Peter the first Anisimov. About the book "Peter is the first: good or evil for Russia?"

In Western European historiography and Western culture, in general, the personality and act of Peter the Great are mostly positive evaluations. Of course, the role of his generally accepted image of the westernizer, modernizer, before the backward Russia, who took advantage of the cultural, technical, military and other experiences of Western European countries was played.

In Russia, disputes (including scientific) on the nature of the reforms of Peter the Great and his personality still do not subside. This is not by chance - Russia, once again passing a circle (alas, not a turn!) Of its history, returns to eternal issues of feasibility, price and transformation value. And immediately from the depths of the past rises the figure of Peter, who laid in search of solutions of these "damned" irresistible Russian issues.

In this paper, I am not going to stop in historiography for a long time, for it simply is immense. Touching only the most important for our topic. So, in the first postpete decades of the XVIII century, Russian historiography of Peter Great was solely complimentary, which is also characteristic and for the reign of his daughter, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1761). Yes, and all other successors of Peter the Great wanted (and had to be considered) to consider himself by the successors of his case, although in reality it could be differently. It is not surprising that the then historical science perceived him not otherwise as a Demiurga, who created the new Russia, embodied God, who made her, as the vice-chancellor P. P. Shaffirov wrote, "Metamorphosis, siren to the implementation." The Great Russian scientist M. V. Lomonosov in unison Epoch exclaimed: "He is God, he was yours, Russia!" Generations of Russian thinkers were convinced that, not be Peter, we would undoubtedly disappear. As V. G. Belinsky wrote, without Peter Russia, maybe it would be brought together with Europe, "but just like India with England."

In a large extent, such a look was promoted by a popular not only in the West, but in our country, the composition of Voltaire "History of Peter Great", written on the basis of materials sent from Russia. Voltaire ratings were exceptionally positive. And later, the "applausment" tone of historiography remained. The historian of the XIX century M. P. Pogodin wrote: "We wake up. What is the day? - September 18, 1840. Peter the Great ordered to count years from the Nativity of Christ, Peter Great ordered to consider months from January. It's time to dress - our dress is stitched along the style, this is originally Petro, the uniform in his form. Sukly Vottano in the factory, which he started, wool was embracing with sheep, which he spread. The book comes across the eyes - Peter the Great introduced this font and cut the letters itself. You will begin to read it - this language with Peter has become written, literary, pusing the former, church. I bring you newspapers - Peter the Great began their publication. You need to buy different things - all of them from the cervical headscarf to the shoe sole will remind you of Peter Great, some are discharged to them, others are entered into use, improved, brought on his ship, in his harbor, on his channel, on his road. At lunch, from salty herring to potatoes, which by the Senate Decree indicated he to sow, to grape wines, they are divorced, all the dishes will tell you about Peter Great. After lunch you are going to visit - this is the Assembly of Peter the Great. We meet there, the ladies admitted to the male company at the request of Peter the Great. Let's go to the university - the first secular school is established by Peter Great.<…> We can't open our eyes, we cannot move, we cannot turn around in one way without met with us Peter, at home, on the street, in the church, in the school, in court, in the regiment, on the walk, all he , every day, every minute, on any step! "

The first doubts about the correctness of such estimates appeared in the reign of Catherine Great. They came out from the pen of professional historian Prince M. M. Shcherbatova. Formally, he belonged to the cohort of the admirers of the great converter of Russia and even in one of his works made "counting", for how many years Russia, not be Peter the Great, would achieve Catherine prosperity. It turned out that this would happen only at the end of the XIX century! According to contemporaries, Prince Shcherbatov was Misanthrop and Critica, but Petra criticized unusually thin. In 1773, he wrote a work entitled "Consideration of the vices and self-leveling of Peter the Great." In it, Shcherbatov cites negative estimates of some anonymous detractors of Peter and his affairs and ... strongly refutes them in line with the dominant historiographic view of the sovereign reformer. At the same time, Shcherbatov reveals the entire palette of the then negative judgments about Peter, familiar readers with new ones, for many stunning ideas. So in Soviet times, we acquainted with the forbidden trends "from there" on critical, sometimes crushing articles and brochures of Soviet philosophers and historians. The more the quotes from the writings of the authors contributed to the Anathema, the deeper we managed to immerse themselves into the world of Western writers and philosophers. Scherbatov seemed to quote someone's accusations of Peter in cruelty, love for executions and spilled blood, in an unquilitiable attitude to others, debauchery, sonheethics, tendency to drunkenness, in establishing a fierce regime of self-leveling, etc., as it were, justifying the invasion of this clearly Forbidden sphere, he refers to his duty of the historian - to write the truth and even turns to Peter: "Whatever my respect for you, but I will not overtake it in me justice, and I will try to ask for a golden pen, which depicts the cases of monarchs" .

Cleverly disguised criticism of Scherbatov became the first spoon of tar in a huge barrel of honey praise the king reformer. The next milestone was the famous work of the historian and writer N. M. Karamzin "Possed about the ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations", written in 1811 and shifting the focus of the discussion from the personality of Peter (Karamzin and writes: "I will default about the vices of personal ") To general philosophical, historiosophical problems: was there such reform whether Russia was needed, Peter's efforts were performed on the transfer of institutions and orders of other people's countries, was not too expensive than Russia's fruits of Western civilization, was able to undermine traditions, destroy the instrument of the original Russian Life, detect the past? Karamzin does not resort to the "cunning" techniques of Shcherbatov, and writes directly and bitter, throwing Peter accusations in the disastrous distortion of the foundations of the National Mentality: "Peter did not want to be in truth that the spirit of the people is the moral power of states.<…> Eradicating ancient skills, representing them funny, praising and introducing foreign, the sovereign of Russia humiliated Russians in their own heart. Disposterate to yourself, is there a person and citizen to great affairs? Russian name Does us now have the power non-defining what it had before? We became citizens of the world, but ceased to be in some cases by citizens of Russia. WINDOW - Peter. It is clear that the ideas of Karamzin are generated by its time; They are dictated by the dramatic situation on the eve of clashes with Napoleon, when in the national history it was necessary to find a support for the struggle ...

