All transformations of Peter 1. Church reform of Peter I

Reforms of Peter I: new page in development Russian Empire.

Peter I can be safely called one of the greatest Russian emperors, because it was he who began the reorganization necessary for the country in all spheres of society, the army and the economy, which played a lot important role in the development of the empire.
This topic is quite extensive, but we will talk about the reforms of Peter I briefly.
The emperor carried out a number of important reforms at that time, which should be discussed in more detail. And so what reforms of Peter I changed the empire:
Regional reform
Judicial reform
Military reform
Church reform
financial reform
And now it is necessary to talk about each of the reforms of Peter I more separately.

Regional reform

In 1708, the order of Peter I divided the entire empire into eight large provinces, which were led by governors. The provinces, in turn, were divided into fifty provinces.
This reform was carried out in order to strengthen the vertical of imperial power, as well as to improve the provision Russian army.

Judicial reform

The Supreme Court consisted of the Senate, as well as the College of Justice. Courts of appeal still existed in the provinces. However, the main reform is that now the court has been completely separated from the administration.

Military reform

The emperor paid special attention to this reform, since he understood that the army the latest sample- this is something without which the Russian Empire cannot become the strongest in Europe.
The first thing to be done is to reorganize the regimental structure of the Russian army according to the European model. In 1699, a massive recruitment was carried out, followed by exercises new army by all standards of the strongest armies of European states.
Perth I began a vigorous training of Russian officers. If at the beginning of the eighteenth century foreign specialists stood on the officer ranks of the empire, then after the reforms, domestic officers began to take their place.
No less important was the opening of the first Naval Academy in 1715, which later gave Russia a powerful fleet, but before that moment it did not exist. One year later, the emperor issued the Military Charter, which regulated the duties and rights of soldiers.
As a result, in addition to the new powerful fleet, which consisted of battleships, Russia also received a new regular army, not inferior to the armies of European states.

Church reform

Quite serious changes also took place in the church life of the Russian Empire. If earlier the church was an autonomous unit, then after the reforms it was subordinate to the emperor.
The first reforms began in 1701, but the church finally came under the control of the state only in 1721 after the release of a document called "Spiritual Regulations". This document also said that during the hostilities for the needs of the state, church property can be seized.
The secularization of church lands began, but only partially, and only Empress Catherine II completed this process.

financial reform

The wars started by Emperor Peter I required huge funds, which at that time were not in Russia, and in order to find them, the emperor began to reform financial system states.
First, a tax was imposed on taverns, where they sold a huge amount of moonshine. In addition, lighter coins began to be minted, which meant damage to the coin.
In 1704, the penny became the main currency, and not money as it was before.
If earlier courts were taxed, then after the reforms, every soul was already taxed - that is, every male inhabitant of the Russian Empire. Such layers as the clergy, the nobility and, of course, the Cossacks were exempted from paying the poll tax.
financial reform can be quite called successful, since it significantly increased the size of the imperial treasury. From 1710 to 1725, income increased by as much as three times, which means quite a lot of success.

Reforms in industry and trade

The needs of the new army increased significantly, because of which the emperor was forced to begin the active construction of manufactories. From abroad, the emperor attracted qualified specialists to reform the industry.
In 1705, the first silver-smelting plant began to operate in Russia. In 1723, an ironworks began to operate in the Urals. By the way, the city of Yekaterinburg now stands in its place.
After the construction of St. Petersburg, he became the trading capital of the empire.

Education reform

The emperor understood that Russia had to become an educated state, and paid special attention to this.
From 1701 to 1821, a large number of schools were opened: mathematical, engineering, artillery, medical, navigation. The first maritime academy was opened in St. Petersburg. The first gymnasium was opened already in 1705.
In each province, the emperor built two completely free schools, where children could receive primary, compulsory education.
These were the reforms of Peter I and this is how they influenced the development of the Russian Empire. Many reforms are now considered not entirely successful, but one cannot deny the fact that after their implementation, Russia has taken a big step forward.

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

Church reform of Peter I

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

Rice. 1. Young Peter.

