Church reforms of Peter 1. What was the reform of the central government

Nevrev N.V. Peter I in a foreign dress
before his mother Tsarina Natalya,
Patriarch Andrian and teacher Zotov.
1903

Since its inception in 1589, the institution of the patriarchate has become the second political center of the Muscovite state after secular power. The relationship of the Church to the state before Peter was not precisely defined, although at the church council of 1666-1667. the supremacy of secular power was fundamentally recognized and the right of hierarchs to interfere in secular affairs was denied. The Moscow sovereign was considered the supreme patron of the Church and took an active part in church affairs. But church authorities were also called upon to participate in state administration and influenced it. Russia did not know the struggle between ecclesiastical and secular authorities, familiar to the West (it did not exist, strictly speaking, even under Patriarch Nikon). The enormous spiritual authority of the Moscow patriarchs did not seek to replace the authority of state power, and if a voice of protest was heard from the Russian hierarch, it was exclusively from a moral position.

Peter did not grow up under the strong influence of theology and not in such a pious environment as his brothers and sisters did. From the very first steps of his conscious life, he made friends with the "German heretics" and, although he remained an Orthodox person in his convictions, he nevertheless treated Church Orthodox rituals more freely than ordinary Moscow people. Peter was neither a scolder of the Church, nor a particularly pious person - in general, "neither cold nor hot." As expected, he knew the circle of the church service, loved to sing on the kliros, grab the “Apostle” at the top of his lungs, ring the bells on Easter, mark Victoria with a solemn prayer service and many days of church bells; at other times he sincerely called on the name of God and, despite the obscene parodies of the church rank, or, rather, the church hierarchy that he did not like, at the sight of church disorganization, in his own words, “the frivolous had fear in his conscience, but he would not be unresponsive and ungrateful Even the correction of the spiritual rank will neglect the Most High.”

In the eyes of the Old Testament zealots of piety, he seemed infected with foreign "heresy". It can be said with certainty that Peter, from his mother and the conservative Patriarch Joachim (d. 1690), more than once met with condemnation for his habits and acquaintance with heretics. Under Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700), a weak and timid man, Peter met with no more sympathy for his innovations. And although Adrian did not explicitly prevent Peter from introducing certain innovations, his silence, in essence, was a passive form of opposition. Insignificant in itself, the patriarch became inconvenient for Peter, as the center and unifying principle of all protests, as a natural representative of not only ecclesiastical, but also social conservatism. The patriarch, strong in will and spirit, could have been a powerful opponent of Peter if he had taken the side of the conservative Moscow worldview, which condemned all public life to immobility.

Realizing this danger, after the death of Adrian in 1700, Peter was in no hurry to elect a new patriarch. Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky, a Little Russian scholar, was appointed "locum tenens of the patriarchal throne". The management of the patriarchal economy passed into the hands of specially appointed secular persons. It is unlikely that Peter decided to abolish the patriarchate immediately after the death of Hadrian. It would be more correct to think that at that time Peter simply did not know what to do with the election of a patriarch. Peter treated the Great Russian clergy with some distrust, because many times he was convinced of their rejection of the reforms. Even the best representatives of the old Russian hierarchy, who were able to understand the whole nationality of Peter's foreign policy and helped him as much as they could (Mitrofaniy of Voronezh, Tikhon of Kazan, Job of Novgorod), also rebelled against Peter's cultural innovations. To choose a patriarch from among the Great Russians for Peter meant the risk of creating a formidable adversary for himself. The Little Russian clergy behaved differently: they themselves were influenced by European culture and science and sympathized with Western innovations. But it was impossible to appoint a Little Russian patriarch because during the time of Patriarch Joachim the Little Russian theologians were compromised in the eyes of Moscow society as people with Latin delusions. For this they were even persecuted. The elevation of a Little Russian to the patriarchal throne would therefore have caused a wave of protest. In such circumstances, Peter decided to leave church affairs without a patriarch.

The following order of church administration was temporarily established: at the head of the church administration were Locum Tenens Stefan Yavorsky and a special institution, the Monastery Order, with secular persons at the head. The council of hierarchs was recognized as the supreme authority in matters of religion. Peter himself, like the previous sovereigns, was the patron of the church and took an active part in its management. But he was extremely attracted by the experience of the Protestant (Lutheran) church in Germany, based on the primacy of the monarch in spiritual matters. And in the end, shortly before the end of the war with Sweden, Peter decided to carry out the Reformation in the Russian Church. This time, too, he expected a healing effect on the tangled church affairs from the colleges, intending to establish a special spiritual college - the Synod.

Peter made the Little Russian monk Feofan Prokopovich the domestic, tame Luther of the Russian Reformation. He was a very capable, lively and energetic person, inclined to practical activities and at the same time very educated, having studied theological science not only at the Kyiv Academy, but also in the Catholic colleges of Lvov, Krakow and even Rome. The scholastic theology of the Catholic schools instilled in him a dislike for scholasticism and Catholicism. However, Orthodox theology, then poorly and little developed, did not satisfy Theophan. Therefore, from Catholic doctrines, he moved on to the study of Protestant theology and, carried away by it, learned some Protestant views, although he was an Orthodox monk.

Peter made Theophan the bishop of Pskov, and later he became the archbishop of Novgorod. A man quite secular in the direction of his mind and temperament, Feofan Prokopovich sincerely admired Peter and - God be his judge - enthusiastically praised everything indiscriminately: the personal courage and selflessness of the tsar, the work on organizing the fleet, the new capital, colleges, fiscals, as well as factories, plants, mint, pharmacies, silk and cloth manufactories, paper mills, shipyards, decrees on wearing foreign clothes, barbering, smoking, new foreign customs, even masquerades and assemblies. Foreign diplomats noted in the Bishop of Pskov "an immeasurable devotion to the good of the country, even to the detriment of the interests of the Church." Feofan Prokopovich never tired of reminding in his sermons: “Many believe that not all people are obliged to obey state power and some are excluded, namely the priesthood and monasticism. But this opinion is a thorn, or rather, a sting, a serpent's sting, a papal spirit, reaching us and touching us, no one knows how. The priesthood is a special estate in the state, and not a special state.

It was to him that Peter instructed to draw up the regulations for the new management of the Church. The tsar hurried the Pskov bishop very much and kept asking: “Will your patriarch be in time soon?” - “Yes, I’m finishing the cassock!” Feofan replied in a tone to the king. “Good, but I have a hat ready for him!” Peter remarked.

On January 25, 1721, Peter published a manifesto on the establishment of the Most Holy Governing Synod. In the regulations of the Theological College published a little later, Peter was quite frank about the reasons that made him prefer the synodal government to the patriarchal one: “From the cathedral government you can not be afraid of the Fatherland of rebellions and embarrassment, which come from a single spiritual ruler of your own.” After listing examples of what the clergy’s lust for power in Byzantium and other countries led to, the tsar, through the mouth of Feofan Prokopovich, finished: “When the people see that the conciliar government has been established by a royal decree and a Senate verdict, they will remain in meekness and lose hope for the help of the clergy in riots ". In essence, the Synod was conceived by Peter as a special spiritual police. By synodal decrees, heavy duties were imposed on priests that were not characteristic of their rank - they were not only supposed to glorify and exalt all reforms, but also to help the government in detecting and catching those who were hostile to innovations. The most egregious was the order to violate the secrecy of confession: having heard from the confessor about the commission of a state crime, his involvement in a rebellion or malicious intent on the life of the sovereign, the confessor was obliged to report such a person to the secular authorities. In addition, the priest was charged with the duty to identify schismatics.

However, Peter was tolerant of the Old Believers. They say that merchants among them are honest and diligent, and if so, let them believe what they want. To be martyrs for stupidity - neither they are worthy of this honor, nor the state will have any benefit. Open persecution of the Old Believers ceased. Peter only overlaid them with double state taxes and by decree of 1722 dressed them up in gray caftans with a high glued red trump card. However, calling on the bishops to verbally exhort those who were stagnating in schism, the tsar sometimes nevertheless sent a company or two soldiers to help the preachers for greater persuasion.

Among the Old Believers, the news was spreading more and more widely that far in the east, where the sun rises and “the sky is close to the earth” and where the Rahmans-Brahmins live, who know all worldly affairs, about which the angels who are always with them tell them, lies on the sea - okiyane, on seventy islands, the wonderful country of Belovodie, or the Oponsky kingdom; and Marko, a monk of the Topozero monastery, was there, and found 170 churches of the “Asir language” and 40 pyc churches built by elders who had fled from the Solovetsky monastery from the royal massacre. And following the happy Marco, in search of Belovodye, in the Siberian deserts, thousands of hunters rushed to see with their own eyes all the ancient beauty of the church.

Having established the Synod, Peter got out of the difficulty in which he had stood for many years. His church-administrative reform preserved an authoritative body of power in the Russian Church, but deprived this power of the political influence that the patriarch could use.

But in the historical perspective, the nationalization of the Church had a detrimental effect both on herself and on the state. Seeing in the Church a simple servant of the state who had lost her moral authority, many Russian people began to openly and secretly leave the bosom of the Church and seek satisfaction of their spiritual needs outside of Orthodox teaching. For example, out of 16 graduates of the Irkutsk seminary in 1914, only two expressed a desire to remain in the clergy, while the rest were going to go to universities. In Krasnoyarsk, the situation was even worse: none of its 15 graduates wanted to take the priesthood. A similar situation was in the Kostroma seminary. And since the Church has now become part of the state system, the criticism of church life or the complete denial of the Church, according to the logic of things, ended in criticism and denial of the state order. That is why there were so many seminarians and priests in the Russian revolutionary movement. The most famous of them are N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov, I.V. Dzhugashvili (Stalin), A.I. Mikoyan, N.I. Podvoisky (one of the leaders of the capture of the Winter Palace), S.V. Petliura, but the full list is much longer.

Speaking briefly about the course of the church reform of Peter I, it is important to note its thoughtfulness. At the end of the reform, Russia, as a result, received only one person with absolute full power.

