The reforming legacy of Peter the Great, like his personality itself, still gives rise to fierce disputes in Russian society. In the 19th century, disagreements in assessing the activities of Peter in many ways became the impetus for the emergence of two main areas of ideological struggle in Russian intellectual elite- Westerners and Slavophiles. Yevgeny Anisimov decided to take a bold step: to present on an equal footing two points of view on the historical role of the tsar-reformer. The book is written in the form of a dialogue, or rather, a fierce debate between two opponents: a supporter of common European development and a supporter of " special way"According to the author, both positions have a right to exist, both are true in their own way, and both reflect such a complex, ambiguous phenomenon as the era of Peter the Great in Russian history. Evgeny Anisimov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor and Scientific Director of the Department of History of the National Research University " graduate School Economics" (Petersburg branch), professor at the European University in St. Petersburg, chief researcher at the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Author of several hundred scientific publications, including three monographs on the history of the reign of Peter the Great.

Introduction 1

Did Russia need reforms? 2

Greatness and poverty of the empire 7

Economic breakthrough? 12

In the bosom of the state 16

Autocracy of Peter 19

"The work of a subject of the All-Russian people" 25

Church and culture 31

Chronology of the Petrine era 38

Brief bibliography 39

Illustrations 39

Evgeny Anisimov
Peter the Great: Good or Evil for Russia?

Introduction

In Western European historiography and Western culture as a whole, the personality and deeds of Peter the Great have mostly positive assessments. Of course, his generally recognized image of a westernizer, a modernizer of a formerly backward Russia, who took advantage of the cultural, technical, military and other experience of Western European countries, played a role here.

In Russia, disputes (including scientific) about the nature of the reforms of Peter the Great and his personality still do not subside. This is not accidental - Russia, having once again gone through a circle (alas, not a round!) of its history, is returning to the age-old questions about the expediency, price and significance of transformations. And right there, from the depths of the past, the figure of Peter rises, who put his life in search of a solution to these "damned" insurmountable Russian questions.

In this work, I am not going to dwell on historiography for a long time, because it is simply immense. I will touch only on the most important for our topic. So, in the first post-Petrine decades of the 18th century, Russian historiography of Peter the Great was exclusively complimentary, which is also characteristic of the reign of his daughter, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1761). Yes, and all the other successors of Peter the Great wanted (and had to) consider themselves the successors of his work, although in reality it could be different. It is not surprising that the then historical science perceived him only as a demiurge who created a new Russia, an incarnate god who, as Vice-Chancellor P. P. Shafirov wrote, "metamorphosis, that is, transformation" with her. The great Russian scientist M. V. Lomonosov exclaimed in unison with the epoch: "He is a god, he was your god, Russia!" Generations of Russian thinkers were convinced that if it were not for Peter, we would undoubtedly be lost. As V. G. Belinsky wrote, without Peter, Russia might have drawn closer to Europe, "but just like India and England."

To a large extent, this view was promoted by Voltaire's work, The History of Peter the Great, which was popular not only in the West, but also in our country, based on materials sent from Russia. Voltaire's assessments were extremely positive. Even later, the "applause" tone of historiography persisted. The 19th-century historian MP Pogodin wrote: “We are waking up. What day is it today?” - September 18, 1840. Peter the Great ordered to count the years from the birth of Christ, Peter the Great ordered to count the months from January. originally given by Peter, a uniform according to his form. The cloth is woven in a factory that he started, the wool is sheared from the sheep he bred. A book catches your eye - Peter the Great introduced this type and cut out the letters himself. You will begin to read it - this under Peter, the language became written, literary, displacing the old, church one. Newspapers are brought to you - Peter the Great began publishing them. You need to buy different things - all of them, from a neckerchief to a shoe sole, will remind you of Peter the Great, some are written out by him, others are introduced them for use, improved, brought on his ship, to his harbor, along his canal, along his road. ennogo, all the dishes will tell you about Peter the Great. After lunch, you go to visit - this is the assembly of Peter the Great. You meet ladies there, admitted to the men's company at the request of Peter the Great. Let's go to the university - the first secular school was established by Peter the Great. ‹…› We cannot open our eyes, we cannot move, we cannot turn in any direction without Peter meeting us, at home, on the street, in a church, in a school, in court, in a regiment, on a walk , all of it, every day, every minute, at every step!

The first doubts about the correctness of such assessments appeared in the reign of Catherine the Great. They came out from the pen of a professional historian, Prince M. M. Shcherbatov. Formally, he belonged to a cohort of admirers of the great reformer of Russia, and even in one of his works he made a "calculation" of how many years Russia, had it not been for Peter the Great, would have achieved Catherine's prosperity. It turned out that this would only happen in late XIX century! As contemporaries testify, Prince Shcherbatov was a misanthrope and a critic, but he criticized Peter unusually subtly. In 1773, he wrote a work entitled "Review of the vices and autocracy of Peter the Great." In it, Shcherbatov cites negative assessments of some anonymous ill-wishers of Peter and his deeds and ... resolutely refutes them in line with the prevailing historiographical view of the sovereign-reformer. At the same time, Shcherbatov reveals the entire palette of then negative judgments about Peter, introducing readers to new, for many, stunning ideas. So in Soviet time we got acquainted with forbidden trends "from there" through critical, sometimes devastating articles and pamphlets by Soviet philosophers and historians. The more citations there were from the works of anathematized authors, the deeper we were able to plunge into the world of Western writers and philosophers. Shcherbatov seems to be quoting someone's accusations of Peter in cruelty, love for executions and shedding of blood, in an uncivilized attitude towards others, depravity, filicide, a penchant for drunkenness, in establishing a ferocious regime of autocracy, etc. As if justifying the invasion of this obviously forbidden sphere, he refers to his historian’s duty to write the truth and even turns to Peter: “Whatever my respect for you, it will not overshadow justice in me, and I will try to ask Clio for that golden pen with which he depicts the affairs of monarchs” .

Cleverly disguised criticism of Shcherbatov became the first fly in the ointment in a huge barrel of honey in praise of the reformer tsar. The next milestone was the famous work of the historian and writer N. M. Karamzin "Note on the ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations", written in 1811 and shifting the focus of discussion from the personality of Peter (Karamzin writes: "Let's keep silent about personal vices") to general philosophical, historiosophical problems: did Russia need such a reform, were Peter's efforts productive? on the transfer of institutions and orders of foreign countries to Russian soil, did not Russia get the fruits of Western civilization too dearly, was it worth undermining traditions, destroying the way of the original Russian life, discrediting the past? , throwing accusations against Peter of disastrous distortion of the foundations national mentality: "Peter did not want to delve into the truth that the spirit of the people makes up the moral power of states. ‹ ...> Eradicating ancient skills, presenting them as ridiculous, praising and introducing foreign ones, the sovereign of Russia humiliated the Russians in their own heart. Contempt for oneself disposes a person and a citizen to great deeds? Does the name of the Russian now have for us that inscrutable power that it had before? We have become citizens of the world, but in some cases ceased to be citizens of Russia. The fault is Peter. It is clear that Karamzin's ideas were generated by his time; they were also dictated by the dramatic situation on the eve of the clash with Napoleon, when in national history I had to find support to fight...

From school we are taught about what was in the history of Russia "The Great Russian Tsar Peter I".

But somehow I came across the opinion that there are people "rather rubbing their hands, counting the colossal damage inflicted by Peter the "great" Russia and the Russian people". Agree that such a statement is so different from what we have been taught and are taught that it is not possible to just throw it away and forget - after all, there must be reasons for such a sharp conclusion ... And here the most interesting begins ...

At this stage, I propose to forget for a while what official history teaches us and look at the facts that are in the public domain, which, if desired, any of you can get them and think about them ...

Below I will give only brief theses as a point of support for those who are interested in self-development and collecting information further...

So, the obvious changes in Peter's personality before and after a trip to Europe for two years with the Great Embassy:

Before the trip	After the trip
I went for two weeks and came back two years later. The Russian embassy that accompanied the tsar consisted of 20 people, and was headed by A.D. Menshikov.	After returning to Russia, the embassy consisted of only the Dutch, only Menshikov remained the only one from the old composition.
A young 26-year-old man, curly hair, a mole on his cheek closer to his nose (in the portraits of Peter the Great before his return from the "Great Embassy" to Peter on right side nose wart)	A complete change in appearance and psyche - a 40-year-old sick man, taller, with straight hair and no mole on his face
He passionately loved his wife, Tsarina Evdokia, with whom he lived with consent for eight years, whom he missed, often corresponded when he was away	Upon his return, without even seeing her, without explaining the reasons, he locked her in a nunnery for life under pain of death, forbidding even conversations with her - one of her guards, Stepan Glebov, was impaled for violating this instruction. He married a Baltic prostitute. After returning from abroad, he always took a soldier with him to bed at night, and after the appearance of Catherine, he kept concubines)
Prefers traditional Russian clothes	He wears only European clothes and has never worn not only his old Russian clothes, but even royal attire.
Likes everything Russian	He hates everything Russian, but loves Western. Love for the Russian people has turned into hatred, calls the Rus "animals" with the need to "remake" them into people
He knew the scriptures well, during the discussion he quoted many phrases by heart	He practically does not speak Russian, has he “forgotten” everything he knew from childhood? until the end of his life he never learned to write in Russian
healthy young man	A patient with chronic fever, with traces of long-term use of mercury preparations, which were then used to treat tropical fever
The great embassy went by the northern sea route	Tropical fever can be “earned” in southern waters, and even then, only after being in the jungle
Sailing experience - only as a passenger. As a child, miraculously escapes during a storm when visiting the Solovetsky Monastery on a longboat, in honor of which he erected a memorial cross for the Archangel Cathedral with his own hands	An experienced sailor who demonstrates great experience in boarding battles, having specific features that can only be mastered through personal participation in many boarding battles.
Generalization: The coincidence in time of the substitution of Tsar Peter I (August 1698) and the appearance of the prisoner in the "Iron Mask" in the Bastille in Paris (September 1698). In the lists of prisoners, he was listed under the name Magchiel, perhaps a distorted record of the name under which Peter traveled - Mikhailov. He was tall, carried himself with dignity, and always wore a velvet mask on his face. The prisoner was respectfully treated and kept well. He died in 1703. After his death, the room where he was kept was carefully searched, and all traces of his stay were destroyed.	After the most younger son Alexei tried to free his real father from the Bastille - he tortured him and executed him. The rest - the brother of Ivan V, the small children of Alexander, Natalya and Lawrence, he killed immediately upon his return from the Great Embassy (the official story tells us quite differently about this).

Now let's see what Peter the Great did during his reign (only facts from open sources):

Immediately after returning from the Great Embassy, ​​"Peter the Great" hid surrounded by conspirators, did not appear in public and did not even visit his closest relatives until a new Russian army was created under the command of foreign officers and the bloody executions of archers who destroyed the old armed forces who could oppose the returning king;

Everywhere it is written that he "cut a window to Europe", but actually opened a window FOR Europe to Russia , because before that, access to Russia was closed to Europeans.

Destroyed over 20 million souls when he built St. Petersburg and won victories in endless wars.

Introduced serfdom, transferring the peasants to the property of the nobles, i.e. dividing the Russian people into nobles and serfs by birth, turning the people into slaves.

Rewrote the history of Russia by the hands of foreigners even those who do not know Russian.

Under the guise of fighting old faith, destroyed all the elders who lived for over three hundred years.

Destroyed the annals: he ordered all ancient manuscripts to be brought to him under the pretext of the need to make copies, and after that everything that got into the palace disappeared without a trace.

Changed former then reckoning replacing in the 1700th year the then current calendar from "the creation of the world in the star temple" to the current one "from the birth of Christ."

Abolished the Patriarchate in Russia and subordinated the administration of the church to secular power through the Synod, the device of an amusing Council at the choice of the Patriarch.

Destruction of the Russians folk traditions , fighting them. Establishing dominance Western culture over traditional Russian.

destroyed Russian education- this is his main crime!(image + sculpture), the essence of which was to create three people subtle bodies that he does not receive from birth, and if they are not formed, then the consciousness will not have a connection with the consciousnesses of past lives. If in Russian educational institutions they made a generalist from a person who could, starting from bast shoes and ending spaceship, to do everything himself, then Peter introduced a specialization that made a person dependent on others.

The first reform of the Russian language, which returned the inscription of letters to the ancient Aryan alphabetic symbolism.

Establishing the power and control of foreigners, in the army, public administration, science, their privileges over Russians, distribution to them titles of nobility, lands and serfs

Exterminated the archers and dressed up the Russian army first to French, then to German uniform, although Russian military uniform she was a weapon. Among the people, the new regiments were called " amusing».

Organization of Masonic lodges(1700) even earlier than in Europe (1721), who practically seized power in Russian society to the present day.

Forbidden to grow amaranth and eat amaranth bread, which was the main food of the Russian people. Thus, he destroyed longevity, which then still remained in Russia.

Canceled natural measures(sazhen, finger, elbow, vershok), which were present in Russian clothing, utensils, architecture. Peter made the measures fixed, as in the West, this led to the destruction of ancient Russian architecture and art, to the disappearance of the beauty of everyday life, since divine and life proportions disappeared in their structure.

Returning Peter did not know where the libraries of Tsar Ivan the Terrible were located, although this secret was passed on to all the kings, and even the sister of Tsar Peter, Princess Sophia, knew and visited this place. It is known that "Peter the Great" tried to find the library immediately after returning from the "Great Embassy" and even carried out excavations in the Kremlin for this.

Food Reform:

Peter the first launched a campaign to impoverish the nutrition of the Rus. Before Peter the Great, there were 108 types of nuts, 108 types of vegetables, 108 types of fruits, 108 types of berries, 108 types of root nodules, 108 types of cereals, 108 spices and 108 types of fruits*, corresponding to 108 Slavic Gods. After the coup, a few sacred species remained - cereals, fruits and nodules were destroyed, since they were associated with the reincarnation of a person. Peter banned many products of Russian cuisine, replacing them with potatoes, tomatoes ...

By the way, potatoes, like tobacco (!) Belong to the nightshade family. Leaves, eyes and green potatoes are poisonous. Green potatoes contain very strong poisons, solanines, especially dangerous for the health of children), sweet potato and earthen pear, which are poorly eaten today.

The destruction of sacred plants that were consumed at a certain time led to the loss of complex divine reactions of the body (remember the Russian proverb " every vegetable has its time ", POST). Moreover, the mixing of food caused putrefactive processes in the body, and now people exude stench instead of fragrance.

Adoptogenic plants have almost disappeared, only weakly active ones remain: the “root of life”, lemongrass, zamaniha, golden root. They contributed to the adaptation of a person to difficult conditions and kept youth and health. There are absolutely no metamorphizing plants left that contribute to various metamorphoses of the body and appearance. Not so long ago, in the mountains of Tibet, there was still a “Sacred Coil”, but even that one has disappeared today.

The lean campaign continues and at the present time, Kalega and sorghum have almost disappeared from consumption, and it is forbidden to grow poppies. From many sacred gifts, only the names remain, which are given to us today as synonyms for famous fruits.

Example:
* Gruhva, kaliva, bukhma, landushka - today they are given out for swede.
* Armud, Quit, Pigwa, Gutei, Gun - disappeared gifts that are passed off as quince.
* Kukish and dulya in the 19th century denoted a pear, although these were completely different gifts, today these words are called the image of a fig (also, by the way, a gift). A fist with an inserted thumb, used to denote the mudra of the heart, today it is used as a negative sign. Dulya, figs and figs were no longer grown, because they were sacred plants among the Khazars and Varangians.
* Recently, proska has been called "millet", barley - barley, and millet and barley cereals have disappeared from our agriculture forever.

In our time, we see how the final stage of the food genocide is taking place - people have been driven from the land into cities, food control has been canceled, chemistry has become commonplace, GMO products are being introduced, POST is not observed, there is no food culture.

“If you want to conquer a country, import someone else's product; there will be an outflow of energy, people will get sick, and sick slaves will be easier to manage ”- Ivan the Terrible.

Roman law

The genius of Satanism is Roman law, which is the basis of the constitutions of modern states. Roman law was created contrary to all ancient canons and ideas about a society based on self-government (autocracy). For the first time, judicial power was transferred from the hands of the priests to the hands of people who did not have a spiritual dignity, i.e. the power of the best was replaced by the power of anyone. Roman law is presented to us as the “crown” of human achievement, in reality it is the pinnacle of disorder and irresponsibility. State laws under Roman law are based on prohibitions and punishments, i.e. on negative emotions, which, as you know, can only destroy. This leads to a general lack of interest in the implementation of laws and to opposition of officials to the people.

In contrast to Roman law, Russia-Derzhava was built not on prohibitive laws, but on the conscience of citizens, which establishes a balance between encouragement and prohibition. Let us recall how the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea wrote about the Slavs - “ All the laws they had in their heads ". Relations in ancient society were regulated by the principles of horse, from which the words “canon” (ancient - konon), “from time immemorial”, “chambers” (i.e. according to horse) have come down to us. Guided by the principles of the horse, a person avoided mistakes and could incarnate again in this life. The principle is always above the law, because it contains more possibilities than the law, just as a sentence contains more information than one word. The very word " law "means" outside the horse ". If a society lives according to the principles of the horse, and not according to the laws, it is more vital. Commandments contain more than a horse, and therefore surpass it, just as a story contains more than a sentence. The commandments can improve human organization and thinking, which in turn can improve the principles of the horse.

After all the deeds of Peter 1, even the invaders themselves did not dare to call Peter the Great for a long time. Only in the 19th century, when the horrors of Peter the Great were forgotten, did a version arose about Peter the innovator, who did so much useful for Russia.

And finally, for those interested in a video on the topic: