1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….page 2

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

3. PETER’S REFORMS IN THE EYES OF KLYUCHEWSKY………..p. 6

4. PLATONS ABOUT PETER……………………………………………..p. 10

5. PETROVSKY TOTALITARISM IN THE EYES OF ANISIMOV…..p. eleven

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

7. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………..p. 14

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

BAGGER'S ANALYTICAL WORK

Naturally, living in the West, Bagger begins his review with assessments of the reforms by Western researchers.

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

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

In most review works, the Peter the Great period is considered as the beginning of a new era in the history of Russia. However, deep disagreement reigns among historians trying to answer the question to what extent the era of reforms meant a fundamental break with the past, whether the new Russia was qualitatively different from the old.

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

Among the scientists who defend the “evolutionary” concept, V. O. Klyuchevsky and S. F. Platonov stand out, historians who deeply studied the pre-Petrine period and, in their courses of lectures on Russian history, persistently pursued the idea of ​​​​the existence of continuity between Peter’s reforms and the previous century.

The second of the most distinct problems posed in the general discussion about Peter’s reforms contains the question: to what extent were reform activities characterized by planning and systematicity?

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

However, there are historians who hold completely opposite views. So for P.N. Milyukov, reforms appear in the form of a continuous chain of miscalculations and mistakes. Peter's transformative activity reveals, in his opinion, a striking lack of a long-term assessment of the situation, systematicity, and a well-thought-out plan, which resulted in the mutual contradiction of many reforms.

V. O. Klyuchevsky not only characterized the reforms as a long series of mistakes, but also defined them as a permanent fiasco, and Peter’s management techniques as a “chronic illness” that destroyed the body of the nation for almost 200 years.

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

Some historians believe that Peter’s extraordinary personality left its mark on the entire political activity of the government, both in a positive and negative sense. However, such an assessment is only rarely confirmed in serious studies concerning the degree and nature of Peter’s influence on the process of transformation.

P. N. Milyukov was the first to discover and defiantly doubt the greatness of Peter. He argues that Peter's sphere of influence was very limited; the reforms were developed collectively, and the final goals of the reforms were only partially understood by the tsar, and even then indirectly by his immediate circle. Thus, Miliukov discovers a long series of “reforms without a reformer.”

According to conventional wisdom, the Tsar used most of his time and energy precisely to change the relationship between Russia and the outside world; In addition, many historians have documented, based on foreign policy materials, confirmed the active and leading role of Peter in this area of ​​\u200b\u200bstate activity.

One gets the impression of complete unanimity among historians that Peter’s administrative reforms were a step forward in comparison with the previous system of management.

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

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

In the literature on the issue concerning the results of Peter’s cultural policy, there is such a wide variety of variations in their assessments that it can obviously be explained only by the difference in the breadth of approach, on the one hand, among historians who consider the tsar’s cultural policy as something integral and fundamentally all-encompassing, and , on the other hand, from those researchers who studied the implementation and consequences of ongoing activities. Thus, it is easy to notice that the characteristics of specific results of reforms are often negative, while the general results of reforms are usually assessed positively.

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

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

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

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

PETER'S REFORMES IN THE EYES OF KLUCHEVSKY

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

Let's start with his statements regarding the orderliness and naturalness of the transformations of Peter I.

In scientific works, very often the 18th and 19th centuries. seem to be a special period in the historical development of our state life. This period has been given several names: some call it “Imperial”, others “Petersburg”, others simply call this time new Russian history.

New Russian history usually begins with the so-called era of transformations in our social life. The main figure in these transformations was Peter the Great. Therefore, the time of his reign appears to our consciousness as the line that separates old Rus' from transformed Russia. From this facet we should begin our study of the latter and, first of all, become acquainted with the essence of transformations and with the transformative activities of Peter I.

But the activities of Peter I still do not have one firmly established assessment in our public consciousness. His contemporaries looked at Peter’s transformations differently, and we, people of the 19th and early 20th centuries, look at them differently. Some tried to explain to themselves the significance of the reform for subsequent Russian life, others dealt with the question of the relationship of this reform to the phenomena of the previous era, others judged the personality and activities of Peter from a moral point of view.

Peter I. Portrait by J. M. Nattier, 1717

Strictly speaking, only the first two categories of opinions are subject to the historian’s knowledge, as historical in their essence. Getting to know them, we notice that these opinions sometimes sharply contradict each other. Such disagreements arise from many reasons: firstly, the transformations of Peter I, capturing to a greater or lesser extent all aspects of ancient Russian life, represent such a complex historical fact that a comprehensive understanding of it is difficult for an individual mind. Secondly, not all opinions about Peter’s reforms come from the same foundations. While some researchers study the time of Peter in order to reach an objective historical conclusion about its significance in the development of national life, others strive in the transformative activities of the early 18th century. find justification for one or another of one’s views on modern social issues. If the first method of study should be called scientific, then the second is most appropriately called journalistic. Thirdly, the general development of the science of Russian history has always had and will continue to influence our ideas about Peter I. The more we know our history, the better we will understand the meaning of the transformations. There is no doubt that we are in a better position than our ancestors and know more than they, but our descendants will say the same about us. We have discarded many previous historical misconceptions, but we do not have the right to say that we know the past unmistakably - our descendants will know more and better than us.

