Disadvantages of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna. The reign of Elizaveta Petrova (briefly). Question of succession to the throne

Queen Elizabeth of England is one of the most revered and controversial figures in the United Kingdom.
Elizabeth I proved beyond any doubt that a woman could rule England as well as any man. On the one hand, during the era of her long reign, which earned the monarch the love and respect of the people, the country withstood many troubles and successfully resisted powerful Spain. On the other hand, many researchers note that Elizabeth should have owed her political successes to her closest advisers, and she herself was a weak ruler. These disputes have not subsided to this day.

Elizabeth, who went down in history as Gloriana (from gloria - glory) and the Virgin Queen, was a true daughter of her colorful father Henry VIII, who always served as an example to her. She ruled with masculine determination for almost 45 years, combining decisiveness with feminine wily diplomacy, and helped her kingdom to withstand political enemies at home and abroad.
The so-called Elizabethan era - the second half of the 17th century - is considered one of the most interesting periods in the history of England. The flowering of the fine arts and poetry, music and theater, the plays of William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, the greatest monuments of English-language literature, the beautiful, subtle poetry of Edmund Spenser and Philip Sidney, the discovery of new lands far from Europe by Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh, Matthew Frobisher, Humphrey Gilbert and Richard Grenville, who transfer to the crown the treasures captured in the Spanish colonies... Elizabeth herself had never even been to neighboring France, but she encouraged the exploits of her sailors as zealously as the works of court poets and playwrights.

The era of Queen Elizabeth I

Under Henry VIII, the Reformation began in England. The reason for the Reformation was the interest of the English nobility in seizing church lands and the desire of the English bourgeoisie to make the church simple and cheap.
The reason for the Reformation was the refusal of the Pope to allow King Henry VIII to divorce his first wife Catherine of Aragon, aunt of the German Emperor Charles V. The king's divorce was eventually formalized by parliament without the sanction of the Pope, after which Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn, a lady-in-waiting of the former queen.
In response to the Pope's refusal, Henry VIII issued an act of supremacy (supremacy) in 1534, by which the king was declared head of the English Church. The act stated the inviolability of all old Catholic dogmas and rituals; only the head of the church changed, the place of the Pope was taken by the king; the episcopate survived and became the support of absolutism. The new English church took a middle position between Catholicism and Protestantism. In 1536 and 1539, the monasteries were closed and monastic property was confiscated - buildings, all kinds of decorations, gold and silver valuables and, most importantly, vast monastic lands.

The main goal of the Royal Reformation was the desire to take possession of church lands, free ourselves from the tutelage of the Roman church and subordinate the English church to royal authority. But the confiscated lands did not remain in the royal treasury for long, immediately becoming the object of trade and speculation; some of them were distributed to royal favorites. The secularization of church lands had enormous social consequences. The new owners, who came from the middle and petty nobility, and partly from the bourgeoisie, became rich from their acquisition. The new owners of secularized lands, trying to increase their incomes, drove the peasants from their plots or increased the rent to such an extent that the holders were unable to pay it, and they themselves left their plots.
Under Edward VI, the Anglican Church moved somewhat closer to Protestantism (recognition of the dogma of predestination), but already in 1553, during the reign of Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, who was the wife of the Spanish king Philip II, a Catholic reaction began in England. Relying on the support of Spain, the queen restored Catholicism and began to brutally persecute Protestants. However, Maria did not dare to return land and other property to the monasteries. After her short reign, the crown passed to her younger sister, the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth (1558-1603).

Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1558 after the death of her sister. She spent her first youth joylessly. Her mother died on the scaffold, her father kept her away, for a long time not recognizing her as the rightful heir. During Mary's reign, she was in danger of losing her life; Philip was her representative. But this time was not in vain for her. She studied a lot and had a mind capable of accepting with benefit the results of science. In addition to Greek and Latin, she knew Hebrew, as well as many European languages; she belonged not only to learned women, but, one might say, to learned men. When she ascended the throne, it was clear that she did not yet have a fully formed attitude towards politics within the country. There were reasons that made one think that she was ready to make some concessions to Catholicism if the stern and fanatical Pope Paul IV had not intervened in her affairs, who clearly took the side of Mary Stuart, declaring Elizabeth an illegitimate daughter and her father’s marriage invalid. Pope Paul IV, in the world Giampietro Carafa (1476-1559), pope since 1555. Cardinal since 1536. Before being elected pope, he headed the supreme inquisitorial tribunal. With fanatical cruelty he persecuted those of other faiths, fought against the Reformation (torture and burning at the stake became commonplace under him). At the direction of Paul IV, the Index of Prohibited Books was first published in 1559. When he died, the people threw his statue into the Tiber and burned the Inquisition prison. This imprudent act of the pope determined Elizabeth's religious relations: she became the head of Cranmer's party, a party of moderate Protestants. Thomas Cranmer, English reformer, 1489-1556, from 1524 professor of theology at Cambridge, 1530-31 was sent to the pope on the matter of the king’s divorce from his wife; in Germany he met reformers and secretly married the daughter of a pastor in Nuremberg. Upon his return, he was elevated to the rank of Archbishop of Canterbury, advised Henry VIII to secede from Rome; under this king and especially under Edward VI, he tried very hard to introduce the reformation. Upon Mary's accession to the throne (1553), he was imprisoned and burned at the stake on March 31, 1556. Under Elizabeth, the act issued under Mary, by which England returned again to the bosom of the Catholic Church, was declared invalid. A council of bishops assembled in London confirmed the will of the queen in everything. The ritual books introduced under Cranmer came into use again. In 1562, an act of uniformity and unity of faith was issued; this act was directed against Catholics and dissident Protestants, whose teachings did not agree with the generally accepted. In 1571, an Act of Parliament (English Creed) was issued, proclaiming England a Protestant country. In 36 articles of the act, the main difference between the Anglican Church and Catholicism and Protestantism was stated. Approaching Protestantism in dogmatic teaching, it adjoined Catholicism in its external, ritual side. The new creed included the Calvinist dogma of predestination. Harsh laws were passed against Catholics. Jesuits were completely prohibited from entering England. Catholics had to pay high additional taxes. The transition from Protestantism to Catholicism was equated with high treason.

Elizabeth's long, forty-five-year reign coincided with a period of particular economic revival in England. The formation of numerous trading companies for trade with other countries, including India and America, the beginning of English overseas colonization, the rapid growth of the English merchant fleet, the development of cloth manufacture, the increasing spread of capitalist farming - all these phenomena constitute the most striking features of the so-called Age of Elizabeth .
Restoring Protestantism, Elizabeth met the interests of the new nobility and bourgeoisie, firmly ensuring the rights of the owners of former monastic lands.
As under Henry VIII, Parliament provided the queen with all possible assistance in her fight against feudal-Catholic factions. The Scottish Queen Mary Stuart, nominated by Catholics as a contender for the English crown (also descended from the Tudor dynasty through the female line), was expelled from Scotland with the support of Elizabeth's agents. Having fled to England, Mary Stuart was captured by Elizabeth. After many years of imprisonment, she was executed in 1587. The execution of Mary Stuart was a serious defeat for Catholic reaction in Europe. Pope Sixtus V, with a special bull, called on Catholics to war with England.
Agents of the Spanish King Philip II took a large part in the case of Mary Stuart. The feudal-Catholic reaction within the country and Spanish interference from without equally worried Elizabeth's government. Spain became for a long time the national enemy of England for another, even more important reason. As English maritime trade developed and strengthened, Spain increasingly became for English bourgeois circles the main obstacle to their penetration into the numerous Spanish-Portuguese colonies.

Elizabeth supported the Dutch revolution with the aim of weakening Spain. English ships, with the knowledge and encouragement of Elizabeth, attacked, without any declaration of war, the Spanish flotillas sailing from America to Spain with precious cargo, and plundered them. Elizabeth's two greatest admirals, Drake and Hawkins, began their political careers as pirates. To put an end to English piracy and restore completely Spanish influence in England, similar to the times of Mary Bloody (Mary Tudor), Philip II launched his “Invincible Armada” campaign in 1588.
In England, the war with Spain acquired the meaning of a struggle for the country's national independence. A land army was created to repel the landing and protect London and a fleet numbering about 200 combat and transport ships. Most of this fleet was made up of private merchant and pirate ships sent by various cities in England. In contrast to the Spanish, the English fleet consisted of light, fast ships and was better armed with artillery. In accordance with this, the following tactics were adopted: to avoid a general naval battle, but to actively attack individual ships and small formations on the flanks and rear of the armada. The crews of English ships consisted of sailors who had undergone good training in the merchant or fishing fleet and often participated in pirate raids on Spanish ships. Hawkins, Raleigh and other major pirates and sailors of the time took part in the battle with the armada. The British were helped by the Dutch fleet.
On July 26, 1588, the armada left A Coruña and a few days later reached English waters off Plymouth. From here she headed towards Dunkirk. This was a moment opportune for an attack by the English fleet. The naval battles lasted two weeks, and as a result the armada was unable to reach Dunkirk. The Spanish fleet failed to connect with the ground forces and was pushed into the North Sea, losing a large number of ships. Heavy losses and demoralization of sailors and soldiers forced the command of the armada to begin a retreat. But a strong south wind did not allow the return voyage across the English Channel. The outbreak of a storm scattered the ships of the armada off the coast of Scotland and completed its defeat. On the west coast of Ireland, more than 5 thousand Spaniards, thrown there by a storm, were captured.
With the death of the Armada, the naval power of Spain was undermined. Mastery of the sea began to pass to England and Holland, which opened up the opportunity for them to carry out large colonial conquests and accelerate the process of primitive accumulation and the development of capitalism through the plunder of colonies. In 1596, English ships defeated the Spanish fleet in the harbor of Cadiz.

The successes of Elizabeth's domestic and foreign policies greatly raised her authority in the eyes of the growing bourgeois classes of England. Parliament subsidized her government very generously. However, towards the end of Elizabeth's reign, some signs of dissatisfaction of the bourgeoisie with the regime of absolutism were revealed. Part of this opposition was expressed in critical speeches by members of parliament. In 1601, Parliament sharply protested against the Queen's practice of trading patents for the monopoly production of various industrial goods by individuals or companies. It took the intervention of Elizabeth herself and her promise to stop such practices to calm the irritated parliament. Parliament was not happy with the queen's church policy either. Part of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility was inclined to deepen the reformation of the Anglican Church in the spirit of Calvinism. But Elizabeth did not want to break with the episcopal Anglican system, in which bishops turned into the most obedient instrument of absolutism.
Opposition sentiments were also brewing outside parliament. The most convenient form, reflecting the dissatisfaction of the grown and strengthened bourgeois classes with the policy of absolutism, was a new religious and church direction, called Puritanism. Puritans were initially called supporters of the Anglican Church, but those who most advocated for the cleansing of its cult from the remnants of Catholicism (the word Puritans itself comes from the Latin word purus - pure). The name Puritans first appeared in the 60s of the 16th century. In the 70-80s their number in England increased greatly. The Puritans at this time had already begun to break organizationally with the dominant Anglican Church, leaving it and creating their own special church communities with elected elders (presbyters) at their head. Puritan church communities provided complete independence in church affairs. Thus, the English bourgeoisie and the English new nobility began their liberation in the religious field in order to subsequently move on to the struggle against the entire feudal-absolutist system as a whole. Already in the 16th century, two directions clearly stood out in English Puritanism: the more right-wing - Presbyterian, represented by the largest bourgeoisie and large nobility, and the more left-wing - Independent, which found followers mainly among the petty bourgeoisie, gentry and peasantry. Elizabeth's government was extremely hostile to the Puritans. The Puritans, like the Catholics, were persecuted. They, like Catholics, were imprisoned, expelled from the country, and subjected to all kinds of fines. But the number of Puritans continued to increase, increasingly indicating the impending break of the bourgeois classes with absolutism.

In 1600, the East India Company was organized - an instrument of colonial English policy in India. The joint-stock companies were patronized by the queen, who received a significant share of the profits, not to mention loans and gifts. Expeditions were organized to discover and develop new lands. One of the first was the Frobisher expedition. Martin Frobisher (c. 1530 or 1540 - 1594), English navigator. In 1576-78, during the search for a northwestern route to China and India, he discovered the southern and southeastern coast of Baffin Island (Meta-Incognita Peninsula), penetrated the straits separating it from the mainland and Greenland (the future Hudson and Davis straits), discovered a “strait” (which turned out to be a gulf), later named after him. Before and after Arctic voyages he commanded pirate ships; in 1588 he took part in the battle against the "Invincible Armada". In the last years of Elizabeth's reign, the fleet of the East India Company visited the Spice Islands (Moluccas) and the Indian port of Surat, marking the beginning of England's trade with India. After English ships defeated a Portuguese squadron near Surat in 1612, the company created this city has its own permanent trading post.

Elizabeth was an extraordinary ruler, skillfully using all the previous political experience of the Tudors. She protected the high prestige of the peerage and provided the feudal nobility with comprehensive support through large payments from the treasury, forgiveness of debts, land grants, and distribution of positions. The queen's foresight was manifested in the fact that she sought to make bourgeois and noble circles her support. Her favorite symbol was the pelican, which, according to legend, feeds its chicks with meat torn from its own breast. The pelican represented the queen's boundless concern for her nation.
Elizabeth perfected the policy of maneuvering between the nobility and the bourgeois-noble camp, traditional for the Tudors.
The protectionist policies of the Tudors promoted the progress of production and trade. An important role in the development of cloth production was played by the statutes of Henry VII, which prohibited the export of wool and unprocessed cloth from England. The Navigation Acts of both Henrys encouraged navigation and trade among English merchants and attracted foreigners to the English market. Elizabeth I actively promoted new crafts - the production of glass, paper, cotton fabrics, etc. On her initiative, large mutual partnerships were created, contributing to a qualitative leap in the mining and metallurgy industries.
By the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries, it became increasingly difficult for the crown to implement a policy of maneuvering. The progressive material impoverishment of the feudal aristocracy required increased support for royal power. However, at this time, Elizabeth I was faced with a severe financial deficit. The costs of fighting Spain, helping Protestants in the Netherlands and France, and the conquest of Ireland devastated the treasury. The Queen was forced to sell her crown lands. The size of her awards and direct payments from the treasury to the nobility was reduced. This caused discontent among the feudal aristocracy, which resulted in an anti-government conspiracy in 1601 led by the Earl of Essex. On February 8, 1601, in London, they took to the streets under a banner depicting the coat of arms of the Earl of Essex, hoping to cause an uprising in the city. But the majority of Londoners, rightly expecting only the return of the dark times of feudal strife from the victory of the conspirators, did not support the rebels. The queen's soldiers easily dispersed the rebels, and the Earl of Essex and his accomplices were captured and imprisoned in the Tower. Nevertheless, Elizabeth, fearing unrest among London's poor, kept the capital under martial law for two weeks. There was also unrest in the county of Medlesex, neighboring London. Under such conditions, the Privy Council hastened to sentence Essex to death, and at the end of February he was executed; Other participants in the rebellion were also punished. Simultaneously with the growth of claims against the queen on the part of the conservative camp, changes were brewing in the relations of the crown with bourgeois and noble circles. In the last years of her reign, Elizabeth sharply increased pressure on parliament, demanding more and more subsidies, fees for military needs, and forced loans. She began to impose additional trade duties and levies on merchant companies. Particular discontent of the population was caused in the 90s of the 16th century by an unprecedented increase in the number of private monopolies, which spread to most branches of production and trade in almost all types of goods. State regulation of the economy, which stimulated its development until the 60-70s, has now turned into a brake.

An opposition formed in parliament, which began to actively resist the crown in socio-economic and political issues. In Elizabeth's last parliaments, an acute conflict broke out between the House of Commons and the Queen over monopolies. In 1601 the opposition achieved its first serious success, achieving the repeal of some of them.
The imbalance in the socio-economic policy of the crown, its financial bankruptcy and the conflict between royal power and parliament indicated that already at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries, English absolutism entered its time of crisis.
Elizabeth kept a brilliant court. A luxurious retinue accompanied her to London or country palaces - Hampton Court, Greenwich, Richmond, Whitehall, Windsor. The queen's favorite palace was Richmond. In London, she never stayed in the Tower; she remembered two months of imprisonment during the reign of her sister Mary and, as contemporaries testified, the sounds made by the inhabitants of the royal menagerie nearby prevented her from sleeping. Every summer, Elizabeth went on a “highest journey” through southern and central England (she never went to the north). The queen was accompanied by several hundred courtiers and servants. The cortege stopped with local nobles, which was a dubious joy for them: in today's money, one day of stay of the queen and her servants cost a hundred thousand pounds.

Culture of England under Elizabeth

The sixteenth century, which in the history of England was the century of the birth of capitalism, was at the same time a period of brilliant flowering of its culture. The center of new humanistic ideas in England was Oxford University. The English humanists of the Oxford circle Grosin, Linacre and John Colet were enthusiastic admirers of ancient literature and ardently promoted in England the study of the Greek language, which, according to the humanists of that time, was the key to the treasures of ancient culture. They had a great influence on the formation of humanistic ideas in English literature. The ideological and moral influence of John Colet (1467-1519) was especially great. The son of a wealthy merchant and mayor of London, Colet studied theology in France and Italy, preparing to become a preacher. He knew ancient literature and the works of Italian humanists well. Like his teachers, Colet tried to combine scripture with the teachings of Plato and the Neoplatonists. Colet was an ardent defender of the humanistic system of education; spoke out against corporal punishment and scholastic teaching methods. In the school he created with a humanistic educational program, the youngster mastered the Latin and Greek languages, became familiar not only with Christian literature, but also with the works of ancient classics. Thanks to Colet, secular, so-called grammar schools arose in England. Colet had a huge influence on Thomas More.

Thomas More (1478-1535), Henry VIII's chancellor, witnessed all the horrors that the era of primitive accumulation brought with it in England. He saw national disasters called enclosures.
In the first part of his novel-treatise, “The Golden Book, as useful as it is amusing, on the best structure of the state and on the new island of Utopia,” More portrayed 16th-century England in a harsh light, criticizing the policy of enclosures and bloody legislation. From the perspective of the fictional traveler Raphael Hythlodeus, More tells of a happy country on the distant island of Utopia (Greek for “non-existent place”). There is no private property in this country. All the inhabitants of the island work, doing crafts and, in turn, agriculture. Thanks to the labor of all members of society, products are produced in such large quantities that they can be distributed according to the needs of everyone. Education is available to all members of society; it is based on the combination of theoretical learning with labor education. The Society is governed by officers elected for one year. Only the prince, whose title and position remain for life, is not re-elected. Important and significant matters are decided at a popular meeting of all Utopians. Money does not play any role in Utopia, and the attitude towards it is contemptuous: gold is used to make chains for criminals.
The organization of the craft was presented to More in a family form with the inclusion of outsiders who wanted to engage in this craft. Slavery exists in Thomas More's society, but only those convicted of crimes became temporary slaves. Slaves did the dirtiest and hardest work. The working day in Utopia lasted six hours, after which all Utopians were engaged in science. The genius of More's work is that he implements the principles of compulsory labor for all and solves in his own way the complex problems of eliminating the opposition between city and countryside, between physical and mental labor.
Of course, Thomas More created his “Utopia” even before Elizabeth ascended the throne, but the ideas expressed in his work had a significant influence on the thinkers and writers of her time. Thomas More was a major statesman: under Henry VIII he was Lord Chancellor, the first person in the state after the king. But More opposed the English Reformation. At the request of the king, he was convicted and executed in 1535. On this basis, in clerical historiography, Thomas More is viewed as a martyr for the Catholic faith, which Elizabeth so zealously opposed. In fact, More was a supporter of religious tolerance. In his “Utopia,” everyone can believe what they want and no religious views are condemned.

The reign of Elizabeth was the heyday of humanistic theatrical art, which most clearly embodied the social upsurge of the Renaissance. The greatest representative of the English Renaissance was William Shakespeare (1564-1616).
The humanistic ideas of the English Renaissance received vivid expression in the works of Shakespeare. In his comedies “The Merchant of Venice”, “Much Ado About Nothing”, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” and others, he vividly expressed the feeling of affirming the joy of life, love, and the struggle with fate. All his work is imbued with respect for man, regardless of his origin. In his comedies, Shakespeare depicted the thoughts, feelings and experiences of people freed from the religious, mystical worldview of the Middle Ages.
In the tragedies “Hamlet”, “King Lear”, “Othello”, “Coriolanus” and others, Shakespeare, based on the complex and contradictory situation in England at that time, showed the clash of humanistic ideals of man with the ethics and morality of the coming capitalist society: selfishness, thirst for enrichment , the power of money, preference for personal interests over public interests, bigotry and hypocrisy.
In his historical plays “Henry VI”, “Richard III”, “King John”, “Henry V” Shakespeare shows the past of England and deeply analyzes the political struggle of that time and its driving forces. Shakespeare is a staunch supporter of firm royal power and absolutism. Shakespeare is a decisive enemy of feudal anarchy, the narrow oligarchic policy of the feudal-aristocratic elite.

The features of the English Renaissance were most clearly manifested in the performing arts. In the 16th century, the theater in England was a place where representatives of the entire population gathered. It was visited by aristocrats and gentlemen, merchants and officials. The theater was visited by peasants who came to the city for the market, artisans, sailors and port workers. All spectators usually reacted violently to the play, the acting, and individual lines. The performance alternated between cheers from the audience, shouts of indignation, and deep silence.
In the second half of the 16th century, a number of theaters appeared in London, both public and private. The Globe Theater, where Shakespeare was a playwright and shareholder, was very popular. It was located on the outskirts of London, near the Thames, and was a huge roofless barn that could accommodate up to 2,000 spectators. Performances took place only during the day, since there was no artificial lighting. The cheapest seats were in the stalls; around the stalls there were covered boxes of 2-3 tiers for the wealthy public. The famous Shakespearean stage was a platform raised above the level of the stalls, there was no curtain, and the props were primitive.
The theater's repertoire included an abundance of productions from the history of England, especially medieval (the dramas of Christopher Marlowe), as well as dramas or tragedies in which the audience saw conflicts taken from the surrounding life.
Among the poet-playwrights of the younger generation, Ben Jonson (1573-1637) stood out. Ben Jonson, the author of many comedies, in contrast to Shakespeare, more sharply reflected in his work the anti-feudal and anti-absolutist sentiments of the growing bourgeois opposition of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. His depiction of an idle court society, bankrupt nobles, bribery, and the arbitrariness of royal judges and officials is of a vivid political and satirical nature and is a direct preparation for the journalism of the era of the English bourgeois revolution of the mid-17th century.
The end of the Renaissance was marked by the speech of the greatest English philosopher Francis Bacon.
But not all genera and types of art flourished equally. Architecture was dominated by the so-called Tudor style, which represented nothing more than the first step towards liberation from medieval Gothic. Its elements are preserved until the largest architect - Ainigo Jones (1573-1651). The best work of Inigo Jones - the design of the royal palace of Whitehall, carried out only slightly (the Banqueting House Pavilion), combines the high Renaissance style with architectural forms that have their national roots in England.

As for painting, under Elizabeth, a significant number of painters of the so-called second division, mostly Flemings, worked in England. Strict rules and restrictions were developed for the creation of royal portraits. Portraits of the queen were to be painted only from samples, which were made only by masters chosen by Elizabeth herself. There was a strict canon for painting court portraits, which then extended to the entire aristocratic portrait. The composition of such portraits was static, there were no emotions on the faces, they seemed lifeless, close attention was paid only to the details of the costume.
In this regard, portrait miniatures were freer for the manifestation of creative imagination. The art of portrait miniatures flourished in England. The leading English miniaturists were Hilliard and Oliver.
Hilliard created complex miniatures that depict full-length figures. Oliver worked in the same technique as Hilliard, but his miniatures were characterized by greater plasticity. He used chiaroscuro and experimented with ultramarine backgrounds.
In English music, the leading ones were chamber works - madrigals, as well as church choirs.

