Russian culture of the period of feudal fragmentation briefly. Culture of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus'

Reasons for reform

Peter I ruled Russia from 1682 to 1725. This period was marked by an unprecedented powerful development many aspects of the life of the Russian state. The transformational activities of Peter included military and financial reforms, reforms of government and administration, reforms in the field of culture and life, it led to the development of science and education, technology and industry, trade and urban planning, intensified foreign policy and strengthened the international position of the country.

And although, according to the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (t 1911), the reforms of Peter I did not have as their direct goal the restructuring of either the political, social or moral order established in Russia, they were not directed by the task of putting Russian life on unusual Western European foundations, they, these reforms, were carried out in an atmosphere of dull and stubborn internal struggle, which more than once resulted in armed confrontation and conspiracies of zealots of antiquity (1).

Opponents of Peter's reform activities were in various strata of Russian society, including the clergy. Those who did not accept the reforms, in their opposition to new, unusual and inconvenient for them directions in the life of the Russian state, sought support for themselves in church circles and, to a certain extent, found it. A characteristic representative of this movement in church life was His Holiness Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700), inwardly ardent and inspired in his old Russian piety, did not hide his denial of the new spirit introduced by Peter I into Russian life.

At the same time, it would be wrong to believe that opposition to the reforming activity of Peter prevailed in the church's leading spheres. In many of his undertakings, Peter I found understanding and support from His Holiness Patriarch Joachim (d. 1690), Archbishop Athanasius of Kholmogory, Bishop Mitrofan of Voronezh, Metropolitan Tikhon of Kazan, Metropolitan Job of Novgorod, Metropolitan Stefan of Ryazan, and other hierarchs.

Here we should touch on the personal religiosity of Peter I. Brought up according to the forefather ritual in traditional church piety, Peter often turned to reading Holy Scripture, well knew and loved the service, during which the Apostle often read and sang. In many state documents, Peter discovers a religious understanding of the problems under consideration. “Undoubtedly,” says the church historian A.V. Kartashev (d. 1960), “Peter was akin to a utilitarian practical view of the role of religion in state affairs, but he did not exclude in Peter a deep and living understanding of religion” (2) .

At the same time, it should be kept in mind that Peter did not consider it possible for himself to enter into consideration of questions of faith. I will give two typical examples. In 1717, during the stay of Peter I in Paris, Catholic theologians in a conversation with him expressed the opinion that the union of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches did not present serious difficulties. In his answer to them, Peter pointed out two points of disagreement, apparently on the primacy of the Pope and on the Filioque, but noted that it was not his job, a man of state and military, to decide such issues, and suggested that the theologians of the Sorbonne University communicate on this issue with the bishops of the Russian Church. When the Anglican bishops, from the group of the so-called "non-sworn", in 1722 turned to Peter I with a request for assistance in restoring unity and peace with the Eastern Church, then, welcoming this desire in principle, he completely entrusted the consideration of the issue to church authorities.

What were Peter I's motivations for the implementation of church reform? Prominent church historian Academician Yevgeny Evstigneevich Golubinsky (d. 1912) believed that the reform was carried out by the tsar mainly for state reasons.

Firstly, the Russian people saw the Patriarch as a second sovereign, and even something more than a sovereign, therefore, in the event of a clash with the Patriarch, the tsar could find himself in a disadvantageous position.

Secondly, Peter feared that the Patriarch might become the head of a party dissatisfied with the reforms he was carrying out and lead the fight against his reforms (3).

As for the first reason, its reasonableness is undoubtedly evidenced by the conflict, well known to Tsar Peter, that arose between his father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon, the essence of which was the desire of the Patriarch to carry out his ministry on the basis of the principle that spiritual authority has unconditional priority over civil, state power (4).

The second reason also, undoubtedly, had sufficient grounds in the eyes of Tsar Peter: it is worth remembering only Patriarchs Nikon and Adrian, whose example could be repeated.

Academician E. E. Golubinsky asserts that Tsar Peter wished, if possible, to cleanse the Russian Church of the many shortcomings with which it was filled, and for this purpose he hoped to act with great success through the Synod, and not through the Patriarch. The outstanding Russian historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (died in 1879) notes this desire of Peter I as fundamental in the implementation of church reform (5).

Returning to the motives for the reform of the state character, it can be stated with all obviousness that Peter I did not set out to interfere in the dogma, pastoral care and liturgical life of the Church. But he sought to create conditions under which his state activity would not only not meet with opposition from church leaders, parish clergy and monastics, but, on the contrary, would receive active support. He wanted to achieve a situation in which the state could freely use in its own interests large financial, property and human resources Churches (6).

Reform preparation

It can be reasonably assumed that the desire to achieve such a position in which the Church could not create difficulties for the activities of Peter as the arbiter of the fate of Russia, moreover, for it to become a kind of tool in the hands of the sovereign, contributing ideologically and materially to the success of his state course, arose among Peter I already at the very beginning of his reformative works. Enthusiastically carrying out self-education in the so-called Nemetskaya Sloboda in Moscow, Peter undoubtedly drew attention to the collegial form of parochial self-government of Protestant communities. There he could for the first time get acquainted with the structure and position of the Churches of the Reformation in European countries. On their trips to European countries which Peter I undertook repeatedly throughout his life and activity, he had the opportunity to study the structure and position of the reformed Churches on the spot and from primary sources. So, he studied Lutheranism in German lands, Reformedism - in Holland, Anglicanism - in England. Information has been preserved that in Holland Peter did not disregard the so-called Utrecht Church, created at the beginning of the 18th century by followers of the teachings of Bishop Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638).

During a visit by the “great embassy” in 1697-1698 to several countries of Western Europe, Peter I had the opportunity in Holland to directly familiarize himself with the works of one of the creators of a systematic exposition of the theory of natural law, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), who rejected theocracy and considered human nature to be the source of rights , dictating the desire for peaceful communication, organized according to the requirements of the mind. It is known that in the same place Peter became very interested in the works of the outstanding thinker, German lawyer Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1694), a prominent representative of natural law, especially his work "On the Position of Man and Citizen". In his writings, Pufendorf sought to justify the subordination of the Church to state power, but demanded religious tolerance from the latter. Peter I's view of the Church as an official force in the state was formed under the influence of the so-called territorial system, clearly expressed by Pufendorf, the main principle of which was: "cujus regio, ejus religio" ("whose power, that is faith") and subject to to which everything, including the Church, was subordinate to the monarch in a given territory. Then, during a four-month stay in England, Peter I paid much attention to studying the position of the Church in this state. It should be borne in mind that it was in England that he received special development principle of so-called Caesaropapism. King Henry VIII in 1534 proclaimed himself "supreme head of the English Church in place of the Pope" (7). In 1535, Parliament legislated the royal claim: "Let it be by the authority of this Parliament that the King, our sovereign sovereign, and also his successor, should be accepted and recognized by the only supreme head of the English Church on earth, called the Anglican Church, and should enjoy together with his crown and all the titles, honors, dignity, privileges, jurisdiction and revenues proper to and belonging to the dignity of the supreme head of the Church" (Statute 26, Henry VIII, chapter 1) (8).

Peter converses on ecclesiastical topics with Crown Princess Anne, and her anti-Catholicism prompts him to call the princess "the real daughter of our Church." Peter I meets and talks with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. They appoint consulting theologians to help Peter study church problems. For the same purpose, the University of Oxford appoints its own consultant. The English King William III of Orange (1650-1702) directly advises Peter to declare himself "the head of religion in order to have full monarchical power" (9).

