Important personalities under Peter 1. Bad good Peter

Differences in the views of Patriarch Nikon and Avvakum

Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest Avvakum were the main ideologists of two movements within the Russian Orthodox Church - Nikonianism and Old Believers, which arose in the middle of the 17th century. and marked a church schism - one of the most important events in Russian history of this century, which largely predetermined the subsequent historical fate of Russia.

The immediate cause of the split of the Russian Church into Nikonians and Old Believers was the work carried out by Patriarch Nikon in the 50s. XVII century reform of church rituals and correction of liturgical books. Archpriest Avvakum and his supporters opposed this reform, that is, for the old rituals and books, which is why they were called “Old Believers.” Disagreements over church rituals and liturgical literature constituted, however, only the external side of the church schism. The deep meaning of the church schism in Russia in the middle of the 17th century. consisted in a clash of two different views on the historical future of the Russian state, its purpose, the essence of tsarist power in Russia. The main ideologists of both movements - Nikon and Avvakum - advocated the independence of the church from state power, but they presented different ways of achieving this independence. Thus, in essence, the Russian church schism of the mid-17th century. was a schism in the political ideology of the Russian Orthodox Church, a conflict of political views of the Nikonians and Old Believers, although outwardly it appeared as a religious, ritual schism.

Be that as it may, the church schism became a real tragedy for Russian society. The most active, the most strong-willed, the most spiritually persistent, gifted with intelligence and talent representatives of Russian society entered the war with each other - people capable of sacrificing not only worldly goods, but even their lives for the sake of their faith.

Nikon asserted almost complete freedom of the church from the state. He believed that priests should not obey royal laws and royal courts. If one of the priests submits, then in Nikon’s understanding such a person ceases to be a priest. “Ask the king for a worldly court - not a bishop. Likewise, others of the sacred rank, having abandoned church courts, will resort to worldly judges, and even if they are justified, they will be cast out.” Nikon sharply opposed the Council Code of 1649. He called it “demonic laws” and openly called for disobeying the norms of the Code. Nikon, thus, declared a real split between church and state in Russia.

Nikon’s real opponent was, as an analysis of his political views shows, the royal power, which, in his opinion, had become an instrument of the Antichrist. Outwardly, however, everything looked as if Nikon waged the main struggle of his life against the Old Believers - people who did not accept his reform of church rituals and did not agree with the correction of liturgical books. In fact, Nikon did not attach much importance to the ritual side of the reform itself. He allowed the use of both corrected and old, uncorrected books in church services. Nikon did not declare the Old Believers to be heretics; this assessment of the opponents of church reform was instilled in the Church Council by Greek priests who arrived in Russia.

Consideration of the ideology of the Old Believers leads to the conclusion that in many postulates the Old Believers, in essence, agreed with Nikon. This is evidenced by the writings of the main ideologist of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum. Avvakum assessed the reform of church rituals and its promoter, Patriarch Nikon, as heresy. Nowhere is there such an immaculate Orthodox faith as in Russia, Avvakum believed. Nowhere is there such an Orthodox state as the Russian one. Avvakum was, in essence, the ideologist of the Russian national state, the Russian national church.

Characteristics of the personality of Peter the Great

The gigantic figure of Peter combined within himself an abyss of contradictions. A head ahead of his contemporaries in terms of mental demands, thirst for activity and almost inhuman efficiency, he remained a son of his time in the sense of the coarseness of his moral principles and the savagery of his nature.

Peter 1 is talented, has extraordinary willpower, is active and active, but his abilities are aimed not at the elevation of his own personality, but at the glory of Russia. He is persistent in achieving his goal, and in the event of temporary defeats he does not lose his presence of mind. But the founding of the fleet, the construction of a new capital on the bones of thousands and thousands of people, mass executions, persecution of Old Believers - all these were also the deeds of Peter.

Pyotr Alekseevich did not tolerate disobedience, although he asked to address him “simply” and “without the Great,” that is, without a permanent title. If his commands were not carried out, then he demanded severe and demonstrative punishment. For example, in a letter to the Moscow governor about the Glukhov commandant Volkov, who was convicted of embezzlement, he demands: “...for this theft, order him to be executed in the square or in the swamp and not to bury his corpse in the ground until spring until there is great warmth.”

Peter, being a man generously gifted by nature, had an attraction to any type of technology and a wide variety of crafts. Since childhood, he skillfully worked as a carpenter, carpenter, and painter. Fifteen-year-old Peter was interested in applied mathematical disciplines, in particular geometry. He retained this interest throughout his life. Peter was not like his predecessors either in appearance or in his lively and open character. The personality of the king is very complex and contradictory, but at the same time, he was a very integral person. In all his endeavors, sometimes very contradictory, there was still a rational grain. All the contradictory character of Peter 1 manifested itself during the construction of the new capital - St. Petersburg. On the one hand, intending to establish a firm foot in the Baltic, Russia had to obtain a stronghold and a base for the fleet. But on the other hand, the death of thousands of people during the construction of the city shows how expensive the implementation of the state will of the tsar was sometimes. Not sparing himself, not knowing how to take care of his health and life, he did not spare his subjects, easily sacrificing them for the sake of his plans.

Not evil by nature, he was impetuous, impressionable and distrustful. Unable to patiently explain to others what was obvious to him, Peter, when faced with misunderstanding, easily fell into a state of extreme anger and often “pounded” the truth into senators and generals with his huge fist or staff. True, the king was quick-witted and after a few minutes he could already laugh at the successful joke of the guilty one.

Peter's foreign policy

The foreign policy of Peter I, like all his activities, was subordinated to achieving the main goal - to transform Russia into a powerful world power. To do this, it was necessary to gain access to sea trade routes.

Being cut off from the seas, Russia could not develop economic relations with European countries and have a serious influence on world politics. At the end of the 17th century, Russia had only one seaport - Arkhangelsk on the White Sea. But due to his remoteness, he could not solve the problems facing the country. The Baltic Sea was dominated by the Swedish Empire, which was at the peak of its power. Sweden, having achieved the position of the strongest country in Northern Europe, did not intend to tolerate the arrival of its long-time enemy, Russia, into its possessions. The Black Sea was also inaccessible - it was under the complete control of the powerful Ottoman Empire. The Pacific coast, due to its undeveloped nature and remoteness, was not even considered by Peter I as a factor in foreign policy. In this situation, there was nothing left to do but force a way out to the sea. And the first test of strength of young Peter I took place in the southern direction, in the war with the Ottoman Empire.

