graduate work

1.3 The activities and personality of Catherine II in the works of historians of the Soviet period

In Soviet historiography, a clear assessment of enlightened absolutism as a liberal mask of autocracy gradually took shape and became firmly established during the discussion of the early 1960s, which to a large extent predetermined the attitude of scientists to the study of the circumstances of life and work of representatives of the era of absolutism - the emphasis for a long time was placed on the study of socio-economic issues, the class struggle of various strata of society - the personality of Catherine II, the political life of the era faded into the background. But one cannot ignore the fact that Soviet historians discovered, analyzed a huge layer of sources, created major monographs on the socio-economic history of Russia.

If we proceed from the paradigm that the assessment of the effectiveness of state administration should be given primarily on the basis of the results of an assessment of the socio-political, economic, demographic development of the country and their dynamics, then the studies of Soviet historians of the Catherine era provide us with a colossal amount of information. If we take it as an axiom that under the conditions of absolutism the projection of the personality of the ruler goes in all areas of the life of the country, then it is the study of economic and political processes that allows us to evaluate not only the activities of Catherine the Great, but also to understand her as a person and a statesman.

The monograph by N.L. Rubinshtein "Agriculture in Russia in the 2nd half of the 18th century". The author identified the main trends in the development of the landlord and peasant economy, the impact on them of the expanding sphere of commodity-money relations, traced the dynamics and factors of change in the area under crops, the size and forms of exploitation of the peasants; analyzed data on the profitability of landlord and peasant farms, the main crops and the level of agricultural technology in general.

All these aspects were considered by E.S. Kogan on the materials of the Sheremetevsky estates. Her monograph "Essays on the history of serfdom" gives an idea of ​​how a particular landlord economy was restructured in the spirit of the time, merged into the market system, the expanding sphere of commodity-money relations, how development priorities, forms, methods and the degree of exploitation of land and peasants in the landowner's economy are changing. economy.

A colossal amount of data on the history of agricultural and non-agricultural crafts of the peasants of the Central Industrial Region of Russia was systematized and generalized in the works of V.A. Fedorov. The author argues that the last decades of the 18th century were a time of intensive growth of various kinds of peasant crafts, which led to the gradual pushing of agriculture into the background in the economy of the peasants of this region in the first half of the 19th century; the result of the growth of the country's economy and the consistently pursued policy of the government of Catherine II to maintain and deepen these processes was the gradual destruction of the natural character of the peasant economy, its involvement in the market structure, the stratification of the peasantry - there was an intensive growth of the peasant industry and the formation of capitalist relations in it, deepening the specialization of individual provinces, districts, villages in specific types of crafts, the fishing waste of the peasantry increased significantly. In addition, by the end of the 18th century, the industrial geography of the Central Industrial Region was formed, large fishing villages emerged - Ivanovo, Teikovo, Vichuga, Voznesenskoye, Pavlovo and others.

It is also interesting to study the history of commercial gardening in the villages of Sulost and Porechye of the Rostov district of the Yaroslavl province, which supplied Europe with green peas and chicory by the beginning of the 19th century.

The problem of weaving crafts of peasants was considered on the materials of the Moscow province by I.V. Meshalin. In the context of the presented dissertation research, the data cited by Meshalin about ticket enterprises in the Moscow province are very valuable - they show how useful and timely this government measure was, what was the percentage of peasants among the owners of ticket enterprises, as well as the ratio of small ones based on simple family cooperation and large capitalist enterprises.

Proceedings of S.G. Strumilin and N.I. Pavlenko highlight the development of metallurgy in Russia in the second half of the 18th century: the dynamics of the development of the industry throughout the 18th century, production volumes in relation to those of the largest European countries, consider the problem of the relationship between serf and wage labor and character.

The works of B.N. Mironov on the study of the domestic market of Russia in the 18th - 19th centuries: the author identifies the main trends in the development of the domestic domestic market, provides extensive statistical material, concerns the government's policy to expand the domestic market, makes calculations of who bought what in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. The author also analyzed the trends in the development of the Russian city in the middle of the 18th - 19th centuries.

S.Ya. worked on the problem of finance during the reign of Catherine II. Borovoy and S.M. Trinity. S.Ya. Borovoy considered the history of the emergence and mechanism of activity, the results and efficiency of the work of Russian banks of the 18th century. CM. Troitsky studied the problem of managing Russian finances in the 18th century: he tracked the state's priorities in the financial sector throughout the century, the circumstances and motivation for their change. Financial management mechanism in its development, analyzed the effectiveness of government efforts in the financial sector.

These are the most significant works on the economic history of Russia in the second half of the 18th century. It seems that in historiography the questions of the economic development of Russia in the second half of the 18th century were fundamentally developed, and capital monographs were created that shed light on the state of agriculture and industry. Domestic and foreign trade, the financial system of the country during this period, but such an important aspect as the policy of the government of Catherine II in the economic sphere remained poorly studied.

The most important problem considered in relation to Russian history of the 17th-18th centuries is the genesis of absolutism. Without going into a detailed analysis of the historiography of the issue, we note that the most important stage of the study was opened in the 1960s by the publication of the collection "Absolutism in Russia" (1964), dedicated to B.B. Kafengauz containing works by S.M. Troitsky, S.O. Schmidt, N.B. Golikova, N.F. Demidova, N.I. Pavlenko, N.M. Druzhinin and other authors; continued with a discussion about Russian absolutism in the journal "History of the USSR" in 1968-1971. The most acute in it were questions about the socio-economic prerequisites for Russian absolutism, the time and stages of its formation, the social nature and ideology, and the interaction of the cultures of Russia and Europe. During the discussion, the synonymy of the concepts "absolutism", "autocracy", "unrestricted monarchy" was called into question; the issue of "balance" between the feudal classes and the bourgeoisie was discussed as the main sign of the social nature of absolutism, about its undoubtedly progressive historical role (A.Ya. Avrekh), the widest range of judgments was made about the social base of absolutism in Russia - from completely both the nobility and the serfs were called as social support) to the classical "balancing" each other feudal and bourgeois. The typology of absolutism developed during the discussion included the following features:

1. The concentration of executive, legislative and judicial power in the hands of a hereditary monarch;

2. The right of the monarch to manage the tax system and public finances;

3. The presence of an extensive, ramified bureaucratic apparatus that performs administrative, financial, judicial and other functions in the name of the monarch;

4. Centralization, unification and regulation of state and local government, territorial division of the country;

5. The presence of a regular army and police;

6. Regulation of all types of service and the status of estates.

In the works of Russian historians, the problem of "enlightened absolutism" was also developed. A unique study of its kind was conducted by S.M. Troitsky - the author considered in general terms the problem of relations between "enlightened absolutism" and the nobility (namely, in general, and not on the example of specific figures, including representatives of the court elite). He believed that "enlightened absolutism" in principle is a liberal illusion, but the interests of the monarch and the nobility as a whole coincided, which provided Catherine II with the support of this class. In addition, the empress pursued a flexible, cautious policy: without pushing away the established noble elite of previous reigns (let's not forget about the return of a number of once very influential people from exile), she steadily formed her own elite, resolutely suppressing any attempts to form an oligarchy.

Special studies were devoted to certain events of Catherine II in the political sphere.

The historiography of the activities of the Legislative Commission (we note especially the works of M.T. Belyavsky) and the "Order" of Catherine II of the Legislative Commission is very extensive. A number of studies were undertaken on the source analysis of the orders of individual social groups to the deputies of the Legislative Commission. A special study by E.V. Tarle was devoted to the analysis of the diplomatic abilities of Empress Catherine II. The empress appears to the author as a smart, cunning intriguer, who made the most of the diplomatic abilities and tireless work of talented representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples N.I. Panin and A.A. Bezborodko (respectively).

In the late 1980s-1990s, in connection with the revival of interest in national history, the reprinting of works of the 19th century and essays based on the same works of authors of the last century, designed for a wide range of interested audiences, began. The researchers again turned to the consideration of the personality and various aspects of the state activity of Catherine II, the circumstances of the political and court life of the era, trying to rethink the known facts and free themselves from the prevailing ideological clichés and dogmas, to highlight a number of problems poorly studied in historiography. Biographical sketches about Catherine II were published, as well as monographs covering the era as a whole and the legislative activities of the empress. In the specified work O.A. Omelchenko, in particular, for the first time from the point of view of the concept of "enlightened absolutism", an array of unrealized legislative initiatives of Catherine II is analyzed, an extensive domestic and foreign bibliography of the problem is given. In the work of A.D. Sukhov, the content of the concept of "enlightened absolutism" is analyzed and its Russian specificity is revealed.

The work of L.G. Kislyagina about the office of secretaries of state of Empress Catherine II, which allows you to get an idea of ​​​​the technique of the empress's work in managing the state.

The literature devoted to the analysis of the activities of the Legislative Commission and the actual "Instruction" of Catherine II is very extensive, but we note that the study of the "Instruction" often comes down to a simple listing of the sources of its writing and a detailed consideration of legal problems.

In Soviet historiography, the problems of Russian legal proceedings of the Catherine era have also been thoroughly developed.

In one of his articles, N.Ya. Eidelman tried to consider the problem of favoritism of Catherine's time in a different, non-traditional plane, placing it in terms of the formation of the political elite of the 2nd half of the 18th century. Favoritism, according to N.Ya. Eidelman, there is a search for new forms of interaction between the nobility, the highest bureaucracy and the autocrat, aimed at strengthening the political role and significance of the reigning person.

In Soviet historiography, there are no separate independent works on the problem of Catherine II's foreign policy. It should be especially emphasized that in the previous time, when studying the history of the 18th century. preference was given to Peter I and his transformations. Until the beginning of the 40s. 20th century in the hierarchy of scientific values, new guidelines were given priority. As a result, the historiography of the personalities of the historical figures of the revolutionary and communist movement, who became famous during the years of the civil war, collectivization, and industrialization, was created on a large scale. This line continued in the future.

As noted above, some pre-revolutionary historians called Catherine the Great, others modestly called Catherine II, but none of them gave her such a harsh assessment, which was common in Soviet historiography. It seems that not a single word of praise was heard against the empress, and she was called either a shameless hypocrite, who skillfully concealed her true feelings and thoughts, trying to pass for an enlightened monarch, then a clever lady who ingratiated herself with the confidence of the French enlighteners, then a conservative who sought to suppress the French revolution.

The origins of the negative assessment of Catherine should be sought in the works of the founder of Soviet historiography M.N. Pokrovsky. In the mid 30s. Soviet historians abandoned his historical concept, but for the previous decade Pokrovsky was a generally recognized trendsetter in historical science. Historian N.Ya. Eidelman quotes the famous archivist Ya.L. Barskov, discovered by him in the archive of the latter. He described Catherine as follows: "The lie was the main tool of the queen, all her life, from early childhood to old age, she used this tool, owning it like a virtuoso, and deceiving her parents, lovers, subjects, foreigners, contemporaries and descendants." Although these lines have not been published, they synthesize the assessment of Catherine that existed in the literature, which has been preserved in a softened form until very recently.

In Soviet historiography, Catherine's foreign policy was considered in general terms. In 1920, a book by the historian M.N. Kovalensky "Journey of Catherine II to the Crimea". The peculiarity of this book is that it is based solely on the testimonies and impressions of the participants of the famous journey: Count Segur, Prince de Ligne, the Austrian envoy Cobenzel, Joseph II and S. Poniatowski - the Austrian and Polish monarchs - and the Russian Empress herself.

Issues of Russian foreign policy in the second half of the XVIII century. E.V. Tarle’s study “Catherine II and her diplomacy”, published in 1945, is devoted to the study of the reign of Catherine II in the field of foreign policy as a period full of brilliant successes and loud Russian glory, Tarle believes that “Catherine II’s foreign policy led to huge results, colossally increased the size of Russia, enriched it materially and to a large extent increased the military potential of the Russian people and its defense capability. Tarle calls Ekaterina a first-class diplomat who knows how to distinguish the possible and feasible from the impossible and fantastic.

The events of the first Catherine's war with the Turks are considered by E.V. Tarle in the work "Chesme battle and the first Russian expedition to the Archipelago" and V.I. Tit in his articles. The monograph by E.I. Druzhinina about the Kyuchuk-Kainarji peace, in which, along with the prerequisites, circumstances of conclusion and ratification, as well as the text of the Kyuchuk-Kainarji treaty itself, the projects preceding it, put forward, for example, during the Bucharest Congress, and the Aynaly-Kavak Convention of 1779 are analyzed. The author pays attention to the situation that developed at the turn of the 70-80s. 18th century around the Crimea and ultimately leading to the second Catherine's war with Turkey.

It is necessary to point to a number of studies and archival publications on the history of international relations and Russian foreign policy that appeared in the Soviet period and are devoted to the functioning of the mechanism for making foreign policy decisions in the Catherine era. Among them, I would like to highlight the monograph by G. A. Nersesov, "The Policy of Russia at the Teshensky Congress (1778-1779)", published in 1988. This monograph is devoted to the analysis of Russia's policy in Europe in the 70s. 18th century and the Teschen peace treaty concluded in 1779. Recognizing the Eastern question as the main one in Russia's foreign policy in the 70-80s. XVIII century, the author traces specific links between the German policy of Russian diplomacy and Russia's policy towards the Ottoman Empire during this period. The peace of Teschen, which ended the war for the Bavarian succession, marked the beginning of an important stage in the rise of Russia as a great European power. At the Teschen Congress, Russian diplomacy acted as an arbiter in the settlement of the European conflict.

The struggle of the Belarusian people against Polonization

The October Revolution put an end to the Russian Empire. A new state was formed on its territory. It could be assumed that the attitude of the new Russian state towards Belarus, judging by individual internationalist tendencies...

Domestic policy during the period of palace coups and during the reign of Catherine II

Catherine II, before marriage, Princess Sophia Augusta Frederick of Anhalt-Zerbst, was born on April 21 (May 2), 1729 in the German city of Stettin (Prussia) ...

Domestic policy of Catherine II

She was born on April 21, 1729 in Stettin in the family of the impoverished princes of Anhalt-Zerbst (northern Germany), received an education at home (German - native, French, dance, music, the basics of history, geography and theology were taught by home teachers) ...

Free thinking in the press under Catherine II

Contemporaries and descendants did not stint on compliments to Catherine II - the only empress awarded the title of "Great". She went down in history as Minerva, Astrea, Felitsa, Northern Semiramis, and her reign is traditionally considered the Golden Age...

Historiography of Russian counterintelligence

The reasons for the weakness of Russia's military counterintelligence during the First World War were rooted not only in the very system of their legal regulation, organization or insufficient qualifications of personnel ...

Russian history

The failure of the "blitzkrieg", which postponed the end of the war indefinitely, made it necessary to make some adjustments to Hitler's policy of "complete colonialization"...

The cult of saints and its changes in the context of the socio-political and cultural development of the Frankish state

The 4th century was one of the most important milestones in the history of the development of Christianity as a religion and the Church as an institution. At that time lived such famous theological authorities as Blessed Augustine, Blessed Jerome...

Myths and reality about the charitable activities of Catherine II

From the very beginning of Catherine's reign, as we have already seen, Catherine expressed her desire to bring all government places into proper order, to give them precise "limits and laws" ...