Church reform of Peter I

From 1701 to 1722, Peter the Great tried to reduce the authority of the Church and establish control over its administrative and financial activities. The prerequisites for this was the protest of the Church against the changes taking place in the country, calling the king the Antichrist. Possessing enormous authority, comparable to the authority and fullness of power of Peter himself, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia was the main political competitor of the Russian tsar-reformer.

Rice. 1. Young Peter.

Among other things, the Church had accumulated enormous wealth, which Peter needed to wage war with the Swedes. All this tied the hands of Peter to use all the resources of the country for the sake of the desired victory.

The tsar was faced with the task of eliminating the economic and administrative autonomy of the Church and reducing the number of the clergy.

Table “The essence of the ongoing reforms”

*Events*	*Year*	*Goals*
Appointment of the "Guardian and Steward of the Patriarchal Throne"		Replace the election of the Patriarch by the Church with an imperial appointment	Peter personally appointed the new Patriarch
Secularization of peasants and lands		The elimination of the financial autonomy of the Church	Church peasants and lands were transferred to the management of the State.
Monastic prohibitions		Reduce the number of priests	You can not build new monasteries and conduct a census of monks
Senate control of the Church		Restriction of the administrative freedom of the Church	The creation of the Senate and the transfer of church affairs to its management
Decree on the limitation of the number of clergy		Improving the efficiency of human resource allocation	Ministers are attached to a particular parish, they are forbidden to travel
The preparatory stage for the abolition of the Patriarchate		Get full power in the empire	Development of a project for the establishment of the Spiritual College

January 25, 1721 is the date of the final victory of the emperor over the patriarch, when the patriarchate was abolished.

Results of the reform

The post of Patriarch was liquidated;
Increased taxes;
Recruitment sets from church peasants are conducted;
Reduced the number of monks and monasteries;
The church is dependent on the emperor.

What have we learned?

Peter the Great concentrated all branches of power in his hands and had unlimited freedom of action, establishing absolutism in Russia.

Topic quiz

Report Evaluation

Average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 228.

AT An important role in the establishment of absolutism was played by Peter's church reform. In the second half of the XVII century. the positions of the Russian Orthodox Church were very strong, it retained administrative, financial and judicial autonomy in relation to the royal power. The last patriarchs Joachim (1675-1690) and Adrian (1690-1700) pursued a policy aimed at strengthening these positions.

Peter's church policy, as well as his policy in other areas of public life, was aimed, first of all, at the most efficient use of the church for the needs of the state, and more specifically, at squeezing money out of the church for state programs, primarily for the construction of the fleet ( about "kuppanstvo"). After Peter's journey as part of the Great Embassy, he is also occupied with the problem of the complete subordination of the church to his authority.

The turn to the new policy took place after the death of Patriarch Hadrian. Peter orders to conduct an audit for the census of the property of the Patriarchal House. Taking advantage of information about revealed abuses, Peter cancels the election of a new patriarch, at the same time entrusting Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan with the post of "locum tenens of the patriarchal throne." In 1701, the Monastic order was formed - a secular institution - to manage the affairs of the church. The church begins to lose its independence from the state, the right to dispose of its property.

Peter, guided by the enlightening idea of the public good, which requires the productive work of all members of society, launches an offensive against monks and monasteries. In 1701, the royal decree limited the number of monks: now one had to apply to the Monastic order for permission to be tonsured. Subsequently, the king had the idea to use the monasteries as shelters for retired soldiers and beggars. In the decree of 1724, the number of monks in the monastery is directly dependent on the number of people they look after.

The existing relationship between the church and the authorities required a new legal formalization.
In 1721, Feofan Prokopovich, a prominent figure in the Petrine era, drew up the Spiritual Regulations, which provided for the destruction of the institution of the patriarchate and the formation of a new body - the Spiritual College, which was soon renamed the "Holy Government Synod", officially equalized in rights with the Senate. Stefan Yavorsky became president, Feodosy Yanovsky and Feofan Prokopovich became vice-presidents. The creation of the Synod was the beginning of the absolutist period of Russian history, since now all power, including church power, was concentrated in the hands of Peter. A contemporary reports that when Russian church leaders tried to protest, Peter pointed them to the Spiritual Regulations and said: "Here's a spiritual patriarch for you, and if you don't like him, then here's a damask patriarch (throwing a dagger on the table)."

The adoption of the Spiritual Regulations actually turned the Russian clergy into government officials, especially since a secular person, the chief prosecutor, was appointed to supervise the Synod.
The reform of the church was carried out in parallel with the tax reform, the registration and classification of priests were carried out, and their lower strata were transferred to the head salary. According to the consolidated statements of the Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod and Astrakhan provinces (formed as a result of the division of the Kazan province), only 3044 priests out of 8709 (35%) were exempted from taxes. A stormy reaction among the priests was caused by the Resolution of the Synod of May 17, 1722, in which the clergy were charged with the obligation to violate the secrecy of confession if they had the opportunity to communicate any information important to the state.

As a result of the church reform, the church lost a huge part of its influence and turned into a part of the state apparatus, strictly controlled and managed by secular authorities.

36. Estate policy of Peter 1.
Under Peter 1, a new structure of society is taking shape, which clearly separates the various classes of society. Hence the need to legally formalize the rights and obligations of different strata of society. The rights were expanded and the duties of the nobility were defined, the serfdom of the peasants was strengthened.
NOBILITY
Decree on education of 1706: Boyar children must receive either primary school or home education without fail.
Decree on estates of 1704: noble and boyar estates are not divided and are equated to each other.
Decree of Uniform Succession of 1714: a landowner with sons could bequeath all his real estate to only one of them of his choice. The rest were required to serve. The decree marked the final merger of the noble estate and the boyar estate, thereby finally erasing the difference between the two estates of feudal lords.
"Table of Ranks" 1721 (1722) of the year: the division of military, civil and court service into 14 ranks. Upon reaching the eighth grade, any official or military man could receive the status of hereditary nobility. Thus, a person's career depended primarily not on his origin, but on achievements in public service.

The place of the former boyars was taken by the “generals”, consisting of the ranks of the first four classes of the “Table of Ranks”. Personal length of service mixed representatives of the former tribal nobility with people raised by the service. The nobility of Russia becomes a military-bureaucratic estate, whose rights are created and hereditarily determined by public service, and not by birth.
PEASANTRY
From different categories of peasants who were not in serfdom from the landowners or the church (black-eared peasants of the north, non-Russian nationalities, etc.), a new single category of state peasants was formed - personally free, but paying dues to the state. peasants in the 18th century had the rights of personally free people (they could own property, act as one of the parties in court, elect representatives to estate bodies, etc.), but were limited in movement and could be (until the beginning of the 19th century, when this category is finally approved as free people) were transferred by the monarch to the category of serfs. By the decree of 1699 and the verdict of the Town Hall in 1700, peasants engaged in trade or crafts were granted the right to move into the settlements, freeing themselves from serfdom (if the peasant was in one). The church peasants were subordinated to the monastic order and removed from the power of the monasteries. Under Peter, a new category of dependent farmers was created - peasants assigned to manufactories. By a decree of 1721, nobles and merchants-manufacturers were allowed to buy peasants to manufactories to work for them.

THE URBAN POPULATION was only 3%. The social policy of Peter the Great, concerning the urban population, pursued the provision of the payment of the poll tax. To do this, the population was divided into two categories: regular (industrialists, merchants, artisans of workshops) and irregular citizens (everyone else). The difference between the urban regular inhabitant of the end of the reign of Peter and the irregular one was that the regular citizen participated in city government by electing members of the magistrate, was enrolled in the guild and workshop, or carried a monetary duty in the share that fell on him according to the social layout.

37. Financial and economic transformations of Peter I.
Peter attached great importance to written legislation, which in his era was characterized by comprehensive regulation and unceremonious interference in private and private life.
The law was implemented only through a system of bureaucratic institutions. We can talk about the creation under Peter of a genuine cult of an institution, an administrative instance.
The thought of the great reformer of Russia was directed, firstly, to the creation of such a perfect and comprehensive legislation, which, if possible, would cover and regulate the whole life of subjects; secondly, Peter dreamed of creating a state structure perfect and accurate as a clock, through which legislation could be implemented.
Peter made great efforts to establish an uninterrupted, efficient work of the established institutions and paid the main attention to the development and improvement of numerous regulatory documents, which, according to their creator, should have ensured the efficiency of the apparatus.
Peter's worldview was characterized by an attitude to a state institution as to a military unit, to regulations as to a charter, and to an employee as to a soldier or officer. He was convinced that the army is the most perfect social structure, that it is a worthy model of the whole society, and military discipline is what can be used to instill order, diligence, consciousness, and Christian morality in people.
The financial reform included several points: the creation of a reform of city taxation, as well as the first reform of orders, monetary reform, increased tax oppression, monopolization, compilation of time sheets, replacement of silver with copper, the introduction of a poll tax, projects were developed to overcome the financial crisis and an authority was created " finance department."
The main reason for the financial reform was the need for funds to build a fleet, equip the army, and conduct the Northern War of 1700-1721. Under the conditions of large-scale state-political and socio-economic transformations, huge financial costs were incurred. The financial system of his predecessors no longer met the needs of the state to accomplish great things, in particular, the system of household taxation, introduced back in 1678. There were arrears, a deficit of the state budget, which, to a large extent, threatened both the internal and external security of the country. The first years of the financial activity of Peter I were poorly thought out, so his first achievements in this area, although they gave results, were short-lived

38. Transformations of Peter I in the sphere of culture.
Peter I changed the beginning of the chronology from the so-called Byzantine era (“from the creation of Adam”) to “from the Nativity of Christ”. The year 7208 of the Byzantine era became the year 1700 from the Nativity of Christ, and the New Year began to be celebrated on January 1. In addition, under Peter the uniform use of the Julian calendar was introduced. After returning from the Great Embassy, Peter I fought against the outward manifestations of the “obsolete” way of life (the ban on beards is most famous), but no less paid attention to the involvement of the nobility in education and secular Europeanized culture. Secular educational institutions began to appear, the first Russian newspaper was founded, translations of many books into Russian appeared. Success in the service of Peter made the nobles dependent on education. Under Peter in 1703 the first book appeared in Russian with Arabic numerals. Until that date, they were designated by letters with titles (wavy lines). In 1710, Peter approved a new alphabet with a simplified type of letters (the Church Slavonic font remained for printing church literature), the two letters "xi" and "psi" were excluded. Peter created new printing houses, in which 1312 titles of books were printed in 1700-1725 (twice as many as in the entire previous history of Russian book printing). Thanks to the rise of printing, paper consumption increased from 4,000 to 8,000 sheets at the end of the 17th century to 50,000 sheets in 1719. There were changes in the Russian language, which included 4.5 thousand new words borrowed from European languages. In 1724, Peter approved the charter of the organized Academy of Sciences (opened in 1725 after his death). Of particular importance was the construction of stone Petersburg, in which foreign architects took part and which was carried out according to the plan developed by the tsar. He created a new urban environment with previously unfamiliar forms of life and pastime (theatre, masquerades). The interior decoration of houses, the way of life, the composition of food, etc., changed. By a special decree of the tsar in 1718, assemblies were introduced, representing a new form of communication between people in Russia. At the assemblies, the nobles danced and mingled freely, unlike earlier feasts and feasts. The reforms carried out by Peter I affected not only politics, economics, but also art. Peter invited foreign artists to Russia and at the same time sent talented young people to study "arts" abroad, mainly to Holland and Italy. In the second quarter of the XVIII century. "Peter's pensioners" began to return to Russia, bringing with them new artistic experience and acquired skills. On December 30, 1701 (January 10, 1702), Peter issued a decree ordering to write full names in petitions and other documents instead of derogatory half-names (Ivashka, Senka, etc.), do not fall on your knees in front of the king, wear a hat in the cold in winter in front of the house where the king is, do not shoot. He explained the need for these innovations in this way: “Less baseness, more zeal for service and loyalty to me and the state - this honor is characteristic of the tsar ...” Peter tried to change the position of women in Russian society. He by special decrees (1700, 1702 and 1724) forbade forced marriage and marriage. It was prescribed that there should be at least six weeks between the betrothal and the wedding, "so that the bride and groom could recognize each other."

If during this time, the decree said, “the bridegroom does not want to take the bride, or the bride does not want to marry the groom,” no matter how the parents insisted, “there is freedom.” Since 1702, the bride herself (and not just her relatives) was given the formal right to terminate the betrothal and upset the arranged marriage, and neither side had the right to “beat with a forehead for a penalty”. Legislative prescriptions 1696-1704 about public festivities introduced the obligation to participate in the celebrations and festivities of all Russians, including "female". Gradually, among the nobility, a different system of values, worldview, aesthetic ideas took shape, which was fundamentally different from the values and worldview of most representatives of other estates.

Reasons for reform

Peter I ruled Russia from 1682 to 1725. This period was marked by unprecedented until then powerful development of many aspects of the life of the Russian state. The transformational activities of Peter included military and financial reforms, reforms of government and administration, reforms in the field of culture and life, it led to the development of science and education, technology and industry, trade and urban planning, intensified foreign policy and strengthened the international position of the country.

And although, according to the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (t 1911), the reforms of Peter I did not have as their direct goal the restructuring of either the political, social or moral order established in Russia, they were not directed by the task of putting Russian life on unusual Western European foundations, they, these reforms, were carried out in an atmosphere of dull and stubborn internal struggle, which more than once resulted in armed confrontation and conspiracies of zealots of antiquity (1).

Opponents of Peter's reform activities were in various strata of Russian society, including the clergy. Those who did not accept reforms in their opposition to new, unusual and inconvenient for them directions in the life of the Russian state sought support for themselves in church circles and, to a certain extent, found it. A typical representative of this movement in church life was His Holiness Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700), inwardly ardent and inspired in his old Russian piety, who made no secret of his denial of the new spirit introduced by Peter the Great into Russian life.

At the same time, it would be wrong to believe that opposition to the reforming activity of Peter prevailed in the church's leading spheres. In many of his undertakings, Peter I found understanding and support from His Holiness Patriarch Joachim (d. 1690), Archbishop Athanasius of Kholmogory, Bishop Mitrofan of Voronezh, Metropolitan Tikhon of Kazan, Metropolitan Job of Novgorod, Metropolitan Stefan of Ryazan, and other hierarchs.

Here we should touch on the personal religiosity of Peter I. Brought up according to the forefather ritual in traditional church piety, Peter often turned to reading the Holy Scriptures, he knew and loved the service, during which the Apostle often read and sang. In many state documents, Peter discovers a religious understanding of the problems under consideration. “Undoubtedly,” says church historian A.V. Kartashev (d. 1960), “Peter was related to a utilitarian practical view of the role of religion in state affairs, but he did not exclude in Peter a deep and living understanding of religion” (2) .

At the same time, it should be kept in mind that Peter did not consider it possible for himself to enter into consideration of questions of faith. I will give two typical examples. In 1717, during the stay of Peter I in Paris, Catholic theologians in a conversation with him expressed the opinion that the union of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches did not present serious difficulties. In his answer to them, Peter pointed out two points of disagreement, apparently on the primacy of the Pope and on the Filioque, but noted that it was not his job, a man of state and military, to decide such issues, and suggested that the theologians of the Sorbonne University communicate on this issue with the bishops of the Russian Church. When the Anglican bishops, from the group of the so-called "non-sworn", in 1722 turned to Peter I with a request for assistance in restoring unity and peace with the Eastern Church, then, welcoming this desire in principle, he completely entrusted the consideration of the issue to church authorities.

What were Peter I's motivations for the implementation of church reform? Prominent church historian Academician Yevgeny Evstigneevich Golubinsky (d. 1912) believed that the reform was carried out by the tsar mainly for state reasons.

First, the Russian people saw the Patriarch as a second sovereign, and even something more than a sovereign, so in the event of a clash with the Patriarch, the tsar could find himself in a disadvantageous position.

Secondly, Peter feared that the Patriarch might become the head of a party dissatisfied with the reforms he was carrying out and lead the fight against his reforms (3).

As for the first reason, its reasonableness is undoubtedly evidenced by the conflict, well known to Tsar Peter, that arose between his father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon, the essence of which was the desire of the Patriarch to carry out his ministry based on the principle that spiritual authority has unconditional priority over civil, state power (4).

The second reason also, undoubtedly, had sufficient grounds in the eyes of Tsar Peter: it is worth remembering only Patriarchs Nikon and Adrian, whose example could be repeated.

Academician E. E. Golubinsky claims that Tsar Peter wished, if possible, to cleanse the Russian Church of the many shortcomings with which it was filled, and for this purpose he hoped to act with great success through the Synod, and not through the Patriarch. The outstanding Russian historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (died in 1879) notes this desire of Peter I as fundamental in the implementation of church reform (5).

Returning to the motives for the reform of the state character, it can be stated with all obviousness that Peter I did not set out to interfere in the dogma, pastoral care and liturgical life of the Church. But he sought to create conditions under which his state activity would not only not meet with opposition from church leaders, parish clergy and monastics, but, on the contrary, would receive active support. He wanted to achieve a situation in which the state could freely use in its own interests the large financial, property and human resources of the Church (6).

Reform preparation

It can be reasonably assumed that the desire to achieve a position in which the Church could not create difficulties for the activities of Peter as the arbiter of the fate of Russia, moreover, that she became a kind of tool in the hands of the sovereign, contributing ideologically and materially to the success of his state course, arose among Peter I already at the very beginning of his reformative works. Enthusiastically carrying out self-education in the so-called Nemetskaya Sloboda in Moscow, Peter undoubtedly drew attention to the collegial form of parochial self-government of Protestant communities. There he could for the first time get acquainted with the structure and position of the Churches of the Reformation in European countries. In his trips to European countries, which Peter I undertook repeatedly throughout his life and activity, he had the opportunity to study the structure and position of the reformed Churches on the spot and from primary sources. So, he studied Lutheranism in German lands, Reformedism - in Holland, Anglicanism - in England. Information has been preserved that in Holland Peter did not disregard the so-called Utrecht Church, created at the beginning of the 18th century by followers of the teachings of Bishop Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638).

During a visit by the "great embassy" in 1697-1698 to several countries of Western Europe, Peter I had the opportunity in Holland to directly familiarize himself with the works of one of the creators of a systematic exposition of the theory of natural law, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), who rejected theocracy and considered human nature to be the source of rights , dictating the desire for peaceful communication, organized according to the requirements of the mind. It is known that in the same place Peter became very interested in the works of the outstanding thinker, German lawyer Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1694), a prominent representative of natural law, especially his work "On the Position of Man and Citizen". In his writings, Pufendorf sought to justify the subordination of the Church to state power, but demanded religious tolerance from the latter. The view of Peter I on the Church as a service force in the state was formed under the influence of the so-called territorial system, clearly expressed by Pufendorf, the main principle of which was: "cujus regio, ejus religio" ("whose power, that is faith") and subject to to which everything, including the Church, was subordinate to the monarch in a given territory. Then, during a four-month stay in England, Peter I paid much attention to studying the position of the Church in this state. It should be borne in mind that it was in England that the principle of so-called Caesaropapism was especially developed. King Henry VIII in 1534 proclaimed himself "supreme head of the English Church in place of the Pope" (7). In 1535, Parliament legislated the royal claim: "Let it be by the authority of this Parliament that the King, our sovereign sovereign, and also his successor, should be received and recognized by the only supreme head of the English Church on earth, called the Anglican Church, and should enjoy together with his crown and all the titles, honors, dignity, privileges, jurisdiction and revenues proper to and belonging to the dignity of the supreme head of the Church" (Statute 26, Henry VIII, chapter 1) (8).

Peter converses on ecclesiastical topics with Crown Princess Anne, and her anti-Catholicism prompts him to call the princess "the real daughter of our Church." Peter I meets and talks with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. They appoint consulting theologians to help Peter study church problems. For the same purpose, the University of Oxford appoints its own consultant. The English King William III of Orange (1650-1702) directly advises Peter to declare himself "the head of religion in order to have full monarchical power" (9).

During the first trip abroad, Peter visits the German lands. He repeats this over and over. In 1715, Peter I made a special trip to Wittenberg. Here he visited the home of Martin Luther. To this day, Peter's autograph has been preserved on the door frame in front of the entrance to Luther's office. It is known that Peter I was well aware of the essence of Martin Luther's church reform. Peter unequivocally expressed his positive attitude towards Luther's position on the right of secular rulers who accepted the Reformation to regulate church affairs in the spirit of the new doctrine (10).

It can be assumed that by the time of the death of Patriarch Adrian (October 15, 1700), Peter I already had a general idea of the direction of the church reform he desired. Of course, this reform could not have been prepared and carried out by Peter without the participation of representatives of the Church itself. For this purpose, Peter first of all needed a spiritual like-minded person, but he did not exist yet.

After the death of Patriarch Adrian, Peter did not order the convocation of bishops to elect a successor to the deceased, but instructed Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky) of Ryazan and Murom to manage patriarchal affairs with the title of "Exarch of the Holy Patriarchal Throne, Guardian, Administrator and Protector of the Academy."

Metropolitan Stefan was a talented preacher. During the first half of his locum tenure, he zealously assisted Peter, inspiring him to reformative activity with his excellent words. However, Metropolitan Stefan differed fundamentally from Peter in his views on Church Tradition, on the relationship to the Churches of the Reformation. Gradually, Metropolitan Stefan became, as it were, the leader of the party of Moscow church antiquity. And if at first Peter placed his hopes on a European-educated hierarch, meaning to find in him an assistant in the preparation and implementation of the church reform, then over time he became convinced of his mistake.

As you know, the outstanding church and statesman Bishop Feofan (Prokopovich; -1681 -1736) became an associate of Peter I and an active participant in the preparation and implementation of church reform. I will not present his biography, because the literature about him is immense, including recent monographic studies created by both ecclesiastical and secular researchers.

In 1716, Peter I summoned Feofan Prokopovich, who was then rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy and hegumen of the Kiev-Bratsky Monastery, to Petersburg. In 1718, at the suggestion of Peter, hegumen Feofan was consecrated bishop of Pskov, but his bishop's residence was in St. Petersburg. In the person of Bishop (from 1720 - Archbishop) Theophan, Peter I acquired a brilliantly educated and talented associate, an erudite assistant in resolving church and state problems. Sharing the theory of natural law according to Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorff, according to which the monarch should serve "the good of the whole people", Bishop Feofan Prokopovich sought to combine it with the apostolic teaching that there is no power except from God (Rom. 13:1) . In his treatise "The Truth of the Monarch's Will," His Grace Theophan affirms the sovereign's right to carry out reforms in the Church itself. Bishop Theophan, silent about the antinomy of the Church and the state, leads Peter I to the conclusion about the regularity of breaking the canonical structure of the Russian Orthodox Church. Peter now expresses himself resolutely: "God willing, correct my citizenship and the clergy, I am both of them - sovereign and patriarch" (11).

An external impetus for the preparation of church reform was the clash between Peter I and Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky in St. Petersburg in the autumn of 1718. Irritated by the administrative helplessness and inability of the Locum Tenens to understand the tasks of church leadership in the changing conditions of Russian life, Peter wrote on his report: "For better management in the future, it seems to be a Spiritual College, so that it would be possible to correct such great deeds more conveniently."

In December 1718, Bishop Feofan was already working on a project for the establishment of the Theological College. This name was proposed as early as in the project of the Collegium, developed by order of Peter I in 1698 by a major English lawyer Francis Lee. The same idea of a "religious board" was repeated by Gottfried Leibniz, who also, at the request of Peter, prepared a draft reform of public administration in Russia. The draft Regulations (charter) of the Theological College was reviewed and amended by Peter I on February 11, 1720.

Implementation of the reform and its content

The project of the Theological Board at the end of February 1720 was discussed by the bishops who were in St. Petersburg, and the Senate. On February 24, this project was recognized as "fair" by Metropolitan Stefan of Ryazan Yavorsky, Metropolitan Smolensk Sylvester (Kholmsky), Archbishop Pitirim (Potemkin) of Nizhny Novgorod, Bishop Varlaam (Kosovsky) of Tver, Bishop Aaron (Eropkin) of Karelium and Bishop Feofan (Prokopovich) of Pskov. The Senate also approved the project. Some additions have been made to the text. At the suggestion of Peter, on February 27, two copies of the draft were signed by the bishops and the Senate. Thus, the new form of higher administration of the Russian Church was approved by the will of the Tsar, without the conciliar expression of the will of the Church itself.

Then the Senate instructed Lieutenant Colonel Semyon Davydov and Archimandrite Anthony of the Moscow Zlatoust Monastery to collect the signatures of other bishops of the Russian Church, which was done in seven months (except for the signature of the Tobolsk bishop, due to remoteness). The Spiritual Regulations were signed by 19 bishops and 68 clerics. On January 25, 1721, the Regulations of the Spiritual College were promulgated by the manifesto of Peter I. On January 26, the Senate submitted for the highest approval the staff of the new Collegium: President - Metropolitan Stefan of Ryazan, vice-residents - Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod, Archbishop Feofan of Pskov, then employees and assessors from the black and white clergy.

From January 25 to February 14, all those appointed appeared in the Senate, received a decree and took an oath. Peter's manifesto spoke of the power and obligation of the monarch to correct the "disorganization of the spiritual rank" on the same grounds as the military and civil ranks. "There was no mention of the abolition of the patriarchate, but it was stated:" governments, because in a single person it happens not without passion, moreover, not hereditary power, for the sake of greater neglect, we establish the Spiritual College, that is, the Spiritual Council Government.

As having “patriarchal power and authority,” or “equal patriarchal,” the Theological College has competence in all spiritual matters that the Patriarch and the Council were in charge of. These cases are very incompletely listed in the Rules. The duties of the Theological Board as a whole were given an openly protective character. The duties of bishops are reduced to equally external actions of various kinds. In the same spirit, the document "On the rights of the clergy of the church and the rank of monastics" was drawn up in the appendices to the Regulations.

Unlike the Patriarch, the Most Holy Governing Synod, into which the Theological College was transformed, was subordinate to the tsar (since October 22, 1721 - to the emperor). Members of the Synod were required to take an oath upon taking office. This oath categorically emphasized the state nature of the new body of the Supreme Church Authority: an oath of allegiance to the dynasty and state interests, the obligation to "declare in advance the damage to His Majesty's interest" and keep official secrets, to be faithful to the heading of the Church by the monarch. The oath was canceled only in February 1901.

The dominant role of the emperor in church affairs was clearly reflected in state legislation. The Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire, published in 1832, spoke of this as follows:

"Art. 42. The emperor, like a Christian sovereign, is the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the dominant faith and the guardian of orthodoxy and every holy deanery in the Church." The note to this article says: "In this sense, the emperor in the act of succession to the throne of 1797 on April 5 is called the head of the Church."

"Article 43. In church administration, autocratic power acts through the Holy Governing Synod, established by it."

On February 14, 1721, the new State Collegium began its existence. After the prayer service at the Trinity Cathedral in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, the members of the Theological College gathered for the first meeting in the wooden house assigned to them by Lieutenant General R. Bruce (at that time already deceased). Emperor Peter was present at the meeting. This meeting turned out to be truly historic. On it there was a reform of the reform. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (Drozdov; 1782-1867) will say about this later: the Petrovsky Collegium "God's providence and the church spirit turned into the Holy Synod." The first bewildered question was asked to Peter: how to make a prayerful offering during divine services for the Supreme Church Authority? "Collegium"? - impossible for the church consciousness. Peter agrees: "About the Most Holy Synod or about the Most Holy Governing Synod." Thus, the Theological College is abolished - and the Holy Synod arises.

The second issue was the balance of power between the Senate and the Synod. The Si-nodals do not allow the idea that someone other than the monarch can give orders to the Synod. They declare: "And no decrees were sent to the patriarchal name from anywhere, while the Theological College has the honor, strength and power of the patriarchal, or almost more, than the Cathedral." Peter agrees again, and he puts the Synod on the same level as the Senate.

Having achieved formal equality with the Senate, the Synod actually abandoned the self-consciousness of the ecclesiastical nature of its power and reduced it to a state source, to the will of the monarch. All the clerical work of the Synod over the next 200 years was carried out "by decree of His Imperial Majesty."

Church peasants * in 1701, together with the patrimonies of the clergy, were transferred to the management of the restored state Monastic order, and income from the patrimonies of the clergy began to be collected in the treasury, which, according to the established states, paid constant annual salaries to their former owners. At a meeting on February 14, 1721, Peter met the wishes of the members of the Holy Synod, and the Monastic Order again became a church body, and the economic resources of the estates again went to their intended purpose.

Already on the very day of the creation of the Synod, on February 14, 1721, the question naturally arose whether it was appropriate in the Russian Church to cite the names of the Eastern Patriarchs during divine services. In an effort to induce the people to forget the very name and his Patriarch, and others of the same faith, Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich) seeks an exception from the liturgical practice of pronouncing the names of the Eastern Patriarchs, except when the first-present member of the Synod (then president) serves the Divine Liturgy in the Cross Synodal Church .

On September 30, 1721, Peter I addressed His Holiness Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople with a letter containing information about church reform in Russia, a petition for the recognition of the Holy Synod, and a request to continue to communicate with the Synod on Church affairs. Peter asked His Holiness Patriarch Jeremiah to inform His Beatitude Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem about this.

On February 1, 1722, His Holiness Patriarch Jeremiah gave a positive answer. On September 23, 1723, the letter of Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople was dated. At the same time, an almost identical letter was received from Patriarch Athanasius of Antioch. In the affirmative letter of Patriarch Jeremiah, it was said that "" The Synod in the Russian Holy Great State is and is called our Brother in Christ, the Holy and Sacred Synod from all pious "Orthodox Christians. It has the right to do and establish the same as the four Apostolic Holy Patriarchs throne."