During the first trip abroad, Peter visits the German lands. He repeats this over and over. In 1715, Peter I made a special trip to Wittenberg. Here he visited the home of Martin Luther. To this day, Peter's autograph has been preserved on the door frame in front of the entrance to Luther's office. It is known that Peter I was well aware of the essence of Martin Luther's church reform. Peter was unequivocal in expressing his positive attitude to Luther's position on the right of secular rulers who accepted the Reformation to regulate church affairs in the spirit of the new teaching (10).

It can be assumed that by the time of the death of Patriarch Adrian (October 15, 1700), Peter I already had in general terms idea of ​​the direction of his desired church reform. Of course, this reform could not have been prepared and carried out by Peter without the participation of representatives of the Church itself. For this purpose, Peter first of all needed a spiritual like-minded person, but he did not exist yet.

After the death of Patriarch Adrian, Peter did not order the convening of bishops to elect a successor to the deceased, but instructed Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky) of Ryazan and Murom to manage patriarchal affairs with the title of "Exarch of the Holy Patriarchal Throne, Guardian, Administrator and Protector of the Academy."

Metropolitan Stefan was a talented preacher. During the first half of his locum tenure, he zealously assisted Peter, inspiring him to reformative activity with his excellent words. However, Metropolitan Stefan fundamentally disagreed with Peter in his views on Church Tradition, on the relationship to the Churches of the Reformation. Gradually, Metropolitan Stefan became, as it were, the leader of the party of Moscow church antiquity. And if at first Peter placed his hopes on a European-educated hierarch, meaning to find in him an assistant in the preparation and implementation of the church reform, then over time he became convinced of his mistake.

As you know, the outstanding church and statesman Bishop Feofan (Prokopovich; -1681 -1736). I will not present his biography, because the literature about him is immense, including recent monographic studies created by both ecclesiastical and secular researchers.

In 1716, Peter I summoned Feofan Prokopovich, who was then rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy and hegumen of the Kiev-Bratsky Monastery, to Petersburg. In 1718, at the suggestion of Peter, hegumen Feofan was consecrated bishop of Pskov, but his bishop's residence was in St. Petersburg. In the person of Bishop (since 1720 - Archbishop) Theophan, Peter I acquired a brilliantly educated and talented associate, an erudite assistant in resolving church and state problems. Sharing the theory of natural law according to Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorff, according to which the monarch should serve "the good of the whole people", Bishop Feofan Prokopovich sought to combine it with the apostolic teaching that there is no power except from God (Rom. 13:1) . In his treatise "The Truth of the Monarch's Will," His Grace Theophan affirms the sovereign's right to carry out reforms in the Church itself. Bishop Theophan, silent about the antinomy of the Church and the state, leads Peter I to the conclusion about the regularity of breaking the canonical structure of the Russian Orthodox Church. Peter now expresses himself resolutely: "God willing, correct my citizenship and the clergy, I am both of them - sovereign and patriarch" (11).

An external impetus for the preparation of church reform was the clash between Peter I and Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky in St. Petersburg in the autumn of 1718. Irritated by the administrative helplessness and the inability of the Locum Tenens to understand the tasks of church leadership in the changing conditions of Russian life, Peter wrote on his report: "For better management in the future, it seems to be a Spiritual College, so that it would be more convenient to correct such great deeds."

In December 1718, Bishop Feofan was already working on a project for the establishment of the Theological College. This name was proposed as early as in the project of the Collegium, developed by order of Peter I in 1698 by a major English lawyer Francis Lee. The same idea of ​​a "religious college" was repeated by Gottfried Leibniz, who also, at the request of Peter, prepared a draft reform government controlled in Russia. The draft Regulations (charter) of the Theological College was reviewed and amended by Peter I on February 11, 1720.

Implementation of the reform and its content

The project of the Theological Board at the end of February 1720 was discussed by the bishops who were in St. Petersburg, and the Senate. On February 24, this project was recognized as "fair" by Metropolitan Stefan of Ryazan Yavorsky, Metropolitan Sylvester (Kholmsky) of Smolensk, Archbishop Pitirim (Potemkin) of Nizhny Novgorod, Bishop Varlaam (Kosovsky) of Tver, Bishop Aaron (Eropkin) of Karelia and Bishop Feofan (Prokopovich) of Pskov. The Senate also approved the project. Some additions have been made to the text. At the suggestion of Peter, on February 27, two copies of the draft were signed by the bishops and the Senate. Thus, the new form of higher administration of the Russian Church was approved by the will of the Tsar, without the conciliar expression of the will of the Church itself.

Then the Senate instructed Lieutenant Colonel Semyon Davydov and Archimandrite Anthony of the Moscow Zlatoust Monastery to collect the signatures of other bishops of the Russian Church, which was done in seven months (except for the signature of the Tobolsk bishop, due to remoteness). The Spiritual Regulations were signed by 19 bishops and 68 clerics. On January 25, 1721, the Regulations of the Spiritual College were promulgated by the manifesto of Peter I. On January 26, the Senate submitted for the highest approval the staff of the new Collegium: President - Metropolitan Stefan of Ryazan, vice-residents - Archbishop Feodosy of Novgorod, Archbishop Feofan of Pskov, then employees and assessors from the black and white clergy.

From January 25 to February 14, all those appointed appeared in the Senate, received a decree and took an oath. Peter's manifesto spoke of the power and obligation of the monarch to correct "disorders of the spiritual rank" on the same grounds as the military and civil ranks. "There was no mention of the abolition of the patriarchate, but it was stated:" governments, because in a single person it happens not without passion, moreover, not hereditary power, for the sake of greater neglect, we establish the Spiritual College, that is, the Spiritual Council Government.

As having “patriarchal power and authority,” or “equal patriarchal,” the Theological College has competence in all spiritual matters that the Patriarch and the Council were in charge of. These cases are very incompletely listed in the Rules. The duties of the Theological Board as a whole were given an openly protective character. The duties of bishops are reduced to equally external actions of various kinds. In the same spirit, the document "On the rights of the clergy of the church and the rank of monastics" was drawn up in the appendices to the Regulations.

Unlike the Patriarch, the Most Holy Governing Synod, into which the Theological College was transformed, was subordinate to the tsar (since October 22, 1721 - to the emperor). Members of the Synod were required to take an oath upon taking office. This oath categorically emphasized the state nature of the new body of the Supreme Church Authority: an oath of allegiance to the dynasty and state interests, the obligation to "announce in advance the damage to His Majesty's interest" and keep official secrets, to be faithful to the heading of the Church by the monarch. The oath was canceled only in February 1901.

The dominant role of the emperor in church affairs was clearly reflected in state legislation. In "Basic Laws" Russian Empire", edition of 1832, it was said like this:

"Art. 42. The emperor, like a Christian sovereign, is the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the dominant faith and the guardian of orthodoxy and every holy deanery in the Church." The note to this article says: "In this sense, the emperor in the act of succession to the throne of 1797 on April 5 is called the head of the Church."

"Article 43. In church administration, autocratic power acts through the Holy Governing Synod, established by it."

On February 14, 1721, the new State Collegium began its existence. After the prayer service at the Trinity Cathedral in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, the members of the Theological College gathered for the first meeting in the wooden house assigned to them by Lieutenant General R. Bruce (at that time already deceased). Emperor Peter was present at the meeting. This meeting turned out to be truly historic. On it there was a reform of the reform. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (Drozdov; 1782-1867) will say about this later: the Petrovsky Collegium "God's providence and the church spirit turned into the Holy Synod." The first bewildered question was asked to Peter: how to make a prayerful offering during divine services for the Supreme Church Authority? "Collegium"? - impossible for the church consciousness. Peter agrees: "About the Most Holy Synod or about the Most Holy Governing Synod." Thus, the Theological College is abolished - and the Holy Synod arises.

The second issue was the balance of power between the Senate and the Synod. The Si-nodals do not allow the idea that someone other than the monarch can give orders to the Synod. They declare: "And no decrees were sent to the patriarchal name from anywhere, while the Theological College has the honor, strength and power of the patriarch, or almost more than the Cathedral." Peter agrees again, and he puts the Synod on the same level as the Senate.

Having achieved formal equality with the Senate, the Synod actually abandoned the self-consciousness of the ecclesiastical nature of its power and reduced it to a state source, to the will of the monarch. All the clerical work of the Synod over the next 200 years was carried out "by decree of His Imperial Majesty."

Church peasants * in 1701, together with the patrimonies of the clergy, were transferred to the management of the restored state Monastic order, and income from the patrimonies of the clergy began to be collected in the treasury, which, according to the established states, paid constant annual salaries to their former owners. At a meeting on February 14, 1721, Peter met the wishes of the members of the Holy Synod, and the Monastic order again became a church body, and the economic resources of the estates again went to their destination.

Already on the very day of the creation of the Synod, on February 14, 1721, the question naturally arose whether it was appropriate in the Russian Church to cite the names of the Eastern Patriarchs during divine services. In an effort to induce the people to forget the very name and his Patriarch, and others of the same faith, Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich) seeks an exception from the liturgical practice of pronouncing the names of the Eastern Patriarchs, except when the first-present member of the Synod (then president) serves the Divine Liturgy in the Cross Synodal Church .

On September 30, 1721, Peter I addressed His Holiness Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople with a letter containing information about church reform in Russia, a petition for recognition of the Holy Synod, and a request to continue to communicate with the Synod on Church affairs. Peter asked His Holiness Patriarch Jeremiah to inform His Beatitude Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem about this.

On February 1, 1722, His Holiness Patriarch Jeremiah gave a positive answer. On September 23, 1723, the letter of Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople was dated. At the same time, an almost identical letter was received from Patriarch Athanasius of Antioch. In the affirmative letter of Patriarch Jeremiah, it was said that "" The Synod in the Russian Holy Great State is and is called our Brother in Christ, the Holy and Sacred Synod from all pious "Orthodox Christians. It has the right to do and establish the same as the four Apostolic Holy Patriarchs throne."

Post-reform changes in the position, structure and functions of the Supreme Church Power

Chief Prosecutor's Institute

Soon after the establishment of the Holy Synod, Peter I decided to establish his permanent supervision over it. On May 11, 1722, he himself drew up a Decree on the establishment of the institution of the chief prosecutor of the Synod. According to the instructions of June 13, 1722, this official was to be in the Synod "the eye of the sovereign and the attorney on state affairs." He had to watch that "the Synod kept its position ... in accordance with the Regulations and Decrees, sent ... acted righteously and without hypocrisy."

During the 18th century, the chief procurators of the Synod had limited influence. In the 19th century, there was a "significant change in the position of the chief prosecutor. His rights were greatly expanded, and from a state official with powers of predominantly supervision, he gradually became a person who had a strong influence on the Supreme Church Administration. This was facilitated by the assignment of the Orthodox confession in October 1817 to the jurisdiction Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education, which hitherto managed the affairs of non-Orthodox confessions. The minister took an intermediary place between the chief prosecutor and the tsar, but his functions increased significantly compared to the chief prosecutor. And when in May 1824 the ministry ceased to exist, the entire the scope of the minister's rights passed to the chief prosecutor and was soon assigned to him by law.The chief prosecutor owned these rights until the end of the existence of his institute, that is, until August 1917. Since the abolition of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs, the Russian Church in the state nomenclature receives the name "Department Orthodox confession". From that time on, all official papers of the church administration of the synodal period bore the letters "V.P.I."

Structure and position

Since its establishment, the structure and position of the Holy Synod have undergone various changes. Some of these changes were enshrined in law, some practically entered into life.

According to the Regulations, the Spiritual College was to consist of 12 members; certainly three bishops, among others there could be archimandrites, abbots and archpriests. In fact, under Peter the Synod included up to 14 members. Upon the death of Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky in 1722, no new president was appointed. Since 1726, the members of the College began to be called members of the Synod. In 1726, by decree of Empress Catherine I, the Synod was divided into two apartments, of which only bishops ("in six persons") were to sit in the clergy. Instead of the second apartment, the "College of Economy of the Synodal Board" subordinate to the Synod was established. Under Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740), it was determined that two of the bishops should be permanent members of the Synod - Novgorod and Nizhny Novgorod, two should be replaced, the remaining members should be archimandrites and archpriests - a total of 11 members. According to the states of 1763, introduced by Catherine II, the Synod was supposed to have three bishops, of which one had the title of preeminent, two archimandrites and one archpriest. According to the states of 1819, introduced by Alexander I, three permanent members are bishops, one is temporarily present **, the chief priest of the army and navy and the emperor's confessor, as well as one archpriest. Gradually began to distinguish between permanent members and temporarily present. Bishops eventually began to predominate in the Synod, and at the end of the 19th century only bishops were appointed members of the Synod, although at the beginning of the 20th century representatives of the white clergy again began to enter the Synod. By the 20th century, four metropolitans were members of the Holy Synod: St. Petersburg, Kiev, Moscow and the Exarch of Georgia. The title of the primordial member of the Holy Synod (later called the first present), who presided over the meetings, was associated with the Novgorod and St. Petersburg departments.

Under the Holy Synod, since its inception, there have been various officials and institutions for the implementation of the relevant areas of synodal activity. Over the course of two hundred years, these institutions have been modified, reduced or increased in number. At the beginning of the 20th century, the following synodal bodies existed under the Synod: the Chancellery of the Holy Synod, the Economic Department under the Holy Synod, Control over the expenditure of church property, the Educational Committee under the Holy Synod, the Spiritual School Council, the St. Petersburg and Moscow Synodal Printing Offices and the Moscow and Georgian -Imereti synodal offices.

As mentioned above, in the Spiritual Regulations, the functions of the Supreme Church Authority were defined very one-sidedly and did not cover all those aspects of the life of the Church, which should certainly have been in its jurisdiction. Only over time, the circle of activity of the Synod, which was the highest church-administrative and judicial authority, gradually formed. The synod had the right to: 1) elect and appoint bishops to vacant bishoprics; 2) the establishment of new dioceses (both the first and the second - with the consent of the emperor); 3) supreme supervision over the execution of church laws by the Orthodox population of the state and over the religious education of the people; 4) higher supervision over the activities of Theological Schools; 5) the establishment of new religious celebrations, rites and the canonization of saints; 6) legislative power in matters of the Russian Church and the right to participate in the legislative activities of the state in matters of a mixed nature; 7) publication of the books of the Holy Lisanion and liturgical books; 8) supreme censorship of works of theological content; 9) petitions to the Highest Authority about the needs of the Orthodox Church; 10) the first court instance in cases of anti-canonical actions of diocesan bishops and the second - in cases of complaints against decisions of diocesan courts, the right to final decision in divorce cases, as well as cases of defrocking clergy and excommunication of laity from the Church; 11) the implementation of the canonical communion of the Russian Church with other Local Orthodox Churches.

Evaluation of the reform from an ecclesiastical legal point of view

The Rules of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Councils of the Ecumenical and Local and Holy Fathers reject the competence of civil authority in church affairs. This is evidenced, in particular, following rules and interpretations on them by the Bishop of Dalmatia-Istria Nikodim (Milasha; d. in 1915): IV Ecum. Sob., 12; Apost., 30; 1 Universe Sob., 4; VII Universe. Sob., 3; Antioch. Sob., 12 (12).

