History of the Golitsyn princes. Vasily Golitsyn (prince) is the founder of the eldest branch of the Golitsyn family. Mikhail Mikhailovich Golitsyn Golitsyn brief

Golitsyn Mikhail Mikhailovich (11/12/1675-12/21/1730), famous, comrade-in-arms, one of the heroic participants. Some military historians consider him the best Russian military leader among Peter's commanders, and there is every reason for this.

Peter himself highly valued him not only for his personal bravery and courage, but also his ability to organize a battle and emerge victorious from any situation. Golitsyn’s military career began at the age of 12, when he was accepted as a drummer in the Semenovsky regiment. Coming from a noble Lithuanian family of princes Gedeminovich, Mikhail Golitsyn was a highly educated, efficient and brave officer.

In 1694 he was promoted to ensign. He made a good impression on the young king and he brought him closer to him. Peter’s intuition did not let him down, and already in the first battle Golitsyn showed excellent courage and loyalty to the military order. The soldiers of his half-company held back the Ottoman advance while the main troops retreated to the camp, for which they received the rank of lieutenant.

In the second Azov campaign, despite the wound he received, he did not leave the battlefield, but continued to fight. He was promoted to the rank of captain-lieutenant. The Northern War, which started unsuccessfully for the Russians, is famous for its defeat near the city of Narva. In this battle, Golitsyn was wounded twice, but he did not abandon his soldiers, for which he first received the rank of major, and, a little later, lieutenant colonel.

Golitsyn distinguished himself during the capture of Noteburg in October 1702. He refused to comply with the king's order to retreat. Answering that now “he is not Peter, but the gods,” Golitsyn ordered the boats on which the troops landed to be pushed away from the shore, and the soldiers inevitably had to resume the attack on the fortress and take it. For the victory, Peter not only forgave the disobedience of the order, but also awarded him a gold medal, three thousand rubles, almost four hundred peasant households and the rank of colonel of the Semenovsky regiment.

In 1705 he received the rank of brigadier for the capture of Mitava, and since 1706 he was already a major general and under his command several infantry regiments, including the Semenovsky Life Guards Regiment. In the annals of military battles, the Battle of Dobro in August 1708, when Golitsyn’s infantry regiments dealt a crushing blow to the vanguard Swedish army, fording two rivers and taking the Carolinians by surprise. Leaving almost a thousand wounded and killed on the battlefield, the Russians captured 3 cannons and 6 banners. For this victory, Mikhail Mikhailovich Golitsyn received the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called.

A month later, the prince successfully participated in the battle of Lesnaya, for which he received the rank of lieutenant general and the personal gratitude of the tsar. Once again he distinguished himself in the battle of Poltava. It was his guard that forced the remnants of the Swedish army to capitulate at Perevolochnaya. Golitsyn's troops successfully participated in the capture of Vyborg and Narva. Thanks to the persistence of Prince Golitsyn and his proposals for offensive tactics, the campaign of 1713 ended successfully. Contrary to the attempts of Admiral General Apraksin to return to winter quarters, M.M. Golitsyn insisted on the landing of Russian troops deep into the Swedish positions using rafts. Operation was successfully completed. The Swedes did not expect the Russians to appear almost in their rear. After a fierce battle, suffering huge losses, the Swedes fled, opening the road to Finland for the Russian army.

Having successfully carried out military operation At Sturkyuru in January 1714, Prince Mikhail Golitsyn once again confirmed the title of a skilled commander. By using only experienced soldiers who knew how to ski in this battle, he was able to increase the mobility and combat effectiveness of the corps, which helped to win, despite the fierce resistance of the Swedes. A brutal bayonet attack for half an hour did not break the Russians and was supported by cavalry. It was a victory, the Swedes fled. The final chord can be considered the victorious naval battle, which the Russian land general Mikhail Golitsyn won against the Swedish sea dog Admiral Sheblad in 1720.

The name of Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn, a representative of a noble princely family, “chancellor” and “first minister” of the government of Princess Sofia Alekseevna, is well known among the enemies of Peter the Great’s reforms and personally of Peter I himself.

The name of Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn, a representative of a noble princely family, the “chancellor” and “first minister” of the government of Princess Sofia Alekseevna, is well known among the enemies of Peter the Great’s reforms and personally of Peter I himself. The image of a favorite-lover, a mediocre commander, an insidious intriguer and an arrogant aristocrat will last for a long time overshadowed the activities of one of the most talented and educated people of his time. Vasily Golitsyn was born in 1643 and, indeed, into a well-born and noble princely family. The Golitsyns traced their origins to the founder of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Grand Duke Gediminas. But already in the 15th century, Vasily Vasilyevich’s ancestors served the Moscow sovereigns. Their nobility gave them a high position among the Russian aristocracy. They sit in the Boyar Duma, serve as the first commanders in regiments and campaigns, participate and win in local disputes.

