Evgeny anisimov peter the first good or evil. About the book "Peter the First: Good or Evil for Russia?" Did Russia Need Reforms

Current page: 1 (total of the book has 12 pages) [available passage for reading: 8 pages]

Evgeny Anisimov
Peter the First: good or bad for Russia?

© E. Anisimov, 2017

© D. Chernogaev, illustrations, 2017

© OOO "New Literary Review", 2017

Introduction

In Western European historiography and Western culture in general, the personality and deeds of Peter the Great have mostly positive assessments. Of course, his generally recognized image of a Westernizer, a modernizer of formerly backward Russia, who took advantage of the cultural, technical, military and other experience of Western European countries, played a role here.

In Russia, however, disputes (including scientific ones) about the nature of the reforms of Peter the Great and his personality still do not subside. This is no coincidence - Russia, once again going through the circle (alas, not a round!) Of its history, returns to eternal questions about the feasibility, cost and significance of the transformations. And right there, from the depths of the past, the figure of Peter rises, who laid his life in search of a solution to these "damned" insurmountable Russian questions.

In this work, I am not going to dwell on historiography for a long time, because it is simply immense. I will only touch on the most important for our topic. So, in the first post-Petrine decades of the 18th century, the Russian historiography of Peter the Great was extremely complimentary, which is also typical of the reign of his daughter, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (1741–1761). And all the other successors of Peter the Great wanted (and had to) consider themselves to be the successors of his work, although in reality it could have been different. It is not surprising that the then historical science perceived him only as a demiurge, who created a new Russia, an incarnate God, who, as Vice-Chancellor P. P. Shafirov wrote, “metamorphosis, that is, transformation”. The great Russian scientist M. V. Lomonosov exclaimed in unison epoch: "He is God, he was your God, Russia!" Generations of Russian thinkers were convinced that, had it not been for Peter, we would have undoubtedly disappeared. As V. G. Belinsky wrote, without Peter Russia, perhaps, would have come closer to Europe, "but in the same way as India and England."

To a large extent, this view was promoted by Voltaire's "History of Peter the Great", popular not only in the West, but also in our country, written on the basis of materials sent from Russia. Voltaire's assessments were overwhelmingly positive. And later the “applauding” tone of historiography was retained. The 19th century historian MP Pogodin wrote: “We are waking up. What day is it today? - September 18, 1840. Peter the Great ordered to count the years from the Nativity of Christ, Peter the Great ordered to count the months from January. It's time to get dressed - our dress is made according to the style originally given by Peter, the uniform according to his form. The cloth was woven in the factory he started, the wool was sheared from the sheep he raised. A book catches your eye - Peter the Great introduced this font into use and cut out the letters himself. You will begin to read it - under Peter the Great, this language became written, literary, supplanting the former, ecclesiastical. They bring you newspapers - Peter the Great began publishing them. You need to buy different things - they will all remind you of Peter the Great, from a scarf to a boot soles, some were written out by him, others introduced by him, improved, brought on his ship, to his harbor, along his canal, along his way. At dinner, from salted herrings to potatoes, which he ordered to sow by a Senate decree, to grape wine, diluted by him, all the dishes will tell you about Peter the Great. After lunch, you go to visit - this is the assembly of Peter the Great. There you meet ladies admitted to the men's company at the request of Peter the Great. Let's go to the university - the first secular school was founded by Peter the Great.<…>We cannot open our eyes, we cannot move, we cannot turn in one direction without Peter meeting us, at home, on the street, in a church, in a school, in court, in a regiment, for a walk, all of him , every day, every minute, at every step! "

The first doubts about the correctness of such assessments appeared during the reign of Catherine the Great. They came from the pen of the professional historian Prince M.M. Shcherbatov. Formally, he belonged to a cohort of admirers of the great reformer of Russia, and even in one of his works he made a “calculation” for how many years Russia, if it were not for Peter the Great, would have achieved Catherine's prosperity. It turned out that this would have happened only at the end of the 19th century! As contemporaries testify, Prince Shcherbatov was a misanthrope and critic, but he criticized Peter in an unusually subtle way. In 1773, he wrote a work called "Consideration of the Vices and Autocracy of Peter the Great." In it, Shcherbatov gives negative assessments of some anonymous ill-wishers of Peter and his deeds and ... resolutely refutes them in line with the dominant historiographic view of the reformer sovereign. At the same time, Shcherbatov reveals the entire palette of the then negative judgments about Peter, acquainting readers with new, stunning ideas for many. So in Soviet time we got acquainted with forbidden trends “from there” through critical, sometimes devastating articles and brochures of Soviet philosophers and historians. The more quotations from the writings of the anathematized authors, the deeper we were able to plunge into the world of Western writers and philosophers. Shcherbatov allegedly quotes someone's accusations of cruelty, love of executions and the shedding of blood, in an uncivilized attitude towards others, debauchery, filicide, a propensity for drunkenness, in the establishment of a fierce regime of autocracy, etc. forbidden sphere, he refers to his duty as a historian - to write the truth and even turns to Peter: "Whatever my respect for you, it will not overshadow justice in me, and I will try to ask Clea for that golden pen with which he portrays the affairs of monarchs." ...

Cleverly disguised criticism of Shcherbatov was the first fly in the ointment in a huge barrel of honey of praise to the tsar-reformer. The next milestone was the famous work of the historian and writer N.M. Karamzin "A note on the ancient and new Russia in its political and civic relations ", written in 1811 and shifted the focus of the discussion from the personality of Peter (Karamzin writes:" Let's keep silent about personal vices ") to general philosophical, historiosophical problems: did Russia need such a reform, were Peter's efforts productive? by transferring the institutions and orders of foreign countries to Russian soil, didn't Russia get too dear the fruits of Western civilization, was it worth it to undermine traditions, destroy the way of life of the original Russian life, denigrate the past? Karamzin does not resort to Shcherbatov's "cunning" tricks, but writes bluntly and bitterly, casting down on Peter accusations of a fatal distortion of the foundations of the national mentality: “Peter did not want to delve into the truth that the spirit of the people constitutes the moral power of states.<…>By uprooting ancient skills, presenting them as funny, praising and introducing foreign ones, the sovereign of Russia humiliated Russians in their own hearts. Does self-contempt dispose man and citizen to great deeds? Does the name of the Russian now have that inscrutable power for us that it had before? We have become citizens of the world, but in some cases have ceased to be citizens of Russia. The fault is Peter. " It is clear that Karamzin's ideas were generated by his time; They are also dictated by the dramatic situation on the eve of the clash with Napoleon, when in national history it was necessary to find support for the struggle ...