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

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

Table “The essence of the ongoing reforms”

*Developments*	*Year*	*Goals*
Appointment of the "Guardian and Steward of the Patriarchal Throne"		Replace the election of the Patriarch by the Church with an imperial appointment	Peter personally appointed the new Patriarch
Secularization of peasants and lands		The elimination of the financial autonomy of the Church	Church peasants and lands were transferred to the management of the State.
Monastic prohibitions		Reduce the number of priests	You can not build new monasteries and conduct a census of monks
Senate control of the Church		Restriction of the administrative freedom of the Church	The creation of the Senate and the transfer of church affairs to its management
Decree on the limitation of the number of clergy		Improving the efficiency of human resource allocation	Ministers are attached to a particular parish, they are forbidden to travel
The preparatory stage for the abolition of the Patriarchate		Get full power in the empire	Development of a project for the establishment of the Spiritual College

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

Results of the reform

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

What have we learned?

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

Topic quiz

Report Evaluation

average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 222.

Nevrev N.V. Peter I in a foreign dress
before his mother Tsarina Natalya,
Patriarch Andrian and teacher Zotov.
1903

Since its inception in 1589, the institution of the patriarchate has become the second political center of the Muscovite state after secular power. The relationship of the Church to the state before Peter was not precisely defined, although at the church council of 1666-1667. the supremacy of secular power was fundamentally recognized and the right of hierarchs to interfere in secular affairs was denied. The Moscow sovereign was considered the supreme patron of the Church and took an active part in church affairs. But church authorities were also called upon to participate in state administration and influenced it. Russia did not know the struggle between ecclesiastical and secular authorities, familiar to the West (it did not exist, strictly speaking, even under Patriarch Nikon). The enormous spiritual authority of the Moscow Patriarchs did not seek to replace the authority state power, and if a voice of protest was heard from the side of the Russian hierarch, then it was exclusively from a moral position.

Peter did not grow up under the strong influence of theological science and not in such a pious environment as his brothers and sisters grew up. From the very first steps of his conscious life, he made friends with the "German heretics" and, although he remained an Orthodox person in his convictions, he nevertheless treated Church Orthodox rituals more freely than ordinary Moscow people. Peter was neither a scolder of the Church, nor a particularly pious person - in general, "neither cold nor hot." As expected, knew the circle church service, he loved to sing on the kliros, to grab the “Apostle” at the top of his lungs, to ring the bells on Easter, to mark Victoria with a solemn prayer service and many days of church bells; at other times he sincerely called on the name of God and, despite the obscene parodies of the church rank, or, rather, the church hierarchy that he did not like, at the sight of church disorganization, in his own words, “the frivolous had fear on his conscience, but he would not be unresponsive and ungrateful If the highest is neglected by the correction of the spiritual rank.

In the eyes of the Old Testament zealots of piety, he seemed infected with foreign "heresy". It can be said with certainty that Peter, from his mother and the conservative Patriarch Joachim (d. 1690), more than once met with condemnation for his habits and acquaintance with heretics. Under Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700), a weak and timid man, Peter met with no more sympathy for his innovations. And although Adrian did not explicitly prevent Peter from introducing certain innovations, his silence, in essence, was a passive form of opposition. Insignificant in itself, the patriarch became inconvenient for Peter, as the center and unifying principle of all protests, as a natural representative of not only ecclesiastical, but also social conservatism. The patriarch, strong in will and spirit, could have been a powerful opponent of Peter if he had taken the side of the conservative Moscow worldview, which condemned all public life to immobility.

Realizing this danger, after the death of Adrian in 1700, Peter was in no hurry to elect a new patriarch. Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky, a Little Russian scientist, was appointed "locum tenens of the patriarchal throne". The management of the patriarchal economy passed into the hands of specially appointed secular persons. It is unlikely that Peter decided to abolish the patriarchate immediately after the death of Hadrian. It would be more correct to think that at that time Peter simply did not know what to do with the election of a patriarch. Peter treated the Great Russian clergy with some distrust, because many times he was convinced of their rejection of the reforms. Even the best representatives old Russian hierarchy, who managed to understand the whole nationality foreign policy Peter and helped him as best they could (Mitrofaniy of Voronezh, Tikhon of Kazan, Job of Novgorod), and they rebelled against the cultural innovations of Peter. To choose a patriarch from among the Great Russians for Peter meant the risk of creating a formidable opponent for himself. The Little Russian clergy behaved differently: they themselves were influenced by European culture and science and sympathized with Western innovations. But it was impossible to appoint a Little Russian patriarch because during the time of Patriarch Joachim the Little Russian theologians were compromised in the eyes of Moscow society as people with Latin delusions. For this they were even persecuted. The elevation of a Little Russian to the patriarchal throne would therefore have caused a wave of protest. In such circumstances, Peter decided to leave church affairs without a patriarch.