As it is known, Karamzin's reasoning about Peter (coupled with other circumstances) largely served as the impetus to the emergence of two main ideological directions of the struggle in the Russian intellectual elite: Westerners and Slavophiles. Their struggle, sometimes fierce, ultimately rotated around Peter - the central historical figure of the new time. Fucking and renewed, a fierce dispute, following the twists of the difficult Russian history and shifts of ideological concepts, continues, in essence, so far. Peter became a kind of indicator, which allows you to almost immediately determine the political views of the interlocutor and even his profession. Once I heard on the radio, as the minister of emergency situations asked about his relationship to the Great Reformer. He answered the question to the question: "But how can we treat the statesman who built a huge city, Petersburg, in the zone dangerous for people's stay, in the zone of crushing floods?" There is no doubt that so far in science and society remains black and white perception of Peter and its transformations.

The reform heritage of Peter the first, as well as his personality itself, so far gives rise to fierce disputes in Russian society. In the XIX century, disagreements in the assessment of Peter's activities largely became an impetus to the emergence of two main directions of ideological struggle in the Russian intellectual elite - Western and Slavophiles. Evgeny Anisimov decided on a bold step: to present two points of view on equal rights on the historical role of the Tsar reformer. The book is written in the form of a dialogue, or rather - fierce debates of two opponents: a supporter of the pan-European development and a supporter of a "special path". According to the author, both positions have the right to exist, both in their own way true and both reflect such a complex, ambiguous phenomenon as Peter's Epoch in Russian history. Evgeny Anisimov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor and Scientific Director of the History Department of Higher School of Economics (St. Petersburg Branch), Professor of the European University in St. Petersburg, Chief Researcher at the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The author of several hundred scientific publications, including three monographs on the history of the reign of Peter the First.

Introduction 1.

Does Russia needed in reforms? 2.

The greatness and poverty of the Empire 7

Economic breakthrough? 12

For the daze of the state 16

Self-adjusting Peter 19.

"The work of the subject All-Russian people" 25

Church and culture 31

Chronology of Petrovskaya era 38

Brief bibliography 39.

Illustrations 39.

Evgeny Anisimov
Peter is the first: good or evil for Russia?

Introduction

In Russia, disputes (including scientific) on the nature of the reforms of Peter the Great and his personality still do not subside. This is not by chance - Russia, once again passing a circle (alas, not a turn!) Of its history, returns to eternal issues of feasibility, price and transformation value. And immediately of the depths of the past rises the figure of Peter, who laid in search of solutions of these "damned" irresistible Russian issues.

In this paper, I am not going to stop in historiography for a long time, for it simply is immense. Touching only the most important for our topic. So, in the first postpete decades of the XVIII century, Russian historiography of Peter Great was solely complimentary, which is also characteristic and for the reign of his daughter, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1761). Yes, and all other successors of Peter the Great wanted (and had to be considered) to consider himself by the successors of his case, although in reality it could be differently. It is not surprising that the then historical science perceived him not otherwise as a demiurga, which created the new Russia, embodied God, who made it, as the vice-chancellor P. P. Shafirov wrote, "Metamorphosis, siren to the implementation." Great Russian scientist M. V. Lomonosov in unison Epoch exclaimed: "He is God, he was your God, Russia!" Generations of Russian thinkers were convinced that, not be Peter, we would undoubtedly disappear. As V. G. Belinsky wrote, without Peter Russia, maybe it would be closer to Europe, "but just like India with England."

In a large extent, this look was promoted by a popular not only in the West, but in our country, the writing of Voltaire "History of Peter Great", written on the basis of materials sent from Russia. Voltaire ratings were exceptionally positive. And later, the "applausment" tone of historiography was preserved. Historian of the XIX century M. P. Pogodin wrote: "We wake up. What is the day now? - September 18, 1840. Peter Great ordered to count years from the Nativity of Christ, Peter the Great ordered to count months from January. It's time to dress - our dress is sewn along the style, This is originally Peter, the uniform in his form. Sukno Vottano in the factory, which he started, wool was shaped with a sheep, which he spread. The book comes to his eyes - Peter the Great introduced this font and cut the letters himself. You will start reading it - this Language with Peter has become written, literary, pushing the old, church. They bring you newspapers - Peter the Great began their edition. You need to buy different things - all of them from the neck headscarf to the shoe sole will remind you of Peter Great, some are discharged to them, others introduced they are used, improved, brought on his ship, in his harbor, on his channel, on his road. At lunch, from salty herring to potatoes, which by the Senate Decree indicated he to sow, to grape wines, they reconcile Jean, all dishes will tell you about Peter Great. After lunch you are going to visit - this is the Assembly of Peter the Great. We meet there, the ladies admitted to the male company at the request of Peter the Great. Let's go to the university - the first secular school is established by Peter Great. \u003c...\u003e We can't open our eyes, we cannot move, we cannot turn into one way without met with us Peter, at home, on the street, in the Church, in the School, in court, in the regiment, in the walk , all he, every day, every minute, at any step! "

The first doubts about the correctness of such estimates appeared in the reign of Catherine Great. They came out from the pen of professional historian Prince M. M. Shcherbatova. Formally, he belonged to the cohort of the admirers of the great converter of Russia and even in one of his works made "counting", for how many years Russia, not be Peter the Great, would achieve Catherine prosperity. It turned out that this would happen only at the end of the XIX century! According to contemporaries, Prince Shcherbatov was Misanthrop and Critica, but Petra criticized unusually thin. In 1773, he wrote the work entitled "Consideration of the vices and self-leveling of Peter the Great." In it, Shcherbatov cites negative estimates of some anonymous detractors of Peter and his affairs and ... strongly refutes them in line with the dominant historiographic view of the sovereign reformer. At the same time, Shcherbatov reveals the entire palette of the then negative judgments about Peter, familiar readers with new ones, for many stunning ideas. So in Soviet times, we acquainted with the forbidden trends "from there" on critical, sometimes crushing articles and brochures of Soviet philosophers and historians. The more the quotes from the writings of the authors contributed to the Anathema, the deeper we managed to immerse themselves into the world of Western writers and philosophers. Scherbatov seemed to quote someone's accusations of Peter in cruelty, love for executions and spilled blood, in an unquilitiable attitude to others, debauchery, sonheethics, tendency to drunkenness, in establishing a fierce regime of self-leveling, etc., as it were, justifying the invasion of this clearly The forbidden sphere, he refers to his duty of the historian - to write the truth and even turns to Peter: "Whatever my respect for you, but it will not overshadow it in me justice, and I will try to ask from Klio that the Golden Feather, which depicts the cases of monarchs" .

Cleverly disguised criticism of Scherbatov became the first spoon of tar in a huge barrel of honey praise the king reformer. The next milestone was the famous work of the historian and writer N. M. Karamzin "Note about the ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations", written in 1811 and shifting the focus of the discussion from Peter's personality (Karamzin and writes: "I will default about the defaults of personal ") To general philosophical, historiosophical problems: did such reform needed such reform, whether Peter's efforts were productive for transferring institutions and orders of foreign countries, was not too expensive than Russia's fruits of Western civilization, whether to undermine traditions, destroy the structure of the original Russian Life, detect the past? Karamzin does not resort to "cunning" receptions of Scherbatov, and writes straight and bitter, throwing Peter accusations in the disastrous distortion of the foundations of the national mentality: "Peter did not want to be in truth that the spirit of the people is moral power of state. \u003c...\u003e Evalumed ancient skills, presenting They are funny, praise and introducing foreign, the sovereign of Russia to humiliate Russians in their own heart. Despite the very human and citizen to the great deeds? The name of the Russian has it now for us now the power is unfortunate, which one had before? We became citizens of the world But ceased to be in some cases by citizens of Russia. WINDOW - Peter. It is clear that the ideas of Karamzin are generated by its time; They are dictated by the dramatic situation on the eve of clashes with Napoleon, when in the national history it was necessary to find a support for the struggle ...

Current page: 1 (A total of 12 pages) [Available excerpt for reading: 8 pages]

Evgeny Anisimov
Peter is the first: good or evil for Russia?

© E. Anisimov, 2017

© D. Chernogayev, Illustrations, 2017

© OOO Ooo "New Literary Review", 2017

Introduction

There is one more, often invisible from the conflict inside historiography. It happened that between historians studying the XVII and XVIII century, there is a certain borderline with a pillar on which "1700 year" is written. The historians sometimes do not understand each other under the studied topics, are avoided to delve into the "alien territory", fearing to be raised on laughter. Fearing to cross this feature is due to incomprehension of phenomena and processes in the epoch-neighboring time, as well as the essential difference in historical sources, in many respects defining the worldview of the historian.

Researchers of the victorious era of Petrovsky transformations and the entire XVIII century (like the largest historian N. I. Pavlenko), the Dopeprovsk epoch seems to be "Chernovik", the preparatory stage of the great transformations of Peter, "the Middle Ages who pulled out from the Marsh Marsh" for Petrovskaya Russia of the new time, aspiring forward, to progress. The historians of the century of the XVII traditionally focused on the search for manifestations of the "class struggle" (the favorite term of Soviet historiography - the "XVII century - the Buntish Age"), which was supposed to grow up from the century to reach their catharsis - "the Great October Socialist Revolution." At best, they were sent to search for imperfect "Roskov capitalism", "signs of the All-Russian market", the phenomena of "bureaucratization". Studies of those scientists who tried to estimate the processes of the second half of the XVII century otherwise than was prescribed by official historiography (show that after 1700, a sharp change - "interrupted flight", the refusal of the original path to which Russia was still moving to Peter The same direction as the whole of Europe) was clearly not approved by the historical bosses. In his sincere desire to show the originality of the country's development in the XVII century, some historians fell in extremes, issued the desired for the actual and even involuntarily incorporated the subject of their scientific research. This was especially bright in works on the history of the times of Tsar Fyodor and the regenant of the princes of Sophia, owned by Peru A. P. Bogdanova.

I am a historian Peter, who wrote several books about his reforms, individuals and reigns. For many years, Peter the Great occupied all my thoughts - so it is complicated and multifaceted. Now, when the schemes of the Marxist perception of history more or less moved into the past, an understanding of the special place that Peter is in the consciousness of our society. In contrast to the rulers of subsequent times, it has an impeccable state reputation. We intuitively feel the statesman in it, who sincerely gave his life, all, without a residue, to the ministry of Russia. It causes a sympathy of his audacity, the originality of thinking, state romanticism, dreams of the welfare of Russia. In an amazing way, many loved him. Liberals and Westerners are grateful to him for the opening of the way to the West. It was Petr who joined us to civilization in which freedom, justice, the inviolability of the individual and the property above all. He forced the Russian nobility to learn and travel, he awakened an understanding of personal honor, human dignity and thus involuntarily predetermined the emergence of the Russian intelligentsia, which, in spite of everything, still keeps in our society began freedom, dignity and honor - all of What is not for sale and not bought. Peter pleased with technocrats, alien policies, having carried out invisible in terms of the transfer to Russia of knowledge, technologies, skills. He gave rise to Russian science, on an empty spot created the Academy of Sciences, without which Russian civilization is unthinkable. And Russian literature? What is she owned by Peter? Marina Tsvetaeva wrote that at that moment, when Peter stopped his glance on a small Arapchonka, this look said: "Pushkin - to be!" Peter-Germans landed both of imperial values \u200b\u200band, as it seems to them, the ideas of authoritarian, "strong" power.

But in the assessment of Peter and his great case, Europeanization, I can not pass and past the point of view, denying the Petrovsk "revolution from above" and condemning its principles and methods. Yes, in addition to the army of Petra admirers there is a small platoon of his ill-wishers. They are also different. Some, as a well-known publicist, patriots "with a cabbage in a beard", believe that they are the successors of the Slavophiles of the XIX century, but at the same time they do not possess the intellect and knowledge of Aksakov and Kireevsky.

Other detractors know a lot about the Petrovsk era, but sometimes they sharply evaluate it according to modern standards. I do not see anything about nothing. It's not so bad to follow the path specified by Karamzin, which in assessing the actions of people in history proceeded from the norms of Christian morality. It is much better than to assess people, based on "class" or racial criteria. Perhaps other historians may not like my digression from historicism if I say that the Christian morality, which exists two thousand years old and the most important morality of modern society, and to Ivan Grozny, and to Peter, and to Stalin, taking into account the fact that they were not worse than us knew the main ethical principles and perfectly understood that any atrocity contradicts these principles. No wonder the king killer Ivan the Terrible sometimes fell into the state of repentance, with tears asked the Lord forgiveness and even made a synod - a list of his victims addressed to God. And when he was shot down in the list of his victims, added: "And the rest, Lord, you yourself know."

Even if strictly adhere to the principles of historicism, it is impossible to close the eyes for obvious disadvantages and serious mistakes of Petrovsky Reformed. As a result, thinking this work, I decided to speak in front of the reader in two hints. The first will represent the West Peter, partly the Western, partly the Germanist, the word - the enlightened patriot, which justifies and protects it. In the second Ipostasi - a moderately conservative patriot, which, on the contrary, condemns Peter, but not ugly, and comprehensively studying his biography and acts. I am convinced that both positions are entitled to existence: they, oddly it sounds, in their own way, and eloquently reflect the complex, ambiguous role of Peter in Russian history.

As in the chess party, which you play yourself with yourself, in both positions I tried to play without omissions, defending every point of view with the maximum honesty, seriousness and all the argument accessible to me. When I read a lecture on this topic, I put in the role of the admirer, and speaking from the face of criticism, a detractor, filmed it ... I will not go further in search of analogies. It is enough to recall the current Saltykov-Shchedrin, which described in detail the peaceful conversation of the "boy in the pants" with the "Poverty" - "Boy without pants", by the fact of the same the topic of us today. The cited quotes in the text, as if recorded by me, let them not seem to be selected in advance. In life it happens that while your opponent says, you grab a book from the shelf, you find and read the quotation or, as it happens more often, while he says, you write two or three keywords in the Google search bar, and in a moment you have on the screen already "hanging" the desired quote. Of course, not everything in the dispute can be rented with accurate quotes, something remembers approximately - because this is not a scientific article, but a discussion is a special genre. So, let's start with the most important issue ...

Does Russia needed in reforms?

West:

The reforms of Peter the Great were needed for the then Russia, which was spilled in the tail of European states, was backward, in essence, Asian country. But the most important thing is that it should be remembered: at the end of the XVII century Russia struck the system crisis. The features are noticeable in all spheres of life of Russian society. There is also an obvious economic and scientific and technical lag from Western European countries. Recall that in the country there was actually no own industry - two or three ironing plants built by the Dutch under Tula - that's all. Meanwhile, the need for metal continuously grew. And what? Iron brought in huge quantities from the West, more precisely from Sweden. In other words, the country completely depended on imports. Own reserves of ores were not explored. In Russia, they did not even minimize silver - imported from the west of the situation in all Western Europe, Joachymstalers (Efimki), then the Russian coat of arms calmly knocked out on them and they were allowed in turnover.

Among other reasons, this has affected the level of economic development of the country, in which there was no national market, and regional relations were not really established. Foreign trade reminded Europeans trading with the natives of Micronesia: a variety of goods imported into the country, and exported exclusively raw materials. To all, the "natives" themselves in the sea with their goods were not stuck, but waited for the arrival of a foreign trading caravan on the shore. In addition, the country did not have a full way out to the sea. In fact, Russia had only one port - in Arkhangelsk, which was then called the city. Foreign trade was seasonal and again resembled relations with chukchi or other backwards, removed from the civilization centers with nations: for three to four years of the White Sea, the White Sea retreat, and then caravans of Dutch, Hamburg, English shopping ships, overcoming the dangerous path around Scandinavia, Get to Arkhangelsk. Only then the city came to life, turning into the port. For enterprising Dutch, it was no less dangerous transition than a trading expedition to Batavia - his own colony in Indonesia. In a word, the country suffocated without entering the sea, without a port, affordable most of the year. Where did the Petrovsk dream of the sea come from!

