Assessment of Catherine's activities by 2 historians. Assessment of the reign of Catherine II (According to V.O.

INTRODUCTION

In the figurative expression of V. O. Klyuchevsky, “Catherine II: was the last accident on the Russian throne and led a long and extraordinary reign, creating an entire era in our history” and, one might add, in historiography. This “last accident” of the 18th century. could not leave either her contemporaries or descendants indifferent. 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 Soviet period monument 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 such a multifaceted personality cannot be subsumed under a certain stereotype: for some, Catherine II is an enlightened empress, for others, she is a tyrant, giving away gifts to “peasant souls,” for others, she is a loving person who has lost count of her lovers. For researchers, the history of the reign of Catherine II has been, remains and, apparently, will remain one of the favorite objects of research for a long time. 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 works of a general nature concerning history XVIII c., the history of diplomacy, culture, literature, or in works dedicated to the figures of her reign or favorites. By the beginning of the 21st century. The bibliography on this issue contains almost 600 titles. However, interest in the history of Catherine’s time does not wane and only after last years Several new major studies have been released. Most publications were dedicated to anniversaries or anniversaries of certain reforms.

The largest number of works was published in the last quarter of the 19th - early 20th centuries. (the centennial anniversary of the granting of the “Granted Charter” to the nobility and cities, the 100th anniversary of the death of the Empress - a suitable time to sum up her long reign; the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov).

It is obvious that in our politically and economically unstable times it is very difficult to choose the right path for the development of the country, therefore the answer to the question about the right path in our history, which, as we know, repeats itself, can be found precisely in the activities of Catherine II, where the guidance for the action of future rulers. 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 seems to be that the personality of Catherine II, her ideas and deeds are inextricably linked with the era of transformation, when Russia once again took the path of European Enlightenment. If “the age of Peter was a century not of light, but of dawn,” which did a lot “in external, material terms, mainly,” then in the achievements of the second half of the 18th century, according to the definition of S.M. Solovyov, “the signs of the maturity of the people, the development of consciousness, turning from the external to the internal, turning attention to themselves, to their own are clearly visible.” The essence of the changes that took place was figuratively conveyed by the prominent Catherine’s nobleman I.I. Beletskaya in her words addressed to the Empress: “Peter the Great created people in Russia; Your Majesty puts your souls into them.” Another difference from Peter’s reforms, 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 that distinguished the reign of Catherine II. As N.M. wrote Karamzin, the consequence of the purification of the autocracy from the “impurities of tyranny” was “peace of hearts, success in secular amenities, knowledge, reason.”

Meanwhile, for seven decades after October 1917, history

Russia in the second half of the 18th century, the history of the reign of Catherine II, was presented with bias. However, the negative characteristics of Catherine II go back a long time. Her younger contemporary, A.I. Ribopierre, touching on the literature of the immediate post-Catherine period, wrote that “Catherine, so powerful, so beloved, so praised during her lifetime, was unforgivably reviled to death. Bold writings and poisonous pamphlets spread lies and slander about her.” Pushkin’s characterization of Catherine is also known - “Tartuffe in a skirt and crown.” We believe that such judgments in some cases have an emotional rather than a factual basis, and in others they have a highly politicized intent and come from enemies of the Empress for

borders of the country, dissatisfied with Russia’s harshly pursued foreign policy course and consistent defense of national interests.

During her lifetime, Catherine II earned the title “Great” through 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 highlight two points: the era through the eyes of contemporaries and the specific results of its activities, which affected the subsequent development of the country.

Regarding the first, we will limit ourselves to the sincere exclamation of N.M. Karamzin: “And I lived under her scepter! And I was happy with her reign!” 1

As for the successes of Catherine’s reign, we emphasize the main thing: the transformations carried out in almost all spheres of life of the huge state did not contain an ounce of “revolutionary” beginning and were basically aimed at the worldwide 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 claim that the empress “did not touch the historically established foundations of the state system.” As modern researcher O.A. proves. Omelchenko, the real meaning of reforms in Russia in the century of “enlightened absolutism” was the firm establishment of a “legitimate monarchy”, which is the only one capable of realizing social needs “for the bliss and well-being of everyone.” The true content of the above formula is contained in Catherine’s famous 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 a “golden age” for them, a time of the highest triumph of serfdom.

Catherine's "Drawn 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 through hard work, great services and donations... redeem what legitimate kings have without labor... this very necessity was partly by the spring of her great and brilliant deeds.” N.I. thought so (and not alone). Grech, expressing the opinion of the educated part of society. IN. Klyuchevsky, speaking about the program of activities of Catherine II, who took power, and did not receive it by law, also emphasized the same point: “Power seized always has the character of a bill of exchange for which payment is expected, and according to the mood of Russian society, Catherine had to justify various and discordant 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 to it with an established political program for the social structure. As can be judged from the only surviving draft note, they did not go beyond the general guidelines traditionally declared in the “age of Enlightenment” and did not contain any specific developments:

"1. It is necessary to educate the nation that is to be governed.

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

society and force it to comply with the laws.

3. It is necessary to establish a good and accurate police force 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 rush, but you need to work without rest and every day try to gradually eliminate obstacles as they appear; listen to everyone patiently and friendly, express sincerity and diligence in everything, earn everyone's confidence by fairness and unshakable firmness in the application of the rules that are recognized as necessary for the restoration of order, tranquility, personal safety 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 partiality towards friends. If your pockets are empty, then just say so: “I would be glad to give it to you, but I don’t have a penny.” If you have money, then it doesn’t hurt

occasion to be generous" 2. Catherine was confident that with strict adherence to these rules, success would be ensured. In this regard, the empress’s answer to L.-F.’s question is not without interest. Segura, how she manages to reign so calmly. “The means for this are the most ordinary,” answered Catherine. “I set rules for myself and drew up a plan: according to them I act, manage and never retreat. My will, once expressed, remains unchanged. Thus, everything is determined, each day is like the previous one. Everyone knows what he can count on and does not worry unnecessarily” 3.

The method of achieving the “outlined plans” of the “gatherer”

Russian lands,” as S.M. called Catherine II. Soloviev, one: “do it this way,

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

Concluded N.I. Grech, - Catherine knew how to use this rule to perfection. All of Russia was confident that the empress, in all her affairs, was only fulfilling the wishes of the people.” But there was still a secret to “using” this seemingly obvious rule. He reveals himself from the conversation

V.S. Popov, the ruler of the office of 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 a 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 “Essays on the History of Historical Science”). Some researchers believe that the historiography about Catherine II can be divided into two directions - pre-revolutionary, which was very favorable towards her, and Soviet, in which she was usually given opposite characteristics. The culprit of the latter is usually called M.N. Pokrovsky. Thanks to his negative assessment of Catherine, “not a single word of praise was heard, and she was called either a shameless hypocrite who skillfully hid her true feelings and thoughts, trying to pass for an enlightened monarch, or a clever lady who had gained the trust of the French educators, or a conservative, who sought to suppress the French Revolution."

In Soviet historiography, certain issues of her reign received very positive assessments; Neither “bourgeois” nor Soviet historiography created a holistic concept that would define the nature of the transformations of Catherine II, allowing them to give 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 interest, first of all, in the socio-political aspects of the history of the second half of the 18th century, in the 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 direction were not distinguished by a scientific-critical approach. If we try to give a general description of the views

pre-revolutionary historians on the reign of Catherine II, then they can be conditionally divided into two groups: those who “appreciated 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 to the results of its transformations. During 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 issues of estates, the struggle of 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 gave rise to the greatest number of studies.

Board of Directors Catherine Second, and related to that...). So, during board Catherine political was established in Russia... -1775) In the first decade board Catherine More than 40 folk protests took place in the country...

The assessment of the activities of Catherine II caused heated debate among historians, both Russian and non-Russian. After Peter I, only Catherine II aroused such controversial opinions. Among Catherine the Second's contemporaries there were both her supporters and opponents.

The sharpest and most complete expression of the views of Catherine the Second’s detractors is found in the famous note “On the Damage to Morals in Russia” Prince Shcherbatov, who served at the court of Catherine II, a historiographer and publicist, an educated man and a patriot with strong convictions. The author wrote a note to himself, not for the public, and in this work he collected his memories, observations and reflections on the moral life of high Russian society in the 18th century, ending the gloomy picture he painted with the words:

“...a deplorable state, for which we must only ask God, so that this evil may be destroyed by a better reign.”