Post-reform changes in the position, structure and functions of the Supreme Church Power

Chief Prosecutor's Institute

Soon after the establishment of the Holy Synod, Peter I decided to establish his permanent supervision over it. On May 11, 1722, he himself drew up a Decree on the establishment of the institution of the chief prosecutor of the Synod. According to the instructions of June 13, 1722, this official was to be in the Synod "the eye of the sovereign and the attorney on state affairs." He had to watch that "the Synod kept its position ... in accordance with the Regulations and Decrees, sent ... acted righteously and without hypocrisy."

During the 18th century, the chief procurators of the Synod had limited influence. In the 19th century, there was a "significant change in the position of the chief prosecutor. His rights were greatly expanded, and from a state official with powers of predominantly supervision, he gradually became a person who had a strong influence on the Supreme Church Administration. This was facilitated by the assignment of the Orthodox confession in October 1817 to the jurisdiction Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education, which hitherto managed the affairs of non-Orthodox confessions. The minister took an intermediary place between the chief prosecutor and the tsar, but his functions increased significantly compared to the chief prosecutor. And when in May 1824 the ministry ceased to exist, the entire the scope of the rights of the minister passed to the chief prosecutor and was soon assigned to him by law.The chief prosecutor owned these rights until the end of the existence of his institute, that is, until August 1917. Since the abolition of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs, the Russian Church in the state nomenclature receives the name right glorious confession." Since that time, on all official papers of the church administration of the synodal period, there were the letters "V.P.I."

Structure and position

Since its establishment, the structure and position of the Holy Synod have undergone various changes. Some of these changes were enshrined in law, some practically entered into life.

According to the Regulations, the Spiritual College was to consist of 12 members; certainly three bishops, among others there could be archimandrites, abbots and archpriests. In fact, under Peter the Synod included up to 14 members. Upon the death of Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky in 1722, no new president was appointed. Since 1726, the members of the College began to be called members of the Synod. In 1726, by decree of Empress Catherine I, the Synod was divided into two apartments, of which only bishops ("in six persons") were to sit in the clergy. Instead of the second apartment, the "College of Economy of the Synodal Board" subordinate to the Synod was established. Under Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740), it was determined that two of the bishops should be permanent members of the Synod - Novgorod and Nizhny Novgorod, two should be replaced, the remaining members should be archimandrites and archpriests - a total of 11 members. According to the states of 1763, introduced by Catherine II, the Synod was supposed to have three bishops, of which one had the title of preeminent, two archimandrites and one archpriest. According to the states of 1819, introduced by Alexander I, three permanent members are bishops, one is temporarily present **, the chief priest of the army and navy and the emperor's confessor, as well as one archpriest. Gradually began to distinguish between permanent members and temporarily present. Bishops eventually began to predominate in the Synod, and at the end of the 19th century only bishops were appointed members of the Synod, although at the beginning of the 20th century representatives of the white clergy again began to enter the Synod. By the 20th century, four metropolitans were members of the Holy Synod: St. Petersburg, Kyiv, Moscow and the Exarch of Georgia. The title of the primordial member of the Holy Synod (later called the first present), who presided over the meetings, was associated with the Novgorod and St. Petersburg departments.

Under the Holy Synod, since its inception, there have been various officials and institutions for the implementation of the relevant areas of synodal activity. Over the course of two hundred years, these institutions have been modified, reduced or increased in number. At the beginning of the 20th century, the following synodal bodies existed under the Synod: the Chancellery of the Holy Synod, the Economic Administration under the Holy Synod, Control over the expenditure of church property, the Educational Committee under the Holy Synod, the Spiritual School Council, the St. Petersburg and Moscow Synodal Printing Offices and the Moscow and Georgian -Imereti synodal offices.

As mentioned above, in the Spiritual Regulations the functions of the Supreme Church Authority were defined very one-sidedly and did not cover all those aspects of the life of the Church, which should certainly have been in its jurisdiction. Only over time, the circle of activity of the Synod, which was the highest church-administrative and judicial authority, gradually formed. The synod had the right to: 1) elect and appoint bishops to vacant bishoprics; 2) the establishment of new dioceses (both the first and the second - with the consent of the emperor); 3) supreme supervision over the execution of church laws by the Orthodox population of the state and over the religious education of the people; 4) higher supervision over the activities of Theological Schools; 5) the establishment of new religious celebrations, rites and the canonization of saints; 6) legislative power in matters of the Russian Church and the right to participate in the legislative activities of the state in matters of a mixed nature; 7) publication of the books of the Holy Lisanion and liturgical books; 8) supreme censorship of works of theological content; 9) petitions to the Highest Authority about the needs of the Orthodox Church; 10) the first court instance in cases of anti-canonical actions of diocesan bishops and the second - in cases of complaints against decisions of diocesan courts, the right to final decision in divorce cases, as well as cases of defrocking clergy and excommunication of laity from the Church; 11) the implementation of the canonical communion of the Russian Church with other Local Orthodox Churches.

Evaluation of the reform from an ecclesiastical legal point of view

The Rules of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Councils of the Ecumenical and Local and Holy Fathers reject the competence of civil authority in church affairs. This, in particular, is evidenced by the following rules and interpretations of Bishop Nikodim of Dalmatia and Istria (Milasha; d. 1915): IV Ecc. Sob., 12; Apost., 30; 1 Universe Sob., 4; VII Universe. Sob., 3; Antioch. Sob., 12 (12).

Peter I did not discuss his decision to carry out church reform with the bishops, whose Council, as the Supreme legislative power in the Church, has the right to decide all the fundamental issues of church administration and life (Apostle rights 34 and 37). It is in the Council of Bishops of each Local Church that the full power of the Church is concentrated, just as in the Council of Bishops of all Local Churches the full power of the Universal Church is concentrated. An example of this was shown by the apostles, who collectively decided the most important issues (Acts 6:2; 15:1-32; 20:17-38; 21:18-25). In this case, no Council of Bishops of the Russian Church asked Peter to introduce a new structure of the Supreme Church Authority, and no Council legitimized the reform. It is reliable that the consent of the bishops of the Russian Church to the introduction of the Spiritual Regulations was obtained involuntarily. It is also well known that the overwhelming majority of bishops, clerics, monastics and laity were against the reform. Therefore, it is reasonable to speak about the discrepancy between the implementation of the reform by the state authorities and the canonical norms of the Orthodox Church.

The content of the reform was just as uncanonical. The announcement of the tsar as the "head of the Church", his complete control over the activities of the Supreme Church Authority, the absence of Councils during the Synodal period as the main source of church legislation, the creation of the Holy Synod by state power, membership in the Synod by the Highest Decree, in which not every bishop could participate in governance, giving the clergy the right to vote in the Synod along with the bishops, many restrictions on the purely religious activities of the Synod did not comply with Orthodox canonical norms. The Orthodox faith, doctrine and canons affirm that the Church is a special spiritual organism and it was said that the bishops govern it, as successors of the spiritual authority of the apostles, which they are invested with Christ. In accordance with ecclesiastical rules, the Church is autonomous in her inner life. With regard to church administration, this is indicated by the Apostolic Canons-14th, 34th, etc., the rules of the First Ecumenical Council - 4th, 5th, 6th; II Ecumenical Council - 2nd, 3rd; IV Ecumenical Council - 13th, 19th, 28th, etc. With regard to church legislation - Apostle rights 34th, 37th; II Universe. Inc. -2nd; IV Universe. Sob.- 1st, 13th, 19th, etc. In relation to the church court - Apostle. rights. 32nd and others; I Universe Inc. -5th; II Universe. Inc. -2nd, 6th, etc. The church rules do not contain even a hint that the highest authority in the Church can belong to a representative of the state, whether in administration, legislation or court.

As Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow rightly noted, from the very first hour of the existence of the Theological College, the Providence of God and the church spirit began their creative transforming activity, by which, during the Synodal period, the Church gradually restored its canonical capacity and determined its paths in everyday life. According to the prominent Russian canonist Professor Ilia Stepanovich Berdnikov, church life was wider than the narrow limits specified in the law, and when church needs arose, she crossed these limits for the good of the Church (13).

Significance of the Synodal period (1721 - 1917)

In assessing the Synodal period in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is natural to proceed from the real results of the life and activities of the Church, from how successfully she carried out her spiritual mission and solved the tasks facing her. In examining this question, one should keep in mind the existence of different, even mutually exclusive, points of view in church historical science on this score. From enthusiastic, belonging to Evgeny Evstigneevich Golubinsky, to widespread, rejecting any advantages of this period.

Turning to the spiritual side of the life of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Synodal period, it can be said with all responsibility that the two centuries that comprised it were marked by truly blessed results. There has been a strong increase in the internal creative forces of the Russian Church, the multiplication of the forms of their manifestation in life. This primarily applied to the rise in the pastoral and educational activities of the Church and the flourishing of theological science and religious philosophy associated with it, in which, along with the episcopate and the clergy, representatives of the laity also occupied a significant place. The synodal period was marked by the strengthening of the role of monasticism in the life of the Church, its development, and spiritual rebirth in the form of eldership. The synodal period successfully continued internal missionary work, accompanied by a significant increase in the number of parishes and dioceses. It is marked by the successful organization of the external mission of the Russian Orthodox Church in China, the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, Japan and other regions, which gave her many selfless enlighteners and; our country - outstanding scientists. in various fields of science.

During the Synodal period, to a large extent through the efforts of the Russian Orthodox Church, there was a rapprochement between the Local Orthodox Churches, their cooperation in resolving common Orthodox issues, and fraternal mutual assistance in overcoming the difficult stages of their existence, due to the difficult historical fate of their peoples, became stronger.

During this period, the Russian Orthodox Church, fully armed with its theological science, its spiritual forces, entered into a creative dialogue with many non-Orthodox Churches and confessions, and thus successfully paved the way for the ecumenical movement, which has already received a common Christian embodiment in our days in the activities of the World Council of Churches.

These are the main features of the spiritual life of our Church in the Synodal period.

