The reforms of Peter I split Russian society and led to the formation of two different structures. One of them, according to the terminology of V.O. Klyuchevsky, is called “soil”, the other – “civilization”.
“Soil” is a way of life, the main features of which developed under the conditions of the Muscovite kingdom. It was dominated by a communal-corporate structure, vertical connections, and subject-matter relations.
stva. Development was slow and tended towards stagnation. The overwhelming mass of the population was associated with this way of life - primarily the communal peasantry, which was dependent on the landowner or the state. Collectivism and egalitarian principles reigned here.
principles of social justice, anti-proprietary sentiments.
All aspects of the soil structure were determined by Russian Orthodoxy. The Church called on people to focus on the spiritual side of life, to renounce earthly worries and burdens, and to humbly bear their cross. She condemned the desire for profit as the goal of economic activity and did not agree to recognize entrepreneurship as a godly activity. The anti-market orientation of Orthodoxy is obvious.
“Soil” developed the richest traditions of folk culture: songs, legends, epics, folk rituals. There was its own education system, which ensured the continuity of tradition.
“Soil” was a structure that was dominant in volume: the majority of the population was associated with it. The worldview here was determined by Russian Orthodoxy and community traditions.
“Civilization” is a Western-type way of life. It included only a small part of Russia, mostly literate and active. Within the framework of this structure, the modernization of social life began: the formation of a class structure, the development of entrepreneurship, market relations, and the emergence of a professional intelligentsia. But this way of life was imposed by the state, controlled by it, and was not organized
harmful to society, and therefore was not in the full sense of the word
fallen. It was significantly deformed.
The worldview of this part of the population became rationalistic. Personality received impulses for its development, and social ideals were formed under the influence of European education and European thinkers. In the boiler national culture European achievements began to brew: the ideas of the French enlighteners and socialists, the achievements of the latest philosophy and science.
However, the possibilities for rationalizing consciousness and individualizing society were limited. Corporateism and a powerful state were crushing. The state intervened in everything, indicated
what to produce, what to trade, in which ports to unload goods, where to live, etc. The development of the market proceeded more slowly than was possible given the country's resources. The circle of owners, people with capital, was narrow. The layer of small and medium-sized owners practically did not grow. There was no small private ownership of land.
Lack of a developed labor market and competition
Among workers, it restrained the growth of qualifications and reduced production growth. IN 1721 Peter I issued a decree allowing private entrepreneurs to buy serfs to work in factories. Labor is strong
tion was extremely ineffective, and therefore the method of solving this issue can be considered Asian. In most European countries in the seventeenth century. Serfdom, much softer than in Russia, was abolished. In Russia in the 17th century. Serfs were not only peasants, but also new class workers. The relations of citizenship remained unchanged.
The Western way of life in Russia had strong eastern features. Competition in industry was very weak. All entrepreneurs were obliged to fulfill, first of all, government orders. Everything that was produced in excess of the state order was sold on the free market. The lack of competition did not provide incentives to improve technology and production in general.
The culture of the Western way was secular: theater, literature, painting - everything developed on rational basis. Although western culture The secular type began to take shape in Russia only from the beginning of the 18th century, that is, relatively recently, in a short historical period it reached unprecedented heights. The culture of the “soil” as a whole was little studied and was unknown to “civilized” Russia. The Western way of life, despite state control, developed dynamically in comparison with the “soil” and was leading in importance. It was its development that determined Russia’s place in the world.
There was a gulf between “soil” and “civilization.” Within the framework of one state, two societies coexisted, possessing different values and ideals, following different paths of development. The gap in the levels of development of these structures was constantly increasing. The confrontation between two ways of life from top to bottom, the constant threat of violating public harmony and sliding into civil war were an everyday reality and the most important factor in social development during the 18th–20th centuries. Society was constantly faced with a choice: either the “soil” and, therefore, the eastern type of development, as happened during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, or the European path and the revival of traditions Kievan Rus, Republican Novgorod.
Thus, the reforms of Peter I had large-scale long-term consequences, which have a tangible impact in modern Russia. The legacy of Peter the Great for almost three centuries has given rise to controversy and ambiguous assessments. Westerners argued that Russia owed everything best in its history to Peter I; he made the state European and reunited Russia with Europe.
Supporters of the “soil” (they are called Slavophiles) argued the opposite: Peter I betrayed the national principle in the history of Russia, distorted Russian culture by borrowing from the West and harmed the natural course of the country’s development.
Historian-Decembrist M.A. Fonvizin assessed Peter’s era in the following way: “If Peter tried to introduce European civilization into Russia, then he was seduced by a more external side. The spirit of this civilization - the spirit of legal freedom and citizenship was alien and even disgusting to him, the despot. Dreaming of re-educating his subjects, he did not think of instilling in them a high sense of human dignity, without which there is neither true morality nor virtue. He needed capable tools for material improvements based on models seen abroad.”
Results transformative activities Peter I are as follows:
1. Russia received access to the Baltic Sea and thereby entered the circle of European peoples.
2. A first-class army and navy were created.
3. A new apparatus of state power has been created, more suitable
better for society than the old system of orders.
4. Large industry was created, which made Russia eco-
nomically independent from other countries.
5. The foundations of secular Russian culture were laid.
6. The beginning has been made of the creation of a system of national education
education and medicine.
7. The church is subordinated to the state, the patriarchate has been eliminated.
8. Russia became an empire.
3
Peter's active transformative activity I began immediately after returning from abroad.
What goals were pursued by Peter's reforms? I?
Radical Peter's transformations, according to A.B. Kamensky, were “a response to the comprehensive internal crisis, the crisis of traditionalism, which befell Russian state in the second half XVII V.". The reforms were supposed to ensure the progress of the country, eliminate its lag behind Western Europe, preserve and strengthen independence, and put an end to the “old Moscow traditional way of life.”
Reforms covered many areas of life. Their sequence was determined, first of all, needs Northern wars, which lasted more than twenty years (1700-1721). In particular, the war forced the urgent creation of a new combat-ready army and the Navy. Therefore, the main reform was the military one.
Before Peter I The basis of the Russian army was the noble militia. Service people appeared at the call of the tsar “on horseback, in crowds and in arms.” Such an army was poorly trained and poorly organized. Attempts to create a regular army (Ivan's Streltsy regiments IV , regiments of the “foreign system” of Alexei Mikhailovich) were not particularly successful due to the lack of money in the treasury for their maintenance. In 1705 Peter I entered recruiting sets from tax-paying classes (peasants, townspeople). Recruits were recruited one at a time from twenty households. Soldier's service was for life (in 1793 Catherine II limited it to 25 years). Until 1725 83 recruitments were carried out. They gave the army and navy 284 thousand people.
Recruit sets solved the problem of the rank and file. To solve the problem officers a reform of the estates was carried out. Boyars and nobles united into one service estate(initially it was called the nobility, but later the name was established nobility). Each representative of the service class was obliged to serve starting from the age of 15 (the only privilege was that the nobles served in the Guards regiments - Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky). Only after passing the exam could a nobleman be promoted to officer. Nobles no longer received estates for their service. Now they were paid a cash salary. Refusal to serve led to confiscation of the estate. In 1714 was published " Decree O sole inheritance", according to which the estate was inherited only by one of the sons, and the rest had to earn their livelihood. To train officers, schools were opened - navigation, artillery, and engineering.
In 1722 By decree of the king, the so-called " Report card O ranks" 14 military and equivalent civilian ranks were introduced. Each officer or official, having started his service from the lower ranks, depending on his diligence and intelligence, could move up the career ladder right up to the very top. The path was not closed to representatives of the tax-paying classes. A soldier could receive an officer's rank for bravery and automatically acquired personal nobility. Having reached the eighth rank, he became a hereditary nobleman - the nobility began to be given to his children. Now the position in society was determined not only by his origin, but also place V official hierarchy. The main principle was “He is not a nobleman who does not serve.”
Thus, a rather complex military-bureaucratic hierarchy emerged with the tsar at its head. All classes were in public service and bore responsibilities for the benefit of the state.
As a result of Peter's reforms I were created regular army, numbering 212 thousand people and powerful fleet (48 battleships and 800 galleys with 24 thousand sailors).
The maintenance of the army and navy absorbed 2/3 of state income. We had to find more and more new sources of revenue for the treasury. The most important means of replenishing the treasury was taxes. Under Peter I indirect taxes were introduced (on oak coffins, for wearing Russian dress, on beards, etc.). In order to increase tax collection, tax reform was carried out. Before Peter I the unit of taxation was the peasant yard(farm). In order to pay less taxes, peasants gathered several families into one yard - grandfathers, fathers, brothers, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren lived together. Peter replaced the household tax capitation. The unit of taxation was soul male gender, from infants to the elderly.
In 1710 it was held census all tax-paying people, both government and landowners. All of them were taxed. Was introduced passport system- No one could leave their place of residence without a passport. Thus the final enslavement Total population, and not just landowner peasants. There was nothing similar to the passport system in European countries*. With the introduction of the poll tax, per capita taxes increased on average threefold.
Constant wars (out of 36 years of his reign, Peter I fought for 28 years), radical transformations sharply increased the burden on central and local authorities. The old state machine was unable to cope with the new tasks and began to malfunction.
Peter I held reorganization of the entire system of power and management. In pre-Petrine Rus', laws were adopted by the Tsar together with the Boyar Duma. After approval by the tsar, the decisions of the Duma took the force of law. Peter stopped convening the Boyar Duma, and decided all the most important matters in the Near Chancellery, which was called from 1708. “Concilia of Ministers”, i.e. with a narrow circle of trusted people. Thereby, legislative branch there was power liquidated. Laws were formalized by decrees of the king.
In 1711 was created Governing Senate. Unlike the Boyar Duma, the Senate did not pass laws. Its functions were purely control. The Senate was tasked with monitoring local government bodies and checking the compliance of the administration's actions with the laws issued by the tsar. Members of the Senate were appointed by the king. Since 1722 the position was introduced general-prosecutor, who was appointed by the king to monitor the work of the Senate (“the sovereign’s eye”). In addition, the institute fiscals", obliged to secretly check and report on abuses by officials.
In 1718-1720 Was held collegiate reform, which replaced the system of orders with new central bodies of sectoral management - collegiums. The boards were not subordinate to each other and extended their action to the entire country. The internal structure of the collegium was based on collegial, clear regulation of the duties of officials and the stability of full-time employees. A total of 11 collegiums were created (instead of 50 orders): Military, Admiralty, Chamber Collegium, Revision Collegium, Justice Collegium, Kammertz Collegium, State Office Collegium, Berg, Manufacture Collegium, and Foreign Affairs Collegium. The most important “state” boards were those in charge of foreign and military affairs. Another group of boards dealt with finance; income of the Chambers - Collegium; expenses – States – office – board; control over the collection and expenditure of funds - Audit Board. Trade and industry were led, respectively, by the Commerce Collegium and the Berg - Manufacture Collegium, divided into two departments in 1722. In 1721 The Patrimonial Collegium was created, which dealt with noble land ownership and was located in Moscow. Another class board was created in 1720, the Chief Magistrate, who ruled the city class - artisans and merchants.
The local government system was reorganized. In 1707 The king issued a decree according to which the whole country was divided into provinces. Initially there were six of them - Moscow, Kiev, Smolensk, Azov, Kazan, Arkhangelogorodskaya. Then there were ten of them - the Ingermanland (St. Petersburg) was formed*and Siberian, and Kazan - divided into Nizhny Novgorod and Astrakhan. The provinces were headed by those appointed by the tsar governors. Governors had broad powers, exercised administrative and judicial powers, and controlled the collection of taxes. The provinces were divided into provinces headed by governors, and the provinces into counties, counties into districts, which were abolished later.
Reforms of central and local government were complemented by church reform. Before Peter I headed the Russian Orthodox Church patriarch, elected by the highest clergy. Although Orthodox Church recognized the primacy of the state over the church, nevertheless, the power of the patriarch was still quite great. The Patriarch, like the Tsar, bore the title " great sovereign“, enjoyed great independence. Peter's reforms I , his desire to borrow Western customs, clothing, appearance, the dominance of foreigners at the royal court - all this caused discontent in the church. To limit her influence, Peter in 1721. abolished patriarchate. Instead, a board for church affairs was created - His Holiness Synod. The members of the Synod were appointed by the tsar from among the highest clergy, and the head of the Synod was appointed by the sovereign chief-prosecutor. Secret control over the activities of the Synod was carried out by the chief fiscal for spiritual affairs. Thus, the church was finally subordinated to the state, became part of the state apparatus, to the point that priests were required to immediately report all anti-government plans that became known during confession. This role of the church remained until 1917.
Thus, Peter I created a harmonious, centralized system of power and management: autocrat - Senate - collegiums - provinces - provinces - counties. It was complemented by the same harmonious system of control (Preobrazhensky order, fiscal authority), punitive authorities (Secret Chancellery, police) 22 September 1721 (on the day of the solemn celebration of the Peace of Nystad, which marked the end of the long-term and difficult Northern War for Russia), the Senate awarded Peter I titles " Emperor», « Father Fatherland" And " Great" This act completed the process of transforming the estate-representative monarchy into an absolute one. Unlimited power of Peter I received legal recognition, and Russia turned into empire.
Economic policy Petra I was also aimed at strengthening the country's military power. Along with taxes, the most important source of funds for the maintenance of the army and navy was domestic and foreign trade. In foreign trade Peter I consistently pursued a policy of mercantilism. Its essence: the export of goods should always exceed their import. This policy ensured a positive trade balance, which led to the accumulation of money in the treasury.
To implement the policy of mercantilism, state control over trade was necessary. It was carried out by the Kammertz Collegium. The means of implementing the policy of mercantilism were high duties on imported goods, reaching 60%. Trade in a number of goods that brought the greatest profit (salt, tobacco, flax, leather, caviar, bread, etc.) was introduced state monopoly- Only the state could sell and buy them.
Merchants were forced to unite into trade companies, indicated which ports to transport goods to, at what prices to sell them, and forcibly relocated them from one city to another. This policy solved the problems of protectionism - protecting domestic producers from competition from foreign goods. At the initial stages of modernization, the policy of protectionism was completely justified. However, its long-term preservation could lead to the fact that, in the absence of competition, manufacturers would stop caring about the quality of goods and reducing their cost.
An important component of Peter's reforms was the rapid development of industry. This was due to the fact that without a powerful industrial base it was impossible to supply the army and navy with everything necessary. Under Peter I industry, especially those industries that worked for defense, made a breakthrough in its development. New factories were built, the metallurgical and mining industries developed. The Urals became a major industrial center. By 1712 the army and navy were fully provided with weapons of their own production. By the end of Peter's reign I in Russia there were over 200 manufactories, ten times more than before him.
Iron smelting increased from 150 thousand poods in 1700. up to 800 thousand poods in 1725 Russian cast iron from Ural factories was even exported to England.
A typical feature of the economy of Peter the Great's time was gain roles states in industry management. Manufacturing production could not develop naturally, since economic conditions were not ripe for this - the process of primitive accumulation was at the very beginning. Therefore, most manufactories were built with state money and belonged to the state. Almost all manufactories worked under government orders. Often the state itself built new factories and then transferred them to private hands. But if the factory owner did not cope with the business - he produced expensive and low-quality products - the plant could be taken away and transferred to another owner. Such enterprises were called sessional (ownership). It is no coincidence that Russian breeders were called “factory owners.” Russian factory owners of Peter the Great's time were not capitalist entrepreneurs in the Western sense. They were rather landowners, only the role of the estate was played by the factory.
This similarity especially clearly demonstrated how the issue of working strength. As a result of the tax reform, serfdom became universal, the entire tax-paying population was attached to the land, and there were no free workers. Therefore, Russian industry was based on use serf labor. Entire villages of state peasants were assigned to factories. They had to work 2-3 months a year at the factory (mining ore, burning coal, etc.). Such peasants were called attributed. In 1721 Peter I issued a decree allowing factory owners to buy peasants as property to work at the factory. These workers were called sessional. Consequently, manufactories under Peter I , well technically equipped, were not capitalist enterprises, but feudal-serf enterprises.
Peter's transformations were especially impressive I in area education, science and technology, culture And everyday life.
The restructuring of the entire education system was due to the need to prepare large number qualified specialists that the country urgently needed. The introduction of secular education in Russia occurred almost 600 years after Western Europe. In 1699 The Pushkar School was founded in Moscow, and in 1701. In the building of the Sukharev Tower, a “school of mathematical and navigational sciences” was opened, which became the predecessor of the one created in 1715. at the St. Petersburg Maritime Academy. In Peter's time it was opened Medical school(1707), as well as engineering, shipbuilding, navigation, mining and craft schools. In the province elementary education was carried out in 42 digital schools, where local officials were trained, and garrison schools, where soldiers’ children were trained. In 1703-1715 there was a special one working in Moscow comprehensive school– “gymnasium” of Pastor E. Gluck, which taught mainly foreign languages. In 1724 A mining school was opened in Yekaterinburg. She trained specialists for the mining industry of the Urals.
Secular education required new textbooks. In 1703 "Arithmetic, that is, the science of numbers..." was published by L.F. Magnitsky, which entered Arabic numbers instead of alphabetic ones. Magnitsky and the English mathematician A. Farvarson released “Tables of logarithms and sines.” “A Primer”, “Slavic Grammar” and other books appeared. In the creation of new textbooks and teaching aids F.P. made a great contribution. Polikarpov, G.G. Skornyakov-Pisarev, F. Prokopovich.
The development of science and technology in Peter's time was primarily based on the practical needs of the state. Great successes have been achieved in geodesy, hydrography and cartography, in the study of subsoil and the search for minerals, and in invention. M. Serdyukov was known for his achievements in the construction of hydraulic structures; Ya. Batishchev invented a machine for water turning gun barrels; E. Nikonov presented a project to create “hidden ships” (submarines); A famous mechanic of Peter the Great's time was A. Nartov, the inventor of lathes and screw-cutting machines, and the creator of an optical sight.
On Peter's initiative I The collection of scientific collections began. In 1718 a decree was issued ordering the population to present “both human and bestial, animal and bird monsters,” as well as “old inscriptions on stones, iron or copper, or some old unusual gun, dishes, etc., everything that is very old and unusual.” In 1719 The Kunstkamera, a collection of “rarities”, was opened for public viewing, which served as the basis for the collection of future museums: the Hermitage, Artillery, Naval, etc. The result of the achievements of Peter the Great’s time in the field of education and science was the creation (by decree of January 28, 1724) In Petersburg Academy sciences. It was opened after the death of Peter I in 1725
During the reign of Peter I Western European chronology was introduced (from the Nativity of Christ, and not from the creation of the world, as before)*. Printing houses and a newspaper appeared (since December 1702, the first periodical in Russia began to be published - the Vedomosti newspaper, with a circulation of 100 to 2500 copies). Libraries, a theater in Moscow and much more were established.
A characteristic feature of Russian culture under Peter I - its state character. Peter assessed culture, art, education, and science from the standpoint of benefits brought to the state. Therefore, the state financed and encouraged the development of those areas of culture that were considered most necessary. The work of a writer, actor, artist, teacher, scientist was turned into a type of public service, secured by a salary. Culture provided certain social functions.
Second characteristic feature Russian culture that developed during the time of Peter I became civilizational split Russian society. Western customs, clothing, lifestyle, even language were actively borrowed. But all this was the lot of the service class - the nobility. The lower classes (peasantry, merchants) preserved traditional culture. The upper and lower classes differed even in appearance. Essentially, in Russian culture, two cultures existed independently of each other: Westernistic - noble, and traditional, pochvennicheskaya - peasant, opposing each other.
* In Russia, passports were abolished in 1917. and reintroduced in 1932.
* In 1713, Peter I moved the capital of Russia from Moscow to St. Petersburg.
* Peter I, in order not to get into unnecessary strife with the Orthodox Church, introduced the Julian calendar, although Europe lived according to the Gregorian calendar. Hence the difference of 13 days, which lasted until 1918. The Russian Orthodox Church still lives according to the Julian calendar.
In the political system, the reforms of Peter the Great became the logical conclusion of the trends in the development of statehood that had emerged in the so-called Moscow period. We are talking about a phenomenon that various researchers call “oriental despotism” (L. S. Vasiliev, M. P. Pavlova-Silvanskaya), “despotic autocracy” (V. B. Kobrin, A. L. Yurganov, V. M. Paneyakh), others “a universal state as a goal” (English historian A. Toynbee) or “state-society” (French historian F. Braudel). Some historians, however, identify the political system of Russia in a more complex manner: in the 18th century. as a noble paternalistic monarchy based on the leading positions of the nobility in social organization and in the public service, as well as in the trustee functions of the monarch in relation to all subjects; in the 19th century as a “legitimate monarchy” - the lowest level of the rule of law, in which governance is based on the law, but power is in the hands of the bureaucracy with the absence or very meager participation of public representatives (B. N. Mironov). Nevertheless, no matter what features of the state-political system these and other definitions take into account, their common basis is the recognition of several fundamental positions. Firstly, the state, within the framework of such a model, acts in relation to society as a self-sufficient force, and representatives of power combine several functions at once - rulers, mentors. An expression of the complete subordination of society to the state was the nationalization (etatization) of all elements of the public sector. Any social activity of an individual or a group could develop only in the mainstream of public service and only with support from certain parts of the state apparatus. The only exceptions were grassroots autonomous collectives such as peasant rural communities, estate-corporate organizations - bodies of noble self-government established in 1785. The state monopoly of power was first undermined only by zemstvo and city institutions created during the “great reforms” of the 60-70s. XIX century Secondly, for such political system characterized by deep structural violations in the field of law, in particular in the regulation of relations of power and property. Thirdly, the political police and punitive authorities, directly accountable to the head of state, acquire significant influence in the state. Fourthly, this is the militarization of the state apparatus and the spread of military principles to the sphere of civilian life. The army becomes not only a standard for organizing society, but also a kind of “forge” of personnel for the entire bureaucratic corps. Fifthly, the main social support of power and the conductor of reforms became the bureaucracy, the growth dynamics of which in the 18th-19th centuries. 9 Kurukiya was significantly ahead of population growth rates throughout the country. The transformations of Peter I greatly changed the nature and structure of the Russian political system. First of all, the idea of the scope and rights of supreme power became different. The power of Russian autocrats before Peter I still had a number of limitations. For example, such a limitation was the “law” or “rank”, which meant a way of life enshrined in tradition. V. O. Klyuchevsky noted that “the Moscow Tsar had extensive power over individuals, but not over order.” Besides, state institutions, framing the supreme power - Zemsky Sobor, Boyar Duma, Consecrated Cathedral - participated in governance and legislative work. Finally, individual monarchs in the 17th century. they gave cross-kissing records containing certain guarantees to their subjects. These customs were decisively crossed out by Peter I, contrasting them with his own formula of power: “His Majesty is an autocratic monarch who should not give an account of his affairs to anyone in the world, but he has the power and authority of his own states and lands, like a Christian sovereign, by his own will. to govern with goodness." Subjects were charged with the duty of “doing everything commanded by the autocrat without grumbling or contradiction” (Feofan Prokopovich. “The Truth of the Will of the Monarchs,” 1722). This scheme remained virtually unchanged throughout the entire 19th century, when the supreme power in Russia, despite the desire for a legal justification for the actions taken, did without even a formal legal limitation of its powers. One of the expressions of this arbitrariness of the supreme power legalized by Peter I was the decree of February 5, 1722, which abolished the previous tradition of succession to the throne and asserted the right of the monarch to appoint his own successor. With this decree, which, according to V. O. Klyuchevsky, turned the state law of Russia back to the patrimonial track, many politicians and historians have linked subsequent upheavals to the throne. The justification for the unlimited power of the autocrat was carried out through the sacralization (giving sacred status) of the royal power and the assignment of special charisma to it, mediated by the liquidation of the patriarchate in 1721 and Peter I declaring himself the “ultimate judge” of the spiritual board - the Synod. The theory of metamorphosis - the transformation of Russia under the beneficial influence of Peter I, and the personal cult of the monarch were of considerable importance. The main ideologist of Peter the Great's time, Feofan Prokopovich, theoretically substantiated the omnipotence of autocratic power. A student of the Roman Jesuit college, Prokopovich combined in his reasoning all the European teachings he knew about the rights of the monarch. Using the ideas of the theorists of the school of natural law of the absolutist direction - G. Grotius, S. Puffendorf, Prokopovich proclaimed such prerogatives of power as independence and non-accountability (not subject to human judgment and punishment), supra-legality (itself is the source of laws), sacredness and inviolability, unity and inseparability. These exceptional properties were traced back to two sources - divine institution (“By God do kings reign”) and the social contract (“national intention”), by which “the monarchy was introduced and maintained, of course.” But unlike his European teachers, who talked about individuals sacrificing their own primordial rights to the ruler, Prokopovich had in mind not the individual, but the collective alienation of their own rights in favor of the monarch. In numerous legislative acts of Peter I and the writings of his associates, other theoretical provisions were developed that formed the core of the new doctrine. This is, first of all, the idea of “common benefit”, or “common good”, which implied a wide range of measures to comprehensively strengthen the state. This idea was almost completely consistent with another concept - “state interest”. Thus, the ideology of Peter the Great’s time equated state and public interests. These ideas were clarified in relation to each of the classes. From the peasants, the “common benefit” required regular arable farming (like the “artery”, the peasants fed the entire state) and the fulfillment of state taxes, including payment of the poll tax and conscription duties. For the townspeople, this meant active participation in the development of trade and industry, payment of taxes, supply of recruits, maintenance of hospitals, orphanages, and permanent service. For nobles - mandatory public service in the military or civilian field, mastering the necessary knowledge and skills. The clergy was not ignored either: they were charged with the responsibility not only of caring for the moral health of the people, but also of maintaining at their own expense crippled and decrepit soldiers, and for monasteries - schools. The ideological statements of Peter I, thus, were aimed at the fullest possible mobilization of the entire society to serve the state. Reconstruction of the state building in the first quarter of the 18th century. was not carried out systematically, but as needs arose. At the same time, Peter I could not rely on the example of carrying out large-scale reforms in countries with a catching-up type of development (in Turkey, Japan and other non-Western countries of the world they were carried out much later). Hence the need to focus on the experience of developed countries - Sweden, France, adapting it to local conditions. At the same time, the reforms in Russia quite fully reflected the basic principles of so-called inorganic modernization. In a generalized form, these principles included: rationalization - the need to introduce reasonable, expedient rules and norms that determine the order of activity of any government institution, unification, i.e., the introduction of uniformity in the structure, staffing, methods of work of similar institutions, centralization and differentiation of the functions of the management apparatus. (See: Medushevsky A.N. The establishment of absolutism in Russia. Comparative historical research. M., 1994. P. 48.) Reforms of power and management covered all levels: highest, central, local. In 1711, going to Prut campaign, Peter I established a Governing Senate of nine persons. This was the highest body; it replaced the Boyar Duma, which ceased to meet at the beginning of the 18th century. Initially, the Senate was conceived by the tsar as a temporary body operating during the period of “our absences.” The scope of his responsibilities was not clearly defined. In 1718, the heads of the collegiums, newly established bodies, were included in the Senate ex officio. central government. Since 1722, the Senate could include those high-ranking dignitaries who were not heads of central departments. The previous principle of recruitment was recognized as erroneous on the basis of completely rational argument: the leaders of the boards assembled in the Senate could hardly effectively control their own work. From this time on, the Senate became a permanent advisory and administrative body. He was entrusted with control over justice, and also granted the rights of the highest instance of appeal (for an attempt to appeal his sentence, the death penalty was provided). In addition, the responsibilities of the Senate included control over the activities of central and local government, management state economy, conducting audits, recruiting, land surveying, finding new income for the treasury, setting up food stores and warehouses, fighting natural disasters, etc. In accordance with the areas of activity, two departments were created in the structure of the Senate: the Execution Chamber for Judicial Affairs and the Senate Office on management issues. In addition, at the end of Peter the Great’s reign, the Senate included two auxiliary services: the Office of the Armorial Master, or the Heraldry, which replaced the abolished Rank Order (its competence included accounting for all nobles, registering their official appointments and movements, as well as the development of noble coats of arms), and the Reketmeisterskaya office (it was engaged in receiving and analyzing complaints against boards and offices, checking the validity of appeals). A special place in the Senate system was given to the fiscal department and the prosecutor's office. These bodies exercised general supervision over the work of the entire bureaucratic apparatus, over the behavior of citizens, identifying everything that “could be harmful to the state interest.” The position of fiscal officers was introduced at both the local and central levels. As a reward, the fiscal received half of the property confiscated from the criminal he exposed. The unsubstantiated accusation was written off as a “production defect” and the fiscal actually got away with it. At the end of the 1720s. The Institute of Fiscals was abolished, and its personnel were partially absorbed into the prosecutor's office. The position of prosecutor was introduced by Peter I in 1722 in collegiums and chancelleries, and the prosecutor general was placed at the head of the Senate. The prosecutor's office was established to prevent and promptly respond to offenses. The Prosecutor General was considered “like the eye” of the emperor and “a lawyer for state affairs.” His position in the bureaucratic hierarchy occupied first place. He was responsible for organizing supervision in the state; being first among equals, he directed the work of his fellow senators and led the Senate office. Over time, the power of the prosecutor general grew to a volume that was not laid down in the constituent acts of Peter I. From the middle of the 18th century. and up to early XIX V. he actually concentrated in his hands the leadership of three branches of management - finance, internal affairs and justice. Throughout the 18th century. Prosecutor generals were changed infrequently - persons who enjoyed the personal trust of the monarch and were able to bear the heavy burden of official responsibility were appointed to this high post. The first prosecutor general was Pavel Ivanovich Yaguzhinsky. The reason for the consistent strengthening of the role of the prosecutor general was the desire of the supreme power to influence senators with his help, moderating their ambitions and attempts at arbitrariness. Peter I also foresaw the potential tendency of senators to demonstrate independence or even opposition, so he did not include the position of senator in the nomenclature of officials in the Table of Ranks. Despite the fact that the Senate was not a legislative body, in certain periods, for example, under Elizaveta Petrovna (1741-1761), it aggressively invaded the legislative sphere: the overwhelming majority of the empress’s legislative acts arose on his initiative. Often, the legislative role of the Senate acted in hidden forms: in the procedure for interpreting laws, as well as in a successfully found (under the conditions of interdepartmental red tape) option - making a decision that had normative significance until the appearance of the corresponding highest decree. Such precedents contributed to the formation of the concept of the transfer of political sovereignty during periods of interregnum to the Senate, with the subsequent delegation of power to the monarch. This idea was popular among the highest dignitaries of the empire in Last year life of Elizaveta Petrovna. Such a plan, which tended to recognize the legal priority of the senatorial board over the supreme power at the time of its legitimation, was rejected by Elizabeth Petrovna’s successor. However, the very idea of expanding the powers of the Senate, including turning it into the political representation of the entire nobility, turned out to be extremely tenacious among the liberal nobility. Under Peter I it was also created Personal Area monarch, who in 1704 inherited some functions of the Preobrazhensky Prikaz and the nearby office of the Boyar Duma. The office was transformed into the tsar's personal office, which was in charge of his correspondence, including foreign policy, accounting for financial receipts in personal income and nominations for positions and awards. Here acts were drawn up to be published on behalf of the monarch. Along with the Senate, although in a much smaller volume, the Cabinet developed the government policy and monitored its implementation. Like the Attorney General of the Senate, the Cabinet Secretary had enormous influence in the bureaucratic environment and became the object of “searches” on the part of small and large officials and private individuals. In 1717-1718 The central management apparatus was restructured. It was based on the principle of cameralism, borrowed from the experience of European countries. Cameralism is the organization of central institutions through a clear division of their functions into branches of management. (Kamensky A.B. From Peter I to Paul I. Reforms in Russia in the 18th century. Experience of holistic analysis. M., 1999. P. 128.) New institutions were created - boards that had the same staffing and general principles of work. They were in charge of national issues. At the head of the boards was the president, who, unlike the judge of the old order, did not have sole authority over his department. Collegial discussion of all issues under consideration and the adoption of a final decision by a majority vote served as a guarantee against arbitrariness by the authorities. The members of the presence, or officials with voting rights, were the vice-president, four council advisers, and four collegiate assessors (assessors). The current technical work was carried out by the secretary and the so-called clerks, or clerical servants. Some boards also appointed a foreign adviser and secretary as experts. Initially collegiate! there were few of them, but in the early 1720s. their list has expanded. The three main ones were the Foreign Affairs Collegium, the Military Collegium, and the Admiralty Collegium (in charge of fleet affairs). Three other boards dealt with finances - the Chamber Board (in charge of government revenues), the State Office Board (oversaw government expenditures), the Revision Board (kept records of government expenses), two boards - Berg and Manufactory - supervised industry, the first - metallurgical plants, the second - light industry enterprises. The Commerce Board directed foreign trade . The College of Justice was in charge of the court and lower courts, and registered various private acts (deeds of sale, promissory notes, powers of attorney, wills, documents on the sale of estates, etc.). The Patrimonial Collegium, which largely took over the functions of the abolished Local Prikaz, dealt with land litigation, formalized transactions for the purchase and sale of land and serfs, handled cases of escheated estates, runaway peasants, etc. In 172i, the Theological Collegium, or Synod, was created . This body took the place of the patriarchal throne, which was actually abolished by Peter I even earlier. From now on, church affairs were decided by government officials appointed from among the clergy (and sometimes from the secular), included in the same disciplinary framework as the rest of the bureaucracy. The Chief Magistrate, who governed the townspeople and supervised the local magistrates, was structured like a collegium. The only difference between the Chief Magistrate and other boards was its elected composition. It included representatives of the highest commercial and industrial corporations of the city, and only the chief president and the president were crown (government) officials. All new central institutions relied in their work on the General Regulations (1720) - a set of rules developed by Peter I. Later, the general principles of activity were clarified in relation to each board in a special regulation pertaining to it. The collegiate reform of Peter I was also an attempt to separate administration from the court, which was an important step towards establishing the principle of separation of powers. In 1708-1709 reform of local authorities was launched. The territory of the country was divided into 8 provinces of unequal size. Later, their number was increased to 11. As a result of regional reforms in 1708 and 1719, a three-member administrative-territorial division was formed: province - province - district. Governors were at the head of the provinces. Under the governor, there were Landrat councils of 8-12 people, elected by the nobility of the province. The Landrat Council was seen as a necessary counterbalance to the excessive development of the personal principle in the management of the provinces. Under the governor, a provincial government was also established consisting of a landrichter - a provincial judge (from 1719 he was replaced by a court court), a chief commissar in charge of finances, a chief provision master in charge of grain reserves for the army, and a manager of palace estates. At the head of the provinces, the number of which reached 50 in 1719, were governors, under whom zemstvo offices were created. Since 1719, the center of gravity in regional government was shifted to the provinces, so the most important of them received management similar to the provincial government with a governor-general at its head. The district administration was represented by zemstvo commissars - elected from among the local nobility. Communication with higher authorities, in particular with the Senate, was carried out through provincial commissars. Despite the efforts of Peter I to ensure a coherent system of management from top to bottom, many regional institutions, unlike central ones, barely survived their creator. This was caused, firstly, by difficulties with personnel - a constant shortage of trained officials was even more pronounced at the local level. Secondly, the overload of taxes on the tax-paying population, especially after 1725, made the further maintenance of an expensive local bureaucratic apparatus very problematic. Thirdly, hostility to the electoral service was deeply rooted in the public consciousness of even the upper classes: this phenomenon explains the rapid collapse of Peter I’s experiment with the Landrat Council. Finally, the state innovations of Peter I, in particular his regional reform, became the object of fierce criticism from certain political groups at court after his death.
Russia at the end of the 17th century, by the very course of historical development, was faced with the need for radical reforms, since only in this way could it secure its worthy place among the states of the West and the East. Its backwardness posed a serious danger to the independence of the Russian people. Industry was feudal in structure, and in terms of production volume it was significantly inferior to the industry of Western European countries. The Russian army largely consisted of backward noble militia and archers, poorly armed and trained. The complex and clumsy state apparatus, headed by the boyar aristocracy, did not meet the needs of the country. Education hardly penetrated the masses, and even in the ruling circles there were many uneducated and completely illiterate people.
The renewal of Russia carried out by Peter was his personal matter, an unprecedentedly violent matter, but at the same time necessary. The reforms affected literally all aspects of the life of the Russian state and the Russian people.
There are different views on the consequences of Peter the Great's reforms.
In a letter to the French ambassador to Russia, Louis XIV spoke of Peter in the following way: “This sovereign reveals his aspirations with concerns about preparing for military affairs and the discipline of his troops, about training and enlightening his people, about attracting foreign officers and all kinds of capable people. This course of action and the increase of power, which is the greatest in Europe, make him formidable to his neighbors and excite very thorough envy."
Voltaire also wrote repeatedly about Peter. Voltaire defines the main value of Peter’s reforms as the progress that the Russians achieved in 50 years; other nations cannot achieve this even in 500.
Westerners also positively assessed Peter's reforms, thanks to which Russia became a great power and joined European civilization.
Famous public figure P.N. Miliukov, in his works, develops the idea that the reforms carried out by Peter spontaneously, from case to case, under the pressure of specific circumstances, without any logic or plan, were “reforms without a reformer.” He also mentions that only “at the cost of ruining the country, Russia was elevated to the rank of a European power.” According to Miliukov, during the reign of Peter, the population of Russia within the borders of 1695 decreased due to incessant wars.
All government activities Peter I can be conditionally divided into two periods: 1696-1715 and 1715-1725.
The peculiarity of the first stage was haste and not always thought out, which was explained by the conduct of the Northern War. The reforms were aimed primarily at raising funds for the war, were carried out by force and often did not lead to the desired result. In addition to government reforms, at the first stage, extensive reforms were carried out with the aim of modernizing the way of life.