Peter I did not discuss his decision to carry out church reform with the bishops, whose Council, as the Supreme legislative power in the Church, has the right to decide all the fundamental issues of church administration and life (Apostle rights 34 and 37). It is in the Council of Bishops of each Local Church that the full power of the Church is concentrated, just as in the Council of Bishops of all Local Churches the full power of the Universal Church is concentrated. An example of this was shown by the apostles, who collectively decided the most important issues (Acts 6:2; 15:1-32; 20:17-38; 21:18-25). In this case, no Council of Bishops of the Russian Church asked Peter to introduce a new structure of the Supreme Church Authority, and no Council legitimized the reform. It is reliable that the consent of the bishops of the Russian Church to the introduction of the Spiritual Regulations was obtained involuntarily. It is also well known that the overwhelming majority of bishops, clerics, monastics and laity were against the reform. Therefore, it is reasonable to speak about the discrepancy between the implementation of the reform by the state authorities and the canonical norms of the Orthodox Church.

The content of the reform was just as uncanonical. The announcement of the tsar as the "head of the Church", his complete control over the activities of the Supreme Church Authority, the absence of Councils during the Synodal period as the main source of church legislation, the creation of the Holy Synod by state power, membership in the Synod by the Highest decree, in which not every bishop could participate in governance, giving clerics the right to vote in the Synod along with bishops, many restrictions are purely religious activities Synod did not comply with Orthodox canonical norms. The Orthodox faith, doctrine, and canons affirm that the Church is a special spiritual organism, and it was said that the bishops govern it, as successors to the spiritual authority of the apostles, which they are invested with by Christ. In accordance with ecclesiastical rules, the Church is autonomous in her inner life. With regard to church administration, this is indicated by the Apostolic Canons-14th, 34th, etc., the rules of the First Ecumenical Council - 4th, 5th, 6th; II Ecumenical Council - 2nd, 3rd; IV Ecumenical Council - 13th, 19th, 28th, etc. With regard to church legislation - Apostle rights 34th, 37th; II Universe. Inc. -2nd; IV Universe. Sob.- 1st, 13th, 19th, etc. In relation to the church court - Apostle. rights. 32nd and others; I Universe Inc. -5th; II Universe. Inc. -2nd, 6th, etc. The church rules do not contain even a hint that the highest authority in the Church can belong to a representative of the state, whether in administration, legislation or court.

As Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow correctly noted, from the very first hour of the existence of the Theological College, the Providence of God and the church spirit began their creative transforming activity, by which, during the Synodal period, the Church gradually restored its canonical capacity and determined its paths in everyday life. According to the prominent Russian canonist Professor Ilia Stepanovich Berdnikov, church life was wider than the tight limits specified in the law, and when church needs arose, she crossed these limits for the good of the Church (13).

Significance of the Synodal period (1721 - 1917)

In assessing the Synodal period in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is natural to proceed from real results life and activities of the Church, from how successfully she carried out her spiritual mission, solved the tasks facing her. When considering this issue, one should keep in mind the existence in the church historical science different, even mutually exclusive, points of view. From the enthusiastic owned by Eugene Evstigneevich Golubinsky, to widespread, rejecting any merits of this period.

Turning to the spiritual side of the life of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Synodal period, it can be said with all responsibility that the two centuries that comprised it were marked by truly blessed results. There has been a strong increase in the internal creative forces of the Russian Church, the multiplication of the forms of their manifestation in life. This primarily referred to the rise in the pastoral and educational activities of the Church and the flourishing of theological science and religious philosophy associated with it, in which, along with the episcopate and the clergy, representatives of the laity also occupied a significant place. The synodal period was marked by the strengthening of the role of monasticism in the life of the Church, its development, and spiritual rebirth in the form of eldership. The synodal period successfully continued internal missionary work, accompanied by a significant increase in the number of parishes and dioceses. It is marked by the successful organization of the external mission of the Russian Orthodox Church in China, the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, Japan and other regions, which gave her many selfless enlighteners and; our country - outstanding scientists. in various fields of science.

During the Synodal period, to a large extent through the efforts of the Russian Orthodox Church, there was a rapprochement between the Local Orthodox Churches, their cooperation in resolving common Orthodox issues was strengthened, and fraternal mutual assistance in overcoming the difficult stages of their existence, due to the difficult historical fate of their peoples.

During this period, the Russian Orthodox Church, fully armed with its theological science, its spiritual forces, entered into a creative dialogue with many non-Orthodox Churches and confessions, and thus successfully paved the way for the ecumenical movement, which has already received a common Christian embodiment in our days in the activities of the World Council of Churches.

These are the main features of the spiritual life of our Church in the Synodal period.

At the same time, it should be recognized that much that was considered a success in the spiritual activity of the Church during the Synodal period, in essence, was not a positive, organic side of her life. Most of the Orthodox flock only formally belonged to the Church by virtue of the legislation that existed at that time, which protected the "interests" of the dominant religion by state means. Very many were turned away from the Church by the active use of her royal power for purposes alien to the people.

With the strengthening of religious tolerance in Russia (April 1905) (which will be discussed) began the official departure from the Russian Orthodox Church of those who, under duress, were forced to be considered its members. This process expanded with the fall of the monarchy and took on an intense character with the separation of the Church from the state, proclaimed by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars on January 23, 1918. In the fence of the Russian Orthodox Church, only her truly believing children remained.

I return to the consideration of the Synodal period and ask the question: if we have the right to give such a high assessment of the spiritual-pastoral and inter-church aspects of the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Synodal period, then perhaps the canonical illegality of the church reform of Peter I, its inconsistency with legal norms, is not so significant. Orthodox Church? More questions: perhaps those great sacrifices made by church society during the introduction of the reform, and even later, especially during the 18th century, were in vain? Perhaps there was no serious need to fight this reform, a fight that began immediately after its promulgation and did not stop until the end of the Synodal period?

To all three questions, in order not to sacrifice the truth, only a negative answer can be given.

So what is the negative for the Russian Orthodox Church of the significance of the church reform of Peter I?

Being part of the state mechanism in the autocratic empire, which was Russia before the Great October Socialist Revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church was used to the maximum by the tsarist government in the interests of the classes that dominated the country. (Of course, in this case, I consider the Russian Orthodox Church as a kind of public organization, consisting of Orthodox subjects of the Russian Empire.) This non-church task was served by: the above-mentioned oath of the members of the Synod upon their entry into office, assigned to the clergy by the decree of Peter I dated April 28, 1722, the protective functions that have long been a heavy burden on the Church, the duty of the episcopate and clergy to educate the flock in a monarchical spirit, which justified many unseemly deeds of the imperial power, the diverse and shameless use of the Church in the fight against the revolutionary movement in Russia at all its stages, especially during the period of the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907.

Undoubtedly, the participation of representatives of the Church in all this harmed our Fatherland and, of course, prevented the normal performance by the Church of its direct spiritual functions. Hence it is natural that dramatic development relationship between the Church and Soviet state which took place during the years of the revolution, the civil war and the first subsequent decades.

Of course, it would be unfair to assert that the Russian Orthodox Church participated in its entirety in the non-church mission imposed on it by monarchical power and uncharacteristic of its nature. Throughout the Synodal period, many bishops, clerics and laity strongly protested against the existing situation. At the beginning of the 20th century, revolutionary ideas began to penetrate the church environment. It is known that the Great October socialist revolution welcomed and accepted by many church leaders. Masses of believers of various nationalities and classes participated in the formation of Soviet power in all parts of our great Motherland.