And so much to swim on their ships, with your goods in the ports of Western Europe, and did not have to dream! The country did not build vessels with large displacement. Undoubtedly, the Arkhangelsk Kochi were good for the hunting for seals and log cods, but they do not go to any comparison with European (primarily Dutch) whaling and fishing ships, leaving the whole squadron to Greenland and Newfoundland. Not to mention thousands of spacious shopping ships, furring all the oceans of the world. Yes, with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich on Oce, in Dedin, the Dutch built one for the entire XVII century a travel ship. However, his fate turned out to be sad - lowered along the Volga to Astrakhan, he joined in one of the Volga ducts. After all, where to swim on it, no one has led: the Caspian Sea is like a big lake. In a word, the economic "layer" of the systemic crisis is obvious.

There was a military crisis. Despite the fact that the Russian kings from the Romanov dynasty were invited to Russia officers and took the first military statutes, the crisis was outlined, the "third Rome of the Third Rome" was extremely painful on the ambitions. The low-live Russian army dragged with her huge wooden shields, of which the soldiers collected the "Gulya-city" and sat in it, knocking back from the enemy. There is no thoughtful offensive operation or a clearly organized battle. And this during the times of the great commander like Gustava Adolf, Wallenstein, Montekkuli! Russia could not cope with the decades with a no less archaic archaic archae's archaic army, hardly dismissed from the dawns of the Crimean Tatar Horde. Russia did not have such a war in the XVII century, in which the Russian army would not have suffered offensive defeats. Twice (in 1634 and 1659), the Russian army capitulated together with its commander-in-chief, generals, banners, licenses and guns. Shame and humiliation!

From the times of small-hour Chigirin trips, 1674-1678 became clear that the Russian army loses its combat capability and as if fatally doomed to failures. Crimean hikes 1687 and 1689 this was confirmed, and the attempts of the government of the princess Sophia could not change anything in military business. Peter and his surroundings believed that the Crimean campaigns covered Russia with disgrace due to the prisons of the commander-in-chief - Prince V. V. Golitsyn. But it came 1695, and the first Azov camoy of Peter himself ended as deplorable. Only the next year, mobilizing tremendous forces, Peter managed - and even with considerable works - to take Azov, outdated at the time the Turkish fortress with a few garrison. Finally, the chronic strip of military lesions ended with a crushing defeat under Narva Late in the fall of 1700, when the army lost all artillery, banners and generals captured by Karl XII.

The origins of the military "non-confinement" were in the destruction of the foundation, on which the Russian army was standing for a long time - the local system. As you know, the main source of provision of seruners of the XVI-XVII centuries was to endow them during the service in settlements of land ownership - estates. During the 18th century, the estate evolved towards the victims - hereditary possession, that is, the land (estate) issued during the service (estate) was fixed in the genus and became inalienable generic property (primary). This led to the disinterest of the landowner to serve "from the ground" and led to the decay of the traditional system of service based on the hierarchy of local salary. At the same time, in the province of active land distributions, Moscow ranks were given to the destruction of the county service of the city - the military-serving organization of the county nobility, a formerly important element in the formation of regiments in the war. The local system underlying the organization of the army since Ivan the Terrible, heal herself. The time when the warrior landowner with his martial hills was in the army "equestrian and mimingly", irrevocably passed. As Ivan Posochekov, the peasant thinker, about the old army, sneakly wrote, "people will catch up with a lot of people, and you will look at them at careful approach, then she, except for the gap, do not seek anything. The infantry guns had a bad way and they could not have been able to own, they were only fighting with a manual battle - spears and birds, and they were stupid, and on the battles they changed their heads on the enemy head 3 and 4 and much more.<…> And it was easy to see the Connection, it's not a foreign one, but also to look at them to look at them: at first they have a whiskey, Sabliy's saber, they themselves are needed and bewilddled, and they are not skillful to the gun. Truly, the sovereign, I saw that another nobleman did not know how to charge, and not what it was sharpened in the goal.<…> And if the Tatarins of two or three would be killed, then everyone is looking at them, the disivers and put themselves in good luck, and though a hundred people put a hundred worth up, then they don't charge anything. " And last: "I have heard with many nobles:" Give de God the great sovereign to serve and saber from the sheath does not take out "."

Unfortunates were and started at the time of Mikhail Fedorovich attempts to reform the army by the device "Novomanian" regiments on the Western European sample. At the end of the XVII century, such shelves were most of the army. But they suffered defeat along with the noble conean. It is not surprising, because the foundation of the "november house" regiments was, in addition to the monetary salary, the same - the estate, and in the soldiers they were usually impoverished boyars.

Privileged shooting shelves passed their own way to decay. Placed in the capital, in special approximations, the Sagittarius were diligently engaged in trade, which was a little contributed to the maintenance of their combat capability. In addition, close to the authorities pre-war, the desire of the latter to bribe and "to climb" Streltsov - all this in the conditions of a political and dynastic crisis led to the spread of Pretorian sentiment in the Streletsky environment, turned this most combed part of the army into a dangerous political struggle tool.

Thus, at the heart of the military crisis, there was a serious social crisis - not only the army was incapable, but the entire system of serving ranks, which, actually, this army was incorporated. Peter did not even have the need to destroy the old-year-old system - by the end of the XVII century, it was finally degenerated and quickly disintegrated. The exit from this social crisis, the king saw in the cardinal change in the status of some class groups, the elimination of others, creating thirds. The consequence became a large-scale social reform.

Yes, in Russia, the Dopererovsky epoch has arisen more and more regiments of a new, regular building - yes, I have a little sense from them: they didn't fail the two Crimean campaigns and didn't they surrendered under Narva in 1700?

