Russia in the second half of the 17th century. Spain in the second half of the 17th and 18th centuries

Mikhail Fedorovich Roman ascended the throne as a young man less than 17 years old. The nobles and close representatives at the throne saw M.F. kindness and simplicity. At the age of 24, Mikhail married Princess Dolgorukaya. But the young queen soon fell ill and died three years later. A year later, the monarch entered into a new marriage with Strezhneva. From her he had a son, Alexei, the future king, and three daughters. Mikhail Vasilyevich died in 1645 at the age of 49 years. Having rightfully received the throne, Alexei Mikhailovich professed faith in the Tsar’s chosenness by God and his power. Alexey M. experienced a turbulent era of riots and war, rapprochement and discord with Patriarch Nikon. Under him: 1) Russia's possessions expanded in the east, west and Siberia. 2) Active diplomatic activity is being carried out. 3) A course was pursued towards centralizing control and strengthening the autocracy. Zemsky Sobors helped Mikhail Fedorovich and his successor solve the most complex state affairs. But the role of Zemsky Sobors has changed. They became the body of representation of nobles and townspeople. They turned into a body of administrative power. Zemsky councils were called often under Mikhail, almost every year. In the first half of the century, Zemsky Sobors considered issues of war and peace, collection of emergency taxes and relations with neighboring countries. But under Alexei, Zemsky Sobors began to meet less frequently. The last Western Council was convened in 1653. Throughout the entire 17th century. Under the tsar, the Boyar Duma operated, and important changes also took place in it: the number of non-noble people increased, they received seats in the Duma for their merits. By the end of the 17th century, the Duma included 94 hours. it has become an unwieldy institution. And A.M began to ignore her.

The tsar began to decide current affairs with the help of the chamber council. In the 17th century The power of orders reached its peak. This system lacked uniform principles of creation and a clear distribution of functions. There were about 80 orders in total; evidence of the emergence of absolutism is the strengthening of the role of officials. The seventeenth century is a turning point, including in the development of the economy. New bourgeois relations are emerging in the economy: 1) A new phenomenon is the formation of an all-Russian market, that is, strong economic ties are emerging between countries. 2) Development of craft, strengthening of specifications. Craftsmen began to work for the market. The geographic division of labor is increasing, and the specification of individual regions is becoming stronger. 3) The first manufactories appear. Manufacture is the first capitalist enterprise that accepts the labor of free people, with a division of labor that is still manual. But Russian manufactories had a number of features: they were state-owned, they used forced labor, that is, assigned peasants worked there. The number of manufactories in Russia did not exceed 30, the main industry in which they arose was metallurgy. Some Christian farms are also being drawn into the market relationship. Home Christian crafts began to develop: canvas, shoes, dishes, etc. The increasing exchange of agricultural and commercial products, the development of commodity-money relations lead to the gradual formation of the internal market. In the 14th–16th centuries, local markets were relatively isolated. In the 16th century, they became closely connected with each other, directly or through other markets. Trade in the 16th century was mainly of a fair nature. Foreign trade also grew. Furs, timber, resin, tar, leather, lard, bread, etc. were exported from Russia. It traded with England, Holland, Sweden, Poland, etc. Trade relations were regulated by special documents. In 1653, the Trade Charter was created, which established a single trade duty of 5% on the price of the goods sold. Foreigners paid 8%, and according to the Novgorod Charter of 1667 - 10%.

16. Peter’s reforms: causes, essence, results, consequences.

Peter 1 is one of the most prominent figures in Russian history. The attitude towards ref Petra is ambiguous. Either this is a historical feat or measures that doomed the country to ruin after the reforms. He was an outstanding commander and statesman; he implemented ideas aggressively, sometimes regardless of the personal interests of his subjects. he created a fleet and regulated the army, reformed the apparatus of power, shaved beards and created scientific centers, and directed military operations. His figure was of interest to many writers; he was endowed with the features of a charismatic leader.

The origins of the social upheavals of the “rebellious age”

A difficult situation at the end of the 16th century developed in the central counties of the state to such an extent that the population fled to the outskirts, abandoning their lands. For example, in 1584 in the Moscow district only 16% of the land was plowed, in the neighboring Pskov district - about 8%.

The more people left, the harder the government of Boris Godunov put pressure on those who remained. By 1592, the compilation of scribe books was completed, where the names of peasants and townspeople, owners of households were entered. The authorities, having conducted a census, could organize the search and return of fugitives. In 1592–1593, a royal decree was issued abolishing peasant exit even on St. George’s Day. This measure applied not only to landowner peasants, but also to state-owned peasants, as well as to the townspeople. In 1597, two more decrees appeared, according to the first, any free person who worked for six months for a landowner turned into an indentured slave and did not have the right to buy his freedom. According to the second, a five-year period was established for the search and return of the fugitive peasant to the owner. And in 1607, a fifteen-year search for fugitives was approved.

The nobles were given “obedient letters”, according to which the peasants had to pay dues not as before, according to established rules and amounts, but as the owner wanted.

The new “posad structure” provided for the return of fugitive “travelers” to the cities, the addition to the posads of landowner peasants who were engaged in crafts and trade in the cities, but did not pay taxes, the liquidation of courtyards and settlements within the cities, which also did not pay taxes.

Thus, it can be argued that at the end of the 16th century in Russia, a state system of serfdom actually developed - the most complete dependence under feudalism.

This policy caused enormous discontent among the peasantry, which formed the overwhelming majority in Russia at that time. Periodically there was unrest in the villages. A push was needed for discontent to result in “turmoil.”

Meanwhile, the impoverishment and ruin of Russia under Ivan the Terrible was not in vain. Peasants left in droves to new lands from fortresses and state burdens. The exploitation of those who remained intensified. Farmers were enmeshed in debts and obligations. The transition from one landowner to another became increasingly difficult. Under Boris Godunov, several more decrees were issued reinforcing serf bondage. In 1597 - about a five-year search period for fugitives, in 1601–02 about limiting the transfer of peasants by some landowners from others. The wishes of the nobility were fulfilled. But this did not weaken public tension, but only grew.

The main reason for the aggravation of contradictions at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. there was an increase in the burden of serfdom and state duties of peasants and townspeople (townspeople). There were big contradictions between the Moscow privileged and the outlying, especially southern, nobility. Made up of runaway peasants and other free people, the Cossacks were combustible material in society: firstly, many had bloody grievances against the state, the boyars-nobles, and secondly, these were people whose main occupation was war and robbery. Intrigues between different groups of boyars were strong.

In 1601–1603 An unprecedented famine broke out in the country. At first there were torrential rains for 10 weeks, then, at the end of summer, frost damaged the bread. Next year there will be a bad harvest again. Although the tsar did a lot to alleviate the situation of the hungry: he distributed money and bread, reduced the price of it, organized public works, etc., but the consequences were dire. About 130 thousand people died in Moscow alone from diseases that followed the famine. Many, out of hunger, gave themselves up as slaves, and, finally, often the masters, unable to feed the servants, kicked out the servants. Robberies and unrest began among fugitive and walking people (the leader of Khlopka Kosolap), who acted near Moscow itself and in a battle with the tsarist troops even killed the governor Basmanov. The riot was suppressed, and its participants fled to the south, where they joined the troops of the impostor, Bolotnikov and others.