Thanks to his origin and family ties, the young prince immediately entered the palace. He, as befitted people of his position and age, began his service with the modest palace rank of steward. His duties included serving the sovereign's person at the table. Nevertheless, the modest position was invested with special trust and was not reserved for everyone. But still, the prince achieved his first successes not at court, but in a somewhat unusual activity for that time - “book reading.” The Golitsyn family was no stranger to education and enlightenment.

In the 17th century, long before Peter, there was already talk in Moscow of a “gymnasium of liberal sciences”; They opened schools under the Moscow orders, where from an early age they prepared children for the order (ministerial) service. Over time, Vasily Golitsyn mastered and knew Latin, Polish, German, and Greek perfectly. He could freely communicate with the French, English, Dutch and other representatives of European nations, without experiencing any barriers. In general, Golitsyn was receptive to advanced European culture. Vasily Vasilyevich was one of the first at court to put on and wear Polish dress. Such innovations were sometimes condemned, but at the same time they were not prohibited and were even encouraged. Under Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, a decree was issued on the mandatory wearing of Polish or Hungarian dress by courtiers and employees of orders. Otherwise, they were not allowed into the Kremlin and were not allowed to exercise their positions.

Meanwhile, Vasily Vasilyevich never put his interest in everything “foreign” at the expense of his “national”. He believed that normal development of the country is impossible without interaction and cultural exchange with other peoples. As for issues of politics and diplomacy, Golitsyn always acted on the basis national interests Russia.

Already in his early youth, the prince showed broad awareness and great abilities in analysis international situation in Europe. The opportunity to prove himself presented itself to boyar Golitsyn in 1676. Since 1672, Russia has led hard war against Ottoman Empire, first, as part of a coalition with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and then alone. Military operations then unfolded in Right Bank Ukraine, in the Chigirin region. Things weren't easy here. Part of the Cossack elite supported the traitor Hetman Doroshenko, who went over to the side of the Sultan. This significantly complicated the position of the Russian troops. Golitsyn was able to quickly and painlessly resolve this issue. After negotiations, carried out brilliantly by the boyar, Doroshenko’s supporters left their hetman and went over to the side of the Russians. After this, G. Romodanovsky’s troops took Chigirin. In this war, the prince had the opportunity to wear military armor. He personally participated in the defeat of Ibrahim Pasha's army under the walls of Chigirin. The troops under his command actively participated in all military operations conducted by Romodanovsky.

The war did not end there. As a result, Russian troops were forced to leave Chigirin. But at the cost of ceding a fortress that was almost destroyed during the fighting, Russian diplomats were able to get the Porte (Ottoman Empire) to stop the offensive on the Ukrainian Left Bank and, above all, on Kyiv. In 1681, peace was concluded with Turkey in Bakhchisarai on terms acceptable to Russia. Much of the credit for this belonged to Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn.

Vasily Vasilyevich also showed himself in the field of internal transformations. He took part in financial reform. Instead of many taxes that placed a heavy burden on the population, one was introduced - “streltsy money”. They now gathered not according to a “solid letter”, but from a certain number of households, that is, from specific individuals. Further development was also associated with Golitsyn’s activities. military system state, which was expressed in the increase in regiments of the “new” or “foreign” system. Along with the existing rifle regiments and noble landed cavalry, reitar, dragoon, and musketeer companies began to be formed with a clearly established number of people in each unit. They were distinguished by uniform weapons, equipment and uniforms. They served according to a single charter and studied according to the same program.

A natural aristocrat, Golitsyn also became an active supporter of the destruction of the notorious system of localism, which the nobility used to maintain their position and their privileges. If earlier the career of a young nobleman was determined by origin and nobility, then with the abolition of localism, it became possible for less well-born people to demonstrate their abilities and occupy high positions in the army and civil service.

