Russia in the 18th century. XVIII century in the history of Russia What happened in the 18th century

The 18th century in Russian history became the era of the most significant transformations, both political and economic, and socio-cultural.
The 18th century in Russia is primarily associated with the reign of Peter I, nicknamed “The Great”. His journey begins with the attempt of his sister Sophia to maintain the position of ruler, for which she organized a Streltsy rebellion, which was suppressed, and Sophia was tonsured as a nun.

Peter organizes several successful campaigns, but suffers defeats in battles with Turkey. This, as well as Peter’s strong impressions of the state of affairs in Western Europe, pushes him to carry out reform activities designed to make a modern European power out of backward Russia in a short time.
The king disbands the regular army of archers and creates mercenary troops, where he calls on European specialists, introduces a new calendar, and also actively fights against the traditionalism of his subordinates.
Peter I begins a war with Sweden that will last more than 20 years.

At the same time, in one of the very first battles, near Narva, Peter’s troops were defeated, as a result of which the king came up with the idea of ​​​​the need to modernize weapons. Due to the extremely difficult economic situation in the country, Peter ordered the casting of cannons from church bells, which caused mass discontent, and also actively developed the production of weapons and metallurgy, ship, glass, linen and rope production.

The Tsar introduces compulsory military service and sends officers to study in Europe. Peter develops serf labor, introduces extremely strict anti-corruption laws, and in every possible way promotes the development of trade in the country.
As a result, Russia wins the war with Sweden, and Peter I names himself Emperor of the Russian Empire, in which form it will exist until its end.

Since Peter the Great did not leave an heir, after his death, the further political life of the country turns into constant leapfrog, which goes down in history as the “Era of Palace Coups.”
As a result of this, in 1762, after the death of Emperor Peter III, his wife, Catherine II, also known as “The Great,” ascended the throne.

Catherine the Great is remembered for her numerous reforms in the interests of the nobility, the maximum strengthening of serfdom and a special approach to enlightenment - believing that progress should concern exclusively the highest strata of society. The Empress is actively developing the educational process of the nobility in the country, under her production sectors are expanding, and the economy is constantly growing. Catherine uses the land rationally: she distributes part of the conquered land to the nobles, and part to foreigners for development.

One of the most significant incidents in the history of the reign of Catherine II is the “Pugachev Rebellion” - a large-scale uprising of the Russian Cossacks (Yaik) and peasantry led by Emelyan Pugachev. The riot was successfully suppressed, and its organizers were executed. After this, the Yaik Cossacks were abolished.
Catherine strengthened the army and navy, conducted personal correspondence with the best European minds, and attracted investment into the country. The country's science and culture developed with great strides. During her reign, the Black Sea Fleet was founded.
During the reign of Catherine the Great, the country's territories expanded multiple times. During the Turkish wars, Russia lost parts of the territories in Kerch, Crimea, and the territory of modern Ukraine. After the divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
The end of the century is marked by the reign of Paul, Catherine’s son, who abolishes a number of Catherine’s reforms and actively participates in the anti-Napoleonic wars in the international arena.
In 1801, Emperor Paul was killed during another coup.

Russia in the 18th century.

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

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

3.The era of palace coups and its consequences.

4. “Enlightened absolutism” by CatherineII.

5. PaulI.

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

The 18th century was a time of heyday and then crisis of the feudal system. A period of decline of absolutism is beginning in Europe. In Russia at this time, feudalism was experiencing its apogee, but from the end of the century the crisis of the feudal system intensified, however, unlike the West, the crisis of feudalism was accompanied not by a narrowing of its scope, but by its spread to new territories. The 18th century was a time of constant wars for the expansion of Russian territory. Back in the 17th century, Russia included Siberia, the Far East, and Ukraine. In the 18th century, it included Northern Kazakhstan, the Baltic states, Belarus, the Baltic, the Black and Azov seas. The multinationality of Russia grew. In the 18th century, the population more than doubled (37.5 million people). New large cities are emerging. At the beginning of the century, Russia was experiencing an industrial boom. Serfdom continues to dominate agriculture. The social structure was based on the class principle. The tax-paying classes were artisans, peasants, burghers, merchants up to 1 guild. The boyars are increasingly losing their leading positions. During the time of Catherine the Second, the first estate became the nobles, who received enormous benefits. The privileged classes also included foreigners, clergy, and Cossack elders.

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

2. In the 17th century Rus' remained a deeply patriarchal state. The Russian Tsars Mikhail (1613-1645) and his son Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) were people committed to antiquity, and Rus' needed modernization. The first attempts at reform were carried out by Alexei's son, Fedor (1676 -1682). Alexey had 11 children and was an exemplary family man. Under the influence of Sophia, the sister of Peter I, after the death of Fyodor, Peter I and Ivan V were proclaimed kings (Ivan V is the son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich along the Miloslavsky line). Only in 1689 did Peter overthrow Sophia (she died in the monastery), and in 1696 Peter I became the sole king. He reigned for 36 years - from 1689 to 1725. He is considered the largest reformer in Russia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The poll tax lasted 163 years, from 1724 to 1887. Before the poll tax there was a farmstead.

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

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

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

Peter changed the system of territorial management. He introduced the Town Hall and Zemsky huts - the main tax collectors. The town hall is in the capital cities, the zemstvos are in the localities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merits of Peter:

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

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

His merit is the modernization of the state machine.

Reforms in the field of culture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catherine tried to develop new legislation based on the principles of the Enlightenment. In 1767, a commission was created to revise Russian laws, which received the name Stacked. The commission was composed of deputies from different class groups - the nobility, townspeople, state peasants, Cossacks. The deputies came to the commission with instructions from their electors. Catherine addressed the Commission with an Order, which used the ideas of Montesquieu and the Italian lawyer Beccaria about the state and laws. In December 1768, the Commission ceased its work due to the Russian-Turkish War. The main goal - the development of the Code - was never achieved. But this helped Catherine become familiar with the problems and needs of the population.

Catherine's greatest act was Certificate of Complaint to the nobility and cities in 1785. It determined the rights and privileges of the noble class. It finally took shape as a privileged class. This document confirmed the old privileges - the right to own peasants, lands, mineral resources, freedom from poll tax, conscription, corporal punishment, the transfer of the title of nobility by inheritance and freedom from public service.

In the Charter, the cities were listed all the rights and privileges of the cities described by previous legislation: the exemption of the top merchant class from the capitation tax and the replacement of conscription duty with a monetary contribution. The charter divided the urban population into 6 categories and determined the rights and responsibilities of each of them. The privileged group of townspeople included the so-called. eminent citizens: merchants (capital over 50 thousand rubles), rich bankers (at least 100 thousand rubles), and urban intelligentsia (architects, painters, composers, scientists). Another privileged group included the guild merchants, which were divided into 3 guilds. Merchants of the first two guilds were exempt from corporal punishment, but the latter was not. The charter granted to cities introduced a complex system of urban self-government. The most important body of self-government was the citywide “Meeting of the City Society”, which met once every three years, at which officials were elected: the mayor, burgomasters, magistrate assessors, etc. The executive body was the six-vocal Duma, which consisted of the city mayor and six vowels - one from each category of the city population.

Senate reform

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

Before the reform, senators could sit back and consider it their task to be present in the institution, and in departments the opportunity to hide behind the backs of others was reduced. The efficiency of the Senate increased significantly.

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

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

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

In 1765, a Decree was adopted on the right of landowners to exile peasants to Siberia without trial. In 1767 - about the ban on peasants complaining about landowners. Catherine's time was a time of serfdom. Taxes on peasants doubled. In the 60-70s there was a wave of peasant uprisings.

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

In 1765, Catherine issued two Decrees: “On general land surveying,” according to which the nobles secured previously acquired lands, and “On distillation,” according to which the nobles received a monopoly on the production of alcohol.

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

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

To prepare for the seminar

From the Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius:

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

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

Accession to the throne

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

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

Attitude to religion and the peasant question

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

Catherine was a staunch opponent of serfdom, considering it inhumane and contrary to human nature itself. Her papers contain many harsh statements on this matter, as well as discussions on various options for the elimination of serfdom. However, she did not dare to do anything concrete in this area due to a well-founded fear of a noble rebellion and another coup. At the same time, Catherine was convinced of the spiritual underdevelopment of Russian peasants and therefore in the danger of granting them freedom, believing that the life of peasants under caring landowners was quite prosperous.

Catherine ascended the throne with a well-defined political program, based, on the one hand, on the ideas of the Enlightenment and, on the other, taking into account the peculiarities of the historical development of Russia. The most important principles for the implementation of this program there was gradualism, consistency, and consideration of public sentiment.

Catherine spent the first years of her reign Senate reform (1763), making the work of this institution more efficient; carried out the secularization of church lands (1764), which significantly replenished the state treasury and alleviated the situation of a million peasants; liquidated the hetmanate in Ukraine, which corresponded to her ideas about the need to unify management throughout the empire; invited German colonists to Russia for the development of the Volga and Black Sea regions. During these same years, a number of new educational institutions were founded, including the first in Russia educational institutions for women(Smolny Institute, Catherine School). In 1767, she announced the convening of a Commission to draw up a new code, consisting of elected deputies from all social groups of Russian society, with the exception of serfs. Catherine wrote the “Mandate” for the Commission, which was essentially the liberal program of her reign. Catherine's calls, however, were not understood by the deputies of the Commission, who were arguing over minor issues. During their discussions, deep contradictions between individual social groups, a low level of political culture and the outright conservatism of the majority of the Commission members were revealed. At the end of 1768 the Laid Commission was dissolved. Catherine herself assessed the Commission’s experience as an important lesson that introduced her to the sentiments of different segments of the country’s population.

The values ​​and norms of the cultural process in Russia in the 18th century were determined by several systemic factors. Firstly, this particular period of development is characterized by the strengthening of foreign trade and foreign policy ties between Russia and the countries of Western Europe and the entry of the Russian Empire into the world historical and cultural process. Accordingly, the values ​​and norms of culture begin to gravitate toward global ones. It was the 18th century that was called in Russia the era of enlightened absolutism. That is, originality (absolutism) remained, but at the same time was supplemented by new phenomena characteristic of the Enlightenment.

Secondly, during this period, in the depths of the feudal economy, both in Western Europe and in Russia, new capitalist relations were formed, which brought with them fundamental changes in the value system of society. Again, the specificity of Russia in the 18th century is that the state system and administrative division remain feudal, and the economy is already, at the very least, moving onto the rails of capitalist production; a new class is moving into the arena - the bourgeoisie - merchants, factory owners and industrialists. And all this against the background of the preservation of slavery.

Some researchers believe (See, for example: Danilevsky I. Ya. Russia and Europe. -M., 1991) that it was during this period that the process of formation of the Russian nation was completed, on the basis of the already established Russian people with a high level of culture and a sense of national unity .

All of the above processes led to the formation of new spheres of culture such as science, fiction, secular painting, theater, etc. Each new sphere of culture adds new values ​​and norms to the cultural life of the nation.

The reforms of Peter the Great, carried out “with fire and sword” and giving rise to a huge corruption mechanism that established itself in the administrative and political sphere for subsequent centuries, nevertheless made a positive contribution. This applies, for example, to the institution of education, which began to take shape in the 18th century. Western Europe had its own universities and gymnasiums, starting from the late Middle Ages, while Russia was just learning the full breadth of opportunities that opened up as a result of the legalization of education as a state institution.

Peter I in foreign attire in front of his mother Tsarina Natalya, Patriarch Andrian and teacher Zotov. Hood. N. Nevrev, 1903, Stavropol Regional Museum of Fine Arts

In general, during this period there was a tendency towards the humanization of cultural norms and values, however, the advent of the real era of humanism was still far away.

The type reform carried out in 1708-1710 undoubtedly contributed to the strengthening of humanistic tendencies in society. The introduction of the civil alphabet made it possible for “mere mortals” to read non-religious books. The first textbooks appeared - all kinds of alphabets, grammars, arithmetic. The thirst for knowledge began to penetrate into the peasant environment.

The quintessence of all new trends in the cultural life of the country is the construction and strengthening of the new capital - St. Petersburg. In it, Russian baroque is replaced by Russian classicism, aesthetic functionality comes first in architecture and art. By the way, the term “culture” itself is absent in society at this time; it will appear somewhat later in the 19th century, but for now culture for Russians is enlightenment - this is how Herder’s dictionary defines it (translated from German). Naturally, Russian enlightenment borrowed features of the enlightenment of Western Europe. The moral context of the era is set out in the essay by A.P. Kunitsyn “Natural Law” (Russian Enlighteners (From Radishchev to the Decembrists). Collected works in two volumes. T. 2. -M., “Thought”, 1966). According to the philosopher, morality is a natural manifestation of human nature, freedom is an absolute value, all thoughts and aspirations of a person are directed towards it, the main value of society is the well-being of its citizens, which is achieved through education.

Founding of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great. Illustration from the book: V. O. Klyuchevsky “Russian history ".- M., "Eksmo", 2005

We find many examples of the values ​​and morals of Russia during the period under review in the writings of Fonvizin. We believe that progressive minds, which certainly include Fonvizin, saw the inconsistency of new humanistic ideas with Russian reality. Along with the first fruits of enlightenment - universities, colleges, schools, laws, etc. a huge state institution of absolute slavery continued to exist in the country - and this is the main feature of the cultural and historical context of the Russian 18th century.

Fonvizin. Engraving from the book: “Works of D. I. Fonvizin. Complete collection of original works", St. Petersburg, 1893, Edition of A. F. Marx

Trends in Russian culture of the 18th century

The main trend of Russian culture of the 18th century is its increasing Europeanization, its attraction to Western norms of morality and law, and the adoption of the foundations of the Enlightenment, as mentioned above. It has become fashionable to travel abroad to improve health, to study, to visit; all the innovations in fashion, customs, and lifestyle that were noticed there were quickly applied at home. This was, of course, started by Peter I, who in his youth went abroad to study a craft, welcomed foreigners (the appearance of entire neighborhoods in which Germans lived - the German Settlement), the notorious shaving of beards and the forcible removal of youths to secondary specialized institutions. We believe that Peter understood that it would not be possible to “kindly” implant enlightenment, and this bore fruit.

Following the example of European ones, the Academy of Sciences and Moscow University, headed by M. V. Lomonosov, are established in Russia, the state is reformed in the manner of Europe - board ministries are established, the church is subordinate to the state, the country is divided into administrative units. The state was ennobled - the Table of Ranks now considered both civil and military service (following the example of France and the German principalities), attention was paid to exports - and now they exceeded imports twice as much, and the state monopoly on some types of goods served the state treasury well.

As a result of numerous borrowings of Western models of culture, education, and government in Russia in the 18th century, a kind of cultural polyphony or polyphony was observed. It was already said above that the formation of the Russian nation and self-awareness had been completed by this time, which means we can say with confidence that the Russian mentality had been formed. Borrowing other cultural traits affects the national mentality, however, does not change its essence. Features attracted from outside are assimilated and become, as it were, one’s own, hence the cultural polyphony.

Another important trend in Russian cultural life of the 18th century is the gradual replacement of the religious canon with the secular canon. The secular principle is gradually replacing the religious worldview and religious control. Since the institution of the church now becomes subordinate to the state, it can no longer dictate its terms to the members of society.

If earlier education and literacy were available mainly to representatives of the clergy (it was the monks who kept Russian chronicles, compiled teachings, etc.), now the “world” could taste the fruits of enlightenment.

The most important, in our opinion, is the penetration of the secular canon into painting. Previously, fine art was entirely ecclesiastical. For example, we are unaware of non-religious paintings by artists before the 18th century; Until this time, only icons and frescoes were painted; fine art was mainly folklore. Now secular art is firmly integrated into the life of society, its entire way of life is being rebuilt in a new way. In schools, the emphasis is on grammar and arithmetic, although the lessons of God's law are not canceled.

In general, what happened in Europe for two to three hundred years, that smooth transition from the Middle Ages to the New Age, happened in Russia in just some eighty years. However, not everything was smooth in Europe either; the transition to the Renaissance was accompanied by a reform of the church and the emergence of Protestantism as another denomination, and the Reformation, in turn, was accompanied by bloody religious wars. Russia was spared from this, however, it had its own “problems”. The trends of enlightenment and secularization entered into insoluble contradictions with the state-legalized institution of slavery and could not develop freely. Naturally, every system strives for homeostasis and, sooner or later, reconciles conflicting tendencies, but the reconciliation of serfdom and the progressive idea of ​​freedom took ugly forms in Russia.

Legal aspects of life

In Russia, the legal cultural field has long been based on community values. Even after the abolition of the community as such, the attitude towards statehood was always in line with community values ​​and ideas. The state - in the minds of the Russian people - is the basis of the foundations, it protects the laity, and they, in turn, must provide it with everything necessary for life. The personification of the state was the tsar-father, and at the micro level - the landowner, the owner of peasant souls.

The extensive legislative reforms carried out during the period under review determined the face of the legal life of Russian society for a long time. Starting from Peter I, the law was recognized as the only source of law. At the same time, the source of the law, in addition to the monarch, was various government bodies, which did not always formally have this right. “The specifics of Russian legislation of the 18th century, due to the peculiarities of the system of power, the management and decision-making process, were such that only by the end of this century norm-setting acts of an innovative nature began to come only from the monarch. Previously, legislative, norm-forming features can be found in the decrees of the Senate, Synod, individual collegiums, as well as bodies such as the Supreme Privy Council, the Cabinet of Ministers, etc.” (Kamensky A.B. From Peter 1 to Paul 1: reforms in Russia in the 18th century (an experience of holistic analysis). - M.: Russian State University for the Humanities, 1999. - P. 32).

According to A. Kamensky, Russian legislation of the 18th century had two features:

1) a variety of types of legislative acts, including decrees, manifestos, regulations, instructions, institutions, letters of commendation;

2) the diversity of their topics - from national problems to purely private ones relating to specific individuals.

The term “police state” was firmly established in Russia in the 18th century, and, indeed, the entire legal field in which the life of society took place was filled with prohibitive legal acts, all kinds of orders and teachings. Everything was punished - beggary, escape of serfs, improper construction of a house or even a stove in it, idle wandering. The state apparatus regulated the existence of an individual person down to the smallest detail, right down to the form in which petitions should be submitted.

Such a paternalistic attitude towards its citizens was explained by the same communal structure and patriarchy, which settled on all levels of the social hierarchy of the society of the period under study. The system was the simplest - the king was above everyone, then the highest officials, followed by the lower ones, at the level between these officials there were landowners-serfs, at the very bottom - the peasants. Merchants and factory owners are somewhere at the level of peasants (even in Gogoloy’s “The Government Inspector” we see echoes of the lack of rights of the emerging bourgeoisie, when the mayor treats merchants almost like serfs, and this is already the 30s of the 19th century).

The key direction of political transformations in Russia at the beginning of the 18th century was the noticeable influence of rationalistic approaches in determining the main political tasks. This concerned, first of all, the economic sphere. Many nobles during this period began to show interest in production and trade, becoming a kind of stratum in Russian society. Noble estates, rich in arable land and forests, free labor - serfs, became a good basis for the opening of new profitable industrial enterprises.

The legal field of life of a Russian person in the 18th century was “amazing” with its regularity. As mentioned above, the Table of Ranks regulated both civil and military service, and regularly issued orders and letters regulated private life. These two fields - public service and private life - rarely intersected. Sometimes the same person was completely different in the service and at home, some chose only one field - only service, or only home. Between everyday life and work there is an abyss, but a regulated abyss.

A great achievement of the 18th century was the formation of the provincial system, a kind of local administrative power, which, nevertheless, was unquestioningly subordinate to state power.

The question has been repeatedly raised in the literature about how to consider the power system of Russia in the 18th century - despotism or absolutism. But since the latter term has long been firmly established in textbooks, preference is given to it. It is emphasized that, in contrast to despotism, power in the Russian Empire still relied on the law, although the law was imperfect, and was not a thing in itself, but interacted with foreign states, which somewhat ennobled itself and did not allow it to slide into despotism. Nevertheless, some features of despotism, such as the indisputability of the will of the head of state, his interference in the executive institutions of power, as well as the purely national character of power - all this was present to one degree or another in the political realities of the country. Again, is the terminological division between absolutism and despotism so important? Both phenomena enter into insoluble contradictions with the new humanistic paradigm, the beginnings of which are sprouting in Western Europe already with the final chords of the Middle Ages. The seeds of freedom would reach Russia only a century and a half later.

Key conflicts

Throughout the 18th century, a full-scale social conflict developed and deepened in Russia, which ultimately led to economic decline, loss of trust by the authorities of almost all segments of the population and political impotence. While the rulers were busy with palace coups, dividing power and confirming the legitimacy of claims to the throne, the socio-economic situation in the country continued to deteriorate. The dissonance between the declared ideals of enlightenment and the presence of complete anarchy in the internal political life of the country deepened the existing contradictions.

State power, after the death of Peter I, identified itself exclusively with the noble class, and could guarantee its privileges only through the use of slave labor. For this purpose, endless audit tales were introduced; the state wanted to know how many peasant souls this or that landowner had, although it did not interfere further in his affairs. And if at the state level there was absolutism in the country, as discussed in the previous paragraph, then at the level of the feudal landowner the government was despotic. But Aristotle also spoke with a warning that the slave would sooner or later rebel.

The peasants were enslaved slowly but surely: first they were forbidden to purchase real estate, then to be hired to work in an artel or to take a farm-out, then they were separated from the land and allowed to be sold separately from the family. Corvee was limited to three days a week, but this was a formality. In Saltykov-Shchedrin’s “Poshekhonskaya Antiquity”, published in the middle of the 19th century, we read about how the bar tyrannized peasants, beat, tortured, beat to death, forced to work seven days a week in corvee (but at night and in the rain, peasants could work for myself).

All these “reforms” led to an unprecedented decline in the socio-economic life of the country, and also served as gunpowder for peasant uprisings, which, of course, were brutally suppressed. Interpreting this phenomenon by comparing America and Russia, Alexis de Tocqueville spoke about the existence of democracy in both countries, but emphasized that in the first case, democracy is based on the synthesis of equality and individual freedom, in the second - equality and slavery (Tocqueville A. de. Democracy in America. M.: Progress, 1992).

The largest social conflict of the 18th century was the peasant war, raised by Emelyan Pugachev, which lasted from 1773 to 1775 and ended with the latter’s brutal execution. We emphasize that this conflict in historical science is referred to specifically as a war, and not as a riot (uprising), since it was so universal in nature and moved across the country so rapidly that it took on all the features of a full-scale civil war.

Some researchers propose to consider Pugachev’s war a failed agrarian revolution, and indeed, there are arguments in defense of this version. In addition, it is emphasized that this war became possible due to the absence of any connecting social institutions that would contribute to the formation of any unity among various social classes. Simply put, there was no dialogue between the government and the peasants, no one was interested in the lives of the peasants, and they, in turn, did not see anything good from the government, which only gave mercy to the noble class with a generous hand.

In the Pugachev war, all the socio-economic conflicts of Russian society were revealed with particular clarity. It all started with the discontent of the Cossacks who lived along Yaik due to the liquidation of their liberties. Serfs often fled to the Cossacks for the very freedom that was declared in words within the framework of Russian enlightenment. Their autonomy was taken away from them in 1771, and then their traditional trades - fish and salt production - were taken away.

Much has been said above about the increasing personal dependence of peasants on landowners. This, in our opinion, is the main reason for the Pugachevism. The peasants, by the way, really hoped that after the Letter of Commendation to the nobility, according to which they were exempted from compulsory military service, such a letter would be granted to the peasants. More and more rumors spread that Peter III had just signed such a letter, but the noble nobles had harassed him, but he miraculously escaped death and would come to restore justice.

The Russo-Turkish War also added fuel to the fire of peasant discontent.

Let us note that during the difficult era of Peter’s reforms, no strong social conflicts were identified: the peasants did not rebel then, and the nobles also became quiet. Yes, Peter instilled culture “by fire and sword,” but people saw the effectiveness of his measures and the correctness of the chosen course. While he reigned there were no self-proclaimed kings or emperors, apparently there was no time. It seems that the nation rallied then to make a decisive leap into a new time, and at the very least it succeeded. And only with the advent of the golden age of Catherine II in Russia, social conflicts intensified. Still, absolute power and the patriarchal structure of society are factors leading into the abyss. Are the roots of the Russian revolutions of the 20th century stretching back to the 18th century?

Main driving forces of social phenomena

The eighteenth century is often called the era of palace coups, and indeed in just a hundred years there was such a leapfrog of rulers.

State policy in the era of palace coups was determined by individual groups and circles of the nobility close to the court. Many believe that this happened because of the decree on succession to the throne, which Peter I adopted in 1722. In fact, the noble class and courtiers, displaced by the soldier-tsar, were in a hurry to seize power, cleverly manipulating the crowned pretenders.

So the chronology of the coups is as follows:

1725 - a coup in favor of the widow of Peter the Great, Catherine I. Carried out by the guard led by Menshikov.

1741 - the Preobrazhensky grenadiers take the throne in favor of Peter's daughter Elizabeth. Note that this coup differs from others in that the driving force in it was not the top of the guard - officers and generals, but the lower ranks of the guard, people from the people, whose patriotism demanded the daughter of the great reformer to the throne.

1762 - Catherine II ascends the throne, whose guard favorites will subsequently push around the Russian throne to please themselves.

Always, in all palace coups, the driving force was the guard - the noble military class, seeking privileges for itself.

There have been debates in science for a long time regarding what to call the peasant unrest that occurred in the 18th century. It was proposed to call them anti-feudal or class struggle (in particular, in Soviet historiography). O. G. Usenko proposes to call them social discontent and divides them into three categories (Usenko O. G. Psychology of social protest in Russia in the 17th-18th centuries. Electronic resource. Access mode: http://olegusenko1965.narod.ru/index/0 -16):

2. popular resistance

3. social protest in the narrow sense.

The driving force behind such resistance is the people, however, the same author warns against generalizing the concept. Only the working (labor) population should be called the people, thus it includes: peasants, courtyard people, Cossacks (with the exception of the officer elite), soldiers, parish clergy (who were often serfs), monks (with a rank no higher than abbot). At the other end of the social social resistance, those against whom this resistance is directed are also the driving forces of social processes, the privileged classes, which include nobles, landowners (landowners), including representatives of the clergy, abbots of large monasteries, large officials, middle and high command staff of the armed forces (guard).

It is noted (Zolotarev V.A., Mezhevich M.N., Skorodumov D.E. For the glory of the Russian Fatherland. -M.: Mysl, 1984) that in the second half of the 18th century a regiment of social driving forces arrived. The barely emerging class of the capitalist bourgeoisie began to actively enter into public relations, which, however, had a serious influence on the political life of the country, since it possessed financial capital. Capitalist production, all these manufactories and artels, flourished thanks to wage labor; the owners of manufactories were forbidden to buy peasants, however, the most far-sighted did not strive for this. Slave labor does not justify itself economically, and in general slavery contradicts the new capitalist system.

We emphasize that in the 18th century, the formation of a single national identity took place, which reflected the interests of all classes, estates and other social groups in Russia, as well as those non-Russian population groups that were assimilated by the Russian people. This complex interweaving was also influenced by the fact that in Russia, within the borders of one state, many other peoples lived who retained their own identity, which means that their influence also affected the national consciousness.

If we consider the processes of acquiring our own national idea through the prism of new socio-economic relations, it will become obvious (Perevezentsev S.V. Russian Voltaires: enlightenment of the 18th century and the national idea. Electronic resource. Access mode: http://www.sorokinfond.ru/ index.php?id=132) the fact that Russian enlightenment, characteristic of the ideological sphere of society, was not the ideology of any one class, but, on the contrary, was the system-forming principle on which the self-identification of Russians was built. However, these provisions are also controversial.

Socio-political processes

The main socio-political process that took place in the 18th century was the process of formation of the socio-political structure of Russia, which included, among other things, the formation of state estates.

It makes sense to look at the facts. In the first decade of the 18th century, up to 200,000 workers were lost, half of them died during the construction of St. Petersburg, the other half became victims of the draconian policy of Europeanization of the country. The state budget grew, compared to the previous period it became several times larger, 3/4 of it went to the maintenance of the army, the remaining quarter to the needs of the state. That is, virtually all the profit received by the state from the poll tax, which was paid by the entire male population of the tax-paying classes, went to the needs of the army. The state did not invest money in the economy, however, it received taxes from factories and from its own monopolies. Naturally, such a policy did not contribute in any way to the socio-economic development of the country. Slave labor on the one hand, exorbitant taxes on the other, made it difficult for the first entrepreneurs to conduct business activities. In fact, only large industrialists survived, concentrating several manufactories in their hands and becoming monopolists in their industry. Even the beginnings of a free market were not observed in Russia.

The policy of expanding the territory of the Russian Empire during this period is gaining momentum. Under Peter, Lifdyandia, Estland, Karelia and Ingria were annexed to Russia (or rather returned to its composition). Under Catherine II, in connection with the collapse of Poland, Lithuania, Courland and other regions that were once part of Dnieper Rus' went to Russia (Kornilov A. A. Course of the history of Russia in the 19th century. - M.: AST, 2004). In this regard, the task of expanding and strengthening Russian statehood in general and the state in particular was solved, and attention turned to internal policy, which, as indicated above, was carried out either by draconian methods, or was not carried out at all, but was left “at the mercy” of the guard and the nobility.

Of course, it is unfair to assume that Peter the Great did not think or care about the good of the country. However, even a personality of his stature, caught up more than any of his predecessors in the struggle for territory, could devote only secondary attention to the needs of the people, and then mostly in fits and starts. Due to the needs and interests of the exhausting and intense struggle, issues of people's welfare and education most often took on a service character, subordinate to the interests of the struggle. Hence, even the measures that he took in relation to the creation and encouragement of industry and trade and the spread of education were of an official, technical nature. Peter's factories and factories served mainly state interests and produced primarily those items that were needed for weapons, uniforms and comprehensive service to the needs of the armies and navy. Peter's schools were mainly professional technical schools - such as navigation, artillery, engineering and lower digital schools. He, apparently, at one time even wanted to turn the Theological Academy into a kind of polytechnic school, which would bring people to church service, and to civil, and to military, and to construction, and to medicine.

Under Catherine, issues of public welfare and education were officially placed at the forefront. Unfortunately, the people's well-being is understood in an extremely unique way: the socio-political structure of the country, formed under the influence of the previous process of Russian history, makes itself felt strongly. In addition, Catherine herself, enthroned by the nobility and consciously relying on it, perhaps even exaggeratedly felt her dependence on it. Therefore, she inevitably considered issues of people’s well-being from a noble point of view, which she tried to skillfully combine with theoretical views borrowed from the luminaries of political thought in Europe in the 18th century. In the first years of her reign, Catherine, as is known, somewhat naively intended to establish “bliss” for the people with the help of rational legislation created at the same time. Convening her famous commission of the Code, she set the task of comprehensive state reform on principles borrowed mainly from Montesquieu and Beccaria.

