BULLETIN OF THE PERM UNIVERSITY

2011 History Issue 2 (16)

INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF RUSSIA

UDC 930L(091):94(470+571)”17/19”

TSAR ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH IN NATIONAL HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE TIME OF NICHOLAS (1825-1855)

O. V. Grekova

An attempt is made to explore the main versions of the historiography of the period of the reign of the second Romanov in the national historical thought of the Nikolaev period.

The era of Alexei Mikhailovich attracted professional historians who saw in him the central figure of the Muscovite state of the 17th century.

Keywords Key words: historiography, Muscovy, reforms, power, social thought.

Domestic historiography of the first half of XIX century, as well as the whole century, was distinguished by positivist naivety: historians believed that it was possible to describe "how it really was." The historical thought of the Nikolaev time is characterized by the desire to comprehend the specifics historical development Russia within the framework of the “theory of official nationality”, the basis of which was considered the formula of S. S. Uvarov “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality”, proposed in a report to Nicholas I in 1832.

In Russian historiography of the second quarter of the XIX century. new authentic documents of the 17th century appear, connected with the life and work of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. It was this fact that aroused professional interest in the personality of the second Romanov among historians of the Nikolaev time.

The purpose of this article is to identify the historiographic features of the study of the life of the second Romanov during the thirty-year reign of Nicholas. The paper considers only the main generalizing works of historians on the specified period.

An early study entirely devoted to the time of Alexei Mikhailovich is the monograph by V. N. Berkh [Berkh, 1831]. The author served in the Admiralty Department and researched the history of the fleet and geographical discoveries. In 1828, Nicholas I officially approved him as a historiographer of the Russian Navy. The military historian became famous by writing a book about Alexei Mikhailovich, which was included in the trilogy about the reign of the first Romanovs. This study has an emotional panegyric character and is based rather on retelling of sources than on their analysis. All events are described in chronological order, but there are many factual errors, which the author explains by the fact that “there are very few domestic materials related to this kingdom” and he had to use only “manuscripts and very rare foreign books” [Berkh, 1831, p. . 17].

The second study, which appeared at the end of the reign of Nicholas I and is dedicated to the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, is the book of P. E. Medovikov, professor at Dorpat University [Medovikov, 1854]. He, like Berch, did not use the entire arsenal of published sources when creating his work. The author's goal was to assess the historical significance of the era of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, to comprehend it, resorting to an excursion into the past - Muscovite Rus' in the 15th - early 17th centuries. Medovikov, as later S. M. Solovyov, paid the main attention to the foreign policy events of the period. Five smaller chapters are devoted to the internal development of Russia. In them, the author summarized the conclusions of his predecessors about Russia in the 17th century. N. G. Chernyshevsky considered the views of the author generally accepted, not subject to dispute. He saw the merit of the work only in the conscientiousness of the historian, the rejection of the desire to "invent new views" [Chernyshevsky, 1854, p. 410]. Medovikov, like Solovyov, was a follower of the "skeptical school" in the historiography of the 19th century.

In 1846-1847. Solovyov dedicated a special course to the rule of the first three Romanovs, and subsequently he covered the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich in an article in the Sovremennik magazine [Solov'ev-

© O. V. Grekova, 2011

ev, 1852]. The author published almost completely, often for the first time, various sources. It is possible to conditionally single out three aspects in creating the image of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, to which Solovyov paid attention: biography, personality characteristics and activities of the tsar. The first two are specially highlighted at the beginning of the article, the political role of the second Romanov is seen in the context of the events described.

A huge contribution to the historical understanding and archeographic study of the reign of the second Romanov, his personal qualities and features of the worldview were introduced by I. E. Zabelin. Zabelin's work in the second quarter of the 19th century. should be considered within the critical direction historical science. The first, written back in 1840, the work of a historian, is devoted to one of the most important elements of the annual life cycle sovereigns of the XVI-XVII centuries. - Trinity campaigns. In fact, it describes the campaign of Alexei Mikhailovich in 1675 [Zabelin, 1847].

Small articles by Zabelin in the middle of the 19th century. were published in the Moskvityanin magazine [Zabelin, 1850]. The theme of the work is related to Russian life XVII centuries. These works became the basis for writing a more significant work by Zabelin [Zabelin, 1852], published in the journal Sovremennik. In it, the author combines elements of a portrait description of Alexei Mikhailovich, a source analysis of letters, and archaeographic criticism of P. I. Bartenev's publication [Bartenev, 1856]. The purpose of the work is to give a personal description of the second Romanov. Zabelin considered the epistolary work of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to be of paramount importance. He rightly considered the “Collected Letters” to be far from a complete edition of “what Alexei Mikhailovich ever wrote” [Zabelin, 1852, p. 203].

The value of the publication of the historian, literary critic, publisher Bartenev is that for the first time the letters of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich were collected in it. Published sources are systematized and provided with prefaces. Of great interest are the comments to the letters, where many terms, names, and the conditions for writing them are explained. Bartenev's desire to collect and comment on already published sources caused the seeming incompleteness and unscrupulousness of the collection, for which Zabelin negatively assessed him. Nevertheless, the fact that Bartenev published the letters became an event in the scientific life of Russia in the middle of the 19th century.

In 1854 appeared interesting job professors Kharkiv University A. P. Zernin [Zernin, 1854]. The historian was a supporter and follower of V. N. Ustryalov. Unlike other researchers who complained about the lack of sources, he noted: “With the present wealth of materials national history we have the opportunity to present in the most detailed way not only the state activities of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, but also to clearly depict the tsar in his private relations” [Ibid., p. 41].

It is important that the essay includes only those data on the history of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich that relate to his personality. Another new and important aspect work - a characteristic of Alexei Mikhailovich through his relationship with those close to him. Zernin's article had great importance not only to develop the historiography of the personality of Tsar Alexei, but also to draw attention to the study of historical figures along with political events. The author himself wrote about it this way: “Although my essay is of private interest, one cannot but agree on how much history benefits from images of this kind. Collecting in one place evidence about the properties and inclinations of persons of extensive historical significance, we explain a lot to ourselves when presenting the political events themselves” [Ibid., p. 71].

In the second quarter of the XIX century. new textbooks on history appeared. Textbooks, a kind of mirror of the historiographical situation, focused on various aspects of the activities of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, identified in general historical works. One of these textbooks was written by I. K. Kaidanov, an adjunct in the history of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. His work was "a guide to the initial study of Russian history" [Kaidanov, 1838].

Another historian, Professor of St. Petersburg University, Academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences V. N. Ustryalov [Ustryalov, 1842] in the 1830s. published a course of lectures "Russian History" as a textbook for students. Tutorials Ustryalov were the official and only history textbooks, it was according to them that education was carried out until the 60s. 19th century Scientific creativity Kaidanova and Ustryalova reflected the general trends in the development of historiographic science in the 20-40s. 19th century within the critical direction.

Let's move on to characterizing the content of the main works on the stated topic.

The fact of the birth of Alexei Mikhailovich was studied only by Zernin and Berkh, referring to the "Palace Ranks", where the date of birth is indicated - March 10, 1629, according to the old style. According to the new style, the heir of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was born on March 19, 1629. Zernin saw this event as a state meaning, since Mikhail Romanov immediately sent envoys to the boyars, nobles and foreign embassies with the news of the birth of the heir. Berch simply names the parents and the baptizer, without giving this event a political coloring. Other historians of the Nikolaev time did not even consider it necessary to mention this date and began describing the personality of the second Romanov from his accession to the throne in 1645.

In his essay, Zernin noted that “there is no special evidence about the upbringing and childhood of the prince” [Zernin, 1854, p. 44], in his opinion, he was brought up in the same way as all the royal children in the 17th century. At the same time, the author referred to the canonical work of a contemporary of Alexei Mikhailovich G. Kotoshikhin. Unlike other researchers of the Nikolaev time, Zabelin considered the tsar's education the result of not only reading, but also communication with Patriarch Nikon. The tsar “possessed quite ancient bookishness, since knowledge of natural sciences for that period of time they were in the category of fairy tales and epics” [Zabelin, 1852, p. 342].

Berkh did not describe the childhood years of Alexei Mikhailovich at all, so we cannot judge the upbringing of the tsar. Ustryalov characterized him more specifically: “Education was limited: at least many of them, even before accession to the throne, reached adulthood, took an active part in state affairs and replaced science with experience” [Ustryalov, 1842, p. 131]. The opinions of historians coincided only in that the participation of the prince in court ceremonies, conversations with foreigners, receptions was one of the elements of education of that time. Oddly enough, none of the historians revealed the role of Mikhail Fedorovich in raising his son.

The wedding ceremony for the kingdom of Alexei Mikhailovich is described by Berkh and Medovikov, but the authors talk about it in completely different ways. Berch focused on the tsar's speech and painted images of the first two Romanovs. So, according to the historian, Alexei Mikhailovich, the legitimate successor of the Rurik dynasty, in a solemn speech, describing the situation in Russia, went directly from Tsar Fedor Ioannovich to Mikhail Fedorovich, ignoring the tsars of the Time of Troubles. The first Romanov in this case was more moderate: when he was offered to remove the coffin of Tsar Boris Fedorovich from the tomb of the Russian tsars, he replied: “Boris was an enemy of my family, but he was the Russian Tsar” [Berkh, 1831, p. 30], and the coffin of Tsar Vasily Shuisky was placed next to the coffins of other tsars of Russia. Based on this act, we can conclude that Mikhail Romanov was more supportive of his predecessors.

Medovikov described not the wedding to the kingdom of Alexei Mikhailovich, but the process of taking the oath of allegiance to the king from the closest relatives to the common people. The author drew attention to the complexity of the rite of oath. The use of the term "assembly", and not "election", as it was in 1613, he considered a sign of the establishment of a new dynastic right. The following is not clear: was there a council that elected Alexei Mikhailovich to the kingdom? There are no direct indications from the sources of the Nikolaev time for holding such a council, but a similar practice existed in previous eras. In modern historiography, the procedure for enthroning Tsarevich Alexei Mikhailovich is devoted, in particular, to an article by O. E. Kosheleva [Kosheleva, 1999]. In her opinion, the oath was organized quickly, and there was no Council itself in 1645.

In the historiographic works of the Nikolaev time, considerable attention was paid to the characterization of the personality of the tsar's educator, the boyar B. I. Morozov. Zernin refuted the established opinion about the greed of the boyar, collecting opinions about Morozov from both foreign and domestic contemporaries. The first foreigner to mention the tutor of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was the Danish Prince Voldemar. During his stay in Russia, he noted that Morozov had power even at the court of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, as well as the location of the prince. Another foreigner, Adam Olearius, portrayed Morozov as an ambitious man who sought to strengthen and assert his power. The negative attitude towards this figure, according to Zernin, developed thanks to N. M. Karamzin, who substantiated his conclusions, referring only to the information of Olearius. Zernin, in turn, believed: “Under the modern requirements of national history, it would be strange to make a verdict on anyone on the basis of foreign news alone, without first reviewing domestic materials” [Zernin, 1854, p. 50].

From the point of view of Zernin, foreign sources can be partially trusted, but Kotoshikhin, who wrote a fundamental work on the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, and F. M. Rtishchev, close person Boyar, of course, you can. Zabelin tried to explain why Zernin refuted the established negative attitude towards Morozov. According to Zernin, “his pupil had high quality soul, therefore, must have the same high qualities of the soul, which the educator was famous for" [Ibid., p. 49]. In this polemical dispute, Zernin remained in the minority, since the historians of the Nikolaev time adhered to negative attitude to the boyar Morozov, highlighting his main vice - self-interest.

Of the close people with whom Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich spoke, Patriarch Nikon aroused the interest of historians. Zernin paid considerable attention to the biography of the patriarch, referring to the data cited by his biographer I. K. Shusherin in The Life of Patriarch Nikon.

The relationship between the king and the patriarch can be formally divided into two periods: before the quarrel and after it. The first period of relations was filled with respect and admiration from the king. According to historians Zabelin and Zernin, this is confirmed by the correspondence in which the tsar called his favorite “the great shining sun” [Ibid., p. 60], “mentor of soul and body” [Ibid., p. 61]. It can be seen from the correspondence that Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich gave the patriarch the role of an adviser, as well as a friend of the family, Medovikov draws attention to these aspects of the relationship between the tsar and the patriarch: “During the campaign, he left royal family in the care of Nikon, and the state... The Tsar bestowed on the patriarch the title of "Great Sovereign", which was called Filaret Nikitich" [Medovikov, 1854, p. 195].

After returning from military campaigns, the tsar found in Moscow "another great sovereign" - Nikon. The basis of the conflict between the tsar and Nikon is presented as a clash of two spiritually strong personalities in power. However, Medovikov did not attach any importance to this statement; the understanding of this had already come to Solovyov.

The second period of the relationship between the tsar and the patriarch, according to Medovikov, began with the birth of the conflict, but historians of the Nikolaev era cannot give an exact date for this. main reason conflict, all historians consider the influence of the negative opinions of others about Nikon. Medovikov saw one of the enemies of the patriarch in the boyar Morozov, who was afraid of the influence of "ill-intentioned people." The data that Morozov arranged "intrigues" against the patriarch are not given, probably because they do not exist. Under "ill-intentioned people" [Ibid., p. 194] meant the Old Believers, who appeared as a result of Nikon's reform and were persecuted by the church. Kaidanov was indignant at Nikon's behavior and characterized the tsar as wise ruler who tried to save a good relationship with Nikon, but the unauthorized patriarch decided to leave the flock. Ustryalov, on the contrary, enumerated the merits of the patriarch before the church and before the people. Summing up the work of Nikon, he wrote: “Without introducing either the sciences or the arts, correcting only the old, he gave best direction the main conditions of citizenship” [Ustryalov, 1842, p. 122].

Throughout the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, from time to time, the relations of the tsar with his inner circle came to the fore: N. I. Odoevsky, A. I. Matyushkin,

A. S. Matveev, A. L. Ordin-Nashchokin. Zernin singled out such personality traits of the tsar as simplicity and sincerity, which were clearly revealed in communication with Prince Odoevsky. In support of this, he cited a description of the death of the prince's son and the active participation of the king in organizing the funeral and consoling a close friend.

Relations with Matyushkin developed, according to Zernin, from childhood. The author listed several letters, explaining that they "are very diverse in content and refer to different periods of his life" [Zernin, 1854, p. 67]. Therefore, we can conclude that the tsar's correspondence with Matyushkin was constant, and therefore necessary and important for the tsar.

Medovikov, characterizing diplomatic activity in the era of Alexei Mikhailovich, described its prominent representatives - Ordin-Nashchokin and Matveev. He gave Special attention reasons for the departure of Ordin-Nashchokin from public service and the rise of Matveev, believing that the former had a large number of envious, but the second was not among them. Zabelin refuted this opinion, arguing that the whole entourage of the king was greedy, including Or-din-Nashchokin and Matveev. The historian considered his opinion irrefutable, since given fact"witnessed not only by foreign, but also by Russian sources, for example, Kotoshikhin"

[Zabelin, 1852, p. 338].

Historians attribute the reign of the second Romanov to pre-Petrine Rus', in which patriarchal concepts dominated, and one of the important events was the marriage of the tsar. Zernin wrote about the need for Moscow monarchs to marry foreigners, gave examples of the search for brides by tsars Ivan the Terrible and Mikhail Fedorovich. The problem of failed marriages, in his opinion, was the "alienation of the Muscovite state" [Zernin, 1854, p. 51], which probably meant differences in religious views. The historian himself did not comment on this.

Zernin paid great attention to the Danish embassy of Voldemar on the occasion of negotiations on marriage with Tsarevna Irina. Zernin regretted that the marriage was never concluded due to the unwillingness to change the faith of any of the parties. For the researcher, the rapprochement of Russian monarchs with foreign courts was important, since it served the political elevation of the state. None of the first Romanovs could enter into such a marriage, so the royal bride was chosen, as a rule, from a noble environment, preferably of humble origin.

Medovikov and Berkh explained the choice of the first wife of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich by the influence of the boyar Morozov. Berkh gave a description of the Miloslavsky family from the moment Morozov “had long-term plans for him” [Berkh, 1831, p. 43]. Zernin, on the other hand, cited information obtained by Kotoshikhin in defense of Morozov, and argued that “there is no direct undoubted evidence against Morozov in the case with the daughter of Raf Vsevolozhsky. But if there is no reason to blame him here, then there is no reason to attribute to his far-sighted calculation the choice of the daughter of Ilya Miloslavsky as a bride for the Tsar" [Zernin, 1854, p. 52]. The second marriage of the king was interesting only to Berhu. The description of marriage is practically reduced to listing the qualities that the king possessed - virtue and justice. According to the historian, the justice of the monarch consisted in the preservation of parochialism.

Historians of the second quarter of the XIX century. the worldview and personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich were also of interest, since Berkh, Zernin and Zabelin first raised the question of the personal characteristics of the tsar, a realistic description of his appearance, emotions. Some of their provisions have become textbooks: "... Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich's attention to his sisters deserves special mention" [Zabelin, 1852, p. 338], “... loving everything in order and wanting to bring it into a system, he wrote the falcon charter itself” [Ibid., p. 350]. Berkh tried to characterize the personality of the king in connection with his appearance: “His character corresponded to this handsome appearance. Although he was an autocratic monarch, he punished only for one need, and then with heartfelt regret" [Berkh, 1831, p. 26]: “...he was very quick-tempered and in moments of anger gave free rein to his hands, but was not vindictive” [Ibid., p. 29].

Important for this topic is Zernin's essay, which includes "only those data from the history of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich that relate to his personality, starting from the time when he first stepped out of a secluded chamber into a vast field" [Zernin, p. 42]. The author gives a description of Alexei Mikhailovich through his relationship with close dignitaries. “Depicting Morozov and Nikon in their private relations with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, we saw solid evidence of his excellent qualities” [Ibid., p. 63]. These "properties" are "simplicity", "sincerity".

Zabelin compiled portrait characteristics based on a source analysis of letters. The sincerity of Alexei Mikhailovich in describing the posthumous changes in Patriarch Joseph is an indication that the author of such lines “could not belong to the number of people who really hide living face» [Zabelin, 1852, p. 329]. The letters presented the king as "a gentle friend, capable of ardent affection." Mercy is “the predominant feature in the character of Alexei Mikhailovich” [Ibid., p. 331]. It found expression in love for the poor, philanthropy, gracious indulgence towards people. “The very passion for falconry also serves as a true characteristic of the noble directions of his taste” [Ibid., p. 333].

A letter of commendation to Ordin-Nashchokin in 1658, a fragment of which is given by Zabelin, leads the author to the idea that the sovereign highly valued, first of all, the moral virtues of a person, “and then a faithful and diligent servant” [Ibid., p. 209]. The king clothed his relations with people "in a sense of friendliness and kinship." But the tsar's mercy cannot be called illegible; to define it, Zabelin used a special term - "reasonable mercy" [Ibid., p. 333].

The feeling of truth is one of the main ones in the character of the king, and this is not just a "speculative"

true, she is in the highest degree active, practical” [Ibid., p. 335]. Another element of the worldview - "consciousness of duty" - "appeared in Alexei Mikhailovich in that strict purity, in that holiness that places the tsar high above his contemporaries" [Ibid., p. 338], whose main quality was self-interest.

For the first time in Zabelin's article, the question of the aesthetic views of the second Romanov was raised: "He loved structure, orderliness, not only because it sets and announces beauty and surprise (surprise is the same as elegance with us)" [Ibid., p. 339]. Also, for the first time in Russian historiography, the role of Alexei Mikhailovich in the organization of the royal court, the formation of the canons of court culture was noted. “The royal palace and court got a completely different look under him: foreigners repeatedly expressed their amazement at the sight of the magnificence with which the Moscow tsar surrounded himself” [Ibid.].

The personality and views of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich are presented by other authors very poorly. Virtually nothing is said about the role of the sovereign in the events described. Medovikov was interested in the special piety of the tsar, the creation of a court theater by him. Thus, he did not introduce anything new into the historiography of the personality of Alexei Mikhailovich. The reason for this is in the source study position of the author. He believed that, due to the fading of chronicle writing, the 17th century “represents too little historical monuments»of personal origin [Medovikov, 1854, p. 4].

The various types of hobbies of the king speak of his versatile interests, but a special place among them belongs to falconry. In his work, Zernin paid much attention to the description of royal hunting, especially falconry, referring to Kotoshikhin and Meyerberg. In particular, he was interested in what animals were hunted and how they were delivered to the places where the hunt was carried out.

Zernin was of the opinion that falconry was fun for the king, Medovikov was in solidarity with him, although he referred to another historical source of the 17th century. - "Palace ranks". Zabelin refuted this opinion. He argued that falconry is an occupation of noble people, requiring knowledge of the matter from them. As confirmation of his point of view, he cited letters from the tsar to Matyushkin, in which the tsar gave "exact instructions on how to take care of the birds, teach and observe." [Zabelin, 1852, p. 333].

Berch did not touch on the procedure of falconry itself, he was more interested in the type of royal falcons described by Meyerberg. One nuance that the author noted is interesting: “... in addition to hunting, the king alone went to bear” [Berkh, 1831, p. 240]. For obvious reasons, this message can hardly be true, since in the event of the death of the king, a repetition of the Time of Troubles was possible, which would be highly undesirable.

Under Aleksey Mikhailovich, falconry was a system of ceremonies in the form of a "commander of the falconer's way" [Bartenev, 1856, p. 87-138]. Unfortunately, only Zabelin was interested in this work. He carried out textological work, establishing literary sources, used by the tsar, studied certain terminological, historical features of documents and came to the conclusion that the authors of the "Sergeant" relied on existing officials, in particular on the "Order of Metropolitan Joseph in 1539" [Zabelin, 1852, p. 365].

In addition, Zabelin does not agree with P. A. Bessonov, who singled out the active and speculative parts in The Officer, believing that “The Officer is simply divided into a preface, or introduction, and a description of the rites” [Ibid., p. 361]. Zabelin is absolutely sure of the authorship of the foreword of the "Sergeant": "... the hunter-king, without a doubt, he himself compiled this foreword", part of it "he attributed with his own hand" [Ibid., p. 362].

As for the expression from the “Sergeant” “Time for work and an hour for fun” [Ibid.], Zabelin did not believe that the tsar gave fun only an hour. "Hour" in this case is a synonym for the word "time". These words express the idea that everything has its time: both business and fun. True, a little earlier in his work, Berch gave a similar interpretation of this expression, calling the king wise.

It should be noted that the XVII century. was the time of the cult of sacred qualities and phenomena. In this regard, it is important to consider the components of court life that contribute to the isolation and sacralization of the king's personality. Hunting was one of the ways to sacralize the monarch, to demonstrate his "otherness". Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, falconry was formalized legally, separated from animal hunting and subordinated to the Order of Secret Affairs.

Attracts attention great value, which was attached to hunting: special state assignments to falconers, hunting during military and pilgrimage campaigns, a system of rewards and punishments associated with hunting, the amount of time (often the king spent whole daylight hours hunting) and the personal attention occupied by hunting. Royal birds were given as the highest award for outstanding achievements in government activities. Berkh gives the following example: "...four gyrfalcons were presented to N. I. Odoevsky for concluding an agreement with Poland on the election of Alexei Mikhailovich to the Polish throne after the death of Jan Casimir" [Berkh, 1831, p. 242].

In the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, Zernin singled out two periods, “the nature of which is significantly different” [Zernin, 1854, p. 42]: before the war with Poland (dominance of internal affairs) and after (predominance of external affairs). Other historians have retained the traditional division: the activities of the king at the beginning and at the end of the reign. Discussions among historians began with the question: did the tsar rule at the beginning of his reign himself, or did Morozov do it instead? The first opinion was shared by Zernin and Berch. In particular, Zernin wrote: “In the first half of his reign, Alexei Mikhailovich took an active part in state affairs” [Ibid., p. 56].

Berkh began the description of the reign of the tsar from the moment he solved the issue that Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov could not solve. It's about about the marriage of Princess Irina to the Danish Prince Voldemar. The second important political action was the drafting of a new trade law, according to which foreign merchants were limited in trade in Russia, which in turn led to the stabilization of the Russian treasury. Summing up the beginning of the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the historian called his reforms wise.

The opposite opinion was held by Ustryalov and Medovikov. The first compared the beginning of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich with the reign of the careless Fyodor Ioannovich, noting that "the young tsar was little involved in state affairs" [Ustryalov, 1842, p. 120], while Morozov replaced the tsar for a time and “wanted to be the second Godunov” [Ibid.]. The second explained why Alexei Mikhailovich could not rule independently and with dignity at first: “the king lacked firmness and experience, characteristic of years more mature", and "fate did not give him a leader, such as young Mikhail had in Filaret Nikitich" [Medovikov, 1854, p. 53].

In the historiography of the Nikolaev time, historians paid considerable attention to the foreign policy activities of the monarch. Medovikov identified three areas in it that were of interest to authors of the second quarter of the 19th century: 1) relations with Poland and Sweden, 2) peaceful relations with European countries, 3) border security. And this really corresponds to the material that is reflected in the works of many historians.

The foreign policy of Alexei Mikhailovich, from the point of view of Ustryalov, is similar to the policy of Dmitry Donskoy and John III. He wrote a description of the war with Sweden. Ustryalov identified three stages in the war: the first - the victory of Sweden and the defeat of the Russian troops as a result of parochialism and the introduction of copper money; the second - the conduct of negotiations for three years, which did not allow an agreement to be reached; the third is the signing of a peace treaty in 1661.

The accession of Little Russia to Russia is described by Berkh in chronological order. Medovikov devoted a significant part of his work to this topic. He singled out three stages in this process: the first - the decision on the annexation of Little Russia in the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich; the second (1645-1654) - the peaceful recognition of citizenship; the third is the approval of new arms acquisitions. According to the historian, "... the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich is an important era, with him the annexation of Little Russia" [Medovikov, 1854, p. 64].

During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich European countries sought an alliance with Muscovy, each pursuing its own goals. Russia needed to establish itself on international arena and participate in political life Europe. Therefore, diplomatic relations occupied an important place in monographs about the time of Alexei Mikhailovich. For example, Berch listed those countries with which Russia had embassy business: England, Holland, France, Spain, Austria, China, Georgia. This list can be supplemented by Denmark, Venice, Tuscany, according to another historian - Medovikov, who, unlike Berch, singled out peaceful relations in a separate chapter, explaining that "relations with foreign powers in the second half of the 17th century are becoming more and more numerous" [There same, s. 145]. The merit of his work lay also in the fact that he characterized relations not only with Western countries, but also with the eastern ones - Turkey,

Persia, India and China. Berch limited himself to analyzing relations only with China. The Moscow embassy to him was unsuccessful, although the historian argued that the Chinese dignitaries and the emperor began to treat the Russian state with respect, since “the Russians refused to perform those humiliating rites that the Chinese nobles demanded of them” [Berkh, 1831, p. 91]. Medovikov considered the negotiations with China from a political point of view and recognized the embassy as unsuccessful, because as a result of it he had to "for 20 years establish relations with China only from Siberian chiefs" [Medovikov, 1854, p. 156]. The historian also stated the fact of the unsuccessful embassy to India, however, he did not name the reasons.

One of the features of the historiography of the Nikolaev time is the lack of material on the borrowing and use of foreign knowledge for the development of education in Russia. One gets the impression that Alexei Mikhailovich did not set himself such a task, which is strange, since many historians called the tsar an "enlightened monarch."

The third direction in the foreign policy of Alexei Mikhailovich was usually reduced by historiographers to the conquest of the southern and Siberian peoples. None of the historians addressed this topic, there is only a cursory mention of the achievements of S. Dezhnev, E. Khabarov, fragmentary information about the conquest of the Bashkirs, Kalmyks.

The domestic policy of Alexei Mikhailovich was considered by historians of the second quarter of the 19th century. through the prism of financial, legislative and military reforms. For example, Medovikov called this period a financial crisis. In his opinion, the speech of the people against copper money was provoked by the boyar Morozov, but Berkh had a different opinion, citing evidence of the influence of foreign merchants on the discontent of the masses.

Legislative reform is presented by historians in fragments, and only by combining all the available information about the reform, one can get a relatively clear picture of it. In particular, Kaidanov believed that "...after the rebellion, the impressed tsar realized the need to create justice" [Kaidanov, 1838, p. 33]. Ustryalov described the process of creating the Cathedral Code, which, in his opinion, consisted in correcting and supplementing previous laws. Medovikov, on the other hand, believed that “in the future, Alexei Mikhailovich supplements the Code with new decrees” [Medovikov, 1854, p. 164]. Thus, none of the historians complete description The Council Code of 1649 was never presented.

The military reform was also summarized as the first attempt to create a navy and army in the European manner. Medovnikov, Berkh, Ustryalov give leading role in the formation of the first version of the domestic fleet to Ordin-Nashchokin. In their opinion, the figure of the king in resolving this issue was secondary, he thought about the fleet, but did not set himself the goal of creating it.

Summing up domestic policy Alexei Mikhailovich, we note the following: the historians of the Nikolaev time did not believe that the tsar laid the foundation for the reforms of Peter I. In their opinion, he ruled according to the old established principles, which he did not seek to go beyond.

On the basis of the study, it is possible to highlight the features of the historiography of the Nikolaev time:

The first monographic works devoted to the personality and activities of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich appeared in Russian historiography. The studies of the Nikolaev period were, of course, of a scientific nature, but most likely did not correspond to the goals that the authors themselves set for themselves. There is nothing fundamentally new in these writings; historians have only summarized previously known facts. The value of this kind of work lies in creating the basis for fundamental works titans of Russian historical thought - S. M. Solovyov,

V. O. Klyuchevsky, S. F. Platonov;

In Russian historiography, publications of individual royal letters appeared. So, P. A. Mukhanov published a collection of historical documents, including twenty-two letters from Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to the steward Matyushkin. It was on the basis of these letters that many historical works of the Nikolaev time were created. The study of the correspondence allowed historians to compile a partial psychological portrait of the second Romanov;

In Russian historiography, all studies were characterized by incomplete information. Historians used mainly the materials of contemporaries of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, both Russian and foreign: Kotoshikhin, Olearius, Meirberkh, Collins, etc. And contemporaries of any era were inclined to exaggerate the achievements of the ruler, which led to a distortion of historical reality. Authentic documents of the 17th century, published in the second quarter

ti XIX century. in the Acts of the Archaeographic Expedition [Acts of the Archaeographic Expedition, 1836, vol. 2, 4], Acts of Historical [Acts of Historical, 1841, vol. 2; 1842, v. 5], Palace ranks [Palace ranks 1612-1700, 1850-1855; Supplements to the Palace ranks, 1854], unfortunately, the researchers almost did not use;

Historiographic works were filled with panegyric and apologetic characteristics. Historiographic science was also influenced by the internal political course of the state. The reign of Nicholas I went down in history as "the apogee of autocracy." Rigid obedience to the rules and norms of the political course concerned everyone, and first of all historical science, therefore autocratic dignity, good relations for people, love for "orderliness" took place in all historical works;

In Russian historiography, all studies contained factual errors. This can be explained by the fact that historians did not own the sources to the extent necessary to create full-fledged works. Examples include Berch's statement about an allegedly public theater during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, or Zabelin's statement that the plague of 1654 prevented Russia from defeating Sweden;

Historians of the Nikolaev time call the 17th century. archaic and call it the pre-Petrine era. The authors of the considered works drew parallels, comparing Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with the princes and kings of the past, for example, with Dmitry Donskoy, John III and Fedor Ioannovich.

Bibliographic list

Acts of the Archaeographic Expedition. St. Petersburg, 1836. Vol. 2, 4.

Historical acts. St. Petersburg, 1841. Vol. 2; 1842. Vol. 5.

Bartenev P.I. Collection of letters of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with the application of the Code of the Falconer's Way // Sovremennik. 1856. No. 3.

Berkh VN The reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. SPb., 1831. Part 1.

Palace ranks 1612-1700 SPb., 1850-1855. T. 1-4.

Additions to the Palace ranks. SPb., 1854.

Zabelin I. E. Palm Sunday in the old days // Moskvityanin. 1850. No. 8.

Zabelin I.E. Notes on the old carnival // Moskvityanin. 1850. No. 5.

Zabelin I.E. Trinity campaigns of Russian tsars. M., 1847.

Zabelin I.E. The royal exit on the day of the Epiphany // Moskvityanin. 1850. No. 1.

Zabelin I.E. Features of Russian life in the seventeenth century // Sovremennik. 1852. No. 3.

Zernin A.P. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (a historical description from the internal history of Russia in the 17th century) // Moskvityanin. 1854. No. 14.

Kaidanov I.K. Brief outline Russian history. SPb., 1838.

Kosheleva O. E. Summer of 1645: a change of faces on the Russian throne // Almanac. Individual and unique in history. M., 1999.

Medovikov P. E. Historical meaning reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. M., 1854.

Solovyov S. M. Review of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov // Sovremennik. 1852. No. 3, 4. Ustryalov N. G. Inscription of Russian history, for medium educational institutions. SPb., 1842. Chernyshevsky NG The historical significance of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. Composition by P. E. Medovikov. M., 1854. T. 2.

“People of former generations were afraid to take even material comforts from the West, so as not to damage the moral covenant of their fathers and grandfathers, with whom they did not want to part as with a shrine, after we began to willingly neglect this covenant, so that the material comforts borrowed from West.

Tsar Alexei and his peers cherished their Orthodox antiquity no less than their ancestors, but for some time they were sure that it was possible to flaunt in a German caftan, even look at foreign fun, “comedy action”, and at the same time keep intact those feelings and concepts that are necessary in order to think with pious fear of the possibility of breaking the fast in Epiphany Christmas Eve to the star."

Another thought of Klyuchevsky is devoted to the duality of thoughts and actions of Alexei Mikhailovich: “Habit, family and other relationships tied him to old thinkers. (Starodums Klyuchevsky called conservatives, ardent adherents of antiquity. - V. B.). The needs of the state, responsiveness to everything good, personal sympathy pulled him to the side of smart and energetic people who, in the name of the people's good, wanted to do business not in the old way. The tsar did not interfere with these innovators, even supported them, but only until the first thought, until the first energetic objection from the old-timers.

The third thought of the remarkable historian: “Despite his passive character, his good-natured and indecisive attitude towards the issues of the time, Tsar Alexei greatly contributed to the success of the reform movement. With his often disorderly and inconsistent impulses for the new and with his ability to smooth and settle everything, he tamed the timid Russian thought to influences coming from a foreign side. He did not give guiding ideas for the reform, but helped the first reformers with their ideas ... he did not give either a plan or a direction for transformations, but he created a transformative direction ... This face reflected the first moment of the transformative movement, when the leaders did not yet think of breaking it with their past and break the existing. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich adopted a pose in the transformational movement corresponding to such a view of the matter: with one foot he still firmly rested on his native Orthodox antiquity, and the other was already brought beyond its line, and he remained in this indecisive transitional position. He grew up with a generation that for the first time was forced by need to look carefully and anxiously at the heretical West in the hope of finding there means to get out of domestic difficulties, without renouncing the concepts, habits and beliefs of pious antiquity.

It was the only generation among us that thought like that: they didn’t think like that before and stopped thinking later.”

For the period 1613-1676. the reign of the first Romanovs falls: Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexei Mikhailovich, father and son, on whose shoulders the cares of the whole state were placed. During their reign, all spheres of society have undergone changes. This is the formation of autocracy, and economic recovery, and the annexation of lost territories, and much more, but the 17th century was also called "rebellious" and there were reasons for this.

In 1613, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was elected tsar at the Zemsky Sobor, marking the beginning of a new dynasty.

His main task was to restore the economy after the devastation of the Time of Troubles, and in foreign policy - the return of the lands lost during the years of the Time of Troubles and the further expansion of the country's territory. Thanks to the support of the Zemsky Sobor, which was convened almost continuously for the first 10 years, and Patriarch Filaret, Father Mikhail, who ruled the country with his son until his death, the situation in Russia stabilized, peace came to the country for several decades, which made it possible to develop the economy and advance the country to new transformations. During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the transformation of the estate-representative monarchy into an autocratic one began, good ground was prepared for the successor to the royal power, Alexei Mikhailovich.

One of the most important activities of Alexei Mikhailovich was the adoption of a new set of Russian laws - the Cathedral Code of 1649. Its main provisions related to the completion of the enslavement of the peasants (confirmation of the abolition of St. George's Day and the establishment of an indefinite search for fugitive peasants), protection of the interests of the nobility and the top of the townspeople, etc. The reasons for enslavement were hidden behind the desire of the tsar to maintain the support of the boyars and nobles, that is, those who owned the land and carried military and civil service. The process of formation of absolutism was reflected in the Cathedral Code. The code of laws included a chapter regulating relations with the sovereign and severe punishments for the slightest misconduct against the sovereign and the state. Thus, the adoption of the Council Code strengthened the influence of the king, the position of the nobility.

Between the events of the period 1613-1676. there are causal relationships. All the events of this period were dictated by the aggravation of social contradictions in the country and the interest of all segments of the population in the need for clear laws, the need to strengthen the central government.

Historians give an ambiguous assessment of the government, especially Alexei Mikhailovich, because, on the one hand, the country made a big step forward (elements of capitalism appeared, the tax system changed, a policy of protectionism was pursued), the Cathedral Code became the main legislation of the country on long years, there were achievements in foreign policy. The actions of the tsars of the 17th century largely prepared the reforms that Peter I would carry out at the beginning of the 18th century.

On the other hand, the final enslavement of the peasants took place, many social actions (1648 - Salt Riot, 1662 - Copper Riot, 1670-1671 uprising led by Stepan Razin, etc.), split the church. Many historians, evaluating the activities of Alexei Mikhailovich, speak of him as a quiet and gentle person, not very decisive, but, despite this, enough strong state ready for further changes.

On March 19, 1629, the Empress made Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich happy with the birth of her son. They named him Alex. The future king was born, who replaced his father on the throne. Until the age of five, Alexei, as befits royal children, grew up in the tower of the Moscow palace, surrounded by a large staff of mothers. At the age of five, he was placed in the care of the teacher Boris Ivanovich Morozov. Since that time, Tsarevich Alexei began to be taught to read and write. At the age of seven, Alexei was taught to write, and at nine, they began to teach church singing. This, in fact, ended education. In the 14th year, the prince was solemnly announced to the people, and two years later, when Mikhail Fedorovich died, he had already ascended the royal throne.

Due to his youth and inexperience, the new Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich could not govern the state, so his tutor Boris Ivanovich Morozov was in charge of all affairs. Only in the late 40s. Alexei Mikhailovich directly proceeds to manage state affairs. This happened as a result of the city uprising in Moscow in 1648, when the sovereign promised the rebels to remove Morozov from business. In general, the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich cannot be called calm. In addition to the Moscow uprising of 1648 already mentioned, Russia experienced strong popular unrest in Novgorod and Pskov in 1650, in Moscow in 1662, and in 1670-1671. had to suppress the revolt of Stepan Razin on the Don and in the Volga region.

In the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, a code of laws of the Russian state was drawn up - Cathedral code, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in 1648-1649. after the uprising in Moscow. The Council Code remained the basic law in Russian state up to the first half of the 19th century.

Alexei Mikhailovich patronized the merchants, protecting them from the competition of foreign merchants. This, in particular, was facilitated by the adopted in 1653 and 1667. Customs and New Trade Charters. Alexei Mikhailovich led an active foreign policy. He took part in military campaigns. The successes of Tsar Alexei include the reunification of Ukraine with Russia in 1654. At the same time, Alexei Mikhailovich was lucky in the fight against the Turks and Tatars for the security of the southern borders of the Russian state. Attempts to achieve access to the Baltic Sea did not give a positive result.

It was not just family affairs that evolved with Alexei Mikhailovich. He was married twice. For the first time, he married Maria Ilinichnaya Miloslavskaya. For twenty-one years life together they had eleven children—six daughters and five sons. However, the princes were very sickly. Two of them - Dmitry and Alexei - died during the life of their father and mother. Three years after the death of Tsarina Marya Ilyinichna, Tsar Alexei (in 1672) married Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina. From this marriage, the future Tsar Peter and two more daughters, Natalia and Theodora, were born. The king did not have to live with his young wife for long. In 1676, Alexei Mikhailovich died, having blessed his eldest son Fyodor, who had been on the throne for only six years, leaving behind neither children nor bright deeds.

Literature about Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich is quite diverse, but, unfortunately, it is mainly represented by authors of the pre-revolutionary period. Most of it remains inaccessible to the general readership. However, the reader can be helped out by the books of V. O. Klyuchevsky, S. M. Solovyov, A. E. Presnyakov, K. Valishevsky, reprinted already in Soviet times.

V. O. Klyuchevsky and A. E. Presnyakov presented an analysis of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich in various fields state life. At the same time, the authors give detailed descriptions character of the king. S. M. Solovyov explores the period of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich in strict chronological order. Acquaintance with the works of this historian allows you to fully experience the complexity of the time during which the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich fell. Here are both external troubles and internal ones, among which is the rebellion of Stenka Razin. Despite the similarity in the assessments of Alexei Mikhailovich, each of the historians notices something special in him, which together creates a fairly complete picture of the ambiguous and contradictory personality of the tsar.

FACTS AND OPINIONS

“In his mature years, Tsar Alexei represented an extremely attractive combination of the good qualities of an ancient Russian man faithful to the old days with a penchant for useful and pleasant innovations. He was a model of piety, that orderly, accurately measured and firmly learned piety, on which the religious feeling worked so much and for a long time. ancient Rus'. With any monk, he could argue in the art of praying and fasting: on Sundays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, on Sundays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, the king ate once a day, and his food consisted of cabbage, milk mushrooms and berries - all without oil; on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays during all fasts, he did not eat or drink anything. In church, he sometimes stood for five or six hours in a row, made a thousand prostrations to the earth, and on other days, one and a half thousand. He was a devout old Russian pilgrim who harmoniously and wholeheartedly combined bodily labor with the tension of religious feeling in the feat of spiritual salvation ...

In Tsar Alexei there is not even a shadow of arrogance, that ticklish and suspicious, touchy lust for power, which Grozny suffered from. “It is better to make a fishery before God with tears, zeal and meanness (humility) than by force and glory (arrogance),” he wrote to one of his governors. This combination of power and meekness helped the tsar get along with the boyars, to whom, during his participation in management; sharing power with them, acting hand in hand with them was a habit and a rule for him, and not a victim or an unfortunate concession to circumstances ...

By nature, lively, impressionable and mobile, Alexei suffered from a temper, easily lost his temper and gave too much room to his tongue and hands. Once, at the time of already strained relations with Nikon, the tsar, indignant at the arrogance of the patriarch, quarreled with him in church because of a church rite. good friday and scolded him with the then usual abuse of Moscow strong people, not excluding the patriarch himself, calling Nikon a peasant, ... a son. Another time, in his beloved monastery of Savva Storozhevsky, which he had recently rebuilt, the tsar celebrated the memory of the holy founder of the monastery and the renovation of the monastery in the presence of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch. At the solemn matins, the reader began reading from the life of the saint with the usual exclamation: bless, father. The king jumped up from his chair and shouted: “What are you talking about, man, ... son: bless, father? Here is the patriarch; say: bless, lord!". During the service, the tsar walked among the monks and taught them to read this and that, sing this, if they were mistaken, corrected them with abuse, behaved as a usher and church warden, lit and extinguished candles, removed from them, the nagar, during the service, did not stop talking with the visiting patriarch who was standing next to him, he was at home in the temple, as if no one was looking at him. raised the king above the rudest of his subjects. Religious and moral feeling was shattered by an ill-mannered temperament, and even good movements of the soul received an obscene expression. he walks, he is always put to shame: such was the worldly observation of the king.

Klyuchevsky V. O.

“The very appearance of the king immediately spoke in his favor and attracted him. In his living blue eyes shone rare kindness; the look of these eyes, according to a contemporary, did not frighten anyone, but approved and encouraged. The face of the sovereign, full and ruddy, with a fair beard, was complacently friendly and at the same time serious and important, and his full (later too full) figure retained a majestic and dignified posture. However, the regal appearance of Alexei Mikhailovich did not arouse fear in anyone: it was felt that it was not the personal pride of the tsar who created this posture, but the consciousness of the importance and holiness of the dignity that God placed on him.

Presnyakov A. E. (3, pp. 60-61).

“His views on life and on the world were those of an unconditional optimist and an unconscious determinist. In the secular entertainments that he allowed himself, in the theater or in hunting, he saw only a useful and necessary means to disperse boredom, since God, he thought, wants people to be cheerful, and they offend him if they indulge in immoderate sadness. He refused to admit that our earthly life is an ordeal. Mixing in certain doses and in the appropriate order, occupations and entertainments, religious rites and pleasures, we should, in this way of passing the path of life, reach the gates of eternity without any suffering. Bordering on rationalism and spiced with epicureanism, this doctrine was consistent with his very firm Christian faith, since a reconciling principle reigned in his soul.

Valshievsky K. (1, pp. 451-452).

“At the beginning of 1647, the tsar decided to marry, out of 200 girls they chose six of the most beautiful, of these six the tsar chose one: the daughter of Rafa, or Fedor Vsevolozhsky; having learned about her happiness, the chosen one, from a strong shock, fainted; from this they immediately concluded that she was susceptible to epilepsy, and the unfortunate woman was exiled with her relatives to Siberia, from where already in 1653 they were transferred to their distant village of "Kasimovsky district. So one foreign news tells; Russian news says that Vsevolozhskaya was spoiled by those who lived in the palace mothers and sisters of noble girls, whom the tsar did not choose.Another foreign news reproaches Morozov for this case, who for some reason did not like the Vsevolozhskys and who aimed at two Miloslavsky sisters: one wanted to marry the tsar, and the other - to himself and thus secure himself from rivalry with the new relatives of the tsar ... It is clear that on the basis of one foreign news there is no right to accuse Morozov... In all likelihood, suspicion fell on him due to the fact that a year later, on January 16, 1648, the tsar married Marya, the daughter of Ilya Danilovich Miloslavsky, and ten days after that, Morozov married the queen's sister Anna Ilyinichna.Knowing Morozov's predilection for foreigners, knowing that the tsar had already once decided to betray the old custom, continuing the time of mourning for his father for a whole year instead of forty days, many, as they say , feared that on the occasion of the royal wedding, foreign customs would be adopted and changes would take place at court. The fears were not justified, foreign customs were not introduced, nevertheless, the royal marriage resulted in strong popular displeasure.

Solovyov S. M. (4, p. 481).