Elizabeth's personality

Elizabeth went down in history as the “Virgin Queen.” Her stubborn reluctance to marry is one of the mysteries of her reign. First of all, this was based on the fact that the queen had no children. Some researchers believed that the queen suffered from infertility. They based their conclusions on the fact that Elizabeth’s half-sister Mary Tudor also suffered from infertility, and Elizabeth herself was sure that there was some kind of hereditary disease in their family. However, the evidence of contemporaries, based on the testimony of a variety of people close to the queen - doctors, laundresses, maids, suggests that the queen was capable of childbearing. However, the only fact that was known was that Elizabeth never suffered from cycle disorders. It is quite obvious that this fact does not mean that Elizabeth could have children. In Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century, a radical version was widespread that Elizabeth was a virgin queen in the literal sense, i.e. some physiological characteristics of her body did not allow her to enter into close relationships. This version also did not find any confirmation, and it was also not known what these “physiological features” were. This version was based, among other things, on the famous letter from Mary Stuart to Elizabeth, in which Mary Stuart calls her not like other women, incapable of marriage.
However, the above points of view on the Queen’s celibacy suffer from excessive romanticism. Perhaps the explanation is much simpler and more convincing: her reluctance to get married is nothing more than a calculated political move. Elizabeth liked to repeat that she was “married to England”; in fact, through the queen’s efforts, the so-called “marriage games” at court became almost her main weapon. The matchmaking of foreign princes kept the opposing countries in constant tension, because Elizabeth's marriage (if it had taken place) could have upset the political balance in Europe and created a completely different balance of power. The Queen took advantage of this. Not intending to get married, she, nevertheless, was almost constantly in a state of “betrothal” to one or another applicant: for example, the matchmaking of the French Duke of Alençon lasted not long, not short - 10 years (from 1572 to 1582 !); depending on the political situation in France and Spain, Elizabeth either brought the applicant closer or further away, forcing Catherine de Medici (regent in France) and Philip II (king of Spain) to be quite worried, because a possible marriage of the English queen and the French prince would have significantly undermined the possibility of peaceful coexistence between Valois and Habsburgs.
Not getting married was beneficial from another point of view. The Virgin Queen had an unlimited ability to charm her advisors and courtiers with her personal charm. Men who were in love with her became more submissive and turned into more reliable assistants. However, Elizabeth was not particularly flattered on this score: loving flattery, she, nevertheless, knew the true price of everything; “being in love” alone was not enough here, and in the hearts of the courtiers, just like those of the foreign princes, there lived the hope of marriage with the illustrious lady. Over the years, this hope was cherished by such noble English nobles as Pickering and Arundel; Leicester. Inflaming desires in the minds and hearts of men in every possible way, Elizabeth never thought seriously about marriage. Faced too closely with the monstrous, unthinking male pride and vanity, she could not help but despise men. In their servility to her, they reached the point of absurdity (for example, one provincial nobleman, a certain Kargli, voluntarily agreed to the role of a jester at court) - but only if they hoped for favors on her part. As soon as she loosened the reins a little, the men instantly forgot about their unearthly love (her favorite, Earl Robert Leicester, when Elizabeth became seriously ill with smallpox, was eagerly awaiting her death, accompanied by several thousand armed henchmen, hoping to seize power). To achieve their goal, the men around her did not take anything into account: they had neither strong political convictions nor moral principles. The same Leicester, at the very beginning of the 1560s, when his hopes of getting Elizabeth as his wife began to rapidly fade, made an unseemly deal with Philip II behind the monarch’s back: if the latter supported his marriage with the queen, Lester would undertake to defend Spanish interests in England and rule the country in accordance with these interests. This smacked of treason; Of course, the queen became aware of his daring plans, and Leicester was not punished only because he was still needed. However, after this incident, he could forget about the possibility of marriage with Elizabeth. She no longer trusted him, however, his pride did not allow him to admit this evidence.

The only man at court who enjoyed the Queen's true and abiding respect was William Cecil. Having a wonderful, strong family, he never courted Elizabeth and did not try to please her as a man. He was brave enough to disagree with her, and smart enough to pretend to agree. His strong political convictions allowed him to maintain a constant, clear position. He was reliable and loyal. He was rich, thrifty and honest, and all attempts by the queen’s enemies to bribe him with money failed ingloriously. Who knows, perhaps the queen quite sincerely believed that only this man could become a worthy husband for her. However, even here it is necessary to make a reservation: despite her sincere sympathy for Cecil, Elizabeth paid him humiliatingly little. He complained in letters to friends that the state allowance was barely enough for him to maintain the stables, and he was forced to live on his family estates and go into debt. In 20 years of service to Elizabeth, he did not receive what he received in four years from King Edward (generosity, alas, was not included in the list of the queen’s virtues).
The queen's husbandlessness also corresponded to her main goal: preserving her own life, because contrary to national interests, Elizabeth did not need an heir at all. The absence of a named successor did not allow intrigue in favor of a specific person and did not create precedents for conspiracies against Elizabeth. The absence of an heir was her personal guarantee, a patent to power. But it was also an insoluble problem for the state. The queen was often ill, sometimes so seriously that her subjects were seized with a state close to panic. At the same time, the situation in the state began to strongly resemble the pre-war one: numerous factions and parties intended to firmly grasp power.
It must be said that the disadvantages of the position of the “Virgin Queen” almost outweighed the advantages. The personal interest of those close to him in the queen’s special favor created at court an unhealthy, nervous atmosphere of constant rivalry, general hatred and monstrous squabbles. Everyone intrigued and encouraged each other. Due to the fact that the queen had a “personal relationship” with each man, factional conflicts, clashes and enmity at court did not stop even for a day, which, of course, extremely destabilized the general political situation in the state. The emotional level of communication between the monarch and his subordinates led to the fact that small and large conspiracies constantly broke out at court, which, of course, undermined the personal safety of the queen. However, she was a hostage of her own (and absolute) distrust of men, which did not allow her to choose one of them and thereby put an end to dangerous intrigues. She preferred to have obstinate subjects in love rather than obstinate ones not in love.
Perhaps the most significant drawback of her declared virginity was the lack of understanding on the part of the people. In fact, the pretentious and far-fetched ideals that Elizabeth the woman chose for herself would have suited a Catholic nun, but certainly not the first bride of England. In the eyes of ordinary people, the queen was not only a queen, a ruler, but also a woman, and a woman absolutely incomprehensible from the point of view of common sense: she refused to get married and give birth to children. The people, in their own way, tried to solve this riddle: there were many different, often unpleasant rumors about Elizabeth. Her husbandlessness could be explained in two ways: she was either a “whore” or “there was something wrong with her.” The first version in particular undermined the queen’s authority among ordinary people and gave rise to active disrespect and unhealthy fantasies: the queen was credited with irrepressible voluptuousness and many illegitimate children. The second statement was also very unflattering for the prestige of the crown: the most fantastic rumors about Elizabeth’s physical deformity originate from there. Finally, the very concept of “Virgin Queen” led other hotheads too far into the wilds: in 1587, a certain Emmanuel Plantagenet, “the son of Queen Elizabeth from the immaculate conception,” who had been caught by secret agents right on the streets of London, was brought to the astonished Cecil.
Elizabeth was fully aware that her position as the Virgin Queen brought England too many problems, the most obvious of which was the absolutely insoluble problem of an heir. However, she did absolutely nothing to change things.
Contrary to popular belief, Elizabeth was not a wise and strong statesman who pursued a reasonable political line in accordance with the interests of her country. Rather, she was a highly inconsistent and indecisive monarch seeking to survive. She did not have any coherent concept of state power, according to which she could build her rule. When making this or that decision, she refused to be guided not only by national interests, but sometimes by common sense, because, as a queen, she always remained an extremely unbalanced, hysterical woman with numerous personal quirks. Her many-year reign lasted largely thanks to the courage, perseverance and talents of Secretary of State William Cecil; the queen, using the right of “ultimo ratio regis”, rather hindered than helped Cecil to pursue a clear, meaningful policy arising from the national interests of England. As soon as Cecil died, instantly all the visible power of the Elizabethan state crumbled like a house of cards: it turned out that not a single problem in the state had been completely resolved.
Throughout her reign, Elizabeth, in general, did not try to solve any problems: she preferred to wait them out, because she never cared about what would actually happen to England after her death. England interested her much less than her own well-being: Elizabeth was an ordinary egoist, albeit one clothed with power.

Fairy Queen

Many artists and poets of that time dedicated their works to Elizabeth. One of the most famous dedications to the queen is Edmund Spenser’s work “The Faerie Queene” (in Russian translation “Queen of Spirits”).
Edmund Spencer was born in London into a noble family and educated at Cambridge. In 1569, Spencer released his first, youthful works - translations from Petrarch and Dubellay. In 1579 he graduated from the university course. Over time, Spencer gained access to the court, where he began to enjoy the patronage of Queen Elizabeth, but could not become a real courtier. Spencer continued to write poetry and poetry, gradually gaining wide popularity with his works, despite all this he was constantly in need and tried in vain to take a stronger place in the administrative world and improve his financial situation. Only towards the end of his life did he receive a pension of 50 pounds sterling from the queen for his poem “The Fairy Queen”; spent his last years mainly at his picturesque Irish estate of Kilcolman, which was given to him by Lord Gray, Viceroy of Ireland, and which he was forced to leave after the indignation of the peasants, who burned his house, took possession of his estate and killed his child; died three months later in London, almost a pauper, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Contemporaries highly valued Spenser's poetry, calling him the prince of the poet; John Milton, as well as John Dryden, spoke highly of Spenser. Spencer influenced the poetry of English Romanticism and was imitated by Robert Burns and James Thomson. Charles Lamb called him the poet of poets. His work influenced the work of Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Keats and George Gordon Byron.

