"The results of the reforms of Peter I" - the Great Embassy. The functions of Zemsky Sobors were expanded. The value of the Azov campaigns. Increasing agricultural productivity. Economic lag of Russia from the advanced countries of the West. The personal life of the king. Video clips about Peter I. The role of Peter I. The personality of Peter I. The lessons of the Northern War. What is significant in the history of Russia in 1721

"Reforms of Peter the Great" - through the mouth of a baby. Dates in chronological order. Lucky case. Name Peter's reforms. Reforms of Peter the Great. Academician. Captains competition. The historical concept of the era. Historical spots. Crosswords. Team name. Proclamation of Peter I as Tsar.

"Reforms of Peter I" - A. Menshikov's Palace in St. Petersburg. The history of homeland. Art in the 1st quarter of the 18th century. Development of science. Lesson assignment. Reform in the field of life. New phenomena in the way of life of people. Lesson plan. The building of the Kunstkamera. Peter invented taxes. Consequences of changes in culture and life. Civic font. I.N. Nikitin is the founder of Russian secular painting.

"Economic reforms of Peter I" - Stages of the cycle. Wives of Peter the Great. Throne. The reign of young kings. Creation of domestic industrial production. Tax policy. Production has intensified. Belief in the inevitability of industrial construction. Coin business. The reign of Peter I. Victory near Poltava. Reforms of Peter.

"Reforms and transformations of Peter I" - Provincial reform. The results of Peter's reforms. Reforms of Peter I 1682 - 1725 military reform. Foreign trade under Peter I. State. budget under Peter I. (Revision Board). Transformations of Peter I. Development of industry. Reform of the monetary system under Peter I. Currency: silver thaler and gold chervonets.

"Reforms of Peter the Great" - The interior decoration of houses, the way of life, the composition of food, etc. have changed. He supervised the construction of the fleet and the creation of a regular army. The first transformations of Peter I. Taganrog was founded at the same time. In 1699, the calendar reform was also carried out. On March 22, 1677, Peter I began to study at the age of 5. The management reform of Peter I.

There are 18 presentations in total in the topic

"Correction of the Spiritual Order"

The reform of church administration was one of the most important in its consequences among all Peter's reforms. It should be noted that the king went to her for a long time. The turn towards a new policy towards the church took place after the death of Patriarch Adrian in October 1700. Among the letters informing Peter of this was a letter dated October 25 from the well-known "profitmaker" - the voluntary inventor of various extortions and taxes from the people Alexei Kurbatov. He wrote that, in his opinion, the patriarchal system of managing the affairs of the church had become ineffective and, with the election of the patriarch, “it is worth waiting for a while, but you yourself will see your autocracy in everything. To the discretion of all and the assembly of the house treasury is worthy, sovereign, choose whom you, sovereign, from the zealous. Zelo, sir, is now seen in everything weakly and faulty. Also, sovereign, what I reported to you, sovereign, in my first writing, in order to see in the bishops and monastic estates and, having rewritten the volosts, give everything to guard, choosing someone in every zeal for you, sovereign, zealous, inflicting a special order for that. Truly, sir, much from that discretion, the treasury will be collected, which is now perishing at the whims of the rulers. Peter took full advantage of the advice of Kurbatov and his ilk: they did not choose the patriarch, and on December 16, 1700, the so-called “locum tenens” of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan of Ryazan and Murom Stefan Yavorsky, was appointed instead. On January 24, 1701, the Monastic order, closed in the 70s of the 17th century, was restored, the head of which was the boyar I. A. Musin-Pushkin, a non-church person, who received full control over the land and financial affairs of the church. Thus, her wealth was placed under the control of the state and began to be used for the needs of the army, navy and foreign policy.

Stefan Yavorsky. From an engraved portrait of A. F. Zubov .

Over the years, the influence of Stefan Yavorsky fell more and more, and Feofan Prokopovich, who in 1718 became Archbishop of Pskov, came to the fore in the informal church hierarchy. An unusually educated and talented man, Feofan was a very unprincipled figure, showing true enthusiasm in any, even unsightly, business that the king entrusted to him. A deep knowledge of church and secular history, a brilliant command of dialectics and logic allowed Feofan to justify without much difficulty the need for a radical reorganization of the Russian Orthodox Church on the basis of collegiality and complete subordination to its secular authority. Participating in the drafting of the main document of the reform - the "Spiritual Regulations" (1721),

Theophanes presented the church reform as a charitable act of a God-fearing monarch, concerned solely with the fulfillment of his Christian duty. “Between the many cares given to us by the power of God for the correction of our people and other states subject to us, looking at the spiritual rank and seeing in it a lot of disorder and great poverty in its deeds, we had fear that was not vain on our conscience; let us not be ungrateful to the Almighty, if we receive blessings from him for the correction of both the military and civil chip, we will neglect the correction and the rank of the spiritual. And when he is a non-hypocritical judge, he asks us for an answer about the precept given to us from him so much, let us not be unanswered.

Feofan Prokopovich .

Of course, after all that he did with the Russian Church, “correcting the spiritual order,” Peter had something to tell in the other world. But the true goals of the transformations were still different: in the system of power of the autocrat, who created a bureaucratic machine to serve the needs of this power, the princely system of governing the Orthodox Church with elements of autonomy was archaic and undesirable. Therefore, in the course of the then reform of the state, the patriarchal administration was subject to demolition. The "Spiritual Regulations" directly spoke of the inadmissibility of any independent force that could oppose the autocracy, lead "simple hearts". The advantages of collegial government for the compilers of the "Spiritual Regulations" are obvious, because "the fatherland does not fear revolts and embarrassment from the cathedral government, which come from a single spiritual ruler of their own. For the common people do not know how the spiritual power differs from the autocratic, but the great high shepherd (patriarch. - E. A.) surprised by honor and glory, he thinks that such a ruler is then a second sovereign, equivalent to an autocrat, or even greater than him, and that the spiritual rank is a different and better state, and the people themselves are used to thinking like that. What else and chaffing power-hungry spiritual conversations will be added, and dry brushwood (brushwood. - E. A.) Will they put a fire on? Such simple hearts are corrupted by this opinion, that they do not look at their autocrat, like at the supreme shepherd, in any business. And when a certain strife is heard between them, all the spiritual more than the worldly ruler, if they blindly and insanely agree, and dare to fight and rebel for him ... ". The quotation clearly echoes the struggle that flared up in the middle of the 17th century between Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon, who raised the prestige of the patriarch's power to an unusually high level. But why did the compilers of the "Spiritual Regulations", the theorists of church reform, need to remember this more than half a century old event? I think because the patriarchal church in its unchanged form (with a strong personality on the patriarchal throne) could become the only force that has the moral right to resist the reformer tsar, and with the broad support of “simple hearts” dissatisfied with Peter’s policy. It was precisely against such a threat that the establishment of a collegiate system of governing the church was directed, for “there is a governing collegium under a sovereign monarch and is appointed by the monarch,” and also because “the very name “president” is not proud, it means nothing else, only the chairman, can not lower himself, lower than anyone else to think highly of him. And when the people still see that this conciliar government has been established by a monarchical decree and a Senate sentence, then they will moreover remain in their meekness and greatly put off the hope of having help to their rebellions from the spiritual order. So we see:

the unity of the people and the church - that's what the autocracy of Peter was afraid of! With the agreement of the "Spiritual Regulations" in January 1721, almost two hundred years of the history of the synodal administration of the Russian Orthodox Church began. The Spiritual Collegium, created according to the regulations, was soon renamed the "Holy Governmental Synod", officially equalized in its rights with the Senate. Stefan Yavorsky became president, Feodosy Yanovsky and Feofan Prokopovich became vice-presidents. According to the decree of May 11, 1722, a special secular (more precisely, military) official was appointed to oversee the affairs and discipline in the Synod: “To the Synod, select a good person from the officers, who would have the courage and be able to know the management of the synod’s affairs, and be the chief prosecutor and give him instructions, changing to the instructions of the prosecutor general.”