Prominent figures, the significance of their activities and historical heritage

The most famous outstanding figure in Russia of the 18th century is considered to be M. V. Lomonosov (1711-1765), who founded Moscow University in 1755 and became the first Russian academician. Lomonosov is also considered the largest Russian poet, who laid the foundations of the modern Russian literary language. In general, Lomonosov’s contribution to the development of Russian science and education is enormous.

M. V. Lomonosov. Lifetime image. Paper, engraving with chisel. E. Fessar and K. A. Wortman. 1757

XVIII A CENTURY IN WORLD HISTORY

Section 4.2. XVIII century in world history:

Mishina I.A., Zharova L.N. Europe on the path of modernization

social and spiritual life. Character traits

Age of Enlightenment………………………………………….1

West and East in the 18th century……………………………………9

Mishina I.A., Zharova L.N."Golden Age" of European

absolutism…………………………………………………………….15

I.A. Mishina

L.N.Zharova

Europe is on the path to modernizing social and spiritual life. Characteristics of the Age of Enlightenment

XV-XVII centuries in Western Europe they are called the Renaissance. However, objectively this era should be characterized as the era of Transition, because it is a bridge to the system of social relations and culture of the New Age. It was during this era that the prerequisites for bourgeois social relations were laid, the relationship between church and state changed, and the worldview of humanism was formed as the basis of a new secular consciousness. The formation of the characteristic features of the modern era was fully realized in the 18th century.

The 18th century in the life of the peoples of Europe and America is a time of greatest cultural, socio-economic and political changes. In historical science, the modern era is usually associated with the establishment of bourgeois relations in Western Europe. Indeed, this is an important socio-economic characteristic of this era. But in modern times, simultaneously with this process, other global processes took place that engulfed the structure of civilization as a whole. The emergence of the New Age in Western Europe meant a civilizational shift: the destruction of the foundations of traditional European civilization and the establishment of a new one. This shift is called modernization.

Modernization is a complex, multifaceted process that took place in Europe over a century and a half and covered all spheres of society. In production, modernization meant industrialization- ever-increasing use of machines. In the social sphere, modernization is closely related to urbanization- the unprecedented growth of cities, which led to their predominant position in the economic life of society. In the political sphere, modernization meant democratization political structures, laying the preconditions for the formation of civil society and the rule of law. In the spiritual sphere, modernization is associated with secularization- liberation of all spheres of public and personal life from the tutelage of religion and the church, their secularization, as well as the intensive development of literacy, education, scientific knowledge about nature and society.

All these inextricably linked processes have changed a person’s emotional and psychological attitudes and mentality. The spirit of traditionalism is giving way to attitudes towards change and development. A man of traditional civilization was confident in the stability of the world around him. This world was perceived by him as something unchangeable, existing according to the originally given Divine laws. Man of the New Age believes it is possible to know the laws of nature and society and, on the basis of this knowledge, change nature and society in accordance with his desires and needs.

State power and the social structure of society are also deprived of divine sanction. They are interpreted as a human product and are subject to change if necessary. It is no coincidence that the New Age is an era of social revolutions, conscious attempts to forcibly reorganize public life. In general, we can say that New Time created a New Man. The man of the New Age, the modernized man, is a mobile personality who quickly adapts to changes occurring in the environment.

The ideological basis for the modernization of public life in modern times was the ideology of the Enlightenment. XVIII century in Europe also called The Age of Enlightenment. Figures of the Enlightenment left a deep mark on philosophy, science, art, literature and politics. They developed a new worldview designed to liberate human thought, free it from the framework of medieval traditionalism.

The philosophical basis of the worldview of the Enlightenment was rationalism. Enlightenment ideologists, reflecting the views and needs of the bourgeoisie in its struggle against feudalism and its spiritual support of the Catholic Church, considered reason as the most important characteristic of a person, a prerequisite and the most vivid manifestation of all his other qualities: freedom, initiative, activity, etc. Man, as a rational being, from the point of view of the Enlightenment, is called upon to reorganize society on reasonable grounds. On this basis, the right of people to social revolution was declared. An essential feature of the ideology of the Enlightenment was noted by F. Engels: “The great people who in France enlightened their heads for the approaching revolution acted in an extremely revolutionary manner. They did not recognize any external authorities of any kind. Religion, understanding of nature, political system - everything had to be subjected to the most merciless criticism, everything had to appear before the court of reason and either justify its existence or abandon it, the thinking mind became the only measure of everything that exists” (Marx K., Engels F. Soch., T.20, p.16).

In terms of civilization, Europe of the 18th century was still an integral entity. The peoples of Europe differed in their level of economic development, political organization, and the nature of their culture. Therefore, the ideology of the Enlightenment in each country differed in its national characteristics.

In its most striking, classical forms, the ideology of the Enlightenment developed in France. French Enlightenment of the 18th century. had a significant impact not only on its own country, but also on a number of other countries. French literature and the French language became fashionable in Europe, and France became the center of all European intellectual life.

The largest representatives of the French Enlightenment were: Voltaire (François Marie Arouet), J.-J. Rousseau, C. Montesquieu, P. A. Holbach, C. A. Helvetius, D. Diderot.

Social and political life of France in the 18th century. characterized by large remnants of feudalism. In the struggle with the old aristocracy, the enlighteners could not rely on public opinion, on the government, which was hostile to them. In France they did not have such influence in society as in England and Scotland; they were a kind of “renegades.”

Most prominent figures of the French Enlightenment were persecuted for their beliefs. Denis Diderot was imprisoned in the Château de Vincennes (royal prison), Voltaire in the Bastille, Helvetius was forced to renounce his book “On the Mind.” For censorship reasons, the printing of the famous Encyclopedia, which was published in separate volumes from 1751 to 1772, was repeatedly suspended.

Constant conflicts with the authorities gave French educators a reputation as radicals. For all their radicalism, French enlighteners showed moderation and caution when one of the basic principles on which European statehood was based - the principle of monarchism - was brought up for discussion.

In France, the idea of ​​separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial was developed by Charles Montesquieu (1689 - 1755). Studying the reasons for the emergence of a particular state system, he argued that the legislation of the country depends on the form of government. He considered the principle of “separation of powers” ​​to be the main means of ensuring the rule of law. Montesquieu believed that the “spirit of laws” of a particular people is determined by objective prerequisites: climate, soil, territory, religion, population, forms of economic activity, etc.

The conflicts between French enlighteners and the Catholic Church were explained by its ideological intransigence and dogmatism, and this excluded the possibility of compromise.

The characteristic features of the Enlightenment, its problems and the very human type of the enlightener: philosopher, writer, public figure - were most clearly embodied in the work and in the very life of Voltaire (1694-1778). His name became, as it were, a symbol of the era, giving the name to a whole ideological movement on a European scale - Voltairianism."

Historical works occupy a large place in Voltaire’s work: “The History of Charles XII” (1731), “The Age of Louis XIV” (1751), “Russia under Peter the Great” (1759). In the works of Voltaire, the political antagonist of Charles XII is Peter III, a monarch-reformer and educator. For Voltaire, the independent policy of Peter, who limited the powers of the church to purely religious matters, came to the fore. In his book Essay on the Manners and Spirit of Nations, Voltaire wrote: “Every man is shaped by his age; very few rise above the morals of their time.” He, Voltaire, was the way the 18th century created him, and he, Voltaire, was among those enlighteners who rose above him.

Some French educators hoped for cooperation with the authorities in solving specific problems of governing the country. Among them stood out a group of physiocratic economists (from the Greek words “physics” - nature and “kratos” - power), led by Francois Quesnay and Anne Robert Turgot.

The awareness of the unattainability of the goals of the Enlightenment through peaceful, evolutionary means prompted many of them to join the irreconcilable opposition. Their protest took the form of atheism, sharp criticism of religion and the church, characteristic of materialist philosophers - Rousseau, Diderot, Holbach, Helvetius, etc.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778) in his treatise “On Social Speech...” (1762) substantiated the right of the people to overthrow absolutism. He wrote: “Every law, if the people have not directly approved it, is invalid. If the English people consider themselves free, then they are sorely mistaken. He is free only during the elections of members of parliament: as soon as they are elected, he is a slave, he is nothing. In ancient republics and even monarchies, the people were never represented; the word itself was unknown.

The 18th century is a period of a qualitative leap in the history of Russia. Enormous changes were carried out in its economy, government system, army organization, and culture. Russia's place in the international arena has changed radically. An important line between medieval Muscovite Russia and the Russian Empire is the time of Peter I.

Russian foreign policy in the first quarter of the 18th century. Main directions and features of foreign policy. The main foreign policy task facing Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century was the struggle for access to the seas: the Black, Azov, and Baltic. In setting these tasks, Russia continued the foreign policy of the previous period, but sought to solve them by more advanced military and diplomatic means, with unprecedented persistence and energy. Peter I did not fight with his main enemies (Turkey and Sweden) like his predecessors, now these were coalition wars, allied ones.

Azov campaigns. The entire reign of Peter I (1682-1725) was entirely devoted to the Black Sea problem, so the first major step of his foreign policy was the organization of a campaign to the shores of the Azov and Black Seas. The Black Sea at that time was an inland sea of ​​Turkey, which, in the figurative expression of one diplomat, cherished it “like a pure and immaculate maiden whom no one dares to touch.” Thus, one of the most important tasks of Russian foreign policy at the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries. there was a struggle for the southern lands, against the Trocs and Crimean Tatars, who constantly attacked Russian cities and villages in the south of the country, subjecting them to plunder and taking the population into captivity.

In 1695, the first Azov campaign began, the purpose of which was to capture the Turkish fortress of Azov, which blocked the access to the Sea of ​​Azov. However, after two unsuccessful assaults, they decided to stop the siege of the fortress. The bulk of the Russian troops retreated deeper into Russia.

The main reasons for the failure of the 1695 campaign were the following: the lack of a fleet in Russia, as a result of which it was impossible to blockade Azov from the sea, from where the Turks received reinforcements and supplies; lack of unity of command in the army and mutual support in the assault units; lack of artillery, poor training of troops, especially riflemen; the small number of cavalry to fight the steppe Tatars.

At the end of 1695, preparations began for the second campaign near Azov. The mistakes of the first campaign were eliminated: the construction of the fleet began; To ensure unity of command, a commander-in-chief of the ground forces was appointed. In the spring of 1696, the army and navy set out on a campaign, and in July Azov was taken.

This event became Russia's largest foreign policy and military success, the first step towards the seas. The experience of joint actions of ground forces and navy during the capture of Azov was then successfully developed during the Northern War. At the same time, the Azov campaigns showed the urgent need to organize a Russian regular army.

"Great Embassy" At the beginning of 1697, Russia managed to conclude offensive treaties for a period of three years with Austria and Venice against the Crimean Tatars and Turks. In the same year, with the participation of Peter himself, the “Great Embassy” went to Western Europe with the aim of further expanding and strengthening the alliance against Turkey. However, the “Great Embassy” was unable to complete this task. The fact is that due to internal contradictions, Europe at that time was divided into two camps. In addition, Holland and England were interested in trade with Turkey. Under these conditions, it became impossible to attract new participants to the anti-Turkish alliance. Moreover, even the former members of this union, fearing the strengthening of Russia, rushed to make peace with Turkey.

In addition to performing diplomatic tasks, the embassy had to hire sailors, artisans, artillerymen and other specialists for the Russian service. The embassy was accompanied by representatives of noble youth sent abroad to study naval affairs and shipbuilding.

The beginning of the Northern War. The failure of the “Great Embassy” convinced Peter I that in a broken situation it was impossible to gain access to the Black Sea. Based on the situation, Peter defines a new main direction of foreign policy - to return the ancient Russian lands along the Neva River, captured by the Swedes at the beginning of the 17th century, and thus achieve access to the Baltic Sea.

The war with the Swedes was preceded by some successful diplomatic steps by Russia. Thus, in 1699, treaties were signed with Denmark and the Elector of Saxony, Augustus II, who then occupied the Polish throne, on an alliance against Sweden (Northern Alliance). These treaties became the first Russian diplomatic acts to bear the personal signature of the Tsar. Before this, agreements were sealed with the signatures of Russian ambassadors and the state seal. At the beginning of 1699, an agreement was reached on a two-year Russian-Turkish truce, and in 1700 the truce was concluded for 30 years.

The war with Sweden, which went down in history under the name “Northern”, began in the summer of 1700. However, its beginning was unsuccessful for the participants of the Northern Alliance. Denmark, after the Swedish landing near its capital, left the war. The actions of the Polish king were also unsuccessful. Russian military participation began with the siege of the Swedish fortress of Narva, which ended in the defeat of Russian troops, who lost almost all of their artillery.

The Swedish king, believing that the Russians were defeated and would never recover, sent the main forces of his army against Augustus II. However, Russia managed to quickly eliminate the grave consequences of the defeat at Narva. The formation of a regular army was accelerated, and the production of metal, weapons and uniforms increased. As a result, already in December 1701, the first significant victory over the Swedes was won. Subsequently, Russian troops began to win one victory after another: several fortresses on the Neva were taken, and in 1704, after a second siege, Narva fell.

Creation of a regular army and navy. Peter I carried out a radical reorganization of the armed forces. A newly organized regular army and navy were created. Transformations in the army began with the development of military regulations (1698), the creation of the guard and regular regiments. By 1705, a new system of army recruitment had finally taken shape. From this time on, forced conscription, first introduced in 1699, became the main source of army replenishment. Every 20 peasant households had to provide one recruit. Soldier's service became lifelong. The local noble militia and the Streltsy army were liquidated. Special schools were opened to train artillery and engineering personnel.

At the beginning of the 18th century. For the first time in Russian history, a navy was created. Moreover, the construction of the fleet proceeded at an unprecedentedly fast pace and at the level of the best examples of shipbuilding of that time.

Founding of St. Petersburg. In May 1703, construction began on the Peter and Paul Fortress, which laid the foundation for the city of St. Petersburg, in which Peter I saw his new capital almost from the moment of its founding. Unlike other cities in Russia, the development of which was carried out spontaneously, the construction of St. Petersburg was carried out according to a pre-developed plan. Special decrees established types of buildings, the size of which depended on the wealth of the owner. Rich landowners and merchants were required to build two-story stone buildings with high rooms and large windows.

Battle of Poltava. In the fall of 1707, Swedish troops began a campaign to the east, the ultimate goal of which was the capture of Moscow. However, fierce resistance from the Russian army forced the Swedish king Charles III to change the invasion plan. Instead of going to Moscow through Smolensk, he was forced to go to Ukraine, whose hetman, Mazepa, promised him support. But this plan also failed. In September 1708, the Swedish corps, accompanying a huge convoy with food and weapons for Charles, was defeated near the village of Lesnoy.

In April 1709, the Swedes approached the Poltava fortress and besieged it. For three months the garrison and townspeople staunchly defended the city. Finally, Russian troops arrived, and on June 27, 1709, a battle began in which the Swedes were defeated. Near Poltava, for the first time in military history, the Russian army used a system of field fortifications - redoubts, which brilliantly justified themselves during the battle. The remnants of the defeated Swedish army led by Charles III fled in panic to the Dnieper, where they were overtaken and captured by Menshikov. Only the king himself with Mazepa and a small detachment managed to take refuge in Turkish possessions.

The Battle of Poltava was the decisive battle of the Northern War, its turning point. Sweden's military power on land was completely broken and it could no longer recover from the defeat it had suffered. The foreign policy situation also changed: the Northern Alliance was restored and expanded, to which Prussia joined.

Victories of the Russian fleet. After the defeat of the Swedes on land, the fight at sea, where Sweden had a strong navy, significantly superior to the young Russian one, acquired paramount importance. By the spring of 1714, Russia already had a fairly large fleet in the Baltic. Sweden also energetically prepared for active combat operations at sea.

Russian ships left St. Petersburg in May 1714 and in July attacked the Swedish fleet off the Gangut Peninsula. The fierce battle ended in complete victory for the Russians. The Battle of Gangut went down in the history of the Russian navy as one of its most brilliant pages. It became the first major victory of the Russian fleet over the Swedish, which had not had defeats until that time. The Battle of Gangut marked the beginning of Russian power in the Baltic Sea. The Swedish fleet, which previously dominated the Baltic, was forced to go on the defensive.

In July 1720, the Russian fleet won a brilliant victory over the Swedes near the island of Grengam. Russia was especially proud of this victory, since the British ships, which were in the Baltic with the aim of destroying the Russian fleet, could not prevent the defeat of the Swedes.

The growth of Russia's international influence. Russia's successes in the Northern War forced Charles XII to enter into peace negotiations, which were long and difficult. Finally, in August 1721, in the city of Nystadt, a peace treaty (Nystadt Peace) was concluded between Russia and Sweden, which introduced important changes to the balance of power in Europe: Sweden lost its status as a great power; Significant territories that make up modern Estonia, Latvia, part of the Leningrad region and Karelia were transferred to Russia. Thus, having received access to the Baltic Sea, Russia moved its northwestern borders far to the west, which from land became sea.

In 1724, Sweden renounced its alliance with England and entered into an alliance treaty with Russia on mutual assistance. Russia entered the wide international arena and not a single issue of international life could be resolved without its participation.

The entire foreign policy of Russia at the end of the 17th and first quarter of the 18th centuries. can be divided into two large periods: before the Battle of Poltava and after it. These periods, in turn, are divided into the following stages: the time of the Azov campaigns, the “Great Embassy” to Western Europe and preparations for the Northern War (1695-1699); the first years of the Northern War - the occupation by Russian troops of the Neva River and the cities of Narva and Dorpat, the founding of St. Petersburg, the victory at Lesnaya and, finally, the Battle of Poltava, which was the turning point of the entire Northern War; the next 1709-1715, when the capture of the Baltic was completed, a naval victory was won at Gangut; the final stage of the Northern War (1716-1721): amphibious landings on the Swedish shores, a naval victory at Grenham, diplomatic negotiations that ended with the Peace of Nystadt; 1722-1724: conclusion of an alliance treaty with Sweden.

Economic development of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century. The main feature of the Russian economy during this period was the active intervention of the state in the development of the country's productive forces. First of all, this affected industry and trade, although changes also occurred in agriculture.

Industrial development. Beginning of the 18th century - a significant period in the development of Russian industry. At this time, large-scale manufacturing-type production became widespread, which was dictated primarily by the needs of the army and navy. Merchants who founded private manufactories received benefits. Instead of 15-20 manufactories of pre-Petrine times in the first quarter of the 18th century. About 200 enterprises were created (according to other sources - about 100). The main attention was paid to metallurgy, the center of which was the Urals. From 1700 to 1725 Iron smelting in the country increased more than fivefold.

Cloth, sail-linen, rope, and leather manufactories appeared and quickly developed, supplying the army with uniforms and the navy with canvas and ropes.

The growth of industrial production was accompanied by increased feudal exploitation and the widespread use of forced labor in enterprises. Decrees of 1721 and 1723 Private manufactories were cut off from purchasing peasants for entire families.

The reforms also covered the sphere of small-scale production. By decree of 1722, a guild structure was introduced in cities. All artisans, led by an elected headman, were distributed among workshops depending on their specialty. The creation of workshops testified to the patronage of the authorities for the development of crafts.

Changes in agriculture. There were also attempts at reform in agriculture. Thus, by decree of 1721, peasants were ordered to harvest grain with scythes instead of sickles. The decree of 1715 contributed to a significant expansion of the plantings of industrial crops (flax and hemp), traditional in Rus'. New crops were introduced: tobacco, grapes, fruit trees. In some areas, gardening acquired commercial importance. In 1720, construction of the first silk-spinning factory began. All mulberry trees were registered and cutting them down was punishable by death.

Much attention was paid to livestock farming. In accordance with government decrees, the development of horse breeding and fine-wool sheep breeding began.

Trade. In the field of domestic and foreign trade, a state monopoly was introduced on the procurement and sale of a number of goods (salt, flax, hemp, furs, lard, caviar, bread, wine, wax, bristles), which significantly replenished the treasury. The development of trade relations with foreign countries was encouraged in every possible way. By the end of Peter's reign, the export of Russian goods was twice as high as the import. At the same time, high customs tariffs (up to 40%) reliably protected the domestic market from competition. Thus, the state policy of mercantilism was clearly manifested in trade, i.e. the desire to accumulate wealth by exceeding the export of goods over the import, encouraging the development of domestic trade and industry.

Financial sphere. The state's financial policy was characterized by unprecedented tax oppression. A radical reform of the entire tax system was carried out - a poll tax was introduced, which by the end of the reign of Peter I accounted for more than half of state revenues.

The era of palace coups and the expansion of noble privileges in the 18th century. The crisis of power after the death of Peter I. The struggle of noble groups for power. In January 1725, Peter I died without having time to appoint a successor for himself before his death. The nobles who came to the fore under Peter wanted to see the wife of the deceased emperor, Catherine, on the throne. The old, well-born nobility had its own candidate - the grandson of Peter I, the young Peter - the son of the deceased Tsarevich Alexei. The dispute over a successor was resolved by the guards regiments, which from that time became the main weapon in the struggle for power. With their support, Catherine was elevated to the throne (1725-1727). Under the empress, the Supreme Privy Council was created, which became the highest institution in the state, pushing the Senate to a secondary position.

After the death of Catherine I, the grandson of Peter I, Peter II, became emperor. Under the young tsar, Menshikov enjoyed significant influence. As a result of the palace coup, Menshikov was exiled and the old aristocracy came to power, removing the promoters of Peter I from governing the country.

After the death of Peter II in 1730, the niece of Peter I, the Duchess of Courland, took the throne. Anna Ivanovna. The Supreme Council, which offered her the crown, tried to significantly limit the power of the new empress, but the speech of the nobility thwarted these plans. The Supreme Council was abolished, and its members were subjected to repression.

During the reign of Anna Ivanovna, the influence of foreigners reached unprecedented proportions, who enjoyed advantages in appointment to profitable positions and promotion.

Shortly before her death (1740), Anna Ivanovna appointed herself a successor - the three-month-old grandson of her niece. But in 1741 another palace coup took place, which was openly directed against the dominance of foreigners. With the weakness of the guard, the protege of the Russian nobility, the daughter of Peter I, Elizabeth (1741-1761), came to power. The Germans lost high positions in the state. Institutions created during the period of Peter the Great's reforms were restored.

After the death of Elizabeth Petrovna, her nephew, the Duke of Holstein, ascended the throne under the name of Peter III, who was killed as a result of the last palace coup carried out by the guard in the 18th century. The reign of Peter III's wife, Catherine II (1762-1796), began.

Social policy and serfdom legislation of Catherine II. History of Russian absolutism of the second half of the 18th century. can be divided into two periods: the first - before the peasant war of 1773-1775. (this time is usually called the period of “enlightened absolutism”); the second is a period of open noble reaction, which especially intensified from 1789-1790. in connection with the revolution in France. “Enlightened absolutism” in Russia was a special form of autocratic policy, a characteristic feature of which was some adaptation of the noble state to the requirements of emerging capitalism.

“Enlightened absolutism” was also generated by the aggravation of social contradictions and the class struggle of the peasants. The essence of the policy of “enlightened absolutism” was not only the suppression of peasant movements, but also the desire to prevent them.

The government proceeded from the fact that violent forms of suppressing the protest of the masses are not always effective, so it considered it possible to make some concessions to the peasants. For example, the assignment of state peasants to factories, where labor was much harder than in agriculture, ceased. However, such events did not affect the essence of the feudal-serf system. While publicly presenting herself as an opponent of serfdom, Catherine at the same time issued decrees aimed at further spreading serfdom. Under her, the activities of political investigation were resumed, inflicting brutal reprisals on all who spoke out in defense of the oppressed.

At the same time, decisions were made aimed at preserving and significantly expanding the rights and privileges of the nobles. In 1765, the nobles were granted a monopoly right to distill alcohol. This decree made it possible to turn grain into vodka on the spot and deliver it to state taverns, which significantly increased the income of landowners. In the same year, a law was issued assigning to the nobles all the lands they seized from the peasants. As a result, the economic basis of serfdom—feudal land tenure—expanded significantly.

A whole series of decrees of Catherine II established extremely preferential conditions for the promotion of nobles to officer ranks and sharply increased funds for the maintenance of class noble educational institutions.

Legal acts of the 60s. prohibited the employment of peasants in the government service, and almost doubled the per capita tax. In 1765, a decree was issued giving landowners the right to exile their peasants to hard labor without trial. The exile was counted as a recruit to the landowner. Finally, in 1767, one of the most cruel decrees in the entire history of serfdom was issued, according to which any complaint by peasants against the landowner was declared a grave state crime. Those who filed such a complaint were subject to punishment by whipping and exile to hard labor. This regulatory act completed the formalization of the unlimited power of landowners over peasants.

Secularization of church land ownership, its goals and significance. In 1764, secularization (seizure) of church land ownership was carried out. About two million peasants were taken away from the monasteries and became state peasants. For them, corvée was replaced by monetary rent. Most of the lands on which they carried out corvée in favor of the monasteries passed to the peasants. The decree significantly reduced the number of monasteries. Of the 957, about 200 remained, which were received by the state. This event significantly strengthened the economic base of the autocracy, ended the independence of the church and turned it into part of the bureaucratic apparatus.

"Stacked Commission". One of the most striking manifestations of “enlightened absolutism” was the convening of the Commission to draft a new code (code of laws), since the existing “Conciliar Code” of 1649 was completely outdated by that time.

Elections of deputies to the Commission were class-based. The nobles elected a deputy from each district, the townspeople - from each city. The clergy, as well as landowner peasants, did not receive the right to participate in elections.

One of the central tasks in the activities of the Commission, which opened in the summer of 1767, was the peasant question. Landowners complained about the mass exodus of serfs and demanded that drastic measures be taken.

The merchants insisted not only on consolidating their old rights, but also on expanding them; on creating conditions for the growth of industry and trade; demanded to protect them from the competition of trading nobles and the right to own serfs. Deputies from state peasants asked to ease taxes and put an end to the arbitrariness of the authorities.

Under the pretext of the outbreak of the Russian-Turkish war, Catherine dissolved the Commission in 1769.

The period of Russian history after the death of Peter I (1725-1762) is designated as the era of “palace coups”, the essence of which is that the change of power occurred mainly with the assistance of the guard. The essence of Russian autocracy of the second half of the 18th century. (mainly before 1773) is characterized as “enlightened absolutism” - a special form of autocracy characteristic of countries with a relatively slow pace of development of capitalist relations. “Enlightened absolutism” is characterized by liberal phraseology and social demagoguery; the use of the ideas of the Enlightenment, from which their anti-feudal essence was thrown out; subordination of the church to the state. The main objective of the policy of “enlightened absolutism” is the implementation of reforms conditioned by the development of bourgeois relations and the strengthening of class contradictions. The meaning of the ongoing reforms was to reduce the level of social-class conflicts and strengthen the positions of the nobility. In essence, “enlightened absolutism” is a balancing of autocracy, firstly, between the nobility and the emerging bourgeoisie; secondly, between different factions of the nobility.

The beginning of the decomposition of the feudal-serf economy in the second half of the 18th century. New phenomena in the economic life of the country. The beginning of the decomposition of feudal relations and the formation of a capitalist structure. In the second half of the 18th century. The feudal-serf system in Russia began to weaken under the influence of the growth of capitalist relations. Traditional methods of organizing the economy and exploiting labor required significant changes. Commodity production began to penetrate into agriculture, which accelerated the property stratification of the peasantry. Hundreds of thousands of ruined peasants broke ties with the land and sought income in non-agricultural trades. Consequently, the process of formation of a labor market for large-scale industry was underway.

Signs of the beginning of the disintegration of the feudal system, the serfdom system were: the beginning of the liquidation of the monopoly of the nobles on land property; concentration of large land holdings in the hands of rich peasants and merchants; attempts by some landowners to introduce agricultural improvements and engage in commercial and industrial activities.

Agricultural and industrial development of new regions of the country. Most nobles still sought to increase their incomes without changing the basics of the economy, by spreading serfdom to new territories. The movement of landowners began to the south, to the black earth regions, and the formation of farms on unplowed fertile lands.

At the same time, the nobles continued to seize lands in the Volga region and resettle serfs there from the interior regions of Russia. The local non-Russian population went to the Volga and Urals regions. Agriculture began to penetrate even into remote areas of Siberia. The economic development of the Don was especially successful. Agriculture, previously prohibited here, became the main occupation of the Cossacks. Tsarism encouraged noble colonization of Ukraine, the Lower Volga region, and the North Caucasus, where huge landowner farms were created.

The economic development of the Northern Black Sea region was unique. In the interests of rapid development of this region, the government gave up the main privilege of the nobility - the right to monopoly ownership of land. Everyone could get small plots here, with the exception of serfs. The once deserted lands began to produce surplus grain, which was exported abroad through the Black Sea ports.

The presence of non-noble land ownership in the newly developed areas and a small percentage of the enslaved population created more favorable conditions for the development of bourgeois relations than in Central Russia.

The industrial development of new territories proceeded quite quickly. The Urals becomes the main center of Russian metallurgy. Silver and lead began to be mined in the Altai foothills, and the geography of the location of cloth production changed. The centers of this industry moved to sheep breeding areas (Voronezh province, Ukraine).

Development of industry, crafts and trade. Second half of the 17th century. was a time of further rapid development of industry in Russia. According to some quantitative indicators of large-scale industrial production, Russia was ahead of all continental Europe and was a supplier of iron to European countries.

Organizational forms and types of manufactories changed. An increasing number of state-owned enterprises are transferred into the hands of merchants and nobles. Along with industry based on various types of forced labor, production using hired workers developed. The number of merchant and peasant manufactories, which were the immediate predecessors of the capitalist factory, grew. Manufactories in light industry were large in size. Among them stood out those that employed up to two or more thousand people. The number of hired workers employed in factories, industries and transport has increased significantly.

However, serfdom hampered technological progress. While England entered the era of the industrial revolution, Russian technology remained old. Some improvements and even major inventions did not find wide application and were quickly forgotten.

The development of cities, handicraft and manufacturing production, the separation of a large number of peasants from agriculture caused a growing demand for agricultural products, favored the expansion of the capacity of the domestic market, and an increase in the number of fairs. The development of the all-Russian market was facilitated by the abolition of internal customs duties in 1753. However, the growth of domestic trade was seriously hampered by the unsatisfactory state of communications.

Positive trends have emerged in foreign trade. The export of goods began to exceed their import. The share of finished products in the structure of exports grew, although raw materials and semi-finished products still occupied the first place. Among the goods imported to Russia, items of noble consumption continued to prevail: sugar, wines, spices, perfumes.

