Material for a historical essay. Causes of palace coups

1725-1762 - a period in the political life of Russia when the transition of supreme state power took place by the guard or courtiers palace coups. IN. Klyuchevsky called this period “the era of palace coups.”

In 1725, thanks to the support of the guards and nobles who rose to power under Peter I, Catherine I ascended the throne. Actual power in Catherine’s reign was concentrated

Prince Menshikov, as well as the Supreme Privy Council. In 1727, after the death of Catherine, the Supreme Privy Council transferred the throne to Peter II, bypassing other claimants. The functions of regent were transferred to the Supreme Privy Council, and in fact to A.D. Menshikov. Menshikov's policies displeased his recent allies. In September 1727, he was removed from power and exiled to the city of Berezov.

Anna Ioannovna, invited after the death of Peter II by the Supreme Privy Council to the Russian throne, signed the “Conditions” on January 28, 1730 - conditions limiting the powers of the Empress in favor of the “supreme rulers”. These caused discontent among the nobility and the guard. On February 25, 1730, a large group of nobility asked the Empress to accept full autocracy. The "conditions" were cancelled. Anna Ioannovna dissolved the Supreme Privy Council, replacing it in 1731 with the Cabinet of Ministers.

In 1740, shortly before her death, Anna Ioannovna appointed herself a successor, Ivan VI, and E. I. Biron was appointed regent. In the conditions of dissatisfaction with Biron, Field Marshal Minich managed to carry out another palace coup without much difficulty. Biron was arrested, and the mother of Ivan VI, Anna Leopoldovna, was proclaimed regent. This coup did not meet the interests of the Russian nobility, since it retained the leading position in the state for the Germans. Taking advantage of the unpopularity of the government, the daughter of Peter I, Elizabeth, with the help of the Preobrazhensky Regiment, carried out another palace coup on November 25, 1741.

After Elizabeth's death in November 1761, her nephew ascended the throne, Peter III. He turned out to be unable to lead the state. Russian society was especially condemned by its admiration for Frederick II and the return to Prussia of all lands captured during the Seven Years' War. The wife of Peter III, Catherine, relying on the support of the guards regiments, dissatisfied with Peter’s plan to send them to recapture Schleswig from Denmark for Prussia, carried out another coup in June 1762. Russia entered the “golden age” of Catherine II.

Historians, in particular A. N. Sakharov, evaluate the period 1725-1762. ambiguous. On the one hand, the coming to power of a new sovereign was often accompanied by the arrest or death of the previous one, and most importantly, not all the actions of some sovereigns who came to power as a result of the coup corresponded to the interests of Russia. On the other hand, it was during the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine II that Russia reached its greatest power in the 18th century, firmly securing its status as a great not only European, but also world power.

Period 1725-1762 went down in history as the era of palace coups. His distinctive features began, firstly, the further strengthening of absolutism; secondly, the increased role of the nobility and the political claims of the guard to the role of “kingmakers”; thirdly, strengthening the enslavement of peasants; fourthly, the phenomenon of favoritism at the Russian imperial court. The reasons for the palace coups were the contradictions between the groups of “old” and “new” nobility that emerged in the era of Peter the Great; aggravation of the problem of succession to the throne; violation of traditions and crisis of old moral norms. The longest on the Russian throne during this period were Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740) and Elizaveta Petrovna (1741-1761). They personify the struggle of two lines into which the reigning house fell apart: royal and imperial (V.O. Klyuchevsky), the first came from John V, and the second from Peter I.

In conditions of rivalry between noble groups, the role of the monarch increased as a figure balancing their interests. This is a specific feature of Russian absolutism, which differed from European absolutism in that the latter took shape not during the heyday of serfdom, but during its crisis. In European absolute monarchies the king (emperor) played the role of a figure balancing the interests of the economically weakening, but politically still strong nobility and the interests of the emerging bourgeoisie with directly opposite characteristics. The attempt of the members of the Supreme Privy Council to limit the power of the monarch, which was expressed in the preparation of the Conditions for Anna Ioannovna, did not correspond to the historical circumstances of the strengthening of absolutism in Russia, and therefore failed.

The reign of Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740) was characterized by the unbridled tyranny of the secret police, the imposition of drill, cane discipline, and the flourishing of theft and embezzlement. This period in history is often called the Bironism, named after the favorite of the Empress E. Biron. This was the first case in the period under review when the phenomenon of favoritism, which consisted in the elevation of a specific person or group of persons in connection with the personal favor of the monarch, was clearly identified. Patriotic representatives of Russian society began to associate all abuses of power under Anna Ioannovna with the dominance of the Germans at the Russian court, calling it Bironovism.

Elizaveta Petrovna played a special role in strengthening absolutism and the positions of the nobility in the Russian state. Under her, the position of the peasants became completely powerless. In 1742, peasants were prohibited from entering the service of their own free will; in 1747, landowners received the right to sell peasants as recruits, and in 1760, of their own free will, they could already exile them to Siberia.

Elizabeth Petrovna's favorites different years there were I.I. Shuvalov and A.G. Razumovsky. Their interference in state affairs does not have such a negative assessment in history as E. Biron. The name of Shuvalov, for example, is associated with the opening of Moscow University in 1755 and the Academy of Arts in 1757, to which he initially gave his mansion in St. Petersburg. Thanks to the influence of A.G. Razumovsky, who came from the Dnieper land-poor Cossacks, Elizaveta Petrovna restored the hetmanate in Ukraine, which had been abolished by her father, and after her abolished by Catherine II. V.O. Klyuchevsky, speaking about the reign of Elizaveta Petrovna, noted that since the reign of Princess Sophia, life had never been so easy in Rus', and not a single reign before 1762 had left such an impression. pleasant memories. Let's add to this the fact that during the twenty years of her reign, Elizaveta Petrovna did not sign a single death warrant and was proud of it.

