. A more careful examination and comparison of the circumstances of their lives, the most important personality traits, reveal much in common between them, an obvious or hidden kinship of destinies and mentalities, which gave additional drama to their struggle.

First of all, it is striking that neither one nor the other received a systematic, complete upbringing and education, although the educational and moral foundation laid in Karl by his teachers seems more solid. Until the age of ten, that is, until the bloody events pushed him out of the Kremlin, Peter only managed to undergo training in the skill of Church Slavonic literacy under the guidance of clerk Nikita Zotov. The same sciences that Karl studied with experienced teachers - arithmetic, geometry, artillery, fortification, history, geography and so on - Peter caught up on his own, without any plan, with the help of “doctor” Jan Timmerman (a very mediocre mathematician who had done errors, for example, in multiplication problems) and other no more knowledgeable teachers. But with a desire to learn and agility in independently acquiring knowledge, Peter was far superior to his opponent. The upbringing of the Swedish king can be called bookish-heroic, while Peter's upbringing can be called military-craft. Both sovereigns loved military fun in their youth, but Charles had an idealistic attitude towards military affairs, seeing in it a way to satisfy his ambition, and the tsar approached the same subject purely practically, as a means of solving state problems.

Karl found himself torn early from the circle of children's ideas due to the loss of his parents, Peter - due to palace coup. But if Karl firmly adopted the traditions of Swedish statehood, then Peter broke away from the traditions and traditions of the Kremlin palace, which formed the basis of the political worldview of the Old Russian Tsar. Peter's concepts and inclinations in his youth received an extremely one-sided direction. According to Klyuchevsky, his entire political thought for a long time was absorbed in the struggle with his sister and the Miloslavskys; his entire civic mood was formed from hatred and antipathy towards the clergy, boyars, archers, schismatics; soldiers, guns, fortifications, ships took the place of people, political institutions, popular needs, civil relations in his mind: The area of ​​​​concepts about society and public duties, civil ethics “remained an abandoned corner in Peter’s spiritual economy for a very long time.” It is all the more surprising that the Swedish king soon disdained public and state needs for the sake of personal inclinations and sympathies, and the Kremlin outcast devoted his life to serving the Fatherland, expressing his soul in the immortal words: “And about Peter, know that life is not dear to him, if only Russia lives in bliss and glory for your well-being."

Both Charles and Peter found themselves autocratic rulers of vast empires at a very early age, and both as a result of political upheaval (in Peter's case, however, more dramatic). Both, however, managed to subjugate events and did not become a toy in the hands of palace parties and influential families. Peter felt hesitation under his throne for a long time and, after the Streltsy uprising, was wary of leaving Russia for a long time, while Charles could not visit Sweden for fifteen years without any fear for the fate of his crown. The very desire to change places was equally characteristic of both: both the king and the tsar were eternal guests both abroad and at home.

Equally, they also had a tendency to unlimited rule - neither one nor the other ever doubted that they were God’s anointed and were free to dispose of the lives and property of their subjects at their own discretion. Both cruelly punished any attempt on their power, but Peter easily fell into rage and outright executioner. The personal massacre of the archers and Tsarevich Alexei are textbook examples of this. True, a noticeable difference in attitude towards his rank can be seen in the fact that Peter was not ashamed to make his own power the subject of a joke. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact source of the passion for such buffoonery. Klyuchevsky believed that Peter inherited his character prone to jokes and fun from his father, “who also loved to joke, although he was careful not to be a jester.” However, a comparison rather suggests itself with similar antics of Ivan the Terrible in relation to Simeon Bekbulatovich (the name adopted after the baptism of the Kasimov Khan Sain-Bulat (? -1616); he became the nominal ruler of the Russian state since 1575, when Ivan the Terrible feigned resignation from yourself a royal crown). Apparently, here we are dealing with a purely Russian phenomenon - fits of foolishness in an autocratic sovereign, to whom his power sometimes seems exorbitant. Other distinguishing feature Peter's autocracy consisted in the ability to listen to practical advice and retreat from his decision if, on mature reflection, it was wrong or harmful - a trait that was completely absent from Charles with his almost manic mania of infallibility and fidelity to a once made decision.

In close connection with Peter's buffoonery in relation to his rank were his obscene parodies of church ritual and hierarchy, obscene to the point of blasphemy, and these amusements were standard, dressed in clerical forms. In general, foreign observers were ready to see in these outrages a political and even educational tendency, supposedly directed against the Russian church hierarchy, prejudices, as well as against the vice of drunkenness, presented in a funny way. It is possible that Peter actually took out his frustration with such foolishness on the clergy, among whom there were so many opponents of his innovations. But there was no serious attack on Orthodoxy, on the hierarchy, Peter remained a devout man who knew and respected church rites, who loved to sing in the choir with the singers; in addition, he perfectly understood the protective significance of the Church for the state. In the meetings of the most humorous council, one can rather see the general rudeness of Russian morals of that time, the habit ingrained in Russian people of making jokes in a drunken moment about church subjects, about the clergy; Even more visible in them is the sense of permissiveness of the powerful revelers, revealing a general deep decline in church authority.

Charles set a completely opposite example for his subjects; but what brought him closer to Peter was the fact that he, too, did not tolerate the claims of the clergy to authority in the affairs of the state.

The instinct of arbitrariness entirely determined the nature of the rule of these sovereigns. They did not recognize the historical logic of social life, their actions were not consistent with an objective assessment of the capabilities of their peoples. However, one cannot blame them too much for this; even the most outstanding minds of the century had difficulty understanding the laws of social development. Thus, Leibniz, who, at Peter’s request, developed projects for the development of education and public administration in Russia, assured the Russian Tsar that the easier it is to introduce science in Russia, the less prepared it is for this. All military and state activities of the king and tsar were guided by the thought of the necessity and omnipotence of imperious coercion. They sincerely believed that everything was subject to power, that a hero could direct people’s life in a different direction, and therefore they strained the people’s strength to the extreme, wasting human energy and lives without any frugality. The consciousness of one's own importance and omnipotence prevented one from taking other people into account, from seeing a person as a person, as an individual. Both Karl and Peter were excellent at guessing who was good for what, and used people as working tools, remaining indifferent to human suffering (which, oddly enough, did not prevent them from often demonstrating justice and generosity). This trait of Peter was perfectly captured by two of the most educated ladies of that time - Elector Sophia of Hanover and her daughter Sophia Charlotte, Elector of Brandenburg, who paradoxically described him as a sovereign “very good and at the same time very bad.” This definition also applies to Karl.

Their appearance corresponded to their domineering natures and made a strong impression on others. Karl’s noble appearance bore the ancestral imprint of the Palatinate-Zweibrücken dynasty: sparkling blue eyes, a high forehead, an aquiline nose, sharp folds around a beardless and beardless mouth with full lips. Although he was short in stature, he was not stocky and well built. And this is how the Duke of Saint-Simon, the author of the famous “Memoirs”, saw Peter during his stay in Paris, who carefully looked closely at the young king: “He was very tall, well-built, rather lean, with a roundish face, high forehead, beautiful eyebrows ; his nose is quite short, but not too short and somewhat thick towards the end; the lips are quite large, the complexion is reddish and dark, beautiful black eyes, large, lively, penetrating, beautifully shaped; the look is majestic and welcoming when he watches himself and restrains himself, otherwise stern and wild, with convulsions on the face that are not repeated often, but distort both the eyes and the whole face, frightening everyone present. The spasm usually lasted one moment, and then his gaze became terrible, as if confused, then everything immediately took on its normal appearance. His whole appearance showed intelligence, reflection and greatness and was not without charm.”

As for the habits of everyday life and personal inclinations, here too some similarities between these people are shaded by striking contrasts. The Swedish and Russian sovereigns were people of hot temperament, sworn enemies of court ceremonial. Accustomed to feeling like masters always and everywhere, they were embarrassed and lost in the solemn atmosphere, breathing heavily, blushing and sweating at audiences, listening to pompous nonsense from some envoy who introduced himself. Neither of them had delicate manners and were very fond of ease in conversation. They were characterized by ease of manners and unpretentiousness in everyday life. Peter was often seen in worn-out shoes and stockings, mended by his wife or daughter. At home, getting out of bed, he received visitors in a simple “Chinese” robe, went out or went out in a simple caftan made of coarse cloth, which he did not like to change often; in the summer, when going out nearby, he almost never wore a hat; He usually drove a single-wheeler or a bad pair and in a convertible in which, according to a foreign eyewitness, not every Moscow merchant would dare to travel. In all of Europe, only the court of the Prussian miser king Frederick William I could compete in simplicity with that of Peter the Great (Karl, with his personal asceticism, never counted government money). The pomp with which Peter surrounded Catherine in recent years may simply have made those around her forget her too simple origins.

Peter combined this stinginess with violent intemperance in food and drink. He had some kind of indestructible appetite. Contemporaries say that he could eat always and everywhere; whenever he came to visit, before or after dinner, he was now ready to sit down at the table. No less amazing is his passion for drinking and, most importantly, his incredible endurance in drinking wine. The only, albeit weak, justification for such habits is that Peter adopted drunken morals in the German settlement, communicating with the scum of the world into which he so persistently strove.