Azov campaigns of Peter I.

Campaigns against the Ottoman Empire took place in 1695 and 1696. In essence, this was a continuation of the war started by Princess Sophia, Peter’s sister and his predecessor on the Russian throne. The only difference was that, unlike the campaigns of the Russian army in 1687 and 1689, the campaigns of Peter I were aimed not at the Crimean Khanate, but at capturing the strategically important Turkish fortress of Azov at the mouth of the Don. The first campaign failed to achieve its goal - as a result of two unsuccessful assaults, the siege of the fortress had to be lifted. But the next year, the Russian army still managed to capture the Azov fortress. Russia's access to the Sea of ​​Azov was of very important political and military significance for it. But it was still necessary to gain a foothold at sea in order to develop the success achieved. And this meant intensifying the war with Turkey. To do this, Russia needed to receive the support of European countries waging war against Turkey. To do this, a diplomatic mission was sent to Europe in 1697, headed by the king, called the “Grand Embassy”.

Grand Embassy.

Diplomatic visit of Peter I to Europe in 1697-1698. It was a consequence of the Azov campaigns and had several goals:

Receive diplomatic and military support from European countries in the war with Turkey. In case of victory over Turkey, he will secure the consent of the European allies to obtain the northern Black Sea region.

Use the foreign policy factor of victory in the Azov campaign, raise the prestige of Russia.

Search for allies for the war with Sweden.

Acquaintance of Peter I with the countries of Europe.

And, although Peter I was part of the embassy under the name of Peter Mikhailov, a sergeant of the Preobrazhensky regiment, he actually personally headed the embassy.

Over the course of two years, the embassy visited Livonia, Riga, Königsberg, Holland, England and Austria.

The result of the Great Embassy for the foreign policy of Peter I was a change in its course. The war for access to the Black Sea ceased to be relevant for him, and in 1700 he signed the Treaty of Constantinople with the Ottoman Empire. This agreement consolidated the existing situation - Azov remained with Russia, and part of the Dnieper region was returned to Turkey. Thus, Russia actually abandoned its presence in the Black Sea. This was caused by Peter I’s desire to gain access to the Baltic sea, which was strategically important for Russia. For this, war with Sweden was inevitable. During his visit to Europe, Peter found an ally in this war - the King of Saxony and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Augustus II, with whom he concluded an agreement against Sweden. In 1699, this agreement resulted in the Northern Alliance with Danish participation. In 1700, the war for the Baltic Sea began, which lasted 21 years and was called the “Northern War”.

Northern War.

The war began for Russia with a devastating defeat near Narva in 1700. But this did not stop Peter in his quest to conquer the Baltic. Having reorganized the army, he resumed military operations and in 1702 achieved his first success - the Swedish fortress of Noteburg (renamed Shlisselburg by Peter the Great) was captured. And in 1703, with the capture of the Nyenschanz fortress at the mouth of the Neva, it was possible to reach the Baltic Sea. At the same time, in 1703, St. Petersburg was founded - the future brilliant capital of the Russian Empire. And the Kronstadt fortress on Kotlin Island became the first base of the Russian Baltic Fleet. But there were still many years of war ahead - the Northern War ended only in 1721 with the complete victory of Russia. In 1721, Russia concluded the Treaty of Nystadt with Sweden. The main result of the war for Russia was its consolidation in the Baltic Sea.

Military reform

During the Northern War, a radical reorganization of the armed forces takes place. A powerful regular army is being created in Russia and, in connection with this, the local noble militia and the Streltsy army are being eliminated. The basis of the army began to consist of regular infantry and cavalry regiments with a uniform staff, uniforms, and weapons, which carried out combat training in accordance with general army regulations. The main ones were the Military Charter of 1716 and the Naval Charter of 1720, in the development of which Peter I participated.

The development of metallurgy contributed to a significant increase in the production of artillery pieces; outdated artillery of different calibers was replaced by new types of guns.

For the first time in the army, a combination of bladed weapons and firearms was made - a bayonet was attached to the gun, which significantly increased the fire and striking power of the army.

At the beginning of the 18th century. For the first time in the history of Russia, a navy was created on the Don and Baltic, which was not inferior in importance to the creation of a regular army. The construction of the fleet was carried out at an unprecedentedly fast pace at the level of the best examples of military shipbuilding of that time.

During the reign of Peter I, Russia became the owner of the largest navy in the Baltic.

The first guards regiments were formed - Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky.

By 1725, the size of the Russian army was 318 thousand people.

The creation of a regular army and navy required new principles for their recruitment. The basis was the recruitment system, which had undoubted advantages over other forms of recruitment that existed at that time. The nobility was exempt from conscription, but military or civil service was obligatory.

Peter the Great was born in Moscow in 1672. His parents are Alexey Mikhailovich and Natalya Naryshkina. Peter was raised by nannies, his education was weak, but the boy’s health was strong, he was sick least of all in the family.

When Peter was ten years old, he and his brother Ivan were proclaimed kings. In fact, Sofya Alekseevna reigned. And Peter and his mother left for Preobrazhenskoye. There, little Peter began to become interested in military activities and shipbuilding.

In 1689, Peter I became king, and Sophia's reign was suspended.

During his reign, Peter created a powerful fleet. The ruler fought against Crimea. Peter went to Europe because he needed allies to help him stand against the Ottoman Empire. In Europe, Peter devoted a lot of time to shipbuilding and studying the cultures of different countries. The ruler mastered many crafts in Europe. One of them is gardening. Peter I brought tulips from Holland to the Russian Empire. The emperor liked to grow various plants brought from abroad in his gardens. Peter also brought rice and potatoes to Russia. In Europe, he became obsessed with the idea of ​​changing his state.

Peter I waged war with Sweden. He annexed Kamchatka to Russia and the shores of the Caspian Sea. It was in this sea that Peter I baptized those close to him. Peter's reforms were innovative. During the Emperor's reign there were several military reforms, the power of the state increased, and a regular army and navy were founded. The ruler also invested his efforts in the economy and industry. Peter I invested a lot of effort in the education of citizens. Many schools were opened by them.

Peter I died in 1725. He was seriously ill. Peter handed the throne to his wife. He was a strong and persistent person. Peter I made many changes, both in the political system and in the life of the people. He successfully ruled the state for more than forty years.

Biography by dates and interesting facts. The most important.

Other biographies:

• Lavr Kornilov

  Lavr Kornilov is the greatest commander of the Russian army, participated in the First World War, one of the first founders of the White Movement detachments in the Kuban.

• Arkady Gaidar
• Pogorelsky Anthony

  Antony Pogorelsky was an outstanding writer of his time. He was born in Moscow. His father was a nobleman, and his mother was a peasant. Among the relatives, noble people predominated, including the Russian writer Alexei Tolstoy

Personality of Peter I

The history of the state was Peter himself, and all historians
...commanded us to think, because that’s how we
reflecting on our days. (N.Ya. Eidelman.)

Kneller S.G. Portrait of Peter I

Khudoyarov V.P. Emperor Peter I at work

The implementation of extensive shipbuilding plans reveals in their initiator, Peter the Great, a man of extraordinary energy and broad outlook, who did not think about immediate benefits, but looked to the distant future. The very idea - to create a navy from scratch in a short time - can give an idea of ​​​​the scale of Peter's plans. This idea was daring, first of all, because the country had neither financial resources, nor master shipbuilders, nor navigators, nor people from whom it was possible to crew ships. Nevertheless, the navy was created. It is rightfully considered the brainchild of Peter, his long-standing dream, embodied in real frigates and battleships. And in the very places where Alexander Nevsky once fought and received his nickname, Tsar Peter founded the fortress of St. Petersburg on May 16, 1703 on Vesyoly Island . A year later he calls it the capital of the state.

Many of Peter's critics argued that he was more of a conqueror than a transformer. But Peter’s attitude to the war shows that material and political benefits for him stood above the success of military weapons. For him, war was not a goal, but a means; he understood it as a temporary disaster, but necessary for the well-being of the people and national development. Peter did not look like a winner of military glory and a “great conqueror.” Its conquests were necessary to create the prerequisites in Russia for the development of European civilization.

Conclusions

Versatility and harmony are the main personality traits of Peter. These properties of his personality are largely explained by environmental conditions and the nature of the era. At the end of the 17th century. the tsar left the palace on the street, descended from the heights of society to its very bottom, and plunged into the suburban life of foreign settlers. Not a single Russian person of that time had access to such a diversity of views. Peter turned a blind eye to class differences, religious strife, national enmity, the concepts, customs and customs of different strata of society were close to him, he was capable of critical analysis, comparison of Russian with foreign, etc.

Bibliography

1. Georgiev I.I. “Entertaining questions and answers”, Collection: Textbook. manual. - St. Petersburg: “Parity”, 2003. – 345 p.
2. Brockhaus F.A., Efron I.A. Encyclopedic Dictionary in 86 volumes, St. Petersburg: “Polradis”, 1993. - 455 p.
3. Fedrova D.V. “Remembering Peter”, Nizhny Novgorod: “Yarilo”, 2000. – 340 p.
4. Pavlenko N.I. “The Life of Wonderful People”, M.: “Young Guard”, 1976.-370 p.
5. Anisimov E.V. “The time of Peter's reforms. About Peter 1." St. Petersburg, 1989.-240 p.
6. Bagger Hans "Reforms of Peter the Great". M., 1985.-380 p.
7. Klyuchevsky V.O. "Historical Portraits". M, 1991.-230 p.
8. Klyuchevsky V.O. "Course of Russian history". M, 1957.-390s.
9. Lebedev V.I. "Reforms of Peter the Great". M, 1937.-410s.
10. Polyakov L.V. Kara-Murza V. “Reformer. Russians about Peter the Great." Ivanovo, 1994.-390 p.
11. Soloviev S.M. "Public readings on the history of Russia." M, 1962.-400s.
12. Soloviev S.M. "On the history of new Russia." M, 1993.-400 p.
13. Collection: “Russia during the period of reforms of Peter the Great” M, 1973.-530 pp.
14. Encyclopedia of kings and emperors. ROOSSA, 2010. -282s.

In the history of the Russian state there have been many different rulers: great diplomats, wonderful strategists and brilliant commanders. But only one of them combined all these qualities - Peter the Great. He was called a brilliant reformer, a madman, a hooligan and the Antichrist. How was the personality of Tsar Peter formed, what factors influenced this?

Unusual king

Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov was very different from his predecessors. There was undoubtedly a deep hereditary connection between them. But all the rulers of Russia were masters who carefully guarded the country’s wealth for themselves and used other people’s hands for work. And the son of Alexei Mikhailovich was a working tsar in the truest sense of the word. The fourteen professions that Tsar Peter the Great mastered are not a beautiful fairy tale, but the truth.

The character of the first Russian emperor

Peter the Great had a complex and contradictory character. He inherited his liveliness, indefatigable curiosity and quickness of thought from his mother’s side. As a child, he was a smart and handsome boy, very different from his co-ruler, brother Ivan.

The main character traits of Peter were hot temper, impetuosity, impressionability and distrust. When he couldn't explain something clearly, he easily became angry. In this state, he often grabbed his cane. By the way, the king left quickly and within a few minutes could forgive the offender. But its simplicity was deceptive. Peter the Great asked to address him without a title, but in case of obvious disobedience, the sentence was swift and cruel.

How was the personality of Tsar Peter the Great formed? Why was he so different from other Russian rulers? The answer must be sought in the very early years of the little prince.

The childhood of Peter the Great

It is unknown where the future first Russian emperor was born. Several possible places are named, but researchers do not have exact data.

Trying to understand how the personality of Tsar Peter the Great was formed, one must first turn to his parents - those who had a direct influence on him from birth.

At the age of 4 he lost his father, who loved him very much. Alexey Mikhailovich, giving his son toy soldiers and pistols, aroused in the child his first interest in weapons and military affairs. According to the testimony of the tsar's contemporaries, as a child he was not interested in any other toys or amusements except military ones.

The father, wanting to give his young son proper military training, assigned Colonel Menesius to him as a military mentor. And so it turned out that Peter the Great began to study military affairs earlier than literacy. The young heir was then 4 years old. His acquaintance with literacy began at the age of five.

Learning from church books was a real torment for a lively and restless child, so Nikita Zotov, the child tsar’s teacher, also taught him from the then popular “amusing” picture books. Peter's mentor paid a lot of attention to studying the military history of Russia, talking about Prince Vladimir and

Until the age of ten, the prince lived calmly and carefree with his mother near Moscow, in the village of Preobrazhenskoye. Here an earthen fortification with cannons was built for him, where he and his “amusing” army, recruited from peers, could engage in military affairs, playing at taking the fortress.

