All transformations of Peter 1. Church reform of Peter I

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

Peter I can be confidently called one of the greatest russian emperors, because it was he who began the reorganization of all spheres of society, the army and the economy, which was necessary for the country, 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 district of Peter I divided the entire empire into eight large provinces, which were led by governors. 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 of russian army.

Judicial reform

The Supreme Court was the Senate as well as the Justitz Collegium. The provinces still had courts of appeal. However, the main reform is that now the court was 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 made, followed by exercises new army by all standards of the strongest armies of European states.
Perth I began the decisive training of Russian officers. If at the beginning of the eighteenth century foreign specialists stood on the officers' ranks of the empire, then after the reforms their place began to be taken by domestic officers.
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 was not. One year later, the Emperor issued a Military Regulations, 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 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 state control only in 1721 after the publication of a document called "Spiritual Regulations." This document also said that during military operations for the needs of the state, church property can be seized.
The secularization of church lands began, but only partial, and only Empress Catherine II completed this process.

Financial reform

The wars started by Emperor Peter I demanded huge funds, which at that time were not in Russia, and in order to find them, the emperor began to reform financial system state.
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, not money as it was before.
If earlier the courtyards were screwed up with taxes, then after the reforms every soul was already screwed up with taxes - that is, every male resident of the Russian Empire. Such strata as the clergy, the nobility and, of course, the Cossacks were exempted from paying the poll tax.
Financial reform can be called quite successful, since it significantly increased the size of the imperial treasury. From 1710 to 1725, the size of income increased as much as three times, which means a fairly large success.

Reforms in industry and trade

The needs of the new army increased significantly, because of which the emperor was forced to begin active construction of manufactories. From abroad, the emperor attracted qualified specialists to reform the industry.
In 1705, the first silver smelting plant began operating in Russia. In 1723, an iron-making plant began operating 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 was to become an educated state, and he paid special attention to this.
From 1701 to 1821, a large number of schools were opened: mathematics, 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 it cannot be denied that after their implementation, Russia made 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-fledged 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 preconditions for this were the protest of the Church against the changes taking place in the country, calling the tsar 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 rival of the Russian tsar-reformer.

Figure: 1. Young Peter.

Among other things, the Church accumulated enormous wealth that Peter needed to wage war against the Swedes. All this tied Peter's hands to use all the country's resources for 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 clergy.

Table "The essence of ongoing reforms"

*Events*	*Year*	*Objectives*
Appointment of the "Guardian and Steward of the Patriarchal Throne"		Replace the election of the Patriarch by the Church with an imperial appointment	Peter was personally appointed the new Patriarch
Secularization of peasants and lands		Eliminating the financial autonomy of the Church	Church peasants and lands were transferred to the management of the State.
Monastic prohibitions		Reduce the number of clerics	You cannot build new monasteries and conduct a census of monks
Senate control over the Church		Limiting the Administrative Freedom of the Church	Creation of the Senate and transfer of church affairs to its administration
Decree on limiting the number of clergy		Improving the efficiency of human resource allocation	Ministers are attached to a specific parish, they are forbidden to wander
Preparatory stage for the abolition of the Patriarchate		Get full power in the empire	Development of the project for the establishment of the Theological College

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

TOP-4 articleswho read along with this

Figure: 2. Prosecutor General Yaguzhinsky.

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

Figure: 3. Building of 12 colleges.

The Spiritual College also had another name - the Governing Synod. A secular official, and not a clergyman, was appointed to the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Synod.

As a result, the reform of the Church of Peter the Great had its pros and cons. Thus, Peter discovered the opportunity to lead the country towards Europeanization, but in cases where this power began to be abused, in the hands of another person Russia could find itself in a dictatorial despotic regime. Nevertheless, the consequences are a decrease in the role of the church in the life of society, a decrease in its financial independence and the number of servants of the Lord.

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

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

Results of the reform

The post of Patriarch was abolished;
Taxes increased;
Recruitment of church peasants is underway;
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, having established absolutism in Russia.

Test by topic

Assessment of the report

average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 222.

N.V. Nevrev Peter I in a foreign outfit
in front of his mother, the queen Natalia,
patriarch Andrian and teacher Zotov.
1903 g.

Since its inception in 1589, the institution of the patriarchate has become the second political center of the Moscow state after secular power. The attitude of the Church to the state before Peter was not precisely defined, although at the church council in 1666-1667. the primacy of secular power was recognized in principle 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 the church authorities were also encouraged to participate in state administration and influenced it. Russia did not know the struggle of the church and secular authorities, familiar to the West (strictly speaking, there was none under Patriarch Nikon). The enormous spiritual authority of the Moscow patriarchs did not seek to replace authority state power, and if a voice of protest was heard from the Russian hierarch, it was exclusively from a moral position.

Peter did not grow up under the influence of theological scholarship and in such a godly environment as his brothers and sisters grew up. From the very first steps of his conscious life, he became friends with the "heretics Germans" and, although he remained an Orthodox person by convictions, he was more free about church-Orthodox rituals than ordinary Moscow people. Peter was neither a scolder of the Church, nor a particularly devout person - in general, "neither cold nor hot." As expected, knew the circle church service, he loved to sing in the kliros, grab the Apostle at full throat, ring the bells on Easter, celebrate Victoria with a solemn prayer service and many days of church ringing; at some moments he sincerely called on the name of God and, despite the obscene parodies of the church rite, or rather, the church hierarchy he did not love, at the sight of church disorder, in his own words, “he had fear on his conscience, let him not be unrequited and ungrateful Even the highest will be neglected by the correction of the spiritual order. "

In the eyes of the Old Testament devotees of piety, he seemed infected with a foreign "heresy." It is safe to say that Peter, from his mother and the conservative patriarch Joachim (d. 1690), was more than once condemned for his habits and acquaintance with heretics. Under Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700), a weak and timid man, Peter met no more sympathy for his innovations. And although Adrian did not clearly 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 the unifying principle of all protests, as a natural representative of not only church, but also social conservatism. The patriarch, strong in will and spirit, could have turned out to be a mighty opponent of Peter if he sided with the conservative Moscow worldview, which condemned all social life to immobility.

Realizing this danger, after the death of Hadrian in 1700, Peter was in no hurry to elect a new patriarch. The Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky, a Little Russian scientist, was appointed the “locum tenens of the patriarchal throne”. The administration 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 Adrian. Rather, to think that Peter then simply did not know what to do with the election of the patriarch. Peter treated the Great Russian clergy with some distrust, because many times he was convinced of his rejection of reforms. Even the best representatives the old Russian hierarchy who managed to understand the whole nationality foreign policy Peter and helped him as best they could (Mitrofaniy Voronezhsky, Tikhon Kazansky, Job Novgorodsky) - and they rebelled against the cultural innovations of Peter. To choose a patriarch from among the Great Russians for Peter meant risking creating a formidable enemy 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 make the Little Russian a 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.

Temporarily established such an order of church administration: at the head of the church administration were the locum tenens Stefan Yavorsky and a special institution, the Monastic 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 saint of the church and took an active part in its administration. But he was extremely attracted by the experience of the Protestant (Lutheran) Church in Germany, based on the primacy of the monarch in spiritual affairs. And in the end, shortly before the end of the war with Sweden, Peter decided to carry out the Reformation in the Russian Church. This time he also expected a healing influence on the confused church affairs from the colleges, intending to establish a special spiritual collegium - the Synod.

Peter made the Little Russian monk Feofan Prokopovich a domestic, tame Luther of the Russian Reformation. He was a very capable, lively and energetic person, inclined 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 poorly developed, did not satisfy Theophanes. Therefore, he moved from Catholic doctrines to the study of Protestant theology and, carried away by it, assimilated some Protestant views, although he was an Orthodox monk.

Peter made Theophanes bishop of Pskov, and later he became archbishop of Novgorod. A man quite secular in the direction of mind and temperament, Feofan Prokopovich sincerely admired Peter and - God is his judge - enthusiastically praised everything indiscriminately: the personal courage and dedication of the tsar, the work on the organization of the fleet, a new capital, collegiums, fiscal, as well as factories, plants, the mint, pharmacies, silk and cloth factories, paper mills, shipyards, decrees on wearing foreign clothes, barber shaving, smoking, new foreign customs, even masquerades and assemblies. Foreign diplomats noted in the Pskov bishop "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 people believe that not all people are obliged to obey the government and some are excluded, namely the priesthood and monasticism. But this opinion is a thorn, or, better to say, a thorn, a serpentine sting, a papal spirit, who knows how reaching us and touching us. The priesthood is a special estate in the state, and not a special state. "

It was to him that Peter instructed him to draw up regulations for the new administration of the Church. The tsar hurried the Pskov bishop very much and kept asking: "How soon will your patriarch be ripe?" - "Yes, I'm finishing my cassock!" - answered the tsar Theophanes. "Good, and I have a hat ready for him!" - noticed Peter.

On January 25, 1721, Peter promulgated a manifesto establishing the 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 administration to the patriarchal: “From the conciliar government, the Fatherland should not be afraid of rebellions and embarrassment, which come from a single spiritual ruler”. After listing examples of what the lust for power of the clergy in Byzantium and other countries led to, the tsar, through the mouth of Feofan Prokopovich, concluded: “When the people see that the conciliar government has been established by a monarch’s decree and a Senate’s verdict, it will remain meek and lose hope for the help of the clergy in riots ". Essentially, the Synod was thought of by Peter as a special spiritual police. Synodal decrees imposed heavy duties on the priests that were not characteristic of their dignity - they not only had to praise and extol all the reforms, but also help the government in finding and catching those who were hostile to innovations. The most blatant prescription was to violate the secrets of confession: having heard from the confessed about the commission of a state crime, his involvement in a riot or an attack on the life of the sovereign, the confessor was obliged to inform the secular authorities about such a person. In addition, the priest was charged with identifying schismatics.

However, Peter was tolerant of the Old Believers. They say that the merchants from among them are honest and diligent, and if so, let them believe what they want. Martyrs for being stupid - neither they are worthy of this honor, nor the state will have any benefit. Open persecution of the Old Believers stopped. Peter only imposed double tax on them and by a decree of 1722 dressed them in gray caftans with a high glued "trump card" in red. However, urging the bishops to verbally admonish those who are stagnant in schism, the tsar sometimes nevertheless sent a company or two of soldiers to help the preachers for greater conviction.

Among the Old Believers, the news spread more and more that far in the east, where the sun rises and "the sky is close to the earth" and where the rahman-brahmana dwell, who know all the worldly affairs that the angels who are always with them tell them, lies on the sea- okiyane, on seventy islands the wonderful country Belovodye, or the Opoon kingdom; and Marko, a monk of the Topozersky monastery, was there, and found 170 churches of the "Asir language" and 40 churches of the Pys, built by the elders who had fled from the Solovetsky monastery from the tsarist reprisals. And after 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.

By establishing the Synod, Peter got out of the difficulty that he had been in for many years. His ecclesiastical-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 her and on 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 church bosom and seek the satisfaction of their spiritual needs outside the Orthodox teaching. For example, out of 16 graduates of the Irkutsk seminary in 1914, only two expressed a desire to remain in the clergy, and the rest intended to go to universities. In Krasnoyarsk, the situation was even worse: none of its 15 graduates wanted to take priesthood. A similar situation was in the Kostroma seminary. And since the Church has now become a part state systemthen criticism of church life or 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.

\u003e The article describes briefly the reforms of Peter I - the greatest transformations in the history of Russia. On the whole, the reforms played a positive role, accelerated the development of Russia, and 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 they a personal whim of Peter. The need for reforms, in principle, is recognized, but the methods by which they were carried out are censured. Peter I acted as an oriental despot in achieving his goals. The cruelty and relentlessness in the demands of Peter I is beyond doubt. However, the established traditions of Russian society, most likely, did not provide an opportunity to act differently. The conservatism that permeated the entire state showed stubborn resistance to all necessary transformations.

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 preconditions and the first attempts to carry out reforms were undertaken during the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Lagging behind the West did indeed manifest itself in the development of Russia. The actions of Peter I should not be considered excessively revolutionary, since they were nevertheless caused by necessity. They became radical thanks to the very personality of Peter I - a man passionate and immoderate in his actions.

Reform government controlled

The activities of Peter I were aimed at strengthening state power.
His acceptance of the title of emperor in 1721 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 was able to completely get rid of this traditional Russian scourge, but there were some positive shifts in this area.
In 1711 he established a new supreme body of power - the Governing Senate.
At the head of the Senate was the Attorney General. Under this body there was an institution of fiscal officials who controlled the actions of officials. After a while, control over the activities of the Senate itself was introduced.
The old, no longer meeting the requirements of the time, the Order system was replaced by collegia.
In 1718, 11 colleges were formed, dividing among themselves the main branches of government in the state.
Russia was divided into 8 provinces led by governors and 50 provinces led by voivods. Smaller territories were called districts.
The state structure acquired 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 imbued with the spirit of surveillance and espionage. The executions and harsh methods of reprisal did not lead to significant results.
The sprawling bureaucratic system was constantly failing.

Economic reforms of Peter I

The Russian economy lagged significantly 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.
A controversial question is whether these processes were the beginning of capitalist relations in Russia. Instead of hired labor in Russia, the labor of serfs was used.
Peasants massively bought up and were assigned to factories (possessory peasants), which did not make them workers in the full sense of the word.
Peter I adhered to the policy of protectionism, which consisted in the support and sale of 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. The export monopoly was of particular importance.
Was introduced new system taxation - poll tax. A general census was held, which increased treasury revenues.

Social reforms of Peter I

IN social area of great importance was the decree on single inheritance (1714).
According to this decree, only the senior heir had ownership.
Thus, the position of the nobility was consolidated and the fragmentation of the landowners' lands was stopped. At the same time, the decree erased the distinction between local and patrimonial land tenure.
In 1722 a decree was issued on for a long time which became the main law of Russia in the field of public service ("Table of Ranks").
In the civil, military service and in the navy, parallel 14 ranks or classes were introduced - a clear hierarchical system of positions.
The first eight classes gave the right to hereditary nobility.
Thus, the previous system of occupying top positions based on the principle 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 ample opportunities for talented and capable people.
A clear division of urban residents took place.
According to the regulations of 1721, the "regular" (industrialists, merchants, small traders and artisans) and "irregular" (all the rest, "vile 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 has ended, it has taken place from consolidation.
Russia became a centralized state with the absolute power of the emperor.
Support for domestic industry, use of the experience of Western countries put Russia on a par with the leading powers.
The country's foreign policy successes have also increased its authority.
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. Firstly, both the attitude of the church to the state and church administration 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 between the Great Russian and Little Russian clergy about transubstantiation and other disagreements). Third, the literary activity of the church representatives has revived. In our presentation, we will only touch 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.

Let us first consider the measures of Peter I, which established the relationship of the church to the state and the general order of church government; then we move on to specific measures regarding church affairs and clergy.

The attitude of the church to the state before Peter I in the Moscow state was not precisely defined, although at the church council in 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 the church authorities were also encouraged to participate in state administration and influenced it. Russia did not know the struggle of the church and secular authorities, familiar to the West (strictly speaking, there was no struggle 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 grew up not under the strong influence of theological science and not in such a pious atmosphere as his brothers and sisters grew up. From the very first steps of his conscious life, he became friends with "heretics Germans" and, although he remained an Orthodox person by convictions, he was more free to many rituals than ordinary Moscow people, and seemed infected with "heresy" in the eyes of the Old Testament devotees of piety. It is safe to say that Peter from his mother and from the conservative patriarch Joachim (d. 1690) more than once met condemnation for his habits and acquaintance with heretics. Under Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700), a weak and timid man, Peter met no more sympathy for his innovations, following Joachim, Adrian forbade shaving, and Peter thought to make it obligatory. At the first decisive innovations of Peter, all those protesting against them, seeing in them heresy, sought moral support in the authority of the church and were indignant at Adrian, who, in their opinion, was faint-heartedly silent when he should have stood for the orthodoxy. Adrian did not really 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 the unifying principle of all protests, as a natural representative of not only church, but also social conservatism. The patriarch, strong in will and spirit, could have turned out to be a mighty opponent of Peter I if he took the side of the conservative Moscow worldview, which condemned all social life to immobility.

Realizing this danger, after the death of Adrian, Peter was in no hurry with the election of a new patriarch, and appointed Metropolitan of Ryazan, Stephen Yavorsky, a learned Little Russian, as “locum tenens of the patriarchal throne”. The administration 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 Adrian, Peter decided to abolish the patriarchate. Rather, to think that Peter simply did not know what to do with the election of the patriarch. Peter treated the Great Russian clergy with some distrust, because he was convinced many times how much it did not sympathize with the reforms. Even the best representatives of the ancient Russian hierarchy, who were able to understand the entire nationality of Peter I's foreign policy and helped him as best they could (Mitrofan Voronezhsky, Tikhon Kazansky, Job Novgorodsky), were against Peter's cultural innovations. To choose a patriarch from among the Great Russians for Peter meant risking creating a formidable enemy 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 place Little Russians as a 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 the locum tenens Stefan Yavorsky and a special institution, the Monastic 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 saint of the church and took an active part in its administration. This participation of Peter led to the fact that the bishops of the Little Russians, previously persecuted, began to play an important role in church life. Despite protests both in Russia and in the Orthodox East, Peter constantly nominated Little Russian scholarly monks to the episcopal departments. 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 to actively fight Catholicism, brought up in themselves a better understanding of the tasks of the clergy and the habit of broad activity. In their dioceses they did not sit idly by, but converted foreigners to Orthodoxy, acted against schism, started schools, took care of the life and morality of the clergy, and found time for literary activity. It is clear that they were more in line with the wishes of the reformer, and Peter I appreciated them more than those clergymen from the Great Russians, whose narrow views often stood in his way. You can cite a long series of names of Little Russians-bishops who have 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 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 the Catholic schools did not affect Theophan's lively mind, on the contrary, it instilled in him a dislike for scholasticism and Catholicism. Not getting satisfaction in Orthodox theological science, then poorly and poorly developed, Theophanes turned from Catholic doctrines to the study of Protestant theology and, being carried away by it, assimilated some Protestant views, although he was an Orthodox monk. This inclination towards the Protestant worldview, on the one hand, was reflected in the theological treatises of Theophanes, and on the other hand, it helped him to get closer to Peter I in his views on reform. The king, who was brought up in the Protestant culture, and the monk, who completed his education in the Protestant theology, perfectly understood each other. Getting acquainted with Theophan for the first time in Kiev in 1706, Peter in 1716 summoned him to 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.

It was Theophanes who developed and, perhaps, even the very idea of \u200b\u200bthat new plan of church government, on which Peter I stopped. For more than twenty years (1700-1721), a temporary disorder continued, in which the Russian Church was ruled without a patriarch. Finally, on February 14, 1721, the “Most Holy Governing Synod” was opened. This spiritual collegium has forever replaced the patriarchal authority. The Spiritual Regulations, drawn up by Theophanes and edited by Peter I himself, were given to guide her. The regulations openly pointed out the imperfection of the sole administration of the patriarch and the political inconveniences arising from the exaggeration of the authority of the patriarchal power in state affairs. The collegial form of church government was recommended as the best in all respects. According to the regulations, the composition of the Synod is determined as follows: a president, two vice-presidents, four advisers and four assessors (these included representatives of black and white clergy). Note that the composition of the Synod was similar to the composition of secular colleges. The persons who were at the Synod were the same as at the collegia; the representative of the person of the sovereign in the Synod was the chief prosecutor, and under the Synod there was also a whole department of fiscal, 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 patriarchal." All spheres of jurisdiction and all the fullness of church 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. The Synod ruled this diocese through a special collegium called the dicasteria, or consistory. (On the model of this consistory, consistories were gradually established 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 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 college for spiritual affairs, considered it subordinate to itself. This view of the Senate was justified by the general idea of \u200b\u200bthe reformer, which was the basis of the church reform: with the establishment of the Synod, the church became dependent not on the face of the sovereign, as before, but on the state, its administration was introduced into the general administrative order and the Senate, which ruled the affairs of the church until the establishment of the Synod. , could consider himself above the Spiritual College, as the supreme administrative body in the state (this view is expressed in one of the articles of 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 stood (for the beginning of the Synod, see P.V. Verkhovsky "The Establishment of the Theological Collegium and the Spiritual Regulations", two volumes. 1916; also G. S. Runkevich " The institution and the original structure of the Holy Avenue of the Synod ", 1900).

Thus, by the establishment of the Synod, Peter I got out of the difficulty in which he had been for many years. His ecclesiastical and 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 quite legitimate. But these same Eastern Greek hierarchs under Tsar Alexei have already solved, in principle, the same question and in the same direction. Therefore, the church transformations of Peter, being a sharp novelty in their form, were built on the old principle bequeathed to Peter by Moscow Rus. And here, as in other reforms of Peter I, we encounter 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 tenure, the black and white clergy, the attitude towards the Gentiles and schism.

Church jurisdiction was very limited under Peter: a lot of cases from church courts went to secular courts (even a court on crimes against faith and the church could not be committed without the participation of secular authorities). For the trial of church people, at the claims of secular persons, in 1701 (closed in 1677) the Monastic Order with secular courts was restored (closed in 1677). In this limitation of the judicial function of the clergy, one can see a close connection with the measures of the Code of 1649, in which the same tendency was reflected.

The same close relationship with ancient Rus can be seen in the measures of Peter I regarding immovable church property. The land estates of the clergy under Peter were first subjected to strict control of the state authorities, and later 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 Sorsky); by the end of the XVI century. the government drew attention to the rapid alienation of land from the hands of the servants into the hands of the clergy and sought, if not completely to stop, then to limit this alienation. In the XVII century. Zemstvo petitions persistently pointed out the harm of such alienation for the state and the noble class; the state was losing land and duties from them; the nobles became landless. In 1649, a law finally appeared in the Code, forbidding the clergy to further acquire land. But the Code has not yet dared to return to the state those lands that were owned by the clergy.

Taking care of raising morality and welfare among the clergy, Peter with special attention belonged to the life of the white clergy, poor and poorly educated, "nothing of the arable peasants irreplaceable," in the words of a contemporary. Along with decrees, Peter tried to cleanse the environment of the clergy by forcibly diverting unnecessary 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 \u200b\u200bparishes. He thought to raise the morality of the clergy by education and strict control. However, all these measures did not yield great results.

Peter I related to monasticism not only with less concernbut even with some animosity. She proceeded from Peter's conviction that the monks were one of the reasons for the popular discontent with the reform and stood in opposition. A man with a practical orientation, Peter did not understand well the meaning of contemporary monasticism and thought that the majority of monks went "from taxes and from laziness, in order to eat bread for free." Without working, monks, according to Peter, “eat the labors of others” and in inaction breed heresies and superstitions and do not their own business: they stir up the people against innovations. With this view of Peter I, one can understand his desire to reduce the number of monasteries and monks, to strictly monitor them and limit their rights and benefits. 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 laymen 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 beggars, the sick, the disabled and the wounded were placed in monasteries for charity), and in addition, monasteries should serve 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 tried to put them in 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, Protestants were favored more than Catholics. Peter's attitude to 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 with threats to persecute 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.

Partly, Peter was guided by political motives in relation to the Russian schism. While he saw in the schism an exclusively religious sect, he treated it rather softly, 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 civic 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 alongside religious tolerance: schismatics were persecuted as civil opponents of the ruling church; at the end of the reign, and religious tolerance seemed to have decreased, and followed by the restriction of the civil rights of all schismatics, without exception, involved and not involved in political affairs. In 1722, the schismatics were even given a certain outfit, in the features of which one could see, as it were, a mockery of the schism.