As for Karl, he seemed to hold some kind of sovereign post and in his mature years was content with a plate of millet porridge, a loaf of bread and a glass of weak dark beer.

The king did not avoid female society, unlike Charles (who died a virgin), but in his youth he suffered from excessive shyness. In the town of Koppenburg he had to meet the Electors, already familiar to us. They tell how the king at first did not want to go to them. True, then, after much persuasion, he agreed, but on the condition that there were no strangers. Peter entered, covering his face with his hand, like a shy child, and to all the ladies’ pleasantries he answered only one thing: “I can’t talk!”

However, at dinner he quickly recovered, got into conversation, gave everyone a drink in Moscow style, admitted that he did not like music or hunting (however, he danced diligently with the ladies, having fun with all his heart, and the Moscow gentlemen mistook the corsets of the German ladies for their ribs), and loves to sail the seas, build ships and fireworks, showed his calloused hands, with which he lifted the ears and kissed the ten-year-old princess, the future mother of Frederick the Great, ruining her hair.

The Northern War finally determined the character and lifestyle of both Charles and Peter, but each of them chose a role in it that corresponded to his usual activities and tastes. Interestingly, both of them abandoned the role of the sovereign-ruler, directing the actions of his subordinates from the palace. The role of a combat general-commander also could not fully satisfy them. Charles, with his concepts of Viking valor, will soon prefer the glory of a reckless fighter to the glory of a commander.

Peter, having left military operations to his generals and admirals, would take on the technical side of the war that was closer to him: recruiting recruits, drawing up military plans, building ships and military factories, procuring ammunition and supplies. However, Narva and Poltava will forever remain great monuments to the military art of these crowned enemies. It is also worth noting an interesting paradox: Sweden, a maritime power, raised an excellent land commander who set foot on a ship almost twice in his life - when sailing from Sweden and when returning there; while Russia, cut off from the seas, was governed by an unrivaled shipbuilder and skipper.

The war, which required tireless activity and strain of all the moral forces of Peter and Charles, forged their characters one-sided, but in relief, made them national heroes, with the difference that Peter’s greatness was not asserted on the battlefields and could not be shaken by defeats.

We repeat and draw conclusions

Facts indicating that the reforms of Peter 1 were prepared by the previous development of Russia: the abolition of localism, the rapprochement of local and patrimonial land ownership, an increase in the number of service people; the emergence of the first manufactories, the development of domestic and foreign trade; the tendency of transition from an estate-representative monarchy to an absolute one; the appearance of regiments of the “new order”; secularization of culture, changes in the everyday life of part of the upper crust of society.

Unlike all previous Russian sovereigns, he personally participated in all his endeavors. It was he who was in the thick of battle, not sparing his belly. It was he who won brilliant victories over a strong enemy. It was he who traveled through the impassable roads of Russia, as well as through 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 ship navigation and artillery, fortification and urban planning to perfection. Many contemporaries were impressed by the king’s simplicity, his unpretentiousness, and his ability to overcome obstacles by straining his will, physical and moral strength. Contemporaries were amazed that the tsar, as a simple bombardier, participated in the siege of Azov, and during the solemn procession in Moscow regarding the capture of Azov, he walked in a common column. The tsar ignored the long-standing 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 someone’s aching tooth himself!). Peter, unlike his predecessors and immediate successors, did not limit his duties to the act of solemnly receiving foreign diplomats, but entered into negotiations with them, bypassing the institutions in charge of diplomacy.

2. Name the reasons and consequences of Russia’s victory in the Northern War.

In 1709, the famous battle of Poltava took place. Karl received support from the Zaporozhye hetman Ivan Mazepa; he brought 5 thousand Cossacks with him. But, despite this, the Swedish army was still greatly inferior in number to the Russian army. The Swedes had no more than 40 thousand soldiers, while the Russian army numbered up to 80 thousand soldiers. The Swedes also had virtually no artillery, as they had run out of ammunition and gunpowder. In addition, the Russian army had a better position. The battle ended in defeat for the Swedes, and the remaining troops of Charles had to retreat, and from that moment the Russian army began an active offensive. The Nordic Alliance is restored again and Sweden is under serious threat. Subsequently, the Swedes were unable to win a single key victory, and were forced to sign a peace treaty, in which Russia benefited the most, becoming an empire that day.

The Northern War of 1700-1721 ended in complete victory for Russia and a crushing defeat for Sweden. Russia received long-awaited access to the Baltic Sea and captured a number of territories (Ingria, Karelia, Courland and others), in addition, a new city was built - St. Petersburg. Maritime trade with Europe was established, which significantly accelerated the development of trade and the country's economy. But there were also negative consequences for Russia: the country was devastated and a large number of the population died - hence the demographic crisis. For Sweden, defeat in this war was fatal. If previously Sweden was the strongest European power, then after the Northern War of 1700-1721 it lost its position, after which it was never able to recover, and the role of the king in the country decreased forever.

3. How did the economic policy of Peter 1 influence the development of Russia?

During the years of Peter's reign, more than 200 new manufactories and factories were built), but at the same time, the Russian industrial economy was initially devoid of competition, oriented not towards the market, but towards government orders. This gave rise to stagnation - why improve quality, expand production, if the authorities will still buy the goods at a guaranteed price? Therefore, the assessment of the results of Peter I’s economic policy cannot be unambiguous. Yes, a Western, bourgeois-style industry was created, which allowed the country to become an equal participant in all political processes in Europe and the world. But the similarities with the West affected only the technological sphere. Socially, Russian manufactories and factories did not know bourgeois relations. Thus, Peter, to a certain extent, solved the technical problems of the bourgeois revolution without its social components, without creating classes of bourgeois society. This circumstance caused serious imbalances in the country’s economic development, which took many decades to overcome. The most striking example of such economic “perversions” is the establishment in 1721 of “possession manufactories” - enterprises in which serfs assigned to a given manufactory worked instead of hired workers.

4. Compare the state structure and culture of Russia before Peter 1 and at the end of his reign: what new appeared, what remained unchanged.

The reign of Peter I opened in Russian history new period. Russia has become a Europeanized state and a member of the European community of nations. Administration and jurisprudence, the army and various social strata of the population were reorganized in a Western manner. Industry and trade developed rapidly, and great achievements appeared in technical training and science.

The reforms of Peter I marked the establishment of an absolute monarchy, in contrast to the classical Western one, not under the influence of the genesis of capitalism, the balancing of the monarch between the feudal lords and the third estate, but on a serf-noble basis. The new state created by Peter I not only significantly increased the efficiency of public administration, but also served as the main lever for the modernization of the country.

Transformations of the first quarter of the 18th century. so grandiose in their consequences that they give reason to talk about pre-Petrine and post-Petrine Russia.

On the other hand, some historians consider the creation of a “regular state” to be the result of the activities of Peter I, i.e. a state that is bureaucratic in nature, based on surveillance and espionage. Authoritarian rule is becoming established, the role of the monarch and his influence on all spheres of life of society and the state are growing enormously.

The main psychological support of the Russian state - the Orthodox Church - in late XVII V. was shaken in its foundations and gradually lost its importance, starting from 1700 and until the revolution of 1917. Church reform of the beginning of the 18th century. meant for Russians the loss of a spiritual alternative to state ideology. While in Europe the church, separating from the state, became closer to believers, in Russia it moved away from them, becoming an obedient instrument of power, which contradicted Russian traditions, spiritual values, and the entire age-old way of life. It is natural that many contemporaries called Peter I the Tsar-Antichrist.

The policies of Peter I enjoyed the support of wide circles of the nobility. But among the feudal lords, both secular and spiritual, there were many dissatisfied. The implementation of reforms entailed the loss of the aristocracy's leading role in public administration. The innovations also caused discontent among the clergy, as they became increasingly dependent on secular power.

Part of the boyars and clergy actively fought to maintain their influence, for the old order against the new. A manifestation of this struggle were boyar conspiracies and the spread of false rumors that sowed distrust in the reforms. In 1697, the Preobrazhensky order uncovered a conspiracy led by a representative of the boyar family, the okolnichy Alexei Sokovnin. He was guided by the Miloslavskys, under Sophia he headed the Konyushenny Prikaz, and under Peter he lost this position. Sokovnin intended to kill Peter. The execution of the plan was undertaken by the former Streltsy Colonel Tsikler. The conspirators paid with their lives.

The attitude towards transformations on the part of the masses was different. The people did not sympathize with the goals that Peter's opponents from the top set for themselves. At the same time, peasants and townspeople expressed their protest against increased oppression in so-called “obscene speeches”.

Particular murmur was heard among the segments of the population most disadvantaged by the transformations: the archers, the clergy and the Old Believers. But ordinary villagers and townspeople, who condemned the tsar for introducing ruinous taxes, conscription and many new duties, had no reason to welcome the innovations.

Sentiments hostile to reforms were most clearly manifested in the case of Tsarevich Alexei. Alexey considered his accomplices everyone “who loves antiquity.” The court, consisting of 127 secular dignitaries, found the prince guilty of treason and in the summer of 1718 sentenced him to death.

The opponents of Peter 1 failed to achieve their goals, since they were disunited, and the transformations opened the way to the future for Russia.

Peter I is a contradictory and complex figure. This is how his era gave birth. From his father and grandfather he inherited character traits and behavior, worldview and plans for the future. At the same time, he was a bright individual in everything, and this is what allowed him to break established traditions, customs, habits, enrich old experience with new ideas and actions, and borrow what was necessary and useful from other peoples.

Already at an early age, Peter’s characteristic character traits appeared: liveliness of perception, restlessness and inexhaustible energy, passionate selfless enthusiasm for the game, imperceptibly turning into action. “Funny Games” and the English bot did not remain just a game, but became the beginning of a future grandiose undertaking that transformed Russia.

Peter, being a man generously gifted by nature, had an attraction to any type of technology and a wide variety of crafts. He took up manual labor whenever the opportunity presented itself. Since childhood, he skillfully worked as a carpenter, carpenter, and painter. Fifteen-year-old Peter was interested in applied mathematical disciplines, in particular geometry. Over the years, he acquired an immense amount of technical knowledge. He retained this interest throughout his life.

This is how Peter grew up - strong and resilient, not afraid of any physical work. Palace intrigues developed in him secrecy and the ability to hide his true feelings and intentions. Knowing Kremlin morals, Peter lulled the vigilance of all his Kremlin enemies. Subsequently, this helped him become an outstanding diplomat.

Peter's engineering interests gave him the opportunity to invent new weapons principles and tactical innovations. Knowledge of ballistics led Peter to think about a fundamentally new type of open artillery position - redoubts, brilliantly tested in the Battle of Poltava. The Narva disaster forced the tsar to look critically at the soldiers' weapons: and he found the simplest solution for screwing a triangular bayonet to the barrel of an infantryman's gun, making the attack of Russian infantry long before Suvorov the main tactical method.

Pyotr Alekseevich did not tolerate disobedience, although he asked to address him “simply” and “without the Great,” that is, without a permanent title. If his commands were not carried out, then he demanded severe and demonstrative punishment.

The personality of the king is very complex and contradictory, but at the same time, he was a very integral person. In all his endeavors, sometimes very contradictory, there was still a rational grain. All the contradictory character of Peter 1 manifested itself during the construction of the new capital - St. Petersburg. On the one hand, intending to establish a firm foot in the Baltic, Russia had to obtain a stronghold and a base for the fleet. But on the other hand, the death of thousands of people during the construction of the city shows how expensive the implementation of the state will of the tsar was sometimes. Not sparing himself, not knowing how to take care of his health and life, he did not spare his subjects, easily sacrificing them for the sake of his plans.

Not evil by nature, he was impetuous, impressionable and distrustful. Unable to patiently explain to others what was obvious to him, Peter, when met with misunderstanding, easily fell into a state of extreme anger and often “pounded” the truth into senators and generals with his huge fist or staff. True, the king was quick-witted and after a few minutes he could already laugh at the successful joke of the guilty one.

Peter was able to overcome personal hostility in the name of the interests of the cause. He was indifferent to outfits and did not like official receptions, where he had to wear an ermine robe and a symbol of royal power.

His element was assemblies, where those present simply addressed each other without titles or titles, drank vodka, scooping it out of bath tubs in clay mugs, smoked, played chess and danced.

Peter had outstanding diplomatic talent. He skillfully mastered all the classical techniques of European politics, which at the right moment he easily “forgot”, suddenly transforming into a mysterious eastern king. He could unexpectedly kiss a stunned interlocutor on the forehead, loved to use folk jokes in his speech, confusing translators, or suddenly end an audience, citing the fact that his wife was expecting him. The outwardly sincere and benevolent Russian Tsar, according to European diplomats, never revealed his true intentions and therefore invariably achieved what he wanted.

All his life Peter loved to have fun and was sometimes undemanding about fun, like a child. After the conclusion of the Peace of Nystadt, he had fun with the people, jumped in the crowd, gesticulated, and sang at the top of his voice. But most often his gaiety took the form of reckless revelry.

It is clear that Peter I, cruel or kind, was a very energetic person, with a lively mind and great strength. He was talented, had extraordinary willpower, was active and active, persistent in achieving his goals, and did not lose his presence of mind in the event of temporary defeats. His extremely versatile development and vigorous but purposeful activity in almost all spheres of public and state life amazes the imagination.

In scientific works, very often the 18th and 19th centuries. seem to be a special period in the historical development of our state life. This period has been given several names: 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 appears to our consciousness as the line that separates old Rus' from transformed Russia. It is from this facet that we must begin our study of the latter and, first of all, get acquainted with the essence of transformations and with the transformative activities of Peter I.

But the activities of Peter I still do not have one firmly established assessment in our public consciousness. His contemporaries looked at Peter’s transformations differently, and we, people of the 19th and early 20th centuries, look at them differently. 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 activities 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 are subject to the historian’s knowledge, as historical in their essence. Getting to know them, we notice that these opinions sometimes sharply contradict each other. Such disagreements arise from many reasons: firstly, the transformations of Peter I, capturing to a greater or lesser extent all aspects of ancient Russian life, represent such a complex historical fact that a comprehensive understanding of it is difficult for the individual mind. Secondly, not all opinions about Peter’s reforms come from the same foundations. While some researchers study the time of Peter in order to reach an objective historical conclusion about its significance in the development of national life, others strive in the transformative activities of the early 18th century. find justification for one or another of one’s views on modern social issues. If the first method of study should be called scientific, then the second is most appropriately called journalistic. Third, general development The science of Russian history has always had 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 know more than they, but our descendants will say the same about us. We have discarded many previous historical misconceptions, but we do not have the right to say that we know the past unmistakably - our descendants will know more and better than us.

But by saying this, I do not want to say that we do not have the right to study historical phenomena and discuss them. Obeying the inherent desire in our spirit not only to know the facts, but also to logically connect them, we draw our conclusions and know that our very mistakes will make the work easier for subsequent generations and help them get closer to the truth, just as both work and mistakes are instructive for us our ancestors.

We were not the first to start talking about Peter the Great. His activities have already been discussed by his contemporaries. Their views were replaced by the views of their closest descendants, who judged according to legend and hearsay; and not a red-handed impression. Then historical documents took the place of legends. Peter became the subject of scientific research. Each generation carried 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 in our society changed at different times.

Contemporaries of Peter I considered him alone to be 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, sanctified by the ancient Moscow orthodoxy, were being undermined. No one had an indifferent attitude towards the reforms, since the reforms affected everyone. But not everyone expressed their views equally strongly. 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 “earthly god,” while the latter are not afraid to call him the Antichrist. Both those and others recognize in Peter terrible strength and power, and neither one nor the other can calmly relate to him, because they are under the influence of his activities. Both Nartov, loyal to Peter, who served him for twenty years, and some fanatic schismatic who hated Peter I with all his being, are equally amazed by Peter and are equally unable to judge him impartially. When Peter died and his reformation activities ended, when his successors, not understanding him, often stopped and spoiled what he had started, Peter’s work did not die and Russia could not return to its previous state. The fruits of his activities - the external strength of Russia and the new order within the country - were before everyone's eyes, and the burning hostility of the dissatisfied became a memory. But many people who lived consciously, long after Peter’s death, continued to be amazed by him no less than his contemporaries. They lived in the civil environment he created and enjoyed the culture that he so diligently instilled. Everything that they saw around them in the public sphere originated from Peter I. There are many memories left about Peter; they began to forget about what happened before him. If Peter brought the light of enlightenment to Russia and created its political power, then before him, as they thought, there was “darkness and insignificance.” This is how chancellor Count Golovkin roughly characterized pre-Petrine Rus' when presenting Peter with the title of emperor in 1721. He expressed himself even more sharply, saying that by the genius of Peter we were “produced from non-existence into being.” In subsequent times, this point of view took root remarkably well: Lomonosov called Peter “god”; a popular poem called him the “light” of Russia. Peter I was considered the creator of everything good that was found around him. Seeing Peter's undertakings 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 historical science did not yet exist at that time, that the opportunity for enlightenment given by Peter created only a few enlightened people. These few people judged Peter according to the tradition that was 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 happy with the thinking people of the 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 acquaintance with the West, with its benefits, often brought to us the vices of Western European society. Not all Russian people were able to accept the healthy principles of his life from the West and remained rude barbarians, however, combining the graceful appearance of European dandies with deep ignorance. In all satirical magazines of the second half of the 18th century. we constantly encounter attacks on this discord between appearance and internal content. There are voices against the stupid borrowing of Western forms. At the same time, the development of historical knowledge allows people of the 18th century. look back at pre-Petrine times. And so many progressive people (Prince Shcherbatov, Boltin, Novikov) contrast the dark sides of their era with the bright sides of the pre-Petrine era. They do not debunk the activities of Peter I, but they also do not idolize his personality. They decide 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 good things 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 the past life. However, this idealization is not directed against Peter himself, but against some of the consequences of his reform. The personality of Peter and at the end of the 18th century. 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 collecting historical material that serves to glorify Peter - such is the merchant Golikov.

Karamzin’s assessment of the reforms of Peter I

In the second half of the 18th century. The science of Russian history is already emerging. But 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 beyond their jurisdiction. First scientific assessment he receives from Karamzin. But Karamzin as a historian already belongs to the 19th century. A scholar in critical techniques, an artist by nature and a moralist by worldview, 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 belonged to 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 another historical figure to Peter as a figure - Ivan III. This latter made his principality a strong state and introduced Rus' to Western Europe without any disruption or violent measures. Peter raped Russian nature and abruptly broke the old way of life. Karamzin thought that it would be possible to do without this. With his views, Karamzin came into some connection with the critical views of Peter I of the people of the 18th century 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 earlier than Peter. In the 17th century, he said, they realized that they needed 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 (Karamzin was helped by entire circles of learned people who knew how not only to collect, but also to study historical material). At the same time, in the first half of the 19th century. in Russian society a conscious consciousness was awakening public life, philosophical education spread, 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, Russian educated people did not have special historical knowledge and introduced into the interpretation of the past those points of view that they gleaned from studying German philosophy. German metaphysics of the 19th century. greatly influenced Russian educated youth, and especially Hegel’s metaphysical system. Under the influence of his philosophy, philosophical circles were formed in Russia in the 30s and 40s, which developed an integral worldview and had a great influence on the mental life of Russian society mid-19th V. In these circles, the principles of German philosophy were applied to the phenomena of Russian life and, thus, a historical worldview was developed. The independent thought of these “people of the 40s,” given over to German philosophy, came to its own special conclusions, which were not the same for different individuals. All of Hegel’s followers, among other philosophical positions, took from his teaching two thoughts, which in a simple statement will be expressed as follows: the first thought - all peoples are divided into historical and non-historical, the former participate in the general world progress, the latter stand outside it and are condemned to eternal spiritual slavery; Another thought is that the highest exponent of world progress, its top (last) step, is the German nation with its Protestant Church. German-Protestant civilization is thus the last word of world progress. Some of Hegel's Russian followers fully shared these views; for them, therefore, ancient Rus', which did not know Western German civilization and did not have its own, was an ahistorical country, devoid of progress, condemned to eternal stagnation. With his reform, Peter the Great introduced this “Asian country” (as Belinsky called it) to humane civilization and 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 previous Russian life, for he acted completely opposite to its basic principles. People who thought this way were called “Westerners.” They, as is easy to 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 were indignant at 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 with the Germans; from history they derived the conviction that the Slavs were far from stagnant, 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 ancient classical culture from Rome in the Latin form, the Slavs - from Byzantium in the Greek form. There are significant differences between one culture and another. 3) Finally, state life in the ancient Germanic states developed through conquest; among the Slavs, and among the Russians in particular, through peaceful means; Therefore, the basis of social relations in the West is centuries-old enmity, but we do not have it. The independent development of these three principles constituted the content of ancient Russian life. This is what some more independent followers of German philosophy thought, who were called “Slavophiles.” Independent Russian life reached its greatest development during the era of the Moscow State. Peter I disrupted this development. With his violent reform he brought to us alien, even opposite principles of Western German civilization. He turned the correct course of people's life onto the wrong path of borrowing. He did not understand the legacy of the past, did not understand our “national spirit.” To remain true to this national spirit, we must renounce alien Western European principles and return to the original antiquity. Then, by consciously developing our national principles, we can replace the German civilization with our civilization and become higher than the Germans in the overall world development.

These are the views of the Slavophiles. Peter I, in their opinion, betrayed the past and acted against it. Slavophiles highly valued the personality of Peter, recognized the benefits of some of his deeds, but considered his reform not national and harmful in its very essence. With them, as with the Westerners, Peter was deprived of any internal connection with the historical life that preceded him.

You, of course, have already noticed that none of the views on Peter we examined were able to indicate and explain the internal connection of his transformations with previous history. Even Karamzin did not go beyond a vague hint. Pogodin sensed this connection between Peter I and the past in the 40s, but not earlier than in 1863 could he express his thoughts about it. The reason for this was partly the lack of historical material, partly Pogodin’s lack of an integral historical worldview.

This worldview was introduced into our universities at the end of the 40s, 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-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 this century, historical science in Germany made great strides. The figures of the so-called German historical school introduced extremely fruitful guiding ideas and new, precise methods research of historical material. The main idea German historians had the idea that the development human societies is not the result of chance and the individual will of individuals; on the contrary, this development takes place like the development of an organism, according to strict laws, which cannot be overthrown by human power. 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, historian-jurists Eichhorn (historian of ancient German law) and Savigny (historian of Roman law). Their direction was created in Germany in the half of the 19th century. the brilliant position of historical science, under the influence of which our scientists were formed. They adopted all the conclusions and views of the German historical school. Some of them were also interested in Hegel's philosophy. Although in Germany the accurate and strictly factual historical school did not always live in harmony with the metaphysical speculations of Hegel and his followers, nevertheless, historians and Hegel agreed on the basic view of history as the natural development of human societies. Both historians and Hegel denied chance, and their views could therefore coexist in one person.

Solovyov’s assessment of the reforms of Peter I

These views were applied to Russian history by our scientists. The first to do this in their lectures and published works were Moscow University professors S. M. Solovyov and K. D. Kavelin. They thought of showing in Russian historical life the organic development of those principles that were given by the original life of our tribe. They believed that the main content of our historical life was the natural replacement of one form of life by another. Having noticed the order of this change, they hoped to find the laws of our historical development. In their opinion, state order was finally established in our country by the activities of Peter the Great. Peter the Great, with his reforms, responded to the demands of national life, which by his time had already developed into state forms of existence. Therefore, Peter’s activities arose from historical necessity and were completely national.

Thus, for the first time, an organic connection between the transformations of Peter I and the general course of Russian history was established. It is easy to see that this connection is purely logical, devoid of factual content. Direct historical continuity between Russia in the 17th century. and the era of Peter was not indicated in the first works of Solovyov and Kavelin. This continuity was not given to our scientific consciousness for a long time.

Trying to find this direct continuity, both Soloviev and Kavelin themselves, and their followers, historians and lawyers, turning to the study of the pre-Petrine era, were inclined to think that Russia in the 17th century. lived to see the state crisis. “Ancient Russian life,” says Kavelin, “has completely exhausted itself. It developed all the principles that were hidden in it, all the types in which these principles were directly embodied. It did everything it could, and, having completed its calling, ceased.” Peter led Russia out of this crisis onto a new path. According to Solovyov, in the 17th century. our state had reached the point of complete failure, moral, economic and administrative, and could only take the right road through drastic reform (History, Vol. XIII). This reform came with Peter I. This is how they judged the 17th century. and many other researchers. Society began to view Muscovite Rus' as a country of stagnation that did not have the strength for progressive development. This country lived to the point of complete decay; an extreme effort was needed to save it, and it was made 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 order.

But this understanding of the historical continuity between old Russia and the reform has been replaced in recent decades by another. The same Soloviev 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 distinguished by some duality. In one of his early articles (“A Look at the History of the Establishment of State Order in Russia,” 1851), speaking about the critical situation of the Moscow state in the 17th century, Solovyov does not limit himself to only pointing out the phenomenon of this crisis, but notes that the sovereigns of the 17th century V. To meet new needs, the state began a series of reforms. “During the 17th century,” he says, “new needs of the state clearly emerged, and the same means were called upon to satisfy them that were used in the 18th century during 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 and acted along previously outlined paths. In a word, he was solving an old problem that was not set by him, and he was solving it in a previously known way. Later, Solovyov brilliantly developed this view in his “Readings about Peter the Great” in 1872. Here he directly calls Peter I “the son of his people,” an exponent of the people’s aspirations. Casting a general glance at the entire course of our history, he follows how the consciousness of powerlessness naturally developed among our ancestors, how attempts were gradually made to correct their situation, how the best people constantly strived to communicate with the West, how the consciousness of the need for change grew stronger in Russian society. “The people got ready to go on the road,” he ends, “and were waiting for the leader”; this leader appeared in the person of Peter the Great.

Expressed after a long and careful study of the facts, this view of Solovyov amazes with both its deep inner truth and the skill of presentation. Not only Solovyov in the 60s and 70s thought so about the historical significance of the reform (remember Pogodin), but only Solovyov managed to formulate his view so convincingly and strongly. Peter I is an imitator of the old movement, familiar to Ancient Rus'. In his reform, both the direction and the means are not new - they were given by the previous era. What is new in his reform is only Peter’s terrible energy, the speed and sharpness of the transformative movement, selfless devotion to the idea, selfless service to the cause to the point of self-forgetfulness. The only thing that is new is that Peter’s personal genius, the personal character, brought into the reform. This point of view has now given the full historical content of the thought about the organic connection of the reform of Peter I with the general course of Russian life. This idea, as I pointed out, came to us through a purely logical path, as an a priori conclusion from the general historical contemplation of some scientists. In the works of Solovyov, this historical conclusion received a solid foundation; Peter's reform, so to speak, was specifically connected with previous eras.

