Russia in the second half of the 17th century. Russia of the second half of the 17th century

Alexey Mikhailovich (1645-1676)

Alexey Mikhailovich experienced a turbulent era of “rebellions” and wars, rapprochement and discord with Patriarch Nikon. Under him, Russia's possessions expanded in the east, in Siberia, and in the west. Active diplomatic activity is being carried out.

Much has been done in the field of domestic policy. A course was pursued to centralize control and strengthen the autocracy. The backwardness of the country dictated the invitation of foreign specialists in manufacturing, military affairs, first experiments, attempts at transformation (establishing schools, regiments of the new system, etc.).

In the middle of the 17th century. tax burden has increased. The treasury felt the need for money both for the maintenance of the expanding apparatus of power, and in connection with an active foreign policy (wars with Sweden, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). According to the figurative expression of V.O. Klyuchevsky, “the army seized the treasury.” The government of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich increased indirect taxes, raising the price of salt by 4 times in 1646. However, the increase in the salt tax did not lead to replenishment of the treasury, since the solvency of the population was undermined. The salt tax was abolished in 1647. It was decided to collect arrears for the last three years. The entire amount of the tax fell on the population of the “black” settlements, which caused discontent among the townspeople. In 1648 it resulted in an open uprising in Moscow.

At the beginning of June 1648, Alexei Mikhailovich, returning from a pilgrimage, was presented with a petition from the Moscow population demanding to punish the most selfish representatives of the tsarist administration. However, the demands of the townspeople were not satisfied, and they began to destroy merchants' and boyars' houses. Several major dignitaries were killed. The Tsar was forced to expel boyar B.I. Morozov, who headed the government, from Moscow. With the help of bribed archers, whose salaries were increased, the uprising was suppressed.

The uprising in Moscow, called the “salt riot,” was not the only one. Over the course of twenty years (from 1630 to 1650), uprisings took place in 30 Russian cities: Veliky Ustyug, Novgorod, Voronezh, Kursk, Vladimir, Pskov, and Siberian cities.

Cathedral Code of 1649“For the sake of fear and civil strife from all black people,” as Patriarch Nikon later wrote, the Zemsky Sobor was convened. Its meetings took place in 1648-1649. and ended with the adoption of the “Conciliar Code” of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. It was the largest Zemsky Sobor in the history of Russia. 340 people took part in it, the majority of whom (70%) belonged to the nobility and the elite of the settlement.

The “Conciliar Code” consisted of 25 chapters and contained about a thousand articles. Printed in an edition of two thousand copies, it was the first Russian legislative monument published in printing, and remained valid until 1832 (with changes, of course). It was translated into almost all European languages.

The first three chapters of the Code spoke about crimes against the church and royal power. Any criticism of the church and blasphemy was punishable by burning at the stake. Persons accused of treason and insulting the honor of the sovereign, as well as boyars and governors, were executed. Those who “will come in a crowd and in a conspiracy, and teach someone to rob or beat,” were ordered to be “deathed without any mercy.” A person who drew a weapon in the presence of the king was punished by cutting off his hand.

The "Conciliar Code" regulated the performance of various services, the ransom of prisoners, customs policy, regulations various categories population in the state.. It provided for the exchange of estates, including the exchange of estates for patrimony. Such a transaction was required to be registered in the Local Order. The “Conciliar Code” limited the growth of church land ownership, which reflected the tendency for the church to subordinate to the state.

The most important section of the “Conciliar Code” was Chapter XI “The Court of Peasants”: an indefinite search for fugitive and taken away peasants was introduced, and peasant transfers from one owner to another were prohibited. This meant the legalization of the serfdom system. Simultaneously with the privately-owned peasants, serfdom extended to the black sowing and palace peasants, who were forbidden to leave their communities. If they escaped, they were also subject to indefinite investigation.

Chapter XIX of the “Cathedral Code” “On the townspeople” brought changes to the life of the city. The “white” settlements were liquidated, their population was included in the settlement. The entire urban population had to bear the tax on the sovereign. Under penalty of death, it was prohibited to move from one posad to another and even to marry women from another posad, i.e. the population of the posad was assigned to a specific city. Citizens received a monopoly right to trade in cities. Peasants did not have the right to keep shops in cities, but could only trade from carts and in shopping arcades.

By the middle of the 17th century. Russia, having restored its economy, could focus on solving foreign policy problems. In the northwest, the primary concern was regaining access to the Baltic Sea. In the west, the task was to return the Smolensk, Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversky lands lost during the Polish-Lithuanian intervention. The solution to this problem has become more acute due to the struggle of the Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples for reunification with Russia. In the south of Russia, it was constantly necessary to repel the incessant raids of the Crimean Khan, a vassal of powerful Turkey.

The Zaporozhye Sich became the center of the struggle against foreign enslavers in the 40-50s of the 17th century. To protect against raids Crimean Tatars here, beyond the Dnieper rapids, the Cossacks built a special system of fortifications from felled trees - “zaseki” (hence the name of this territory). Here, in the lower reaches of the Dnieper, a kind of Cossack republic, a free military brotherhood led by elected koshevoy and kuren atamans, took shape.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, wanting to attract the Cossacks to its side, began to compile special lists - registers. A Cossack registered in the register was called a registered Cossack, was considered to be in the service of the Polish king and received a salary. In accordance with the established order, the hetman was at the head of the Zaporozhye army. In 1648, Bohdan Khmelnytsky was elected hetman of the Zaporozhye Sich, receiving the traditional signs of power: a mace, a bunchuk and a military seal.

He showed himself early as a talented leader. The Cossacks elected him to the post of military clerk (one of the most important in the Zaporozhye Sich).

Like many other residents of Ukraine, Bogdan Khmelnitsky experienced cruelty and injustice on the part of foreign enslavers. So, the Polish nobleman Chaplinsky attacked the farm of B. Khmelnitsky, plundered the house, burned the apiary and threshing floor, pinned his ten-year-old son to death, and took away his wife. In 1647, B. Khmelnitsky openly opposed the Polish government.

B. Khmelnitsky understood that the fight against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would require enormous effort, and therefore, from the first steps of his activities, he advocated an alliance with Russia, seeing in it a faithful ally of Ukraine. However, urban uprisings were raging in Russia at that time, and, moreover, it was not yet strong enough to enter into confrontation with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Therefore, at first, Russia limited itself to providing economic assistance and diplomatic support to Ukraine.

Having announced the general mobilization of the gentry, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth moved its troops against the army of B. Khmelnitsky. In the summer of 1649, near Zborov (Prikarpattya), B. Khmelnytsky defeated the Polish army. The Polish government was forced to conclude the Peace of Zborov. According to this agreement, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth recognized B. Khmelnytsky as hetman of Ukraine.

The Zboriv peace turned out to be a temporary truce. In the summer of 1651, the superior forces of the Polish magnates met with the troops of B. Khmelnitsky. The defeat at Berestechko and the defeat of individual uprisings by punitive expeditions forced B. Khmelnitsky to conclude peace at Bila Tserkva on difficult terms.

On October 1, 1653, war was declared on Poland. An embassy headed by boyar Buturlin left for Ukraine. On January 8, 1654, a Rada (Council) was held in the city of Pereyaslavl (now Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky). Ukraine was accepted into the Russian state. Russia recognized the election of the hetman, the local court and other authorities that emerged during the liberation war. The tsarist government confirmed the class rights of the Ukrainian nobility. Ukraine received the right to establish diplomatic relations with all countries except Poland and Turkey, and to have registered troops of up to 60 thousand people. Taxes were supposed to go to the royal treasury. The reunification of Ukraine with Russia was of enormous historical significance. It freed the people of Ukraine from national and religious oppression and saved them from the danger of enslavement by Poland and Turkey. It contributed to the formation of the Ukrainian nation. The reunification of Ukraine with Russia led to a temporary weakening of serfdom relations on the Left Bank (serfdom was legally introduced in Ukraine in the second half of the 18th century).

The reunification of Left Bank Ukraine with Russia was important factor fortifications Russian statehood. Thanks to reunification with Ukraine, Russia managed to return the Smolensk and Chernigov lands, which made it possible to begin the fight for the Baltic coast. In addition, a favorable prospect opened up for expanding Russia’s ties with other Slavic peoples and Western states.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did not recognize the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. The Russian-Polish war became inevitable. The war was marked by the success of Russian and Ukrainian troops. Russian troops occupied Smolensk, Belarus, Lithuania; Bohdan Khmelnitsky - Lublin, a number of cities in Galicia and Volyn.

Sweden opened military action against her. The Swedes took Warsaw and Krakow. Poland stood on the brink of destruction.

Alexei Mikhailovich, counting on the royal throne, declared Sweden a warrior (1656-1658). A Russian-Polish truce was concluded.

Russia's successes were crossed out by the betrayal of the Ukrainian hetman I. Vygovsky, who replaced B. Khmelnitsky, who died in 1657. I. Vygovsky entered into a secret alliance with Poland against Russia.

In 1658, a Russian-Swedish truce was concluded for three years, and in 1661 - the Kardis (near Tartu) peace. Russia was returning the territories it had conquered during the war. The Baltic remained with Sweden. The problem of access to the Baltic Sea remained the top priority and most important task of foreign policy.

The grueling, protracted Russian-Polish war ended in 1667 with the conclusion of the Andrusovo (near Smolensk) truce for thirteen and a half years. Russia abandoned Belarus, but retained Smolensk and Left Bank Ukraine. Kyiv, located on the right bank of the Dnieper, was transferred to Russia for two years (after the end of this period it was never returned). Zaporozhye came under the joint control of Ukraine and Poland.

The collection of Russian lands by Moscow (14th century), their acquisition of political independence (15th century), and the formation of a centralized state had a significant impact on the development of entrepreneurial activity.

In the second half of the 15th century. The number of merchants increased significantly, and the field of their activity expanded noticeably. Traders appeared, constantly associated with various lands of the country, or with foreign countries. It is to this period that most mentions of cloth makers, Surozhans, and guests from Moscow, Novgorod, and Pskov date back. These names still reflected the merchants' affiliation with individual territories or the main direction of trade operations. However, the guest was already more sharply contrasted with the merchant, the clothier and the Surozhan, and the chroniclers did not confuse the first with other trading people.

With the unification of the Russian lands, Moscow became not only the royal residence, but also the center of the country's trade. The capital's highest merchant class was gaining more and more influence on political events. It is also characteristic that merchants began to actively subsidize the royal power. With the help of guests and clothiers, Prince Yuri Galitsky at the beginning of the 15th century. managed to pay off his many creditors. Appanage princes often became debtors to merchants and moneylenders. Rich Moscow guests (V. Khovrin, A. Shikhov, G. Bobynya) repeatedly supplied the grand dukes with money. They also participated in the stone construction of the 15th century. So, in 1425-1427. At the expense of the Moscow guest Ermola (the founder of the Ermolin dynasty), the Spassky Cathedral of the Andronikov Monastery in Moscow was built.

In foreign affairs, guests increasingly traveled abroad with ambassadors, serving as translators and consultants on political and commercial matters. This put them in a specific relationship with the apparatus state power and set Moscow apart from other trading people.

In turn, the merchant elite was used in the interests of the unification policy of the Moscow princes. By officially assigning certain responsibilities to Moscow guests, the government turned them into conductors of the grand ducal policy of the Moscow princes. By officially assigning certain responsibilities to Moscow guests, the government turned them into faithful conductors of the grand ducal policy both within the state and outside it.

In the 16th century trade began to grow in size. The center of business activity of Russian cities in the 15-17 centuries. guest courtyards became. Merchants stayed here, their goods were stored and trade transactions were carried out. The Gostiny Dvor was a rectangular area surrounded by a stone or wooden fortress-type wall with towers at the corners and above the gate. Two- and three-story retail and warehouse premises were installed on the inner sides of the walls. To pay customs duties, traders built a customs hut. The courtyard area gradually began to be lined with shops facing the interior and exterior.

Government policy towards commercial and industrial circles during the reign of Ivan the Terrible was marked by contradictions. On the one hand, the tsar showed signs of attention to those representatives of the merchant class who constantly emphasized their loyalty and provided him not only material, but also political support. The Stroganov family, known for its power since the 16th century, gained the greatest fame. The founder of the giant farm, Anika Fedorovich Stroganov (1497-1570), settled in his family nest (Solvychegodsk), was able to crush competitors and bring the country's largest salt mines under his control. In addition, the Stroganovs had ironworking and blacksmithing, fair trade, and fur mining, trade in fish, icons and other various goods.

The most famous is the role of the Stroganovs in colonization activities on the outskirts of Russia. The children of the founder of the trading house - Yakov, Gregory and Semyon - formed a kind of border state on the routes to Siberia, concentrating economic and political rights on its territory, taking advantage of the fact that the government, weakened by the Livonian War, could not adequately control the new territories.

In 1579, in the Stroganovs' possessions there was one town, 39 villages, repairs with 203 courtyards and one monastery founded by them. The significance of the activities of representatives of this kind lies in the assertion of Russian influence on the Siberian lands. Let us note another side of their business activity. Making profits from usurious bonded loan transactions with peasants, townspeople and merchants, and guests, the Stroganovs built craft enterprises with specialized manual labor.

The other side of Ivan the Terrible’s policy towards the merchants was based on harsh terror against their part in the conditions of the oprichnina. This was most clearly manifested in the defeat of Novgorod (1570). Researchers paid attention to the goals of the action: firstly, to replenish the empty royal treasury by robbing the rich commercial and industrial elite of Novgorod; secondly, to terrorize the town, especially the lower strata of the urban population, to suppress elements of discontent in it.

One way or another, among the murdered guests of Novgorod were representatives of wealthy families, merchant elders. A blow to the economy of the northwestern lands was the forced transfer of 250 families from the top of the trading world to Moscow. In an effort to subjugate rich merchants, Ivan the Terrible united them with artisans and small city traders into one class of townspeople. All this indicated that state pressure made it impossible to expand the independence of not only the merchants, but also the country’s elite. A situation arose in which the autocracy subordinated the activities of the merchants to the goals of the feudal state.

The 17th century can be called a milestone that marked the beginning of a gradual erosion of the positions of feudalism and at the same time the growth of market relations. However, the events of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. did not leave much hope for success for enterprising people. The hard times of the Time of Troubles did not create the much-needed stability. However, by the middle of the 17th century. managed to overcome the consequences of a national disaster.

The emerging all-Russian market determined the characteristic features of the Russian merchants, who increasingly acted as buyers. It was the buyers who gained a dominant position in the market, displacing direct producers.

During this period, two forms of capital accumulation clearly emerged. Wholesale trade, which was permanent, became the leading one. It was accompanied by merchants buying goods from direct producers and repurchasing them from other traders. The merchants increasingly used state and private credit. Goods in wholesale trade were mainly products (bread, salt, fish, meat) and raw materials (hemp, leather).

The second form of capital accumulation was government contracts; their profitability was due to the fact that the treasury pre-paid part of the amount due for the contract. The merchant-contractor could invest this money in any enterprise at his discretion.

During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), a slow growth of manufacturing production began. Initially, large-scale industry was formed mainly in the depths of the patrimonial economy. The transition to the construction of factories with partial use of civilian labor was complicated by the process of strengthening serf relations. Government events in the second half of the 17th century. prepared the foundation for subsequent reforms: in 1649, the Council Code granted townsfolk communities the exclusive right to engage in trade and industry, taking it away from the settlements. In the 1650-1660s. The tax duty was unified in the interests of domestic merchants.

The Customs Charter of 1653 and the New Trade Charter of 1667 became acts of Russian statehood that were clearly protectionist in nature and signified positive changes in the policy of Alexei Mikhailovich.

Foreign merchants were subject to higher taxes when selling goods on the domestic market. The abolition of small fees levied on Russian traders contributed to the development of the geography of trade relations.

Thus, Russia was not spared the impact of the policy of mercantilism. It is, first of all, characterized by following the formula: the wealth of the country is expressed in monetary capital. The mercantilists focused on foreign trade, the profits from which were expressed in a favorable balance of trade. At the same time, they understood that the basis of trade is the mass of goods entering the market, so the need to encourage agriculture, mining and manufacturing industries was also advocated.

In the second half of the 17th century. future centers of entrepreneurship were laid out in the country: metallurgy and metalworking (enterprises of the Tula-Serpukhov, Moscow regions); production of wood products (Tver, Kaluga); jewelry (Verkhny Ustyug, Novgorod, Tikhvin, Nizhny Novgorod). However, there was still a long way to go to formalize the class of entrepreneurs.

The final establishment of serfdom led to a constant increase in payments from peasants to the treasury and feudal lords. This, in turn, resulted in extremely slow demand in the fortress villages for manufactured goods and slow growth of the manufacturing industry. The percentage of merchant peasants in the total rural population was not so large. The dominance of feudal relations made it difficult to accumulate funds so necessary for engaging in trade and fettered the initiative of the peasants.

Nevertheless, peasant merchants influenced the formation of the all-Russian market. This was manifested in participation in auctions. Characteristic features of peasant trade were the presence of a small amount of free funds, a constant need for credit, a lack of specialization in a certain type of activity and stability in the position of a number of groups of traders. Dual control was exercised over merchant peasants: on the one hand, as over peasants, on the other, as over a group of the commercial and industrial population.

As for merchant factories, they remained a typical feudal phenomenon, since their goal was to facilitate the merchant’s turnover by producing goods that did not require large expenses. The entrepreneurial activity of merchant peasants in general differed little from the functioning of the capital of townsman merchants, which was due to the level of development of Russia at the end of the 17th century.

Thus, the sprouts of entrepreneurship broke through the soil of feudalism with great difficulty. Although transformative sentiments were in the air before the accession of Peter 1, however, the implementation of the most difficult task of strengthening the economic, military and political power of Russia; in new realities was associated with a new stage in the country's development.

Content

Introduction
I. Reforms of Peter I
1.1. Economic transformation
1.2. Church reform
1.3. Changes in the field of culture, science and everyday life
II. Reforms of Catherine II
Conclusion

Introduction
During the reign of Peter the Great, reforms were carried out in all areas of the country's public life. Many of these transformations go back to the 17th century. The socio-economic transformations of that time served as the prerequisites for Peter's reforms, the task and content of which was the formation of a noble-bureaucratic apparatus of absolutism.
Peter turned Russia into a truly European country (at least as he understood it) - it’s not for nothing that the expression “cut a window to Europe” became so frequently used. Milestones on this path were the conquest of access to the Baltic, the construction new capital– St. Petersburg, active interference in European politics.
Peter's activities created all the conditions for Russia's wider acquaintance with the culture, way of life, and technologies of European civilization.
Another important feature of Peter’s reforms was that they affected all layers of society, unlike previous attempts by Russian rulers. The construction of the fleet, the Northern War, the creation of a new capital - all this became the work of the entire country.
The reforms of Catherine II were also aimed at creating a powerful absolute state. The policy pursued by her in the 60s and early 70s was called the policy of enlightened absolutism. This policy brought closer the moment of transition of social life to a new, more progressive formation.
The time of Catherine II was the time of awakening of scientific, literary and philosophical interests in Russian society, the time of the birth of the Russian intelligentsia.

I. Reforms of Peter I

Economic transformation
During the Petrine era, the Russian economy, and above all industry, made a giant leap. At the same time, the development of the economy in the first quarter of the 18th century. It followed the paths outlined by the previous period. In the Moscow state of the 16th-17th centuries. There were large industrial enterprises - the Cannon Yard, the Printing Yard, arms factories in Tula, a shipyard in Dedinovo, etc. Peter's policy regarding economic life was characterized by a high degree of use of command and protectionist methods.
In agriculture, opportunities for improvement were drawn from the further development of fertile lands, the cultivation of industrial crops that provided raw materials for industry, the development of livestock farming, the advancement of agriculture to the east and south, as well as more intensive exploitation of peasants. The state's increased needs for raw materials for Russian industry led to the widespread spread of crops such as flax and hemp. The decree of 1715 encouraged the cultivation of flax and hemp, as well as tobacco, mulberry trees for silkworms. The decree of 1712 ordered the creation of horse breeding farms in the Kazan, Azov and Kyiv provinces, and sheep breeding was also encouraged.
In the Petrine era, the country sharply divided into two zones of feudal farming - the barren North, where the feudal lords transferred their peasants to cash quitrent, often releasing them to the city and other agricultural areas to earn money, and the fertile South, where noble landowners sought to expand the corvée system. .
State duties for peasants also increased. With their efforts, cities were built (40 thousand peasants worked for the construction of St. Petersburg), manufactories, bridges, roads; annual recruitment drives were carried out, old levies were increased and new ones were introduced. The main goal of Peter's policy was always to obtain as much monetary and human resources as possible for state needs.
Two censuses were carried out - 1710 and 1718. According to the census of 1718, the unit of taxation became the male “soul,” regardless of age, from which a poll tax of 70 kopecks per year was levied (from state peasants 1 ruble 10 kopecks per year). This streamlined tax policy and sharply increased state revenues.
In industry there was a sharp reorientation from small peasant and handicraft farms to manufactories. Under Peter, at least 200 new manufactories were founded, and he encouraged their creation in every possible way. State policy was also aimed at protecting the young Russian industry from Western European competition by introducing very high customs duties (Customs Charter of 1724).
Russian manufactory, although it had capitalist features, but the use of predominantly peasant labor - sessional, assigned, quitrent, etc. - made it a feudal enterprise. Depending on whose property they were, manufactories were divided into state-owned, merchant and landowner. In 1721, industrialists were given the right to buy peasants to assign them to the enterprise (possession peasants).
State-owned factories used the labor of state peasants, assigned peasants, recruits and free hired craftsmen. They mainly served heavy industry - metallurgy, shipyards, mines. The merchant manufactories, which produced mainly consumer goods, employed both sessional and quitrent peasants, as well as civilian labor. Landowner enterprises were fully supported by the serfs of the landowner-owner.
Peter's protectionist policy led to the emergence of manufactories in a wide variety of industries, often appearing in Russia for the first time. The main ones were those that worked for the army and navy: metallurgical, weapons, shipbuilding, cloth, linen, leather, etc. Entrepreneurial activity was encouraged, preferential conditions were created for people who created new manufactories or leased state ones.
Manufactories appeared in many industries - glass, gunpowder, papermaking, canvas, paint, sawmills and many others. Nikita Demidov, who enjoyed the special favor of the Tsar, made a huge contribution to the development of the metallurgical industry of the Urals. The emergence of the foundry industry in Karelia on the basis of Ural ores, the construction of the Vyshevolotsky Canal, contributed to the development of metallurgy in new areas, and brought Russia to one of the first places in the world in this industry. At the beginning of the 18th century. About 150 thousand pounds of cast iron were smelted in Russia, in 1725 - more than 800 thousand pounds (since 1722, Russia exported cast iron), and by the end of the 18th century. – more than 2 million poods.
By the end of Peter's reign, Russia had a developed diversified industry with centers in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and the Urals. The largest enterprises were the Admiralty Shipyard, Arsenal, St. Petersburg gunpowder factories, metallurgical plants in the Urals, and Khamovny Dvor in Moscow. The all-Russian market was being strengthened and capital was being accumulated thanks to the mercantilist policy of the state. Russia supplied competitive goods to world markets: iron, linen, potash, furs, caviar.
Thousands of Russians were trained in various specialties in Europe, and in turn, foreigners - weapons engineers, metallurgists, and locksmiths - were hired into Russian service. Thanks to this, Russia was enriched with the most advanced technologies in Europe.
As a result of Peter’s policy in the economic field, a powerful industry was created in an extremely short period of time, capable of fully meeting military and government needs and not depending on imports in any way.

1.2. Church reform

The church reform of Peter played an important role in the establishment of absolutism. In the second half of the 17th century. The positions of the Russian Orthodox Church were very strong; it retained administrative, financial and judicial autonomy in relation to the tsarist government. The last patriarchs Joachim (1675-1690) and Adrian (1690-1700) pursued policies aimed at strengthening these positions.
Peter's church policy, as well as his policy in other areas of public life. It was aimed primarily at using the church as efficiently as possible for the needs of the state, and more specifically, at squeezing money out of the church for government programs, primarily for the construction of the fleet. After Peter’s journey as part of the great embassy, ​​he was also occupied with the problem of the complete subordination of the church to its power.
The turn to a new policy occurred after the death of Patriarch Adrian. Peter orders an audit to take a census of the property of the Patriarchal House. Taking advantage of the information about the revealed abuses, Peter cancels the election of a new patriarch, at the same time entrusting Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan with the post of “locum tenens of the patriarchal throne.” In 1701, the Monastic Prikaz was formed - a secular institution to manage the affairs of the church. The Church begins to lose its independence from the state, the right to dispose of its property.
Peter, guided by the educational idea of ​​the public good, which requires the productive work of all members of society, launches an attack on monks and monasteries. In 1701, the royal decree limited the number of monks: for permission to take tonsure, you now need to apply to the Monastic Order. Subsequently, the king had the idea to use the monasteries as shelters for retired soldiers and beggars. In a decree of 1724, the number of monks in the monastery was directly dependent on the number of people they cared for.
The existing relationship between the church and the authorities required new legal registration. In 1721, a prominent figure of the Petrine era, Feofan Prokopovich, drew up the Spiritual Regulations, which provided for the destruction of the institution of the patriarchate and the formation of a new body - the Spiritual Collegium, which was soon renamed the “Holy Government Synod”, officially equal in rights with the Senate. Stefan Yavorsky became president, Feodosius Yanovsky and Feofan Prokopovich became vice-presidents.
The creation of the Synod was the beginning of the absolutist period of Russian history, since now all power, including church power, was concentrated in the hands of Peter. A contemporary reports that when Russian church leaders tried to protest, Peter pointed them to the Spiritual Regulations and declared: “Here is a spiritual patriarch for you, and if you don’t like him, then here is a damask patriarch (throwing a dagger on the table).”
The adoption of the Spiritual Regulations actually turned Russian clergy into government officials, especially since a secular person, the chief prosecutor, was appointed to supervise the Synod.
The church reform was carried out in parallel with the tax reform. Registration and classification of priests were carried out, and their lower strata were transferred to a per capita salary. According to the consolidated statements of the Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod and Astrakhan provinces (formed as a result of the division of the Kazan province), only 3,044 priests out of 8,709 (35%) were exempted from taxes. A violent reaction among priests was caused by the Resolution of the Synod of May 17, 1722, in which clergy were obliged to violate the secret of confession if they had the opportunity to communicate any information important to the state.
As a result of church reform, the church lost a huge part of its influence and became part of the state apparatus, strictly controlled and managed by secular authorities.

1.3. Changes in the field of culture, science and everyday life.
The process of Europeanization of Russia in the era of Peter the Great is the most controversial part of Peter’s reforms. Even before Perth, the preconditions for widespread Europeanization had been created, ties with foreign countries had noticeably strengthened, Western European cultural traditions were gradually penetrating into Russia, even barber shaving had its roots in the pre-Petrine era. In 1687, the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was opened - the first higher educational institution in Russia. And yet Peter’s activities were revolutionary. V.Ya. Ulanov wrote: “What was new in the formulation of the cultural question under Peter the Great was that now culture was called upon as a creative force not only in the field of special technology, but also in its broad cultural and everyday manifestations, and not only in application to a chosen society... but also in relation to the broad masses of the people."
The most important stage in the implementation of reforms was Peter’s visit to a number of European countries as part of the Grand Embassy. Upon his return, Peter sent many young nobles to Europe to study various specialties, mainly mastering marine sciences. The Tsar also cared about the development of education in Russia. In 1701, in Moscow, in the Sukharev Tower, the School of Mathematical and Navigational Sciences was opened, headed by a professor at the University of Aberdeen, the Scot Forvarson. One of the teachers of this school was Leonty Magnitsky, the author of “Arithmetic...” In 1711, an engineering school appeared in Moscow.
Peter strove to overcome as soon as possible the disunity between Russia and Europe that had arisen since the time of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. One of its appearances was different chronology, and in 1700 Peter transferred Russia to a new calendar - the year 7208 became 1700, and the New Year celebration was moved from September 1 to January 1.
In 1703, the first issue of the Vedomosti newspaper, the first Russian newspaper, was published in Moscow, and in 1702 the Kunsht troupe was invited to Moscow to create a theater.
Important changes took place in the life of the nobles, remaking the Russian nobility “in the image and likeness” of the European one. In 1717, the book “An Honest Mirror of Youth” was published - a kind of etiquette textbook, and from 1718 there were Assemblies - noble meetings modeled on European ones.
However, we must not forget that all these transformations came exclusively from above, and therefore were quite painful for both the upper and lower strata of society.
Peter strove to make Russia a European country in every sense of the word and attached great importance to even the smallest details of the process.

II. Reforms of Catherine II

As a result of the latter, in the 18th century. palace coup, carried out on June 28, 1762, the wife of Perth III was elevated to the Russian throne, who became Empress Catherine II (1762-1796).
Catherine II began her reign by confirming the Manifesto on the freedom of the nobility and generous gifts to the participants in the coup. Having proclaimed herself the successor of the work of Peter I, Catherine directed all her efforts towards creating a powerful absolute state.
In 1763, a Senate reform was carried out in order to streamline the work of the Senate, which had long ago turned into a bureaucratic institution. The Senate was divided into six departments with clearly defined functions for each. In 1763-1764. The secularization of church lands was carried out, which was associated with a reduction (from 881 to 385) in the number of monasteries. Thus, the economic viability of the church was undermined, which from now on became completely dependent on the state. The process of transforming the church into part of the state apparatus, begun by Peter I, was completed.
The economic base of the state has strengthened significantly. In 1764, the hetmanate in Ukraine was liquidated, control passed to the new Little Russian Collegium, located in Kyiv and headed by Governor General P.A. Rumyantsev. This was accompanied by the transfer of the mass of ordinary Cossacks to the position of peasants, and serfdom began to spread to Ukraine.
Catherine received the throne illegally and only thanks to the support of noble officers, she sought support in the nobility, realizing the fragility of her position. A whole series of decrees expanded and strengthened the class rights and privileges of the nobility. Manifesto of 1765 on the implementation General survey the nobility was assigned a monopoly right to own land, and sales to the nobility were also provided for 5 kopecks. for a tithe of serf lands and wastelands.
Super-preferential conditions for promotion to officer ranks were assigned to the nobility, and funds for the maintenance of class nobility educational institutions increased significantly. At the same time, the decrees of the 60s consolidated the omnipotence of the landowners and the complete lack of rights of the peasants. According to the Decree of 1767, any, even just, complaint from peasants against landowners was declared a grave state crime.
Thus, landowner power under Catherine II acquired wider legal boundaries.
Unlike her predecessors, Catherine II was a major and intelligent politician, a deft politician. Being well educated and familiar with the works of French enlighteners, she understood that it was no longer possible to rule with the old methods. The policy pursued by her in the 60s and early 70s. called the policy of enlightened absolutism. The socio-economic basis of the policy of enlightened absolutism was the development of a new capitalist structure, which destroyed old feudal relations.
The policy of enlightened absolutism was a natural stage of state development and, despite the half-heartedness of the reforms carried out, brought closer the moment of transition of social life to a new, more progressive formation.
Within two years, Catherine II drew up a program of new legislation in the form of an order for the convened commission to draw up a new Code, since the Code of 1649 was outdated. Catherine II’s “mandate” was the result of her previous reflections on educational literature and a unique perception of the ideas of French and German educators. The “mandate” concerned all the main parts of government, governance, supreme power, the rights and responsibilities of citizens, classes, and, to a greater extent, legislation and the courts. The “Nakaz” substantiated the principle of autocratic rule: “The sovereign is autocratic; for no other power, as soon as the power united in his person, can act similarly to the space of such a great state...” The guarantee against despotism, according to Catherine, was the establishment of the principle of strict legality, as well as the separation of the judicial power from the executive and the continuous transformation associated with it legal proceedings that eliminate outdated feudal institutions.
The economic policy program inevitably brought to the fore the peasant question, which was of great importance under the conditions of serfdom. The nobility showed itself as a reactionary force (with the exception of individual deputies), ready to defend serfdom by any means. Merchants and Cossacks thought about acquiring privileges to own serfs, and not about mitigating serfdom.
In the 60s, a number of decrees were issued that dealt a blow to the dominant system of monopolies. A decree of 1762 allowed the free opening of calico factories and sugar factories. In 1767, freedom of urban trades was declared, which was of great importance. Thus, the laws of the 60-70s. created favorable conditions for the growth of peasant industry and its development into capitalist production.
The time of Catherine II was the time of awakening of scientific, literary and philosophical interests in Russian society, the time of the birth of the Russian intelligentsia. Although it reached only a small part of the population, it was an important step forward. During the reign of Catherine, the first Russian charitable institutions appeared. Catherine's time is the heyday of Russian culture, this is the time of A.P. Sumarokova, D.I. Fonvizina, G.I. Derzhavina, N.I. Novikova, A.N. Radishcheva, D.G. Levitsky, F.S. Rokotova, etc.
In November 1796, Catherine passed away. Her son Paul (1796-1801) ascended the throne. Under Paul I, a course was established towards strengthening absolutism, maximum centralization of the state apparatus, and strengthening the personal power of the monarch.

Conclusion
The main result of the totality of Peter's reforms was the establishment of absolutism in Russia, the crown of which was the change in the title of the Russian monarch in 1721 - Perth declared himself emperor, and the country began to be called the Russian Empire. Thus, what Peter was aiming for all the years of his reign was formalized - the creation of a state with a coherent system of governance, a strong army and navy, a powerful economy, influencing international politics. As a result of Peter's reforms, the state was not bound by anything and could use any means to achieve its goals. As a result, Peter came to his ideal of government - a warship, where everything and everyone is subordinated to the will of one person - the captain, and managed to lead this ship out of the swamp into the stormy waters of the ocean, bypassing all the reefs and shoals.
The role of Peter the Great in the history of Russia is difficult to overestimate. No matter how you feel about the methods and style of his reforms, one cannot help but admit that Peter the Great is one of the most famous figures in world history.
All reforms of Catherine II were also aimed at creating a powerful absolutist state. The policy pursued by her was called the “policy of enlightened absolutism.”
On the one hand, Catherine proclaimed the advanced truths of educational philosophy (especially in the chapters on legal proceedings and economics), on the other hand, she confirmed the inviolability of the autocratic serfdom system. While strengthening absolutism, it maintained autocracy, introducing only adjustments (greater freedom of economic life, some foundations of the bourgeois legal order, the idea of ​​​​the need for enlightenment) that contributed to the development of the capitalist structure.
Catherine's undoubted merit was the introduction of universal public education.

References.
1. Soloviev S.M. About history new Russia. – M.: Education, 1993
2. Anisimov E.V. The time of Peter's reforms. – L.: Lenizdat, 1989
3. Anisimov E.V., Kamensky A.B. Russia in the 18th – first half of the 19th centuries: History. Document. – M.: MIROS, 1994
4. Pavlenko N.I. Peter the Great. – M.: Mysl, 1990

Further reading

Basic literature

References

Basic concepts of the discipline

Princely congresses. Veche. Boyar Duma. Russian Truth. Vigilantes. Boyars. Appanage princes. Polyudye. Cart. Fireman. Smerd. Ryadovich. Purchase Serf. Feudal fragmentation. Lawyer Coffers. Yard Voivode. Governors and volosts. Lip chief. Kisser. Zemsky Sobor. Oprichnina. Seven Boyars. Localism system. Cathedral Code. Corvée and quitrent. Orders. Okolnichy. Duma clerk. Collegiums. Governorates and provinces. Senate. Recruitment duty. Mayor. Ministries. Constitution. Zemstvos. City Council. State Council. Universal conscription. Manifesto. State Duma. Political party. Censorship. Provisional government. All-Union Congress of Soviets. Council of People's Commissars. Central Election Commission. Advice system. Supreme Council. Politburo. Party Central Committee. President. Universal Declaration of Rights and Freedoms 1948 Supreme Court. Supreme Arbitration Court. Constitutional Court.

1. History of the state and law of Russia. Ed. Yu.P. Titova. M.: Prospekt, 2006.- 541 p.

2. History of state and law: dictionary-reference book. Rep. Ed. M.I. Slushkov – M.: Legal literature, 1997. – 303 p.

3. Cleandrova V.M. History of state and law of Russia. M.: Prospekt, 2011. -563 p.

4. History of the state and law of Russia. Rep. Ed. Chibiryaev S.A. – M.: Bylina, 1998. – 524 p.

Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. In 2 volumes - M., 1994.
Vernadsky G.V. History of Russia. Ancient Rus'. – M., 1996.
Herberstein S. Notes on Muscovy. – M., 1998.
State institutions in Russia XYI - XYIII centuries // Edited by N.B. Golikova. – M., 1991
Documents testify: from the history of the village on the eve and during collectivization of 1927 - 1932 // Ed. V.N. Danilov, N.A. Ivnitsky. – M..1989
Efremova N.N. Judicial system of the Russian Empire XYIII - XX centuries - M., 1996.
Zayonchkovsky P. A. The government apparatus of autocratic Russia in the 19th century. – M., 1978.
Zayonchkovsky P.A. Russian autocracy at the end of the 19th century. – M., 1978.
Legislation of Peter I // Rep. ed. A. A. Preobrazhensky, T. E. Novitskaya. – M., 1997.
Self-government institutions. Historical and legal research. – M., 1995.
Karamashev O. M. Legislative principles of the formation of the nobility of the Russian Empire. – St. Petersburg, 1998.
Kerensky A.F. Russia at a historical turn // Questions of history. 1991. No. 4-11.
Nosov N.E. The formation of class-representative institutions in Russia.-L., 1969.
Protasov L.G. All-Russian Constituent Assembly. The story of birth and death. – M., 1997.
Development of Russian law in the XY - first half of the XYII century - M., 1986.
Development of Russian law in the second half of the 19th century - early 20th centuries. //Ans. ed. E. A. Skripilev. - M. - 1997.
Russell B. Practice and theory of Bolshevism. – M., 1991.
Reforms of Alexander II: Sat. // Comp. O. I. Chistyakov, T. E. Novitskaya. – M., 1998.
Russian legislation of the 10th – 20th centuries: V9 vol. // Ed. O.I. Chistyakova. –M., 1984-1994.
Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities (XII-XIII centuries). - M., 1982.
Safronov M.M. Problems of reforms in Russian government policy at the turn of the XYIII - XIX centuries - Leningrad, 1998.
Sverdlov M.V. Genesis and structure of feudal society in Ancient Rus'. – L., 1983.
Skrynnikov R. G. Ivan the Terrible. – M., 1983.
Soloviev S.M. History of Russia from ancient times. Works: In 18 books. – M., 1988-1996.
Torke H.I. About the so-called Zemsky Sobors in Russia // Questions of history. 1991. No. 1
Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XYI–XYII centuries. – M., 1978.
Cherepnin L.V. Formation of a Russian centralized state. – M., 1978

With the coming to power of a new tsar in Russia - Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) - the central government decided to continue Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich’s course towards strengthening autocracy. But at the same time she faced a number of difficulties. The treasury felt the need for money, both to maintain the growing apparatus of power, and in connection with the intensification of foreign policy. The government of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich increased indirect taxes, raising the price of salt by 4 times in 1646. But prices began to rise, and the solvency of the population was undermined. The salt tax was abolished already in 1647; it was decided to collect arrears for the last three years. This caused discontent and led to a number of uprisings, including the “Salt Riot” in Moscow (1648). Impressed by him, the tsar convened a Zemsky Sobor, which ended with the adoption of the Council Code (1649).

It was necessary to ensure the further development of the Russian state: the Code of Law of 1550 was clearly outdated and left too many cases to the discretion of judges. Therefore, soon after accession

″Alexey Mikhailovich... ordered... to correct the code of law, to supplement it... with the latest decrees of the kings and... additions to cases that are already encountered in the courts, but have not yet been decided by a clear law. “The only thing that remained unchanged was the course towards strengthening the autocratic Orthodox monarchy in Russia: according to the Council Code, any criticism of the church and blasphemy was punishable by burning at the stake. Persons accused of treason and insulting the honor of the sovereign, as well as boyars and governors, were executed.

The Council Code regulated the performance of various services, the ransom of prisoners, customs policy, and the position of various categories of the population in the state. It “attached service and tax people to their states, associating with each of these states certain rights and obligations. Thus, the former unstable ranks turned into closed... classes, sharply isolated from one another.″ An indefinite search for runaway and taken away peasants was introduced, and peasant transfers from one owner to another were prohibited. At the same time, serfdom extended to the black sowing and palace peasants, who were forbidden to leave their communities. If they escaped, they were also subject to indefinite investigation. This meant the legalization of the serfdom system. The cathedral code limited the growth of church land ownership, which reflected the trend of subordination of the church to the state. This trend met with strong opposition from the clergy.

A little later, church reform followed. Church reform was dictated by the need to strengthen discipline, order, and moral principles of the clergy. Expanding ties with Ukraine and the Orthodox peoples of the former Byzantine Empire required the introduction of identical church rituals throughout the Orthodox world. The spread of printing opened up the possibility of unifying church books.

The reform began in 1652 with the election of Nikon as Moscow Patriarch. Nikon began a reform to unify rituals and establish uniformity in church services. Greek rules and rituals were taken as a model. But this reform caused protest from some of the boyars and church hierarchs, who were afraid that changes in the church would undermine its authority among the people. There was a schism in the Russian church. Adherents of the old order - the Old Believers - refused to recognize Nikon's reform and advocated a return to the pre-reform order. Outwardly, the disagreements between Nikon and his opponents, the Old Believers, among whom Archpriest Avvakum stood out, boiled down to which models - Greek or Russian - to unify church books. There was a dispute between them about how one should be baptized - with two or three fingers, how to make a religious procession - in the direction of the sun or against the sun, etc. As a result, the Church Council of 1667 ... recommended the tsar to consider the Old Believers heretics and schismatics ( schismatics) and use the full power of their power to punish them.″ Thousands of peasants and townspeople, carried away by the passionate sermons of schismatic teachers, fled to the North, to the Volga region, to the Urals, to Siberia, where they founded Old Believer settlements. The most powerful protest against church reform manifested itself in the Solovetsky uprising of 1668-1676.

The fate of Patriarch Nikon was also tragic. Nikon put forward and fiercely defended the idea of ​​independence and the leading role of the church in the state. “According to his concept, the power of the patriarch ... is even higher than the supreme secular power: Nikon demanded complete non-interference of secular power in spiritual affairs and at the same time reserved for the patriarch the right to wide participation and influence in political affairs; in the sphere of church administration, Nikon considered himself the sole and sovereign ruler. “Nikon received enormous power and the title of “Great Sovereign,” similar to the royal one (1652). But... Nikon... was not always restrained when using his power, not only in relation to the people of the Church, but also in relation to the princes and boyars. "And soon the patriarch overestimated his influence on the tsar. In 1658, he defiantly left the capital, declaring that he did not want to be a patriarch in Moscow, but would remain the patriarch of Russia. In 1666, a church council with the participation of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who had powers from two other Orthodox patriarchs - Constantinople and Jerusalem, removed Nikon from the post of patriarch.

Meanwhile, the exhausting wars waged by Russia in the mid-17th century depleted the treasury. The pestilence of 1654-1655 hit the country's economy painfully, claiming tens of thousands of lives. In search of a way out of the difficult financial situation, the Russian government began minting copper coins instead of silver coins at the same price (1654). Over the course of eight years, so much copper money (including counterfeit money) was issued that it became completely worthless. The government collected taxes in silver, while the population had to sell and buy food with copper money. Salaries were also paid in copper money. The high cost of bread and other products that arose under these conditions led to famine. The Moscow people, driven to despair, rose up in rebellion - the “Copper Riot” (1662). It was brutally suppressed, but the minting of copper money was stopped, which was again replaced by silver. The uprising in Moscow in 1662 was one of the harbingers of a new peasant war.

This war was fought under the leadership of S.T. Razin in 1670-1671. It was attended by serfs, Cossacks, townspeople, small service people, barge haulers, and working people. Razin’s “charming letters” circulated among the people, outlining the demands of the rebels: to exterminate the governors, boyars, nobles, and officials. Razin promised everywhere the destruction of serfdom and servitude. Naive monarchism was strong among the rebels. The peasants believed in a good king. A rumor spread that the son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Alexei (who died in 1670), and the disgraced Patriarch Nikon were allegedly going to Moscow with Razin. The uprising covered a vast territory - from the lower reaches of the Volga to Nizhny Novgorod and from Sloboda Ukraine to the Volga region. It was brutally suppressed, but forced the government to look for ways to strengthen the existing system. The power of local governors was strengthened, a reform of the tax system was carried out (from 1679 they switched to household taxation), and the process of spreading serfdom to the southern outskirts of the country intensified. The Council Code of 1649, allowing the exchange of estates for estates and vice versa, marked the beginning of the merger of boyars and nobles into one closed class-estate. In 1674, black-sown peasants were prohibited from enrolling in the nobility. The title of the Moscow sovereigns changed, in which the word “autocrat” appeared. After the reunification of Left Bank Ukraine with Russia, it sounded like this: “Great Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke of all Great and Little and White Russia, autocrat..." In 1682 (during the short reign of Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682)) localism was abolished, the principle of official correspondence began to be put forward (which opened access to the government of the country to people from the nobility and officials ). Since the 80s of the 17th century. The convening of Zemsky Sobors ceased; by the end of the 17th century, the Boyar Duma also lost its former influence. In Russia at the end of the 17th century, the transition from autocracy with the Boyar Duma, from an estate representative monarchy to an bureaucratic-noble monarchy, to absolutism was completed. Absolutism is a form of government in which the supreme power in the state fully and undividedly belongs to the monarch. Power reaches highest degree centralization. The absolute monarch rules based on the bureaucratic apparatus, the standing army and the police, and the church as an ideological force is subordinate to him.

But after the death of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, a new turmoil began. According to tradition, Fyodor was to be succeeded in 1682 by his brother Ivan. However, the 15-year-old prince was sickly and not suitable for the role of king. Patriarch Joachim and the boyars who gathered in the palace decided that the son of Alexei Mikhailovich Naryshkina’s second wife, ten-year-old Peter, who, unlike Ivan, was a healthy, strong and intelligent boy, should be proclaimed tsar. Relying on the archers, the Miloslavsky group, among which Ivan’s sister Sophia was the most active and decisive, waged a decisive struggle for power.

Sagittarius not only performed military service, but also actively engaged economic activity. At the end of the 17th century. In connection with the creation of regiments of the new system, the role of the archers fell, they lost many of their privileges. The obligation to pay taxes and duties on trades and shops, frequent delays in salaries, the arbitrariness of the Streltsy colonels, and the growth of property inequality among the Streltsy themselves caused their sharp discontent. A rumor was spread around Moscow that Ivan had been strangled. With the beating of drums, armed archers entered the Kremlin (1682). Peter's mother N.K. Naryshkin brought both princes - Peter and Ivan - to the palace porch. However, this did not calm the archers. The uprising raged for three days, power in Moscow was in the hands of the Streltsy. “Now the archers didn’t care at all. They walked the streets in crowds, threatened the boyars, treated their superiors impudently.″ Taking advantage of this, the leaders of the Streltsy tried to install the head of the Streletsky Prikaz, Prince I. A. Khovansky (“Khovanshchina”), as the head of the Russian sovereign. Sophia managed to stop the actions of the archers. Khovansky was deceived and summoned to Sophia and executed (1682). The Sagittarius came into obedience. The pillar on Red Square was torn down, many archers were executed. Power passed to Princess Sophia. The head of the Streltsy order was Sophia’s supporter F. Shaklovity. The de facto ruler under Sophia (1682-1689) was her favorite, Prince V.V. Golitsyn. Sophia and her circle did not strive for radical changes.

In 1689, Peter married, on the advice of his mother, the boyar daughter Evdokia Lopukhina. After his marriage, Peter was considered an adult and had all the rights to the throne; a clash with Sophia and her supporters became inevitable. It happened in August 1689: with the support of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky regiments loyal to Peter, Sophia was removed from power. Finding herself in isolation, she was imprisoned in the Novodevichy Convent in Moscow. The leader of the Streltsy, Shaklovity, was executed, and Golitsyn was sent into exile. The throne passed to Peter. With the death of Tsar Ivan (1696), the autocracy of Peter I was established (formal co-ruler with Ivan V (1689-1696), sole rule (1696-1725)). However, in the summer of 1698, a new Streltsy rebellion broke out in Moscow. He was depressed. The investigation established a connection between the rebel archers and the Moscow boyars and the disgraced Princess Sophia. After this, Sophia lived under supervision for the rest of her life in the Novodevichy Convent. The Streletsky army was subject to disbandment, the forces of the boyar opposition to Russian absolutism were undermined.

Meanwhile, in the field of education, Russia was hopelessly behind many European countries: in the 15th-16th centuries, many large European cities already had universities, and in Russia the first higher educational institution was opened only in 1689 (Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy).

Unlike many European countries, in which the flourishing of cities made it possible to gradually abolish serfdom, in Russia at the end of the 17th century, serfdom had only just been established. This was a necessary measure - due to a constant lack of money. ″But the matter could not be limited to just attaching the rural population to the cultivated land: the so-called townspeople, tax people… live in the cities. They trade and trade on a very small scale, but they pay taxes and bear duties on a very large scale,” which creates a vicious circle: they do not have the opportunity to contribute to the development of the economy, they would not go bankrupt. It is not surprising that in Russia in those years “the scale of manufacturing production was insignificant. By the end of the 17th century, Russia was smelting a tenth of the iron produced by Sweden. ... The bulk of industrial products in the 17th century. They were produced not by manufactories, but by small craft workshops... Foreign trade was entirely in the hands of foreign merchants, which caused... discontent among the Russian merchants. In 1653, the authorities increased duties on foreign goods. The protectionist policy was confirmed in the New Trade Charter of 1667. The government doubled the duties on goods of foreign merchants sold outside Arkhangelsk, and banned these merchants from retail trade throughout Russia. But the weakness of Russian industry could not be compensated for by this. The low combat effectiveness of the Russian army was evident during the Azov campaigns of 1695-1696.

For the young Peter I, the urgent need for radical reforms in all spheres of life of the Russian state through numerous borrowings from the cultures of advanced European countries was obvious. ″But at a time when in Moscow... there were louder and louder cries... about the need to borrow science, art and craft from other educated peoples, people who stood against the movement of the people towards a new path and saw movement in this movement did not remain silent to the kingdom of Antichrist,” the schismatics did not remain silent. “And the majority of the population (including part of the boyars and clergy) was hostile to such a movement.

Karamzin N.M. About ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations // Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State: XII volume in 4 books. – M., 1997. – Book. 4. T. X-XII. - P. 501.

Klyuchevsky V.O. A short guide to Russian history. – M., 1992. - P. 125.

Vernadsky G.V. Moscow kingdom: in 2 hours - Tver; M., 1997. – Part 2. – P. 126.

Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. – M., 1993. - P. 398-399.

Gumilev L.N. From Rus' to Russia. – M., 2002. – P. 340.

Kostomarov N.I. Princess Sophia // Kostomarov N.I. Historical monographs and studies. – M., 1989. - P. 92-93.

Soloviev S.M. Public readings about Peter the Great - pp. 432-433.

Skrynnikov R.G. Rus' of the 9th-17th centuries. – St. Petersburg, 1999. – P. 300-301.

Soloviev S.M. Russia before the era of transformation // Solovyov S.M. Readings and stories on the history of Russia. – M., 1989. - P. 384.

Serfdom remained the basis of the Russian economy in the second half of the 17th century. However, along with it, new phenomena are being discovered in the economic life of the country. The most important of them was the formation of the all-Russian market. In Russia at this time, small-scale commodity production and money circulation were developing, and manufactories appeared. The economic disunity of individual regions of Russia is beginning to become a thing of the past. The formation of an all-Russian market was one of the prerequisites for the development of the Russian people into a nation ( See V.I. Lenin, What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats? Soch., vol. 1, pp. 137-138.).

In the 17th century There was a further process of formation of a feudal-absolutist (autocratic) monarchy. Zemsky Sobors, which met repeatedly in the first half of the century, finally ceased their activities by the end of the century. The importance of Moscow orders as central institutions with their bureaucracy in the person of clerks and clerks increased. In its internal policy, the autocracy relied on the nobility, which became a closed class. The rights of the nobility to land were further strengthened, and landownership was spreading in new areas. The “Cathedral Code” of 1649 legally formalized serfdom.

The strengthening of serfdom's oppression met fierce resistance from the peasants and the lower urban population, which was expressed primarily in powerful peasant and urban uprisings (1648,1650,1662, 1670-1671). The class struggle was also reflected in the largest religious movement in Russia in the 17th century. - schism of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Russia's rapid economic growth XVII century contributed to the further development of vast areas of Eastern Europe and Siberia. In the 17th century There is an advance of Russian people into the sparsely populated territories of the Lower Don, the North Caucasus, the Middle and Lower Volga region and Siberia.

An event of enormous historical significance was the reunification of Ukraine with Russia in 1654. The related Russian and Ukrainian peoples united in a single state, which contributed to the development of productive forces and the cultural rise of both peoples, as well as the political strengthening of Russia.

Russia XVII century acts in international relations as a great power, stretching from the Dnieper in the west to the Pacific Ocean in the east.

Serfdom

In the second half of the 17th century. Agriculture, based on the exploitation of the feudally dependent peasantry, remained the main occupation of the Russian population. In agriculture, soil cultivation methods that had been established in previous times continued to be used. Three-field cultivation was most common, but in the forest regions of the North, cuttings occupied an important place, and in the steppe zone of the South and Middle Volga region - fallow. These methods of cultivating the land, characteristic of feudalism, corresponded to primitive tools of production (plow and harrow) and low yields.

The land was owned by secular and spiritual feudal lords, the palace department and the state. By 1678, the boyars and nobles concentrated 67% of peasant households in their hands. This was achieved through grants from the government and direct seizures of palace and black-plow (state) lands, as well as the possessions of small service people. The nobles created serf farms in the uninhabited southern districts of the state. By this time, only a tenth of the tax-paying (i.e., tax-paying) population of Russia (posad people and black-mown peasants) was in an unenslaved state.

The overwhelming majority of secular feudal lords belonged to the number of medium and small landowners. What the household of a middle-class nobleman was like can be seen from the correspondence of A.I. Bezobrazov. He did not hesitate to use any means if the opportunity presented itself to round off his holdings. Like many other landowners, he energetically seized and bought up fertile lands, shamelessly driving the small-time servants from their homes, and resettled his peasants from the less fertile central districts to the South.

The second place after the nobles in terms of the size of land ownership was occupied by spiritual feudal lords. In the second half of the 17th century. bishops, monasteries and churches owned over 13% of tax households. The Trinity-Sergius Monastery especially stood out. His possessions, scattered throughout the European territory of Russia, included about 17 thousand households. The votchinniki-monasteries ran their households using the same serfdom methods as the secular feudal lords.

In somewhat better conditions, compared to the landowners and monastery peasants, were the black-mown peasants who lived in Pomerania, where there was almost no landownership and the lands were considered state-owned. But they too were burdened with various kinds of duties in favor of the treasury, and suffered from oppression and abuse by the royal commanders.

The center of the estate or patrimony was the village, or hamlet, next to which stood the manor's estate with a house and outbuildings. A typical manor's courtyard in central Russia consisted of a room located on the semi-basement floor. There was a vestibule next to it - a spacious reception room. Next to the upper room there were outbuildings - a cellar, a barn, a bathhouse. The yard was surrounded by a fence and there was a garden nearby. Rich nobles had larger and more luxurious estates than small landowners.

The village, or village, was the center for the villages adjacent to it. In a medium-sized village there were rarely more than 15-30 courtyards; in villages there were usually 2-3 courtyards. Peasant households consisted of a warm hut, cold entryways and outbuildings.

The landowner kept slaves on the estate. They worked in the garden, barnyard, and stables. The master's household was managed by a clerk, the landowner's confidant. However, the farming, which was carried out with the help of courtyard people, only partially satisfied the landowners' needs. The landowners' main income came from corvée or quitrent duties of serfs. The peasants cultivated the landowner's land, harvested crops, mowed meadows, transported firewood from the forest, cleaned ponds, built and repaired mansions. In addition to the corvee, they were obliged to deliver “table supplies” to the gentlemen - a certain amount of meat, eggs, dry berries, mushrooms, etc. In some villages of the boyar B.I. Morozov, for example, it was supposed to give a pork carcass, two a ram, a goose with giblets, 4 pigs, 4 chickens, 40 eggs, some butter and cheese.

The increase in domestic demand for agricultural products, as well as partly the export of some of them abroad, encouraged landowners to expand the lordly plowing and increase the rent. In this regard, in the black earth zone, peasant corvée continuously increased, and in non-black earth areas, mainly central (with the exception of estates near Moscow, from which supplies were delivered to the capital), where corvee was less common, the proportion of quitrent duties increased. The landowners' arable land expanded at the expense of the best peasant lands, which were allocated to the master's fields. In areas where quitrent prevailed, the importance of cash rent grew slowly but steadily. This phenomenon reflected the development of commodity-money relations in the country, into which peasant farms were gradually involved. However, in its pure form, monetary rent was very rare; as a rule, it was combined with food rent or corvee duties.

A new phenomenon, closely related to the development of commodity-money relations in Russia, was the creation of various types of fishing enterprises on large landowner farms. The largest patrimonial owner mid-17th century V. Boyar Morozov organized the production of potash in the Middle Volga region, built an ironworks in the village of Pavlovsky near Moscow, and had many distilleries. This money-grubber, according to contemporaries, had such a greed for gold, “like an ordinary thirst for drink.”

Morozov's example was followed by some other large boyars - the Miloslavskys, Odoevskys and others. At their industrial enterprises, the most onerous work of transporting firewood or ore was assigned to peasants, who were obliged to work in turn, sometimes on their own horses, leaving their arable land abandoned during the busiest time of field work. . Thus, the passion of large feudal lords for industrial production did not change the serf-based foundations of the organization of their economy.

Large feudal lords introduced some innovations and in their estates, where new varieties of fruit trees, fruits, vegetables, etc. appeared, greenhouses were built for growing southern plants.

The emergence of manufactories and the development of small-scale commodity production

An important phenomenon in the Russian economy was the founding of manufactories. In addition to metallurgical enterprises, leather, glass, stationery and other manufactories arose. The Dutch merchant A. Vinius, who became a Russian citizen, built the first water-powered ironworks in Russia. In 1632, he received a royal grant for the establishment of factories near Tula for the production of cast iron and iron, casting cannons, boilers, etc. Vinius could not cope with the construction of factories with his own funds and a few years later entered into a company with two other Dutch merchants. Large ironworks were created somewhat later in Kashira, in the Olonets region, near Voronezh and near Moscow. These factories produced cannons and gun barrels, strip iron, boilers, frying pans, etc. In the 17th century. The first copper smelters appeared in Russia. Copper ore was found near Salt Kamskaya, where the treasury built the Pyskorsky plant. Subsequently, on the basis of the Pyskor ores, the plant of the “smelters” of the Tumashev brothers operated.

Work in manufactories was carried out mainly by hand; however, some processes were mechanized using water engines. Therefore, manufactories were usually built on rivers blocked by dams. Labor-intensive and cheaply paid work (earth work, cutting and transporting firewood, etc.) was carried out mainly by assigned peasants or their own serfs, as was the case, for example, at the ironworks of the Tsar’s father-in-law I. D. Miloslavsky. Soon after their founding, the government assigned two palace volosts to the Tula and Kashira factories.

The decisive role in providing the population with industrial products did not belong, however, to manufactories, the number of which even by the end of the 17th century. did not reach even three dozen, but to peasant household crafts, urban crafts and small commodity production. Due to the growth of market relations in the country, small-scale commodity production has increased. Serpukhov, Tula and Tikhvin blacksmiths, Pomor carpenters, Yaroslavl weavers and tanners, Moscow furriers and cloth makers worked not so much to order as for the market. Some commodity producers used hired labor, albeit on a small scale.

Waste fisheries have also received great development, especially in non-chernozem regions near Moscow and to the north of it. The growth of property and state duties forced peasants to go to work, to be hired for construction work, in salt production and other industries as auxiliary workers. A large number of peasants were employed in river transport, which required barge haulers to pull ships upstream, as well as loaders and ship workers. Transport and salt production were maintained primarily by hired labor. Among the barge haulers and ship workers there were many “walking people,” as the documents called people not associated with a specific place of residence. In the 17th century, the number of villages and hamlets inhabited by “untillless peasants” and “non-arable farmers” continuously increased.

Economic regions of Russia

Certain parts of the huge Russian state, which occupied vast spaces in Europe and Asia, were naturally heterogeneous both in terms of natural conditions and the level of socio-economic development. The most populated and developed was the central region, the so-called Zamoskovnye cities with adjacent counties. Villages and hamlets surrounded the capital on all sides. Moscow was the largest city in Eastern Europe and had up to 200 thousand inhabitants. It was the most important center of trade, handicraft and small commodity production. Manufactory-type enterprises first arose in it and its surroundings.

In the central region of Russia, various peasant crafts and urban crafts have developed greatly. The largest Russian cities were located here - Yaroslavl, Nizhny Novgorod, Kaluga. A direct land road connected Moscow through Yaroslavl with Vologda, where the waterway to Arkhangelsk began.

The vast region adjacent to the White Sea, known as Pomerania, was relatively sparsely populated at that time. Russians, Karelians, Komi, etc. lived here. In the northern regions of this region, due to climatic conditions, the population was more engaged in crafts (salt making, fishing, etc.) than in agriculture. The role of Pomerania in supplying the country with salt was especially great. In the area of ​​the largest salt production center - Kamskaya Salt - there were over 200 breweries, supplying up to 7 million pounds of salt annually. The most important cities of the North were Vologda and Arkhangelsk, which were the extreme points of the Sukhona-Dvina river route. Trade with foreign countries passed through the Arkhangelsk port. There were rope workshops in Vologda and Kholmogory. Relatively fertile soils in the region of Vologda, Veliky Ustyug and the Vyatka region favored the successful development of agriculture. Vologda and Ustyug, and in the second half of the 17th century. The Vyatka region had large grain markets.

In the west of Russia there were lands “from German and Lithuanian Ukraine” (outskirts). These were areas that exported flax and hemp to other regions and abroad. The largest cities and trading centers here were Smolensk and Pskov, while Novgorod fell into decay and lost its former importance.

In the 17th century there was a rapid settlement of the southern regions. Fugitive peasants from the central districts were continuously sent here. Trade and trade in this area were insignificant, and there were no large cities here, but grain farming successfully developed here on the rich black soils.

Russian peasants also fled to the Middle Volga region. Russian villages arose next to Mordovian, Tatar, Chuvash and Mari villages. The lands south of Samara remained sparsely populated. The largest cities of the Volga region were Kazan and Astrakhan. A diverse population lived in Astrakhan: Russians, Tatars, Armenians, people from Bukhara, etc. In this city there was lively trade with countries Central Asia, Iran and Transcaucasia.

In the south of the East European Plain, Russia was part of the 17th century. part of the North Caucasus, as well as the region of the Don and Yaitsky Cossack troops. The wealthy industrialist Guryev founded the city of Guryev with a stone fortress at the mouth of the Yaik (Ural).

After 1654, Left Bank Ukraine, together with Kiev, was reunited with Russia, having self-government and an elected hetman.

In terms of the size of its territory, Russia was already the largest state in the world in the 17th century.

Siberia

The most extensive region of Russia in the 17th century. was Siberia. It was inhabited by peoples at different stages of social development. The most numerous of them were the Yakuts, who occupied a vast territory in the basin of the Lena and its tributaries. The basis of their economy was cattle breeding; hunting and fishing were of secondary importance. In winter, the Yakuts lived in wooden heated yurts, and in the summer they went to pastures. The Yakut tribes were led by elders - toyons, owners of large pastures. Among the peoples of the Baikal region, the Buryats occupied first place in number. Most of the Buryats were engaged in cattle breeding and led a nomadic lifestyle, but among them there were also agricultural tribes. The Buryats were going through a period of formation of feudal relations; they still had strong patriarchal-tribal remnants.

In the vast expanses from the Yenisei to the Pacific Ocean lived the Evenks (Tungus), who were engaged in hunting and fishing. The Chukchi, Koryaks and Itelmens (Kamchadals) inhabited the northeastern regions of Siberia with the Kamchatka Peninsula. These tribes sewed then in a tribal system; they did not yet know the use of iron.

The expansion of Russian possessions in Siberia was carried out mainly by the local administration and industrialists who were looking for new “land lands” rich in fur-bearing animals. Russian industrial people penetrated into Siberia along the high-water Siberian rivers, the tributaries of which were close to each other. Following in their footsteps were military detachments that set up fortified fortresses, which became centers of colonial exploitation of the peoples of Siberia. The path from Western Siberia to Eastern Siberia followed a tributary of the Ob, the Keti River. The city of Yeniseisk arose on the Yenisei (originally the Yenisei fort, 1619). Somewhat later, another Siberian city, Krasnoyarsk, was founded on the upper reaches of the Yenisei. Along the Angara or Upper Tunguska the river route led to the upper reaches of the Lena. The Lensky fort (1632, later Yakutsk) was built on it, which became the center of administration of Eastern Siberia.

In 1648, Semyon Dezhnev discovered “the edge and end of the Siberian land.” The expedition of Fedot Alekseev (Popov), the clerk of the Ustyug trading people Usovs, consisting of six ships, set out to sea from the mouth of the Kolyma. Dezhnev was on one of the ships. The storm scattered the expedition's ships, some of them died or were thrown ashore, and Dezhnev's ship rounded the extreme northeastern tip of Asia. Thus, Dezhnev was the first to make a sea voyage through the Bering Strait and discovered that Asia was separated from America by water.

By the middle of the 17th century. Russian troops penetrated into Dauria (Transbaikalia and Amur region). Vasily Poyarkov's expedition along the Zeya and Amur rivers reached the sea. Poyarkov sailed by sea to the Ulya River (Okhotsk region), climbed up it and along the rivers of the Lena basin returned to Yakutsk. A new expedition to the Amur was made by the Cossacks under the command of Erofei Khabarov, who built a town on the Amur. After the government recalled Khabarov from the town, the Cossacks stayed in it for some time, but due to lack of food they were forced to leave it.

Penetration into the Amur basin brought Russia into conflict with China. Military operations ended with the conclusion of the Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689). The treaty defined the Russian-Chinese border and contributed to the development of trade between the two states.

Following industrial and service people, peasant migrants headed to Siberia. The influx of “free people” into Western Siberia began immediately after the construction of Russian towns and especially intensified in the second half of the 17th century, when “a large number” of peasants moved here, mainly from the northern and neighboring Ural counties. The arable peasant population settled mainly in Western Siberia, which became the main center of the agricultural economy of this vast region.

Peasants settled on empty lands or seized lands that belonged to local “yasak people.” The size of arable plots owned by peasants in the 17th century was not limited. In addition to arable land, it included hay fields and sometimes fishing grounds. Russian peasants brought with them the skills of a higher agricultural culture compared to that of the Siberian peoples. Rye, oats and barley became the main agricultural crops of Siberia. Along with them, industrial crops appeared, primarily hemp. Livestock farming has been widely developed. Already by the end of the 17th century. Siberian agriculture satisfied the needs of the population of Siberian cities for agricultural products and, thus, freed the government from the expensive delivery of bread from European Russia.

The conquest of Siberia was accompanied by the imposition of tribute on the conquered population. Payment of yasak was usually made in furs, a most valuable commodity that enriched the royal treasury. The “explaining” of the Siberian peoples by service people was often accompanied by outrageous violence. Official documents admitted that Russian merchants sometimes invited “people to trade and took their wives and children, and robbed their bellies and cattle, and inflicted many violence on them.”

The vast territory of Siberia was under the control of the Siberian Prikaz. The intensity of the robbery of the peoples of Siberia by tsarism is evidenced by the fact that the income of the Siberian Prikaz in 1680 amounted to more than 12% of the total budget of Russia. The peoples of Siberia, in addition, were exploited by Russian merchants, whose wealth was created by exchanging handicrafts and cheap jewelry for fine furs, which constituted an important Russian export. The merchants Usovs, Pankratyevs, Filatievs and others, having accumulated large capitals in Siberian trade, became owners of salt boiling factories in Pomorie, without stopping their trading activities at the same time. G. Nikitin, a native of black-growing peasants, at one time worked as E. Filatiev’s clerk and in a short time rose to the ranks of the Moscow merchant nobility. In 1679, Nikitin was enrolled in the living room hundred, and two years later he was awarded the title of guest. By the end of the 17th century. Nikitin’s capital exceeded 20 thousand rubles. (about 350 thousand rubles in money from the beginning of the 20th century). Nikitin, like his former patron Filatyev, became rich in the predatory fur trade in Siberia. He was one of the first Russian merchants to organize trade with China.

By the end of the 17th century. significant areas of Western and partly Eastern Siberia were already populated by Russian peasants, who had developed many previously deserted areas. Most of Siberia became Russian in its population, especially the black earth regions of Western Siberia. Relations with the Russian people, despite the colonial policy of tsarism, were of enormous importance for the development of economic and cultural life all peoples of Siberia. Under the direct influence of Russian agriculture, the Yakuts and nomadic Buryats began to cultivate arable land. The annexation of Siberia to Russia created conditions for the further economic and cultural development of this vast country.

Creation of the All-Russian market

A new phenomenon, exceptional in its significance, was the formation of an all-Russian market, the center of which became Moscow. By the movement of goods to Moscow, one can judge the degree of social and territorial division of labor, on the basis of which the all-Russian market was formed: the Moscow region supplied meat and vegetables; cow butter was brought from the Middle Volga region; fish were brought from Pomerania, Rostov district, Lower Volga region and Okie areas; vegetables also came from Vereya, Borovsk and Rostov district. Moscow was supplied with iron by Tula, Galich, Ustyuzhna Zhelezopolskaya and Tikhvin; leather was brought mainly from the Yaroslavl-Kostroma and Suzdal regions; wooden utensils were supplied by the Volga region; salt - cities of Pomerania; Moscow was the largest market for Siberian furs.

Based on the production specialization of individual regions, markets were formed with the predominant importance of certain goods. Thus, Yaroslavl was famous for the sale of leather, soap, lard, meat and textiles; Veliky Ustyug and especially Sol Vychegda were the largest fur markets - furs coming from Siberia were delivered from here either to Arkhangelsk for export, or to Moscow for sale within the country. Flax and hemp were brought to Smolensk and Pskov from nearby areas, which were then supplied to the foreign market.

Some local markets establish intensive trade links with distant cities. Tikhvin Posad with its annual fair supported trade with 45 Russian cities. Purchasing iron craft products from local blacksmiths, buyers resold them to larger traders, and the latter transported significant quantities of goods to Ustyuzhna Zhelezopolskaya, as well as to Moscow, Yaroslavl, Pskov and other cities.

Fairs of all-Russian significance, such as Makaryevskaya (near Nizhny Novgorod), Svenskaya (near Bryansk), Arkhangelsk and others, which lasted for several weeks, played a huge role in the country’s trade turnover.

In connection with the emergence of the all-Russian market, the role of the merchants in the economic and political life of the country increased. In the 17th century, the top of the merchant world stood out even more noticeably from the general mass of trading people, whose representatives received the title of guests from the government. These largest merchants also served as financial agents of the government - on its instructions they carried out foreign trade in furs, potash, rhubarb, etc., carried out contracts for construction work, purchased food for the needs of the army, collected taxes, customs duties, tavern money, etc. The guests attracted smaller merchants to carry out contracting and farming operations, sharing with them huge profits from the sale of wine and salt. Farming and contracts were an important source of capital accumulation.

Large capitals sometimes accumulated in the hands of individual merchant families. N. Sveteshnikov owned rich salt mines. The Stoyanovs in Novgorod and F. Emelyanov in Pskov were the first people in their cities; Not only the governors, but also the tsarist government took their opinion into account. The guests, as well as the trading people close to them in position from the living room and the cloth hundreds (associations), were joined by the top of the townspeople, called the “best”, “big” townspeople.

Traders begin to speak out to the government in defense of their interests. In petitions they asked to prohibit English merchants from trading in Moscow and other cities, with the exception of Arkhangelsk. The petition was satisfied by the royal government in 1649. This measure was motivated by political considerations - the fact that the British executed their king Charles I.

Major changes in the country's economy were reflected in the Customs Charter of 1653 and the New Trade Charter of 1667. The head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin, took part in the creation of the latter. According to the mercantilistic views of that time, the New Trade Charter noted the special importance of trade for Russia, since “in all neighboring states, in the first state affairs, free and profitable trading for the collection of duties and for the people’s worldly belongings is guarded with all care.” The Customs Charter of 1653 abolished many small trade fees that had persisted from time to time feudal fragmentation, and in return he introduced one so-called ruble duty - 10 kopecks each. from a ruble for the sale of salt, 5 kopecks. from the ruble from all other goods. In addition, an increased duty was introduced for foreign merchants selling goods within Russia. In the interests of the Russian merchants, the New Trade Charter of 1667 further increased customs duties on foreign traders.

2. The beginning of the formation of the feudal-absolutist monarchy

The Tsar and the Boyar Duma

Major changes in the economic and social life of the Russian people were accompanied by changes in the political system of Russia. In the 17th century A feudal-absolutist (autocratic) state is taking shape in Russia. Characteristic of an estate-representative monarchy is the existence next to royal power. The Boyar Duma and zemstvo councils no longer corresponded to the trends towards strengthening the dominance of the nobility in the context of a further intensification of the class struggle. The military and economic expansion of neighboring states also required a more perfect political organization of the rule of the nobles. The transition to absolutism, which had not yet been completed by the end of the 17th century, was accompanied by the withering away of zemstvo councils and the increasing subordination of spiritual power to secular power.

Since 1613, the Romanov dynasty reigned in Russia, considering themselves the heirs of the former Moscow kings through the female line. Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645), his son Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), the sons of Alexei Mikhailovich - Fedor Alekseevich (1676-1682), Ivan and Peter Alekseevich (after 1682) reigned successively.

All government affairs in the 17th century. were carried out in the royal name. The “Conciliar Code” of 1649 introduced a special chapter “On the state’s honor and how to protect the state’s health,” which threatened the death penalty for speaking out against the tsar, governors and officials “in a crowd and in a conspiracy,” which meant all mass popular uprisings. Now the closest royal relatives began to be considered as the sovereign’s “slaves” - subjects. In petitions to the tsar, even noble boyars called themselves by diminutive names (Ivashko, Petrushko, etc.). In appeals to the tsar, class differences were strictly observed: service people called themselves “slaves,” peasants and townspeople called themselves “orphans,” and spiritual people called themselves “pagans.” The appearance of the tsar in the squares and streets of Moscow was accompanied by magnificent solemnity and complex ceremony, emphasizing the power and inaccessibility of tsarist power.

State affairs were in charge of the Boyar Duma, which met even in the absence of the Tsar. The most important matters were dealt with according to the royal proposal to “think about” this or that issue; the decision began with the formula: “The Tsar indicated and the boyars sentenced.” The Duma, as the highest legislative and judicial institution, included the most influential and wealthy feudal lords of Russia - members of noble princely families and the tsar's closest relatives. But along with them, representatives of unborn families penetrated into the Duma in increasing numbers - Duma nobles and Duma clerks, promoted to high positions in the state thanks to their personal merits. Along with some bureaucratization of the Duma, there was a gradual limitation of its political influence. Next to the Duma, in the meetings of which all Duma ranks took part, there was a Secret or Near Duma, consisting of the tsar’s proxies, who often did not belong to the Duma ranks.

Zemsky Sobors

For a long time, the government relied on the support of such class-representative institutions as zemstvo councils, resorting to the help of elected people from the nobility and the top of townsfolk society, mainly in difficult years of struggle with external enemies and in internal difficulties associated with raising money for emergency needs. Zemsky Sobors operated almost continuously during the first 10 years of the reign of Mikhail Romanov, acquiring for some time the significance of a permanent representative institution under the government. The council that elected Michael to the throne (1613) sat for almost three years. The following councils were convened in 1616, 1619 and 1621.

After 1623, there was a long break in the activities of the councils, associated with the strengthening of royal power. The new council was convened in connection with the need to establish emergency monetary levies from the population, as preparations were being made for the war with Poland. This council did not disperse for three years. During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, zemstvo councils met several more times.

Zemsky Sobors were an institution of an estate nature and consisted of three “ranks”: 1) the highest clergy headed by the patriarch - the “consecrated cathedral”, 2) the Boyar Duma and 3) elected from the nobles and from the townspeople. The black-nosed peasants may have participated only in the council of 1613, and the landowners were completely removed from political affairs. Elections of representatives from the nobles and from the townspeople were always carried out separately. The election protocol, the “election list,” was submitted to Moscow. Voters provided the “elected people” with instructions in which they declared their needs. The council opened with a royal speech, which spoke about the reasons for its convening and posed questions for the electors. Discussion of issues was carried out by separate class groups of the cathedral, but the general council decision had to be made unanimously.

The political authority of zemstvo councils, which stood high in the first half of the 17th century, was not durable. The government subsequently reluctantly resorted to convening zemstvo councils, at which elected people sometimes criticized government measures. The last Zemsky Sobor met in 1653 to resolve the issue of reunification of Ukraine. After this, the government convened only meetings of individual class groups (service people, merchants, guests, etc.). However, the approval of “the whole earth” was considered necessary for the election of sovereigns. Therefore, the meeting of Moscow officials in 1682 twice replaced the Zemsky Sobor - first with the election of Peter to the throne, and then with the election of two tsars Peter and Ivan, who were to rule jointly.

Zemsky Sobors as bodies of class representation were abolished by the growing absolutism, just as it happened in the countries of Western Europe.

Order system. Voivodes

Governance of the country was concentrated in numerous orders that were in charge of individual branches of government (Ambassador, Razryadny, Local, Order of the Great Treasury) or regions (Order of the Kazan Palace, Siberian Order). The 17th century was the heyday of the order system: the number of orders in other years reached 50. However, in the second half of the 17th century. In the fragmented and cumbersome administrative management, a certain centralization is carried out. Orders related in the scope of matters were either combined into one or several orders, although they retained their independent existence, and were placed under general management one boyar, most often the tsar's confidant. The associations of the first type include, for example, the united orders of the palace department: the Grand Palace, the Palace Court, the Stone Department of the Konyushenny. An example of the second type of association is the assignment to the boyar F.A. Golovin to manage the Ambassadorial, Yamsky and Military Naval Orders, as well as the chambers of the Armory, Gold and Silver Affairs. An important innovation in the order system was the organization of the Order of Secret Affairs, a new institution where “boyars and Duma people do not enter and do not know affairs, except for the tsar himself.” This order performed control functions in relation to other orders. The order of secret affairs was arranged so that “the royal thought and deeds would be fulfilled according to his (the royal) desire.”

The heads of most orders were boyars or nobles, but office work was maintained by a permanent staff of clerks and their assistants - clerks. Having well mastered the administrative experience passed on from generation to generation, these people managed all the affairs of the orders. At the head of such important orders as the Discharge, Local and Ambassadorial orders were Duma clerks, that is, clerks who had the right to sit in the Boyar Duma. The bureaucratic element acquired everything higher value in the system of the emerging absolutist state.

The vast territory of the state in the 17th century, as in previous times, was divided into counties. What was new in the organization of local power was to reduce the importance of zemstvo administration. Everywhere power was concentrated in the hands of governors sent from Moscow. Assistant governors - “comrades” - were appointed to large cities. Clerks and clerks were in charge of office work. The hut where the governor sat was the center of government for the district.

The service of the governor, like the ancient feedings, was considered “self-serving,” that is, generating income. The governor used every excuse to “feed” at the expense of the population. The arrival of the voivode on the territory of the subordinate district was accompanied by the receipt of “incoming food”, on holidays they came to him with an offering, and a special reward was brought to the voivode during the filing of petitions. The arbitrariness in the local administration was especially felt by the lower social classes.

By 1678, the census of households was completed. After this, the government replaced the existing plow taxation (plow - a unit of taxation that included from 750 to 1800 acres of cultivated land in three fields) with household taxation. This reform increased the number of taxpayers; taxes were now levied on such segments of the population as “business people” (slaves who worked on the landowners’ farms), bobyls (impoverished peasants), rural artisans, etc., who lived in their yards and had not previously paid taxes . The reform caused landowners to increase the population in their households by uniting them.

Armed forces

New phenomena are also taking place in the organization of the state's armed forces. The local noble army was recruited as a militia of nobles and boyar children. Military service was still compulsory for all nobles. Nobles and boyar children gathered in their districts for inspection according to lists where all nobles fit for service were included, hence the name “service people.” Penalty measures were taken against “netchikovs” (who failed to show up for duty). In the summer, the noble cavalry usually stood near foreign cities. In the south, the gathering place was Belgorod.

The mobilization of local troops occurred extremely slowly; the army was accompanied by huge convoys and a large number of landowner servants.

Streltsy - foot soldiers armed with firearms - were distinguished by higher combat effectiveness than the noble cavalry. However, the Streltsy army by the second half of the 17th century. clearly did not meet the need to have a sufficiently maneuverable and combat-ready army. In peacetime, the archers combined military service with small trade and crafts, since they received insufficient grain and cash salaries. They were closely associated with the townspeople and took part in the urban unrest of the 17th century.

The need to restructure Russia's military forces on a new basis was acutely felt already in the first half of the 17th century. In preparation for the war for Smolensk, the government purchased weapons from Sweden and Holland, hired foreign military men and began to form Russian regiments of the “new (foreign) system” - soldier’s regiments and dragoons. The training of these regiments was carried out on the basis of the advanced military art of that time. The regiments were recruited first from “free willing people”, and then from among the “dacha people” recruited from a certain number of peasant and townsman households. The lifelong service of the Danish people, the introduction of uniform weapons in the form of lighter muskets than squeaks and flintlock carbines gave the regiments of the new system some features of a regular army.

Due to the increase in cash receipts, the costs of maintaining the army steadily increased.

Strengthening the nobility

Changes in the state system occurred in close connection with changes in the structure of the ruling class of feudal lords, on which the autocracy relied. The top of this class was the boyar aristocracy, which filled the court ranks (the word “rank” did not yet mean official position, but belonging to a certain group of the population). The highest were the Duma ranks, then came the Moscow ranks, followed by the police ranks. All of them were included in the category of service people “by fatherland”, in contrast to service people “by instrument” (streltsy, gunners, soldiers, etc.). Service people in the country, or nobles, began to form into a closed group with special privileges passed on by inheritance. From the middle of the 17th century. the transition of instrumental service people to the ranks of the nobles was closed.

Great value The abolition of localism was instrumental in eliminating differences between individual layers of the ruling class. Localism had a detrimental effect on the combat effectiveness of the Russian army. Sometimes, just before the battle, the governors, instead of taking decisive action against the enemy, entered into disputes about which of them was higher in “place.” Therefore, according to the decree on the abolition of localism, in past years, “in many of their state military and embassy affairs, in all sorts of cases, great dirty tricks and disorder and destruction were done from those cases and joy to the enemies, and between them - a thing disgusting to God - dislike and great , long-lasting feuds.” The abolition of localism (1682) increased the importance of the nobility in the state apparatus and the army, since localism prevented the promotion of nobles to prominent military and administrative positions.

3. Popular uprisings

The situation of peasants and urban lower classes

The feudal system fell with all its weight on the broad masses of the people, on the peasants and the townspeople.

The situation of the peasants was difficult not only economically, but also legally. The landowners and their clerks beat the peasants with whips and shackled them for any offense. Spontaneous manifestations of the peasants' struggle against their oppressors were the frequent murders of landowners and peasant escapes. Peasants left their homes and hid in remote and sparsely populated areas in the Volga region and southern Russia, especially on the Don.

In the city, property and social differences among the townspeople were emphasized by the government itself, which divided the townspeople according to their wealth into “good” (or “best”), “average” and “young”. Most of the townspeople belonged to young people. The best people were few in number, but they owned the largest number of trading shops and industrial establishments (salt refineries, wax slaughterhouses, distilleries, etc.). They entangled young people with debt obligations and often ruined them. Contradictions between the best and younger townspeople invariably appeared during the elections of zemstvo elders, who were in charge of the distribution of taxes and duties in the townsman community. Attempts by young people to nominate their candidates for zemstvo elders met with decisive rebuff from the city's rich, who accused them of rebellion against the tsarist government. Young townspeople, “longing for the truth” and “deliverance from all evil and from all kinds of violence by the rulers,” bitterly hated the urban “world-eaters” and took part in all the uprisings of the 17th century.

The serfdom state resolutely suppressed any attempt at protest by the dispossessed masses. The informers immediately reported to the governors and orders about “unsuitable speeches against the sovereign.” Those arrested were subjected to torture, which was carried out three times. Those who admitted their guilt were punished by whipping in the square and exile to distant cities, and sometimes the death penalty. Those who survived three times of torture were usually released crippled for life. “Izvet” (denunciation) on political affairs was legalized in Russia in the 17th century as one of the means of dealing with popular discontent.

Urban uprisings

Contemporaries called the 17th century a “rebellious” time. Indeed, in the previous history of feudal-serf Russia there was not such a number of anti-feudal protests as in the 17th century.

The largest of them in the middle and second half of this century were the city uprisings of 1648-1650, the “Copper Riot” of 1662, and the peasant war led by Stepan Razin of 1670-1671. “Split” occupies a special place. It began as a religious movement, which later found a response among the masses.

Urban uprisings 1648-1650 were directed against the boyars and government administration, as well as against the top of the townspeople. Public discontent was intensified by the extreme corruption of the state apparatus. The townspeople were forced to give bribes and “promises” to the governors and officials. Craftsmen in the cities were forced to work for free for the governors and clerks.

The main driving forces behind these uprisings were young townspeople and archers. The uprisings were predominantly urban, but in some areas they also spread to the countryside.

Unrest in the cities began already in the last years of the reign of Mikhail Romanov, but resulted in uprisings under his son and successor Alexei Mikhailovich. In the first years of his reign, the de facto ruler of the state was the royal educator (“uncle”) - boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov. In his financial policy, Morozov relied on merchants, with whom he was closely associated with general trade operations, since his vast estates supplied potash, resin and other products for export abroad. In search of new funds to replenish the royal treasury, the government, on the advice of Duma clerk N. Chisty, in 1646 replaced direct taxes with a tax on salt, which immediately almost tripled in price. It is known that a similar tax (gabel) caused in France in the same 17th century. great popular unrest.

The hated salt tax was abolished in December 1647, but instead of income coming to the treasury from the sale of salt, the government resumed the collection of direct taxes - Streltsy and Yamka money, demanding payment of them in two years.

Unrest began in Moscow in early June 1648. During the religious procession, a large crowd of townspeople surrounded the tsar and tried to convey to him a petition complaining about the violence of the boyars and officials. The guards dispersed the petitioners. But the next day, archers and other military men joined the townspeople. The rebels broke into the Kremlin, in addition, they destroyed the courtyards of some boyars, rifle chiefs, merchants and officials. Duma clerk Chistoy was killed in his home. The rebels forced the government to extradite L. Pleshcheev, who was in charge of the Moscow city administration, and Pleshcheev was publicly executed in the square as a criminal. The rebels demanded the extradition of Morozov, but the tsar secretly sent him into honorable exile to one of the northern monasteries. “Posad people throughout Moscow,” supported by archers and serfs, forced the Tsar to go out to the square in front of the Kremlin Palace and give an oath to fulfill their demands.

The Moscow uprising found a wide response in other cities. There were rumors that in Moscow “the strong are beaten with donkeys and stones.” The uprisings engulfed a number of northern and southern cities - Veliky Ustyug, Cherdyn, Kozlov, Kursk, Voronezh, etc. In the southern cities, where the townspeople population was small, the uprisings were led by archers. They were sometimes joined by peasants from nearby villages. In the North main role belonged to the townspeople and black-growing peasants. Thus, already the urban uprisings of 1648 were closely connected with the peasant movement. This is also indicated by the petition of the townspeople submitted to Tsar Alexei during the Moscow uprising: “All the people in the entire Moscow state and in its border regions are becoming unsteady from such untruth, as a result of which a big storm is rising in your royal capital city of Moscow and in many other places, in cities and counties."

The reference to the uprising in border areas suggests that the rebels may have been aware of the successes of the liberation movement in Ukraine led by Bohdan Khmelnitsky, which began in the spring of the same year. 1648

"Code" of 1649

The armed uprising of the urban lower classes and archers, which caused confusion among the ruling circles, was taken advantage of by the nobles and the elite of the merchant class to present their class demands to the government. In numerous petitions, the nobles demanded the payment of salaries and the abolition of “lesson years” for the search for fugitive peasants, guests and merchants sought the introduction of restrictions on the trade of foreigners, as well as the confiscation of privileged urban settlements, which were owned by large secular and spiritual feudal lords. The government was forced to give in to the harassment of the nobles and the top of the settlement and convened the Zemsky Sobor to develop a new code of law (code).

The Zemsky Sobor, convened on September 1, 1648 in Moscow, was attended by elected officials from 121 cities and districts. In first place in terms of the number of elected officials were provincial nobles (153 people) and townspeople (94 people). The “Conciliar Code,” or a new set of laws, was compiled by a special commission, discussed by the Zemsky Sobor and printed in 1649 in an exceptionally large circulation for that time of 2 thousand copies.

The “Code” was compiled on the basis of a number of sources, including the “Code of Code” of 1550, royal decrees and the “Lithuanian Statute”. It consisted of 25 chapters, divided into articles. The introductory chapter to the “Code” established that “all ranks of people, from the highest to the lowest, should have equal judgment and punishment in all matters.” But this phrase was purely declarative in nature, since in reality the “Code” affirmed the class privileges of the nobles and the top of the townsman world. The Code confirmed the right of owners to transfer the estate by inheritance, provided that the new landowner will perform military service. In the interests of the nobles, it prohibited the further growth of church land ownership. The peasants were finally assigned to the landowners, and the “scheduled summers” for searching for runaway peasants were cancelled. The nobles now had the right to search for runaway peasants for an unlimited time. This meant a further strengthening of the peasants' serfdom on the landowners.

The “Code” forbade the boyars and clergy to establish their so-called white settlements in the cities, where their dependent people lived, engaged in trade and craft; all people who fled from the townsman tax had to return to the townsman community again. These articles of the Code satisfied the demands of the townspeople, who sought the prohibition of white settlements, the population of which, engaged in trades and trades, was not burdened with the townsman tax and therefore successfully competed with the taxation of black settlements. The liquidation of privately owned settlements was aimed against the remnants of feudal fragmentation and strengthened the city.

The “Conciliar Code” became the main legislative code of Russia for more than 180 years, although many of its articles were abolished by subsequent legislative acts.

Uprisings in Pskov and Novgorod

The “Code” not only did not satisfy wide circles of townspeople and peasants, but further deepened class contradictions. New uprisings of 1650 in Pskov and Novgorod unfolded in the context of the struggle of young townspeople and archers against nobles and large merchants.

The reason for the uprising was speculation in grain, which was carried out according to direct orders from the authorities. It was beneficial for the government to inflate the price of bread, since the payment that was taking place at that time with the Swedes for defectors to Russia from the territories ceded to Sweden by the Treaty of Stolbovo in 1617 was partially made not with money, but with bread at local market prices.

The main participants in the Pskov uprising, which began on February 28, 1650, were the townspeople and archers. They took the governor into custody and organized their own government in the Zemskaya Izba, headed by the bread merchant Gavrila Demidov. On March 15, an uprising broke out in Novgorod, and thus the two large cities refused to obey the tsarist government.

Novgorod held out for no more than a month and submitted to the royal governor, Prince I. Khovansky, who immediately imprisoned many of the participants in the uprising. Pskov continued to fight and successfully repelled the attacks of the tsarist army that approached its walls.

The government of the rebels of Pskov, led by Gavrila Demidov, carried out measures that improved the situation of the urban lower classes. The zemstvo hut took into account food supplies that belonged to nobles and merchants; Young townspeople and archers were placed at the head of the military forces defending the city; Some nobles caught having relations with the tsarist troops were executed. The rebels paid special attention to attracting peasants and townspeople in the suburbs to the uprising. Most of the suburbs (Gdov, Ostrov, etc.) joined Pskov. A wide movement began in the village, covering a vast territory from Pskov to Novgorod. Detachments of peasants burned landowners' estates, attacked small detachments of nobles, and harassed the rear of Khovansky's army. In Moscow itself and other cities it was restless. The population discussed rumors about the Pskov events and expressed their sympathy for the rebels of Pskov. The government was forced to convene the Zemsky Sobor, which decided to send a delegation of elected people to Pskov. The delegation persuaded the Pskovites to lay down their arms, promising amnesty to the rebels. However, this promise was soon broken, and the government sent Demidov, along with other leaders of the uprising, into distant exile. The Pskov uprising lasted almost six months (March - August 1650), and the peasant movement in the Pskov land did not stop for several more years.

"Copper Riot"

A new urban uprising, called the “Copper Riot,” occurred in Moscow in 1662. It unfolded in conditions of economic difficulties caused by the long and ruinous war between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1654-1667), as well as the war with Sweden. Due to the lack of silver money, the government decided to issue copper coins equal in value to silver money. Initially, copper money was readily accepted (they began to be issued in 1654), but copper cost 20 times less than silver, and copper money was issued in excessive quantities. In addition, “thieves’”, counterfeit money appeared. They were minted by the moneymakers themselves, who were under the patronage of the royal father-in-law, boyar Miloslavsky, who was involved in this matter.

Copper money gradually began to fall in value; for one silver money they began to give 4, and then 15 copper money. The government itself contributed to the depreciation of copper money by demanding that taxes to the treasury be paid in silver coins, while salaries for military men were paid in copper. Silver began to disappear from circulation, and this entailed a further drop in the value of copper money.

From the introduction of copper money, the people who suffered most from the introduction of copper money were the townspeople and service people according to the instrument: archers, gunners, etc. The townspeople were obliged to pay cash contributions to the treasury in silver money, and they were paid with copper. “They don’t sell with copper money, there’s nowhere to get silver money,” said the “anonymous letters” distributed among the population. The peasants refused to sell bread and other food supplies with devalued copper money. Bread prices rose with incredible speed, despite good harvests.

The discontent of the townspeople resulted in a large uprising. In the summer of 1662, the townspeople destroyed some boyar and merchant households in Moscow. A large crowd went from the city to the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow, where Tsar Alexei lived at that time, to demand a reduction in taxes and the abolition of copper money. The “quiet” tsar, as the clergy hypocritically called Alexei, promised to investigate the case of copper money, but immediately treacherously broke his promise. The troops he called in carried out brutal reprisals against the rebels. About 100 people drowned in the Moscow River while fleeing; more than 7 thousand were killed, wounded, or imprisoned. The cruelest punishments and torture followed the first reprisal.

Peasant war led by Stepan Razin

The most powerful popular uprising of the 17th century. there was a peasant war of 1670-1671. led by Stepan Razin. It was a direct result of the aggravation of class contradictions in Russia in the second half of the 17th century. The difficult situation of the peasants led to increased escape to the outskirts. The peasants went to remote places on the Don and the Volga region, where they hoped to hide from the oppression of landowner exploitation. Don Cossacks was not socially homogeneous. The “homely” Cossacks mostly lived in free places along the lower reaches of the Don with its rich fishing grounds. It reluctantly accepted new newcomers, poor (“golutvenny”) Cossacks, into its membership. “Golytba” accumulated mainly on the lands along the upper reaches of the Don and its tributaries, but even here the situation of fugitive peasants and slaves was usually difficult, since the homely Cossacks forbade them to plow the land, and there were no new fishing grounds left for the newcomers. The Golutvenny Cossacks especially suffered from the lack of bread on the Don.

A large number of fugitive peasants also settled in the regions of Tambov, Penza, and Simbirsk. Here peasants founded new villages and hamlets and plowed up empty lands. But the landowners immediately followed them. They received letters of grant from the king for supposedly empty lands; the peasants who settled on these lands again fell into serfdom from the landowners. Walking people concentrated in the cities and earned their living by doing odd jobs.

The peoples of the Volga region - the Mordovians, Chuvash, Mari, Tatars - experienced heavy colonial oppression. Russian landowners seized their lands, fishing grounds and hunting grounds. At the same time, state taxes and duties increased.

A large number of people hostile to the feudal state accumulated on the Don and Volga region. Among them were many settlers exiled to distant Volga cities for participating in uprisings and various protests against the government and governors. Razin's slogans found a warm response among Russian peasants and the oppressed peoples of the Volga region.

The beginning of the peasant war was laid on the Don. The Golutvennye Cossacks undertook a campaign to the shores of the Crimea and Turkey. But the homely Cossacks prevented them from breaking through to the sea, fearing a military clash with the Turks. The Cossacks, led by ataman Stepan Timofeevich Razin, moved to the Volga and, near Tsaritsyn, captured a caravan of ships heading to Astrakhan. Having sailed freely past Tsaritsyn and Astrakhan, the Cossacks entered the Caspian Sea and headed to the mouth of the Yaika River (Ural). Razin occupied the Yaitsky town (1667), many Yaitsky Cossacks joined his army. The following year, Razin’s detachment on 24 ships headed to the shores of Iran. Having ravaged the Caspian coast from Derbent to Baku, the Cossacks reached Rasht. During negotiations, the Persians suddenly attacked them and killed 400 people. In response, the Cossacks destroyed the city of Ferahabad. On the way back, near the Pig Island, near the mouth of the Kura River, the Cossack ships were attacked by the Iranian fleet, but suffered complete defeat. The Cossacks returned to Astrakhan and sold the captured booty here.

A successful sea voyage to Yaik and to the shores of Iran sharply increased Razin’s authority among the population of the Don and Volga region. Fugitive peasants and slaves, walking people, the oppressed peoples of the Volga region were just waiting for a signal in order to raise an open rebellion against their oppressors. In the spring of 1670, Razin reappeared on the Volga with a 5,000-strong Cossack army. Astrakhan opened its gates for him; Streltsy and townspeople everywhere went over to the side of the Cossacks. At this stage, Razin’s movement outgrew the scope of the campaign of 1667-1669. and resulted in a powerful peasant war.

Razin with the main forces went up the Volga. Saratov and Samara greeted the rebels with ringing bells, bread and salt. But under the fortified Simbirsk the army lingered for a long time. To the north and west of this city, a peasant war was already raging. A large detachment of rebels under the command of Mikhail Kharitonov took Korsun, Saransk, and captured Penza. Having united with the detachment of Vasily Fedorov, he headed towards Shatsk. Russian peasants, Mordovians, Chuvash, Tatars rose to war almost without exception, without even waiting for the arrival of Razin’s troops. The peasant war was getting closer and closer to Moscow. Cossack atamans captured Alatyr, Temnikov, Kurmysh. Kozmodemyansk and the fishing village of Lyskovo on the Volga joined the uprising. Cossacks and Lyskovites occupied the fortified Makaryev Monastery in the immediate vicinity of Nizhny Novgorod.

On the upper reaches of the Don, the military actions of the rebels were led by Stepan Razin’s brother Frol. The uprising spread to the lands south of Belgorod, inhabited by Ukrainians and called Sloboda Ukraine. Everywhere “men,” as the tsar’s documents called the peasants, rose up in arms and, together with the oppressed peoples of the Volga region, fought fiercely against the serf owners. The city of Tsivilsk in Chuvashia was besieged by “Russian people and Chuvash.”

The nobles of the Shatsk district complained that they could not get to the royal governors “due to the unsteadiness of the traitorous peasants.” In the Kadoma region, the same “traitorous men” set up an ambush in order to detain the tsarist troops.

Peasants' War 1670-1671 covered a large area. The slogans of Razin and his associates raised the oppressed sections of society to fight, the “charming” letters drawn up by the differences called on all “enslaved and disgraced” to put an end to the worldly bloodsuckers and join Razin’s army. According to an eyewitness to the uprising, Razin said to the peasants and townspeople in Astrakhan: “For the cause, brothers. Now take revenge on the tyrants who have hitherto kept you in captivity worse than the Turks or the pagans. I have come to give you freedom and deliverance.”

The ranks of the rebels included Don and Zaporozhye Cossacks, peasants and serfs, young townspeople, servicemen, Mordovians, Chuvash, Mari, and Tatars. All of them were united by a common goal - the fight against serfdom. In cities that went over to Razin’s side, the voivode’s power was destroyed and city management passed into the hands of elected officials. However, fighting against feudal oppression, the rebels remained tsars. They stood for the “good king” and spread the rumor that Tsarevich Alexei, who at that time was actually no longer alive, was coming with them.

The peasant war forced the tsarist government to mobilize all its forces to suppress it. Near Moscow, a review of the 60,000-strong noble army was carried out for 8 days. In Moscow itself, a strict police regime was established, as they were afraid of unrest among the city's lower classes.

A decisive clash between the rebels and the tsarist troops took place near Simbirsk. Large reinforcements from the Tatars, Chuvash and Mordovians flocked to Razin’s detachments, but the siege of the city dragged on for a whole month, and this allowed the tsarist commanders to gather large forces. Near Simbirsk, Razin's troops were defeated by foreign regiments (October 1670). Hoping to recruit a new army, Razin went to the Don, but there he was treacherously captured by homely Cossacks and taken to Moscow, where in June 1671 he was subjected to a painful execution - quartering. But the uprising continued after his death. Astrakhan held out the longest. It surrendered to the tsarist troops only at the end of 1671.

Split

The fierce class struggle that unfolded in Russia in the second half of the 17th century was reflected in such a social movement as the schism of the Orthodox Church. Bourgeois historians emphasized only the church side of the schism and therefore paid main attention to ritual differences between the Old Believers and the ruling church. In reality, the split also reflected class contradictions in Russian society. It was not only a religious, but also a social movement, which clothed class interests and demands in a religious shell.

The reason for the split in the Russian Church was disagreement over the issue of correcting church rites and books. Translations of church books into Russian were made from Greek originals in different times, and the originals themselves were not absolutely identical, and the copyists of the books additionally introduced changes and distortions into them. In addition, rituals unknown in the Greek and South Slavic lands became established in Russian church practice.

The issue of correcting church books and rituals became especially acute after Nikon was appointed patriarch. The new patriarch, the son of a peasant from the outskirts of Nizhny Novgorod, who became a monk under the name Nikon, quickly rose to prominence in church circles. Elevated to patriarch (1652), he took the position of the first person in the state after the king. The Tsar called Nikon his “sobin’s friend.”

Nikon energetically began to correct liturgical books and rituals, trying to bring Russian church practice into conformity with Greek. The government supported these undertakings of Nikon, since the introduction of uniformity of church services and increased centralization of church administration corresponded to the interests of absolutism. But the growing absolutism was contradicted by the theocratic ideas of Nikon, who compared the power of the patriarch with the sun, and the power of the king with the moon, which only reflects sunlight. For several years, Nikon imperiously interfered in secular affairs. These contradictions led to a quarrel between the king and Nikon, which ended with the deposition of the ambitious patriarch. The Council of 1666 deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank, but at the same time approved his innovations and anathematized those who refused to accept them.

From this council begins the division of the Russian Church into the dominant Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Old Believer, i.e., rejecting church reforms Nikon. Both churches equally considered themselves the only Orthodox; The official church called the Old Believers “schismatics,” while the Old Believers called the Orthodox “Nikonians.” The schismatic movement was led by Archpriest Avvakum Petrovich, also a native of Nizhny Novgorod, a man with the same indomitable and imperious nature as Nikon himself. “We see how winter wants to be; my heart grew cold and my legs trembled,” Avvakum later wrote about correcting church books.

After the council of 1666, persecution fell on supporters of the schism. However, it was not easy to cope with the split, since he found support among the peasants and townspeople. Theological disputes were not accessible to them, but the old was their own, familiar, and the new was forcibly imposed by the serfdom state and the church that supported it.

The Solovetsky Monastery offered open resistance to the tsarist troops. Located on the islands of the White Sea, this richest of the northern monasteries was at the same time a strong fortress, protected by stone walls, and had a considerable number of cannons and food supplies for many years. The monks who stood for the agreement with the royal government were removed from the management of the monastery; The archers, exiled to the North, and working people took power into their own hands. Under the influence of the peasant war that was taking place at that time under the leadership of Razin, the Solovetsky uprising, arising on the basis of a split, turned into an open anti-feudal movement. The siege of the Solovetsky Monastery lasted eight years (1668-1676). The monastery was taken only as a result of treason.

The increasing oppression of the serf state led to the further development of the split, despite the most severe government persecution. Archpriest Avvakum, after a painful stay in an earthen prison, was burned at the stake in 1682 in Pustozersk and with his death further strengthened the “old faith.” The Old Believers fled to the outskirts of the state, into dense forests and swamps. However, religious ideology gave this movement a reactionary character. Among its participants, a savage teaching began to spread about the imminent end of the world and the need for self-immolation in order to avoid the “Antichrist” power. At the end of the 17th century. self-immolations became a frequent occurrence in the north of Rus'.

4. Russia's international position

Russia was greatly weakened by the long-term Polish-Swedish intervention and lost large and economically important territories in the west. The loss of Smolensk and the coast of the Gulf of Finland, as a direct outlet to the Baltic Sea, was especially difficult. The return of these original Russian territories, which were of enormous importance for the entire economic life of the country, remained an immediate task of Russian foreign policy in the 17th century. An equally important task was the struggle for the reunification of the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands within the framework of a single Russian state, as well as the defense of the southern borders from the raids of the Crimeans and the aggressive campaigns of the Turks.

"Azov seat" Zemsky Sobor 1642

The unsuccessful outcome of the Smolensk War complicated Russia's international position. The situation was especially alarming on the southern outskirts of the country, which was constantly devastated by the predatory raids of the Crimean Tatars. Only in the first half of the 17th century. the Crimean Tatars, who were in vassal dependence on Turkey, took up to 200 thousand Russian people into captivity. To protect the southern borders, the Russian government in the 30s of the 17th century. began the repair and construction of new defensive structures - the so-called abatis, consisting of abatis, ditches, ramparts and fortified towns, stretching in a narrow chain along the southern borders. Defensive lines made it difficult for the Crimeans to reach the interior districts of Russia, but their construction cost the Russian people enormous efforts.

Two Turkish fortresses stood at the mouth of the largest southern rivers: Ochakov - at the confluence of the Dnieper and Bug into the sea, Azov - at the confluence of the Don into the Sea of ​​Azov. And although there were no Turkish settlements in the Don basin, the Turks held Azov as the base of their possessions in the Black Sea and Azov regions .

Meanwhile, in the first half of the 16th century. Russian settlements on the Don reached almost to Azov. The Don Cossacks grew into a large military force and usually acted in alliance with the Cossacks against Turkish troops and Crimean Tatars. Often light Cossack ships, having deceived the Turkish guards near Azov, broke through the Don branches into the Sea of ​​Azov. From here the Cossack fleet headed to the shores of the Crimea and Asia Minor, raiding Crimean and Turkish cities. For the Turks, the Cossack campaigns against Kafa (present-day Feodosia) and Sinop (in Asia Minor) were especially memorable, when these largest Black Sea cities were devastated. Wanting to prevent the Cossack fleet from penetrating the Sea of ​​Azov, the Turkish government kept a military squadron at the mouth of the Don, but Cossack seaplanes with a crew of 40-50 people still successfully broke through the Turkish barriers into the Black Sea.

In 1637, taking advantage of the internal and external difficulties of the Ottoman Empire, the Cossacks approached Azov and took it after an eight-week siege. This was not a sudden raid, but a real regular siege using artillery and organizing earthworks. According to the Cossacks, they “damaged many towers and walls with cannons. And they dug in... near the entire city, and they started to dig in.”

The loss of Azov was extremely sensitive for Turkey, which was thus deprived of its most important fortress in the Azov region. However, the main Turkish forces were distracted by the war with Iran, and the Turkish expedition against Azov could only take place in 1641. The Turkish army sent to besiege Azov was many times larger than the Cossack garrison in the city, had siege artillery and was supported by a powerful fleet. The besieged Cossacks fought fiercely. They repelled 24 Turkish attacks, inflicted enormous damage on the Turks and forced them to lift the siege. Nevertheless, the issue of Azov was not resolved, because Turkey did not want to give up this important fortress on the banks of the Don. Since the Cossacks alone could not defend Azov against the overwhelming Turkish forces, the Russian government faced the question of whether it was necessary to wage a war for Azov or abandon it.

To resolve the issue of Azov, a Zemsky Sobor was convened in Moscow in 1642. Elected people unanimously proposed leaving Azov for Russia, but at the same time complained about their difficult situation. The nobles accused the clerks of extortion during the distribution of estates and money, the townspeople complained about heavy duties and cash payments. There were rumors in the provinces about imminent “turmoil” in Moscow and a general uprising against the boyars. The situation within the state was so alarming that it was impossible to even think about a new difficult, long war. The government refused to further protect Azov and invited the Don Cossacks to leave the city. The Cossacks left the fortress, ruining it to the ground. The defense of Azov has long been sung in folk songs, prose and poetic stories. One of these stories ends with words that seem to sum up the heroic struggle for Azov: “There was eternal glory for the Cossacks, and eternal reproach for the Turks.”

War with Poland over Ukraine and Belarus

The largest foreign policy event of the 17th century in which Russia took part was the long war of 1654-1667. This war, which began as a war between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth over Ukraine and Belarus, soon turned into a major international conflict, which involved Sweden, the Ottoman Empire and its vassal states - Moldavia and the Crimean Khanate. In terms of its significance for Eastern Europe, the war of 1654-1667. can be placed on a par with the Thirty Years' War.

Military operations began in the spring of 1654. Part of the Russian troops was sent to Ukraine for joint actions with the army of Bogdan Khmelnitsky against the Crimean Tatars and Poland. The Russian command concentrated its main forces on the Belarusian theater, where it was planned to deliver decisive blows to the troops of the Polish gentry. The beginning of the war was marked by great successes of the Russian troops. In less than two years (1654-1655), Russian troops captured Smolensk and the important cities of Belarus and Lithuania: Mogilev, Vitebsk, Minsk, Vilna (Vilnius), Kovno (Kaunas) and Grodno. Everywhere Russian troops found support from Russian and Belarusian peasants and the urban population. Even official Polish sources admitted that wherever the Russians came, “men gathered in droves” everywhere. In the cities, artisans and traders refused to oppose the Russian troops. Peasant detachments destroyed the master's estates. Military successes in Belarus were achieved with the support of units Ukrainian Cossacks.

Russian troops and Khmelnitsky's detachments operating in Ukraine also achieved significant successes. In the summer of 1655 they moved west and during the autumn liberated the Western Ukrainian lands up to Lvov from Polish-gentry oppression.

War between Russia and Sweden

The weakening of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth prompted the Swedish king Charles X Gustav to declare war on it under an insignificant pretext. Meeting weak resistance, Swedish troops occupied almost all of Poland, along with its capital Warsaw, as well as part of Lithuania and Belarus, where the Swedes were supported by the largest Lithuanian magnate Janusz Radziwill. Sweden's intervention dramatically changed the balance of power in Eastern Europe. Easy victories in Poland significantly strengthened the position of Sweden, which had established itself on the shores of the Baltic Sea. Considering that the Polish army had lost its combat capability for a long time, the Russian government concluded a truce with Poland in Vilna and began a war against Sweden (1656-1658).

In this war, the issue of Russia gaining access to the Baltic Sea was important. Russian troops took Koknese (Kokenhausen) on the Western Dvina and began the siege of Riga. At the same time, another Russian detachment took Nyenschanz on the Neva and besieged Noteburg (Oreshek).

The war between Russia and Sweden diverted the main forces of both states from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where a broad popular movement began against the Swedish invaders, which led to the clearing of Polish territory from Swedish troops. The government of the Polish king John Casimir, not wanting to put up with the loss of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands, resumed the fight against Russia. At the cost of territorial concessions, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth concluded the Peace of Oliwa with Sweden in 1660, which made it possible to throw all its armed forces against the Russian troops. This prompted the Moscow government to first conclude a truce and then peace with Sweden (Treaty of Kardis 1661). Russia was forced to abandon all its acquisitions received in the Baltic states during the Russian-Swedish war.

Truce of Andrusovo 1667

The military operations that resumed in 1659 developed unfavorably for the Russian troops, who left Minsk, Borisov and Mogilev. In Ukraine, the Russian army was defeated by Polish-Crimean forces near Chudnov. Soon, however, the Polish advance was stopped. A protracted war began, exhausting the forces of both sides.

Meanwhile, the tension caused by the war aggravated the internal political situation both in Russia and in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A “copper revolt” broke out in Russia, and an opposition movement of magnates and gentry, dissatisfied with the policies of Jan Casimir, arose in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Exhausted opponents ended the long war in 1667 with the Truce of Andrusovo for a period of 13 and a half years.

The negotiations in Andrusovo (near Smolensk) were conducted by an outstanding diplomat, head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz Afanasy Lavrentievich Ordin-Nashchokin, who received the title of “royal great seal and state great embassy treasurer.” According to the agreement reached, Russia retained Smolensk with its surrounding territory and Left Bank Ukraine. The city of Kyiv on the right bank of the Dnieper was transferred to Russian possession for two years; Belarus and Right Bank Ukraine remained under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The Truce of Andrusovo in 1667 did not resolve the complex issues facing Russia. Ukraine found itself divided into two parts. Its left bank part, together with Kiev, reunited with Russia, received the opportunity for economic and cultural development. Right-bank Ukraine experienced all the horrors of the Crimean Tatar invasions and remained under the rule of the Polish lords.

According to the Peace of Kardis, Sweden retained possession of the Russian coast of the Gulf of Finland, the only significance of which for Sweden was that Russia, the largest country in Europe, was deprived of direct access to the Baltic Sea. This created a constant threat of a new military conflict between Russia and Sweden.

The question of Russia’s relations with the Crimean Khanate and Turkey also remained unresolved. Azov remained a Turkish fortress, and the Crimean hordes continued to attack the southern outskirts of Russia.

Russian-Turkish War 1676-1681

At the end of 1666, wars between Turkey and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth began, which lasted with short interruptions for over 30 years. The Turks laid claim not only to the Right Bank, but also to the Left Bank Ukraine. The threat of Turkish aggression hanging over the largest Slavic states - Poland and Russia - contributed to Russian-Polish rapprochement. Already in 1672, on the eve of one of Turkey’s aggressive campaigns against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian government warned the Sultan about its readiness to provide assistance to the Polish king: “We will start a plot against you and send our order to the Don atamans and Cossacks so that they are on the Don and the Black Sea They had every kind of military activity.” Acting in this way, Moscow was convinced that the Turks intended “not only to ruin and take possession of the Polish state, but also to take possession of all the surrounding Christian states.”

Turkey, however, two months after receiving this letter, moved its troops against Poland and captured Kamenets, the largest fortress of Podolia. Russian diplomacy developed energetic activities to organize an anti-Turkish coalition. In 1673, the English, French and Spanish governments were invited by royal letters to joint military actions against the “common Christian enemy - the Sultan of Tours and the Crimean Khan.” However, the Western European states, between which there were major contradictions and which were also interested in maintaining their trading privileges in the Ottoman Empire, refused to take any action against the Turks.

It was not without reason that the Russian government feared a possible attack by the Turks against Russia. In 1676, Turkey made peace with Poland, and in the summer of 1677, the huge Turkish army of Ibrahim Pasha and the Crimean Khan Selim-Girey moved to the Ukrainian fortress on the right bank of the Dnieper - Chigirin, intending to subsequently capture Kiev. The Turkish command was confident that the small garrison of the fortress, consisting of Russian troops and Ukrainian Cossacks, would open the gates to the 100,000-strong army of Turks and Crimeans. But the Russian-Ukrainian army under the command of boyar G. G. Romodanovsky and hetman I. Samoilovich, rushing to the aid of the garrison of the besieged Chigirin, in August 1677, in the battles for crossing the Dnieper, defeated the Turks, forcing them to lift the siege of Chigirin and hastily retreat.

In the summer of the following 1678, the Turks again undertook the siege of Chigirin and although they captured the dilapidated fortress, they could not hold it. Russian sources note that the Turks, having encountered “a strong and courageous stand and great losses in their troops, August against the 20th, at midnight... ran back.” After lengthy negotiations between Russia and Turkey in 1681, a 20-year truce was concluded in Bakhchisarai. The Sultan recognized Russia's right to Kyiv and promised to stop the Crimean raids on its lands.

Crimean campaigns of 1687 and 1689

Although the Sultan swore “a terrible and strong oath... in the name of the One who created heaven and earth” not to violate the terms of the Bakhchisarai truce, enshrined in the next year by the Treaty of Constantinople, the Crimeans continued to ravage the Ukrainian lands and the southern regions of Russia. At the same time, the Sultan was able to intensify his aggression against others European countries, sending the liberated armed forces against them. Under these conditions, an anti-Turkish coalition of European states arose, the participants of which (Austria, Poland and Venice) sought to involve Russia in the union. The Russian government of Princess Sophia (1682-1689) made an indispensable condition for its participation in the Holy League the conclusion of an “eternal peace” with Polynia, confirming the terms of the Andrusovo Truce. “Eternal Peace” (1686) marked a turning point in relations between Russia and Poland and contributed to the unification of the efforts of the two states in the fight against Turkey.

Fulfilling its allied obligations to Poland and other members of the league, Russia organized two campaigns in Crimea. Already during the preparation for the first campaign, the properties of the local cavalry had a negative impact: discipline was weak in its ranks, training was extremely slow, and some of the late nobles, as a sign of disbelief in the success of the campaign, arrived in mourning clothes and with black blankets on their horses. Finally, in the spring of 1687, an army of 100 thousand (partly consisting of regiments of the new system), accompanied by a huge convoy, moved to the Crimea. Moving across the steppe scorched by the Tatars, suffering severely from the lack of water and losing horses, the Russian army did not reach the Crimea. She had to return to Russia, having lost a large number of people during the grueling campaign.

To avoid hostilities in the summer heat, the government organized the second Crimean campaign (1689) in early spring, and in May the Russian army reached Perekop. But this time too the Russians failed to achieve success. Princess Sophia's favorite, Prince V.V. Golitsyn, who commanded the Russian army in both campaigns, was a good diplomat, but turned out to be an unsuccessful commander. In connection with the sluggish actions of Golitsyn, who abandoned the general battle and retreated from Perekop, there were even rumors in Moscow, which, however, turned out to be unreliable, that the prince’s indecision was explained by the fact that he was bribed by the Turks.

Despite the unsuccessful results of the Crimean campaigns, Russia made a significant contribution to the fight against Turkish aggression, since these campaigns diverted the main forces of the Tatars, and the Sultan thus lost the support of the numerous Crimean cavalry. This created favorable conditions for successful actions by Russia’s allies in the anti-Turkish coalition in other theaters of war.

International relations of Russia

Russia occupied a prominent place in international relations in the 17th century. and exchanged embassies with the largest countries in Europe and Asia. Relations with Sweden, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, France, Spain, as well as with the Austrian emperor, “the Caesar,” as official Russian documents called him, were especially lively. Relations with Italy, primarily with the Roman Curia and Venice, were also of great importance. Constant contacts were maintained with Turkey and Iran, the Central Asian khanates and China. Relations with China, Iran and the khanates of Central Asia were generally peaceful.

The ambassadorial order, which was in charge of relations with foreign states, was a very important institution, headed in most cases not by boyars, but by Duma clerks, that is, people of humble origin, but well-versed in international affairs. The high importance of the Duma clerk of the Ambassadorial Prikaz was emphasized by the fact that foreigners called him “Chancellor.”

Russian embassies in the 17th century. appeared in almost all major capitals of Western Europe, and Russian merchants conducted brisk trade with Sweden, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and German cities. A significant number of Russian merchants visited Stockholm, Riga and other cities.

In turn, trade affairs attracted a large number of foreigners to Russia. Many of them accepted Russian citizenship and remained in Russia forever. Initially, they lived in courtyards among the Russians, and from the middle of the 17th century. in Moscow, outside Zemlyanoy Gorod, on “Kokuya”, a special German settlement arose. It included over 200 households. Despite the name German, few Germans actually lived in it, since Germans in Russia then usually called not only Germans, but also Scots, English, Dutch, etc. Almost three-quarters of the population of the German settlement were military men who entered Russian service, the rest the foreigners were doctors, artisans, etc. Thus, the settlement was inhabited mainly by wealthy people. In the German settlement, houses were built according to Western European models and there was a Protestant church (kirk). However, the idea of ​​​​the inhabitants of the German settlement as people of a higher culture compared to the Russian population is greatly exaggerated.

“German” customs influenced mainly the top of Russian society. Some Russian nobles arranged their home decoration according to overseas models and began to wear foreign clothes. Among them was Prince V.V. Golitsyn.

Fortified in the 17th century. and cultural ties between Russia and Western Europe. The appearance in Russia of a number of translated works on various branches of knowledge dates back to this time. At the court, “chimes” were compiled, a kind of newspaper with news about foreign events.

Long-standing ties between Russia and peoples Balkan Peninsula continued to expand. Representatives of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek clergy received “alms” in Russia in the form of cash gifts; some of the newcomers remained forever in Russian monasteries and cities. Greek scholars were engaged in translations of books from Greek and Latin, and served as editors (“reference officers”) at the Printing Yard. They were often teachers in wealthy families, as were Ukrainian monks, usually students of the Kyiv Theological Academy. The influence of the Kievites especially intensified towards the end of the 17th century, when many of them occupied the highest positions in the church hierarchy.

The influence of Russian culture on the Bulgarians and Serbs, who were under Turkish yoke, was especially significant. Visiting Bulgarians and Serbs took with them to their homeland a large number of books printed in Moscow and Kyiv. The opening of the first printing house in Iasi (Moldova) in 1640 occurred with the help of the Kyiv Metropolitan Peter Mogila. Relations with the Russian and Ukrainian peoples were of enormous importance for the struggle of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula against Turkish oppression.

In the 17th century, Russia’s ties with the peoples of Transcaucasia strengthened. Georgian and Armenian colonies existed in Moscow and left a memory of themselves in the names of the streets (Small and Big Gruzins, Armenian Lane). The Kakheti king Teimuraz personally came to Moscow and asked for support against the Iranian Shah (1658). A large Armenian colony was located in Astrakhan, which was the center of Russian trade with eastern countries. In 1667, an agreement was signed between the royal government and the Armenian trading company for the trade in Iranian silk. The head of the Armenian church, the Catholicos, appealed to Tsar Alexei with a request to protect the Armenians from the violence of the Iranian authorities. The peoples of Georgia and Armenia became more and more closely associated with Russia in their struggle against Iranian and Turkish enslavers.

Russia had lively trade relations with the peoples of Azerbaijan and Dagestan. There was a Russian merchant colony in Shemakha. Information about the eastern regions of the Caucasus, especially about the cities of Azerbaijan, is contained in the “walkings” of Russian people of the 17th century, of which the notes of the merchant F. A. Kotov are especially interesting.

Contacts with distant India also expanded. Settlements of Indian merchants who traded with Russia arose in Astrakhan. The royal government during the 17th century. sent its embassies to India several times.

5. Russian culture of the 17th century.

Education

In the 17th century Great changes have occurred in various areas of Russian culture.

The “new period” in Russian history powerfully broke with the traditions of the past in science, art and literature. This was reflected in the sharp increase in printed matter, in the emergence of the first higher educational institution, in the emergence of theater and newspapers (handwritten “chimes”). Civil motifs are gaining an increasing place in literature and painting, and even in such traditional forms of art as icon painting and church paintings, there is a desire for realistic images, far from the stylized style of painting of Russian artists of previous centuries.

The reunification of Ukraine with Russia had enormous and fruitful consequences for the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples. The origin of the theater, the spread of partes singing (church choral singing), the development of syllabic versification, and new elements in architecture were common cultural phenomena for Russia, Ukraine and Belarus in the 17th century.

Literacy has become the property of a much wider population than before. A large number of merchants and artisans in the cities, as shown by the numerous signatures of townspeople on petitions and other acts, were able to read and write. Literacy also spread among the peasant population, mainly among the black-growing peasants, as can be judged from the records on manuscripts of the 17th century made by their owners, the peasants. In noble and merchant circles, literacy was already commonplace.

In the 17th century, intensive attempts were made to create permanent educational institutions in Russia. However, only at the end of the century these attempts lead to the creation of the first higher education institution. First, the government opened a school in Moscow (1687), in which the Greek learned brothers Likhud taught not only church sciences, but also some secular sciences (arithmetic, rhetoric, etc.). On the basis of this school, the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy arose, which played a prominent role in Russian education. It was located in the building of the Zaikonospassky Monastery in Moscow (some of these buildings have survived to this day). The Academy mainly trained educated people to fill clergy positions, but it also produced many people engaged in various civilian professions. As is known, the great Russian scientist M.V. Lomonosov also studied there.

Printing was further developed. Its main center was the Printing Yard in Moscow, the stone building of which still exists today. The printing house mainly published church books. For the first half of the 17th century. About 200 separate editions were published. The first book of civil content printed in Moscow was the textbook of the patriarchal clerk Vasily Burtsev - “A primer of the Slavic language, that is, the beginning of teaching for children,” first published in 1634. In the second half of the 17th century. the number of secular books published by the Printing House is increasing sharply. These included “Teaching and cunning of the military formation of infantry people”, “Cathedral Code”, Customs Regulations, etc.

In Ukraine, the most important centers of book printing were Kyiv and Chernigov. The printing house of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra published the first textbook on Russian history - “Synopsis or a short collection from various chroniclers about the beginning of the Slavic-Russian people.”

Literature. Theater

New phenomena in the Russian economy of the 17th century. found reflection in the literature. Among the townspeople, an everyday story is born.

"A Tale of Woe and Misfortune" describes the dark story of a young man who failed in life. “I myself know and know that you should not put scarlet without a master,” exclaims the hero, giving an example from the life of artisans and traders familiar with the use of scarlet (velvet). Row satirical works dedicated to ridiculing the negative aspects of Russian life in the 17th century. In the story about Ersha Ershovich, unjust judicial courts are ridiculed. Ruff is known and eaten only by “hawk moths and tavern pebbles,” who have nothing to buy good fish with. Ruff’s main fault is that he “en masse and in conspiracy” took possession of the Rostov Lake - this is how the story parodies the article of the “Cathedral Code” about protests against the government. There is also a caustic satire on church practices. The “Kalyazin Petition” ridicules the hypocrisy of the monks.

The archimandrite drives us to church, the monks complain, and at that time we “are sitting around a bucket (with beer) without trousers in some scrolls in our cells... we can’t keep up... and the brew with beer will spoil the bucket.” In the “Feast of Tavern Markets” we find a parody of church service: “Grant, Lord, that this evening we may get drunk without beatings.”

In the literature of the second half of the 17th century. Folk elements are becoming more and more pronounced: in stories about Azov, in legends about the beginning of Moscow, etc. Folk chants are heard in the poetic story about Azov, in the lament of the Cossacks: “Forgive us, dark forests and green oak groves. Forgive us, the fields are clean and the backwater is quiet. Forgive us, blue sea and fast rivers.” In the 17th century, a new type was established literary work- notes that will receive special development in the next century. The remarkable work of the founder of the schism, the “Life” of Archpriest Avvakum, which tells about his long-suffering life, is written in simple and clear language.

Illustrations for the comedy "The Parable of the Prodigal Son" 1685

The teacher of Princess Sophia Alekseevna, Simeon of Polotsk, developed a wide literary activity as the author of numerous verses (poems), dramatic works, as well as textbooks, sermons and theological treatises. To print new books, a special court printing house was created by the “sovereign at the top.”

A major cultural event was the appearance of theatrical productions in Russia. The Russian theater arose at the court of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. For him, Simeon of Polotsk wrote “The Comedy of the Parable of the Prodigal Son.” It depicted the story of a prodigal son who repented after a dissolute life and was accepted back by his father. For the performance, a “comedy temple” was built in the royal village of Preobrazhenskoye near Moscow. The play “Artaxerxes’ Act” was performed here biblical story. Alexei Mikhailovich liked the play extremely, and the royal confessor freed him from doubts about the sinfulness of the theater, pointing to examples of pious Byzantine kings who loved theatrical spectacles. The director of the court theater was Gregory, a pastor from the German settlement. Soon his place was taken by S. Chizhinsky, a graduate of the Kyiv Theological Academy (1675). In the same year, a ballet and two new comedies were staged at the court theater: about Adam and Eve, about Joseph. The troupe of the court theater consisted of over 70 people, exclusively male, since female roles were also performed by men; among them were children - “unskillful and unintelligent youths.”

Architecture and painting

In the 17th century, stone construction gained great development. Stone churches appeared not only in cities, but also became common in rural areas. In large centers, a considerable number of stone buildings for civil purposes were built. Usually these were two-story buildings with windows decorated with platbands and a richly decorated porch. Examples of such houses are the Pogankin Chambers in Pskov, the Korobov House in Kaluga, etc.

The architecture of stone churches was dominated by five-domed cathedrals and small churches with one or five domes. Artists loved to decorate the outer walls of churches with stone patterns of kokoshniks, cornices, columns, window frames and sometimes multi-colored tiles. The heads, placed on high necks, took on an elongated bulbous shape. Stone tented churches were built in the first half of the 17th century. Later, tented churches remained the property of the Russian North with its wooden architecture.

At the end of the 17th century. a new style appeared, sometimes incorrectly called “Russian Baroque”. The temples had a cruciform shape, and their heads began to be located in a cross shape instead of the traditional arrangement in the corners. The style of such churches, unusually effective due to their rich external decoration, was called “Naryshkin”, because the best churches of this architecture were built in the estates of the Naryshkin boyars. An excellent example of this is the church in Fili, near Moscow. Buildings of this kind were erected not only in Russia, but also in Ukraine. Unusually slender and at the same time richly decorated with columns, platbands, and parapets, buildings of this style amaze with their beauty. Based on the territory of its distribution, this style could be called Ukrainian-Russian.

The best master painter of that era, Simon Ushakov, sought to paint not abstract, but realistic images. Icons and paintings of such “Fryazhian writing” show the desire of Russian artists to get closer to life, leaving behind abstract schemes. New trends in art caused deep indignation among zealots of antiquity. Thus, Archpriest Avvakum spoke venomously about the new icons, saying that on them “the merciful Savior” is depicted like a drunken foreigner with a blush on his cheeks.

Applied art reached a high level: artistic embroidery, decorative wood carving, etc. Excellent examples of jewelry art were created in the Armory Chamber, where they worked the best masters who carried out orders from the royal court.

In all areas of Russian cultural life, new trends were felt, caused by profound economic and social changes. These changes, as well as the fierce class struggle and powerful peasant uprisings that shook the feudal-serf state, were reflected in folk poetry. A cycle of songs of an epic nature developed around the majestic figure of Stepan Razin. “Turn, guys, towards the steep bank, we’ll break the wall and smash the prison stone by stone,” he sings folk song the exploits of Razin and his associates, calls for a fight against landowners, serfdom, and social oppression.