But by saying this, I do not want to say that we do not have the right to study historical phenomena and discuss them. Obeying the inherent desire in our spirit not only to know the facts, but also to logically connect them, we draw our conclusions and know that our very mistakes will make the work easier for subsequent generations and help them get closer to the truth, just as both work and mistakes are instructive for us our ancestors.

We were not the first to start talking about Peter the Great. His activities have already been discussed by his contemporaries. Their views were replaced by the views of their closest descendants, who judged according to legend and hearsay; and not a red-handed impression. Then historical documents took the place of legends. Peter became the subject of scientific research. Each generation carried with it its own special worldview and treated Peter in its own way. It is very important for us to know how this attitude towards Peter in our society changed at different times.

Contemporaries of Peter I considered him alone to be the cause and engine of the novelty that his reforms brought to life. This novelty was pleasant for some, because they saw in it the fulfillment of their desires and sympathies, for others it was a terrible thing, because, as it seemed to them, the foundations of the old way of life, sanctified by the ancient Moscow orthodoxy, were being undermined. No one had an indifferent attitude towards the reforms, since the reforms affected everyone. But not everyone expressed their views equally strongly. Ardent, bold devotion to Peter and his cause distinguishes many of his assistants; terrible hatred is heard in the reviews of Peter among many champions of antiquity. The former go so far as to call Peter “earthly god,” while the latter are not afraid to call him the Antichrist. Both those and others recognize in Peter terrible strength and power, and neither one nor the other can calmly relate to him, because they are under the influence of his activities. Both Nartov, loyal to Peter, who served him for twenty years, and some fanatic schismatic who hated Peter I with all his being, are equally amazed by Peter and are equally unable to judge him impartially. When Peter died and his reformation activities ended, when his successors, not understanding him, often stopped and spoiled what he had started, Peter’s work did not die and Russia could not return to its previous state. The fruits of his activities - the external strength of Russia and the new order within the country - were before everyone's eyes, and the burning hostility of the dissatisfied became a memory. But many people who lived consciously, long after Peter’s death, continued to be amazed by him no less than his contemporaries. They lived in the civil environment he created and enjoyed the culture that he so diligently instilled. Everything that they saw around them in the public sphere originated from Peter I. There are many memories left about Peter; they began to forget about what happened before him. If Peter brought the light of enlightenment to Russia and created its political power, then before him, as they thought, there was “darkness and insignificance.” This is how chancellor Count Golovkin roughly characterized pre-Petrine Rus' when presenting Peter with the title of emperor in 1721. He expressed himself even more sharply, saying that by the genius of Peter we were “produced from non-existence into being.” In subsequent times, this point of view took root remarkably well: Lomonosov called Peter “god”; a popular poem called him the “light” of Russia. Peter I was considered the creator of everything good that was found around him. Seeing Peter's undertakings in all spheres of public life, his powers were exaggerated to supernatural proportions. This was the case in the first half of the 18th century. Let us remember that historical science did not yet exist at that time, that the opportunity for enlightenment given by Peter created only a few enlightened people. These few people judged Peter according to the tradition that was preserved in society about the time of transformation.

But not everything that happened in Russia after Peter I was good. Not everyone, at least, was happy with the thinking people of the 18th century. They saw, for example, that the assimilation of Western European education, begun under Peter, often turned into a simple renaming of cultural appearance. They saw that acquaintance with the West, with its benefits, often brought to us the vices of Western European society. Not all Russian people were able to accept the healthy principles of his life from the West and remained rude barbarians, however, combining the graceful appearance of European dandies with deep ignorance. In all satirical magazines of the second half of the 18th century. we constantly encounter attacks on this discord between appearance and internal content. There are voices against the stupid borrowing of Western forms. At the same time, the development of historical knowledge allows people of the 18th century. look back at pre-Petrine times. And so many progressive people (Prince Shcherbatov, Boltin, Novikov) contrast the dark sides of their era with the bright sides of the pre-Petrine era. They do not debunk the activities of Peter I, but they also do not idolize his personality. They decide to criticize his reform and find that it was one-sided, instilled in us a lot of good things from the outside, but took away a lot of good things from us. They come to this conclusion by studying the past, but this study is far from calm; it is caused by the shortcomings of the present and idealizes the past life. However, this idealization is not directed against Peter himself, but against some of the consequences of his reform. The personality of Peter and at the end of the 18th century. surrounded by the same halo as at the beginning of the century. Empress Catherine treats him with deep respect. There are people who devote their entire lives to collecting historical material that serves to glorify Peter - such is the merchant Golikov.

Karamzin’s assessment of the reforms of Peter I

In the second half of the 18th century. The science of Russian history is already emerging. But historians of that time either diligently collect materials for history (like Miller), or are busy researching the most ancient eras of Russian life (Lomonosov, Bayer, Stritter, Tatishchev, Shcherbatov, Shletser). Peter I is still beyond their jurisdiction. He receives his first scientific assessment from Karamzin. But Karamzin as a historian already belongs to the 19th century. A scholar in critical techniques, an artist by nature and a moralist by worldview, he imagined Russian historical life as a gradual development of national-state power. A number of talented figures led Russia to this power. Among them, Peter belonged to one of the very first places: but, reading “The History of the Russian State” in connection with other historical works of Karamzin, you notice that Karamzin preferred another historical figure to Peter as a figure - Ivan III. This latter made his principality a strong state and introduced Rus' to Western Europe without any disruption or violent measures. Peter raped Russian nature and abruptly broke the old way of life. Karamzin thought that it would be possible to do without this. With his views, Karamzin came into some connection with the critical views of Peter I of the people of the 18th century we mentioned. Just like them, he did not show the historical necessity of Peter’s reforms, but he already hinted that the need for reform was felt earlier than Peter. In the 17th century, he said, they realized that they needed to borrow from the West; “Peter appeared” - and borrowing became the main means of reform. But why exactly “Peter appeared,” Karamzin could not yet say.