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

Developing our general 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 spheres of ancient Russian life. The result of such monographs is always the same conclusion that Peter directly continued the beginnings of the 17th century. and always remained faithful to the basic principles of our state life, as it developed in the 17th century. The understanding of this century has become different. The time is not far off when the era of the first Romanov tsars seemed to be a time of general crisis and decay, the last minutes of dull stagnation. Now ideas have changed: the 17th century seems to be a century of strong social ferment, when they realized the need for change, tried to introduce changes, argued about them, looked for a new path, guessed that this path was closer to the West, and were already drawn to the West. It is now clear that the 17th century prepared the ground for reform and brought up Peter I himself in the idea of ​​reform. Carried away by this point of view, some researchers are inclined to even downplay the importance 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 works on Peter’s 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 at second hand into the consciousness of a transformer,” 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, “Projects of reforms 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 fairly by Solovyov. Our science has managed to connect Peter I with the past and explain the need for his reforms. The facts of his activities were collected and examined in several scientific works. The historical results of Peter's activities, 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 substantiated 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 judged in extremely varied ways. From time to time, slightly belated debates continue about the degree of nationality and the need for Peter's reforms; a rather idle question is raised about whether Peter’s reform as a whole was useful or harmful. All these opinions, in essence, are modified echoes of historically developed views on Peter, which I tried to present in chronological order.

If we once again mentally go through all the old and new views on Peter I, then it is easy to notice how diverse they are not only in content, but also in the grounds from which they flowed. Peter's contemporaries and immediate descendants, personally affected by the reform, judged him uneasily: their reviews were based on a feeling of either extreme love or hatred. The feeling also guided those people of the 18th century who, like Shcherbatov, sadly looked at the corruption of modern morals and considered it a bad result of drastic reform. All of these are assessments most likely of a journalistic nature. But Karamzin’s view was based on an abstract moral feeling: placing Ivan III above Peter I, he condemned Peter’s violent methods in carrying out reforms from the heights of moral philosophy. In the views of Westerners and Slavophiles we again see a new basis - abstract thinking, metaphysical synthesis. For them, Peter I is less a historical figure 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 and legal school are not free from the influence of metaphysics; but the actual study of our history, which they carried out very conscientiously, gave our scientists the opportunity to get rid of preconceived doctrines. Guided by facts, striving for a strictly scientific conclusion, they created a scientific attitude towards the era of Peter the Great. This scientific attitude will, of course, further develop in our science. But now its fruit is the opportunity to thoroughly and freely judge Peter I. His personality is not torn off from his native soil, for us he is no longer God or the Antichrist, 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 a product of his time, and his activities and historical merits are a matter of eternity.

“And Peter the Great, who alone is the whole world history!”

A.S. Pushkin.

Over the three centuries that have passed since the death of Emperor Peter I Alekseevich, many different opinions and assessments of his personality and activities have arisen both in the domestic public consciousness and in the scientific literature. These assessments are often opposite, and this was the case from the very beginning, and Peter’s contemporaries were already arguing among themselves. The emperor’s associates praised him in every possible way, considered his deeds great (it was not without reason that during Peter’s lifetime the Senate presented him with the official title “Great”), and saw in him the ideal of a monarch. And opponents of Peter’s reforms called the tsar the Antichrist, who came to Earth to destroy the Christian world.

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. "Panegyrists"(eulogies to Peter arose during his lifetime)

B. "The Whistleblowers"(Peter’s denunciations also appeared during his lifetime)

V. "Objectivists"(recognizing the merits of Peter’s activities, but showing, at the same time, many of the 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 a thing of the past,” but, on the other, “we seem to still be standing under the spell of this time, as if everything is not yet have lived through this anxious, feverish time and are unable to regard it completely objectively.” The reasons for this situation were seen in the fact that “the great emperor bluntly raised questions that we still have not finally resolved...” (E.F. Shmurlo). This was also reflected in the literature devoted to Peter’s reforms, which “is more reminiscent of judicial speeches in defense or accusation of the defendant than a calm analysis of scientific historical criticism.” And according to the somewhat ironic review of V.O. Klyuchevsky, “often even the entire philosophy of our history came down to an assessment of Peter’s reform: through some, so to speak, scientific perspective, the whole meaning of Russian history was compressed into one question about the significance of Peter’s activities, about the relationship of the new Russia he transformed to the ancient one.”

1. GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF PETER’S PERSONALITY AND ACTIVITYI

A. “PANEGYRISTS”:

Peter the Great is a unique personality in all of Russian history. Peter completely destroyed the centuries-old image of the Russian Tsar. 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, and manner of communication.

Unlike all previous Russian sovereigns, he personally participated in all his endeavors. It was he who was in the thick of battle, not sparing his belly. It was he who won brilliant victories over a strong enemy. It was he who traveled through the impassable roads of Russia, as well as through 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 ship navigation and artillery, fortification and urban planning to perfection.

Many contemporaries were impressed by the king’s simplicity, his unpretentiousness, and his ability to overcome obstacles by straining his will, physical and moral strength. Contemporaries were amazed that the tsar, as a simple bombardier, participated in the siege of Azov, and during the solemn procession in Moscow regarding 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 his retinue accompanying him. And Pyotr Alekseevich did not hesitate to ride in a gig without a retinue or guard. Surprise was caused by the fact that in 1697 Peter did not head the Great Embassy, ​​but went on a voyage abroad as one of the members of this embassy, ​​and even under an assumed name - Peter Mikhailov. But even more discouraging to his contemporaries was the fact that while abroad, the tsar, having acquired the equipment of a simple carpenter, himself worked diligently on the construction of the ship, studied this skill and even received a diploma as a shipbuilder.

Not fearing 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 long-standing 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 someone’s aching tooth himself!).

Peter, unlike his predecessors and immediate successors, did not limit his duties to the act of solemnly receiving foreign diplomats, but entered into negotiations with them, bypassing the institutions in charge of diplomacy.

Certificates of foreigners:

Elector Sophia of Hanover: “...He admitted to us that he doesn’t really like music. 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 sailing and fireworks. He told us that he himself was working on the construction of ships, showed his hands and made us touch the calluses formed on them from work... We must admit that this is an extraordinary person... This sovereign is both very kind and very evil, his character is absolutely character his country. If he had received a better education, he would have been an excellent man, for he has much dignity and an infinite amount of natural intelligence.”

Italian singer Filippo Baltari: “Tsar Peter Alekseevich was tall, rather thin than plump; His hair was thick, short, dark brown in color, his eyes were large, black, with long eyelashes, his mouth was well shaped, but his lower lip was a little spoiled; the expression on his face is beautiful, inspiring respect at first glance. Given his great height, his legs seemed thin to me, and his head often twitched convulsively to the right.”

Danish envoy to Russia Joost Jul: “...He immediately sat down at the table, invited me to sit next to him and immediately began to talk to me without an interpreter, since he himself spoke Dutch so clearly that I could understand him without difficulty; for his part, he understood that I was answering him... The king is very tall, wears his own short brown hair and a rather large mustache, but is very insightful and intelligent... The king amuses himself by turning and, when traveling, carries the machine with him. In this skill he is not inferior to the most skilled turner and has even achieved the ability to turn portraits and figures...”

Narva pastor Simon Dietrich Gerkens: “Usually His Majesty is seen in such simple clothes that anyone who does not know him would never recognize him as such a great monarch... It should, moreover, be recognized that His Majesty is pious and naturally kind and merciful. They also say that His Majesty would like to kindly reform and improve the Russian religion, just as he has already abolished immersion in water, previously required, in the baptismal rite. In addition, he allowed his army not to observe the long and strict fasts customary among Russians, during which they were not allowed to eat meat at all...”

B. "WHISTLES":

Peter I completely destroyed the tradition dating back to antiquity in 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 for the first time legalized moral laxity at the royal court. It was he who, in his youth, established the “Most Drunken Council” and introduced unbridled drunkenness and public revelry as the norm at the royal court. Peter was distinguished by debauchery, marriage meant nothing to him, he had many mistresses. Debauchery, encouraged by the king, also prevailed at 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 centuries. This means that Peter, through his own behavior, gave rise to the process of destroying 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, a state of the true Orthodox faith. Gone are the magnificent ceremonial church processions of the sovereign with the participation of many church and secular officials. This means that the Tsar’s appeals to God ceased to be public prayers of the Orthodox sovereign for his Orthodox people. Tsar Peter stopped performing one of the most important state rituals for Russia, testifying to the sovereign’s intercession before God for the people and the state given to him by the Lord. Even having subordinated the Church to the state, Peter, in fact, abandoned the sacred, sacred function of Russian sovereign power.

The refusal of the state to fulfill spiritual tasks also 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 subjugated the Church, turning it into one of the structures of the general state apparatus. This happened during the church reform, which was carried out throughout the first quarter of the 18th century. The destruction of the independence of the Church tragically affected all subsequent Russian history.

And it is not without reason that already during Peter’s life, the belief was spreading in popular opinion that Tsar Peter was not a king, but an Antichrist. Or another belief - Tsar Peter was replaced in childhood with “Nemchina”. The destruction of the moral principles of Russian statehood led to the fact that already at the moment of the emergence of the Russian Empire its tragic end was laid.

Testimony from contemporaries, representatives of the common people:

Lebedka, confessor of Prince A.D. Menshikova: “Peter is the Antichrist. He did not spare his son, he beat him, and the prince not only died. It is known that the sovereign killed him..."

Monk, former Captain Levin: “The last times have come... Now we have not a king, but an Antichrist - he forces us, monks, to eat meat and live with our wives...”

Peasant Startsev: “What kind of king is this, he is the Antichrist, not the king, he left his kingdom and knew the Germans and lives in the German settlement, eats meat on Wednesday and Friday. Don’t expect someone else to be the Antichrist, he is the Antichrist.”

Popular opinion: “The Sovereign Tsar Peter Alekseevich and the Sovereign Tsarevich are not in Moscow, the boyars and the Germans have exterminated them, the Antichrist reigns in his place.”

Deacon of the Chudov Monastery Iona Kirilovets spoke about the substituted Peter: “The sovereign is not a tsar and not of the royal generation, but of the German... When the empress princess Natalya Kirillovna had daughters in a row and then the sovereign, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, was angry with her, the queen... And when the time came for her to give birth to a daughter , and then she, the empress, fearing him, the sovereign, took in exchange from the German Settlement a male child, from the Lefortovo Palace ... "

The opinion of some serfs: “The sovereign is not of the royal tribe, of the German breed, but the great sovereign was stolen by the Germans from his mothers, in small years, and instead of him they replaced him with another. The Germans are crafty, they are deceiving.”

A certain peasant: “The Tsar devastated all his land, all that was left was only soul and body... There is no Tsar in Moscow. Seven years in captivity, and Nemchin sits on the kingdom. Here he cut down about four thousand archers. If he were a sovereign, would he waste his land like that?

V. “OBJECTIVISTS”:

Peter I is a complex, contradictory personality. His nature combined completely opposite qualities. Kindness, sometimes reaching the point of inexplicable forgiveness (this is how he treated his favorites, those whom he completely trusted, for example, A.D. Menshikov) and cruelty, turning into equally inexplicable atrocity (personal participation in the executions of archers, personal presence at torture of the son of Tsarevich Alexei). Tendency to leisurely philosophical understanding reality, love of wisdom (for example, his conversations with the German philosopher Leibniz) and vigorous activity, personal participation in all endeavors, haste and impulsiveness in decision-making. The desire to organize one’s life and the life of the people according to strict, rational rules, strict regulation of the most intimate aspects of a person’s life (for example, compulsory church attendance, mandatory confession and communion four times a year) and one’s own, often immoral behavior. Courage and courage, demonstrated more than once in battles, and periodic attacks of fear. Unconditional personal religiosity and dislike, or even hatred, of the Church and the traditions of the Orthodox faith. And, finally, a sincere desire to turn Russia into a great European power, with great political influence, developed culture and science, powerful industry and a complete denial of old Russian traditions, rejection of ancient Russia, mired, as Peter believed, “in the darkness of ignorance,” t .e. rejection of real Russia.

But Peter I managed to subordinate all these personal, contradictory qualities to the main idea - the idea of ​​serving the Fatherland and the active transformation of his Fatherland in new historical conditions. And this is his greatness. Therefore, we can say that Peter’s personality refracted and reflected those objective needs and those objective contradictions that existed in Russia in the concrete historical conditions of that time.

Historians' opinions:

N.M. Karamzin:“Peter appeared... He rushed through the storm and waves towards his goal: he achieved it - and everything changed! This goal was not only the new greatness of Russia, but also... the appropriation of European customs... Posterity gave zealous praise to this immortal sovereign and his personal merits and glorious exploits. He had generosity, insight, an unshakable will, activity, and rare tirelessness: he corrected, multiplied the army, won a brilliant victory over a skillful and courageous enemy; conquered Livonia, created a fleet, founded harbors, issued many wise laws, brought trade and mines to a better state, established manufactories, schools, an academy, and finally put Russia at a famous level 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, built a strong power out of nothing, and, what is no less important, established a firm, autocratic government in it? And, glorifying the glorious in this monarch, shall we leave without comment the harmful side of his brilliant reign?..

Our grandfathers, already during the reign of Michael and his son, appropriating for themselves many of the benefits of foreign customs, still remained in the mindset that a true-believing Russian is the most perfect citizen in the world, and HOLY Rus' is the first state. Let them call it a delusion; but how it promoted love for 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? We once called all other Europeans INFAITH, now we call them brothers; I ask: who would it be easier to conquer Russia - the infidels or the brothers? That is, who would she most likely be most opposed to? Under Tsar Michael or Theodore, a Russian nobleman who owes everything to the Fatherland, could he leave her with a cheerful heart forever, so that in Paris, London, Vienna he could calmly read in the newspapers about our state dangers?

We have become citizens of the world, but have 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 minds 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, came to Moscow and, quite naturally, finding Russian customs strange for him, spoke to him about them with contempt, and raised everything European to the skies . The free societies of the German settlement, pleasant for unbridled youth, completed Lefortovo’s work, and the ardent monarch with a fevered imagination, seeing Europe, wanted to make Russia Holland ... "

CM. Soloviev:“Peter was not at all a glory-loving conqueror and in this he was a complete representative of his people, who were not conquerors by the nature of the tribe and by the conditions of their historical life. The genius of Peter expressed himself in a clear understanding of the situation of his people; he realized that his duty was to lead the weak, poor, almost unknown people out of this sad situation through civilization. The difficulty of the matter appeared 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 greeted him with a Streltsy riot. 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 them to great feats, to sacrifices and deprivations of all kinds, setting an example in all this. Having clearly realized that the Russian people had to go through a difficult school, Peter did not hesitate to subject them to the painful, 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 had a difficult task ahead of him: to educate the Russian people, it was necessary to call in foreign mentors, leaders who, naturally, sought to subordinate the students to their influence, to become superior to them; but this humiliated the students, whom Peter wanted to make masters as soon as possible; Peter did not succumb to temptation, did not accept the offer to conduct business successfully with people who were trained, fully prepared, but foreigners, he wanted his own Russians to go through an active school, even if it cost great losses and was accompanied by great inconveniences... From whatever point Although we have not studied the era of transformation, we must be amazed at the moral and physical forces of the transformer, whose sphere of activity would be so vast.”

2. ASSESSMENT OF PETER’S REFORMI

A. “PANEGYRISTS”:

The peculiarity of Peter the Great's reforms was their extensiveness, their influence covering all aspects of the life of each subject and the state as a whole: they introduced innovations into the country's economy, into the social structure of society, into foreign policy, into cultural life, into the life of the population, into the management system state, in the construction of the armed forces.

As a result of Peter's reform initiatives, 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 was the creation of a navy, as a result of which Russia turned into a maritime power. The second innovation was expressed in the creation of a regular army, which had unified system configuration, uniform rules of training and equipment, 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 Russia acquired the status of a European state.

Historians' opinion:

M.P. Pogodin: “Yes, Peter the Great did a lot in Russia. You look and don’t believe it, you count and miss. We cannot open our eyes, we cannot move from our place, 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. - he is everywhere, every day, every minute, at every step! We are waking up. What day is it now? 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 made according to the style given by Peter the Great, the uniform is according to his uniform. The cloth was woven in the factory he started, the wool was sheared from the sheep he raised. A book catches your eye - Peter the Great introduced this font into use and cut out the letters himself. You will begin to read it - this language under Peter the Great became written, literary, displacing the former, church one. Newspapers are brought - Peter the Great started them. You need to redeem different things - all of them, from a silk scarf to a shoe sole, will remind you of Peter the Great: some were prescribed by him, others were put into use by him, improved, brought on his ship to his harbor, along his canal, along his road . At dinner, from the salted herrings and potatoes that he ordered to sow, to the grape wine he diluted - all the dishes will tell you about Peter the Great.

After lunch you go to visit - this is the assembly of Peter the Great. You meet ladies there who were allowed into the men's company at the request of Peter the Great. Let's go to university - the first secular school was founded by Peter the Great. You receive a rank according to the Table of Ranks of Peter the Great. Rank gives you nobility - this is how Peter the Great established it. I need to file a complaint - Peter the Great determined its form. They will accept her - in front of the mirror of Peter the Great. They will judge according to the General Regulations. You will decide to travel - following the example of Peter the Great; you will be received well - Peter the Great placed Russia among the European states and began to instill respect for it, and so on, and so on, and so on.”

B. "WHISTLES":

The reforms of Peter I brought many problems to Russia. The nobility received the greatest benefit from the reforms. Moreover, thanks to Peter’s policies in the 18th century, for the first time in the entire existence of Russia, the nobility, socially, politically, and culturally, separated from its own people and turned into a closed class, brought up in non-Russian traditions.

In addition, Peter, providing, on the one hand, the political support of the nobility, and on the other, solving the problem of greater economic independence of the state, accomplished the final enslavement of the peasantry. This happened in 1718-1724. during the tax reform. Not only did the tax reform increase the tax burden of the population by 1.5-2 times, but also in order to control the receipt of taxes, strict police control was established in the country - a passport system was introduced and a network was created to control the movement of the population. The person paying the tax found himself 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 which significantly affected Russian history was the creation of a powerful bureaucratic system of governing the country, subordinated solely to the will of the tsar. The bureaucratic system, created on the basis of the principle of unconditional subordination of the younger to the older, largely suppressed the initiative of the people. Moreover, subordinated to the “tsar’s mania,” such a system gave rise to relationships 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.

From such a political system flows favoritism, which literally struck Russia in the 18th century. Already under Peter, the all-powerful temporary workers plundered the country as best they could. The same A.D. Menshikov, for all his military and state merits, had no less sins, and perhaps more, because he constantly confused the state and his own pockets, and his personal budget at one time exceeded the budget of the entire Russian state! The system of public administration that emerged under Peter determined the dominance of foreigners in the Russian bureaucratic apparatus for many years.

Finally, Peter I completely subordinated the Church to the state, turning it into one of the state institutions. To the Russian itself Orthodox Church The sovereign also looked purely rationalistically. The main task was the complete subordination of the Church to the temporal power of the Tsar and the confiscation of the material assets of the Church, so necessary to ensure the numerous undertakings of Peter the Great. The destruction of the independence of the Church gave rise to many spiritual and social problems, which soon had tragic consequences in Russian history.

V. “OBJECTIVISTS”:

The transformations of Peter I took place in real historical conditions. The only educated class at that time was the nobility; moreover, it was the nobility that constituted the only support of the state, including the royal power, and the basis of the army. Therefore, it is natural that Peter, acting in a real historical situation, could rely primarily on the noble class. But, at the same time, he tried to make access to the nobility more open and legal. This 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 through his service, he could rise in rank and achieve first personal and then hereditary nobility.

The creation of a powerful state apparatus, the bureaucracy, was also necessary, because the bureaucratic government system created 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 significant freedom in relation to the nobility and ceased to depend only on them. Thus, the bureaucratic apparatus of state power became the second, along with the nobility, support of Petrine autocracy. As a result, the king received significant freedom of action, thanks to which he could carry out his own will during 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, it was quite natural that a system of forced withdrawal of surplus product from the main producer of material goods - the peasantry - arose. This system was serfdom. There were simply no other systems for ensuring the material existence of the state in that historical period. Therefore, it is natural that Peter used the opportunities that were at his disposal, namely, strengthening the serfdom of the peasantry.

In pre-Petrine times, the church 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 attack on the Church was largely determined by Peter’s desire to place church property and church people in public service (it was not for nothing that young men were forbidden to become monks - they had to serve in the army, navy, etc.). In addition, the Church, which has always enjoyed a certain independence from secular power, was an obstacle for Peter in carrying out his undertakings. This also served as the reason for a rather harsh policy towards the Church, as a result of which the Church was officially subordinated to the emperor personally and turned into just one of the state institutions, along with other colleges.

3. EUROPEANIZATION OF RUSSIA

A. “PANEGYRISTS”:

Another contemporary and associate of the Tsar, Chancellor G.I. Golovkin argued that only thanks to Peter I his subjects “from the darkness of insignificance and ignorance entered the theater of glory and joined the formed European states.” In fact, during the course of Peter’s reforms, secular education and secular culture came to Russia for the first time. Secular science (the Academy of Sciences) was created for the first time, and secular art was developed. Thus, those cultural achievements of Europe, which before Peter were denied or were accessible only to a very few, now became the property of, if not the entire people, then a significant part of them. The genius of Lomonosov and the Golden Age of Russian culture (19th century) is also the result of Peter the Great’s reforms for the Europeanization of Russia and evidence of the constant goodness of these reforms for Russia.

B. "WHISTLES":

Before Peter I, Russia developed in a natural, organic way. The Europeanization of Russia has brought heavy fruits - the destruction of the unique, independent Russian world has begun, a world with its own traditions, its own culture, its own cultural and spiritual values. Tsar Peter wanted to push Russia onto the path of the West, a false and dangerous path. Peter subjected Russia to Western influence; the well-known imitation of the West reached a frenzy. As a result, Russia took the path of blind copying and thoughtless imitation of Western European countries in everything: language, fashion, traditions, culture. Even Petru’s new state management system was developed by Western European advisers. This path is useless and fruitless.

Peter I introduced discord between classes into Russian society, which had not previously been observed. The state, in whose strength Peter relied, began to forcibly reshape the life of an entire society in an alien, Western manner. New rules of everyday life were introduced with horrific violence. For example, not only were beards taxed, they were also forcibly cut off, and beards were even pulled out by the roots so that facial hair would no longer grow. Other rules of the “new life” were introduced equally forcefully.

Peter I actually divided Russia into two parts: on the one hand there was the ruling class with its foreign capital, St. Petersburg, on the other side - the people, with the Russian capital, Moscow. At the same time, the bureaucratic population of St. Petersburg completely broke away from their own people, moreover, they began to view them only as a means for obtaining material benefits, while completely despising the Russian people. Contempt for Russia soon became the property of an educated person, whose goal was to imitate Western Europe.

Thus, Europeanization became for the tsar and officials a means of additional enslavement of their own people, and at least some kind of freedom of the people was completely destroyed. The Russian Tsar received the meaning of a despot, and the free people - the meaning of a slave-slave in their land.

V. “OBJECTIVISTS”:

The Europeanization of the country was caused by the objective needs of the country and began long before Peter I. His grandfather, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, began transforming the army in a European manner (regiments of the “new system”). This same trend was continued by Peter's father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Many European innovations have appeared in culture and in everyday life.

And yet, the Europeanization of the country became the most important result of Peter’s reforms. Europeanization should be understood not only and not so much as cutting off beards and shortening the national dress, but an extensive set of measures aimed at increasing the cultural level of the population, its civilized behavior in society, the introduction of modern forms of industrial production, etc. Europeanization should also mean the spread of secular education (Navigation School, Maritime Academy, digital and garrison schools, etc.).

Undoubtedly, the Europeanization of Russia also includes a new system of public administration, developed in a Western European manner (Senate, boards, city magistrates, etc.). The Europeanization of Russia also includes the creation of manufacturing production, as a result of which, industrially, Russia under Peter the Great achieved tremendous success: if at the end of the 17th century. In Russia there were 10-12 manufactories, but by the end of Peter’s reign there were about a hundred of them. Moreover, in different areas of production. And Russia itself has turned from an importer into an exporter of industrial goods: iron, copper, linen, etc.

Historians' opinion:

P.Ya. Chaadaev (Russian thinkerXIX century): “Peter the Great underestimated his people when he wanted to put a Western uniform on this essentially cosmopolitan civilization, which is the property of all. But the rude mentor of a strong child, Peter the Great, nevertheless revealed to his pupil high destinies that promised him a rapid movement towards the West. Do not throw away the advantages gained by this movement; the price you paid for them has been made up... Remain Europeans while continuing to be Russians!”

S.F. Platonov: “In foreign policy, Peter strictly followed the old paths, fought against old enemies, achieved unprecedented success in the West, but with his successes he did not abolish the old political tasks in relation to Poland and Turkey. He did a lot to achieve the cherished thoughts of Muscovite Rus', but did not complete everything.<...>In domestic politics, Peter was not far removed from the 17th century. The state structure remained the same: the fullness of supreme power, formulated by Tsar Alexei in the words of the Acts of the Apostles, received a more extensive definition under Peter in the Military Regulations, in decrees, and finally in the philosophical treatises of Feofan Prokopovich. Zemstvo self-government, which did not have a political character and had an estate character before Peter, remained so under Peter. Above the bodies of estate administration, as before, stood bureaucratic institutions, and although the external forms of administration were changed, its general type remained unchanged: as before Peter, there was a mixture of the principles of the personal with the collegial, the bureaucratic with the estate.

Peter's activities were not a social revolution. State position classes and their mutual relations did not suffer significant changes. The attachment of estates to state duties remained in full force; only the procedure for fulfilling these duties changed. The nobility under Peter had not yet achieved the right to own people as a class privilege, but owned peasant labor only on the basis that they needed security for their service. The peasants did not lose their civil rights and were not yet considered complete serfs. Life enslaved them more and more, but... it began even before Peter, and ended after him.

In Peter's economic policy, in its tasks and results, one cannot see a revolution either. Peter clearly defined the task that before him had taken wrong steps to achieve - the task of raising the country's productive forces. His program for the development of national industry and trade was theoretically familiar to Krizhanich in the 17th century, and practically familiar to Ordin-Nashchokin. The results achieved by Peter did not deliver National economy on a new basis. Even under Peter, the main source of national wealth remained agricultural labor, and Russia, having after Peter more than 200 factories and factories, was still an agricultural country, with very weak commercial and industrial development.

And culturally, Peter did not introduce new revelations into Russian life. The old cultural ideals were touched upon; in the 17th century, the question of new beginnings in cultural life became a sharply expressed issue. Tsar Alexei - and, in part, Tsar Fedor - were already fully representatives of the new direction. Tsar Peter is their direct successor in this. But his predecessors were students of Kyiv theologians and scholastics, and Peter was a student of Western Europeans, bearers of Protestant culture. Peter's predecessors cared little about disseminating their knowledge among the people, but Peter considered this one of his main affairs. In this he differed significantly from the sovereigns of the 17th century. Thus, Peter was not the creator of the cultural issue, but was the first person who decided to carry out cultural reform. The results of his activities were great: he gave his people full opportunity for material and spiritual communication with the entire civilized world. However, these results should not be exaggerated. Under Peter, education affected only the upper strata of society, and even then weakly; the masses of the people have so far remained with their old worldview.”

4. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF TSAR PETERI

A. “PANEGYRISTS”:

Having assumed the rights of a sovereign autocrat, Peter I decisively spurred on the “nag of history.” At the beginning of his reign, he found Russia a barbaric country that did not have its own science, secular culture, or education. With the harsh hand of a reformer ruler, he led Russia to world greatness, for it was precisely this kind of world greatness that Peter wanted for Russia. That is why he pursued such an active foreign policy, for twenty-one years he fought for Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea and, having won this Northern War, finally fulfilled the aspirations of many generations - he returned to Russia its ancestral Baltic lands. Victory in the Northern War turned Russia into a powerful power with borders from the Baltic to Sea of ​​Okhotsk, which all European states now had to reckon with. And as a result of the Persian campaign of 1722-1723. Russia acquired land on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea. Peter also turned the internal life of Russia upside down. One of the first biographers of Peter I, P.N. Krekshin wrote: “Peter, with a meek disposition, resurrected Russia, half-dead, raising it up shining, weak in strength, insensitive in his name, creating like a stone (the name “Peter” means “stone.” - S.P.), raising it from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge, from dishonor to glory."

B. "WHISTLES":

Peter I is a great destroyer. Even recognizing the fact that he did a lot, we must not forget that an even greater number of his actions had a negative significance for Russia. At the end of the 17th century, Russia was a developed, highly cultural country, with its own system of government, social and political relations, with its own culture. Over the course of many centuries, Russia has developed naturally, organically, to the necessary extent borrowing one or another European or Asian experience, the experience that the country really needed. In Russia there was a symphony of secular and spiritual power, power and people.

But Peter destroyed the symphonic unity of ancient Russia. In an effort to transform Russia into a Western European country, he abandoned the great heritage he had received. Peter's revolution, despite all its external brilliance, testifies to what deep inner evil the greatest genius produces, how quickly he acts alone, moves away from the people and looks at them like an architect at bricks. Peter, they will say, exalted Russia. Indeed, he gave her a lot of external greatness, but he struck her inner integrity with corruption: he introduced into her life the seeds of destruction and enmity. And all external glorious deeds were accomplished by him and his successors - by the forces of that Russia, which grew and strengthened on ancient soil, on different principles.

In addition, not only Peter’s reforms themselves were terrible, but also the methods of their implementation. Peter's incredible cruelty amazed even his contemporaries. Peter's reforms were introduced by force. The cruelty of the king towards his own people is inexplicable.

V. “OBJECTIVISTS”:

Peter's actions had an objective basis and the objective needs of the country. First of all, Russia, of course, had to master a new understanding of the world, master new ways of knowing and transforming the world. But there was a second reason why Peter’s transformations found a response, although not in all, but in many Russian minds. The fact is that it was in the 18th century that the process of forming a unified Russian nation was completed. And the emergence of strong state power was caused, among other things, by these national needs.

In Russia, for the first time in history, the idea of ​​“service to the Fatherland”, the idea of ​​“the benefit of the Fatherland” were formulated as the most important ideas of national consciousness. But “the benefit of the Fatherland” can only be ensured by a strong state. In fact, the 18th century wove together two concepts that were subsequently most important for Russian history - a single Russian nation and a great power. It was in this century that it became indisputably clear that the united Russian nation could live on only by turning its Motherland into a great power.

Another thing is that Peter I sharply and even too sharply accelerated the process of formation of a single nation, a single national state, a national policy, a national worldview that had begun long before him. So it turned out that it was Peter who was destined by fate to raise Russia “on its hind legs.” These Pushkin words contain the key to understanding the essence of the Petrine era. In them, Pushkin brilliantly conveyed both the heroism and tragedy of that time, and captured the dialectical unity of good and evil that constantly exists in our lives. The unity of good and evil, which, unfortunately, is as immutable as the struggle between them.

Undoubtedly, the merits of Peter and his associates to Russia are great. However, the experience of history shows that not a single violent revolution in the usual course of things is complete without losses, and most often tragic losses. Peter himself understood this, which is why he attached so much great importance ideological explanation of one's own actions. But in his mind the old Russian idea of spiritual sense the historical existence of Russia was replaced the idea of ​​a secular Russian state, uniting the Russian people only with state crepes and not setting itself the task of achieving spiritual goals. In the famous work of V.V. Zenkovsky’s “History of Russian Philosophy” one can find an interesting and fair argument that the crystallization core around which interests and ideas were formed in the 18th century “is not the idea of ​​a universal religious mission (preserving the purity of Orthodoxy), as it was before, but the ideal of the Great Russia."

Moreover, Peter I considered traditional Russian religiosity to be one of the main sources of Russian “ignorance.” Therefore, he replaced the idea of ​​Holy Rus' with the theory of the “common cause”, created in Western European scientific offices. According to Peter, it was the theory of the “common cause”, like no other, that answered the task of ideological justification for reforms.

Using the postulates of this theory, Peter presented himself as a spokesman for the interests of all of Russia and justified any of his actions by its future greatness. Peter repeatedly, one might say, constantly emphasized that he only served Russia, and demanded the same service from everyone - both from the common people and from the upper classes.

And here is another striking contradiction of the Petrine era! Peter's transformations were accepted and carried out his will because in the minds of the Russian people the traditional image of the Orthodox Tsar, the Anointed of God, was preserved. But Peter himself broke this image in every possible way and got rid of it in every possible way. In other words, using the power and authority of tradition, Peter broke tradition itself!

Prepared by S.V. Perevezentsev

© All rights reserved

The reforms of Peter 1 brought Russia to a new level of development. It became a European great power, received the status of an empire, organized a navy that stood confidently on its feet, as well as a new system of government. But why do some historians negatively assess the successes of the reformer, while others, on the contrary, deify him? Let's figure it out.

Reforms of Peter 1: signs and features

As you know, the young tsar gained his power in a complex way: after the regency of Sophia, after the dual power with his brother Ivan, after the Streltsy riots. Peter went through everything at a young age, when he developed an interest in the navy, army and order. That is why the main features of the entire reign of the reformer were the unlimited power, the formation of an extensive bureaucratic apparatus, the transition to capitalist relations, and then the constant activity of the regular army. During this period of Peter's reign is called the period of transition to an absolute monarchy.

Reforms of Peter 1: transformations in the country

After unsuccessful military campaigns, the tsar clearly understood that the country was lagging behind the European powers in all respects. To eliminate the reduced level, he abolishes the Boyar Duma, a permanent body under the ruler. Recently, the arbitrariness of the boyars has reached enormous proportions, and complaints have become more and more numerous. Peter also understood perfectly well that there were not enough workers in production, and with the development of manufactories they were simply necessary. For this purpose, an order is issued about the appearance of assigned peasants. In the same year, 1703, Peter laid the foundation for his main monument - a city on the Neva, which was destined to become the scene of bloody events in the future. Peter also introduced conscription along with the poll tax. Such measures were due to the state of war with the Swedes. The development of the administrative reforms of Peter 1 also continues: a legislative body, the Sena, appears, which becomes a stronghold of control and financial functions. There was also the creation of provinces, which, in turn, were divided into counties. Now it has become easier to manage the huge country (the entire area has been divided into several parts). New industry bodies are appearing - collegiums, which have replaced the old orders. The Synod is established and the patriarchate is abolished. The inheritance system is also changing: now the ruler himself has the right to appoint and announce the name of his successor. The social reforms of Peter 1, together with cultural transformations, left a big mark on history: the emergence of new schools, the first printed newspaper, the creation of the Academy of Sciences - all this is the merit of the great reformer. The result of the entire reign was the declaration of the country as an empire, and the king himself as an emperor.

Merits of the Great Sovereign

Thus, the reforms of Peter 1 raised the power and gave it a new impetus for development. The system of government administration was significantly changed, and great changes occurred in the social and cultural environment. Of course, some reforms took place by force, but they were required and worth it. That is why Peter 1 not only received the title of emperor, but also his famous nickname - “The Great”.