No stranger to enlightenment, Vasily Vasilyevich contributed in every possible way to the construction educational system in Russia. Not without his participation, the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was opened in Moscow - the first higher education institution in the country. educational institution. We were heading there best teachers from Greece, books were ordered from abroad. But diplomacy remained Vasily Golitsyn’s main focus. It was thanks to him that 1686 became a turning point in the history of relations between the Slavic peoples inhabiting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia. In 1683, the Turks launched an attack on Vienna. In Austria's allied Poland, the question arose about providing assistance to the Austrian emperor. At the Sejm the votes were divided. Some of the magnates were against Polish military intervention. It is unknown how things would have turned out if Golitsyn had not made a proposal to participate in the war against the Turks and Russia. The Russian government was ready to do this, but only under the condition of concluding “Eternal Peace” with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish side did not agree to this for a long time. According to the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667, Kyiv remained with Russia, and Warsaw did not want to give it up. An ardent opponent of peace was the Polish king Jan Sobieski himself, who soon managed to defeat the Turks near Vienna. But soon in the Holy League (Austria, Poland, Venice) disagreements began between the allies on the issue of Russia's entry into it. Vasily Golitsyn played on these contradictions. Austria was more than ever interested in Russia's participation in the fight against Turkish aggression. Therefore, Emperor Leopold tried to put pressure on Jan Sobieski. The Pope was also on the side of the emperor in this matter. As a result, the king had no choice but to accept Russia’s condition.

In February 1686, the Polish ambassadors Grimultovsky, Pototsky, Chancellor Oginsky and Count Sapieha arrived in Moscow. Long seven-week negotiations began. The head took the initiative in their management Ambassadorial order Vasily Vasilievich Golitsyn. He immediately offered the Polish side Right Bank Ukraine, which was still in the zone of hostilities with the Turks, demanding in return that Russia should approve the Ukrainian Left Bank with Kiev. In addition to everything else, Smolensk was to be given to Russia. Of course, the Polish ambassadors did not agree to this and even somehow tried to demonstratively leave Moscow (this was an old tactical move in negotiations in the hope of compliance from the other side). But Golitsyn took this very calmly, knowing that Poland could no longer do without making peace. “Public” European opinion was not on her side. The prince was unyielding and only expressed regret about the departure of the ambassadors and the inability of the two countries to unite their efforts in the fight against the infidels. Finally Grimultovsky and Oginsky gave in. According to the agreement, or rather, according to the terms of the “Eternal Peace”, Smolensk, Kyiv and Left Bank Ukraine became part of Russia. The establishment of good neighborly relations between the two countries subsequently rendered a great service to Russia. IN Northern War Russia and Poland fought against Sweden as allies. Golitsyn's diplomatic successes took place against the backdrop of an intense political struggle for power that unfolded in the country after the death of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. Nevertheless, it was with her that the rise of Vasily Vasilyevich was connected. In 1682, Tsarevna Sofya Alekseevna came to real power, becoming regent under two young tsars - Ivan and Peter Alekseevich, the sons of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich from two marriages. The government of the young princess was headed by Vasily Golitsyn.

Much information from contemporaries has been preserved about Golitsyn’s life and activities during this period. Both friends and enemies of the prince, despite the discordant opinions about him, agreed, perhaps, on one thing: he was talented statesman, diplomat and reformer. His house on Okhotny Ryad was considered one of the best in Europe, was covered with copper, decorated with architectural details, had large windows and spacious halls. The owner lived in grand style, was friendly and hospitable, appreciated painting and owned a large library for those times, which contained books by ancient and European authors. They said that during his reign, up to three thousand stone houses were built in Moscow. The construction of the Big Stone Bridge across the Moscow River, completed under Peter I, was usually associated with it.

News has also been preserved about the existence of some kind of reform project drawn up by the prince for a radical reorganization of Russia. The document itself, written by Golitsyn, has not survived. But as translated by eyewitnesses, it looked something like this: to put Muscovy on the same level as other European states, to transfer palace peasants to the category of state peasants, giving them land, to encourage industry and trade, to improve roads, to establish sea communications with Europe. It was also planned to allow free entry and exit of foreigners from Russia, to send noble children to study abroad, to create regular army and establish permanent diplomatic missions at European courts. Whether this was true or not is difficult to say, but Golitsyn did not have the chance to reform Russia. The position of the government of Princess Sophia was unstable. Tsars Ivan and Peter became legally capable, and the regency had to come to an end sooner or later. His connection with the regent herself and the country’s military failures did not help improve the prince’s reputation. In 1687 and 1689, troops under the command of Golitsyn made two unsuccessful campaigns against the Crimea, accompanied by heavy losses. And soon, in the next clash between Sophia and Peter for power, the princess was defeated. The government headed by Golitsyn fell. He was arrested by order of Peter and accused of treason, but was not executed. Either his troubles had an effect on him cousin Boris Golitsyn, or Peter himself, despite the burning hostility towards the defeated enemy, still secretly had considerable respect for him. The tsar subsequently turned to many of the prince’s initiatives.

Together with his family, Golitsyn was exiled to the North, where he lived until his death in 1714.

Thus ended the life of Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn, who, as one French diplomat testified, wanted to populate the deserts, enrich the poor, make people out of savages, turn cowards into good soldiers, huts into palaces.

Prince Vasily Vasilievich Golitsyn

Vasily Vasilievich Golitsyn.

Engraving from 1689

The youngest of Peter's predecessors was Prince V.V. Golitsyn, and he moved away from reality much further than his elders. Still a young man, he was already a prominent figure in the government circle under Tsar Fyodor and became one of the most influential people under Princess Sophia when, after the death of her elder brother, she became the ruler of the state. The power-hungry and educated princess could not help but notice the intelligent and educated boyar, and Prince Golitsyn connected his political career with this princess through personal friendship.

Golitsyn was an ardent admirer of the West, for which he renounced many cherished traditions of Russian antiquity. Like Nashchokin, he spoke Latin and Polish fluently. In his vast Moscow house, which foreigners considered one of the most magnificent in Europe, everything was arranged in a European manner: in the large halls, the partitions between the windows were lined with large mirrors, paintings, portraits of Russian and foreign sovereigns and German paintings hung on the walls. geographic Maps in gilded frames; the planetary system was painted on the ceilings; many clocks and an artistic thermometer completed the decoration of the rooms. Golitsyn had a significant and varied library of handwritten and printed books in Russian, Polish and German languages. Here between the grammars of Polish and Latin languages there was “The Kiev Chronicler”, German geometry, Alkoran translated from Polish, four manuscripts on the structure of comedies, a manuscript by Yuri Serbenin (Krizhanich). Golitsyn’s house was a meeting place for educated foreigners who came to Moscow, and in his hospitality to them the owner went further than other Moscow lovers of foreign things, even receiving Jesuits, with whom they could not put up.

Of course, such a person could only stand on the side of the transformation movement - and precisely in the Latin, Western European, non-Likhud direction. One of Ordin-Nashchokin’s successors in managing the Ambassadorial Prikaz, Prince Golitsyn developed the ideas of his predecessor. With his assistance, the Moscow Treaty of Perpetual Peace with Poland took place in 1686. According to him Moscow State took part in the coalition struggle with Turkey in alliance with Poland, the German Empire and Venice. With this, it formally joined the concern of European powers, for which Poland forever claimed Kiev and other Moscow acquisitions, temporarily ceded under the Andrusovo Truce, for Moscow.

And in questions domestic policy Prince Golitsyn walked ahead of the former businessmen of the reform direction. Even under Tsar Feodor, he was the chairman of a commission tasked with drawing up a plan for the transformation of the Moscow military system. This commission proposed introducing the German system into the Russian army and abolishing localism (law of January 12, 1682). Golitsyn constantly repeated to the boyars the need to educate their children, obtained permission to send them to Polish schools, and advised inviting Polish tutors for their education. Undoubtedly, broad transformative plans swarmed in his head. It is a pity that we know only fragments of them or unclear sketches recorded by the foreigner Neville, a Polish envoy who arrived in Moscow in 1689 shortly before the fall of Sophia and Golitsyn. Neville saw the prince, spoke with him in Latin about contemporary political events, especially about the English Revolution, could hear something from him about the state of affairs in Moscow and carefully collected Moscow rumors and information about him.

Golitsyn was greatly interested in the question of the Moscow army, the shortcomings of which he knew well, having commanded regiments more than once. He, according to Neville, wanted the nobility to travel abroad and learn the art of war there. He thought of replacing with good soldiers the peasants taken as datkas and unfit for work, whose lands were left uncultivated during the war. In return for their useless service, impose a moderate tax on the peasantry. This means that the datka recruits from serfs and taxed people, who replenished the noble regiments, were eliminated, and the army, contrary to the thoughts of Ordin-Nashchokin, retained a strictly class-based noble composition with a regular formation under the command of military-trained noble officers.

Military-technical reform in Golitsyn’s thoughts was combined with a socio-economic revolution. Golitsyn thought to begin the transformation of the state by liberating the peasants, giving them the lands they cultivated for the benefit of the tsar, that is, the treasury, through an annual tax, which, according to his calculations, increased the treasury's income by more than half. The foreigner did not hear something and did not explain the conditions of this land operation. Since the nobles remained obligatory and hereditary military service, then, in all likelihood, regarding the state land rent from the peasants, it was intended to increase the noble salaries, which were supposed to serve as compensation for the income lost by the landowners from the peasants and for the lands that went to them.

Thus, according to Golitsyn’s plan, the redemption operation of serf labor and allotment land of peasants was carried out by replacing the capital redemption amount with the continuous income of service landowners received from the treasury in the form of an increased salary for service. At the same time, landowner arbitrariness in the exploitation of serf labor, not constrained by law, was replaced by a certain state land tax. Similar thoughts about resolving the serfdom issue began to return to Russian state minds no earlier than a century and a half after Golitsyn.

Debate on Faith in the Chamber of Facets (1682)

Neville heard a lot of other things about the plans of this nobleman, but without conveying everything he heard, the foreigner limited himself to a general, somewhat idyllic review: “If I wanted to write everything that I learned about this prince, I would never finish. Suffice it to say that he wanted to populate the deserts, enrich the poor, turn savages into people, cowards into brave men, shepherd’s huts into stone chambers.” Reading Neville's stories in his report on Muscovy, one can marvel at the courage of the transformative plans of the “great Golitsyn,” as the author calls him. These plans, conveyed by a foreigner fragmentarily without intercom, show, however, that they were based on a broad and, apparently, quite deliberate reform plan, which concerned not only the administrative and economic order, but also the class structure of the state and even public education. Of course, these were dreams, home conversations with loved ones, and not legislative projects.

Prince Golitsyn's personal relationships did not give him the opportunity to even begin the practical development of his transformative plans. Having linked his fate with Princess Sophia, he fell with her and did not take part in transformative activities Peter, although he was his closest predecessor and could have been a good collaborator, if not his best. The spirit of his plans was poorly reflected in the legislation: the conditions of servitude for debts were softened, the burying of husband-killers was abolished and the death penalty for outrageous words. The strengthening of punitive measures against the Old Believers cannot be attributed entirely to the government of Princess Sophia: it was a professional occupation of the church authorities, in which the state administration usually had to serve only as a punitive instrument. By that time, church persecution had raised fanatics among the Old Believers, at whose word thousands of seduced people burned themselves for the salvation of their souls, and church pastors for the same reason burned preachers of self-immolation. The government of the princess, who attracted the violent archers as nobles, could not do anything for the serfs, until the opportunity arose to intimidate the nobles with archers and Cossacks.

Letter from Princess Sophia to Prince V.V. Golitsyn in 1689

However, it would be unfair to deny the participation of Golitsyn’s ideas in public life; only it must be sought not in new laws, but in the general character of the seven-year reign of the princess. Tsar Peter's brother-in-law and therefore Sophia's opponent, Prince B.I. Kurakin, left a wonderful review of this reign in his notes. “The reign of Princess Sophia Alekseevna began with all diligence and justice to all and to the pleasure of the people, so that there has never been such a wise reign in the Russian state; and the whole state came during her reign after seven years into the flower of great wealth, commerce and all kinds of crafts also increased, and the sciences began to be restored to Latin and Greek language... And then the people’s contentment triumphed.” Kurakin’s testimony about the “flower of great wealth” is apparently confirmed by Neville’s news that in wooden Moscow, which then counted up to half a million inhabitants, more than three thousand stone houses were built under Golitsyn’s ministry. It would be imprudent to think that Sophia herself, by her actions, forced the enemy to give such a laudatory review of her reign. This corpulent and ugly half-maiden with a large, clumsy head, a rough face, a wide and short waist, who at 25 seemed to be 40 years old, sacrificed her conscience to her lust for power and her shame to her temperament. But, having achieved power through shameful intrigues and bloody crimes, she, like a princess of “great mind and great politician“, according to the same Kurakin, needing to justify her seizure, she was able to listen to the advice of her first minister and “golant,” also a man of “great mind and beloved by everyone.” He surrounded himself with employees who were completely devoted to him, all ignorant, but efficient people like Neplyuev, Kasogov, Zmeev, Ukraintsev, with whom he achieved the government successes noted by Kurakin.

Successor of Ordin-Nashchokin. Prince Golitsyn was a direct successor of Ordin-Nashchokin. As a man of a different generation and upbringing, he went further than the latter in his transformative plans. He did not have Nashchokin’s intelligence, nor his government talents and business skills, but he was more book-educated than him, worked less than him, but thought more. Golitsyn's thought, less constrained by experience, was bolder, penetrating deeper into the existing order, touching its very foundations. His thinking was mastered with general questions about the state, its tasks, the structure and structure of society. It was not for nothing that in his library there was some kind of manuscript “On civil life, or on the correction of all matters that belong to the common people.” He was not content, like Nashchokin, with administrative and economic reforms, but thought about the spread of education and religious tolerance, freedom of conscience, free entry of foreigners into Russia, improvement of the social system and moral life. His plans are broader, more daring than Nashchokin’s projects, but more idyllic than them.

Representatives of two adjacent generations, both of them were the founders of two types statesmen, performing here in the 18th century. All these people were either Nashchokinsky or Golitsyn-style. Nashchokin is the founder of the practical businessmen of Petrov’s time; in Golitsyn, the features of a liberal and somewhat dreamy Catherine nobleman are noticeable.

Preparation and reform program. We saw with what hesitation the preparation of the reform proceeded. Russian people of the 17th century. took a step forward and then stopped to think about what they had done, whether they had stepped too far. Convulsive movement forward and reflection with a timid glance back - this is how one can describe the cultural gait of Russian society in the 17th century. Thinking over each step, they walked less than they thought. The idea of ​​reform was caused by their needs people's defense and the state treasury. These needs required extensive changes in state structure and economic life, in the organization of people's labor. In both cases, people of the 17th century. limited themselves to timid attempts and half-hearted borrowings from the West.

But among these attempts and borrowings, they argued a lot, scolded, and in these disputes they thought about something. Their military and economic needs collided with their cherished beliefs and ingrained habits, age-old prejudices. It turned out that they needed more than they could and wanted, than they were prepared to do, that in order to ensure their political and economic existence they needed to remake their concepts and feelings, their entire worldview. So they found themselves in the awkward position of people who fell behind their own needs. They needed technical knowledge, military and industrial, but not only did they not have it, but they were also convinced that it was unnecessary and even sinful, because it did not lead to spiritual salvation. What successes have they achieved in this double struggle with their needs and with themselves, with their own prejudices?

To satisfy their material needs, they did not make very many successful changes in the state order. They hired several thousand foreigners, officers, soldiers and craftsmen. With their help, they somehow put a significant part of their army on a regular footing, and that too poorly, without the proper equipment, and built several factories and weapons factories. And with the help of this corrected army and these factories, after great trouble and effort, they hardly returned the two lost regions, Smolensk and Seversk, and barely retained in their hands half of Little Russia that had voluntarily surrendered to them. Here are the significant fruits of their 70 years of sacrifice and effort!

They did not improve the state order; on the contrary, they made it more difficult than before, abandoning zemstvo self-government, intensifying social discord by separating classes and sacrificing the freedom of peasant labor. But in the struggle with themselves, their habits and prejudices, they won several important victories that made this struggle easier for future generations. This was their indisputable merit in preparing the reform. They prepared not so much the reform itself, but themselves, their minds and consciences for this reform, and this is less visible, but no less difficult and necessary work. I will try to outline these mental and moral achievements of theirs in a short list.

First, they admitted that they did not know much of what they needed to know. This was their most difficult victory over themselves, their pride and their past. Old Russian thought worked intensively on issues of moral and religious order, the discipline of conscience and will, the subjugation of the mind into obedience to faith, what was considered the salvation of the soul. But she neglected the conditions of earthly existence, seeing in it the legitimate kingdom of fate and sin, and therefore, with powerless submission, she surrendered it to the mercy of rude instinct. She doubted how this could be introduced and whether it was worth bringing good into the earthly world, which, according to Scripture, lies in evil, and therefore is doomed to lie in evil. She was convinced that the existing everyday order depended just as little on human efforts and was just as unchangeable as the world order. It was this belief in the fatal immutability of everyday order that began to be shaken by bilateral influences coming from inside and outside.

Internal influence came from the turmoil experienced by the state in the 17th century. Time of Troubles for the first time and painfully hit the sleepy Russian minds, forced people capable of thinking to open their eyes to their surroundings, to take a direct and clear look at their lives. Among the writers of that time, among the cellarer A. Palitsyn, among the clerk I. Timofeev, among Prince I. Khvorostinin, what can be called historical thought clearly shines through, the inclination to delve into the conditions of Russian life, into the very foundations of existing social relations, in order to find the reasons here experienced disasters. And after the Time of Troubles, until the end of the century, ever-increasing state burdens supported this tendency, feeding discontent that erupted in a series of revolts.