The Faerie Queene is considered Edmund Spenser's best work. In this poem, Spencer discovered a rich imagination, an elegant poetic worldview, an understanding of nature, and the ability to write in a beautiful, sonorous and colorful language. He very skillfully used the old legends about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, English folk mythology, as well as mythological images of the ancient world; He performs Diana, Venus, Cupid, Morpheus, nymphs, satyrs, giants, dwarfs, sorcerers, fairies, elves. Chivalric ideals and traditions, at that time already relegated to the realm of legend, but not yet forgotten by literature, undoubtedly enjoyed the sympathies of Spencer; the old chivalry, with everything that was noble, sublime, poetic or refined in it, comes to life in his poem. The modern reader is somewhat disheartened by the allegorical character given to The Fairy Queen, where personifications of virtues - moderation, chastity, justice - and vices appear, where the struggle of the main character with forces hostile to him means the struggle of England with the intrigues of Catholicism.
Spencer wrote only 6 books out of an estimated 12. Each of the books written is dedicated to one or another knightly virtue. Thus the first book of the poem contains the legend of the Knight of the Scarlet Cross or of Sainthood; the second book describes the legend of Sir Guyon or Temperance; the third book is the legend of Britomart or Chastity; the fourth book is the legend of Cambel and Telamond or Friendship; the fifth book is the legend of Artegel or Justice; the sixth book is the legend of Sir Kalidor or the Majesty. At first glance, it may seem that the construction of the poem is abstract, schematic and not much different from ordinary medieval allegories. But once you immerse yourself in the poem, such prejudice will immediately dissipate. The allegory is aggravated by its enchanting diversity and mysterious ambiguity. An allegory does not point to anything external, being an allegory of an allegory, which in turn forms an allegory and so on endlessly. It is difficult to imagine how such a work could end, not being produced, but producing itself, as if with the involuntary participation of the author. The author is a builder and at the same time a prisoner of a labyrinth, from which the reader cannot find a way out, forced to explain such enchanting hopelessness by the death of the author, although the author, perhaps, did not die, but only went too deep into his labyrinth, like Lermontov’s ancestor Thomas Learmont went to the land of fairies following the white deer. By the way, Spenser’s poem can be called “The Fairy Queen” in translation, but fairys in English are of both sexes, they are exactly spirits.
Spencer considered it necessary to explain the features of his poem in a special introduction. This is his famous letter to Sir Walter Raleigh, something like Dante Alighieri's letter to Cana Grande della Scala regarding the Divine Comedy. Spencer talks about the allegorical nature of his poem and explains its compositional dispersion. The letter precedes the first three books of the poem, each of which, as it were, completely independently tells about the fate of three different heroes. Spencer explains that the various storylines will only be brought together in the twelfth book of the poem. Only there will it be told why the hero of the first song is the knight of the Red Cross, the hero of the second is Sir Guyon, and the heroine of the third is the warrior Britomartis. It was in the twelfth book that an image was to be found of that holiday in the fairy kingdom, which lasts twelve days and in which each day should be marked by the beginning of some glorious knightly adventure. The fact that Spencer did not want to begin his work of stories about an event that naturally opens a series of adventures of his heroes was reflected in the aristocratic sophistication characteristic of his art. Perhaps the poet imitated Ariosto in this, who also avoided the simple logical progression of the story.
English reality was reflected in Spenser's poem only very one-sidedly. It seems that Spencer loves not so much the England of his time as the England of the distant past, the England of chivalric antiquity, the England of his favorite Chaucer and, perhaps, even more distant. In Renaissance England, Spencer sees only one side. It is as if he cannot let go of the circle of his imagination all the festive pomp that Renaissance culture caused in England, starting with Henry VIII: court performances, balls, extravaganzas and “masks”, fantastic receptions in honor of the king or queen, organized by great nobles in their castles , national festivals, on which huge sums of money were spent beyond counting both by the treasury and by the favorites of the reigning persons. It was this external decorative side of Renaissance culture that captured Spencer’s imagination.
In those years when Spencer was working on the first books of The Faerie Queene, Marlowe was writing his drama. In the year the first three books of Spenser's poem were published, Shakespeare staged his first play. But the viewer to whom Marlowe and Shakespeare showed the works of their genius was different from the reader to whom Spencer addressed: Marlowe and Shakespeare wrote for the people, Spencer wrote for select aristocratic readers.
Spencer is a humanist, but he does not strive to fight and does not seek from the people
response to your ideals. His humanistic ideal of a person, harmoniously developed, combining purity, selflessness and moderation with knightly valor, beauty and courage, is beautiful, but abstractly ethereal; and the problematic side of his poem recedes before the play of his fantasy.
The poetic cult of beauty reigns supreme in his work, freely pouring out in sonorous stanzas. In this respect, Spenser has almost no rivals among English poets.
In his work, Spencer rethinks the legend of King Arthur.
By the time of Elizabeth's reign, the legend of King Arthur had come a long way and was very popular not only in the British Isles, but also on the continent. The formation of the central image of this legend includes several stages: early pseudo-historical; the stage when Arthur appeared as a great hero of chivalric romances; the stage when the degradation of the image began, and the stage when T. Malory created the novel “The Death of Arthur,” which formed the basis for “Arthuriana” of subsequent eras. In order to understand what role the Arthurian myth played in the culture of Elizabethan England, it is necessary to briefly recall these stages.
The true father of the legend of King Arthur, however, should be considered Geoffrey of Monmouth (12th century), who wrote the History of the Britons in Latin. Geoffrey created the history of 99 British kings, starting with the legendary Brutus. About a fifth of his work is devoted to Arthur. Here he is depicted not only as a warrior, but also as a king, surrounded by loyal knights, a typically medieval monarch who conquered many nations, a descendant of Emperor Constantine. Geoffrey, with whose “History” the heroic-novel stage in the development of the image of King Arthur begins, describes his court as the center of knightly culture and civilization.
Like many of his contemporaries. Spencer does not ignore the claims of the Tudors as heirs to the pre-Saxon royal dynasty. In the 10th canto of book II, conveying the contents of the two volumes read by Prince Arthur and knight Guyon during their stay in the castle of Lady Alma, and in the 3rd canto of book III of the poem, he retells the information he gleaned from the “History of the Britons” by Geoffrey and its sequels, written by such Elizabethan chroniclers as Harding, Grafton, Shaw and Holinshed. The thrust of these passages - apologetic towards the Tudors and their rights to the throne - expresses the spirit of the times.
It's interesting how Spencer reinterprets the image of Arthur himself. In the preface to The Faerie Queene, addressed to W. Raleigh, the poet explained why he turned not to the biography of his patron, but to Arthurian material: “I chose the history of King Arthur as the most suitable due to the splendor of his personality, glorified by the earlier works of many men , and also due to the fact that it is the most removed from the envy and suspicion of our time.” Spencer's Arthur is not a ruler, but the embodiment of all kinds of virtues.
It is no accident that Spenser makes his hero not King Arthur, but Arthur the Prince. This allows the poet to assign him a subordinate position both in the plot and in the system of characters. The Fairy Queen belongs to the visionary genre. Young Arthur sees in a dream a wonderful kingdom of fairies, where the royal Gloriana rules, and goes in search of it. Arthur's vision itself is not depicted in the poem; it is described in the author's preface.
Throughout the story, Prince Arthur plays the same role. When the hero of one or another episode, of which the poem consists, completely in the spirit of chivalric novels, finds himself in a hopeless situation during his wanderings, Arthur comes to his aid and saves him. So, in the VIII canto of Book I, the prince rescues the Knight of the Red Cross from trouble, who is languishing in captivity of the giant Orgoglio and the witch Duessa. And in canto VIII of Book II he saves Guyon from the hands of robbers, later performing a similar feat in relation to Timias. Arthur's exploits are standard for knightly literature, he defeats giants and robbers, saves beautiful ladies, wins castles for them and helps them reunite with their lovers.
Thus, at the event level, Arthur cannot be called the protagonist of the poem: he, as a rule, performs the functions of a kind of “god ex machina,” restoring violated justice. Since his image is devoid of national and political pathos, Arthur can hardly be considered the main character of the ideological layer of the work.
The poem, created in honor of Queen Elizabeth, glorifies her and her reign. Suffice it to say that the very name of King Arthur appears only at the end of Book I, while the reader meets Gloriana, that same great queen of the land of fairies, already in the third stanza. According to Spencer, Gloriana is the embodiment of Glory in general.
"The Faerie Queene" contains many allusions to the Elizabethan era and direct references to contemporary events. Thus, the story of Timias and Belphebe in Cantos VII and VIII of Book IV is based on one of the episodes in the relationship between Elizabeth and her favorite W. Raleigh. Angered by the secret marriage of her close associate, the queen expelled him from court society and imprisoned him in the Tower, but then was forced to forgive him. An abundance of allegorized historical material can be found in Book V: this is the trial of Mary Stuart (canto IX), and the problem of Spanish rule over the Netherlands (cantos X-XI), and the “hereticy” of Henry of Navarre (canto XII). In Canto XI of Book IV, Spencer advises the British to listen to the voice of W. Raleigh, who constantly urged them to colonize southern Africa.
It can be assumed that the Arthurian legend attracted the Elizabethans because of the mythology contained in it: flourishing before decline, victory before inevitable defeat. The anticipation of a tragic future, as shown, for example, by the early, most optimistic work of Shakespeare, was not alien to the people of the Elizabethan age - the period of the brilliant rise of English Renaissance culture, which was followed by times that were far from so favorable for it.
Queen Elizabeth in Spenser's poem is depicted in several images: Gloriana (fairy queen):
He wandered at the behest of Gloriana,
He called the Queen of Spirits his;
He visited distant countries,
And in my soul I aspired only to her,
And her look was more valuable to him
All earthly blessings; and what is the obstacle to him,
Which is more difficult to overcome
Than to fall in battle without trembling and groaning;
He was ready to slay the fierce dragon.
(Book I. Canto I)

Belbeufs:

The lady watched the battle from afar;
Approaching, she said:
“You, worthy knight, fought bravely;
You can do great things,
And praise will follow you,
Like those who were born happy under a star;
You gave the first battle to the fiend of evil.
And they won a fair battle;
I wish you to be friends with proud victory"
(Book I. Canto I)

Britomartis:

So the lovely maiden grew up
A dear example of all perfections;
The enchantress promised the worthy
Love's unattainable crown;
Finally visited the courtyard of the spirits;
For the ladies, the star became a guiding star
And many sensitive hearts
Touched by noble beauty,
And valor longed for an excellent reward.
(Book III. Canto VII)

The Earl of Leicester (Robert Dudley) appears in the poem as King Arthur:

The maiden called Arthur.
The giant is defeated
Duessa is put to shame;
Deception exposed.
Oh woe! How many close circumstances
The gates drive us into destruction
And the righteous without heavenly help
Strength would fall, but righteousness saves
And love is with her while she is pure;
Was led to a disastrous result
Pride the Knight of the Scarlet Cross,
But now love hits the road
And the glorious Prince brings to the rescue
(Book I. Canto VIII)

Mary Stuart - witches of Duessa:

Duessa, not believing her eyes,
I saw a formidable sign in the future;
She incited the beast in her hearts,
And the indomitable enemy raged;
The beast imagined that in front of him was a weakling;
But the devilish pride resisted
By no means the worst of grunts;
He cared about the valiant gentleman
And in battle he was like a true stronghold.
(Book I. Canto VIII)

Among other characters, the following can be noted: Philip of Spain - Gerioneo, Duke of Anjou - Bragadocchio, Sir Walter Raleigh - Timias, Lord Gray - Artegal, Admiral Howard - Marinel, Elizabeth is also depicted in the image of Marcilla.
Spencer scholars unanimously note that the poet was inspired by Ariosto’s poem “The Furious Roland”. However, while not inferior to his predecessor in the vividness of his images, Spencer clearly surpasses him in the seriousness of his intentions.
The poet describes with pleasure both “the forest, Where the bird choirs still sounded, Defying the fury of the heavens,” and the snake woman, “whose being is debauchery”:

Lying on the ground among clods of dirty,
Monstrous tail stretching out,
Swirling in ugly twists;
Teenagers swarmed around her:
Baby snakes; they are like on a platform,
They climbed onto the body, where was the land -
For them, suckers, poisonous sweet grapes...

Although the poem is not finished, one can imagine what the ending should be: King Arthur travels with his knights in search of Queen Gloriana, who once appeared to him in a dream, finds her and marries her. The plot is certainly “ideologically strong”, since - as was obvious to contemporaries - it implies a sacred union of the virgin Queen Elizabeth and Britain; continuity of tradition. Each positive heroine of the poem is not only the embodiment of another virtue, but - more specifically - the virtue of the Queen of England.
Many science fiction writers have used the image of Gloriana-Elizabeth. Perhaps the most famous novel by Michael Moorcock is called “Gloriana” (1978): in it Spenser’s poem is crossed with “Gormenghast” by Mervyn Peake. Long before him, a much more significant English writer took Queen Elizabeth into the world of fairies: in Rudyard Kipling’s series “Rewards and Fairies” (1910), the ancient and wise spirit Puck introduces modern children to people who have lived in England since ancient times - and then a lady appears, “wrapped in a cloak that hid everything except her high red heels. Her face was half covered with a black silk fringed mask.” The Lady talks about the one whom today's schoolchildren irreverently call "Queen Bess", about her wisdom, cruelty, regrets and Empire. He talks in the third person, but the reader understands who is in front of him. Who calls herself Gloriana.
Spenser, of course, was not torn into small pieces like Shakespeare, but the same Shakespeare used exactly the version of the legend about King Lear, which is set out in The Faerie Queene. And Merlin’s prophecy about the coming revival of Britain clearly echoes the prophecy about the Return of a certain King to the throne of Gondor.
Researchers who study the history of fantasy call The Faerie Queene the first true fantasy work of English literature. However, the more likely conclusion is that Spenser completes the tradition of the chivalric romance.
Spencer was perhaps the first to pose (and solve!) the problem of the language of a fantasy novel. The poem is written in good Elizabethan English - it is from the end of the 16th century that English becomes “modern” - but with some changes. Spencer filled his lines with archaisms, often distorted, stylized neologisms, and in addition, in fact, invented his own spelling, also stylized in antiquity.
Spencer was the only one left - in the sense that he had practically no followers. Shakespeare did not write epic poems, and Michael Drayton's Nymphidia (1627) depicts very different elves - more likely to come from the halls of the palace than from the Fairyland.