As you know, Karamzin's reasoning about Peter (together with other circumstances) largely served as an impetus for the emergence of two main ideological areas of struggle in the Russian intellectual elite: Westernizers and Slavophiles. Their struggle, sometimes fierce, ultimately revolved around Peter, the central historical figure of the modern era. Calming down and resuming, the bitter dispute, following the twists and turns of a difficult Russian history and changes in ideological concepts, continues, in essence, to this day. Peter has become a kind of indicator that allows you to almost immediately determine the political views of the interlocutor and even his profession. I once heard on the radio how the Minister of Emergency Situations was asked about his attitude towards the great reformer. He answered with a question to the question: "How can you relate to a statesman who built a huge city, St. Petersburg, in a zone dangerous for human habitation, in a zone of devastating floods?" There is no doubt that the black-and-white perception of Peter and his transformations is still preserved in science and society.

There is one more, often invisible from the outside, conflict within historiography. It so happened that between historians studying the 17th and 18th centuries, there is a certain borderline with a pillar on which is written "1700". Historians who are closely related to the topic under study sometimes do not understand each other, avoid delving into “someone else's territory,” for fear of being laughed at. The fear to cross this line is due to the dissimilarity of phenomena and processes in neighboring eras, as well as a significant difference in historical sources, which largely determine the historian's perception of the world.

Researchers of the victorious era of Peter's transformations and the entire 18th century (like the greatest historian N.I. Pavlenko) the pre-Petrine era seems at best a "rough draft", preparatory stage of the great transformations of Peter, who "pulled Russia out of the swamp of the Middle Ages," a kind of "runway" for the Petrine Russia of the New Age, striving forward towards progress. Historians of the 17th century were traditionally focused on the search for manifestations of “ class struggle"(The favorite term of Soviet historiography -" XVII century - rebellious century "), which had to grow from century to century to achieve its catharsis -" The Great October Socialist Revolution. " At best, they were sent in search of imperfect "sprouts of capitalism", "signs of an all-Russian market", phenomena of "bureaucratization". The studies of those scientists who tried to evaluate the processes of the second half of the 17th century in a different way than was prescribed by official historiography (to show that the sharp change that took place after 1700 is the "interrupted flight", the rejection of the original path along which Russia even before Peter the same direction as the whole of Europe), were clearly not approved by the historical authorities. In their sincere desire to show the originality of the country's development in the 17th century, some historians went to extremes, passed off wishful thinking and even involuntarily caricatured the subject of their scientific research. This is especially evident in the works on the history of the times of Tsar Fyodor and the Regency of Princess Sophia, which belonged to the pen of A.P. Bogdanov.

I am the historian of Peter, who has written several books about his reforms, personality and reign. For many years Peter the Great occupied all my thoughts - he is so complex and multifaceted. Now, when the schemes of the Marxist perception of history have more or less receded into the past, an understanding of the special place that Peter occupies in the consciousness of our society comes. Unlike the rulers of later times, he has an impeccable state reputation. We intuitively feel in it statesman, who sincerely gave his life, all, without a trace, to the service of Russia. His audacity, originality of thinking, state romanticism, dreams of the welfare of Russia evoke sympathy. Surprisingly, many fell in love with him. Liberals and Westernizers are grateful to him for opening the way to the West. It was Peter who introduced us to a civilization in which freedom, justice, the inviolability of personality and property are above all. He forced the Russian nobility to study and travel, awakened in him an understanding of personal honor, human dignity, and thus unwittingly predetermined the emergence of the Russian intelligentsia, which, in spite of everything, still preserves the principles of freedom, dignity and honor in our society - all that what is neither sold nor bought. Peter pleased the technocrats, alien to politics, by carrying out an unprecedented transfer of knowledge, technologies, and skills to Russia. He gave birth to Russian science, from scratch created the Academy of Sciences, without which Russian civilization is inconceivable. And what about Russian literature? What does she owe Peter? Marina Tsvetaeva wrote that at that moment, when Peter fixed his gaze on the little arapie, this gaze said: "Pushkin - to be!" Peter the statesman also pleased the adherents of imperial values and, as it seems to them, the idea of authoritarian, "strong" power, which was life-giving for Russia.

But in assessing Peter and his great work of Europeanization, I cannot ignore the point of view that denies Peter's "revolution from above" and condemns its principles and methods. Yes, besides the army of Peter's admirers, there is a small platoon of his ill-wishers. They are also different. Some, as the famous publicist caustically put it, patriots "with a cabbage in their beard", believe that they are the successors of the Slavophiles of the 19th century, but at the same time do not have the intelligence and knowledge of the Aksakovs and Kireevskys.

Other ill-wishers know a lot about the Peter the Great era, but sometimes they sharply evaluate it by modern standards. I do not see anything wrong with that. It is not so bad to follow the path indicated by Karamzin, who, in assessing the actions of people in history, proceeded from the norms of Christian morality. This is much better than judging people on the basis of "class" or racial criteria. Perhaps other historians may not like my departure from historicism if I say that Christian morality, which has existed for two thousand years and formed the basis of morality modern society, is quite applicable to Ivan the Terrible, and to Peter, and to Stalin, given the fact that they knew the main ethical principles and they understood perfectly well that any atrocity was contrary to these principles. It was not for nothing that the murderer Tsar Ivan the Terrible sometimes fell into a state of repentance, with tears asked the Lord for forgiveness and even made a synodikon - a list of his victims addressed to God. And when he got lost in the list of his victims, he added: "And the rest, Lord, you yourself know."

Even if we strictly adhere to the principles of historicism, it is impossible to close our eyes to the obvious shortcomings and serious mistakes of Peter's reformism. As a result, thinking about this work, I decided to speak to the reader in two guises. In the first, an admirer of Peter appears, partly a Westerner, partly a statesman, in a word - an enlightened patriot who justifies and defends him. In the second hypostasis - a moderately conservative patriot, who, on the contrary, condemns Peter, but not indiscriminately, but comprehensively studying his biography and deeds. I am convinced that both positions have a right to exist: no matter how strange it sounds, they are correct in their own way and eloquently reflect the complex, ambiguous role of Peter in Russian history.

How in chess game, which you play with yourself, in both positions I tried to play without giveaway, defending each point of view with the utmost honesty, seriousness and all the argumentation available to me. When I gave a lecture on this topic, as an admirer, I put on a hat, and speaking on behalf of a critic, an ill-wisher, I took it off ... I will not go further in search of analogies. Suffice it to recall the ever-topical Saltykov-Shchedrin, who described in detail the peaceful conversation between the "boy in pants" and the "shooter" - "the boy without pants", by the way, on the very same topic that worries us today. Let the quotes cited in the text of the discussion I have written down do not seem to the reader to have been selected in advance. In life, it happens that while your opponent is talking, you grab a book from the shelf, find and read a quote, or, as it happens more often nowadays, while he speaks, you write two or three keywords in the Google search bar, and after a moment on your screen the desired quote already "hangs". Of course, not everything in the dispute can be equipped with accurate quotes, something is recalled approximately - after all, this is not Research Article, and discussion is a special genre. So, let's start with the most important question ...

Did Russia Need Reforms?

Admirer:

The reforms of Peter the Great were necessary for the then Russia, which was trailing in the tail of the European states, was a backward, in essence, Asian country. But the most important thing to remember is that at the end of the 17th century, Russia was struck by a systemic crisis. Its features are noticeable in all spheres of the life of Russian society. There is also an obvious economic, scientific and technical lag behind the countries of Western Europe. Let us recall that the country actually did not have its own industry - two or three ironworks built by the Dutch near Tula - that's all. Meanwhile, the demand for metal was constantly growing. And what? Iron was transported in huge quantities from the West, more precisely from Sweden. In other words, the country was completely dependent on imports. Own ore reserves have not been explored. Even silver was not mined in Russia - they imported from the West the Joachimsthalers (efimkas) common throughout Western Europe, then they calmly knocked out the Russian coat of arms and put them into circulation in this form.

Among other reasons, this affected the level economic development a country in which there was no national market, and regional ties were not well established. Foreign trade was reminiscent of the trade of Europeans with the natives of Micronesia: the most different goods, and exported exclusively raw materials. In addition, the "natives" themselves did not go to sea with their goods, but waited for the arrival of a foreign trade caravan on the shore. In addition, the country did not have a full-fledged outlet 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 the Chukchi or other backward peoples remote from the centers of civilization: for three to four summer months ice Of the White Sea retreated, and then the caravans of Dutch, Hamburg, English merchant ships, having overcome the dangerous path around Scandinavia, reached Arkhangelsk. Only then did the city come to life, turning into a port. For the enterprising Dutch, this was no less dangerous transition than the trade expedition to Batavia, their own colony in Indonesia. In short, the country suffocated without access to the sea, without a port available for most of the year. This is where Peter's dream of the sea came from!

And one could not even dream of sailing on their own ships, with their goods to the ports of Western Europe! The country did not build ships with a large displacement. Undoubtedly, the Arkhangelsk Kochi were good for hunting seals and catching cod, but they cannot be compared with the European (primarily Dutch) whaling and fishing ships that sailed in whole squadrons to Greenland and Newfoundland. Not to mention the thousands of capacious merchant ships that ply all the oceans of the world. Yes, under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich on the Oka, in Dedinovo, the Dutch built one traveling ship for the entire 17th century. However, his fate turned out to be sad - lowered down the Volga to Astrakhan, he rotted in one of the Volga channels. After all, no one knew where to sail on it: the Caspian Sea is like a big lake. In a word, the economic "layer" of the systemic crisis is obvious.

There was also a crisis in military affairs. Despite the fact that the Russian tsars from the Romanov dynasty invited mercenary officers to Russia and received the first military regulations, a crisis was outlined that extremely painfully hit the ambitions of the rulers of the "Third Rome". The sedentary Russian army dragged with them huge wooden shields, from which the soldiers assembled the "walk-town" and sat in it, fighting off the enemy. Not a single thoughtful offensive operation or a well-organized battle. And this was in the days of great generals like Gustav-Adolphus, Wallenstein, Monttecculi! For decades Russia could not cope with the no less archaic army of the Commonwealth, with difficulty fought off the attacks of the Crimean Tatar hordes. In the 17th century, Russia did not have such a war in which the Russian army would not suffer offensive defeats. Twice (in 1634 and 1659) the Russian army surrendered together with its commander-in-chief, generals, banners, timpani and cannons. Shame and humiliation!

From the time of the unsuccessful Chigirin campaigns of 1674-1678, it became clear that the Russian army was losing its combat effectiveness and, as if fatally doomed to fail. The Crimean campaigns of 1687 and 1689 confirmed this, and the attempts of the government of Princess Sophia to change anything in military affairs did not lead to success. Peter and his entourage believed that the Crimean campaigns covered Russia with shame because of the mediocrity of the commander-in-chief, Prince V.V. Golitsyn. But the year 1695 came, and the First Azov campaign of Peter himself ended just as badly. Only the next year, having mobilized huge forces, Peter managed - and even then with considerable effort - to take Azov, an outdated Turkish fortress with a small garrison at that time. And finally, the chronic streak of military defeats ended with a crushing defeat near Narva in the late autumn of 1700, when the army lost all artillery, banners and generals captured by Charles XII.

The origins of the military "disorder" lay in the destruction of the foundation on which the Russian army stood for a long time - the local system. As you know, the main source of providing service people of the XVI-XVII centuries was the endowment of them with inhabited land holdings - estates for the duration of their service. During the 17th century, the estate evolved towards a patrimony - hereditary possession, that is, the land (estate) issued for the duration of the service was fixed in the family in various ways and became inalienable family property (patrimony). This led to the lack of interest of the landowner to serve "from the land" and led to the disintegration of the traditional service system based on the hierarchy of local salaries. At the same time, in the provinces, the active distribution of land to Moscow officials led to the destruction of the district service city - the military service organization of the district nobility, which was an important element in the formation of regiments in the war. The local system, which had served as the basis for the organization of the army since the time of Ivan the Terrible, has outlived its usefulness. The time when the landowner-warrior with his fighting slaves appeared in the army "on horseback, crowded and in arms" has irrevocably passed. As Ivan Pososhkov, a peasant thinker, sarcastically wrote about the old army, “a lot of people will be forced into service, and if you look at them with an attentive eye, you will not see anything but a gap. The infantry had a gun badly and did not know how to use it, they only fought with hand combat - with spears and reeds, and then stupid ones, and in battles they exchanged their heads for the enemy's head at 3 and 4 and much more.<…>And if we look at the cavalry, it’s not only foreign, but we ourselves are ashamed to look at them: at first they have thin nags, dull sabers, they themselves are needed and hopeless, and they are not skilled at wielding a gun. Truly, sir, I saw that some nobleman did not even know how to charge a squeak, and not that he was good at shooting at a target.<…>And when it happened that two or three Tartars were killed, then everyone looked at them, wondering and put themselves in luck, and although they put a hundred of their own, they do not impute them for anything ”. And the last: “I have heard from many noblemen: 'God forbid the Great Sovereign to serve and not take the saber out of its scabbard.'

Attempts to reform the army by arranging "new genre" regiments on the West European model, which had begun in the time of Mikhail Fedorovich, were also unsuccessful. At the end of the 17th century, such regiments made up the majority of the army. But they too were defeated along with the noble cavalry. This is not surprising, because the basis for providing the "new manir" regiments was, in addition to the monetary salary, the same - the estate, and the soldiers were, as a rule, impoverished boyar children.