Peter made the Little Russian monk Feofan Prokopovich the domestic, tame Luther of the Russian Reformation. He was a very capable, lively and energetic person, prone to practical activities and at the same time very educated, having studied theological science not only at the Kiev Academy, but also in the Catholic colleges of Lvov, Krakow and even Rome. The scholastic theology of the Catholic schools instilled in him a dislike for scholasticism and Catholicism. However, Orthodox theology, then poorly and little developed, did not satisfy Theophan. Therefore, from Catholic doctrines, he moved on to the study of Protestant theology and, carried away by it, learned some Protestant views, although he was an Orthodox monk.

Peter made Theophan the bishop of Pskov, and later he became the archbishop of Novgorod. A man quite secular in the direction of his mind and temperament, Feofan Prokopovich sincerely admired Peter and - God be his judge - enthusiastically praised everything indiscriminately: the personal courage and selflessness of the tsar, the work on organizing the fleet, the new capital, colleges, fiscals, as well as factories, plants, mint, pharmacies, silk and cloth manufactories, paper mills, shipyards, decrees on wearing foreign clothes, barbering, smoking, new foreign customs, even masquerades and assemblies. Foreign diplomats noted in the Bishop of Pskov "an immeasurable devotion to the good of the country, even to the detriment of the interests of the Church." Feofan Prokopovich never tired of reminding in his sermons: “Many believe that not all people are obliged to obey state power and some are excluded, namely the priesthood and monasticism. But this opinion is a thorn, or rather, a sting, a serpent's sting, a papal spirit, reaching us and touching us, no one knows how. The priesthood is a special estate in the state, and not a special state.

It was to him that Peter instructed to draw up the regulations for the new management of the Church. The tsar hurried the Pskov bishop very much and kept asking: “Will your patriarch be in time soon?” - “Yes, I’m finishing the cassock!” Feofan replied in a tone to the king. “Good, but I have a hat ready for him!” Peter remarked.

On January 25, 1721, Peter published a manifesto on the establishment of the Most Holy Governing Synod. In the regulations of the Theological College published a little later, Peter was quite frank about the reasons that made him prefer the synodal government to the patriarchal one: “From the cathedral government you can not be afraid of the Fatherland of rebellions and embarrassment, which come from a single spiritual ruler of your own.” After listing examples of what the clergy’s lust for power in Byzantium and other countries led to, the tsar, through the mouth of Feofan Prokopovich, finished: “When the people see that the conciliar government has been established by a royal decree and a Senate verdict, they will remain in meekness and lose hope for the help of the clergy in riots ". In essence, the Synod was conceived by Peter as a special spiritual police. By synodal decrees, heavy duties were imposed on priests that were not characteristic of their rank - they were not only supposed to glorify and exalt all reforms, but also to help the government in detecting and catching those who were hostile to innovations. The most egregious was the order to violate the secrecy of confession: having heard from the confessor about the commission of a state crime, his involvement in a rebellion or malicious intent on the life of the sovereign, the confessor was obliged to report such a person to the secular authorities. In addition, the priest was charged with the duty to identify schismatics.

However, Peter was tolerant of the Old Believers. They say that merchants among them are honest and diligent, and if so, let them believe what they want. To be martyrs for stupidity - neither they are worthy of this honor, nor the state will have any benefit. Open persecution of the Old Believers ceased. Peter only overlaid them with double state taxes and, by decree of 1722, dressed them up in gray caftans with a high glued red trump card. However, calling on the bishops to verbally exhort those who were stagnating in schism, the tsar sometimes nevertheless sent a company or two soldiers to help the preachers for greater persuasion.

Among the Old Believers, the news was spreading more and more widely that far in the east, where the sun rises and “the sky is close to the earth” and where the Rahmans-Brahmins live, who know all worldly affairs, about which the angels who are always with them tell them, lies on the sea - okiyane, on seventy islands, the wonderful country of Belovodie, or the Oponsky kingdom; and Marko, a monk of the Topozero monastery, was there, and found 170 churches of the “Asir language” and 40 pyc churches built by elders who had fled from the Solovetsky monastery from the royal massacre. And following the happy Marco, in search of Belovodye, in the Siberian deserts, thousands of hunters rushed to see with their own eyes all the ancient beauty of the church.

Having established the Synod, Peter got out of the difficulty in which he had stood for many years. His church-administrative reform preserved an authoritative body of power in the Russian Church, but deprived this power of the political influence that the patriarch could use.

But in a historical perspective, the nationalization of the Church had a detrimental effect on both herself and the state. Seeing in the Church a simple servant of the state who had lost her moral authority, many Russian people began to openly and secretly leave the bosom of the Church and seek satisfaction of their spiritual needs outside of Orthodox teaching. For example, out of 16 graduates of the Irkutsk seminary in 1914, only two expressed a desire to remain in the clergy, while the rest were going to go to universities. In Krasnoyarsk, the situation was even worse: none of its 15 graduates wanted to take the priesthood. A similar situation was in the Kostroma seminary. And since the Church has now become part of state system, then the criticism of church life or the complete denial of the Church, according to the logic of things, ended in criticism and denial of the state order. That is why there were so many seminarians and priests in the Russian revolutionary movement. The most famous of them are N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov, I.V. Dzhugashvili (Stalin), A.I. Mikoyan, N.I. Podvoisky (one of the leaders of the capture of the Winter Palace), S.V. Petliura, but full list much longer.

> The article briefly describes the reforms of Peter I-the greatest transformation in the history of Russia. In general, the reforms played a positive role, accelerated the development of Russia, directed it along the European path of development.
The reforms of Peter I have not yet received an unambiguous assessment in historiography. The debate revolves around two questions: were the reforms necessary and justified; whether they were natural in the course of Russian history or were Peter's personal whim. The need for reforms is recognized in principle, but the methods by which they were carried out are condemned. Peter I acted like an oriental despot in achieving his goals. Cruelty and inexorability in the demands of Peter I is undeniable. However, the established traditions of Russian society, most likely, did not give the opportunity to act differently. The conservatism that permeated the entire state stubbornly resisted all necessary reforms.

Introduction
Social reforms of Peter I
The significance of the reforms of Peter I
Video

Regarding the regularity of the reforms, it should be said that they did not arise from scratch. The prerequisites and the first attempts to carry out transformations were made under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. In the development of Russia, a lagging behind the West was indeed manifested. The actions of Peter I should not be considered unnecessarily revolutionary, since they were nevertheless caused by necessity. They became radical thanks to the very personality of Peter I - a passionate and immoderate man in his actions.

Reform government controlled

The activity of Peter I was aimed at strengthening state power.
His adoption in 1721 of the title of emperor was the apogee of this process and was reflected in Russian culture. The state apparatus inherited by Peter I was imperfect, embezzlement and bribery flourished.
It cannot be said that Peter I managed to completely get rid of this traditional Russian misfortune, but there were certain positive developments in this area.
In 1711 he established a new supreme authority - the Governing Senate.
At the head of the Senate was the Prosecutor General. At this body there was an institution of fiscals who controlled the actions of officials. After some time, control over the activities of the Senate itself was introduced.
The old system of Orders, no longer meeting the requirements of the time, was replaced by colleges.
In 1718, 11 colleges were formed, dividing the main branches of government in the state among themselves.
Russia was divided into 8 provinces headed by governors and 50 provinces headed by governors. Smaller areas were called districts.
The state structure took the form of a clearly organized mechanism, the management of which was strictly hierarchical and directly subordinate to the emperor.
Power acquired a military-police character.
The creation of an extensive network of state control was, according to the plan of Peter I, to put an end to the abuses of officials. In fact, the country was permeated with the spirit of surveillance and espionage. Executions and harsh methods of reprisals did not lead to significant results.
The overgrown bureaucratic system constantly failed.