There is no more beloved historical character in British history and, perhaps, in world literature than Queen Elizabeth I of England. Historians are attracted by the heroism and pathos of the 45-year reign, poets and playwrights - by the incredible vicissitudes of a complex, extraordinary fate.
Elizabeth became a literary heroine during her lifetime, when the poets of the English Renaissance (F. Sidney, E. Spencer, C. Marlowe) dedicated endless ballads, poetic cycles and poems to her, awarding her with pretentious, magnificent names: Gloriana, Eliza, Belphebe, Queen of the Fairies... Her literary history is endless. Elizabeth inspired Shakespeare, Walter Scott, Schiller, Hugo, Heinrich Mann, Zweig, Bruckner, Victoria Holt, Peter Ackroyd (and this is only among the large, venerable writers).
The queen came to the avid attention of historians shortly after her death, when the inept reign of the Stuarts (Kings James I and Charles I) made her long reign suddenly seem like a golden age. Historical studies of Elizabeth's reign and era number many hundreds of volumes.
The opinions of historians and writers about the queen are diametrically opposed. Writers, perhaps starting with Schiller, stubbornly see her as a negative heroine, unable to forgive Elizabeth for the execution of Queen Mary Stuart in her literary subjectivity and romanticism. In the opinion of many historians, this is one of her most courageous and absolutely justified actions.
Almost four centuries of historiographical tradition prescribes speaking about Elizabeth with constant admiration, and there are reasons for this. The authors of the first eulogies to Elizabeth, Fulk Greville and William Cadman, wrote the history of her reign in the first decades of the 17th century. Their works, however, were not only historical in nature. The Queen was dressed in clothes that she herself would have difficulty recognizing; her new image was just a political instrument, a kind of stick with which to beat the reigning successors - the unlucky Scots kings, first James, and then Charles. It was in the 1620s, when the Stuart kings turned out to be a real disappointment, that they decided to make Elizabeth - as a reproach to them and as an edification to their heirs! - a model of all royal virtues.
In the 19th century, imperial historians of Great Britain also needed an ideal character who could evoke a sense of national pride and testify to the greatness and justice of royal power - this is where the myth of the great queen, created in the 17th century, came in handy.
The historiographic tradition of praising Elizabeth and her reign was unshakable until recently. In the history of every country there is a myth about a certain ideal statesman who personifies the Nation. In ancient Greece it was Pericles, in the USA - Abraham Lincoln, in Russia - Peter I, in England - Elizabeth. Only recently have British historians begun to question how much of the eulogies for the Virgin Queen's remarkable reign are true. The conclusions they made (for example, in the works of K. Haig and K. Erikson) make a depressing impression.

Russian empress
Romanova
Years of life: December 18 (29), 1709, p. Kolomenskoye, near Moscow - December 25, 1761 (January 5, 1762), St. Petersburg)
Reign: 1741-1762

From the Romanov dynasty.

Brief biography of Elizaveta Petrovna

Unusually beautiful since childhood, she spent her adolescence and youth in balls and entertainment. She grew up in Moscow, and in the summer she went to Pokrovskoye, Preobrazhenskoye, Izmailovskoye or Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. She rarely saw her father as a child; the future empress was raised by his sister, Tsarevna Natalya Alekseevna, or the family of A.D. Menshikov. She was taught dancing, music, foreign languages, dressing skills, and ethics.

After her parents' marriage, she began to bear the title of princess. The will of Catherine I of 1727 provided for the rights of the crown princess and her descendants to the throne after Anna Petrovna. In the last year of Catherine I's reign, the court often talked about the possibility of a marriage between Elizaveta Petrovna and her nephew Peter II, who was selflessly in love with her. After the sudden death of the young emperor from smallpox in January 1730, despite the will of Catherine I, being still actually illegitimate, she was not considered in high society as one of the contenders for the throne, which was occupied by her cousin. During her reign (1730-1740), the crown princess was in disgrace, but those dissatisfied with Anna Ioannovna and Biron had high hopes for her.

Taking advantage of the decline in authority and influence of power during the regency of Anna Leopoldovna, on the night of November 25, 1741, 32-year-old Tsarevna Elizaveta Petrovna, accompanied by Count M.I. Vorontsov, physician Lestocq and music teacher Schwartz with the words “Guys! You know whose daughter I am, follow me! Just as you served my father, so will you serve me with your loyalty!” raised behind her the grenadier company of the Preobrazhensky Regiment. Thus, a coup d'etat was carried out during which his mother, the ruler-regent Anna Leopoldovna, was overthrown.

The course of state affairs during the entire reign was influenced by her favorites - the brothers Razumovsky, Shuvalov, Vorontsov, A.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin.
The first document signed by the future empress was a manifesto, which proved that after the death of the previous emperor, she was the only legitimate heir to the throne. She also wished to arrange coronation celebrations in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin and on April 25, 1742 she placed the crown on herself.

Domestic policy of Elizaveta Petrovna

The new empress proclaimed a return to Peter's reforms as the basic principles of domestic and foreign policy. She abolished the state institutions that arose after the death of her father (the Cabinet of Ministers, etc.), and restored the role of the Senate, collegiums, and the Chief Magistrate.

In 1741, the Empress adopted a Decree that recognized the existence of the “Lamai faith”, Buddhism was officially adopted as the state religion in the Russian Empire.

In 1744-1747 The 2nd census of the taxable population was carried out.

In 1754, intrastate customs were eliminated, which led to a significant revival of trade relations between the regions.

The first Russian banks were founded - Dvoryansky (Borrowed), Merchant and Medny (State).

A tax reform was carried out, which improved the financial situation of the country.

In social policy, the line of expanding the rights of the nobility continued. In 1746, the nobles were granted the right to own land and peasants. In 1760, the landowners received the right to exile peasants to Siberia and count them instead of recruits. And peasants were prohibited from conducting monetary transactions without the permission of the landowners.

The death penalty was abolished (1756), and the widespread practice of sophisticated torture was stopped.

Under Elizaveta Petrovna, military educational institutions were reorganized. In 1744, a decree was issued to expand the network of primary schools. The first gymnasiums were opened: in Moscow (1755) and Kazan (1758). In 1755, on the initiative of her favorite I.I. Shuvalov founded Moscow University, and in 1760 the Academy of Arts. Outstanding famous cultural monuments have been created (Tsarskoye Selo Catherine Palace, etc.). Support was provided to M.V. Lomonosov and other representatives of Russian culture and science. In 1755, the newspaper “Moskovskie Vedomosti” began to be published, and in 1760 the first Moscow magazine “Useful Amusement” began to be published.

In general, the empress’s internal policy was characterized by stability and a focus on growing the authority and power of state power. Thus, Elizaveta Petrovna’s course was the first step towards a policy of enlightened absolutism.

Foreign policy of Elizaveta Petrovna

Foreign policy in the state was also active. During the Russian-Swedish war of 1741-1743, Russia received a significant part of Finland. Trying to resist Prussia, the ruler abandoned relations with France and entered into an anti-Prussian alliance with Austria. Russia successfully participated in the Seven Years' War of 1756–1763. After the capture of Koenigsberg, the Empress issued a decree on the annexation of East Prussia to Russia. The culmination of Russia's military glory was the capture of Berlin in 1760.

The basis of foreign policy was the recognition of 3 alliances: with the “maritime powers” ​​(England and Holland) for the sake of trade benefits, with Saxony - in the name of advancement to the northwest and western lands, which ended up being part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and with Austria - to confront the Ottoman Empire and the strengthening of Prussia.
In the last period of her reign, the Empress was less involved in issues of public administration, entrusting it to P.I. and I.I. Shuvalov, M.I. and R.I. Vorontsov and others.

In 1744 she entered into a secret morganatic marriage with A.G. Razumovsky, a Ukrainian Cossack, who under her made a dizzying career from a court singer to the manager of the royal estates and the actual husband of the empress. According to contemporaries, she gave birth to several children, but information about them is unknown. This was the reason for the appearance of impostors who called themselves her children from this marriage. Among them, the most famous figure was Princess Tarakanova.

After the decrees on peasants and landowners were issued, at the turn of the 50-60s. In the 18th century, there were more than 60 uprisings of monastic peasants (Bashkiria, the Urals), which were suppressed by her decree with exemplary cruelty.

The reign of Elizaveta Petrovna

The period of her reign was a period of luxury and excess. Masquerade balls were constantly held at court. Elizaveta Petrovna herself was a trendsetter. The Empress's wardrobe includes up to 12-15 thousand dresses, which today form the basis of the textile collection of the State Historical Museum in Moscow.

Since 1757, she began to be haunted by hysterical fits. She often lost consciousness, and at the same time, non-healing wounds on her legs and bleeding opened. During the winter of 1760-1761, the Empress was on a large outing only once. Her beauty was quickly destroyed, she did not communicate with anyone, feeling depressed. Soon the hemoptysis intensified. She confessed and received communion. Elizaveta Petrovna died on December 25, 1761 (January 5, 1762 according to the new style).

The ruler managed to appoint her nephew Karl-Peter-Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp (son of Anna's sister) as the official heir to the throne, who converted to Orthodoxy under his name and made peace with Prussia.

The body of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna was buried on February 5, 1762 in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg.

Many artists painted her portraits, marveling at the beauty of the empress.

Her image is reflected in cinema: in the films “Young Catherine”, 1991; “Vivat, midshipmen!”; “Secrets of palace coups”, 2000-2003; “With a pen and a sword”, 2008.

She had a practical mind and skillfully led her court, maneuvering between various political factions. Generally years of reign of Elizaveta Petrovna became a time of political stability in Russia, strengthening of state power and its institutions.

Download the abstract.

The political legacy left by Peter I significantly influenced the activities of subsequent monarchs. Thus, the reign of Elizaveta Petrovna was marked by the idea of ​​​​continuing the policy of the “great ancestor”.

History has created a double impression about the time of the empress’s reign, so the poet Count Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy in his work “History of the Russian State from Gostomysl to Timashev” speaks of the twenty-year reign of the daughter of Peter the Great:

Merry Queen

There was Elizabeth:

Sings and has fun

There is just no order.

Adherents of this opinion point to the senselessness and thoughtlessness of the transformations carried out by the empress. This point of view is unjustified; it is worth looking at the results of the reign and making sure that the Russian Empire achieved significant success during this period. The economic growth of the country continued, the Noble Loan Bank was opened for the development of entrepreneurship, the Merchant Bank was established, of great importance for the development and expansion The all-Russian market had a decree from the Empress on the elimination of customs duties within the country.

In foreign policy under Elizabeth, Russia gradually freed itself from French influence and renewed its defensive alliance with Austria, directed against the increasing aggression of Prussia. The capture of Koenigsberg and the annexation of East Prussia to Russia were undoubted successes. A brilliant victory was won at Kunersdorf and the capital of Prussia, Berlin, was taken for several days; the capture of the Kolberg fortress was also important. However, Russia was unable to take advantage of these successes, which is due to a completely different direction in the policy of the next ruler of the empire.

(http://storyo.ru/nikolaev/58.htm)

S.M. Solovyov duly evaluates the activities of Elizaveta Petrovna. He firmly remembered that Russian society revered Elizabeth, that she was a very popular empress. He considered Elizabeth’s main merit to be the overthrow of the German regime, systematic patronage of everything national and humanity: with this direction of Elizabeth’s government, many useful details entered Russian life, calmed it down and allowed it to sort out matters; National “rules and habits” brought up under Elizabeth a whole series of new figures who made the glory of Catherine II. The time of Elizabeth prepared a lot for the brilliant activities of Catherine both inside and outside Russia. Thus, the historical significance of Elizabeth’s time is determined, in Solovyov’s opinion, by its preparatory role in relation to the next era, and Elizabeth’s historical merit lies in the nationality of her direction (“History of Russia”, XXIV).

1.2. Shuvalovs

Speaking about the Elizabethan period in the history of Russia’s development, one cannot fail to mention those statesmen on whose “reliable male shoulder” she relied. And first of all it was Ivan Ivanovich Shuvalov.

Shuvalov Ivan Ivanovich (1727-1797), statesman, adjutant general (1760). From 1749 he played a prominent role at the court of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, influencing the domestic and foreign policy of Russia in the 1750s. Often it was he who announced personal commands to the Senate and senior officials; they turned to him in difficult cases, when a special order from the empress was needed; through him requests and reports were submitted to the highest name. According to the memoirs of contemporaries, Shuvalov always acted “disinterestedly, gently and evenly and good-naturedly with everyone,” thanks to which he had almost no enemies at all. He refused the title of count and extensive estates offered to him by the empress. Patronized the development of education in Russia. In 1755, Shuvalov achieved the opening of the first Russian university in Moscow. He was its first curator. Shuvalov patronized scientists, writers and artists, especially M.V. Lomonosov, established relations with Western European scientists and writers, and corresponded with Voltaire and Helvetius. In 1757, on his initiative, an art school was opened, later the Academy of Arts, of which he was president until 1763. Shuvalov, having created a printing house at Moscow University, published the newspaper “Moskovskie Vedomosti” in it.

