In 1754, Princess Sophia Augusta Frederica of Anhalt-Zerbst, who belonged to one of the German petty princely families, was married to the heir to the Russian throne, the future Emperor Peter III. Being a Lutheran, she converted to Orthodoxy before marriage, and with it the Russian name of Ekaterina Alekseevna. In 1762 her husband became emperor. After 6 months he was killed. Catherine, supported by the capital's guard regiments, was proclaimed empress.
Catherine's thinking was dominated by rationalism and practicality. She had a penchant for introspection. In her early youth, her first writings were autobiographical notes.<Портрет философа пятнадцати лет>. They already clearly show such features of her personality as high intelligence, the ability to reflect, subtle observation, psychological insight. Many people told her, and she herself liked to repeat that she had a philosophical mindset.
In the first years of her life in Russia, when Catherine was still a Grand Duchess, and her husband, Peter III, was only still considered the heir to the throne, she showed a wiser attitude towards Orthodox rituals than her husband. Having received a Lutheran upbringing, and even as a child he showed inflexibility in relation to any, including religious, edification, Peter treated the requirements of religious and church life without due respect. Catherine wrote:<Я слышала от его приближенных, что в Киле стоило величайшего труда посылать его в церковь по воскресеньям и праздникам и побуждать его к исполнению обрядностей, какие от него требовались, и что он большей частью проявлял неверие>(Catherine II. On the Greatness of Russia. M., 2003. P. 482). Catherine herself strictly observed all the requirements of Orthodox rituals throughout her life. Being a person of duty, possessing a developed sense of responsibility, she considered herself obliged to pay due attention to everything that was connected with the religious and church side of her political activity.
Those who knew Catherine personally agree that her relationship with God was conventional and distinguished by the division of powers. She believed that God owns the souls of her subjects, and their earthly affairs are in her full power as an empress.
Catherine's personal religiosity was subordinated to her political views. In the leadership of a huge, semi-barbarian country, she saw her destiny.<Я желаю и хочу лишь блага той стране, в которую привел меня Господь; он мне в том свидетель. Слава страны создает мою славу. Вот мое правило: я буду счастлива, если мои мысли могут тому способствовать>(Catherine II. On the Greatness of Russia. M., 2003. P. 60).
Being educated and possessing a state mindset, Catherine successfully ruled a huge empire for 34 years. The ideals of the European Enlightenment were close to her, and she strove, as far as possible, to follow them in her socio-political and cultural activities. She was attracted by the ideas of Voltaire, Montesquieu, encyclopedic philosophers. Catherine's views were subordinated to the worldview dominant, which later became known as anthropocentrism. She believed that in the life of an individual a lot depends not on higher powers, but on himself.<Счастье, — писала она, — не так слепо, как его себе представляют. Часто оно бывает следствием длинного ряда мер, верных и точных, не замеченных толпою и предшествующих событию. А в особенности счастье отдельных личностей бывает следствием их качеств, характера и личного поведения>(Notes of Empress Catherine II. St. Petersburg, 1907. P. 203).
Catherine highly appreciated Peter I for his enormous contribution to the reform of the Russian social system. Considering herself his successor, she at the same time condemned those violent methods and that excessive cruelty that were characteristic of Peter's transformative activity.
As a supporter of the Western theory of natural law, Catherine made determined efforts to overcome the archaism of Russian legislation and streamline it. She believed that the political freedom of citizens should be ensured by sound laws. At the same time, she understood that lawmaking would be successful only when the specifics of Russian reality began to be taken into account. During one of her trips around Russia, while in Kazan, she reasoned in her letter to Voltaire:<Подумайте только, что эти законы должны служить и для Европы, и для Азии; какое различие климата, жителей, привычек, понятий: Ведь это целый особый мир: надобно его создать, сплотить, охранять>.
At the initiative of the Empress, a special Legislative Commission was created, which was supposed to systematize all the laws that came into force after the publication of the Council Code of 1649. Under her, the position of the nobility was strengthened, as evidenced by the Letter of Complaint of the Nobility granted by the Empress (1785).
Catherine was authoritarian, power-hungry, but she knew how to hide it from others. Her work combined sober pragmatism with political ambition. So, she approved the arose in the mid-1770s. political plan of G. A. Potemkin and A. A. Bezborodko, called<греческого проекта>. Its essence was to inflict a crushing blow on the Turkish Empire, capture Constantinople and restore the Orthodox Eastern Empire. The grandson of Catherine, named Constantine, was already seen by the empress's entourage as the future owner of the throne in Constantinople.
The attitude of the empress to the church was subject to the principles of political and economic pragmatism. In the mid 1760s. on her initiative, a complete secularization of the monastic land holdings and the peasants assigned to them was carried out. Catherine's Manifesto of February 26, 1764, proclaimed the alienation from the Church of her land holdings and the peasants assigned to them, with the subsequent transfer to the State College of Economy. As a result, the Church lost its economic independence. Her income was under state control. Thus, economic dependence was added to its political dependence on the state. All this corresponded to Catherine's strategy of church-state policy, which was based on the principle:<Уважать веру, но никак ей не давать влиять на государственные дела>.
Catherine in her religious and church policy sought to combine the principle of dominance of Orthodoxy with the principle of religious tolerance. This was required by the status of a multinational empire as a polyconfessional state. In 1773, she issued a decree instructing the Synod to pursue a policy of religious tolerance.<Как Всевышний Бог терпит на земле все веры, — гласил он, — то и Ее Величество из тех же правил, сходствуя Его святой воле, в сем поступать изволит, желая только, чтобы между ее подданными всегда любовь и согласие царили>. The Empress was opposed to the infringement of the religious needs of Protestants, Catholics, and Muslims. After the conquest of the Crimea, she gave the order to restore the destroyed mosques.
The political testament of Catherine, on which she worked for about two years and named by her<Наказом>(1767), began with the words:<Закон Христианский научает нас взаимно делать друг другу добро, сколько возможно>(Catherine II. On the Greatness of Russia. M., 2003. P. 72). In it, the empress directly referred to the laws of Moses, in which she saw an example of the interpretation of the laws of domestic life.<Наказ>testified to her desire to consider political and legal reality through the prism of Christian definitions. It is no coincidence that Voltaire, to whom the French translation was sent<Наказа>, called him<всемирным евангелием>. Catherine sent another copy, translated into German, to Emperor Frederick II.
When compiling<Наказа>Catherine used those philosophical and legal writings of the 18th century that seemed to her the best. So, she included in her work fragments from the book of the French philosopher C. Montesquieu<О духе законов>(1748) and the writings of the Italian scientist C. Beccaria<О преступлениях и наказаниях> (1764). <Наказ>consisted of 526 articles. Researchers have calculated that the content of more than 250 of them is borrowed from Montesquieu and about 100 from Beccaria.
<Наказ>consisted of an introduction and 22 chapters. In it, the empress made an attempt to prove that the best of all forms of government is a monarchy, which has as its goal the glory of citizens, the state and the sovereign himself. Citizens of the state must obey the same laws for all, causing respect and fear of violating them. The board should be arranged in such a way that it is possible to prevent crimes more than to punish them. It is better to inspire the citizens with good morals than to bring their spirits down with executions.
Assessments of Catherine's activities by descendants were not unambiguous. You can even talk about the existence of polar opinions about her kingdom. So, for example, A. S. Pushkin in his<Исторических замечаниях>(1822) wrote that Russia, having received a powerful impetus for its development from Peter I at the beginning of the 18th century, under Catherine continued to move forward only by inertia. The normal development of Russian statehood was hampered by the depravity and cruelty of the empress, her hypocrisy, her ability to hide despotism in the guise of meekness and tolerance. Pushkin points out the mistakes of her legislation, the hypocrisy of her<Наказа>and<подлость русских писателей>who glorified this work. The poet accuses Catherine of enslaving Little Russia, plundering the treasury, persecuting independent thinkers, the clergy, and persecuting monasticism, to which Russia is indebted.<нашей историей, следовательно и просвещением>. In his eyes, Catherine's correspondence with European philosophers is<отвратительное фиглярство>. The final verdict of the poet is extremely severe:<Развратная Государыня развратила и свое государство>.
Pushkin's moral maximalism is legitimate if we consider Catherine's activities in the light of a certain ideal of political government and legislative activity. But if we compare her contribution with what the predecessors of the empress did for Russia,<безграмотная Екатерина I>, <кровавый злодей Бирон>, <сладострастная Елизавета>(definitions of Pushkin himself), then the political activity of Catherine II can be regarded as an undoubted step forward.
Christian thought
Plan:
Introduction
Section 1. Young years of Catherine.
Childhood and youth of Catherine II.
Ascension to the throne and the beginning of the reign.
Section II. Domestic policy.
2.1. Laid commission
2.2. Church politics
2.3. Administrative activities
2.4. Peasant War and its aftermath
Section III: Foreign Policy
3.1. Russian-Turkish wars
3.2 Russia and the revolution in France. Sections of the Commonwealth
Bibliography
Introduction.
Different historians estimate the reign of Catherine II in different ways. And this is no coincidence. Catherine's contribution to Russian history is very contradictory, because her time was marked by the strongest tightening of serfdom, the impoverishment of the people, the monstrous wastefulness of the ruling elite, ruinous for the country, the tone for which was set by the empress, who spent fantastic sums on her lovers. This is the time of the decline of morals, the depreciation of moral values, the time of absurd political zigzags that buried many promising undertakings and were conditioned by the influence of successive favorites on Catherine. But on the other hand, this is the era of the country's military might, the strengthening of the authority and security of the Russian state, significant internal political transformations and an unprecedented flourishing of cultural life. There are many conflicting opinions about the Empress herself. Some consider her feigned, dissolute, easily amenable to other people's influence, while others see her as an integral nature, a highly educated, businesslike, energetic, extremely hard-working, self-critical person who knows her strengths and weaknesses. And although more than two centuries have passed since the reign of Catherine II, and during this period many works were written about that era, the relevance of this topic does not decrease. Because the more we manage to learn about this unusual and mysterious woman, the more incomprehensible and inexplicable appears.
She fascinated me so much that I gave her the honor of becoming the heroine of my story. I cannot but say that the personality of Catherine II has been of interest to me for a long time. I read several good books, including works of fiction, dedicated to her, and each time I found something new for myself, previously unknown, which both amazed and delighted me.
Based on my knowledge and guided by the literature used, I think that I can say about Catherine the Great as a person of her era. The goal that I pursued in writing this work is not just to present the facts of the biography of this woman, elevated by fate to the very pinnacle of power, but to try to draw her historical portrait as accurately as possible, reflecting on the fate of the great empress and, at the same time, to think again about the fate of the country
I consider the topic “The Reign of Catherine the Second” quite relevant, because in our politically and economically unstable time it is very difficult to choose the right path for the development of the country, and it seems to me that the answer to the question about the right path in our history, which, as you know, repeats itself, namely, in the activities of Catherine II, a guide to the action of future rulers is hidden.
The reign of Catherine II left its mark on the entire subsequent cultural development of Russia. The age of her reign is called the Age of Enlightened Absolutism. Catherine managed to enlighten her subjects and bring Russian culture closer to Western. She also made significant changes in the mechanisms of government.
The reign of Catherine II lasted more than three and a half decades (1762-1796). It is filled with many events in internal and external affairs, the implementation of plans that continued what was being done under Peter the Great.
According to the figurative expression of V. O. Klyuchevsky, “Catherine II: she was the last accident on the Russian throne and spent a long and extraordinary reign, created a whole era in our history” and, one might add, in historiography. This "last accident" of the 18th century could not leave indifferent either her contemporaries or descendants. For more than 200 years, attitudes towards Catherine II were ambiguous, but few disputed the significance of her reign for the good of Russia.
It is rarely noted that even in the Soviet period, the monument to Catherine II, along with Peter I, revered by the Bolsheviks, did not leave its pedestal, remaining the only monument to a female monarch in a state where the reigning dynasty was suppressed by force.