In order to develop domestic industry, the government continued to pursue a protectionist policy. Thus, in 1766, a new customs tariff was adopted, preventing the import of goods that were produced in Russia. At the same time, products that were not manufactured in Russia were completely exempt from duties.

For the economy of the second half of the 18th century. characterized by the dominance of feudal forms of management. At the same time, signs characteristic of capitalist-type production appear. Traditional methods and forms of organizing economic activities were changing. The economic development of new regions proceeded at a rapid pace, where conditions for the development of bourgeois relations in the economy were more favorable than in central Russia. The domestic market was developing more dynamically. Quantitative and qualitative changes in the structure of exports of Russian goods are characterized positively.

Social class struggle in the second half of the 18th century. Deterioration of the situation of peasants, Cossacks, peoples of national regions. The spread of serfdom to new areas and new categories of the population was accompanied by an increase in corvée, quitrent and other duties in favor of the landowners and the state. The unlimited arbitrariness of the landowners was legalized. The retail sale of peasants took on massive proportions.

The situation of the non-Russian peoples inhabiting the Volga and Urals regions worsened significantly. The construction of fortresses and factories in Bashkiria was accompanied by the seizure or purchase of land and forests for next to nothing. The clergy forced the Bashkirs and the peoples of the Volga region to accept Christianity.

The bulk of the Yaik Cossacks were in a difficult situation, whose autonomy was limited from year to year. Discontent grew among ordinary Cossacks, who were oppressed by the wealthy elite and tsarist officials.

Peasant warrior under the leadership of Pugachev. The strengthening of serfdom led to the aggravation of class contradictions, which resulted in a peasant wave under the leadership of the Don Cossack E. Pugachev.

Arrested by the authorities for attempting to act as a petitioner on behalf of ordinary Cossacks, Pugachev fled and hid on the Yaik River. Here he declared himself Emperor Peter III and in 1773 decided to lead the uprising of the Yaik Cossacks, who were severely punished by the tsarist government for the unrest of 1772.

At the first stage of the war (autumn 1773 - spring 1774), mainly Cossacks and Tatars were drawn into the movement. The second stage (from March to July 1774) is characterized by the involvement of working people of the Ural factories in the struggle, who played a major role in the movement.

At the third stage (from July 1774 until the end of the uprising), the entire mass of serf peasants of the Volga region rose up. Despite the diverse social composition of the rebels, the uprising in its demands and methods of struggle had a pronounced peasant character.

On September 17, 1773, a detachment of 80 Cossacks led by Pugachev moved to the Yaitsky town, which they failed to take and the detachment headed towards Orenburg. Pugachev did it without meeting resistance. Cossacks and soldiers went over to the side of the rebels, garrisons and city residents greeted them with bread and salt and the ringing of bells. At the beginning of October 1773, after an unsuccessful assault, they began the siege of Orenburg. The rebel army included detachments of Cossacks, bankers, Tatars, Kalmyks, and fugitive peasants.

Near Orenburg, the organization of the Pugachev army into regiments began, which were divided into hundreds and dozens. Cossack, Bashkir, peasant and mining regiments were created.

Pugachev's army had artillery, which was a serious force. The situation with handguns was bad. Most of the rebels were armed with axes, scythes, bows, and spears.

During the peasant war, a central body of the rebels arose - the State Military Collegium, which performed the functions of the main headquarters, the supreme court and the supply body for troops. The activities of the military college introduced elements of organization and order into the uprising, which were absent, for example, in the uprising led by Razin.

During the siege of Orenburg, the slogans of the uprising were more clearly defined. If in his first manifesto (October 17, 1773), addressed to the Yaik Cossacks, there is not a word about serfdom, landowners and peasants (since the detachment consisted of Cossacks), then the decree of December 1, 1773 directly calls the landowners criminals, villains and calls for taking their lives, and taking all their property for themselves, since it was acquired by robbing peasants.

The tsarist government, alarmed by the news of the uprising, sent several detachments of regular troops to help besieged Orenburg, which were defeated by the Pugachevites in early November 1773. Moreover, many soldiers went over to the side of the rebels.

The uprising continued to expand, with dozens of detachments operating over a vast territory. The movement spread to Siberia, and even Moscow itself became restless. The growing scale of the uprising forced the government to send large military units to suppress it. Having pulled significant forces towards Orenburg, the tsarist troops in March 1774 defeated Pugachev and forced him to retreat.

The uprising has entered a new stage. Now the factories of the Southern Urals and Bashkiria have become its strongholds. However, in this region, ravaged and devastated, Pugachev failed to gain a foothold. The bulk of the Cossacks remained on Yaik and the majority of the rebel army was now made up of the peoples of the Urals and assigned peasants.

After a series of battles in the Middle Urals, the main forces of the rebels moved to Kazan, to the main areas of landownership and serfdom. This threw the landowners into panic, forced the government to rush to end the Russian-Turkish war, and to mobilize all forces to fight the rebels.

At the beginning of July 1774, Pugachev’s army captured Kazan. Only the Kazan Kremlin remained unoccupied. The rebels were preparing to storm it, but at that moment government troops approached and, as a result of a fierce battle, the rebels suffered a crushing defeat. With a small detachment, Pugachev, pursued by the tsarist troops, retreated to the south. It was during this period that the peasant war reached its greatest extent and acquired a pronounced anti-serfdom character. Pugachev's transition to the right bank of the Volga was a signal for a grandiose peasant uprising.

At the end of July 1774, Pugachev published a manifesto, which most fully reflected the ideology of the peasantry. In this document, Pugachev guaranteed liberation from serfdom, the abolition of duties, free Cossack self-government, and the transfer of all lands to the peasants.

In August 1774, Pugachev approached Tsaritsyn, but could not take it, and a few days later he was defeated and went beyond the Volga.

Seeing that the uprising was failing, the wealthy Yaik Cossacks captured Pugachev in September 1774 and handed him over to the authorities. He was soon taken to Moscow and executed in January 1775.

After the execution of Pugachev, the struggle of the popular masses continued in the Volga region, the Kama region and the Urals until August 1775, but fierce repressions extinguished these last centers of uprising. The reprisal of the punitive forces took the form of real terror. The landowners and tsarist authorities took cruel revenge on the participants in the uprising. This revenge assumed such proportions that the government was forced to moderate the ardor of the punitive forces, fearing that the terror would lead to a resumption of the uprising. Thus ended the last peasant war in the history of Russia, in which the Russian peasant, the mining worker and the Cossack, the peoples of the Volga region, the Udmurts and the Bashkirs opposed the serfdom system.

The wider spread of serfdom caused a significant deterioration in the situation of the peoples of the Volga region, the Urals, and part of the Cossacks; exacerbated class contradictions and began to cause the largest popular uprising in Russian history.

Peasant War 1773-1775 had a number of features compared to the uprisings led by Bolotnikov and Razin. If there were many nobles in Bolotnikov’s army, which indicated the absence of a clear social demarcation, then Pugachev ordered to “execute by death” all the gentlemen, and to “take all their property as a reward.” For Razin, in the sphere of management, things did not go further than the Cossack circle, but for Pugachev, along with the Cossack circle, a Military Collegium was created, which represented the first attempt to lead the uprising from a single center. What gave the Pugachev uprising its originality was its participation in the movement of working people in the mining and processing Urals.

Russian foreign policy in the second half of the 18th century. Main directions and tasks of foreign policy. Russian foreign policy in the second half of the 18th century was aimed at solving traditional problems inherited from previous times: the reunification of all Ukrainian and Belarusian lands with Russia; establishment on the Black Sea coast and elimination of the danger from Turkey and its vassal - the Crimean Khan; consolidation of positions in the Baltic Sea.

A new characteristic feature of Russian foreign policy, compared to the previous period, was the sharply increased activity and significant increase in the influence of the Russian state on international affairs. The desire of the ruling circles to use foreign policy successes to weaken the beginning of the disintegration of the feudal system was increasingly noticeable; by acquiring new lands, soften internal contradictions and suppress the struggle of the serf peasantry.

Balance of power in Europe. Russia's participation in the Seven Years' War. An indicator of Russia's increased influence on international life was its active participation in the largest international conflict of the mid-18th century. – the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), which was waged by two opposing coalitions of European states: Austria, France, Spain, Sweden, Russia and Saxony - on the one hand; England, Portugal and Prussia - on the other. Thus, almost all European states took part in this war. The goals of the fighting factions diverged sharply. England and France fought for colonies and dominance on sea routes. Prussia fought a war to expand its territories in Germany at the expense of Austria and Saxony. Russia did not want the further strengthening of Prussia, since this posed a threat to Russian possessions in the Baltic states.

In 1756, Prussia attacked Saxony, captured its capital and defeated the Austrian army coming to the aid of Saxony. This forced the Austrian government to ask Russia for help. In the summer of 1757, Russian troops fought in East Prussia and inflicted a serious defeat on the Prussian army near Gross-Jägersdorf. All of East Prussia was occupied by the Russians. In August 1758, at the Battle of Zorndorf, the Prussians suffered another defeat. The decisive battle took place in August 1759 at Kunersdorf, where the army of the Prussian king Frederick II was completely defeated. In October 1760, Russian troops entered Berlin.

Russian-Turkish wars in the second half of the 18th century. If Peter I achieved a lot in resolving the Baltic problem, then during the reign of Catherine II it was possible to achieve major successes in advancing to the Black Sea. By this time, the conditions for the aggressive plans of tsarism had developed very favorable. The Seven Years' War split all of Europe into two camps. England broke the power of the French at sea. After the defeat in the Northern War, Sweden could not seriously threaten Russia from the north. In the south, the Turks and their tributaries, the Crimean Tatars, were only fragments of their former greatness. Poland was in a state of complete collapse.

The Black Sea problem had become particularly acute for Russia by this time. The growth in the marketability of Russian agriculture increased the interest of landowners in the fertile lands of southern Russia. To develop these lands, it was necessary to make the southern border of the state more durable. The expansion of foreign trade required the possession of the mouths of the Dnieper and Don, cut off from Russia. Thus, the economic interests of the nobility and merchants were closely intertwined with the tasks of strengthening the southern borders of the country.

At this time, the Turkish fleet reigned supreme in the Black Sea, and the Crimean Peninsula was a convenient springboard for Turkey’s attack on Russia. In 1768, Türkiye issued an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Poland. Having been refused, she declared war on Russia. In the winter of 1768-1769. Crimean Tatars, on the orders of the Turkish Sultan, attacked the southern outskirts of Russia. This last Tatar invasion in Russian history was successfully repelled by Russian troops.

Military operations against Turkey were carried out simultaneously on three fronts: in the southwest (Danube), in the south (Crimea), and in Transcaucasia. Attempts by the Turkish army to break into Russia failed. The Turks were stopped by troops under the command of the talented commander Rumyantsev. Thus, the fighting of 1768-1769 ended in failure for the Turks, and the Russian army did not achieve much success either. But already in 1770, Russia won major victories in the famous battles of Larga and Kagul, where, under the leadership of Rumyantsev, Turkish troops were defeated, although their numbers significantly outnumbered the Russian army.

The Russian fleet performed brilliantly. The squadron under the command of G.A. Spiridova made the transition from the Baltic Sea around Europe to the Mediterranean Sea. In June 1770, the Turkish fleet, twice the size of the Russian squadron, was attacked and burned in Chesme Bay.

In 1771, the Russian army occupied Crimea. In 1773-1774 A.V. won a number of victories. Suvorov, inflicting huge losses on the Turks. The advanced detachments of the Russians advanced beyond the Balkans.

In July 1774, as a result of the complete defeat of Turkey, a peace treaty was signed in the village of Kuchuk-Kainardzhi, according to which the Crimean Khanate was declared independent from Turkey. Kerch, Yenikale, Azov, and Kinburn went to Russia. The Black Sea and the straits were open to Russian merchant shipping. Russia received the right to unlimited construction of a fleet in the Black Sea. Türkiye recognized Russia's patronage over Moldavia and Wallachia. As a result, the southern border of Russia became incomparably stronger both from the Crimea and the Caucasus, where Kabarda came into Russian possession.

However, Türkiye did not want to come to terms with the further strengthening of Russia in the south. The aggravation of relations between them led to the second Russian-Turkish war (1787-1791). The first period of the war ended in 1788 with the capture of the strong Turkish fortress of Ochakov. In 1789, Russian troops under the command of Suvorov won brilliant victories at Focsani and Rymnik; at the end of the same year, the Turkish fort Gadzhibey was occupied, on the site of which the most important city of Odessa later arose. The largest battle in which Suvorov showed his outstanding leadership talent, and the Russian troops showed heroism, was the capture of the powerful Turkish fortress of Izmail in 1790. The fall of Ishmael had a significant impact on the entire course of the war.

Türkiye also suffered setbacks at sea, where the outstanding Russian naval commander F.F. won a number of victories. Ushakov. Using new tactics, the Russian fleet, numerically inferior to the Turks, inflicted crushing defeats on the island of Tendre (1790) and at Cape Kaliakria (1791), as a result of which the Turkish fleet capitulated.

According to the Treaty of Yassy (1791), the Black Sea coast from the Southern Bug to the Dniester was transferred to Russia, and the act of 1783 on the annexation of Crimea and Kuban to Russia was confirmed.

Russian participation in the partitions of Poland. In the second half of the 18th century. Poland was experiencing a deep crisis. While its neighboring countries became strong, centralized states, feudal anarchy reigned in Poland.

Prussia and Austria had long come up with plans to divide Poland, but the Russian government did not go through with it, hoping to extend its influence throughout Poland. However, the threat that Austria and Prussia would implement the set of plans without Russia's participation forced Catherine II to accept the plan of the Prussian king Frederick II to divide Poland.

As a pretext for interference in the internal affairs of this country, the issue of granting equal rights to Catholics to the population of the Orthodox and Lutheran faiths was used. According to the treaty signed in 1772, the first partition of Poland was carried out by Austria, Prussia and Russia. Austria received Western Ukraine, and Prussia received the Polish coast of the Baltic measles. Eastern Belarus went to Russia.

In 1793, the second partition of Poland took place, as a result of which the central part of Belarus and Right Bank Ukraine went to Russia. Prussia captured the entire western part of Poland.

The third partition of Poland was carried out in 1795 after the suppression of the uprising of Polish patriots under the leadership of Kosciuszko by Prussian and Russian troops. Lithuania, Western Belarus, Western Volyn and Courland went to Russia. Austria captured the southern part of Poland, and Prussia captured its central part with Warsaw. Poland as a state ceased to exist.

Russia's participation in coalitions against bourgeois France. The turning point in the foreign policy of tsarism was the bourgeois revolution in France, towards which the overwhelming majority of the Russian nobility took a hostile position. The execution of King Louis XVI in January 1793 led to the final break with France and the beginning of the intervention. In 1793, Russia entered into an agreement with England, Prussia and Austria, pledging to help in their fight against revolutionary France, participating in its economic blockade. At the end of 1795, the Triple Alliance was concluded between Russia, England and Austria, and Russia was already preparing a 60,000-strong corps under the command of Suvorov for the war with France. Catherine's death in 1796 marked the beginning of the intervention.

Paul I, who ascended the throne, continued the fight against France. In 1798, a new anti-French coalition was created, which included England, Austria, Turkey and Russia; the center of military operations of the coalition was Italy and the Mediterranean Sea, where the fleets of England and Russia were moved. The Russian fleet under the command of F.F. Ushakova entered the Adriatic Sea in the summer of 1798, captured the Ionian Islands, and then, after a brilliantly carried out siege and assault, forced the surrender of the strongest French fortress on the island of Corfu.

In the summer of 1799, Russian troops landed in Italy and fought through the entire Apennine Peninsula and expelled the French from Naples and Rome. At the same time, ground forces under the command of Suvorov began their famous Italian campaign in April 1799. A.V. Suvorov, with an army that was many times outnumbered by the enemy, won one victory after another. All of Northern Italy was liberated from the French.

Fearing the strengthening of Russia's position in Italy, Austria achieved the transfer of Russian troops to Switzerland. In August 1799, the heroic transition of A.V. began. Suvorov through the Alps. Having captured the St. Gotthard Pass, Russian troops inflicted another defeat on the French at the Devil's Bridge. Intensified contradictions between the allies led in 1800 to Russia's withdrawal from the anti-French coalition.

By the end of the 18th century, Russia had solved its main foreign policy problems: access to the Azov and Black Seas was obtained, the constant aggression of Crimea and Turkey was ended, the fertile lands of the South became part of Russia; The absolute majority of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands were united in a single state.

The reforms of Peter I have always caused heated debate in Russian society and in domestic historical science. Assessments of the reforms differed even during the life of the emperor. There is no clear position today. The closest associates of Peter I adhered to the opinion that, in the formulation of M.V. Lomonosov sounded like this: “He is your God, your God was Russia!” At the same time, there was an opinion among the people (especially among the Old Believers) that Peter I was the Antichrist.

Already in pre-revolutionary historiography, two extreme points of view emerged in assessing the consequences of Peter’s reforms. Some believed that Peter I disrupted the “natural” course of the country’s development. Others believed that Russia was prepared for transformation by the previous period of historical development (S.M. Solovyov). There were also less radical approaches. For example, N.Ya. Danilevsky proposed a differentiated understanding of the transformations of Peter I, highlighting two sides of his activity: state and reformative (changes in life, morals, customs). “The first activity,” said N.Ya. Danilevsky, deserves the eternal grateful, reverent memory of posterity.” “Reformative” changes were brought, according to N.Ya. Danilevsky, “the greatest harm to the future of Russia,” since “life was forcibly turned upside down in a foreign way.”

Diverging in their assessment of the actions of Peter I, everyone agreed that their result was a radical revolution in Russia, which was considered useful by some, and harmful to Russian interests by others. What some considered a great service to the Fatherland, others considered a criminal deviation from tradition. In particular, historian and writer N.M. Karamzin accused Peter I of betraying the “true Russian” principles of life, and called his reforms a “brilliant mistake.” Some are convinced that the transformations were “the struggle of despotism against the inertia of the people” (V.O. Klyuchevsky), others believe that the result of the activities of Peter I was the conservation of feudalism in Russia, the inhibition of the processes of emancipation of private property, especially at the most massive, peasant level.

In general, the majority of domestic historians fully appreciate the state activities of Peter I, who “dramatically intensified the processes taking place in the country and forced it to take a giant leap.”

The transformations of Peter I caused changes in the systemic qualities of political life and the functions of the institutions of the Russian political system; meant the beginning of the modernization of society according to the secondary (lagging) model.

Questions for self-control:

1. Give a description of the main foreign policy tasks of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century.

2. Name the features of the implementation of foreign policy objectives of that period.

3. What was the change in the main direction of Peter I’s foreign policy after his visit to Western Europe?

4. What do you know about the victories of the Russian fleet over the Swedes?

5. Describe the results of the Northern War.

6. Give a periodization of Russian foreign policy at the end of the 17th - first quarter of the 18th century.

7. Name the features of economic development under Peter I.

8. What was the essence of reforms in industry in the first quarter of the 18th century?

9. List the main changes in agriculture.

10. Define the essence of “enlightened absolutism” in Russia .

11. Describe the policy of Catherine II towards the peasantry.

12. Determine the essence of qualitative changes in the feudal-serf system of Russia.

13. Name new features in the development of agriculture.

14. What were the changes in the organization of industry and trade?

15. What changes have occurred in the situation of the masses.

16. Determine the main stages, features and reasons for the defeat of the peasant war under the leadership of Pugachev.

17. Describe the main directions of Russian foreign policy in the second half of the 18th century.

18. How did the first Russian-Turkish war end?

19. Name the reasons for Russia’s participation in the partitions of Poland.

20. What are the main results of Russia’s foreign policy activities in the second half of the 18th century?

1. Akimov V.V. Course of lectures on the history of the Fatherland. M., 1997.

2. Aniskin B.A. 100 great people of Russia of all times and peoples. M., 1997.

3. Beskrovny L.G. Russian army and navy in the 18th century. M., 1958.

4. Vernadsky G.V. Russian history. M., 2001.

5. Dvornichenko A.D. Russian history: A guide for applicants to universities. St. Petersburg, 1997.

6. Dragan G.N. Russian history. M., 1997.

7. Zolotarev V.A. and others. For the glory of the Russian Fatherland: the development of military thought and military art in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. M., 1984.

8. “The Golden Age” of Catherine the Great: Memoirs. M., 1996.

9. History of the Fatherland. M., 2002.

10. History of Russia. M., 2003.

11. History of the Russian state. M., 2001.

12. Kostin V.I. National history. Nizhny Novgorod, 2002.