The instruction demanded from the chief prosecutor, who actually became the head of the church department, “to look firmly so that the Synod keeps its position and in all matters that are subject to synod review and decision, truly, zealously and decently, without loss of time, according to the regulations and decrees sent ... so that the Synod in its rank acts righteously and without hypocrisy.” The chief prosecutor was subordinate to a specially created staff of church fiscals, whose functions were similar to those performed by secular fiscals. In order not to confuse them, spiritual fiscals were called scary - inquisitors. Above them stood the provincial inquisitors, and even higher, the proto-inquisitor. Ultimately, the creation of the Synod, a state institution whose employees, if necessary, could withhold salaries, meant that the tsar was above church power, who thereby became the head of the church. One of Nartov’s anecdotes vividly reflects the current situation: “His Imperial Majesty, being present in the meeting with the bishops, noticing some of the increased desire to elect the patriarch, which was repeatedly suggested by the clergy, taking out of his pocket with one hand the Spiritual Regulations prepared for such an occasion and giving them, he said menacingly:“ You ask the patriarch, here is the spiritual patriarch, and those who oppose this with his hand from the scabbard of a dagger and hitting it on the table) here is a damask patriarch for you! ”(Peter thereby repeated the words of Emperor Justinian addressed to the bishops:“ My will is your law. ”- E. A.) Then, getting up, he went out. After this, a petition was left for the election of a patriarch and the Holy Synod was established. Stefan Yavorsky and Feofan Novgorodsky agreed with the intention of Peter the Great to establish the Theological College, who helped His Majesty in drafting the Regulations, of whom he appointed the first chairman in the Synod, and the other vice-president, he himself became the head of the church of his state and once, talking about the feuds of Patriarch Nikon with the tsar, his parent Alexei Mikhailovich, said: power to the elder (that is, to the patriarch. - E. A.), I deign to God to correct my citizenship and the clergy, I am both of them - the sovereign and the patriarch.

The creation of the Synod and the liquidation of the patriarchate were the most striking, but not the only evidence of the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church into one of the state institutions, and its ministers into employees of this institution. In parallel with the formation of the Synod, a reorganization of the internal social structure of the church was carried out: the unification of the hierarchy of church ranks, the establishment of states of clergy, and the purge of their ranks from unwanted and random persons. A notable feature of the church reform was that it was carried out in parallel with the tax reform, and the per capita census, which was the basis of the latter, was used to record and classify churchmen. As an object of the census, churchmen were first mentioned in a decree dated January 5, 1720, when Peter, concerned about the concealment of souls, ordered that “church clerks, except for priests and deacons, who also have to submit a special signature, give them all a period of six months.” So, although at this stage the churchmen were not included in the head salary, nevertheless their lower strata - the clerks - corresponded separately from the priests and deacons. The meaning of such a division became clear on July 5, 1721, when the Senate ordered "the children of the protopopes, and priests, and deacons and other church ministers ... to be put together with the rest of the souls." Thus, unexpectedly, most of the clergy were turned into taxpayers. Such an unprecedented decision could not but cause discontent among the clergy. The synod was forced to turn to the Senate with a petition for the exclusion of clerks from the head salary, referring to the fact that these "servants are the saints of the church, and especially many poor people who are fed with great need." In addition, the Synod believed that the “position” in the head salary of the children of priests and deacons would lead to personnel difficulties, because the children of the clergy, as a rule, inherit the places of their parents, which would become impossible with the spread of the poll tax to them. Peter took this circumstance into account: in the instructions to the auditors dated February 5, 1722, it was indicated that priests, and deacons, and the children of these “really serving in the churches”, clergymen, and in the absence of children, “other church servants, two persons to each church” should not be included in the poll tax. So, according to Peter, a reserve was provided for filling vacant places in churches with non-taxable people. For the clergy class, such a government order turned into a real drama: clerks, sextons, who lived at churches that stood on landlord lands, found themselves in the capitation salary along with the landowner peasants and automatically became serfs, because the law prescribed "to write in the capitation tax on the votchinnikov lands of that village, someone's village, and that votchinnik to own them."

In the same year, 1722, the states of clergymen were determined: for 100-150 households of parishioners - one priest, all "extra" were subject to inclusion in the tax. Some of them were lucky enough to get to the vacant places of "full-time" clergy, some managed, being recorded in the salary, to stay in the parishes where they lived, but many ended up in salary on the landowners' lands. This, as suggested by the decree, led to the enslavement of such former churchmen. Thus, a direct connection was established between the inclusion of the poll tax in the salary and the recognition of them as serfs. In the decree of the Alator census office of August 28, 1724, typical for the time of the revision of male souls, we read: “They ordered [A. I.] Shakhovsky on the invalid clergyman Timofey Ivanov to give a sovereign decree, because according to the certificate of the Alator province, the invalid books of this province testify that the clergyman Timofey Ivanov on arable land in the peasantry in the Alatorsky district, in the village of Selgany ... Shakhovsky is ranked. The "position" in the salary forever closed before the churchmen the return to the estate from which they had been struck out. The decree of May 20, 1724 finally equalized the churchmen, who were put on the poll tax salary, with taxable peasants in that the fine for accepting a runaway former churchman was set at the same amount as the fine for a runaway peasant.

Thus, the division of the single class of churchmen into two parts was made. One of them, consisting mainly of priests, deacons and other representatives of the top clergy, was recognized as exempt, that is, privileged, while the other part - clerks, non-regular priests and deacons, as well as their children, merged with the taxable estates and lost the privileges of clergymen. The resolutions adopted by the authorities did not remain on paper. Thus, according to the consolidated statements of the Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod and Astrakhan provinces, it can be seen that out of 8709 clergymen enumerated, 3044 priests and deacons were exempted from taxes, that is, only 35% of the total number of registered clergymen. Of the 5,665 churchmen included in the poll tax, the relatives of priests and deacons accounted for 2,508 people, or 44.3%, deacons and their relatives, 1,275 people (or 22.5%). Finally, 1,614 sextons and their relatives were included in the salary, which accounted for 28.5% of the total mass of churchmen included in the salary according to the laws of Peter. "Putting order" in the "spiritual rank" did not end there. In the course of the reform, the class of the so-called bishops' children of the boyars was eliminated - a special service "rank" in the hierarchy of the church, who carried out personal service under the patriarch and other church hierarchs. With the completion of the process of formation of the nobility as a special privileged class, the boyar hierarchal children were included in the nobility under one condition put forward by Peter: only those whose grandfathers had already served in the boyar hierarchical children were considered nobles. Thus, the “freemen” attached to the patriarchal court were eliminated, who, naturally, were determined in the poll tax along with other non-nobles. With the same decisiveness and rudeness, the state took into its own hands the concern for the spread of Christianity (Orthodoxy) among the Gentiles and pagans, who then constituted a significant part of the population of the outskirts of the state. Peter was not at all satisfied with the long and painstaking work of Orthodox missionaries, he pinned hopes on decisive, quick and radical measures with the help of administrative pressure, violence in relation to entire sections of society, villages, tribes and peoples. So, on November 3, 1713, a nominal royal decree was issued, which ordered: “In the Kazan and Azov provinces, the Bosurmans of the Mahometan faith, behind which there are estates and estates, and in those estates and estates behind them, peasants and yard and business people of the Orthodox Christian faith, to say their great sovereign decree that they, Bosurmans, be baptized of course in six months , but how will they receive holy baptism and those estates and estates, and people, and the peasants will still own, and if they are not baptized in half a year, then take those estates and estates with people, and from the peasants from them and unsubscribe to him, the great sovereign. In order to encourage non-Christians and pagans to convert to Orthodoxy, the newly baptized were given tax breaks, were awarded land and peasants, and were even exempted from criminal penalties, including the death penalty for murders and serious crimes. An example of such a unique decree, which replaced the punishment for a crime with baptism, is the Senate resolution of June 25, 1723 on pagan cheremis who committed a great concealment of souls during the census: for the concealment of souls, they should not be punished, but baptized them into the Orthodox faith of the Greek confession, they ordered: those centurion and elders, and Cheremis with their wives and children, 545 souls to baptize into the Orthodox faith of the Greek confession and for what they are, so if in the future such non-believers in the concealment of souls appear, but wish to be baptized, and do not inflict punishment on them. Probably, if the Synod had drawn up a plan for the baptism of the population, then thanks to such decisive measures it would have been overfulfilled ahead of schedule.

Thanks to Peter's church reform, the powerful organization of the church became the vehicle of a secular, more precisely, autocratic ideology. The pulpit of the church became a tribune for promoting the beginnings of the autocracy in the form of special sermons “for the occasion” (Feofan Prokopovich was a special master of their composition), as well as simply for announcing decrees that were read to the parishioners before the start of the service, “so that no one excuses himself with ignorance.” Anathema was proclaimed from the pulpit - a church curse on political criminals and all objectionable authorities or the autocrat. If the church curse of Mazepa is explained by the fact of his political betrayal of Peter, then a certain Major Stepan Glebov was awarded an all-Russian anathema solely for cohabitation with Peter's ex-wife, Evdokia Lopukhina, who was sent to a monastery. The extraordinary tsar-reformer could indeed seem to many believing Antichrist, for he did not hesitate to change the centuries-old church traditions and dogmas. So, in 1721 year, in order to keep experienced Swedish mining masters in the Urals, he allowed Lutherans to marry Orthodox. In the same year, during the celebration of the Peace of Nystadt, an unusual for Orthodoxy seven-day bell ringing was arranged. In large numbers, new prayers were compiled in honor of the victories of Russian weapons and other state events. From the Petrine era, the so-called service holidays entered church life, which were celebrated with a solemn church service, and observance of the service holidays was strictly mandatory. In 1724, among them were the following: January 1 - New Year, February 3 - name day of Tsesarevna Anna Petrovna, February 19 - "remembrance of the marriage of the Imperial Majesty", May 30 - the birth of Peter, June 25 - the coronation of Peter, June 27 - "glorious Victoria near Poltava", June 29 - name day of Peter, July 29 - "capture of frigates , first - at Angut, then - at Gringam", September 5 - Elizabeth Petrovna's name day, September 28 - "victory over General Lewenhaupt", October 11 - the capture of the Noteburg fortress, November 23 - the day of Alexander Nevsky, November 24 - Catherine's name day, November 30 - the day of "The Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called, the triumph of Russian cavaliers". After Peter, the number of service days increased, for they were supplemented by many requiems for the deceased members of the royal family, etc. The use of worship for state purposes did not end there. It is important to note that in the time of Peter the Great, the attitude of secular authorities towards faith and the church changed radically. They began to look at faith and the church as one of the tools for educating loyal subjects. As the prominent church historian P. V. Verkhovskoy wrote, “faith, which was previously valued in itself, as a path to salvation ... now began to be valued as something useful for the state, as an educating and restraining beginning, very convenient in order to achieve the“ common good ””. This idea is confirmed in numerous notes and decrees of Peter.

The original view of the Peter and Paul Cathedral. From the drawing attached to the "Description of St. Petersburg" by V. G. Ruban .

Peter did not consider for himself, a secular ruler, shameful to edit theological works, books, sermons intended for the religious education of subjects in the direction necessary for the autocracy. On July 13, 1722, he wrote to the Synod: “I am the whole book“ On the Beatitudes ”, which is very fair and the direct path of the Christian, only it is necessary to make a preface, in which our interpretations are wrong, honzhe everything and find out, so that those who read first their vice will know and then the benefit and the direct true ... And, writing this, do not print until our return, as well as what they wanted to correct in confessions." We have already spoken about the rationalism of Peter and his faith. He looked at the church in the highest degree pragmatically, exclusively as a school for the education of morality, and even developed original manuals for this school. In one of Peter's notebooks, we read: "So that the peasants make some little regulation and read in the churches for admonition." On April 19, 1724, he wrote to the Synod about what this allowance should be like: “Most Holy Synod! I have long encouraged by conversations, and now in writing, in order to make brief teachings to people (before we have very few learned preachers), and also to make a book where it would be explained that the indispensable law of God and that advice, and that the traditions of the fathers, and that things are average, and that it was done only for the rank and rite, and that indispensable and that changed according to time and occasion, so that they could know what to have in what strength. About the first it seems to me to simply write in such a way that the villager knows, or in two: the villagers are simple, and in the cities it is more beautiful for the sweetness of those who hear, as it seems more convenient to you, in which the instructions that there is a direct way of salvation would be interpreted. The anecdote reported by I. I. Golikov about how Peter beat V. N. Tatishchev, who was ironic over the Holy Scriptures, with a stick, while saying: “I will teach you how you should honor it and not break the chains, everything in the device contains ... do not start freethinking, pernicious improvement.” But in addition to developing materials for the education of parishioners, much attention was also paid, if I may say so, to the conditions and regime of education. Going to church and performing all the necessary rites was seen not as an internal urge of the believer, but as his duty. On February 8, 1716, the Senate announced Peter’s personal decree with the following content: “The Great Sovereign indicated: to send decrees to all dioceses to the bishops, and to governors in the provinces - to order in cities and districts of every rank of men and women to announce to people that they confess to their spiritual fathers everywhere. And if someone does not go to confession in a year, and for such people to spiritual fathers and parochial priests, give in the cities to bishops and spiritual affairs judges, and in the counties - to the elders of priests with name paintings, and they send those paintings to the governors, and in the counties to the landrats, and they, governors and landrats, impose fines on those people, against the income from it three times, and then they will fulfill that confession.” On July 16, 1722, a new decree of the Synod and the Senate followed, which stated that “many raznochintsy and posadniks, and settlers used to live idle, and not only on Sundays, but also on great master’s holidays, they never go to church for the service of God and do not confess.” To stop this disorder, it was ordered to post decrees in which to prescribe to all believers: “on the Lord's holidays, and on Sundays, they went to the church of God for vespers, for matins, and even more so for the holy liturgy (besides, unless someone gets sick, or what impossibility does not allow) and confessed for all years, and then supervise in parishes by the priests themselves, and clerks, and elders, where it happens, and who will confess and not confess - to everyone to have books according to the weather and send them to the dioceses to spiritual orders, and who according to those books will appear without confession, and from such - to rule those parishes to the priests fines. Going to church and confession thus became the duty of parishioners, the performance of which was strictly controlled and documented. A priest who refused to denounce the parishioners was first subjected to a fine, and then "for this the priesthood will be deposed."

But especially significant and rude was the decision of the Synod of May 17, 1722, which violated the secrecy of church confession - one of the sacred sacraments, along with the sacraments of marriage, communion and baptism. According to the decree of May 17, the priest, in the event that “if someone, during confession, declares to his spiritual father some kind of undone, but still intentional theft from him, especially treason, or rebellion against the sovereign, or against the state, or malicious intent on the honor, or health of the sovereign, and on the name of his majesty, and declaring such intentional evil, he will show himself that he does not repent, but puts himself in truth, and does not put off his intentions ... then the spiritual father should not only vouchsafe him forgiveness and permission for directly confessed sins (there is no more correct confession, if someone does not repent of all his iniquities), but also report soon about him, where it is necessary, following the personal decree of His Imperial Majesty on April 28, 1722, what kind of printed sheets are published about such villains, according to which and for the words up to His high imperial majesty honor concerning the harmful state, such villains in the very speed of having, in a certain place, they were ordered to bring. In other words, for a priest who accepts the confession of a parishioner, the guiding star should be another law to combat the enemies of the state, and not the norms of Christian dogma, requiring the preservation of the secrecy of confession.

It is noteworthy that the priest must not only denounce his parishioner, but also go the whole way of the scammer: go “to the indicated place” and “there, where such atrocities are followed, everything about this evil intention is heard to announce exactly, without any cover-up and doubt.” The clergy were warned that “if one of the priests does not fulfill this and hears about the above, he will not soon announce that without any mercy, as an opponent and such villains, an accomplice, more than state harms, a coverr, upon deprivation of dignity and estate, he will be deprived of his stomach.” In order for the decree to be effective, each Orthodox priest was obliged to take an oath on the Gospel, in which he promised “about the damage to His Imperial Majesty’s interest, harm and loss, as soon as I know about it, not only to announce it in good time, but also to avert, hinder and not allow, I will take care with all sorts of measures.” Each priest, like a soldier or an official, took an oath to be always ready for the state service: “When, for the service and benefit of His Imperial Majesty, any secret matter, or whatever, that I am ordered to secretly keep, then keep it in complete secrecy and not announce to anyone who is not supposed to know about it and will not be ordered to announce it.” Amazing oath! As if it was intended not for the shepherd of God, but for a secret employee of the detective political department. Actually, according to the letter and spirit of Peter's decrees, a Russian Orthodox priest was supposed to be a sexot.

A special page in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church should be devoted to Peter's attitude towards monasticism. As you know, Peter did not hide his hatred and contempt for the monks. “Parasites”, “saints”, “prudents” - this is an incomplete list, apparently, of the mildest definitions that the tsar gave to the monks. There were many reasons behind this peremptory and rudeness of the Orthodox monarch. Among monasticism, he met the most serious resistance to his undertakings, in this environment the most stubborn potential and real enemies were hiding. In October 1698, he forbade the singers to appear in the Novodevichy Convent at Tsarevna Sophia's, writing as follows: “Don't let the singers into the monastery: and the old women sing well, as long as there is faith; and not so that in the church they sing “Save from bet”, and on the porch they give money for the murder. For the same reason, in 1701 it was forbidden for monks to have paper and ink in their cells and write anything, “and if someone wants to write for the sake of what, and then with the command of the head, yes, he writes in the refectory openly, and not secretly, because the ancient father tradition was for the monk to write nothing without the command of the head.” This was done in order to stop writing, and most importantly, the distribution of numerous handwritten writings directed against Peter and his transformations. The importance of such writings for counter-propaganda should not be underestimated: their authors - representatives of the clergy, monks - were, as a rule, educated and talented people, who were fluent in the pen. An example is the hegumen of the Andreevsky monastery near Moscow, Avraamy, the author of the famous “Message”, which contains sharp criticism of the regime of Peter.

Knowing about the numerous examples of violations by the inhabitants of the monasteries of the principles of monastic community, Peter saw this as evidence of the futility and harmfulness of the contemporary monastic way of life.

Undoubtedly, by the beginning of the 18th century, there was a crisis of monasticism as a socio-religious phenomenon. In addition to other reasons not mentioned here, this crisis was eventually led to the victory at the end of the 15th - the first half of the 16th century of the "Josephite" trend in theology over the so-called "non-possessive", whose representatives preached the ideas of an ascetic, hermit existence of God's servants, hard work and poverty. The victory of the concept of "Josephites" - supporters and followers of Joseph Volotsky - contributed to the entry of the church onto the path of enrichment, the transformation of monasteries into the richest land-owners, and then soul-owners, which led to an increase in the dependence of the church on wealth, and through them on the state and, of course, could not but affect the morality of the inhabitants of the monasteries. However, one should not get too carried away with the image of a fat glutton - a monk, so common in the propaganda of Peter the Great and subsequent times. People in cassocks were different, and Peter could not help but know this. Perhaps the true reason for such a concentrated hatred of Peter for monasticism was not so much in the way of life of the sybaritic monks that he condemned, but in the king’s rejection of the very idea of ​​monasticism, in the denial of the ideal that the hermits aspired to and thanks to which they did not depend on the power that the powerful, but earthly ruler Peter personified. Intolerant of any dissent, even passive resistance, the tsar could not admit that somewhere in his state people could live who preached other values, a different way of life than the one that Peter himself preached and which he considered the best for Russia. It should be noted that he did a lot to introduce his ideal into the life of monasteries, more precisely, to put the state under control and make the monks work for him. It began, as one can easily guess, knowing the previous history of the "product of the subject of the All-Russian people", with the census of monasteries and the fixing of monks in them. The decree of January 31, 1701 read: “And in which monasteries the scribes will find how many monks and nuns there are, and they will not leave those monasteries, and they will not be accepted into other monasteries, unless they are great for the sake of the right guilt, but they will go to another monastery and be accepted with the letter of leave of that monastery head.” At the same time, all the laity were to be expelled from the monastery. A little later, in a decree of 1703, Peter, for violating this order, promised "to the authorities with the brethren ... to be in exile in distant Pomeranian monasteries and in captivity in strong places forever." The next step was to limit the maintenance of the monks. The decree of December 30, 1701 provided: “In monasteries, monks and nuns should be given a certain amount of money and bread for their cohabitation, but they should not own their estates and any land, not for the sake of ruining the monasteries, but better for the sake of fulfilling the monastic promise, since the ancient monks hunted food for themselves with their own hardworking hands and lived in a cenobitic way, and fed many beggars from their hands, now The monks from above, not only feed the poor from their labors, but eat the labors of others, and the primary monks fall into many luxuries. Therefore, Peter prescribed for each monk to establish a standard of maintenance - 10 rubles and 10 quarters of bread per year per person. Everything else went, as they would say now, to the state budget through the system of the Monastic order, which financed the expenses of the monasteries. These restrictions were a natural continuation of the secularization of the monastic lands, carried out with the formation in 1701 of the Monastic order. And although later part of the estates was returned to the monasteries, the bulk of the income from them came to the state.

The offensive against monasticism continued throughout the reign of Peter. On January 28, 1723, Peter, through the chief procurator, gave the Synod an order to start a new census of monks and a complete ban on tonsure again. At the same time, it was ordered to report monthly, “how many of the number of monks and nuns found on the face will decrease ... and retired soldiers will be assigned to those diminished places.” On March 3, 1725, an exception was made only for widowed priests.

It must be assumed that the idea of ​​Peter, who forbade monastic vows, tended to turn monasteries into almshouses for retired soldiers, whose number increased with each year of the existence of the regular army. Actually, Peter embarked on the path of turning monasteries into almshouses a long time ago and consistently followed it, believing that the service of monks to the state consists precisely in this. The most consistent thoughts about the worldly duties of the monks were expressed by a personal decree of January 31, 1724, given by Peter to the Synod. The decree unambiguously calls the monks parasites: “The current life of the monks is just a form of diarrhea from other laws, but a lot of evil is happening, because most of them are parasites and idleness is the root of all evil, then how many zabobons, splits, but also rebels happened, everyone knows there is. And then Peter, believing that they go to monasteries in order not to fulfill their duties to the landowner and the state, sharply condemns this: “We have, honor, all [the monks] from the villagers, what they left - they obviously have, not exactly renounced, but repudiated a good and contented life, for at home there was a tripod, that is, to his home, the state and the landowner, and in the monks - everything is ready, and where they themselves work, it is only free villagers are the essence, for only one share of three works against the villagers ... What is the profit to society from this? - truly only an old proverb: neither to God, nor to people, since most of them run away from taxes and from laziness, in order to eat bread for free. According to Peter, the only way to correct such an ugly situation, when some of the subjects avoid duties to the state, is to “serve the direct beggar, the elderly and the baby.”

For this, Peter ordered to establish the states of monasteries based on the number of retired soldiers assigned to these monasteries and “other direct beggars”, for whom hospitals and almshouses were arranged in monasteries. The monks were supposed to be in the following proportion: one monk to four retired or beggars, “depending on which is more difficult than the disease, I have more employees, and who are lighter and the old ones have fewer employees, or as it will be for the good to be seen from the example of the regulation on hospitals, the age is not younger than 30 years.” The rest of the monks who remained “beyond the number of service” were to receive land from the monastery, “so that they themselves would earn their own bread,” and be a permanent contingent to replenish the natural loss of monks in the monasteries. The nuns, who found themselves in the same situation, were ordered to “eat needlework instead of arable land, namely: yarn for manufactory yards.” From now on, monks were forbidden to live in cells, they had a place only in special closets "in the same hospitals." All the monks were under constant and careful supervision by both spiritual and secular authorities. Apparently, Peter failed to fully realize his plans for the restructuring of monastic life - he soon died, but the very attempt to put the monasteries and their inhabitants at the service of the state is characteristic of him: in a regular state there should not have been a single person who was not in any service rank or was not assigned to a payment community or, at worst, to an almshouse. The integration of the church into the state system was multifaceted and concerned not only the very management of the church, but also worship and doctrine. Faith, as the historian P.V. Verkhovskoy wrote, “became a means of testing political reliability and influence in state forms.”

This fully applies to the methods of solving the long-standing problem of dissent that tore apart Russian society after Nikon's reforms. Since the time of Peter the Great, the struggle against schismatics - the main opponents of the official church - has turned into a police action, regularly carried out by the state itself. To begin with, a strict head count of schismatics, both men and women, was established. All of them were subject to a double tax - the government saw this as an important means of combating the split. According to the decree of March 14, 1720, all schismatics were given a choice: either recognize the official church, or pay a double tax. In both cases, the schismatics had to appear in a special order of church affairs and declare themselves and their households. “And if someone, knowing this decree, does not voluntarily come to appeal to the holy church, or does not come to the note for a split in the payment of a double salary, but in the one from whom he will be exposed, and that novice will be subjected to a cruel civil punishment, and the penalty will be doubled before that double salary. And from that, put sheets on the city gates and noble places, and in magpies (church district. - E. A.) to send the same decrees to the elders, so that they have them and all their forty, having distributed lists in churches, these decrees were ordered to be read often, so that no one would be dissuaded by ignorance. The Synodal Decree of May 15, 1722, which closed all possible loopholes for schismatics in an attempt to circumvent the legislation on discrimination against those who profess schismatic dogma, is particularly detailed. All schismatic handwritten books were subject to immediate surrender, another decree (dated October 13, 1724) warned that “no one would dare to keep such dubious and suspicious books and notebooks secretly, openly, under any guise under fear of a cruel execution.” Belonging to a schism was seen as a sign of legal and civic inferiority. The schismatics were instructed "not to be bosses in any affairs, but to be only subordinates, and also not to accept them as evidence anywhere, except among themselves, and then on occasion." The decree issued at the beginning of the 18th century on special clothing for schismatics was repeatedly confirmed, and from all the “bearded men” who paid a tax for wearing a beard, the schismatics had to be distinguished by a special sign on their clothes - a trump card. In the dictionary of Vladimir Dahl we read: “A trump card ... a piece of red cloth with a yellow stripe, which was worn by schismatics under Peter.” Undoubtedly, the purpose of this decree was to highlight the schismatics with a special mark on their clothes, thereby subjecting them to public humiliation and making them the subject of universal supervision. At the same time, the law forbade them to wear red clothes so that the trump cards did not merge with the clothes. By a decree of April 6, 1722, officials were forbidden to accept petitions from schismatics "in the wrong dress." Denunciation of violators of this law was also encouraged: “Also, whoever sees someone with a beard without such a dress, so that they bring him to the commandants or governors and clerks, and there they are fined, from which half to the treasury, and the other to the driver, and moreover, his dress. In 1724, special interchangeable "annual" copper signs sewn onto clothes were introduced. The wives of the schismatics were ordered to wear "dresses and hats with horns." All these measures, unprecedented in their systematic, strictness, cruelty and humiliation, led to the schismatics running away to remote places, numerous "burnouts", self-immolation of entire communities - the only form of protest of schismatics against violence against conscience and personality. Concerned about the "correct" performance of duties by the subjects-parishioners, the "regular" state of Peter was against any initiative, any manifestation of religious initiatives and spiritual feats not regulated and not controlled by the official church. Noteworthy in this sense is the decree of the Synod of July 16, 1722, called by the compilers of the Complete Collection of Laws, where it was published, the decree "On the invalidity of unauthorized suffering brought on by criminal acts." The basis for this at least strange decree was the high-profile case of a follower of the schism in the teachings of Grigory Talitsky - Levin, who in 1721 in Penza appealed to the crowd to resist the Antichrist Tsar. The matter was extraordinary, since Levin deliberately went to suffering and death for the sake of an idea and, interrogated by the senators under torture “on the needles”, declared, “so that the people have heard enough of them and now they stand in their former opinion and wish to die in that, and he wished to suffer and die by his will.”