The privileged rifle regiments went their own way to decline. Located in the capital, in special settlements, the archers were diligently engaged in trade, which did little to maintain their combat effectiveness. In addition, the closeness to the powers that be, the desire of the latter to bribe and "caress" the archers - all this in the conditions of a political and dynastic crisis led to the spread of praetorian sentiments in the archery environment, turned this most combat-ready part of the army into a dangerous instrument of political struggle.

Thus, at the heart of the military crisis was a very serious social crisis - not only the army turned out to be incapacitated, but also the entire system of service ranks, which, in fact, constituted this army. Peter did not even need to destroy the old bureaucratic system - by the end of the 17th century it had completely degenerated and was rapidly disintegrating. The tsar saw the way out of this social crisis in a radical change in the status of some class groups, the elimination of others, and the creation of others. The consequence was a large-scale social reform.

Yes, in Russia of the pre-Petrine era, more and more regiments of a new, regular formation arose - but there was little sense from them: did they not fail two Crimean campaigns and did they not surrender near Narva in 1700?

The state structure of the then Russia also seemed backward: the archaic Boyar Duma, filled with pompous representatives of ancient families, as well as relatives of tsars and queens, did not decide much - everything was ruled by "close people", influential favorites, "lying in the ear" of the sovereign and thinking only about their own well-being. They were sometimes in charge of dozens of central institutions - orders with their vague competences and primitive office work. The state lived not just without a budget, but even without a primitive estimate of current income and expenses, anyhow! A country the size of modern Russia was divided into huge districts, at the head of which were governors - a kind of appanage princelings, the purpose of which was mainly personal enrichment. It's all clumsy state economy filled with the "nettle seed" of the commanding "plankton", was unable to either generate ideas or implement anything worthwhile in practice. The same military affairs were scattered across a dozen orders, which simply could not coordinate such an important public sphere like defense.

It is not surprising that economic weakness, state weakness, and an obvious crisis in military affairs directly affected the country's international prestige. He was, so to speak, extremely low. In the preamble to the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the all-European Thirty Years' War in 1648, all the countries of Europe were listed, and Russia was mentioned at the end of the list of European countries, along with Wallachia, a Turkish vassal. The true outskirts of Europe! It is curious that until 1704 Russia paid "exit" ("tysh"), that is, tribute, to the Crimean Khan, who himself was a tributary of the Ottoman Empire. Khan positioned himself as the heir to the Golden Horde and on this basis demanded from the Russian tsar - the owner of the "Russian ulus" - payment of the traditional annual "exit". Moscow, which had long ago become many times stronger than the Crimean Khanate, submitted to its demands. This was done in order to appease the robber khan, who, in case of non-payment of tribute, could move his horde to the southern Russian lands, burn villages and cities there, rob, kill people, take them to the "full". Therefore, every year from Moscow, as in the time of Ivan Kalita, they dutifully carried the “exit” to Bakhchisarai, shyly calling it “commemoration”, that is, gifts. And put an end to this humiliation sovereign state in Moscow they did not dare: behind the back of the Crimean horde loomed its master - the Ottoman Empire, an irresistible force for the then Russia.

To summarize, we can say that only three capitals were visible from Moscow of the 17th century: Warsaw, Stockholm and Bakhchisarai, and all the others - as if in a fog; no wonder the rest European world was considered in Russia "overseas", as if it was impossible to drive there on dry land. However, diplomatic caravans, which were no different from Bukhara or Chinese embassies, were occasionally sent in these directions, which amazed the Europeans with the luxury of wondrous gifts and Asian denseness. The embassy of Prince YF Dolgorukov was remembered for a long time in France. It drove Louis XIV to white heat with its exorbitant demands to comply with a very peculiar diplomatic protocol, which, in the opinion of the Russians, was appropriate for the representatives of the Russian sovereign, but was absolutely unacceptable at the court of the “sun king”. Russian ambassadors tried to tell the king when he should get up, and when to take off his hat at the mention of the name of the Russian Tsar. At the same time, they themselves, in violation of international rules, tried to trade in furs brought in diplomatic baggage. After this visit, the king did not want to hear about relations with Russia. And in Moscow they were offended by the French. As a result, Russian-French relations were actually severed for fifteen to twenty years. And in 1682, the Russian diplomat Simanovsky, who arrived at the court of the Brandenburg Elector Friedrich-Wilhelm, “kept the Elector for more than an hour and a half with his stubbornness and harassment where he, the Elector, where to get up, where to take off his hat, what to fix himself and what questions to his neighbors, was denied kiss the hand of the elector and drink about his health, like an uncrowned person. " In general, Russia was tormented by a superiority complex combined with an inferiority complex. Feeling itself the "Third Rome", the only true "Orthodox kingdom" and vainly demanding respect from other powers corresponding to this status, Russia at the same time clearly realized its powerlessness in defending its exclusivity and its interests. The inability to return the lands conquered by the Poles and then by the Swedes, the loss of which was shamefully diminutively called “losses”, was extremely humiliating. Every time, meeting with the Swedish ambassadors on the Russian-Swedish border, which passed along the Plyussa River (where the Pskov region now borders on Leningrad), the Russians demanded that their "losses" be returned. At this, the Swedish diplomats laughed in the eyes of their colleagues, saying: “What can you do? Where is your strength to force us to return these lands? " - and then at night, without saying goodbye, they rolled up the tents and went home.

Along with these problems, there was a severe crisis in the Russian worldview and attitude. In the middle of the 17th century, what was called the exact term “split” happened in Russia. Behind the events associated with the church reforms of Patriarch Nikon, serious problems were hidden not only for the Russian Orthodox Church, but also the Orthodox medieval consciousness in general. The medieval world, once harmonious for a Russian person, split: it suddenly became clear that some Russian Orthodox people began to persecute other Russian Orthodox people like wild animals, torture, torment, and burn alive in log cabins. The concept of "schismatics" appeared - enemies of the faith and the tsar, although they were not. Driven by the brutal government, they hid in the forests, rejecting the "Nikonian faith" and the state authority that had accepted it. "Burning" flared up - if I may say so, auto-auto-da-fe, in which dozens, hundreds of Orthodox people perished.

© E. Anisimov, 2017

© D. Chernogaev, illustrations, 2017

© OOO "New Literary Review", 2017

Introduction

In Russia, however, disputes (including scientific ones) about the nature of the reforms of Peter the Great and his personality still do not subside. This is no coincidence - Russia, once again going through the circle (alas, not a round!) Of its history, returns to the age-old questions about the expediency, cost and significance of transformations. And right there, from the depths of the past, the figure of Peter rises, who laid his life in search of a solution to these "damned" insurmountable Russian questions.

The first doubts about the correctness of such assessments appeared during the reign of Catherine the Great. They came from the pen of the professional historian Prince M.M. Shcherbatov. Formally, he belonged to a cohort of admirers of the great reformer of Russia, and even in one of his works he made a “calculation” for how many years Russia, if it were not for Peter the Great, would have achieved Catherine's prosperity. It turned out that this would have happened only at the end of the 19th century! As contemporaries testify, Prince Shcherbatov was a misanthrope and critic, but he criticized Peter in an unusually subtle way. In 1773, he wrote a work called "Consideration of the Vices and Autocracy of Peter the Great." In it, Shcherbatov gives negative assessments of some anonymous ill-wishers of Peter and his deeds and ... resolutely refutes them in line with the dominant historiographic view of the reformer sovereign. At the same time, Shcherbatov reveals the entire palette of the then negative judgments about Peter, acquainting readers with new, stunning ideas for many. So in Soviet times, we got acquainted with forbidden trends "from there" through critical, sometimes devastating articles and brochures of Soviet philosophers and historians. The more quotations from the writings of the anathematized authors, the deeper we were able to plunge into the world of Western writers and philosophers. Shcherbatov allegedly quotes someone's accusations of cruelty, love of executions and the shedding of blood, in an uncivilized attitude towards others, debauchery, filicide, a propensity for drunkenness, in the establishment of a fierce regime of autocracy, etc. forbidden sphere, he refers to his duty as a historian - to write the truth and even turns to Peter: "Whatever my respect for you, it will not overshadow justice in me, and I will try to ask Clea for that golden pen with which he portrays the affairs of monarchs." ...

Cleverly disguised criticism of Shcherbatov was the first fly in the ointment in a huge barrel of honey of praise to the tsar-reformer. The next milestone was the famous work of the historian and writer N.M. Karamzin "A note on ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations", written in 1811 and shifted the focus of the discussion from the personality of Peter (Karamzin writes: ") To general philosophical, historiosophical problems: did Russia need such a reform, were Peter's efforts to transfer the institutions and orders of foreign countries to Russian soil productive, were the fruits of Western civilization too expensive for Russia, was it worth it to undermine traditions, destroy the way of the original Russian life, denigrate the past? Karamzin does not resort to Shcherbatov's "cunning" tricks, but writes bluntly and bitterly, casting down on Peter accusations of a fatal distortion of the foundations of the national mentality: “Peter did not want to delve into the truth that the spirit of the people constitutes the moral power of states.<…>By uprooting ancient skills, presenting them as funny, praising and introducing foreign ones, the sovereign of Russia humiliated Russians in their own hearts. Does self-contempt dispose man and citizen to great deeds? Does the name of the Russian now have that inscrutable power for us that it had before? We have become citizens of the world, but in some cases have ceased to be citizens of Russia. The fault is Peter. " It is clear that Karamzin's ideas were generated by his time; They are also dictated by the dramatic situation on the eve of the clash with Napoleon, when in national history it was necessary to find support for the struggle ...

To researchers of the victorious era of Peter's transformations and the entire 18th century (like the great historian N.I. Pavlenko), the pre-Petrine era seems at best a "rough draft", a preparatory stage for the great transformations of Peter, "who pulled Russia out of the swamp of the Middle Ages", a kind of "runway" for Peter's Russia of the New Age, striving forward towards progress. Historians of the 17th century were traditionally focused on the search for manifestations of the "class struggle" (a favorite term of Soviet historiography - "17th century - rebellious century"), which had to grow from century to century in order to achieve its catharsis - the Great October Socialist Revolution. At best, they were sent in search of imperfect "sprouts of capitalism", "signs of an all-Russian market", phenomena of "bureaucratization". The studies of those scientists who tried to evaluate the processes of the second half of the 17th century in a different way than was prescribed by official historiography (to show that the sharp change that took place after 1700 is the "interrupted flight", the rejection of the original path along which Russia even before Peter the same direction as the whole of Europe), were clearly not approved by the historical authorities. In their sincere desire to show the originality of the country's development in the 17th century, some historians went to extremes, passed off wishful thinking and even involuntarily caricatured the subject of their scientific research. This is especially evident in the works on the history of the times of Tsar Fyodor and the Regency of Princess Sophia, which belonged to the pen of A.P. Bogdanov.

I am the historian of Peter, who has written several books about his reforms, personality and reign. For many years Peter the Great occupied all my thoughts - he is so complex and multifaceted. Now, when the schemes of the Marxist perception of history have more or less receded into the past, an understanding of the special place that Peter occupies in the consciousness of our society comes. Unlike the rulers of later times, he has an impeccable state reputation. We intuitively sense in him a statesman who sincerely gave his life, all, without a trace, to the service of Russia. His audacity, originality of thinking, state romanticism, dreams of the welfare of Russia evoke sympathy. Surprisingly, many fell in love with him. Liberals and Westernizers are grateful to him for opening the way to the West. It was Peter who introduced us to a civilization in which freedom, justice, the inviolability of personality and property are above all. He forced the Russian nobility to study and travel, awakened in him an understanding of personal honor, human dignity, and thus unwittingly predetermined the emergence of the Russian intelligentsia, which, in spite of everything, still preserves the principles of freedom, dignity and honor in our society - all that what is neither sold nor bought. Peter pleased the technocrats, alien to politics, by carrying out an unprecedented transfer of knowledge, technologies, and skills to Russia. He gave birth to Russian science, from scratch created the Academy of Sciences, without which Russian civilization is inconceivable. And what about Russian literature? What does she owe Peter? Marina Tsvetaeva wrote that at that moment, when Peter fixed his gaze on the little arapie, this gaze said: "Pushkin - to be!" Peter the statesman also pleased the adherents of imperial values and, as it seems to them, the idea of authoritarian, "strong" power, which was life-giving for Russia.

Other ill-wishers know a lot about the Peter the Great era, but sometimes they sharply evaluate it by modern standards. I do not see anything wrong with that. It is not so bad to follow the path indicated by Karamzin, who, in assessing the actions of people in history, proceeded from the norms of Christian morality. This is much better than judging people on the basis of "class" or racial criteria. Perhaps other historians may not like my departure from historicism if I say that Christian morality, which has existed for two thousand years and which formed the basis of the morality of modern society, is quite applicable to Ivan the Terrible, and to Peter, and to Stalin, given that circumstance that they knew the main ethical principles no worse than we did and understood perfectly well that any atrocity is contrary to these principles. It was not for nothing that the murderer Tsar Ivan the Terrible sometimes fell into a state of repentance, with tears asked the Lord for forgiveness and even made a synodikon - a list of his victims addressed to God. And when he got lost in the list of his victims, he added: "And the rest, Lord, you yourself know."

