MUNICIPAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

BASIC GENERAL SCHOOL

VILLAGE OF GOLYGINO

ESSAY

for the local history competition

"A multifactorial approach to the analysis of the historical process

Russia in the Works of Russian Historians of the 18th – 19th Centuries.

Topic:

"Ekaterina II and its time in the works of Russian historians XVIII – XIX centuries"

9th grade student

MOU OOSh d. Golygino

Supervisor:

Ogurtsova Alla Olegovna,

history teacher

MOU OOSh d. Golygino.

year 2009

1. Introduction…………………………………………………p. 3.

2. Ekaterina II …………………………………………….p. 4.

3. Historians about Catherine II ………………………………p. 7.

3.1. N. M. Karamzin…………………………………..p. 7.

3.2. S. M. Solovyov……………………………………...p. 8.

3.3. V. O. Klyuchevsky………………………………..p. 12.

3.4. S. F. Platonov…………………………………...p. 16.

4. Conclusion……………………………………………...p. twenty.

5. Literature………………………………………………p. 21.

6. Applications……………………………………………..p. 22.

1. Introduction

Topic of my work:"Catherine II and her time in the works of Russian historians of the 18th - 19th centuries." Catherine II Alekseevna (04/21/1729 - 11/06/1796) - Russian empress. Having ascended the throne, Catherine II tried to implement a program of transformations in the economic and political life of Russia.

Relevance my work is that in 2009 it will be 280 years since the birth of the empress. Many historians of the XVIII - XIX centuries. dedicated their work to time Catherine II. She was not indifferent to the fate of the history of Russia, so she contributed to the development of history and historiography.

My work methods- visits to school and rural libraries; conversation with the teacher; study of literature; work with reference books and dictionaries.

The purpose of my work: to reflect the time of the era of Catherine II in the works of Russian historians of the 18th - 19th centuries.

Tasks:

Collect material for your work;

Learn as much as possible about the life of Catherine II;

Show Catherine II as a strong ruler Russian Empire;

To study the literature of historians of the 18th - 19th centuries;

Tell about the biography of historians of the 18th - 19th centuries;

2. Ekaterina II .

Catherine II Alekseevna (04/21/1729 - 11/06/1796) - Russian Empress from 06/28/1762. Catherine II, nee Sophia Augusta Frederick, was born in Stettin in Pomerania. Her father was Christian August Anhalt-Zerbsky, a native of the impoverished princely family of Northern Germany, a major general in the Prussian army.

In 1744, she was married to the heir to the Russian imperial throne, Grand Duke Pyotr Fedorovich. In February 1744, at the invitation of Elizabeth Petrovna, she and her mother arrived in Moscow, where at that time the Empress was with her court. A few months later, Sophia Augusta converted to Orthodoxy and received a new name - Ekaterina Alekseevna. The wedding with Peter Fedorovich took place on August 21, 1745 in St. Petersburg.

From the very beginning, relations between the young spouses did not work out. Peter was more interested in toys and soldiers than in his young wife. Catherine did everything possible to gain popularity at court and in the guards: she performed all Orthodox rites, and very quickly mastered the Russian language. Thanks to her intelligence, charm and natural tact, she managed to get the location of many Elizabethan nobles. Catherine's influence at court, among the guards and the nobility was constantly growing.

Catherine thought that the country could become powerful and rich only in the hands of an enlightened sovereign. She read the works of Plato, Plutarch, Tacitus, the works of the French enlighteners Montesquieu and Voltaire. So she managed to fill in the gaps in her education and gain a solid knowledge in the field of history and philosophy.

On December 25, 1761, Empress Elizaveta Petrovna died. Ekaterina Alekseevna's husband, Peter III, came to the throne. A conspiracy of courtiers and guardsmen gradually formed against him, the center of which was his ambitious wife Ekaterina Alekseevna, and the main organizers were the Orlov brothers. On June 28, 1762, a palace coup took place. Relying on the Izmailovsky and Semyonovsky Guards regiments, Catherine removed her husband from power, and proclaimed herself empress.

The rite of Sacred Coronation was performed on September 22. On the same day, two most merciful manifestos were published. The first is the release of all convicts, excluding murderers and those exiled to indefinite hard labor, the abolition of the death penalty. The second confirmed the rights and benefits granted by Empress Elizaveta Petrovna to the Russian army.

Having ascended the throne, Catherine II tried to implement a program of transformations in the economic and political life of Russia. In 1767, the Legislative Commission for the development of a new code of laws of the Russian Empire began its work in Moscow. By the beginning of the work of the commission, Catherine prepared the “Instruction”, designed to become the basis for the creation of the Code. The empress considered the most suitable form of government for Russia absolute monarchy. At the same time, in her opinion, it was necessary to introduce laws that would protect the basic rights of citizens. The Empress insisted on the need for equality of all before the law. But Catherine was not at all going to deprive the nobility, which was her support, of its main wealth - the serfs. She did not think about the will of the peasants - there were only general arguments about the humane treatment of the landowners with the peasants.

Under Catherine, elected courts first appeared in Russia. They were elected separately for the nobility, for city dwellers and for state peasants. (The serfs were judged by the landowner himself.) The court must become public, and without its decision no one could be found guilty. In "Nakaz" Catherine opposed torture and the death penalty. She defended the need for commercial development of commercial and industrial activities, the construction of new cities, and the introduction of order in matters of agriculture.

From the very beginning of the work of the Commission, sharp contradictions were revealed between representatives of various estate groups that were part of it. In 1768, the activity of this body was suspended, and then completely stopped.

After the suppression of the uprising of E. I. Pugachev, the reforms were continued. On November 7, 1775, the “Institution for the Administration of the Provinces of the All-Russian Empire” was published. His goal was to strengthen the local administrative apparatus and give the provincial nobility the means to suppress peasant uprisings. The number of provinces increased from 20 to 51. Each of them was divided into counties. The population of the provinces was 300 - 400 thousand inhabitants, and the county - 20 - 30 thousand.

The main merit of Catherine II in the field of education and culture was the creation in Russia of systems primary education for children from all classes, except for serfs. Medical care has also become a matter of state. Each city was required to have a pharmacy and a hospital. Catherine was one of the first in Russia to get herself vaccinated against smallpox. This was the beginning of vaccination.

On April 21, 1785, "Charters of Letters" to the nobility and cities were published. The nobility was granted the exclusive right to own peasants, lands and bowels of the earth; the right to establish plants and factories and wholesale everything that is produced in their estates; the right to start auctions and fairs on their lands. The nobles were exempt from taxes and corporal punishment. County nobles once every three years had to gather in the central city of the county and choose the local administration from their midst. Cities received the right to elective self-government.

Catherine II held an active foreign policy. As a result of two successful Russian-Turkish wars of 1768-1774 and 1787-1791. the Crimean peninsula and the entire territory of the Northern Black Sea region went to Russia. Russia received access to the Black Sea, and it was no longer threatened by the raids of the Crimean Tatars. Now it was possible to develop the black earth steppes. The Black Sea Fleet was created on the Black Sea.

In 1772 - 1795. Russia took part in the three sections of the Commonwealth, as a result of which the territories of Belarus, Western Ukraine, Lithuania and Courland joined the Russian Empire.

Catherine II was extremely worried about the beginning of the revolution in France in 1789. The execution of Louis XVI in 1793 caused her outrage. The Empress allowed French emigrants to enter Russia and provided them with open financial support. All trade and diplomatic relations with France were severed. Preparations began for the war, which ended after the death of the Empress in 1796.

Before her death, Catherine II tried to transfer the imperial throne over Paul's head to her grandson Alexander Pavlovich. But Alexander did not want to enter into a quarrel with his father, and a number of influential dignitaries prevented the dying empress from carrying out this last political intrigue. Catherine II died on November 6, 1796. She was buried in Peter and Paul Fortress. Her son Pavel ascended the Russian throne.

3. Historians about Catherine II

3.1 . N. M. Karamzin.

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (12/01/1766 - 05/22/1826) - Russian writer, publicist, historian, journalist, critic, member Russian Academy(1818), honorary member Petersburg Academy Sciences (1818), real state councilor (1824).

N. M. Karamzin was the son of a landowner in the Simbirsk province. He studied at the Fauvel boarding school in Simbirsk, then went to Moscow, where in 1775 - 1781. studied at the boarding school of professor of Moscow University I. M. Shaden. In Moscow, he became close with the Freemasons (A. M. Kutuzov, A. A. Petrov, J. Lenz), was familiar with the publisher N. I. Novikov. Through them, Karamzin joined the English classical literature, the works of the French Enlightenment, translation and publishing.

In 1791 - 1792. N. M. Karamzin published the Moscow Journal, which became the center of Russian sentimentalism, where he first published the story Poor Lisa; in 1802 - 1803 - Literary and political journal "Bulletin of Europe".

In con. The 1790s marked Karamzin's interest in professional history studies. In 1803, Karamzin was commissioned by Alexander I to write a history of Russia and began to receive a pension as a civil servant.

Karamzin defended the inviolability of the monarchy as the traditional political structure of Russia. In 1816 - 1829. Karamzin's main historical work, The History of the Russian State, was published. This multi-volume work aroused great interest in Russia, prompted the Russian educated society to in-depth study national history. Karamzin writes about Catherine II: "She softened the power, without losing her strength." Under her rule, Russia finally strengthened itself as a great world power.

3.2. S. M. Solovyov.

Solovyov Sergey Mikhailovich (05/05/1820 - 10/04/1879) - Russian historian, member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1872)

S. M. Solovyov was born into the family of a priest. In 1842 he graduated from Moscow University. During the years of study, he was influenced by the views of T. N. Granovsky, studied the philosophy of G. Hegel. In 1842 - 1844. lived abroad and was the home teacher of Count A.P. Stroganov. He listened to lectures at the universities of Paris, Berlin, Heidelberg. In 1845, S. M. Solovyov began to read a course of lectures on Russian history at Moscow University and defended his master's thesis "On the attitude of Novgorod to the great princes", and in 1847 - his doctoral dissertation "History of relations between the Russian princes of the Rurik House". From 1847 he became a professor at Moscow University.