The childhood of Peter the Great was not cloudless. which young Peter witnessed, could not help but leave an imprint on the child’s psyche, causing a nervous breakdown for the future emperor. Because of this, the king’s face was distorted by convulsions in moments of great excitement.

After his sister Sophia came to power, he was again sent to Preobrazhenskoye. Zotov was removed from him, and the young heir was left to his own devices. An idle lifestyle would have spoiled someone else, but Peter’s integral and active nature did not allow him to kill his curiosity and desire to learn new things. He himself later said that he really lacked the knowledge he did not receive in childhood.

Tsar Peter Alekseevich studied until his death. At the age of 14, he learned about the astrolabe and ordered it to be brought to him from France. He then found a Dutchman who could show him in general terms how to operate the device. This was enough for the talented young man to further figure it out on his own. It has always been this way. Having seen or learned about something unknown to him, the king immediately got excited about the idea of ​​studying a new matter and did not calm down until he became an expert on it. So, having seen an abandoned boat, he learned to sail on it and even founded his own shipyard.

Environment

How was the personality of Tsar Peter Alekseevich formed? This question is extremely interesting, given the fact how very different he was from his predecessors. The environment of the young heir played a huge role in nurturing those qualities that were inherent in Peter the Great. He was lucky - first his father, and after his death, his elder brother Fyodor paid a lot of attention to the upbringing and training of the heir to the throne. Teachers, Menesius and later clerk Nikita Moiseevich Zotov, who was assigned to Peter, instilled in him a thirst for knowledge and maintained an interest in everything new.

The associates and people closest to the tsar were Franz Yakovlevich Lefort, Alexander Danilovich Menshikov, Pavel Yaguzhinsky, Yakov Bruce.

The first Russian emperor - a brilliant reformer or a tyrant?

It is difficult to judge the personality of Peter the Great. Opposite character traits are closely intertwined in him. Hot temper, cruelty, and vindictiveness coexisted with hard work, curiosity, an insatiable thirst for life, and a cheerful disposition. The uniqueness of Pyotr Alekseevich’s personality lay in the fact that he had a strong thirst for knowledge and enormous capacity for work, with the help of which he sought to transform Russia, which was backward in all respects, and make it a great power.

Personality and character

Peter combined opposite character traits. At the same time, he was hot-tempered and cold-blooded, wasteful and thrifty to the point of stinginess, cruel and merciful, demanding and condescending, rude and gentle, calculating and rash. All this created a kind of emotional background against which Peter’s state, diplomatic and military activities took place.

For all the diversity of Peter’s character traits, he was a surprisingly integral person. The idea of ​​serving the state, in which the king deeply believed and to which he subordinated his activities, was the essence of his life. It permeated all his endeavors. If we keep this in mind, then the apparent inconsistency and sometimes contradictory nature of his activities acquire a certain unity and completeness.

Peter considered the beginning of this service not the time of accession to the throne (1682) and not even the year of the removal of Princess Sophia from the regency (1689), or, finally, not the death of his brother Ivan (1696), with whom he formally shared power, but participation in the affairs of state meanings.

In 1713, in connection with the summer campaign of Russian troops in Finland, an interesting correspondence took place between Peter and Vice Admiral Kruys. The vice admiral warned the tsar against direct participation in naval and landing operations, which were always life-threatening. To these entreaties, the tsar replied: “I have been serving this state for more than eighteen years (which I don’t write about at length, since everyone knows it) and I have been in many battles, actions and ballagers (that is, sieges), everywhere I have been asked from good and honest officers so as not to be absent."

So, Peter, according to his calculations, began serving “this state” 18 years ago, that is, in 1695. Much later, when materials for the “History of the Northern War” were being collected, the tsar made a clarification in his own note: “he began to serve as a bombardier from the first Azov campaign, when the towers were taken.”

Thus, amusing games and Kozhukhov maneuvers, in which the tsar served as a drummer and bombardier, his first hobbies in shipbuilding, the construction of the Pereyaslavl fleet, and the journey to Arkhangelsk, in his mind, remained outside the scope of “service.” Peter did not include all these events in his own track record, apparently on the grounds that these events did not result in results of national significance.

Peter combined a broad interpretation of his service as a state service with a narrower one. When counting the time of service at sea, he was guided by slightly different criteria. In the same 1713, reporting about an unprecedented storm on the Baltic Sea, Peter writes: “True, at the age of 22, when I began serving at sea, I only saw two or three such storms.” Consequently, the tsar began his naval service from the time of the construction of the Pereyaslavl flotilla. This flotilla did not carry out any combat operations, however, Peter believed that even then he was performing naval service, but had not yet “served this state.”

Peter's epistolary legacy also reveals his misconception about how one should approach service - with full dedication, with ignoring personal, so to speak, private interests for the sake of state interests, with a willingness to sacrifice life for the sake of achieving goals of national importance.

In his daily activities, Peter often acted in two capacities. When the tsar “served” as a bombardier, captain, colonel, or shipmaster, apparently he considered himself a private person and bore the name Pyotr Mikhailov. Being in the rank of Schautbeinakht, and then vice admiral, he demanded that he be addressed in the fleet not as a sovereign, but as a person bearing a naval rank: “Mr. Schautbeinakht”, “Mr. Vice Admiral”.

As a private person, he attended family celebrations of his colleagues, buried people whom he highly valued during his lifetime, and also participated in the games he invented of “Prince Caesar” and “Prince Dad.”

When the king built a ship, stormed a fortress, or quickly covered vast distances to take personal part in some business, he worked, and he worked not so much in order to make a personal contribution to the matter, but in order to inspire others with his example , to show the need, although exhausting, but extremely useful. This kind of activity acquired an instructive and pedagogical character.

The educational significance of personal example was perhaps most clearly described by one of the “chicks of Petrov’s nest,” Peter’s younger contemporary Ivan Ivanovich Neplyuev. After returning from abroad, where Neplyuev, among others, studied naval affairs, he had the opportunity to take an exam for the Tsar. “At 8 o’clock the sovereign arrived in a one-wheeler and, walking past, said to us: “Great, guys.” Then after a while they let us into the assembly, and the Admiral General (that is, the tsar) ordered Zmaevich to ask separately from now on who knows what about navigation. Then, when it was my turn (and I was, according to the agreement between us, one of the last), the sovereign deigned to approach me, without allowing Zmaevich to do the problem, he asked: “Have you learned everything for which you were sent?” that I answered: “Most merciful sir, I have been diligent to the best of my ability, but I cannot boast that I have learned everything, but rather I consider myself an unworthy slave before you, and for this reason I ask, as before God, your generosity towards me in saying these things.” words, I knelt down, and the sovereign, turning his hand to the right, gave me a kiss and at the same time deigned to say: “You see, brother, I and the king, but I have calluses on my hands, and that’s all because: to show you an example and even in my old age to see me worthy helpers and servants of the fatherland."

Understanding Peter’s behavior, collecting facts related to his military and state activities, Feofan Prokopovich created a theory, the meaning of which was that “warriors are worthy of a great king, and a king is worthy of eating great warriors.”

Peter's external democracy did not mislead anyone about the true nature of his power. And Peter himself did not at all seek to pass himself off as the people's king. He knew for sure that in his state there was a “noble” class and a “vile” class. There is an abyss between them: the first rules, the second obeys. Peter headed for strengthening the position of the ruling class. In life, Peter remained an absolute monarch in all cases: when he performed the duties of a ship master, and when he was incognito as part of the great embassy, ​​and when he led a battalion of the Novgorod regiment into an attack during the Battle of Poltava, and when he ordered the burning of the cities of “thieves” - Bulavinites, and when he spent his leisure time at a cheerful feast with friends, and when, finally, he was present at the christening of a soldier of the bombardment company, Ivan Vekshin, to whom, from his generosity, which was not at all royal, he presented a gift of only three red rubles.

But Peter still sometimes consciously tried to emphasize his two completely different hypostases, as, for example, in cases of a deliberately respectful attitude towards his superiors during the launching of ships.

Once, as a private citizen, in this case a surgeon, he attended the funeral of his patient. The patient suffered from dropsy, and the doctors, no matter how much they tried to help her with surgical intervention, could not do anything. Peter took up the matter, he managed to release the water, he was very proud of this, because patented surgeons only came out with blood, but the patient soon died.

As a private person, he also participated in the funeral of a four-year-old baby. The father of this baby, an English merchant, arranged a magnificent ceremony, as if the deceased were some noble or honored person. The long procession walked on foot all the way to the cemetery. Peter was also among the funeral participants only because he was the godfather of the deceased.

Peter was exceptionally thrifty when it came to spending money on personal needs, and at the same time did not skimp on expenses for his wife’s wardrobe and the construction of palaces. In this regard, an interesting conversation took place between the Tsar and Fyodor Matveevich Apraksin. Apraksin noted that the gifts given by the tsar to godfathers, mothers in childbirth and others are so insignificant, “that it is a shame for our brother to give such.” Peter countered Apraksin’s reproach with the following reasoning:

This does not happen at all from stinginess, but because: 1) in my opinion, the most capable way to reduce vices is to reduce needs, then I should be an example to my subjects in this; 2) prudence requires keeping expenses in line with income, and my income is less than yours.

Your income consists of millions,” Apraksin objected.

My own income consists solely of the salary I receive according to the ranks that I wear in the land and naval services, and from this money I dress myself, and use it for other needs, and use it for gifts.

Here are the same two incarnations of Peter: the sovereign of a powerful power, whose country residence in Peterhof should not be inferior to Versailles, and Peter Mikhailov, a zealous owner who lives on a salary and sets an example of an economical life for his subjects.

Peter's prudence, bordering on stinginess, was striking to everyone who had the opportunity to observe him in everyday life. The English resident Mackenzie reported to the government in 1714: the king “could always ask everyone whether he, the sovereign, allows himself the pleasures available to the monarch of such vast domains, the ruler of such a large people, whether he spends on his person more than his own salary received in terms of his position in the army and navy? I heard that the tsar’s expenses are precisely such that he is so prudent not only in his own personal expenses, but also in allowing his family to spend no more per year than what they receive as a vice admiral and general."

Peter's idea of ​​the common good

So, Pyotr Mikhailov took on the responsibilities of a private individual, and the behavior of this private individual served as a kind of standard to follow. We can glean information about Peter’s different quality from normative acts. The military regulations informed his subjects that “His Majesty is an autocratic monarch who should not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs, but has the power and authority to govern his states and lands, like a Christian sovereign, according to his will and good will.” In another act, this idea is expressed even more briefly: “The power of monarchs is autocratic, which God himself commands to obey.” Before us is an autocrat, the owner of unlimited power by anyone, who ruled the subjects of a huge country according to his own “benevolence.” The task of the monarch Peter Alekseevich, as he presented it, is to command in order to achieve the ultimate goal: the common good of his subjects.

The idea of ​​the “common good” was first expressed by Peter in 1702 in a manifesto on the conscription of foreigners into Russian service. Despite the fact that the manifesto was compiled on a private occasion and was intended for readers outside the country, it can rightfully be called a document of programmatic significance. Peter intended to govern in such a way “so that each and every one of our faithful subjects could feel what our single intention is for their well-being and increase in their interests.” Peter expressed this thought almost two decades later more clearly: “We must work for the common benefit and profit, which God places before our eyes both inside and outside, from which the people will be relieved.”

What did Peter mean by “common benefit and profit”, what is the real meaning of these words? It is not possible to give a clear answer to the question posed, primarily because, apparently, the tsar himself did not have this clarity, at least we do not find it in the laws he issued. The concept of “common good” appeared in acts appropriate to the occasion, and depending on the specific situation and the goals pursued by the act, it was filled with different content. And yet, by comparing these acts, issued at different times and for different reasons, we can restore the collective meaning of the “common good.” It meant the development of trade, crafts and manufactures, the observance of justice, the eradication of “untruth and burden” in tax collection and recruiting, and the protection of the security of the country’s borders and the integrity of its territory. All this taken together was supposed to ensure an increase in the “well-being” of the subjects, their life “in peace.”

Class division of Russia under Peter 1

In Peter's time, the entire population of the country was sharply divided into two categories - tax-paying and privileged, each of which consisted of classes. The tax-paying population included peasants and townspeople, and the privileged population included nobles and clergy. Life in the “carefree” life of each class was filled with a special content, which determined social inequality in advance: the “carefree” life of a serf peasant developed completely differently than the “carefree” life of a nobleman.

Under Peter, the class structure of feudal society remained the same as under his predecessors, but the content of class responsibilities changed. Innovations, to briefly define their essence, consisted of an increase and expansion of duties in favor of the state. They affected all classes, including the privileged nobility. There is no need to prove that the burden of state duties affected the fate of the peasant, merchant, nobleman and monk differently.

In the class hierarchy, peasants occupied the lowest level. The hardships of war, the construction of industry, the construction of fortresses and cities, and the maintenance of the state apparatus fell primarily on the shoulders of the peasants. To the previously existing taxes and duties, new ones were added - conscription duty, mobilization for construction work, numerous taxes for special purposes (ship taxes, dragoon taxes, ammunition taxes, saddle taxes, clamp taxes, etc.). Submarine conscription was considered especially burdensome - the need to supply carts for transporting goods and recruits to the theater of military operations, as well as permanent conscription - the obligation to provide recruits not only with accommodation, but also with food.

The interests of the “state” demanded that the peasant economy not be completely undermined by landowner duties. It was precisely this consideration that guided Peter when he prepared the order “On the care of farmers,” which says that farmers “are the essence of the artery of the state, and just as through the artery (that is, a large vein) the whole human body is nourished, so the state is the last, for which it must to take care of them and not to burden them beyond measure, but more importantly to protect them from all attacks and destruction, and especially to those who serve, to deal decently with them.” The peasant was viewed here primarily as a serviceable taxpayer and supplier of recruits. A farmer, ruined by exorbitant taxes, cannot fulfill these main duties, and therefore will cease to be the artery of the state, ensuring its viability.

This idea permeates other decrees of Peter, which to one degree or another affect the peasant issue. Peter, for example, obliged the governor to identify which of the landowners was ruining their estates by collecting exorbitant duties from the peasants. They should have been reported to the Senate so that it would transfer these estates to the management of other persons - relatives of the ruinous landowner.

The repeatedly issued decrees to search for fugitives and return them to their former owners ultimately also pursued the interests not of the individual landowner, but of the state, that is, the landowner class as a whole. The flight of the peasants was a form of their protest. Accompanied by a spontaneous redistribution of peasants among landowners, it caused direct damage to the state, as well as to the peasants who remained in their previous places of residence; The government demanded from them the payment of taxes and the supply of recruits, including those for fugitives. As a result, arrears grew and the number of unsupplied recruits increased. That is why the government waged a merciless fight against the fugitives.

Thus, the “common good” in relation to the peasant meant the preservation of his ability to fulfill the entire complex of state duties of the noble-bureaucratic state. This goal was pursued by the legislation, when to some extent it “protected” the peasant both from the ruinous landowner and from the abuses of the local administration. Only a single decree is known, dictated by the protection of the interests of the peasants themselves, but even that was of a recommendatory nature. The Tsar appealed to the conscience of the small-scale nobles who sold children from their parents “like cattle,” as a result of which “there is a lot of outcry.” Peter indicated that “this sale to people should be stopped,” but immediately made a reservation: “...and if it is impossible to completely stop it, then at least out of need they sold it to whole families or families, and not separately.”

The content of the “common good” is interpreted somewhat differently in relation to the urban population. Townspeople, like peasants, were taxpayers and suppliers of recruits, but townspeople, in addition, provided the treasury with additional income in the form of duties from trade and crafts. Hence Peter’s concerns, rooted in the past, about the development of trade and merchants.

Peter's father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, considered developed trade to be the basis for the prosperity of the state and therefore patronized the merchant class. Peter considered trade a necessary branch of the economy, but by no means decisive. Studying the experience of other states, Peter believed that these states “prosper and grow rich” from the development of “merchants and all kinds of artists and handicrafts.” “Artists and handicrafts” in those days meant crafts and manufacturing. The “service” of townspeople in manufacturing was one of their new responsibilities generated by the time of transformation. Peter did not hesitate to take coercive measures to involve merchants in large-scale industry. “They won’t want to, although they will be in captivity” - this is how the idea of ​​​​transferring to private individuals a state-owned enterprise that produced cloth was expressed laconically. The expediency of the compulsory measure was dictated by the desire “to avoid buying an overseas uniform in five years.” The merchants, “who were assigned to that cloth factory as a company,” had to be taken to Moscow “in captivity” by specially sent soldiers.

The “common benefit” of the townspeople was thus closely intertwined with the interests of the noble state. The higher the prosperity of the merchant and industrialist, the greater his trade turnover, the larger his industrial economy. But the richer the merchant, the more diverse the areas of application of his capital, the more income he brings to the state.

Ultimately, the “well-being” of a city dweller depended on what share of his income the state seized for its own benefit.

Practice has revealed an insoluble contradiction between the “carelessness” of the townspeople and the growing needs of the state for money needed to wage war, build a fleet, and build cities and fortresses. Under these conditions, the “interests” of the merchant and industrialist were sacrificed to the state. It has been established that for about two decades of the new century, Peter did not spare the merchants and numerous extortions and duties in favor of the state ruined many of them. Only six or seven years before his death, the tsar awarded industrialists a number of important benefits and privileges that contributed to the growth of manufactories. These include granting large industrialists the right to trade duty-free products of their enterprises and to buy serfs into factories. The courtyards of the owners of manufactories, in addition, were exempted from the billets of military commands and submarine duty. It goes without saying that only an insignificant part of the urban population could take advantage of the listed privileges. “Carelessness” for the rest of the townspeople meant their fulfillment of their duties, their ability to safeguard the state interest.

Changes in the position of the clergy and monasteries under Peter 1

The idea of ​​state interest also penetrated into the monastic cell, radically changing the entire way of monastic life. The well-fed and idle life of the “royal pilgrims,” as the black clergy was called in those days, and the splendor of the church were ensured by the labor of the monastery peasants. Monastic estates have long been the subject of attacks by the state and landowners, and the life of the inhabitants of the cells, far from Christian ideals, was subjected to severe criticism. However, practical steps did not go further than measures that limited the growth of monastic land ownership and denunciations of the immoral behavior of monks. Peter forced the black clergy to serve the state interest. It is enough to compare two personal decrees, separated from each other by almost a quarter of a century, to reveal Peter’s stable attitude towards the living conditions of the monastic brethren. In a decree of 1701, he set as an example the ancient monks, who “with their own industrious hands produced food for themselves and lived a communal life, and fed many beggars with their own hands.” Today’s monks, the king reasoned, “have consumed their own alien labors, and the early monks have fallen into many luxuries.” In the decree of 1724, Peter also believed that most of the monks “are parasites,” because they lead an idle life and care only about themselves, while before they were tonsured they were “three-feders: that is, to their home, the state and the landowner.”

Monasteries were first forbidden to buy and exchange land, and then they were deprived of the right to dispose of income from estates, monastics were put on meager rations, the same for rulers and ordinary brethren, they were forbidden to keep paper and ink in their cells. “For the eternal and temporal benefit of people,” monks and nuns had to engage in “arts”: carpentry, icon painting, spinning, sewing, lace weaving and other things “that are not contrary to monasticism.” The main innovation was that the monasteries were obliged to support crippled and decrepit soldiers and officers, as well as schools, from their income. Introducing these innovations, Peter reasoned: “Our monks have become fat. The gates to heaven are faith, fasting and prayer. I will clear their path to heaven with bread and water, and not with sterlets and wine.”

The meaning of the changes in the way of life of the monastic brethren and in the economic activities of the monasteries was to use monastic income for the needs of the state. Life in the “carelessness” of the black clergy meant, as we see, a real deterioration in its position. No wonder this clergy did not accept the reforms and condemned the activities of Peter.

The position of the white clergy also changed. Parish priests could not successfully fulfill the role of spiritual shepherds, being in darkness and ignorance. Hence the decrees that ordered the children of priests and deacons to study in Greek and Latin schools, as well as the prohibition for uneducated children to take “father’s places.” One of the decrees even provided for forced education: “And those who do not want to be in teaching, forcefully take them into schools, and teach them in the hope of a better priesthood.”

It is characteristic that Peter expanded the responsibilities of the nobility.

In the time of Peter, the idle life of nobles in estates was replaced by dangerous service in regiments and on ships located in the theater of war, where they had to storm fortresses and participate in battles with the superbly trained army of the Swedish king. The nobleman had to put on an officer’s uniform and carry out hectic service in the barracks and offices, which he considered as burdensome as it was ruinous, because the manor’s household was left unattended.

Many nobles sought to evade service, as well as from fulfilling another duty introduced by Peter - the duty to study.

The educational institutions organized by Peter resembled barracks, and the students resembled recruits. The contingent of students in schools and academies that graduated highly qualified specialists was recruited from the nobility forcibly. Referring to the Maritime Academy, a contemporary noted that “in vast Russia there was not a single noble family that would not undertake to send a son or other relative from 10 to 18 years of age to this academy.” In the instructions for the Naval Academy, established in 1715, there is a paragraph written by Peter himself: “To calm the screaming and disorder, select retired good soldiers from the guard and be one of them in each chamber during the training, have a whip in their hands; and if any of them the students will become outrageous, they will be beaten, regardless of what their surname is, under severe punishment, whoever beckons,” that is, makes an indulgence.

An unknown author left a story about how the noble minors, in order to avoid studying at the Navigation School, where they were assigned, entered the Spassky Monastery. However, they failed to stay in the monastery. When Peter found out about their act, he ordered them all to beat piles on the Moika River, where hemp barns were being built. Such nobles as Menshikov and Apraksin tried in vain to persuade the tsar to reverse his decision. Then Apraksin, calculating the time when Peter would pass by the construction, took off his caftan, hung it on a pole so that it would be visible, and began to beat piles. Peter noticed the admiral working and asked: “Why are you hitting piles?” He replied: “My nephews and grandchildren are building piles, but what kind of person am I, what advantage do I have in my relationship?” After the described episode, the minors were sent abroad for training.

This story can hardly be classified as fictitious or overgrown with legendary details. Peter really was constantly interested in the education of the noble youth, delved into all the details of their distribution to educational institutions and monitored their success in mastering the program.

Business trips abroad under Peter 1

The sending of noble minors abroad was widespread. At first, young people mastered mainly navigation, shipbuilding, and military affairs. Over time, they began to study architecture, painting, park design, oriental languages, etc. abroad. The Tsar highly valued the successes of those who showed diligence. In April 1716, Peter met painters who were heading to Italy to improve their skills. This is what he wrote about this to Catherine in Danzig: “I came across Beklemishev and the painter Ivan. And when they come to you, ask the king to tell him to write off his person, as well as others, whatever you want.” Peter ends the letter with words expressing pride in the fact that among the Russian people there were painters who possessed high skill: “so that they know that there are good masters from among our people.” “The Painter Ivan” is Ivan Nikitin, the son of a priest, a talented portrait painter who skillfully wielded a brush even before his trip to Italy.

Studying abroad was considered difficult and sometimes entailed material deprivation. Staying in a foreign land was complicated by lack of knowledge of the language. Hence the attempts to quickly leave for their homeland, which the tsar severely suppressed.

One of the volunteers, Ivan Mikhailovich Golovin, after a four-year stay in Italy to study shipbuilding and the Italian language, returned to his homeland and appeared before the Tsar-examiner. The answers revealed complete ignorance of the subject. “Have you even learned Italian?” - asked the king. Golovin admitted that he did not succeed here either. "So what did you do?" - the king asked. “I smoked tobacco, drank wine, had fun, studied music and rarely left the yard,” the volunteer answered candidly.

Apparently, hoping for the intercession of his brother field marshal, Vasily Petrovich Sheremetev disobeyed Peter’s command, which forbade volunteers to get married, and, instead of equipping his son for a long journey, arranged a wedding. The Tsar sternly reminded that the decree must be observed by both the field marshal's brother and his nephew. Here is the order in connection with this incident that Tikhon Nikitich Streshnev received in 1709: “immediately send Vasily’s son on the proper path and do not give him more than a week’s time; and he, Vasily, for that guilt, having taken away his rank, went to work as a policeman, and his wife evo - to the spinning house; and to seal the Moscow and country yards, and so that they work just like simple ones.”

On the contrary, the tsar experienced genuine joy when one of the noble minors himself showed interest in science, especially naval science. Nikita Zotov's son Konon decided to enlist in the navy, about which he wrote a letter to his father, the contents of which became known to the tsar. Peter hastened to support Konon’s intentions, sending him the following message: “Yesterday I saw a letter from your father, written from you to him, in which the meaning (that is, the meaning) is that you will be trained in the service that belongs to the sea. Which is your desire We very kindly accepted and can say that we have not heard such a petition from a single person from the Russians, in which you were the first to appear, since it very rarely happens that one of the young, leaving fun in the company, would of his own free will want to listen to the noise of the sea. In addition, we wish you that the Lord God may bless you in this (extremely significant and almost the first in the world revered) deed and happily return you to your fatherland in due time.”

Domestic schools and the training of students abroad year after year changed the national composition of the country's military and civilian specialists. The number of students in educational institutions was quite significant by the standards of that time. The staff of the Navigation School provided for the education of 500 students. This set was achieved in 1705. 300 people studied at the Naval Academy, 400 - 150 people studied at the Engineering School, several dozen people studied medicine at a special medical school. In Uraya, the children of artisans studied mining in mining schools.

The created network of educational institutions made it possible to free the officer corps from foreigners. After the Prut campaign, Peter dismissed over 200 foreign generals and officers. Their number in the regiments should not exceed a third of the officers. After three years, foreign officers were subjected to an examination, and all those who failed were subject to dismissal. As a result, in the 1920s, nine-tenths of the officer corps consisted of Russian officers.

The ingenuity of the nobles, who sought to evade training, and especially from service, knew no bounds, but Peter did not remain in debt, inventing various punishments for such nobles. Among the profit-makers, informers appeared who specialized in identifying infidels—the so-called nobles who were hiding from inspections and service. Peter encouraged the activity of informers with a promise to give the property and villages of the netchik to the one who exposed him. The tsar promulgated the first decree with such a promise in 1711. Subsequently, the king periodically repeated this, and seduced any informer with “his belongings and villages,” “no matter how low his rank, or even his servant.”

One-off punitive measures against individual nobles and groups of nobles gave way to a series of decrees issued in 1714. They should, according to Peter, cause significant changes in the social appearance of the ruling class.

Why catch individual netchik nobles? - Peter reasoned. It is much easier to create conditions for them so that they themselves strive to take a place in the barracks and offices. The main hope of stimulating the interest of the nobles in the service rested on the Decree on Single Inheritance. This is perhaps the first decree of Peter, the promulgation of which was preceded by a study of the procedures for inheriting property by other nobles countries. At the same time, this is undoubtedly the first decree that marked the beginning of the tsar’s work with the pen.

A nobleman, as written in the decree, is obliged to serve “for the benefit of the state.” For this purpose, a procedure was introduced for the inheritance of immovable estates, entirely transferred to only one son. The remaining sons, finding themselves without estates and, therefore, without means of subsistence, had to “seek their own bread through service, teaching, trading, and other things.”

The decree on single inheritance was supported by other acts that pursued the same goal. One of them forbade marriage to noble minors who had not mastered the elements of numbers and geometry. Another did not allow nobles who did not serve as privates in the guards regiments to be promoted to officers. Still others were allowed to acquire estates only after seven years in the military, or 10 years in the civil service, or after 15 years in trade. Those who did not serve or trade anywhere were forbidden to buy villages, “even to death.”

Peter used another means to attract nobles to serve. He periodically arranged reviews for them. Sometimes certain groups of nobles were called in for this purpose. So, in 1713, a review was appointed for the netchiks, that is, nobles who did not appear for service in the two previous years. In 1714, minors aged 13 years and above were called to the inspection. The two reviews were of a general nature; all nobles were required to appear at them, regardless of age and position. The first of them - no documents have survived about it - took place in 1715. Another was carried out in 1721 - 1722 and left behind a lot of monotonous questionnaires about each nobleman, which have not yet been studied.

The reviews identified nobles who stubbornly evaded service, and significantly changed the careers of those representatives of the privileged class who were distinguished by their diligence and abilities. During the reviews, underage children were also taken into account: some were assigned to schools and sent to study abroad, others were assigned to the regiments where they served.

However, even Peter was unable to force all the nobles to serve and study. Their abundance testifies to the non-compliance with the royal decrees. The issuance of a new decree, repeating threats to netchiks, indicates that the previous decree of similar content was not implemented.

In 1715, a certain Mikhail Brenchaninov reported to the Tsar about the Yaroslavl landowner Sergei Borzov, who, although younger than 30 years old, “was a shelterer in his house, but did not serve in your, the sovereign’s, service with the regiment.” The king’s resolution followed: “If less than 30 years, then for such contempt of the decree, give everything to this informer.”

The famous publicist of Peter the Great's time, Ivan Tikhonovich Pososhkov, met “many, many healthy young men,” each of whom “could have driven five enemies alone,” but instead of serving in the army, taking advantage of the patronage of influential relatives, they found lucrative positions in the civil administration and “live with bait business." Pososhkov portrayed the colorful figure of the nobleman Fyodor Pustoshkin, who “has already grown old, but has never been in any service.” He bought himself out of service with rich gifts or pretended to be a holy fool. However, as soon as the messenger left the outskirts of the estate, Pustoshkin “then put aside his foolishness and, having arrived home, like a lion roars.”

The above allows us to reveal the concept of “common good” in its two meanings: the way it seemed to Peter, and the way it really was.

Peter proceeded from the idea that harmony and “prosperity” would come when each of his subjects unconditionally fulfilled the duties assigned to him. Only then are successes in trade and industry possible, the observance of justice, and the relief of the people from all burdens and obligations. The “common good” is ultimately the ability of subjects to serve the state.

But the fact of the matter is that the theorists of the “common good,” including Peter, took the social inequality that existed at that time as their starting point. It came into conflict with idyllic ideas about general prosperity.

The peasant, serving the state, had to cultivate arable land, pay taxes, supply recruits, and bear duties in favor of the landowners. The peasant's service to the state of Peter was accompanied by increasing hardships. Although the service of a nobleman became more burdensome, it ultimately brought him additional income: in addition to the corvee and quitrents he received from the peasants, a cash salary paid by the state was added. Let us recall that the revenue side of the state budget was largely provided by taxes levied on the same peasants and urban artisans.

It is clear that under these conditions the “common good” was a fiction. Only the nobles and the richest part of the merchant class took advantage of its fruits.

Under Peter's successors, the nobles were gradually freed from the duties that Peter had imposed on them. The systematic onslaught of purely class noble interests on the “state interest” under Catherine II culminated in the famous manifestos of the noble “Mother Empress” “On the granting of freedom to the Russian nobility” and “Charter granted to the nobility,” which turned the nobles into a parasitic class. It was in the new conditions, when the noble minors were freed from the obligation to serve and study, that the character of Fonvizin’s comedy, Mitrofanushka, could appear.