Portrait of N. M. Karamzin. Artist A. Venetsianov

In the era of Karamzin, a completely scientific study of our antiquity began (Karamzin was helped by entire circles of learned people who knew how not only to collect, but also to study historical material). At the same time, in the first half of the 19th century. Conscious social life was awakening in Russian society, philosophical education was spreading, interest in our past was born, and a desire to know the general course of our historical development was born. Not being a historian, Pushkin dreamed of working on the history of Peter. Not being a historian, Chaadaev began to reflect on Russian history and came to the sad conclusion that we have neither history nor culture.

The question of the activities of Peter I and Hegelianism

Turning to the past, Russian educated people did not have special historical knowledge and introduced into the interpretation of the past those points of view that they gleaned from studying German philosophy. German metaphysics of the 19th century. greatly influenced Russian educated youth, and especially Hegel’s metaphysical system. Under the influence of his philosophy, philosophical circles were formed in Russia in the 30s and 40s, which developed an integral worldview and had a great influence on the mental life of Russian society in the mid-19th century. In these circles, the principles of German philosophy were applied to the phenomena of Russian life and, thus, a historical worldview was developed. The independent thought of these “people of the 40s,” given over to German philosophy, came to its own special conclusions, which were not the same for different individuals. All of Hegel’s followers, among other philosophical provisions, took from his teaching two thoughts, which in a simple statement will be expressed as follows: the first thought - all peoples are divided into historical and non-historical, the former participate in the general world progress, the latter stand outside it and are condemned to eternal spiritual slavery; Another thought is that the highest exponent of world progress, its top (last) step, is the German nation with its Protestant church. German-Protestant civilization is thus the last word of world progress. Some of Hegel's Russian followers fully shared these views; for them, therefore, ancient Rus', which did not know Western German civilization and did not have its own, was an ahistorical country, devoid of progress, condemned to eternal stagnation. With his reform, Peter the Great introduced this “Asian country” (as Belinsky called it) to humane civilization and created for it the possibility of progress. Before Peter, we had no history, no intelligent life. Peter gave us this life, and therefore his significance is infinitely important and high. He could not have any connection with previous Russian life, for he acted completely opposite to its basic principles. People who thought this way were called “Westerners.” They, as is easy to see, agreed with those contemporaries of Peter I who considered him an earthly god who brought Russia from non-existence into existence.

But not all people of the 40s thought so. Some, accepting Hegel's theory of world progress, out of a sense of patriotism were indignant at his opinion that German civilization is the last stage of progress and that the Slavic tribe is an unhistorical tribe. They saw no reason why progress should stop with the Germans; from history they derived the conviction that the Slavs were far from stagnant, had their own historical development, their own culture. This culture was independent and differed from the German one in three respects: 1) In the West, among the Germans, Christianity appeared in the form of Catholicism and then Protestantism; in the East, among the Slavs, in the form of Orthodoxy. 2) The Germans adopted ancient classical culture from Rome in the Latin form, the Slavs - from Byzantium in the Greek form. There are significant differences between one culture and another. 3) Finally, state life in the ancient Germanic states developed through conquest; among the Slavs, and among the Russians in particular, through peaceful means; Therefore, the basis of social relations in the West is centuries-old enmity, but we do not have it. The independent development of these three principles constituted the content of ancient Russian life. This is what some more independent followers of German philosophy thought, who were called “Slavophiles.” Independent Russian life reached its greatest development during the era of the Moscow State. Peter I disrupted this development. With his violent reform he brought to us alien, even opposite principles of Western German civilization. He turned the correct course of people's life onto the wrong path of borrowing. He did not understand the legacy of the past, did not understand our “national spirit.” To remain true to this national spirit, we must renounce alien Western European principles and return to the original antiquity. Then, by consciously developing our national principles, we can replace the German civilization with our civilization and become higher than the Germans in the overall world development.

These are the views of the Slavophiles. Peter I, in their opinion, betrayed the past and acted against it. Slavophiles highly valued the personality of Peter, recognized the benefits of some of his deeds, but considered his reform not national and harmful in its very essence. With them, as with the Westerners, Peter was deprived of any internal connection with the historical life that preceded him.

You, of course, have already noticed that none of the views on Peter we examined were able to indicate and explain the internal connection of his transformations with previous history. Even Karamzin did not go beyond a vague hint. Pogodin sensed this connection between Peter I and the past in the 40s, but not earlier than in 1863 could he express his thoughts about it. The reason for this was partly the lack of historical material, partly Pogodin’s lack of an integral historical worldview.

