Peter I and Modern Historiography: Reflections on the 350th Anniversary of the Great Reformer

ISSN 1019-3316, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022, Vol. 92, Suppl. 8, pp. S695–S702. © The Author(s), 2022. This article is an open access publication. Russian Text © The Author(s), 2022, published in Rossiiskaya Istoriya, 2022, No. 2. Peter I and Modern Historiography: Reflections on the 350th Anniversary of the Great Reformer V. N. Zakharov Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia e-mail: Received October 28, 2022; revised November 1, 2022; accepted November 1, 2022 Abstract—Some features of the historiography covering the rule of Peter I are considered. The criticism of Petrine transformations that influenced the activities of merchants and the development of foreign trade and estimated judgments about the founding of St. Petersburg and its capital status is analyzed. A statement is put forward about Peter’s reforms as the starting point of Russia’s New Age. Keywords: Peter I, historiography, Russian merchantry, international trade, St. Petersburg, Moscow, beginning of Russia’s New Age DOI: 10.1134/S101933162214012X This issue of the journal Rossiiskaya istoriya is published at the time of Peter the Great’s 350th anniversary. Such a significant date could not fail to become an incentive for an exchange of views and judgments about the activity of Peter I and its consequences, a presentation of the research results, and an analysis of the modern historiography of Peter the Great’s time. Several articles of this anniversary issue are devoted to topical problems connected with the history of transformations made by Peter the Great. This inevitably involves considering general trends in modern historiography of the Petrine times, which became the purpose of this essay. The scope of this article does not allow for a full consideration of the topic but provides an opportunity to address issues that seem the most relevant and interesting. Peter I is one of the most prominent figures in Russian and world history; the scale of his personality and accomplishments can hardly be overestimated. The mere biographical characteristics of his life and activities are already worthy of attention. Peter was born on a short summer night, at 0:48 a.m. on May 30 (June 9), 1672 in the Moscow Kremlin.1 He was the youngest son of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich. In April 1682, as a 10-year-old child, Peter ascended the Russian throne and remained on it until his death on January 28, 1725, taking the title of emperor in 1721. By the length of his reign (43 years), Peter Alekseevich surpassed other rulers from the Romanov dynasty, yielding from Rus- sian monarchs only to Ivan the Terrible who ruled for 51 years. True, Ivan Vasil’evich accepted his father’s legacy when he was less than four years old, and he was crowned with the Monomakh’s hat only upon reaching adulthood, so that he held the royal title for 37 years (and here Peter I in Russian history turns out to be the first).2 With regard to the time when Peter really ruled the country (since 1689), his term in power was almost 36 years. According to the duration of his reign, he is on par with several prominent European monarchs of the New Age—King Louis XIV of France, Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria–Hungary, and Queen Victoria of England. Tellingly, the authors of numerous works on Peter I practically ignore this circumstance. This could be explained by the fact that his reign gives the impression of transience, even evanescence of the flashing events. The researchers of Petrine times and readers of relevant books inevitably gain a lasting impression that time itself in that period went much faster than over the previous century. Numerous events and changes were taking place, but they could have been much more numerous if time had permitted. Moreover, on evaluating the reign of Peter the Great, it is important to take into account not only what he managed to do, but also what he had planned. There is a paradoxical dichotomy in assessing the legacy of Peter I, the consequences and results of his activities, the ways and methods of achieving them, 1 Anisimov, E.V., Biokhronika Petra Velikogo (1672–1725) [Bio- 2 Peter I was crowned with the “cap of the Second outfit,” a copy chronicle of Peter the Great (1672–1725)] (URL: https:inspb.hse.ru/humart/history/peter/biochronic/226713827. Cited March 3, 2022). of Monomakh’s cap, and his brother Ivan was honored with the original (Bobrovnitskaya, I.A., Regalii rossiyskikh gosudarei [Regalia of Russian Sovereigns], Moscow, 2004, p. 8). S695 S696 ZAKHAROV and the motives in the historical consciousness, as well as in science. It is not worth talking about how right or wrong Peter I was, by violating the original course of Russian history, trying to instill in Russia a supposedly alien “European” way of life. Discussions on this issue are more philosophically than scientifically meaningful. In modern historiography, the problems, contradictions, consequences, and results of Peter’s transformations are considered and evaluated from a different angle. Two main approaches can be distinguished. Many historians, recognizing the major achievements of Peter I in the direction of modernizing the country, sharply criticize the social, domestic political consequences of his reforms. A different trend is manifested in doubts about the significance of Peter’s reforms and their life-changing nature. The first direction has a longer history. A critical attitude to the social consequences of Peter’s activities was expressed by V.O. Klyuchevsky and his followers. Klyuchevsky pointed to the despotism of power, relying on which Peter I fought against the inertia of the people, hoping to establish European science and public education through the “slave-owning nobility.” However, the “political squaring of the circle” represented by the joint action of “despotism and freedom,” and “enlightenment and slavery” remained, according to the historian, an unsolvable task.3 At the same time, the issue of the “price paid for the reforms” arose within the critical approach. The most definite, although overly categorical, answer to this question was formulated by P.N. Milyukov: “At the cost of ruining the country, Russia was elevated to the rank of a great power.”4 In Soviet historiography of the second half of the 20th century, the deeds of Peter I were rated higher than those of all other Russian monarchs, although mass deprivations and hardships, growing absolutism, and the tightening grip of serfdom were taken into account. These ideas are summarized and developed in the modern historiography, including the generalizing works of E.V. Anisimov, currently the most prominent specialist in the history of Peter the Great, the author of fundamental works on the history of finance and taxes and public administration, as well as an impressive series of generalizing scientific and popular science works about Peter and his successors. It should also be noted that Anisimov has co (...truncated)