Radishchev, as a man of a different generation and way of thinking, an ultra-liberal, imbued with the most advanced ideas of the century and who loved the fatherland no less than Prince Shcherbatov, who understood and recognized the greatness of Peter I, agreed in his view of the time they were living through with an old home-grown ultra-conservative, all of whose sympathies gravitated towards pre-Petrine antiquity (Radishchev and Shcherbatov). His "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow" appeared at the end of the reign of Catherine II, at a time when the main administrative reforms were completed. Radishchev's lonely voice was not heard and could not be heard, for it expressed the views of an insignificant minority. Radishchev expresses his respect for Peter as a great statesman, although he does not hide the fact that the very title of monarch does not appeal to him at all. Radishchev further stipulates that he is not writing this for the sake of flattery to the autocrat; recognizing the greatness of Peter, he immediately condemns him for the fact that the king “destroyed the last signs of the wild freedom of his fatherland.” He included several passages in the text of the book that were not subject to censorship, which later served as one of the additional and aggravating circumstances during the trial. The rumor about the seditious book reached Catherine, and the book was delivered to her. She began to read it and became indescribably angry.

She ordered it to be considered in the State Council, hinting that Radishchev, among other things, had insulted her personally with his book, for which he was sent into exile.

A distinctive feature of the reign of Catherine the Second, in addition to her gradual, non-violent transformations, was how she wrote N. M. Karamzin, that the consequence of the purification of autocracy from the “impurities of tyranny” was peace of hearts, success in secular amenities, knowledge, and reason.

Louis-Philippe Segur- a descendant of an aristocratic family, the son of the Minister of War under the French King Louis XIV, who for 5 years was the representative of France at court, sees in the Empress an outstanding statesman, whose reforms are comparable to the activities of the greatest kings of Europe, and an extraordinary personality with a rare benevolent character inherent in her the charm of a beautiful and intelligent woman. He is also attracted by the activities of the empress as an educator of society, a woman who patronizes the sciences and brings Russia from a barbaric, Asian state to an enlightened, European one.

All historians agree that upon ascending the throne, the Empress encountered numerous difficulties. First of all, Catherine’s rights to the throne were extremely dubious. The wife of the deposed emperor and the mother of the heir had, at best, grounds to be regent until Paul came of age, who was 12 years old in the year of the coup. Not to mention the fact that debates about the father of the heir (Peter III was never among the several candidates) are continued by historians to this day, Catherine was a foreigner.

Poet and minister Gavrila Derzhavin, who knew the empress well and generally assessed her activities positively, wrote: “She ruled the state and justice itself more according to politics or her views than according to sacred truth”. Poet and statesman knew, of course, that in history there were few rulers who acted “according to holy truth.” Derzhavin emphasized the thoughtfulness of Catherine’s behavior. Constantly reminding her “right” to the throne, she knew that endless repetitions would convince her loyal subjects of the legitimacy of her stay on the throne.

According to the Russian scientist Klyuchevsky, Catherine firmly believed in her luck. First of all, she knew what she wanted. Unlike all her predecessors, except Peter I, she spent a long time and diligently preparing for the position she dreamed of from the day she arrived in Russia. Unlike Peter, who learned to be a king by building ships, studying warfare and traveling abroad, Catherine prepared to become an empress by reading books and honing her ability to influence people.

Contemporaries who knew Catherine personally or through letters and began to analyze her character usually began to go crazy. Vasily Klyuchevsky, noting this fact, believes that “ Catherine was simply smart and nothing more, if only a little. She had a mind that was not particularly subtle and deep, but flexible and cautious, a quick-witted, intelligent mind that knew its place and time and did not poke others in the eye. Catherine knew how to be smart in the right way and in moderation. But Catherine, quite obviously, had personal interests. She needed fame, “she needed high-profile deeds, major successes obvious to everyone, in order to justify her accession and earn the love of her subjects, for the acquisition of which she, as she admitted, neglected nothing.”

One of the best experts on the reign of Catherine II - S.D. Barskov considered the queen's main weapon to be lies. “All her life, from early childhood to old age, she used these weapons, wielded them like a virtuoso, and deceived her parents, governess, husband, lovers, subjects, foreigners, contemporaries and descendants.”

Assessing the reign of Catherine II differently, historians unanimously agree that

that she was a “noble empress”, that under her the “main process of the 18th century” ended. - the creation of a noble privilege approved for the enslavement of the people.” While agreeing that one of the most important results of Catherine’s activities was the strengthening of the nobility as the ruling class of Russia, historians differ, often in opposite directions, when assessing the character of the Russian nobility.

A nobleman of the late 18th century, to whom, as he writes Vasily Klyuchevsky, who was to lead Russian society along the path of progress, was a strange creature.

“His social position rested on political injustice and was crowned with idleness in life. From the hands of a rural sexton-teacher he passed into the hands of a French tutor, completed his education in an Italian theater or a French restaurant and ended his days in a Moscow or village office with a book by Voltaire in his hands... All the manners, habits, tastes, sympathies he had acquired, the language itself - everything was foreign, imported, but at home he had no living organic connections with the environment, no serious everyday affairs.”

Sergey Soloviev, author of “History of Russia from Ancient Times” in 29 volumes, wrote about the coincidence of personal interests of the sovereign and the state, thus justifying Catherine’s status as the sole ruler. The Russian Tsar cannot help but be an autocrat, since the size of the state imposes this form of government. The penetration of ideas of freedom in the Western European sense into Russian society made it necessary, according to the historian, to define the concept of freedom in an autocratic state. Sergei Solovyov argues logically: the goal and object of an autocratic state is the glory of citizens, the state and the sovereign; National pride creates in a people ruled autocratically a sense of freedom, which motivates them to great deeds and the good of their subjects no less than freedom itself.

Historians, while assessing the results of Catherine II’s activities in different ways, unanimously admit that she dealt with issues of lawmaking, administrative problems, paid great attention to foreign policy, and many others. "Foreign policy, - summarizes Vasily Klyuchevsky , is the most brilliant side of Catherine’s political activity. When they want to say the best that can be said about her reign, they talk about her external deeds..."

However, already in the Soviet period, they tried to present the activities of this empress only as an attempt to repeat Peter’s transformations, and Catherine herself as a dependent person, subject to the influence of swindlers and favorites. When studying the history of the 18th century, preference was given to Peter and his reforms; Catherine was presented as a follower of the emperor, and her activities were a pale shadow of Peter’s reforms. Apparently, this explains the small number of monographs about the reign of this woman published in Soviet times. Although the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s is characterized by a revival of interest in the personality of the empress: memoirs about Catherine by her contemporaries are being republished, a number of interesting works and monographs.

There are many points in the activities of Catherine the Second regarding which historians share the same opinion, but there are also points that cause heated debate. In general, historians, both Russian and foreign, are quite critical of Catherine’s era, highlighting both the disadvantages in her policies and her achievements.

V. Yu. Mishenina, student at Belgorodsky state university, participant of the competition “The Legacy of Ancestors - to the Young. 2008".

The work is published in a journal version

During Soviet times, 18th-century Russia was studied as if Catherine II had never existed. They turned to her personality only in order to throw another critical arrow: to denigrate the empress as a convinced serf-owner, a defender of the interests of the nobility and a libertine. The very personality of Catherine II, her work, and the facts of the political history of Russia disappeared from historiography.

Since the 1990s, interest in the reign of Catherine II has increased sharply. 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 a number of interesting works in this area.

Historian N.I. Pavlenko, in his work “Catherine the Great,” described the main claims made against Catherine Alekseevna not only in Soviet times, but also during the life of the empress. Firstly, she was accused of being of German origin: national pride did not allow her to objectively evaluate the reign of a purebred German woman. 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 previously deposed Emperor John Antonovich. Finally, the morality of the empress did not cause delight either among her contemporaries or her 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 great power, Catherine II secured this status for Russia. Peter the Great “opened 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, and annexed Crimea. During Catherine's long reign, Russia won wars three times. Russia owes its foreign policy successes to the prudence, caution and at the same time the courage of Catherine.

Pavlenko began his characterization of Ekaterina’s domestic policy with agriculture. Although successes in this area were modest, there were still positive changes. During her reign, the cultivation of sunflowers, potatoes and corn began. Okhodnik became widespread and the marketability of agriculture increased. The historian also noted negative facts. Due to population growth, the problem of land shortage has become more acute. Serfdom deepened and took root. The blatant lack of rights of the serfs was reflected in their purchase and sale by families and individuals. Newspapers of that time were full of advertisements about the exchange of peasants for purebred dogs and horses.

Under Catherine, the nobility was showered with many privileges as never before. She tried to keep the aristocracy from infiltrating market relations to a noble estate, to preserve the old model of landowner management.

The historian posed the question: how did the empress’s activities combine educational ideology and the tightening of the serfdom regime? The key to solving this contradiction is fear for the fate of one’s crown, fear of changing the chambers of a luxurious palace to a cell of some remote monastery.

Compared with agriculture successes in industrial development were more noticeable. The abolition of monopolies and privileges, common since the time of Peter the Great, became fundamentally new.

V.K. Kalugin in his work “The Romanovs. Three hundred years on the Russian throne" addressed domestic policy Catherine II. The Empress was convinced that all the misfortunes of Russia stemmed from the disorder in which the country was. She believed that she could correct this situation: Russians for the most part are smart and trainable and simply do not know what and how to do.

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

It all started with an inspection in the Baltic states in 1764. Catherine traveled throughout Livonia and received complaints from the population. In the Baltics, she could show her determination and cruelty, without fear that one of the guards regiments would rise up in response to replace her with Ivan Antonovich, who was still living at that time, or with her own son Pavel. The "Baltic 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 harsh treatment of them.

Every word of Catherine’s “Order” testified to the desire to make his 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 will not endure torture and will accept any kind of guilt in order to get rid of torture. But a strong and healthy person will endure torture and still will not confess to the crime, and therefore will not suffer the deserved punishment.” The researcher noted that Catherine’s “Order” was not a set of new Russian laws, but only instructions on what, in the empress’s opinion, they should be. Draft new laws were to be drafted 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 zemstvo councils of the 16th–17th centuries.

In the monograph “Raised on a Pedestal,” M. Sh. Fanshtein positively assessed the provincial reform of Catherine II: “The institution for governing the province ... significantly increased the composition and strength of local government, which was previously extremely weak, and more or less properly distributed departments between governing 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 encountered 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 authorities first thought about the condition of the peasants.

Catherine perfectly understood the difference between the work of a serf peasant and the work of a free tiller and how this affected the economic state of the country. Wanting to develop numerous lands 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 wishing 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 despite all the shortcomings of the colonization policy, the German settlers brought to Russia advanced methods of farming at that time. However, the main thing was not achieved: the colonists did not have an economic influence on the Russian population, who still had to live in serfdom for another century.

N. Vasnetsky, in the article “I wanted to be Russian,” noted that Catherine II “carried out a strictly national, boldly patriotic foreign policy; followed complacently liberal methods of government, relying on local government and the three main classes of the country; was engaged in salon, literary and pedagogical propaganda of educational ideas and carefully but consistently implemented conservative legislation protecting the interests of the nobility.” Catherine set before the Russian people only such tasks as they were able to solve and put into practice. This, according to the historian, is the secret of her unprecedented popularity.

In domestic politics, the scientist highlighted a number of positive aspects: “The pinnacle of Catherine’s noble apologetics was the promulgation of the Charter of the Nobility in 1785. By decree of 1775, merchants were allowed to set up machines 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 borders in the south and west. The country's population increased by three quarters. Public finances have strengthened. If in 1762 state revenues were calculated at 16 million rubles, then in 1796 – 68.5 million rubles.” The historian also noted the negative results of the reign. Firstly, “Catherine distributed approximately 850 thousand souls of serfs. On her initiative, serfdom was introduced in Ukraine. 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 feminine pretense, in which Catherine achieved perfection - diplomacy was her favorite pastime.” In foreign policy, Cherkasov noted a number of negative aspects: the empress’s course 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 power and make it legitimate.

A number of works by Russian scientists highlighting certain problems of Catherine’s reign are interesting. In his work “Catherine II and the Formation of the Independent Crimean Khanate,” S. V. Korolev revealed the Crimean issue in the eastern politics of the Russian Empire of 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 the Northern Black Sea region in those years. During the war years, the main goal of Russian policy was to quickly sign a profitable 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 the establishment of Russia in Crimea. Catherine’s agreements with the Tatar Mirza Shahin-Girey, who arrived in St. Petersburg as part of a representative delegation, initiated the creation of a “buffer state in Crimea.”

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

HISTORIANS AND CONTEMPORARIES ABOUT CATHERINEII

According to Karamzin, Catherine II - did a lot: “cleansed the autocracy from the impurities of tyranny”; softened autocracy without losing its strength; did not interfere in wars that were useless for Russia; raised the moral value of man in her country; brought the internal structure of the state building into line with the times, preserving its viability; achieved that Russia occupied one of the first places in the European state system with honor and glory.

At the same time, Karamzin does not ignore the weaknesses of her rule. Characteristic feature government agencies under Catherine II there was the presence of external forms in the absence of solidity. The legislation had the character of speculative perfection. She “wanted perfection in laws, without thinking about their benefits.” “Catherine gave courts without creating judges; gave rules without means of enforcement. Many of the harmful consequences of the Petrine system also became clearer under this empress; foreigners have mastered education, the court has forgotten the Russian language; luxury, wastefulness, dishonor of the court testified to the absence of firm rules of morality in civil life, and all this was combined with the greatness of the monarchy, an excellent army and navy, smart ministers, high educational institutions, public schools." Nevertheless, comparing the eras of the reigns in the Russian Empire, Karamzin comes to the conclusion that “Catherine’s time was the happiest for a Russian citizen; almost all of us wished to live then, and not in another time.”

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich: Catherine had a mind that was not particularly subtle and deep, but flexible and careful, quick-witted. She did not have any outstanding ability, one dominant talent that would crush all other forces, disturbing the balance of the spirit. But she had one lucky gift that made the most powerful impression: memory, observation, insight, sense of situation, the ability to quickly grasp and summarize all available data in order to choose the tone in time.”

There are several very flat stamps around the name Catherine. One of them is that she is a serf woman. Another is that she was an enlightened empress, a kind of smart lady on the throne who corresponded with Voltaire and Diderot, wrote books and reigned very intelligently. The third, most disgusting and vulgar cliche is her purely personal life. It is known that Catherine was, indeed, a very loving lady; her favorites regularly replaced each other. But this side of her life is a private side, so give it Special attention there is no reason, despite the fact that in our century a lot of literature of the corresponding kind has begun to appear.

She was, undoubtedly, a naturally very capable, intelligent and inquisitive person, and also educated. True, her education was very unique - more at home, more self-education than anything systematic; Her favorite language was French, her native language was German. She had to speak Russian with Russian people, and she mastered this language perfectly, although she made four mistakes in a three-letter word: she wrote the word “more” as “ischo”.

The question of her religion probably boiled down to the following: as a Russian empress, she was Orthodox. What she thought and felt at the same time is difficult to say, but in any case, she never gave anyone any reason to reproach her for indifference to the institutions and orders of the Russian Orthodox Church. Klyuchevsky wrote about this very wittily:

“Catherine was taught the Law of God and other subjects by the French court preacher Perard, a zealous servant of the pope, by the Lutheran pastors Dove and Wagner, who despised the pope; Calvinist schoolteacher Laurent, who despised both Luther and the pope. And when she arrived in St. Petersburg, the Orthodox Archimandrite Simon of Todor was appointed her mentor in the Greek-Russian faith, who, with his theological education completed at the German university, could only be indifferent to the pope, and to Luther, and to Calvin, and to to all religious sharers of the one Christian truth.”

Possessing such a truly universal stock of theological information, Catherine behaved impeccably in relation to Orthodoxy. This does her credit. Being a purebred German, she surrounded herself exclusively with Russian people, which was not the case even under Elizabeth. She had the gift necessary for a ruler - she knew how to choose her assistants. That is why her reign is so famous for the fact that during this period remarkable state, military and cultural figures appeared, be it Rumyantsev or Suvorov, Chancellor Bezborodko or Potemkin, as well as many others. During her reign, Metropolitan Platon rose to power.

At the same time, Catherine was able, after considering the advice of her courtiers, to independently solve the problem or insist on a certain solution.

English Ambassador in Russia Lord Buckinghamshire wrote: “Her Imperial Majesty is neither small nor tall; she has a majestic appearance, and in her one can feel a mixture of dignity and ease, which from the first time evokes respect in people for her and makes them feel at ease with her; she has never been a beauty Her facial features are far from being so fine and regular that they could constitute what is considered true beauty, but her beautiful complexion, lively and intelligent eyes, a pleasantly contoured mouth and luxurious, shiny brown hair create, in general, the kind of appearance to which very few years ago a man could not have been indifferent She was, and still is, something that is often liked and attracts more than beauty. She is extremely well formed; her neck and arms are remarkably beautiful, and all the limbs are so gracefully formed that she is equally suitable for both women's and men's costumes. Her eyes are blue, and their liveliness is softened by the languor of her gaze, in which there is a lot of sensitivity, but there is no lethargy. It’s hard to believe how skillfully she rides, leading horses - and even hot horses - with dexterity and courage of the groom. She is an excellent dancer, gracefully performing serious and light dances. She expresses herself in French with grace, and I am assured that she speaks Russian as correctly as her native language. German, and also has a critical knowledge of both languages. She speaks freely and speaks accurately."

Pushkin about Catherine: “The reign of Catherine II,” he believed, “had a new and strong influence on the political and moral state of Russia. Placed on the throne by a conspiracy of several rebels, she enriched them at the expense of the people and humiliated our restless nobility. If to reign means to know the weakness of the human soul and use it, then in this regard Catherine deserves the surprise of posterity. Her splendor dazzled, her friendliness attracted, her generosity attracted. The very voluptuousness of this cunning woman asserted her dominion. Producing a weak murmur among the people, accustomed to respecting the vices of their rulers, it aroused vile competition in the highest states, because no intelligence, no merit, no talent was needed to achieve second place in the state... Humiliated Sweden and destroyed Poland - these are Catherine’s great rights to gratitude of the Russian people. But over time, history will evaluate the influence of her reign on morals, will reveal the cruel activity of her despotism under the guise of meekness and tolerance, the people oppressed by governors, the treasury plundered by lovers, will show her important mistakes in political economy, insignificance in legislation, disgusting buffoonery in relations with philosophers her centuries - and then the voice of the seduced Voltaire will not save her glorious memory from the curse of Russia.”

Platonov S.F.: In internal affairs, the legislation of Catherine II completed the historical process that began under the temporary workers. The balance in the position of the main classes, which existed in all its strength 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 some property privileges and greater power over the peasants - by law. We observed an increase in the rights of the nobility during the time of both Elizabeth and Peter III. Under Catherine, the nobility became not only a privileged class with a proper internal organization, but also a class ruling in the district (as a landowning class) and in general administration (as a bureaucracy). Parallel to the growth of noble rights and depending on it they fall civil rights proprietary peasants. The rise of noble privileges in the 18th century. necessarily connected with the rise 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. In her domestic policy, Catherine acted according to the traditions bequeathed to her by a number of her closest predecessors, and completed what they started.

On the contrary, in foreign policy, Catherine, as we have seen, was a direct follower of Peter the Great, and not of petty politicians of the 18th century. She was able, like Peter the Great, to understand the fundamental tasks of Russian foreign policy and knew how to complete what the Moscow sovereigns had been striving for for centuries. And here, as in internal politics, she completed her work, and after her Russian diplomacy had to set itself new tasks, because the old ones were 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 foreign policy issues that so worried his 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 techniques in management, new ideas into social circulation. The duality of the traditions that she followed also determines the dual attitude of her descendants towards her. If some, not without reason, point out that Catherine’s internal activities legitimized the abnormal consequences of the dark eras of the 18th century, then others bow to the greatness of the results of her foreign policy. As it were, historical meaning Catherine's era is extremely great precisely because in this era the results of previous history were summed up, historical processes that had previously developed were completed. This ability of Catherine to bring to the end, to complete resolution, the questions that history posed to her, forces everyone to recognize her as a paramount historical figure, regardless of her personal mistakes and weaknesses.

From the work of Sumarokov P.I.: Catherine was of medium height, slender, of excellent beauty, traces of which were not destroyed until her death. The blue eyes depicted pleasantness, modesty, kindness and peace of mind. She spoke quietly, with emphasis, somewhat in her throat; her heavenly smile enchanted and attracted hearts to her. Those close to her parted with her full of devotion and surprise. No matter how hard she tried to hide the importance of her rank, her unusually majestic appearance inspired respect in everyone; someone who had never seen her would have recognized the empress even among the crowd. G. Tannenberg says: “She was born to be the mistress of nations.” Prince de Ligne writes: “Catherine was an excellent wife in every way; the title of empress most of all befitted her, the greatness of her soul, her vast mind were equal to the space of her power.”

She had a very strong build by nature, but often suffered from headaches, which were almost always accompanied by colic. For all that, she did not like healing, and when one day the physician Rogerson persuaded her to take medicine, he patted her on the shoulder with joy and shouted: “Bravo! Bravo, madam! Catherine was not at all offended, knowing that this came from a strong feeling of devotion. This worthy doctor enjoyed great respect in the capital more for the fact that he protected Catherine’s health.

Catherine was of a quiet, calm, cheerful disposition, and, in contrast, sometimes very hot-tempered. Her composition seemed to be created from fire, which she skillfully controlled, and what would have served as a vice in another was turned into dignity in her. From this complete dominion over herself, she suddenly came to anger; when she was annoyed and displeased, she paced around the room, rolled up her sleeves, drank water, and never did anything at the first movement. We will see several examples of this. Whoever, adorned with wisdom, can control himself in this way is worthy to rule the universe.

Excerpt from the work of K. Masson: As for Catherine’s character, I think that it will become clear from her actions. Her reign was happy and brilliant, for her and the court; but its end was especially disastrous for the people and the empire. All the springs of government have deteriorated: every general, every governor, every district chief has become an independent despot. Places, justice, impunity were sold for money: about twenty oligarchs divided Russia among themselves under the auspices of the favorite, they either robbed state revenues themselves, or left it to others to rob and disputed with each other the booty seized from the unfortunate. It happened that their servants, their serfs, even in a short period of time achieved significant positions and wealth. Another, receiving only three hundred or four hundred rubles in salary, increased it through bribery so much that he built fifty thousand houses near the palace. Catherine, who did not even think of looking for the unclean sources of these ephemeral riches, was proud, seeing how the capital was being decorated before her eyes, and applauded the unbridled luxury of the scoundrels, considering it proof of prosperity under her rule. Never, even in France, has robbery been so general and so accessible. Anyone through whose hands government money went for some enterprise brazenly kept half for himself and then pretended to receive additional ones under the pretext of insufficient amounts allocated: he was again given what he asked for, or the enterprise stopped. The big thieves themselves participated in the division of the loot of the small ones and were their accomplices. The high-ranking official knew approximately how much each of his signatures gave the secretary, and the colonel without hesitation talked with the general about the profits he received from the regiment [*].

TASKS: 1) Describe the appearance of Empress Catherine II according to available information. 2) How positive and negative qualities did she possess in their opinion? 3) What do historians and contemporaries see as her merits? 4) What negative phenomena were observed during her reign, in their opinion?

Most pre-revolutionary historians considered the second half of the 18th century. "golden age" of the Russian Empire and considered this time as important stage in the development of Russian statehood and further Europeanization of the country. In historical literature, this period of Russian history was also called “enlightened absolutism.” This is how Catherine’s era was assessed, for example, by N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Soloviev, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky. A more critical position was taken by V.O. Klyuchevsky, A.A. Kisivetter, V.I. Semevsky.

The studies of Soviet historians focused on the pro-noble nature of the policy of the government of Catherine II, the strengthening of serfdom and police functions of the state, and the resistance of the peasantry to the serfdom policies of the autocracy. Catherine's enlightened absolutism was seen as demagoguery and maneuvering in the conditions of the disintegration of the feudal-serf system.

The modern view of Catherine’s era has freed itself from the “class approach” and has become more balanced, taking into account the nature of the era. In particular, in the works of A.B. Kamensky and N.I. Pavlenko's view of this period in Russian history is very close to the assessments of pre-revolutionary historians.

The personality and activities of Catherine II herself, who ruled Russia for 34 years, were also assessed differently by contemporaries and descendants, sometimes even diametrically opposed. If the moral character of the empress as a whole fits into the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky: “We pass in silence reviews of Catherine’s moral character, which cannot be read without a mournful sigh,” then her contribution to domestic and foreign policy is controversial to this day. For example, the concept of “enlightened absolutism” is interpreted differently. Some historians prefer to call it “enlightened despotism”, and Catherine – “enlightened despot”, and in general the question is raised: is the concept of “enlightened absolutism” applicable to Catherine’s reign?

During the reign of Catherine II, the imperial character of Russia reached its peak. There is debate among historians about the extent to which the empire as a form of organization of human society met the interests of its multinational population. A number of historians believe that the empire was an artificial formation based on the fear of the conquered population and its military power. Others hold the opposite opinion, noting that this form of statehood undermined the national isolation of the peoples inhabiting it and contributed to their inclusion in a single world process. Later, Emperor Nicholas I said: “German, Finnish, Tatar, Georgian - that’s what Russia is.”