As in a chess game that you play with yourself, in both positions I tried to play without giveaway, defending each point of view with the utmost honesty, seriousness and all the argumentation available to me. When I gave a lecture on this topic, as an admirer, I put on a hat, and speaking on behalf of a critic, an ill-wisher, I took it off ... I will not go further in search of analogies. Suffice it to recall the ever-topical Saltykov-Shchedrin, who described in detail the peaceful conversation between the "boy in pants" and the "shooter" - "the boy without pants", by the way, on the very same topic that worries us today. Let the quotes cited in the text of the discussion I have written down do not seem to the reader to have been selected in advance. In life, it happens that while your opponent is talking, you grab a book from the shelf, find and read a quote, or, as it happens more often nowadays, while he speaks, you write two or three keywords in the Google search bar, and after a moment on your screen the desired quote already "hangs". Of course, not everything in a dispute can be equipped with accurate quotes, something is remembered approximately - after all, this is not a scientific article, but a discussion - a special genre. So, let's start with the most important question ...

Did Russia Need Reforms?

Admirer:

Among other reasons, this affected the level of economic development of the country, in which there was no national market, and regional ties were not well established. Foreign trade resembled the trade of Europeans with the natives of Micronesia: a variety of goods were imported into the country, and only raw materials were exported. In addition, the "natives" themselves did not go to sea with their goods, but waited for the arrival of a foreign trade caravan on the shore. In addition, the country did not have a full-fledged outlet 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 the Chukchi or other backward peoples remote from the centers of civilization: for three to four summer months, the ice of the White Sea retreated, and then the caravans of Dutch, Hamburg, English merchant ships, having overcome the dangerous path around Scandinavia, got to Arkhangelsk. Only then did the city come to life, turning into a port. For the enterprising Dutch, this was no less dangerous transition than the trade expedition to Batavia, their own colony in Indonesia. In short, the country suffocated without access to the sea, without a port available for most of the year. This is where Peter's dream of the sea came from!

There was also a crisis in military affairs. Despite the fact that the Russian tsars from the Romanov dynasty invited mercenary officers to Russia and adopted the first military regulations, a crisis was outlined that extremely painfully hit the ambitions of the rulers of the “Third Rome”. The sedentary Russian army dragged with them huge wooden shields, from which the soldiers assembled the "walk-town" and sat in it, fighting off the enemy. Not a single well-thought-out offensive operation or well-organized battle comes to mind. And this was in the days of great generals like Gustav-Adolphus, Wallenstein, Monttecculi! For decades Russia could not cope with the no less archaic army of the Commonwealth, with difficulty fought off the attacks of the Crimean Tatar hordes. In the 17th century, Russia did not have such a war in which the Russian army would not suffer offensive defeats. Twice (in 1634 and 1659) the Russian army surrendered together with its commander-in-chief, generals, banners, timpani and cannons. Shame and humiliation!

The state structure of the then Russia also seemed backward: the archaic Boyar Duma, filled with pompous representatives of ancient families, as well as relatives of tsars and queens, did not decide much - everything was ruled by "close people", influential favorites, "lying in the ear" of the sovereign and thinking only about their own well-being. They were sometimes in charge of dozens of central institutions - orders with their vague competences and primitive office work. The state lived not just without a budget, but even without a primitive estimate of current income and expenses, anyhow! A country the size of modern Russia was divided into huge counties, headed by governors - a kind of appanage princelings, whose purpose was mainly personal enrichment. All this clumsy state economy, filled with the "nettle seed" of the ordered "plankton", was unable to either generate ideas or implement anything worthwhile in practice. The same military affairs were scattered over a dozen orders, which simply could not coordinate such an important state sphere as defense.

It is not surprising that economic weakness, state weakness, and an obvious crisis in military affairs directly affected the country's international prestige. He was, so to speak, extremely low. In the preamble to the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the all-European Thirty Years' War in 1648, all the countries of Europe were listed, and Russia was mentioned at the end of the list of European countries, along with Wallachia, a Turkish vassal. The true outskirts of Europe! It is curious that until 1704 Russia paid "exit" ("tysh"), that is, tribute, to the Crimean Khan, who himself was a tributary of the Ottoman Empire. Khan positioned himself as the heir to the Golden Horde and on this basis demanded from the Russian tsar - the owner of the "Russian ulus" - payment of the traditional annual "exit". Moscow, which had long ago become many times stronger than the Crimean Khanate, submitted to its demands. This was done in order to appease the robber khan, who, in case of non-payment of tribute, could move his horde to the southern Russian lands, burn villages and cities there, rob, kill people, take them to the "full". Therefore, every year from Moscow, as in the time of Ivan Kalita, they dutifully carried the “exit” to Bakhchisarai, shyly calling it “commemoration”, that is, gifts. And Moscow did not dare to put an end to this humiliation of the sovereign state: behind the back of the Crimean horde loomed its master - the Ottoman Empire, an irresistible force for the then Russia.

To summarize, we can say that only three capitals were visible from Moscow of the 17th century: Warsaw, Stockholm and Bakhchisarai, and all the others - as if in a fog; no wonder the rest of the European world was considered in Russia "overseas", as if it was impossible to drive there on dry land. However, diplomatic caravans, which were no different from Bukhara or Chinese embassies, were occasionally sent in these directions, which amazed the Europeans with the luxury of wondrous gifts and Asian denseness. The embassy of Prince YF Dolgorukov was remembered for a long time in France. It drove Louis XIV to white heat with its exorbitant demands to comply with a very peculiar diplomatic protocol, which, in the opinion of the Russians, was appropriate for the representatives of the Russian sovereign, but was absolutely unacceptable at the court of the “sun king”. Russian ambassadors tried to tell the king when he should get up, and when to take off his hat at the mention of the name of the Russian Tsar. At the same time, they themselves, in violation of international rules, tried to trade in furs brought in diplomatic baggage. After this visit, the king did not want to hear about relations with Russia. And in Moscow they were offended by the French. As a result, Russian-French relations were actually severed for fifteen to twenty years. And in 1682, the Russian diplomat Simanovsky, who arrived at the court of the Brandenburg Elector Friedrich-Wilhelm, “kept the Elector for more than an hour and a half with his stubbornness and harassment where he, the Elector, where to get up, where to take off his hat, what to fix himself and what questions to his neighbors, was denied kiss the hand of the elector and drink about his health, like an uncrowned person. " In general, Russia was tormented by a superiority complex combined with an inferiority complex. Feeling itself the "Third Rome", the only true "Orthodox kingdom" and vainly demanding respect from other powers corresponding to this status, Russia at the same time clearly realized its powerlessness in defending its exclusivity and its interests. The inability to return the lands conquered by the Poles and then by the Swedes, the loss of which was shamefully diminutively called “losses”, was extremely humiliating. Every time, meeting with the Swedish ambassadors on the Russian-Swedish border, which passed along the Plyussa River (where the Pskov region now borders on Leningrad), the Russians demanded that their "losses" be returned. At this, the Swedish diplomats laughed in the eyes of their colleagues, saying: “What can you do? Where is your strength to force us to return these lands? " - and then at night, without saying goodbye, they rolled up the tents and went home.