Economic reforms of Peter I

The Russian economy lagged far behind the West.
Peter I resolutely undertakes to correct this situation. Heavy and light industry is developing at a rapid pace by improving old and opening new factories and manufactories.
It is debatable whether these processes were the beginning of capitalist relations in Russia. Instead of hired labor in Russia, the labor of serfs was used.
The peasants were massively bought up and assigned to factories (possession peasants), which did not make them workers in the full sense of the word.
Peter I adhered to a policy of protectionism, which consisted in supporting and marketing products of his own production.
To provide finance for large-scale reforms, the emperor introduces a state monopoly on the production and sale of certain types of goods. Of particular importance was the monopoly on exports.
Was introduced new system taxation - poll tax. A general census was held, which increased the revenues of the treasury.

Social reforms of Peter I

IN social area the decree on single inheritance (1714) was of great importance.
According to this decree, only the eldest heir had the right to own property.
Thus, the position of the nobility was consolidated and the fragmentation of landowners' lands was stopped. At the same time, the decree erased the differences between local and patrimonial land tenure.
In 1722, a decree was issued to long time which became the basic law of Russia in the field of public service ("Table of Ranks").
In the civil, military service and in the navy, 14 parallel ranks or classes were introduced - a clear hierarchical system of positions.
The first eight classes gave the right to hereditary nobility.
Thus, the former system of occupying higher positions on the basis of origin and birth was completely eliminated.
From now on, any person in the public service could apply for the nobility.
The "Table of Ranks" contributed to an even greater bureaucratization of the state structure, but it really opened wide opportunities for talented and capable people.
There was a clear division of urban residents.
According to the regulations of 1721, the "regular" (industrialists, merchants, small traders and artisans) and "irregular" (all the rest, "mean people") population of cities were distinguished.

The significance of the reforms of Peter I

The reforms of Peter I radically influenced all areas of the life of the Russian state.
In social terms, the formation of the main estates ended, there was a consolidation.
Russia became a centralized state with the absolute power of the emperor.
Support for domestic industry, the use of the experience of Western countries put Russia on a par with the leading powers.
The country's foreign policy successes also increased its prestige.
The proclamation of Russia as an empire was a natural result of the activities of Peter I.

The era of Peter the Great in the life of the Russian Church is full of historical content. First, both the relation of the church to the state and the church government became clear and took on new forms. Secondly, the internal church life was marked by a struggle of theological views (for example, the familiar dispute about transubstantiation between the Great Russian and Little Russian clergy and other disagreements). Thirdly, the literary activity of the representatives of the church revived. In our presentation, we will touch only on the first of these points, because the second has a special church-historical interest, and the third is considered in the history of literature.

Consider first those measures of Peter I, which established the relationship of church to state and the general order of church government; then we will move on to particular measures regarding ecclesiastical affairs and the clergy.

The relationship of church to state before Peter I in the Muscovite state was not precisely defined, although at the church council of 1666-1667. The Greeks recognized in principle the supremacy of secular power and denied the right of hierarchs to interfere in secular affairs. The Moscow sovereign was considered the supreme patron of the church and took an active part in church affairs. But church authorities were also called upon to participate in state administration and influenced it. Russia did not know the struggle between church and secular authorities, familiar to the West (it did not exist, strictly speaking, even under Nikon). The enormous moral authority of the Moscow patriarchs did not seek to replace the authority of state power, and if a voice of protest was heard from the Russian hierarch (for example, Metropolitan Philip against Ivan IV), then he never left the moral ground.

Peter I did not grow up under the strong influence of theological science and not in such a pious environment as his brothers and sisters grew up. From the very first steps of his conscious life, he made friends with the "heretic Germans" and, although he remained an Orthodox person by conviction, he nevertheless treated many rituals more freely than ordinary Moscow people, and seemed infected with "heresy" in the eyes of the Old Testament zealots of piety. It can be said with confidence that Peter, from his mother and from the conservative patriarch Joachim (d. 1690), more than once met with condemnation for his habits and acquaintance with heretics. Under Patriarch Adrian (1690–1700), a weak and timid man, Peter met with no more sympathy for his innovations, following Joachim and Adrian, he forbade barbering, and Peter thought to make it obligatory. At the first decisive innovations of Peter, all those who protested against them, seeing them as heresy, sought moral support in the authority of the church and were indignant at Adrian, who was cowardly silent, in their opinion, when he should have stood for orthodoxy. Adrian really did not interfere with Peter and was silent, but he did not sympathize with the reforms, and his silence, in essence, was a passive form of opposition. Insignificant in itself, the patriarch became inconvenient for Peter, as the center and unifying principle of all protests, as a natural representative of not only ecclesiastical, but also social conservatism. The patriarch, strong in will and spirit, could have been a powerful opponent of Peter I if he had taken the side of the conservative Moscow worldview, which condemned all public life to immobility.