At the same time, it should be recognized that much that was considered a success in the spiritual activity of the Church during the Synodal period was not, in essence, the positive, organic side of her life. Most of the Orthodox flock only formally belonged to the Church by virtue of the legislation that existed at that time, which protected the "interests" of the dominant religion by state means. Very many were turned away from the Church by the active use of her royal power for purposes alien to the people.

With the strengthening of religious tolerance in Russia (April 1905) (which will be discussed) began the official departure from the Russian Orthodox Church of those who, under duress, were forced to be considered its members. This process expanded with the fall of the monarchy and took on an intense character with the separation of the Church from the state proclaimed by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars on January 23, 1918. In the fence of the Russian Orthodox Church, only her truly believing children remained.

I return to the consideration of the Synodal period and ask the question: if we have the right to give such a high assessment of the spiritual-pastoral and inter-church aspects of the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Synodal period, then perhaps the canonical illegality of the church reform of Peter I, its inconsistency with legal norms, is not so significant. Orthodox Church? More questions: perhaps those great sacrifices made by church society during the introduction of the reform, and even later, especially during the 18th century, were in vain? Perhaps there was no serious need to fight this reform, a fight that began immediately after its promulgation and did not stop until the end of the Synodal period?

To all three questions, in order not to sacrifice the truth, only a negative answer can be given.

So what is the negative for the Russian Orthodox Church of the significance of the church reform of Peter I?

Being part of the state mechanism in the autocratic empire, which was Russia before the Great October Socialist Revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church was used to the maximum by the tsarist government in the interests of the classes ruling in the country. (Of course, in this case, I consider the Russian Orthodox Church as a kind of public organization, consisting of Orthodox subjects of the Russian Empire.) This non-church task was served by: the above-mentioned oath of the members of the Synod upon their entry into office, assigned to the clergy by the decree of Peter I dated April 28, 1722, the protective functions that have long been a heavy burden on the Church, the duty of the episcopate and clergy to educate the flock in a monarchical spirit, which justified many unseemly deeds of the imperial power, the diverse and shameless use of the Church in the fight against the revolutionary movement in Russia at all its stages, especially during the period of the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907.

Undoubtedly, the participation of representatives of the Church in all this harmed our Fatherland and, of course, prevented the normal performance by the Church of its immediate spiritual functions. Hence, naturally, the dramatic development of relations between the Church and the Soviet state, which took place during the years of the revolution, the civil war and the first subsequent decades.

Of course, it would be unfair to assert that the Russian Orthodox Church participated in its entirety in the non-church mission imposed on it by monarchical power and uncharacteristic of its nature. Throughout the entire Synodal period, many bishops, clerics and laity strongly protested against the existing situation. At the beginning of the 20th century, revolutionary ideas began to penetrate the church environment. It is known that the Great October Socialist Revolution was welcomed and accepted by many church leaders. Masses of believers of various nationalities and classes participated in the formation of Soviet power in all parts of our great Motherland.

At the same time, the lessons of history, whether hard or joyful, must not be forgotten. I must admit with bitterness that the abuse of religion, always tragic in its consequences, such as that which took place in Russia during the Synodal period, is still dangerously expressed in some countries today, where the Christian Church and other religions are used as an instrument that hinders social and the economic progress of peoples, their political development. The fight against such phenomena is an urgent and important task of believers who must actively strive for the triumph of peace on Earth in justice and freedom.

Attitude towards reform in church society during the Synodal period and its fate

The initial reaction in the churches of the Reformation to the church reform of Peter I was positive, since this reform had a clear imprint of the Protestant tradition. Later, in the process of becoming more independent of these churches in relations with state power, a more restrained attitude towards the position of the Orthodox Church in the Russian Empire began to be determined in them. Naturally, there was a sharply negative reaction to the church reform of Peter I on the part of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, and later of the Old Catholic Church, especially in the person of one of its founders, Ignatius Döllinger.

It is unfair to assert that church society in Russia was unanimous in its rejection of the Petrine reform. A prominent supporter of this reform and an opponent of the restoration of the patriarchate in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church was the outstanding church historian Yevgeny Evstigneevich Golubinsky (| 1912). Thus, in the article "Is the abolition of the Holy Synod and the restoration of the patriarchate desirable?", written in the second half of 1905, he gives a clear negative answer to the question he himself posed. E. E. Golubinsky also spoke out as a sharp polemical opponent of the condemnation of the Peter the Great reform in "Remarks on Tikhomirov's article "The Canonical Dignity of Peter the Great's Reform".

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (d. l900) came out just as decisively in justification of the reform. In his article "A Few Words in Defense of Peter the Great" (1888), he summarized his longstanding views as follows: "An impartial and attentive look at the historical circumstances that preceded the establishment of the Synod and accompanied it will not only keep us from the unjust reproaches of the great shadow of the Transformer, but and will force us to recognize in the said institution one of the proofs of that providential wisdom that never betrayed Peter the Great on important occasions. The abolition of the Patriarchate and the establishment of the Synod was not only necessary at the moment, but also positively beneficial for the future of Russia. This replacement is necessary conditioned by our past history, was useful for the future: "kind and courageous officers" who were entrusted with the management of our church affairs, allowed the new Russia to calmly go through the school of European education ... "But, without abandoning these views, already in 1889 in the lectures "Russia and the Universal Church" V. S. Solovyov says: " In the Greek-Russian Church there is no true spiritual administration... The official Church, governed by a civil official, is only a state institution, a subordinate branch of bureaucratic administration" (14).

However, the vast majority of Russian church society did not share the passion for reform. In the eyes of the people, the highest ecclesiastical authority has always been the hierarchs of the Church. After the death of Peter I, the people began to call the Spiritual Regulations a cursed book. Among the bishops under Peter II (reigned 1727-1730), an opposition party was formed, headed by Archbishop George of Rostov (Dashkov; d. 1739), which sought to overthrow the synodal form of governing the Church and restore the patriarchate. At the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, two prominent members of the Synod - Metropolitan Arseny of Rostov (Matsievich; died in 1772) and Archbishop of Novgorod Ambrose (Yushkevich; died in 1745) twice developed projects for the restoration of the patriarchate: one of them was dated April 5, 1742, the other - May 10, 1744. Criticizing the church reform of Peter I from various sides, the authors substantiate the unconditional need to restore the patriarchate in the Russian Church as an ideal form of church government. Both projects remained without consequences. Of the laity at that time, Mikhail Petrovich Avramov (1681-1752), a state councilor, director of the St. Petersburg printing house, was a prominent opponent of church reform. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the reform in special notes, which he presented to Peter II, Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna. Avramov considered the Spiritual Regulations to be a heretical book.

The remarkable Russian historian Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766-1826), in his note "On Ancient and New Russia", which he handed to Emperor Alexander I in March 1811, referring to the "brilliant reign" of Peter I, notes how harmful his side is, ignoring experience history of Russia, disrespect for the mores and customs of the Russian people. This note contains a clear condemnation of the church reform of Peter I, as harmful to both the Church and the state.

Metropolitan Platon of Moscow (Levshin; 1737-1812) was very disapproving of this reform.

In the first quarter of the 19th century, the question of the need to convene local councils to consider matters of faith and the needs of the Church was seriously occupied by Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, who did not consider the current state of the Supreme Church administration to be normal. Metropolitan Filaret's successor at the Moscow cathedra, Metropolitan Innokenty (Popov-Veniaminov; 1797-1879), asked the consent of Emperor Alexander II to convene a council, but did not receive it.

The spiritual writer Bishop of the Yenisei Nikodim (Kazantsev; 1803-1874) in his memoirs ("Theological Bulletin", 1905) reflected the strong disagreement of many hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church with the church reform of Peter I and its grave consequences for the Church.

In the second half of the 30s of the 19th century, a direction of social thought was formed in Russia, which received the name Slavophilism. Its most prominent representatives were the brothers Ivan and Petr Vasilyevich Kireevsky, Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov, Konstantin and Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, Yuri Fedorovich Samarin, Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev and others. In their writings, an extremely sharp analysis of the church reform of Peter I is noticeable, which gave the Church the appearance of a state bureaucratic institution. It is characteristic that the first Slavophiles did not fundamentally connect Orthodoxy with autocracy, as General Alexander Kireev (d. 1910) did later in his Slavophile program.

Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky (1806-1856) was a staunch opponent of using the influence of the Church in the interests of state power. In his letter to Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev (1806-1883) dated October-November 1853, he stated: “It is not useful for the Church and it is contrary to her when it is used as a means for state or worldly purposes, abuse of the oath, etc. It is also contrary to the Church, when it is put into some kind of dependence on the worldly structure of the state, when the clergy turns into bureaucracy, etc. " (fifteen).

Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860) in correspondence with William Palmer, Bishop of the Church of England, in response to the latter's accusation that "the relationship of spiritual and civil authorities (in Russia) at the present time is such that it is irreconcilable with the correct administration of the apostolic ministry" (7th letter), strongly rejected the statement of the Anglican hierarch. “The Russian Church,” he wrote, “was drawn into enslavement by the specter of government patronage, but this is a historical fact that does not belong to the realm of faith.” A. S. Khomyakov believed that the penetration of the spiritual life of the Church by the state principle is death for the Church.

Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov (1823-1886) in his work devoted a great deal of attention to the question of the relationship between the Church and the state, especially in the conditions of the Synodal period. In this regard, his idea is characteristic that from Peter the Great our Church "was taken to the treasury." In the table of ranks published by Peter, the clergy of the Orthodox Church are ranked by rank: priests are equated with majors, archimandrites with brigadiers, bishops with lieutenant generals. The concept of the Church was thus replaced by the concept of "one state department." The church began to serve state views and considerations. Meanwhile, the Christian attitude of the Church to the state is quite different (16).

Yuri Fedorovich Samarin (1819-1876) was a resolute opponent of Peter I's church reform. -stvovanie its utilitarian approach to matters of religion and for the captivity of the state of the Russian Orthodox Church.

It should be noted that with the well-known weakening of censorship, which occurred at the beginning of the reign of Alexander II (1855), a more free discussion of issues related to the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and other religious associations in the Russian Empire began in the press. There was an opportunity for a more specific criticism of the church reform of Peter I and its consequences.