At the same time, the lessons of history, whether hard or joyful, should not be forgotten. I must admit with bitterness that the abuse of religion, always tragic in its consequences, such as that which took place in Russia during the Synodal period, is still taking on a dangerous expression today in some countries where Christian church and other religions are used as an instrument that hinders the social and economic progress of peoples and their political development. The fight against such phenomena is an urgent and important task of believers who must actively strive for the triumph of peace on Earth in justice and freedom.

Attitude towards reform in church society during the Synodal period and its fate

The initial reaction in the churches of the Reformation to the church reform of Peter I was positive character, since this reform had a clear imprint of the Protestant tradition. Later, in the process of becoming more independent of these churches in relations with state power, a more restrained attitude towards the position of the Orthodox Church in the Russian Empire began to be determined in them. Naturally, there was a sharply negative reaction to the church reform of Peter I on the part of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, and later of the Old Catholic Church, especially in the person of one of its founders, Ignatius Döllinger.

It is unfair to assert that church society in Russia was unanimous in its rejection of the Petrine reform. A prominent supporter of this reform and an opponent of the restoration of the patriarchate in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church was the outstanding church historian Yevgeny Evstigneevich Golubinsky (| 1912). Thus, in the article "Is the abolition of the Holy Synod and the restoration of the patriarchate desirable?", written in the second half of 1905, he gives a clear negative answer to the question he himself posed. E. E. Golubinsky also spoke out as a sharp polemical opponent of the condemnation of the Peter the Great reform in "Remarks on Tikhomirov's article "The Canonical Dignity of Peter the Great's Reform".

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (d. l900) came out just as decisively in justification of the reform. In his article "A Few Words in Defense of Peter the Great" (1888), he summarized his longstanding views as follows: "An impartial and careful look at the historical circumstances that preceded and accompanied the establishment of the Synod will not only keep us from the unjust reproaches of the great shadow of the Reformator, but and will force us to recognize in the said institution one of the proofs of that providential wisdom, which never betrayed Peter the Great on important occasions. The abolition of the Patriarchate and the establishment of the Synod was not only necessary at the moment, but also positively beneficial for the future of Russia. This replacement is necessary conditioned by our past history, was useful for the future: "kind and courageous officers" who were entrusted with the management of our church affairs, allowed the new Russia to calmly go through the school of European education ..." But, without abandoning these views, already in 1889 in the lectures "Russia and the Universal Church" V. S. Solovyov says: "In the Greek-Russian Church there is no truly spiritual government... The official Church, governed by a civil official, there is only government agency, a subordinate branch of bureaucratic management" (14).

However, the vast majority of Russian church society did not share the passion for reform. In the eyes of the people, the highest ecclesiastical authority has always been the hierarchs of the Church. After the death of Peter I, the people began to call the Spiritual Regulations a cursed book. Among the bishops under Peter II (reigned 1727-1730), an opposition party was formed, headed by Archbishop George of Rostov (Dashkov; d. 1739), which sought to overthrow the synodal form of governing the Church and restore the patriarchate. At the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, two prominent members of the Synod - Metropolitan Arseny of Rostov (Matsievich; died in 1772) and Archbishop of Novgorod Ambrose (Yushkevich; died in 1745) twice developed projects for the restoration of the patriarchate: one of them was dated April 5, 1742, the other - May 10, 1744. Criticizing the church reform of Peter I from various sides, the authors substantiate the unconditional need to restore the patriarchate in the Russian Church as an ideal form of church government. Both projects remained without consequences. Of the laity at that time, Mikhail Petrovich Avramov (1681-1752), a state councilor, director of the St. Petersburg printing house, was a prominent opponent of church reform. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the reform in special notes, which he presented to Peter II, Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna. Avramov considered the Spiritual Regulations to be a heretical book.

The remarkable Russian historian Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766-1826), in his note "On Ancient and New Russia", which he handed to Emperor Alexander I in March 1811, referring to the "brilliant reign" of Peter I, notes how harmful his side is, ignoring experience history of Russia, disrespect for the mores and customs of the Russian people. This note contains a clear condemnation of the church reform of Peter I, as harmful to both the Church and the state.

Metropolitan Platon of Moscow (Levshin; 1737-1812) was very disapproving of this reform.

In the first quarter of the 19th century, the question of the need to convene local councils to consider matters of faith and the needs of the Church was seriously occupied by Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, who did not consider the current state of the Supreme Church administration to be normal. Metropolitan Philaret's successor at the Moscow cathedra, Metropolitan Innokenty (Popov-Veniaminov; 1797-1879), asked the consent of Emperor Alexander II to convene a council, but did not receive it.

The spiritual writer Bishop of the Yenisei Nikodim (Kazantsev; 1803-1874) in his memoirs (Theological Bulletin, 1905) reflected the strong disagreement of many hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church with the church reform of Peter I and its grave consequences for the Church.

In the second half of the 30s of the 19th century, a direction of social thought was formed in Russia, which received the name Slavophilism. Its most prominent representatives were the brothers Ivan and Petr Vasilyevich Kireevsky, Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov, Konstantin and Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, Yuri Fedorovich Samarin, Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev and others. In their writings, an extremely sharp analysis of the church reform of Peter I is noticeable, which gave the Church the appearance of a state bureaucratic institution. It is characteristic that the first Slavophiles did not fundamentally connect Orthodoxy with autocracy, as General Alexander Kireev (d. 1910) did later in his Slavophile program.

Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky (1806-1856) was a staunch opponent of using the influence of the Church in the interests of state power. In his letter to Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev (1806-1883) dated October-November 1853, he stated: “It is not useful for the Church and it is contrary to her when it is used as a means for state or worldly purposes, abuse of the oath, etc. It is also contrary to the Church, when it is put into some kind of dependence on the worldly structure of the state, when the clergy turns into bureaucracy, etc. " (15).

Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860) in correspondence with William Palmer, Bishop of the Church of England, in response to the latter's accusation that "the relationship of spiritual and civil authorities (in Russia) at the present time is such that it is irreconcilable with the correct administration of the apostolic ministry" (7th letter), strongly rejected the statement of the Anglican hierarch. “The Russian Church,” he wrote, “was drawn into enslavement by the specter of government patronage, but this is a historical fact that does not belong to the realm of faith.” A. S. Khomyakov believed that the penetration of the spiritual life of the Church state beginning is death to the Church.

Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov (1823-1886) in his work great place paid attention to the issue of the relationship between the Church and the state, especially in the conditions of the Synodal period. In this regard, his idea is characteristic that from Peter the Great our Church "was taken to the treasury." In the table of ranks published by Peter, the clergy of the Orthodox Church are ranked by rank: priests are equated with majors, archimandrites with brigadiers, bishops with lieutenant generals. The concept of the Church was thus replaced by the concept of "one state department." The church began to serve state views and considerations. Meanwhile, the Christian attitude of the Church to the state is quite different (16).

Yuri Fedorovich Samarin (1819-1876) was a resolute opponent of Peter I's church reform. -stvovanie its utilitarian approach to matters of religion and for the captivity of the state of the Russian Orthodox Church.

It should be noted that with the well-known weakening of censorship, which occurred at the beginning of the reign of Alexander II (1855), a more free discussion of issues related to the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and other religious associations in the Russian Empire began in the press. There was an opportunity for a more specific criticism of the church reform of Peter I and its consequences.

The views of the indigenous Slavophiles, primarily A.S. Khomyakov, on the idea of ​​catholicity as a necessary basis for all possible reforms, created an atmosphere that prepared certain official steps towards church counter-reform at the beginning of the 20th century.

Real, although slow progress towards the liberation of the Church from the "guardianship" imposed on her by the tsarist authorities could only be expressed in the context of an increase in revolutionary movement in Russia, questions of freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state were already among the other demands of the revolutionary masses. The most acute was the question of the difficult situation in the Russian state of the Old Believer communities and the so-called sectarian persuasions. By December 1904, the situation in the country had developed in such a way that the tsar was forced to agree to a revision of the laws on schismatics and persons of heterodox and heterodox confessions. On January 25, 1905, the Committee of Ministers began to develop the issue of strengthening the principles of religious tolerance in Russia. Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga Anthony (Vadkovsky; 1846-1912), the leading member of the Holy Synod, was invited to participate in this process. In this regard, Metropolitan Anthony handed over to the Committee of Ministers a memorandum "Questions about desirable transformations in the formulation of the Orthodox Church in our country." Noting the presence of constant guardianship and vigilant control of the secular authorities over the life of the Church, the metropolitan asked for the creation of "a special meeting of representatives of the church hierarchy and laity" to develop proposals for changing the position of the Russian Church and the corresponding reforms. Chairman of the Committee of Ministers S. Yu. Witte, for his part, presented to this special meeting on church affairs his memorandum "On the current situation of the Orthodox Church", more radical than the note filed by Metropolitan Anthony. The note by S. Yu. Witte spoke of the non-canonical nature church reform of Peter I and raised the question of a general church reform, the expression of which was to be the convening of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. On March 17, 1905, a group of thirty-two priests from the capital published their note "On the Need for Changes in Russian Church Administration", in which, among other things, they advocated the resumption of the conciliar principle in the Russian Orthodox Church and the restoration of the patriarchate.

Meanwhile, in mid-March, the Holy Synod discussed the issue of church reforms and turned to the tsar with a request to convene in Moscow "at a favorable time" a Local Council of Bishops to elect a Patriarch and discuss other pressing problems of the position and life of the Church.

On the advice of Chief Prosecutor KP Pobedonostsev, Nicholas II did not satisfy the request of the Synod. Instead, the chief procurator sent a set of questions to the diocesan bishops concerning the pressing issues of life, the position of the Church, and the desired reforms. The reviews of the bishops were published in three volumes in 1906. It is characteristic that only three bishops out of more than sixty expressed an opinion on keeping the existing system church administration. With the exception of four hierarchs, the entire Russian episcopate spoke in favor of the restoration of the patriarchate. Most of the bishops stated that they consider the existing synodal regime to be non-canonical and contrary to the principles of catholicity.

Under pressure public opinion On April 17, 1905, the tsarist decree on religious tolerance was promulgated, which abolished a number of significant restrictions on the activities of non-Orthodox religious associations in Russia. As a result, it has become obvious to many that the official Russian Church is under much stricter control than non-Orthodox communities.

As a result of the revolutionary situation in Russia and strong pressure from the leadership of the Russian Church, its clergy and the church community, in October 1905 the extremely conservative Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev was dismissed from his post, and Nicholas II was forced in December 1905 to give consent to the preparation and holding of the Local Council of the Russian Church. In January 1906, the Synod established, under the chairmanship of the primordial member of the Most Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony, a special Pre-Council Presence, or Pre-Council Commission, which began in March of that year. preparatory work by the convocation of the Local Council. Its task was to develop issues to be considered at the expected Council.

The Pre-Council presence had two sessions: from March 8 to June 14 and from November 1 to December 15, 1906. The Pre-Council Presence included the Metropolitans of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev, several bishops, representatives of the urban and rural clergy, a group of theologians, canonists and historians. The issues discussed were divided into seven departments, to which the presence was distributed:

1. The composition of the Council, the procedure for considering and deciding cases on it; transformation of the Supreme Church Administration.
2. Creation of church districts and transformation of local church government.
3. The organization of the ecclesiastical court and the revision of laws on marriage in general and on mixed marriages.
4. Improvement of the parish, church school, acquisition of church property, diocesan congresses, participation of clergy in public and class institutions.
5. Transformation of spiritual and educational institutions.
6. Edinoverie, Old Believers and other issues of faith.
7. Fencing measures Orthodox faith and Christian piety from wrong teachings and interpretations in view of the strengthening of the principles of religious tolerance in Russia.

During the discussions, the problems of the 1st department received the most thorough development, on which the relevant resolutions were adopted. Partial decisions were taken based on the materials of departments 2, 3, 4 and 5.

The pre-conciliar presence offered to restore the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church with the rights of a Patriarch, the rights of the Chairman of the Synod and the First Hierarch. It was pointed out that the supreme administration of the Russian Orthodox Church belongs to the periodically convened Local Council.

In April 1907, the tsar approved the resolutions of the Pre-Council Presence on the convening of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and on the procedure for its work.

At the same time, the time of the convocation of the Council remained uncertain. The government and the church leadership, for many reasons, could not reach an agreement on this issue until the fall of the monarchy in Russia in February 1917. Only on April 29, 1917, the Holy Synod, headed by its primordial member, Archbishop of Finland and Vyborg Sergius (Stragorodsky; 1867-1944), the future Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', addressed the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church with a message on the measures of the Supreme Church Authority in connection with the upcoming convocation of the All-Russian Local Council. On the same day, the Holy Synod decided to convene the Pre-Council Council, which, taking into account the materials of the Pre-Council Presence of 1906, was to carry out the preparations for the Local Council. The work of the Pre-Council Council took place in Petrograd from June 11 to August 1, 1917. The decisions of the Pre-Council Council were approved by the Holy Synod. On July 5, 1917, the Holy Synod passed a decision to open the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the day of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, August 15, 1917, in Moscow. At the same time, the "Regulations on the Convocation of the Council" were approved.

On August 15, 1917, the opening of the Local Council took place in the Great Assumption Cathedral in Moscow. On August 18, the Council elected as its chairman the Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Tikhon (Belavin; 1865-1925).

The most important acts of the Local Council were the adoption on October 28/November 10, 1917 of the decision to restore the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church and then the election of Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and Kolomna as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' on November 5/18. The celebration of the enthronement of the newly elected Patriarch took place in the Great Assumption Cathedral on November 21/December 4, 1917, on the day of the celebration of the Entry into the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos.

The Local Council of 1917/1918 ended the Synodal period in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Notes

1 Klyuchevsky V. O. Course of Russian history. Pg., 1918, part IV, lecture LXVIII, p. 276-281.
2 Kartashev A. V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. Paris, 1959, volume II, p. 322.
3 Golubinsky E.E. About the reform in the life of the Russian Church. M., 1913, p. 69.
4 See: Objections or ruins of the humble Nikon, by the grace of God, the Patriarch. - In the book: Polievktov S.P., priest. Caesaropapism and the Orthodox Church. M., 1912, no. 1, p. 54-57.
5 Solovyov S. M. Selected works. Notes. M., 1983, p. 176.
6 Lapin P. Sobor as the highest body of church authority. Kazan, 1909, p. 355-356.
7 Polievktov S.P., priest. Caesaropapism and the Orthodox Church. M., 1912, no. 1, p. 13.
8 Sokolov V. A. Reformation in England. M., 1881, p. 206.
9 KartashevA. B. Decree. op., p. 324.
10 S. P. Polievktov, priest. Decree. op., p. 12-13.
11 Kartashev A.V. Decree. op., p. 344.
12 These examples are given in op. work Lapin P. "The Cathedral as the highest body of church authority" (Kazan, 1909, p. 83-84).
13 Berdnikov I.S. Basic principles of church law. Kazan, 1902, p.
14 Solovyov V.S. Russia and the Universal Church. SPb., 1912, p. 33, 36.
15 Kireevsky I.V. Complete Works, vol. II. SPb., 1911, p. 274.
16 Troitsky PS The attitude of the state to the Church according to the views of our most prominent writers and public figures. M., 1909, p. 97.