This worldview was introduced into our universities at the end of the 40s, when Pogodin had already finished his professorship. The bearers of new historical ideas were young scientists, whose views on our history at that time were called the “theory of tribal life.” Subsequently, these scientists became known under the collective name of the “historical-legal school.” They were the first to establish the idea that the reforms of Peter I were a necessary consequence of the entire historical development of Russian life. We already know that these scientists were brought up under the influence of German philosophy and historical science. At the beginning of this century, historical science in Germany made great strides. The figures of the so-called German historical school introduced extremely fruitful guiding ideas and new, accurate methods for studying historical material into the study of history. The main thought of German historians was the idea that the development of human societies is not the result of chance and the individual will of individuals, on the contrary, that this development takes place, like the development of an organism, according to strict laws, which cannot be overthrown by human power. The first step towards such a view was taken at the end of the 18th century. Fr. Aug. Wolf in his work. He was followed by historians - Niebuhr and Gottfried Miller, who studied the history of Rome and Greece, historian-jurists Eichhorn (historian of ancient German law) and Savigny (historian of Roman law). Their direction was created in Germany in the half of the 19th century. the brilliant position of historical science, under the influence of which our scientists were formed. They adopted all the conclusions and views of the German historical school. Some of them were also interested in Hegel's philosophy. Although in Germany the accurate and strictly factual historical school did not always live in harmony with the metaphysical speculations of Hegel and his followers, nevertheless, historians and Hegel agreed on the basic view of history as the natural development of human societies. Both historians and Hegel denied chance, and their views could therefore coexist in one person.

Solovyov’s assessment of the reforms of Peter I

These views were applied to Russian history by our scientists. The first to do this in their lectures and published works were Moscow University professors S. M. Solovyov and K. D. Kavelin. They thought of showing in Russian historical life the organic development of those principles that were given by the original life of our tribe. They believed that the main content of our historical life was the natural replacement of one form of life by another. Having noticed the order of this change, they hoped to find the laws of our historical development. In their opinion, state order was finally established in our country by the activities of Peter the Great. Peter the Great, with his reforms, responded to the demands of national life, which by his time had already developed into state forms of existence. Therefore, Peter’s activities arose from historical necessity and were completely national.

Thus, for the first time, an organic connection between the transformations of Peter I and the general course of Russian history was established. It is easy to see that this connection is purely logical, devoid of factual content. Direct historical continuity between Russia in the 17th century. and the era of Peter was not indicated in the first works of Solovyov and Kavelin. This continuity was not given to our scientific consciousness for a long time.

Trying to find this direct continuity, both Soloviev and Kavelin themselves, and their followers, historians and lawyers, turning to the study of the pre-Petrine era, were inclined to think that Russia in the 17th century. lived to see the state crisis. “Ancient Russian life,” says Kavelin, “has completely exhausted itself. It developed all the principles that were hidden in it, all the types in which these principles were directly embodied. It did everything it could, and, having completed its calling, ceased.” Peter led Russia out of this crisis onto a new path. According to Solovyov, in the 17th century. our state had reached the point of complete failure, moral, economic and administrative, and could only take the right road through drastic reform (History, Vol. XIII). This reform came with Peter I. This is how they judged the 17th century. and many other researchers. Society began to view Muscovite Rus' as a country of stagnation that did not have the strength for progressive development. This country lived to the point of complete decay; an extreme effort was needed to save it, and it was made by Peter. Thus, Peter’s transformations seemed to be a natural historical necessity; they were closely connected with the previous era, but only with its dark, negative sides, only with the crisis of the old order.

But this understanding of the historical continuity between old Russia and the reform has been replaced in recent decades by another. The same Soloviev introduced a new point of view into science. It should be noted that his views on the reform of Peter I from the very beginning of his scientific activity were distinguished by some duality. In one of his early articles (“A Look at the History of the Establishment of State Order in Russia,” 1851), speaking about the critical situation of the Moscow state in the 17th century, Solovyov does not limit himself to only pointing out the phenomenon of this crisis, but notes that the sovereigns of the 17th century V. To meet new needs, the state began a series of reforms. “During the 17th century,” he says, “new needs of the state clearly emerged, and the same means were called upon to satisfy them that were used in the 18th century during the so-called era of transformations.” Thus, Peter I not only received from the old order one consciousness of the need for reforms, but had predecessors in this matter and acted along previously outlined paths. In a word, he was solving an old problem that was not set by him, and he was solving it in a previously known way. Later, Solovyov brilliantly developed this view in his “Readings about Peter the Great” in 1872. Here he directly calls Peter I “the son of his people,” an exponent of the people’s aspirations. Casting a general glance at the entire course of our history, he follows how the consciousness of powerlessness naturally developed among our ancestors, how attempts were gradually made to correct their situation, how the best people constantly strived to communicate with the West, how the consciousness of the need for change grew stronger in Russian society. “The people got ready to go on the road,” he ends, “and were waiting for the leader”; this leader appeared in the person of Peter the Great.

Expressed after a long and careful study of the facts, this view of Solovyov amazes with both its deep inner truth and the skill of presentation. Not only Solovyov in the 60s and 70s thought so about the historical significance of the reform (remember Pogodin), but only Solovyov managed to formulate his view so convincingly and strongly. Peter I is an imitator of the old movement, familiar to Ancient Rus'. In his reform, both the direction and the means are not new - they were given by the previous era. What is new in his reform is only Peter’s terrible energy, the speed and sharpness of the transformative movement, selfless devotion to the idea, selfless service to the cause to the point of self-forgetfulness. The only thing that is new is that Peter’s personal genius, the personal character, brought into the reform. This point of view has now given the full historical content of the thought about the organic connection of the reform of Peter I with the general course of Russian life. This idea, as I pointed out, came to us through a purely logical path, as an a priori conclusion from the general historical contemplation of some scientists. In the works of Solovyov, this historical conclusion received a solid foundation; Peter's reform, so to speak, was specifically connected with previous eras.

Results of the discussion of the activities of Peter I in Russian historical science

Developing our general historical consciousness, Solovyov’s idea gave direction to many private historical studies. Historical monographs about the 17th century. and the time of Peter I, they now state the connection of transformations with previous eras and in certain spheres of ancient Russian life. The result of such monographs is always the same conclusion that Peter directly continued the beginnings of the 17th century. and always remained faithful to the basic principles of our state life, as it developed in the 17th century. The understanding of this century has become different. The time is not far off when the era of the first Romanov tsars seemed to be a time of general crisis and decay, the last minutes of dull stagnation. Now ideas have changed: the 17th century seems to be a century of strong social ferment, when they realized the need for change, tried to introduce changes, argued about them, looked for a new path, guessed that this path was closer to the West, and were already drawn to the West. It is now clear that the 17th century prepared the ground for reform and brought up Peter I himself in the idea of ​​reform. Carried away by this point of view, some researchers are inclined to even downplay the importance of Peter himself in the transformations of his era and present these transformations as a “spontaneous” process in which Peter himself played the passive role of an unconscious factor. In P. N. Milyukov, in his works on Peter’s reform (“The state economy of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century and the reform of Peter V.” and “Essays on the history of Russian culture”) we find the idea that the reform often “came at second hand into the consciousness of a transformer,” powerless to keep the course of affairs at his disposal and even to understand the direction of events. Needless to say, this kind of view is an extreme, not shared by subsequent researchers of transformations (N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky, “Projects of reforms in the notes of Peter V.’s contemporaries.”).

So, the scientific understanding of Peter the Great is based on the thought expressed most fully and fairly by Solovyov. Our science has managed to connect Peter I with the past and explain the need for his reforms. The facts of his activities were collected and examined in several scientific works. The historical results of Peter's activities, political and transformative, are also indicated more than once. Now we can study Peter quite scientifically.

Peter I. Portrait by P. Delaroche, 1838

But if our historical science has come to a more or less definite and substantiated view of Peter I, then our society has not yet developed a uniform and lasting attitude towards his transformations. In current literature and in society, Peter is still judged in extremely varied ways. From time to time, slightly belated debates continue about the degree of nationality and the need for Peter's reforms; a rather idle question is raised about whether Peter’s reform as a whole was useful or harmful. All these opinions, in essence, are modified echoes of historically developed views on Peter, which I tried to present in chronological order.

If we once again mentally go through all the old and new views on Peter I, then it is easy to notice how diverse they are not only in content, but also in the grounds from which they flowed. Peter's contemporaries and immediate descendants, personally affected by the reform, judged him uneasily: their reviews were based on a feeling of either extreme love or hatred. The feeling also guided those people of the 18th century who, like Shcherbatov, sadly looked at the corruption of modern morals and considered it a bad result of drastic reform. All of these are assessments most likely of a journalistic nature. But Karamzin’s view was based on an abstract moral feeling: placing Ivan III above Peter I, he condemned Peter’s violent methods in carrying out reforms from the heights of moral philosophy. In the views of Westerners and Slavophiles we again see a new basis - abstract thinking, metaphysical synthesis. For them, Peter I is less a historical figure and more an abstract concept. Peter I is, as it were, a logical premise from which one can go to one or another philosophical conclusion about Russian history. The first steps of researchers of the historical and legal school are not free from the influence of metaphysics; but the actual study of our history, which they carried out very conscientiously, gave our scientists the opportunity to get rid of preconceived doctrines. Guided by facts, striving for a strictly scientific conclusion, they created a scientific attitude towards the era of Peter the Great. This scientific attitude will, of course, further develop in our science. But now its fruit is the opportunity to thoroughly and freely judge Peter I. His personality is not torn off from his native soil, for us he is no longer God or the Antichrist, he is a certain person, with enormous powers, with high virtues, with human weaknesses and shortcomings. We now fully understand that his personality and vices are a product of his time, and his activities and historical merits are a matter of eternity.

The personality of Peter I has always attracted the attention of researchers. His activities and transformations left no one indifferent. Historians of the 18th century (V.N. Tatishchev, P.I. Shafirov, I.I. Golikov and others) saw in Peter an ideal monarch in the spirit of enlightened absolutism. A.S. Pushkin drew attention to the deep contradiction between the national and everyday decrees of Peter. He noted his positive qualities, and at the same time pointed out Peter’s inherent despotic traits and tendency to violence.

Christian historiography, represented by the official church, is loyal to Peter I. All power comes from God. The Tsar is God's anointed, his activities are aimed at the benefit of Russia. Even during Peter's lifetime, he was praised by the vice-president of the Synod, Feofan Prokopovich (1681-1736). Christian literature, represented by the Old Believers, has a negative attitude towards Peter and his activities. In their opinion, the tsar was replaced during a trip abroad, and the Antichrist came to Russia under the name of Peter. He did not dress and behave like an Orthodox Christian: he laughed at antiquity, blew smoke out of his mouth, dressed in unusual clothes, cruelly persecuted Old Believers, etc.