Along with these problems, there was a severe crisis in the Russian worldview and attitude. In the middle of the 17th century, what was called the exact term “split” happened in Russia. Behind the events associated with the church reforms of Patriarch Nikon, serious problems were hidden not only for the Russian Orthodox Church, but also for the Orthodox medieval consciousness in general. The medieval world, once harmonious for a Russian person, split: it suddenly became clear that some Russian Orthodox people began to persecute other Russian Orthodox people like wild animals, torture, torment, and burn alive in log cabins. The concept of "schismatics" appeared - enemies of the faith and the tsar, although they were not. Driven by the brutal government, they hid in the forests, rejecting the "Nikonian faith" and the state authority that had accepted it. "Burning" flared up - if I may say so, auto-auto-da-fe, in which dozens, hundreds of Orthodox people perished.

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

But somehow I came across the opinion that there are people "quite rubbing their hands, counting a colossal the damage inflicted by Peter "the great" of Russia and the Russian people". Agree that such a statement is so different from what we were taught and taught that it is not possible to just throw it away and forget it - there must be reasons for such a sharp conclusion ... And here the most interesting thing begins ...

At this stage, I propose to forget for a while about what the official history teaches us and look at the facts that are in the public domain, which, if desired, any of you can get them and think about ...

Below I will give only brief theses as a fulcrum for those who are interested in self-development and collecting information further ...

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

Before the trip	After the trip
Went for two weeks and returned two years later. The Russian embassy, accompanying the tsar, consisted of 20 people, and was headed by A.D. Menshikov.	After returning to Russia, the embassy consisted of only Dutchmen, the only one from the old staff was Menshikov.
A young 26-year-old man, curly hair, a mole on his cheek closer to the nose (in the portraits of Peter the Great before his return from the "Great Embassy", Peter has a wart on the right side of his nose)	Complete change in appearance and psyche - a 40-year-old sick man, taller, with straight hair and no birthmark on his face
He dearly loved his wife, Queen Evdokia, with whom he lived in harmony for eight years, whom he missed, often corresponded when he was away	Upon his return, without even seeing her, without explaining the reasons, he was locked in convent on pain of death forbidding even conversations with her - one of her guards, Stepan Glebov, was impaled for violating this instruction. He married a Baltic prostitute. After returning from abroad, he always took a soldier with him to bed at night, and after the appearance of Catherine he kept his concubines)
Prefers traditional Russian clothing	He wears only European clothes and has never worn not only his old Russian clothes, but even the royal attire
Loves everything Russian	He hates everything Russian, but loves the Western. Love for the Russian people turned into hatred, he calls the Russians "animals" with the need to "remake" them into people
He knew the scriptures well, during the discussion he quoted many phrases by heart	He practically does not speak Russian, "forgot" everything he knew from childhood? until the end of his life he never learned to write in Russian
Healthy young man	A patient with a chronic fever, with traces of long-term use of mercury preparations, which were then used to treat tropical fever
The great embassy went by the northern sea route	Tropical fever can be "earned" in southern waters, and even then, only by visiting the jungle
Swimming experience - only as a passenger. As a child, he miraculously escapes during a storm when visiting the Solovetsky Monastery on a launch, in honor of which he erected a memorial cross for the Archangel Cathedral with his own hands.	An experienced sailor, demonstrating extensive experience in boarding battles, having specific features that can only be mastered with personal participation in many boarding battles.
Generalization: The coincidence in time of the substitution of Tsar Peter I (August 1698) and the appearance of the prisoner in the "Iron Mask" in the Bastille in Paris (September 1698). In the lists of prisoners, he was listed under the name Magshiel, possibly a distorted record of the name under which Peter traveled - Mikhailov. He was tall, carried himself with dignity, and he always wore a velvet mask on his face. The prisoner was treated respectfully, well kept. He died in 1703. After his death, the room where he was kept was thoroughly searched, and all traces of his stay were destroyed.	After the most younger son Alexei tried to free his real father from the Bastille - he tortured and executed him. The rest - brother Ivan V, young children Alexander, Natalia and Lawrence killed immediately upon his return from the Great Embassy (the official story tells us about it in a very different way).

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

Immediately after returning from the Great Embassy, "Peter the Great" hid surrounded by conspirators, did not appear in public and did not even visit his closest relatives until the time when a new Russian army was created under the command of foreign officers and bloody executions of archers that destroyed the old armed forces who could oppose the returning king;

Everywhere it is written that he "opened a window to Europe", but actually opened a window FOR Europe to Russia since before that, access to Russia was closed for Europeans.

Killed over 20 million souls when he built St. Petersburg and won victories in endless wars.

Introduced serfdom, transferring the peasants into the ownership of the nobles, i.e. dividing the Russian people into nobles and serfs by birth, turning the people into slaves.

He rewrote the history of Russia with the hands of foreigners even those who do not know the Russian language.

Under the guise of fighting old faith, destroyed all the elders who have lived for more than three hundred years.

Destroyed the annals: ordered to take all the ancient manuscripts to him under the pretext of the need to make copies, and after that everything that got into the palace disappeared without a trace.

Changed then chronology replacing in 1700 the then current calendar from "the creation of the world in the star temple" with the current one "from the birth of Christ".

Abolished the Patriarchate in Russia and subordinated the administration of the church to the secular authorities through the Synod, the device of an amusing Council at the choice of the Patriarch.

Destruction of the Russians folk traditions fighting them. Establishing superiority western culture over traditional Russian.

Destroyed Russian education- this is his main crime!(image + sculpting), the essence of which was the creation of three subtle bodies in a person, which he does not receive from birth, and if they are not formed, then the consciousness will not have a connection with the consciousnesses of past lives. If in Russians educational institutions they made a versatile person out of a man, which could, starting from bast shoes and ending spaceship, to do everything himself, then Peter introduced a specialization that made a person dependent on others.

The first reform of the Russian language, which returned the outline of letters to the ancient Aryan alphabetical symbolism.

Establishment of power and control of foreigners, in the army, public administration, science, their privileges before the Russians, the distribution of titles of nobility, lands and serfs to them

He exterminated the archers and changed the clothes of the Russian army first in French, then in German uniform, although the Russian military uniform was itself a weapon. The people called the new shelves " amusing».

Organization of Masonic Lodges(1700) even earlier than in Europe (1721), who practically seized power in Russian society to this day.