At zemstvo councils and in special meetings with the government, elected people, pointing out all sorts of disorders, revealed a thoughtful understanding of the sad reality in the proposed means of correcting it. Obviously, the thought was moved and tried to carry the stagnant life with it, no longer seeing in it an established inviolable order. On the other hand, Western influence brought to us concepts that directed thought towards the conditions and conveniences of earthly life and set its improvement as an independent and important task of the state and society. But this required knowledge that Ancient Rus' did not have and neglected, especially the study of nature and how it can serve human needs: hence the intense interest of Russian society in the 17th century. to cosmographic and other similar works. The government itself supported this interest, beginning to think about developing the untouched riches of the country, looking for all sorts of minerals, which required the same knowledge.

A. Vasnetsov.Book stalls on Spassky Bridge in the 17th century.1916

The new trend captured even such weak people as Tsar Fedor, who was reputed to be a great lover of all sciences, especially mathematics, and, according to the testimony of Sylvester Medvedev, cared not only about theology, but also about technical education. He gathered “artists of every skill and handicraft” into his royal workshops, paid them good salaries and diligently monitored their work. The idea of ​​the need for such knowledge has been around since the end of the 17th century. becomes the dominant idea of ​​the progressive people of our society, complaints about its absence in Russia become a common place in the depiction of its condition. Do not think that this consciousness or this complaint immediately led to the assimilation of the necessary knowledge, that this knowledge, having become another question, soon turned into an urgent need. Far from it: it took us an unusually long and cautious time to begin resolving this issue.

Throughout the 18th century. and most of the 19th century. they reflected and argued about what knowledge is useful to us and what is dangerous. But the awakened need of the mind soon changed the attitude towards the existing everyday order. As soon as we got used to the idea that with the help of knowledge we could arrange life better than it was going, confidence in the immutability of everyday order immediately began to fall. And there was a desire to arrange things so that life would be better. This desire arose before they knew how to arrange it. They believed in knowledge before they had time to master it. Then they began to reconsider all corners of the existing order and, as in a house that had not been renovated for a long time, they found neglect, dilapidation, litter, and oversights everywhere. The aspects of life that previously seemed the most durable have ceased to inspire confidence in their strength. Until now, they considered themselves strong in faith, which, without grammar and rhetoric, is capable of comprehending the mind of Christ, and the Eastern hierarch Paisius Ligarid pointed out the need school education to combat division. And the Russian Patriarch Joachim, echoing him, in an essay directed against the schism, wrote that many of the pious people deviated into the schism due to poverty of mind and lack of education.

Printing yard in Moscow, on Nikolskaya Street, at the end of the 17th century.

Based on a drawing from the late 17th century.

Thus, intelligence and education were recognized as pillars of piety. The translator of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, Firsov, translated the Psalter in 1683. And this official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognizes the need to renew the church order with the help of knowledge. “Our Russian people,” he writes, “are rude and unlearned; not only simple people, but also people of spiritual rank do not seek true knowledge and reason and Holy Scripture, learned people are reviled and called heretics.”

In the awakening of this simple-minded faith in science and this trusting hope with its help to correct everything, in my opinion, lay the main moral success in preparing the reform of Peter the Great. The reformer was guided in his activities by this faith and hope. The same faith supported us even after the converter, whenever we were exhausted in the pursuit of success. Western Europe, were ready to fall with the thought that we were not born for civilization, and with bitterness they threw themselves into self-deprecation.

But these moral acquisitions went to the people of the 17th century. Not for nothing, they brought new discord into society. Until then, Russian society lived on the influences of native origin, the conditions of its own life and the indications of the nature of its country. When this society was influenced by a foreign culture, rich in experience and knowledge, it, having met with home-grown orders, entered into a struggle with them, worrying the Russian people, confusing their concepts and habits, complicating their life, giving it increased and uneven movement. Producing ferment in the minds with the influx of new concepts and interests, foreign influence already in the 17th century. caused a phenomenon that further confused Russian life. Until then, Russian society was distinguished by its homogeneity and integrity of its moral and religious composition.

Despite all the differences in social status, the ancient Russian people were very similar to each other in their spiritual appearance; they satisfied their spiritual needs from the same sources. The boyar and the serf, the literate and the illiterate, memorized an unequal number of sacred texts, prayers, church hymns and worldly demonic songs, fairy tales, ancient legends, they understood things unequally clearly, and they memorized their everyday catechism unequally strictly. But they repeated the same catechism, at the appointed time they sinned equally frivolously, and with the same fear of God they began to repent and receive communion until the next permission “for everything.”

Such monotonous twists of automatic conscience helped Old Russian people understand each other well, form a homogeneous moral mass. They established some spiritual harmony between them, despite social discord, and made changing generations a periodic repetition of the once established type. As in the royal chambers and boyar mansions, simple carvings and gilding covered the simple architectural plan peasant wooden hut, and in the elaborate presentation of the Russian scribe of the 16th–17th centuries. the unpretentious hereditary spiritual content of “rural ignorance, simple in mind, simple in mind” is visible.

Western influence destroyed this moral integrity of ancient Russian society. It did not penetrate deeply into the people, but in the upper classes, which by their very position were the most open to external trends, it gradually acquired dominance. Just as glass cracks when it is unevenly heated in its different parts, so Russian society, unequally imbued with Western influence in all its layers, has split. The schism that occurred in the Russian Church in the 17th century was an ecclesiastical reflection of this moral bifurcation of Russian society under the influence of Western culture. Then we had two worldviews against each other, two hostile orders of concepts and feelings. Russian society divided into two camps, into admirers of native antiquity and adherents of novelty, that is, foreign, Western.

The leading classes of society remaining in the fence Orthodox Church, began to become imbued with indifference to their native antiquity, in the name of which the schism advocated, and the more easily they surrendered to foreign influence. The Old Believers, thrown out of the church fence, began to hate imported innovations all the more stubbornly, attributing to them damage to the ancient Orthodox Russian Church. This indifference of some and this hatred of others entered the spiritual composition of Russian society like new springs, complicating social movement, pulling people in different directions.

A particularly happy condition for the success of transformative aspirations must be the active participation of individuals in their dissemination. Those were the last and the best people Ancient Rus', who put their stamp on the aspirations that they first pursued or only supported. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich awakened a general and vague desire for novelty and improvement, without breaking with native antiquity. Benevolently blessing transformative undertakings, he tamed the timid Russian thought to them, with his very complacency forcing him to believe in their moral safety and not to lose faith in his own strength.

Boyar Ordin-Nashchokin was not distinguished by either such complacency or pious attachment to his native antiquity, and with his restless grumbling about everything Russian, he could overtake melancholy and despondency and force him to give up. But his honest energy involuntarily captivated him, and his bright mind imparted to vague transformative impulses and thoughts the appearance of such simple, clear and convincing plans, in the rationality and feasibility of which one wanted to believe, the benefits of which were obvious to everyone. From his instructions, assumptions and experiences, for the first time, an integral reform program began to take shape, not a broad, but quite clear program of administrative and economic reform. Other, less prominent businessmen supplemented this program, introducing new motives into it or extending it to other areas of government and folk life, and thus advanced the cause of reform. Rtishchev tried to introduce a moral motive into public administration and raised the question of the structure of public charity. Prince Golitsyn, with dreamy talk about the need for versatile transformations, awakened the dormant thoughts of the ruling class, which recognized the existing order as completely satisfactory.

With this I conclude the review of the phenomena of the 17th century. It was all an era that prepared the transformation of Peter the Great. We studied the affairs and saw a number of people brought up by the new trends of the 17th century. But these were only the most outstanding people of the transformative trend, behind whom stood others, smaller ones: the boyars B. I. Morozov, N. I. Romanov, A. S. Matveev, a whole phalanx of Kyiv scientists and, on the sidelines, the alien and exile Yuri Krizhanich . Each of these businessmen, standing in the first and second row, carried out some transformative tendency, developed some new thought, sometimes whole line new thoughts. Judging by them, one can marvel at the abundance of transformative ideas that accumulated in the excited minds of that rebellious age. These ideas developed hastily, without mutual connection, without a general plan, but, comparing them, we see that they develop by themselves into a fairly coherent transformative program in which questions foreign policy grappled with military, financial, economic, social, educational issues.

Here are the most important parts of this program: 1) peace and even union with Poland; 2) the struggle with Sweden for the eastern Baltic coast, with Turkey and Crimea for Southern Russia; 3) completion of the reorganization of the troops into a regular army; 4) replacing the old one complex system direct taxes in two taxes, per capita and land; 5) development foreign trade and domestic manufacturing industry; 6) the introduction of city government with the aim of raising the productivity and welfare of the commercial and industrial class; 7) liberation of serfs with land; 8) the establishment of schools not only of general education with a church character, but also technical ones, adapted to the needs of the state - and all this according to foreign models and even with the help of foreign leaders. It is easy to see that the totality of these transformational tasks is nothing more than Peter’s transformational program. This program was all ready even before the converter started operating. This is the significance of Moscow statesmen of the 17th century. They not only created the atmosphere in which the reformer grew up and breathed, but also outlined a program for his activities, which in some respects went even further than what he did.