Multifaceted and contradictory in its specific manifestations and historical consequences, it is differently evaluated in historiography. At the same time, assessments of the activities of Peter I are largely determined by those fundamental theoretical (methodological) approaches that certain researchers adhere to. Within the framework of all scientific areas, which are based on the idea of ​​the progressive, progressive development of mankind, generally positive assessments of the activities of Peter I are given.

So, in the 30-40s. 19th century Westerners (T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, M.N. Katkov, K.D. Kavelin and others), considering Russia a country following the Western European path of development, defending the need to use the experience of the West, concluded that that Peter I carried out an exceptionally useful deed for the country, reducing its lag behind Europe, etc. Historians of the “state school” (primarily S. M. Solovyov) wrote about the reforms, about the personality of Peter I in enthusiastic tones, attributing to him all the successes achieved both within the country and in Russia's foreign policy.

In the XX century. representatives of the historical-materialist direction (B. A. Rybakov, N. I. Pavlenko, V. I. Buganov, E. V. Anisimov and others), came to the conclusion that as a result of Peter the Great’s transformations, Russia took a major step towards way of progress, turned into a European power, and the absolutist regime created by Peter I did not differ significantly from the absolutist regimes of the West. But at the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that the necessary reforms were carried out at a high price, by increasing the exploitation of the people.

Representatives of the liberal trend (I. N. Ionov, R. Pipes, and others), who focus on the development of the individual, recognize the merits of Peter I in the Europeanization of the country, turning it into an advanced power. But at the same time, they believe that the country was drained of blood due to the overstrain of the people's forces, and the space of freedom narrowed, since each person was limited in his activities by the framework of state interests. As a result of “Westernization” (in the sense of “blind” copying of Western ideas and practices), not absolutism, but Asiatic despotism, was established in Russia, only outwardly similar to Western absolutist monarchies.

By the end of the reign of Peter I, the country was a military-police state with a feudal economy: the reforms mothballed serf relations. Representatives of the technological direction (S. A. Nefedov and others), who, studying the progress of mankind, pay the main attention to technological development and related changes in society, consider the reforms of Peter I in the context of technological modernization of the Swedish-Dutch model.

At the same time, it is noted that new phenomena interacted with the traditions of past eras, and this synthesis did not lead to significant changes: in Russia, there was an absolutism of the oriental model. The nobles were not free, because they were obliged to carry out public service, and their relations with the peasants were regulated by the state. The industry, created by Peter I, was, basically, the state industry serving the army and navy.

On the whole, Russia remained an Eastern state with a European façade. Supporters of the local-historical theory, in general, have a negative attitude towards the reform activities of Peter I. The Slavophiles in the 40s. 19th century came to the conclusion that the reforms of Peter I are a forcible intervention of the state in the original life of the Russian people, which caused irreparable damage to the Russian people, depriving them of their national identity and natural path of development.

Within the framework of religious-historical theory, there are two opposite approaches to assessing the activities of Peter I. Christian historiography, represented by the official church, is loyal to Peter I: the activities of the tsar as God's anointed one were aimed at the good of Russia. But in the Old Believer Christian literature, a clearly negative attitude towards Peter I is manifested, since, according to the Old Believers, he neglected the old Orthodox traditions, persecuted the Old Believers, etc. writers, as well as historians, there is a certain inconsistency and ambiguity.

It seems that this is obviously explained by the fact that, firstly, not only the positive results of the transformations in themselves are important for history, but also the price paid for them by the people. Secondly, the fact that the consequences of Peter's reforms in all spheres of life in Russian society turned out to be contradictory.

The transformations of Peter I are a model for reforming society in the context of its systemic crisis. This circumstance, according to authoritative historians (Kamensky and others), on the one hand, provided favorable conditions for the radical reforms of Peter I, since as a result of the crisis, the political elite was disorganized, and it could not form an opposition: Peter's reforms that turned the life of Russian society upside down met no serious resistance.

But, on the other hand, the crisis required radical changes in all spheres of life and in a relatively short period of time. This predetermined the lack of planning, consistency, elaboration, preparedness in the reform process, as well as, in many respects, the violent way of implementing the reforms. The historical experience of Peter the Great's reforms shows that the period of radical reforms requires maximum exertion of the forces of society, and cannot continue indefinitely. Society, undoubtedly, after some time begins to need a respite and to comprehend the experience, the lessons of the ongoing transformations, i.e. there is a test of reforms by life itself, in the course of which, to one degree or another, there is a movement back.

This, in fact, was observed in the post-Petrine period, when the contradictory, negative consequences of the Petrine reforms were manifested. For at least two decades, the successors of Peter I had to eliminate the consequences of, for example, the financial crisis, reducing spending on the state apparatus and the army. The socio-cultural split of the nation, caused by the reforms of Peter I, also had long-term negative consequences.

Today, there is a point of view according to which, as a result of the reforms of Peter I, the process of modernization of Russia began, meaning “not the rejection of originality as such, but the renunciation of the originality of the old model and the creation of a new model of identity.”1 At the same time, the tsar is a reformer, unlike some modern reformers , initially set itself not the task of becoming like the West, but the task of turning Russia into a powerful country equipped with modern scientific and technological achievements. And although in solving this problem, in a number of cases, superficial “Europeanization” was not done, in the end, thanks to the reforms of Peter I, “a new Russia was founded, unlike itself in the past, but because of this it did not become identical to either England, or France, or To the West as a whole: Russia has begun building a new model of identity.

By his reforming activity, Peter I sought to overcome what he considered the socio-economic, socio-political backwardness of the country, and carried out what is today called modernization. At the same time, he strove to achieve those ideals of the social order that Western European social thought offered at one time.

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

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….p. 2

2. BAGGER'S ANALYTICAL WORK………………………………p. 3

3. PETER'S REFORMS IN THE EYES OF KLYUCHEVSKY………..p. 6

4. PLATONOV ABOUT PETER………………………………………………..p. ten

5. PETER'S TOTALITARISM IN THE EYES OF ANISIMOV…..p. eleven

6. A BRIEF ASSESSMENT OF PUSHKAREV………………………………... p. 13

7. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………..p. fourteen

INTRODUCTION

The figure of Peter I is inseparable from the history of Russia, however, it is also inseparable from the history of our city, maybe even to a greater extent than other cities, excluding, of course, St. Petersburg. The main attention of historians of all times and all nationalities was attracted by the reforms of the Russian tsar, which became a turning point in the life of the Russian state.

Great achievements in all areas of life, the transformation of Russia into a great world power, which has become a kind of historical phenomenon, explain the long, steady, increased interest in the era of Peter in Russian and foreign historical science. All the leading historians, specialists in the history of Russia, from the 18th century to the present day, responded in one way or another to the events of Peter the Great's time.

In my essay, I will try, using the material of various books, to look at Peter's reforms through the eyes of different historians. However, the Danish historian Hans Bagger probably pursued the same task. Therefore, I will begin my work with this work.

BAGGER'S ANALYTICAL WORK

It is natural that, living in the West, Bagger begins his review with assessments of the reforms by Western researchers.

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

The background against which this or that researcher assessed Peter's reforms was also varied. While some historians considered the topic mainly in comparison with the previous period of Russian history, most often immediately preceding it, others compared it with the situation in Europe at the beginning of the 18th century, and still others assessed the historical significance of Peter's reform activity through the prism of the subsequent development of Russia.

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

A vivid exponent of one of the extreme points of view within the framework of the "revolutionary" concept was S. M. Solovyov, who, with his "History of Russia", made a major contribution to the scientific study of the era of Peter's reign. He interprets the Petrine period as an era of fierce struggle between two diametrically opposed principles of state administration and characterizes the reforms as a radical transformation, a terrible revolution that cut the history of Russia in two and meant a transition from one era in the history of the people to another.

Among the scientists who defend the “evolutionary” concept, V. O. Klyuchevsky and S. F. Platonov, historians who deeply studied the pre-Petrine period and in their lecture courses on national history persistently pursued the idea of ​​continuity between the reforms of Peter and the previous century, are especially distinguished.

The second of the most distinct problems posed in the general discussion of Peter's reforms contains the question: to what extent were planned and systematic characterization of the reform activity?

In S. M. Solovyov, according to Bagger, the reforms are presented in the form of a strictly sequential series of links that make up a comprehensively thought-out and pre-planned program of transformations, which is based on a rigid system of clearly formulated targets.

However, there are historians who hold absolutely opposite views. So for P. N. Milyukov, the reforms appear in the form of an uninterrupted chain of miscalculations and mistakes. The transformative activity of Peter reveals, in his opinion, a striking lack of a perspective assessment of the situation, systematic, thoughtful plan, which resulted in the mutual inconsistency of many reforms.

V. O. Klyuchevsky, on the other hand, not only characterized the reforms as a long series of mistakes, but also defined them as a permanent fiasco, and Petrine methods of management as a “chronic disease” that destroyed the body of the nation for almost 200 years.

On the question of the planned reforms, Soviet historians have not developed a unified position. But, as a rule, they assumed a different, deeper meaning than the intensification and increase in the effectiveness of military operations, the meaning of the transformations.

Some historians believe that the outstanding personality of Peter left an imprint on all the political activities of the government, both in a positive and negative sense. However, such an assessment is only occasionally confirmed by serious studies concerning the extent and nature of Peter's influence on the process of transformation.

P. N. Milyukov was the first to discover and defiantly doubt the greatness of Peter. He argues that Peter's sphere of influence was very limited; reforms were developed collectively, and the final goals of the transformations were realized by the king only partially, and even then indirectly by the closest circle. Thus Miliukov reveals a long series of "reforms without a reformer."

According to the generally accepted opinion, the tsar used most of his time and energy precisely to change the relationship between Russia and the outside world; in addition, many historians documented, on the basis of foreign policy materials, confirmed the active and leading role of Peter in this area of ​​state activity.

One gets the impression of complete unanimity among historians about the fact that Peter's administrative reforms were a step forward compared to the previous system of government.

Researchers are unanimous in their opinion, considering the Petrine era to be very significant in the history of Russian industry, if only because in the first quarter of the 18th century, thanks to the policy of protectionism and state subsidies, many new enterprises were founded.

Peter's social reforms have always attracted close attention of historians. Many believe that in his desire to achieve the maximum return from his subjects in relation to the state, Peter, as a rule, preferred to build a new one on the foundation of the existing estate structure, gradually increasing the hardships of individual estates. In this, his policy differed from the policy of Western absolutism, which sought, above all, to destroy the building of medieval society. But there is another opinion, according to which Peter considered it necessary to regulate social functions, erasing traditional class boundaries.

In the literature on the issue of the results of the cultural policy of Peter, there is such a diverse variance in their assessments that it can obviously be explained only by the difference in the breadth of approach, on the one hand, among historians who consider the cultural policy of the king as something integral and fundamentally all-encompassing, and , on the other hand, those researchers who studied the implementation and consequences of ongoing activities. Thus, it is easy to see that the characteristics of the specific results of reforms are often negative, while the overall results of reforms are usually regarded positively.

There is a strong opinion in the historical literature: the era of Peter's reign meant politically a historical turn in relations between Russia and Europe, while Russia itself, thanks to the victory over Sweden, entered the European system of states as a great power. At the same time, some authors consider these results to be the most important in all the activities of Peter, while others - in general, the most important event in the history of Europe in the 18th century.

In conclusion of the review of Bagger's work, I would like to cite his words, which nevertheless characterize the pseudo-objectivity of almost all historians who become dependent on the society and time in which they live and work.

“Although the well-known Russian historian and politician P. N. Milyukov noted in a mentoring tone that it is not the historian’s business to indulge in arguments about whether the events of the past were positive or negative, that he must instead concentrate entirely on his activities “as an expert” , that is, to reveal the authenticity of facts so that they can be used in scientific debates about politics; he himself, however, being a scientist, as little as his colleagues, succeeded in striving to get away from endless journalistic discussions about how harmful or useful, reprehensible or worthy of imitation Peter's reforms were from the point of view of morality or the interests of the nation. In the same way, later generations of historians could not boast that they completely overcame the temptation to build their conclusions about the results and methods of Peter's activity in accordance with the norms of contemporary politics and morality ... "

Thus, we see that this work is an important summary of historiographical material from the middle of the 19th century to the second half of the 70s of our century. It clearly showed the desire to take into account as fully as possible various points of view, concepts on the chosen problem, a fairly broad approach to what needs to be included in the scope of the study.

PETER'S REFORMS IN THE EYES OF KLYUCHEVSKY

Despite the fact that the work of H. Bagger repeatedly mentions the views on one or another side of the Petrine reforms of V. O. Klyuchevsky, one cannot but dwell in detail on the attitude of this historian to the reforms expressed in his course of lectures on Russian history.

Let's start with his statements regarding the planned and natural nature of the transformations of Peter I.

“This sovereign (Ivan the Terrible) is my predecessor and model; I have always imagined him as a model of my government in civil and military affairs, but I have not yet managed to go as far as he did. Fools only, who do not know the circumstances of his time, the properties of his people and his great merits, call him a tormentor.

(Peter the Great.)

“We have become citizens of the world, but in some cases we have ceased to be citizens of Russia - Peter is to blame! He is great no doubt, but he could still be exalted more if he found a way to enlighten the mind of Russians without harming their civic virtues.

(N.M. Karamzin.)

"Peter I was not afraid of people's freedom, the inevitable consequence of enlightenment, for he trusted his power and despised humanity, perhaps more than Napoleon ... History represents universal slavery around him."

(A.S. Pushkin.)

“Peter's reform was a struggle between despotism and the people, with their rigidity. He hoped, by a storm of power, to provoke amateur activity in an enslaved society and, through the slave-owning nobility, to establish in Russia European science, public education as a necessary condition for social amateur activity, he wanted the slave, remaining a slave, to act consciously and freely. The joint action of despotism and freedom, enlightenment and slavery - this is the political square of the circle, a riddle that has been resolved in our country since the time of Peter two centuries and has not yet been resolved.

(IN. Klyuchenskip.)

“The genius of Peter expressed himself in a clear understanding of the position of his people and his own as the leader of this people, he realized that his duty was to lead a weak, poor, almost unknown people out of this sad situation by means of civilization ... "

(S.M. Soloviev.)

"The whole knot of Russian life sits here."

(L.N. Tolstoy.)

“Everyone who had something to understand now perfectly understood: the real task of Russia, if she wants to become a European country, where a citizen should not expect every moment that he will die at the hands of a despot, is to prevent the restoration of a new insane an attack of "oprichnina civilization", which turned out to be ordinary "humanitarianism". The life of the people should be arranged in a human way - without head robbery, without denunciations and torture, without the dictatorship of the army. Life - with guarantees of personal and property security, under which he, the people, somehow himself - with God's help and without the intermediary of the dungeon, would achieve well-being and prosperity.

(Professor of New York University A. Yanov.)

"For the entire eighteenth century. and more broadly - the Petersburg period of Russian history - one gigantic shadow falls - Peter the Great - the emperor-reformer. And let him act in the direction that was completely determined under his father, let his reforms be born from the very logic of the historical development of the 17th century. ... - all the same, it cannot be denied that it was Peter who became the creator of New Russia.

(Modern domestic historian S.V. Bushuev.)

1 Until the 18th century. the year began with the church new year - September 1, and the chronology was "from the creation of the world."