Forbidden to grow amaranth and use amaranth bread, which was the main food of the Russian people. Thus, he destroyed longevity, which then still remained in Russia.

Canceled natural measures(fathom, finger, elbow, vershok), which were present in Russian clothing, utensils, architecture. Peter made the measures fixed, as in the West, this led to the destruction of ancient Russian architecture and art, to the disappearance of the beauty of everyday life, since divine and vital proportions disappeared in their structure.

Returning Peter did not know where the libraries of Tsar Ivan the Terrible were located, although this secret was passed on to all the tsars, and even Tsarevna Sophia, the sister of Tsar Peter, knew and visited this place. It is known that "Peter the Great" tried to find the library immediately after returning from the "Great Embassy" and even conducted excavations for this in the Kremlin.

Nutrition Reform:

Peter was the first to launch a campaign to impoverish the nutrition of the Russians. Before Peter in Russia there were 108 types of nuts, 108 types of vegetables, 108 types of fruits, 108 types of berries, 108 types of nodules, 108 types of cereals, 108 spices and 108 types of fruits *, corresponding to 108 Slavic Gods. After the coup, only a few sacred species remained - cereals, fruits and root nodules were destroyed, since they were associated with the reincarnation of man. Peter banned many products of the Russian cuisine replacing them with potatoes, tomatoes ...

By the way, potatoes, like tobacco (!), Belong to the nightshade family. The tops, eyes and green potatoes are poisonous. Green potatoes contain very strong poisons, solanines, especially dangerous for the health of children), sweet potatoes and earthen pear, which are poorly eaten today.

Destruction of sacred plants that were used in certain time, led to the loss of complex divine reactions of the body (remember the Russian proverb “ every vegetable has its time ", POST). Moreover, the mixing of food caused putrefactive processes in the body, and now people, instead of fragrant, exude a stench.

Adoptogenic plants have almost disappeared, only weakly active ones remained: the "root of life", lemongrass, zamaniha, golden root. They contributed to the adaptation of a person to difficult conditions and preserved youth and health. There are absolutely no metamorphosing plants that contribute to various metamorphoses of the body and appearance. Not so long ago, in the mountains of Tibet, there was still a “Sacred Turn”, but that too has disappeared today.

The campaign to impoverish nutrition continues to this day, kalega and sorghum have almost disappeared from use, and poppy cultivation is prohibited. From many sacred gifts only the names remained, which are given to us today as synonyms for famous fruits.

Example:
* Gruhva, kalyva, bukhma, landushka - are issued today as rutabagas.
* Armud, quit, pigwa, gutei, gun - disappeared gifts that are passed off as quince.
* Kukish and dulja back in the 19th century denoted a pear, although these were completely different gifts, today these words are called the image of a fig (also, by the way, a gift). A fist with an embedded thumb, used to denote the mudra of the heart, today it is used as a negative sign. They stopped growing Dula, fig and fig, because they were sacred plants among the Khazars and Varangians.
* Already in recent times Proska began to be called "millet", barley - barley, and millet and barley grains disappeared from our agriculture forever.

Nowadays, we see how the final stage of the food genocide is taking place - people were driven from the ground into cities, food control was abolished, chemistry has become commonplace, GMO products are being introduced, POST is not observed, there is no food culture.

“If you want to conquer a country, bring someone else's product; there will be an outflow of energy, people will get sick, and sick slaves will be easier to manage ”- Ivan the Terrible.

Roman law

The genius of Satanism is Roman law, which is the basis of constitutions modern states... Roman law was created contrary to all the ancient canons and ideas about a society based on self-government (self + powers). For the first time, judicial power was transferred from the hands of the priests to the hands of people without spiritual dignity, i.e. the rule of the best was replaced by the rule of anyone. Roman law is presented to us as the "crown" of human achievement, in reality it is the pinnacle of order and irresponsibility. State laws under Roman law, they are built on prohibitions and punishments, i.e. on negative emotions, which, as you know, can only destroy. This leads to a general lack of interest in the implementation of laws and to the opposition of officials to the people.

In contrast to Roman law, Russia-Power was built not on prohibitive laws, but on the conscience of citizens, which establishes a balance between incentives and prohibitions. Let us recall how the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea wrote about the Slavs - “ They had all the laws in their heads ". Relations in ancient society were governed by the principles of kon, from where the words “canon” (ancient - konon), “from time immemorial”, “chambers” (ie at stake) came down to us. Guided by the principles of the horse, a person avoided mistakes and could incarnate again in this life. The principle is always above the law, because it contains more possibilities than the law, just as a sentence contains more information than one word. The very word “ law "Means" outside the horse ". If a society lives according to the principles of a horse, and not according to the laws, it is more vital. Commandments contain more than a con, and therefore surpass it, just as a story contains more than a sentence. The commandments can improve human organization and thinking, which in turn can improve the principles of horse.

After all the actions of Peter 1, even the invaders themselves did not dare to call Peter the great for a long time. Only in the 19th century, when Peter's horrors were forgotten, a version arose about Peter the innovator, who did so much useful for Russia.

And finally, for those interested, a video on the topic:

The reformatory legacy of Peter the Great, like his very personality, still generates fierce controversy in Russian society... In the 19th century, disagreements in the assessment of Peter's activities largely triggered the emergence of two main areas of ideological struggle in the Russian intellectual elite - Westernizers and Slavophiles. Evgeny Anisimov decided to take a bold step: to present on equal terms two points of view on the historical role of the tsar-reformer. The book is written in the form of a dialogue, or rather, a fierce debate between two opponents: a supporter of European development and a supporter of a "special path". According to the author, both positions have a right to exist, both are correct in their own way and both reflect such a complex, ambiguous phenomenon as the era of Peter in Russian history. Evgeny Anisimov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor and Scientific Director of the Department of History of the National Research University " graduate School Economics ”(St. Petersburg Branch), Professor of the European University at St. Petersburg, Chief Researcher at the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Author of several hundred scientific publications, including three monographs on the history of the reign of Peter the Great.

The work belongs to the genre History. Historical sciences. It was published in 2017 by Ulo Publishing. The book is part of the "What is Russia" series. On our site you can download the book "Peter the First: Good or Evil for Russia?" in fb2, rtf, epub, pdf, txt format or read online. Here you can also, before reading, refer to the reviews of readers who are already familiar with the book, and find out their opinions. In the online store of our partner, you can buy and read a book in paper form.

Evgeny anisimov peter the first good or evil. About the book "Peter the First: Good or Evil for Russia?" Did Russia Need Reforms

Evgeny Anisimov Peter the First: good or bad for Russia?

Introduction

Did Russia Need Reforms?

Admirer:

Introduction

Did Russia Need Reforms?

Admirer:

Nutrition Reform:

Roman law

Evgeny Anisimov
Peter the First: good or bad for Russia?