LITERATURE

1. Berdnikov I. S. Basic Principles of Church Law of the Orthodox Church. Kazan, 1902,
2. The highest church administration in Russia. Sat. articles. M., 1905.
3. Golubinsky E.E. About the reform in the life of the Russian Church. M., 1913.
4. Znamensky P. Textbook on the history of the Russian Church. SPb., 1904.
5. Kartashev A. V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. Paris, 1959, vol. II.
6. Kireevsky IV Complete works. SPb., 1911, vol. II.
7. Klyuchevsky V. O. The course of Russian history. Pg., 1918, part IV. Lecture LXVIII.
8. Lapin P. Sobor as the highest body of church authority. Kazan, 1909.
9. Molchanovsky A. Two projects for the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia in the 18th century. - ZhMP, 1944, No. 12, pp. 52-58.
10. NechaevP. A practical guide for clergy, St. Petersburg, 1910.
11. Pavlov A.S. Course of church law. Sergiev Posad, 1902.
12. S. P. Polievktov, priest. Caesaropapism and the Orthodox Church. M., 1912, no. 1.
13. Rules of the Orthodox Church with interpretations of Nicodemus, Bishop of Dalmatia-Istria. SPb., 1911-1912, vol. I, II.
14. Sokolov V.A. Reformation in England. M., 1881.
15. Soloviev S.M. Selected works. Notes. M., 1983.
16. Solovyov V. S. A few words in defense of Peter the Great. Collected Works. 2nd ed. SPb., 1912.
17. Soloviev V.S. Russia and the Universal Church. SPb., 1912.
18. Suvorov N. Church law. M., 1912.
19. Troitsky PS Relations of the state to the Church according to the views of our most prominent writers and public figures. M., 1909.
20. A. S. Khomyakov, Complete Works. M „ 1900, vol. II.

* Peasants who were economically dependent on church institutions.
** A decree on bishops temporarily present was issued in 1803.

Speech read by A. S. Buevsky, Executive Secretary of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, when he was awarded the diploma of Doctor of Orthodox Theology honoris causa by the Theological Faculty of the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia in Presov on November 14, 1984.

The wise man avoids all extremes.

Lao Tzu

The reforms of Peter 1 are his main and key activities, which were aimed at changing not only the political, but also the social life of Russian society. According to Pyotr Alekseevich, Russia lagged far behind the Western countries in its development. This confidence of the king was further strengthened after he conducted a great embassy. Trying to transform the country, Peter 1 changed almost all aspects of the life of the Russian state, which took shape over the centuries.

What was the reform of the central government

The reform of the central government was one of the first transformations of Peter. It should be noted that this reformation continued long time, since it was based on the need to completely restructure the work of the Russian authorities.

The reforms of Peter 1 in the field of central administration began in 1699. On initial stage this change affected only the Boyar Duma, which was renamed the Near Office. With this step, the Russian tsar removed the boyars from power, allowed him to concentrate power in a more pliable and loyal office. This was an important step that required priority implementation, since it allowed the centralization of the country's administration.

The Senate and its functions

At the next stage, the king organized the Senate as the main body of government in the country. It happened in 1711. The Senate became one of the key bodies in governing the country, with the broadest powers, which were as follows:

• Legislative activity
• Administrative activity
• Judicial functions in the country
• Control functions for other bodies

The Senate consisted of 9 people. These were representatives of noble families, or people who were exalted by Peter himself. In this form, the Senate existed until 1722, when the emperor approved the post of prosecutor general, who controlled the legality of the activities of the Senate. Prior to this, this body was independent and did not carry any report.

Creation of boards

The reform of the central government continued in 1718. For three whole years (1718-1720) it took the reformer tsar to get rid of the last legacy of his predecessors - orders. All orders in the country were abolished and boards came in their place. There was no actual difference between the colleges and orders, but in order to radically change the administrative apparatus, Peter went for this transformation. In total, the following bodies were created:

• College of Foreign Affairs. She was in charge of foreign policy states.
• Military board. Engaged in ground forces.
• Admiralty Board. Controlled the Russian Navy.
• Office of Justice. Handled litigation, including civil and criminal cases.
• Berg College. Under her command was the country's mining industry, as well as factories for this industry.
• Manufactory College. Engaged in the entire manufacturing industry in Russia.

In fact, only one difference between collegiums and orders can be singled out. If in latest decision always made by one person, then after the reform all decisions were made collectively. Of course, not many people decided, but the leader always had several advisers. They helped me make the right decision. After the introduction of the new system, a special system was developed to control the activities of the collegiums. For these purposes, the General Regulations were created. It was not general, but was published for each collegium in accordance with its specific work.

secret office

Peter created a secret office in the country, which dealt with cases of state crimes. This office replaced the Preobrazhensky order, which dealt with the same issues. It was a specific state body that was not subordinate to anyone except Peter the Great. In fact, with the help of the secret office, the emperor maintained order in the country.

Decree on unity. Table of ranks.

The decree on single inheritance was signed by the Russian tsar in 1714. Its essence boiled down, in addition to everything, to the fact that the courts, which belonged to the boyar and noble estates, were completely equated. Thus, Peter pursued one single goal - to equalize the knowledge of all levels that were represented in the country. This ruler is known for the fact that he could bring a person without a family closer to him. After signing this law, he could give each of them what they deserved.

This reform continued in 1722. Peter introduced the Table of Ranks. In fact, this document equalized the rights in the public service for aristocrats of any origin. This Table divided the entire public service into two large categories: civil and military. Regardless of the type of service, all state ranks were divided into 14 ranks (classes). They included all key positions, ranging from simple performers to managers.

All ranks were divided into the following categories:

• 14-9 levels. An official who was in these ranks received the nobility and peasants in his possession. The only restriction was that such a nobleman could use the property, but not dispose of it as property. In addition, the estate could not be inherited.
• 8 - 1 level. This top management, which not only became the nobility and received full control of possessions, as well as serfs, but also got the opportunity to transfer their property by inheritance.

Regional reform

The reforms of Peter 1 affected many areas of the life of the state, including the work of local governments. The regional reform of Russia was planned for a long time, but was carried out by Peter in 1708. It completely changed the work of the local government apparatus. The whole country was divided into separate provinces, of which there were 8 in total:

• Moscow
• Ingermanlandskaya (later renamed Petersburg)
• Smolensk
• Kyiv
• Azov
• Kazanskaya
• Arkhangelsk
• Simbirskaya

Each province was governed by a governor. He was personally appointed by the king. The entire administrative, judicial and military power was concentrated in the hands of the governor. Since the provinces were quite large in size, they were divided into counties. The counties were later renamed provinces.

The total number of provinces in Russia in 1719 was 50. The provinces were ruled by voivodes, who led the military power. As a result, the governor's power was somewhat curtailed, as the new regional reform took away all military power from them.

City government reform

Changes at the level of local government prompted the king to reorganize the system of government in the cities. This was an important issue, since the urban population increased every year. For example, by the end of Peter's life, there were already 350,000 people living in the cities, who belonged to different classes and estates. This required the creation of bodies that would work with every estate in the city. As a result, the city administration was reformed.

Special attention in this reform was paid to the townspeople. Previously, their affairs were handled by governors. The new reform transferred power over this estate into the hands of the Chamber of Burmese. It was an elected body of power, which was located in Moscow, and in the field this chamber was represented by individual burmisters. It was only in 1720 that the Chief Magistrate was created, who was in charge of control functions in relation to the activities of the burmisters.

It should be noted that the reforms of Peter the Great in the field of city government introduced clear distinctions between ordinary citizens, who were divided into "regular" and "mean". The first belonged to the highest inhabitants of the city, and the second - to the lower classes. These categories were not unambiguous. For example, "regular citizens" were divided into: wealthy merchants (doctors, pharmacists and others), as well as simple artisans and merchants. All "regular" enjoyed great support from the state, which endowed them with various benefits.

The urban reform was quite effective, but it had a clear bias towards wealthy citizens who received the maximum support from the state. Thus, the tsar created a situation in which it became somewhat easier for cities to live, and in response, the most influential and wealthy citizens supported power.

Church reform

The reforms of Peter 1 did not bypass the church. In fact, new transformations finally subordinated the church to the state. This reform actually began in 1700, with the death of Patriarch Adrian. Peter forbade the election of a new patriarch. The reason was quite convincing - Russia entered into northern war, which means that elective and church affairs can wait for better times. Stefan Yavorsky was appointed to temporarily perform the duties of the Patriarch of Moscow.

The most significant transformations in the life of the church began after the end of the war with Sweden in 1721. The reform of the church was reduced to the following main steps:

• The institution of the patriarchate was completely eliminated, from now on there should not have been such a position in the church
• The church was losing its independence. From now on, all its affairs were managed by the Spiritual College, created specifically for these purposes.

The spiritual college lasted less than a year. It was replaced by a new body of state power - the Holy Governing Synod. It consisted of clerics who were personally appointed by the emperor of Russia. In fact, from that time on, the church was finally subordinated to the state, and the emperor himself, through the Synod, was actually involved in its management. To exercise control functions over the activities of the synod, the position of chief prosecutor was introduced. This was an official whom the emperor also appointed himself.

Peter saw the role of the church in the life of the state in that it had to teach the peasants to respect and honor the tsar (emperor). As a result, laws were even developed that obliged the priests to conduct special conversations with the peasants, convincing them to obey their ruler in everything.

The significance of Peter's reforms

The reforms of Peter 1 actually completely changed the order of life in Russia. Some of the reforms really brought a positive effect, some created negative prerequisites. For example, the reform of local government led to a sharp increase in the number of officials, as a result of which corruption and embezzlement in the country literally rolled over.

In general, the reforms of Peter 1 had the following meaning:

• The power of the state was strengthened.
• The upper classes of society were actually equated in opportunities and rights. Thus, the boundaries between classes were erased.
• Complete submission government churches.

The results of the reforms cannot be singled out unambiguously, since they had many negative aspects, but you can learn about this from our special material.

Speaking briefly about the course of the church reform of Peter I, it is important to note its thoughtfulness. At the end of the reform, Russia, as a result, received only one person with absolute full power.

Church reform of Peter I

From 1701 to 1722, Peter the Great tried to reduce the authority of the Church and establish control over its administrative and financial activities. The prerequisites for this was the protest of the Church against the changes taking place in the country, calling the king the Antichrist. Possessing enormous authority, comparable to the authority and fullness of power of Peter himself, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' was the main political competitor of the Russian tsar-reformer.

Rice. 1. Young Peter.

Among other things, the Church had accumulated enormous wealth, which Peter needed to wage war with the Swedes. All this tied the hands of Peter to use all the resources of the country for the sake of the desired victory.

The tsar was faced with the task of eliminating the economic and administrative autonomy of the Church and reducing the number of the clergy.

Table “The essence of the ongoing reforms”

January 25, 1721 is the date of the final victory of the emperor over the patriarch, when the patriarchate was abolished.

TOP 4 articleswho read along with this

Rice. 2. Prosecutor General Yaguzhinsky.

The relevance of the topic was not only under Peter, but also under the Bolsheviks, when not only church authority was abolished, but also the very structure and organization of the Church.

Rice. 3. The building of 12 colleges.

The Spiritual Board had another name - the Governing Synod. A secular official, not a clergyman, was appointed to the position of chief prosecutor of the Synod.

As a result, the reform of the Church of Peter the Great had its pros and cons. Thus, Peter discovered for himself the possibility of leading the country towards Europeanization, but in cases where this power was abused, Russia could end up in a dictatorial and despotic regime in the hands of another person. However, the consequences are a reduction in the role of the church in the life of society, a reduction in its financial independence and the number of servants of the Lord.

Gradually, all institutions began to concentrate around St. Petersburg, including church ones. The activities of the Synod were monitored by the fiscal services.

Peter also introduced church schools. According to his plan, every bishop was obliged to have a school for children at home or at home and provide primary education.

Results of the reform

• The post of Patriarch was liquidated;
• Increased taxes;
• Recruitment sets from church peasants are conducted;
• Reduced the number of monks and monasteries;
• The church is dependent on the emperor.

What have we learned?

Peter the Great concentrated all branches of power in his hands and had unlimited freedom of action, establishing absolutism in Russia.

Topic quiz

Report Evaluation

Average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 228.

His dislike for Moscow antiquity and the "German" nature of his reforms armed the blind zealots of antiquity against Peter. Representatives of the "old faith", schismatics, hated Peter and revered him directly as Antichrist. And among the "Nikonians" there were enough people who could not reconcile with Peter and thought that it was necessary to protest against his actions and morals. All such people looked for support in the patriarch and expected that it was he who would take upon himself the duty to stand against the "heresies" of Peter. Patriarch Joachim, who was Patriarch Joachim in Peter's youth, as already mentioned (§100), diverged very far from the sovereign in relation to foreigners. His successor Adrian (1690-1700) was less persistent and tough than Joachim, but also did not sympathize with Peter and did not hide his condemnation of everything that the young sovereign did. Likewise, other hierarchs of the old Moscow trend were not sympathetic to Peter. For example, the famous St. Mitrofan of Voronezh knew how to support Peter in his struggle for Azov, but openly condemned him for his addiction to foreign things. Under such circumstances, when Adrian died (1700), Peter did not dare to elect a new patriarch. He entrusted the correction of the patriarchal position (“locum tenens of the patriarchal throne”) to the Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky and left this temporary order for a long time. Only in 1721 did the reform of church administration follow, which Peter considered with his favorite and collaborator, the learned Bishop of Pskov Feofan Prokopovich. The reform consisted in the fact that the patriarchate was completely abolished and replaced by a "cathedral administration". Established was from persons belonging to the clergy, the spiritual board, called the synod. The composition of the synod was the same as that of the other boards: the president (Stefan Yavorsky), two vice-presidents (one of them was Feofan Prokopovich himself), advisers, assessors and secretaries. At the synod was the chief prosecutor. In matters of faith, the synod had the strength and power of the patriarch, but at the same time it stood in a number of other colleges, subject to the supervision of the prosecutor general and the senate. This is how Peter resolved the issue of church administration, fundamentally destroying the possibility of a clash between representatives of the royal and church authorities.

Under Peter, it was greatly reduced, one might even say, almost destroyed, which still existed in the 17th century. church society (§§12, ). Church peasants in 1701, together with the patrimonies of the clergy, were transferred to the management of the secular "monastic order" and the income from them began to be collected in the treasury, and the treasury, according to the established states, paid from itself constant annual salaries to their former owners. (Over time, the synod sought to have the management of church estates transferred from “civil rulers” to the jurisdiction of the synod.) Recruitment duty and the poll tax were extended to all people assigned to the church, except only clergymen and clergymen with their families. The right of the church court was limited: many cases were transferred to the jurisdiction of the secular court, and representatives of the secular authorities began to participate in the church court. Finally, in 1724, Peter issued a special law on monasticism, which placed the monks under strict supervision and completely destroyed the condition of the wandering monks. The reason for the publication of this law was the hostile attitude of monasticism known to Peter to his activities and personality. Thus, under Peter government severely limited the composition of church society, taking from it into state subordination most of its constituents, and established greater control over inner life and activities of the church.