Supporters of the world-progressive approach approve of the activities of Peter I. Historians of the “public school” wrote about the personality and reforms of Peter in enthusiastic tones, attributing to him all the successes achieved both within the country and in Russian foreign policy. The activities of Peter I were highly appreciated in the works of S.M. Solovyov, who called Peter “the greatest historical figure” who most fully embodied the spirit of the people. V.O. Klyuchevsky, assessing Peter I, noted that “Peter’s very program was drawn up by the people of the 17th century,” however, Peter’s reforms themselves were guided by the conditions of his time, which were not in effect before him, often created by himself.”

Peter's program of reforms, Klyuchevsky noted, consisted not in covenants, not in legends, but in state needs, urgent and obvious to everyone. Soviet historians assessed Peter as an outstanding statesman, pointing out, however, that the construction of a new Russia was accompanied by the strengthening of serfdom and the intensification of class struggle.

At the same time, there is another direction of historiography, within the framework of which Peter’s activities are assessed from directly opposite positions. The beginning of this tradition comes from the works of M.M. Shcherbatov and N.M. Karamzin, who accused Peter of the “horrors of autocracy” and violation of traditions. Assessing Peter, A.I. Herzen wrote: “a civilizer with a whip in his hand, with a whip in his hand pursuing all enlightenment, protecting traditions, breaking traditions...”.

Destructive criticism of Peter’s actions was voiced by P.N. Milyukov, who noted that Russia was elevated to the rank of a European power “at the cost of ruining the country.” I.L. Solonevich noted that Peter’s reform divided Rus' into two parts: the first - the nobility and the second - everyone else.” One of the modern textbooks notes that the essence of Peter’s reforms is that they were a classic example of radical reforms carried out by the state from above, without the participation and, rather, even with the resistance of broad sections of society.

Liberal historians (from the point of view of personal interest, egoism) I. N. Ionov, R. Pipes and others recognize Peter’s merits in Europeanizing the country, turning it into a leading power. However, Peter’s goal - to make “East West” - cannot be justified by the suffering that Russia endured during the “breaking” of its foundations. Cities and villages were drained of blood due to the overexertion of popular forces. The space of freedom narrowed, since each individual was limited in his activities by the framework of state interests, which extended to all spheres of Russian life.

The technological direction of world-historical theory, studying the progress of mankind, gives priority to technological development and accompanying changes in society. Followers of this trend (S. A. Nefedov and others) consider the reforms of Peter I in the context of modernization according to the Swedish-Dutch model. The fundamental discovery of the Swedes was the light cannon combined with linear combat tactics - and Russia was the first to borrow this new weapon from the Swedes. To do this, it was necessary to call in Western craftsmen and build metallurgical plants in the Urals, build new arsenals in Tula, St. Petersburg and Moscow. The new linear tactics required the entire army to be transferred to a regular basis; the local cavalry was disbanded, and the nobles became officers of the new army; soldiers began to be recruited using conscription kits. To supply the army, linen and gunpowder manufactories were built; the construction of new factories required not only the attraction of craftsmen from Europe, but also the creation of schools to train their own personnel. Along with the new education, a new culture came to Russia; the nobles began to study foreign languages ​​and dress in European style. Administrative traditions were also borrowed, the previous orders turned into boards organized on the Swedish model; provincial local and judicial administration also copied Swedish models.

Simultaneously with the Swedish cultural-technological circle, the Dutch cultural-technological circle, whose symbol was the ocean sailing ship - “flyte”, also spread to Russia. Flight allowed Holland to gain dominance on the seas and take control of almost all maritime trade. Peter also dreamed of creating a fleet and trading with distant countries; he created a navy and won several naval victories - but the attempt to establish Russia as a maritime trading power ultimately ended in failure.

Spreading to Russia, new phenomena interacted with the traditions of past eras, and it should be noted that this synthesis did not lead to changes in the main thing: Ottoman-style absolutism was preserved in Russia. The nobles (unlike in Europe) were still obliged to military service, and their relations with the peasants were regulated by the state. The industry created by Peter was mainly state industry, serving the army and navy. In general, Russia remained an eastern state with a European façade.

Performance assessment. Different points of view

Now an academician, now a hero,

Either a sailor or a carpenter,

He is an all-encompassing soul

The eternal worker was on the throne.

A.S. Pushkin, 1833

Points of view on the reign of Peter I

The activities of Peter I during his lifetime were assessed differently by his contemporaries. And after the death of Peter, the controversy did not continue to subside. Some called him a great reformer who turned Russia into a large and strong European power. Others accused of trampling on traditions, customs, and the destruction of national identity. But one thing is certain - he was a strong, bright personality who left a significant mark on the history of Russia, the country that he loved so devotedly. Great is Peter, great are his deeds!

Issues that are controversial

Was the activity of Peter 1 prepared by the entire previous course of development of Russia?

Are Peter's reforms just a reaction to a changed external situation or were they objectively necessary for the country?

To what extent did the goals of the reforms correspond to the enormous sacrifices that were made during their implementation?

Positive ratings

Historians of the 18th century (V. Tatishchev, I. Golikov, P. Shafirov, etc.) saw Peter 1 as an ideal monarch.

S. Solovyov called Peter I in his writings “the greatest historical figure” who most fully embodied the spirit of the people. He believed that all transformations were the result of the active, vigorous activity of Peter I.

V. Klyuchevsky noted that the program of reforms was “drawn up by people of the 17th century,” but it was guided by the conditions of Peter the Great’s time and was necessary and urgent at that time.

Negative ratings

A. Herzen called the period of Peter’s reforms “civilization with a whip in hand”

N. Karamzin and N. Shcherbatov accused the tsar of “the horrors of autocracy” and of violating traditions.

P. Milyukov, negatively assessing the transformations of Peter I, noted that the country became one of the European countries “at the cost of ruin.”

Slavophiles were confident that Russia had its own path of development, and Peter I turned away from it.

Combination of positive and negative ratings

In Soviet times, historians called Peter I an outstanding historical figure. However, they noted that his transformations intensified the class struggle, as they were carried out forcibly, using the labor of a huge number of peasants.

Many modern scientists, positively assessing the reforms of Peter I, emphasized that they were carried out from above, often with resistance from broad sections of society (N. Pavlenko, K. Anisimov).

Examples of tasks No. 39 with approximate answers to them.

Example #1

Below are two points of view on the transformations of Peter I:

The transformations of Peter I were prepared by the entire previous development of the country.

In the 17th century, such large-scale reforms were not carried out; there were no prerequisites for them. All innovations were carried out only by Peter I.

Arguments when choosing the first point of view:

Changes in the social structure of society: the abolition of localism, the rapprochement of estates with estates, an increase in the number of service people

Rapid development of the economy: the emergence of the first manufactories, protectionism in trade.

The emergence of new regiments, modernization of the army

Changes in everyday life, culture, its secularization.

Arguments when choosing a second point of view

Economically, Russia lagged significantly behind Western countries.

The results of foreign policy were quite modest; there was no access to either the Black or the Baltic Sea.

There were very few manufactories, their development was slow.

There were no serious changes in the state apparatus.

Everyday life and way of life remained patriarchal.

Example No. 2

In historical science, there are different points of view on the reforms of Peter I. Here is one of them.

“Peter’s reform was inevitable, but he accomplished it through terrible violence against the people’s soul and people’s beliefs.”

(A.N. Tolstoy, writer)

Give two examples that support this point of view, and two that refute it.

Arguments in support:

Reforms were carried out forcibly, many things were literally implanted in society

Many national foundations of life and culture were destroyed

The church became completely dependent on the state

The standard of living of most of the population decreased significantly, and many thousands of people died.

Arguments to refute:

The reforms of Peter I reflected the objective need of Russia at that time

The country needed a strong army and navy to strengthen its international position

The old state apparatus had outlived its usefulness; new state and local authorities were needed that would be able to solve the problems that had arisen.

The reforms led to the development of the economy, the widespread opening of factories, and an increase in production

Russia was able to access the Baltic Sea, thereby not only “opening a window to Europe” for trade relations, but also gaining the status of a great European power .

The foundations of secular culture and education were laid.

Example No. 3

Below is a point of view on the reforms of Peter I.

“The reforms of Peter I led to the creation of conditions for the development of highly productive large-scale industry in Russia.”

Arguments in support

Under Peter 1, many manufactories and factories were built that satisfied the needs of society, especially in supplying the army and navy with everything necessary.

Weapons factories were built (in Tula, Olonets region, Sestroretsk), gunpowder factories (in St. Petersburg and near Moscow), tanneries and textile factories (in Kazan, Moscow, Yaroslavl). They began to produce paper and cement in Russia, a sugar factory was built, and much more.

The development of the Urals continued

Geological exploration activities were actively carried out to discover new mineral deposits.

Arguments in refutation

The construction of manufactories and factories was carried out using violent methods; there were not enough workers under the feudal system; entire villages were assigned to factories, forcing them to work off taxes in this way. Often criminals and beggars, whose labor productivity was low, were sent to work in factories.

According to the decree of 1721, possession peasants appeared, who became the property of plants and factories, working conditions were difficult, and mortality increased.

Example No. 4

There is an assessment of the influence of the activities of Peter I on the subsequent development of Russia.

“The Russian state and society in the post-Petrine era (second quarter to second half of the 18th century) fully preserved the internal political and social “legacy” that Peter the Great left behind.”

Using historical knowledge, give at least two arguments confirming this assessment, and at least two arguments refuting it. Indicate which of the arguments you provided support this point of view and which refute it.

Arguments in support

Until the end of the 18th century, the system of transfer of power created by Peter I was preserved

Basically, the system of state power remained the same as it was under Peter I

The exploitation of the peasantry intensified; it continued to remain a disenfranchised part of the population.

The dependence of the church on the state remained and even intensified.

Arguments in refutation

After Peter I, the dependence of the kings on the court and guard groups increased, since for the most part they were enthroned with their help.

The decree “On Single Inheritance” has lost its force.

The nobility became a privileged class, and their service did not become mandatory.

Partial liberalization of the economy began. Thus, class restrictions on crafts and entrepreneurial activities were eliminated.

Example No. 5

Below is a point of view on the reforms carried out by Peter I.

“Carrying out his reforms, Peter I borrowed the forms of organization of production (economy) that had developed in Western Europe, methods of organizing the army and state institutions (government bodies and power structures).”

Using historical knowledge, give two arguments that can confirm this point of view, and two arguments that can refute it.

Arguments in support

Following the example of the West, colleges have been established in Russia

The development of manufactories was in many ways similar to Western models. Foreign specialists with their knowledge and experience were often involved.

The introduction of governors and magistrates was also carried out following the example of the West.

Recruit sets are the established system of recruiting armies in the West. This was also adopted by Peter I.

Arguments in refutation

The monarchical system was preserved, absolutist power was strengthened. This was in contrast to the West, where the first signs of democratization and freedom appeared.