It must be assumed that the courage of a tortured person, who chose the path of torment and death for himself, impressed the Senate and forced the authorities to turn to the people with a decree in which they condemned “those who, from ignorance and madness, or from their extreme malice, as the main enemies themselves voluntarily wish evil and health and life are in vain deprived, seduced by the name of suffering and by that alone bitter torment and death delight themselves ". This is the greatest mistake, the drafters of the decree believe, because "not all suffering, but only suffering that is legally occurring, that is, for the known truth, for the dogmas of eternal truth, for the indispensable law of God, is useful and pleasing to God." There is no place for legitimate suffering in Russia, since “such truth for the sake of persecution is never to be feared in a Russian, as if Orthodox, state, because it cannot be.” In other words, there are no conditions for the achievement of the spirit in Russia by a pious Orthodox tsar, since there are no reasons that would force him to go to torment and death for the sake of an idea. In addition, the authorities generally express distrust of such exalted initiative - without a corresponding higher urge, equivalent to the order of the chief, one cannot act, “moreover, we must not dare ourselves to do a bit of a feat without our own divine inspiration, as if a warrior does not dare to fight without the order of his chief.” There must be discipline and order in everything, and tricks like Levin’s are harmful and dangerous, and such “three-eyed people” achieve, in modern terms, cheap popularity, “are seduced by this future glory with a dream that delights themselves: I will praise and a blessing from everyone, if for this prostration, a story will be written about me, praise will sweep everywhere, not only will say: about me, magnanimous he was a husband, he denounced the king, he was not afraid of the cruel torments! Oh, skanni madmen! there are few such rabid people, there is some kind of evil that has no equal name. Such actions were considered by the tsar as “free-thinking, detrimental to improvement” and, of course, condemned.

Undoubtedly, Peter's reforms led to a decisive victory of the secular principle over the confessional, religious. At the same time, it should be noted that the history of the second half of the 17th century testifies that Russia embarked on this path even before Peter - this was an imperious manifestation of time, the originality of the situation that arose in connection with Nikon and the schism. But Peter's reforms are notable not only for the unprecedented pace and scale of the transition of society to secular lines, but for the consequences that the transformation of the Orthodox Church into a government institution had. In other textbooks and writings, Peter's church reform is portrayed almost as a victory for longed-for atheism. In fact, this was not so - the church began to serve the regime of autocracy, began to dutifully consecrate all its undertakings. As P.V. Verkhovskoy wrote in 1916, “the current state status of the church in Russia, rooted in Peter’s church reform, has always obligated and obliges the clergy to defend and justify not only the existing state system, regardless of its moral merits, but the events and phenomena arising from it. So, for example, the clergy defend the oath in the name of God, first introduced by Peter and Theophan for political reasons, used to defend serfdom, corporal punishment, and still defend the death penalty. Not having the strength to loudly condemn the very foundations of modern material culture, the clergy and school theology justify the accumulation of wealth, the giving of money at interest, capitalism, etc., and, on the contrary, fight against socialism, indifferent to the labor question. The transformation of the church into an office for matters of faith, the subordination of all its values ​​to the needs of the autocracy, in many ways meant the destruction for the people of a spiritual alternative to the regime and ideas that come from the state and have their origins in etatism, state thinking, in authoritarian secular power. The Church, with its thousand-year tradition of preaching morality, protecting the humiliated and defeated by the state, the Church, which in ancient times "mourned" for the executed, could publicly condemn the tyrant, became an obedient instrument of power and thereby largely lost the respect of the people, as the guardian of the spiritual principle, lost its highest moral authority. It is no coincidence that these people subsequently looked so indifferently at the death of the church under the rubble of the autocracy that had integrated it, and at the destruction of its temples. If we talk about faith, then it was preserved only thanks to the parish clergy, those simple priests who were always with their people and shared their fate with them even in prisons and camps.

The tsar has already announced that "for better administration, it seems to be convenient for the Spiritual College." Yavorsky did not share this royal opinion; Theophanes shared it, and therefore he had to take upon himself the drafting of the regulations for the new collegium. Contemporaries transmitted the following conversation between Peter and Feofan. Peter: Will our patriarch soon be in time (regulations)? - Feofan: Soon, I'm sewing his cassock. - Peter: And I have a hat ready for him. In January 1721, the regulations of the Theological College were published, corrected and supplemented by the tsar; the regulations were issued with the following manifesto: “Between the many authorities, God-given to us in debt, cares for the correction of our people and other states subject to us, looking at the spiritual rank and seeing in it a lot of disorganization and great poverty in its deeds, we had fear that was not vain in our conscience, but we will not appear ungrateful to the Almighty, if we receive blessings from him in correcting both military and civil rank, let us neglect the correction of the spiritual rank. And when he, the judge, who is not hypocritical, asks us for an answer about the precept given to us by him, let us not be unanswerable. For this reason, in the image of the former pious kings both in the Old and in the New Testament, having taken care of the correction of the spiritual rank, not seeing a better way for this than a conciliar government (because it does not happen without passion in a single person; moreover, it is not hereditary power, for the sake of the greater they do not disregard), we appoint the Theological College, i.e. the spiritual conciliar government, which, according to the following regulations, has all sorts: to manage spiritual affairs.

The first part of the regulations sets out the reasons for the establishment of the collegium: 1) the collegiate board is more capable of investigating the truth than the sole one; 2) a conciliar sentence has more force than a single person's sentence; 3) cases are resolved more quickly; 4) there is no place for prejudice, deceit, and a liar court; 5) collegium has the freest spirit in itself to justice; 6) the fatherland cannot be afraid of revolts and embarrassment from a conciliar government, which come from a single spiritual ruler, for the common people do not know how spiritual power differs from autocratic power, but, surprised by the great honor and glory of the highest shepherd, thinks that such a ruler is a second sovereign, equal to or even greater than the autocrat, and that the spiritual rank is a different and better state; so the people are accustomed to think on their own: what happens when the weedy talk of power-hungry clerics is added and they put a fire on dry brushwood? Simple hearts are so corrupted by this opinion that they do not look so much at their autocrat as at the supreme shepherd, and when they hear a strife between them, they sympathize with the ruler more spiritual than worldly, although blindly and insanely, they dare and flatter themselves for the spiritual to stand up and rebel, accursed, that they fight against God himself and do not defile their hands, but sanctify, even if on blood. shedding rushed. Insidious people who are at enmity with their sovereign are very happy with such an opinion among the people: when they see the quarrel between the sovereign and the pastor, they use this opportunity to raise their hands against the anointed of God under the guise of church jealousy, and they move the common people to the same lawlessness as the work of God. What if the shepherd himself, arrogant about himself with the same opinion, does not want to sleep? It is difficult to say what kind of calamity can come from here.

The second part of the regulations sets out the cases that are subject to the Theological College: it is charged with the duty to destroy all existing superstitions; to disseminate information about the law of God, compose three books: on the dogmas of faith, on the positions of every rank, a collection of sermons of St. father about dogmas and positions. Bishops are obliged to have in their homes schools for the preparation of priests, they are obliged not to think highly of their honor. To tame the very cruel bishops of glory, it is forbidden to lead them by the arms, while they are healthy, to bow to the ground. “These worshipers self-willingly and impudently creep to the ground and slyly, so that they can claim a degree that is not worthy, so that they cover their fury and theft.” In the chapter on school houses, teachers, students, and church preachers, the regulations say: “Many people say badly that teaching gives rise to heresies: didn’t our Russian schismatics get so cruelly furious because of rudeness and ignorance? If we look through history, as through a telescope, at those who have passed by. century, then we will see all the worst in dark times, and not in times bright in the teachings. The regulations also determined the range of subjects that should be taught in theological schools: 1) grammar, together with geography and history); 2) arithmetic and geometry; 3) logic, or dialectics, for this dual doctrine is one; 4) rhetoric together with poetic teaching or separately; 5) physics with the addition of a brief metaphysics; 6) Puffendorf's brief policy, if needed; 7) theology. The first six sciences rely on a year, theology - two years.

Stefan, Metropolitan of Ryazan, was appointed president of the Theological College, or Synod; he was followed in seniority by members: Theodosius (Yanovsky) - Archbishop of Novgorod, Feofan - Archbishop of Pskov, Peter - Archimandrite Simonovsky, Leonid - Archimandrite of Petrovsky, Philotheus - Archimandrite of the Don, Greek priest Anastasius Kondoidi, John - Archpriest of Trinity, Peter - Archpriest of Petropavlovsk, Hieromonk Varla am Ovsyannikov. We are familiar with the first and third members of the Synod; it is necessary to get acquainted with the second, because we will have to meet with him later. Theodosius Yanovsky, archimandrite of the Novgorod Khutyn monastery in the first years of the century, was not at all distinguished either by education or talents, could not compete in this respect with either Prokopovich or Yavorsky; an energetic man, unrestrained in deed and word, power-hungry and greedy, a monk without a call to monastic life at all, Theodosius wanted to come forward at all costs; he found a sure means for this - to imitate the reforming direction of the government, we say - to forge, because we do not consider ourselves entitled to recognize any strong convictions behind Theodosius. Peter was glad that he found among the spiritual, among the monks, an intelligent, active, managerial person and not at all like the majority of his brethren, a person advanced in church reforms. In 1710, Theodosius was transferred to the archimandrite of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery founded by Peter in St. Petersburg, and five years later he went abroad for treatment! But let him speak for himself and show by what means he curried favor with the king. In 1719, Musin-Pushkin reported to the sovereign that bells miraculously hum in Novgorod churches at night; Peter instructed Theodosius to find out in more detail what was the matter, and he answered him: “This interpretation can be applied: what would this wordless buzz of people teach, anyone who has a mind can judge; reality, as if from an enemy: weeping, as if his charm would be expelled from the peoples of Russia, the first of the hysterics through Peter the Great: the second through the newly consecrated bishops from the same points, so that icons would not be idolized and thus false miracles would not be invented; the third of the schismatics, about whom the same Peter has diligent diligence in correcting. And the enemy will at least renew his former charm, which before, at the icon of the Mother of God on Tikhvin, through a certain Yurysh and similar charmers and hysterics, he dispersed among the common people, as he acquires in that woman’s story, which was followed by superstitious and not simpletons. So, it seems, even now, with the same icon (later mentioned in the Derevyanitsky monastery, in which there was such a buzz, the church in the name of the Tikhvin icon), it is also trying to renew its charm. The letter of Theodosius to Peter is also curious about the reasons why he, Theodosius, has so many enemies between spiritual and secular people: “I most humbly inform your majesty of the miserable: multiplying, more than the hair of my head, hating me to the tune, and the reasons for which they hate are this: from spiritual: 1) for ordering spiritual affairs past the bishops in this place residing ; 2) for the taking from Moscow and other places of benevolent priests and deacons to St. Petersburg churches according to the registers submitted by me; 3) the Ryazan bishop for the conference on his teaching, at which only I was among the spiritual ones, where I fought, fighting in truth, a lot of it; 4) for assigning some monasteries and the Sergius Monastery of estates from the Novgorod diocese to the Nevsky Monastery; 5) for taking from the houses of the bishops and the best monasteries, according to the registers submitted from me, benevolent hieromonks and. hierodeacons, namely judges, cells, treasurers, cathedral elders and other best in the Nevsky Monastery; 6) for the change of the Tikhvin archimandrite. From non-spiritual principled and unprincipled persons; 7) for the cross and other dragging priests, elders and old women, whom he guarded so that they would not be kept; 8) for the schismatics, whom the nobles and non-landlords protect, and the schismatics themselves slander; 9) for Ivan Sinyavin, who offended a hieromonk and another hieromonk in the fleet, for whom, according to my position, and at their request, he asked for satisfaction, where it was due, which was not only not committed, but acted hostilely against them and me. From the entire embassy; 10) for candles, burning in vain in churches, about which the priests were ordered not to burn them out of necessity; 11) for the most pure mysteries, about which the priests were ordered not to use them for apothecary medicine for healthy and sick babies, but after baptism, having communed with one, they would leave those who were not involved until the knowledge of good and evil. And there would be many other reasons for the aforementioned hatred, but they will not fit on this paper, of which many haters are harmed and can be harmed by all sorts of slander, not only among the people and among themselves, but also before Your Majesty, and I doubt, negli and damaged for a long time; for this sake, falling to the mercy of your majesty, I diligently pray: may the rest of the time of my miserable belly be ordered to die in black silence, but not worse, that I will suffer innocently.

In the list of synodal members, the name of the Greek priest Anastasia Kondoidi stops our attention. He himself tells about his fate in a petition to the king about increasing the content: “While in Constantinople, I received an annual salary of 2000 thalers: 500 as a preacher of the patriarchate and 1500 as the second translator of the Ottoman Porte. But out of my inclination to the Orthodox faith, I began to serve Your Royal Majesty, and when this service became known, I not only lost my annual salary, my estate and the promised diocese, but if the patriarch had not buried me in his cellar for 26 days, I would have been put to death, as happened to my comrade, Captain Francis the Greek, who was caught and impaled. Being deprived of my property, I am in need, and among all the synod members there is no one poorer than me; for his own food, clothing, maintenance of the rope (boat), overland train and ministers; to clean the courtyard, as befits a Synod person, six hundred rubles a year cannot be improved in any way.

On February 14, 1721, the newly established Synod asked the tsar to resolve the following questions: 1) In church services where the patriarchal name was previously raised, should the name of the governing spiritual assembly be raised instead of it in this form: “about the most holy governing assembly, honest presbytery”, etc.? The title of the most holy will be given only to the whole assembly, and to no one in particular. The tsar answered: to exalt about the most holy Synod or about the most holy governing Synod. 2) When dealing with the Senate and collegiums, how should one get a written treatment? Previously, decrees were not sent to the patriarchal name from anywhere, while the Theological College has the honor, strength and power of the patriarchal or even greater, because the cathedral. Answer: to the Senate with the knowledge and signature of all, and in the collegium - as they write from the Senate, and only with the signature of the secretary. 3) Is it possible to elect bishops for idle dioceses in the spiritual assembly and, according to a report to the royal majesty, to appoint and to determine places? Answer: choose two persons, and we will determine which one to initiate. 4) Should Hieromonk Innokenty Kunchitsky, appointed to the Khinsky (Chinese) state, by the Irkutsk Nerchinsk bishop, for proximity to this state, should he be ordained and, for the most convenient treatment, should he be separated from the Siberian diocese? Answer: to consecrate to the bishopric, but it would be better without the title of cities, other than these cities bordering Khina: so that the Jesuits would not interpret it differently and would not cause disasters. 5) Patriarchal, hierarchal and monastic estates, which were administered by the Monastic Order with collections and administration, the Water Spiritual Collegium, you know, for the sake of the fact that they came from civil administrators into poverty and emptiness, and the Spiritual Collegium swore an oath both in loyalty and in seeking the interest of the royal majesty against other collegiums no less; But in the regulations of the spiritual it is necessary that such a board should be before the Theological College? Answer: to be according to this.