The views of the indigenous Slavophiles, primarily A.S. Khomyakov, on the idea of catholicity as the necessary basis for all possible reforms, created an atmosphere that prepared certain official steps towards church counter-reform at the beginning of the 20th century.

Real, although slow progress on the path to the liberation of the Church from the "guardianship" imposed on it by the tsarist authorities could only be expressed in the context of the revolutionary movement in Russia, which intensified in the first years of the 20th century. The issues of freedom of conscience and separation of the Church from the state were already then among other demands of the revolutionary masses. The most acute was the question of the difficult situation in the Russian state of the Old Believer communities and the so-called sectarian persuasions. By December 1904, the situation in the country had developed in such a way that the tsar was forced to agree to a revision of the laws on schismatics and persons of heterodox and heterodox confessions. On January 25, 1905, the Committee of Ministers began to develop the issue of strengthening the principles of religious tolerance in Russia. Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga Anthony (Vadkovsky; 1846-1912), the leading member of the Holy Synod, was invited to participate in this process. In this regard, Metropolitan Anthony handed over to the Committee of Ministers a memorandum "Questions about desirable transformations in the formulation of the Orthodox Church in our country." Noting the presence of constant guardianship and vigilant control of the secular authorities over the life of the Church, the metropolitan asked for the creation of "a special meeting of representatives of the church hierarchy and laity" to develop proposals for changing the position of the Russian Church and the corresponding reforms. Chairman of the Committee of Ministers S. Yu. Witte, for his part, presented to this special meeting on church affairs his memorandum "On the current situation of the Orthodox Church", more radical than the note filed by Metropolitan Anthony. The note by S. Yu. Witte spoke of the non-canonical nature Church reform of Peter I and raised the question of a general church reform, the expression of which was to be the convening of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. On March 17, 1905, a group of thirty-two priests from the capital published their note "On the Need for Changes in Russian Church Administration", in which, among other things, they advocated the resumption of the conciliar principle in the Russian Orthodox Church and the restoration of the patriarchate.

Meanwhile, in mid-March, the Holy Synod discussed the issue of church reforms and turned to the tsar with a request to convene in Moscow "at a favorable time" a Local Council of Bishops to elect a Patriarch and discuss other pressing problems of the position and life of the Church.

On the advice of Chief Prosecutor KP Pobedonostsev, Nicholas II did not satisfy the request of the Synod. Instead, the chief procurator sent a set of questions to the diocesan bishops concerning the pressing issues of life, the position of the Church, and the desired reforms. The reviews of the bishops were published in three volumes in 1906. Characteristically, only three bishops out of more than sixty expressed an opinion about maintaining the existing system of church government unchanged. With the exception of four hierarchs, the entire Russian episcopate spoke in favor of the restoration of the patriarchate. Most of the bishops stated that they consider the existing synodal regime to be non-canonical and contrary to the principles of catholicity.

Under pressure from public opinion, on April 17, 1905, the tsar's decree on religious tolerance was promulgated, which abolished a number of significant restrictions on the activities of non-Orthodox religious associations in Russia. As a result, it has become obvious to many that the official Russian Church is under much stricter control than non-Orthodox communities.

As a result of the revolutionary situation in Russia and strong pressure from the leadership of the Russian Church, its clergy and the church community, in October 1905 the extremely conservative Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev was dismissed from his post, and Nicholas II was forced in December 1905 to give consent to the preparation and holding of the Local Council of the Russian Church. In January 1906, the Synod established, under the chairmanship of the primordial member of the Most Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony, a special Pre-Council Presence, or Pre-Council Commission, which began in March of that year the preparatory work to convene a Local Council. Its task was to develop issues to be considered at the expected Council.

The Pre-Council presence had two sessions: from March 8 to June 14 and from November 1 to December 15, 1906. The Pre-Council Presence included the Metropolitans of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kyiv, several bishops, representatives of the urban and rural clergy, a group of theologians, canonists and historians. The issues discussed were divided into seven departments, to which the presence was distributed:

1. The composition of the Council, the procedure for considering and deciding cases on it; transformation of the Supreme Church Administration.
2. Creation of church districts and transformation of local church government.
3. The organization of the ecclesiastical court and the revision of laws on marriage in general and on mixed marriages.
4. The improvement of the parish, the church school, the acquisition of church property, diocesan congresses, the participation of clergy in public and estate institutions.
5. Transformation of spiritual and educational institutions.
6. Edinoverie, Old Believers and other issues of faith.
7. Measures to protect the Orthodox faith and Christian piety from wrong teachings and interpretations in view of the strengthening of the principles of religious tolerance in Russia.

During the discussions, the problems of the 1st department received the most thorough development, on which the relevant resolutions were adopted. Partial decisions were taken based on the materials of departments 2, 3, 4 and 5.

The pre-conciliar presence offered to restore the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church with the rights of a Patriarch, the rights of the Chairman of the Synod and the First Hierarch. It was pointed out that the supreme administration of the Russian Orthodox Church belongs to the periodically convened Local Council.

In April 1907, the tsar approved the resolutions of the Pre-Council Presence on the convening of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and on the procedure for its work.

At the same time, the time of the convocation of the Council remained uncertain. The government and the church leadership, for many reasons, could not reach an agreement on this issue until the fall of the monarchy in Russia in February 1917. Only on April 29, 1917, the Holy Synod, headed by its primordial member, Archbishop Sergius of Finland and Vyborg (Stragorodsky; 1867-1944), the future Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, addressed the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church with a message about the activities of the Supreme Church Authority in connection with the upcoming convocation of the All-Russian Local Council. On the same day, the Holy Synod decided to convene the Pre-Council Council, which, taking into account the materials of the Pre-Council Presence of 1906, was to carry out the preparations for the Local Council. The work of the Pre-Council Council took place in Petrograd from June 11 to August 1, 1917. The decisions of the Pre-Council Council were approved by the Holy Synod. On July 5, 1917, the Holy Synod passed a decision to open the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the day of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, August 15, 1917, in Moscow. At the same time, the "Regulations on the Convocation of the Council" were approved.

On August 15, 1917, the opening of the Local Council took place in the Great Assumption Cathedral in Moscow. On August 18, the Council elected as its chairman the Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Tikhon (Belavin; 1865-1925).

The most important acts of the Local Council were the adoption on October 28/November 10, 1917 of the decision to restore the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church and then on November 5/18, the election of Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and Kolomna as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. The celebration of the enthronement of the newly elected Patriarch took place in the Great Assumption Cathedral on November 21/December 4, 1917, on the day of the celebration of the Entry into the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos.

The Local Council of 1917/1918 ended the Synodal period in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Notes

1 Klyuchevsky V. O. Course of Russian history. Pg., 1918, part IV, lecture LXVIII, p. 276-281.
2 Kartashev A. V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. Paris, 1959, volume II, p. 322.
3 Golubinsky E.E. About the reform in the life of the Russian Church. M., 1913, p. 69.
4 See: Objections or ruins of the humble Nikon, by the grace of God, the Patriarch. - In the book: Polievktov S.P., priest. Caesaropapism and the Orthodox Church. M., 1912, no. 1, p. 54-57.
5 Solovyov S. M. Selected works. Notes. M., 1983, p. 176.
6 Lapin P. Sobor as the highest body of church authority. Kazan, 1909, p. 355-356.
7 Polievktov S.P., priest. Caesaropapism and the Orthodox Church. M., 1912, no. 1, p. thirteen.
8 Sokolov V. A. Reformation in England. M., 1881, p. 206.
9 KartashevA. B. Decree. op., p. 324.
10 S. P. Polievktov, priest. Decree. op., p. 12-13.
11 Kartashev A.V. Decree. op., p. 344.
12 These examples are given in op. work Lapin P. "The Cathedral as the highest body of church authority" (Kazan, 1909, p. 83-84).
13 Berdnikov I.S. Basic principles of church law. Kazan, 1902, p.
14 Solovyov V.S. Russia and the Universal Church. SPb., 1912, p. 33, 36.
15 Kireevsky I.V. Complete Works, vol. II. SPb., 1911, p. 274.
16 Troitsky PS The attitude of the state to the Church according to the views of our most prominent writers and public figures. M., 1909, p. 97.

LITERATURE

1. Berdnikov I. S. The main principles of church law of the Orthodox Church. Kazan, 1902,
2. The highest church administration in Russia. Sat. articles. M., 1905.
3. Golubinsky E.E. About the reform in the life of the Russian Church. M., 1913.
4. Znamensky P. Textbook on the history of the Russian Church. SPb., 1904.
5. Kartashev A. V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. Paris, 1959, vol. II.
6. Kireevsky IV Complete works. SPb., 1911, vol. II.
7. Klyuchevsky V. O. The course of Russian history. Pg., 1918, part IV. Lecture LXVIII.
8. Lapin P. Sobor as the highest body of church authority. Kazan, 1909.
9. Molchanovsky A. Two projects for the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia in the 18th century. - ZhMP, 1944, No. 12, pp. 52-58.
10. NechaevP. A practical guide for clergy, St. Petersburg, 1910.
11. Pavlov A.S. Course of church law. Sergiev Posad, 1902.
12. S. P. Polievktov, priest. Caesaropapism and the Orthodox Church. M., 1912, no. one.
13. Rules of the Orthodox Church with interpretations of Nicodemus, Bishop of Dalmatia-Istria. SPb., 1911-1912, vol. I, II.
14. Sokolov V.A. Reformation in England. M., 1881.
15. Soloviev S.M. Selected works. Notes. M., 1983.
16. Solovyov V. S. A few words in defense of Peter the Great. Collected Works. 2nd ed. SPb., 1912.
17. Soloviev V.S. Russia and the Universal Church. SPb., 1912.
18. Suvorov N. Church law. M., 1912.
19. Troitsky PS Relations of the state to the Church according to the views of our most prominent writers and public figures. M., 1909.
20. A. S. Khomyakov, Complete Works. M „ 1900, vol. II.