18th century - the era of "enlightened absolutism", "the union of philosophers and monarchs." At that time, the theory and practice were widely used, according to which the obsolete institutions of feudal society can be overcome not by revolutionary, but by evolution, by the monarchs themselves and their nobles, with the help of wise philosopher-advisers, and other enlightened people. The autocrats were supposed to be or should be enlightened people, a kind of disciples of the ideologues of the Enlightenment. Such was Catherine II of Russia. A new coup was carried out, like the previous ones, by the guards noble regiments; it was directed against the emperor, who declared very sharply his national sympathies and personal oddities of a childishly capricious nature. Revolution of 1762 put on the throne a woman not only smart and tactful, but also extremely talented, extremely educated, developed and active. The empress wanted law and order in government; acquaintance with affairs showed her that disorder prevails not only in the particulars of government, but also in laws; her predecessors continuously took care of bringing into a systematic code the entire mass of individual legal provisions that had accumulated since the Code of 1649, and could not cope with this matter.
I see the relevance of this topic in the fact that in our politically and economically unstable time it is very difficult to choose the right path for the development of the country, and is it not in our history that the answer is the right road that will lead us to universal prosperity and well-being, or in the activities of Catherine II a guide to the action of future rulers is hidden. The purpose of this work is to logically state the main points relating to the reign of Catherine II, and relating to that period of her reign. The main objective of my course work is to review the political views and political thinking of Catherine, as well as the study of her reign. In my work, I used the method of historical reconstruction of events during the reign of Catherine.
For a better perception of the events described in this work, I structured the work into three sections. In the first section, I will describe the first stage of Catherine's life - the childhood and youth of the young empress, as well as her accession to the throne and the beginning of her reign. Consideration of this section gives an idea of the foundations of the administrative psychology of the Great Woman. The second section will deal with the internal policy of the Empress. A detailed description of her reforming activities gives us a more accurate picture of her great politics. Here it will be shown what is the political significance of her statutory commission and administrative activities. I will find out how Catherine's church reform influenced Orthodox Russia. Of course, the rebellion in Russia and the peasant question, namely, the peasant war and its consequences, will not be left without attention. So we smoothly got to the third section, where I will outline Catherine's foreign policy. I will describe in detail the attitude of the Tsaritsa to the revolution in France, as well as the background, events and consequences of the Russian-Turkish war. The relationship with the Russian neighbor Rzeczpospolita will not be left without attention. After all, the result of the reign of this imperious, intelligent woman, who became one of the greatest monarchs in the history of Russia, will be made.
Section 1.
Young years of Catherine.
1.1. Childhood and youth of the future empress.
Catherine II, before marriage Princess Sophia Augusta Frederick of Anhalt-Zerbst, was born on April 21, 1729 in the German city of Stettin. Her father, Prince Christian August of Anhalt-Zerbst, was in the Prussian service and was the commandant, and then the governor of Stettin; mother - Princess Johanna Elisabeth - came from the old Holstein-Gottorp ducal house.
The girl's parents were not happy in marriage and often spent time apart. My father, along with the army, left to fight against Sweden and France in the lands of the Netherlands, Northern Germany and Italy. Mother went to visit numerous influential relatives, sometimes with her daughter. In early childhood, Princess Sophia visited the cities of Brunswick, Zerbst, Hamburg, Kiel and Berlin. From the events of those years, she remembered a meeting with an old priest, who, looking at Sophia, said to her mother: “Your daughter has a great future. I see three crowns on her forehead."
Princess Johanna looked incredulously at her interlocutor and, for some reason, angry with her daughter, sent her away to do needlework.
Another important meeting took place when Sophia was already ten years old: she was introduced to a boy named Peter Ulrich. A year older than her, he was so thin and long-legged that he looked like a grasshopper. Dressed as an adult in a wig and military uniform, the boy shuddered constantly and glanced warily at his teacher.
Her mother told her that Peter Ulrich, a pretender to the thrones of Russia and Sweden, the owner of hereditary rights to Schleswig-Holstein, was her second cousin. The prince is an orphan, and his care is entrusted to random people who treat him rudely and cruelly. Sophia, who herself was not spoiled by the attention and care of her parents, sincerely took pity on him.
Several years passed, and Sophia's mother again spoke to her about a strange boy named Peter Ulrich. During this time, his aunt Elizabeth became the Russian empress. She summoned her nephew to Russia and declared her heir under the name of Pyotr Fedorovich. Now the young man was looking for a bride among the daughters and sisters of European dukes and princes. The choice was great, but only Sophia Augusta Frederick of Anhalt-Zerbst received an invitation to come to Russia for the bride. Partly - thanks to the romantic memories of Elizabeth Petrovna about her deceased fiancé Karl August Holstein (Princess Sophia was his own niece), partly - due to the intrigues of Princess Johanna.
Sophia and her mother traveled to the Russian border, accompanied by several servants, keeping a strict incognito. On the territory of Russia, they were met by a magnificent and numerous retinue, who delivered expensive gifts from the Empress.
In St. Petersburg, Sophia appeared before the Empress. Elizabeth saw a very young girl - tall and slender, with long dark brown hair, snow-white skin, slightly touched by a delicate blush and large brown eyes. Childishly direct, lively and cheerful, she knew how to conduct a secular conversation in German and French, painted and danced gracefully, in a word, she was quite a worthy bride for the heir to the throne.
Elizabeth Petrovna liked Princess Sophia, but did not like her mother, Princess Johanna. Therefore, she ordered the first to “instruct in the Orthodox faith” and teach the Russian language, and the second was expelled from Russia for participating in political intrigues.
The princess was at first upset by her mother's departure, but she was always very strict with Sophia, often interfering in her personal life and sought to subordinate the girl's entire way of thinking to her influence. Getting rid of such a heavy guardianship quickly reconciled the princess with the departure of a loved one. Coming out from under the influence of her mother, Sophia took a different look at the world in which she now lived.
The vast expanses of Russia stunned the imagination, surprised the humility and boundless humility of the people, the luxury and magnificence of court society.
The girl dreamed of happiness, it seemed that the prediction of the old priest heard in childhood was coming true.
With extraordinary perseverance, she learns words and grammar rules of the Russian language. Not content with hours of study with a teacher, she gets up at night and repeats what she has learned. Yes, with such enthusiasm that he forgets to put on his shoes and walks barefoot on the cold floor of the room. Sophia's efforts and successes were reported to the empress. Elizabeth, stating that the princess was already "too smart", ordered her education to be stopped.
Very soon, young Sophia experienced the empress's changeable disposition, the fiancé's imbalance, the neglect and deceit of those around her. In 1745 her wedding with Peter Fedorovich took place, on the eve of which she converted to Orthodoxy and received a new name. From now on, Sophia began to be called the Grand Duchess Ekaterina Alekseevna. But she did not have happiness and confidence in the future. Catherine's relationship with her husband caused much grief and suffering. Peter Fedorovich from infancy was considered in Europe as the heir to several crowns. He lost his father early and was raised by courtiers belonging to opposing political parties. As a result, the character of Pyotr Fedorovich was distorted by the claims and intrigues of those around him. Catherine called in her notes the temper of her husband "stubborn and quick-tempered." Both - both husband and wife - were power-hungry; clashes between them were frequent and often led to quarrels.
The Empress looked at Catherine with suspicion. The Grand Duchess, surrounded day and night by informers and spies, had to carefully control all her words and deeds. Upon learning of the death of her father, she could not even grieve enough. Her sadness and tears irritated Elizaveta Petrovna, who was superstitiously afraid of everything that could remind her of her impending death. It was announced to Catherine that her father was not so noble as to cry about him for a long time.
The position of the Grand Duchess did not change even after her long-awaited son-heir Pavel was born, and then a daughter. The Empress immediately took the children under her care, believing that only she could raise them reasonably and with dignity. Parents have rarely been able to find out how their children grow up, and even more rarely - to see them.
It seemed that fate laughed at Catherine: she beckoned her with the brilliance of the Russian crown, but gave her more hardships and sorrows than pleasures and power. But the strength of character (“the temper of the soul,” as the future empress said) allowed her not to get lost in the most difficult periods of her life. Catherine read a lot in those years. At first she was fond of fashionable novels, but her inquisitive mind demanded more, and she discovered books of a completely different content. These were the works of French enlighteners - Voltaire, Montesquieu, D "Alembert, the works of historians, naturalists, economists, lawyers, philosophers and philologists. Catherine reflected, compared what she read with Russian reality, made notes, kept a diary in which she entered her thoughts.
The following phrases now appeared in the diary of the Grand Duchess: “Freedom is the soul of all things; everything is dead without you." No wonder the Empress suspected Catherine of sedition. The Grand Duchess wrote down in her diary the ideas she adopted from the writings of the French philosophers of the Enlightenment and flavored with remarkable ambition: “I want obedience to the laws, not slaves; power without popular trust means nothing to someone who wants to be loved and glorious; indulgence, the conciliatory spirit of the sovereign will make more than millions of laws, and political freedom will give a soul to everything. It is often better to suggest reforms than to prescribe them; It is better to suggest than to indicate.
Catherine said that she had the soul of a republican, that she could live in Athens and Sparta. But all around was Russia, where, according to one of the contemporaries of the future empress, even in the capital the streets are paved with ignorance "three yards thick."
Nevertheless, Catherine managed to get used to this country and strove to love it. Having mastered the Russian language, she read chronicles, ancient codes of laws, biographies of the great princes, kings and fathers of the Church. Not satisfied with reading, she asked those around her, who still remembered the rebellious freemen of the archers from the time of the ruler Sophia, the reign of Peter I, who remade Russia with a rack, a whip and an ax. She was told about the stern Empress Anna Ioannovna and, finally, about the accession to the throne and the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna. Impressed by everything she read and heard, Catherine thought that the country could become powerful and rich only in the hands of a wise and enlightened sovereign. And she dreamed of taking on this role. About her desire for power, she wrote: “I wish only good for the country where God has brought me; the glory of the country is my own.”
So far, these were just dreams, but Catherine, with her inherent perseverance and diligence, set about making them come true.
In comparison with the capricious, aging Empress, weak-willed and unpredictable in actions, Peter Fedorovich, Catherine won a lot in the opinion of the majority of the courtiers. Yes, and foreign diplomats paid tribute to the Grand Duchess. Over the years spent at court, she learned to cope with her feelings and ardent temperament, always appeared calm and friendly, simple and courteous.
Slowly but stubbornly, she won and forever tied the hearts of those around her to herself, often turning ardent ill-wishers into her ardent adherents. One of Catherine's contemporaries wrote that “from the very moment of her arrival in Petersburg, the Grand Duchess tried with all her means to acquire universal love, and now she is not only loved, but also feared. Many who are on the best terms with the Empress do not miss the opportunity to please the hand of the Grand Duchess.
1.2. Ascension to the throne and the beginning of the reign.
According to the law on succession to the throne, Catherine was intended only for the role of regent for a minor heir, Paul. But after the death of Peter I, who left no male heirs, Russia was ruled mainly by women, and Russians got used to the idea that a sovereign could lead the country.
Catherine, with her strong character, was not satisfied with the role of regent, besides, she understood that on the throne her son would become only a toy of parties, like Peter II. And when Panin, Pavel's teacher, drew up a note that the empress should be the ruler, and to which she agreed, the guards regiments opposed this and proclaimed Catherine the autocratic empress.
Thus, by a palace coup on June 28, 1762, not an accidental woman was erected to the Russian throne, as happened more than once in the history of Russia, but a man who had been preparing for a long time and purposefully to assume this role.
Now she had to govern a country in which the treasury was empty, the monopoly crushed trade and industry, the factory peasants and serfs were worried about rumors of freedom, now and then renewed.
The empress herself, seven years after the coup, when her position on the throne had become sufficiently strong, described the state of the country in the year when she took the throne: finances were in a state of disrepair, there were not even estimates of income and expenses, the army did not receive salaries, the navy was rotten, fortresses were destroyed, everywhere the people suffered from the arbitrariness and extortion of ministers, an unjust court reigned everywhere, prisons were overflowing with convicts, 49,000 peasants assigned to the Ural factories were in disobedience, and 150,000 landlord and monastic peasants in European Russia.
The empress immediately energetically took up the solution of current affairs. On the fifth or sixth day of her reign, Catherine attended the Senate, which she ordered to convene at the Summer Palace in order to speed up the course of affairs.
The Senate began with the idea of an extreme shortage of money. From that day until September 1, when Catherine went to Moscow for the coronation, she was present in the Senate 15 times, which amazed all the advisers, since Peter had not actually been there even once during his entire reign.
Her direct participation in management gave a significant impetus to the development of the country's economy.
Section 2
Domestic policy.
2.1. Laid commission
Shortly after her accession to the throne, Catherine discovered that one of the significant shortcomings of Russian life was the obsolescence of legislation: a collection of laws was published under Alexei Mikhailovich, and life has since changed beyond recognition. The empress saw the need for great work on the collection and revision of laws. Catherine II decided to draw up a new Code. She read many works by foreign scholars on the state system and the court. Of course, she understood that not everything is applicable to Russian life.
The empress believed that laws should be consistent with the needs of the country, with the concepts and customs of the people. For this, it was decided to convene elected (deputies) from various estates of the state to develop a new Code. This assembly of elected officials was called the Commission for the drafting of a new Code. The commission was supposed to inform the government about the needs and wishes of the population, and then work out drafts of new, better laws.
The commission was solemnly opened in 1767 by Catherine II herself in Moscow, in the Palace of the Facets. 567 deputies were gathered: from the nobility (from each county), merchants, state peasants, as well as settled foreigners. Borrowing widely the ideas of leading Western thinkers, for this Commission, Catherine drew up the “Instruction of the commission on the drafting of a new code”. These were the rules on the basis of which the new Code should be drawn up and by which the deputies were to be guided. "Instruction" was distributed to all deputies. But since the introduction of laws is in the jurisdiction of the Tsar, the commission had to draw up proposals. Catherine II worked on "Instruction" for more than two years. In "Instruction" Catherine talks about the state, laws, punishments, court proceedings, education and other issues. “Instruction” showed both knowledge of the matter and love for people. The empress wanted to introduce into the legislation more gentleness and respect for the person. "Order" was greeted with enthusiasm everywhere. In particular, Catherine demanded mitigation of punishments: “love for the fatherland, shame and fear of reproach are taming means and able to refrain from many crimes.” She also demanded the abolition of punishments that could disfigure the human body. Catherine opposed the use of torture. She considered torture harmful, since the weak may not endure torture and confess to what he did not commit, and the strong, even having committed a crime, will be able to endure torture and escape punishment. She demanded especially great caution from the judges. “Better to acquit 10 guilty than to blame one innocent.” Another wise saying: "it is much better to prevent crimes than to punish them." But how to do that? It is necessary that people honor the laws and strive for virtue. “The most reliable, but also the most difficult means to make people better is to perfect education.” If you want to prevent crime, make sure that enlightenment spreads among people.
It also seemed necessary to Catherine to grant self-government to the nobility and the urban estate. Catherine II thought about the liberation of the peasants from serfdom. But the abolition of serfdom did not take place. The "Instruction" refers to how the landowners should treat the peasants: not to burden taxes, to levy taxes that do not force the peasants to leave home, and so on. At the same time, she spread the idea that for the good of the state, the peasants should be given freedom.
The commission was divided into 19 committees, which were supposed to deal with various branches of legislation. It soon became clear that many deputies did not understand what they were called for, and although the deputies took the matter seriously, the work went very slowly. There were cases when the general meeting, without finishing consideration of one issue, moved on to another. The task entrusted to the Commission was large and complex, and it was not so easy to acquire the appropriate skills. Catherine transferred the Commission to St. Petersburg, however, in St. Petersburg for a year the Commission not only did not start drawing up a new Code, but did not even develop a single section of it. Catherine was unhappy with this. Many deputies from the nobility in 1768 had to go to war with the Turks. Catherine announced the closing of the general meetings of the Commission. But individual committees continued to work for several more years.
We can say that the activities of the Commission on the Code ended in failure. The commission gave Catherine II a substantive lesson about the impossibility of realizing the theoretical constructions of European philosophers on Russian soil. The chance that history gave Russia was not and could not be realized. The dissolution of the Legislative Commission was for Catherine a farewell to illusions in the field of domestic politics.
Nevertheless, although the Commission did not draw up the Code, it did familiarize the Empress with the needs of the country. Using the work of the commission, Catherine II issued many important laws. Catherine herself wrote that she "received light and information about the entire Empire, with whom to deal, and who should be taken care of." Now she could act quite consciously and definitely.
The legal system of the “lawful monarchy” consisted in the creation of a system of class courts and a conscientious court, in the improvement of investigative procedures, and changes in the police department. Catherine II tried to achieve public peace through police regulation on the basis of "compulsion to virtue" through the implementation of just laws.
Catherine II well understood the place of Russia in the world of that time. She did not blindly copy European models, but was at the level of the then world political knowledge. She sought to use the European experience to reform the country, where there was neither private property nor bourgeois civil society, but, on the contrary, there was a traditionally developed state economy, dominated by serfdom.
In 1765, the Free Economic Society (VEO) was established in the interests of the nobility. One of the oldest in the world and the first economic society in Russia (free - formally independent of government departments) was established in St. Petersburg by large landowners who, in the conditions of the growth of the market and commercial agriculture, sought to rationalize agriculture and increase the productivity of serf labor. The foundation of the VEO was one of the manifestations of the policy of enlightened absolutism. The VEO began its activity by announcing competitive tasks, publishing the Proceedings of the VEO (1766-1915, more than 280 volumes) and appendices to them. The first competition was announced on the initiative of the empress herself in 1766: “What is the property of the farmer (peasant) in the land he cultivates, or in movables, and what right should he have for both for the benefit of the people?”. Of the 160 answers by Russian and foreign authors, the most progressive was the work of the jurist A.Ya. Polenov, who criticized serfdom. The answer aroused dissatisfaction with the competition committee of the VEO and was not published. Until 1861, 243 competitive tasks of a socio-economic and scientific-economic nature were announced. Socio-economic issues concerned three problems: 1) land ownership and serf relations, 2) the comparative advantage of corvée and dues, 3) the use of hired labor in agriculture.
The activities of the VEO contributed to the introduction of new crops, new types of agriculture, and the development of economic relations.
In the field of industry and trade, Catherine II (by a decree of 1767 and a manifesto of 1775) proclaimed the principle of freedom of entrepreneurial activity, which was beneficial primarily to the nobility: it had serf labor resources, had cheap raw materials, and received subsidies from state and class credit institutions. The nobility, including the middle class, embarked on the path of feudal entrepreneurship and the number of patrimonial manufactories began to grow. The growth of peasant manufactories also played into the hands of the nobility, since many entrepreneurial peasants were serfs.
Finally, the departure of quitrent peasants to the city to earn money was also convenient for the landowner, who was striving to get more cash. There were few capitalist, that is, based on hired labor, enterprises, and wage workers were often not personally free, but serfs on earnings. Forms of industry based on various types of forced labor were absolutely predominant. At the beginning of the reign of Catherine in Russia there were 655 industrial enterprises, by the end of 2294.
2.2. Church policy.
Two significant events took place in the history of the church under Catherine II: the secularization of the possessions of the clergy, as well as the proclamation of religious tolerance, the cessation of the policy of forcible Christianization and the persecution of non-Christians.
Above was noted the promise of Catherine, given upon accession to the throne, not to encroach on the possessions of the church. This was a tactical move by the empress, designed to appease the clergy, who, if not openly, then covertly hostile, perceived the manifesto of Peter III on secularization, and contradicted the convictions of Voltaire's student. As soon as Catherine felt the inability of the clergy to seriously resist secularization plans, she created a commission of secular and clergymen, which was entrusted with deciding the fate of church land ownership. The Empress even prepared an emotionally rich accusatory speech before the members of the Synod, ending with the words: “Do not hesitate to return to my crown what you stole from her imperceptibly, gradually.” The need for pathetic speech disappeared, the synodals showed humility and obedience. The only hierarch who dared to openly raise his voice against secularization was Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich of Rostov.
Is it fair to consider Arseny's protest a serious threat to secular power, and should Catherine have taken decisive measures to stop the impending danger? Arseniy could not frustrate the secularization plans of the Empress, and she understood this very well. And if Catherine prepared a severe punishment for the rebel, then this action of hers most likely had a personal background - undisguised hostility: Arseny, intemperate in language, allowed himself to speak sharply and unflatteringly about the empress, and this review turned out to be known to her.
Implementation of the Manifesto February 26, 1764 about the secularization of church possessions had two important consequences. The manifesto finally resolved the age-old dispute about the fate of church estates in favor of secular power, 910,866 souls of m.p. were transferred to the treasury from church institutions. The established one and a half ruble dues from the former monastic peasants, who were called economic, ensured the receipt of 1366 thousand annual dues (1764-1768) into the treasury, of which only a third was released for the maintenance of monasteries and churches, 250 thousand were spent on hospitals and almshouses, and the rest money (over 644 thousand rubles) replenished the state budget. In the 1780s, the quitrent amount reached 3 million, and together with other economic income - 4 million rubles), of which only half a million was spent on the maintenance of the clergy, and seven-eighths of the income went to the state.
From now on, each monastery had government-approved states of monastics and principals, for the maintenance of which a strictly fixed amount was released. The clergy thus became completely dependent on the state both economically and administratively. The clergy were elevated to the rank of officials in cassocks.
Another consequence of secularization was the improvement in the position of the former monastic peasants. Work in the monastic corvee was replaced by a cash quitrent, which to a lesser extent regulated the economic activities of the peasants. Economic peasants, in addition to the areas they previously cultivated, received part of the monastic lands for use. Finally, the economic peasants were freed from patrimonial jurisdiction: courts of monastic authorities, torture, etc.
In accordance with the ideas of the Enlightenment, Catherine adhered to a policy of tolerance towards non-believers. Under the pious Elizaveta Petrovna, the Old Believers continued to be charged a double soul tax, attempts were made to return them to the bosom of true Orthodoxy, and they were excommunicated from the church. The Old Believers responded to persecution with actions of self-immolation - fires, as well as flight either to remote places or outside the country. Peter III allowed the Old Believers free worship. The tolerance of Catherine II extended beyond the tolerance of her husband. In 1763 she abolished the schismatic office, established in 1725. to collect a double poll tax, and a tax on beards. From the double capitation exempted from 1764. Old Believers who did not shy away from "the sacraments of the Church from Orthodox priests."
The tolerant attitude of the government towards the Old Believers contributed to the economic prosperity of the Old Believer centers in Starodub, Kerzhents and others, where rich merchants appeared. Moscow merchants-Old Believers in the early 70s of the XVIII century. created the Rogozhskaya and Preobrazhenskaya communities - organizations that owned large capitals and gradually subjugated the Old Believer communities on the outskirts of Russia to their influence.
Tolerance was manifested in the cessation of infringement of the rights of Muslims. Those of them who converted to Orthodoxy were no longer given advantages in inheriting property, Catherine allowed the Tatars to build mosques and open madrasahs that trained Muslim clergy.
In general, the secularization of church lands in the second half of the XVIII century. allowed the state to increase the land fund intended for grants to the nobility, finally made the clergy dependent on autocratic power.
2.3. Administrative activity.
2.3.1. General survey.
In 1765, the State Land Survey, begun in 1754 by Elizaveta Petrovna, received its continuation. In order to streamline landownership, it was necessary to accurately determine the boundaries of the landholdings of individuals, peasant communities, cities, churches and other landowners. General land surveying was caused by frequent land disputes.
Checking the old property rights caused stubborn resistance among the nobility, since by the middle of the 18th century the landowners owned numerous unauthorized seized state lands.
The general survey was preceded by the creation of March 05, 1765. Commissions on general land surveying and then the publication of the Manifesto on September 19, 1765. with the "general rules" attached to it. According to the manifesto, the government presented the landlords with a huge fund of land, numbering about 70 million acres (about 70 million hectares). The actual possessions of the landowners for 1765 were declared legalized in the manifesto in the absence of a dispute over them. (The number of disputes about general land surveying is negligible - about 10% of all "dachas"). In 1766, on the basis of the “general rules”, instructions were issued for land surveyors and boundary provincial offices and provincial offices. In the process of general land surveying, lands were assigned not to owners, but to cities and villages.
The instructions regulated in detail the terms of land allotment to various categories of the population and institutions. Plans were drawn up for individual land "dachas" on a scale of 100 sazhens per inch (1:8400), which were then reduced to general district plans on a scale of 1 verst per inch (1:42000). The specificity of the general land surveying was that the boundaries of the old scribe's "dachas" were taken as the basis for the configuration of one or another property. Because of this, within the framework of the “dacha” there were often the possessions of several persons or the joint possessions of the landowner and state peasants. The general land surveying was accompanied by the sale of unoccupied state lands at cheap prices.
This took on a particularly large scale in the southern black earth and steppe regions to the detriment of the nomadic and semi-nomadic population. The typical feudal nature of general land surveying was manifested in relation to urban land holdings and seizures. For each built-up sazhen of pasture land, fixed by the latest scribe descriptions, the city paid fines. The general land survey was accompanied by a grandiose theft of the lands of single-palaces, state peasants, yasak peoples, etc. The general land survey was all imperial and mandatory for landowners. It was accompanied by a study of the economic state of the country. All plans contained "economic notes" (on the number of souls, on quitrent and corvee, on the quality of land and forests, on crafts and industrial enterprises, on memorable places, etc.). The unique collection of plans and maps of general land surveying includes about 200 thousand storage units. A surveyor's field note, a field journal and a boundary book were attached to the special plans. The results of the general survey until the October Revolution remained the basis of civil law relations in the field of land law in Russia.
The strengthening of feudal oppression and prolonged wars laid a heavy burden on the masses, and the growing peasant movement grew into a Peasant War under the leadership of E.I. Pugachev 1773-75 The suppression of the uprising determined the transition of Catherine II to a policy of open reaction. If in the first years of her reign, Catherine II pursued a liberal policy, then after the Peasant War, a course was taken to strengthen the dictatorship of the nobility. The period of political romance was replaced by a period of political realism. The Russo-Turkish war (1768-76) became a convenient excuse to suspend internal transformations, and the Pugachev region had a sobering effect, which made it possible to develop new tactics. The golden age of the Russian nobility begins. Satisfaction of precisely noble interests comes to the fore for Catherine II.
2.3.2. Provincial reform of 1775
In 1775, in order to make it easier to manage the state, Catherine II issued the Institution for the Administration of Provinces, which strengthened the local bureaucracy and increased the number of provinces to 50. There were no more than 400 thousand inhabitants per province. Several provinces constituted the vicegerency.
Governors and governors were elected by Catherine II herself from Russian nobles. They acted according to her orders. The governor's assistants were the vice-governor, two provincial councilors and the provincial prosecutor. This provincial government was in charge of all affairs. State revenues were in charge of the Treasury Chamber (revenues and expenditures of the treasury, state property, farming, monopolies, etc.).
The vice-governor headed the Treasury Chamber. The provincial prosecutor was in charge of all judicial institutions. In the cities, the position of mayor appointed by the government was introduced. The province was divided into counties. Many large villages were turned into county towns. In the county, power belonged to the police captain elected by the noble assembly. Each county town has a court. In the provincial city - the highest court. The accused could also bring a complaint to the Senate. To make it easier to pay taxes, a Treasury was opened in each county town.
A system of class courts was created: for each class (nobles, townspeople, state peasants) their own special judicial institutions. Some of them introduced the principle of elected judges.
The center of gravity in the management moved to the field. There was no need for a number of boards - they were abolished; the Military, Naval, Foreign and Commerce Colleges remained.
The system of local government created by the provincial reform of 1775 was preserved until 1864, and the administrative-territorial division introduced by it - until the October Revolution.
2.3.3. Complaint letters.
In order to formalize the estate privileges of the nobility in 1785, a Letter of Complaint to the nobility was issued. “Charter on the rights of liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility” was a set of noble privileges, formalized by the legislative act of Catherine II of April 21, 1785. Under Peter I, the nobility carried out lifelong military and other service to the state, but already under Anna Ioannovna it was possible to limit this service to 25 years. The nobles got the opportunity to start their service not with an ordinary or simple sailor, but with an officer, having passed the noble military school. Peter III issued a decree on the freedom of the nobility, giving the right to serve or not to serve, but this decree was suspended. Now, the freedom of the nobles from compulsory service was confirmed. The complete liberation of the nobility made sense for several reasons: 1) there was a sufficient number of trained people who were knowledgeable in various matters of military and civil administration; 2) the nobles themselves were aware of the need to serve the state and considered it an honor to shed blood for the fatherland; 3) when the nobles were cut off from the lands all their lives, the farms fell into decay, which adversely affected the country's economy. Now many of them could manage their own peasants. And the attitude towards the peasants on the part of the owner was much better than on the part of an accidental manager. The landowner was interested in ensuring that his peasants were not ruined. With a letter of grant, the nobility was recognized as the leading class in the state and exempted from paying taxes, they could not be subjected to corporal punishment, only a court of nobility could judge. Only nobles had the right to own land and serfs, they also owned subsoil in their estates, they could engage in trade and set up factories, their houses were free from standing troops, their estates were not subject to confiscation. The nobility received the right to self-government, constituted a “noble society”, the body of which was a noble assembly, convened every three years in the province and district, which elected provincial and district marshals of the nobility, court assessors and police captains who headed the district administration. With this charter, the nobility was encouraged to participate widely in local government. Under Catherine II, the nobles occupied the positions of local executive and judicial authorities. The charter granted to the nobility was supposed to strengthen the position of the nobility and consolidate its privileges.
Contributed to greater consolidation of the ruling class. Its action was also extended to the nobles of the Baltic States, Ukraine, Belarus and the Don. The charter granted to the nobility testified to the desire of Russian absolutism to strengthen its social support in an atmosphere of exacerbation of class contradictions. The nobility turned into the politically dominant class in the state.
Along with the Charter to the nobility on April 21, 1785. saw the light of the Letter of Complaint to the cities. This legislative act of Catherine II established new elective city institutions, somewhat expanding the circle of voters.
The townspeople were divided into six categories according to property and social characteristics: “real city dwellers” - owners of real estate from nobles, officials, and clergy; merchants of three guilds; artisans registered in workshops; foreigners and non-residents; "eminent citizens"; “townspeople”, i.e. all other citizens who live in the city by trade or needlework. These ranks according to the Letter of Complaint to the cities received the foundations of self-government, in a certain sense similar to the foundations of the Letter of Complaint to the nobility. Once every three years, a meeting of the “city society” was convened, which included only the most wealthy citizens. The permanent city institution was the "general city council", consisting of the mayor and six vowels. Magistrates were elected judicial institutions in the cities. However, the privileges of the townspeople against the backdrop of permissiveness of the nobility turned out to be imperceptible, the city self-government bodies were tightly controlled by the tsarist administration - an attempt to lay the foundations of the bourgeois class failed.
In addition to the Charter to the nobility and the Charter to the cities, Catherine II also developed the Charter to the peasantry (it was addressed only to state peasants). “Rural position” was a completely finished project. He did not contradict the "Instruction". However, this project was not implemented.
Throughout the reign of Catherine II, there was a discussion of how to alleviate the fate of the serfs. The empress herself was an opponent of serfdom. She, at the beginning of her reign, dreamed of freeing the peasants from serfdom. She could not do this, firstly, because she did not meet with sympathy among many close associates, and secondly, because the views of Catherine II herself changed after the Pugachev rebellion.
2.4. Peasant war and its consequences.
In 1773 Don Cossack Emelyan Pugachev took the name of Peter III and raised the banner of rebellion. Catherine entrusted the suppression of the rebellion to Bibikov, who immediately understood the essence of the matter; It's not Pugachev that matters, he said, it's the general displeasure that matters. The Bashkirs, Kalmyks, and Kirghiz joined the Yaik Cossacks and the rebellious peasants. Bibikov, ordering from Kazan, moved detachments from all sides to more dangerous places; Prince Golitsyn liberated Orenburg, Mikhelson - Ufa, Mansurov - Yaitsky town. At the beginning of 1774 the rebellion began to subside, but Bibikov died of exhaustion, and the rebellion flared up again; Pugachev captured Kazan and moved to the right bank of the Volga. Bibikov's place was taken by Count Panin, but did not replace him. Mikhelson defeated Pugachev near Arzamas and blocked his path to Moscow. Pugachev rushed to the south, took Penza, Petrovsk, Saratov and hanged the nobles everywhere. From Saratov, he moved to Tsaritsyn, but was repulsed and again defeated by Mikhelson near Cherny Yar. When Suvorov arrived at the army, the impostor held on a little and was soon betrayed by his accomplices. In January 1775 Pugachev was executed in Moscow.
The Peasant War drew a clear dividing line in the balance of social forces: in the struggle against the rebellious peasantry, the main support of the autocracy was the nobility. But merchants and industrialists also found themselves in a camp hostile to the peasantry. This fact perhaps most convincingly characterizes the low level of development of capitalist relations and the equally low level of class consciousness of the emerging bourgeoisie. Receiving privileges from the feudal state, using the resources of the feudal system, merchants and industrialists did not oppose either autocracy or serfdom. Moreover, the merchants and industrialists in the Legislative Commission, as noted above, demanded not the elimination of noble privileges and bourgeois equality, but the provision of them themselves.
The fruits of "true triumph" tasted, first of all, the nobility. At the same time, the government appreciated the loyalty to the old order of industrialists and the top merchants. The government policy of the next decades was aimed at satisfying the aspirations of the nobility and merchants.
The government organized special banks that issued loans to landlords and breeders to restore the economy on extremely favorable terms - they received a loan for a period of 10 years against the mortgage of estates and factories, and during the first three years from 1%, and the remaining seven years from 3% per annum .
The Peasant War revealed the weakness of local authorities, their inability to maintain silence on their own. That is why the cares of the empress were aimed at improving the regional administration, the reform of which was planned to be carried out even before the peasant war. Catherine informed Voltaire in 1775. about the fact that the "Institution of the Province" published - which contained 215 printed pages ... and, as they say, was in no way inferior to the "Instruction". The introduction to this document indicated the shortcomings that caused the need for reform: the vastness of the provinces, the insufficient number of government bodies, the shift in various cases in them.
The implementation of the regional reform pursued protective and fiscal goals. Instead of the previously existing division of the territory of Russia into provinces, provinces and districts, a two-member division into provinces and districts was introduced, which was based on the principle of the size of the taxable population: 300-400 thousand souls were supposed to live in the province, and in the districts --20-- -30 thousand
As a result of the reform, instead of 23 provinces, 50 were created. Another consequence of the regional reform was that it significantly increased the staff of officials. And since all the highest and middle positions in the provincial and district administration were filled by nobles, the latter received a new source of income: usually retired officers served in provincial and district institutions.
The regional reform almost doubled the number of cities in the country: all the locations of the provincial and county administrations were declared cities, and their population - philistines and merchants. There are 216 new cities.
The first to whom tsarism dealt a blow were the Zaporozhye Cossacks, who had long attracted active elements into their midst, ready to oppose serfdom. At the beginning of June 1775. the troops of General Tekeli, returning from the Russian-Turkish war, suddenly attacked the Zaporozhian Sich and completely destroyed it. In the manifesto, which informed the population of Russia about this event, Catherine wrote that the Cossacks allegedly thought of making themselves a completely independent region, under their own control. After the Peace of Jassy in 1791. the bulk of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks were resettled in the Kuban.
The spread of the provincial reform to the Left-bank Ukraine led in the early 80s. to the abolition of the administrative division into regiments and hundreds there and the introduction of governorships, provinces and counties. All military regalia, reminiscent of the former autonomy of Ukraine (banners, seals, etc.), were delivered to St. Petersburg. Thus, the remnants of Ukraine's autonomy and elements of its national statehood were finally liquidated.
The implementation of the reform on the Don was accompanied by the creation of the Military Civil Government, which copied the provincial administration of the central regions of Russia. In Estonia and Livonia, a special Baltic order was abolished, which provided for more extensive rights than the Russian landowners had for local nobles to work and the personality of a peasant. The Baltic states as a result of the regional reform in 1782-1783. was divided into two provinces - Riga and Revel - with institutions that existed in other provinces of Russia.
The government of the peoples of the Middle Volga region, Siberia and other regions was also unified, and the government, while carrying out the provincial reform there, often ignored the ethnic composition of the population. So, the territory of Mordovia was divided between four provinces: Penza, Simbirsk, Tambov and Nizhny Novgorod. Siberia was divided into three provinces: Tobolsk, Kolyvan and Irkutsk. The provincial and district administration relied on the local elite: princes, taishas and zaisans, who carried out court and reprisals.
Simultaneously with the implementation of the regional reform, the government carried out a number of measures in favor of the merchants. Manifesto of 1775. freedom of enterprise was declared. It was the second step in this direction. Catherine made the first in 1762, abolishing monopolies in trade and industry.
Similar Documents
General characteristics of the era of "enlightened absolutism". Childhood and youth of Catherine, accession to the throne and the beginning of the reign. Marriage with Peter III, concern for the welfare of the country and people. Enlightened absolutism of Catherine II, legislative activity.
abstract, added 04/06/2011
Personality of Catherine II. Ascension to the throne and the beginning of the reign. Caring for the welfare of the country and people. Enlightened absolutism of Catherine II. Legislative activity. Preventing the "impoverishment" of the nobility. Free Economic Society.
abstract, added 06/20/2004
International relations at the beginning of the reign of Catherine II. First Russo-Turkish War. Second Russo-Turkish War. Russian-Swedish war. Sections of the Commonwealth. Catherine II and the French Revolution.
abstract, added 06/11/2006
Historiography of the Catherine's era of the imperial (pre-revolutionary) and Soviet periods. Personality and political activity of Catherine II: ascension to the throne; domestic and foreign policy; political legacy. Peasant war and its consequences.
thesis, added 05/24/2014
Characteristics of the personality and the beginning of the reign of Empress Catherine II. Enlightened absolutism as a policy of the reign of the great empress. "Nakaz" and the Commission 1767-1768. Complaint letter to the cities and the nobility. The essence of the judicial reform of Catherine II.
presentation, added 04/29/2013
Who are you Ekaterina? Origin, childhood, youth. Ascension to the throne. The first years of the reign. Domestic policy of Catherine II. Manifesto, decrees, implementation of reforms. The uprising led by Pugachev. enlightened absolutism.
abstract, added 04/29/2002
Childhood, baptism in the Orthodox faith, marriage, palace coup, accession to the throne of Catherine II. Wars with Turkey and Poland. Peasant war led by Pugachev. Consequences of serfdom. attitude towards education.
abstract, added 09/19/2009
Origin, upbringing and education of Catherine II. Life in Russia before accession to the throne. The nature and form of government. Attitude to religion and serfdom. Domestic and foreign policy. Russian-Turkish war. Personal life and death of Catherine.
presentation, added 09/13/2013
Wars, domestic and foreign policy of the Safavids in 1520-1578. War of the Safavid state with Turkey (1578-1590). Turkish campaign against Tabriz in 1583. Ascension to the throne of Abbas I. Iranian-Turkish wars. Class struggle, the rise of Adil Shah.
abstract, added 01/28/2010
Biography of Empress Catherine II. Revolution, beginning of government. Politics of enlightened absolutism. The Imperial Council and the Reformation of the Senate. Laid commission, provincial reform. Liquidation of the Zaporozhian Sich. National and estate policy.
Vitaly Voropanov
National-religious issue in judicial policy
Catherine II*
The administrative and judicial reform carried out by the government of Catherine II after 1775 and aimed at strengthening the political system of Russia was inextricably linked with the processes of formation of large estates outlined by the legislation of Peter the Great1. Creating a stable structure of a class society, the autocratic government sought to ensure the rights of citizens through the inclusion of special institutions in the law enforcement and law enforcement mechanism of the state. The tasks of unifying the forms and types of state administration were solved taking into account the studied historical, cultural, and geographical features of all regions of the empire. The imperial principle of social and legal differentiation was considered as a factor in weakening inter-class contradictions, bringing Russians closer to the indigenous inhabitants of the eastern provinces, and was assessed as an important policy tool in relation to the peoples living near the Russian borders.
The composition of the subjects of the growing state remained in the last third of the 18th century. extremely heterogeneous. Spontaneous Russification contributed to the establishment of broad ties among the population, but the legal status of ethnically, culturally, and socially close groups was different. Overcoming the historically established fragmentation was carried out through the abolition of special "societies" and the consolidation of individual estates. “State liberalism” was manifested in the refusal to force class processes, in the confirmation of “rights, advantages, liberties, statutes and privileges”2 that were in force in certain regions. Legislative consolidation of the status position of a part of the subjects led to changes in the local judiciary, the object and territorial competence of local judicial institutions.
The experience of administrative reform was acquired by the government in the original Russian lands and in the western territories annexed to the empire in the early 1970s. 18th century The provinces of Tver and Smolensk, established by decree of November 25, 1775, were chosen as "exemplary" ones. Decrees on the establishment of 11 more provinces followed. The number of judicial seats was established in accordance with the number and composition of the population, as well as the area of the provinces. The new practice of selecting candidates for judges assumed the participation of persons whose moral qualities and social status were not in doubt among the voters and supervisory authorities5, which, from the legislator’s point of view, was a guarantee of the promised justice in the “public places”6.
Ethnic nobility (from the Tatar murz7 to the Moldavian boyars8), which poured into the first estate of the empire, entered the department of the district and upper zemstvo courts, having received the right to participate in the elections of estate assessors in the collegiums of the 1st and 2nd instances. The insularity of the Baltic nobility aroused objections from the Empress, who proposed that all persons of noble birth living in the provinces be allowed to participate in the elections, except for those who were born. On the relationship of autocracy with
* The article was prepared with the support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project No. 04-06-96020).
the upper social strata were influenced by the circumstances of political life. Worthy "by loyalty and ability" aristocrats of the abolished Crimean Khanate were allowed to fill vacancies in the third instance - the judicial chambers. “... So that for these new Our subjects the path to the civil service and to receiving ranks in it was open,” the monarch explained10. The gentry of the Belarusian lands went through a filtration after the Polish military-political indignation in the late 80s - early 90s.11 Having taken control of the lands that had belonged to the Polish crown for 400 years, Catherine II was in no hurry to extend the “Institutions about provinces” to them in full . The judiciary in Lithuania and Belarus determined political interests12.
Persons of urban estates were in the competence of magistrates and town halls. The ancient management of affairs in the cities of the Baltic region in 1763 was secured by charters13, but the right to choose class judges in 1785 extended to all townspeople who met the established qualifications14. Having determined the conditions for the formation of the urban population,15 the empress consistently affirmed ethno-cultural and religious tolerance in public relations. In January 1785, Catherine II admitted to class merchant positions the burghers who did not have “any obvious personal vice”, and informed the Governor-General of Tambov and Ryazan that in the empire this order applies not only to Christians of all denominations, but also to Jews and Muslims. and pagans. “Everyone, according to his rank and status, should enjoy the benefits and rights without distinction between the law and the people,” the Governing Senate stated in a regular decree, reflecting the position of the autocratic monarch16. The Jewish monarch recommended, if possible, to relocate to cities with subordination to magistrates, “so that these people do not wander to the detriment of society, but by trading and multiplying needlework and crafts, they bring profit and benefit to society”17. In matters of spiritual jurisdiction, the Jews were subordinate to the county and provincial kahals18. The "benefits" associated with economic rights were abolished with the inclusion of Jews in the estates19. By maintaining the validity of Polish laws in the western provinces,20 the Empress weakened legal discrimination against representatives of the ancient stateless nation, “because,” Catherine II declared, “on entering. in an equal condition with others, and paying equal taxes to the treasury, also bearing others on a par with
other burdens, should in any case be protected and satisfied to be on a par with
other subjects of Her Imperial Majesty's. By 1795, the transfer of Jews to the number of merchants and petty bourgeois was allowed in 10 provinces. From July 1, 1794 it was
confirmed double taxation of Jews who are not included in any of the Russian
estates. The exclusion from their number of the Jewish population of Crimea did not apply
to the rabbis.
Recalling the importance of the formation of the “third” estate, the opening of institutions of estate jurisdiction in Ukrainian “settlements and towns”, Catherine II warned authorized persons “so that every
coercion, even more touching someone's property; but so that good will and conviction in one's own benefit serve as a guide to the formation of philistine and merchant societies. The “schismatics”, who experienced social tensions with the “Orthodox”, were confirmed the right to form independent judiciary boards25.
Encouraging the development of economic ties between the regions of the empire with neighboring countries, the settlement and acceptance of citizenship by merchant families, the government granted the ethno-religious groups of townspeople living in corporate life the right to resolve their cases in verbal courts on the basis of customary legal norms. "Societies" numbering from 500 families could apply for the opening of separate town halls. In the southern provinces, Armenian and Greek diasporas received privileges. Having formed a national magistrate and subordinating the Armenian-Tatar population of Astrakhan to state law, the supreme power left the “internal jurisdiction” to the “welfare” of the commercial
community, establishing a special procedure for dealing with cases of subjects with temporarily residing in Astrakhan tribesmen. Decree of January 13, 1765
provided for the organization of the "Court of Astrakhan Asians" with separate rooms for
Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Hindus - "idolaters". In response to the request of the Governor-General in 1786 about the possibility of introducing Armenian assessors to the regional magistrate and conscientious court, the monarch referred to the current law, which provided such a right27. For Christians from beyond the Caucasus Range who entered the department
spiritual authorities of the Orthodox and Catholic branches, it was planned to establish new
cities according to their distribution.
By a decree of September 1, 1785, the national magistrate, subordinate to the Chernihiv provincial magistrate, replaced the court of the Greek "brotherhood" in Nizhyn. Customary law continued to be applied in verbal and arbitration courts in resolving disputes between subjects and foreign Greeks29. The "Vospor" Greek magistrate with a seat in Yenikal received state support30. In 1792, the Turks living in Nikolaev were encouraged with benefits and state loans, the possibility of building a city mosque and choosing national judges who applied, at the request of the diaspora, the norms of Russian legislation31.
The city courts of the Urals and Siberia had no official differences, providing protection to the townsfolk regardless of their ethnic origin and religious affiliation, however, in the Tobolsk governorship, by a decree of December 9, 1787, trade settlers from Central Asia (“Tashkents” and “Bukharians” were excluded from the competence of magistrates "") - Tajiks, Uzbeks, Uighurs, numbering in 1786 2704
In 1775, lower and upper massacres were established by the estates to deal with the affairs of the rural population. The scope of object jurisdiction of state courts was unified. The department of reprisals covered the service people of the old estates, including the one-dvorets, arable soldiers, Siberian nobles and boyar children, Cossacks and national service communities, as well as coachmen, free peasants of all ranks, and yasak peoples. The interests of state building demanded the creative intervention of the autocracy in social processes. Simplifying the social structure, the monarch ordered to accept documentation during the 4th revision (1782), “keeping only to the rule that state peasants who are under the same rank and in the same salary should not be divided into many special names”33. Thus, in the Astrakhan province, the special status of “skhodtsy”, “bobyls”, “boldyrs”, “transferrs” and children of newly baptized persons was abolished34. Masses of various migrants from Transcaucasia and the Danube region, as well as the northern districts of Russia35, entered the department of reprisals formed in the southern provinces36. In the future, the government sought to bring together as much as possible the totality of the rights and obligations of state-owned peasants of all ethnic groups and creeds.
So, commenting on the law, in 1782 the Ufa governor-general ordered: “Let the guides be in the lower massacres. just as all those residents of the highest institution are named in Article 335, so are the Tatars serving and paying taxes Cherkasy, Mordovians and Cheremis, Chuvash, Teptyars and Bobyls, and if there is any other rank, the peoples live in the local viceroyalty. ”37 Taking into account the national and cultural and the social and legal heterogeneity of the townsfolk, the provincial leadership formed a board of class assessors. Of the 35 places in the reprisals, 10 were approved for representatives of the Tatar population, 6 - for deputies from Russian peasants, including Old Believers, 5 each - from Teptyars and Bobyls, Mordovian, Chuvash communities, 1 each - from Odnodvortsev and Ukrainians. A retired ensign and a palace peasant were included in the list without specifying ethnic voters38.
In addition to disciplinary and criminal liability, Catherine II considered the religious feelings of her subjects to be an important guarantor of justice. First
the duty of a person who assumed a judicial position was to take an oath, which was of a sacred nature and was carried out with the participation of clergy for assessors of the Christian and Muslim faith39. The invariable attribute of the courtrooms, coupled with the “mirror” and an unsystematic collection of normative acts, were holy images that appealed to the conscience of Orthodox judges40. Adherents of Islam kept the Koran in their "presence"41.
Before the formation of the regions, the crown administration collected objective and accurate information about the origin, number, and cultural characteristics of the indigenous peoples42. Taking into account the compact residence of the autochthonous population, the supreme power provided favorable conditions for culturally isolated groups of subjects to participate in public life. In particular, in the lower reprisals on the territory of the Northern Urals and Western Siberia, decrees fixed the mandatory representation of the Mari, Udmurt, Khanty-Mansi and Tatar populations. Deputies from national communities were introduced by the provincial leadership in
board of the second instance court.
By the end of the 18th century, the most numerous nationality of the Urals consisted of. up to 190 thousand people.44 In the social system, the Bashkirs had a special scope of rights and obligations, their status could formally be extended to representatives of other ethno-social groups45. Having accepted dozens of Bashkir villages in December 1780, the Vyatka governor limited the competence of the lower massacres and the zemstvo police, ordering that legislation be correlated with the mores and customs of the people. Detailed information was requested from the Orenburg administration46.
Close in legal status to the Bashkirs were the Meshcheryaks, who served in the irregular troops. Given the density of settlement and the peculiarities of the "state" of the peoples in January 1782, Catherine II ordered the Ufa governor I.V. Jacobi, assign them to the department of individual courts and introduce additional assessors into the zemstvo police47. Meanwhile, the natural disunity of service, merchant, yasak, suitcase Tatars, who made up a quarter of the inhabitants of the region48, made it easier for the government to unify justice.
By 1785, 5 lower massacres of general and 5 special jurisdiction49 were opened in the Southern Urals, where the Bashkirs filled 80% of the vacancies. In four counties, there were 2 reprisals each, which received serial numbers. Naming by nationality was forbidden. Bashkir deputies occupied 25% (5 out of 20) of the seats in the Ufa and Orenburg upper massacres, 100% (2) in the conscientious
In a similar way, after 1781, reprisals were organized in three Ukrainian provinces so that the Cossacks, “having assessors from among themselves elected, were all the more hopeful in their integrity and in their right to be judged by their equals”51. Questions about the real estate of the prosperous Cossacks, who owned property on the basis of "gentry" rights, were also transferred to the jurisdiction of reprisals52. Competence, positions in Ukrainian courts were brought into line with general imperial norms53.
At the same time, facilitating the adoption of new institutions, the legislator, in part, retained the operation of the existing system of law in the Ukrainian, Belarusian, Lithuanian lands, as well as in the northwestern provinces with a Finnish-speaking population, noting that from the Swedish Code of 1736 “not only Assessors in rural courts, elected by the Highest Institutions, but even the peasants or villagers themselves, as if literate, can draw a decent understanding of business. The obligatory observance of the norms of Swedish law extended to the third instance55.
The tasks of paperwork were facilitated by translators provided for in the staff of not only administrative, but also judicial institutions of the western and southern provinces56. It is known that interpreters were brought into the offices of the five Perm massacres57. AT
In the Sloboda massacre of the Vyatka province, a translator from the Mari language worked, in Nolinskaya - the Udmurt language58. Turkic-speaking employees worked in the Southern Urals59.
When appointing the chairmen of the massacres, the officials' understanding of the cultural characteristics of the collegium members and the population under jurisdiction was taken into account. The governor sent people to Birsk and Chelyabinsk, selected by him "according to their ability and according to the Bashkir and Meshcheryak customs and rituals, finding them worthy of being punished by judges." In particular, A. Mikhailov grew up among the Bashkirs and “acquired sufficient knowledge both in knowledge of their language, and in all manners and turns”, having served in the center of the Iset province since 174660, remaining chairman of the Chelyabinsk 2nd massacre until June 179461 Ufa judge M. Bekchurin before his appointment worked as a translator of Turkic languages62. The “boyar son” A. Kashpirev was sent to the Berezovskaya massacre, who did not have a personnel rank, but for a long time was engaged in receiving yasak among
Having instructed I. V. Yakobi to solve state problems in the Irkutsk and Kolyvan governorships, Catherine II admonished: “Everything that was undertaken during your tenure as governor-general of Ufa, regarding the affectionate treatment of the peoples inhabiting that province, We confirm, and now deigning that you make every effort to unite these peoples with Russian perfect goodwill. Vacancies were recommended to be filled taking into account the existing tribal hierarchy64 from among “honest, prudent, jealous and blameless people”65. Aboriginal people, elected by the ancestors who had gathered in the provincial center, were instructed by the viceroy to act as assessors, “for fear
the knower of the heart of God and the law, shame and reproach from citizens for every sin
against office and truth.
The practical successes of the local administration in cooperation with the tribal leaders were predetermined by the degree of development of the region by the state authorities. The leadership of the remote Siberian regions experienced the greatest difficulties. Providing a formal representation of the population, artificially involved in official legal relations, officials were engaged in explaining to the Tungus, Koryaks and Chukchi the meaning of laws and the ongoing reform, the advantages of the court in reprisals over the voivodship court. One of the primary tasks assigned to employees was the dissemination of knowledge of the Russian language and literacy. The measures taken against the unauthorized leaving of institutions amounted to the deprivation of the right to be elected in the future67. Tobolsk administration proposed
organization in the "yasak" districts of the analysis in the meetings of important cases by officials with
participation of foremen and translators.
The state recognized the diversity of forms of ordinary justice, streamlining the legal life of the peasants by establishing verbal courts69. In Western Siberia, the highest administration introduced volost courts70. The powers in the analysis of civil and unimportant criminal cases of indigenous Siberians were assigned to the bodies of traditional government, which contributed to the separation of "princes" and foremen from the tribal environment71.
The Cossacks remained outside the unified system of courts, mainly settled in a wide area of the imperial borders, dependent on the commandants of linear fortresses and military offices. The Don Army, included in the Azov province, was left by the monarch “with all its property” and “well-deserved rights”72. The functions of management and court in the Ural army after the suppression of the rebellion were handed over to the ataman and foremen, controlled from Orenburg.
It was important for the government to ensure effective control over the nomadic population and regulate relations with the border peoples.
The supreme power determined new places of residence for the Kalmyks of the Volga region and the Nogais of Ciscaucasia74, without interfering in the system of traditional administration and courts,
accepted the Kalmyks who returned from China, assessing the mutual interests with the Celestial Empire, the unresolved territorial issues75, and ordered the Kalmyk duchins in the Southern Altai to be “kindly bowed down” to the payment of dues in kind76, took care of increasing the staff number of translators and interpreters in the border regions77. Analysis of complaints between the Kazakhs of the Middle Zhuz, who were allowed to roam the territory of the state, and the Russians before the formation of the Zemstvo police, I. V. Yakobi instructed line commanders and provincial officials78. The age-old polycentricity of power in the steppe did not allow to stop robbery raids with theft
livestock and the removal of people.
Catherine II demanded from the local administration thoughtful actions to ensure the interests of Russia and the security of the interior regions. Special efforts were made by the Orenburg administration, which organized in 1786-1787. Border
court, as well as three massacres in the Small "Horde", endowed with judicial police
powers.
The court, consisting of 2 officers, 2 merchants, 2 rural and 7 Kazakh assessors, was headed by the chief commandant. The vacancies of rural deputies were replaced by the Bashkir and Meshcheryak foremen, the Kazakh ones were replaced by representatives from the “generations” of Alim-uly, Bai-uly, Zhetyra81. By providing justice, the government hoped to end the uncontrolled conflicts of neighbors, involving the Kazakhs in legal relations with the Russians. The customary law-based litigation customary for the people was given the form of a civil court, which received the support of law enforcement agencies. The cooperation of the provincial and steppe authorities was supposed to promote public order, secure trade routes beneficial to the Russian and Kazakh population.
The total amount of material incentives allocated to the nobility by the administration of O.A. Igelstrom (1784-1792, 1796-1798) in excess of regular expenses amounted to 31871 rubles. 68 kop.82 In linear settlements, the construction of mosques continued. Mullahs were sent to the steppe83. By increasing the role of Islam in the social life of the Kazakhs, the supreme power hoped to accelerate the religious and moral development of the people, which was made dependent on the Muslim centers of Russia. Thus, the governor organized a stable interaction between the provincial leadership and the tribal nobility, entering into a complex process of regulating intra-zhuz relations, forming unified control centers in the steppe with a simultaneous strengthening of the influence of the Russian Empire. The autocracy made an attempt to transfer nomadic leaders to the service with responsibility for the execution of power, improving public relations and legal relations, consistently introducing elements of statehood into the steppe.
Showing concern for strengthening the Caucasian line, the monarch considered ways to bring stateless ethnic groups “into the closest acquaintance and closest connection with others. subjects”, recommending to involve the “piedmont peoples” in the selection of judges, to create a school for the study of local languages84, to take measures for Christianization85 and Islamization of pagans, taking into account the experience of the Orenburg mullahs, and to tighten control over the activities of military commanders. Acquainted with the results of the policy in the Southern Urals, the empress instructed officials in the Ciscaucasia: “Justice and fairness should be used to gain them a power of attorney, meekness to soften their morals, win hearts and teach them to treat the Russians more”, “spread the improvement and our laws with conviction, which We are ready to give them for their own peace, quiet and prosperity. In Kabarda, the monarch proposed to introduce tribal reprisals as judicial bodies among the “best” people without the participation of officers, “following the example of how it was usefully instituted among the Kyrgyz in Orenburg,” promising to provide institutions with cash payments. The border court, composed of representatives of clans and officials, was supposed to be in Mozdok or
Ekaterinograd. Treason of an oath, murder and robbery were subject to the court of the second instance according to the laws of the Russian Empire86.
By the end of the reign of Catherine II, a fundamentally new law enforcement system was created. The administrative-territorial structure, the number and location of judicial institutions in the newly acquired western and southern regions were reviewed and optimized until November 1796.87 Legislation reduced the fragmented population to the class department of courts, magistrates and reprisals. The autocracy resolved the issue of the procedure for the formation of the judiciary by attracting the broad masses of citizens to participate in public life, providing public associations with formally equal opportunities.
Religious and social affinity, ethnic kinship of the members of the boards with the persons involved in the cases were an undoubted advantage of the new institutions. Judicial deputies have become an important link between the supreme power and the population, sending
justice "in the name and authority" of the monarch on the basis of a developed single or
legislation sanctioned in the empire. The homogeneity of social origin made it easier to bring complaints about the misconduct of officials, which strengthened the faith of the inhabitants in the significance and strength of state law. The elections intensified the process of amalgamation of the tribal nobility into state structures, favored the growth of the prestige of leaders marked by distinctions.
The individualization of the judiciary in the regions was determined by the compactness of residence and the status of ethnic groups. Class justice smoothed out social contradictions in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious environment. Narrow restrictions on the powers of judges most fully ensured the protection of the legitimate interests, personal and property security of "citizens". The action of state law softened the variety of forms of ordinary justice.
The first experience of cooperation of citizens with state power had contradictory results. The judges did not have a minimum education and remained influenced by the traditional world view. The abuse of positions by rural assessors was explained by the desire to satisfy family-clan, narrow group interests. Overcoming the legal isolation and communal isolation of the peasant "world", which had a solid foundation, required a long time. In many ways, the patriarchal nature was preserved by the relationship of national deputies with ordinary fellow tribesmen89. Residents of the Trans-Ural provinces remained “extras” to the greatest extent, showing passivity in competition with officials and in the exercise of legal powers90. An important factor in the inertia of the Siberians was the features of the genesis of the volost society - the artificiality of administrative boundaries, social, cultural and religious disunity, the mobility of the population caused by the incompleteness of the colonization processes, the growth of the contingent of exiled settlers, the stable autonomy of the aborigines91, who did not accept the liberal ideas of autocracy.
At the same time, the monarch, who took care of budgetary payments in favor of the “irrationally” expanded judicial states, contributed to the achievement of socio-political stability in the country that survived the “Pugachevshchina” in the east, popular unrest and uprisings of the nobility in the west, laying the groundwork for updating the traditional worldview and legal awareness, the development of a unified legal culture. Drawing the social masses into the official legal field created in the future opportunities for a progressive restructuring of the judicial system.
In November 1796, the era of "state liberalism" was interrupted. Emperor Paul I refused to artificially involve the peoples of Russia in judicial practice. The judiciary was simplified in the interest of centralizing administration and reducing costs. The changes led to a radical strengthening of the social role of the bureaucracy,
devoid of restraining institutions of judicial representatives. Pre-reform courts were restored in the Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus92. The administration of the eastern regions faced the problem of “language” barriers93. The Orenburg border court, which in difficult political conditions did not receive recognition from the steppe population, was included in the Commission of Border Affairs in 1799,94 Kazakh massacres were abolished in November 1803.95
The experience of the functioning of the institutions of Catherine II ranged from 12 years in Siberian to 20 years in European provinces.
Notes
1 See: Efremova N.N. Judicial reforms in Russia: traditions, innovations, problems // State and Law. 1996. No. 6. S. 85-87; Kamensky A.B. From Peter I to Paul I. Reforms in Russia in the 18th century. Experience of integral analysis M., 2001. S. 439-454; Migunova T.L. Russian court in the second half of the 18th century. N. Novgorod, 2001.
2 Complete set of laws of the Russian Empire I. (PSZ RI). T. XVI. No. 11904.
3 PSZ RI I. T. XX. No. 14400.
4 Ibid. No. 14500, 14525, 14590, 14594, 14603.
5 PSZ RI I. T. XVII. No. 16297; T. XXII. No. 16187. Art. 62-64; No. 16188. Art. 49-51.
6 PSZ RI I. T. XVI. No. 11989.
7 PSZ RI I. T. XXII. No. 15936.
8 PSZ RI I. T. XXIII. No. 17018.
9 Ibid. No. 17459.
10 PSZ RI I. no. XXII. No. 15988.
11 PSZ RI I. T. XXIII. No. 17079.
12 PSZ RI I. T. XIX. No. 13977; T. XXIII. No. 17264.
13 PSZ RI I. T. XVI. No. 11904, 11932, 12049-11052.
14 PSZ RI I. T. XXII. No. 16256.
15 See: Lavrinovich M. Creation of the social foundations of the empire in the 18th century: legislative practices in relation to the urban population of Russia and their Western European sources // Аb іtregio. 2002. No. 3. S. 117 - 136.
16 PSZ RI I. T. XXII. No. 16391.
17 PSZ RI I. T. XXIII. No. 17327. P. 3.
18 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15436.
19 PSZ RI I. T. XXII. No. 16391.
20 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15359; T. XXIII. No. 17112.
21 PSZ RI I. T. XXII. No. 16391.
22 PSZ RI I. T. XXIII. No. 17224.
23 Ibid. No. 17340.
24 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15265.
25 PSZ RI I. T. XXII. No. 16238.
26 PSZ RI I. T. XVII. No. 12307.
27 PSZ RI I. T. T. XXII. No. 16356.
28 Ibid. No. 16194; T. XXIII. No. 17010.
29 PSZ RI I. T. XXIII. No. 16746.
30 Ibid. No. 17348.
31 Ibid. No. 17039.
32 PSZ RI I. T. XXII. No. 16953; RGADA (Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts) F. 24. Op. 1. D. 60/2. L. 21v.
33 OGACHO (United State Archive of the Chelyabinsk Region). F. 44. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 128v.
34 PSZ RI I. T. XXII. No. 16095.
35 PSZ RI I. T. XXIII. No. 17010, 17048, 17147.
36 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15700; T. XXII. No. 16195; T. XXIII. No. 16898, 17300, 17514.
37 TsGIA RB (Central State Archive of the Republic of Bashkortostan). F. 346. Op. 3. D. 1. L. 3 rev.
38 Ibid. L. 1-3.
39 GAKO (State archive of the Kirov region). F. 582. Op. 44. D. 237. L. 85; F. 583. Op. 603. D. 171. L. 54; GASO (State archive of the Sverdlovsk region). F. 8. Op. 1. D. 1925. L. 96; OGACHO F. 1. Op. 3. D. 10. L. 40; F. 15. Op. 1. D. 814. L. 4.
40 GATO (State archive of the Tomsk region). F. 50. Op. 1. D. 1032. L. 12; OGACHO. F. 15. Op. 1. D. 1379.
41 OGACHO. F. 115. Op. 1. D. 99. L. 11-12.
42 GAPO (State archive of the Perm region). F. 316. Op. 1. D. 78. L. 24-57.
43 GAPO F. 290. Op. 1. D. 6. L. 2-3; Marchenko V.G. Management and court among the small peoples of the North of Siberia and the Far East: Dis. ... cand. ist. Sciences. Tomsk, 1985. S. 68-69.
44 See: Kabuzan V.M. The peoples of Russia in the XVIII century. Number and ethnic composition. M., 1990. S. 243-244.
45 See: Rakhmatullin U.Kh. The population of Bashkiria in the X "^-X" ^ II centuries. M., 1988; Yuldashbaev B.Kh. Problems of the nation and the political position of the Bashkirs in tsarist Russia. Ufa, 1979.
46 GAKO. F. 583. Op. 600. D. 10. L. 1-2 rev., 43-43 rev.
47 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15324.
48 See: Kabuzan V.M. The peoples of Russia in the first half of the XIX century. Number and ethnic composition. S. 187.
49 OGACHO. F. 44. Op. 1. D. 38. L. 6; TsGIA RB. F. 346. Op. 3. D. 1. L. 3.
50 TsGIA RB F. 1. Op. 1. D. 17. L. 124-198.
51 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15265.
52 PSZ RI I. T. XXII. No. 16082.
53 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15385, 15478; T. XXIII. No. 16991.
54 PSZ RI I. T. XVIII. No. 12848; T. XX. No. 14842; T. XXII. No. 16507.
55 PSZ RI I. T. XXIII. No. 16828.
56 Ibid. No. 17526; T. XLSH. No. 17494.
57 GAPO. F. 316. Op. 1. D. 67. L. 5-8.
58 GAKO. F. 583. Op. 4. D. 949. L. 6; D. 82.
59 OGACHO. F. 115. Op. 1. D. 40. L. 27-27v.
60 TsGIA RB. F. 346. Op. 3. D. 1. L. 1 rev.-3 rev.
61 OGACHO. F. 115. Op. 1. D. 58. L. 107.
62 TsGIA RB. F. 1. Op. 1. D. 17. L. 154.
63 TF GATO (Tobolsk branch of the State Archives of the Tyumen Region). F. 341. Op. 1. D. 63. L. 48-49.
64 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15673.
65 RGADA. F. 24. Op. 1. D. 62/3. L. 105.
66 Ibid. D. 62/1. L. 151-152.
67 Ibid. D. 62/2. L. 106-108v.; 153-156.
68 Ibid. D. 60. L. 210.
69 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15115; T. XXII. No. 16603.
70 See: Minenko N.A. Russian peasant community in Western Siberia. 18th-19th centuries Novosibirsk, 1991. S. 129.
71 PSZ RI I. T. XXI No. 15675; T. XXII No. 16165; T. XXIII No. 16829.
72 PSZ RI I. T. XX. No. 14252.
73 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15813; T. XXII. No. 16355.
74 PSZ RI I. T. XXI. No. 15830; T. XXIII. No. 17401.
75 PSZ RI I. T. XVI. No. 11931; T. XXI. No. 15673; T. XXIII. No. 16937.
76 RGADA. F. 24. Op. 1. D. 33. L. 63-65v.
77 PSZ RI I. T. XIX. No. 13489, 14000; T. XXI. No. 15673.
78 RGADA. F. 24. Op. 1. D. 60/1. L. 177-177 rev.
79 Ibid. D. 62/1. L. 35 v.; D. 66. L. 5-5v., 8-9; Kabuldinov Z.E. About the raids of the Kazakhs of the Middle Zhuz on
inner side. Omsk, 2001, p. 9.
80 GAOO (State archive of the Orenburg region). F. 6. Op. 10. D. 1633. L. 5-9 rev.; F. 54. Op. one.
81 See: Materials on the history of the Kazakh SSR. M.; L., 1940. T. IV. S. 487.
82 See: Meyer L. The Kirghiz steppe of the Orenburg department // Materials for geography and statistics of Russia, collected by officers of the general staff. SPb., 1865. T. 10. S. 26.
83 See: Materials on the history of the Kazakh SSR. S. 124.
84 PSZ RI I. T. XXII. No. 16194.
85 PSZ RI I. T. XXIII. No. 17117, 17144.
86 Ibid. No. 17025.
87 Ibid. No. 17526.
88 Ibid. No. 17112.
89 See: Voropanov V.A. The practice of local justice: state courts for rural residents of the Orenburg province in the last quarter of the 18th - early 19th centuries. // AB trepo. 2002. No. 3. S. 137160; Shakurova F.A. Bashkir volost and community in the middle of the 18th - early 19th centuries. Ufa, 1992, p. 67.
Page 1
Two significant events took place in the history of the church under Catherine II: the secularization of the possessions of the clergy, as well as the proclamation of religious tolerance, the cessation of the policy of forcible Christianization and the persecution of non-Christians.
Above was noted the promise of Catherine, given upon accession to the throne, not to encroach on the possessions of the church. This was a tactical move by the empress, designed to appease the clergy, who, if not openly, then covertly hostile, perceived the manifesto of Peter III on secularization, and contradicted the convictions of Voltaire's student. As soon as Catherine felt the inability of the clergy to seriously resist secularization plans, she created a commission of secular and clergymen, which was entrusted with deciding the fate of church land ownership. The Empress even prepared an emotionally rich accusatory speech before the members of the Synod, ending with the words: “Do not hesitate to return to my crown what you stole from her imperceptibly, gradually.” The need for pathetic speech disappeared, the synodals showed humility and obedience. The only hierarch who dared to openly raise his voice against secularization was Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich of Rostov.
Is it fair to consider Arseny's protest a serious threat to secular power, and should Catherine have taken decisive measures to stop the impending danger? Arseniy could not frustrate the secularization plans of the Empress, and she understood this very well. And if Catherine prepared a severe punishment for the rebel, then this action of hers most likely had a personal background - undisguised hostility: Arseny, intemperate in language, allowed himself to speak harshly and unflatteringly about the empress, and this review turned out to be known to her.
Implementation of the Manifesto February 26, 1764 about the secularization of church possessions had two important consequences. The manifesto finally resolved the age-old dispute about the fate of church estates in favor of secular power, 910,866 souls of m.p. were transferred to the treasury from church institutions. The established one and a half ruble dues from the former monastic peasants, called economic peasants, ensured the receipt of 1366 thousand annual dues (1764-1768) into the treasury, of which only a third was released for the maintenance of monasteries and churches, 250 thousand were spent on hospitals and almshouses, and the rest of the money (over 644 thousand rubles) replenished the state budget. In the 1780s, the quitrent amount reached 3 million, and together with other economic income - 4 million rubles), of which only half a million was spent on the maintenance of the clergy, and seven-eighths of the income went to the state.
From now on, each monastery had government-approved states of monastics and principals, for the maintenance of which a strictly fixed amount was released. The clergy thus became completely dependent on the state both economically and administratively. The clergy were elevated to the rank of officials in cassocks.
Another consequence of secularization was the improvement in the position of the former monastic peasants. Work in the monastic corvee was replaced by a cash quitrent, which to a lesser extent regulated the economic activities of the peasants. Economic peasants, in addition to the areas they previously cultivated, received part of the monastic lands for use. Finally, the economic peasants were freed from patrimonial jurisdiction: courts of monastic authorities, torture, etc.
In accordance with the ideas of the Enlightenment, Catherine adhered to a policy of tolerance towards non-believers. Under the pious Elizaveta Petrovna, the Old Believers continued to be charged a double soul tax, attempts were made to return them to the bosom of true Orthodoxy, and they were excommunicated from the church. The Old Believers responded to persecution with actions of self-immolation - fires, as well as flight either to remote places or outside the country. Peter III allowed the Old Believers free worship. The tolerance of Catherine II extended beyond the tolerance of her husband. In 1763 she abolished the schismatic office, established in 1725. to collect a double poll tax, and a tax on beards. From the double capitation exempted from 1764. Old Believers who did not shy away from "the sacraments of the Church from Orthodox priests."
Algebra at al-Khwarizmi
The algebraic treatise of al-Khwarizmi is known under the title: “A Brief Book of Complementation and Contradiction” (in Arabic: “Kitab mukhtasar al-jabr wal-muqabala”). The treatise consists of two parts - theoretical and practical. The first of them presents the theory of linear and quadratic equations, and also touches upon some questions of geom...
Novgorod boyar republic
Novgorod land (north-western Russia) occupied a vast territory from the Arctic Ocean to the upper reaches of the Volga, from the Baltic to the Urals. Novgorod land was far from the nomads and did not experience the horror of their raids. The wealth of the Novgorod land consisted in the presence of a huge land fund, which fell into the hands of the local boyars, grew ...
Vladimir-Suzdal Principality
Northeastern Russia - Vladimir-Suzdal or Rostov-Suzdal land (as it was called at first) - was located between the Oka and Volga rivers. Here by the beginning of the XII century. there was a large boyar land ownership. In the Zalessky region there were fertile soils suitable for agriculture. Plots of fertile land are called opoli (from s...
In the history of the church under Catherine II, two significant events took place - the secularization of the possessions of the clergy and the proclamation of religious tolerance, that is, the cessation of the policy of forced Christianization and the persecution of other believers.
Upon accession to the throne, Catherine promised not to encroach on the possessions of the church. This was a tactical move by the Empress, calculated to appease the clergy, who, if not openly, then covertly hostilely perceived the manifesto of Peter III. As soon as Catherine felt the inability of the clergy to seriously resist secularization plans, she created a commission of secular and clergymen, which was entrusted with deciding the fate of church land ownership. She even prepared an emotionally rich diatribe before the members of the Synod, ending with the words: “Do not hesitate to return to my crown what you stole from her imperceptibly, gradually.” The need for pathetic speech disappeared, the synodals showed humility and obedience. The only hierarch who dared to openly raise his voice against secularization was Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich of Rostov.
Arseniy could not disrupt the secularization plans of the Empress, and she understood this very well. And if Catherine prepared a severe punishment for the rebel, then this action most likely had a personal background - undisguised hostility. Arseny, intemperate in language (with which he paid the price), once allowed himself to speak harshly and unflatteringly about the Empress, and this review turned out to be known to her.
The implementation of the Manifesto of February 26, 1764, "On the Secularization of Church Dominions" had important consequences. The manifesto finally decided the age-old dispute about the fate of church estates in favor of secular power. The established one and a half ruble dues from the former monastic peasants (who were called "economic") ensured the receipt of the treasury in 1764-1768. 1 million 366 thousand rubles of annual dues, of which only a third was allocated for the maintenance of monasteries and churches, 250 thousand were spent on hospitals and almshouses, and the rest of the money (over 644 thousand rubles) replenished the state budget. In the 1780s, the quitrent amount reached 3 million rubles, and together with other household income - 4 million, of which only half a million was spent on the maintenance of the clergy, and 7/8ths of the income went to the state.
From now on, each monastery had states of monastics and "initial" persons approved by the government, for the maintenance of which a strictly fixed amount was released. The clergy, thus, turned out to be completely dependent on the state, both economically and administratively, that is, they were elevated to the rank of officials in cassocks.
Another consequence of secularization was the improvement in the position of the former monastic peasants. Work in the monastic corvee was replaced by a cash quitrent, which to a lesser extent limited the economic activity of the peasants. Economic peasants, in addition to the areas they previously cultivated, received part of the monastic lands for use. Finally, they freed themselves from patrimonial jurisdiction - the court of the monastic authorities, torture, etc.
In accordance with the ideas of the Enlightenment, Catherine adhered to a policy of tolerance towards non-believers. So, if, under the pious Elizabeth Petrovna, the Old Believers continued to collect a double soul tax from the Old Believers, attempts were made to return them to the bosom of true Orthodoxy, they were excommunicated from the church, to which they responded with actions of self-immolation (“burnings”), as well as flight or to remote places, or outside the country, then Peter III allowed the Old Believers free worship, and the religious tolerance of Catherine II extended further - in 1763 she abolished the Schismatic Office, established in 1725 to collect a double poll tax, and a tax "from beards". At the same time, since 1764, the Old Believers were exempted from the double soul tax, who did not shy away from "the sacraments of the Church from Orthodox priests." The tolerant attitude of the government towards the Old Believers contributed to the economic prosperity of the Old Believer centers in Starodub (now the Bryansk region), Kerzhents (now the Nizhny Novgorod region), etc., where rich merchants appeared. Moscow merchants-Old Believers in the early 70s of the XVIII century. created the Rogozhskaya and Preobrazhenskaya communities - organizations that owned large capitals and gradually subjugated the Old Believer communities on the outskirts of Russia to their influence.
The religious tolerance of the Empress was also manifested in the cessation of infringement of the rights of Muslims. So, those of them who converted to Orthodoxy were no longer given advantages in inheriting property. Catherine allowed Tatars to build mosques and open madrasahs that trained Muslim clergy.
CONCLUSION
From the middle of the XVII century. the estate-representative monarchy develops into an absolute one, which reflects the entry of feudalism into a new stage of its existence - in the era of late feudalism. The class division of society is formalized as a class division. The estate system acquires features of isolation and conservatism. The form of government under absolutism remains, in principle, the same - monarchical, but its content and external attributes change. The power of the monarch becomes unlimited, the proclamation of him as emperor emphasizes power, both in the external and in the internal spheres.
For the formation of absolutism, the reforms of Peter I played an important role. First of all, it is necessary to single out estate reforms only because they had a global scale and determined the status of estates.
The nobility was taken to a new level. There were frictions between him and the boyars, but as a result of the reforms, both classes received estates and estates. Peter sought to make everyone civil servants and for this he changed the order of inheritance. He issued the Decree “On Single Inheritance”, that is, now only one son could inherit the land (at the same time, the right to sell real estate, etc. was limited), and those who did not receive the inheritance had no choice but to go to public service (although in the future already in the 1930s they abandoned the single inheritance).
In 1722, the "Table of Ranks" was issued, which determined the order of service and, in fact, the hierarchy of society as a whole. The significance of this document is not only in this - the Report Card allowed people from the lower classes to curry favor with the nobility. For example, in military service, having risen even to the lowest rank of an officer, a person automatically received personal nobility, but without land, and having risen to the 6th rank - hereditary, but also without allotment of land. Thus, during this period, the difference between the nobility and the boyars disappears completely.
The clergy becomes part of the state apparatus, subordinate and controlled by its interests. Peter I creates the Great Synod.
The urban estate also changed, but it was not united, but was divided into guilds. Town halls and other local self-government bodies were established.
The social characteristics of the peasantry also changed. Most of the peasants became dependent on the nobles, and the free were now called state peasants, there were also palace peasants. Since that time, the division into peasants and serfs has disappeared, which was facilitated by the Reform of Peter I "On the poll tax", which also did not distinguish between them.
There have been changes in the structure and activities of state governments. Russia became an Empire from 1721, and Peter I became the Emperor. A law was proclaimed, which spoke of the unlimitedness and non-control of the imperial power. The order of succession to the throne was also fixed by law, which stated that the Emperor could leave power to anyone at his own discretion and without restrictions.
Under Peter I, the Boyar Duma stopped meeting, but the need for an advisory body did not disappear, so it was initially replaced by the Council of Ministers, and later in 1711 by the Senate. The Senate was created by Peter at the time of his departure for the campaign as a body that replaced him during his absence, but remained active after that. The Senate was a body with advisory, executive and judicial powers, and gradually even received some opportunities to make decisions that were legal and binding, but the king could very easily cancel them.
In 1717–1719 in sectoral management, the command system of management is being replaced by a collegial one. The boards had not only administrative, but also judicial power. At the head of the collegium was its president, but he was only the chairman and no more. In contrast to the orders, the boards had regulations on the structure. Initially, there were about 10 collegiums, and from the bottom there were three most important ones - military, naval and foreign affairs. Representatives of these three colleges remained in the Senate even when representatives of all the others were removed from its membership.
Under Peter I in 1708 provinces were organized, which changed the order in the division of Russia into territorial-administrative units. The provinces were divided into provinces (in which governors ruled), and those, in turn, into counties.
Courts are born and the first of them are court courts, which existed in every county. In addition, in some cities there was a judge, and where there were none, magistrates performed judicial powers. Peter also created a system of military and naval courts. Prosecutor's offices are being organized, which were created from above. First, in 1722, the rank of Prosecutor General was created, then the fiscals (created in 1711 as employees of the body of secret supervision) were reassigned to him. At first, the prosecutor's office was a body of general supervision, in addition, the prosecutor general supervised the Senate. Advocates appear.
At the same time, Peter I made an attempt to destroy the competition in the process. He made this attempt in 1697 by issuing a decree on the transfer of all cases to the search (that is, there were no face-to-face confrontations with witnesses, etc.), but in reality it did not succeed. In 1715, a part of the future military charter appeared called “A Brief Image of the Process”, according to which all cases were searched. In 1723, another decree “On the form of the court” was adopted, which established the procedure for conducting cases on private applications.
The development of law in this period is characterized by the development of state and administrative law as a branch. Regulations have been introduced. At the same time, there were no significant changes in civil law. In criminal law there was a codification in the field of military criminal law. Published "Military Articles".
The period of "enlightened absolutism" and the 34-year reign of Catherine II, in particular, left a bright mark on the history of Russia. The extraordinary personality of the Empress, her outstanding qualities as a statesman and the greatness of what she has done are striking. If Peter the Great established himself on the shores of the Baltic, Catherine the Great - on the shores of the Black Sea, pushing the borders to the south and including the Crimean Peninsula in the Empire. This alone is enough for the descendants to gratefully remember the name of Catherine II. Under Catherine, the spread of enlightenment reached a high level, the first magazines began to be published, writers appeared whose works still sound relevant today, and historical science achieved major successes. Catherine was distinguished by her incredible capacity for work: “I passionately love being busy and I find that a person is only happy when he is busy.” On another occasion, she wrote: "I by nature love to work, and the more I work, the merrier I become." It is enough to look at the daily routine of the Empress to see how much time she devoted to the affairs of government. Catherine energetically and constantly legislated, she wrote such important acts of reign as the "Instruction" of the Legislative Commission, the Institutions on the provinces, letters of grant to the nobility and cities, and many others. But Catherine wrote not only decrees, manifestos and instructions. She left a colossal epistolary legacy. According to her confession, versification was completely inaccessible to her, she did not understand music, but she willingly composed plays and vaudevilles.
The ideas of moderate enlighteners were shared not only by the Empress. Some Russian nobles established personal relations with the French enlighteners and, like Catherine, were in correspondence with them.
The French Revolution put an end to the flirting with the ideas of the Enlightenment, both by Catherine herself and her entourage. The storming of the Bastille, alarming reports of the burning of noble castles and feudal letters reminded the Russian nobles of the events of the Peasant War in Russia. Orders were crumbling, on which, as Catherine's favorite Platon Zubov wrote, "calmness, confidence and prosperity were based." A new era was approaching - the era of the disintegration of serfdom and the new growth of capitalist relations.
QUESTIONS FOR SELF-CHECKING
1. The main prerequisites for the formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia. The main features and characteristics of Russian absolutism.
2. The development of the state system in the first half of the XVIII century.
3. State reforms in the first quarter of the 18th century.
4. Class reforms of Peter I. The legal status of the nobility. Table of ranks.
5. Give a brief description of the socio-political system of Russia in the 2nd half of the 18th century.
6. What do you think the expression means: "Enlightened" absolutism as a special political regime.
7. "Instruction" of Catherine II. Laid Commission 1767
8. What were the main principles of the provincial reform of 1775
9. The significance of the church policy of Catherine II for the further development of Russian society.
Literature
- Military article // Reader on the history of state and law / Comp. Yu.P. Titov. M., 1997.
- Bakaev Yu.N. History of state-church relations in Russia. Khabarovsk, 1994.
- Demidova N.F. Service bureaucracy in Russia in the 17th century. and its role in the formation of absolutism. M., 1987.
- Efimov S.V. Petrine transformations and Russian society in the first half of the 18th century // History of Russia: people and power. SPB., 1997.
5. History of the domestic state and law: Textbook. Part 1 / Ed. O.I. Chistyakov. 3rd edition, revised. and additional M. MGU. 2007.
6. Certificate of rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility //
7. Reader on the history of state and law / Comp. Yu.P. Titov. M., 1997.
8. Moiseev V.V. History of public administration in Russia. M., 2010.
TALION LAW (from lat. talio, genus p. talionis - retribution, equal in strength to crime) - the principle of punishment that has developed in a tribal society. It consisted in causing the guilty person the same harm that was done to them ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth").