The role of the state in the economy is great; Peter I supported domestic producers and traders. In the West, signs of a market economy are more developed; government intervention in the economy has been weaker.

To be continued

• < Назад

S. M. Solovyov wrote that Peter 1 was truly the Great, as the people called him. Peter was not a lover of fame. He lived and worked for the good of the people and cared only about the people. He realized that it was his duty to lead a weak, poor, almost unknown people out of this sad situation through civilization. For example, at the request of the people, to combat private fires, the roofs are covered with tiles instead of yew, and the houses are built of stone, and they are built along the streets, according to European custom, and not inside courtyards, as before. Peter prohibits the carrying of bladed weapons, because... During drunken fights, people cut each other with knives, sometimes to death.

A rather interesting innovation was that from now on women were forbidden to be locked up at home, but had to be taken out to public gatherings. Also, in the presence of a woman, men had to restrain their bad or indecent morals. Peter also makes theatrical art accessible to the public - “a wooden comedy temple was built on Red Square - for everyone.”

Peter had a difficult task ahead of him: to educate the Russian people, it was necessary to call in foreign mentors, leaders who, naturally, sought to subordinate the students to their influence and become superior to them. This humiliated the students whom Peter wanted to make masters as soon as possible. He wanted compulsory literacy training for at least the nobility. The historian wrote that Peter forced foreign books to be translated, and the translation, the Tsar ordered, should not be literal, but semantic.

The historian spoke of Peter in enthusiastic terms, attributing to him all the successes of Russia, both in internal affairs and in foreign policy, showing the organic and historical preparedness of the reforms: “The need to move on a new road was realized; At the same time, the responsibilities were determined: the people got up and got ready to go; but they were waiting for someone; they were waiting for the leader; the leader appeared"

Military operations are conducted by Peter skillfully and clearly, without excessive self-confidence, but with determination. To resist Turkey, he takes the Azov fortress the second time. To break through the “window to Europe”, i.e. access to the Baltic Sea, waging war with the Swedes. The historian believed that the emperor saw his main task in the internal transformation of Russia, and the Northern War with Sweden was only a means to this transformation.

Soloviev attached primary importance not to external influences on the history of the country, but to the internal processes taking place in it. In his opinion, the basis of the historical process was the movement from the tribal system to the state and the development of the state itself. The historian also attached great importance to the geographical factor.

Peter also does a lot for the country as a whole, and perhaps even more. Under his rule, coal and iron ore mining, metallurgy, tanning, shipbuilding, and military crafts developed.

Solovyov significantly distinguishes Peter from his predecessors: “Peter was not a king in the sense of his ancestors, he was a hero-transformer, or, better to say, the founder of a new kingdom, a new empire, and the more he went into his transformative activities, the more he lost the opportunity to be similar to their ancestors; Moreover, the great war ended shortly before his death."

So, Solovyov characterizes Peter as very responsive to the people. He cared about the condition of the people and strove to make them educated. Soloviev also notes that during the reign of Peter I, society was being cultivated. In Solovyov, reforms are presented in the form of a strictly sequential series of links that make up a comprehensively thought-out and pre-planned program of reforms, based on a rigid system of clearly formulated targets.

Assessment of the personality and activities of Peter I from the point of view of N.V. Karamzin

N.V. Karamzin took a special interest in the personality of Peter I and his reforms. In 1798, the writer even had the idea of ​​writing a “Eulogy to Peter I,” but it was not implemented. In Karamzin’s notebook, only a sketch of “Thoughts for a word of praise to Peter I,” dated June 11, 1798, was preserved.

Describing the emperor, Karamzin writes that in Peter’s extraordinary efforts we see all the firmness of his character and autocratic power. Nothing seemed scary to him.

Karamzin notes that Peter is great without a doubt, but he could still be exalted much more if he had found a way to enlighten the minds of Russians without harming their civic virtues. He considers him a “badly brought up” Lefort, who came to Moscow out of poverty and, quite naturally, finding Russian customs strange for him, spoke to Peter about them with contempt, and raised everything European to the skies. According to Karamzin, having seen Europe, Peter wanted to make Holland out of Russia.

Karamzin considers one of the many mistakes of Peter I to be the founding of a new capital on the northern edge of the state, “among the swells of the swamp, in places condemned by breed to sterility and deficiency.” We can say that St. Petersburg is based on tears and corpses.

According to Karamzin, the reason for the reforms was the “passion” of Peter the Great: the passion to exalt Russia and the passion “for new customs for us,” which “transgressed the boundaries of prudence in him.”

He blames Peter I for setting the goal “not only of the new greatness of Russia, but also of the modern appropriation of European customs.” Karamzin condemned the restructuring of the public administration system, the liquidation of the patriarchate, the subordination of the church to the state, the Table of Ranks, the transfer of the capital to St. Petersburg, and the breaking of old customs. He believes that Peter “raped” Russian nature and abruptly broke the old way of life. Karamzin declares that everything Russian was eradicated, we became citizens of the world, but in some cases we ceased to be citizens of Russia, and Peter is to blame for this.

When I read “A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations,” I was struck by Karamzin’s sharp, critical attitude towards Peter I.

Assessing the activities of Peter, Karamzin approaches this more emotionally than other historians. Perhaps this is due to the fact that he is more of a writer than a historian. Karamzin's structure of reasoning is not as clear as that of other historians. His work is difficult to read because it uses old language and contains more artistic descriptions than concrete facts.