* Peasants who were economically dependent on church institutions.
** A decree on bishops temporarily present was issued in 1803.

Speech read by A. S. Buevsky, Executive Secretary of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, when he was awarded the diploma of Doctor of Orthodox Theology honoris causa by the Theological Faculty of the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia in Presov on November 14, 1984.

Most of all, Peter I was occupied with the thought of the fleet and the possibility of trade relations with Europe. To put his ideas into practice, he equipped the Great Embassy and visited a number of European countries, where he saw how far Russia lagged behind in its development.

This event in the life of the young tsar marked the beginning of his transformational activity. The first reforms of Peter I were aimed at changing the external signs of Russian life: he ordered beards to be shaved and ordered to dress in European clothes, he introduced music, tobacco, balls and other innovations into the life of Moscow society, which shocked him.

By decree of December 20, 1699, Peter I approved the reckoning from the Nativity of Christ and the celebration of the new year on January 1.

Foreign policy of Peter I

The main goal of Peter I's foreign policy was access to the Baltic Sea, which would provide Russia with a connection with Western Europe. In 1699, Russia, having entered into an alliance with Poland and Denmark, declared war on Sweden. The outcome of the Northern War, which lasted 21 years, was influenced by the victory of the Russians in the Battle of Poltava on June 27, 1709. and the victory over the Swedish fleet at Gangut on July 27, 1714.

On August 30, 1721, the Treaty of Nystadt was signed, according to which Russia retained the conquered lands of Livonia, Estland, Ingermanland, part of Karelia and all the islands of the Gulf of Finland and Riga. Access to the Baltic Sea was secured.

In commemoration of what was achieved in the Great Northern War, on October 20, 1721, the Senate and the Synod awarded the tsar with the title of Father of the Fatherland, Peter the Great and Emperor of All Russia.

In 1723, after a month and a half of hostilities with Persia, Peter I acquired the western shore of the Caspian Sea.

Simultaneously with the conduct of hostilities, the vigorous activity of Peter I was also aimed at carrying out numerous reforms, the purpose of which was to bring the country closer to European civilization, increase the education of the Russian people, and strengthen the power and international position of Russia. A lot has been done by the great tsar, here are just the main reforms of Peter I.

Reform of public administration of Peter I

Instead of the Boyar Duma, in 1700 the Council of Ministers was created, which met in the Near Chancellery, and in 1711 - the Senate, which by 1719 had become the highest state body. With the creation of the provinces, numerous Orders ceased their activity, they were replaced by Collegia, which were subordinate to the Senate. The secret police also operated in the management system - the Preobrazhensky order (in charge of state crimes) and the Secret Chancellery. Both institutions were under the jurisdiction of the emperor himself.

Administrative reforms of Peter I

Regional (provincial) reform of Peter I

The largest administrative reform of local government was the creation in 1708 of 8 provinces headed by governors, in 1719 their number increased to 11. The second administrative reform divided the provinces into provinces headed by governors, and the provinces into districts (counties) headed by with zemstvo commissars.

Urban reform (1699-1720)

To manage the city, the Burmister Chamber in Moscow was created, renamed in November 1699 into the Town Hall, and magistrates subordinate to the Chief Magistrate in St. Petersburg (1720). The members of the City Hall and the magistrates were elected through elections.

Estate reforms

The main goal of the estate reform of Peter I was to formalize the rights and obligations of each estate - the nobility, the peasantry and the urban population.

Nobility.

Decree on estates (1704), according to which both boyars and nobles received estates and estates.
Decree on Education (1706) - all boyar children are required to receive primary education.
Decree on single inheritance (1714), according to which a nobleman could leave an inheritance only to one of his sons.
Table of Ranks (1722): the service to the sovereign was divided into three departments - the army, the state and the court - each of which was divided into 14 ranks. This document allowed a man of the lower class to curry favor with the nobility.

Peasantry

Most of the peasants were serfs. Kholops could sign up as soldiers, which freed them from serfdom.

Among the free peasants were:

state, with personal freedom, but limited in the right to move (i.e., by the will of the monarch, they could be transferred to serfs);
palace, which belonged personally to the king;
sessional, assigned to manufactories. The owner had no right to sell them.

urban estate

Urban people were divided into "regular" and "irregular". The regular ones were divided into guilds: the 1st guild - the richest, the 2nd guild - small merchants and wealthy artisans. Irregulars, or "mean people", made up the majority of the urban population.

In 1722, workshops appeared that united masters of one craft.

Judicial reform of Peter I

The functions of the Supreme Court were carried out by the Senate and the College of Justice. Courts of appeal and provincial courts headed by governors operated in the provinces. The provincial courts dealt with the cases of peasants (except for monasteries) and townspeople not included in the settlement. Since 1721, the court cases of the townspeople included in the settlement were conducted by the magistrate. In other cases, cases were decided by the Zemstvo or city judge alone.

Church reform of Peter I

Peter I abolished the patriarchate, deprived the church of power, and transferred its funds to the state treasury. Instead of the post of patriarch, the tsar introduced a collegiate supreme administrative church body - the Holy Synod.

Financial reforms of Peter I

The first stage of the financial reform of Peter I was reduced to collecting money for the maintenance of the army and the conduct of wars. Benefits from the monopoly sale of certain types of goods (vodka, salt, etc.) were added, indirect taxes (bath, horse, beard, etc.) were introduced.

In 1704, a monetary reform, according to which the penny became the main monetary unit. The fiat ruble was abolished.

Tax reform of Peter I consisted in the transition from the household taxation to the poll tax. In this regard, the government included in the tax all categories of the peasant and townspeople, who had previously been exempt from tax.

Thus, during tax reform of Peter I a single monetary tax (poll tax) was introduced and the number of taxpayers increased.

Social reforms of Peter I

Education reform of Peter I

In the period from 1700 to 1721. many civilian and military schools were opened in Russia. Among them are the School of Mathematical and Navigational Sciences; artillery, engineering, medical, mining, garrison, theological schools; digital schools for free education of children of all ranks; Maritime Academy in St. Petersburg.

Peter I created the Academy of Sciences, under which the first Russian university was established, and under it the first gymnasium. But this system began to operate after the death of Peter.

Reforms of Peter I in culture

Peter I introduced a new alphabet, which facilitated literacy and promoted book printing. The first Russian newspaper Vedomosti began to be published, in 1703 the first book in Russian with Arabic numerals appeared.

The tsar developed a plan for the stone construction of St. Petersburg, paying special attention to the beauty of architecture. He invited foreign artists, and also sent talented young people abroad to study "arts". Peter I laid the foundation for the Hermitage.

Medical reforms of Peter I

The main transformations were the opening of hospitals (1707 - the first Moscow military hospital) and schools attached to them, which trained doctors and pharmacists.

In 1700, pharmacies were established at all military hospitals. In 1701, Peter I issued a decree on the opening of eight private pharmacies in Moscow. Since 1704, state pharmacies began to open in many cities of Russia.

To grow, study, create collections of medicinal plants, pharmaceutical gardens were created, where seeds and foreign flora were imported.

Socio-economic reforms of Peter I

To boost industrial production and develop trade relations with foreign countries, Peter I invited foreign specialists, but at the same time encouraged the domestic industrialist and merchant. Peter I sought to ensure that more goods were exported from Russia than were imported. During his reign, 200 plants and factories operated on the territory of Russia.

Reforms of Peter I in the army

Peter I introduced annual recruitment sets of young Russians (from 15 to 20 years old) and ordered the training of soldiers to begin. In 1716, the Military Regulations were issued, outlining the service, rights and duties of the military.

As a result military reform of Peter I a powerful regular army and navy was created.

The reform activities of Peter had the support of a wide range of nobility, but caused discontent and resistance among the boyars, archers and the clergy, because. transformations entailed the loss of their leading role in public administration. Among the opponents of the reforms of Peter I was his son Alexei.

The results of the reforms of Peter I

The regime of absolutism is established in Russia. During the years of his reign, Peter created a state with a more advanced system of government, a strong army and navy, and a stable economy. There was a centralization of power.
Rapid development of foreign and domestic trade.
The abolition of the patriarchate, the church lost its independence and authority in society.
Enormous progress has been made in science and culture. A task of national importance was set - the creation of a Russian medical education, and the beginning of Russian surgery was laid.

Features of the reforms of Peter I

The reforms were carried out according to the European model and covered all spheres of activity and life of society.
Lack of reform system.
The reforms were carried out mainly through harsh exploitation and coercion.
Peter, impatient by nature, innovated at a rapid pace.

Reasons for the reforms of Peter I

By the 18th century, Russia was a backward country. It was significantly inferior to Western European countries in terms of industrial output, level of education and culture (even in the ruling circles there were many illiterate people). The boyar aristocracy, which was at the head of the state apparatus, did not meet the needs of the country. The Russian army, which consisted of archers and noble militia, was poorly armed, untrained and could not cope with its task.

Prerequisites for the reforms of Peter I

In the course of the history of our country by this time, significant shifts in its development had already taken place. The city separated from the countryside, agriculture and handicrafts were separated, industrial enterprises of the manufactory type arose. Domestic and foreign trade developed. Russia borrowed technology and science, culture and education from Western Europe, but at the same time developed independently. Thus, the ground for Peter's reforms had already been prepared.

Portal for the student. Self-training

Church reform of Peter I

Table “The essence of the ongoing reforms”

Results of the reform

What have we learned?

Topic quiz

Report Evaluation

Foreign policy of Peter I

Reform of public administration of Peter I

Administrative reforms of Peter I

Regional (provincial) reform of Peter I

Urban reform (1699-1720)

Estate reforms

Judicial reform of Peter I

Church reform of Peter I

Financial reforms of Peter I

Social reforms of Peter I

Education reform of Peter I

Reforms of Peter I in culture

Medical reforms of Peter I

Socio-economic reforms of Peter I

Reforms of Peter I in the army

The results of the reforms of Peter I

Features of the reforms of Peter I

Reasons for the reforms of Peter I

Prerequisites for the reforms of Peter I

RELATED ARTICLES