(Sukharev O.V. Who was who in Russia from Peter I to Paul I, Moscow, 2005)

Ivan Ivanovich Shuvalov, being Elizaveta Petrovna’s favorite, did not waste any time. Seeing the deplorable state of our science, he sought to raise it to a higher level. The opening of Moscow University is a clear confirmation of this.

The personal qualities of Ivan Ivanovich, which the historian Anisimov writes about in his work “Elizabeth,” such as honesty, modesty, and good intentions, seem to me to be the highest virtues that a favorite could have. He had the opportunity to live luxuriously, indulging in amusements and filling his pocket, but he cared about the Fatherland. Using his close position to the empress, Ivan Shuvalov promoted his projects. Analyzing their content, we can find out that the favorite directly points out to Elizabeth the problematic issues in the state, and in labor « About the education of young men in the Russian Empire,” he talks about the poor education system established in remote villages, where young men “are hardened in extreme ignorance, they do not know a decent position according to their condition. Low military pay and long campaigns completely deplete their property and thus make their service completely hateful.” This situation, which has developed precisely during the current reign, according to Shuvalov, can lead to the fact that “many nobles who had lower ranks, who do not have sufficient income and those who do not have the inclination to distinguish themselves and knowledge of the position to be useful to the fatherland will resign. Again, the same situation, no one will enroll in the service. Examples: in addition to many strict decrees, many juveniles fell into crimes. And therefore my opinion: it is now necessary to establish that no one will go out of service during the current war unless absolutely necessary, ordering those who have signed up for the service to serve for several years, and to encourage them in the future.” Having identified the problematic situation, Shuvalov offers the empress a solution: “Establish schools and gymnasiums in different places, in which youth will be ordered to enroll during school hours.” Further, Ivan Ivanovich designates the stages of education: school, gymnasium, cadet corps, university and academy, engineering school, “in which to be until the age of seventeen or eighteen, and then give the freedom to serve or not.” Thus, as a result of innovations, in addition to receiving an education, young men had a choice: to serve or devote themselves to science. Shuvalov continues: “in this state, young people, having received the education due at their birth, having become accustomed to being in the community, will lose their gross prejudice; having received proper enlightenment, of course, they will not want, perhaps a small part, to return to their dark home.” Young people had a chance to reveal their abilities in learning in order to increase the glory of the fatherland not only “by the power of the sword, but also by the power of the mind.”

(Shuvalov P.I., Shuvalov I.I. Selected works)

An interesting document to study is the document entitled “Presentation of I. I. Shuvalov”, in which he “dares” to repeat his thoughts about the state of affairs in the state, requiring the urgent intervention of the Empress. After apologizing for the concern of the empress, Shuvalov asks her to turn her attention to “the deplorable state of many people, shadowed under the yoke of injustice, attacks, robberies, and ruins.”

Shuvalov calls internal enemies those ministers who are in a hurry to abandon and bypass justice “purely for their own profit,” who do not respect the laws, who bring losses to the state and ruin for the people, “as in many judicial places, in provinces and cities, especially when the state bears the burden of war.” " At the moment when every true son of the fatherland must use his strength for a common good cause, they rob their people. Shuvalov calls the main reason for this not knowing “one’s duty to the sovereign, to the state, to the common good and love for one’s neighbor.” Due to the fact that no action is taken against these “internal enemies”, and the number of them acting in “harmful ways” is growing. Here we see criticism from Shuvalov of people close to power. He points to the chaos happening on the ground. The people, tired of enduring this kind of thing at the sight of the empress, scream and ask the empress herself for help, so that she personally resolves this or that issue, because officials are not able to find a fair solution.

To eradicate the empress’s concerns, it is necessary for the people to submit petitions to the office of the chief attorney, who would report the very essence of the petition and receive a resolution from the empress with an “example of justice” that “will restrain the untruth of judges and punish those who offend and restore hope to the suffering and oppressed.”

Giving a characterization of this document, one cannot help but notice the tendency of the unchanging consciousness of the Russian people: petitions were submitted to the tsars, petitions were submitted to the emperors, “petitions” were submitted to the president. The attitude towards the ruler as a good “king-father” has remained practically unchanged to this day in the minds of the majority of the population of our country. This gives the right to conclude, on the one hand, that in general the image of the ruler has a positive characteristic, and on the other hand, this indicates weakness in the development of local government bodies. Desperate to achieve the truth on the ground, people see no other way out than to turn directly to the tsar, emperor, and president. And this method works. But he points to the immaturity of the political system, which Ivan Ivanovich Shuvalov once proposed to fight against. He proposed a project according to which it was necessary “to establish a senate meeting at the court once a week, in addition to the fact that the conference has its appointed days; and that this meeting be held in the presence of your Imperial Majesty; or, when you do not deign to be there, then at the end of the meeting, report on what matters were discussed and what was accomplished according to them.” Thus, the activities of those close to power must be brought under control.

In his Presentation to the Empress, I.I. Shuvalov appears as the forerunner of many transformations that Catherine II was destined to implement. From this point of view, with his ideas Ivan Ivanovich was somewhat ahead of his time, and with his activities he largely prepared the onset of a new historical era.

According to S.M. Soloviev, in his work “History of Russia from Ancient Times,” being disinterested and not seeking any honors, Shuvalov, after the death of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, could not be satisfied, having lost all influence to which he considered himself entitled according to his moral means; he could not be satisfied when the system which he so zealously served was overthrown, when everything went in such a way that trouble threatened Russia within and humiliation from without. Shuvalov expressed his displeasure; Then they stopped treating him with the same favor, and Shuvalov considered it necessary to keep himself at a distance from the court and from the person of the emperor. The Prussians Goltz and Schwerin promoted Shuvalov to the head of the conspiracy. “The first and most dangerous person here,” Schwerin wrote to Frederick II, “is Ivan Ivanovich Shuvalov, the favorite of the late empress. This man, who lives by intrigue, although internally hated by the emperor, was so good at settling his affairs through his friend General Melgunov, a favorite Emperor, that the sovereign entrusted him with the Cadet Corps and the main supervision of the palace - positions that make his stay in the capital necessary, whereas he is the most harmful and dangerous person! This gentleman does not know how to pretend and hide the unworthy and shameful plans he harbors in his heart. Fury and indignation are written on his face, and I’m ready to bet on anything that the scoundrel has terrible plans in his head...”

I. I. Shuvalov could not be the head of the conspiracy, because he was not capable of this by nature; but the important thing is that Goltz and Schwerin talk about his strong displeasure, which he could not hide, they talk about the rage and indignation written on his face. And how can he remain calm when the “main” woman to whom he was devoted, attached, and grateful has passed away?

“Catherine didn’t like him, people close to her didn’t like him: he had too much importance under Elizabeth, had a great influence on the fate of everyone, starting with Catherine, he was too big, morally strong, constantly caught the eye and therefore was a big nuisance. He was famous abroad, corresponded with people whose opinions were very much valued in Europe at that time.”

(S.M. Soloviev)

Judging by the reviews that Catherine gave about him, Shuvalov acted, if not clearly against her, then in any case not for her.

In a letter to Poniatovsky dated August 2, 1762, Catherine speaks very harshly about I.I. Shuvalov. The very content of the letter is a detailed description of the heroes of the recent coup - they are all wonderful, honest, courageous people, and suddenly the phrase: “I.I. Shuvalov, the lowest and most vile of people, they say, nevertheless wrote to Voltaire that a nineteen-year-old woman changed the government of this empire, please disabuse this great writer.” We are talking about young Ekaterina Dashkova. The nineteen-year-old “revolutionary”, “Little Catherine”, as she was then called, was a prominent participant in the coup. “Fuel was added to the fire, the most living string was touched, because Catherine ascribed to herself the direction of movement, others were only tools; Her strong irritation against Shuvalov was expressed in extremely harsh terms. Shuvalov found himself in a most unpleasant situation, from which after a while he could only get out by going abroad.”

(S.M. Soloviev)

But the fact is that Ivan Ivanovich with his letter devalued Catherine’s victory. Shuvalov gives the coup a random character. From the very first minute of her reign, Catherine undertook to prove to the world that she legitimately took this place, that the just and jubilant people themselves gave her the throne that was taken from her husband.

And here is what Catherine wrote about Shuvalov’s palace in her “Notes”: “The Prince of Saxony was placed in the house of chamberlain Ivan Shuvalov, which was just decorated and into which the householder put all his taste, despite the fact that the house was arranged without taste and rather poorly , but, however, very rich. There were many paintings in it, but most of them were copies; one room was decorated with plane tree, but since plane tree does not shine, it was varnished and as a result the room became yellow, but a very unpleasant yellow color; hence the result was that it was considered ugly and, in order to help this, it was covered with very heavy and rich carvings, which were plated with silver. From the outside, this house, large in itself, with its decorations resembled cuffs made of Alençon lace, there were so many carvings in it.”

Thus, we see a bias towards the former favorite. On the one hand, this phenomenon is natural: the new government means a new team of like-minded people. On the other hand, Shuvalov’s distance from the imperial court, although it did not nullify it, however, undermined the significance of his activities. Under Elizabeth, being the link between the government and the empress, Shuvalov directs all his efforts to improving the life of the state. With the arrival of Catherine, serving for the good of the country becomes not an easy task. It’s one thing when your advice is listened to, and another when it’s not noticed. With Catherine's accession to the throne, he was a retired man: he was offered an honorable retreat - a three-year trip abroad.

Being so close to power and not using it for selfish purposes, “devoting one’s life for the well-being and glory of the empire” is what distinguishes Shuvalov as a political figure. If everyone who was in power wanted only power and prosperity for the fatherland, selflessly defended its interests, cared about their people, and not about their stomachs, the Russian Empire would have achieved the ideal. But this, unfortunately, is a utopia, because human vices are ineradicable.

Russian thought of that time consisted of two currents. One, coming from Peter and generated, on the one hand, by ideas about the essence of the state and its functions that gained popularity under him, and on the other, by qualitatively new problems that faced the rulers of imperial Russia, was aimed at finding optimal ways to govern the country. Ultimately, it brought to the fore the problem of power and people that later became central to Russian social thought. At the center of the intellectual search of another direction, inspired by the ideas of the European Enlightenment that began to penetrate into Russia, was Man, his fate, the rights and obligations of the state towards him.

The nature of the problems inherited by the new Elizabethan government remained essentially the same. At first, the Empress probably believed that the whole point was simply that the successors of her great father had distorted his legacy and deviated from his covenants, and in order to improve matters, it was only necessary to restore everything as it was at the time of his of death. However, by the mid-1740s. it became obvious that this was not the issue, but rather the shortcomings of the Petrine system itself. Meanwhile, the arsenal of methods for adjusting it that had become common over the previous twenty years - by issuing formidable decrees, cutting government spending and making changes to the structure of government bodies - was already exhausted. The political and administrative system created by Peter was, although not quite effective, but quite integral. Individual institutions that were abolished, seemed unnecessary or too expensive, inevitably arose again under new names and with a new status, which could not change the situation in principle. At the same time, the new government did not have any long-term political program or well-thought-out principles for managing the state, and therefore it was in dire need of new approaches, new methods, new original solutions. Pyotr Ivanovich Shuvalov - count, statesman, senator, field marshal general (1761) became a treasure trove of all kinds of projects and ideas. Cousin I.I. Shuvalova. Of course, in terms of their scale, P.I. Shuvalov’s reforms, aimed at certain spheres of state life, are incomparable with the transformations of Peter the Great. However, these were precisely those new, original ideas and approaches to solving economic and administrative issues that the country so needed. The implementation of these reforms essentially meant the end of that period of Russian history, which can conventionally be called “post-Petrine”, and marked the beginning of a new historical stage.

(S.V. Andriainen, A.B. Kamensky Introductory article to the collection P.I. Shuvalov, I.I. Shuvalov Selected works).

The new stage brought changes to such a phenomenon as serfdom, which reached its power and scope in the middle of the 18th century.

In 1754, on the initiative of Pyotr Shuvalov, a Commission was formed to draw up a new Code - a set of laws of the empire. The commission collected the wishes of the nobility, their demands, and studied old laws. By the middle of the 18th century, the nobles had an idea of ​​their special, privileged position in Russian society. One of the chapters of the Code was called: “On nobles and their advantages.” It said that the nobles were distinguished “from other fellow citizens by their prudence and courage,” and showed “extraordinary art, zeal (that is, zeal) in state affairs and noble services to the Fatherland and Us,” that is, to the empress. This should have been consistent with privileges, special differences between nobles and other groups of society. According to the draft Code, the nobility has three such main, fundamental privileges. Firstly, the principle of Peter the Great's Table of Ranks of 1722, which allowed non-nobles to rise to the rank that would give the title of nobility, was abolished. The draft Code explained: Peter introduced this principle to encourage commoners to achieve success in science, navigation, and military affairs. And all this was done so that the nobles, looking at them, “would become jealous and become more willing” to engage in useful activities. Now the nobles are quite successful in the service, and there is no need to give nobility to capable commoners.

The authors of the Code provided for a procedure in which the obligation of public service for nobles was abolished, they received freedom from participation in local “zemstvo” affairs, could freely travel abroad, and, if desired, be reinstated in the service. A nobleman could not be arrested (without being caught red-handed at the crime scene), tortured, subjected to corporal punishment, or sent to hard labor. He was tried by a special court. Finally, thirdly, the nobles received the exclusive right to own wine, glass, metallurgical, and mining factories. Merchants and entrepreneurs were prohibited from owning these most profitable industries.

Having read an excerpt from the draft Code “On the Power of the Nobility”, it is impossible to say what rights the serf peasant still had: “The nobility has complete power over its people and peasants and over their estate, without withdrawal, except for taking away the belly and punishing with a whip and inflicting torture on them.” . And for this purpose, every nobleman is free to sell and pawn those of his people and peasants, as dowries, and as recruits, and to strengthen them in all kinds of fortresses, for freedom and for food for a while, and to release widows and girls to marry strangers, from villages to their other villages... to transfer and teach various arts and skills, to marry the male sex, and to allow the female sex to marry and, according to their will, to serve, use work and parcels and all sorts of punishments, in addition to the above, inflict or submit to the judicial governments for punishment, and, according to your own reasoning, grant forgiveness and release from that punishment.”

The privileges granted by the authorities would turn the nobility into a narrow, closed group of the population with special, exclusive rights, which would reign supreme in the country. But the nobles went further in their dreams. This was reflected in the “Fundamental and Indispensable Laws” compiled and submitted to the Empress by I. I. Shuvalov. When writing this legislative project, Shuvalov used the famous essay by C. Montesquieu “On the Spirit of Laws.” The essence of Shuvalov’s project was that the empress and her subjects would swear an oath in strict adherence to the “Fundamental and Indispensable Laws,” which established those special advantages of the nobles discussed in the draft Code. In addition, from now on and forever the Russian throne could pass only to Orthodox sovereigns, and all senators, presidents of colleges and governors were recruited only from Russians, as well as two-thirds of the generals. The approval of the “Fundamental and Indispensable Laws” would lead – if we proceed from Montesquieu’s scheme – to the transition of Russia from despotism to monarchy. Neither the draft Code nor the draft of Ivan Shuvalov, which so clearly reflected the social dreams of the Russian nobility, came true, although some of their important provisions were implemented in the following reigns.

(Draft of the Elizabethan Code. “Fundamental Laws” by Ivan Shuvalov - http://storyo.ru/empire/76.htm)

Characterizing the political activities of P.I. Shuvalov, V.O. Klyuchevsky notes that in his projects Shuvalov sometimes acts as a thinker who pays attention to the main ills of the state. So, he presented Elizabeth with a project in which he pointed out the great benefit to the state in “free knowledge of the opinions of society.” But this project of Shuvalov “found eternal peace in the archives of the Senate.” (V.O. Klyuchevsky “Course of Russian History”). This is not surprising: in a country where everyone lived under fear of tyranny, they were afraid to even whisper critical words about the government, the idea of ​​​​being interested in the free opinion of society was almost revolutionary.

M.V. Lomonosov.

An example of a patriot, a true son of the Fatherland, an exponent of democratic, national tendencies was the great Russian scientist M.V. Lomonosov, whose work was highly praised by Radishchev in “The Tale of Lomonosov.” "M. V. Lomonosov stood at the origins of Russian enlightenment. He fought all his life for the independence of scientific research and publishing from the control of the church, against its desire to prevent the spread of materialistic scientific knowledge and secular enlightenment. Lomonosov's plans and projects were imbued with the ideas of scientific and technological progress, which were to be put at the service of the country and the people. He considered the main task of the state to be concerned with improving the situation of the people, especially ordinary workers.”

With his inexhaustible intelligence and active activity, Lomonosov aroused the hostile attitude of academic and court circles. It did not change even after his death. Having learned about it, the heir to the throne, Paul, said: “Why feel sorry for a fool, he only ruined the treasury and did nothing.”

Leading people in Russia viewed Lomonosov’s activities differently. The first and only source of information about Lomonosov in Russian until 1784, when his academic biography was published, was the biography of the scientist created by N. I. Novikov. It noted that “this man was of great intelligence, high spirit and deep teaching.” Novikov noted Lomonosov’s desire for science, knowledge useful for humanity, and concluded that his desire to “overcome all the obstacles that happened to him was rewarded with successful success.” The same feature of M.V. Lomonosov was noted by the writer and poet of the 70-90s of the 18th century. M. N. Muravyov. He wrote that in Lomonosov’s works, before the eyes of his fellow citizens, there appeared “more than one poet, more than one Vitiia, more than one explorer of nature, sage and citizen of the world; but an honest man, a son of the fatherland, a zealot for good deeds, a steward of the public good, he grew up both in name and in deed.” Leading people in Russia noted that Lomonosov gained fame not by breed, but by science and knowledge, and spoke about his inherent spirit of deep scholarship and determination.

As for the political views of the great scientist, Radishchev, for example, wrote that “Lomonosov’s eloquence “did not place a sensitive or obvious emphasis on the fact that he was alien to sensitivity.” How can you understand these words? Lomonosov's poetic works are written in the style of classicism. One of the most striking features of this literary movement was state-civil pathos, which excluded the presence of personal themes in the works. Human passions, no matter how strong, gave way to the theme of sacred civic duty to the state. To turn from the general to the individual “meant to move from the world of eternal values ​​into the sphere of selfish interests of classes and people.” Therefore, in Lomonosov’s works we will not find a sympathetic attitude towards the situation of the serfs, or direct criticism of serfdom, even its most egregious aspects.

According to D.D. Blagoy, Lomonosov “attached great importance to the fact that, thanks to his position as an official poet, he had the opportunity to preach his educational program through literary means.” Lomonosov could only do this within the framework of laudatory and solemn odes, in which he created the image of an ideal, from his point of view, monarch. Also worthy of attention is the opinion of M. T. Belyavsky that Lomonosov’s praise of the personality and activities of Peter “carried the features of a clear contrast between the policy of transformations carried out in Peter’s time and the policy carried out in the time of Lomonosov by the successors of Peter I.”

“Lomonosov was never a flatterer; he always behaved with honor and dignity. Convinced of the need for an enlightened monarchy, in his works he put forward his own program to the monarchs and tried to direct them towards its implementation.”

(Moryakov V.I. “Russian Enlightenment”)

“Ode to the great sovereign Emperor Peter Feodorovich on his all-joyful accession to the all-Russian hereditary imperial throne and on the New Year 1762” is a clear confirmation of the opinion of D.D. Blagoy. Giving a positive assessment of Elizabeth's reign, Lomonosov determines the future successes of Peter 3. He assigns him the responsibility of being an “ideal monarch” who will increase the glory of the fatherland.

You awarded science to everyone,

And He will revive with generosity,

Hands trained in art

It will supply, multiply, enlighten.

Europe, now enraptured,

He looks east attentively

And waits in amazement,

What fate will determine her:

Then your image sees before the shelves,

Like Mars between enemies,

That represents a common feast,

Congratulations for the weary,

Deliverance for the sake of the ruined,

The world has been renewed by you.

Then, according to the most glorious victories,

How can you speed up general peace?

You will remain the most noble among your neighbors,

Praised by peace and war.

Then in the works dear to You,

Russian regions useful,

You will accompany me all the time;

And every day of the golden age,

How long can a person

To crown with blessings.

“A solemn ode to Her Imperial Majesty, the Most Serene Sovereign, Great Empress Catherine Alekseevna, All-Russian Autocrat, on Her glorious accession to the All-Russian Imperial Throne on June 28, 1762,” confirms the words of M. T. Belyavsky. The author uses an interesting technique when writing this ode. The direct speech of Peter 1 introduces the reader to the great reformer, dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs in the country. However, Lomonosov himself then reassures the late emperor, convincing him that everything is good in the state, just as it was under him. But the very fact that “Petrov’s coffin was opened” makes one wonder: is everything really so smooth and calm in the country?

Has darkness developed in the clouds?

Or did Petrov's coffin open?

He woke up with a confused look

And the voice says:

“I am dead and suffering an unbearable wound!

Why the all-kind Anna?

I have entrusted you with marriage,

So that through this My Russia

Under the yoke of a foreign region

Lost power, fame, strength?

So that's all, the labors are countless

And the acquired fruits

Collapsed and were in vain

And new troubles have increased?

For this reason I erected a holy city,

So that, populated by enemies,

The Russians were terrible

And instead of the joyful capital

Disturbed the distant borders,

which I have distributed?"

O great Shadow, rest in peace:

We remember the darkness of Your merits;

Set yourself silent in eternity:

Your work is alive among us all around.

We will not betray Your love,

We will not spare the last blood:

We hasten to cover the Fatherland

Following the wise Heroine,

Dear Catherine to all,

Be kind to Her and be faithful.

Lomonosov in this way tries to convey to Catherine the main idea of ​​his ode: rule like Peter the Great.

And again we see “instructions to the monarch”: what he should be like in order to continue to bring “happiness” to the state.

Oh, if the Monarch is prosperous,

Who knows how to own Rossami!

He will resound with glory in the light

And have everyone's hearts in your hand.

We only consider you happy,

The goddess we recognize

In one all kindness suddenly:

Generosity, faith, justice,

And with constant insight,

And the true Heroic spirit.

(Lomonosov already ascribes to the empress in advance the traits so necessary for an enlightened monarch).

Sciences, now rejoice:

Minerva ascended the Throne.

Permesski waters, rejoice,

Spin noisily into the green valley.

You rush to the rivers and seas

And proclaim our joy

Meadows, mountains and islands;

Tell me it's for enlightenment

He will establish the teachings everywhere,

Having created beautiful temples for you.

And You, O most desirable Branch,

Saved from strong hands

May your life be blessed

Beautiful among the sciences;

Our dear Paul, take heart,

Comfort yourself in the arms of the Mother of God

And forget the former sorrows.

She will calm all storms,

With generosity and jealousy he will arrange

A wonderful paradise for you and us.

Lomonosov seemed to have foreseen the long reign of the empress, when Paul really had to be patient, take courage and wait, wait, wait.

M.V. Lomonosov showed through his multifaceted activities what creative possibilities of the people were shackled by serfdom. He advocated accelerating the economic development of Russia, wanting it to stand on a par with the advanced countries of Europe. He saw ways for this in a more complete use of natural resources, in the development of large-scale industry based on the application of the achievements of science and technology, in population growth, in the simplification of duties and recruitment.

Lomonosov insistently demanded that a person’s position be determined not by title, not by the merits of his ancestors, but by his own deeds. Lomonosov's views were influenced by the theory of “enlightened absolutism” and the peasant faith “in a good tsar.” Not realizing that the autocracy had turned into a reactionary force, he pinned his hopes on reforms from above.

The bourgeois orientation of Lomonosov's views clearly emerged in matters of education, to which he, like all educators, attached decisive importance. In the field of education, Lomonosov put forward the bourgeois principle of a classless school and the demand for the education of peasants. “At the university, the more respectable student is the one who knows more. And whose son he is, there is no need for that,” he boldly asserted and achieved that the first university in Russia became a classless educational institution designed for “general training” of commoners. Teaching at the university in Russian instead of Latin was also dictated by the desire to destroy the class school and make education more accessible to the people.

Lomonosov demanded a ban on any interference of the church in matters of science and education. Moscow University, unlike all universities in the world, at his insistence, did not have a theological faculty.

Lomonosov's views took shape at the turn of two stages in the history of Russian socio-political thought. Hence their internal inconsistency. The lack of understanding of the organic connection between autocracy, serfdom and the backwardness of the country, which explains the absence of direct statements against the feudal order, the idealization of Peter I and his transformations brought Lomonosov closer to Tatishchev, Kantemir, Prokopovich, Pososhkov. At the same time, the anti-noble orientation of Lomonosov’s activities paved the way for the emerging Russian enlightenment and contributed to the formation of an anti-serfdom direction in socio-political thought.

Considering the state policy of prominent figures of the Elizabethan era, we can come to the conclusion: the emergence of Russian enlightenment, associated primarily with the name of M.V. Lomonosov (within the period under study, Tatishchev is considered the first representative of enlightenment in Russia), opens up new facets, a new look at state government. Educated people realized that they are capable of changing the world for the better; the dissemination of knowledge and education can already lead humanity to the creation of better things. Awareness of their own benefit to the state pushed them to develop various, sometimes very “bold” ideas that were ahead of their time.

Finding themselves close enough to power, thinkers used their position to promote their own projects, in which transformations were aimed at improving the well-being of the entire life of society, or a separate part of it. What could have been the oppositional views during this period? The fact is that the emergence of the very ideas of restructuring certain spheres of social life indicated the “weakness” of the authorities in these matters. Already at this stage of the development of socio-political thought, one can trace the emergence of two trends: on the one hand, prominent government and public figures advocate increasing the rights of their class (nobility). On the other hand, anti-noble sentiments can be traced. But neither one nor the other comes out with official criticism of the autocracy; they were satisfied with this system. It only needed to be corrected, corrected through instructions, advice, and suggestions.

Conclusion:

Speaking about opposition thought of the 50-60s. It should be taken into account that this term is conditional. If we turn to the understanding of opposition in the modern interpretation, we can highlight the following main features, based on the analysis of several concepts taken from different dictionaries (sources):

Group, association, minority;

Opposition, objection to the majority or dominant power;

Proposing a different way to solve problems;

The desire for power;

He is guided by a certain idea, has his own set of claims to the authorities and pursues certain goals.

Definitions of the concept “opposition” taken for analysis:

Historical Dictionary:

Opposition (from the Latin oppositio) to the official policy pursued by the state;

A party or group that opposes the majority or prevailing opinion, putting forward an alternative policy, a different way of solving problems;

Political dictionary:

The opposition is a political minority opposing the political majority, the course of the policy being pursued, the goals and methods of exercising state power.

Philosophical Dictionary:

Political forces, usually institutionalized, opposing the policies (or certain aspects thereof) pursued by the leadership of a given country, as well as against specific individuals in the leadership. Political opposition can be represented by different forces acting separately, but each of the opposition movements is guided by a specific idea, has its own set of claims against the authorities, and pursues specific goals. In order to consolidate efforts, various opposition groups can unite and form a united organization. Opposition forces, as a rule, proceed from their own ideas about the ways of development of society and strive for power to implement them.

(About Power and Opposition: The Russian Political Process of the 20th Century. M., 1995; Political Opposition in festern Democracies. London, 1966; DiPalma G. Disaffection and Participation in Western Democracies: the Role of Political Oppositions. Berkeley, 1969; Opposition in Astern Europe. London; Sydney, 1987.)

http://www.onlinedics.ru/slovar/fil/p/oppozitsija.html - terms

Which of the above features can be attributed to oppositional thought in the 50-60s?

First, the objection to the dominant power. (different points of view on the solution to the peasant question: conservatives-liberals, educators-liberals).

Secondly, offering a different way to solve problems. An example of the characteristics of this trait is Novikov’s satirical activities. Catherine II tried to eradicate some vices in society by exposing “bad” actions, while Novikov, pursuing the same goal, chooses the path of exposing “bad” people.

Thirdly, the leadership of a certain idea, the pursuit of certain goals. Here we can recall Sumarokov, through whose work one can see the goal: to correct the morals of the ruling power.

There were no officially formed groupings, now called parties, there were no programs and charters, according to which the confrontation with the legitimate government should take place. There was only enthusiasm, faith in one’s own strength, in the fact that one could direct the power of state power in the right direction with one’s word and deed. An open, daring demand for a change in the political system could not have arisen at that moment, nor could a struggle for power typical of today. Traditional society at that stage of its development could not yet give rise to thoughts of seizing power from persons not belonging to the royal family. From this point of view, I do not consider palace coups as an opposition, as a phenomenon of a change of power in the 18th century.

Development of opposition thought in the 50-60s. The 18th century showed an increase in political activity among the educated population of the Russian Empire. Opposition views were not based on the ideas of changing the form of state power, or overthrowing the monarch; these thoughts would come later, with the further development of the opposition. Thinkers focused on the vices that had taken over society and strived with all their might to eradicate them. This gives the right to call representatives of opposition views “the conscience of the era.”

Based on the thesis that oppositional thought is part of the ideology of the Enlightenment, we can highlight the most important duty of a person for enlighteners in general - service to one’s Fatherland, for the sake of which, in their opinion, one cannot spare either strength, health, or “your belly.” Russian thinkers have always put the interests of society and Russia as a whole at the forefront. The awareness of the deep connection between the fate of an individual person and the fate of all of Russia for a long time determined that, starting from the 18th century, the most important subject of reflection, sometimes painful thought, of Russian thinkers was the situation of the Russian people. It was the enlighteners who first took a critical look at the basis of the foundations - serfdom, for it was the serfdom of the peasants that conflicted with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200b"the benefit of the Fatherland."

The enlighteners of the second half of the 18th century also attached great importance to the legal status of the peasantry in the Russian state. Some of them took an active part in the work of the Statutory Commission, a representative body for the development of a new set of laws - the Code. The work of this commission did not produce any practical results, because the most radically minded deputies (oppositionists), in the opinion of the government, went too far in their proposals.

Representatives of opposition views have done a lot to promote the ideas of equality. However, one should not conclude from this that their worldview is “revolutionary.” Most of them could not be revolutionaries by the very logic of historical development, and they should not have been them. After all, it is worth repeating, the educators acted as spokesmen for the interests of the entire nation, the entire Fatherland, and sought to take into account in their “Words,” “Speeches,” “Reflections” and “Conversations” the demands of various social forces, to bring them to a certain common denominator. They were looking for ways and means to achieve the prosperity of their own Fatherland. That is why they all perfectly understood and actively supported the idea of ​​a single national state, the idea of ​​Russia as a great power. What could be the form of this state? Most educators saw the Russian state as autocratic, headed by a “good tsar” - a “philosopher on the throne,” an “enlightened monarch.” In their opinion, the people enter into a “social contract” with the monarch so that the latter ensures the dignified existence of the state, observes the laws, and takes care of his people.

But here's what's interesting. It was precisely thoughts about the good of the Fatherland, about the greatness of the Russian people, that led educators to fairly free-thinking conclusions. The position of the enlighteners on the peasant question has already been discussed. But the merit of the thinkers of the 18th century is not only that they raised the peasant problem, but also that they saw its direct connection with the political system. Also V.N. Tatishchev cautiously remarked on this matter: the freedom of the peasants “does not agree with our form of monarchical government, and it is not safe to change the ingrained custom of bondage.”

The passionate desire of educators to unite the efforts of all residents of the Russian state, to find something common for everyone, to help Russia become a true great power deserves sincere attention. For they tried for the “good of the Fatherland.”

Related information.

Elizaveta Petrovna Romanova was born on December 18, 1709 in a marriage between and that was not legalized by the church at that time. Upon learning of the birth of his daughter, Peter the Great canceled the celebrations planned for that day to mark the successful end of the Russian-Swedish war. In March 1711, the illegitimate Elizabeth was declared princess.

Elizabeth was distinguished by her amazing beauty, sharp mind, resourcefulness, love of dancing and riding horses. Elizaveta received her education in the villages of Preobrazhenskoye and Izmailovskoye, where she studied history, geography and foreign languages.

Numerous attempts by Peter the 1st to marry his daughter to a representative of a noble ruling dynasty were in vain. Menshikov’s attempts to find a worthy match for Elizabeth ended in the same way. Osterman even offered to marry her to Pyotr Alekseevich, but the princess refused.

In 1730, Pyotr Alekseevich died, and the question arose of who would take the Russian throne. According to the will of Catherine the 1st, this place was assigned to Elizabeth. However, the Supreme Privy Council decided that the princess’s sister, with whom they had far from warm relations, should take the throne.

During her reign, Anna managed to significantly reduce the country's prestige and ruin the state treasury. 10 years later (in 1740) Anna died, leaving the throne to her nephew. He was still young, and Anna Leopoldovna became his regent. Dissatisfied with everything that was happening inside the country, Elizabeth, together with her supporters, decided to do so and ascended the throne (1741).

Domestic policy of Elizaveta Petrovna

Wanting to bring the country to the state it was in at the beginning of the reign of Peter the Great, Queen Elizabeth abolished the death penalty in Russia. In 1741, internal political transformations began: the highest state body appeared - the Senate, which compiled a new set of laws. Elizabeth also directed her actions towards expanding the opportunities of the nobles. The abolished customs duties have significantly improved the development of the Russian market.

In 1744-1747 The second population census in Russia was carried out. The poll tax has been reduced. The country's economy, industry and agriculture began to develop rapidly. The cultural and scientific growth of the Russian state began: Moscow University, the Academy of Sciences, many gymnasiums, the First Public Theater and the Academy of Arts were opened in St. Petersburg, which gave great Russian artists to world culture.

Foreign policy of Empress Elizabeth

Elizabeth was very active in her foreign policy. During the beginning of her reign, Russia fought with Sweden, who wanted to avenge the defeat in. However, this war ended in another failure for the Swedes, and part of Finland went to Russia. Victory in this war led to the desire of many European countries to enter into an alliance with Russia. Russia had a chance to take part in the War of the Austrian Succession.

In 1756, the war began, as a result of which Russia, together with its allies, practically destroyed Prussia. However, in December 1761, Elizaveta Petrovna died, and her nephew, whom she appointed as a successor, concludes a peace treaty.

The reign of Elizabeth Petrovna can be considered quite favorable for the Russian Empire. Elizabeth's biography is fascinating and interesting. This is a bright person and a significant historical figure.

Aug 20, 2012 Published Aug 20, 2012 V

During the reign, not a single item of government expenditure and income was balanced. The government's attempt to obtain a report on the state of finances ended with the discovery of a deficit exceeding 1 million rubles. In 1752, the Senate came to the conclusion that it was impossible to draw up a satisfactory list of income and expenses.

In the process of expanding foreign trade, problems with cash payments arose. Merchants who carried out foreign trade through St. Petersburg were forced to transport large sums of cash through various cities to purchase export goods.

This routine was associated with great risks and costs along the way. At the initiative of foreign entrepreneurs and based on European experience, Empress Elizabeth re-adopted the “Bills Law”, which legally established the basic principles of monetary circulation (such as ensuring ease of circulation, a quick procedure for the unconditional return of debts, etc.). In banking practice, money transfer operations appeared as prototypes of current account operations. These measures contributed to the circulation of trade capital and the organization of commercial credit, which until that time had been hampered by the use of heavy copper coins in money circulation.

In 1758, on the initiative of Count P.I. Shuvalov, who actually led the government under Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, so-called banking bill bureaus were established in Moscow and St. Petersburg to speed up the circulation of copper coins. These institutions were called "copper banks." Such an innovation stimulated the development of both domestic and foreign trade and promoted foreign entrepreneurship in Russia, since banking bureaus could conduct settlements without the use of cash. A distinctive feature of the banking entrepreneurship that was emerging in Russia was its government origin, i.e. at the initiative and under the control of the state, which led to the traditional restraint of private initiative and private entrepreneurship in banking.