Reign of Empress Catherine II

The Empress was a highly educated person, she read a lot since childhood. She was especially attracted by the works of the French Enlighteners - Encyclopedists. In public affairs, Catherine considered herself a successor to the work of Peter the Great. But...

Reforms of Peter I

peter reform public administration The transformations that took place in Russia covered almost all aspects of the country's life: the economy, politics, science, everyday life, foreign policy, and the state system. The merit of Peter I was that ...

Estate policy of Catherine II

“Catherine was born on April 21, 1729 in the family of a Prussian field marshal. Her parents did not care much about her upbringing. His father was a diligent servant, and his mother was a quarrelsome, quarrelsome woman. She severely punished her daughter for every trifling offense ...

empress Catherine II Alekseevna (1741–1796) acted as the successor to the work of Peter I. Her reign is associated with deep administrative reforms and the expansion of the territory of the empire. The purpose of Catherine's activity was to legislate the rights of individual estates. Under Catherine, a system of enlightened absolutism is taking shape, that is, a social system in which the monarch recognizes himself as the trustee of the empire, and the estates voluntarily realize their responsibility to the monarch. Thus, Catherine sought to achieve an alliance between the monarch and society not on coercion (absolutism), but on a voluntary awareness of her rights and duties. Catherine encouraged the development of education and science, commercial and industrial activities, and contributed to the emergence of journalism. In the ideas of enlightened absolutism, Catherine was guided by the works French enlighteners (Voltaire, Diderot).

Catherine was born in Germany and was brought to Russia by Elizabeth as a bride for Peter III. Living in Russia, Catherine sought to get to know the new country better, understand its customs, and surround herself with talented people. Having become Empress, Catherine was able to combine intelligence and feminine weakness, perseverance, foresight and flexibility with her character. Under Catherine, it flourished at the court favoritism. Catherine directed the personal sympathies of her entourage for the benefit of the state. Count became a prominent favorite of Catherine Grigory Alekseevich Potemkin.

Catherine's domestic policy can be divided into a number of stages:

1. 1762 - the middle of the 70s. Having come to power as a result of a palace coup and the murder of her husband, Catherine saw the main task of justifying her stay on the throne. In order to demonstrate the unity of the monarch and subjects, she convened The laid commission (1767). The task of the commission was defined as the compilation of a code of laws and the replacement of the Council Code of 1649. The commission was formed by elections from estates, except for privately owned peasants. In the Order for the commission, Catherine advocated the rule of law in the empire, the development of industry and trade. With regard to the serfs, the commission was to develop measures to make their lives easier. However, the commission immediately split along class lines and each group of deputies tried to defend their interests. As a result, after a year and a half of work, the Commission was dissolved due to the outbreak of the Russian-Turkish war. The results of the commission's work became the basis of Catherine's activities in the second period of her reign.

In 1763, Catherine reformed the Senate: it was divided into 6 departments with strictly defined functions and leadership of the Prosecutor General; The Senate is deprived of legislative initiative.

2. Mid 70s - early 90s. In the second period of her reign, Catherine carried out major reforms in the empire. The reason for the reforms was the uprising led by Yemelyan Pugachev. The aim of the reforms was the strengthening of monarchical power. AT management areas the power of the local administration was strengthened, the number of provinces was increased, the Zaporozhian Sich was abolished, serfdom was extended to Ukraine, and the power of the landowner over the peasants was strengthened. The governor was placed at the head of the province, responsible for everything that happened in the province. Several provinces were united into governor-generals. Letter of 1785 confirmed the noble freemen led by Peter III. The nobles are exempt from corporal punishment and confiscation of property, it is allowed for the nobles to create self-government bodies. Letter of commendation to the cities of 1775 expanded the rights of cities to self-government, freed merchants from poll tax and recruitment duty, and encouraged the development of entrepreneurship. The management of cities was entrusted to mayor, in counties - elected by the noble assembly police captain. A system was created estate court: for each class (nobles, townspeople, peasants, clergy) their own special judicial institutions. Thus, the center of gravity of power shifted from the central authorities to local institutions, which led to a reduction in the central authorities and increased efficiency in resolving issues.

3. The beginning of the 90s - 1796. Because of French Revolution of 1789 Catherine takes a course towards curtailing the policy of enlightened absolutism. There is an increase in censorship of books and newspapers.

In general, during the reign of Catherine II, Russia became an authoritative world power, the nobility was finally formed as a privileged estate, the rights of the nobility in self-government were expanded, and favorable conditions were created for the economic development of the country. However, the disadvantage of Catherine's economic policy was the continuation of the policy of mercantilism and protectionism, which led to weak competition and the formation of stagnation in the development of industry. The state and the army remained the main buyers of industrial goods. Thus, in conditions of tight control by the state and weak competition, the formation of capitalism proceeded very slowly.

No. 31 Emelyan Pugachev was a native of the Don Cossacks, a participant in the Seven Years' War, battles in Poland and a campaign with the Turks, who received the first officer rank for distinction in battles.

Pugachev more than once acted as a petitioner on behalf of peasants and ordinary Cossacks, for which he was arrested by the authorities. In 1773 he fled from Kazan and hid on the Yaik. Here he took the name of Emperor Peter III and led the Yaik Cossacks to protest against the arbitrariness of the landowners and the strengthening of serfdom, for the liberation of the peasants from serfdom, which grew into a powerful movement of the masses - the last peasant war in the history of Russia. The uprising began in September 1773, and already on October 5, Pugachev approached the provincial city of Orenburg. His six-month siege began.

Government troops hastily gathered to the area of ​​the uprising. The battle near the Tatishcheva fortress on March 22, 1774 ended with the victory of government troops. Pugachev was forced to lift the siege of Orenburg and, pursued by government troops, moved east. The main events of the Peasant War unfolded on the territory of the mining Urals and Bashkiria. The uprising was joined by the Bashkirs, led by Salavat Yulaev, mining workers, and peasants assigned to factories. Their ranks were replenished by the peoples of the Volga region: Udmurts, Mari, Chuvashs. July 12, 1774 Pugachev approached Kazan. However, General Michelson managed to help the besieged and defeated the rebel troops. Pugachev, together with the remnants of his defeated army, crossed to the right bank of the Volga - to areas inhabited by serfs and state peasants.

Of great importance for increasing the number of rebels were the manifestos and decrees of Pugachev, which were of a pronounced anti-serf character. The most complete reflection of the peasant aspirations was the Manifesto of July 31, 1774, which proclaimed the liberation of the peasants from serfdom and taxes.

The peasant war flares up with renewed vigor. Pugachev moved to the Lower Volga, where barge haulers, Don, Volga and Ukrainian Cossacks joined him. In August, after an unsuccessful attempt to take Tsaritsyn, he crossed to the left bank of the Volga. However, a group of wealthy Cossacks, seeking to earn the mercy of the Empress by betrayal, seized him and on September 12, 1774, handed him over to government troops. The peasant war ended in defeat. On January 10, 1775, Pugachev and his closest associates were executed on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow (now I.E. Repin Square).

Having dealt with Pugachev, Catherine II paid special attention to strengthening the state apparatus and strengthening the power of the nobles in the field.

In 1775, the "Institution for the Administration of the Provinces of the Russian Empire" was adopted. Its goal is to strengthen the local administrative apparatus. Instead of twenty, fifty provinces were created. Many well-known figures were appointed governors: Potemkin, Rumyantsev, Chernyshev.

The provincial reform created an extensive network of provincial and district authorities: provincial government, the treasury (financial functions), zemstvo courts (for nobles), magistrates (for merchants and petty bourgeois) and zemstvo reprisals (for state peasants).