"Salt" and "copper" riots in Moscow. Urban uprisings

The “salt” riot, which began in Moscow on June 1, 1648, was one of the most powerful protests of Muscovites in defense of their rights.

The “salt” riot involved archers, serfs - in a word, those people who had reasons to be dissatisfied with the government’s policies.

The riot began, it would seem, with little things. Returning from a pilgrimage from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was surrounded by petitioners who asked the Tsar to remove L. S. Pleshcheev from his post as head of the Zemstvo Council, motivating this desire by the injustice of Leonty Stepanovich: by the fact that he took bribes, carried out an unfair trial, but there was no response from the sovereign. Then the complainants decided to turn to the queen, but this also did not yield anything: the guards dispersed the people. Some were arrested. The next day, the king organized a religious procession, but even then complainants appeared demanding the release of those arrested on the first number of petitioners and still resolve the issue of cases of bribery. The tsar asked his “uncle” and relative, boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov, for clarification on this matter. After listening to the explanations, the king promised the petitioners to resolve this issue. Hiding in the palace, the tsar sent four ambassadors for negotiations: Prince Volkonsky, clerk Volosheinov, Prince Temkin-Rostov, and the okolnichy Pushkin.

But this measure did not turn out to be a solution to the issue, since the ambassadors behaved extremely arrogantly, which greatly angered the petitioners. The next unpleasant fact was the release of the archers from subordination. Due to the arrogance of the ambassadors, the archers beat the boyars sent for negotiations.

On the next day of the riot, forced people joined the royal disobedients. They demanded the extradition of the bribe-taking boyars: B. Morozov, L. Pleshcheev, P. Trakhanionov, N. Chistoy.

These officials, relying on the power of I. D. Miloslavsky, who was especially close to the Tsar, oppressed the Muscovites. They “performed an unfair trial” and took bribes. Having occupied the main positions in the administrative apparatus, they had complete freedom of action. By making false accusations against ordinary people, they ruined them. On the third day of the “salt” riot, the “rabble” destroyed about seventy households of especially hated nobles. One of the boyars (Nazariy Chisty), the initiator of the introduction of a huge tax on salt, was beaten and chopped into pieces by the “rabble”.

After this incident, the tsar was forced to turn to the clergy and the opposition to the Morozov court clique. A new deputation of boyars was sent, headed by Nikita Ivanovich Romanov, a relative of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Residents of the city expressed a desire for Nikita Ivanovich to rule with Alexei Mikhailovich (it must be said that Nikita Ivanovich Romanov enjoyed trust among Muscovites). As a result, there was an agreement on the extradition of Pleshcheev and Trakhanionov, whom the tsar appointed at the very beginning of the rebellion as a governor in one of the provincial towns. The situation was different with Pleshcheev: he was executed on Red Square on the same day and his head was given to the crowd. After this, a fire broke out in Moscow, as a result of which half of Moscow burned out. They said that the fire was started by Morozov's people in order to distract the people from the riot. Demands for the extradition of Trakhanionov continued; the authorities decided to sacrifice him just to end the rebellion. Streltsy were sent to the city where Trakhanionov himself was in command. On the fourth of June one thousand six hundred and forty-eight, the boyar was also executed. Now the rebels' gaze was riveted by the boyar Morozov. But the tsar decided not to sacrifice such a “valuable” person and Morozov was exiled to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery in order to return him as soon as the riot subsided, but the boyar would be so frightened by the riot that he would never take an active part in state affairs.

In an atmosphere of rebellion, the top of the settlement and the lower strata of the nobility sent a petition to the Tsar, in which they demanded the streamlining of legal proceedings and the development of new laws.

As a result of the petition, the authorities made concessions: the archers were given eight rubles each, debtors were freed from beating money, and the thieving judges were replaced. Subsequently, the riot began to subside, but the rebels did not get away with everything: the instigators of the riot among the slaves were executed.

On July 16, the Zemsky Sobor was convened and decided to adopt a number of new laws. In January one thousand six hundred and forty-nine, the Council Code was approved.

This is the result of the “salt” riot: the truth has triumphed, the people’s offenders have been punished, and to top it all, the Council Code has been adopted, which was designed to ease the people’s lot and rid the administrative apparatus of corruption.

Before and after the Salt Riot, uprisings broke out in more than 30 cities of the country: in the same 1648 in Ustyug, Kursk, Voronezh, in 1650 - “bread riots” in Novgorod and Pskov.

The Moscow uprising of 1662 (“Copper Riot”) was caused by a financial disaster in the state and the difficult economic situation of the working masses of the city and countryside as a result of a sharp increase in tax oppression during the wars between Russia and Poland and Sweden. The massive issue by the government of copper money (from 1654), equated to the value of silver money, and its significant depreciation in relation to silver (in 1662 by 6–8 times) led to a sharp rise in food prices, enormous speculation, abuse and mass counterfeiting of copper coins ( in which individual representatives of the central administration were involved). In many cities (especially Moscow), famine broke out among the bulk of the townspeople (despite good harvests in previous years). The government's decision to impose a new and extremely difficult extraordinary tax collection (pyatina) also caused great dissatisfaction. Active participants in the “copper” riot were representatives of the capital’s urban lower classes and peasants from villages near Moscow. The uprising broke out in the early morning of July 25, when leaflets appeared in many areas of Moscow in which the most prominent government leaders (I. D. Miloslavsky; I. M. Miloslavsky; I. A. Miloslavsky; B. M. Khitrovo; F. M. Rtishchev ) were declared traitors. Crowds of rebels headed to Red Square, and from there to the village. Kolomenskoye, where Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was located.

The rebels (4-5 thousand people, mostly townspeople and soldiers) surrounded the royal residence, handed over their petition to the king, insisting on the extradition of the persons indicated in the leaflets, as well as on a sharp reduction in taxes, food prices, etc. Taken by surprise, the king, who had about 1,000 armed courtiers and archers, did not risk reprisals, promising the rebels to investigate and punish the perpetrators. The rebels turned to Moscow, where, after the departure of the first group of rebels, a second group formed and the destruction of the courts of large merchants began. On the same day, both groups united and arrived in the village. Kolomenskoye, again surrounded the Tsar's palace and resolutely demanded the extradition of government leaders, threatening to execute them without the Tsar's sanction. At this time in Moscow, after the departure of the second group of rebels in the village. Kolomenskoye authorities, with the help of the Streltsy, moved on the orders of the tsar to active punitive actions, and 3 Streltsy and 2 soldier regiments (up to 8 thousand people) had already been pulled into Kolomenskoye. After the rebels refused to disperse, the beating of mostly unarmed people began. During the massacre and subsequent executions, about 1 thousand people were killed, drowned, hanged and executed, and up to 1.5–2 thousand rebels were exiled (with the families of up to 8 thousand people).

On June 11, 1663, the royal decree was issued to close the courts of the “money copper business” and return to the minting of silver coins. Copper money was redeemed from the population in a short time - within a month. For one silver kopeck they took a ruble in copper money. Trying to benefit from copper kopecks, the population began to cover them with a layer of mercury or silver, passing them off as silver money. This trick was soon noticed, and a royal decree was issued banning the tinning of copper money.

So, the attempt to improve the Russian monetary system ended in complete failure and led to a breakdown in monetary circulation, riots and general impoverishment. Neither the introduction of a system of large and small denominations, nor the attempt to replace expensive raw materials for minting money with cheaper ones were successful.

Russian monetary circulation returned to the traditional silver coin. And the time of Alexei Mikhailovich was called “rebellious” by his contemporaries

Peasant war led by S. Razin

In 1667, after the end of the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a large number of fugitives poured into the Don. Famine reigned on the Don.

Back in March 1667, Moscow learned that many residents of the Don were “trying to steal on the Volga.” At the head of the mass of unorganized, but brave, determined and armed people stood the Cossack Stepan Timofeevich Razin. He showed self-will by recruiting his detachment from the Cossack Goli and newcomers - fugitive peasants, townsman drafters, archers, who were not part of the Don army and did not obey the Cossack elders.

He planned a campaign in order to distribute the captured booty to those in need, feed the hungry, clothe and put on shoes the undressed and shoeless. Razin, at the head of a detachment of Cossacks of 500 people, went not to the Volga, but down the Don. It is difficult to say about his intentions at that moment. It seems that this campaign was intended to lull the vigilance of the Volga governors and attract supporters. People came to Razin from different places. They led their troops to him.

In mid-May 1667, the Cossack naive and the fugitive peasantry crossed the portage to the Volga. Razin's detachment grew to 2000 people. First, the Razins met a large trade caravan on the Volga, which included ships with exiles. The Cossacks seized goods and property, replenished stocks of weapons and provisions, and took possession of the plows. The Streltsy military leaders and merchant clerks were killed, and the exiled people, most of the Streltsy and rivermen who worked on merchant ships voluntarily joined the Razinites.

Clashes between the Cossacks and government troops began. As the events of the Caspian campaign developed, the rebellious nature of the movement became more and more apparent.

Avoiding a collision with government troops, he quickly and with minor losses carried his flotilla out to sea, then moved to the Yaik River and easily captured the Yaik town. In all battles, Razin showed great courage. More and more people from nasads and plows joined the Cossacks.

Having entered the Caspian Sea, the Razins headed to its southern shores. Some time later their ships arrived in the area of ​​the Persian city of Rasht. The Cossacks destroyed the cities of Rasht, Farabat, Astrabad and wintered near the “amusing palace of the Shah”, setting up an earthen town in his forest reserve on the Miyan-Kale peninsula. Having exchanged prisoners for Russians in the proportion of “one to four”, they thus replenished with people.

The release of Russian prisoners languishing in captivity in Persia and the replenishment of the Razin detachment with the Persian poor goes beyond the scope of military predatory actions.

In a naval battle near Svinoy Island, the Razins won a complete victory over the troops of the Persian Shah. However, the campaign to the Caspian Sea was marked not only by victories and successes. The Razins had heavy losses and defeats. The battle with large Persian forces near Rasht ended unfavorably for them.

At the end of the Caspian campaign, Razin gave the governors a horsetail, a sign of his power, and returned some of the weapons. Then the Razins, having received Moscow's forgiveness, returned to the Don. After the Caspian campaign, Razin did not disband his detachment. On September 17, 1669, 20 versts from Black Yar, Razin demanded that the archers’ heads come to him, and renamed the archers and feeders “Cossacks”.

Reports from the governors of the southern cities about Razin’s independent behavior, that he had “become strong” and was again plotting “troubles” alerted the government. In January 1670, a certain Gerasim Evdokimov was sent to Cherkassk. Razin demanded that Evdokimy be brought in and interrogated him about who he came from: the great sovereign or the boyars? The messenger confirmed that he was from the tsar, but Razin declared him a boyar spy. The Cossacks drowned the Tsar's envoy. In the town of Panshin, Razin gathered the participants of the upcoming large circle hike. The ataman announced that he intended to “go from the Don to the Volga, and from the Volga to Rus'... in order... to bring out the traitorous boyars and duma people and the governors and clerks in the cities from the Moscow state” and give freedom to the “black people.”

Soon Razin's army of 7,000 moved to Tsaritsyn. Having captured it, the Razinites remained in the town for about 2 weeks. The battles in the lower reaches of the Volga in the spring and summer of 1670 showed that Razin was a talented commander. On June 22, the Razins captured Astrakhan. Without firing a single shot, Samara and Saratov passed to the Razinites.

After this, the Razins began the siege of Simbirsk. At the end of August 1670, the government sent an army to suppress Razin's uprising. A month's stay near Simbirsk was a tactical miscalculation by Razin. It allowed government troops to be brought here. In the battle of Simbirsk, Razin was seriously wounded and subsequently executed in Moscow.

Apparently one of the main reasons for the Simbirsk failure was the lack of permanent personnel in the rebel army. Only the core of the Cossacks and Streltsy remained stable in the Razin army, while numerous peasant detachments, who made up the bulk of the rebels, came and went every now and then. They had no military experience, and during the period that they were in the ranks of the Razinites, they did not have time to accumulate it.

The schismatic movement

An important fact of Russian history of the 17th century. There was a church schism, which was the result of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon.

The most significant of the innovations adopted by Patriarch Nikon and the church council of 1654 were the replacement of baptism with two fingers with three fingers, pronouncing the praise to God “Hallelujah” not twice, but three times, and moving around the lectern in the church not in the direction of the Sun, but against it. All of them concerned the purely ritual side, and not the essence of Orthodoxy.

The schism of the Orthodox Church occurred at the council of 1666–1667, and from 1667 the schismatics were brought to trial by the “city authorities,” who burned them for “blasphemy against the Lord God.” In 1682, Archpriest Avvakum, the main opponent of Patriarch Nikon, died at the stake.

Archpriest Avvakum became one of the most prominent personalities in Russian history. Many considered him a saint and miracle worker. He participated with Nikon in correcting liturgical books, but was soon removed due to ignorance of the Greek language.

On January 6, 1681, the king went with a large number of people to the blessing of water. At this time, the Old Believers committed a pogrom in the Assumption and Archangel Cathedrals of the Kremlin. They smeared tar on the royal vestments and tombs, and also placed tallow candles, which were considered unclean in church use. At this time, the crowd returned, and an associate of the rebels, Gerasim Shapochnik, began throwing “thieves’ letters” into the crowd, which depicted caricatures of the tsar and patriarchs.

The schism united a variety of social forces that advocated preserving the integrity of the traditional nature of Russian culture. There were princes and boyars, such as the noblewoman F.P. Morozova and Princess E.P. Urusova, monks and white clergy who refused to perform the new rituals. But there were especially many ordinary people - townspeople, archers, peasants - who saw in the preservation of old rituals a way of fighting for the ancient folk ideals of “truth” and “will”. The most radical step of the Old Believers was the decision taken in 1674 to stop praying for the health of the Tsar. This meant a complete break between the Old Believers and the existing society, the beginning of a struggle to preserve the ideal of “truth” within their communities.

The main idea of ​​the Old Believers was “falling away” from the world of evil, an unwillingness to live in it. Hence the preference for self-immolation over compromise with the authorities. Only in 1675–1695. 37 “burnings” were registered, during which at least 20 thousand people died. Another form of protest of the Old Believers was the flight from the power of the tsar, the search for the “hidden city of Kitezh” or the utopian country of Belovodye, which was under the protection of God himself.

17-18 - the system of colonialism takes shape. Spain/Portugal are the old colonial powers, England/France/Holland are the new ones, and there is a struggle between them in all corners of the globe. According to Hadot's textbook, the colonial policy of this time was associated with the process of "primitive accumulation of capital" and the development of manufacturing capitalism in Western Europe. The formation of the world capitalist market, the accumulation of wealth in the colonies, the development of manufacturing production there, the merciless exploitation of the colonies, the colonies are considered as a factor that helped the development of European countries and the industrial revolution, etc. All this is not entirely true. The attitude towards colonies in European countries is still far from economic, but mixed - the medieval principle “a state is strong if it has colonies” is preserved. So far, colonies (except for North America, but here the question is about a colony) are treated only as territories of the state and a particularly developed colonial-exploitative system has not been observed. The first war that resulted in provisions for colonies in a peace treaty was the War of the Spanish Succession, and the first major colonial war was the Spanish-Portuguese War of 1735-37. The main international events are taking place in Europe - in some of the colonies there are not yet any serious settlements, especially in Asia. Why are colonies not thought of as an economic category? This is proven by the texts of international treaties. Even as a result of the War of the Spanish Succession, the colonies were given little status. And after the Seven Years' War - the same thing (despite the extensive conquests in the colonial sphere of England). To some extent, Napoleon's Egyptian campaign can be considered the first attempt at a colonial war - but, again, conditionally.

So, what does Ado write? He writes about direct robbery of the colonies, direct coercion (slavery and serfdom), the spread of the slave trade, sales markets and sources of raw materials, and opportunities for unequal (in favor of the metropolitan countries) trade. He considers the creation of monopoly campaigns to be a characteristic feature. Gradually, this policy became obsolete - as being objectionable to the bourgeoisie. Colonial rivalry between old and new colonial powers and within these groups is intensifying. Hadot brings up the idea of ​​a global capitalist market.

Spanish-Portuguese colonial system 17-18 centuries. Ado speaks of the “feudal” nature of the appropriation of wealth - it was selected and spent on pursuing “great power policies.” There were major differences between the Portuguese and Spanish systems. On the territory of Brazil at the time of Portuguese colonization (mid-16th century) there was almost no settled agricultural population. Indian tribes were quickly pushed inland or exterminated. The Portuguese began to use imported labor in the form of black slaves from Africa. Plus, in Brazil there is a huge role of commercial capital.

Spanish colonies - Mexico, Peru, Ecuador - another system. There were agricultural societies (albeit at an early level). Colonizing these spaces, the Spaniards adapted, for example, Indian agricultural communities in these regions for colonization. The labor service of community members in favor of the state was used. Some taxes and duties were retained, and community elders - caciques - became “conductors of colonial policy.” The Spanish “feudal system of tax collection” and administrative management was introduced. The result is a synthesis of Spanish elements and elements of the local population. English/French colonization in America was migratory in nature. Plantation economy, black slaves. Spanish colonization was noble accumulation, which did not contribute to the accumulation of “primary capital” in Spain itself. Precious metals from the New World actively participated in the process of exchanging them for industrial goods and “turned into capital” in England and Holland, leaving Spain. In those areas where the indigenous population had been exterminated since the beginning of colonization, the system of exploitation of the Spaniards resembled the Portuguese system. – Cuba, northern South America. The organizer of production on plantations is “merchant capital”, the use of slave labor.

Dutch colonial system. Its formation was determined by the needs of “primitive accumulation” and the formation of capitalist relations in England, France and Holland. East India and West India Companies. Cape Colony (1652, west Africa), Sunda, Moluccas, Java, Malacca (1641), Ceylon (1658), New Amsterdam (now New York, 1622), 1634 - Curacao island. 1667 – Suriname island. A system of harsh exploitation of the indigenous population. “Serf exploitation of the local peasantry”, its control with the help of local feudal lords.

Anglo-Dutch rivalry. England began the systematic seizure of colonies in 1665 - it captured Jamaica from Spain. The beginning of state colonial policy. 1696 - Administration to govern the West Indies. Use of a slave labor system. 1652-54 - the first Anglo-Dutch war, cause - the Navigation Act of 1651 (directed against Dutch intermediary trade). Holland was defeated, the act was recognized and the costs were paid. Second Anglo-Dutch War - 1664-67, Holland transferred New Amsterdam to England, the British abandoned naval bases on the Moluccas. The Third Anglo-Dutch War - 1672-74, France entered into it. 1688-97 – new Anglo-Dutch war. By the beginning of the 18th century, the Dutch colonial system was breaking down - Anglo-French rivalry came to the fore.

The French colonial system and Anglo-French rivalry. Henry IV and Richelieu laid the foundations of the French colonial system. Exploration of Canada - Quebec, 1608, Montreal, 1642. 1682 - Louisiana, 1718 - New Orleans. Islands in the West Indies. Senegal. Since 1701 - Pondicherry in India. After the War of the Spanish Succession, France ceded to England Acadia (Nova Scotia), Newfoundland and Asiento (see Moscow Region tickets - the right to import slaves to South America). Under the terms of the Peace of Paris in 1763, England received Florida, part of Honduras, the islands of Tobago, San Vincent, Grenada, and Dominica. England gradually won. Anglo-Dutch War 1780-84, Holland lost its position as a great colonial and naval power. Under the terms of the Peace of Paris in 1783, England annexed part of the Dutch colonies in India, and in 1795, captured Ceylon.

And at the same time - a very great progress of agronomic science, see physiocrats and cameralists

On the issue of capitalism and agriculture – in Braudel’s “Games of Exchange” France also appears

An important point is that absolute power is not the subject of the “classical” theory of absolutism! For more information, see ticket No. 9. Bodin also did not speak of the absolute power of the monarch in the sense in which it is most often understood. Absolutism was a much more complex system.

Here it is necessary to understand that such a division is logical, but not entirely legal. The myth of absolutism was obviously in effect even then. According to Henshall, England and France were fundamentally not particularly fundamentally different, and the “parliamentary feature of England” is essentially a myth.

But here it is not a fact - see Henshell. He does not consider the monarchy of the last Bourbons to be enlightened absolutist. And in general it refutes this thesis itself.

According to Henshall, this process was associated with the fact that the States General stopped convening, they were considered cumbersome and ineffective, and consultations moved to a lower - provincial-state - level.

This, according to a number of historians, is how he signed his own death warrant. The monarchy continued to fail at reforms, and public opinion also became opposed to the powers of the monarch. The unfinished reform shook the foundations of royal power.

But here there is some discrepancy between the lectures and Henshall - Henshall, on the contrary, believes that the States General tried to solve the problems of the old order, and not break it.

In historiography, the point of view is now becoming more and more popular that “exploitation” was not so difficult, and plantation farming was far from unprofitable.

Ado here also mentions taxes as a significant source, but there is a certain issue with them - part of the US population generally wanted to remove them or significantly reduce them, since for the colonies in North America the issue of tax dependence on the mother country was very painful.

additional literature

Main literature

Bibliography

Basic concepts of the discipline

Princely congresses. Veche. Boyar Duma. Russian Truth. Vigilantes. Boyars. Appanage princes. Polyudye. Cart. Fireman. Smerd. Ryadovich. Purchase Serf. Feudal fragmentation. Lawyer Coffers. Yard Voivode. Governors and volosts. Lip chief. Kisser. Zemsky Sobor. Oprichnina. Seven Boyars. Localism system. Cathedral Code. Corvée and quitrent. Orders. Okolnichy. Duma clerk. Collegiums. Governorates and provinces. Senate. Recruitment duty. Mayor. Ministries. Constitution. Zemstvos. City Council. State Council. Universal conscription. Manifesto. The State Duma. Political Party. Censorship. Provisional government. All-Union Congress of Soviets. Council of People's Commissars. Central Election Commission. Advice system. The Supreme Council. Politburo. Party Central Committee. The president. Universal Declaration of Rights and Freedoms 1948 Supreme Court. Superior Court of Arbitration. Constitutional Court.

1. History of the state and law of Russia. Ed. Yu.P. Titova. M.: Prospekt, 2006.- 541 p.

2. History of state and law: dictionary-reference book. Rep. Ed. M.I. Slushkov – M.: Legal literature, 1997. – 303 p.

3. Cleandrova V.M. History of state and law of Russia. M.: Prospekt, 2011. -563 p.

4. History of the state and law of Russia. Rep. Ed. Chibiryaev S.A. – M.: Bylina, 1998. – 524 p.

Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. In 2 volumes - M., 1994.
Vernadsky G.V. History of Russia. Ancient Rus'. – M., 1996.
Herberstein S. Notes on Muscovy. – M., 1998.
State institutions in Russia XYI - XYIII centuries // Edited by N.B. Golikova. – M., 1991
Documents testify: from the history of the village on the eve and during collectivization of 1927 - 1932 // Ed. V.N. Danilov, N.A. Ivnitsky. – M..1989
Efremova N.N. Judicial system of the Russian Empire XYIII - XX centuries - M., 1996.
Zayonchkovsky P. A. The government apparatus of autocratic Russia in the 19th century. – M., 1978.
Zayonchkovsky P.A. Russian autocracy at the end of the 19th century. – M., 1978.
Legislation of Peter I // Rep. ed. A. A. Preobrazhensky, T. E. Novitskaya. – M., 1997.
Self-government institutions. Historical and legal research. – M., 1995.
Karamashev O. M. Legislative principles of the formation of the nobility of the Russian Empire. – St. Petersburg, 1998.
Kerensky A.F. Russia at a historical turn // Questions of history. 1991. No. 4-11.
Nosov N.E. The formation of class-representative institutions in Russia.-L., 1969.
Protasov L.G. All-Russian Constituent Assembly. The story of birth and death. – M., 1997.
Development of Russian law in the XY - first half of the XYII century - M., 1986.
Development of Russian law in the second half of the 19th century - early 20th centuries. //Ans. ed. E. A. Skripilev. - M. - 1997.
Russell B. Practice and theory of Bolshevism. – M., 1991.
Reforms of Alexander II: Sat. // Comp. O. I. Chistyakov, T. E. Novitskaya. – M., 1998.
Russian legislation of the 10th – 20th centuries: V9 vol. // Ed. O.I. Chistyakova. –M., 1984-1994.
Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities (XII-XIII centuries). - M., 1982.
Safronov M.M. Problems of reforms in Russian government policy at the turn of the XYIII - XIX centuries - Leningrad, 1998.
Sverdlov M.V. Genesis and structure of feudal society in Ancient Rus'. – L., 1983.
Skrynnikov R. G. Ivan the Terrible. – M., 1983.
Soloviev S.M. History of Russia from ancient times. Works: In 18 books. – M., 1988-1996.
Torke H.I. About the so-called Zemsky Sobors in Russia // Questions of history. 1991. No. 1
Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XYI – XYII centuries. – M., 1978.
Cherepnin L.V. Formation of a Russian centralized state. – M., 1978

With the coming to power of a new tsar in Russia - Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) - the central government decided to continue Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich’s course towards strengthening autocracy. But at the same time she faced a number of difficulties. The treasury felt the need for money, both to maintain the growing apparatus of power, and in connection with the intensification of foreign policy. The government of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich increased indirect taxes, raising the price of salt by 4 times in 1646. But prices began to rise, and the solvency of the population was undermined. The salt tax was abolished already in 1647; it was decided to collect arrears for the last three years. This caused discontent and led to a number of uprisings, including the “Salt Riot” in Moscow (1648). Impressed by him, the tsar convened a Zemsky Sobor, which ended with the adoption of the Council Code (1649).

It was necessary to ensure the further development of the Russian state: the Code of Law of 1550 was clearly outdated and left too many cases to the discretion of judges. Therefore, soon after accession

″Alexey Mikhailovich... ordered... to correct the code of law, to supplement it... with the latest decrees of the kings and... additions to cases that are already encountered in the courts, but have not yet been decided by a clear law. “The only thing that remained unchanged was the course towards strengthening the autocratic Orthodox monarchy in Russia: according to the Council Code, any criticism of the church and blasphemy was punishable by burning at the stake. Persons accused of treason and insulting the honor of the sovereign, as well as boyars and governors, were executed.

The Council Code regulated the performance of various services, the ransom of prisoners, customs policy, and the position of various categories of the population in the state. It “attached service and tax people to their states, associating with each of these states certain rights and obligations. Thus, the former unstable ranks turned into closed... classes, sharply isolated from one another.″ An indefinite search for runaway and taken away peasants was introduced, and peasant transfers from one owner to another were prohibited. At the same time, serfdom extended to the black sowing and palace peasants, who were forbidden to leave their communities. If they escaped, they were also subject to indefinite investigation. This meant the legalization of the serfdom system. The cathedral code limited the growth of church land ownership, which reflected the trend of subordination of the church to the state. This trend met with strong opposition from the clergy.

A little later, church reform followed. Church reform was dictated by the need to strengthen discipline, order, and moral principles of the clergy. Expanding ties with Ukraine and the Orthodox peoples of the former Byzantine Empire required the introduction of identical church rituals throughout the Orthodox world. The spread of printing opened up the possibility of unifying church books.

The reform began in 1652 with the election of Nikon as Moscow Patriarch. Nikon began a reform to unify rituals and establish uniformity in church services. Greek rules and rituals were taken as a model. But this reform caused protest from some of the boyars and church hierarchs, who were afraid that changes in the church would undermine its authority among the people. There was a schism in the Russian church. Adherents of the old order - the Old Believers - refused to recognize Nikon's reform and advocated a return to the pre-reform order. Outwardly, the disagreements between Nikon and his opponents, the Old Believers, among whom Archpriest Avvakum stood out, boiled down to which models - Greek or Russian - to unify church books. There was a dispute between them about how one should be baptized - with two or three fingers, how to make a religious procession - in the direction of the sun or against the sun, etc. As a result, the Church Council of 1667 ... recommended the tsar to consider the Old Believers heretics and schismatics ( schismatics) and use the full power of their power to punish them.″ Thousands of peasants and townspeople, carried away by the passionate sermons of schismatic teachers, fled to the North, to the Volga region, to the Urals, to Siberia, where they founded Old Believer settlements. The most powerful protest against church reform manifested itself in the Solovetsky uprising of 1668-1676.

The fate of Patriarch Nikon was also tragic. Nikon put forward and fiercely defended the idea of ​​independence and the leading role of the church in the state. “According to his concept, the power of the patriarch ... is even higher than the supreme secular power: Nikon demanded complete non-interference of secular power in spiritual affairs and at the same time reserved for the patriarch the right to wide participation and influence in political affairs; in the sphere of church administration, Nikon considered himself the sole and sovereign ruler. “Nikon received enormous power and the title of “Great Sovereign,” similar to the royal one (1652). But... Nikon... was not always restrained when using his power, not only in relation to the people of the Church, but also in relation to the princes and boyars. "And soon the patriarch overestimated his influence on the tsar. In 1658, he defiantly left the capital, declaring that he did not want to be a patriarch in Moscow, but would remain the patriarch of Russia. In 1666, a church council with the participation of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who had powers from two other Orthodox patriarchs - Constantinople and Jerusalem, removed Nikon from the post of patriarch.

Meanwhile, the exhausting wars that Russia waged in the mid-17th century depleted the treasury. The pestilence of 1654-1655 hit the country's economy painfully, claiming tens of thousands of lives. In search of a way out of the difficult financial situation, the Russian government began minting copper coins instead of silver coins at the same price (1654). Over the course of eight years, so much copper money (including counterfeit money) was issued that it became completely worthless. The government collected taxes in silver, while the population had to sell and buy products with copper money. Salaries were also paid in copper money. The high cost of bread and other products that arose under these conditions led to famine. Driven to despair, the Moscow people rose up in rebellion - the “Copper Riot” (1662). It was brutally suppressed, but the minting of copper money was stopped, which was again replaced by silver. The uprising in Moscow in 1662 was one of the harbingers of a new peasant war.

This war was fought under the leadership of S.T. Razin in 1670-1671. It was attended by serfs, Cossacks, townspeople, small service people, barge haulers, and working people. Razin’s “charming letters” circulated among the people, outlining the demands of the rebels: to exterminate the governors, boyars, nobles, and officials. Razin promised everywhere the destruction of serfdom and servitude. Naive monarchism was strong among the rebels. The peasants believed in a good king. A rumor spread that the son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Alexei (who died in 1670), and the disgraced Patriarch Nikon were allegedly going to Moscow with Razin. The uprising covered a vast territory - from the lower reaches of the Volga to Nizhny Novgorod and from Slobodskaya Ukraine to the Volga region. It was brutally suppressed, but forced the government to look for ways to strengthen the existing system. The power of local governors was strengthened, a reform of the tax system was carried out (from 1679 they switched to household taxation), and the process of spreading serfdom to the southern outskirts of the country intensified. The Council Code of 1649, allowing the exchange of estates for estates and vice versa, marked the beginning of the merger of boyars and nobles into one closed class-estate. In 1674, black-sown peasants were prohibited from enrolling in the nobility. The title of the Moscow sovereigns changed, in which the word “autocrat” appeared. After the reunification of Left Bank Ukraine with Russia, it sounded like this: “The Great Sovereign, the Tsar and the Grand Duke of All Great and Little and White Russia, the autocrat...” In 1682 (during the short reign of Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682)) localism was abolished, The principle of official conformity began to be put forward (which opens access to the government of the country to people from the nobility and government officials). Since the 80s of the 17th century. The convening of Zemsky Sobors ceased; by the end of the 17th century, the Boyar Duma also lost its former influence. In Russia at the end of the 17th century, the transition from autocracy with the Boyar Duma, from an estate representative monarchy to an bureaucratic-noble monarchy, to absolutism was completed. Absolutism is a form of government in which the supreme power in the state fully and undividedly belongs to the monarch. Power reaches the highest degree of centralization. The absolute monarch rules, relying on the bureaucratic apparatus, the standing army and the police, and the church as an ideological force is subordinate to him.

But after the death of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, a new turmoil began. According to tradition, Fyodor was to be succeeded in 1682 by his brother Ivan. However, the 15-year-old prince was sickly and not suitable for the role of king. Patriarch Joachim and the boyars who gathered in the palace decided that the son of Alexei Mikhailovich Naryshkina’s second wife, ten-year-old Peter, who, unlike Ivan, was a healthy, strong and intelligent boy, should be proclaimed tsar. Relying on the archers, the Miloslavsky group, among which Ivan’s sister Sophia was the most active and decisive, waged a decisive struggle for power.

Sagittarius not only carried out military service, but were also actively engaged in economic activities. At the end of the 17th century. In connection with the creation of regiments of the new system, the role of the archers fell, they lost many of their privileges. The obligation to pay taxes and duties on trades and shops, frequent delays in salaries, the arbitrariness of the Streltsy colonels, and the growth of property inequality among the Streltsy themselves caused their sharp discontent. A rumor was spread around Moscow that Ivan had been strangled. With the beating of drums, armed archers entered the Kremlin (1682). Peter's mother N.K. Naryshkin brought both princes - Peter and Ivan - to the palace porch. However, this did not calm the archers. The uprising raged for three days, power in Moscow was in the hands of the Streltsy. “Now the archers didn’t care at all. They walked the streets in crowds, threatened the boyars, treated their superiors impudently.″ Taking advantage of this, the leaders of the Streltsy tried to install the head of the Streletsky Prikaz, Prince I. A. Khovansky (“Khovanshchina”), as the head of the Russian sovereign. Sophia managed to stop the actions of the archers. Khovansky was deceived and summoned to Sophia and executed (1682). The Sagittarius came into obedience. The pillar on Red Square was torn down, many archers were executed. Power passed to Princess Sophia. The head of the Streltsy order was Sophia’s supporter F. Shaklovity. The de facto ruler under Sophia (1682-1689) was her favorite, Prince V.V. Golitsyn. Sophia and her circle did not strive for radical changes.

In 1689, Peter married, on the advice of his mother, the boyar daughter Evdokia Lopukhina. After his marriage, Peter was considered an adult and had all the rights to the throne; a clash with Sophia and her supporters became inevitable. It happened in August 1689: with the support of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky regiments loyal to Peter, Sophia was removed from power. Finding herself in isolation, she was imprisoned in the Novodevichy Convent in Moscow. The leader of the Streltsy, Shaklovity, was executed, and Golitsyn was sent into exile. The throne passed to Peter. With the death of Tsar Ivan (1696), the autocracy of Peter I was established (formal co-ruler with Ivan V (1689-1696), sole rule (1696-1725)). However, in the summer of 1698, a new Streltsy rebellion broke out in Moscow. He was depressed. The investigation established a connection between the rebel archers and the Moscow boyars and the disgraced Princess Sophia. After this, Sophia lived under supervision for the rest of her life in the Novodevichy Convent. The Streltsy army was subject to disbandment, the forces of the boyar opposition to Russian absolutism were undermined.

Meanwhile, in the field of education, Russia was hopelessly behind many European countries: in the 15th-16th centuries, many large European cities already had universities, and in Russia the first higher educational institution was opened only in 1689 (Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy).

Unlike many European countries, where the flourishing of cities made it possible to gradually abolish serfdom, in Russia at the end of the 17th century, serfdom had only just been established. This was a necessary measure - due to a constant lack of money. ″But the matter could not be limited to just attaching the rural population to the cultivated land: the so-called townspeople, tax people… live in the cities. They trade and trade on a very small scale, but they pay taxes and bear duties on a very large scale,” which creates a vicious circle: they do not have the opportunity to contribute to the development of the economy, they would not go bankrupt. It is not surprising that in Russia in those years “the scale of manufacturing production was insignificant. By the end of the 17th century, Russia was smelting a tenth of the iron produced by Sweden. ... The bulk of industrial products in the 17th century. They were produced not by manufactories, but by small craft workshops... Foreign trade was entirely in the hands of foreign merchants, which caused... discontent among the Russian merchants. In 1653, the authorities increased duties on foreign goods. The protectionist policy was confirmed in the New Trade Charter of 1667. The government doubled the duties on goods of foreign merchants sold outside Arkhangelsk, and banned these merchants from retail trade throughout Russia. But the weakness of Russian industry could not be compensated for by this. The low combat effectiveness of the Russian army was evident during the Azov campaigns of 1695-1696.

For the young Peter I, the urgent need for radical reforms in all spheres of life of the Russian state through numerous borrowings from the cultures of advanced European countries was obvious. ″But at a time when in Moscow... there were louder and louder cries... about the need to borrow science, art and craft from other educated peoples, people who stood against the movement of the people towards a new path and saw movement in this movement did not remain silent to the kingdom of Antichrist,” the schismatics did not remain silent. “And the majority of the population (including part of the boyars and clergy) was hostile to such a movement.

Karamzin N.M. About ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations // Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State: XII volume in 4 books. – M., 1997. – Book. 4. T. X-XII. - P. 501.

Klyuchevsky V.O. A short guide to Russian history. – M., 1992. - P. 125.

Vernadsky G.V. Moscow kingdom: in 2 hours - Tver; M., 1997. – Part 2. – P. 126.

Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. – M., 1993. - P. 398-399.

Gumilev L.N. From Rus' to Russia. – M., 2002. – P. 340.

Kostomarov N.I. Princess Sophia // Kostomarov N.I. Historical monographs and studies. – M., 1989. - P. 92-93.

Soloviev S.M. Public readings about Peter the Great - pp. 432-433.

Skrynnikov R.G. Rus' of the 9th-17th centuries. – St. Petersburg, 1999. – P. 300-301.

Soloviev S.M. Russia before the era of transformation // Solovyov S.M. Readings and stories on the history of Russia. – M., 1989. - P. 384.

Outwardly, he was a great success. The only, but extremely significant (and perhaps decisive) “blot” for all participants was that in one of the halls of the palace the king discovered a portrait of Louise de La Valliere, his beloved. Rumors that good Louise, despite her sincere love for her Louis, also sinned with the vain Fouquet, vividly rose in the irritated mind of the ruler
A month later Fouquet would be arrested and convicted; he will end his days in the fortress of Pignerol. Vaux-le-Vicomte will be confiscated. The best of the castle's furnishings, including orange trees in silver tubs (they are still very valuable and expensive on the flora market), will be taken by the king for his palace under construction. The team of geniuses who created Vaux-le-Vicomte will also move there.
They will have to create an even more beautiful and grandiose masterpiece - the famous palace and park ensemble at Versailles.

Who are you, King Louis?

Louis the Fourteenth liked to repeat that he liked people who were cheerful and good-natured. What was the king himself like, who was sometimes called great and the sun, sometimes superficial and mediocre selfish, sometimes humane, sometimes soulless? Louis lived for 77 years, of which he was on the throne for 72 years. Being in the center of attention of his contemporaries all his life, could he hide his true face from them?
So we will test Louis’ personality according to several indicators.
INTELLIGENCE. Louis received almost no education. His childhood was quite difficult, at least meager. He lost his father early, and Mazarin's possible stepfather was so stingy that, according to the stories of some contemporaries, Louis slept on tattered sheets as a child. Then the Fronde was raging with all its might, the position of mother and regent Anne of Austria was precarious, and in short, no one bothered to take care of Louis’s education. Even in his old age, he did not like to read, using for this the gift of Racine, who not only translated Roman authors for him from sight, but also put it straight into the refined French language. Nevertheless, the ignorant Louis was a witty man, naturally subtle, and most importantly, skillfully and successfully carried out the policy of the hegemon of Europe for several decades. Having no education, he was excellently brought up, without training, he acted intelligently and logically. It can be said that Louis was a practical man to the core and a self-made man. However, he also knew the theory of the issue, that is, he had unshakable convictions about his rights as an absolute monarch and about the divine origin of royal power. In this regard, even his religiosity acquired somewhat grotesque features. So, having learned about one lost battle, he melancholy remarked: “Apparently, God has forgotten all the good things that I did for him!” These already somewhat archaic ideas “helped” him make a number of political mistakes in his old age. However, it is unlikely that a mentally limited person is capable of self-criticism. Louis knew how to criticize himself, in his youth he asked the ministers to tell him if they discovered that any lady of his heart would begin to influence politics, and promised that he would part with this person at the same hour, and when dying, he said with deep sadness : “I loved war too much”
MASCULINITY, WILLPOWER. It is said that the feeling that the king inspired in those who saw him for the first time was fear. Tall, majestic, taciturn, he suppressed people at first. Perhaps they felt precisely the pressure of this man’s special, “monstrous” physics. Louis was born with two teeth in his mouth, so no nurse could stand his cradle for more than a month. And after the death of the sun king, it was discovered that his stomach and intestines were twice the size of ordinary human ones. (Hence his brutal appetite). By nature he was extremely hardy, and while the courtiers were fleeing the drafts of Versailles, wrapping themselves in bearskins, like the Marquise de Rambouillet (Rambouillet), he threw wide the windows in the room where he was. Louis did not understand and did not take into account the illnesses of those around him, but he endured his own with great courage. His fistula was removed, as well as part of the maxillary bone (which is why food sometimes came out through his nostrils), but during these monstrous operations due to the lack of anesthesia, the sun king not only did not make a sound, but even maintained a steady pulse!.. And after all, the operation to remove the fistula lasted six hours, as long as the execution by wheeling lasted
HUMANITY. They say that the king did not want to hear about the poverty and misfortunes of the people. I think, however, this is not because of callousness, but because of a feeling of one’s own powerlessness to change something for the better. Was Louis cruel? Hardly. In any case, this is convincingly refuted by a new version of who was hiding behind the “iron mask”, put forward by French historians and cited in the book: S. Tsvetkov. Prisoners of the Bastille. M.. 2001. P. 180194. It turns out, firstly, the mask was not iron, but made of black velvet. Secondly, it is very convincingly proven that the most mysterious prisoner of the sun king could not be his brother or relative. According to the latest research, he could most likely be Count Ercole Antonio Matteoli, minister of Charles IV, Duke of Mantua. He was a witness and participant in the political embarrassment of Louis the Fourteenth, to whom, through the mediation of Matteoli, the Duke of Mantua, always in need of money, sold one of his cities. The city was considered the key to Northern Italy. Matteoli blabbed about the deal, Europe stood up, rightly seeing the French actions as an illegal annexation, and Louis had to urgently pretend that there was no deal at all. Matteoli, however, was captured and likely taken to France, where he would wear a mask over his face for decades and die in the Bastille. He wore a mask because it was a custom practiced in Venetian prisons (the transaction took place in Venice), and also because, first of all, in the prisons where he was, there were Italian prisoners who knew Matteoli well, but French The ambassador announced the death of the count during a road accident! In addition, the mask was supposed to remind him of his betrayal. In the soon-to-be-dead 20th century, all these velvet reproaches of conscience seem like childish pranks. But Louis, probably, simply had not yet matured to the personnel policy of the wise Stalin, who asserted: “No man, no problem!” That’s why “predator” Matteoli, even while in prison, ate from gold and silver utensils
ARTISTIC ABILITIES, TASTE. One of the relatives ironically called Louis “the monarch of the stage” (see: N. Mitford), and the great Minister of Finance Colbert wrote about his patron, wrote in despair: “Do you know as well as I do the man with whom we are we both dealing? Do you know his passion for effects paid at any cost? (quoted from: J. Lenotre, p. 68). Louis was indeed endowed with refined taste (which was developed in him by the passionate collector Mazarin), a subtle sense of language, and a talent as a dancer; until he was almost forty, the king performed in court ballets. He did not like the theater too much, especially in his old age, because his whole life was a theatrical performance, filled with ceremonies and intrigues, and the endless, blinding shine of gold and diamonds. The passion for splendor, the passion to play the role of a monarch and to shine like the earth's sun, was so great in Louis that even in old age, seven months before his death, he appeared on stage for the last time in the role of a monarch, when he gave an audience to the Persian ambassador in winter 1715. There was such an abyss of diamonds on Louis’ robe that he could barely move his legs. And who did he try so hard for? Before some semi-adventurer who perished in his own Persia (and maybe also in Russia), without having done anything for the interests of France (See: J. Le Nôtre, pp. 104110).
ATTITUDE TO PEOPLE. In his relations with people, the king was all courtesy. They say that in his entire life he lost his temper only three times, and of these three times only once did he allow himself to hit a person: a footman who stole a biscuit from the table, however, the nerves of the old Louis had already given way and he was angry, actually, not with the footman , but on their relatives. Louis valued talent, but above all he valued himself and was noticeably jealous of the glory of others. That is why he constantly kept his truly talented relatives in the shadows. Louis's favorite was the insignificant clown the Duke du Maine, his son from the Marquise de Montespan, a witty but empty man. However, du Maine was lame, and a father treats a sick child differently than a healthy one, so from a human perspective, everything here is very understandable. He called his courtiers by title and surname, which gave his manner a touch of formality. But Louis was less on ceremony with the common people and sometimes behaved almost casually. There is a well-known joke connected with this. One day the king entered the room and saw a man who had climbed onto a stepladder and was unscrewing an expensive watch from the wall. The king volunteered to hold the ladder. When the man left, it turned out that Louis was helping a thief, whom he mistook for a court mechanic!.. This anecdote is quite plausible, considering that the parks and state rooms of Versailles were open to everyone around the clock. When, during the French Revolution, the women of Paris went to Versailles, the guards tried to close the gates of the park, but in vain: for more than a hundred years, the hinges of the always open gates rusted tightly
We will talk about other nuances of the king’s relationship with people a little later.
In the meantime, let's give our VERDICT:
Louis the Fourteenth was neither a tyrant nor a despot. He was, first of all, a talented egocentric with a well-developed sense of duty, which, however, he perceived as the fanfare voice of royal fate.

From the tender heart of the Duchess de La Vallière to the “black masses” of the Marquise de Montespan

And yet the image of the sun king in the works of historians is double and unsteady. Time inexorably drives him under those vaults of our memory where historical figures wander, like vague shadows of heroes of myths. Even information about his appearance looks contradictory. In any case, in the book: A.G. Sergeev. Secular and spiritual rulers of Europe for 2000 years. M., 2003, it is stated that Louis “was only 1.59 m tall and therefore introduced high-heeled shoes into men's fashion. In addition, having a huge bump on his head from birth, he always wore tall hats” (p. 481). It is quite natural that the king wanted and knew how to look taller than the people around him, which is why to many memoirists he seemed extremely tall. But, if the indicated height corresponds to reality, then the king’s brother Philippe of Orleans (about whom they unanimously write that he was almost twice as tall as Louis) was significantly less than a meter short, even with a cap!.. However, Philippe was still not considered a dwarf.
Information about the events of the personal life of the great king is equally contradictory. What remains indisputable is that he, like most Bourbons, was distinguished by an increased libido. Louis began to look at women as a child, and became a man at the age of 15 in the arms of a forty-year-old court lady. The king retained his masculine strength until old age; his second wife, the pious de Maintenon, complained to her confessor that she was forced to do “this business” with Louis every day! The king was then about seventy years old
Louis had a lot of fleeting hobbies and more than a dozen illegitimate children. At the same time, the king considered it his duty to share his bed with the unloved (but passionately loved) queen twice a month.
Historians divide his reign into three periods, according to the names of his three main favorites: the period of La Vallière (1661-ca. 1675), Montespan (1675-ca. 1683) and Maintenon (1683-1715). We write “approximately” because the king loved to keep with him both his newly-acquired and almost retired mistress. The poor queen was forced to endure all this. For example, once Louis went to war immediately with his wife, as well as with La Vallière and Montespan, and all three women not only sat in the same carriage (and the crowd came running to see the “three queens of France”!..), but also in a marching dress. royal tent of six rooms, each with its own separate bedroom
Historians unanimously cite the formula of one memoirist, who wrote that Lavaliere loved Louis as a man, Montespan as a king, and Maintenon as a husband. There is another version of this formula: Lavaliere loved him as a mistress. Montespan is like a mistress, and Maintenon is like a governess.
In this chapter we will talk about the first two.
Louise de La Valliere the name of this pure soul, unselfish lady overshadows the youth of the king. She was not too beautiful: she was pockmarked and had a slight limp. She could not be compared with the brilliant beauties, this modest provincial noblewoman, maid of honor to Henrietta of England (Henrietta was the daughter of Charles the First of England and the wife of Philip of Orleans). Henrietta herself fell in love with Louis, but he preferred her to the sweet Lavaliere, who passionately, tenderly and helplessly looked at him from the crowd of courtiers.
Louis never loved anyone so “beautifully,” neither before nor after. They say that one day a thunderstorm caught them in the open air. The lovers took refuge under a tree, and the king covered Lavaliere from the rain with his hat for two hours. They vowed not to drag out any quarrel between themselves until the next day. And when the king once “dragged” her, Louise fled to the monastery. The monarch gave chase. Needless to say, the quarrel ended in a stormy, frantic reconciliation.
Lavaliere gave Louis four children, two of whom lived to adulthood. One day Louise gave birth in pain. Everyone thought she was dying. “Give her back to me and take everything I have!” Louis cried through tears.
At first, the lovers hid their relationship from the Queen Mother and Queen Wife. The day after giving birth, Lavaliere was already rushing to the ball so that their majesties would not learn anything about the birth of a child from the king. But both “Spanish women”, both “Their Most Christian Majesties”, understood everything very soon. “This woman is the king’s mistress!” Maria Theresa said in Spanish to her maid of honor as Lavaliere passed by. And Anna of Austria began to read morals to her son. “When we are tired of love, when we are fed up with it and grow old, then we, in turn, will fall into hypocrisy and indulge in moralizing,” Louis retorted (quoted from: 100 great mistresses. M., 2004. P. 294 ). He almost prophesied. “Almost” because I couldn’t do without sex until the last moment
And poor Lavaliere suffered, remorse tormented her, because having a relationship with the king (a married man) was a very great sin.
The flighty “sire” also tormented her. There is a beautiful legend that he conceived Versailles as a monument to his love for La Vallière. But the king still did not think so broadly: Versailles from the very beginning was conceived as a monument to him personally, the Sun King. When La Vallière was granted the ducal title in 1667, the courtiers saw this as a sign of Louis' cooling. He made gifts to his mistress, as if feeling guilty before her. She loved him, but he no longer loved her. Another woman took possession of the king's heart - Françoise-Athenais, Marquise de Montespan.