In the second period, reforms were more systematic and aimed at the internal development of the state.
Medieval Muscovite Rus' turned into the Russian Empire. In its economy, the level and forms of development of the productive forces, political system, the structure and functions of government bodies, management and courts, in the organization of the army, in the class and estate structure of the population, in the culture of the country and the way of life of the people, enormous changes took place. Russia's place and role in international relations of that time changed radically.
The complexity and inconsistency of Russia's development during this period also determined the inconsistency of Peter's activities and the reforms he carried out. On the one hand, they had enormous historical meaning, since they contributed to the progress of the country and were aimed at eliminating its backwardness. On the other hand, they were carried out by serf owners, using serfdom methods and were aimed at strengthening their dominance. Therefore, the progressive transformations of Peter’s time from the very beginning carried conservative features, which in the course of further development countries were becoming increasingly stronger and could not ensure the elimination of socio-economic backwardness. As a result of Peter's reforms, Russia quickly caught up with those European countries where the dominance of feudal-serf relations remained, but it could not catch up with the countries that took the capitalist path of development. Peter's transformative activity was distinguished by indomitable energy, unprecedented scope and purposefulness, courage in breaking down outdated institutions, laws, foundations and way of life. Understanding perfectly great importance development of trade and industry, Peter carried out a number of measures that satisfied the interests of the merchants. But he also strengthened and consolidated serfdom, substantiated the regime of autocratic despotism.
In general, Peter's reforms were aimed at strengthening Russian state and the introduction of the ruling layer to Western European culture with the simultaneous strengthening absolute monarchy. By the end of the reign of Peter the Great, a powerful Russian empire, headed by an emperor who had absolute power. During the reforms, the technical and economic lag of Russia from a number of other European states was overcome, access to the Baltic Sea was won, and transformations were carried out in all spheres of life of Russian society. At the same time, the popular forces were extremely exhausted, the bureaucratic apparatus grew, and the preconditions were created (Decree on Succession to the Throne) for a crisis of supreme power, which led to the era of “palace coups.”
Since 1892 By 1898 Historians call it "Peter's University". During this period of time, his sister Sophia was regent for two heirs, Ivan and Peter. During this period, he lives with his mother in the village of Preobrazhenskoye, and on the other side is the German settlement of Kukuy, where immigrants from Western Europe lived, who were invited under Ivan III. Peter came to them on boats, there he absorbed the foundations of Western Europe, their culture. And comparing our Russian identity, he comes to the conclusion that Rus' needs to be turned towards Western Europe. After the “great embassy” (trip to Western Europe). 1697 He begins to carry out reforms to change the life of the Russian nobility (drinking coffee, shaving beards, introduced dresses according to the Hungarian model).
Goal: To turn the development of Russia along the Western path. But not in order to stand next to them, but in order to make Russia a large prosperous power.
Results: Russia gained access to the Baltic Sea, and became a maritime power with a strong fleet, strong army, a developed economy of the country, has turned from a transporting one to an exporting one. Raising the international prestige of Russia.
The policy of enlightened absolutism in Russia. Catherine II.
1762-1796 The reign of Catherine II is called the “Golden Age of the Nobility” and the era of enlightenment of absolutism. Spread of culture, education in Russia.
Enlightened absolutism is a union of philosophers and monarchs. At this time, the theory according to which the feudal foundations of society could be overcome not by revolutionary, but evolutionary, by the monarchs themselves and their nobles with the help of wise advisers, philosophers and other enlightened people, became widespread. The kings, who should be enlightened people, students of the ideologists of the enlightenment, were: Frederick II (King of Prussia) and Catherine II. During this period there was the “Golden Age of the Nobility”, according to the charter of the nobility of 1762. The nobles were allowed not to serve, and this gave them the opportunity to engage in education and send their children to study abroad. At this stage the nobility was a highly enlightened elite society.
Measures to liberalize the peasant question and attempts at political modernization in the first half of the 19th century. Alexander I, Nicholas I.
Liberalization of the peasant question - reform of serfdom. Alexander I, grandson of Catherine II, his reign can be divided into two parts:
1. The Alexandrov days are a wonderful start;
2. Reign;
In 1802, a decree “On free cultivators” was issued, which allowed the release of their peasants with land. In 1808-1809, it was forbidden to sell peasants, print newspapers about sales, and send them into exile at the will of the landowner. But the results were insignificant.
Nicholas I carried out many reforms. Reform “On State Peasants” (1837-1842). This category was given partial self-government, schools and hospitals were opened, peasants were educated in agricultural technology, and provided with agricultural products. Under Nicholas I, every community grew potatoes. 1842 Decree on “obligated peasants”. Landowners could give peasants personal freedom, and in order to use the land, peasants had to perform certain duties.
Political modernization of Alexander I:
1. In the first half of his reign, his secretary Speransky developed a draft constitution. On the basis of which the following is created: the State Duma, the local Duma, as an elected representative body of government. 1810 A state body was approved, which consisted of: state dignitaries who were supposed to take legislative initiatives before the king. This is the only body that existed until the 1917 revolution.
Nicholas I (1825-1855). He considered it his task to strengthen the power of the nobles, relying on the army and bureaucracy (officials), to protect and monitor unreliable people, the Second Department of His Own Imperial Majesty was created. For the work of this office, a corps of Jardamvas was created, which was engaged in political investigation.
2.1833 A “code of laws of the Russian Empire” was issued.
3. Financial reform.
4. Industrial revolution (urban population growth), railway construction.
5. Real education (institutes) is being introduced.