In 1863, Solovyov wrote the History of the Fall of Poland, and in 1877, the book Emperor Alexander I. Politics, Diplomacy. He left several works on the theory of historical science (“Observations on the historical life of peoples”, “Progress and religion”, etc.), as well as on historiography (“Writers of Russian history of the 18th century”, “N. M. Karamzin and his “ History of the Russian state”, “Schlozer and the anti-historical direction”, etc.). His lectures "Public Readings on Peter the Great" (1872) became an event in public life.

In 1864 - 1870. served as dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, and in 1871 - 1877. - Rector of Moscow University. IN last years life was chairman of the Moscow Society of History and Russian Antiquities and director of the Armory.

S. M. Solovyov occupied a moderate liberal position, had a negative attitude towards serfdom. Under Emperor Alexander II, Solovyov taught history to the heir, Nikolai Alexandrovich, and in 1866 to the future Emperor Alexander III. On his behalf, the historian compiled a "Note on the current state of Russia", which remained unfinished. He defended the autonomy of the university, defined by the charter of 1863, and was forced to resign in 1877, when he could not achieve this.

In 1851 - 1879. 28 volumes of "History of Russia since ancient times" - the main work of S. M. Solovyov - were published. "History of Russia" enjoyed great popularity and was reprinted many times. Until now, this work remains unsurpassed in its fundamentality and richest material.

According to Solovyov, Catherine considered it necessary to know Russian history, with her inquisitiveness and versatility of her mind, she herself loved to deal with questions from it. A few minutes before her death, she was engaged in composing Notes on Russian History. What was done under her for Russian history? Old Muller was transferred to Moscow, made head of the precious archive of the Foreign Collegium, where he was completely in his own sphere. Müller published Tatishchev, published Mankiev's The Core of Russian History, shared many materials with Novikov for his Vivliofika, and Golikov for his Acts of Peter the Great. There were attempts to make something coherent out of the collected materials, to write Russian history, there was "Russian History from Ancient Times" by Prince Shcherbatov. The author was an intelligent, educated, industrious, conscientious man, but untalented and unprepared by science for his work, taking him only as an amateur. Despite the fact that Shcherbatov's work occupies an honorable place in our historical literature. Following conscientiously and attentively the course of events in Russian history, Shcherbatov dwelled on phenomena that were especially striking, not similar to phenomena encountered in the history of other peoples, tried to explain them, approached them from different angles, made mistakes, but paved the way for others, raised a dispute.

A heated argument ensued between Shcherbatov and Boltin. General Boltin, a man of great talent, became famous for his objections to Leclerc's book on ancient and new Russia published in Paris in 1784. He refuted Leclerc, who put down ancient Russia, her history, Boltin had to defend it, find the bright sides in this life, in this history, to which the era of transformation was so hostile until now, repeating that the transformer brought Russia from non-existence to being. It was all the easier for Boltin to accept the defense ancient Russia that society, realizing the harmful side of the transformative trend, was ready to exist for the life against which this transformative trend was fighting. Boltin was the first to express propositions about a strong degree of development of ancient Russian society, propositions that were then so often repeated. So, considering the treaties of our first princes with the Greeks, Boltin says: “At that time, they already had Russian rule, approved on fundamental laws and indispensable rules, the people were divided into different estates, each estate enjoyed special rights, advantages and distinctions; all in general had a trial and reprisal; they had success in domestic and foreign trade, navigation, arts, crafts and in the reasoning of the then century, in deliberate enlightenment, ”and so on. The dark sides of Western society, brought to Russia during the era of transformation, gave Boltin a powerful weapon in defense of the old against the new. Leclerc censures the Code because it gives tyrannical power to the husband over his wife; Boltin exposes the corruption of family morality in his time in the West and in Russia; Boltin also stands up for the Russian language, based on the possibility of translating the works of the Church Fathers into Slavonic; says that the use of French words by Russian people in conversation was introduced not out of need, but out of a violent predilection for everything that is called French. Regarding Leclerc’s remark that in ancient Russia foreign scientists were forbidden to enter Russia, and Russians were forbidden to enter abroad for science, Boltin directly reproaches new Russia for a change for the worse: “Since the youth began to be sent to foreign lands, and to entrust education to strangers, our morals have completely changed, with imaginary enlightenment, new prejudices, new passions, weaknesses, whims, which were unknown to our ancestors, have been planted in our hearts: love for the fatherland has extinguished in us, attachment to the fatherly faith and customs has been exterminated. We forgot the old, but we did not adopt the new, and, having become unlike ourselves, we did not become what we wanted to be. All this came about from haste and impatience: they wanted to do something in a few years, which would take centuries; they began to build the building of our enlightenment on the sand, without first having made a reliable foundation for it. Peter the Great thought that for the enlightenment of the nobles it would be enough to make them travel to foreign countries, but experience justified our old people's opinion that instead of the expected benefit, harm came out of it. Then Peter the Great knew that it was necessary to begin good upbringing but end with a journey to see the desired fruit.

In his remarks on Leclerc, Boltin touched upon Prince Shcherbatov several times; he defended himself, this produced a controversy, as a result of which two volumes of Boltin's notes on the history of Shcherbatov appeared.

Of the notes relating to the reign of Catherine II, the most remarkable are those of the state secretaries of the empress: Khrapovitsky, Derzhavin and Gribovsky; These notes most closely acquaint us with the character of Catherine, her views and motives; then the notes of Princess Dashkova, known for her close relationship with the Empress, for her literary works and former president Academy; finally, the notes of Poroshin, who was at the upbringing of Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich and described in detail this upbringing, the conversations of the educator, N.I. Panin, and other persons who visited the heir.

We have seen that among thinking people Catherine's century was dissatisfied with the direction of the first half of the century, the recognition of its harmful one-sidedness, but one of them is recognized as a means to improve matters by spreading the principles of the then-called philosophy, which destroyed old prejudices; others suspect this philosophy of destroying prejudices and at the same time undermining the foundation of the virtues; still others naturally pass from dissatisfaction with the epoch of transformation to the idea that this epoch is not right in the face of pre-Petrine Russia, disgraced by it. Alongside these directions there was also a mystical direction. Of the people of this mystical direction, Novikov is especially remarkable, who began his activity by publishing satirical magazines, of which there were many under Catherine: their goal was to ridicule those shortcomings of society that comedy also ridiculed. Then Novikov began to publish a collection of historical materials, known as "Ancient Russian Vivliofika". In Moscow, together with a professor at the local university, Schwartz Novikov, founded in 1781 Friendly learned society , the purpose of which was to print educational books and give them away for free educational institutions. Many gifted and industrious young people gathered around Novikov, who were engaged in the translation of books and participated in Novikov's publications; Among these young people was Karamzin.

Empress Catherine did not like mystics, did not like secret Masonic societies, laughed at their members in her comedies; in her opinion, it was not clear why people who declare that they wish good to their neighbors surround themselves with mystery and darkness, while no one prevents them from doing all kinds of good without any tricks. Novikov at the end of his reign was persecuted for political reasons.

3.3. V. O. Klyuchevsky.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich (01/16/1841 - 05/12/1911) - Russian historian, historiographer and source specialist.

V. O. Klyuchevsky was born into the family of a village priest. In 1860 he graduated from the Penza Theological Seminary, in 1861 he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University and graduated in 1865 with a gold medal.

In 1867, Klyuchevsky began teaching history at the Alexander Military School, the Moscow Theological Academy, and at Guerrier's Higher Women's Courses. He wrote historical research"Tales of foreigners about the Muscovite state", in which he traced the process of folding a centralized state with an autocratic form of government. This work showed a new interest for historians of that time in economic subjects and social history. Klyuchevsky considered climatic and geographical conditions as a permanent factor in history.

In 1872 he prepared his master's thesis "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source". In 1882, V. O. Klyuchevsky defended his doctoral dissertation “Boyar Duma Ancient Russia". In this work, he paid special attention to social issues. He believed that classes in history can be formed not only on a political, but also on a purely economic basis.

Problems of social economic history Klyuchevsky considered in the works "History of estates in Russia", "Abolition of serfdom", "The origin of serfdom in Russia".

Since 1882, Klyuchevsky was a professor of history at Moscow University. He taught a course in the history of Russia from ancient times to the 19th century. Since 1889 - Corresponding Member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. In 1900, Klyuchevsky received the title of Academician of History and Russian Antiquities, and in 1908, an honorary academician in the category of fine literature. Since 1880, Klyuchevsky was a member of the Moscow Archaeological Society, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. Klyuchevsky, as a member of the Kadet Party, ran for the State Duma, but was not elected. In 1905, he participated in the Commission developing the censorship charter.

In the 1900s, Klyuchevsky published his "Course of Russian History" in five parts, covering the period from ancient times to the Great Reforms. He recognized an exclusively evolutionary way historical development and vehemently rejected revolutions. He considered personality, nature and society to be the driving forces of history. The historian abandoned periodization by reign and based his periodization on two criteria - economic and political. The main periods in the history of Russia according to Klyuchevsky are the period of the Dnieper Rus, the specific princely period, Moscow Rus and the imperial-noble period. Klyuchevsky created a scientific school, which entered the history of historical science.

The reign of Catherine II, according to Klyuchevsky, is a whole epoch of our history, and historical epochs usually do not close within the boundaries of the human age, do not end with the life of their ends. And the time of Catherine II survived her most, at least after a four-year break, it was officially resurrected by the manifesto of her second successor, who announced that he would reign according to the laws and heart of his grandmother. Catherine was praised and blamed even after her death, just as a living person is praised or blamed, trying to support or change his activities. And Catherine II did not escape such a common and sad form of immortality - to disturb and quarrel people even after death. Her name served as a political target for opponents or adherents of her political direction.

Catherine II left behind institutions, plans, ideas, morals, brought up under her, and significant debts. The debts have been paid, and other wounds inflicted on the people's organism by her hard wars and her way of running "her little household," as she liked to say about her finances, have long been healed and even closed with scars of a later origin.

The time of Empress Catherine II significantly changed the form and clarified the tasks of collective historiography. Then the inclination to form free societies with economic, educational, philanthropic, especially educational and literary goals was strongly manifested. The idea grew stronger and stronger that not all social needs could be satisfied by government institutions and that voluntary unions of individuals animated by the same aspirations could serve as auxiliary means, and sometimes even as substitutes. A Free Economic Society arose "to encourage agriculture and housekeeping in Russia"; there were or were supposed in St. Petersburg and Moscow and other societies with different goals. With this trend of minds can be connected the curious attempt of the Empress herself to create a transitional form for historical works from a government institution to a private society. Decree December 4, 1783, she ordered to appoint under the command and supervision of gr. A. P. Shuvalov, there are several, namely 10, people who, by cumulative labors, would have compiled useful notes on ancient history, mainly concerning Russia, making brief extracts from ancient Russian chronicles and foreign writers according to a well-known rather peculiar plan.

Public revival with particular force manifested itself then in Moscow, and Moscow University was its center. Under him in 1781 arose Free Russian collection. In 1782, the circle of Novikov and Schwartz formed Friendly learned society, which included, along with Schwartz, several other professors from Moscow University. The movement also captured the student youth. Schwartz arranged Collection of university pupils; the pupils of the University Noble Boarding School also began to gather for readings and interviews. Upon the closure of the Friendly Scientific Society and the Free Russian collection was founded at the university in 1789 Collection of lovers of Russian learning.

In the decree of Empress Catherine II, the idea shines through that the preliminary work of historiography, the collection and initial processing of historical material, should be carried out by the friendly joint work of many according to a certain plan. Moscow societies revealed the emerging desire of private individuals and officials to combine their forces for educational work, concentrating around the university, forming private auxiliary institutions with it. Not being specifically historical, the named Moscow societies had a close connection with the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. Chebotarev, Strakhov and other early members of this Society were formerly members of the Free Russian Assembly and the Friendly Scientific Society and brought with them the direction and views of the Novikov circle. Chebotarev, in addition, worked on Russian chronicles, made extracts from them, compiled historical maps for A. Shuvalov's commission.

We have the right to say, therefore, that the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities arose quite historically, having long been manifested in various forms. People who thought about studying their native past, professional scientists and ordinary amateurs, have long tried to start collecting and processing ancient monuments together. With the assistance of Miller, Prince. Shcherbatov and other Novikov led the publication of his " Russian vivliophics ". Compiling your notes regarding Russian history, Empress Catherine used the materials that her Moscow professors Chebotarev and Barsov delivered, as well as the instructions of "lovers of national history" gr. Musin-Pushkin and Major General Boltin. Casually formed amateur circles and friendly collaborations lacked only a permanent form of organization and a solid point of attachment. Both this form and this point of attachment were found in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Schlözer's proposal to Russian scientists came true because it met with a thought that had been maturing among them for a long time. The idea of ​​this Society also contained the answer to the question raised by Karamzin, who then began to work on his " History of the Russian State. Concerning the founding of our Society, he wrote that 10 societies would not do what one person who was completely devoted to historical subjects would do.

The contribution of Catherine II to the development of national history is enormous. With her, historiography begins to develop rapidly, which was facilitated by Catherine herself.

3.4. S. F. Platonov.

Platonov Sergey Fedorovich (1860, Chernigov - 1933, Samara) - historian. Born into the family of a printing clerk. After graduating from the St. Petersburg gymnasium, Platonov, who dreamed of literary activity, entered the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. Under the influence of historians K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, A.D. Gradovsky became interested in history. In 1882, after graduating from the university, he was left to prepare for a professorship. Talent and exceptional performance allowed Platonov to write a thesis "Old Russian legends and stories about the Time of Troubles of the 17th century as a historical source", highly appreciated by V. O. Klyuchevsky and awarded the Uvarov Prize of the Academy of Sciences. In 1890 Platonov became a professor of Russian history at St. Petersburg University. His doctoral dissertation was the book "Essays on the History of Troubles in the Muscovite State of the 16th-17th Centuries", which Platonov considered "the highest scientific achievement of his entire life", which determined his "place among the figures of Russian historiography". He worked hard on publishing the sources of the beginning of the 17th century. "Russian historical library"- a work that has still retained its significance. Being able to briefly, clearly, interestingly present the material, Platonov became one of the most prominent professors of the early 20th century. Without accepting the liberalism of V.O. Klyuchevsky (although Platonov's historical views did not differ significantly from his views) , the conservative monarchism of D. I. Ilovaisky and the Marxism of M. N. Pokrovsky, Platonov believed that “there is no need to introduce any points of view into historiography; a subjective idea is not a scientific idea." In 1895 - 1902 he was invited as a teacher of history to the Grand Dukes. In 1903, a talented administrator and teacher, Platonov headed the Women's Pedagogical Institute. In 1908 he became a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences. He wrote "Textbook of Russian History for secondary school "(St. Petersburg, 1909 - 1910) became one of the best pre-revolutionary textbooks, the reprinting of which was interrupted by the events of October 1917. He reacted negatively to the October Revolution, considering the Bolshevik program "artificial and utopian", but agreed to cooperate with the Bolsheviks, believing that under any power he must serve his people. Participated in the rescue of archives and libraries in Petrograd, headed the Archaeographic Commission, the Archaeological Institute, the Pushkin House, the Library of the Academy of Sciences, etc. In 1920 he was elected an academician. "historians (S.V. Bakhrushin, E.V. Tarle, etc.). Thus began the legend of Platonov, as representative of the official-protective direction of historiography. He was exiled to Samara and died in the hospital from heart failure.

The historical significance of the activities of Catherine II, as Platonov believed, is determined quite easily on the basis of what we have said about certain aspects of Catherine's policy.

We have seen that, upon her accession to the throne, Catherine dreamed of extensive internal transformations, and in foreign policy she refused to follow her predecessors, Elizabeth and Peter III. She deliberately deviated from the traditions that had developed at the Petersburg court, and meanwhile, the results of her activities were essentially such that they completed the traditional aspirations of the Russian people and government.

In domestic matters, the legislation of Catherine II completed the historical process that began under the temporary workers. The balance in the position of the main estates, which existed in full force under Peter the Great, began to collapse precisely in the era of temporary workers (1725 - 1741), when the nobility, easing their state duties, began to achieve certain property privileges and more power over the peasants - according to the law. We observed the growth of noble rights during the time of both Elizabeth and Peter III. Under Catherine, the nobility becomes not only a privileged class with a correct internal organization, but also a class that dominates the county (as a landowning class) and in general administration (as a bureaucracy). Parallel to the growth of the rights of the nobility and depending on it, the civil rights of the landowning peasants are falling. The flourishing of noble privileges in the 18th century was necessarily combined with the flourishing of serfdom. Therefore, the time of Catherine II was the historical moment when serfdom reached its full and greatest development. Thus, the activities of Catherine II in relation to the estates (let us not forget that the administrative measures of Catherine II were in the nature of estate measures) were a direct continuation and completion of those deviations from the old Russian system that developed in the 18th century. Catherine in her domestic policy acted according to the traditions bequeathed to her by a number of her immediate predecessors, and brought to the end what they had begun.

On the contrary, in politics external Catherine, as we have seen, was a direct follower of Peter the Great, and not the petty politicians of the 18th century. She was able, like Peter the Great, to understand the fundamental tasks of Russian foreign policy and was able to complete what the Moscow sovereigns had been striving for for centuries. And here, as in domestic politics, she brought her work to the end, and after it, Russian diplomacy had to set itself new tasks, because the old ones had been exhausted and abolished. If at the end of Catherine's reign a Moscow diplomat of the 16th or 17th centuries had risen from the grave, he would have felt completely satisfied, since he would have seen all the issues of foreign policy that so worried her contemporaries resolved satisfactorily. So, Catherine is a traditional figure, despite her negative attitude towards the Russian past, despite, finally, the fact that she introduced new methods of management, new ideas into public circulation. The duality of the traditions that she followed determines the dual attitude of her descendants towards her. If some, not without reason, indicate not that Catherine's internal activity legitimized the abnormal consequences of the dark epochs of the 18th century, then others bow before the greatness of the results of her foreign policy. Howbeit, historical meaning Catherine's era is extremely large precisely because in this era the results of previous history were summed up, completed historical processes previously developed. This ability of Catherine to bring to the end, to the full resolution of the questions that history raised her, makes everyone recognize in her a paramount historical figure, regardless of her personal mistakes and weaknesses.

4. Conclusion:

Catherine II was different common sense, insight, cunning, the ability to understand other people and use their strengths and weaknesses. All this looks like a harmonious combination of masculinity and femininity, rationality and sensitivity ... Her notes testify to this. By the way, her determination, courage and considerable adventurism threatened her with an early death. She often took desperate actions. Sometimes she showed violent emotions, pure feminine sentimentality and impressionability.

Before she could control other people, she learned to control herself. In general, she was able, while remaining a woman, to demonstrate the best male qualities, including courage. And she was an outstanding empress.

Output: working on this topic, I saw Catherine II - the Great Empress. It is important to take into account the fact that, not being Russian from birth, she was able not only to live in Russia, but also to manage this Great Power. And yet, one can agree with Karamzin: "The power was softened by it, without losing its strength." Under her rule, Russia finally strengthened itself as a great world power. Historians, evaluating her reign, began to call her Great Catherine.

Literature:

1. Aksyonova G. et al. “Russia. Illustrated Encyclopedia, Moscow, 2007.

2. Balandin R. K. "Great Russian people", Moscow, 2002.

3. Brachev B.C. "Sergei Fedorovich Platonov // Domestic History", Moscow, 1993.

4. Ed. Butromeeva V.P. and others. "Soviet Russia", Moscow, 2007.

5. Verbitskaya L. A. “History of Russia XVIII century. Illustrated Encyclopedia, Moscow, 2002.

6. Klyuchevsky V. O. “Aphorisms. Historical portraits and studies. Diaries, Moscow, 1993.

7. Klyuchevsky V. O. “Works. In nine volumes, Moscow, 1989.

8. Klyuchevsky V. O. "Historical portraits", Moscow, 1991.

9. Platonov S. F. "Lectures on Russian history", Moscow, 1988.

10. Solovyov S. M. “Works. Book 18”, Moscow, 1993

Application No. 1.

title of empress

Catherine II Alekseevna:

By God's hastening mercy, we, Catherine II, Empress and Autocrat of All Russia, Moscow, Kyiv, Vladimir, Novgorod, Queen of Kazan, Queen of Astrakhan, Queen of Siberia, Empress of Pskov and grand duchess Smolenskaya, Princess of Estlyandskaya, Liflyandskaya, Korelskaya, Tverskaya, Yugorskaya, Permskaya, Vyatskaya, Bulgarian and others, Empress and Grand Duchess of Novgorod Nizovsky lands, Chernigovskaya, Ryazanskaya, Rostovskaya, Yaroslavskaya, Belozerskaya, Udorskaya, Obdorskaya, Kondiyskaya and all northern countries sovereign and empress of the Iberian land, Kartalinsky and Georgian kings and Kabardian land, Cherkasy and Mountain princes, and other hereditary empress and owner.

Application number 2.

Catherine II.

Application No. 3.

Application No. 4.

Application No. 5.

Presentation of the letter to Catherine II.

Application No. 6.

Monogram of Catherine II.

Application No. 7.

Manifesto of Catherine II 1763

Application No. 8.

Diploma of Catherine II.

Application No. 9.

Appendix No. 10.

Coins of the 18th century.

Application No. 11.

Order of Catherine the Great.

Application No. 12.

Rescript of Catherine II.

Application No. 13.

Title page letter of commendation of Catherine II.

Appendix No. 14.

Application No. 15.

Monument to Catherine II.

Application No. 16.

V. O. Klyuchevsky. N. M. Karamzin.

S. M. Solovyov. S. F. Platonov.

In the second half of the XVIII century. Russia began to play an active role in international relations. It entered the European military-political alliances and, thanks to strong army had a significant impact on them. Russian diplomacy, which used to have to deal with permanent allies and enemies, by this time had learned to maneuver in the complex relations of the European powers. The ideal of Russia's state interests was now associated with the spread of the ideas of rationalism to the field of foreign policy.

The Russian army is increasingly acquiring a national character: Russian officers and generals are coming to replace the foreign ones. The tasks of Russia's foreign policy during the reign of Catherine II were, firstly, the struggle for access to the southern seas - the Black and Azov, and secondly, the liberation from foreign domination of the lands of Ukraine and Belarus and the unification in one state of all Eastern Slavs and thirdly, the struggle against revolutionary France in connection with the Great French Revolution that began in 1789. In the 60s. 18th century There is a complex political game going on in Europe.

The degree of convergence of certain countries was determined by the strength of the contradictions between them. At that time, Russia had the strongest contradictions with France and Austria. To action in the south Russian government the interests of the country's security and the needs of the nobility, who sought to obtain fertile southern lands, were also pushed. At the same time, the development of Russian industry and trade dictated the need to gain access to the Black Sea coast. Turkey, instigated by France and England, in the fall of 1768 declared war on Russia, which lasted until 1774. After the capture of Azov and Taganrog, Russia began building a fleet.

In the famous Battle of Chesme on June 25-26, 1770, under the command of Admirals G. A. Spiridonov, A. G. Orlov and S. K. Greig, a brilliant victory was won: the Turkish ships locked in the Chesme Bay, with the exception of one, were burned. A little later in July in 1770, under the command of the talented commander P. A. Rumyantsev, the Russian army won on land in the battle of Cahul over the 150,000-strong army of the Turks. In 1771, the Russian army under the command of Prince V. M. Dolgoruky captured the Perekop fortifications, defeated the combined Turkish-Tatar army in the battle of Cafe (Feodosia) and occupied the Crimean peninsula. These successes contributed to the fact that a protege of Russia was erected on the Crimean Khan's throne, with whom Dolgoruky concluded an agreement.

In June 1774, Russian troops under command succeeded in defeating the Ottomans (Turks) at Kozludzha. Russian-Turkish war 1768 - 1774 ended with the signing of the Kyuchuk-Kainarji peace treaty in 1774, under the terms of which Russia received access to the Black Sea; the steppes of the Black Sea region - Novorossia; the right to have a fleet on the Black Sea; the right of passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles; Azov, Kerch, as well as Kuban and Kabarda. The Crimean Khanate became independent from Turkey. Turkey paid an indemnity of 4 million rubles. And the Russian government won the right to act as a defender legal rights Christian nations in the Ottoman Empire. For brilliant victories in the Russian-Turkish war, Catherine II generously awarded her commanders with orders and nominal weapons. A. G. Orlov became known as Chesmensky, V. M. Dolgorukov - Krymsky, P. A. Rumyantsev - Zadunaisky. Since 1780, Russia began to draw closer to Austria on the basis of common interests in relation to Turkey and Poland.

Turkey did not want to come to terms with the assertion of Russia in the Black Sea. In response to Turkey's desire to return the Crimea under its rule, by the decree of Catherine II of April 8, 1783, the Crimea was included in the Russian Empire. Sevastopol was founded in 1783 as a base for the Black Sea Fleet. G. A. Potemkin for success in annexing the Crimea (the old name of Taurida) received a prefix to his title "Prince of Tauride". In 1787, Turkey presented an ultimatum to Russia with a number of unacceptable demands, and the second Russian-Turkish war (1787-1791) began, which was fought in a difficult international situation for Russia. The fact is that at that time an alliance of England, Prussia and Holland took shape, aimed at undermining Russia's positions in the Baltic. These countries provoked Sweden into a war with Russia in 1788-1790. This war weakened the forces of Russia, although the peace treaty of 1790 did not introduce any territorial changes between Russia and Sweden. Russia was supported at that time only by England, and even then by insignificant forces. Nevertheless, Russo-Swedish war showed the superiority of the Russian army. During the years of the second Russian-Turkish war, the military talent of A. V. Suvorov was especially clearly manifested.

In 1787, he defeated the Turks during the siege of Kinburn by them, then in 1788 he took the powerful fortress of Ochakov, and in 1789 he won two convincing victories over the many times superior enemy forces at the city of Focsani and on the river. Rymnik, for which he receives the title of Count of Rymnik. Of particular importance was the capture of Ishmael in 1790, which was the citadel of Ottoman rule on the Danube. After careful preparation, A. V. Suvorov appointed the time of the assault. Wanting to avoid bloodshed, he sent a letter to the commandant of the fortress demanding surrender: "24 hours - freedom, the first shot - already captivity, assault - death." The Turkish pasha refused: “Rather, the Danube will stop in its course, the sky will fall to the ground, than Ishmael will surrender.” After a 10-hour assault, Ishmael was taken.

In battle, the student of A.V. Suvorov, the future commander M.I. Kutuzov, glorified himself. Along with the ground forces, the fleet, commanded by Admiral F.F. Ushakov, also operated successfully during the war. In the battle at Cape Kaliakria (near Varna) in 1791, the Turkish fleet was destroyed. According to the Iasi peace treaty of 1791 (signed in the city of Iasi), Turkey recognized the Crimea as a possession of Russia. The Dniester River became the border between the two countries. The territory between the rivers Bug and Dniester became part of Russia. Turkey recognized Russia's patronage over Georgia, established by the Treaty of St. George in 1783. The economic development of the steppe south of Russia accelerated, and Russia's ties with the Mediterranean countries expanded.

The Crimean Khanate, a constant hotbed of aggression against Ukrainian and Russian lands, was liquidated. The cities of Nikolaev in 1789, Odessa in 1795, Yekaterinodar in 1793 (now Krasnodar) and others were founded in the south of Russia. Russia gained access to the Black Sea. Austria and Prussia, which at that time were in allied relations with Russia, repeatedly suggested that Russia undertake the division of the territory weakened by Poland's internal contradictions. Catherine II did not agree to this proposal for a long time due to the fact that the Polish king during this period was her henchman Stanislav Poniatowski. However, in conditions when, after the victory in the first Russian-Turkish war, there was a very real threat of concluding an alliance between Turkey and Austria for a joint struggle against Russia, Catherine II agreed to the partition of Poland. In 1772, Russia, Austria and Prussia committed aggression against Poland and divided part of the Polish lands among themselves.

Prussia occupied Pomerania, Austria - Galicia, and Russia - Eastern Belarus and the Polish part of Livonia. The second division, in which Prussia and Russia participated, took place in 1793. The entire Baltic coast of Poland with Gdansk and Greater Poland with Poznan went to Prussia, and Belarus with Minsk and Right-bank Ukraine went to Russia. This meant that all the old Russian lands became part of Russia. Meanwhile, an uprising led by Tadeusz Kosciuszko began in Poland, directed against the division of Polish lands by neighboring states. Taking advantage of the victories of the rebels as a pretext, Russia, Austria and Prussia again sent their troops into Poland and crushed the uprising. It was decided that the Polish state as a source of "revolutionary danger" should cease to exist.

This meant the third division of Poland, which took place in 1795. The lands of central Poland with Warsaw went to Prussia. Austria received Lesser Poland with Lublin. The main part of Lithuania, Western Belarus and Western Volhynia went to Russia, and the inclusion of Courland into Russia was also legally formalized. Russia's allied relations with Austria and Prussia created an opportunity for the return of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands to Russia, which had been located since the 16th century. within the Polish-Lithuanian state. However, the task of ensuring the security of Peter's conquests in the Baltic remained. The Great French Revolution caused not only the creation of the first anti-French coalition under the auspices of Catherine II, but also marked the beginning of the ideologization of Russia's foreign policy.

The transformation of Russia into a great European power required constant confirmation of this status. Not a single major issue of European politics was resolved without its participation. In 1775, the war of the English colonies began in North America for independence. England turned to Russia with a request to hire Russian troops to take part in the fight against the American rebels. In response, Catherine II not only refused this, but also recognized the independence of the United States of America. In 1780, Russia adopted a declaration of "armed neutrality", according to which the ship of any neutral state is under the protection of all neutral states. This greatly offended the interests of England and could not but worsen Russian-British relations. The foreign policy of Catherine the Great led to a significant increase in the territory of Russia. It included the Right-bank Ukraine and Belarus, the Southern Baltic, the Northern Black Sea region, many new territories in Far East and in North America. The inhabitants of the Greek islands swore allegiance to the Russian Empress and North Caucasus. The population of Russia has increased from 22 to 36 million people.

Thus, during the reign of Catherine II, Russia managed to get closer to solving the foreign policy tasks that the country had been facing for many decades. The most important result of the foreign policy of Catherine II was the beginning of the transformation of Russia from a great European into a great world power. “I don’t know how it will be with you, but with us, not a single gun in Europe dared to fire without our permission,” said Catherine’s Chancellor Count A. Bezborodko. The Russian fleet now plied the expanses not only of the coastal seas, but also of the Mediterranean Sea, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, supporting the foreign policy of Russia in Europe, Asia and America with the power of its guns. However, the greatness of Russia cost its people a colossal effort and huge material and human losses. A number of historians rightly assess the reign of Catherine II as a single process of reform, as a time of continuous transformation.

The historiography of the reforms of Catherine II is no less extensive compared to the historiography of the era of Peter I. The well-known Russian historian of the 19th century. N.V. Karamzin in his “Note on Ancient and New Russia” saw in Catherine II the true successor of Petrov’s greatness and the second reformer of the new Russia, and considered her time as a whole “the happiest for a Russian citizen”. In the Russian pre-revolutionary historiography of the "Catherine era" there were two main directions. Representatives of one of them, mostly historians of the "state school" - S. M. Solovyov, A. D. Gradovsky, I. I. Dityatin and others - gave a fairly high assessment of the reforms of Catherine II, considering them an important stage in the development of Russian statehood, Europeanization of the country, the formation of elements of civil society. Historians of another direction - V. O. Klyuchevsky, A. A. Kizevetter, V. I. Semevsky and others - demonstrated a much greater criticality of judgments when describing the transformations of Catherine II.

These historians, first of all, were distinguished by the search for inconsistencies, the identification of inconsistencies between the declarations and specific actions of the empress, and a special emphasis on the peasant question. In Soviet historical science, the reign of Catherine II was considered as a manifestation of the so-called "enlightened absolutism". At the same time, the policy of “enlightened absolutism” of Catherine II was interpreted as liberal demagoguery and the maneuvering of the autocracy between different social strata in the era of the decomposition of the feudal-serfdom system in order to prevent popular uprisings. Thus, all the deeds of the empress were initially given a negative connotation of something insincere and even reactionary.

When evaluating the reign of Catherine II, one must obviously keep in mind that the empress had to act not according to a pre-thought-out and planned reform program, but to consistently take on the solution of the tasks that life put forward. Hence the impression of some chaotic nature of her reign. The main facts of the reign of Catherine II can be grouped according to their semantic orientation into several lines: firstly, imperial measures in foreign and domestic policy; secondly, strengthening absolutism by reforming government institutions and a new administrative structure of the state, protecting the monarchy from any encroachment; thirdly, socio-economic measures aimed at further "Europeanization" of the country and the final formation and strengthening of the nobility; fourthly, liberal educational initiatives, care for education, literature, and the arts.

According to the historian S.V. Bushuev, in the reign of Catherine II there was a “discrepancy between the external forms and internal conditions brought from above”, the “soul” and “body” of Russia, and hence all the contradictions of the 18th century: the split of the nation, the split of the people and power , power and the intelligentsia created by it, the split of culture into folk and "official", the coexistence of "enlightenment" and "slavery". All this can somehow explain the underlying causes of her impressive successes when she acted like a Petrine “from above”, and her amazing impotence, as soon as she tried to get support “from below” in a European way. The enlightened Empress Catherine II acted both as the first landowner and as a correspondent for Voltaire, as an unlimited ruler, as a supporter of humanity and at the same time as a reinstater of the death penalty. According to the definition of A.S., Pushkin, Catherine II is "Tartuffe in a skirt and crown."

INTRODUCTION

According to the figurative expression of V. O. Klyuchevsky, “Catherine II: she was the last accident on the Russian throne and spent a long and extraordinary reign, created a whole era in our history” and, one might add, in historiography. This "last accident" of the 18th century could not leave indifferent either her contemporaries or descendants. For more than 200 years, attitudes towards Catherine II were ambiguous, but few disputed the significance of her reign for the good of Russia. It is rarely noted that even in the Soviet period, the monument to Catherine II, along with Peter I, revered by the Bolsheviks, did not leave its pedestal, remaining the only monument to a female monarch in a state where the reigning dynasty was suppressed by force. And this is despite the fact that her so many-sided personality cannot be brought under a certain stereotype: for some, Catherine II is an enlightened empress, for others - a tyrant who gives away "peasant souls", for someone - a loving person who has lost count of lovers. For researchers, the history of the reign of Catherine II was, remains and, apparently, will remain one of the favorite objects of research for a long time to come. In Russian historiography, the personality of Catherine II was considered both in special monographs and articles devoted exclusively to the transformations of her reign or her biography, and in general works concerning History XVII 1st century, the history of diplomacy, culture, literature, or in works dedicated to the figures of her reign or favorites. TO beginning of XXI in. The bibliography on this issue includes almost 600 titles. However, interest in the history of Catherine's time has not waned, and only in recent years have several new major studies been published. Most of the publications were dedicated to anniversaries or anniversaries of certain reforms.

The largest number of works saw the light in the last quarter of the 19th - early 20th centuries. (the centennial anniversary of the granting of the “Chartered Letter” to the nobility and cities, the 100th anniversary of the death of the empress is the right time to sum up her long reign; the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty).

It is obvious that in our politically and economically unstable time it is very difficult to choose the right path for the development of the country, so the answer to the question about the right way in our history, which, as you know, repeats itself, can be found precisely in the activities of Catherine II, where the guide to the action of future rulers is hidden. Therefore, the study of the opinions of historians, both modern and contemporaries of Catherine the Great, is especially relevant in our time.

"Golden Age" of Catherine the Great

The "Golden Age" of Catherine II - one of the most interesting stages of Russian history - has become the focus of public attention in the last decade. The explanation for this is seen in the fact that the personality of Catherine II, her ideas and deeds are inextricably linked with the era of transformations, when Russia once again embarked on the path of European Enlightenment. If “the age of Peter was not the age of light, but of the dawn”, which did a lot “in the external, material sense, mainly”, then in the accomplishments of the second half of the 18th century, according to S.M. Solovyov, "there are clearly visible signs of the maturity of the people, the development of consciousness, turning from the external to the internal, paying attention to themselves, to their own." The essence of the changes taking place was figuratively conveyed by the prominent Catherine's nobleman I.I. Beletskaya in the words addressed to the Empress: “Peter the Great created people in Russia; Your Majesty put souls into them.” Another difference from Peter's reforms, which was especially noted by a number of contemporaries, was also no less significant: Catherine II "meekly and calmly completed what Peter the Great was forced to establish by force." And this is one of the foundations of the stability of society, which distinguished the reign of Catherine II. As N.M. wrote Karamzin, the result of the cleansing of the autocracy from "impurities of tyranny" was "peace of hearts, the success of secular amenities, knowledge, and reason."

Meanwhile, for seven decades after October 1917, history

Russia in the second half of the XVIII., the history of the reign of Catherine II, was presented biased. However, the negative characteristics of Catherine II originate from a long time ago. Her younger contemporary, A.I. Ribopierre, referring to the literature immediately after Catherine's time, wrote that “Catherine, so powerful, so loved, so praised during her lifetime, was unforgivably scolded to death. Daring writings, poisonous pamphlets spread lies and slander against her. Pushkin's characteristic of Catherine is also known - "Tartuffe in a skirt and a crown." We believe that such judgments in some cases have an emotional rather than factual basis, while in others they have a highly politicized intent and come from the enemies of the Empress for

borders of the country, dissatisfied with the rigidly pursued foreign policy of Russia, the consistent upholding of national interests.

Catherine II, during her lifetime, earned the title "Great" by her deeds. Of course, Soviet historiography did not accept this assessment, and only in the late 80s. In the 20th century, they started talking about recognizing its outstanding role in the history of Russia. Turning to the reign of Catherine II, historians rightly distinguish two points: the era through the eyes of contemporaries and the specific results of its activities, which also affected the subsequent development of the country.

Regarding the first, we confine ourselves to the sincere exclamation of N.M. Karamzin: “And I lived under her scepter! And I was happy with her reign!” one

As for the successes of Catherine's reign, we emphasize the main thing: the transformations carried out in almost all spheres of the life of a huge state did not carry a grain of "revolutionary" beginning and were basically aimed at the global strengthening of the absolutist state, the further strengthening of the dominant position

nobility, legislative consolidation of the unequal class division of society, when "the legal status of all other classes was subordinated to the interests of the state and the preservation of the dominance of the nobility." IN. Klyuchevsky had every reason to assert that the empress "did not touch the historically established foundations of the state system." As modern researcher O.A. Omelchenko, the real meaning of the reforms in Russia in the age of “enlightened absolutism” consisted in the firm establishment of a “lawful monarchy”, which is the only one capable of realizing social needs “in the bliss and well-being of everyone”. The true content of the above formula is contained in the well-known Ekaterina's Charter to the nobility of 1785, which satisfied almost all the previously expressed claims of this class, putting an end to the long process of legislative registration of its rights and privileges. This legislative act finally elevated the nobles above other classes and strata of society. Catherine's era truly became the "golden age" for them, the time of the highest triumph of serfdom.

Catherine's "Outlined Plans"

The illegality of Catherine's accession to the throne, paradoxically, had its undoubted advantages, especially in the first decades of her reign, when she "had to work hard, great services and donations ... to atone for what legitimate kings have without difficulty ... this very necessity was partly the spring of her great and brilliant deeds. So thought (and not one) N.I. Greek, expressing the opinion of the educated part of society. IN. Klyuchevsky, speaking about the program of the activities of Catherine II, who took power, and did not receive it by law, also focused on the same point: “The seized power always has the character of a bill, which is expected to be paid, and according to the mood of Russian society, Catherine had to justify various and inconsistent expectations. The bill, as time has shown, was repaid on time.

Researchers have repeatedly noted that Catherine II, unlike her predecessors and predecessors on the throne after Peter I, ascended it with an established political program of social structure. As can be judged from the only surviving draft note, they did not go beyond the limits traditionally declared in the "age of Enlightenment" general settings and did not contain any specific developments:

"one. It is necessary to educate the nation, which must govern.

2. It is necessary to introduce good order in the state, to maintain

society and force it to obey the laws.

3. It is necessary to establish a good and accurate police in the state.

4. It is necessary to promote the flourishing of the state and make it

abundant.

5. It is necessary to make the state formidable in itself and inspiring

respect for neighbors.

The Empress knows how to put the “plan” into practice: “There is no need to hurry, but you need to work without rest and every day try to gradually remove obstacles as they appear; to listen patiently and kindly to all, to express candor and diligence in everything, to earn the confidence of everyone by justice and unwavering firmness in the application of the rules that are recognized as necessary for the restoration of order, tranquility, personal security and the lawful enjoyment of property; to submit all disputes and processes to the judicial chambers, to provide protection to all the oppressed, to have neither malice towards enemies, nor addiction to friends. If the pockets are empty, then just say so: “I would be glad to give you, but I don’t have a penny.” If there is money, then it does not interfere with

occasion to be generous” 2 . Catherine was sure that with the strict guidance of these rules, success would be ensured. In this regard, the answer of the empress to the question of L.-F. Segur, how she manages to reign so calmly. “The means for this are the most ordinary,” answered Catherine. “I set rules for myself and drew a plan: by them I act, manage and never back down. My will, once expressed, remains unchanged. Thus, everything is determined, every day is like the previous one. Everyone knows what he can count on, and does not worry in an empty way.

The way to achieve the "drawn plans" from the "collector

Russian lands”, as S.M. called Catherine II. Solovyov, one: "to do so,

so that people think that they themselves want this ... "" And indeed,

N.I. concluded Grech, - Catherine knew how to use this rule to perfection. All of Russia was sure that the Empress, in all her affairs, only fulfills the desire of the people. But the secret of the "use" of this obvious at first glance rule was still there. It emerges from the conversation

V.S. Popov, head of the office G.A. Potemkin, with the Empress: “I spoke with surprise about the blind obedience with which her will was carried out everywhere, and about the zeal and jealousy with which everyone tried to please her.”

Opinions of historians about the reign of Catherine II

Despite the significant number of publications and the increased interest of historians in the period of the reign of Catherine II, there is practically no historiography on this topic (with the exception of brief and fragmentary information in the "Essays on the History of Historical Science"). Some researchers believe that the historiography of Catherine II can be divided into two directions - the pre-revolutionary one, which was very benevolent towards her, and the Soviet one, in which opposite characteristics were usually given to her. M. N. Pokrovsky is usually called the culprit of the latter. Thanks to his negative assessment of Catherine, “not a single commendable word was heard, and she was called either a shameless hypocrite, skillfully hiding her true feelings and thoughts, trying to pass for an enlightened monarch, or a clever lady who ingratiated herself with the confidence of the French enlighteners, then a conservative, seeking to suppress the French Revolution.

In Soviet historiography, certain issues of her reign received very positive assessments; neither "bourgeois" nor Soviet historiography created an integral concept that determines the nature of the transformations of Catherine II, allowing them to be given an objective comprehensive analysis. In recent studies on this issue short essay historiography about Catherine II is given in the monograph by A. B. Kamensky "From Peter I to Paul I".

In pre-revolutionary historiography, there was an interest, first of all, in the socio-political aspects of the history of the second half of the 18th century, in economic transformations and legislative acts of that time. A separate niche was occupied by publications devoted to the personal life of the Empress, the history of court secrets and favoritism. However, most of the works in this area did not differ in a scientific-critical approach. If we try to give a general description of the views

pre-revolutionary historians to the reign of Catherine II, then they can be conditionally divided into two groups: those who “rated Catherine’s reforms quite highly, considered them as an important stage in the development of Russian statehood, the Europeanization of the country, the formation of elements of civil society” and those who were more critical of to the results of its transformations. In the Soviet period, we can talk about the onset of the third stage in the study of the legacy of Catherine the Great. Soviet historians paid more attention to questions about the estates, the struggle of the peasants against serfdom, Catherine's legislative acts aimed at strengthening the existing system, the origins and basis of absolutism in Russia. The personality of the empress herself, as a rule, remained in the shadows.

Let us dwell on some of the most important transformations of Catherine II, which brought to life the greatest number of studies.

Board of Management Catherine The second, and related to that ...). So, during board Catherine a political one was established in Russia ... -1775) In the first decade board Catherine more than 40 folk events took place in the country ...

V. Yu. Mishenina, student of the Belgorod state university, participant of the competition “Heritage of ancestors for young people. 2008".

The work is published in a journal

During the Soviet era, Russia in the 18th century was studied as if Catherine II did not exist at all. Her personality was addressed only in order to throw another critical arrow: to denigrate the empress as a staunch serf-owner, defender of the interests of the nobility and a debauchee. The very personality of Catherine II, her work, the facts of the political history of Russia disappeared from historiography.

Since the 1990s, interest in the reign of Catherine II has increased dramatically. Modern historians strive to convey to us the image of a different Catherine: an educator and legislator, a brilliant politician and diplomat. Here is just a quick sketch of the series interesting works in this region.

The historian N. I. Pavlenko in his work “Catherine the Great” described the main claims made against Ekaterina Alekseevna not only in Soviet times, but also during the life of the empress. Firstly, she was accused of German origin: national pride did not allow her to objectively assess the reign of a purebred German. Secondly, she was condemned for usurping the crown from her own husband. Thirdly, Catherine was considered responsible for the death of not only Emperor Peter III, but also the earlier deposed Emperor John Antonovich. Finally, the morality of the empress did not cause delight either among contemporaries or descendants.

Nevertheless, Pavlenko put Catherine II on a par with Peter the Great and gave arguments in defense of his point of view. Both Peter and Catherine were statesmen. Peter I created a great power, Catherine II secured this status for Russia. Peter the Great "cut a window to Europe" and created the Baltic Fleet, Catherine established herself on the shores of the Black Sea, built a powerful Black Sea Fleet, annexed the Crimea. During the long reign of Catherine, Russia won three wars. Russia owes its success in foreign policy to Catherine's prudence, caution and, at the same time, courage.

He began his description of the domestic policy of Ekaterina Pavlenko with Agriculture. Although progress in this area has been modest, there have been positive developments. In her reign, the cultivation of sunflower, potatoes and corn began. Otkhodnichestvo spread widely, and the marketability of agriculture increased. The historian also noted negative facts. In connection with the growth of the population, the problem of land scarcity has become more acute. Serfdom deepened and took root. The flagrant lawlessness of the serfs was reflected in their sale and purchase by families and individually. Newspapers of that time were full of advertisements about the exchange of peasants for thoroughbred dogs and horses.

Under Catherine, the nobility was showered with many privileges as never before. She tried to protect the aristocracy from the penetration of market relations into the noble estate, to conserve the old model of managing the landowner.

The historian raised the question: how did the activities of the empress combine the educational ideology and the tightening of the serf regime? The key to unraveling this contradiction is the fear for the fate of one's crown, the fear of exchanging the chambers of a luxurious palace for the cell of some remote monastery.

Compared to agriculture, progress in the development of industry was more tangible. Fundamentally new was the abolition of monopolies and privileges, common since the time of Peter the Great.

V.K. Kalugin in his work “The Romanovs. Three Hundred Years on the Russian Throne” turned to the domestic policy of Catherine II. The empress was convinced that all the misfortunes of Russia came from the disorder in which the country was. She believed that she could fix this situation: Russians are mostly smart and trainable and simply do not know what to do and how to do it.

The peasant issue became one of the most difficult problems for the empress: “Having read the books of the Enlightenment, Catherine set herself the task of alleviating the lot of those who lived on earth - plowed, sowed and fed the country. And here the empress acted as a pioneer - she began to travel around the country, saying: "The eye of the owner feeds the horse." She wanted to know how and how her country lives. So she made her famous journey along the Volga, and her trip to the Crimea entered the annals of Russian history as an event not only significant, but extremely useful.

It all started with an inspection to the Baltic States in 1764. Catherine traveled all over Livonia and received complaints from the population. In the Baltics, she could show her decisiveness and cruelty, without fear that one of the guards regiments would rise in response to replace her with John Antonovich, who was still living at that time, or with her own son Pavel. The "Ostsee barons" were more dependent on the imperial power than the Russian nobility. Here Catherine could stand up for the peasants, raise questions about their property, their duties and their harsh treatment.

Every word of Catherine's "Instruction" testified to the desire to make the subjects happy with a reasonable and fair law. The empress demanded the abolition of punishments that disfigure the human body, and also advocated the abolition of torture: “A person who is weak in body and spirit cannot endure torture and will take on any guilt, just to get rid of torment. But a strong and healthy one will endure torture and still not confess to a crime, and therefore will not suffer a well-deserved punishment. The researcher noted that Catherine's "Instruction" was not a set of new Russian laws, but only an instruction on what, in the opinion of the empress, they should be. The drafts of new laws were to be developed by freely elected deputies - an incredible undertaking for an autocratic state. Catherine put all her education and intelligence, ardor and practical acumen into this work. This was partly an attempt to revive the class representation that existed during the period of the Zemsky Sobors of the 16th-17th centuries.

In the monograph “Ascended to a pedestal”, M. Sh. Fanshtein positively assessed the provincial reform of Catherine II: “The institution for managing the province ... significantly increased the composition and forces of local government, which was previously extremely weak, and more or less properly distributed departments between government bodies ".

At the beginning of her reign, the empress sought to improve the situation of the peasants and intended to gradually free them from serfdom, but she met with strong opposition from the court environment and the entire nobility. As a result, serfdom only intensified. However, it was during the reign of Catherine that the highest authority first thought about the condition of the peasants.

Catherine perfectly understood the difference between the labor of a serf and the labor of a free tiller, and how this affected the economic condition of the country. Wishing to equip the numerous lands of the Russian Empire, hitherto empty, and also to teach "Russian loyal subjects" the methods of European agriculture, on December 4, 1762, Catherine issued a manifesto calling on those who wished from Europe to settle in the steppe possessions of Russia. This manifesto did not contain any guarantees in favor of the civil status of future settlers, but with all the shortcomings of the colonization policy, the German settlers brought to Russia advanced farming methods for those times. However, the main thing was not achieved: the colonists did not have an economic impact on the Russian population, who still had to live in serfdom for a whole century.

N. Vasnetsky in the article “I wanted to be Russian” noted that Catherine II “pursued a strictly national, boldly patriotic foreign policy; followed complacent liberal methods of government based on local government and the three main estates of the country; was engaged in salon, literary and pedagogical propaganda of educational ideas and carefully but consistently embodied conservative legislation protecting the interests of the nobility. Catherine set before the Russian people only those tasks that he was able to solve and put into practice. This, according to the historian, is the secret of its unprecedented popularity.

In domestic policy, the scientist identified a number of positive points: “The top of the noble apologetics of Catherine was the promulgation in 1785 of the Charter to the nobility. By decree of 1775, the merchants were allowed to start machine tools and produce all kinds of products on them. Thus the way was opened for the rapid growth of industry. By the end of the reign of Catherine II, there was a significant increase in the material resources of the empire. It reached its natural limits in the south and west. The country's population has increased by three-quarters. State finances have been strengthened. If in 1762 state revenues were estimated at 16 million rubles, then in 1796 - 68.5 million rubles. The historian also noted the negative results of the reign. Firstly, “Catherine gave away approximately 850 thousand souls of serfs. On her initiative, serfdom was introduced in Ukraine. The monastic land ownership was liquidated. Secondly, "Catherine's passion for legislation turned into a disease."

Historian P. P. Cherkasov in the monograph “History of Imperial Russia. From Peter the Great to Nicholas II" noted: "Catherine constantly emphasized that she intended to pursue a traditional national policy in the spirit of Peter the Great and Elizabeth Petrovna. She had undoubted diplomatic abilities, combined with natural female pretense, in which Catherine reached perfection - diplomacy was her favorite pastime. In foreign policy, Cherkasov noted a number of negative aspects: the course of the empress gave grounds to accuse Russia of "aggressiveness and annexationist claims." The empress, who usurped the throne, was interested in foreign policy successes in order to strengthen her own power and make it legitimate.

A number of works by Russian scientists are interesting, covering certain problems of Catherine's reign. In the work "Catherine II and the formation of an independent Crimean Khanate» S. V. Korolev revealed the Crimean issue in the Eastern policy of the Russian Empire in the 18th century. In the years preceding the Russian-Turkish war of 1769-1774, Russia managed to interest in cooperation not only prominent representatives of the Crimean Tatar aristocracy, but also the seraskers - the leaders of the majority of the Nogai hordes, who roamed in those years in the Northern Black Sea region. During the war years, the main goal of Russian policy was the speedy signing of an advantageous peace with the Ottoman Porte, and the Crimean issue was relegated to the background. Nevertheless, the Karasu-Bazar agreement of 1772 played an important role in establishing Russia in the Crimea. Catherine's agreements with the Tatar Mirza Shahin Giray, who arrived in St. Petersburg as part of a representative delegation, initiated the creation of a "buffer state in the Crimea."

The liberation of historical science from the ideological framework of the socialist canons allowed scientists to freely look at many aspects of the great Catherine's reign. Their observations about the activities of the Empress are based on rational judgments.

thesis

1.3 The activities and personality of Catherine II in the works of historians of the Soviet period

In Soviet historiography, a clear assessment of enlightened absolutism as a liberal mask of autocracy gradually took shape and became firmly established during the discussion of the early 1960s, which to a large extent predetermined the attitude of scientists to the study of the circumstances of life and work of representatives of the era of absolutism - the emphasis for a long time was placed on the study of socio-economic issues, the class struggle of various strata of society - the personality of Catherine II, political life eras faded into the background. But one cannot ignore the fact that Soviet historians discovered, analyzed a huge layer of sources, created major monographs on the socio-economic history of Russia.

If we proceed from the paradigm that the assessment of the effectiveness of state administration should be given primarily on the basis of the results of an assessment of the socio-political, economic, demographic development of the country and their dynamics, then the studies of Soviet historians of the Catherine era provide us with a colossal amount of information. If we take it as an axiom that under the conditions of absolutism the projection of the personality of the ruler goes in all directions of the life of the country, then it is the study of economic and political processes allows us to evaluate not only the activities of Catherine the Great, but also to understand her as a person and statesman.

The monograph by N.L. Rubinshtein "Agriculture in Russia in the 2nd half of the 18th century". The author identified the main trends in the development of the landlord and peasant economy, the impact on them of the expanding sphere of commodity-money relations, traced the dynamics and factors of change in the area under crops, the size and forms of exploitation of the peasants; analyzed data on the profitability of landlord and peasant farms, the main crops and the level of agricultural technology in general.

All these aspects were considered by E.S. Kogan on the materials of the Sheremetevsky estates. Her monograph "Essays on the history of serfdom" gives an idea of ​​how a particular landlord economy was restructured in the spirit of the time, merged into the market system, the expanding sphere of commodity-money relations, how development priorities, forms, methods and the degree of exploitation of land and peasants in the landowner's economy are changing. economy.

A colossal amount of data on the history of agricultural and non-agricultural crafts of the peasants of the Central Industrial Region of Russia was systematized and generalized in the works of V.A. Fedorov. The author argues that the last decades of the 18th century were a time of intensive growth of various kinds of peasant crafts, which led to the gradual pushing of agriculture into the background in the economy of the peasants of this region in the first half of the 19th century; the result of the growth of the country's economy and the consistently pursued policy of the government of Catherine II to maintain and deepen these processes was the gradual destruction of the natural character of the peasant economy, its involvement in the market structure, the stratification of the peasantry - there was an intensive growth of the peasant industry and the formation of capitalist relations in it, deepening the specialization of individual provinces, districts, villages in specific types of crafts, the fishing waste of the peasantry increased significantly. In addition, by the end of the 18th century, the industrial geography of the Central Industrial Region was formed, large fishing villages emerged - Ivanovo, Teikovo, Vichuga, Voznesenskoye, Pavlovo and others.

It is also interesting to study the history of commercial horticulture in the villages of Sulost and Porechye in the Rostov district of the Yaroslavl province, which supplied early XIX century Europe with green peas and chicory.

The problem of weaving crafts of peasants was considered on the materials of the Moscow province by I.V. Meshalin. In the context of the presented dissertation research, the data cited by Meshalin about ticket enterprises in the Moscow province are very valuable - they show how useful and timely this government measure was, what was the percentage of peasants among the owners of ticket enterprises, as well as the ratio of small ones based on simple family cooperation and large capitalist enterprises.

Proceedings of S.G. Strumilin and N.I. Pavlenko highlight the development of metallurgy in Russia in the second half of the 18th century: the dynamics of the development of the industry throughout the 18th century, production volumes in relation to those of the largest European countries, consider the problem of the relationship between serf and wage labor and character.

The works of B.N. Mironov on the study of the internal market of Russia in the XVIII - XIX centuries: the author identifies the main trends in the development of the domestic domestic market, provides extensive statistical material, concerns the government's policy to expand the domestic market, makes calculations of who and what bought in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. The author also analyzed the trends in the development of the Russian city in the middle of the 18th - 19th centuries.

S.Ya. worked on the problem of finance during the reign of Catherine II. Borovoy and S.M. Trinity. S.Ya. Borovoy considered the history of the emergence and mechanism of activity, the results and efficiency of the work of Russian banks of the 18th century. CM. Troitsky studied the problem of managing Russian finances in the 18th century: he tracked the state's priorities in the financial sector throughout the century, the circumstances and motivation for their change. Financial management mechanism in its development, analyzed the effectiveness of government efforts in the financial sector.

These are the most significant works on the economic history of Russia in the second half of the 18th century. It seems that in historiography fundamental questions have been developed economic development Russia in the 2nd half of the 18th century, major monographs were created covering the state of agriculture and industry. Domestic and foreign trade, the country's financial system in this period, but such an important aspect as the policy of the government of Catherine II in the economic sphere remained poorly studied.

The most important problem considered in relation to Russian history of the 17th-18th centuries is the genesis of absolutism. Without going into a detailed analysis of the historiography of the issue, we note that the most important stage of the study was opened in the 1960s by the publication of the collection "Absolutism in Russia" (1964), dedicated to B.B. Kafengauz containing works by S.M. Troitsky, S.O. Schmidt, N.B. Golikova, N.F. Demidova, N.I. Pavlenko, N.M. Druzhinin and other authors; continued with a discussion about Russian absolutism in the journal "History of the USSR" in 1968-1971. The most acute in it were questions about the socio-economic prerequisites for Russian absolutism, the time and stages of its formation, the social nature and ideology, and the interaction of the cultures of Russia and Europe. During the discussion, the synonymy of the concepts "absolutism", "autocracy", "unrestricted monarchy" was called into question; discussed the question of "balance" between feudal classes and the bourgeoisie as the main feature social nature absolutism, about its certainly progressive historical role (A.Ya. Avrekh), the widest range of judgments was made about the social basis of absolutism in Russia - from completely feudal (moreover, both the nobility and the serfs were called as a social support) to the classical "balancing "each other feudal and bourgeois. The typology of absolutism developed during the discussion included the following features:

1. The concentration of executive, legislative and judicial power in the hands of a hereditary monarch;

2. The right of the monarch to manage the tax system and public finances;

3. The presence of an extensive, ramified bureaucratic apparatus that performs administrative, financial, judicial and other functions in the name of the monarch;

4. Centralization, unification and regulation of state and local government, territorial division of the country;

5. The presence of a regular army and police;

6. Regulation of all types of service and the status of estates.

In the works of Russian historians, the problem of "enlightened absolutism" was also developed. A unique study of its kind was conducted by S.M. Troitsky - the author considered in general terms the problem of relations between "enlightened absolutism" and the nobility (namely, in general, and not on the example of specific figures, including representatives of the court elite). He believed that "enlightened absolutism" in principle is a liberal illusion, but the interests of the monarch and the nobility as a whole coincided, which provided Catherine II with the support of this class. In addition, the empress pursued a flexible, cautious policy: without pushing away the established noble elite of previous reigns (let's not forget about the return of a number of once very influential people from exile), she steadily formed her own elite, resolutely suppressing any attempts to form an oligarchy.

Special studies were devoted to certain events of Catherine II in the political sphere.

The historiography of the activities of the Legislative Commission (we note especially the works of M.T. Belyavsky) and the "Order" of Catherine II of the Legislative Commission is very extensive. A number of studies were undertaken on the source analysis of the orders of individual social groups to the deputies of the Legislative Commission. A special study by E.V. Tarle was devoted to the analysis of the diplomatic abilities of Empress Catherine II. The empress appears to the author as a smart, cunning intriguer, who made the most of the diplomatic abilities and tireless work of talented representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples N.I. Panin and A.A. Bezborodko (respectively).

In the late 1980s-1990s, in connection with the revival of interest in national history, the reprinting of works of the 19th century and essays based on the same works of authors of the last century, designed for a wide range of interested audiences, began. The researchers again turned to the consideration of the personality and various aspects of the state activity of Catherine II, the circumstances of the political and court life of the era, trying to rethink the known facts and free themselves from the prevailing ideological clichés and dogmas, to highlight a number of problems poorly studied in historiography. Biographical sketches about Catherine II were published, as well as monographs covering the era as a whole and the legislative activities of the empress. In the specified work O.A. Omelchenko, in particular, for the first time from the point of view of the concept of "enlightened absolutism", an array of unrealized legislative initiatives of Catherine II is analyzed, an extensive domestic and foreign bibliography of the problem is given. In the work of A.D. Sukhov, the content of the concept of "enlightened absolutism" is analyzed and its Russian specificity is revealed.

Great informational value within this study has the work of L.G. Kislyagina about the office of secretaries of state of Empress Catherine II, which allows you to get an idea of ​​​​the technique of the empress's work in managing the state.

The literature devoted to the analysis of the activities of the Legislative Commission and the actual "Instruction" of Catherine II is very extensive, but we note that the study of the "Instruction" often comes down to a simple listing of the sources of its writing and a detailed consideration of legal problems.

In Soviet historiography, the problems of Russian legal proceedings of the Catherine era have also been thoroughly developed.

In one of his articles, N.Ya. Eidelman tried to consider the problem of favoritism of Catherine's time in a different, non-traditional plane, placing it in terms of the formation of the political elite of the 2nd half of the 18th century. Favoritism, according to N.Ya. Eidelman, there is a search for new forms of interaction between the nobility, the highest bureaucracy and the autocrat, aimed at strengthening the political role and significance of the reigning person.

In Soviet historiography, there are no separate independent works on the problem of Catherine II's foreign policy. It should be especially emphasized that in the previous time, when studying the history of the 18th century. preference was given to Peter I and his transformations. Until the beginning of the 40s. 20th century in the hierarchy of scientific values, new guidelines were given priority. As a result, a historiography of personalities was created on a wide scale. historical figures revolutionary and communist movement, famous in the years civil war, collectivization, industrialization. This line continued in the future.

As noted above, some pre-revolutionary historians called Catherine the Great, others modestly called Catherine II, but none of them gave her such a harsh assessment, which was common in Soviet historiography. It seems that not a single word of praise was heard against the empress, and she was called either a shameless hypocrite, who skillfully concealed her true feelings and thoughts, trying to pass for an enlightened monarch, then a clever lady who ingratiated herself with the confidence of the French enlighteners, then a conservative who sought to suppress the French revolution.

The origins of the negative assessment of Catherine should be sought in the works of the founder of Soviet historiography M.N. Pokrovsky. In the mid 30s. Soviet historians abandoned his historical concept, but for the previous decade, Pokrovsky was a generally recognized trendsetter in historical science. Historian N.Ya. Eidelman quotes the famous archivist Ya.L. Barskov, discovered by him in the archive of the latter. He described Catherine as follows: "The lie was the main tool of the queen, all her life, from early childhood to old age, she used this tool, owning it like a virtuoso, and deceiving her parents, lovers, subjects, foreigners, contemporaries and descendants." Although these lines have not been published, they synthesize the assessment of Catherine that existed in the literature, which has been preserved in a softened form until very recently.

In Soviet historiography, Catherine's foreign policy was considered in general terms. In 1920, a book by the historian M.N. Kovalensky "Journey of Catherine II to the Crimea". The peculiarity of this book is that it is based solely on the testimonies and impressions of the participants of the famous journey: Count Segur, Prince de Ligne, the Austrian envoy Cobenzel, Joseph II and S. Poniatowski - the Austrian and Polish monarchs - and the Russian Empress herself.

Issues of Russian foreign policy in the second half of the XVIII century. E.V. Tarle’s study “Catherine II and her diplomacy”, published in 1945, is devoted to the study of the reign of Catherine II in the field of foreign policy as a period full of brilliant successes and loud Russian glory, Tarle believes that “Catherine II’s foreign policy led to huge results, colossally increased the size of Russia, enriched it materially and to a large extent increased the military potential of the Russian people and its defense capability. Tarle calls Ekaterina a first-class diplomat who knows how to distinguish the possible and feasible from the impossible and fantastic.

The events of the first Catherine's war with the Turks are considered by E.V. Tarle in the work "Chesme battle and the first Russian expedition to the Archipelago" and V.I. Tit in his articles. The monograph by E.I. Druzhinina about the Kyuchuk-Kainarji peace, in which, along with the prerequisites, circumstances of conclusion and ratification, as well as the text of the Kyuchuk-Kainarji treaty itself, the projects preceding it, put forward, for example, during the Bucharest Congress, and the Aynaly-Kavak Convention of 1779 are analyzed. The author pays attention to the situation that developed at the turn of the 70-80s. 18th century around the Crimea and ultimately leading to the second Catherine's war with Turkey.

It is necessary to point to a number of studies and archival publications on the history of international relations and Russian foreign policy that appeared in the Soviet period and are devoted to the functioning of the mechanism for making foreign policy decisions in the Catherine era. Among them, I would like to highlight the monograph by G. A. Nersesov, "Russian Policy at the Teshensky Congress (1778-1779)", published in 1988. This monograph is devoted to the analysis of Russia's policy in Europe in the 70s. 18th century and the Teschen peace treaty concluded in 1779. Recognizing the Eastern question as the main one in Russia's foreign policy in the 70-80s. XVIII century, the author traces specific links between the German policy of Russian diplomacy and Russia's policy towards the Ottoman Empire during this period. The peace of Teschen, which ended the war for the Bavarian succession, marked the beginning of a major stage in the rise of Russia as a great European power. At the Teschen Congress, Russian diplomacy acted as an arbiter in the settlement of the European conflict.

The struggle of the Belarusian people against Polonization

The October Revolution put an end to the Russian Empire. A new state was formed on its territory. It could be assumed that the attitude of the new Russian state towards Belarus, judging by individual internationalist tendencies...

Domestic politics during the period of palace coups and during the reign of Catherine II

Catherine II, before marriage, Princess Sophia Augusta Frederick of Anhalt-Zerbst, was born on April 21 (May 2), 1729 in the German city of Stettin (Prussia) ...

Domestic policy of Catherine II

Born April 21, 1729 in Stettin in the family of the impoverished princes of Anhalt-Zerbst (northern Germany), received home education(German - native, French, dances, music, the basics of history, geography and theology were taught by home teachers) ...

Free thinking in the press under Catherine II

Contemporaries and descendants did not stint on compliments to Catherine II - the only empress awarded the title of "Great". She went down in history as Minerva, Astrea, Felitsa, Northern Semiramis, and her reign is traditionally considered the Golden Age...

Historiography of Russian counterintelligence

The reasons for the weakness of Russia's military counterintelligence during the First World War were rooted not only in the very system of their legal regulation, organization or insufficient qualifications of personnel ...

Russian history

The failure of the "blitzkrieg", which postponed the end of the war indefinitely, made it necessary to make some adjustments to Hitler's policy of "complete colonialization"...

The cult of saints and its changes in the context of socio-political and cultural development Frankish state

The 4th century was one of the most important milestones in the history of the development of Christianity as a religion and the Church as an institution. At that time lived such famous theological authorities as Blessed Augustine, Blessed Jerome...

Myths and reality about the charitable activities of Catherine II

From the very beginning of Catherine's reign, as we have already seen, Catherine expressed her desire to bring all government places into proper order, to give them precise "limits and laws" ...

Reign of Empress Catherine II

The Empress was a highly educated person, she read a lot since childhood. She was especially attracted by the works of the French Enlighteners - Encyclopedists. In public affairs, Catherine considered herself a successor to the work of Peter the Great. But...

Reforms of Peter I

peter reform public administration The transformations that took place in Russia covered almost all aspects of the country's life: the economy, politics, science, everyday life, foreign policy, and the state system. The merit of Peter I was that ...

Estate policy of Catherine II

“Catherine was born on April 21, 1729 in the family of a Prussian field marshal. Her parents did not care much about her upbringing. His father was a diligent servant, and his mother was a quarrelsome, quarrelsome woman. She severely punished her daughter for every trifling offense ...