The continuation of the pro-noble policy of Catherine II became (1785), which granted the nobles a monopoly right to own peasants, land and subsoil of the earth, the right to establish plants and factories. From now on, the first estate of the country was called not the nobility, but the noble nobility. In the provinces and counties, meetings of the nobility were convened once every three years and leaders were chosen from among their number, who could express their wishes directly to the empress. Published in 1785 "Charter to cities"

divided the entire urban population into six categories:

"real city dwellers", i.e. people who had a house or land in the city, as well as nobles and clergy;

merchants of three guilds (the first guild - with a capital of 10 - 50 thousand rubles, the second guild - 5 - 10 thousand rubles, the third - up to 5 thousand rubles);

guild artisans;

non-residents and foreign guests;

"eminent citizens" - scientists, artists, bankers, ship owners, etc.;

"townspeople" engaged in crafts and needlework.

The bulk of the urban population were citizens of the third and sixth categories. The executive body of city self-government was the six-member Duma headed by the mayor. In reality, the power in the city was in the hands of the mayor and the chief of police, while the Duma dealt with the issues of improvement and sanitary condition of the city.

Letters to the nobility and cities testified to the desire of the autocracy to consolidate the forces on which it relied - the nobility and the top of the urban population, mainly merchant merchants. Both letters brought together the privileges granted to nobles and merchants at different times, and at the same time expanded their rights.

The defining feature of the development of Russia in the second half of the XVIII century. - the domination of serf relations, and these relations not only remained dominant, but also spread to new territories, new categories of the population, new industries and spheres of economic life. But at the same time, the productive forces, especially in the field of industry, have taken a significant step forward.

In the reign of Catherine II, the capitalist structure began to take shape as a stable system of production relations. The sphere of commodity-money relations is expanding, the process of primitive accumulation of capital is being further developed, free hired labor is being used more widely, and manufactory production is developing.

The greatest development of the productive forces took place in large-scale industry, i.e. in manufacturing, the number of which increased from 200 to 1200 at the end of the 18th century. The bulk of industrial products were supplied by small-scale handicraft production. The growth of rural crafts was especially noticeable. On the whole, however, the capitalist way of life arose in conditions extremely unfavorable for its development, when it itself was included in the system of the feudal economy.

№ 32 Foreign policy of Catherine II: Russian-Turkish wars, partitions of Poland, relations with Sweden, France.

1. The foreign policy of Russia under Catherine II was different:

Establishing closer relations with European countries;

Russian military expansion.

The main geopolitical achievements of the foreign policy of Catherine II were:

The conquest of access to the Black Sea and the annexation of Crimea to Russia;

Beginning of the annexation of Georgia to Russia;

The liquidation of the Polish state, the accession to Russia of all Ukraine (except for the region of Lvov), all of Belarus and Eastern Poland.

During the reign of Catherine II there are a number of wars:

Russian-Turkish war 1768 - 1774;

Capture of the Crimea in 1783;

Russian-Turkish war 1787 - 1791;

Russian-Swedish war 1788 - 1790;

Partitions of Poland 1772, 1793 and 1795

The main reasons for the Russian-Turkish wars of the late XVIII century. were:

Struggle for access to the Black Sea and Black Sea territories;

Fulfillment of allied obligations.

2. The reason for the Russian-Turkish war of 1768 - 1774. was the strengthening of Russian influence in Poland. The war against Russia was started by Turkey and its allies - France, Austria and the Crimean Khanate. The objectives of Turkey and the Allies in the war were:

Strengthening the positions of Turkey and allies in the Black Sea;

Striking the expansion of Russia through Poland - to Europe. The fighting was carried out on land and at sea, and A.V. Suvorov and P.A. Rumyantsev.

The most important battles of this war were.

Rumyantsev's victory in the battle at the Pockmarked Grave and Cahul in 1770;

Chesme naval battle in 1770;

Pobeda A.V. Suvorov at the Battle of Kozludzha.

The war developed successfully for Russia, was terminated by Russia in 1774 due to the need to suppress the uprising of E. Pugachev. The signed Kuchuk-Kanarji peace treaty, which became one of the brightest victories of Russian diplomacy, suited Russia:

Russia received access to the Sea of ​​Azov with the fortresses of Azov and Taganrog;

Kabarda joined Russia;

Russia received a small outlet to the Black Sea between the Dnieper and the Bug;

Moldavia and Wallachia became independent states and passed into the zone of Russian interests;

Russian merchant ships received the right of passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles;

The Crimean Khanate ceased to be a vassal of Turkey and became an independent state.

3. Despite the forced termination, this war was of great political importance for Russia - the victory in it, in addition to broad territorial acquisitions, predetermined the future conquest of the Crimea. Having become an independent state from Turkey, the Crimean Khanate lost the basis of its existence - the centuries-old political, economic and military support of Turkey. Left alone with Russia, the Crimean Khanate quickly fell into the zone of influence of Russia and did not last even 10 years. In 1783, under strong military and diplomatic pressure from Russia, the Crimean Khanate disintegrated, Khan Shahin-Giray resigned, and Crimea was occupied by Russian troops almost without resistance and incorporated into Russia.

4. The next step in expanding the territory of Russia under Catherine II was the beginning of the inclusion of Eastern Georgia into Russia. In 1783, the rulers of two Georgian principalities - Kartli and Kakheti, signed the Treaty of Georgievsk with Russia, according to which allied relations were established between the principalities and Russia against Turkey and East Georgia came under the military protection of Russia.

5. Russia's foreign policy successes, the annexation of Crimea and rapprochement with Georgia, pushed Turkey to start a new war - 1787 - 1791, the main goal of which was revenge for the defeat in the war of 1768 - 1774. and the return of the Crimea. A. Suvorov and F. Ushakov became the heroes of the new war. A.V. Suvorov won victories under:

Kinburn - 1787;

Focsani and Rymnik - 1789;

Ishmael, previously considered an impregnable fortress, was taken - 1790.

The capture of Ishmael is considered an example of the military art of Suvorov and the military art of that time. Before the assault, on the orders of Suvorov, a fortress was built, repeating Ishmael (a model), on which the soldiers trained day and night to exhaustion to take an impregnable fortress. As a result, the professionalism of the soldiers played its part, came as a complete surprise to the Turks, and Ishmael was taken relatively easily. After that, Suvorov's statement became widespread: "It is hard in teaching - it is easy in battle." The squadron of F. Ushakov also won a number of victories at sea, the most important of which were the battle of Kerch and the battle south of Kaliakria. The first allowed the Russian fleet to enter the Black Sea from Azov, and the second demonstrated the strength of the Russian fleet and finally convinced the Turks of the futility of the war.

In 1791, the Iasi Peace Treaty was signed in Iasi, which:

Confirmed the main provisions of the Kuchuk-Kainarji peace treaty;

Established a new border between Russia and Turkey: along the Dniester - in the west and Kuban - in the east;

Legalized the inclusion of Crimea into Russia;

He confirmed Turkey's refusal of claims to the Crimea and Georgia.

As a result of two victorious wars with Turkey, conducted in the Catherine era, Russia acquired vast territories in the north and east of the Black Sea and became a Black Sea power. The centuries-old idea to achieve access to the Black Sea was achieved. In addition, the sworn enemy of Russia and other European peoples, the Crimean Khanate, which had terrorized Russia and other countries with its raids for centuries, was destroyed. Russian victory in two Russian-Turkish wars - 1768 - 1774 and 1787 - 1791 - in its meaning is equivalent to the victory in the Northern War.

6. Russian-Turkish war of 1787 - 1791 Sweden tried to take advantage, which in 1788 attacked Russia from the north in order to regain the territories lost during the Great Northern War and subsequent wars. As a result, Russia was forced to simultaneously wage war on two fronts - in the north and south. In the short war of 1788-1790. Sweden did not achieve tangible success and in 1790 the Revel Peace Treaty was signed, according to which the parties returned to the pre-war borders.