The state structure of the consumer Russia, the Archaic Boyarsky Duma, filled with pompous representatives of the ancient birth, as well as relatives of the kings and the queen, did not solve little - everyone was filled "near people", influential favorites, "lying on the ear" of the sovereign and thinking only about their own Welfare. They were sought by dozens of central institutions - orders with their vague competences and primitive office work. The state lived not just without budget, but even without a primitive estimate of current income and expenses, ababy as! The country with modern Russia was divided into huge treasures, at the head of which the governors were sitting - peculiar specific princes, the purpose of which was predominantly personal enrichment. All this is a vague state economy, filled with the "Student Semyon" of the Order "Plankton", was unable to produce ideas, nor implement something worthwhile in practice. The same military case was dispersed in the top ten orders, which simply could not coordinate such an important state sphere as defense.

It is not surprising that economic weakness, the state weakness, the obvious crisis of military affairs directly affected the international prestige of the country. He was, if you can put it, extremely low. In the preamble of the Westphalian peace treaty, which ended in 1648, all European countries, and Russia was mentioned at the end of the list of European countries, along with Valahia - Turkish Vassal. True outfire of Europe! It is curious that until 1704, Russia paid the "exit" ("Tych"), that is, the tribute, the Crimean Khan, who himself was the Danitor of the Ottoman Empire. Han positioned himself herself with the heir of the Golden Horde and on this basis demanded from the Russian king - the ordinal of the "Russian ulus" is the payment of the annual traditional "exit". Moscow, which has already become long ago, many times stronger than the Crimean Khanate, conquered its requirements. It was done by this in order to hub a robber, who, in case of non-payment of Dani, could move his horde on South Russian lands, burn a village there and cities, rob, kill people, to take them into "full". Therefore, every year from Moscow, as in the time of Ivan Kalita, persogently carried in the Bakhchisaray "Exit", who shyly calling it "commemorations", that is, gifts. And put an end to this humiliation of the sovereign state in Moscow were not solved: the owner loomed behind the Crimean Horde, the Ottoman Empire, the force for Russia is irresistible.

Summarizing, we can say that only three capitals were visible from Moscow: Warsaw, Stockholm da Bakhchisarai, and all others - as in the fog; No wonder the rest of the European world was considered in Russia "beyond the sea", as if she could not come there and drive. However, diplomatic caravans sent occasionally in these areas, no difference from Bukhara or Chinese embassies, who hit the Europeans with the luxury of wondrous gifts and Asian dense. For a long time in France, the Embassy of Prince Ya. F. Lgorukova was remembered. It brought to the white crown of Louis XIV himself with its exorbitant demands in compliance with a very peculiar diplomatic protocol, which, according to Russians, was like representatives of the Russian sovereign, but was absolutely unacceptable at the courtyard of the Sun King. Russian ambassadors tried to point the king when he should stand up, and when to remove the hat at the mention of the name of the Russian king. At the same time, in violation of international rules, they tried to reinforcing the mechanis brought in diplomatic baggage. After that, the king and hear did not want to hear about relations with Russia. And in Moscow were offended by the French. As a result, Russian-French relations were actually torn to fifteen to twenty years. Yes, and in 1682, the Russian diplomat of Simanovsky, who arrived to the courtyard of the Brandenburg Kurfursta Friedrich-Wilhelma, "held the ongo of the Kurfürst more than one and a half hours with his stubbornness and harassment where he, Kurfürst, stand up, where the hat to remove, what to repair himself and what the closest questions, hesitated Kissing your hand at the Kurfürst and drinking about his health, eco-defined person. " In general, Russia tormented the complex of superiority in combination with the complex of inferiority. Feeling ourselves "Third Rome", the only true "Orthodox kingdom" and in vainly demanding from other powers of respect for this status of respect, Russia at the same time clearly realized his impotence in defending its exclusivity, his interests. The impossibility of returning conquered by the Poles, and then the Swedes of the Earth, the loss of which was shallow-diminished, were "losses", was extremely humiliating. Whenever meeting with Swedish ambassadors in the Russian-Swedish border, held along the Pliss River (where the Pskov region is now bordered by Leningrad), the Russians demanded that their "losses". To this Swedish diplomats in the eyes laughed with their colleagues, saying: "What can you? Where are your strength to make us return this earth? " "And then at night, not saying goodbye, the tents folded and the ravis was left.

Along with these problems, there was a severe crisis of Russian worldview and minigration. In the middle of the XVII century, Russia has happened in Russia that is called an accurate term "split". For events associated with church reforms of Patriarch Nikon, there were serious problems not only by the Russian Orthodox Church, but also the Orthodox medieval consciousness as a whole. Once harmonious for the Russian man's medieval world split: suddenly it turned out that some Russian Orthodox people began to pursue other Russian Orthodox people as wild animals, torture, torture, burn alive in the srubach. The concept of "splitters" - the enemies of faith and the king appeared, although they were not. Those who were driven by cruel power, they hid in the forests, rejecting the Nikonian faith and the state power adopted. Drain "Gary" - if you can say so, autoautodafes, in which tens, hundreds of Orthodox people.