President Stefan Yavorsky was not pleased with the resolution on the naming of one Synod. He submitted an opinion: “Most Reverend Hierarchs and other Holy Fathers and Brothers! Since all members of the college should have a free voice, then give me a free voice, which is like this: it seems to me that in litanies and ecclesiastical offerings both can be clearly included, for example: about St. Orthodox Patriarchs and St. ruling Synod. What is the sin in that? What a loss to the glory and honor of St. Russian Synod? What dishonesty and obscenity? It would be more pleasing to God and the people would be pleased. In chapter 6 of the regulations it is written: if things are doubtful and what kind of explanation is required, so as not to rush to do it quickly, but according to the invention of the case and the circumstances, report in advance and inquire where it is necessary. After all, this is what they say, then this matter requires the final decision and determination from the highest heads of all boards and the entire state. And that the manarsh’s litter was written on the first point of the denunciation, from this it is only given to know how to be called to have a spiritual collegium in prayers, and nothing is said about the resignation of the patriarchs from the offering. Signed: "Stefan, unworthy metropolitan, weak elder." But the Synod did not agree with the president on this basis: “The Greeks themselves do not have the custom of raising the names of the patriarchs outside the diocese or the power of the patriarchs. What do we have more? We look at the Greeks, we learn from the Greeks the rank and custom, we will not offend them, without remembering the name of the patriarch, when they themselves do not remember; and in Russia, after the Russian patriarchs, no other patriarch, nor even the names of the patriarchs, were commemorated.

The Holy Governing Synod, immediately after its establishment, clashed with the Governing Senate and various strong persons. The synod filed a complaint with the tsar. “Your Majesty deigned to establish a spiritual conciliar government with such power that everyone, both spiritual and worldly people, listen to his decrees in everything under great punishment and be important and strong in his actions. But at the very beginning of his actions, destruction and opposition appear, namely: the case of Prince Dolgoruky and Saltykov was handed over to us, and we sent to Prince Iv. Fed. Romodanovsky, in order to send to the Synod Saltykov’s yard people who are under arrest in the Preobrazhensky Chancellery, a decree of Your Majesty was sent behind the hands of all collegials; but this decree of your Majesty by Romodanovsky was destroyed and not only deprived of the required execution, but, as unimportant, was sent back to us. If this insult remains unsatisfied, then others will be even more courageous to contempt, and the power given to the spiritual government will not have a worthy effect and will be very unimportant. According to the points, determined by Your Royal Majesty's own hand, church estates should be in spiritual control, as they were in the Monastic order, and now, by definition of the Senate, they and their ministers are ordered to be under the court of the Justic Collegium. By the most merciful determination of Your Majesty, the spiritual government from other colleges has been abolished, as well as the Senate, and if it is now according to the Senate definition, then these estates and their servants will be oppressed from the worldly authorities. To this, Peter answered with his own hand: “I will determine upon arrival, but nevertheless it seems that it is impossible otherwise, since the management of estates is determined for you for extortions and reprisals between them and the like, so that they would be better guarded; and it’s impossible for everyone to have tea with extraneous things that happen, because in such cases there are executions and punishments, which it’s impossible for you to sign, but you can’t hand over to one secular; Another thing is that there will be so much trouble that there will be no time to manage your current position, which, even without other things, requires great work and time, besides, peasants and servants are equal, wherever they are.

Further, the Synod requested: “In the Senate verdict, it is determined that those secretaries and clerks who are out of work should be in the Synod, as a result of which those who are no longer fit for work and who are not only of such an important and great cause, but even the easiest cases cannot be managed. In the same Senate verdict, it was determined that the Synod should be content with clerks and clerks of the Monastic and Patriarchal orders, bishops and noble monasteries; but from these places the best clerks have long been sorted out for work in the collegium and in the province, only the unfit are left. To this, Peter answered: “Which (secretaries and clerks) are desired against this, and that they are neither in the Senate, nor in collegiums, but in other cases, and such without a dispute to give to the Spiritual Synod.”

The synod asked: “Prior to the determination of the spiritual government, clergy were assigned to different offices and orders on various matters relating to them; and from now on, so that your majesty by the most merciful decree was commanded, no matter what concerns spiritual persons, according to reservations, to conduct investigations about it in the spiritual government, until one of them should be subjected to a search by a civil court, so that sometimes the innocent do not suffer with villains in dungeons. And if any spiritual person is taken in obvious villainy, then follow in a civil court and only to remove the rank send to the spiritual government as before. To this was the answer: “On which there will be a slander (except for grave state cases) in what particular atrocity, such to send to the Synod, against this point of force, as long as they are decent before the civil court, but not to be taken to the collegium or somewhere in India and not to hold, and every petitioner in a crime on spiritual nowhere in India must be beaten with his forehead, only in the Synod, this is of course about abuse, battle, theft and others similar cases, and not about those that are difficult cases to which the spiritual have tied themselves, like what kind of purchase, crafts, farming, trading, and so on, if it is determined, to beat everyone there and on spiritual ones, for example, in foreign auctions in the Commerce Collegium, in domestic auctions and crafts, farming in the Chamber Collegium, and so on.

The Synod asked: “The Senate reports on the demands of the spiritual government as on particular cases according to the register, which causes slowdown and halt in spiritual affairs: we ask that the affairs of the spiritual government be proposed for resolution immediately, bypassing the register.” Answer: “On spiritual matters, it is necessary before all collegiate matters, the first to listen and decide according to our decrees, and as for external matters, then according to the register with others, as if particular.”

The Senate was angry with the Synod for submitting these points to the tsar; he wrote in his reference to the Synod: “It is ordered to be clerks in the Synod who are out of work, in addition, it is determined to take the Monastic and Patriarchal orders, bishops and noble monasteries of clerks and clerks, knowing that those places can be satisfied with the mentioned servants; and those that are demanded from the Synod according to the register, by name, are not determined so that those cases in which they are acquired are not stopped to damage interest; and even if the spiritual governing Synod were dissatisfied with that definition, it would also be necessary to write about it to the Senate again, without bothering the royal majesty.”

Having received permission from the tsar to take secretaries and clerks, who, although in business, but not in the collegiums, the Synod took in the clerk Kornyshov, who was at the construction sites on Kotlin Island. But Menshikov was in charge of the buildings; without letting the Synod know, he ordered Kornyshov to be seized and brought to Kotlin Island, where he was severely beaten. “By such immoderate actions,” the Synod wrote to the tsar, “the spiritual assembly wisely appointed by your majesty, which everyone was ordered to regard as an important and strong government, was destroyed.” At first, the Synod had to complain about the Astrakhan governor of Volynsky, who forcibly took the stone cells in the Astrakhan Trinity Monastery, where the elders lived, and placed offices in them, ordered them to take six storage cells and put their luggage in them, ordered to break the monastery stone gates, stone guard cell, wooden stables and scatter the monastery fences, finally, cut off the monastery land for the square.

The activities of the newly established Synod were not expressed in these disputes alone: ​​he sent out a decree that the priests turn away their parishioners from the ungodly custom of pouring water over and bathing in rivers and ponds those who do not attend Matins at St. week, and sometimes people drown, doused half-awake and with a hangover, lose their minds; finally, the vile idol Kupalo immediately comes to mind. We have seen that in the second half of the 17th century the Russian Church ceased to regard Catholics as unbaptized, ceased to demand that they be re-baptized upon conversion to Orthodoxy; under Peter, with the permission of the Patriarch of Constantinople, they no longer demanded re-baptism from Protestants. After that, a third step was taken: the Synod issued a letter to the Orthodox, in which it proved that marriages with non-Christians were permissible. This message was caused by the report of Captain Vasily Tatishchev, sent to Siberia for mining; he wrote that the Swedish captives would willingly accept Russian citizenship if they were allowed to marry Russian girls without changing their faith; but since many of them got married, but then, due to the difference in faith, their wives were taken away from them and given to others, they do not want to enter the Russian service, because they cannot get women of their faith, and Russians are not given out for them. In order to increase church income, which could be used for the poor, it was decided that the sale of candles should be made from churches; with the money obtained from this sale, to build almshouses for the sick beggars everywhere near the churches; church elders, elected by parishioners, were established to manage church revenues.

It was necessary to start establishing a special religious school in St. Petersburg; Feofan Prokopovich gave his opinion on this: “My advice is not to accept boys over ten years old, because at that age children have not yet learned to be evil, and if they have learned, they have not become stronger by custom, and it’s not difficult to wean them off, they also can’t rebel and run away yet. I still do not advise you to make a great and free academy; When God blesses this youthful house, then from among those who have learned in it, fair teachers will appear who will be able to teach and manage the great academy. Not some, but fair and certified teachers are needed, who would be called from foreign academies with the evidence of noble school and civil authorities. There is no need to fear that they will seduce our children to their theology, because it is possible for them to determine by articles what they should teach, and to watch whether they are teaching anything contrary to our confession. Let them teach only external teachings, languages, philosophy, jurisprudence, history, etc., and not theological dogmas, which students will learn from teachers of the same faith. If the Russian gentlemen are not afraid to send their children to foreign academies, where teachers freely offer their opinions, then why should we be afraid, where they will be bound by articles and supervision. But it will be possible to search for the beginning of the exercises between our people. We also wish His Majesty the gracious permission, let this house be called the Garden of Petrov, or the foreign dialect of Peter-Garten.

At a time when radical transformations were taking place everywhere in Great Russia, Little Russia, by decomposing its old way of life, hastened the process of equating itself with Great Russia.

Despite the constant presence of the Minister of the Sovereign under the hetman, denunciations continued to ripen on Little Russian soil, blown up by unsteadiness and recent betrayals. The hetman does not get along with some centurion, and the centurion brings a denunciation of the hetman to the Kyiv governor, Prince Dm. Mich. Golitsyn, about whom it was known that he did not agree with the hetman and looked at him suspiciously. Back in 1710, the Korop centurion Logvinenko reported to Golitsyn that the Zaporizhzhya convicts told the Yesaul Shepel, who was seeing them off, that Hetman Skoropadsky wrote to Orlik so that he and his Cossacks would stay as long as possible on the opposite side; Logvinenko brought witnesses to Shepel's stories about this; the same Logvinenko reported that Orlyk’s former butler, steward Groevsky, said in the Korop town hall: “The centurion Beznosy and I drank to Orlyk’s health, and Beznosy said: Orlik is a hetman in Bendery, and one must think that soon he will again be our pan.” Golitsyn let Moscow know about this. The government, secured by the stay of the sovereign's ministers in Hlukhiv under the hetman, did not expect or fear Skoropadsky's treason, and during the advancing war with Turkey did not want to arouse the hetman's displeasure and unrest in the Ukraine. Golovkin answered Golitsyn to send Logvinenko to Moscow with all the people involved in the case of Groevsky and Beznosoy, but he did not send witnesses to Shepel’s story, because the Cossacks who spoke about Skoropadsky’s correspondence with Orlik were executed, and therefore it is impossible to conduct an investigation. Hetman Golovkin tried to reassure Hetman about Golitsyn's dislike, wrote: “I wrote to Prince Golitsyn, so that he would not order anyone from any cities and places to take your regiment without writing to you and without the consent of your magnificence, and if some state matter happens, he would do it in accordance with you; he is not ordered to write decrees to your clairvoyance. As we can see, your majesty disagrees with the governor of Kiev: however, the royal majesty is trustworthy for your loyalty, and no unfounded denunciations will be trusted, in whatever you please, your majesty, be reliable.

In Moscow, the steward Groevsky told how he had an affair with Beznos: “Last year, 1710, the former Koropov centurion Kondrat Beznos came to my tavern, asked me for honey, and we drank honey together, only we were not much drunk; and Beznos told me to be kind to him; I answered: now that you, Beznos, are no longer a centurion, you want my affection, and when you were a centurion, you walked pouting and did not look at me. Beznos told me: when you were Orlik's butler, you were also puffed up and looked at me a little. I told him: if Orlik hadn’t been unfaithful, then the pan was kind, no matter how much I served him, I didn’t hear a dashing word from him. And Beznos told me that he had a great favor from Orlik and received centurionship through him. Saying this, we both drank to Orlik's health and, having drunk, dispersed. Groevsky and Beznos were punished for their obscene words and sent home to Ukraine.

History assignments (grade 8)

1. The main foreign policy opponent of Kievan Rus from the second halfXI century of steel:

A) Khazars;

B) Pechenegs;

B) Polovtsy;

D) Alans.

Answer: V

2. Galicia-Volyn land in the Middle Ages was called:

A) White Russia;

B) Black Russia;

C) Red (Red) Russia;

D) Great Russia.

Answer: V

3. Which of the above terms denotes one of the forms of Rus''s dependence on the Golden Horde?

A) a number

B) vira;

B) rope;

D) old.

Answer: A

4. Which of the named couples were contemporaries:

A) Ivan the Terrible and Sergius of Radonezh;

B) Ivan III and Ivan Fedorov;

C) Dmitry Donskoy and Feofan Grek;

D) Ivan Kalita and Ivan Peresvetov.

Answer: V

5. The names of the architects Aristotle Fioravanti, Aleviz Novy, Marco Ruffo are associated with construction:

A) the Moscow Kremlin;

B) Trinity - Sergius monastery;

C) St. Basil's Cathedral;

D) palace ensembles of St. Petersburg.

Answer: A

6. The first nationwide restriction on the free transfer of peasants to another landowner occurred as a result of the adoption of:

A) "Decree on reserved years";

B) Sudebnik of 1497;

B) Sudebnik of 1550;

D) "Decree on lesson years."

Answer: B

7. Indicate the estates that had the right to own land in the 17th century.

A) boyars, peasants, Cossacks;

B) nobles, townspeople, black-haired peasants;

C) boyars, nobles, monasteries;

D) Cossacks, nobles, monasteries.

Answer: V

8. In the judgment of the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky: “... This reign is one of the darkest pages of our history, and the darkest spot on it is the empress herself ... The Germans clung to the court, sat down on the throne, huddled in the most profitable places in government,” - it's about:

A) Catherine I;

B) Anna Ioannovna;

B) Anna Leopoldovna;

D) Elizabeth Petrovna.

Answer: B

9. Peace of Tilsit concluded during the reign of AlexanderI , provided:

A) the establishment of "eternal peace and allied relations between Russia and England";

B) division of Europe into spheres of influence between Russia and France;

C) the impossibility of Russia's entry into any military alliances;

D) priority development of Russia's trade with European countries.

Answer: B

10. The "Union of Salvation" and the "Union of Prosperity" considered the main goal:

A) the development of education, humanism, liberalism in Russia;

B) the development of landownership in Russia;

C) the strengthening of Russia's foreign policy in Europe;

D) the abolition of serfdom in Russia.

Answer: G

11. Who or what is superfluous in the series (underline the extra word and briefly explain your choice).

A) serf, thousand, purchase, ryadovich.

B) Koromyslova, Dmitrievskaya, Ivanovskaya, Arsenalnaya.

C) A. S. Figner, D. V. Davydov, V. A. Zhukovsky, A.S. Seslavin.

Answer:

A) thousand - an official and does not belong to groups of dependent people.

B) Arsenalnaya, since this is the tower of the Moscow Kremlin, and not the Nizhny Novgorod.

IN) V.A. Zhukovsky was a member of the militia in the war of 1812, the rest were leaders of army partisan detachments.

12. Complete the row or fill in the gap in it.

A) Oleg the Prophetic, Igor ..., Vladimir the Red Sun, Yaroslav the Wise.

B) 1725, 1727, 1730, 1740, ..., 1761, 1762

C) St. Petersburg - Tsarskoye Selo (1837), Warsaw - Vienna (1848), St. Petersburg - Moscow (1851), Moscow - ... (1862)

Answer:

A) Igor Stary

B) 1741

IN) Nizhny Novgorod

13. Read the extract from the Manifesto of January 25, 1721 and write the name of the institution in question.

“Between many, according to the duty of the God-given power to us, care for the correction of our people, and other states subject to us, despite the spiritual rank, and seeing a lot of disorganization and great poverty in its affairs, we establish a spiritual collegium, that is, a spiritual conciliar government, which has all sorts of spiritual affairs in the All-Russian Church to manage. And we command all our faithful subjects, of every rank, spiritual and worldly, to have this for an important and strong government and listen to its decrees in everything, under great punishment for resistance and disobedience.

Answer: Synod

14. Read an excerpt from the Decree of Peter I of 1711 and write the name of the state body that was given the described powers.

“Decree what to do after our departure. 1. The court should have a non-hypocritical and unjust judges to punish ...; the same for the sneakers ... 2. Look throughout the state and remove unnecessary, and especially vain expenses. 3. Take money, as possible, because money is the artery of war ... ".

Answer: Senate

15. The historian writes: "At the beginning of the XVIII century. the nobility possessed all the signs of state serfdom”: 1) they were obliged to carry out public service from the age of 15 and from the lowest rank; 2) get an education; 3) prepare their children for the service; 4) manage their peasants; 5) bear corporal punishment on an equal footing with “mean people”; 6) pay direct state taxes.

What is wrong in this list of responsibilities? Please indicate the relevant item.

Answer: 6) pay direct government taxes

16. Using all the words given, make up definitions of historical concepts, write downthis definition and the concept itself . Words and phrases cannot be used twice. It is allowed to add prepositions, change words by cases.

A) supporters, freedom, parliamentary, movement, uniting, system, civil, freedom of enterprise.

B) machine, large, production, enterprise, based.

C) illegal, preservation, activity, methods, organization, secret, applied.

D) new, act, creation, consolidated, legal, systematized.

Answer:

A) a trend that unites supporters of the parliamentary system, civil liberties, freedom of enterprise, - liberalism

B) a large enterprise based on machine labor, - factory

C) methods used by an illegal organization to keep its activities secret, - conspiracy

D) creation of a new consolidated systematized legal act - codification