Victory in the War of the Spanish Succession was England's most serious bid for leadership in international relations. Meanwhile, neither in terms of population (Table 3.1), nor in terms of the size of the army (Table 3.2), Britain was not a leader among other European great powers of the 18th century.

Table 3.1

Population of the great powers, million people

Table 3.2

The number of ground forces of the great powers, pers.

Great Britain
Habsburg Empire

The end of the table. 3.2

Note. N/A - no data

True, the size of the naval forces of the great powers can explain something (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3

The number of battleships of the great powers

But even these figures do not give the whole picture. At the heart of British predominance was its commercial, financial, and from the end of the XVIII century. - and industrial superiority over the continental powers, including the most powerful of them, France.

Special attention should be paid to finances. At the end of the XVIII century. the public debt of both countries was approximately equal and amounted to a colossal amount of 215 million pounds sterling at that time, but if for England - a trading and industrial nation - it was not difficult to service this debt, then for agrarian France, servicing the debt led to the financial collapse of the "old regime" , the convocation of the Estates General in 1789, etc. The interest on loans in France was extremely high; the government was forced to pay 12% on its loans.

In addition to the fact that England already then had a higher level of industrial development, its financial system was in an immeasurably better condition than the French. The British then did not know direct taxes (in addition to the land tax, but it affected only a minority of the population). The English paid indirect taxes, excises and tariffs, but their hardships were not as ruinous as the French tax system.

There were also geopolitical advantages associated with the insular position of Britain. Unlike other great powers, England could afford not to be torn between maintaining sea and land power: the British directed all their energy to conquering colonies and expanding trade.

As for the continent, here the British limited themselves to political combinations, about which O. von Bismarck later said: "The policy of England has always been to find such a fool in Europe who would defend English interests with his sides." It was a policy of hiring "friends" and setting them against enemy number one, France.

Britain was concerned not only with the hegemonic ambitions of the French crown on the Continent - the desire of the French to expand their colonial empire in the West Indies, India and North America inspired concern in the English bourgeoisie. So, during the Seven Years' War, England's ally - Prussia - was actually defeated; nevertheless, England took advantage of the weakening of France in order to drive the French out of Canada, India and the Caribbean. As a result of the war, England annexed Louisiana and Florida. The main thing is that the British fleet finally established its dominance on the seas.

However, already then, in the 18th century, such features of bourgeois foreign policy as the lack of a vision of the future, creeping pragmatism, unwillingness to make long-term plans and invest in strengthening national security were fully manifested in British diplomacy. London preferred to react to the actions of other powers, primarily France; and only the very provocative actions of the French, whether in the history of the Spanish inheritance, or on the eve of the Seven Years' War, awakened Britain from hibernation. Dominated in the British Parliament in the first half of the XVIII century. the Whigs sought to avoid external conflicts at all costs; the slogan of the day of that time were the words: "If the French come, I will pay them, but fight - I thank you humbly!". The idea that not every external threat can be bought off, and that sometimes you have to fight, reached the minds of the English bourgeois with great difficulty, and here a huge role was played by William Pitt Sr., the largest British politician of the 18th century, Prime Minister in 1766 -1768

W. Pitt Sr. was a pronounced "hawk"-reactionary. When he came to power, he declared: "When trade is at stake, we must fight for it to the death." The phrase W. Pitt Sr. went down in history: "I know that I can save England, I alone can do it."

However, even his efforts were not enough to prevent Britain's biggest foreign policy failure - the loss of the North American colonies as a result of the American Revolution. It was the government of Pitt St. with a tenacity worthy of a better application, passed in the North American colonies the Stamp Act, hated by the colonists - a law that was the last straw for the Americans.

William Pitt Sr.

Warrior for independence in North America.

War of Independence in North America 1775-1783 - The liberation war of 13 British colonies in North America against British colonial rule, during which an independent state was created - the United States of America. The development of capitalism in the colonies and the formation of the North American nation came into conflict with the policy of the mother country, which considered the colonies as a source of raw materials and a market. The British government in every possible way prevented the further development of industry and trade in the North American colonies.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, authored by T. Jefferson. This document not only proclaimed the separation of 13 colonies from the mother country and the formation of an independent state - the United States of America. The world-historical significance of the declaration was that it was the first state-legal document that formally proclaimed the sovereignty of the people and the responsibility of the government to them:

“We proceed from the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If any form of government becomes destructive to these very ends, the people have the right to change or abolish it and establish a new government based on such principles and forms of government as they think will best ensure the safety and happiness of the people " .

The US managed to exploit the contradictions between Great Britain and other European powers. Although the European monarchs could not sympathize with the "rebels" against the "legitimate sovereign", they, nevertheless, passionately desired the weakening of the haughty Albion. Sent to Paris as a US representative, Benjamin Franklin, on February 6, 1778, entered into a military alliance with France, Britain's colonial rival. France recognized the independence of the colonies, pledged to support the United States in their claims to the continental possessions of England and Bermuda, and the United States - France's claims to British possessions in the West Indies. France began to provide the United States with large material assistance.

In 1779, Spain entered the war with Great Britain, and then Holland. Russia took a benevolent position towards the United States, heading in 1780 the so-called League of Neutrality, which united a number of European countries that opposed Britain's desire to interfere with the trade of neutral countries with its opponents. The personal request of King George III to send 20 thousand Russian soldiers to help the English troops in North America was rejected by Catherine II in the fall of 1775

But by the Treaty of Versailles on September 3, 1783, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States, Spain received Menorca and Florida back; as for France, she was content only with the restoration of her prestige as a result of the victory over England.

Britain's defeat had far-reaching consequences for world politics. The War of Independence, which in its time served as a model of a revolutionary war, influenced the struggle of the European bourgeoisie against the feudal-absolutist order. About 7 thousand European volunteers fought in the ranks of the American army, among them the French Marquis Lafayette, Henri Saint-Simon, the Pole Tadeusz Kosciuszko and others. In the course of the French Revolution, the insurgent people took advantage of the organizational experience and revolutionary military tactics of the Americans. The victory of the North Americans in the War of Independence contributed to the development of the liberation movement of the peoples of Latin America against Spanish domination.

The "overseas republic" in the first years of its existence was extremely weak, but in the future it could become one of the main centers of power, thereby undermining European hegemony in world affairs.

• Ibid.
• Kennedy P. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers ... P. 99.
• History of the USA: in 4 vols. M .: Nauka, 1983-1987. T. 1. S. 123-172.

Russia in the 18th century.

1. Features of the historical process in Russia in the 18th century.

2. Reforms of Peter 1 and their impact on the history of Russia.

3. The era of palace coups and its consequences.

4. "Enlightened Absolutism" by CatherineII.

5. PaulI.

1. The 18th century is in many ways a turning point in world and Russian history, a time of violent social upheavals. It contained the grandiose reforms of Peter I, which radically changed the face of Russia, an endless series of palace coups. This is the time of the great reforms of Catherine II, the heyday of Russian culture, the time of sharp class battles (peasant wars led by K. Bulavin (1707-1709), E. Pugachev (1773-1775).

The 18th century is the heyday, and then the crisis of the feudal system. In Europe, the decline of absolutism begins. In Russia, at that time, feudalism was experiencing a period of apogee, but since the end of the century, the crisis of the feudal system has been intensifying, however, unlike the West, the crisis of feudalism was accompanied not by a narrowing of its scope, but by spreading to new territories. The 18th century is the time of constant wars for the expansion of the territory of Russia. Back in the 17th century, Siberia, the Far East, and Ukraine became part of Russia. In the 18th century, it included Northern Kazakhstan, the Baltic states, Belarus, the Baltic, the Black and Azov seas. The multinationality of Russia grew. In the 18th century, the population more than doubled (37.5 million people). New big cities are emerging. At the beginning of the century, Russia is experiencing an industrial boom. In agriculture, serfdom continues to dominate. The basis of the social structure was the estate principle. The taxable estates were artisans, peasants, philistines, merchants up to 1 guild. The boyars are increasingly losing their leading positions. During the time of Catherine the Second, the nobles, who received huge benefits, became the first estate. The privileged classes also included foreigners, clergy, Cossack foremen.

In the 18th century, the nature of power changed. Under Peter I, absolutism (autocracy) was finally established. Subsequently, there is a transformation of absolutism into the regime of the enlightened monarchy of Catherine II. The 18th century was characterized by constant, comprehensive intervention of the state in the affairs of society, the role of a catalyst for many processes was played by wars - out of 36 years of the reign of Peter I, Russia fought for 29 years.

2. In the 17th century Russia remained a deeply patriarchal state. The Russian tsars Michael (1613-1645) and his son Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) were old people, and Russia needed to be modernized. The first attempts at reforms were carried out by the son of Alexei - Fedor (1676 -1682). Alexei had 11 children, and he was an exemplary family man. Under the influence of Sophia, the sister of Peter I, after the death of Fedor, Peter I and Ivan V were proclaimed kings (Ivan V is the son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich through the Miloslavskys). Only in 1689 did Peter overthrow Sophia (she died in a monastery), and in 1696 Peter I became the sole tsar. He ruled for 36 years - from 1689 to 1725. He is considered the largest reformer in Russia.

Peter was a classic supporter of the ideology of rationalism. His ideal was a regular state headed by a sage on the throne. He believed that the state is the fruit of creation not of God, but of man, it can be built like a house. Therefore, it is necessary to invent wise laws that the sage on the throne will put into practice. The state is a tool to make society happy (illusion). Peter wanted clear laws for all occasions. The main idea of ​​Peter is the modernization of Russia "from above" (without the participation of the people), according to the European model. From Peter to the present day, there has been a tendency to catch up with the West, from which we have lagged behind "thanks" to the Mongol-Tatars.

In the first years, Peter looked closely and outlined a plan for reforms (amusing troops, amusing ships). He travels abroad, visits France, Holland, England, Switzerland, Belgium, where he gets acquainted with the experience of Europe. As a simple soldier, Peter participated in two campaigns against Azov. Peter knew 15 crafts, he sought to adopt all the best in the West. Peter is difficult to compare with anyone else. He was a genius, but next to him there were no people of the same rank.

He was a man of enormous stature (2m 4 cm) and gigantic strength.

The main reforms of Peter turned out to be in tune with the interests of Russia. The first recruitment was held in 1705, and the last - in 1874. That is, recruitment sets lasted 169 years.

The Senate, the main governing body of the country, existed for 206 years - from 1711 to 1917.

The synod, the state governing body of the church, existed for 197 years, from 1721 to 1918.

The poll tax existed for 163 years - from 1724 to 1887. Before the poll tax, there was a household.

Peter's reforms were comprehensive and affected all spheres of life. The Petrine system of government was distinguished by: unification and militarization (out of 36 years of Peter's reign, Russia fought for 29 years), centralization and excessive differentiation of functions. Under Peter, the book “Honest Mirrors of Youth” was published, it gave a description of the behavior of young people in different places and in different situations.

The reforms affected the management system. New authorities were created: the Senate, the prosecutor's office (1722) and the Synod, the institute of fiscals (the eye of the sovereign - secret inspection).

In 1718, instead of the Orders, Collegiums were created - collective management bodies (Commerce Collegium, Manufactory Collegium, Berg Collegium, etc.).

Peter changed the system of territorial administration. He introduced the Town Hall and Zemsky huts - the main tax collectors. Town Hall - in the capital cities, zemstvo - in the field.

In 1708, a regional reform was carried out, according to which 8 provinces were created, headed by governors general. After 10 years, the country was divided into 50 provinces. In 1720, Peter created the main magistrate - the body for the administration of territories.

The General Regulations was created - a collection of basic legislative acts.

Peter I destroys the Boyar Duma, but breeds bureaucracy - the Senate, the Synod.

His reforms in the field of economy and culture were radical. From the beginning of the 18th century Peter begins building an industrial base in the Urals, a fleet. In the conditions of the Northern War, he carries out a monetary reform - reduces the amount of metal in money.

Trying to protect Russian industry from competition, he is pursuing an active policy of protectionism (protecting his industry through high customs tariffs) and mercantilism (encouraging his own entrepreneurs). The economy is booming. The number of manufactories increased 10 times. Russia's exports exceeded imports by almost 2 times (surplus).

Under Peter, the life and traditions of society change radically. In 1703, he creates an ideal city - St. Petersburg - a model for the whole country.

Peter introduced a new chronology - from the birth of Christ - the Julian calendar (from the creation of the world). The New Year does not begin on September 1st, but on January 1st. Peter introduced the celebration of the New Year (this tradition of bringing spruce branches came from Peter). He created the first library, the first public newspaper Vedomosti, the first museum, the first state theater. He developed the idea of ​​creating the Academy of Sciences, but Peter died in January 1725, and the Academy was created according to his project, but after his death.

Peter created a wide network of primary schools, digital schools, a network of parish schools, education becomes a priority area. The first specialized institutions appear: artillery, medical schools, mathematical and navigational sciences (Sukharev Tower). Peter changes household traditions, he organizes assemblies (parties), where young people played chess and checkers. Peter brought in tobacco and coffee. The nobles learned the art of etiquette. Peter introduced European clothing and the shaving of beards. There was a beard tax of 100 rubles (5 rubles could buy 20 cows).

In 1721, Peter took the title of emperor, and in 1722 he introduced the Table of Ranks (ladder to the future), according to which the entire population was divided into 14 ranks (chancellor, vice-chancellor, secret adviser, etc.).

Thus, Peter's reforms radically changed Russia. The French sculptor Etienne Maurice Falcone captured the image of Peter in the form of a sculpture of the Bronze Horseman, in which the horse personifies Russia, while the rider is Peter.

The ideal of Peter - a regular state - turned out to be a utopia. Instead of the ideal, a police state was created. The price of Peter's reforms was too high. He acted on the principle "The end justifies the means."

Peter is a figure of enormous historical scale, complex and contradictory. He was smart, inquisitive, hardworking, energetic. Having not received a proper education, he, nevertheless, possessed extensive knowledge in various fields of science, technology, crafts, and military art. But many qualities of Peter's character were due to the nature of the harsh era in which he lived, determined his cruelty, suspicion, lust for power. Peter liked being compared to Ivan the Terrible. In achieving his goals, he did not disdain any means, he was cruel to people (1689 chopped off the heads of archers, looked at people as material for the implementation of his plan). During the reign of Peter in the country, taxes increased by 3 times and the population decreased by 15%. Peter did not stop before using the most sophisticated methods of the Middle Ages: he used torture, surveillance, and encouraged denunciations. He was convinced that in the name of the state good, moral standards can be neglected.

Merits of Peter:

Peter made a gigantic contribution to the creation of a mighty Russia with a strong army and navy.

He contributed to the creation of industrial production in the state (a giant leap in the development of productive forces).

His merit is the modernization of the state machine.

Reforms in the field of culture.

However, the nature of their implementation was reduced to the mechanical transfer of cultural stereotypes of the West, the suppression of the development of national culture.

Peter's reforms aimed at the Europeanization of Russia are grandiose in scope and consequences, but they could not ensure the country's long-term progress, because. were carried out by force and consolidated a rigid system based on forced labor.

2 . With the light hand of V.O. Klyuchevsky, the period from 1725 to 1762. 37 years of our history began to be called "the era of palace coups." Peter I changed the traditional order of succession to the throne. Previously, the throne passed in a direct male descending line, and according to the manifesto of February 5, 1722, the monarch himself appointed his successor. But Peter did not have time to appoint an heir. A power struggle between the two factions began. One supported Catherine I - the wife of Peter (Tolstoy, Menshikov), the other - the grandson of Peter I - Peter II (the old aristocracy). The outcome of the case was decided by the guards. From 1725 to 1727 Catherine I ruled. She was incapable of governing. In February 1726, the Supreme Privy Council was created, headed by Menshikov. Before her death, Catherine drew up a decree on succession to the throne (testament), according to which power was to belong to Peter II - the grandson of Peter I, the son of Tsarevich Alexei, and then Anna Ioannovna - the niece of Peter I, then Anna Petrovna and Elizabeth Petrovna (daughter of Peter I). After the death of Catherine I, Peter II came to the throne - a boy of 12 years old, the son of Alexei, under whom Menshikov ruled. In the autumn of 1727, Menshikov was arrested and stripped of his ranks and ranks. Under him, affairs were managed by a secret council, and the main occupations of Peter II were hunting and love joys.

After the death of Peter II, Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740) came to power. She was the daughter of Ivan V, the brother of Peter I. She was not distinguished by intelligence, beauty, or education. She handed over control to Ernst Biron, Duke of Courland (since 1737). The reign of Anna Ioannovna was called "Bironism". During her reign, the autocracy was strengthened, the duties of the nobles were reduced and their rights were expanded over the peasants. Before her death, Anna Ioannovna announced her successor to the infant John VI Antonovich, the son of her niece. Biron was regent under Ivan, and then his mother, Anna Leopoldovna.

On November 25, 1741, Elizabeth Petrovna, the daughter of Peter I, came to power, overthrowing the young Ivan with the help of the Guards. She ruled for 20 years - from 1741 to 1761. The cheerful and loving empress did not devote much time to public affairs. Her policy was distinguished by caution and gentleness. She was the first in Europe to abolish the death penalty. Klyuchevsky called her "a smart and kind, but disorderly and wayward Russian young lady."

Peter III (Karl Peter Ulrich - son of Anna Petrovna - daughter of Peter I and Duke Karl Friedrich) ruled for 6 months (from December 25, 1761 to June 28, 1762) (born 1728-1762). His wife was Catherine II the Great. Peter was not respected either by his wife, or by the courtiers, or by the guards, or in society.

On June 28, 1762, a palace coup took place. Peter III was forced to abdicate, and a few days later he was killed.

4. The era of palace coups is ending, the Enlightened absolutism of Catherine II begins.

Like Peter I, Catherine II went down in history under the name of Catherine the Great. Her reign became a new era in the history of Russia. The beginning of the reign was difficult for Catherine in moral terms. Peter III was the legitimate sovereign, the grandson of Peter the Great, and Catherine was actually called Sophia Frederica-August, the German princess Anhald of Zerbst. She showed herself as a patriot of the Russian land. For the first 15 years, she did not play a significant role in state affairs. She persistently studied the Russian language and literature, the works of ancient authors, the works of French enlighteners, the traditions and customs of the Russian people. Catherine's first steps spoke of her mind. One of her decrees reduced taxes on bread and salt. Catherine was the first to inoculate herself against smallpox and saved the lives of thousands of peasants.

She was crowned in Moscow on September 22, 1762 (she awarded everyone who helped her - the participants in the coup received land with serfs, ranks, money). Catherine was a typical Westerner. She tried to introduce the ideas of enlightenment and freedom in Russia. Catherine was a supporter of autocracy and a prominent follower of Peter I. She wanted to create in Russia a regime of enlightened absolutism - a regime in which the monarch cares about the freedom, welfare and enlightenment of the people. The monarch is the sage on the throne. True freedom, according to Catherine, consisted in strict observance of the law. She came up with the idea of ​​limiting state intervention in the economy, defended the freedom of enterprise. Catherine provided extensive benefits to manufactories. Its main goal is to strengthen the social support of absolutism, making the nobles the first estate. Until 1775, reforms were carried out spontaneously (spontaneously), and from 1775 the second stage of reforms began, which finally established the power of the nobility in Russia.

Catherine tried to develop new legislation based on the principles of the Enlightenment. In 1767, a commission was created to review Russian laws, which received the name laid down. The commission was made up of deputies from different class groups - the nobility, townspeople, state peasants, Cossacks. The deputies came to the commission with instructions from their electors. Catherine turned to the Commission with the Order, which used the ideas of Montesquieu, the Italian lawyer Beccaria on the state and laws. In December 1768, the Commission stopped its work in connection with the Russian-Turkish war. The main goal - the development of the Code - has not been achieved. But this helped Catherine to get acquainted with the problems and needs of the population.

The largest act of Catherine was Letter of Complaint to the nobility and cities in 1785. It determined the rights and privileges of the nobility. It finally took shape as a privileged class. In this document, the old privileges were confirmed - the right to own peasants, lands, subsoil, freedom from poll tax, recruitment duty, corporal punishment, the transfer of noble titles by inheritance and freedom from public service.

In the Letter of Complaint to the cities, all the rights and privileges of the cities described by previous legislation were listed: the exemption of the top merchants from the poll tax and the replacement of recruitment duty with a cash contribution. The charter divided the urban population into 6 categories and defined the rights and obligations of each of them. The privileged group of citizens included the so-called. eminent citizens: merchants (capital over 50 thousand rubles), wealthy bankers (at least 100 thousand rubles), and urban intelligentsia (architects, painters, composers, scientists). Another privileged group included the guild merchants, which were divided into 3 guilds. The merchants of the first two guilds were exempted from corporal punishment, but the last one was not. The letter of grant to the cities introduced a complex system of city self-government. The most important body of self-government was the city-wide “Meeting of the City Society”, which was assembled once every three years, at which officials were elected: the mayor, burgomasters, assessors of the magistrate, etc. The executive body was the six-vowel Duma, which consisted of the mayor and six vowels - one from each category of the urban population.

Senate reform

It was divided into 6 departments with 5 senators each. At the head of each was the Chief Prosecutor. Each department had certain powers: the first (headed by the Prosecutor General himself) was in charge of state and political affairs in St. Petersburg, the second - judicial in St. Petersburg, the third - transport, medicine, science, education, art, the fourth - military land and naval affairs, the fifth - state and political in Moscow and the sixth - the Moscow Judicial Department. The general powers of the Senate were reduced, in particular, it lost its legislative initiative and became the body of control over the activities of the state apparatus and the highest judicial authority. The center of legislative activity moved directly to Catherine and her office with secretaries of state.

Before the reform, senators could sit back and considered it their task to be in the institution, and in departments the ability to hide behind others was reduced. The effectiveness of the work of the Senate has increased significantly.

The Senate became the body of control over the activities of the state apparatus and the highest judicial authority, but lost the legislative initiative, which passed to Catherine.

Since 1764, Catherine has been holding land secularization and peasants. 1 million peasants were taken away from the church. The church became part of the state machine. In the same year, Catherine liquidated the autonomy of Ukraine.

Catherine tried to solve the peasant issue - to limit the power of the landowners, but the nobles and the aristocracy did not support these attempts, and subsequently decrees were issued that strengthened the power of the landowners.

In 1765, a Decree was adopted on the right of landowners to exile peasants to Siberia without trial. In 1767 - about the prohibition of peasants to complain about the landowners. The time of Catherine is the time of serfdom. Taxes on peasants increased by 2 times. A wave of peasant uprisings swept through the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1765, Catherine founded the Free Economic Society - the first Russian scientific society (K.D. Kavelin, D.I. Mendeleev, A.M. Butlerov, P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky), which existed until 1915. It published the first statistical-geographical study of Russia, promoted the introduction of new agricultural techniques in agriculture, and discussed economic problems. By decree of Catherine, the Encyclopedia of Labour, Crafts and Arts, banned in the West, is being translated in Russia.

In 1765, Catherine issued two Decrees: "On General Land Surveying", according to which the nobles secured the previously received lands and "On distillation", according to which the nobles received a monopoly on the production of alcohol.

In 1775, the provincial reform. The country was divided into 50 provinces with 10-12 counties in each province. The post of governors, noble assemblies were introduced. A special chamber of public charity was created, which took care of education and health care (schools, hospitals, shelters).

Catherine died in 1796, she reigned for 34 years. By the standards of that time, Catherine lived a long life, died at 66 years old. Her reforms turned out to be ineffective and ineffective, cut off from Russian reality.

To prepare for the seminar

From the Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius:

Catherine, the daughter of Prince Christian-August of Anhalt-Zerbst, who was in the Prussian service, and Princess Johanna-Elisabeth (nee Princess of Holstein-Gottorp), was related to the royal houses of Sweden, Prussia and England. She was educated at home: she studied German and French, dance, music, the basics of history, geography, and theology. Already in childhood, her independent character, curiosity, perseverance and, at the same time, a penchant for lively, outdoor games, manifested itself. In 1744, Catherine and her mother were summoned to Russia by Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, baptized according to Orthodox tradition under the name of Catherine Alekseevna and named the bride of Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich (the future Emperor Peter III), whom she married in 1745.

Catherine set herself the goal of winning the favor of the Empress, her husband and the Russian people. However, her personal life was unsuccessful: Peter was infantile, so during the first years of marriage there was no marital relationship between them. Paying tribute to the cheerful life of the court, Catherine turned to reading French enlighteners and works on history, jurisprudence and economics. These books shaped her worldview. Catherine became a consistent supporter of the ideas of the Enlightenment. She was also interested in the history, traditions and customs of Russia. In the early 1750s. Catherine began an affair with the Guards officer S. V. Saltykov, and in 1754 gave birth to a son, the future Emperor Paul I, but the rumors that Saltykov was Paul's father are unfounded. In the second half of the 1750s. Catherine had an affair with the Polish diplomat S. Poniatowski (later King Stanislaw August), and in the early 1760s. with G. G. Orlov, from whom she gave birth in 1762 to a son, Alexei, who received the surname Bobrinsky. The deterioration of relations with her husband led to the fact that she began to fear for her fate if he came to power and began to recruit supporters for herself at court. The ostentatious piety of Catherine, her prudence, sincere love for Russia - all this contrasted sharply with the behavior of Peter and allowed her to gain authority both among the high-society capital society and the general population of St. Petersburg.

Accession to the throne

During the six months of the reign of Peter III, Catherine's relationship with her husband (who openly appeared in the company of E. R. Vorontsova's mistress) continued to deteriorate, becoming clearly hostile. There was a threat of her arrest and possible deportation. Catherine carefully prepared a conspiracy, relying on the support of the Orlov brothers, N. I. Panin, K. G. Razumovsky, E. R. Dashkova and others. On the night of June 28, 1762, when the emperor was in Oranienbaum, Catherine secretly arrived in St. Petersburg and In the barracks of the Izmailovsky regiment, she was proclaimed an autocratic empress. Soldiers from other regiments soon joined the rebels. The news of Catherine's accession to the throne quickly spread throughout the city and was greeted with enthusiasm by the people of St. Petersburg. To prevent the actions of the deposed emperor, messengers were sent to the army and to Kronstadt. Meanwhile, Peter, having learned about what had happened, began to send proposals for negotiations to Catherine, which were rejected. The empress herself, at the head of the guards regiments, set out for Petersburg and on the way received Peter's written abdication from the throne.

Catherine II was a subtle psychologist and an excellent connoisseur of people, she skillfully selected her assistants, not being afraid of bright and talented people. That is why Catherine's time was marked by the appearance of a whole galaxy of outstanding statesmen, generals, writers, artists, and musicians. In dealing with subjects, Catherine was, as a rule, restrained, patient, tactful. She was an excellent conversationalist, able to listen carefully to everyone. By her own admission, she did not have a creative mind, but she was good at capturing any sensible thought and using it for her own purposes. During the entire reign of Catherine, there were practically no noisy resignations, none of the nobles was disgraced, exiled, let alone executed. Therefore, there was an idea of ​​​​Catherine's reign as the "golden age" of the Russian nobility. At the same time, Catherine was very vain and valued her power more than anything in the world. For the sake of her preservation, she is ready to make any compromises to the detriment of her beliefs.

Attitude towards religion and the peasant question

Catherine was distinguished by ostentatious piety, considered herself the head and defender of the Russian Orthodox Church and skillfully used religion in her political interests. Her faith, apparently, was not too deep. In the spirit of the time, she preached religious tolerance. Under her, the persecution of the Old Believers was stopped, Catholic and Protestant churches, mosques were built, but the transition from Orthodoxy to another faith was still severely punished.

Catherine was a staunch opponent of serfdom, considering it inhumane and contrary to the very nature of man. In her papers, many harsh statements on this subject, as well as discussions about various options for the elimination of serfdom, have been preserved. However, she did not dare to do anything concrete in this area because of the well-founded fear of a noble rebellion and another coup. At the same time, Catherine was convinced of the spiritual underdevelopment of the Russian peasants and therefore was in danger of granting them freedom, believing that the life of the peasants among caring landowners was quite prosperous.

Catherine came to the throne with a well-defined political program based, on the one hand, on the ideas of the Enlightenment and, on the other, taking into account the peculiarities of the historical development of Russia. The most important principles for the implementation of this program were gradual, consistent, taking into account public sentiment.

the first years of her reign, Catherine carried out reform of the Senate (1763), made the work of this institution more efficient; carried out the secularization of church lands (1764), which significantly replenished the state treasury and eased the situation of a million peasants; liquidated the hetmanate in Ukraine, which corresponded to her ideas about the need to unify administration throughout the empire; invited German colonists to Russia for the development of the Volga and Black Sea regions. In the same years, a number of new educational institutions were founded, including the first in Russia educational institutions for women(Smolny Institute, Catherine School). In 1767, she announced the convening of a Commission to draft a new code, consisting of elected deputies from all social groups of Russian society, with the exception of serfs. Catherine wrote for the Commission "Instruction", which was essentially a liberal program of her reign. Catherine's appeals, however, were not understood by the deputies of the Commission, who were arguing over petty issues. In the course of their discussions, deep contradictions between individual social groups, a low level of political culture and the frank conservatism of the majority of the members of the Commission were revealed. At the end of 1768 the Legislative Commission was dissolved. Ekaterina herself appreciated the experience of the Commission as an important lesson that introduced her to the moods of different sections of the country's population.

“Society needs, first of all, security, knowing that other goals cannot be achieved until this first, necessary goal is achieved,” wrote the famous Russian police scientist A. S. Oskolsky. And the majority of political scientists from different countries and times saw the reason for the emergence and the essence of the state precisely in its “police function”. History proves that citizens (subjects) can forgive the leaders of the state a lot - abuse of power, love of luxury, tongue-tied tongue and even embezzlement. But they never forgive the lack of public order in the country, the presence of a threat to their lives and property.
G. Florovsky believes that “... The police state is not only and even not so much an external, but an internal reality. Not so much a system as a lifestyle. Not only a political theory, but also a religious attitude.” Policeism, according to Florovsky, “is the idea to build and regularly compose the whole life of the people and the country, the whole life of each individual inhabitant for his own sake and for the common good or common good. Police pathos is a founding and patronizing pathos.
Western researchers of the anti-Russian direction (in particular, R. Pipes) characterize Russia as a "police state", others use the term "Duma monarchy". Currently, researchers in historiography use the term "neo-absolutism".
The police function arose simultaneously with the advent of the state. Already in the first state formations of the Eastern Slavs (VI-VIII centuries), later in Kievan Rus, the functions of the police were carried out by the prince's retinue. As the state developed, police functions were to some extent carried out by posadniks, volostels, thousand, sotsky, elders, virniki, etc. However, this activity was not their main duty and was combined with another kind of activity.

1. The development of police bodies in the period of absolute monarchy.

The actual activity of police institutions was dictated by the conditions of the feudal system, autocratic statehood and the police political regime, the specific situation in the country and capitals, the subjective views and desires of the king and his entourage.
The legislative acts indicated the main areas of police activity, specified individual powers, regulated the forms and methods of its functioning, however, in the first quarter of the 18th century. powers have not been defined. The nature, forms and methods of police activity are seen on the example of some traditional areas of activity inherent in it.
Among the most important areas of punitive law enforcement activities of the capital's regular police institutions are the regulation of movement and residence in the capitals of the population, the suppression of unauthorized departures of working people, peasants, desertion of soldiers. Questions about the search for fugitives were constantly considered by the police chief's offices. For three months (August - October) 1724, the Moscow police chief's office considered 19 cases of fugitives who were discovered by the Moscow police. Almost every year, the police distributed announcements of forgiveness for soldiers who returned before a certain time to serve.
The registration of the urban population was directed directly to the fight against the fugitives. This Event was also essential for regulating the life of citizens, involving them in police duties, as well as expelling people from the capital who became unnecessary to the government there.
Police officials and servants were strictly punished to “keep a close eye on visitors”, to demand from the townspeople an immediate announcement in police offices, at moving houses about the arrival of people in the city, and to report on the hiring of new workers. It was forbidden to keep strangers in the house for more than a certain period. The police had to register everyone who came to the city and left from the bliss. Without the permission of the police it was impossible to let anyone in for the night. It was forbidden to accept workers "without clear evidence or without good guarantees for them." For non-fulfillment of these instructions, the police chief offices had the right to sentence the householder to exile in the galleys and confiscation of property or whipping and exile to hard labor, which was done in practice.
Police offices in the first quarter of the 18th century. had broad powers to investigate and adjudicate criminal cases. They conducted an inquiry into all the crimes discovered by the police, as well as a preliminary investigation and trial in relation to persons under the jurisdiction of the police. The police enforced their sentences.
Daily life of people in the first half of the XVIII century. was subject to emergency regulations. It was forbidden in the city to wear beards and Russian dress; in accordance with the rank, it was determined how many horses to keep and harness to the carriage, what jewelry and outfits to wear on holidays. Residents were given time to sleep, work and rest, and work and rest were also regulated. “Peter began with the shaving of beards and the cutting of caftans, . . reached the mandatory establishment of assemblies and boat trips along the Neva and the Gulf of Finland.
The regulation of the life and activities of the population, brought to the extreme, was also entrusted to the police. The functions of the regular police, as a rule, included those issues in the resolution of which the autocratic government used crude direct coercion. In the regulation, they often imitated Western European models, ignoring the habits and way of life of the local population, which, of course, caused opposition on their part.
The subject of proceedings in the senate and police offices were mainly cases of abuse that caused damage to noble persons or institutions. These cases have come down to us in archival documents. And how many excesses of police officials in relation to the common people remained unknown?
So, the Russian type of statehood, it would seem, should have been most strengthened since 1861. But for this, the monarch needed to be with the people, in thought, in the heart, in communication. The monarch needed to pour into his personality all the living work of the national spirit. Meanwhile, at this moment, the most important, the most decisive, the most critical, which has ever been in the history of Russia, the anti-monarchist administrative structure, grown up in the previous period, weighed heavily on the monarchy.
It was here that all the harmful consequences of the bureaucracy planted from Peter and strengthened from Alexander I had an effect. Until then, the excessive growth and harmful significance of bureaucratic administration was somewhat weakened by the influence of the nobility, which was in close and direct connection with the Supreme Power. But the nobility lost the opportunity to play the former role of communication between the Supreme Power and the nation.
And in place of this connection, nothing was created. With the abolition of the socio-historical role of the nobility, only its bureaucratic service bodies remained near the Supreme Power.
It was a fatal circumstance that separated the king and the people at the very moment when their unity was most needed. The task of building a new Russia would be quite difficult even if the supreme power were in close connection with the thought and feeling of the nation. But in the era of the so-called "great reforms" this connection was not supported by anything.

2. General characteristics of the state system of Russia in the XVIII century.

Since 1861, Russia introduced for the first time the type of bureaucratic "police state" that dominated pre-constitutional Europe in the 18th century.
But since the European evolution of this absolutist type was already before everyone's eyes, the conviction naturally arose that this, too, was only a transitional period towards a "constitution" in our country.
Talk about "crowning" the reforms in our country was reduced exclusively to parliamentary demands. The only “crowning” seemed to be the restriction of tsarist power by popular representation. These demands, of course, were rejected from above. But besides them, no one, except the Slavophiles, saw the means of connecting the Supreme Power with the nation, and the void between them remained unfilled. What did the state of the newest period do?
Slavophile ideas pointed to the need for local self-government. This absolutely fundamental requirement, which appears in the "Western" theories, was taken into account to a certain extent, but completely unsuccessfully, because it is impossible to establish real self-government without limiting the power of the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy did not allow this. Western demands pointed with particular insistence to the rights of the individual, and the general historical direction of the empire indicated the spread of popular education. In the various implementation of these tasks, the creativity of the newest period has gone especially zealously, but the creator of everything was the bureaucracy. She worked for the Russian nation.
Naturally, at the same time, the task of organizing self-government was not only not achieved, but, in general, was drowned out. Everything else could not be achieved by bureaucratic means, because the possibility of personal rights and enlightenment is most closely connected with the social independence of the people.
The rights of the individual in an anarchically disordered society is a dream. An individual outside of society can, by gaining rights, become only a revolutionary force. Enlightenment, out of touch with the influence of society, is also a chimera. Meanwhile, the creativity of the new period allowed only a certain freedom of the individual, her independence, but did not even think about the independence of the social strata.
In reality, there cannot be a free individual without an independent society, and such freedom does not even satisfy the individual. The new period was completely unaware of this. He allowed, for example, personal freedom of faith, but in no case the freedom of the church, while for a believer the freedom of his church is more important than any personal freedom. The new period allowed the assistance of social forces in the form, for example, of the "printed word". But this often only cut off power from the people, because the printed word does not express the opinion of the people at all, but only of that stratum that has material resources and the ability to use the expanded freedom of the press.
To judge the opinions of the people by the voice of the press is to make the intelligentsia the representative of the whole people and to place the thought of the government at the mercy of the aspirations of the intelligentsia. On the same basis, a huge influence arose of various visiting foreigners who acquired magazines, or Jews, or, finally, simply speculators who had nothing in common with any sections of the people ...
Instead of directly and immediately hearing the opinion of society and the people, we resorted to the phonograph of the press, which was charged with plays almost at the choice of the people. The enormous participation of the bureaucracy itself in this alleged "echo of public opinion" is well known.
Thus, in everything the direct connection between the state and the people was removed, and the state structure since 1861 was generally characterized by the fact that from year to year, almost without moments of respite, the bureaucracy developed an ever greater centralization and interference of bureaucratic power decisively in everything the nation lives. . The area of ​​jurisdiction of administrative institutions is constantly expanding. The control of private citizens and public institutions over the operation of bureaucratic institutions is constantly narrowing. The bureaucracy's control over every slightest action of the individual and social strata is constantly growing.
This incessantly and infinitely increasing administrative bureaucratic tutelage, which has surpassed all previous examples, leads the social forces to relaxation. They are almost denied, if not in theory, then in fact. Everything for everyone should be done by the official and the subject authority. In this way government offices grow more and more. The national forces not only do not develop and strengthen their organization, but are constantly weakened by endless guardianship, pointing, prohibition and order.
The nation is becoming less and less accustomed to doing anything on its own and waiting for the satisfaction of all its needs from the "bosses". This true political corruption of adults who turn into children is accompanied by the lack of their ability to control the actions of guardians - officials, giving rise in public opinion, instead of a reasonable discussion of the actions of the administration, the kingdom of gossip, in which it is already impossible for a reasonable person to distinguish fantastic or malicious inventions from real abuses.
It goes without saying that a nation educated in this way cannot but gradually lose its political meaning and must turn more and more into a "crowd". In the crowd, however, democratic notions of supremacy will certainly prevail.
Not only is a higher ethical principle drowned out in a politically downtrodden people, but even aristocratic confidence in the power of the best disappears, for they are no longer visible: the crowd is gray and monotonous, there are neither worse nor better, there is only numbers - the majority and the minority.
These are the feelings and moods that are nurtured by the bureaucracy and its centralization. Its action was in complete solidarity with the tendencies of the revolutionary intelligentsia.

3. Russia in the period of absolute monarchy.

In the second half of the 17th century and the first quarter of the 18th century, an absolute monarchy was established in Russia. For the first time in Russian history, the police becomes an independent link in the state apparatus.
Adopted in 1649, the decree on the city deanery began to operate not only in Moscow, but throughout the country. In large cities, bypass heads were instructed to carry out passport control, monitor order, sanitation and lighting. They also formed the local police and administration, organized patrolling the streets.
From the beginning of the 18th century, regular police formations began to appear. In 1702, the organs of provincial self-government were abolished. Their functions were transferred to the governors. After the formation in 1710 of the provinces, police functions were assigned, among others, to the governors.
According to the voivodship order of 1719, they had to take care of the protection of the rights and safety of local residents, pursue “walking people”, take care of the condition of roads, and observe the correctness of weights and measures. The governor shared these functions with the zemstvo commissars. Among other things, they were entrusted with monitoring the serviceability and safety of communications and inns, pursuing fugitives and robbers, assisting in the administration of justice, and also taking care of the morality and religiosity of the townsfolk. In the cities, police functions were within the competence of magistrates - bodies of state self-government established by Peter I.
The first special police position in Russia appeared in 1718 - a general police chief was established in St. Petersburg. By 1722 police chiefs appeared in many large cities. Under them, offices of police affairs were created. The functions of these bodies included the protection of order, peace and security, the search for fugitives, food and fire prevention measures, and the solution of urban improvement issues. The Regulations of the Chief Magistrate of 1721 established a regular police force.
Peter I outlined the tasks of the police authorities quite broadly in it: the police contribute to the implementation of the rights of justice; gives birth to good orders; provides everyone with security from robbers, thieves, and so on, “drives away dishonorable and indecent living”, forces everyone to work and honest trade; oversees house building and maintenance of streets and roads; ensures sanitary safety; prohibits excesses in spending; is engaged in charity of the poor, the sick, the crippled; protects "widows, powers and strangers", educates young men "in the chaste purity of honest sciences." The regulation notes that "... the police are the soul of citizenship and all good orders and fundamental pillars of human security and convenience."
After the death of Peter I, the Chief Magistrate was abolished, and the city self-government bodies became subordinate to the governors and governors, who took over the administration of the main police functions.
In 1732, the post of Chief of Police was introduced into the staff of the St. Petersburg police, an office was formed, consisting of advisers, a secretary, a company of dragoons for traveling. In 1733 police chief offices were established in 23 provinces and cities, headed by police chiefs from the officers of this garrison. Each police chief was given small teams and clerical servants. The competence of the police offices was very narrow, because. many police functions remained under the jurisdiction of governors and governors. The local police had to monitor the external order and "deanery" in the city. In 1746, an expedition for the affairs of thieves and robbers was established, by decrees of 1746 and 1747. established rules of conduct in public places. The decree of 1750 regulated the methods of combating prostitution and brothels. The decree of 1740 regulated the patrol service in the cities. However, by the beginning of the 60s of the 18th century, the number of police institutions had decreased, and the remaining ones were transferred in 1762 to the subordination of governors and governors.
The general police in the 18th century worked poorly, which led to a radical restructuring of its organs. It was carried out during the reign of Catherine II. In her order of 1767, Catherine defined the police as "an institution whose care belongs to everything that serves to preserve goodness in society."
A major milestone in the restructuring of the local police was the publication of the Charter of the Deanery. It was based on the materials of the Legislative Commission of 1771, the Code of the Provinces and foreign police regulations.
He determined the structure of the police apparatus in the cities. According to it, new police bodies were created in the cities - the councils of the deanery. In the provincial towns they were headed by police chiefs, in the districts - by the mayors. The administration of the deanery ensured the protection of order, forced the inhabitants to comply with the laws and decrees of the authorities, enforced the orders of the provincial administration and court decisions, and was in charge of urban improvement and trade.
The central body was a special police institution - the office of a private bailiff, called the "part". Private police teams were strengthened in each part of the capital and zemstvo cities.
The police reforms carried out by Catherine II were aimed at strengthening the local government apparatus. In the second half of the 18th century, an intelligence apparatus of special police agencies was created in Russia, designed to protect the fiscal and police interests of the absolutist state.
Catherine II is often seen as a ruler who embodies the principles of enlightened absolutism; elements of "enlightenment" are commonly found in her famous "Order of the Legislative Commission" (1767), as well as in her correspondence with Voltaire and Baron Grimm. But it would be just as correct to classify her among the great rulers-kameralists.
In the fairly detailed articles of the "Charter of the Deanery", concerning the maintenance of order in cities with the help of the police, Catherine follows the cameralist ideas and practical norms of the German statutes of the 17th century. The "Charter of the Deanery", which is an attempt to streamline all aspects of city life and bring them under control, is of the same thorough and detailed character; it also demonstrates the same desire to keep urban populations safe and to maximize their creative potential so that they can play the role assigned to them in the state economy.
On the other hand, the Russian statute contains an overly large section (comprising almost half of all articles) detailing the penalties for each violation of the relevant rules.
During the reign of Paul I, the city's estate self-government was merged with the police. Instead of the administrations of the deanery, city boards were established - ratgauzes, combining administrative-police, financial-economic and partly judicial functions. Since 1799, military-political bodies - ordinance - gauses, began to open in all provincial and district cities, each of which was headed by a police chief, mayor or commandant, had a military court and a prison.
In the 18th century, the government streamlined the management of the peasants. In each specific volost, the peasants elected a rural order. It was a police and financial body that oversaw the order, the execution of orders from government agencies.
The transformations of Paul I did little to improve the activities of the local government apparatus. Alexander I, along with the reform of the political police, carried out changes in the organization of the general police into a system of centralized bodies. In 1802, the Ministry of the Interior was created, the main task of which was to take care of "the universal well-being of the people, tranquility, silence and the improvement of the empire."
The emergence of special political repressive bodies under Peter I began to develop more interestingly in the second quarter of the 18th century. Transformation 1713-1718 strengthened the system of search offices, and in 1718 a central body was formed - the Secret Office.
After its liquidation in 1726, control, search and supervisory functions were transferred to the Supreme Privy Council, and in 1731 - to a specially created office of secret search affairs, controlled by the Senate. It was a real punitive body, a prototype of the secret police. The Manifesto of 1762 officially liquidated the secret police and the office of secret search affairs. However, in fact, its functions were entrusted to the third expedition of the Senate. 12 The Manifesto of Catherine II of 1762 introduced significant changes in the organization of the new secret department.
According to her order, the secret expedition was subordinate to one prosecutor general. The transfer of the secret expedition to the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor General provided the political investigation bodies with maximum centralization, independence from other institutions and the preservation of the most complete secrecy of investigations. The secret expedition operated in the conditions of growing popular discontent from the first days of its existence, launched an active activity. The reason for initiating political cases in a secret expedition was most often denunciations. Torture was widely used, which was abolished only by Alexander I in 1801.
In addition to the widespread use of denunciations, the private correspondence of suspicious persons was perused, and surveillance of radical individuals was organized. During the investigation in the secret expedition, the attitude towards the defendants continued to be unequal, depending on their social affiliation. The inequality of persons before the law is introduced not only in the nature of interrogations, but also in the force of punishment, in the conditions of detention in prison.
The reign of Paul I is characterized by individual liberal gestures. At the same time, the tsar kept the secret expedition headed by A.S. Makarov. In the considered historical period, the secret expedition no longer played a serious role. The emperor himself and his entourage were engaged in political search.
Alexander I, after accession to the throne, ordered to permanently toughen the Secret Expedition. In his manifesto of April 2, 1801, the monarch strongly condemned the policy of secret political investigation. Along with the abolition of the political search, the abolition of heels was confirmed. Later, however, Alexander I came to the conclusion that absolutism could not exist without the secret police.
In search of the most effective version of the structure of political investigation, numerous committees, offices, and expeditions were created. In 1805, a "committee of the highest police" was established, and in 1807 a secret "Committee for the consideration of cases on crimes tending to disturb the public peace."

The beginning of the XVIII century in the history of Russia was marked by the reforms and transformations of Peter I.
The police reform by Peter I was not completed. In the first quarter of the XVIII century. the formation of a regular police took place, but it did not fully establish it, like many parts of the state mechanism, then. At the same time, the main tasks and functions of the police, outlined by the founder and developed in practice for less than seven years under Peter I, were determined, its regularity and professionalism, and bureaucratic isolation from the people.
The general police was organizationally separated from the bodies of political investigation, was part of the general administrative apparatus, did not generally take an active and direct part in political transformations, but its creation and subsequent changes had political meaning.
Defending the established order, resisting the destabilization of social relations, being a direct coercive force in relation to the people and being rude in composition, tough in methods of activity, displacing the Russian concept of "deanery", the police already gained an unkind reputation under Peter I.
Some historians call the reign of Paul I (1796-1801) "unenlightened absolutism", others - "military-police dictatorship", others consider Paul "Russian Hamlet", others - "romantic emperor". However, even those historians who find positive traits in Paul's reign admit that he equated autocracy with personal despotism.
M. Raev, one of the most famous experts on Russia in the 18th-19th centuries, believes that the policy of Peter I and Catherine II was aimed at creating a “regular”, or police state, similar to the German states and France of the 17th century. Thus, Russia in the 18th century, albeit belatedly, turned out to be in line with the general European trends.
On the other hand, the practice of “police states” of the 17th-18th centuries described by him - the intervention of the central government in social, economic and cultural life, the stimulation of the personal initiative of subjects for the “common good”, the regulation of public morality directly refers us to the creation and development of the USSR. The emergence of such associations was also facilitated by the negative meaning that the term “police state” acquired in the 20th century.

List of used literature

1. Anisimov E. "Time of Petrovsky reforms", Leningrad, Lenizdat, 1989. - 496s.
2. Power and reforms. From Autocratic to Soviet Russia. - SPb., 1996. S. 111-190.
3. Imperial period: an anthology // Comp. M. David-Fox. Samara: Samara University Publishing House, 2000. - 332 p.
4. Kamensky A. Russian Empire in the XVIII century: traditions and modernization. Series: Historia Rossica. - M.: New Literary Review. - 1999. - 328 p.
5. Kamensky A.B. From Peter I to Paul I: Reforms in Russia in the 18th century (the experience of a holistic analysis). - M.: Russian. state humanit. un-t, 1999. - 575 p.
6. Maykov L. N. Nartov's stories about Peter the Great. - St. Petersburg, 1891.
7. Medushevsky A. N. Administrative reforms in Russia in the XVIII-XIX centuries. in a comparative historical perspective. - M., 1990.
8. Mironenko SV Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. - M., 1989.
9. Orlov A. S., Georgiev V. A., Georgievya N. G., Sivokhina T. A. History of Russia. Textbook. - M.: "PROSPECT", 1997. - 544 p.
10. Pavlenko N. Passion at the Throne. History of palace coups, pp.216-318.
11. The project of Empress Catherine II on the organization of free rural inhabitants // Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society / Ed. V.I.Veshnyakov. T. 20. - St. Petersburg, 1877. - S. 447-498.
12. Raev M. Regular Police State and the Concept of Modernism in Europe in the 17th-18th Centuries: An Attempt at a Comparative Approach to the Problem//American Russian Studies. Imperial period. - Samara, 2000. - p.48-79.
13. Reform or revolution? Russia 1861-1917: Proceedings of the International. colloquium of historians. - St. Petersburg, 1992.
14. Sizikov M.I. Formation of the central and capital apparatus of the regular police of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century. - M.: 2000.
15. Tarasov I. History of the Russian police and its relationship to justice // Legal Bulletin. 1857.
16. Trushkov V. Formation of Russia in the mirror of political culture. - M.: "Observer", No. 6, 2000.
17. Worthman R. Rulers and Judges. The development of legal consciousness in imperial Russia. - M., 2004.
18. Shubinsky S. N. Historical essays and stories. - St. Petersburg, 1893.

?24

Introduction……………………………………………………………………..........5
1. The reforms of Peter I. The age of Catherine………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. Economy of Russia in the 18th century…………………………………………..18-21
3. Prerequisites and features of the folding of the Russian
absolutism…………………………………………………………………….22-24
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….25
References…………………………………………………………………26

Introduction

The 18th century played a special role in the development of the Russian state. It was a period of complex and contradictory historical development, which left many problems unresolved and controversial. At the same time, it was the time of the beginning of modernization processes, changes in all spheres of social and political life: the economy, social relations, politics, social thought and culture.
The first attempt to modernize the country according to the European model was made by Peter I, the second - by Catherine II. The radical transformations of the 18th century turned the country into a mighty world empire. The volumes of industrial and agricultural production increased. Domestic and foreign trade developed successfully. Strengthened central and local government. The development of the annexed outskirts accelerated. The strongest regular army and navy in the world were created, the beginning of which was laid by Peter the Great.
The 18th century was the century of the establishment of an absolute monarchy, the strengthening of the privileges of the nobility and the strengthening of serfdom. The autocracy concentrated unlimited state power in its hands. The most important features and elements of the bureaucratic state apparatus and absolutism in Russia in the 18th century were the basis for the subsequent development of the Russian autocracy.
This control work will examine the reforms and the reign of Peter I, Catherine II, as well as the economy of this century and the prerequisites and features of the formation of Russian absolutism.

1. Reforms of Peter I. Age of Catherine.

Reforms of Peter I.
In the historical literature, there are conflicting assessments of the activities of Peter I. However, most researchers believe that his reforms were of outstanding importance in the history of Russia.
The transformations of Peter I were a vivid example of radical reforms carried out by the state without the support and even with the resistance of broad sections of society. They were largely prepared by his predecessors. Centuries of tradition and a long stay at war have formed the main method of their conduct - despotic violence. Personal acquaintance with Europe during the stay of Peter as part of the Great Embassy at the end of the 17th century. determined the purpose and direction of the transformations.
The ideal state structure for Peter I was a “regular state”, a model similar to a ship, where the captain is the tsar, his subjects are officers and sailors acting according to the Naval Charter. Only such a state, according to Peter, could become an instrument of decisive transformation, the purpose of which is to turn Russia into a great European power. Peter achieved this goal and therefore went down in history as a great reformer.
Consider the reforms introduced by Peter I.
1) Military reform.
The army inherited by Peter was hereditary, it was self-supporting. Each warrior went on a campaign and supported himself in the army at his own expense. There was no special training in the army, just as there was no uniform uniforms and weapons. Leading positions in the army were held in connection not with merit or special education, but, as they said by breed. In other words, the army was not the force that could resist the modern European army, from which, by the end of the 17th century, it was more than lagging behind.
Even Peter's father, Alexei Mikhailovich, made attempts to reorganize the army. In 1681, a commission was set up under him, chaired by Prince Golitsyn, which was supposed to change the structure of the army. Thanks to these changes, the army became more structured. It was now divided into regiments and companies, officers were appointed depending on experience and merit, and not on origin.
On January 12, 1682, the Boyar Duma adopted a resolution stating that an ordinary person, but experienced and knowledgeable, could become a senior officer, and everyone, regardless of origin, should obey him
Thanks to these changes, the Moscow army became more organized and structured. But still this military organization could not be called a real regular army.
Thus, Peter received an army, although it did not meet all the requirements of military science, but to some extent it was already prepared for further transformations.
Since childhood, Peter was fascinated by military affairs. In the villages in which he lived, he created two "amusing" regiments: Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky - which met European standards. By 1692, these regiments were finally formed. Other regiments were later created according to their model.
In 1699, Peter I ordered to make a general recruitment and begin training recruits, following the model of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky regiments, in connection with preparations for the war with Sweden. This event gave 25 new infantry regiments and 2 cavalry-dragoon. The entire army was divided into generalities. For recruits, a special article was drawn up, the participation in which the tsar himself took part. Peter's army was uniformed after the model of the German infantry. A special military court was created, a special department that dealt with the food supply of the army - now the army was maintained at state expense.
A powerful regular army is being created in Russia, and in connection with this, the local noble militia and the archery army are being liquidated.
After the pogrom near Narva in 1700, Peter again began to carry out transformations and military training in the army: new tactics of warfare were being studied, regular exercises of new soldiers were taking place.
Thus, in the first decade of the eighteenth century. the Russian army was already significantly different from the one that Peter inherited. This army was the force that could offer real resistance, and after the victory in the Northern War, it made the whole of Europe look at Russia as a strong power.
The table of ranks was important for the organization of the army, but it was also important for civilian organizations. This legislative act determined the order of service, both military and civilian officials. The report card provided for a gradual promotion up the career ladder, but did not exclude the possibility of a reverse movement.
The report card was announced on January 24, 1722. The decree on the report card did not allow any violations in the order of service.
Peter attached great importance to the navy, its creation and development. Peter did everything possible for his part to strengthen and develop the fleet, for this reason, English and Dutch masters, who were famous for their skill in this matter, were invited to replace the semi-literate masters.
Arsenals and port workshops arose. Sailors and officers were hastily trained. A general management of the fleet was arranged; Admiral Kruys drew up the rules of the naval service. And already in 1710 Russian ships crossed the Black Sea.
Peter begins the construction of a new fleet and takes an active part in it along with master carpenters, blacksmiths, and others. Russian ships were built according to the best English and Dutch drawings. The remoteness of the shipyards from the sea had a negative impact on the development of the fleet. This led to the need to take care of the arrangement of shipbuilding in St. Petersburg, the construction of ship workshops began on November 5, 1704.
Peter I brought Russia to the rank of maritime powers. To a greater extent, thanks to the navy, it was possible to “cut a window to Europe”, which had an impact on the further development of the empire and strengthening its power.
The creation of a regular army and navy required new principles for their recruitment. It was based on the recruitment system, which had undoubted advantages over other forms of recruitment that had at that time. The nobility was exempted from recruitment duty, but military or civil service was obligatory for it.
The main results of the military reforms of Peter the Great are as follows:
- the creation of a combat-ready regular army, one of the strongest in the world, which gave Russia the opportunity to fight with its main opponents and defeat them;
- the emergence of a whole galaxy of talented commanders (Alexander Menshikov, Boris Sheremetev, Fedor Apraksin, Yakov Bruce, etc.);
- creation of a powerful navy;

2) Reforms of the state apparatus, authorities and administration.
In the first half of the 18th century, a whole range of reforms was carried out related to the restructuring of central and local authorities and administration.
From 1708, Peter began to rebuild the old institutions and replace them with new ones.
All legislative, executive and judicial power was in the hands of Peter, who after the end of the Northern War received the title of emperor. In 1711, a new supreme body of executive and judicial power was created (instead of the boyar duma) - the Senate, which also had significant legislative functions. It included 9 dignitaries closest to the king. The Senate was instructed to develop new laws, control the country's finances and the activities of the administration. The leadership of the senatorial work was headed by the Prosecutor General, whom Peter called "the sovereign's eye."
In 1718-1721. 12 colleges were established to replace the outdated system of orders, each of which was in charge of a specific industry or area of ​​​​government and was subordinate to the Senate. The military collegium was in charge of the ground armed forces; Admiralteyskaya - by the fleet; foreign affairs - foreign relations; Chambers - collegium - collection of income; State College - state expenses; Votchinnaya - noble land ownership; Manufactory College - industry, except for mining, which was in charge of a special Berg College, etc. A kind of collegium was the Synod (The Spiritual Collegium), established in 1721, together with the abolition of the Patriarchate in Russia by Peter. The chief prosecutor oversaw the Synod, so the church became part of the state machine.
Back in 1708, Peter carried out an administrative-territorial reform, dividing the Russian state into 8 provinces: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kyiv, Arkhangelsk, Smolensk, Kazan, Azov and Siberia. A governor was placed at the head of each province, in whose hands was the executive and service power. But the execution of the laws was complicated by the fact that the governor was subordinate not only to the emperor and the Senate, but also to all colleges, whose orders often contradicted each other. Each province occupied a vast territory and, in turn, was divided into provinces, headed by a governor. There were 50 provinces in all. The provinces were divided into counties.

This whole complex system of government and administration had a clearly expressed pro-noble character and secured the active participation of the nobility in the implementation of their dictatorship on the ground. But at the same time, it further expanded the volume and forms of service of the nobles, which caused their dissatisfaction.

Church reform
Church reform played an important role in establishing absolutism. In 1700, Patriarch Andrian died, and Peter forbade him to choose a successor. The management of the church was entrusted to one of the metropolitans, who served as the "locum tenens of the patriarchal throne." In 1721, the Patriarchate was abolished, and the "Holy Governing Synod", or the Spiritual College, was created to manage the church. Also subordinate to the Senate.
Church reform meant the elimination of the independent political role of the church. In parallel with this, the state increased control over the income of the church and systematically withdrew a significant part of them for the needs of the treasury. These actions of Peter caused dissatisfaction with the church hierarchy and black clergy and were one of the main reasons for their participation in all kinds of reactionary conspiracies.
Peter carried out a church reform, expressed in the creation of a collegial government of the Russian church. The destruction of the patriarchate reflected Peter's desire to eliminate the "princely" system of church authority, unthinkable under the autocracy of Peter's time. By declaring himself the de facto head of the church, Peter destroyed its autonomy. Moreover, he made extensive use of the institutions of the church to carry out police policy. Citizens, under pain of heavy fines, were required to attend church and repent of their sins at confession. The priest, also according to the law, was obliged to report to the authorities about everything illegal that became known during confession. The transformation of the church into a bureaucratic office protecting the interests of the autocracy, serving its needs, meant the destruction for the people of a spiritual alternative to the regime and ideas coming from the state. The Church became an obedient instrument of power and thereby lost the respect of the people in many respects. As a result, he rather indifferently looked at her death under the rubble of the autocracy and at the destruction of her temples.

Reforms in the field of culture and life
The main content of the reforms in this area was the formation and development of secular national culture, secular education, serious changes in everyday life and customs carried out in terms of Europeanization. Innovations in the field in the field of culture, like other reforms, were subjected to overt and covert rejection, many elements of cultural life had to be implanted by rather harsh methods. After returning from abroad with the Great Embassy, ​​Peter made war with beards.
Accepting the boyars, the young tsar took scissors and began to cut their beards, which shocked even Peter's supporters. So, in his usual despotic and rude manner, Peter resolutely broke with the old days in everyday life. He did not take into account the dissatisfaction of the boyars and the clergy, and in a special decree ordered that everyone shave their beards.
Those who did not want to obey the royal decree had to pay a tax: rich merchants - 100 rubles each, nobles and officials - 60 rubles each, townspeople - 30 rubles each, peasants - a penny at the entrance and exit from the city. Only the clergy were left alone. After the fight against beards, by decree of January 4, 1700, Peter ordered the Russian nobles, townspeople and boyar serfs to wear Hungarian caftans. This was not an innovation; even at the court of Tsar Fedor, Polish and Hungarian kuntushi came into fashion.
No less important was the introduction of a new chronology by Peter. On December 19, 1699, the Tsar's decree announced that from now on in Russia, as in other European powers, the reckoning will be conducted not from the "creation of the world", but from the Nativity of Christ. The next day, the decree ordered the year to begin not on September 1, but on January 1. Since that time, Peter allowed his subjects to freely travel abroad for education. By decree of March 10, 1699, the Tsar established the first Russian order - the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called.
In former times, overwhelming illiteracy was one of the hallmarks of Russian people. In the settlements, priests, deacons, deacons and clerks taught literacy. Tsar Peter himself learned to read and write from the age of three under the deacon Nikita Zotov, but he never received a systematic education. Even in adulthood, the tsar wrote with grammatical errors, his mother, Princess Sophia, was perhaps the only example of an educated woman from the upper class, because only men were taught to read and only Peter I established assemblies with the obligatory presence of women at them. Which meant serious changes in their position in society. The establishment of the assemblies marked the beginning of the establishment among the Russian nobility of "rules of good manners" and "noble behavior in society", the use of a foreign, predominantly French language.
By the end of the century, homeschooling had ceased to meet basic needs. The question arose about the creation of schools.
Despite the well-prepared soil, Peter had to forcefully sow and nurture the seeds of knowledge. During the first quarter of the 18th century, a whole network of schools for primary education was created by royal decree. Boys from 10 to 15 years old from nobles, clerks and clerks studied in them. Of particular importance were special schools that gave young people industrial professions. A mining school was opened, a school for future office workers, a school for craftsmen and clerks was founded in the Ural factories, and a school for translators was opened.
Peter in 1708 introduced a new civil type. New printing houses were set up in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The development of printing was accompanied by the beginning of an organized book trade. As well as the creation and development of libraries. Since 1702, the first Russian newspaper, Vedomosti, has been systematically published. It was addressed to the people, a new alphabet was printed in it. Culture News.
Under Peter I, a lot of work was done to create scientific collections on mineralogy, metallurgy, botany, etc. in connection with this, many expeditions were organized. An astronomical observatory was organized. Works on Russian history were created, for the purposes of which a special decree was issued on the collection of ancient chronicles, chroniclers, and chronographs from monasteries. And the Kunstkamera created by Peter laid the foundation for collecting collections of historical and memorial items and rarities. This was the beginning of the museum business in Russia. In painting, too, there have been changes in direction: the icon painting is being replaced by a portrait. Attempts to create a Russian theater are also attributed to the first quarter of the 18th century, and the first dramatic works were written at the same time.
The logical outcome of all the activities in the field of the development of science and education was the foundation in 1724 of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg.
From the first quarter of the 18th century, a transition to urban planning and regular city planning was carried out. The appearance of the city began to be determined by palaces, mansions and houses of government agencies and the aristocracy. The changes in everyday life and culture that took place in the first quarter of the 18th century were of great progressive significance. But they even more emphasized the allocation of the nobility into a privileged class, which became contemptuous of the Russian language and Russian culture.

Age of Catherine.
From the first days of her reign, Catherine II emphasized in every possible way that she considered her main task to continue the deeds of Great Peter: the wide dissemination of education, the inclusion of Russia in the European community. She sought to turn the empire under her control into one of the most powerful powers. The beautiful city of Petra was to serve as evidence of success and a symbol of the renewed country. Much had to be changed in it - to build wastelands in the center of the city, to build stone two-three-story houses instead of the usual Russian people, who never felt limited in space, huge estates with wooden buildings and numerous ancillary services.
She showed herself to be a wise and energetic monarch. Her reign (1762-1796) was characterized by an aggressive foreign policy and domestic reforms in the spirit of the French Enlightenment. She corresponded with Voltaire and other enlighteners, at her invitation Diderot visited Russia.
After her accession to the throne, she immediately established new rules at court, subordinating her regime to state affairs. Her day was scheduled by the hour, and its routine remained unchanged throughout her reign. Only the time of sleep changed: if in her mature years Catherine got up at 5, then closer to old age - at 6, and by the end of her life it was completely too late for her - at 7 in the morning.
From 8 to 11 the empress received high-ranking officials and secretaries of state. The days and hours of reception of each official were constant. But German pedantry made itself felt not only in this. Her papers always lay on the table in a strictly defined order. The hours of work and rest, breakfast, lunch and dinner were also constant. At 10 or 11 pm Catherine finished the day and went to bed. She developed the education system and encouraged foreigners, especially Germans, to move to Russia. Under the influence of Montesquieu's ideas, lawyers compiled, under her leadership, the "Order of the Commission on the drafting of the Code" - a document that clearly reflected the ideas of enlightened absolutism. In 1775, Catherine reorganized the system of local government, strengthening the position of the political, judicial and financial bureaucracy. The brutal peasant uprising (1773-1775), whose leader the Don Cossack Yemelyan Pugachev posed as Peter III, changed the direction of her thoughts: the empress began to attract the nobility to her side. In 1785, she released the nobles from compulsory service in accordance with the Table of Ranks, signing a charter on the rights and liberties of the nobility.
Catherine paid great attention to construction in cities, especially in St. Petersburg, trying to give the capital a grand look. Thanks to her, the city was decorated with the best examples of Russian classicism. The Empress was fond of literature - she wrote numerous fiction, drama, journalistic, popular science works, memoirs.
Catherine fought two successful wars against the Ottoman Turks, as a result of which Russia finally gained a foothold in the Black Sea, the Northern Black Sea region, Crimea, and the Kuban region were annexed. She took Eastern Georgia under Russian citizenship. Having led the alliance of Russia with Austria and Prussia, Catherine also participated in the three partitions of Poland, as a result of which Russia not only returned the Western Russian lands lost in the 13th century, but also seized the original Polish lands.
During her reign, the territory of Russia increased quite significantly: out of 50 provinces, 11 were acquired during the years of her reign. The country's population almost doubled and the state budget quadrupled. During her reign, 144 new cities were built (more than 4 cities per year throughout her reign). More than 200 legislative acts were issued. A stream of emigrants from Europe poured into Russia. The army almost doubled, the number of ships of the Russian fleet increased from 20 to 67 battleships, not counting other ships. The army and navy scored 78 brilliant victories, which strengthened Russia's international prestige.
The words "Russia" and "Russians" were pronounced with great respect, first of all by the Empress, who all her life sought to prove the exclusivity of the people whom she led by the will of fate. In an effort to guess the desire of her subjects, Catherine has no analogues in Russian history. Neither before nor after her was there a reformer in Russia who would so clearly understand the importance of feedback between the top and bottom of society.
Catherine the Great died on November 6, 1796, leaving the throne to her son, 42-year-old Pavel Petrovich.

2. The Russian economy in the XVIII century.
The 18th century in Russian history became a rather complex and controversial period. In the first half of the century, the feudal system continued to dominate. Even fairly large reformist changes in the country's economy not only did not weaken, but, on the contrary, tightened serfdom. However, a significant growth in productive forces, the formation of large industrial enterprises and other factors in the course of the reforms of Peter I created the conditions for fundamentally new processes in the country's economy.
18th century became the century of modernization of Russia. Since the era of Peter the Great, the country has embarked on the path of transition from a traditional agrarian society to an industrial one. Modernization affected all spheres of public life: politics and economics, public life and ideology, law and culture; State intervention in the economy also intensified.
At the beginning of the XVIII century. the country's economy did not have the economic achievements of the leading Western countries. Industrial production lagged behind. The few Russian manufactories overwhelmingly used serf labor. Feudal relations stifled the development of agriculture and trade.
The lack of access to the sea significantly hampered the economic development of the country - the existing trade route through the White Sea was quite long and freezing for a long time; control in the Baltic was established by Sweden.
For a worthy exit from the humiliating state of military, economic and cultural backwardness of Russia, serious and urgent political and economic reforms were needed: to strengthen state power and reorganize state administration, taking into account the experience of European countries, to form a powerful regular army and navy, to ensure a breakthrough in the development of manufacturing production, enter the system of the world market, etc.
In the second half of the XVIII century. began to undermine such an important feature of the feudal system as the routine of agricultural machinery. There was a sharp change in the traditional methods of farming, the transition to commercial agriculture. Agriculture was drawn more and more decisively into the market. Peasant agriculture ceases to be closed. The exploitation of the peasants intensified on the estates, since only in this way could the feudal lords increase the production of agricultural products and sell them on the market. In the Chernozem region, the landowners constantly increased the amount of labor rent (corvée), sometimes bringing it up to 6 days a week. In the marginal non-chernozem provinces, the peasants were increasingly transferred to rent in cash, thereby forcing them to participate more actively in market relations. The process of “otkhodnichestvo” of peasants spread to factories and factories, weakening non-economic coercion. Under these conditions, a property stratification of the peasants arose.
Also, unlike Western Europe, the Russian peasant, due to weather conditions, was engaged in agriculture not from February to November, but from April-May to August-September, and indeed the weather conditions left much to be desired.
The main center where new capitalist relations were formed was industry. In the second half of the XVIII century. the number of manufactories increased. By the end of the century there were about two thousand of them. There were three types of manufactories in the country: state-owned, patrimonial and merchant (peasant) factories.
Domestic and foreign trade actively developed.
However, the development of commodity-money relations in Russian agriculture was slow, the economy developed in an extensive way. The transition to a hired form of labor for the landowners was unprofitable, since personally dependent peasants were a cheap and disenfranchised labor force.
The main branch of the Russian economy was still agriculture.
Unlike the landlords, the kulak farms made extensive use of hired labor. By the end of the XVIII century. the kulaks grew twice as much marketable grain as the landowners, although they owned the same amount of land.
And yet, in the second half of the 18th century, the decomposition of the feudal-serf system began. It consists in the abolition of the nobility's monopoly on land, and hence on the ownership of the peasants.
Until the middle of the 18th century, land could only belong to nobles. In 1768, Catherine II signed a decree banning the use of the labor of bonded and possessive peasants, and that serfs could only belong to the nobility.
There is a problem of working hands in merchant manufactories. According to the second decree of Catherine II, anyone can create a manufactory, but only a nobleman can provide it with working hands.
Therefore, merchants are forced to take a different path: to hire civilians. There was a need for a market for hired labor. And manufactories of the capitalist type begin to appear.
Since the second half of the 18th century, peasant farms have developed strongly.
crafts. It is clear that they do not occur everywhere. Where crafts did not arise, the peasants had to go to work. Such peasants began to be called otkhodniks.
Otkhodnik - a peasant who leaves to work with permission
landowner. He leaves his family, goes to the city and takes a job for 3-5 years. Earns rent, comes, gives, and leaves again.
Thus, the "otkhodnichestvo" movement contributes to the emergence of a capitalist element - the labor market. At the same time, their own economy is abandoned.
In lands where there was no otkhodnichestvo, there was a different situation, but
The result is the same.
Corvée begins to prevail there, and sometimes a peasant is transferred to a month, when the peasant works for the landowner for several months.
It turns out, at least a cash rent, at least a month - a peasant
abandons the economy. Thus, it falls on the maintenance of the landowner. Those. he becomes a slave. In the event of quitrents and monthly payments, the peasants are drawn into commodity-money relations. They create a huge amount of crop that the landowner can sell. In other words, they are drawn into the market and away from subsistence farming.
Thus, although the enslavement of the peasants continued and even intensified, more and more peasants are drawn into market relations (most often the reason for this is the growing oppression on the part of the landlords), that is, the prerequisites are created for the decomposition of the feudal-serf system.

3. Prerequisites and features of the formation of Russian absolutism
Absolute monarchy is the result of the process of folding a centralized state and strengthening the positions of autocracy. If the reforms of Peter I marked the formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia, then the period of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine II, this is the time of strengthening the positions of absolutism. The active domestic and foreign policy pursued by the autocracy expressed the interests of the nobility - the stronghold of absolutism, striving for
etc.................

The end of the 17th century and the entire 18th century of Russian history pass under the sign of serfdom. On the basis of the serf economy, the commodity agricultural production of the landowner passes the first stage of its development, commercial capital grows and industrial capital sprouts its first shoots. The phenomena of church life are closely intertwined with political phenomena, for the church, starting from the 20s of the 18th century, from an actual servant of the state, formally turned into an instrument of state administration. Changes in the church are always the result of changes in political life. The Church completely loses the ability to act independently and acts only as one of the institutions of the autocracy. This position has become clear to the entire Russian society since the time of Peter's church reform, and since that time the government has included the church among its state institutions Nikolsky N.M. Decree. Job. P.188..

The council of irarchs was recognized as the supreme authority in matters of religion; Peter himself, like the former sovereigns, was the patron of the church and took an active part in its management. This participation of Peter led to the fact that in the church life an important role began to play the bishops of the Little Russians, who were previously persecuted. Despite protests both in Russia and in the Orthodox East, Peter constantly nominated Little Russian learned monks to the episcopal chairs. The Great Russian clergy, poorly educated and hostile to the reform, could not be an assistant to Peter, while the Little Russians, who had a broader mental outlook and grew up in a country where Orthodoxy was forced into an active struggle against Catholicism, brought up in themselves a better understanding of the tasks of the clergy and the habit of broad activities. In their dioceses, they did not sit idly by, but converted foreigners to Orthodoxy, acted against the schism, started schools, took care of the life and morals of the clergy, and found time for literary activity. Peter valued them more than those clergy from the Great Russians, whose narrow views often got in his way. One can cite a long series of names of Little Russian bishops who occupied prominent places in the Russian hierarchy. But the most remarkable of them are: Stefan Yavorsky, mentioned above, St. Dmitry, Metropolitan of Rostov and Feofan Prokopovich, under Peter - Bishop of Pskov, later Archbishop of Novgorod. He was a very capable, lively and energetic person, inclined to practical activity much more than to noted science, but he was very educated and studied theological science not only at the Kyiv Academy, but also in the Catholic collisions of Liuw, Krakow and even Rome. The scholastic theology of Catholic schools did not affect Theophan's living mind; on the contrary, it planted in him a dislike for scholasticism and Catholicism. Not getting satisfaction in Orthodox theological science, then poorly and little developed, Theophanes turned from Catholic doctrines to the study of Protestant theology and, being carried away by it, learned some Protestant views, although he was an Orthodox monk. This inclination towards the Protestant worldview, on the one hand, was reflected in Theophan's theological treatises, and, on the other hand, helped him get closer to Peter in his views on reform. The king, brought up in Protestant culture, and the monk, who completed his education in Protestant theology, understood each other perfectly. Acquainted with Theophan for the first time in Kyiv in 1706, Peter summoned him to Petersburg in 1716, made him his right hand in church administration and defended him from all attacks from other clergy, who noticed the Protestant spirit in Peter's favorite. Feofan, in his famous sermons, was an interpreter and apologist for Peter's reforms, and in his practical activities he was a sincere and capable assistant to Klyuchevsky V.O. Meaning of Peter I // Knowledge is power. 1989. No. 1. pp. 66-71.

Feofan belongs to the development and, perhaps, even the very idea of ​​that new plan of church administration, on which Peter stopped. For more than twenty years (1700-1721) there was a temporary disorder in which the Russian church was governed without a patriarch. On February 14, 1721, the "Holy Governing Synod" was opened. This spiritual college forever replaced the patriarchal authority. She was given the Spiritual Regulations, compiled by Theophanes and edited by Peter himself, as a guide. The regulations frankly pointed out the imperfection of the patriarch's sole administration and the political inconveniences resulting from the exaggeration of the authority of the patriarchal authorities in state affairs. He raised a storm of indignation. He attacked the black clergy most strongly:

• men are forbidden to enter the monastery until the age of 30;
• monks are required to confess and receive communion at least 4 times a year;
• Compulsory labor is introduced in all monasteries;
• monks are forbidden to visit women's monasteries and even private homes;
• · Nuns are prohibited from taking final vows before the age of 50, and novitiate cannot be an obstacle to marriage.

Although dissatisfaction was universal, the promulgation of the regulations took place on January 25, 1721. The collegial form of church government was recommended as the best in all respects. According to the regulations, the composition of the Synod is defined as follows: the president, two vice-presidents, four advisers and four assessors (they included representatives of the black and white clergy). Note that the composition of the Synod was similar to that of the secular boards. The persons who were at the Synod were the same as at the colleges; the representative of the person of the sovereign in the Synod was the chief prosecutor, under the Synod there was a whole department of fiscals, or inquisitors. The external organization of the Synod was taken from the general type of organization of the collegium.

Thus, by establishing the Synod, Peter got out of the difficulty in which he had stood for many years. His ecclesiastical and administrative reform preserved authoritative power in the Russian church, but deprived it of that political influence with which the patriarchs could act. The question of the relationship between church and state was resolved in favor of the latter, and the eastern hierarchs recognized the replacement of the patriarch by the Synod of V.I. Buganov as completely legal. Peter the Great and his time - M., Nauka, 1989. P. 87 ..

So, from the 18th century, the Byzantine system of relations between the state and the church, not free from the influence of Western hierocratic ideas, received a sharp imprint of the state ecclesiasticism, that is, the system that flourished at that time in the states of Western Europe. In the person of Patriarch Nikon, the church made a last desperate attempt to establish independence from the state, relying on the theory of the parallelism of spiritual and secular authorities, “the sun and the moon”, moreover, “as the sun is higher than the month, so the priesthood is higher than the kingdom.” The attempt relied on an insufficiently powerful material base, and failed. The state made only one concession to the church - it destroyed the Monastic order, in which Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich wanted to concentrate control over the church patrimonial economy and the court over church people. For Peter, completely alien to the old piety, the church mattered only as an instrument of power and as a source of state revenue. His mercantilistic policy demanded a colossal strain on the payment forces of the population and huge human reserves and aroused fierce opposition against itself, in the forefront of which stood the church. This last circumstance played the role of an accelerating moment and gave Peter's measures a particularly abrupt character; in essence, the church reforms of Peter, despite their unusual phraseology for that time, only completed the process of nationalization of the church, which began in the middle of the 16th century, and gave it a completely accurate and clear legal design Nikolsky N.M. Ibid. P.189..

Peter the Great abolished the patriarchate, which gave many a reason to think that the patriarch is "a second sovereign equal to or greater than the autocrat", and that the priesthood or clergy is "another and better state." The territorialistic idea of ​​state ecclesiasticism found a clear expression in a number of state institutions and spiritual departments in a number of other departments, especially when, after the death of Peter the Great, the synod, deprived of the title of "Governing", was subordinated to the supreme secret council and cabinet. This subordination might not have happened, but it could easily have been achieved - and not only in Russia, where theoretical concepts were weak, but also in the states of Western Europe, where theoretical thought developed consistently over several centuries. The view of ecclesiastical government as a branch of state government was a common view in the philosophy of natural law and in the practice of Western European states. In the second half of the 17th century, the highest Russian spiritual hierarchy sought to resolve the Byzantine ambiguity in the relationship between the state and the church in the sense of the hierocratic system. Peter, by abolishing the state within the state and eliminating the patriarch as another autocrat and even greater than the monarch himself, resolved this ambiguity in the sense of the state church. However, since the 18th century, the ideal of merging the Russian state with the Russian Orthodox Church has become less and less achievable. Once upon a time, the government of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich could say that our sovereign did not care about foreign faiths, and ignore the religious and social life of the Gentiles, since the latter did not violate state order. But with the accession in the 18th century to Russia of the Baltic region and Finland with a Lutheran population, the western and Polish provinces with a Catholic population, the Caucasian region with Armenian-Gregorians, and then with repeated calls of foreign canonists to Russia, the Moscow point of view became directly impossible Suvorov N. FROM. Specified work. P.191.. The Gentiles themselves turned to the government with offerings to regulate their church affairs. In the first half of the 18th century, the spiritual affairs of other faiths were handled even by the Orthodox St. Synod, in which again one cannot fail to see a vivid expression of territorialistic thought: spiritual affairs constitute one of the branches of state government, and since the Holy Synod was established in the sense of a central board to manage this branch, then, from the point of view of the territorialist, there was no obstacle to entrust to this institution all religious affairs in the space of the state, regardless of the difference of religions. However, a well-known religious organization was created, undergoing various successive changes, for Catholics, especially in relations and agreements with the pope. This organization, regulated by charters included in the code of laws of the Russian Empire, is part of the state order, so in this sense we can talk about the merger of the Russian state with other religions Suvorov N.S. Decree. Job. P.192..

Church jurisdiction was very limited under Peter: a lot of cases from church courts moved to secular courts (even a trial of crimes against faith and the church could not be carried out without the participation of secular authorities). For the trial of church people, according to the claims of secular persons, closed in 1677, the Monastic order with secular courts was restored in 1701 Buganov V.I. Decree. op. P.89.

Since the beginning of the 18th century, the theory of natural law has spread in Russia. It combined the veneration of God as the creator of the universe with the idea that "unearthly power" cannot interfere with the once created natural order of things. Under these conditions, scientific knowledge of the surrounding world received relative freedom for itself. Considerations of enlightened people about the reorganization of social order became less dependent on theological canons.

The idea of ​​the state as the supreme ruler in the state and in the church did not supplant the idea of ​​a Christian and Orthodox sovereign. Peter the Great motivated his church reforms not by the ideas of natural law, but by the fact that he, "looking at the spiritual rank and seeing in it many moods and great poverty in his deeds, without a fuss on his conscience, had fear," as if not to be unfavorable to him. before the Almighty, who helped him to introduce improvements in other areas of people's life, if he neglects the correction and the rank of the spiritual. And in the later imperial decrees, since they related to church affairs, one can always trace the concern for the good of the church. The emperor's supreme power in the state and in the church is based on the personal affiliation of the emperor to the Orthodox Church. The emperor, who has the All-Russian throne, cannot profess any other faith, except for the Orthodox. The belonging of the Russian emperor to any other religion, except for the Orthodox, is the same impossibility as belonging, for example. the pope to the evangelical religion. On this personal belonging is based the protection and protection by the imperial dogma of the dominant faith, guardian orthodoxy and every holy deanery in the church. In taking measures to protect Orthodoxy and to organize church deanery, he acts through the Holy Synod, from which it does not follow that St. the synod must be subordinate to the state power, and even more so to the organs of the supreme state power. On issues that are important not only for the church, but also for the state, the Russian monarch acts as the bearer of one and the other power, state and church, uniting them in his person, not allowing confusion of church administration with government authorities, and likewise conflicts between state and church.

In the 18th century, the Orthodox spiritual hierarchy, just like the clergy of other faiths, did not take part in the affairs of state administration, turning exclusively to their spiritual calling. At present, the clergy, along with other citizens, are called to participate in political elections and in the legislative activities of the State Duma and the State Council Molchanov N.N. Diplomacy of Peter the Great. M., 1991. S. 27.

The state looks at the religious order regulated by laws as part of the public order. Therefore, public authorities provide, in various forms, assistance to the achievement of religious institutions of their goals. So orders, decisions and sentences of spiritual and government institutions of different faiths have executive force in the state; religious marriage law is adhered to by the state, with the granting to the clergy of keeping registers of births, having public significance of acts of state; if in the proceedings in the consistories there is a delay on the part of the secular government places in relation to their requirements (for the delivery of certificates and information), then the consistory informs the provincial government for a proper order to encourage anyone to immediately fulfill such a requirement. Clerics of all religions recognized in Russia are protected by criminal law, when they commit spiritual acts, from any encroachment, in the form of violence or obstruction, are exempted from military service and from jury duty, etc. Suvorov N.S. Specified work. P.198..

Peter treated monasticism not only with less care, but even with some enmity. It proceeded from the conviction of Peter that the monks were one of the causes of popular dissatisfaction with the reform and stood in opposition. A man with a practical orientation, Peter poorly understood the meaning of contemporary monasticism and thought that the majority became monks “from taxes and from laziness in order to eat bread for nothing.” Not working, the monks, according to Peter, "eat other people's works" and in inaction breed heresies and superstitions and do not do their job: excite the people against innovations. With this view, Peter understands his desire to reduce the number of monasteries and monks, to strictly supervise them and limit their rights and benefits. The monasteries were deprived of their lands, their income, and the number of monks was limited by the states; not only vagrancy, but also the transition from one monastery to another was prohibited, the personality of each monk was placed under the strict control of the abbots: writing in cells was prohibited, communication between monks and laity was difficult. At the end of his reign, Peter expressed his views on the social significance of monasteries in the "Announcement of Monasticism" (1724). According to this view, monasteries should have a charitable purpose (the poor, sick, disabled and wounded were placed in monasteries), and in addition, monasteries should have served to prepare people for higher spiritual positions and to provide shelter to people who are inclined to a pious contemplative life. . With all his activities regarding the monasteries, Peter strove to bring them into line with the indicated goals.

But in 1721, the Synod issued an important decree on the admission of marriages between Orthodox and non-Orthodox - and with Protestants and Catholics alike.

Political motives were partly guided by Peter in relation to the Russian schism. While he saw the schism as an exclusively religious sect, he treated it rather mildly, without touching the beliefs of the schismatics (although from 1714 he ordered them to take a double taxable salary). But when he saw that the religious conservatism of the schismatics leads to civil conservatism and that the schismatics are sharp opponents of his civic activities, then Peter changed his attitude towards the schism. In the second half of Peter's reign, repressions went along with religious tolerance: schismatics were persecuted as civil opponents of the ruling church, but at the end of the reign, religious tolerance seemed to decrease and the restriction of the civil rights of all schismatics, without exception, involved and not involved in political affairs, followed. In 1722, the schismatics were even given a certain outfit, in the features of which there was a kind of mockery of the split Buganov V.I. Decree. op. P.96..

Fluctuations in government policy in the second quarter of the 18th century, associated with a reassessment of the reforms of the time of Peter the Great, had a greater effect among the higher clergy. Under the successors of Peter I, opponents of church reforms vigorously opposed innovations and, first of all, against Peter the Great's chief assistant in church affairs, Feofan Prokopovich. The struggle around the issue of church policy was expressed in lengthy investigations into charges brought against Feofan Prokopovich and concerning both his general system of views and petty deeds. Not only Prokopovich, but also other associates of Peter in church reforms were attacked. The accusers were persons who rose under Peter and took prominent and profitable positions in the church administration Klibanov A.I. Decree. Job. P.260..

The questions of the organization of the clergy in property and estate-legal relations occupied a large place in government activities in the second half of the 18th century. The most serious friction between secular and church authorities arose in the middle of the century over the fate of land property and peasants belonging to monasteries and church organizations. Although the clergy did not dare to openly defend their interests, nevertheless, by constantly resisting the measures of the government, they significantly hampered the secularization of church estates.

The decree on secularization, that is, depriving the clergy of the right to dispose of estates, was promulgated on March 21, 1762. Prepared by the well-known progressive figure of the middle of the 18th century, D.V. Volkov, this decree relatively radically resolved the complex issue of church and monastery estates. They were to be in charge of the newly formed College of Economy; the peasants were transferred to cash rent, and the lands, both those that were in use, and those that they cultivated for monasteries, became the property of the peasants.

Subsequent political events put a stop to this governmental measure. Catherine II, having canceled the decree of 1762, somewhat delayed the decision on the issue of church estates, but the course of events indicated the need for radical measures.

A special Spiritual Commission, which included both members of the Synod, headed by Dmitry Sechenov, and secular persons, worked out the issue of distributing income from church estates. During this period, significant measures were taken to limit the economic activities of the monastic authorities. Already the decree of August 12, 1762, which liquidated the College of Economy, prescribed forms of strict accountability in the remaining amounts, which especially annoyed the clergy. The commission continued to describe the property and income of monasteries, churches and bishops' houses with the help of local authorities and military officials. On January 8, 1763, a special decree was issued that regulated economic relations between monasteries and peasants. Such a government policy could not but evoke a response from the clergy, especially those of its representatives who are accustomed to living in great prosperity. Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl Arseniy Matseevich, as well as Metropolitan of Tobolsk Pavel Konyushkevich A.I. Klibanov spoke most sharply in defense of the old order. Decree. Job. P.284..

The main result of the reform of 1764 from the organizational point of view was the complete transformation of the church into a department of state administration, and the bishops into officials.

The government reaped the fruits of the reform at the beginning of the 19th century, when the old colleges, which no longer met the new requirements, were replaced by ministries in which the principle of one-man management was strictly carried out - each minister was in charge of his department and was directly subordinate to the emperor, who replaced and appointed ministers by his decrees. So the episcopate finally turned from the princes of the church into state officials Nikolsky N.M. Decree. Job. P.210.

A typical representative of a new type of high-ranking clergy in the second half of the 18th century was the Moscow Metropolitan Platon (Levshin). In his numerous writings, instructions, sermons and letters, Plato suggested the need to increase the role of the clergy in state and public life, since church and civil institutions do not differ, but mutually complement and reinforce each other. In this regard, he considered it unacceptable for priests to experience material need, because otherwise they would not inspire respect from the people. He also urged wealthy people to generously donate funds for decorating churches, which, in his opinion, was more important than helping the destitute, because in a rich church people, amazed by the magnificence of worship, forget (at least for a while) about their beggarly existence.

Plato considered the development of spiritual education to be the main means of preventing the spread of freethinking. He actively contributed to the expansion of the network of special church schools and the reform of teaching in them in the direction of its renewal and familiarization of students with the basics of opposing teachings in order to arm them against the enemies of the most powerful. To his pupil - the future emperor Paul I - Plato spoke about the need to make every possible effort so that his subjects were taught the law of God Klibanov A.I. Decree. Job. P.299..

Such statements resonated with the government. The mass popular movements of the second half of the 18th century convinced him of the need to strengthen the authority of the clergy and increase their material well-being. In the last decades of the eighteenth century, the clergy received a number of legal and property privileges, and the release of funds for religious educational institutions increased.

In 1797, Paul I significantly increased the land allotments of monasteries and bishops' houses. The rights of the church to other income items have also been expanded.

In the instructions drawn up for ordinary clergy and the deans supervising them, they were instructed in everyday life not to mix themselves with the “common people” and to get acquainted only with noble and rich people.

The government of Paul I took steps to ensure that such an exaltation of the clergy was actually ensured. The staff salaries of priests were more than doubled. So that in the villages they would not have to engage in farming, like peasants, since this was “incompatible with their rank”, it was decided to attach the land of the parishes, called the “church inheritance”, to the common peasant land and give the clergymen from the community ready-made bread in the size of an average harvest. In the interests of the clergy, it was allowed to replace products with money. The minister of the church was in the position of a mentor to the people; he was also entrusted with some police functions.

During the reaction period of the end of the 18th century, spiritual censorship was organized from specially selected persons, which controlled the publication of not only spiritual, but also secular literature.

At the end of the eighteenth century, the higher, and to some extent, the ordinary clergy turned into a privileged estate and faithfully served the cause of strengthening the feudal-absolutist state Klibanov A.I. Decree. Job. P.301..