© E. Anisimov, 2017

© D. Chernogayev, Illustrations, 2017

© OOO Ooo "New Literary Review", 2017

Introduction

You need to buy different things - all of them from the cervical headscarf to the shoe sole will remind you of Peter Great, some are discharged to them, others are entered into use, improved, brought on his ship, in his harbor, on his channel, on his road. At lunch, from salty herring to potatoes, which by the Senate Decree indicated he to sow, to grape wines, they are divorced, all the dishes will tell you about Peter Great. After lunch you are going to visit - this is the Assembly of Peter the Great. We meet there, the ladies admitted to the male company at the request of Peter the Great. Let's go to the university - the first secular school is established by Peter Great.<…> We can't open our eyes, we cannot move, we cannot turn around in one way without met with us Peter, at home, on the street, in the church, in the school, in court, in the regiment, on the walk, all he , every day, every minute, on any step! "

Does Russia needed in reforms?

West:

From schools we are taught about what was in the history of Russia "The Great Russian Tsar Peter I".

But somehow I had the opinion that there are people "rather rubbing hands counting colossal damage caused by Peter "Great" Russia and Russian people"Agree that such a statement is so different from what we were taught and taught that it is easy to lean it and forget it is not possible - because there should be so sharp conclusion ... And here the most interesting thing begins ...

At this stage, I suggest for a while to forget about what our official story teaches and look at the facts that are in open access, which, if you wish, any of you can get them and think about ...

Below I will give only brief theses as a point of support for those who are interested in self-induction and collect information on ...

So, explicit changes in Peter's personality before and after a trip to Europe for two years with the Great Embassy:

Before the trip	After the trip
I went for two weeks, and returned in two years. Russian embassy, \u200b\u200baccompanying the king, consisted of 20 people, and headed by A.D. Menshikov.	After returning to Russia, the embassy consisted of one Dutch, only Menshikov remained the only one of the old composition.
Young 26-year-old man, curly hair, mole on the cheek closer to the nose (on the portraits of Peter first before his return from the "Great Embassy" Peter on the right side of the nose wart)	Complete change in appearance and psyche - 40-year-old sick man, higher than the growth, with straight hair and lack of moles on the face
Halifly loved his wife Tsaritsu Evdokia with which he lived with the agreement for eight years, according to which he missed, often rewrote when he was in departure	Upon return, without even seeing with her, without explaining the reasons, for life locked in the women's monastery under the fear of death, banning even conversations with her - one of her guards Stepan Glebov for violation of this instruction was planted on the count. Married the Baltic prostitute. After returning from the abroad, he always took with him a soldier with him, and after the appearance of Catherine contained concubines)
Prefers traditional Russian clothes	Wears only European clothes and never dressed not only his old Russian clothes, but even the royal robe
Loves all Russian	He hates all Russian, but loves West. The love of Russian people turned into hatred, calls the "animals" rules with the need to "remake" them in people
I knew the Scriptures well, when discussing, quoted by heart, many phrases	Practically does not speak Russian, "I forgot" everything that I knew since childhood? until the end of the life never learned to write in Russian
Healthy young man	Sick fever in chronic form, with traces of long use of mercury preparations, which were then used to treat tropical fever
Great Embassy went to the Northern Sea Path	Tropical fever can "earn" in southern waters, and even that, only having visited the jungle
Swimming experience - only as a passenger. As a child, it is miraculously saved during a storm when visiting the Solovetsky monastery on Barcase, in honor of which he set a memorable cross for the Arkhangelsk Cathedral	An experienced sailor, demonstrating a great experience of the boarding battle, having specific features, to master which is possible only with personal participation in many boarding battles.
Generalization: coincidence in the time of replacing Tsar Peter I (August 1698) and the appearance of a prisoner in the "iron mask" in Bastille in Paris (September 1698). In the prison listings, it was under the name of Magshiel, perhaps a distorted record of the name under which Peter traveled - Mikhailov. He was high height, held with dignity, on his face there was always a velvet mask. The prisoner was opply respectfully, contained well. He died in 1703 after his death, where he was kept, was carefully searched, and all traces of stay were destroyed	After the youngest son Alexey tried to free his real father from Bastille - Putut executed him. The rest - Brother Ivan V, Alexander's little children, Natalia and Lavrentia killed immediately by returning from the Great Embassy (The official story about this tells us quite differently).

Now let's see what Peter the Great did during his reign (only facts from open sources):

Immediately after returning from the Great Embassy, \u200b\u200b"Peter Great" was hidden surrounded by the conspirators, did not appear on the people and did not even attend the nearest relatives until the new Russian army was created under the command of foreign officers and were held the bloody execution of Sagittarov, destroyed old armed forceswhich could speak against the returned king;

Everywhere is written that he "burned the window to Europe", but actually opened the window for Europe to Russia because Prior to this, access to Russia was closed for Europeans.

Ruined more than 20 million shower When St. Petersburg was built and mined victory in endless wars.

Entered the serfdom, transferring the peasants to the owls of the noblemen. Sharing the Russian people on the nobles and fasteners by birth by turning the people into slaves.

Rewritten the history of Russia by the hands of foreigners not even knowing Russian.

Under the guise of fighting with the old faith, destroyed all olderwho lived more three hundred years.

Destroyed the chronicles: I ordered all ancient manuscript to him under the pretext of the need to remove copies and after everything that got into the palace disappeared without a trace.

Changed Former then soulustee Replacing in the 1700th year the current calendar from "creating peace in the star church" on the existing "from the Nativity of Christ".

Patriarchate has abolished In Russia and subjugated the management of the church of secular power through the Synod, the device of a fun cathedral of the patriarch.

Destruction of Russian folk traditions, Fighting them. Establishing the superiority of Western culture over traditional Russian.

Destroyed Russian education - this is his main crime! (image + scum), the essence of which consisted of creating three thin bodies in a person, which he does not receive from birth, and if they do not form them, then the consciousness will not have a connection with the consciousness of past lives. If there was a wagon in Russian educational institutions from a person, which he could, ranging from the lapes and, ending with a space ship, to do everything himself, then Peter introduced a specialization, which made a person dependent on others.

The first reform of the Russian language, which returned the drawing of the letters to the ancient Original alphabetic symbolism.

Establishment of power and control of foreigners, in the army, state administration, science, their privileges before the Russians, distribution of the noble titles, lands and fortress peasants

Exterminated Streltsov and changed the Russian army First, in French, then into a German form, although the Russian military uniform itself was a weapon. In the people, new shelves were called " fun».

Organization of masonic lies (1700) Even earlier than in Europe (1721), practically seized power in Russian society to the present.

Forbade growing amaranth And use the amarantic bread, which was the main food of the Russian people. Thus, destroyed the long-life, which was still still in Russia.

Abolished natural measures (Sajen, finger, elbow, top), which were present in russian clothes, utensils, architecture. Peter made measures fixed, as in the West, it led to the destruction of the Older Architecture and Art, to the disappearance of the beauty of life, since the divine and life proportions disappeared in their structure.

The returned Peter did not know where the libraries of the king Ivan Grozny are located, although this mystery was transferred to all kings, and even the sister of King Peter Tsarevna Sophia knew and attended this place. It is known that "Peter Great" tried to find the library immediately after returning from the "Great Embassy" and even conducted an excavation in the Kremlin for this.

Power reform:

Peter the first deployed a campaign for the dining of the food. To Peter in Russia there were 108 species of nuts, 108 species of vegetables, 108 types of fruit, 108 types of berries, 108 species of nodule, 108 species of cereals, 108 spices and 108 species of fruits *, corresponding to 108 Slavic gods. After the coup, the units of sacred species remained - cereals were destroyed, fruits and nodule, since they were associated with human reincarnation. Peter forbade many products of Rusk Kitchen Replacing them with potatoes, tomatoes ...

By the way, potatoes, like tobacco (!) Refers to the family of Parenic. Top, eyes and green potatoes poisonous. Green potatoes contain very strong poisons, Solanina, especially dangerous to the health of children), a batt and an earthwood pear, which are weakly used today.

The destruction of the sacred plants that used at a certain time led to the loss of complex divine reactions of the body (remember the Russian proverb " all vegetable your time ", Post). Moreover, the mixing of nutrition caused grinding processes in the body, and now people instead of fragrance exuded stench.

Almost disappeared plants-hellogestogens, there were only weaker: "Life root", lemongrass, luban, golden root. They contributed to the adaptation of a person to difficult conditions and retained youth and health. There are absolutely no plants of metamorphisers that contribute to various metamorphoses of the organism and appearance. Not so long ago, in the mountains of Tibet, I also met a "sacred twist", but also that today disappeared.

The dining campaign continues and at present, almost disappeared from the use of Calega and sorghum, it is forbidden to grow poppy. Only names remained from many sacred gifts, which give us today for the synonyms of famous fruits.

Example:
* Grub, Kaliva, BUY, LANDANCHES - issued today for the trouser.
* Armud, Kvit, Pigva, Gutei, Gun - the disappeared gifts that are issued for Quince.
* Kukish and Dool back in the XIX century designated a pear, although these were completely different gifts, today these words call the image of figs (also, by the way, Dara). A fist with a nested thumb, previously marked the muder of the heart, is used today as a negative sign. Duul, Fig and Cukish stopped growing, because they were holy plants from Khazar and Varyagov.
* Recently, the prompt has become called "Pshunk", barley, barley, and the rain and bang cereals disappeared forever from our agriculture.

Nowadays, we see how the final stage of the food genocide is happening - from the ground of people drove into the cities, the controls for the products were canceled, the chemistry became commonplace, introduce GMO products, the post does not observe the food culture.

"Want to conquer the country - Zavoza someone else's product; There will be an outflow of energy, people will become sick, and sick slaves are easier to manage "- Ivan Grozny.

Roman law

The genius of Satanism is the Roman law, which is based on the constitutions of modern states. Roman law was created in spite of all the ancient canons and ideas about society based on self-government (self + deck). For the first time, the judicial authority was transferred from the hands of priests to the hands of people who do not have spiritual san, i.e. The power of the best was replaced by the power of anyone. Roman law is presented to us as a "crown" of human achievement, in reality, is the top of disorder and irresponsibility. State laws in the Roman law are built on prohibitions and punishments, i.e. On negative emotions, which, as you know, can only destroy. This leads to universal disinterest in the execution of laws and to oppose officials to the people.

In contrast to the Roman law, Rus-Power was built not on prohibiting laws, but on the conscience of citizens, which establishes the balance between rewards and prohibitions. Recall how the Byzantine historian Procopii Caesarian about the Slavs - " All the laws they had in the head " Relationships in ancient society were regulated by the principles of Kona, from where the words "Canon" came from (of the Ancient - Conquon), "Item", "chambers" (i.e. on horseback). Guided by the principles of Kona, a person avoided mistakes and could be embodied again in this life. The principle is always above the law, since it accommodates more opportunities than the law, just as a proposal accommodates more information than one word. The word " law "Means" outside Kona " If society lives according to the principles of Kon, and not according to the laws, it is more vital. The commandments accommodate more than con, and therefore surpass it, just as the story contains more than the proposal. The commandments are able to improve the human organization and thinking, which in turn will be able to improve the principles of KONA.

After all the acts of Peter 1, even at the invaders themselves, the language did not turn to call Peter the Great. Only in the XIX century, when Petrov's horrors were forgotten, a version of a Petra-Novator arose, who made so much useful for Russia.

And finally, for those who are interested in the video on the topic: