In the 17th century as a result of constant advancement to the East, the Moscow state turned into a huge Eurasian power, the territory of which doubled. Its borders expanded from the Arctic Ocean to the Caspian Sea, from the Dnieper to the shores of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. The population grew from 6 to 13 million people, living mainly on the infertile lands of Northern and Central Russia. The rich black earth lands of the Northern Black Sea region and Central Russia were then outside the Russian state; the Middle and Lower Volga regions were just being developed. During the colonization process, Muscovite Rus' lost its original homogeneity and turned into a multinational state, which included not only Russians, but also Ukrainians, Belarusians, Tatars, Bashkirs, peoples of the Urals, Siberia, and by religion - Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans. It was in the 17th century. The concept of “Russia” was established as broader and more capacious than “Rus” itself in territorial, ethnic and religious terms.

According to the social composition, the population was divided into servicemen, tax workers and slaves. The first category included boyars, boyar children and nobles. The second category included townspeople and peasants who bore taxes (duties) in favor of the state and owners. The third group included the dependent population of the country. All categories of the population were subjects of the king and were assigned either to a place of service, or to a place of residence, or to land and landowners. Thus, in the 17th century. A special type of service state with a nationwide system of serfdom was formed.

The political system of Russia in the 17th century. represented a monarchy. There is no consensus among researchers about how limited or unlimited the monarchy was under the first Romanov. Thus, V. Tatishchev believed that the tsar’s power was limited, and this was reflected in a special “Restrictive Record”. S. Platonov argued that “Tsar Mikhail was not limited in power, and no restrictive documents from his time have reached us.” Some historians, recognizing the fact that there is no written document, talk about the existence of an oral promise from Michael not to rule without society.

In modern literature, the characteristics of the state-political system of Russia in the first half of the 17th century have been established. as a class-representative monarchy, when the king shared his power with representatives of various classes. A number of circumstances pushed him to this. Firstly, Michael could not ignore the people, thanks to whom the Troubles were ended. Secondly, restoring a devastated country, establishing order in it, and protecting external borders were possible only with the support of broad sections of society. Thirdly, the first Romanov was still influenced by traditions that obliged sovereigns to consult with the best people, especially the boyar aristocracy. Fourthly, Michael was encouraged to rely on the estates by his youth, inexperience, desire to earn authority and establish a new dynasty on the throne, as well as to show himself as a democratic ruler in the eyes of the world community. Therefore, Mikhail Fedorovich during the years of his reign relied on the entire system of class bodies of Russia.

During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the Zemsky Sobor became the most important link in government administration. Unlike the era of Ivan IV, the Zemsky Councils under this monarch worked continuously - from 1613 to 1621. they generally met annually. Their composition has become more democratic, their role and competence have increased. The Zemsky Councils of the times of the first Romanov were characterized by the predominance of the elected element over the official element, and broad representation of the lower classes. This was facilitated by the absence of a property qualification for nomination to the Zemsky Sobor. The main thing was the moral indicator, the election of “strong, reasonable, kind” people. The Zemsky Sobors were in charge of a wide range of issues, including: the election of a king, changes in legislation, taxation, and annexation of new territories. Based on the decisions of the Councils, Mikhail Fedorovich drew up his decrees. Thanks to the active work of these governing bodies, by the middle of the 17th century. managed to overcome the negative consequences of the Troubles and restore the country.

At the same time, Zemsky Councils in Russia differed from Western European parliaments of that time. In the West, passions ran high in permanent parliaments, heated discussions unfolded, class interests were defended, and the highest authorities were harshly criticized. Zemsky Councils in Russia were considered by the tsar and his entourage as temporary governing bodies necessary to solve specific problems that had arisen after the Time of Troubles. The ratio of elected representatives from different classes in the Council was not regulated and was constantly changing. The deputies only expressed their opinions, and the final decision was the prerogative of the supreme power. As a rule, Zemsky Sobors agreed with the proposals of the royal entourage. Moreover, they were allies of the monarch, the Boyar Duma and the church. Considering that the Zemsky Sobors did not have independent political significance, many historians believe that in the first half of the 17th century. There were only elements of an estate-representative monarchy. Other scientists believe that this revealed a civilizational feature of the Orthodox Russian class monarchy, when a representative body, possessing real power, did not act as a counterweight, but, on the contrary, was a condition for strengthening tsarism and helped legitimize the new dynasty. However, already in those days, advanced Russian people were thinking about improving the Russian parliament. In 1634, solicitor I. Buturlin drew up a project for transforming the Zemsky Sobor, proposing to extend the principle of election to all participants in this meeting, limit the terms of office for senior officials, and turn the Zemsky Sobor into a permanent governing body. But the Tsar and the Boyar Duma did not agree to the implementation of the plans of this figure. In addition, Mikhail Romanov relied in his rule on the traditional authority of the Boyar Duma, where the feudal class nominated its representatives. She served as the highest aristocratic council under the king. Her competence included issues of the court, administration, etc. The status of the Boyar Duma remained unchanged for many centuries, but its role in governing the state changed. In particular, Ivan IV, having established a despotic regime, repressed the majority of members of the Boyar Duma and did not involve it in governance. Mikhail Romanov returned the lost role to the Duma and took its opinion into account. The decisions issued by the monarch contained the note “The Tsar indicated - the boyars sentenced,” which meant that this issue was discussed at a meeting of the Duma.

In the first half of the 17th century. The church had a huge influence on the monarch. Relations between church and state were then based on the Byzantine-Orthodox theory of “symphony of power,” which proposed a dual unity of independently existing secular and spiritual authorities, but jointly defending Orthodox values. The Orthodox Church, without encroaching on secular governance, acted as a moral counterweight to the Russian autocracy, and at the same time helped it manage society. The Illuminated Council, as a church governing body, took part in the work of Zemsky Sobors. Patriarch Filaret, the father of Mikhail Romanov, was the tsar’s co-ruler for 14 years and actually ruled Russia. During the absence of the monarch in Moscow, he led meetings of the Boyar Duma, received ambassadors, and issued decrees and instructions. In 1620-1626. The patriarch carried out a reform in the management of church property and personnel. A system of church orders was created, which were in charge of various spheres of church life, were engaged in the construction of churches, administered justice to the clergy, and replenished the patriarchal treasury. Filaret's activities strengthened the autocracy and the new dynasty, on the one hand, and the role of the church, on the other.

The power of the monarch in the localities was also relatively limited. Full self-government was preserved in the black lands, mainly northern communities. In 1627, the government restored, lost during the Time of Troubles, the institution of elected provincial elders from the nobles, who concentrated administrative and judicial power in cities and regions in their hands. Public participation in state affairs allowed the tsarist government to resolve many difficult issues, restore statehood, eliminate the economic crisis, achieve socio-political stability, and strengthen the Romanov dynasty on the Russian throne.

However, later there was a tendency to curtail cooperation between the highest authorities and society, and the movement of the political system towards absolutism began. Absolutism is a form of government during late feudalism. It is characterized by the absence of representative authorities, the establishment of a limited monarchy, the highest degree of centralization, an increased role of the bureaucratic apparatus, the presence of a strong regular army and law enforcement agencies, subordination of the church to the state, developed legislation and diplomacy.

As a historical phenomenon, absolutism also took place in Western Europe. However, Russian absolutism differed from European absolutism in its socio-economic basis and content. Absolute monarchies in Western Europe relied on the support of the middle class with a certain balance between the nobility and the bourgeoisie, cared about economic progress, and embraced the idea of ​​​​the material well-being of every member of society. They were formed in parallel with the creation of civil society and the establishment of broad rights and freedoms for its members. The social support of absolutism in Russia was the nobility and the communal organization. Russian monarchs hindered the development of capitalism and did not allow the establishment of civil society. The consequence of this was the stability and longevity of absolutism in Russia. Up to a certain point, the monarchy played a positive role. In conditions of the slow development of civil society and the weakness of the third estate, she initiated reforms, mobilized material and human resources for economic development, strengthened the country's defense capability, and took care of the rise of culture. But over time, the possibilities of absolutism exhausted themselves and, having failed to adapt to the new requirements of the time, it turned into a brake on social progress, became a reactionary force and was eliminated by the revolutionary wave of 1917.

The origin of absolutism in Russia occurred during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, and its final formation during the reign of Peter I. Under Alexei Mikhailovich, Zemsky Councils ceased to be convened, which was explained by a number of factors. By the middle of the 17th century. The mechanism of government was restored, and the autocracy strengthened. The Romanov dynasty, which was entrenched on the throne, no longer felt the need for Zemsky Sobors. New Council Code of 1649 stabilized the legal space of the country, allowed the tsarist administration, without consulting with representatives of different classes, to pursue independent policies based on laws. The curtailment of the activities of Zemsky Sobors proceeded gradually. With the legalization of serfdom, the number of people from the lower classes decreased, and the popular base of parliamentarism was undermined. Councils began to be convened only by the tsar and not to discuss long-term issues, as had been the case previously, but only to approve specific projects prepared by him and his administration. Over time, meetings are held less and less often and are eventually replaced by periodic meetings with representatives of individual classes.

In the second half of the 17th century. The importance of the boyars and the Boyar Duma was steadily declining. The king stopped consulting with her. Of the 618 decrees of Alexei Mikhailovich, 588 were drawn up without the participation of the Boyar Duma. In the Duma itself, unborn Duma nobles and Duma clerks were gaining more and more power. An attempt was made to change the prerogatives of the Duma, to transform it from an aristocratic Council into a bureaucratic body, forcing its members to perform the duties of chiefs of orders. From the composition of the “big” Boyar Duma, the “small” Duma (“close”, “secret”, “room”) emerged, consisting of the tsar’s most trusted representatives, with whom he previously discussed and made decisions on issues of public administration. Refusal to cooperate with the boyars indicated the movement of the political system towards an unlimited monarchy

About the emergence of absolutism in the second half of the 17th century. The sharp increase in the importance of orders also spoke. The order system was reformed towards reducing the number, consolidation and centralization of orders. From 100 their numbers stabilized at 37-38. The orders turned into large institutions with a large staff of officials and a complex structure. A special role was played by the newly created Order of Secret Affairs, which was personally subordinate to the tsar, carried out his instructions, controlled the activities of all state institutions, was involved in palace management, and considered state crimes.

At the local level, management was undergoing the same process of centralization, bureaucratization and unification; the principle of election was replaced by appointment. Back in the 16th century. in a number of border counties and cities where strong power was required, voivodes appeared, primarily as military leaders, but also as chief administrators, judges in civil and criminal cases. From the beginning of the 17th century. The voivodship system penetrated into the interior of the country. Under Alexei Mikhailovich and his successors, the voivodeship administration spread throughout the entire state, became the main system, pushed local self-government into the background, and received the right to control the work of zemstvo and provincial huts. The growth of centralization and the complication of management functions contributed to the formation of a new stratum of the bureaucracy population for Russia, the number and importance of which continuously grew. From 1640 to 1690 the number of clerks increased 3.3 times, amounting to 1690 people, and together with provincial officials 4650.

The development of absolutism was facilitated by the reorganization of military service. At the beginning of the 17th century. The basis of the Russian army remained the noble militia, which existed at the expense of the service class itself. The state did not have enough money to create a professional army. But by the middle of the century the need for regular troops intensified. The noble militia finally demonstrated its backwardness and inconsistency in clashes with its southern and western neighbors. To solve these foreign policy problems, a different army was needed. A strong military organization was also needed to strengthen the position of absolutism and maintain order in the country. Therefore, the authorities began to form regular soldier and reiter regiments according to the European model. They were recruited from free people and trained by hired foreign officers. In a number of cases, the government also resorted to forced recruitment of “dacha people.” The appearance of regular units in the army became the most important factor in strengthening the unlimited power of the tsar.

In the second half of the 17th century. The relationship between church and state has changed. The previously existing “symphony of power” was destroyed, the church was brought under the control of the monarchy. Some believe that this happened because of the exorbitant ambitions of Patriarch Nikon, others because of the increased influence of Protestant ideas in the country, and others believe that in the conditions of the establishment of absolutism, the subordination of the church to the state was inevitable. Apparently, it is more appropriate to talk about the whole set of circumstances of the relationship between secular and spiritual authorities. There is no doubt that the economic power of the church, the great wealth accumulated by the hierarchs, church organizations and monasteries, led to the growth of the political claims of the church, which did not suit the growing Russian autocracy. It sought to limit the influence of the church and bring it under its control. Alexei Mikhailovich established the Monastic Order, which kept the activities of the clergy in sight, limited the scope of church land ownership, and forbade churches, monasteries, and clergy from buying up land from the population and accepting it as a memorial to the soul. A partial expropriation of a number of urban settlements that previously belonged to the patriarch, bishops and monasteries was carried out. In addition, the jurisdiction of the clergy in civil courts in criminal cases was introduced. Thus, the autonomy of the church was significantly limited. In 1652 Novgorod Metropolitan Nikon was elected to the patriarchal throne, whose policy objectively contributed to the further subordination of the church to the state. In 1653-1654, under his leadership Nikon, a church reform was carried out, which met fierce resistance from the zealots of “ancient piety”, led to a split of the population into Old Believers and supporters of the official religion, weakened the Russian church, which allowed secular authorities to further subordinate it to their influence . Moreover, the split coincided with the conflict between Nikon and the Tsar. The patriarch demonstrated an exorbitant lust for power. Having become co-ruler of the tsar, he actively intervened in the affairs of civil administration, trying to push into the background not only the Boyar Duma, but also Alexei Mikhailovich himself. According to S. Platonov, “a temporary worker and a hierarch at the same time, Nikon not only shepherded the church, but was in charge of the entire state.” Nikon's ambitions and his desire to achieve political primacy caused the monarch's growing discontent. Alexei Mikhailovich stopped attending services led by the patriarch and inviting him to receptions at the palace. Offended, Nikon renounced the patriarchate and left Moscow, counting on the fact that the tsar would persuade him to return. But instead, Alexei Mikhailovich initiated the convocation in 1666. Church Council, which deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank and forced him to become a monk. The Council decided: “The tsar has the power to rule above the patriarchs and all hierarchs.” The removal of a strong Orthodox leader from power made it easier to subordinate the church to the state. By the end of the 17th century. The autonomy of the church was completely lost. Church councils rarely made independent decisions. They turned into advisory institutions under the tsar, into bodies of tsarist legislation on church affairs, and the patriarch and bishops became essentially simple tsarist officials. The patriarchs of the cathedral were proposed by the monarch. In the same “order” at councils, bishops were elected, abbots and even archpriests were appointed. Things got to the point that the tsar issued orders on observing fasts, on the obligatory fasting, on the service of prayers, on order in churches. As a result, the church became directly dependent on the state, which was one of the indicators of the evolution of autocracy towards an absolute monarchy.

In the second half of the 17th century. Russia has made significant progress along the path of a rule of law state. This was evidenced by the adoption in 1649. “Conciliar Code”, which became an important event in the development of domestic legislation. It included 25 chapters and 967 articles, reflecting the wishes of the middle classes of society - servicemen and townspeople. The Council Code was a step forward also because it sought to place the court and government in the state on a solid and “immovable” foundation of law. But in general, it stood for the protection of the interests of the autocratic monarchy, the ruling class of feudal lords, legitimizing the final formalization of serfdom and the trend of transition to absolutism in the state and political life of Russia. The increased role of the monarch in society was reflected by the inclusion in the “Conciliar Code” of a chapter on criminal protection of the honor and health of the tsar, and the system of denunciations “The Sovereign’s Word and Deed” was introduced. Intent against the person of the sovereign belonged to the category of state crimes, for which they were severely punished. Even drawing a weapon in the presence of the king was punishable by cutting off a hand.

Towards the end of his reign, Alexei Mikhailovich began to sign his decrees: “By the grace of God, sovereign, tsar and Grand Duke of all Great and Little and White Rus', autocrat,” which emphasized the absolute nature of his power, granted by God.

The 17th century is a time of evolution not only of the political, but also of the economic system. In this century, advanced countries such as England, the Netherlands, and France entered the era of the New Time, began the transition from a traditional, feudal, agrarian society to an industrial, bourgeois society, and began modernization. Impulses from this region gradually spread to other states, which embarked on the path of catching-up development, or, if we take into account the regional aspect, on the path of Europeanization and modernization.

There is no consensus in the literature when bourgeois relations arose in Russia. Strumilin believed that this happened in the 17th century, Tugan-Baranovsky - at the end of the 18th century, Lyashchenko - from the middle of the 19th century. More convincing is the point of view of those researchers who believe that in the 17th century the sprouts of new bourgeois relations arose, in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. they slowly but steadily sprouted, and after the reforms of Alexander II, Russia confidently took the path of capitalism.

In the 17th century the first steps were taken to modernize the country. Reformers appeared, supporters of borrowing the best achievements of the West. According to their projects, localism was abolished, Trade Charters were introduced, the position of slaves was eased, executions for “outrageous” words were abolished, the army began to be rebuilt, and legislation was improved. Foreign engineers were invited to the country to build factories and the first ship, foreign officers were recruited into the armed forces, and foreign teachers were recruited into schools. Western literature was translated and Western architecture was disseminated.

However, modernization in Russia proceeded in a unique, contradictory way, in the words of S. Solovyov, it was superimposed on the features of “strong” Russian absolutism, property relations, and the Russian national character, formed under the influence of Orthodoxy. Reforms were carried out in harsh forms with growing despotism of power and serfdom. Some historians explain this harsh nature of reformism by the government’s desire to catch up with developed countries, primarily in military-technical terms, and to strengthen the country’s defense capability. Others derive the transformations of the 17th century. from internal development needs determined by emerging bourgeois relations.

The inconsistency of modernization can be seen in the development of all spheres of the economy. The leading industry was agriculture, and in it farming. Until the middle of the 17th century. There was a recovery period in agriculture, and then its gradual growth began. A characteristic feature of this century was the colonization of the eastern lands by the Russian population and its advance south to the steppes. This led to such a form of progress in agriculture as an increase in sown areas. A new phenomenon was the strengthening of the link between agriculture and the market. The main regions of commercial grain were the Middle Volga region, the Upper Dnieper region, commercial production of flax and hemp - the regions of Novgorod and Pskov. Mainly small-scale peasant production developed. At the same time, monasteries, the royal court, boyars and nobles were actively involved in grain trading operations. In addition to agriculture, other agricultural sectors were restored, the products of which were also partially sent to the market. Cattle breeding developed in the Yaroslavl region, Pomorie, and southern counties. Fishing - in the northern regions, in the White and Barents Seas, where cod, halibut, herring, salmon, etc. were caught. On the Volga and Yaik, catching red fish was valued. The growth of the social division of labor and the economic specialization of certain regions of the country contributed to an increase in commodity circulation.

However, commodity-money relations in the village have not yet become dominant. Moreover, the leading trend was the strengthening of feudal-serf relations. The main owners of the land became feudal lords represented by the nobility, who owned over 50% of the land fund. The social status of the nobility grew, and the process of convergence in the rights of estates and patrimony began. After the Time of Troubles, to ensure service, the government widely practiced the distribution of government lands. Lands were distributed not to estates, which would be payment for service, but to estates, hereditary property. Only in the Moscow district by the end of the 70s of the 17th century. 5/6 of the owner's lands were patrimonial. The estate remained with the nobleman and his family even if he stopped serving. Moreover, estates were now allowed to be changed, given as a dowry, etc. In other words, the conditional nature of local land ownership was lost, and it came close to votchina. A new step towards rapprochement between the nobility and the boyars was the abolition by Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich in 1682. localism. Thus, in the 17th century. the merger of estates with fiefdoms was prepared, completed in the first half of the 18th century. In the interests of the nobility in the 17th century. The legal enslavement of the peasants ended, the landowner peasants were forever assigned to the owners and became their property. They were subject to jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, including property liability for the debts of their masters. Serfdom was declared hereditary for the descendants of serfs. An indefinite search for fugitives was introduced and the fine for harboring them was doubled. The basis of relations between feudal lords and peasants was recognized as the corvee system with high exploitation of serfs up to 6-7 days a week in the lord's plowing. The economy was mainly subsistence in nature. The peasants owned primitive tools and used outdated methods of cultivating the land. In order to increase productivity, feudal lords did not resort to the introduction of technical innovations, but used extensive farming methods, expanding their own arable land and increasing the exploitation of their peasants. Exploitation intensified even more with the development of commodity-money relations and the desire of landowners to increase the production of marketable grain. In addition to privately owned peasants, there was a layer of black-mown peasants living on state-owned lands. They were located in the North, in the basins of the Pechora and Northern Dvina rivers, where there were almost no feudal estates. The category of black-mown peasants was in more favorable conditions. They carried out only one tax - in favor of the state. They retained local self-government and some personal civil rights. They could sell, mortgage, exchange, donate their plots, and engage not only in agriculture, but also in crafts. Among the northern peasants, unions of co-owners of “warehouses” were common, where everyone owned a certain share of the common land and could dispose of it. At the same time, state peasants-yard owners, who were part of peasant societies and recorded in the tax lists, could not leave the village without finding a replacement for their place, that is, they were also attached to the land, although not in the same way as serfs. Close in position to the sovereign's peasants were the palace peasants, who directly served the needs of the royal court. On the lands of the state, palace and feudal lords, after the establishment of serfdom, the traditional peasant community continued to exist. The community carried out the redistribution of land plots, distributed taxes and duties, and controlled contractual relations. Peasant plots were inherited by sons, but their disposal was limited by the land rights of the community. In the south, along the Don, Terek, Yaik in the 17th century. The Cossack estate was finally formed. They formed a special army to protect the borders, but at the same time they conducted agriculture and were engaged in fishing. The Cossacks considered themselves free people and were sensitive to measures taken by the government to limit their rights in the 17th century. Evidence of this was the active participation of the Cossacks in the Bolotnikov movement, the war led by S. Razin.

Agrarian relations developed somewhat differently in Western countries. They were dominated by the seigneurial system, with its characteristic practical absence of the owner's arable land, and therefore of corvée. The peasant was limited to paying taxes to the landowner, usually in cash, and was often personally free, which ensured the autonomy of the peasant economy. By being drawn into market relations, the peasant not only ensured the coverage of feudal cash rent, but also satisfied his needs. Interest in the results of one's work has become a powerful incentive for agricultural producers. This determined the progressive rise of Western European agriculture. At the same time, the agrarian system, established in the 17th century. in Russia doomed agriculture to long-term stagnation. If initially grain yields in Rus' and Western Europe were approximately the same, amounting to sam-2, sam-3, then in the 17th century in the West it increased to sam-6, sam-10, and in Russia they remained at the same level in non-black earth regions , and only grew a little in the black soil.

In the 17th century new phenomena were especially noticeable in the field of industrial activity. The original form of industry was urban and rural crafts (peasant crafts). In the West, due to the growth of cities and the organization of craft workshops, urban craft immediately prevailed. In Rus', during foreign invasions, many cities were destroyed, craftsmen were taken captive or destroyed in the suburbs. During the period of decline of urban crafts, in contrast to them, peasant crafts began to develop intensively and took their place. In the 17th century After the Troubles, as people's lives improved, the demand for industrial products increased. Therefore, the specialization of peasant crafts, which began in the 16th century, intensified, and they were reoriented to the market from work to order. At the same time, in the process of restoration and development of cities, urban crafts are gradually being revived. In the 17th century Just as in rural areas, there was a specialization of handicraft production in cities, the number of handicraft specialties increased, the level of qualifications of workers increased, and work was done not to order, but to the market. And yet the level of urban development in the 17th century. remained still low, many of them were still centers of feudal and princely estates, and the townspeople were heavily dependent on the feudal nobility. Most of the southern and southeastern cities did not have a commercial and industrial population, but consisted of military garrisons. The most valuable artisans from all over the country were concentrated in the palace economy and did not work for the market, but fulfilled orders from the treasury. The northeastern cities were primarily associated with trade and trade. Government policy hampered the transformation of crafts into commercial production. The townspeople, like the peasantry, were assigned to their place of residence and were obliged to bear heavy government duties - taxes. The specificity of handicraft production in Russia was its seasonal nature, when part of the time was devoted to the production of products, and part to agriculture. Trades and urban crafts were small-scale family production and were not able to fully satisfy the demand of the state and the population for industrial products. Therefore, in the 17th century. A new form of production emerges - manufacture. It was a larger enterprise than a craft workshop, employing from 100 to 500 people. In manufactories, handcraft techniques were used, but there was a division of labor. The latter circumstance made it possible to increase labor productivity and increase production volumes. The development of small-scale crafts and the growth of commodity specialization prepared the ground for the emergence of manufactories. They were created by the state, the royal court, feudal lords, and merchants. An important feature of Russia's economic development was the state nature of the first manufactories. In the absence of an entrepreneurial layer in the country, the state was forced to establish manufactories itself in order to meet the needs for weapons, metal, linen, and cloth. The Nitsinsky copper smelter in the Urals, built in 1631, is considered the first privately owned manufactory. In the 17th century, foreign capital was also attracted to the construction of manufactories. In 1637 The Dutch merchant A. Vinius founded three iron-making enterprises near Tula. In total, in the 17th century. there were approximately 30 manufactories in metallurgy, weapons, leather, and linen.

It should be noted that the 16th-17th centuries were a time of rapid development of manufacturing production in the West. However, Western European manufactories differed from Russian ones. They were predominantly private, developed in conditions of competition, free enterprise and pricing, were not controlled, but were supported by the state, and relied on civilian labor. Therefore, Western European manufacturing provided high labor productivity and became an important stage in the development of capitalist production. In Russia, the share of manufactories in the 17th century. was still small. They mainly satisfied the needs of the army. The main customer was not the market, but the state. It established strict control over private and state-owned enterprises, did not allow competition between them, and determined production volumes and prices for manufactured products. Since there were no free workers in the country, the state began to assign, and later (1721) allowed, the purchase of peasants for factories, i.e. Russian factories used forced labor of serfs. Such serf manufacture was less efficient than capitalist one. Due to the cheapness of serf labor, guaranteed state orders, and the lack of competition, manufacturers showed no interest in improving production, which hampered its constant growth.

About the origin in the 17th century. In Russia, early bourgeois relations were evidenced by the formation of the All-Russian National Market. Until this time, as an echo of fragmentation, local markets remained closed in on themselves, between which there were no permanent trade links. In the 17th century With the restoration and further development of the economy, the beginning of the specialization of crafts, urban crafts, and agriculture, the opportunity arose and the need arose to establish a more stable exchange between the regions. The process of expanding economic ties began, which gradually led to the merger of local markets into one, all-Russian one. New forms of selling goods have emerged. If in the 16th century internal trade was carried out in small markets - trading markets, then in the 17th century. The leading role was played by periodically organized auctions in a designated place - fairs. They varied in profile, duration and meaning. The famous ones were Makaryevskaya near Nizhny Novgorod, Irbitskaya in Siberia, Svenskaya near Bryansk, Solvychegodskaya, Tikhvinskaya. Goods for auction were brought from all over the country: from Siberia - fur, from Orel - bread, from the Volga - fish, from the North - salt, etc. Moscow was a major trading center, where there were 120 specialized shopping malls, including fish, meat, shoe, wine, a range of white and rouge, etc. Lively trade was carried out in Ustyug the Great, Yaroslavl, Vologda, Kostroma, Astrakhan, Arkhangelsk, Kazan, etc. . At the same time, the number of local rows and markets in other cities grew. It is no coincidence that foreigners visiting Russia were amazed at the scale of trade, the abundance of goods, and their cheapness. The outstanding economist of that era, Kielburger, noted that Russians “discover to such an extent a love for trading that there are many more shops in Moscow than in Amsterdam.” In the process of trade, the first Russian bourgeoisie, the merchant class, was born and commercial capital appeared. The nature of the activities of merchants in itself presupposed the manifestation of entrepreneurial initiative, allowing them to determine the price of goods themselves and work for the market. In the 17th century In Russia, favorable conditions have developed for the development of trade initiatives and for the growth of the fortunes of merchants. The connections between the regions were still weak, and there was a huge difference in prices across the territories. Merchants, buying goods in places with low prices, sold them in other areas at much higher prices, receiving up to 100% profit. One of the sources of accumulation of merchant capital was the tax farming system, when the government granted rich merchants the right to sell salt, wine and other goods important to the treasury, and to collect tavern and customs duties. It is no coincidence that the process of initial capital accumulation in Russia began precisely in the sphere of trade. Having amassed capital, merchants invested it in crafts, mining and manufacturing industries, and founded merchant manufactories. At the same time, at enterprises owned by merchants, to a greater extent than at others, the labor of free townspeople, quitrent peasants, and also foreign craftsmen was used.

In the 17th century There was a process of development of foreign trade. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, on the initiative of the statesman Ordin-Nashchokin, the government began to implement the policy of mercantilism, i.e. full enrichment of the state through foreign trade. Foreign trade was carried out mainly through Astrakhan, where there was foreign trade with Asian countries and through Arkhangelsk with European countries. Foreign trade operations were also carried out through Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Putivl, Tobolsk, Tyumen, and Moscow. Foreign merchants came to trading points, sold their goods and bought Russian goods on favorable terms. Thus, foreign capital sought to capture Russian markets, colliding with the interests of Russian merchants. Russia did not have access to ice-free seas convenient for trade, did not own a fleet, and the Russian merchants could not yet compete in the market with strong foreign companies. Therefore, the government, trying to protect Russian merchants from competition with foreign trading capital, took a number of protectionist measures. In 1646 Duty-free trade with England was abolished in 1653. According to the trade regulations, higher trade duties were established on foreign goods; in 1667. According to the “New Trade Charter”, foreign merchants were prohibited from conducting retail trade, and only wholesale operations were allowed in certain border cities. The “New Trade Charter” encouraged export operations and gave great benefits to Russian merchants, customs duties for whom became four times lower than for foreign ones. The structure of foreign trade turnover reflected the nature of the Russian economy. Exports were dominated by raw materials; leather, grain, lard, potash, hemp, furs, meat, caviar, linen, bristles, resin, tar, wax, and matting were exported. Imports included mainly industrial products and luxury goods. They imported metals, gunpowder, weapons, precious stones, spices, incense, wines, paints, fabrics, lace, etc. At the same time, there were many obstacles to the development of trade in Russia. The Russian merchant class, due to the undeveloped network of cities, was still small in number. It was under strict control of the state, which imposed high taxes on the profits of merchants and was engaged in minor regulation of merchant activities. A monopoly was established on many goods profitable for trade. The state forcibly united merchants into corporations to make it easier to manage merchants and provide for government needs. Russian merchants were also hampered by the competition of large secular feudal lords and the church, who conducted large-scale trade. As a result, the Russian merchants were less wealthy and wealthy than the Western ones. It should also be noted that Russian merchants, as a rule, came from wealthy peasants and artisans. Therefore, they were despised by the upper classes of society. In order to improve their social status, merchants married people from noble families and purchased a noble title. As a result, the Russian merchants did not become, like the Western ones, a force opposing the monarchy, the vanguard of capitalist progress.

In the 17th century An important element in the movement of the economy towards market relations was the creation of a unified monetary system. Until the end of the 15th century. Almost all principalities were engaged in minting coins independently. As the Moscow centralized state strengthened, the government sought to streamline the monetary and financial system. This was explained by the fact that the costs of maintaining the administrative apparatus, a growing army, and a huge royal court were constantly growing. In countries where capitalism developed, these costs were covered by taxes on entrepreneurs. In Russia, in conditions of predominance of subsistence farming, there were no such monetary resources. The Russian government has resorted to special ways to cover government expenses. In 1680 The first state budget was adopted, which listed in detail the sources of income and expenditure items. The bulk of the income came from direct taxes from the population. Another source of replenishment of the treasury was the state monopoly on the trade of vodka, bread, potash, hemp, and caviar. Indirect taxes, as well as customs duties, were widely practiced. However, these sources of income still did not cover the expenditure side, and the state budget remained largely in deficit. The government also failed to fully establish stable monetary circulation.

Thus, in the Russian economy of the 17th century. conditions appeared for the development of bourgeois relations based on a commodity-money economy. However, the early bourgeois elements in Russia had their own specifics and were strongly influenced by the feudal system, which extended the development of capitalism in the country for centuries.

Questions for self-control

1. Pre-revolutionary and Soviet historiography on the causes of the Troubles.

2. The years of Troubles are a time of missed opportunities for the democratic development of Russia.

3. Consequences of the Time of Troubles.

4. The reasons for the evolution of the political system of Russia from estate-representative to absolute monarchy in the 17th century.

5. Distinctive features of Russian and European absolutism.

6. New phenomena in the economic development of Russia in the 17th century.

Chapter IV. Russian Empire in the 18th century.

Lectures 7, 8. Russia under the first Romanovs in the 17th century.
PLAN:
1. Social and economic development of Russia in the 17th century.
2. Anti-state protests.
3. Evolution of the state-political system.
4. Russian foreign policy. Development of Siberia and the Far East.
5. Church reform. Russia under the first Romanovs in the 17th century.

TOPIC 7, 8. Russia under the first Romanovs in XVII century

PLAN:
1. Social and economic development of Russia in the 17th century.
2. Anti-state protests.
3. Evolution of the state-political system.
4. Russian foreign policy. Development of Siberia and the Far East.
5. Church reform.

LITERATURE
1. Buganov V.I. World of History. Russia in the 17th century. M., 1989.
2. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861 / Ed. N. I. Pavlenko. M, 2000.
3. History of the Fatherland in persons. From ancient times to the end of the 17th century. Biographical encyclopedia. M., 1993.
4. Kargalov V.V. Stand strong on the borders of Rus'! Great Rus' and Wild Iole. Confrontation XIII-XVIII centuries. M., 1998.
5. Solovyov V. M. Contemporaries and descendants about the uprising of S. T. Razin. M., 1991.
6. Tarle E. V. International relations of Russia in the XVII-XVIII centuries. M., 1966.
7. Reader on the history of Russia. M., 1995. T. 2. Encyclopedia for children. T. 5. History of Russia. From the ancient Slavs to Peter the Great. M. 1995.

The ruling circles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Catholic Church intended to divide Russia and eliminate its state independence. In a hidden form, the intervention was expressed in support of False Dmitry I and False Dmitry II. Open intervention under the leadership of Sigismund III began under Vasily Shuisky, when in September 1609 Smolensk was besieged and in 1610 a campaign against Moscow and its capture took place. By this time, Vasily Shuisky was overthrown by the nobles from the throne, and an interregnum began in Russia - Seven Boyars. The Boyar Duma made a deal with the Polish interventionists and was inclined to call the Polish king, the young Vladislav, a Catholic, to the Russian throne, which was a direct betrayal of the national interests of Russia. In addition, in the summer of 1610, a Swedish intervention began with the goal of separating Pskov, Novgorod, and the northwestern regions from Russia.
Under these conditions, it was only possible for the whole people to defend the independence of the Russian state and expel the invaders. External danger brought to the fore national and religious interests, which temporarily united the warring classes. As a result of the first people's militia (under the leadership of P. P. Lyapunov) and the second people's militia (led by Prince D. M. Pozharsky and K. M. Minin) in the fall of 1612, the capital was liberated from the Polish garrison.
The victory was won as a result of the heroic efforts of the Russian people. A symbol of loyalty to the Motherland is the feat of the Kostroma peasant Ivan Susanin, who sacrificed his own life in the fight against the Polish invaders. Grateful Russia erected the first sculptural monument in Moscow to Kozma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky (on Red Square, sculptor I. P. Martos).
In 1613, the Zemsky Sobor took place V Moscow, where the question of choosing a new Russian Tsar was raised. The Polish prince Vladislav, the son of the Swedish king Karl Philip, the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek Ivan, nicknamed “Vorenko” (False Dmitry 11 - “Tushinsky thief”), as well as representatives of the largest boyar families were proposed as candidates for the Russian throne.
On February 21, the cathedral chose Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, The 16-year-old grandnephew of Ivan the Terrible’s first wife, Anastasia Romanova. On July 11, Mikhail Fedorovich was crowned king. Soon his father, the patriarch, took the leading place in governing the country Filaret, who “mastered all royal and military affairs.” Power was restored in the form of an autocratic monarchy. The leaders of the fight against the interventionists received modest appointments. Dmitry Pozharsky was sent by the governor to Mozhaisk, and Kozma Minin became the Duma governor.
The government of Mikhail Fedorovich faced the most difficult The task is to eliminate the consequences of the intervention. The greatest danger to him was posed by the detachments of Cossacks who wandered around the country and did not recognize the new king. Among them is Ivan Zarutsky, to whom Marina Mnishek and her son moved. The Yaik Cossacks handed over I. Zarutsky to the Moscow government. I. Zarutsky and Vorenok were hanged, and Marina Mnishek was imprisoned in Kolomna, where she probably died soon.
The Swedes posed another danger. In 1617 a contract was concluded with them Pillar World(in the village of Stolbovo, near Tikhvin). Sweden returned the Novgorod land to Russia, but retained the Baltic coast and received monetary compensation.
In the village of Deulino near the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in 1618, a Truce of Deulino with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which retained the Smolensk and Chernigov lands. There was an exchange of prisoners. Vladislav did not give up his claims to the Russian throne.
Thus, the main consequence events of the Time of Troubles in foreign policy there was a restoration of the territorial unity of Russia, although part of the Russian lands remained with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden.
Socio-economic development of Russia c.XVIIV. To the middle of the 17th century. the devastation and devastation of the Time of Troubles were overcome. The economy recovered slowly in conditions:
- preservation of traditional forms of farming (weak productivity of peasant farming with its primitive equipment and technology);
- sharply continental climate;
- low soil fertility in the Non-Black Earth Region - the most developed part of the country.
Agriculture remained the leading sector of the economy. Height production volumes were achieved through the involvement of new lands in economic circulation: Black Earth Region, Middle Volga Region, Siberia.
In the 17th century further growth of feudal land ownership, redistribution of land within the ruling class. The new Romanov dynasty, strengthening its position, made extensive use of the distribution of land to the nobles. In the central regions of the country, land ownership by black-growing peasants has practically disappeared. The desolation of the central counties as a result of a long crisis and the outflow of population to the outskirts was one of the reasons strengthening of serfdom.
In the 18th century there was a development of crafts into small-scale production. By the end of the 17th century. There were at least 300 cities in Russia, and the main areas of handicraft production were formed. The centers of metallurgy and metalworking, textiles, salt making, and jewelry were further developed.
The development of small-scale production prepared the basis for the emergence manufactory Manufacture is a large enterprise based on the division of labor and handcraft techniques. In the 17th century There were approximately 30 manufactories in Russia. The first state-owned manufactories arose in the 16th century. (Pushkarsky Dvor, Mint). The Nitsinsky copper smelter in the Urals, built in 1631, is considered the first privately owned manufactory.
Since there were no free workers in the country, the state began to assign, and later (1721) allowed factories to buy peasants. The assigned peasants had to work off their taxes to the state at a factory or plant at certain prices. The state provided enterprise owners with assistance with land, timber, and money. Manufactories founded with the support of the state later received the name "possession"(from the Latin word “possession” - possession). But until the 90s. XVII century metallurgy remained the only industry where manufactories operated.
The role and importance are increasing merchants in the life of the country. The constantly gathering fairs acquired great importance: Makaryevskaya (near Nizhny Novgorod), Svenskaya (in the Bryansk region), Irbitskaya (in Siberia), in Arkhangelsk, etc., where merchants carried out large wholesale and retail trade at that time.
Along with the development of domestic trade, foreign trade also grew. Until the middle of the century, foreign merchants derived enormous benefits from foreign trade by exporting timber, furs, hemp, etc. from Russia. The English fleet was built from Russian timber, and the ropes for its ships were made from Russian hemp. Arkhangelsk was the center of Russian trade with Western Europe. There were English and Dutch trading yards here. Close ties were established through Astrakhan with the countries of the East.
The Russian government's support for the growing merchant class is evidenced by the publication of the New Trade Charter, which increased duties on foreign goods. Policy mercantilism It was also expressed in the fact that foreign merchants had the right to conduct wholesale trade only in border trading centers.
In the 17th century the exchange of goods between individual regions of the country expanded significantly, which indicated the beginning the formation of the all-Russian market. The merging of individual lands into a single economic system began.
Social structure of Russian society. The highest class in the country was boyars(among them were many descendants of former great and appanage princes). About a hundred boyar families owned estates, served the tsar and held leadership positions in the state. There was a process of rapprochement with the nobility.
Nobles constituted the upper layer of the sovereign's service people in the fatherland. They owned estates based on the right of inheritance in the event that children continued to serve after their parents. The nobility significantly strengthened its position at the end of the Time of Troubles and became the pillar of royal power. This layer of feudal lords included persons who served at the royal court (stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles, etc.), as well as city officials, i.e., provincial nobles.
The major feudal lords were clergy, which had large land holdings and monasteries.
The lowest stratum of service people included service people by appointment or recruitment. It included archers, gunners, coachmen, service Cossacks, government craftsmen, etc.
Categories of the peasant population:

1. proprietary or privately owned, living on the lands of estates or
   estates. They bore taxes (a set of duties in favor of the feudal lord). Close
   Monastery peasants took their place among the privately owned peasants;
2. black-growing peasants. They lived on the outskirts of the country (Pomeranian
   North, Ural, Siberia, South), united into communities. They had no right to leave their lands unless they found a replacement. They bore taxes for the benefit of the state. “Black lands” could be sold, mortgaged, passed on by inheritance (i.e., the situation was easier than that of privately owned lands);
3. palace peasants, serving the economic needs of the royal court. They had self-government and were subordinate to palace clerks.

The top urban population was merchants. The richest of them (there were approximately 30 such people in Moscow in the 17th century) were declared “guests” by royal command. Many wealthy merchants united in two Moscow hundreds - the living room and the cloth one.
The bulk of the urban population was called townspeople. They united into a draft community. In many Russian cities, military officials and their families predominated among the residents. The bourgeoisie in the cities has not yet developed.
Urban artisans were united along professional lines into settlements and hundreds. They bore taxes - duties in favor of the state, elected their elders and sotskys (black settlements). In addition to them, in the cities there were white settlements that belonged to boyars, monasteries, and bishops. These settlements were “whitewashed” (freed) from bearing city taxes in favor of the state.
Before Peter's times, a significant number lived both in cities and in rural areas. slave slaves. Complete serfs were the hereditary property of their masters. Layer bonded slaves was formed from among previously free people who fell into a state of slavery (bondage - a receipt or promissory note). Bonded slaves served until the death of the creditor, unless they voluntarily accepted a new bondage in favor of the heir of the deceased.
Free and walking people(free Cossacks, children of priests, servicemen and townspeople, hired workers, wandering musicians and buffoons, beggars, vagabonds) did not end up in estates, estates or city communities and did not bear the state tax. From among them, service people were recruited according to the instrument. However, the state tried in every possible way to bring them under its control.
Thus, the 17th century. was an important stage in the socio-economic development of Russia. Both in agriculture and in industry especially (the emergence of manufactories) serious changes took place. However, there is no reason to talk about the emergence of capitalist relations in the country, the main feature of which is an increase in the share of free wage labor in the economy. The development of commodity-money, market relations, the growth of the number of manufactories (among the workers of which peasants dependent on the landowner or the state predominated) were observed in Russia in the conditions of the progressive movement of the feudal economy and the formation of the social structure of society. The formation of a single national market, the initial stage of which dates back to the 17th century, occurred in the absence of elements of a capitalist economy based on undeveloped capitalist production.
Anti-state protests. The development of the country's economy was accompanied by large social movements. The 17th century is not named by chance "rebellious age" It was during this period that two peasant “unrest” took place (the uprising of I. Bolotnikov and the Peasant War led by S. Razin) and a number of urban uprisings in the middle of the century, as well as the Solovetsky riot and two Streltsy uprisings in the last quarter of the century.
The history of urban uprisings opens Salt riot 1648 in Moscow. Various segments of the capital’s population took part in it: townspeople, archers, nobles, dissatisfied with the policies of B.I. Morozova. By decree of February 7, 1646, a high tax on salt was introduced. And salt was the product that people of the 17th century refused to eat. There was no way they could. It was impossible to prepare food for future use without salt. In 1646-1648. salt prices increased 3-4 times. The people began to starve, while thousands of pounds of cheap fish rotted on the Volga: fish farmers, due to the high cost of salt, were unable to salt it. Everyone was unhappy. Less expensive salt was sold than before, and the treasury suffered significant losses. At the end of 1647, the salt tax was abolished, but it was too late...
The reason for the speech was the dispersal by the archers of a delegation of Muscovites who were trying to submit a petition to the tsar at the mercy of the officials. Pogroms began at the courts of influential dignitaries. The Duma clerk Nazariy Chistoy was killed, and the head of the Zemsky Prikaz, Leonty Pleshcheevider, was given over to the crowd. The Tsar managed to save only Morozov, urgently sending him into exile to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery.
The Moscow Salt Riot responded with uprisings of 1648-1650. in other cities. The most persistent and lengthy uprisings in 1650 were in Pskov and Novgorod. They were caused by a sharp increase in bread prices as a result of the government's commitment to supply grain to Sweden.
In 1662, the so-called Copper riot caused by the protracted Russian-Polish war and the financial crisis. Monetary reform (minting depreciated copper money) led to a sharp drop in the exchange rate of the ruble, which primarily affected the salaries of soldiers and archers, as well as artisans and small traders. Streltsy and “foreign order” regiments loyal to the tsar suppressed the rebellion. As a result of the brutal massacre, several hundred people died and 18 were publicly hanged.
The urban uprisings of the mid-century turned out to be a prelude to the Peasants' War led by S. T. Razina 1670-1671 This movement originated in the villages of the Don Cossacks. The Don freemen attracted fugitives from the southern and central regions of the Russian state. Here they were protected by an unwritten law - “there is no extradition from the Don.” The government, needing the services of the Cossacks for the defense of the southern borders, paid them a salary and put up with the self-government that existed there.
Stepan Timofeevich Razin, raising the people against the “traitor boyars,” spoke on behalf of Alexei (the son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich), who had already died. The peasant war engulfed vast areas of the Don, Volga region, and Urals, and found a response in Ukraine. The rebels managed to capture Tsaritsyn, Astrakhan, Saratov, Samara and other cities. However, near Simbirsk, Razin was defeated, and then handed over to the “household” Cossacks and executed.
The social crisis was accompanied by an ideological crisis. Let's take the rum of the development of religious struggle into social is Solovetsky uprising 1668-1676 It began with the fact that the brethren of the Solovetsky Monastery flatly refused to accept the corrected liturgical books. The government decided to tame the rebellious monks by blockading the monastery and confiscating its land holdings. High thick walls and rich food supplies extended the siege of the monastery for several years. The Razinites, exiled to Solovki, also joined the ranks of the rebels. Only as a result of betrayal was the monastery captured; of its 500 defenders, only 60 remained alive.
In general, popular uprisings of the 17th century. had a dual significance for the development of the country. Firstly, they partly played the role of limiting the exploitation and abuse of authorities. And secondly, they further pushed for centralization and strengthening of the state apparatus.
Evolution of the state-political system. The beginning of the reign of the Romanov dynasty was the heyday of the class-representative monarchy. Under the young king Mikhail Fedorovich(1613-1645) the Boyar Duma seized power into its own hands, in which the relatives of the new tsar - the Romanovs, Cherkasskys, Saltykovs - played a significant role.
However, to strengthen centralized power in the state, the constant support of the nobility and the top of the urban settlement was required. Therefore, the Zemsky Sobor met almost continuously from 1613 to 1619. The role and competence of the Zemsky Sobors undoubtedly increased (under Tsar Michael the cathedral met at least 10 times), the elected element gained numerical dominance over the official ones. Nevertheless, the cathedrals still did not have independent political significance, therefore it is hardly appropriate to assert that in Russia there was a classical estate-representative monarchy of the Western model, even in relation to the 17th century, but we can talk about the elements of estate representation: Zemsky Sobor And Boyar Duma.
The point is that active work Zemsky Sobors was due to the temporary need of the new government to overcome the consequences of the Troubles. Those elected at the council were, as a rule, only required to express their opinion on a particular issue; it was the prerogative of the supreme authority to decide. The composition of the cathedral was changeable and lacked a stable organization, so it cannot be called an all-class body. Gradually, by the end of the 17th century. cathedral activities ceased.
In 1619, the father of Tsar Michael returned from Polish captivity Filaret (Fedor Nikitovich Romanov), at one time a real contender for the royal throne. In Moscow, he accepted the patriarchal rank with the title of “great sovereign” and became the de facto ruler of the state until his death in 1633.
The new Moscow government, in which the Tsar’s father, Patriarch Filaret, played a primary role, restoring the state after the Time of Troubles, was guided by the principle: everything should be as of old. The ideas of an electoral and limited monarchy, which matured in the era of unrest, did not take deep roots. To calm society and overcome devastation, a conservative policy was necessary, but the Troubles introduced many such changes into public life that, in fact, government policy turned out to be reformist (S. F. Platonov).
Measures are being taken to strengthen the autocracy. Huge lands and entire cities are transferred to large secular and spiritual landowners. Most of the estates of the middle nobility are transferred to the category of estates, new land plots are “complained” “for the service” of the new dynasty.
Changing appearance and meaning Boyar Duma. Due to the Duma nobles and clerks, its number increases from 35 people in the 30s. to 94 by the end of the century. Power is concentrated in the hands of the so-called Middle Duma, which at that time consisted of four boyars related to the tsar by family ties (I. N. Romanov, I. B. Cherkassky, M. B. Shein, B. M. Lykov). In 1625, a new state seal was introduced, and the word “autocrat” was included in the royal title.
With the limitation of the powers of the Boyar Duma, the importance of orders - their number constantly grew and at times reached fifty. The most important of them were the Local, Ambassadorial, Discharge, order of the Big Treasury, etc. Gradually, the practice of subordinating several orders to one government person in the state was established - in fact head of government. Thus, under Mikhail Fedorovich, the orders of the Great Treasury, Streletsky, Inozemny and Aptekarsky were in charge of the boyar I.B. Cherkassky, and from 1642 he was replaced by Romanov’s relative, F.I. Sheremetyev. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, these orders were administered first by B.I. Morozov, then by I.D. Miloslavsky, the Tsar’s father-in-law.
IN local or management changes occurred that testified to the strengthening of the centralization principle: zemstvo elected bodies, which appeared in the middle of the 16th century, began to be gradually replaced by stricter control from the center through voivode In general, a rather contradictory picture emerged: while the zemstvo electors were called upon from the districts to decide issues of higher government alongside the boyars and metropolitan nobles, the district voters were given over to the power of these boyars and nobles (voevoda) (V. O. Klyuchevsky).
Under Filaret, she restored her shaky position church. With a special letter, the tsar transferred into the hands of the patriarch the trial of the clergy and monastery peasants. The land holdings of the monasteries expanded. Patriarchal judicial and administrative-financial orders appeared. The Patriarchal court was structured according to the royal model.
Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov died in June 1645. The issue of succession to the throne had to be decided by the Zemsky Sobor, because in 1613 it was not the Romanov dynasty that was elected to the kingdom, but Mikhail personally. According to the old Moscow tradition, the crown was given to the son of Mikhail Fedorovich Alexey, who was 16 years old at the time. The Zemsky Sobor took him to the throne. Unlike his father, Alexey did not undertake any written obligations to the boyars, and formally nothing limited his power.
Into Russian history ALexey Mikhailovich Romanov(1645-1676) entered as Ageksey the Quiet. Gregory Kotoshikhln called Alexei “much quiet,” and the foreigner Augustin Mayerberg was surprised that the tsar, “who had unlimited power over a people accustomed to complete slavery, did not encroach on anyone’s honor and property.”
The point, of course, was not only the balanced character of Alexei the Quiet. By the middle of the 15th century. the centralization of the Russian state increased noticeably. After the shocks of the Time of Troubles, central and local authorities had already been restored, and extreme measures were not required to govern the country.
Alexei Mikhailovich's domestic policy reflected the dual nature of his time. The quiet king wanted to observe the customs of Old Moscow Russia. But, seeing the successes of Western European countries, he simultaneously sought to adopt their achievements. Russia balanced between paternal antiquity and European innovations. Unlike his decisive son, Peter the Great, Alexei the Quiet did not carry out reforms that would break “Moscow piety” in the name of Europeanization. Descendants and historians assessed this differently: some were indignant at the “weak Alexei,” others saw in him the “true wisdom of the ruler.”
Tsar Alexei strongly encouraged reformers such as A. P. Ordin-Nashchokin, F. M. Rtishchev, Patriarch Nikon, A. S. Matveev and etc.
In the first years of Alexei's reign, the Tsar's educator enjoyed special influence. Boris Ivanovich Morozov. A powerful and intelligent man, Morozov promoted the penetration of European achievements into Russia, encouraged the printing of translations and European books in every possible way, invited foreign doctors and craftsmen to the Moscow service, and loved theatrical performances. Not without his participation, the reorganization of the Russian army began. The noble cavalry and people's militia were gradually replaced regiments of the new formation- a regular army, trained and equipped in a European manner.
One of the main achievements of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich was the adoption Cathedral Code(1649). This is grandiose for the 17th century. The code of laws has long played the role of the All-Russian Legal Code. Attempts to adopt a new Code were made under Peter I and Catherine II, but both times were unsuccessful.
Compared to its predecessor - the Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible (1550), the Council Code, in addition to criminal law, also includes state and civil law, therefore it is therefore not
What is surprising is not only the completeness, but also the speed of adoption of the code. This entire extensive vault in the project was developed by a commission of the prince specially created by royal decree Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky, then discussed at a specially convened Zemsky Sobor in 1648, corrected on many articles, and adopted on January 29. Thus, all discussion and acceptance
The code of almost 1000 articles took only a little more than six months - an unprecedentedly short period even for a modern parliament!
The reasons for such rapid adoption of new laws were as follows.
Firstly, the very alarming atmosphere of that time in Russian life forced the Zemsky Sobor to hurry. Popular uprisings in 1648 in Moscow and other cities forced the government and elected representatives to improve the affairs of the court and legislation.
Secondly, since the time of the Code of Law of 1550, many private decrees have been adopted for various cases. Decrees were collected in orders, each with its own type of activity, and then recorded in Decree books. These latter were guided by the clerks along with the Code of Law in administrative and judicial matters.
Over the course of a hundred years, a great many legal provisions have accumulated, scattered under different orders, sometimes contradicting each other. This complicated the administration of the order and gave rise to a lot of abuses from which the petitioners suffered. It was required, according to the successful formulation of S. F. Platonov, “instead of a mass of separate laws, to have one code.” Thus, the reason that stimulated legislative activity was the need to systematize and codify laws.
Thirdly, too much has changed and moved in Russian society after the Time of Troubles. Therefore, not a simple update was required, but legislative reform, bringing it into line with new living conditions.
Cathedral Code examined public service and public life in the following main areas:

1. interpreted royal power as the power of God's anointed;
2. first introduced the concept of “state crime.” Such
   all acts directed against the king and his family were announced, criticism
   government. The death penalty was imposed for a state crime
   (the theft of the sovereign's property was punished just as severely);
3. provided for punishment for crimes against the church and the patriarch;
4. regulated relations between the population and local authorities through many articles. Disobedience to authorities was punishable, but punishments were also imposed for
   governor and other officials for extortion, bribes and other abuses;
5. attached townspeople to the suburb; ,
6. imposed a tax on “white landowners” - residents of settlements owned by monasteries and private individuals;
7. protected the interests of rich townspeople - merchants, guests (merchants) - by declaring severe punishments for encroaching on their
   goodness, honor and life;
8. announced an “indefinite” search for peasants and their return to their estates.
   Thus, the final step was taken - serfdom became complete. True, the custom was still in force - “there is no extradition from the Don.” It could be
   hide in Siberia, from where neither the government nor the owners had the opportunity to return the fugitive.

A legislative monument that surpassed the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in completeness and legal elaboration - the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire in 15 volumes - appeared only in 1832 under Nicholas I. And before that, the Code remained a code of Russian laws for almost two centuries.
The monarchy of Alexei Mikhailovich still retained the features of an estate-representative one, but the autocratic power of the tsar increased. After the council of 1654, which decided the issue of reunification with Ukraine, Zemsky Sobors did not meet until the end of Alexei’s reign. The system of government bodies with orders and the Boyar Duma that had developed under the last Rurikovichs remained unshakable. But partial changes took place in it, which contributed to greater centralization and the creation of a complex state administrative apparatus with a huge number of officials - clerks and clerks.
Separated from the Boyar Duma Neighborhood Council And execution chamber, resolving current judicial and administrative cases.
Not wanting to completely depend on the Boyar Duma and the leadership of the orders, Alexei Mikhailovich created a kind of personal office - Order of secret affairs(he stood above everyone else, since he could interfere in the affairs of all government institutions).
Localism gradually became a thing of the past. Increasingly, “thin people” were appointed to important government positions.
Thus, in the second half of the 17th century. the formation of basic elements begins absolute monarchy. Absolutism- a form of government when legislative, executive and judicial power is completely concentrated in the hands of the monarch, and the latter relies on a ramified bureaucratic apparatus appointed and controlled exclusively by him. An absolute monarchy presupposes the centralization and regulation of state and local government, the presence of a permanent army and security service, and a developed financial system controlled by the monarch.
After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich in 1676, his eldest son became king Fedor- a sickly boy of 14 years old. In fact, his maternal relatives seized power Miloslavsky And sister Sophia, characterized by strong will and energy. The ruling circle under the princess was headed by an intelligent and talented prince V.V. Golitsyn - favorite of the princess. The course towards the rise of the nobility and the creation of conditions for the merger of the nobility and boyars into a single class was continued. A strong blow to the class privileges of the aristocracy, in order to weaken its influence, was dealt in 1682 with the abolition of localism. Now, when making official appointments, the principle of personal merit came to the fore.
With the death of the childless Fyodor Alekseevich in 1682, the question arose about the heir to the throne. Of his two brothers, the weak-minded Ivan could not occupy the throne, but Petru- the son from his second marriage turned 10 years old. At court, a struggle broke out between the relatives of the princes on the side of their mothers.
Behind Ivan stood Miloslavsky led by Princess Sophia, followed by Peter - Naryshkins, who were supported by Patriarch Jokim, who replaced Nikon. At a meeting of the Consecrated Council and the Boyar Duma, Peter was proclaimed tsar. However, on May 15, 1682, the Streltsy rebelled in Moscow, incited by the head of the Streletsky Prikaz, Prince I. A. Khovansky. All prominent supporters of the Naryshkins were killed. At the request of the archers, both princes were placed on the throne, and Princess Sophia became their ruler. With the coming of age of Peter in the summer of 1689, Sophia's regency lost its foundation. Not wanting to voluntarily give up power, Sophia, relying on her protege, the head of the Streletsky Prikaz F. Shaklovity, waited for support from the Streltsy, but her hopes were not justified, the palace coup failed. Sophia was deprived of power and imprisoned in the Novodevichy Convent, her closest supporters were executed or exiled.
In general, at the end of the 17th century. the country was on the verge of decisive changes, already prepared by previous developments. The overdue reforms could be carried out by reducing state pressure on society while simultaneously encouraging private initiative and gradually weakening class unfreedom. Such a path would be a continuation of the reform activities of A.P. Ordin-Nashchokin and V.V. Golitsyn. The other path assumed an even greater tightening of the regime, an extreme degree of concentration of power, strengthening of serfdom and - as a result of an excessive strain of forces - a reformation breakthrough. The traditions of despotic state power in Russia and the character of the reformer who appeared at the end of the century made the second option more likely.
Russian foreign policy. Development of Siberia and the Far East. Russian foreign policy during the 17th century. was aimed at solving the following problems:

1. achieving access to the Baltic Sea;
2. ensuring the security of the southern borders from Crimean raids
   khanates;
3. the return of territories seized during the Time of Troubles;
4. development of Siberia and the Far East.

For a long time, the main knot of contradictions was relations between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The efforts of the government of Patriarch Filaret in the 20s and early 30s. were aimed at creating an anti-Polish coalition consisting of Sweden, Russia and Turkey. The course for war with Poland, proclaimed by the Zemsky Sobor in 1622, was expressed for 10 years in economic assistance to the opponents of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - Denmark and Sweden. In June 1634, an agreement was signed between Russia and Poland Polyanovsky world.
In 1648, the liberation struggle of the Ukrainian people against the Polish lords began under the leadership B. Khmelnitsky. The Zemsky Sobor in 1653 decides to reunite Ukraine with Russia. In its turn Pereyaslav Rada in 1654 unanimously supported the entry of Ukraine into Russia. The outbreak of war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth lasted 13 years, from 1654 to 1667, and ended with the signing Truce of Andrusovo(1667),
the terms of which were fixed in 1686 "The World of War". The Smolensk region, Left Bank Ukraine and Kiev were ceded to Russia. Belarus remained part of Poland. In addition, the agreement provided for joint actions of Russia and Poland against possible Turkish-Crimean aggression.
From 1656 to 1658 it was war between Russia and Sweden. Russia's attempt to seize the coast of the Gulf of Finland ended unsuccessfully. In 1661 it was signed World of Kardas along which the entire coast remained with Sweden.
In 1677 the Russian-Turkish-Crimean war began, ending in 1681 Bakhchisarai truce, under the terms of which Turkey recognized Russia’s rights to Kyiv (not long before, Turkey managed to recapture Podolia from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and it began to lay claim to Right Bank Ukraine). In 1687 and 1689 Prince V.V. Golitsyn led the campaigns to the Crimea, but both ended unsuccessfully.
Thus, Russia was never able to gain access to the seas, and in this regard its foreign policy tasks remained the same. The Crimean campaigns did not bring Russia any major military successes or territorial transformations. However, the main task "Holy League"(Austria, Poland, Russia - 1684) was fulfilled - Russian troops blocked the forces of the Crimean Khan, who was unable to provide assistance to the Turkish troops, who were defeated by the Austrians and Venetians. In addition, the inclusion of Russia for the first time in the European military alliance significantly increased its international prestige.
Among the successes of Russian foreign policy are development of Siberia and the Far East. In the 16th century Russian people conquered Western Siberia, and by the middle of the 16th century. conquered a significant part of Eastern Siberia. The gigantic space from the Yenisei to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk was “traversed” by the Cossack pioneers in 20 years.
From the interfluve of the Ob and Yenisei, Russian explorers moved southeast to the Baikal region, to the Amur and southern Far Eastern lands, as well as to the east and northeast to the Lena River basin - to Yakutia, Chukotka and Kamchatka.
Between the Ob, Yenisei and Lower Tunguska in those days they lived Nenets(which the Russians called Samoyeds), Khanty (Ostyaks), Mansi (Voguls) And Evenks (Tungus). These peoples began to pay tribute to Russia.
Since 1632, Russia began to pay yasak Yakutia, conquered with the help of arquebuses and cannons. Russian Cossacks who founded Yakutsk, became the new masters of the region.
Buryat tribes became part of Russia in the early 50s. XVII century The main city of the Baikal region, where the Buryat tribute was brought, was built in 1652. Irkutsk The capital of all Russian possessions in Western and Eastern Siberia remained Tobolsk
The establishment of Russians in the middle of the century on the Lena River and in the Baikal region opened up the possibility of movement of pioneers and settlers further to the east, northeast and southeast (expeditions S. I. Dezhneva to Chukotka, E. P. Khabarova in the Amur region). The Amur region became part of Russia, which displeased the rulers of Manchuria. Treaty of Nerchinsk 1689 established the border between the possessions of China and Russia along the Amur and its tributaries.
Moscow established its power in Siberia quite firmly. Siberia, according to the historian A. A. Zimin, was a kind of valve into which the forces of an unreconciled and unconquered people went. Not only merchants and service people flocked here, but also runaway slaves, peasants, and townspeople. There were no landowners or serfdom here. Tax oppression in Siberia was milder than in the center of Russia.
Russian settlers received bread, gunpowder, lead and other aid from the governors appointed by the tsar and maintained order. The settlers paid taxes to the treasury, and the indigenous people paid a fur tribute. And it was not in vain that Moscow encouraged the work of explorers and industrialists: in the 17th century. income from Siberian furs accounted for a quarter of all government revenues.
Church reform. The Russian Orthodox Church occupies a significant place in the history of the Russian state. Orthodoxy determined the ethnic self-awareness of the Russian people during the struggle against the Mongol-Tatar yoke, which, together with the all-Russian church organization and along with socio-economic factors, contributed to the political unification of the lands and the creation of a single Moscow state.
In the XVI-XVII centuries. the church, relying on the state, suppressed numerous heresies that penetrated into the upper layers of the administrative apparatus and had a fairly broad social base. In historical science, this struggle was seen as the suppression of free thought, currents of social thought similar to the Western Reformation. Church history interprets the defeat of heresies as a defense of faith, the Orthodox identity of the Russian people and Russian statehood, and the scope and cruelty of the fight against heresies in Russia exceeded the activities of the Inquisition or Protestant churches.
The church and monasteries had significant economic power, a developed and efficient economy, and were cultural centers. Monasteries were often built in strategically important places and were of great importance in the defense of the country. The church was able to exhibit up to 20 thousand. warriors These circumstances created the material basis for the authority of the church (a kind of state within the state), which, nevertheless, was not used in opposition to secular power.
The consecrated cathedral, as a body of church government, took an active part in the work of Zemsky Sobors. During the Time of Troubles, the patriarchate (established in 1589), despite some hesitations, played a big role in the fight against impostors and the Polish-Swedish intervention (the tragic fate of Patriarch Hermogenes, the death of monks while defending Orthodox shrines, material support for the militia, etc. ). Patriarch Filaret actually ruled Russia, being a co-ruler of Tsar Mikhail Romanovich, strengthening the autocracy and the new dynasty, on the one hand, and the role of the church, on the other.
In the middle of the 17th century. a reorientation begins in the relationship between church and state. Researchers assess its causes differently. In historical literature, the prevailing point of view is that the process of formation of absolutism inevitably led to the deprivation of the church of its feudal privileges and subordination to the state. The reason for this was the attempt of Patriarch Nikon to place spiritual power above secular power. Church historians deny this position of the patriarch, considering Nikon a consistent ideologist "symphonies of power". They see the initiative in abandoning this theory in the activities of the tsarist administration and the influence of Protestant ideas.
An important fact of Russian history of the 17th century. was church schism, resulting from church reform Patriarch Nikon.
There are two main traditions in understanding schism in literature. Some scientists - A. P. Shchapov, N. A. Aristov, V. B. Andreev, N. I. Kostomarov - are inclined to see in him socio-political movement in religious form.
Other researchers see the schism and Old Believers primarily as religious-church phenomenon. Among historians, such an understanding of the schism is typical for S. M. Solovyov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, E. E. Golubinsky, A. V. Kartashev, among Russian thinkers - for V. S. Solovyov, V. V. Rozanov, N. A. Berdyaev, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky. Modern researchers A.P. Bogdanov, V.I. Buganov, S.V. Bushuev do not deny socio-political aspirations, but consider them not the main and determining ones, but subordinate to the topic of schism.
Reasons for carrying out church reform:
- church reform was dictated by the need to strengthen discipline, order, and moral principles of the clergy;
- the introduction of identical church rituals throughout the Orthodox world was required;
- the spread of printing opened up the possibility of unifying church books.
At the end of the 40s. XVII century In Moscow, a circle of zealots of ancient piety was formed. It included prominent church figures: the royal confessor Stefan Vonifatiev, the rector of the Kazan Cathedral on Red Square John, the royal bed guard F. Rtishchev, outstanding church leaders Nikon and Avvakum from Nizhny Novgorod, and others.
Son of a Mordovian peasant Nikon(in the world Nikita Minov) made a rapid career. Having taken monastic vows on the Solovetsky Islands, Nikon soon became the abbot (head) of the Kozheozersky monastery (Kargopol region). Nikon had an acquaintance and friendship with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, whose support he enjoyed for a long time. Nikon becomes archimandrite of the Moscow Novospassky Monastery - the family tomb of the Romanovs. After a short stay as Metropolitan of Novgorod (just during the Novgorod uprising of 1650), Nikon was elected Moscow Patriarch in 1652.
It was Patriarch Nikon who began the reform to unify rituals and establish uniformity in church services. Greek rules and rituals were taken as a model.
The most significant of the innovations adopted by Patriarch Nikon and the church council in 1654 were the replacement of baptism with two fingers with three fingers, pronouncing the praise to God “Hallelujah” not twice, but three times, and moving around the lectern in the church not in the direction of the Sun, but against it.
Then the patriarch attacked the icon painters who began to use Western European painting techniques. In addition, following the example of the Eastern clergy, churches began to read sermons of their own composition. Here the tone was set by the patriarch himself. Russian handwritten and printed liturgical books were ordered to be taken to Moscow for viewing. If discrepancies with the Greek ones were found, the books were destroyed, replaced by printing and sending out new ones. And although all the changes were purely external and did not affect the Orthodox doctrine, they were perceived as an attack on the faith itself, because they violated traditions (the faith of the fathers and their ancestors).
Nikon fought against innovations, but it was his reforms that were perceived by part of the Moscow people as innovations that encroached on faith. The church split into Nikonians(the church hierarchy and most of the believers who are accustomed to obey) and Old Believers.
Archpriest becomes an active opponent of Nikon and one of the founders of the Old Believer movement Habakkuk- one of the most prominent personalities in Russian history. A man of enormous spiritual strength, which fully manifested itself during his persecution, from childhood he was accustomed to asceticism and mortification of the flesh. He considered aversion from the world and the desire for holiness to be so natural for a person that he could not get along in any parish because of his tireless pursuit of worldly pleasures and deviations from the customs of the church. Many considered him a saint and miracle worker. He participated with Nikon in correcting liturgical books, but was soon removed due to ignorance of the Greek language.
Adherents of the old faith - the Old Believers - saved and hid the “wrong” liturgical books. Secular and spiritual authorities persecuted them. From persecution, zealots of the old faith fled to the forests, united into communities, and founded monasteries in the wilderness. The Solovetsky Monastery, which did not recognize Nikonianism, was under siege from 1668 to 1676, until the governor Meshcheryakov took it and hanged all the rebels (out of 600 people, 50 remained alive).
Leaders of the Old Believers, archpriests Habakkuk and Daniel They wrote petitions to the Tsar, but, seeing that Alexei did not defend the “old times,” they announced the imminent arrival of the end of the world, because the Antichrist had appeared in Russia. The king and the patriarch are “his two horns.” Only the martyrs - the defenders of the old faith - will be saved. The preaching of “purification by fire” was born. The schismatics locked themselves in churches and burned themselves alive.
The Old Believers did not disagree with the Orthodox Church on any point dogma(the main tenet of the doctrine), but only in some rituals that Nikon abolished, therefore they were not heretics, but only schismatics.
The schism united a variety of social forces that advocated preserving the integrity of the traditions of Russian culture. There were princes and boyars, such as noblewoman F.P. Morozova and princess E.P. Urusova, monks and white clergy who refused to perform the new rituals. But there were especially many ordinary people: townspeople, archers, peasants, who saw in the preservation of old rituals a way of fighting for the ancient folk ideals of “pride” and “freedom”. The most radical step of the Old Believers was the decision taken in 1674 to stop praying for the health of the Tsar. This meant a complete break between the Old Believers and the existing society, the beginning of a struggle to preserve the ideal of “truth” within their communities.
Holy Cathedral 1666-1667 He cursed the schismatics for their disobedience. The zealots of the old faith ceased to recognize the church that excommunicated them. The split has not been overcome to this day.
The leaders of the Old Believers, Avvakum and his associates, were exiled to Pustoozersk, in the lower reaches of Pechora, and spent 14 years in an earthen prison, after which they were burned alive. Since then, Old Believers often subjected themselves to “fiery baptism” - self-immolation.
The fate of the main enemy of the Old Believers, Patriarch Nikon, was also tragic. Having achieved the title of “great sovereign,” His Holiness the Patriarch clearly overestimated his strength. In 1658, he defiantly left the capital, declaring that he did not want to be a patriarch in Moscow, but would remain the patriarch of Rus'.
In 1666, a church council with the participation of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who had powers from two other Orthodox patriarchs - Constantinople and Jerusalem, removed Nikon from the post of patriarch. The place of his exile was the famous Ferapontov Monastery near Vologda. After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, Nikon returned from exile and died (1681) near Yaroslavl. He is buried in the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery near Moscow (Istra).
Thus, church reform and schism were a major social and spiritual revolution, which not only reflected trends towards centralization and a certain unification of church life, but also entailed significant sociocultural consequences. It stirred the consciousness of millions of people, forcing them to doubt the legitimacy of the existing world order, and created a split between the official secular and spiritual authorities and a significant part of society. Having violated some traditional foundations of spiritual life, the schism gave impetus to social thought and prepared the way for future transformations.
In addition, the church schism, which weakened the church in the 15th century, served as a prerequisite for the subsequent subordination of the church to state power, turning it into an ideological appendage of absolutism.

Mercantilism- the economic policy of early capitalism (the era of the so-called primitive accumulation of capital), expressed in the active intervention of the state in economic life. It consists of protectionism, encouraging the development of domestic industry, especially manufacturing, and supporting the expansion (expansion) of commercial capital.

Morozov Boris Ivanovich(1590-1661) - boyar, statesman, in the middle of the 17th century. headed the Russian government.

"Symphony of Power" - Byzantine-Orthodox theory, which assumed a dual unity of independently existing secular and ecclesiastical authorities, but jointly defending Orthodox values.

Subject: Political development of the country.

Goals: characterize the system of management and self-government in Russia.

During the classes:

1. The organizational moment is the message of the topic of the lesson.
2. Checking homework:

1. First Estate:
2. Peasants
3. Urban population
4. Clergy
5. Cossacks

1. Explanation of new material:

The first Romanovs.

The first Russian tsar of the new dynasty was M.F. Romanov (1613 - 1645). At the beginning of his reign he was barely 16 years old. At that age he could not be an independent politician. In the absence of his father (Filaret was in Polish captivity), the young Tsar’s mother Martha, who became the “great empress” after her son was proclaimed Tsar, had a great influence on Mikhail’s decision. Upon ascending the throne, Mikhail promised not to rule without the Zemsky Sobor and the Boyar Duma. The king kept this oath until his father returned from captivity. Filaret, proclaimed patriarch in 1919, also received the title of “great sovereign” and became co-ruler of his son. Until his death in 1633, Filaret was the de facto ruler of Russia. With strong-willed and power-hungry parents, Mikhail was a gentle and kind person. The king was a physically weak man and was often sick.

After the death of Mikhail, his son Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) became the new tsar, who ascended the throne at the same age as his father - at 16 years old. Alexei was prepared for his reign in advance: at the age of five they began to teach him to read, at the age of seven - to write. In his mature years, he not only wrote many documents himself, but also composed small literary works. His training was in charge of boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov, who over time acquired great influence over Alexei (and even for the first three years actually ruled the country under the young tsar). Alexey Mikhailovich was a pious man, he welcomed pilgrims, the poor and the homeless. Many contemporaries noted his unusual kindness and benevolence, and sometimes weakness of character. All this did not prevent him, if necessary, from showing determination, will, and toughness.

From his first marriage (to Maria Ilyinichna Miloslavskaya), Alexei had 13 children, including sons Fyodor and Ivan, as well as daughter Sophia. After the death of his first wife, the tsar married Natalia Kirillovna Naryshkina for the second time. In this marriage, the tsar had a son, Peter (the future Peter the Great). It was between the children from his first and second marriage that a struggle for power broke out after the death of Alexei Mikhailovich.

Zemsky Sobors.

Mikhail Fedorovich's oath to rule in accordance with the Zemsky Sobor and the Boyar Duma was not accidental: in conditions of economic ruin and the weakness of the central government, the young tsar was forced to seek support from all segments of the country's population. The Zemsky Sobor should have become such a support in the first place. Throughout the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the main feature of the councils was a significant increase in representation from the lower classes. The deputies elected to the council received “instructions” from their voters, which they had to defend before the tsar. Under Mikhail, Zemsky Sobors met quite often. And during the period of Filaret’s return from captivity, the Zemsky Sobor practically did not stop working. As the tsarist power strengthened, Zemsky Sobors met less and less often.

After Filaret's death, some nobles proposed transforming the Zemsky Sobor into a permanent parliament. However, these plans ran counter to the interests of the autocratic government. Councils began to meet only to approve projects already prepared by the tsar. And with the strengthening of serfdom, the representation of the lower strata of the population in the Zemsky Sobors became insignificant.

The last Zemsky Sobor was convened in 1653. Since then, autocratic power has relied not on representatives of the estates, but on the bureaucracy and the army.

Boyar Duma.

The Boyar Duma also gradually lost its former role. At first, the composition of the Duma was expanded by Mikhail Fedorovich - this is how he thanked those who supported his accession.

The Duma was still called upon to resolve the most important issues - war and peace, approval of laws, etc. Its work was supervised either by the tsar himself or by a boyar appointed by him.

The increase in the size of the Duma made it too cumbersome and forced the Tsar to create a more flexible governing body consisting of the most trusted persons. The full Boyar Duma began to meet less and less often. The “nearby” Duma concentrated in its hands the solution of many issues of public administration.

Orders.

The increase in the country's territory and the complication of economic life led to a significant increase in the number of orders. At different times, there were about 100 orders in the country.

Fill out the table yourself (pp. 51-52)

However, the numerical growth of orders had a negative impact on the management system, increasing bureaucratic red tape and abuse of official position. Sometimes orders were engaged in solving the same or similar problems.

In the 17th century, counties remained the main administrative units. Their number by the end of the century exceeded 250. The counties, in turn, were divided into smaller units - camps and volosts.

From the very beginning of the century, the tsar placed governors at the head of counties and a number of border cities, who headed not only local military detachments, but also vested with main administrative and judicial powers. They were responsible to Moscow for collecting taxes and fulfilling duties by the population.

From the second half of the 17th century, the king began to form new, larger military administrative units - ranks

These united groups of fortified cities in the border regions of the country for defense against possible attacks.

Laws. Cathedral Code of 1649.

In 1649, the Zemsky Sobor adopted the Council Code - an all-Russian code of laws.

The law introduced the concept of “state crime” (against the honor and health of the tsar and his family, representatives of state power and the church), for which severe punishment was provided.

It abolished fixed-term summers (an indefinite search for fugitive peasants and a large fine for harboring fugitives) - this meant the final enslavement of the peasants.

Conclusion:

Thus, during the 17th century, the power of the tsar increased, relying not on class representation, but on the state apparatus and army; serfdom was finally formalized.

1. Homework:§6 pp. 48-55. Copy new words into a notebook and learn them.

Political development of the country under the first Romanovs

Lesson objectives: trace the general direction of political development of Russia in the 17th century; show students the reasons for the strengthening of the autocratic nature of power and its consequences.

Basic knowledge: strengthening of autocratic power under the first Romanovs; changing the role and significance of Zemsky Sobors; reasons for the loss of power functions by the Boyar Duma; prerequisites and consequences of the increase in the number of orders; changes in the local government system; main provisions of the Council Code of 1649

Educational environment : textbook, workbook, excerpts from the essay by Grigory Kotoshikhin “On Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich” (the full version of the essay is presented on the website http://www.hist.msu. ru/ER/Etext/kotoshih.htm#723) and Soborny Code of 1649, wall map “Territorial growth of Russia in the 17th century,” reproductions of paintings by K. V. Lebedev “In the Boyar Duma”, A. P. Ryabushkin “The Tsar Sitting with the Boyars in the Sovereign Room”, S. V. Ivanov “In the official hut” and “Court in the Moscow State.”

Intrasubject connections: New history: English revolution of the 17th century, the formation of absolutism in France in the 17th century; history of Russia: internal politics of Ivan the Terrible. Persons: Mikhail Fedorovich, Patriarch Filaret, Alexey Mikhailovich, Fedor Alekseevich.

Key concepts: autocracy, absolutism, volost, camp, serfdom.

Dates and events: 1613-1645 - the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov; 1645-1676 - the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov; 1649 - adoption of the Council Code; 1653 - the last Zemsky Sobor.

Characteristics of the main types of student activity (at the level of educational activities): explain the meaning of the concepts of absolutism (using knowledge from the course of general history), autocracy, volost, camp, serfdom; analyze passages from the Council Code

1649 and use them to characterize the political structure of Russia; explain what the functions of individual government bodies (Zemsky Sobor, Boyar Duma, orders, etc.) were in the state government system; characterize the personality and activities of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

Basic information

Under the first Romanovs, the role and importance of royal power grew immeasurably, and the role of the Zemsky Sobor and the Boyar Duma in state affairs weakened.

Zemstvo councils began to be convened only to approve projects already prepared by the tsar, and not to discuss ways of developing the country, as had happened before. And with the strengthening of serfdom, the representation of the lower strata of the population in the Zemsky Sobors became minimal.

The last Zemsky Sobor was convened in 1653; it accepted the population of Left Bank Ukraine and Kyiv into Russian citizenship.

Since then, the main support of the autocracy became the nobles who served in the orders and the army.

The Boyar Duma also gradually lost its former role. The increase in the size of the Duma made it too cumbersome and forced the tsar to create a more flexible governing body, consisting of trusted representatives - the “near” (“small”, “secret”) Duma, which gradually replaced the “big”. The Boyar Duma began to be convened in its entirety less and less often. The “nearby” Duma concentrated in its hands the solution of many issues of public administration.

The growth of the country's territory and the complication of economic problems led to a significant increase in the number of orders. At different times, there were about a hundred orders in Russia.

In the 17th century The territory of Russia was divided into counties, camps and volosts.

From the very beginning of the 17th century, the tsar placed a governor at the head of counties and a number of border towns. They led local military detachments, headed administration, court, and tax collection. We can say that the governors personified all local power. Bodies elected by the population (zemstvo and provincial huts) lost a significant part of their powers.

The emergence of many new laws in the first half of the 17th century. Along with the application of laws of an earlier time, it was necessary to streamline them and consolidate them into a single document - a code of laws. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich instructed his associates, led by Prince N.I. Odoevsky, to compile such a code. When drawing up the Council Code, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in 1649, not only Russian laws were used, but also foreign ones.

Plan for learning new material:

1. The first Romanovs: strengthening of autocratic power.

2. Zemsky Sobors.

3. Boyar Duma.

4. Orders.

5. Local control.

6. Laws. Cathedral Code of 1649

During the classes

The examination of new material is preceded by a repeated conversation between the teacher and the class. Updating students' knowledge will allow them to better understand what the strengthening of autocracy was about in the 17th century.

Questions and assignments for students: 1. When did the establishment of autocracy in Russia date back to? 2. Name the governing bodies in Russia in the 16th century.

1. The study of this item of the plan can be carried out in the form of laboratory work. The main sources for analysis here can be excerpts from the Council Code of 1649.

Chapter II. About the sovereign's honor, and how to protect his sovereign health

1. If someone has some kind of intention to think of an evil deed for the sovereign’s health, and someone will inform about that evil intention of his, and from that information about that his evil intention will be clearly revealed that he thought of an evil deed against the Tsar’s Majesty, and wanted to do it, and such is upon investigation, execute by death.

2. In the same way, there will be someone under the power of the Tsar’s Majesty, even if he takes possession of the Moscow State and becomes the sovereign, and for that purpose his evil intentions will begin to collect the army, or who will teach the Tsar’s Majesty from the enemy a friend, and with advisory letters to the exile, and help them in every possible way to repair the sovereign's enemy, through his exile, to take possession of the Moscow state, or to do something bad, and someone will notify him about this, and according to the information of the detective about this, his treason is clear, and such a traitor is subject to the same execution by death...

5. And the estates and estates and treasonous lands are taken to the sovereign.

6. And the wives and children of such traitors knew about their betrayal, and according to the same they would be executed by death...

13. If they report something about the sovereign’s health, or what kind of treasonous deeds whose people have committed against those for whom they serve, or the peasants for whom they live as peasants, but in that matter they will not be incriminated in any way, and their report should not be believed. . And inflicting cruel punishment on them, beating them mercilessly with a whip, give them back to those whose people and peasants they are. And besides those great deeds, such a whistleblower should not be trusted in any matter...

18. And who of the Moscow State of all ranks people know, or hear about the Tsar's Majesty in which people there is a conspiracy, or some other evil intent, and they should inform the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Rus', or his sovereign boyars about it and to neighboring people, or to governors and officials in cities...

21. And whoever incites to the Tsar’s Majesty, or against his sovereign boyars and okolniki and Duma and neighboring people, and in cities, and in regiments against governors, and against clerks, or against anyone, come en masse and conspire, and they will incriminate whom rob, or beat, and those people who do this, for the same reason they are executed by death without any mercy...

Questions for students : 1. What actions did the Council Code consider as a state crime? 2. What punishments were given for these actions? Why were the punishments so cruel?

Based on the results of the students’ work with the document, the teacher concludes that the tsar defended the interests of the feudal lords, himself being the largest of them (he owned over 80 thousand peasant households).

Questions for students: 1. Why did Mikhail Fedorovich go down in history as the Meek, and Alexey Mikhailovich as the Quietest? 2. What role did Patriarch Filaret play at the court of Mikhail Fedorovich? Can we call him “the second great sovereign”? 3. How can one explain the special role of Patriarch Filaret in the system of managing public affairs?

This stage of the lesson can be started by reviewing previously covered material.

Questions for students: 1. What are Zemsky Sobors? 2. When and why did they start convening? 3. Who and how became participants in the Zemsky Sobors? 4. How can one explain the strengthening of the role of Zemsky Sobors at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries?

Starting from the answer to the last question, the teacher begins to present new material, explaining to students why there was a constant decrease in the role of Zemsky Sobors after the Time of Troubles. When considering this and the next two lesson plan points, you can have students complete the table:

Government bodies in the Russian state in the 16th-17th centuries.

State institutions of the 16th century. XVII century

Zemsky Sobors Boyar Duma Orders

When explaining material about the Boyar Duma, it is important for the teacher to show the dynamics of its development. A conversation with his students will help him with this.

Questions for students: 1. When and why did the Boyar Duma appear? 2. What functions did it have? How did these functions change during the period

oprichnina? 3. What new appeared in the work of the Duma during the Time of Troubles?

When presenting the material, the teacher can use reproductions of paintings by artists K. V. Lebedev “In the Boyar Duma” and A. P. Ryabushkin “The Tsar’s Sitting with the Boyars in the Sovereign’s Room”, as well as an excerpt from the essay by clerk (assistant clerk) Grigory Kotoshikhin “On sitting the king with the boyars."

The obtained data can be summarized in a table

When explaining material about orders to a teacher, it is advisable to illustrate his story with a reproduction of S. V. Ivanov’s painting “In the command hut.”

This painting shows a 17th-century official hut. in the midst of work. In a small room - the “treasury” (where the treasury and the most important documents of the order were kept) - the head of the order - the “judge” from the boyars, his comrades, the clerk - the chief secretary of the order - and clerks are sitting at the table.

A bailiff in a red caftan stands at the door, leaning against the ceiling. It depends on him who is allowed to see the judge and clerk and who is not. Petitioners are crowding in front of the door. Everyone has an “offering” in their hands: one has a goose, another has a fish, a third has a basket with eggs, the next has bagels, someone put a bag of flour on the bench. They didn’t go to the order without a bribe. Even the sentence of that time said: “Do not go to court with one nose, but go with something.”

In the center of the picture there is a large table, on it are inkwells, a pot of glue, papers, pots of cinnabar (to write the first line in letters of commendation or the capital letter in manuscripts with red paint). Clerks write with quill pens on pieces of paper and glue them one to another, winding them on a stick into a long scroll. The longer the matter dragged on, the longer the scroll became. Scrolls 50-80 m long have survived to this day. To find the desired line, it was necessary to rewind the entire scroll. The tape dragged, hence the name “paperwork.”

Another option for studying this point of the plan is a conversation with students about the reproduction of the painting by S. V. Ivanov “In the hut of the order.”

Questions for students: 1. How does the picture show bribery in orders? 2. What was the subject of the bribes? 3. What can be said from the picture about the conduct of business in the orders, about the people who worked in them?

The study of this point can be structured in the form of a conversation with students based on the reproduction of S. V. Ivanov’s painting “Court in the Moscow State,” which depicts a court in the voivode’s courtyard in a county town. The conversation about the state apparatus ends with a discussion of the essence of the legislative framework of the Russian state in the 17th century. The teacher, summing up, concludes that through cruel torture and harsh sentences (students should clarify what types of sentences existed according to the Council Code of 1649), the royal court supported the dominance of the feudal lords, protected their lives and property.

Conclusions. During the 17th century, royal power strengthened significantly. Russian autocrats stopped convening Zemsky Sobors and taking into account the opinion of the Boyar Duma. Serfdom was strengthened. Laws tied peasants to the land.

Homework: § 6, questions and tasks for it.

After the death of Ivan the Terrible, Russia experienced a difficult time of turmoil, anarchy and disaster - the Time of Troubles. In 1613, after repeated attempts by Russian society to overcome the Troubles, the Romanov boyars found themselves on the Russian throne.

The historical merit of the Romanov boyars lies in the fact that they were able to rise above their narrow egoistic interests in understanding national tasks. They were able to see the main internal and external problems of Russia and solve them.

During the reign of the first Romanovs, such important events took place as the adoption of the first printed law of Russia (the Council Code), church reform was carried out, and the reunification of Ukraine and Russia took place.

Results of the Romanov reign

During the reign of the Romanov dynasty, Russia reached real prosperity. Rus' finally ceased to be a fragmented state, civil strife ended, and the country gradually began to gain military and economic power, which allowed it to defend its own independence and resist invaders.

Despite the difficulties that periodically occurred in the history of Russia, by the 19th century the country had turned into a huge, powerful Empire, which owned vast territories. In 1861, serfdom was completely abolished, and the country switched to a new type of economy and economy.

9. Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century. Transformations of Peter I. Their assessment in Russian historiography

The 18th century was in many ways a turning point in the history of Russia, which began with the controversial era of Peter the Great's reforms. For the beginning of the 18th century, it is difficult to separate domestic from foreign politics, economic development and Russia’s entry into the broad international arena. Many of Peter I's transformations were caused by the war, just as the war itself was necessary for the further development of the country.

Foreign policy of the early 18th century was characterized by the same directions as in the previous period - southern and western. Russia's struggle for access to the Black and Baltic Seas has become an urgent necessity. Attempts to reach the Black Sea were made in 1687 and 1689 (V. Golitsyn’s campaigns were unsuccessful), in 1695 and 1696 (Azov campaigns of Peter I, the second of which ended with the capture of the Azov fortress). The search for allies in Europe (the “Great Embassy” of 1697) led to a reorientation of foreign policy - access to the Baltic Sea was supposed to help solve many economic and political problems.

The Northern War (1700-1721) ended in victory for Russia. In 1721, peace was concluded in the Finnish city of Nystadt, under the terms of which part of Finland and Karelia (Vyborg and Kexholm), Ingria, Estland and Livonia with Riga were annexed to Russia. The country gained access to the Baltic Sea.

The Northern War gave a powerful impetus to reforms. During the war, a strong army and navy were created in Russia, and a new capital was founded - St. Petersburg (1703). A reform of the state administrative apparatus was carried out, and an absolutist state emerged. In 1711, the government Senate was established, replacing the Boyar Duma. In 1718, collegiums were introduced instead of the old orders. The changes affected the regional administration; the country was divided into 8 (later 11) provinces headed by governors. Since 1719, the country began to be divided into 50 provinces. A troop quartering system was introduced. Thus, an absolutist bureaucratic state was created, riddled with surveillance and espionage. The strengthening of the personality of the tsar's power was reflected in Peter I's adoption of the title of emperor (1721).

The basis of economic policy was mercantilism (accumulation of funds through active trade), an integral part of which was protectionism - encouraging domestic industry. New industrial areas are being created and old ones are being activated, and manufactories based on the labor of serfs are appearing.

Changes have also occurred in the social sphere. The unification of classes occurs, the social structure is simplified. This was facilitated, first of all, by the decree on single inheritance (1714) and the “Table of Ranks”, published in 1722.

A number of measures were taken in the interests of merchants and city residents. A new taxation system was introduced (capitation instead of household taxation). The new tax turned out to be significantly higher than the previous one. This, like a number of other factors, led to an increase in social activity of the population, the flight of peasants, armed uprisings, the largest of which were the uprising in Astrakhan (1707-1708) and the uprising of K. Bulavin on the Don (1707-1708).

10. Russia in the era of palace coups (1725-1762). Russia under Catherine II. The policy of "enlightened absolutism"

The era of palace coups is a time period in the political life of Russia in the 18th century, when the transfer of supreme state power took place through the commission of palace coups by guards or courtiers.

This phenomenon was favored by the lack of clear rules for succession to the throne amid the constant struggle between palace factions. Under the conditions of an absolute monarchy, a palace coup turned out to be the only effective way of feedback between the supreme power and society, or more precisely, its noble elite.

The author of the term, V. O. Klyuchevsky, dates the era of palace coups to the period from the death of Peter I in 1725 to the accession of Catherine II to the throne in 1762. However, the idea that it is the guard that determines who will receive the throne also existed at the beginning of the 19th century, during the events of the interregnum of 1825 (the Decembrist Revolt).

Minus the transfer of power from Anna Ioannovna to Anna Leopoldovna in 1740, from Elizaveta Petrovna to Peter III in 1761, and from Catherine II to her son Paul I in 1796, in all other cases during the first century of the Russian Empire, power was transferred by use of threat or force:

1725 - Menshikov’s party enthroned Catherine I

May 1727 - The Supreme Privy Council transfers the throne to Peter II, bypassing other contenders

· September 1727 - overthrow of Menshikov

· 1730 - the throne was transferred to Anna Ioannovna, subject to the signing of conditions limiting her autocracy

· 1740 - overthrow of Biron by the Minich group

· 1741 - enthronement of Elizabeth Petrovna

· 1762 - enthronement of Catherine II and assassination of Peter III

· 1801 - assassination of Paul I

Ekaterina 2

The policies of Peter 3, both external and internal, provoked indignation from almost all layers of Russian society. And it could not have caused any other reaction, for example, the return to Prussia of the territories captured during the Seven Years' War. Catherine, on the contrary, enjoyed considerable popularity. It is not surprising that in such a situation a conspiracy soon developed, led by Catherine.

On June 28, 1762, guards units took the oath to Catherine in St. Petersburg. Peter 3 was forced to abdicate the throne the very next day and was arrested. And soon he was killed, it is believed, with the tacit consent of his wife. Thus began the era of Catherine 2, called nothing less than the Golden Age.

In many ways, the domestic policy of Catherine 2 depended on her adherence to the ideas of the Enlightenment. It was the so-called enlightened absolutism of Catherine 2 that contributed to the unification of the management system, the strengthening of the bureaucratic apparatus and, ultimately, the strengthening of autocracy. The reforms of Catherine 2 became possible thanks to the activities of the Legislative Commission, which included deputies from all classes. However, the country could not avoid serious problems. Thus, the years 1773–1775 became difficult. - the time of Pugachev's uprising.

The foreign policy of Catherine 2 turned out to be very active and successful. It was especially important to secure the country's southern borders. The Turkish campaigns were of great importance. In their course, the interests of the greatest powers - England, France and Russia - collided. During the reign of Catherine 2, great importance was attached to the annexation of the territories of Ukraine and Belarus to the Russian Empire. This was achieved by Empress Catherine II with the help of the divisions of Poland (together with England and Prussia). It is necessary to mention the decree of Catherine 2 on the liquidation of the Zaporozhye Sich.

The reign of Catherine 2 turned out to be not only successful, but also long. She reigned from 1762 to 1796. According to some sources, the empress also thought about the possibility of abolishing serfdom in the country. It was at that time that the foundations of civil society were laid in Russia. Pedagogical schools were opened in St. Petersburg and Moscow, the Smolny Institute, the Public Library, and the Hermitage were created. On November 5, 1796, the Empress suffered a cerebral hemorrhage. The death of Catherine 2 occurred on November 6. Thus ended the biography of Catherine 2 and the brilliant Golden Age. The throne was inherited by Paul 1, her son.

Enlightened absolutism

The theory of “enlightened absolutism”, the founder of which is Thomas Hobbes, is completely imbued with the rationalistic philosophy of the age of “enlightenment”. Its essence lies in the idea of ​​a secular state, in the desire of absolutism to place central power above all else. Until the 18th century, the state idea, the exponent of which was absolutism, was understood in a narrowly practical way: the concept of the state was reduced to the totality of the rights of state power. Holding firmly to the views developed by tradition, enlightened absolutism introduced at the same time a new understanding of the state, which already imposes responsibilities on the state power, which enjoys rights. The consequence of this view, which developed under the influence of the theory of the contractual origin of the state, was the theoretical limitation of absolute power, which caused a whole series of reforms in European countries, where, along with the desire for “state benefit,” concerns about the general welfare were put forward. “Enlightenment” literature of the 18th century not only set the task of criticizing the old order: the aspirations of philosophers and politicians of that time agreed that the reform should be carried out by the state and in the interests of the state. Therefore, a characteristic feature of enlightened absolutism is the union of monarchs and philosophers who wanted to subordinate the state to pure reason.

In literature, “enlightened absolutism” was greeted with enthusiasm. The most striking example of enlightened absolutism is the political worldview of Voltaire; the school of physiocrats, led by Quesnay, Mercier de la Riviere and Turgot, held the same point of view.