To summarize, let us again refer to the opinion of V.O. Klyuchevsky, who believed that the significance of palace coups went far beyond the palace sphere. A well-known Russian historian emphasized that the reason for the dominant role of the guard in the political process of those years was the absence or inaction of the law.

According to many pre-revolutionary and Soviet historians (S.V. Solovyov, S.F. Platonov, N.Ya. Eidelman, etc.), the era of palace coups was a step back in comparison with the vigorous activity of Peter I.

The era of palace coups became a time when Russia was mastering the framework established for it by the reforms of Peter I. The moral qualities of society and attitudes towards the monarch changed. Not all of Peter’s reforms took root, but in general, the direction he set for the country’s development was preserved even after his death. The change of ruling persons did not significantly affect the development of absolutism in Russia in the 18th century.

IN Russian Empire the change of power took place mainly through palace coups carried out by noble groups with the assistance of guard regiments. In Russian historiography, this period is called the era of palace coups.

The beginning of the era is considered to be February 8 (January 28, old style) 1725, when Emperor Peter I died without leaving an heir and without having time to implement his decree of 1722, according to which the tsar had the right to appoint his own successor. Among the contenders for the throne were the grandson of Peter I - the young Tsarevich Pyotr Alekseevich, the wife of the late Tsar Ekaterina Alekseevna and their daughters - the Tsarevnas Anna and Elizabeth. It is believed that at first Peter I was going to leave the throne to Anna, but then he changed his mind and for the first time in Russian history he crowned his wife Catherine. However, shortly before the death of the king, the relationship between the spouses deteriorated sharply. Each of the contenders had their own supporters. On the day of the emperor’s death, Alexander Menshikov, who supported Catherine, configured the guards regiments accordingly, lined them up under the windows of the palace - this is how he achieved the proclamation of the queen as an autocratic empress. The way the issue was resolved anticipated subsequent events.

In 1727, during the reign of Peter the Great’s grandson Peter II, Menshikov himself became a victim of the coup, having by that time concentrated all power in his hands and completely controlled the young tsar. Menshikov’s unexpected illness was taken advantage of by his political opponents, princes Dolgoruky and Andrei Osterman, who managed to gain influence on the tsar and achieve a decree first on the resignation and then on Menshikov’s exile to Siberia.

After the death of Peter II in 1730, the Supreme Privy Council appointed Anna Ioannovna, the niece of Peter I, as empress, who ruled for 10 years.

In October 1740, Anna Ioannovna died, leaving the Russian imperial throne to her great-nephew, the two-month-old infant Ivan Antonovich, under the regency of the Duke of Courland, Ernst Biron.

Unpopular and without support in any layer of society, the duke behaved arrogantly, defiantly, and soon quarreled with the parents of the infant emperor.

On the night of November 20 (9 old style) November 1740, Field Marshal Burchard Christoph Minich with 80 guardsmen burst into Summer Palace and, meeting almost no resistance, arrested Biron. Ivan Antonovich's mother Anna Leopoldovna, grandniece of Peter I, was declared the ruler of Russia, and his father, Prince Anton Ulrich of Brunswick, received the title of generalissimo and commander-in-chief of the Russian army. Minich, who expected to become a generalissimo, resigned.

Anna Leopoldovna was completely incapable of governing the state. Residents of the capital turned their aspirations to Elizabeth - the daughter of Catherine I and Peter I, whose reign was remembered as a time of military victories, order and discipline. The abundance of foreigners at court was also one of the factors that irritated both the guard and St. Petersburg residents.

People from Anna Leopoldovna's entourage saw Elizabeth as a threat and demanded that her dangerous competitor be removed from St. Petersburg by marrying her off or sending her to a monastery. Such danger and her own environment pushed Elizabeth to plot. The crown princess's doctor, Johann Lestocq, brought her together with the French ambassador, Marquis Jacques Chetardy, who, if Elizabeth came to power, counted on Russia's renunciation of the alliance with Austria and rapprochement with France. Swedish Ambassador Nolken also sought a change in Russian foreign policy, hoping to achieve a revision of the terms of the Treaty of Nystadt in 1721, which secured Russia's possessions in the Baltic states.

On the night of December 6 (November 25, old style) 1741, Elizaveta Petrovna led a company of grenadiers of the Preobrazhensky Regiment to storm the Winter Palace. The soldiers blocked all entrances and exits, arrested Anna Leopoldovna and her family and proclaimed the crown princess empress.

The Empress took care of the successor in advance, already at the very beginning of her reign, announcing her nephew Peter Fedorovich as the successor.

On January 5, 1762 (December 25, 1761, old style) Elizaveta Petrovna died, Peter Fedorovich became Emperor Peter III. Almost from the first days of his reign, a conspiracy began to mature around the new king, headed by his wife Catherine, nee Princess of Anhalt-Zerbst, who came from an impoverished German princely family.

The couple never got along, but now Peter openly showed disdain for his wife and son, appearing everywhere in the company of his favorite Elizaveta Vorontsova. Catherine understood that she was facing prison or deportation abroad. Active participants in the coup were the Orlov brothers, popular among the guards, the teacher of Grand Duke Pavel Nikita Panin and his niece Princess Ekaterina Dashkova, Hetman of Ukraine Kirill Razumovsky.

On the night of July 7 (June 28, old style), 1762, Alexei Orlov brought Catherine from Peterhof to the barracks of the Izmailovsky regiment in St. Petersburg, where the guards took the oath to the new autocrat. By nine in the morning, Catherine, accompanied by soldiers, arrived at the Kazan Cathedral, where the Semenovsky, Preobrazhensky and Horse Guards regiments soon arrived. Her son Pavel Petrovich was also brought here. In the presence of nobles, Catherine was solemnly proclaimed empress and Paul heir. From the cathedral she went to the Winter Palace, where members of the Senate and Synod took the oath.

On the same day, Peter III arrived with his retinue from Oranienbaum to Peterhof, where he learned about the coup d'etat. In the evening he went to Kronstadt, hoping to rely on the military forces of the fortress. But Admiral Ivan Talyzin, sent by Catherine, did not allow Peter to land on the shore under the threat of opening fire. Having finally lost his presence of mind, the deposed emperor decided to return to Oranienbaum and enter into negotiations with the empress. When his proposal to share power was left unanswered by Catherine, Peter III signed an abdication of the throne. He was sent to a country palace in Ropsha, and the Holstein troops loyal to him were disarmed. On July 17 (6 old style), the former Emperor Peter III suddenly and, apparently, died violently.

After the death of Peter I (1725) and before Catherine II (1762-1796) came to power, six monarchs and many political forces behind them replaced the Russian throne.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources

PAGE_BREAK--Palace coups as a social phenomenon of the 18th century
The 37-year period of political instability (1725-1762) that followed the death of Peter I was called the “Era of Palace Revolutions.” During this period, state policy was determined by individual groups of the palace nobility, who actively intervened in resolving the issue of the heir to the throne, fought among themselves for power, and carried out palace coups. The reason for such an intervention was the Charter on the Succession to the Throne issued by Peter I on February 5, 1722, which abolished “both orders of succession to the throne that were in force before, both the will and the conciliar election, replacing both with personal appointment, at the discretion of the reigning sovereign.” Peter himself did not take advantage of this charter; he died on January 28, 1725, without appointing a successor. Therefore, immediately after his death, a struggle for power began between representatives of the ruling elite.

The decisive force in the palace coups was the guard, a privileged part of the regular army created by Peter (these are the famous Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky regiments, in the 30s two new ones were added to them, the Izmailovsky and Horse Guards). Her participation decided the outcome of the matter: which side the guard was on, that group would win. The Guard was not only a privileged part of the Russian army, it was a representative of an entire class (the nobility), from whose midst it was almost exclusively formed and whose interests it represented.

1. Events of 1725 – 1762. Historical sketch.

Palace coups testified to the weakness of absolute power under the successors of Peter I, who were unable to continue reforms with energy and in the spirit of a pioneer and who could govern the state only by relying on their entourage. Favoritism flourished in full bloom during this period. Temporary favorites received unlimited influence on state policy.
The only heir of Peter I in the male line was his grandson - the son of the executed Tsarevich Alexei Peter. But the wife of Peter I, Catherine, laid claim to the throne. Peter's two daughters, Anna (married to a Holstein prince) and Elizabeth, who was still a minor by that time, were also heirs. The issue of a successor was resolved by the quick actions of A. Menshikov, who, relying on the guard, carried out the first palace coup in favor of Catherine I (1725-1727) and became an all-powerful temporary worker under her.

The story of Catherine I is particularly noteworthy, because it was used to “work out” the peculiar concept of “transferring” purely to Peter’s wife manhood her great partner. This was supposed to raise her status in the eyes of society and make her a full-fledged heir to the throne. As you know, in 1714 Peter established the highest women's order of St. Catherine the Great Martyr. The first holder of this order, which had the motto “Through labor equals one’s spouse,” was Tsarina Catherine, who showed courage during the Prut campaign of 1711, when Russian troops, along with the Tsar and his wife, were surrounded and after the failure of negotiations, it seemed to many that the army would perish . Catherine insisted on continuing negotiations and, according to legend, handed over all her diamonds given to her by the Tsar during the years of their life together to bribe the Turkish military leader. On November 24, 1714, awarding his wife with this order, Peter said that the order “was established in memory of Her Majesty’s stay in the battle with the Turks near the Prut, where in such dangerous time not as a wife (that is, a woman - E.A.), but as a man’s person she was visible to everyone.” Later, in the decree of 1723 on the coronation of Catherine, he again remembered the ill-fated Prut and the courage of his fighting friend, who behaved not like a weak, cowardly woman, but like a man, which presupposes courage, self-control, courage and intelligence.

The famous court flatterer, Archbishop Feofan Prokopovich, boldly went further in praising the qualities of Catherine. In a solemn speech at the coronation of Catherine with the imperial crown on May 7, 1724, he not only played up the Prut incident that was probably stuck in everyone’s teeth, but, comparing Catherine with the famous (pious and holy) women of antiquity (Elena, Pulcheria, Evdokia), he was not afraid of the wrath of the Lord and he preferred his empress to these holy women and maidens, who, it turns out, combines qualities impossible for one woman: love of God, love for her husband, family, Fatherland, charity and mercy. This combination seems extraordinary to him. In the specific case of Catherine, according to Feofan, “female flesh does not detract from generosity.” In short, more than even the most great woman, is to become like a man. A few months after Catherine’s coronation, on March 10, 1725, Feofan Prokopovich, in his famous speech at the tomb of Peter the Great, said, addressing the widow: “The whole world is a witness that female flesh does not prevent you from being like Peter the Great.” In the context of the speech, this meant that a kind of reincarnation had occurred - his crown, spiritual virtues, intelligence and energy of the great transformer passed to Peter’s wife. Calling on everyone to rally even closer to the throne, Prokopovich continued: “empress and your mother, console yourself with the undoubted knowledge that you see Peter’s spirit in your monarch, as if not all of Peter has left us.” But, as we see from the later history with the formation of the Supreme Privy Council, the “reincarnation” failed, and an auxiliary male authority had to be created “at the side” of the new empress.

In 1727, Catherine I died. According to her will, the throne passed to 12-year-old Peter II (1727-1730). The affairs of the state continued to be managed by the Supreme Privy Council. However, changes took place in it: Menshikov was removed and exiled with his family to the distant Western Siberian city of Berezov, and the Tsarevich’s educator Osterman and two princes Dolgoruky and Golitsyn entered the Council. Ivan Dolgoruky, who had a huge influence on the young emperor, became Peter II's favorite.
In January 1730, Peter II dies of smallpox, and the question of a candidate for the throne again arises. The Supreme Privy Council, at the suggestion of D. Golitsyn, chose the niece of Peter I, the daughter of his brother Ivan - the Dowager Duchess of Courland Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740).

The ten years of reign of Peter I's niece Anna Ioannovna - from 1730 to 1740 - remained a gloomy timelessness in the history of Russia. Poorly educated, lazy, cruel and capricious, she was not capable of managing a huge empire. The published article by our famous historian, who studies the 18th century in Russia, talking about the years preceding the accession of the Duchess of Courland to the Russian throne, tries to identify in her upbringing and environment, character and circumstances of life those seeds that nurtured just such a person.

The surviving documents do not fully reveal the nature of Anna Ioannovna during her stay in Courland. Historians know little about her personal life, even less about the life of the court and her relations with the local nobility. But what is known gives grounds for an unambiguous conclusion: Anna Ioannovna was not even in the slightest ready to manage the complex governmental mechanism of a huge empire. Widow's life, the poverty of material opportunities with a tendency to waste, the need to meekly obey someone else's will to the detriment of personal interests - all this did not encourage the formation of a benevolent attitude towards others, cordiality, compassion and other virtues. On the contrary, long life in Mitau contributed to the emergence of a inferiority complex and the development of the rudiments inherited from the mother - cruelty, hypocrisy, and a tendency towards despotism.

The “sovereigns” offered the throne to Anna under certain conditions - conditions, according to which the empress actually became a powerless puppet. The guards, protesting against the conditions, demanded that Anna Ioanovna remain the same autocrat as her ancestors. Upon arrival in Moscow, Anna was already aware of the mood of wide circles of the nobility and the guard. Therefore, on February 25, 1730, she broke her standards and “committed herself to sovereignty.”

Having become an autocrat, Anna Ioanovna hastened to find support for herself mainly among foreigners who occupied the highest positions at court, in the army and in the highest government bodies. A number of Russian surnames also fell into the circle of people devoted to Anna: relatives Saltykovs, P. Yaguzhinsky, A. Cherkassky, A. Volynsky, A. Ushakov.

Anna Biron's Mittava favorite became the de facto ruler of the country. In the system of power that developed under Anna Ioanovna without Biron, her confidant, a rude and vindictive temporary worker, not a single important decision was made at all.

According to Anna Ioanovna's will, her great-nephew, Ivan Antonovich of Brunswick, was appointed as her heir. Biron was appointed regent under him. A palace coup was carried out against the hated Biron just a few weeks later.

His mother Anna Leopoldovna was proclaimed ruler under the young Ivan Antonovich. However, there were no changes in policy; all positions continued to remain in the hands of the Germans. On the night of November 25, 1741, the grenadier company of the Preobrazhensky Regiment carried out a palace coup in favor of Elizabeth - the daughter of Peter I - (1741-1761). Despite all the similarities of this coup with similar palace coups in Russia in the 18th century. (apex character, guard striking force), he had a number distinctive features. The striking force of the November 25 coup was not just the guard, but the lower ranks of the guards - people from the tax-paying classes, expressing the patriotic sentiments of broad sections of the capital's population. The coup had a pronounced anti-German, patriotic character. Wide layers of Russian society, condemning the favoritism of German temporary workers, turned their sympathies towards Peter's daughter, the Russian heiress. A feature of the palace coup on November 25 was that Franco-Swedish diplomacy tried to actively interfere in the internal affairs of Russia and, in exchange for offering assistance to Elizabeth in the struggle for the throne, to obtain from her certain political and territorial concessions, which meant a voluntary renunciation of the conquests of Peter I.

Elizabeth Petrovna's successor was her nephew Karl-Peter-Ulrich - Duke of Holstein - son older sister Elizaveta Petrovna - Anna and therefore on her mother's side - the grandson of Peter I. He ascended the throne under the name of Peter III (1761-1762). On February 18, 1762, a Manifesto was published on the granting of "liberty and liberty to the entire Russian noble nobility", t .e. on exemption from compulsory service. The “Manifesto,” which removed the age-old conscription from the class, was received with enthusiasm by the nobility. Peter III issued Decrees on the abolition of the Secret Chancellery, on allowing schismatics who had fled abroad to return to Russia, with a ban on prosecution for schism.

However, soon the policies of Peter III aroused discontent in society and turned metropolitan society against him. Particular dissatisfaction among the officers was caused by Peter III's refusal of all conquests during the victorious Seven Years' War with Prussia (1755-1762), which was waged by Elizaveta Petrovna. A conspiracy was ripe in the guard to overthrow Peter III. As a result of the latter, in the 18th century. In the palace coup carried out on June 28, 1762, the wife of Peter III was elevated to the Russian throne and became Empress Catherine II (1762-1796).

2. Reasons for palace coups.

The general prerequisites for palace coups include:

Contradictions between various noble factions in relation to Peter's legacy. It would be a simplification to consider that the split occurred along the lines of acceptance and non-acceptance of reforms. Both the so-called “new nobility”, which emerged during the years of Peter thanks to their official zeal, and the aristocratic party tried to soften the course of reforms, hoping in one form or another to give a respite to society, and, first of all, to themselves. But each of these groups defended their narrow-class interests and privileges, which created fertile ground for internal political struggle.
An intense struggle between various factions for power, which most often boiled down to the nomination and support of one or another candidate for the throne.

Active position the guard, which Peter raised as a privileged “support” of the autocracy, which, moreover, took upon itself the right to control the conformity of the monarch’s personality and policies with the legacy that her “beloved emperor” left.

The passivity of the masses, absolutely far from the political life of the capital.

The aggravation of the problem of succession to the throne in connection with the adoption of the Decree of 1722, which broke the traditional mechanism of transfer of power.

The spiritual atmosphere that emerged as a result of the emancipation of the noble consciousness from traditional norms of behavior and morality pushed for active, often unprincipled political activity, inspired hope in good luck and “omnipotent chance,” opening the way to power and wealth.

With the light hand of V. O. Klyuchevsky, many historians assessed the 1720s - 1750s. as a time of weakening of Russian absolutism. N.Ya. Eidelman generally considered palace coups as a kind of reaction of the nobility to the sharp increase in the independence of the state under Peter I, as historical experience has shown, he writes, referring to the “unbridledness” of Peter’s absolutism, that such a huge concentration of power is dangerous both for its bearer and for the ruling class itself." V.O. himself Klyuchevsky also associated the onset of political instability after the death of Peter I with the “autocracy” of the latter, who decided, in particular, to break the traditional order of succession to the throne (when the throne passed along a direct male descendant line) - by the charter of February 5, 1722, the autocrat was given the right to appoint himself successor at his own request. “Rarely has autocracy punished itself so cruelly as in the person of Peter with this law on February 5,” concluded Klyuchevsky. Peter I did not have time to appoint an heir for himself; the throne, according to Klyuchevsky, turned out to be given “to chance and became its toy”: it was not the law that determined who should sit on the throne, but the guard, which was the “dominant force” at that time.

The literature is dominated by discussions about the “insignificance” of the successors of Peter I. “The successors of Peter I, who reigned until 1762,” writes, for example, N.P. Eroshkin, author of a history textbook government agencies pre-revolutionary Russia - turned out to be weak-willed and poorly educated people who sometimes showed more concern for personal pleasures than for the affairs of the state.” Recently, however, there has been a certain revision of estimates, which has led to the conclusion that in the second quarter of the 18th century. What is observed is not a weakening, but, on the contrary, a strengthening of absolutism. Thus, historian D.N. Shansky states: “absolutism as a system in these years steadily strengthened and acquired greater maturity compared to the previous period.” The very term “era” of palace coups, according to Shansky, should be rejected, since it does not reflect the basic essence of the period under consideration, the main trends in the development of the state.

With all this, the struggle for the throne and around the throne, of course, greatly influenced the situation in the country.

The first coup was the accession of Catherine I. The formation of these parties was inevitable. On the one hand, elements hostile to the transformations of the first quarter gradually concentrated. 18th century, dissatisfied with the power and entourage of the king, on the other hand, the companions of Peter who suddenly lost their support, people who were created by turbulent times. There was a division over the issue of succession to the throne. Of the contenders for the throne in the male line, there was only one grandson of Peter I, the son of Tsarevich Alexei - Peter Alekseevich (the future Peter II). In the female line, the greatest chances were last wife Petra, Ekaterina Alekseevna Skavronskaya. Despite the consequences of the intrigue with Anna Mons's brother, the wife of the late king retained her influence and weight as the crowned wife of the sovereign.

The decree of February 5, 1722, which abolished the old rules of succession to the throne and ratified the personal will of the testator into law, contributed greatly to the ambiguity of the general situation. The figures of Peter the Great's era, who were always at odds with each other, temporarily rallied around Catherine's candidacy (A. D. Menshikov, P. I. Yaguzhinsky, P. A. Tolstoy, A. V. Makarov, F. Prokopovich, I. I. Buturlin, etc. ). Grouped around the grandson were mainly representatives of the high-born feudal aristocracy, now a few boyar families. Among them, the leading role was played by the Golitsyns and Dolgorukys, and they were also joined by some of Peter I’s associates (Field Marshal Prince B.P. Sheremetev, Field Marshal Nikita Repnin, etc.). Efforts by A.D. Menshikov and P.A. Tolstoy in favor of Catherine were supported by the guard.

The Life Guards - the Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky regiments - during this period represented the most privileged and generously paid stratum of the army. Both regiments were formed primarily from nobles. In particular, under Peter I there were up to 300 people in the life regiment among the rank and file of princes alone. The armed nobility at the imperial court was an important weapon in the struggle of court factions.

The reign of Anna Ioanovna (1730-1740) is usually assessed as a kind of timelessness; the empress herself is characterized as a narrow-minded, uneducated woman with little interest in state affairs, who did not trust the Russians, and therefore brought a bunch of foreigners from Mitau and from various “German corners”. “The Germans poured into Russia like rubbish from a leaky bag - they surrounded the courtyard, settled in the throne, and climbed into all the lucrative positions in government,” Klyuchevsky wrote.

Anna Ioanovna, although gifted with a sensitive heart and mind, did not have a strong will, and therefore easily put up with the leading role played by her favorite E. Biron at court and administration. But still, there is no reason to talk about a noticeable increase in the number of foreigners in the Russian service in the 30s of the 18th century. The historian T.V. Chernikova managed to prove that the Russian nobles were not worried about the “dominance of foreigners,” but about the strengthening under Anna Ioanovna of the uncontrolled power of foreign and Russian strongmen, the oligarchic claims of part of the nobility. At the center of the struggle that took place within the noble class, there was, therefore, not a national, but a political question. The version of “foreign dominance,” as Chernikova concludes, was born in the 40s-90s of the 18th century, in connection with opportunistic considerations of the then reigning monarchs, who were forced to somehow justify their seizure of the throne

Traditionally, historical literature claims that the coup of 1741 was of a “patriotic”, “anti-German” nature and was the culmination of the struggle of the Russian nobility against “foreign dominance” in the country. In fact, the guards who participated in the conspiracy were inspired by the idea of ​​​​restoring strong autocratic power in Russia, which had been shaken under the infant emperor. It is worth pointing out the active role of the “foreigners” Johann Lestock and the French ambassador J. Chetardy in preparing the coup.
It is also important that under Elizabeth there were no fundamental changes in the composition of the ruling elite of the state apparatus - only the most odious figures were removed. So, Elizabeth appointed A.P. as chancellor. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, who at one time right hand and Biron's creature. The highest Elizabethan dignitaries also included brother A.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and N. Yu. Trubetskoy, who by 1740 was the Prosecutor General of the Senate. There was a certain continuity of the highest circle of people who actually exercised control over the key issues of foreign and domestic policy, testified to the continuity of this policy itself.

Palace coups are special kind putsch (if you look at them “from the height of past years”), where everything is private, when the emperor, for example, is strangled during a friendly feast, like Peter the Third. These are feuds within one circle of people, one social circle, quite narrow and close to the emperor. This is a struggle between cliques of courtiers, this is a coup that does not affect the country. In this sense, the Decembrist uprising is much broader, because not only the guards are involved here, but also army regiments, and a very wide circle in the north and south.

Even the pre-revolutionary historian V.A. Myakotin developed the concept of this period. Its essence boiled down to the fact that 1) the broad masses of the people did not take part in palace coups; 2) at this time there was a steady strengthening of economic and political role nobility; 3) the reasons for the coups stemmed from the strengthened positions of the nobles. Having survived the extremism of social democratic historiography in the pre- and post-revolutionary years, this concept, in a slightly modified form, entered Soviet historical literature.

The period of palace coups ends with the overthrow of Peter III and the accession of Catherine II. Historians see the reasons for palace coups in the decree of Peter I “on changing the order of succession to the throne”, in the clash of corporate interests of various groups of the nobility. The driving force behind the coups was the Guard. Palace coups did not pursue the goal of radical changes in the political structure; there was only a transfer of power from one group of nobles to another. The consequence of palace coups is the strengthening of the political and economic role of the nobility.

Thus, the reasons that determined this era of revolutions and temporary workers were rooted, on the one hand, in the state royal family, and on the other hand, in the peculiarities of the environment that governed affairs.

3. The social essence of palace coups.

A.L. Yanov, describing the orgy of palace coups after the death of Anna Ioannovna, notes: “In all this madness, however, there was a system. For. The St. Petersburg grenadiers or life guards, like the entire Peter the Great service elite behind them, did not set themselves the goal of the accession of the next “colonel”, but the abolition of compulsory service (while maintaining all privileges and property). In other words, the return of the aristocratic status lost once again (for the “Petrine elite”, probably, the point was not at all in the return of this status, but only in its acquisition). They did not rest until they achieved their goal. And as soon as the only politically literate woman among the galaxy of Russian empresses, Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst, better known under the name of Catherine the Great, thought of the true reason for all this extraordinary political turmoil, the passions immediately subsided and yesterday’s arbitrariness was replaced by orderliness.”

Unfortunately, Yanov himself interprets this completely international process as specifically Russian, as “primordial Russian patterns of elite formation” (and as evidence of Russia’s alleged gravitation towards Europe with its high birth and independence of the position of the aristocracy from the will of the center). However this process proceeded everywhere, in all bureaucratic societies, although in different forms, determined by the civilizational characteristics of these societies and other, mainly political circumstances.

Palace coups did not entail changes in the political, much less social, system of society and boiled down to a struggle for power among various noble groups pursuing their own, most often selfish, interests. At the same time, the specific policies of each of the six monarchs had their own characteristics, sometimes important for the country. In general, the socio-economic stabilization and foreign policy successes achieved during the reign of Elizabeth created the conditions for more accelerated development and new breakthroughs in foreign policy that will happen under Catherine II.

According to Klyuchevsky, the St. Petersburg Guards Barracks was a rival of the Senate and the Supreme Privy Council, the successor to the Moscow Zemsky Sobor. This participation of the guard regiments in resolving the issue of the throne had very important political consequences; First of all, it had a strong effect on the political mood of the guard itself. At first an obedient instrument in the hands of her leaders, Menshikov, Buturlin, then she wanted to be an independent mover of events, intervened in politics on her own initiative; palace coups became a preparatory political school for her. But the guard of that time was not only a privileged part of the Russian army, cut off from society: it had an influential social significance, was a representative of an entire class, from among which it was almost exclusively recruited. The guard served as the color of that class, the layers of which, previously separated, under Peter I were united under the general name of nobility or gentry, and according to Peter’s laws it was mandatory military school for this class. Political tastes and aspirations, acquired by the guard through participation in palace affairs, did not remain within the walls of the St. Petersburg barracks, but spread from there to all noble corners, city and village. This political connection between the guard and the class that stood at the head of Russian society, and dangerous consequences What could happen from here was vividly felt by the powerful St. Petersburg businessmen of that time.

Therefore, simultaneously with the palace coups and under their obvious influence, two important changes are revealed in the mood of the nobility: 1) thanks to the political role that was imposed on the guard by the course of court affairs and so readily unlearned by it, such a demanding view of their importance in the state was established among the nobility, which he had not seen before; 2) with the assistance of this view and the circumstances that established it, both the position of the nobility in the state and its relationship to other classes of society changed

The main point is that the nobility thirsted for these coups. In the ordinary nobility, mercilessly driven out of provincial estates into regiments and schools, thought was refined by inventing ways to leave science and service, while in the upper strata, especially in the government environment, minds worked intensely on more sublime subjects. The remnants of the old boyar nobility still survived here, forming a rather close circle of a few families. From the general political excitement, a kind of political program was developed here, a rather definite view of the order that should be established in the state was formed.

In the conditions of political, legal and economic unfreedom of the entire Russian society, including its highest circles (it should be remembered that the famous decree on the freedom of the nobility was adopted only in 1761), the problem of limiting the power of the monarch, that is, creating a constitutional monarchy, becomes , it would seem, its supporters in all spheres of Russian society. It seems that Peter I was the first of the autocrats to understand this well. His creation of the Senate is nothing more than the beginning of work to create the foundations of the constitutional system. Paradoxical as it may sound, Russia should be considered the only state where this process did not take place under revolutionary pressure, but was a very deliberate and necessary step for the state and society on the part and on the initiative of the monarch himself.

This process has outlived its initiator. With the creation of the Supreme Privy Council and the limitation of the competence of the Senate only to issues of the highest judicial jurisdiction in Russia, the contours of the separation of powers emerge quite clearly, which is undoubtedly one of the most important signs of constitutionalism. This process would also be accompanied by the proposed division of supreme state power between the monarch and the Supreme Privy Council.

A contemporary and participant in those events, F. Prokopovich, describes in his memoirs the events and political sentiments of those years: “Many said that the scepter belongs to no one else but Her Majesty the Empress, just as the prophetic things and hers are, according to Her Majesty’s recent coronation . The Germans began to argue whether such a coronation gives the right, when in other nations queens are crowned, but for this reason they are not heirs?”

These discussions about succession to the throne were heard at spontaneous meetings of the highest circles of Russian society. Their participants were not competent to decide the issue of succession to the throne. The Senate had the authority to decide this issue. V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote well about its historical meeting: “While the senators were conferring in the palace on the issue of succession to the throne, guard officers somehow appeared in the corner of the meeting room, it is unknown who had been called here. They did not directly participate in the debates of the senators, but, like a chorus in an ancient drama, they expressed their judgment about them with sharp frankness, threatening to break the heads of the old boyars who would oppose Catherine’s accession.”

The Guard, and this is clear from subsequent events, was attracted by Menshikov and Buturlin. Her appearance both within the walls of the Senate and outside its walls was a compelling argument in resolving the issue of succession to the throne. It is possible that the threat of use military force, which, figuratively speaking, was in the air, also influenced the opinion of representatives of the former boyar families in the Senate. And yet, the main argument, in our opinion, was the new legal image of the monarchy that had formed in the public consciousness, according to which the practice of electing a tsar at the Zemsky Sobor actually ceased. According to the adopted legislation, the emperor himself was free to declare the heir to the throne. Naturally, in his choice he was limited by ruling house, an unspoken preference for male heirs still existed.

The Supreme Privy Council actually ruled the country during the reign of Elizabeth I and after the accession of Peter II. It was the first collegial governing body, although in general it lacked internal regulations. He was in some kind of intermediate state, either copying the tsar-autocrat, or the Boyar Duma. But, in any case, it was a new authority. Many procedural issues of its activities, like issues of other similar authorities, crystallized over the years, or even decades, when a certain tradition in their activities took shape. It is natural that great importance the activities of the Supreme Privy Council were imposed by one dominant personality. It is generally accepted that in the first two years it was His Serene Highness Prince Alexander Menshikov (1673-1729, Generalissimo. In 1718-1724 and 1726-1727 - President of the Military Collegium), in the remaining three years - Prince Dmitry Golitsyn ( 1665-1737, compiler of “standards”, in 1736 accused and convicted of participation in a conspiracy).

The “higher authorities” rejected the candidacy of Peter I’s daughter Elizabeth as illegitimate on the sole grounds that she was born before her parents’ official marriage, and decided to invite Anna Ioanovna, rightly believing that it would be easier to come to an agreement with her regarding the division of power. This fact went unnoticed by many historians. Meanwhile, this is a very important detail. In essence, the “conditions” were the implementation in practice of contractual principles in the arrangement supreme body state power. V. Kobrin was absolutely right when he believed that the election of a monarch is “a kind of agreement between subjects and the sovereign, and therefore a step towards the rule of law.” It seems that it does not matter where the tsar was elected - at the Boyar Duma, the Zemsky Sobor or at the Supreme Privy Council. Another thing is that from today’s perspective, spontaneous elections, which are not clearly regulated by a special law on the procedure for their holding, of course, indicate only the very rudimentary state of the rule of law. And yet they were and are strong evidence of the existence of legal traditions Russian statehood.

The Supreme Privy Council, if the plans of the “sovereigns” were successful, would assume the supreme power in the country, turning the empress into a bearer of purely representative functions. From a legal point of view, an analogy with the state principles of the British monarchy suggests itself here. However, the question remains unclear whether these innovations could take root on Russian state soil and whether political and legal life in Russia would turn into something similar to Poland, where the omnipotence of magnates, including the election of the king, significantly weakened the vertical of power. Was this understood in high circles Russian societies? Obviously, they understood, and a good reason for this, in our opinion, is the project of Prince A. Cherkassky on the state structure of Russia, developed in early February 1730. It was based on the concept of an associate of Peter I, the Russian historian V. Tatishchev.43 In its own way In essence, it was an alternative to the plans of the “supreme leaders”.

Be that as it may, the result of Peter’s reforms, which took place in the conditions of eliminating the remnants and beginnings of class-representative democracy, suppressing the democracy of the Cossack circle and squeezing the juice out of the people, became a great military power that smelted more steel of excellent quality than advanced England.
But over time, the ruling class, which the Asian mode of production also forces to work hard, gets tired of trying their best, and when the main tasks were completed and the whip fell from the hands of the reformer, the “top” began organizing their own affairs. The time of stagnation has come, despite all the external dynamism of the “era of palace coups.” Factories operated by inertia, expeditions were sent, regiments marched, but little by little everything fell into disrepair. However, the inertia was so great that it gave Koenigsberg into the hands of Russia, and the great Kant himself took the oath of allegiance to the Russian crown.

Peter III, an agent of Prussia and the faithful “brother” of his leader in the Masonic lodge, Frederick II, is trying to resolve the crisis. This figure combines both Boris Godunov and Grishka Otrepiev in one person. Russia, despite the “stagnation,” is too strong for anyone to decide to intervene, but, acting through its agents, the West is achieving a lot - the army is weakened, the results of the conquests of the Elizabethan regiments are surrendered. Russian soldiers are going obediently to shed blood for German interests, against their recent ally, Denmark. The national feeling of the Russian people is humiliated and insulted

This cannot continue for long and Peter is eliminated as a result of a palace coup. However, through the hands of this insignificant man, history has done a great thing - the decree “On the liberties of the nobility” was adopted. It would seem that this is a step back towards the restoration of feudalism. The nobleman is freed from subordination to the state, from the obligation of service and becomes a free master, master of his estate. But let's not mistake form for content. The Russian landowner is not a feudal lord at all and his estate is not a feudal possession, but normal full-blooded private property. He is not a steward of the land, but an owner operating in the conditions of the capitalist market, just as the slave-owner planters of America acted in the conditions of the market. Well, it’s true that they had fewer restrictions on the market.

So, another cycle has been completed.

One should not think that during the palace coups of the 20s-40s. There was only an unprincipled struggle for power, and only the coup of 1741 partially stood out from this series, since it took place under clearly expressed patriotic slogans of a return to the policies of Peter the Great and the struggle against foreign domination. The activities of the Supreme Privy Council cannot be interpreted one-sidedly. However, it should not be argued that all his activities were positive and exclusively beneficial.

The issue of the conditions of 1730 is debatable. Some scientists believe that the adoption of standards would lead to the triumph of a self-interested oligarchy and would cause great harm to Russia. Others believe that limiting autocracy, even oligarchic, could help establish legal principles in Russian society and the state. Which once again indirectly confirms the idea outlined above.

However, the last of the coups ended with the accession of Catherine, whose century was called golden by many historians.

Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--

1725–1762 - a period in the history of Russia, called the “era of palace coups” and characterized by frequent and abrupt changes of rulers, the strengthening of the nobility close to them, as well as instability government structure countries.

One of the most important phenomena of this period was the “Bironovschina”, which took place during the reign of Anna Ioanovna (1730-1740) and existed due to the reluctance and inability of the empress to personally lead the country. These years were characterized by the strengthening of the role of Anna Ioanovna’s favorite, E. Biron, in the governance of Russia, as well as the dominance of foreigners (mainly Germans) in the army and government. Also at this time, the recreated Secret Chancellery (since 1731) was actively operating, which suppressed all expressions of dissatisfaction with the policies pursued by E. Biron. This phenomenon led to the almost complete plunder of the country by foreigners brought in from abroad.

E. Biron himself played a major role in this phenomenon. He did not hold any particularly significant government positions at the court of the empress, but enjoyed great confidence from her, thanks to which he received enormous influence on the administrative apparatus, which he used to enrich himself.

Most often, it was Biron who appointed people to government positions, and since Since the empress's favorite gave special preference to his fellow countrymen from Courland and Germany, most of the most important posts were occupied by foreigners.

An equally important event of this period was the palace coup of 1762, one of the reasons for which was Peter III’s refusal of all Russian conquests gained during the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). The conspirators, among whom was the emperor’s wife, Ekaterina Alekseevna, and her favorites, managed to win over first the guard, and then the Senate and the Synod, after which the regiments loyal to the future queen headed towards Peterhof. Peter III, unable to withstand the looming threat, signed an abdication of the throne and was transported to the Ropshinsky manor, where he was later killed.

The consequence of this event was the accession to the throne of Catherine II.

Ekaterina Alekseevna herself played a special role in this event. After her relationship with her husband completely deteriorated, she decided to participate in the palace coup that was already being prepared and agreed to inherit the throne after Peter III. To his comrades and favorites, brothers Orlov and G.A. Potemkin, she entrusted campaigning in military units, which was successful. After her husband’s abdication, Ekaterina Alekseevna ascended the throne and issued a manifesto in which the basis for the overthrow of Peter III indicated his attempt to change the country’s religion and peace with Prussia, and confirmed her rights to the crown with the desire of all her subjects.

There are cause-and-effect relationships between the specified phenomenon and event. Anna Ioanovna’s passion for E. Biron led to his strong influence on the Russian state apparatus, and, consequently, to the beginning of the “Bironovism,” which demonstrated the harmful influence of foreigners on the country. Because Peter III expressed a clear dislike for everything Russian and love for foreign things; the desire to avoid a repetition of foreign domination became the reason for the coup of 1762, which led to the beginning of the era of “enlightened absolutism” of Catherine II.

Thus, 37 years of palace coups really became a period of frequent and abrupt changes of rulers, instability of the state structure, as well as the strengthening of representatives of the noble nobility at the court, in whose hands in certain periods all power was concentrated. Thus, during the reign of Catherine I and Peter II, the role of monarchs was fully performed by the Supreme Privy Council (1726-1730) and the representatives of the nobility who were members of it. Under Anna Ioanovna, a new similar body was formed, which performed almost the same functions (the Cabinet of Ministers (1731-1741)), and under Elizaveta Petrovna, the Conference at the Supreme Court operated, directing the affairs of the Senate and Synod. Thus, all the authorities created by Peter I fell into decay, and tendencies to limit their activities could be traced until 1917. During the period of palace coups, the role of the Russian nobility, which acted as support for each new ruler, increased significantly. In gratitude, the monarchs gave this class more and more privileges. Thus, Anna Ioanovna limited the service life of nobles to 25 years (1736), and canceled Peter I’s decree on single inheritance (1731), allowing them to fully dispose of their estates. Elizaveta Petrovna created the Noble Loan Bank (1753), and prohibited non-nobles from buying peasants, and Peter III issued a Manifesto on freedom for the nobility (1762), which allowed this class to leave service at any time, travel abroad and enroll in foreign service. It was after the era of “palace coups” that the nobility reached its peak and in subsequent years had a huge influence on the development of the entire country. In the foreign policy of these years, it is worth noting the actual victory of Russia in the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), which ended for our country with the Peace of St. Petersburg (1762), according to which all conquered territories went back to Prussia and which significantly undermined Russia's authority in the international arena. Also, during the reign of Catherine I, the Union of Vienna (1726) was concluded, which marked the beginning of a long partnership between Russia and Austria, which was broken only in 1856 at the Paris Conference, after the defeat of our country in the Crimean War (1853-1856).