Understanding this danger, after the death of Adrian, Peter was in no hurry to elect a new patriarch, and appointed Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky, a learned Little Russian, as the "locum tenens of the patriarchal throne." The management of the patriarchal economy passed into the hands of specially appointed secular persons. There is no need to assume, as some do, that immediately after the death of Hadrian, Peter decided to abolish the patriarchate. It would be more correct to think that Peter simply did not know what to do with the election of a patriarch. Peter treated the Great Russian clergy with some distrust, because he was convinced many times how strongly they did not sympathize with the reforms. Even the best representatives of the ancient Russian hierarchy, who were able to understand the whole nationality of Peter I's foreign policy and helped him as much as they could (Mitrofan of Voronezh, Tikhon of Kazan, Job of Novgorod), were also against Peter's cultural innovations. To choose a patriarch from among the Great Russians for Peter meant the risk of creating a formidable opponent for himself. The Little Russian clergy behaved differently: they themselves were influenced by Western culture and science and sympathized with the innovations of Peter I. But it was impossible to appoint a Little Russian patriarch because during the time of Patriarch Joachim, the Little Russian theologians were compromised in the eyes of Moscow society, as people with Latin delusions; for this they were even persecuted. The elevation of a Little Russian to the patriarchal throne would therefore lead to a general temptation. In such circumstances, Peter I decided to remain without a patriarch.

The following order of church administration was temporarily established: at the head of the church administration were Locum Tenens Stefan Yavorsky and a special institution, the Monastery Order, with secular persons at the head; the council of hierarchs was recognized as the supreme authority in matters of religion; Peter himself, like the former sovereigns, was the patron of the church and took an active part in its management. This participation of Peter led to the fact that in the church life an important role began to play the bishops of the Little Russians, who had been persecuted before. Despite protests both in Russia and in the Orthodox East, Peter constantly nominated Little Russian learned monks to the episcopal chairs. The Great Russian clergy, poorly educated and hostile to the reform, could not be an assistant to Peter I, while the Little Russians, who had a broader mental outlook and grew up in a country where Orthodoxy was forced into an active struggle against Catholicism, brought up in themselves a better understanding of the tasks of the clergy and the habit of broad activities. In their dioceses, they did not sit idly by, but converted foreigners to Orthodoxy, acted against the schism, started schools, took care of the life and morality of the clergy, and found time for literary activities. It is clear that they were more in line with the wishes of the reformer, and Peter I valued them more than those clergy from the Great Russians, whose narrow views often got in his way. One can cite a long series of names of Little Russian bishops who occupied prominent places in the Russian hierarchy. But the most remarkable of them are: Stefan Yavorsky, mentioned above, St. Dmitry, Metropolitan of Rostov and, finally, under Peter, Bishop of Pskov, later Archbishop of Novgorod. He was a very capable, lively and energetic person, inclined to practical activity much more than to abstract science, but he was very educated and studied theological science not only at the Kiev Academy, but also in the Catholic colleges of Lvov, Krakow and even Rome. The scholastic theology of Catholic schools did not affect Theophan's living mind; on the contrary, it planted in him a dislike for scholasticism and Catholicism. Not getting satisfaction in Orthodox theological science, then poorly and little developed, Theophanes turned from Catholic doctrines to the study of Protestant theology and, being carried away by it, learned some Protestant views, although he was an Orthodox monk. This inclination towards the Protestant worldview, on the one hand, was reflected in Theophan's theological treatises, and on the other hand, helped him get closer to Peter I in his views on reform. The king, brought up in Protestant culture, and the monk, who completed his education in Protestant theology, understood each other perfectly. Acquainted with Feofan for the first time in Kyiv in 1706, Peter in 1716 summoned him to St. Petersburg, made him his right hand in the matter of church administration and defended against all attacks from other clergy, who noticed the Protestant spirit in Peter's favorite. Theophanes, in his famous sermons, was an interpreter and apologist for Peter's reforms, and in his practical activities he was a sincere and capable assistant to him.

It was Feofan who developed and, perhaps, even the very idea of that new plan of church administration, on which Peter I stopped. For more than twenty years (1700-1721) a temporary disorder continued, in which the Russian church was governed without a patriarch. Finally, on February 14, 1721, the "Holy Governing Synod" was opened. This spiritual college forever replaced the patriarchal authority. She was given the Spiritual Regulations, compiled by Feofan and edited by Peter I himself, as her guide. The regulations frankly pointed out the imperfection of the patriarch's sole administration and the political inconveniences resulting from the exaggeration of the authority of the patriarchal authorities in state affairs. The collegial form of church government was recommended as the best in all respects. The composition of the Synod according to the regulations is determined as follows: the president, two vice-presidents, four advisers and four assessors (they included representatives of black and white clergy). Note that the composition of the Synod was similar to that of the secular boards. The persons who were at the Synod were the same as at the colleges; the representative of the person of the sovereign in the Synod was the Chief Procurator, under the Synod there was also a whole department of fiscals, or inquisitors. The external organization of the Synod was, in a word, taken from the general type of organization of the collegium.

Speaking about the position of the Synod in the state, one should strictly distinguish its role in the sphere of the church from its role in common system government controlled. The significance of the Synod in church life is clearly defined by the Spiritual Regulations, according to which the Synod has "the power and authority of the patriarch." All spheres of jurisdiction and all the fullness of the ecclesiastical authority of the patriarch are inherent in the Synod. The diocese of the patriarch, which was under his personal control, was also transferred to him. This diocese was administered by the Synod through a special collegium called a dicastery or consistory. (According to the model of this consistory, consistories were gradually organized in the dioceses of all bishops). Thus, in church affairs, the Synod completely replaced the patriarch.

But in the sphere of public administration, the Synod did not fully inherit the patriarchal authority. We have various opinions about the significance of the Synod in the general composition of the administration under Peter. Some believe that "the Synod was compared in everything with the Senate and, along with it, was directly subordinate to the sovereign" (such an opinion is held, for example, by P. Znamensky in his "Guide to Russian Church History"). Others think that under Peter, in practice, the state significance of the Synod became lower than that of the Senate. Although the Synod strives to become independent of the Senate, the latter, considering the Synod as an ordinary collegium for spiritual affairs, considered it subordinate to itself. Such a view of the Senate was justified by the general idea of the reformer, which was the basis of the church reform: with the establishment of the Synod, the church became dependent not on the person of the sovereign, as before, but on the state, its management was introduced into the general administrative order and the Senate, which managed the affairs of the church until the establishment of the Synod , could consider himself higher than the Spiritual College, as the supreme administrative body in the state (such a view was expressed in one of the articles by Prof. Vladimirsky-Budanov). It is difficult to decide which opinion is fairer. One thing is clear, that the political significance of the Synod never rose as high as the authority of the patriarchs (on the beginning of the Synod, see P. V. Verkhovsky "The Establishment of the Spiritual College and the Spiritual Regulations", two volumes. 1916; also G. S. Runkevich " Establishment and initial structure of the Holy Synod, 1900).

Thus, by establishing the Synod, Peter I got out of the difficulty in which he had stood for many years. His church-administrative reform preserved authoritative power in the Russian church, but deprived this power of the political influence with which the patriarchs could act. The question of the relationship between church and state was decided in favor of the latter, and the eastern hierarchs recognized the replacement of the patriarch by the Synod as completely legitimate. But these same Eastern Greek hierarchs under Tsar Alexei had already resolved in principle the same question and in the same direction. Therefore, Peter's church transformations, being a sharp novelty in their form, were built on the old principle bequeathed to Peter by Moscow Russia. And here, as in other reforms of Peter I, we meet with the continuity of historical traditions.

As for private events for church and faith in the era of Peter I, we can only briefly mention the most important of them, namely: the church court and land ownership, the black and white clergy, the attitude towards non-believers and schism.

Church jurisdiction was very limited under Peter: a lot of cases from church courts moved to secular courts (even a trial of crimes against faith and the church could not be carried out without the participation of secular authorities). For the trial of church people, according to the claims of secular persons, the Monastic order with secular courts was restored in 1701 (closed in 1677). In such a limitation of the judicial function of the clergy, one can see a close connection with the measures taken by the Code of 1649, in which the same trend was reflected.

The same close relationship with ancient Russia can also be seen in the measures of Peter I regarding real estate church property. The land estates of the clergy under Peter were first subjected to strict control of state power, and subsequently were removed from the economic management of the clergy. Their management was transferred to the Monastic order; they turned, as it were, into state property, part of the income from which went to the maintenance of monasteries and lords. This is how Peter tried to resolve the age-old question of the land holdings of the clergy in Russia. At the turn of the XV and XVI centuries. the right of monasteries to own estates was denied by a part of monasticism itself (Nil of Sora); by the end of the 16th century. the government drew attention to the rapid alienation of land from the hands of service people into the hands of the clergy and sought to, if not completely stop, then limit this alienation. In the 17th century Zemstvo petitions insistently pointed out the harm of such alienation for the state and the noble class; the state was losing lands and duties from them; nobles became landless. In 1649, a law finally appeared in the Code, which forbade the clergy from further acquisition of land. But the Code has not yet decided to return to the state those lands owned by the clergy.

Concerned about raising morality and well-being among the clergy, Peter special attention He referred to the life of the white clergy, poor and poorly educated, "nothing from arable peasants, indispensable," in the words of a contemporary. Alongside his decrees, Peter tried to cleanse the milieu of the clergy by forcibly diverting its superfluous members to other estates and occupations and persecuting its bad elements (the wandering clergy). At the same time, Peter tried to better provide the parish clergy by reducing their number and increasing the area of parishes. He thought to raise the morality of the clergy by education and strict control. However, all these measures did not give great results.

Peter I treated monasticism not only with less care, but even with some hostility. It proceeded from the conviction of Peter that the monks were one of the causes of popular dissatisfaction with the reform and stood in opposition. A man with a practical orientation, Peter poorly understood the meaning of contemporary monasticism and thought that the majority became monks "from taxes and laziness in order to eat bread for free." Not working, the monks, according to Peter, "eat up other people's works" and in inaction breed heresies and superstitions and do not do their job: excite the people against innovations. With such a view of Peter I, his desire to reduce the number of monasteries and monks, to strictly supervise them and limit their rights and benefits is understandable. The monasteries were deprived of their lands, their income, and the number of monks was limited by the states; not only vagrancy, but also the transition from one monastery to another was prohibited, the personality of each monk was placed under the strict control of the abbots: writing in cells was prohibited, communication between monks and laity was difficult. At the end of his reign, Peter I expressed his views on the social significance of monasteries in the "Announcement of Monasticism" (1724). According to this view, monasteries should have a charitable purpose (the poor, sick, disabled and wounded were placed in monasteries), and in addition, monasteries should have served to prepare people for higher spiritual positions and to shelter people who are inclined to a pious contemplative life. . With all his activities regarding monasteries, Peter I strove to bring them into line with the indicated goals.

In the era of Peter I, the attitude of the government and the church towards the Gentiles became softer than it was in the 17th century. Western Europeans were treated with tolerance, but even under Peter the Protestants were favored more than the Catholics. Peter's attitude towards the latter was conditioned not only by religious motives, but also by political ones: Peter I responded to the oppression of the Orthodox in Poland by threatening to persecute the Catholics. But in 1721, the Synod issued an important decree on the admission of marriages between Orthodox and non-Orthodox - and with Protestants and Catholics alike.

Political motives were partly guided by Peter in relation to the Russian schism. While he saw the schism as an exclusively religious sect, he treated it rather mildly, without touching the beliefs of the schismatics (although from 1714 he ordered them to take a double taxable salary). But when he saw that the religious conservatism of the schismatics leads to civil conservatism and that the schismatics are sharp opponents of his civic activities, then Peter changed his attitude towards the schism. In the second half of the reign of Peter I, repressions went along with religious tolerance: schismatics were persecuted as civil opponents of the ruling church; at the end of the reign, religious tolerance seemed to have diminished, and a restriction of the civil rights of all schismatics, without exception, involved and not involved in political affairs, followed. In 1722, the schismatics were even given a certain attire, in the features of which there was, as it were, a mockery of the schism.