7. In addition to the south, another direction of Russian expansion at the end of the XVIII century. became the western direction, and the object of claims - Poland - once one of the most powerful European states. In the early 1770s. Poland was in a state of deep crisis. On the other hand, Poland was surrounded by three predatory states that were rapidly gaining strength - Prussia (future Germany), Austria (future Austria-Hungary) and Russia.

In 1772, as a result of the national betrayal of the Polish leadership and the strong military and diplomatic pressure of the surrounding countries, Poland actually ceased to exist as an independent state, although officially it remained so. The troops of Austria, Prussia and Russia entered the territory of Poland, which divided Poland among themselves into three parts - zones of influence. Subsequently, the boundaries between the zones of occupation were revised twice more. These events went down in history as the partitions of Poland:

According to the first partition of Poland in 1772, Eastern Belarus and Pskov were ceded to Russia;

According to the second partition of Poland in 1793, Volhynia passed to Russia;

After the third partition of Poland, which took place in 1795 after the suppression of the national liberation uprising under the leadership of Tadeusz Kosciuszko, Western Belarus and Left-bank Ukraine went to Russia (the Lvov region and a number of Ukrainian lands went to Austria, which they were part of until 1918. ).

The Kosciuszko uprising was the last attempt to preserve the independence of Poland. After his defeat, in 1795, Poland ceased to exist as an independent state for 123 years (until the restoration of independence in 1917-1918) and was finally divided between Russia, Prussia (since 1871 - Germany) and Austria. As a result, the entire territory of Ukraine (except for the extremely western part), all of Belarus and the eastern part of Poland went to Russia

№ 33 Liberal and conservative course of reforms of Alexander I. Activities of the "Unspoken Committee". M. Speransky. A.Arakcheev., N.Novosiltsev.

The internal policy of the kings can be traced for several centuries. In the same work, we will consider the activities of Tsar Alexander I, who ruled from 1801 to 1825. We remember him as the first liberal-minded ruler. It is with his name that the emergence of liberalism as a political ideology is associated. It was he who tried to carry out reforms not "from above", as his predecessors did, but reforms "from below", reforms for his people. The time of his reign can be divided into two periods: the liberal tendencies of domestic policy and the conservative (radical) direction. These periods are associated with the names of such statesmen as M.M. Speransky and A.A. Arakcheev (two opposing personalities who were advisers and mentors to the sovereign). We will consider these two periods in more detail and try to conduct a comparative analysis of the reformism of Alexander I at different stages of his political activity, and identify contrasting steps towards the reformation of modernization. The topic of the course paper, in our opinion, is relevant precisely because the reforms of Alexander I do not have an unambiguous interpretation, and therefore the work deals with the contradictory aspects of his policy. Indeed, after the liberal state reorganizations, a series of radicalism followed, which once again slowed down the course of the political and historical development of Russia. The main purpose of the study of this course work is to study the reforms of Alexander I with the further determination of belonging to a particular political ideology and the determining factors of all political processes. Another goal of our work is a comparative description of the two directions of the period under review - liberalism and conservatism. The implementation of the goals set is provided by the solution of the following tasks:

1. definition and essence of each work;

2. areas of reform implementation;

3. division into two stages, taking into account the essence of political ideology;

4. comparative characteristics and in-depth analysis of the reforms;

5. Results, conclusions, consequences.

The novelty of this work lies in a detailed analysis and distribution of all the political actions of Alexander I, in the relevance of the topic as a textbook on state administration. In the analysis of the proposed reforms by the emperor's state advisers and their impact on the political life of the Russian empire. The structure of the course work is determined by the goals and objectives of the study. It consists of an introduction, two chapters, where the first chapter contains nine subchapters, and the second - three, conclusion and bibliography. The total volume of the course work is 42 pages. The bibliography is attached. Russian liberalism as an official political course was formed during the reign of Alexander I. “Watching Alexander I,” wrote A.O. Klyuchevsky, - we are witnessing a whole era not only in Russian, but also in European history, because it is difficult to find another historical person who would meet so many diverse influences of the then Europe "The tyrannical rule of Paul I caused acute discontent in the circles of the nobility, whose interests were greatly infringed . In addition, with the unpredictable behavior of Paul I, no one could feel safe. Already by the middle of 1800. A conspiracy arose against Paul, which was first led by Vice-Chancellor N.P. Panin, and after his exile - the St. Petersburg military governor P.A. Palen. On the night of March 12, 1801, a group of guards officers from among the conspirators freely entered the Mikhailovsky Castle and put an end to Pavel. Paul's eldest son, Alexander, ascended the throne. The character of the new emperor was very gray noticed by A.S. Pushkin. Already after the death of Alexander I, in 1829, referring to his bust (the poem "To the Bust of the Conqueror") with the following words:

You see the error here:

Art hand induced

On the marble of these lips a smile,

And anger on the cold gloss of the forehead.

No wonder this face is bilingual,

Such was this ruler:

Accustomed to opposition

in the face and in the life of the harlequin.

Alexander was the favorite grandson of Catherine II, who herself led his upbringing. She invited the best teachers, among them F.Ts. Logarp is highly educated, an adherent of the ideas of enlightenment and a Republican in views. In his position as "chief educator" he was with Alexander for 11 years. Introducing his pupil to the concept of the "natural" equality of people, talking with him about the advantages of the republican form of government, about political and civil freedom, about the "common good" to which the ruler should strive, La Harpe carefully bypassed the realities of serf Russia. He was mainly engaged in the moral education of his student. Subsequently, Alexander I said that he owes everything that he has good to La Harpe. But a more effective school for the upbringing of the future emperor was the conditions and atmosphere that surrounded him from early childhood - the "big court" of Catherine II in St. Petersburg and the "small court" of Father Pavel Petrovich in Gatchina, which were at enmity with each other. The need to maneuver between them taught Alexander, R.O. Klyuchevsky "to live on two minds, to keep two pedigree faces", developed in him secrecy, distrust of people and caution. Possessing an extraordinary mind, refined manners and, according to contemporaries, "an innate gift of courtesy", he was distinguished by a virtuoso ability to win over people of various views and beliefs, deftly using human weaknesses. He knew how to play "frankness" as a reliable means of controlling people and subordinating them to his will. “The real ruler,” M.M. said about him. Speransky. Napoleon, already on the island of St. Helena, spoke of Alexander like this: “The king is smart, elegant, educated; he can easily charm, but this must be feared; he is not sincere; this is a real Byzantine of the time of the decline of the Empire ... He can go far. If I die here, he will be my true heir in Europe." Contemporaries also distinguished such character traits of Alexander as stubbornness, suspicion, great pride and the desire to "seek popularity for any reason", and the researchers of his biography saw in him "a strange mixture of philosophical beliefs of the 18th century with the principles of natural autocracy." Alexander I ascended the throne at the age of 23, but already with established views. In a manifesto on March 12, 1801, he announced that he would govern the “God entrusted” people to him “according to the laws and according to the heart in God of the reposed august grandmother of our Catherine the Great.” Alexander began by restoring the “granted” letters of 1785 canceled by Paul I to the nobility and cities, noble elected corporate bodies - county and provincial meetings of nobles, freed them from corporal punishment introduced by Paul I; the already suggestive Secret Expedition, which was engaged in investigation and reprisal, was abolished; the prisoners held in the Peter and Paul Fortress were released. Up to 12 thousand disgraced or repressed officials and soldiers were returned from exile, an amnesty was declared for everyone who fled abroad from Pavlovsk repressions. Other Pavlovian decrees that annoyed the nobility were also canceled, for example, to wear round French hats, to subscribe to foreign newspapers and magazines. In the cities, the gallows disappeared, to which boards with the names of the disgraced were nailed. It was allowed to reopen private printing houses and allow their owners to publish books and magazines. Alexander I solemnly proclaimed that his policy would be based not on the personal will or whim of the monarch, but on strict observance of laws. So, in the manifesto of April 2, 1801, on the abolition of the Secret Expedition, it was said that from now on "a reliable stronghold of abuse" was laid and that "in a well-organized state, all income should be covered, judged and punished by the general force of the law." At every opportunity, Alexander liked to talk about the priority of legality. The population was promised legal guarantees against arbitrariness. All these statements of Alexander I had a great public outcry. In general, the idea of ​​legality was then the most important in the views of representatives of various areas of social thought - from Karamzin to the Decembrists. In the early years of the reign of Alexander I, it was not only the elimination of the consequences of the tyranny of Paul I, but the improvement of the state system in the new historical situation, when in general all European monarchies had to reckon with the new "spirit of the times" - with the influence of the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution on the minds, to conduct flexible policy of concessions and even transformations. The statement of Alexander I is curious: “The most powerful weapon used by the French and which they still threaten all countries. This is a common belief that they have managed to spread. That their cause is the cause of freedom and happiness of the peoples”, therefore “the true interest of the free authorities requires that they snatch this weapon from the hands of the French and, having taken possession of it, use it against themselves.” In line with these intentions, the policy of Alexander I was carried out in the first decade of his reign. It should hardly be seen as merely "flirting with liberalism." It was a policy of transformation - primarily in the central administration (its reorganization), in the field of education and the press, and to a lesser extent in the social field. To carry out this new political course, Alexander I needed energetic and active advisers. Already in the first year of his reign, he called to himself "friends of youth" - representatives of the younger generation of well-born noble nobility: Pavel Stroganov ("the first Jacobin" and admirer of Bonaparte), his cousin Nikolai Novosiltsev (the eldest of all, distinguished by encyclopedic education), the young Count Viktor Kochubey (who, although "did not shine with talents", was useful in his "bureaucratic sophistication") and Adam Czartoryski (disinterested, honest, who was a cousin of the last Polish king Stanislaw Poniatowski and dreamed with the help of Alexander I about the restoration of Poland's independence). They constituted in the summer of 1801 an "intimate circle", or a private committee. The Committee did not have the official status of a state institution, but in the first years of Alexander's reign it had considerable weight and in general outlined the program of transformations.

Evaluation of the activities of Catherine II caused heated debate among historians, both Russian and non-Russian. After Peter I, only Catherine II caused such conflicting opinions. Among the contemporaries of Catherine II were both her supporters and opponents.

The sharpest and most complete expression of the views of the detractors of Catherine II is found in the well-known note "On the damage to morals in Russia" Prince Shcherbatov, who served at the court of Catherine II, a historiographer and publicist, an educated person and a patriot with strong convictions. The author wrote a note about himself, not for the public, and collected in this work his memories, observations and reflections on the moral life of high Russian society in the 18th century, ending the gloomy picture he painted with the words:

"... a deplorable state, about which only one should ask God, so that this evil would be exterminated by the best reign."

Radishchev, as a person of a different generation and way of thinking, an ultra-liberal, imbued with the most advanced ideas of the century and who loved the fatherland no less than Prince Shcherbatov, who understood and recognized the greatness of Peter I, agreed in his view of the time they were experiencing with an old home-grown ultra-conservative, all of whose sympathies gravitated towards pre-Petrine antiquity (Radishchev and Shcherbatov). His "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow" appeared at the end of the reign of Catherine II, at a time when the main administrative reforms were completed. The lone voice of Radishchev was not heard and could not be heard, for it expressed the views of an insignificant minority. Radishchev expresses his respect for Peter as a great statesman, although he does not hide the fact that the very title of monarch does not appeal to him at all. Further, Radishchev stipulates that he is not writing this for the sake of flattery to the autocrat; recognizing the greatness of Peter, he immediately condemns him for the fact that the king "destroyed the last signs of the wild liberty of his fatherland." He included in the text of the book several places that were not subject to censorship, which later served as one of the additional and aggravating circumstances for his "guilt" during the trial. The rumor about the seditious book reached Catherine, and the book was delivered to her. She began to read it and became indescribably angry.

She ordered to consider it in the State Council, while hinting that Radishchev, among other things, insulted her personally with his book, for which he was sent into exile.

A distinctive feature of the reign of Catherine II, in addition to her gradual non-violent transformations, was how he wrote N. M. Karamzin that the result of the cleansing of the autocracy from the "impurities of tyranny" was peace of mind, the success of secular amenities, knowledge, and reason.

Louis Philippe Segur- a descendant of an aristocratic family, the son of the minister of war under the French king Louis XIV, who for 5 years was the representative of France at court, sees in the empress an outstanding statesman, whose reforms are comparable to the activities of the greatest kings of Europe, and an outstanding personality with a rare benevolent character inherent in her the charm of a beautiful and intelligent woman. He is also attracted by the activities of the empress as an educator of society, a woman who patronizes the sciences, leading Russia from a barbaric, Asian state to an enlightened, European one.

All historians agree that, having ascended the throne, the empress met with numerous difficulties. First of all, Catherine's rights to the throne were extremely doubtful. The wife of the deposed emperor and the mother of the heir had, at best, a reason to be regent until the age of Paul, who was 12 years old in the year of the coup. Not to mention the fact that disputes about the father of the heir (among several candidates there was never Peter III) continue by historians to this day, Catherine was a foreigner.

Poet and Minister Gavrila Derzhavin, who knew the empress well, and generally assessed her activities positively, wrote: “She ruled the state and justice itself more according to politics or its types than according to holy truth”. The poet and statesman knew, of course, that in history there were few rulers who acted "according to holy truth." Derzhavin emphasized the thoughtfulness of Catherine's behavior. Constantly reminding her of her “right” to the throne, she knew that endless repetition would convince her loyal subjects of the legitimacy of her stay on the throne.

According to Russian scientist Klyuchevsky Catherine firmly believed in her luck. First of all, she knew what she wanted. Unlike all her predecessors, except for Peter I, she prepared for a long time and diligently for the position she dreamed of from the day she arrived in Russia. Unlike Peter, who learned to be a king by building ships, studying warfare, and traveling abroad, Catherine prepared to become an empress by reading books and honing her ability to influence people.

Contemporaries who knew Catherine personally or through letters, who began to analyze her character, usually started out crazy. Vasily Klyuchevsky, noting this fact, believes that " Catherine was simply smart and nothing more, if only it was a little. Her mind was not particularly subtle and deep, but flexible and cautious, quick-witted, intelligent mind that knew its place and time and did not prick the eyes of others. Catherine knew how to be smart by the way and in moderation. But Catherine obviously had personal interests. She needed fame, “she needed high-profile deeds, major, obvious successes for everyone, in order to justify her accession and earn the love of her subjects, for the acquisition of which she, according to her confession, did not neglect anything.”

One of the best experts on the reign of Catherine II - S.D. Barskov considered the main weapon of the queen lie. “All her life, from early childhood to old age, she used this weapon, wielded it like a virtuoso, and deceived her parents, governess, husband, lovers, subjects, foreigners, contemporaries and descendants.”

Evaluating the reign of Catherine II in different ways, historians unanimously agree that

that she was a "noble empress", that under her "the main process of the 18th century" was completed. - the creation of a noble privilege, approved for the enslavement of the people. While agreeing that one of the most important results of Catherine's activity was the strengthening of the nobility as the ruling stratum of Russia, historians disagree, often in opposite directions, when assessing the nature of the Russian nobility.

A nobleman of the end of the 18th century, who, as he writes Vasily Klyuchevsky, was to lead Russian society along the path of progress, was a strange creature.

“His social position rested on political injustice and was crowned with idleness in life. From the hands of a rural deacon-teacher, he passed into the hands of a French tutor, completed his education in an Italian theater or a French restaurant, and ended his days in a Moscow or village office with a Voltaire book in his hands ... All the manners, habits, tastes, sympathies he had learned, the language itself - everything was alien, imported, and at home he had no living organic ties with the environment, no serious everyday business.

Sergei Solovyov, the author of "The History of Russia from Ancient Times" in 29 volumes, wrote about the coincidence of the personal interests of the sovereign and the state, thus justifying the status of Catherine as the sole ruler. The Russian tsar cannot but be an autocrat, since the size of the state imposes this form of government. The penetration of the ideas of freedom in the Western European sense into Russian society made it necessary, according to the historian, to define the concept of freedom in an autocratic state. Sergei Solovyov argues logically: the goal and object of the autocratic state is the glory of citizens, the state and the sovereign; national pride creates in the autocratic people a feeling of freedom that induces them to great deeds and the good of their subjects no less than freedom itself.

Historians, evaluating the results of Catherine II's activities in different ways, unanimously admit that she dealt with lawmaking, administrative problems, paid great attention to foreign policy and many others. "Foreign policy, - summarizes Vasily Klyuchevsky , - the most brilliant side of Catherine's political activities. When they want to say the best that can be said about her reign, they talk about her external deeds ... "

However, already in the Soviet period, the activities of this empress were tried to be presented only as an attempt to repeat Peter's transformations, and Catherine herself was a dependent person, subject to the influence of scammers and favorites. When studying the history of the 18th century, preference was given to Peter and his reforms, Catherine appeared as a follower of the emperor, and her activities were a pale shadow of Peter's reforms. Apparently, this explains the small number of monographs on the rule of this woman published in the Soviet era. Although the end of the 80s - the beginning of the 90s is characterized by a revival of interest in the personality of the empress: the memoirs of Catherine of her contemporaries are reprinted, a number of interesting works and monographs appear.

In the activities of Catherine II there are many points regarding which historians are of the same opinion, but there are also points that cause heated debate. In general, historians, both Russian and foreign, are quite critical of the era of Catherine, highlighting both the minuses in her policy and achievements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the spirit of the "Instruction" it was also discussed at meetings of the special Legislative Commission for the codification of laws (June 30, 1767 - December 17, 1778). In fact, it was a representative body, in which all classes took part, except for the serfs. 564 deputies were elected, who brought with them 1.5 thousand orders, reflecting the basic requirements of the estates. The "order" of Catherine II demanded from the Commission a set of laws of a liberal nature, and orders from the localities were mostly aimed at strengthening serfdom, corporatism, etc. The commission, influenced by these mutually exclusive factors, was doomed, therefore, under the pretext of the Russian-Turkish war that began in 1768, Catherine dismissed the deputies for an indefinite period. The regulation was never created.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the second half of the XVIII century. Russia began to play an active role in international relations. She entered the European military-political unions and, thanks to a strong army, had significant influence in them. Russian diplomacy, which used to have to deal with permanent allies and adversaries, by this time had learned to maneuver in the complex relations of the European powers. The ideal of Russia's state interests was now associated with the spread of the ideas of rationalism to the field of foreign policy.

The Russian army is increasingly acquiring a national character: Russian officers and generals are coming to replace the foreign ones. The tasks of Russia's foreign policy during the reign of Catherine II were, firstly, the struggle for access to the southern seas - the Black and Azov, secondly, the liberation from foreign domination of the lands of Ukraine and Belarus and the unification of all Eastern Slavs in one state, thirdly , the struggle with revolutionary France in connection with the Great French Revolution that began in 1789. In the 60s. 18th century There is a complex political game going on in Europe.

The degree of convergence of certain countries was determined by the strength of the contradictions between them. At that time, Russia had the strongest contradictions with France and Austria. The Russian government was prompted to take active steps in the south by the interests of the country's security and the needs of the nobility, who were striving to obtain fertile southern lands. At the same time, the development of Russian industry and trade dictated the need to gain access to the Black Sea coast. Turkey, instigated by France and England, in the fall of 1768 declared war on Russia, which lasted until 1774. After the capture of Azov and Taganrog, Russia began building a fleet.

In the famous Battle of Chesme on June 25-26, 1770, under the command of Admirals G. A. Spiridonov, A. G. Orlov and S. K. Greig, a brilliant victory was won: the Turkish ships locked in the Chesme Bay, with the exception of one, were burned. A little later in July in 1770, under the command of the talented commander P. A. Rumyantsev, the Russian army won on land in the battle of Cahul over the 150,000-strong army of the Turks. In 1771, the Russian army under the command of Prince V. M. Dolgoruky captured the Perekop fortifications, defeated the combined Turkish-Tatar army in the battle of Cafe (Feodosia) and occupied the Crimean peninsula. These successes contributed to the fact that a protege of Russia was erected on the Crimean Khan's throne, with whom Dolgoruky concluded an agreement.

In June 1774, Russian troops under command succeeded in defeating the Ottomans (Turks) at Kozludzha. Russian-Turkish war 1768 - 1774 ended with the signing of the Kyuchuk-Kainarji peace treaty in 1774, under the terms of which Russia received access to the Black Sea; the steppes of the Black Sea region - Novorossia; the right to have a fleet on the Black Sea; the right of passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles; Azov, Kerch, as well as Kuban and Kabarda. The Crimean Khanate became independent from Turkey. Turkey paid an indemnity of 4 million rubles. And the Russian government won the right to act as a defender of the legitimate rights of Christian peoples in the Ottoman Empire. For brilliant victories in the Russian-Turkish war, Catherine II generously awarded her commanders with orders and nominal weapons. A. G. Orlov became known as Chesmensky, V. M. Dolgorukov - Krymsky, P. A. Rumyantsev - Zadunaisky. Since 1780, Russia began to draw closer to Austria on the basis of common interests in relation to Turkey and Poland.

Turkey did not want to come to terms with the assertion of Russia in the Black Sea. In response to Turkey's desire to return the Crimea under its rule, by the decree of Catherine II of April 8, 1783, the Crimea was included in the Russian Empire. Sevastopol was founded in 1783 as a base for the Black Sea Fleet. G. A. Potemkin for success in annexing the Crimea (the old name of Taurida) received a prefix to his title "Prince of Tauride". In 1787, Turkey presented an ultimatum to Russia with a number of unacceptable demands, and the second Russian-Turkish war (1787-1791) began, which was fought in a difficult international situation for Russia. The fact is that at that time an alliance of England, Prussia and Holland took shape, aimed at undermining Russia's positions in the Baltic. These countries provoked Sweden into a war with Russia in 1788-1790. This war weakened the strength of Russia, although the peace treaty of 1790 did not introduce any territorial changes between Russia and Sweden. Russia was supported at that time only by England, and even then by insignificant forces. However, the Russian-Swedish war showed the superiority of the Russian army. During the years of the second Russian-Turkish war, the military talent of A. V. Suvorov was especially clearly manifested.

In 1787, he defeated the Turks during the siege of Kinburn by them, then in 1788 he took the powerful fortress of Ochakov, and in 1789 he won two convincing victories over the many times superior enemy forces at the city of Focsani and on the river. Rymnik, for which he receives the title of Count of Rymnik. Of particular importance was the capture of Ishmael in 1790, which was the citadel of Ottoman rule on the Danube. After careful preparation, A. V. Suvorov appointed the time of the assault. Wanting to avoid bloodshed, he sent a letter to the commandant of the fortress demanding surrender: "24 hours - freedom, the first shot - already captivity, assault - death." The Turkish pasha refused: “Rather, the Danube will stop in its course, the sky will fall to the ground, than Ishmael will surrender.” After a 10-hour assault, Ishmael was taken.

In battle, the student of A.V. Suvorov, the future commander M.I. Kutuzov, glorified himself. Along with the ground forces, the fleet, commanded by Admiral F.F. Ushakov, also operated successfully during the war. In the battle at Cape Kaliakria (near Varna) in 1791, the Turkish fleet was destroyed. According to the Iasi peace treaty of 1791 (signed in the city of Iasi), Turkey recognized the Crimea as a possession of Russia. The Dniester River became the border between the two countries. The territory between the rivers Bug and Dniester became part of Russia. Turkey recognized Russia's patronage over Georgia, established by the Treaty of St. George in 1783. The economic development of the steppe south of Russia accelerated, and Russia's ties with the Mediterranean countries expanded.

The Crimean Khanate, a constant hotbed of aggression against Ukrainian and Russian lands, was liquidated. The cities of Nikolaev in 1789, Odessa in 1795, Ekaterinodar in 1793 (now Krasnodar) and others were founded in the south of Russia. Russia gained access to the Black Sea. Austria and Prussia, which at that time were in allied relations with Russia, repeatedly suggested that Russia undertake the division of the territory weakened by Poland's internal contradictions. Catherine II did not agree to this proposal for a long time due to the fact that the Polish king during this period was her henchman Stanislav Poniatowski. However, in conditions when, after the victory in the first Russian-Turkish war, there was a very real threat of concluding an alliance between Turkey and Austria for a joint struggle against Russia, Catherine II agreed to the partition of Poland. In 1772, Russia, Austria and Prussia committed aggression against Poland and divided part of the Polish lands among themselves.

Prussia occupied Pomerania, Austria - Galicia, and Russia - Eastern Belarus and the Polish part of Livonia. The second division, in which Prussia and Russia participated, took place in 1793. The entire Baltic coast of Poland with Gdansk and Greater Poland with Poznan went to Prussia, and Belarus with Minsk and Right-bank Ukraine went to Russia. This meant that all the old Russian lands became part of Russia. Meanwhile, an uprising led by Tadeusz Kosciuszko began in Poland, directed against the division of Polish lands by neighboring states. Taking advantage of the victories of the rebels as a pretext, Russia, Austria and Prussia again sent their troops into Poland and crushed the uprising. It was decided that the Polish state as a source of "revolutionary danger" should cease to exist.

This meant the third division of Poland, which took place in 1795. The lands of central Poland with Warsaw went to Prussia. Austria received Lesser Poland with Lublin. The main part of Lithuania, Western Belarus and Western Volhynia went to Russia, and the inclusion of Courland into Russia was also legally formalized. Russia's allied relations with Austria and Prussia created an opportunity for the return of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands to Russia, which had been located since the 16th century. within the Polish-Lithuanian state. However, the task of ensuring the security of Peter's conquests in the Baltic remained. The Great French Revolution caused not only the creation of the first anti-French coalition under the auspices of Catherine II, but also marked the beginning of the ideologization of Russia's foreign policy.

The transformation of Russia into a great European power required constant confirmation of this status. Not a single major issue of European politics was resolved without its participation. In 1775, the war of the English colonies in North America began for independence. England turned to Russia with a request to hire Russian troops to take part in the fight against the American rebels. In response, Catherine II not only refused this, but also recognized the independence of the United States of America. In 1780, Russia adopted a declaration of "armed neutrality", according to which the ship of any neutral state is under the protection of all neutral states. This greatly offended the interests of England and could not but worsen Russian-British relations. The foreign policy of Catherine the Great led to a significant increase in the territory of Russia. It included the Right-Bank Ukraine and Belarus, the Southern Baltic, the Northern Black Sea region, many new territories in the Far East and North America. The inhabitants of the Greek islands and the North Caucasus swore allegiance to the Russian Empress. The population of Russia has increased from 22 to 36 million people.

Thus, during the reign of Catherine II, Russia managed to get closer to solving the foreign policy tasks that the country had been facing for many decades. The most important result of the foreign policy of Catherine II was the beginning of the transformation of Russia from a great European into a great world power. “I don’t know how it will be with you, but with us, not a single gun in Europe dared to fire without our permission,” said Catherine’s Chancellor Count A. Bezborodko. The Russian fleet now plied not only the coastal seas, but also the Mediterranean, the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, supporting Russia's foreign policy in Europe, Asia and America with the power of its guns. However, the greatness of Russia cost its people a colossal effort and huge material and human losses. A number of historians rightly assess the reign of Catherine II as a single process of reform, as a time of continuous transformation.

The historiography of the reforms of Catherine II is no less extensive compared to the historiography of the era of Peter I. The well-known Russian historian of the 19th century. N.V. Karamzin in his “Note on Ancient and New Russia” saw in Catherine II the true successor of Petrov’s greatness and the second reformer of the new Russia, and considered her time as a whole “the happiest for a Russian citizen”. In the Russian pre-revolutionary historiography of the "Catherine era" there were two main directions. Representatives of one of them, mostly historians of the "state school" - S. M. Solovyov, A. D. Gradovsky, I. I. Dityatin and others - gave a fairly high assessment of the reforms of Catherine II, considering them an important stage in the development of Russian statehood, Europeanization of the country, the formation of elements of civil society. Historians of another direction - V. O. Klyuchevsky, A. A. Kizevetter, V. I. Semevsky and others - demonstrated a much greater criticality of judgments when describing the transformations of Catherine II.

These historians, first of all, were distinguished by the search for inconsistencies, the identification of inconsistencies between the declarations and specific actions of the empress, and a special emphasis on the peasant question. In Soviet historical science, the reign of Catherine II was considered as a manifestation of the so-called "enlightened absolutism". At the same time, the policy of “enlightened absolutism” of Catherine II was interpreted as liberal demagoguery and the maneuvering of the autocracy between different social strata in the era of the decomposition of the feudal-serfdom system in order to prevent popular uprisings. Thus, all the deeds of the empress were initially given a negative connotation of something insincere and even reactionary.

When evaluating the reign of Catherine II, one must obviously keep in mind that the empress had to act not according to a pre-thought-out and planned reform program, but to consistently take on the solution of the tasks that life put forward. Hence the impression of some chaotic nature of her reign. The main facts of the reign of Catherine II can be grouped according to their semantic orientation into several lines: firstly, imperial measures in foreign and domestic policy; secondly, strengthening absolutism by reforming government institutions and a new administrative structure of the state, protecting the monarchy from any encroachment; thirdly, socio-economic measures aimed at further "Europeanization" of the country and the final formation and strengthening of the nobility; fourthly, liberal educational initiatives, care for education, literature, and the arts.

According to the historian S.V. Bushuev, in the reign of Catherine II there was a “discrepancy between the external forms and internal conditions brought from above”, the “soul” and “body” of Russia, and hence all the contradictions of the 18th century: the split of the nation, the split of the people and power , power and the intelligentsia created by it, the split of culture into folk and "official", the coexistence of "enlightenment" and "slavery". All this can somehow explain the underlying causes of her impressive successes when she acted like a Petrine “from above”, and her amazing impotence, as soon as she tried to get support “from below” in a European way. The enlightened Empress Catherine II acted both as the first landowner and as a correspondent for Voltaire, as an unlimited ruler, as a supporter of humanity and at the same time as a reinstater of the death penalty. According to the definition of A.S., Pushkin, Catherine II is "Tartuffe in a skirt and crown."