Supremes
Supreme Privy Council- the highest advisory state institution in Russia in 1726-30 (7-8 people). Created by Catherine I as an advisory body, it actually resolved the most important state issues.
The “Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society” published drawings, journals and minutes of meetings of the Supreme Council (see this “Collection” for 1987, 88 and 89).
| Reign of Peter II | |
|---|---|
| Years | |
| People | |
| Concepts | |
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
From the very moment of the establishment of the Supreme Privy Council, foreigners foresaw the possibility of attempting to change the form of government. This is what happened after the death of Peter II, who died on the night of January 18-19, 1730. Ignoring... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Ephron
Members of the Supreme Privy Council (See Supreme Privy Council) in Russia (1726 30) ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Members of the Supreme Privy Council in Russia (1726 30) ... Soviet historical encyclopedia
supreme leaders- top ovniki, ov, units. h. nickname, a (source) ... Russian spelling dictionary
HIGH HIGHERS- members of the Supreme Privy Council in Russia (1726-1730) ... Power. Policy. Public service. Dictionary
Supremes- source name member The Supreme Privy Council, the highest ruling body of Russia in 1726 30. The first composition of the council included A. D. Menshikov, P. A. Tolstoy, F. M. Apraksin, G. I. Golovkin, A. I. Osterman, D. M. Golitsyn and Catherine I’s son-in-law, Duke of Holstein... ... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary
The highest state institution of Russia in 1726 30 (7 8 people). Created by Empress Catherine I as an advisory body, it actually resolved the most important state issues. Dissolved by Empress Anna Ivanovna. * * * SUPREME PRIVATE COUNCIL... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary
History of Russia ... Wikipedia
Stanislav Germanovich Desyatskov (born October 6, 1936, Petrozavodsk) Russian writer, historian. Member of the Russian Writers' Union. Author of historical novels and stories about the era of Peter the Great. Doctor of Historical Sciences (1983). Works as a professor... ... Wikipedia
History of Russia Ancient Slavs, Rus (until the 9th century) ... Wikipedia
Creation of the Council
The decree on the establishment of the Supreme Privy Council was issued in February 1726. Field Marshal General His Serene Highness Prince Menshikov, Admiral General Count Apraksin, State Chancellor Count Golovkin, Count Tolstoy, Prince Dimitry Golitsyn and Baron Osterman were appointed as its members. A month later, the empress’s son-in-law, the Duke of Holstein, was included in the number of members of the Supreme Privy Council, on whose zeal, as the empress officially declared, we can fully rely.
The Supreme Privy Council, in which Alexander Danilovich Menshikov took the leading role, immediately subjugated the Senate and collegiums. The ruling Senate was humiliated to such an extent that decrees were sent there not only from the Council, but also from the Synod, which was previously equal to it. Then the title “governor” was taken away from the Senate, replacing it with “highly trusted”, and then simply “high”. Even under Menshikov, the Supreme Privy Council tried to strengthen government power for itself; ministers, as members of the Supreme Privy Council were called, and senators swore allegiance to the empress or to the regulations of the Supreme Privy Council. It was forbidden to execute decrees that were not signed by the Empress and the Council.
Strengthening power, Catherine's testament
According to the testament (testament) of Catherine I, the Supreme Privy Council during the minority of Peter II was granted power equal to the power of the sovereign, only in the matter of the order of succession to the throne, the Council could not make changes. But no one looked at the last point of the testament when the leaders, that is, members of the Supreme Privy Council, elected Anna Ioannovna to the throne.
Alexander Danilovich Menshikov
When created, the Supreme Privy Council included almost exclusively “chicks of Petrov’s nest,” but even under Catherine I, Count Tolstoy was ousted by Menshikov; then, under Peter II, Menshikov himself fell into disgrace and went into exile; Count Apraksin died; the Duke of Holstein has long ceased to be in the Council; Of the original members of the Supreme Privy Council, three remained - Golitsyn, Golovkin and Osterman. Under the influence of the Dolgorukys, the composition of the Supreme Privy Council changed: dominance passed into the hands of the princely families of the Dolgorukys and Golitsyns.
Conditions
In 1730, after the death of Peter II, half of the 8 members of the Council were the Dolgorukovs (princes Vasily Lukich, Ivan Alekseevich, Vasily Vladimirovich and Alexey Grigorievich), who were supported by the Golitsyn brothers (Dmitry and Mikhail Mikhailovich). Dmitry Golitsyn drew up a draft constitution. However, part of the Russian nobility, as well as Council members Osterman and Golovkin, opposed the Dolgorukovs’ plans. However, part of the Russian nobility, as well as Osterman and Golovkin, opposed the Dolgorukovs’ plans.
Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Golitsyn
The rulers chose the Tsar's youngest daughter, Anna Ioannovna, as the next empress. She lived in Courland for 19 years and had no favorites or parties in Russia. This suited everyone. They also found it quite manageable. Taking advantage of the situation, the leaders decided to limit autocratic power by demanding that Anna sign certain conditions, the so-called “Conditions”. According to the “Conditions,” real power in Russia passed to the Supreme Privy Council, and the role of the monarch was reduced for the first time to representative functions.
Conditions
On January 28 (February 8), 1730, Anna signed the “Conditions”, according to which, without the Supreme Privy Council, she could not declare war or make peace, introduce new taxes and taxes, spend the treasury at her own discretion, promote to ranks higher than colonel, grant estates, without trial, deprive a nobleman of life and property, enter into marriage, and appoint an heir to the throne.
Portrait of Anna Ioannovna on silk,1732
The struggle between the two parties in relation to the new government system continued. The leaders sought to convince Anna to confirm their new powers. Supporters of autocracy (A. I. Osterman, Feofan Prokopovich, P. I. Yaguzhinsky, A. D. Cantemir) and wide circles of the nobility wanted a revision of the “Conditions” signed in Mitau. The ferment arose primarily from dissatisfaction with the strengthening of a narrow group of Council members.
Anna Ioannovna tears up the Conditions. Abolition of the Council
On February 25 (March 7), 1730, a large group of nobility (according to various sources from 150 to 800), including many guards officers, came to the palace and submitted a petition to Anna Ioannovna. The petition expressed a request to the empress, together with the nobility, to reconsider a form of government that would be pleasing to all the people. Anna hesitated, but her sister Ekaterina Ioannovna decisively forced the Empress to sign the petition. Representatives of the nobility deliberated briefly and at 4 o'clock in the afternoon submitted a new petition, in which they asked the empress to accept full autocracy and destroy the clauses of the “Conditions”. When Anna asked the confused leaders for approval for the new conditions, they only nodded their heads in agreement. As a contemporary notes: “It was their luck that they did not move then; if they had shown even the slightest disapproval of the nobility’s verdict, the guards would have thrown them out the window.”
Anna Ioannovna breaks the Conditions
Relying on the support of the guard, as well as the middle and minor nobility, Anna publicly tore up the “Conditions” and her letter of acceptance. On March 1 (12), 1730, the people took the oath for the second time to Empress Anna Ioannovna on the terms of complete autocracy. By the Manifesto of March 4 (15), 1730, the Supreme Privy Council was abolished.
The conditions (conditions) of Anna Ioannovna are the requirements of the Supreme Commanders for the approval of Anna as Empress of the Russian Empire. This was the first attempt to limit autocracy, but the limitation was not by law, but by the will of several clans. This “venture,” as it was called at court, failed. Today there are many rumors and legends regarding conditioning, so today I want to dwell on this issue in more detail.
The conditions for Anna Ioannovna were signed by the so-called Supreme Leaders. These are members of the Supreme Privy Council who actually led the country after the death of Peter 1. These were the “chicks of Petrov’s nest” who tried in every possible way to retain power.
After the death of Peter 2 while hunting, it was necessary to elect a new monarch. On the night of January 18-19, the Supreme Leaders gathered and it was decided:
Why did the Verkhovnikovs choose Anna? There are several reasons for this: firstly, Anna had no children, which means there was no one to transfer the throne to; secondly, she was not in Russia for a long time, which means she did not know much, and it was easier to control her. But it was decided to draw up conditions for her, or as it was fashionable to say in the 18th century, Conditions.
The members of the Supreme Privy Council, which after 1725 actually ruled the country, were called Supreme Leaders. In 1730, at the time of drawing up the Conditions, the members of the Privy Council were: Dolgoruky - 4 people, Golitsyn - 2 people, Golovkin and Osterman.
For the Supreme Leaders, the election of the emperor was a matter of survival. They sought by any means to install a “convenient” candidate who would completely obey them.
Anna Ioannovna’s condition implied the following restrictions for her:
When signing the Conditions, Anna Ioannovna had to add that if one of the conditions was violated, she would be deprived of the imperial crown. The result was a project of limited autocracy. But this autocracy was limited not by the constitution or laws, but by agreements. The limitation of the emperor's power was to occur in favor of the aristocratic privy council. Today, some “historians” talk about some kind of constitutional beginning of the Verkhovniki. It's all a lie. The “venture,” as Prokopovich called it, had nothing to do with the constitution, but was aimed only protection of the interests of the aristocracy, and not all, but only several clans. Anna Ioannovna accepted her condition and came to rule Russia.
The leaders were convinced that they were acting secretly, but the “venture” became known in wide circles and most of the population, including the elite, were extremely against the introduction of any conditions limiting the power of the monarch. The main opponents of the standards were:
In general, it became clear that the Supreme Privy Council makes the rulers of the country, and the emperor remains a nominal figure. As a result, the fight against the Supreme Leaders was carried out under the slogans “ better one tyrant than a group of tyrants».
After Anna’s arrival in Russia, the guard approached her with a demand to destroy the conditions and become a full-fledged ruler. On February 25, 1730, Anna Ioannovna broke the Conditions, becoming the autocrat of the Russian Empire. After Anna Ioannovna’s condition was destroyed, her main task was to deal with the Supreme Privy Council. As a result, the Dolgorukys were arrested and sent into exile, and the military-technical cooperation was liquidated. In its place, the Cabinet of Ministers was created.
Until the moment of acceptance of the conditions, when the Council had not yet confirmed Anna as empress, the Dolgorukys had a majority and prayed to elect their own emperor. The candidacy of Catherine Dolgoruky was discussed, but a split occurred within the family, and Catherine was not chosen as empress. As a result, Anna Ioannovna dealt with the Privy Council, and the Dolgoruky family ceased to exist.
Historical background
To the question: Tell me. Did the period of Anna Ioannovna’s reign go down in history as the “rule of temporary workers” or as the “rule of the supreme leaders”? given by the author Flush the best answer is supreme leaders of course! (it's a shame not to know)
Reply from Natalie Malyugina[master]
temporary rule. There are a lot of foreigners in the state. posts that do not care about the future of Mother Russia. This time is also called the Bironovshchina. In his lectures on Russian history, S. Platonov assesses the ten-year period of Anna Ioannovna’s reign as follows: “The reign of Anna (Anna Leopoldovna. - B.B.) is a sad era of Russian life in the 18th century, the time of temporary workers alien to Russia.” (19) "Under Anna, the Germans occupied first place in the court sphere; at the head of the current administration was a German (Osterman); in the boards, the presidents were Germans; at the head of the army were the Germans (Minich and Lasso). Of these, the main force belonged to Biron. He was a completely insignificant and immoral person by nature Being Anna’s favorite and enjoying her trust, Biron interfered in all matters of government, but had no state views, no program of activity and not the slightest acquaintance with Russian life and the people. This did not prevent him from despising Russians and consciously persecuting everything Russian.” “When the murmur arose, Biron, in order to maintain his own safety, resorted to a system of denunciations, which developed to a terrifying degree. The secret office of the Preobrazhensky order of the Peter the Great era was inundated with political denunciations and deeds. No one could consider themselves safe from “words and deeds” (the exclamation that began , usually, the procedure of denunciation and investigation). Petty everyday enmity, a sense of revenge, low greed, could lead any person to investigation, prison and torture. Terror hung over society."
Reply from Say goodbye to Christ[newbie]
Accession of Anna IoannovnaA kind of “party” of opponents to the plans of the leaders and, in general, to any state reforms began to form since the end of January. The most prominent representatives of these parties were, first of all, Anna’s relatives: her uncle V.F. Saltykov and cousin, Major of the Preobrazhensky Regiment S.A. Saltykov. Anna was also supported by Field Marshal Prince. I. Yu. Trubetskoy, Chamberlain R. Levenwolde, in addition, are figures who owe their positions entirely to Peter’s reforms: Prosecutor General Yaguzhinsky, Vice-Chancellor Osterman and Archbishop Feofan Prokopovich. Along with Prokopovich, the ideologically noble opposition to the power of the supreme leaders was led by Tatishchev and Kantemir. This opposition defended, first of all, the progressive social reforms carried out by Peter I. I note that Feofan Prokopovich’s position was different from everyone else. After all, he was one of the few people who understood the political theory and ideas of his time. Among the various forms of monarchical rule, he considered the hereditary monarchy the most suitable for Russia, while the heir does not necessarily have to be a blood relative, but the person who, in the opinion of the ruling monarch, can best continue his work. At the same time, it is possible that Feofan could participate in the development and discussion of a new political system. But he and the above-mentioned opponents of the supreme leaders (except for Osterman) were removed from power by the Supreme Privy Council and were not going to put up with this. Thus, Anna had in the opposition the support of her, primarily autocratic, power. Now everything depended on her decisive actions. And these actions followed. Already on February 23, Anna declared herself captain of the cavalry guards and colonel of the Preobrazhensky regiment, which, undoubtedly, was a formal act of autocracy. According to contemporaries, such a move on Anna’s part was accepted by the two regiments “with the greatest joy and pleasure.”28 Consequently, another force joined the supporters of autocracy—the guard. In addition, on February 24, the Empress refused repeated invitations from the leaders to approve the “drafted form of government,” and the members of the Council decided to recognize Anna as autocrat. But recognition as an autocrat only by the Supreme Privy Council, that is, by only eight persons, was not enough for her. The next day, February 25, the so-called “revolution” of 1730 took place. In the literature, this event is described as a coup carried out by the guards, dissatisfied with the nobles’ discussion of a “compromise” form of government. During this rebellion, the nobles petitioned the empress to accept an autocratic form of government. Anna (possibly Saltykov) 29 tore the document with conditions into two parts - autocracy was completely restored.
Years. Not paying attention to the will of Catherine I, her offspring were removed from the throne under the pretext of the youth and frivolity of Elizabeth, the youngest daughter of Peter I and Catherine, and due to the infancy of their grandson, the son of Anna Petrovna and the Duke of Holstein; The candidacy of Peter II's grandmother, nun Lopukhina, was also removed; No one attached any importance to the words of Prince Alexei Grigorievich Dolgoruky about the election of his daughter Catherine, the bride of the late Emperor Peter II, to the throne. The issue of electing a sovereign was decided by the influential voice of Prince Dimitry Mikhailovich Golitsyn. He stated that the house of Peter I was cut short by the death of Peter II and therefore one should turn to the senior line, whose rights were then forgotten by everyone, especially since the reign of Ivan Alekseevich itself was considered and in fact was only nominal. Under the pretext that Ivan Alekseevich's eldest daughter, Catherine, was married to the Duke of Mecklenburg, Golitsyn proposed electing Anna, the childless widow of the Duke of Courland.
This unexpected candidacy is explained, firstly, by the aristocratic arrogance with which Golitsyn and the high-born dignitaries of that time treated the marriage of Peter I with a Livonian captive peasant woman and her daughters; secondly, Golitsyn’s hatred of Peter’s reforms and borrowing from foreigners. “Why do we need innovations,” Golitsyn used to say? Can’t we live as our fathers lived, without foreigners coming to us and giving us laws?” This narrow tendency was also joined by the plans of the leaders to change the form of government, which, of course, seemed easier to do with childless Anna. Before the announcement of the said candidacy, two more members were elected to the Supreme Council: field marshals Prince Mikhail Mikhailovich Golitsyn and Prince Vasily Vladimirovich Dolgoruky. This appointment, says Soloviev, was a sign of the union of the two most powerful families. Then the chancellor, Count Golovkin, announced that the council had decided to offer the crown to the Duchess of Courland if the assembled officials agreed. Consent, of course, followed. Feofan Prokopovich, Archbishop of Pskov, showed particular sympathy for the said election. He was afraid of the dominion of the Dolgorukys, who were personally hostile to him.
But the mood of Feofan Prokopovich and the majority of the clergy in general changed when they learned that Golitsyn and other leaders proposed writing to Anna Ioannovna clauses or conditions that limited her power in favor of the Supreme Privy Council. By these conditions, Anna obliged not to enter into marriage, not to appoint an heir for herself, not to declare war without the consent of the Supreme Privy Council, not to make peace, not to impose taxes, not to promote ranks above the rank of colonel; fiefdoms and villages are not to be liked.
In these conditions, the majority of the noble and ignorant nobility, as the nobility was then called, saw the intention to create an oligarchy in Russia, assigning to two families the right to elect a sovereign and change the form of government. Volynsky's letter expressed the general mood. Volynsky, who was then the governor of Kazan, wrote: “God forbid that instead of one autocrat there should not be ten autocratic and powerful families; We, the nobility, will then be completely lost.” Many thought that not only the nobility, but Russia would also perish from the inevitable discord among families in the future. This opinion was shared by the most enlightened people of that time: Antioch Cantemir and Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Prosecutor General P. I. Yaguzhinsky also joined the ranks of opponents of the members of the Supreme Privy Council. At first he was on the side of the Supreme Leaders, hoping that he would be elected as a member of the Supreme. Privy Council But when field marshals M.M. Golitsyn and V.V. Dolgoruky took their places in Verkh. t. council, but he was bypassed; when it turned out that four Dolgorukys and two Golitsyns were sitting on the council, and only the other two members, Golovkin and Osterman, did not belong to the tribe of St. Vladimir, like the Dolgorukies, or to the tribe of Gediminas, like the Golitsyns - then Yaguzhinsky realized that there would be no place in the council for people of low birth, even if they were associates of Peter. Therefore, Yaguzhinsky turned sharply in the other direction. Having learned that V. had sent an embassy to Mitava, headed by Vasily Lukich Dolgoruky, Yaguzhinsky, for his part, sent chamberlain Sumarokov to Mitava, who was supposed to warn Anna Ioannovna not to trust Vasily Lukich Dolgoruky and that the whole truth she finds out in Moscow. Sumarokov managed to see Anna Ioannovna and convey Yaguzhinsky’s order to her; but the ambassadors of the supreme leaders found out that he was in Mitau, ordered him to be seized and the arrested person sent to Moscow. At the same time, on February 2, news came from Mitava that Anna Ioannovna agreed to the conditions, which was announced on February 3 at the general meeting of the Supreme Privy Council, the Senate, the Synod, and the generals. Everyone declared that they were pleased with Her Majesty’s mercy, and cemented their pleasure with assault. There were up to five hundred signatures. But then Prince Cherkassky verbally demanded that he and others be allowed to submit an opinion on the new state structure. V. had to agree, which gave rise to various gentry circles to draw up projects. These projects, insignificant in their essence, had no influence on the course of affairs and are interesting only as a monument to the insignificance of the political development of this class and the limitations of its mentality, as expressed in the 18th century. , that is, concepts about state forms of government. Many did not understand what was going on at all and signed up out of fear of the leaders. At the same meeting, it was decided to arrest Yaguzhinsky. This further increased the excitement among the nobility; in the supreme council itself, Golovkin, Yaguzhinsky’s father-in-law, was dissatisfied. I had to release the latter and restore it to its previous value; but Yaguzhinsky did not want mercy and forgiveness, not admitting guilt: “you have stained me,” he said, “but you cannot cleanse me.” The difficulty of the leaders was further complicated by the fact that, as a result of their own improvidence, at a prayer service on February 3 in the Assumption Cathedral, the protodeacon proclaimed Anna Ioannovna autocrat.
On February 10, Anna Ioannovna arrived in the village of Vsesvyatskoye near Moscow. The petty adventures that followed did not bode well for the cause of the supreme leaders. At Vsesvyatsky, the Empress declared herself a colonel of the Preobrazhensky Regiment and captain of the cavalry guards. On February 14, V. presented Anna Ioannovna with the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called; she said: “Yes, it’s true, I forgot to put it on,” and ordered one of the gentlemen of the order who surrounded her to put the order on herself; but not to a member of the Supreme Privy Council. On February 15, the Empress entered Moscow and the oath began. The leaders did not develop a new form of oath, and the only change was that they swore allegiance to the empress and the fatherland. This addition did not bring any benefit to the leaders. They say that Prince Vasily Vladimirovich Dolgoruky invited the Preobrazhensky Regiment to swear allegiance to the Empress and the Supreme Privy Council, but the officers threatened to break his legs for such a proposal. Meanwhile, Feofan Prokopovich, the relatives of the Empress Saltykov and others were intensively undermining the leaders. On February 25, the Senate, generals and nobility, numbering 800 people, gathered in the palace and submitted a petition to the Empress so that a correct and good form of government would be established by majority vote. The request was signed by a few people, but those present declared that all the nobility approved of it. Prince Vasily Lukich Dolgoruky invited the empress to think over the matter together with the Supreme Council; but Ekaterina Ioannovna, Anna Ioannovna’s sister, persuaded her to sign right there. Suddenly the guard officers rose up and demanded the restoration of complete autocracy, shouting: “We don’t want the empress to prescribe conditions.”
Although Anna Ioannovna allowed the nobility to reconsider its standards, it did not dare to enter into a dispute with the armed forces. At 4 o'clock on the same February 25, returning to the palace, it asked Anna Ioannovna to become an autocrat following the example of her ancestors; at the same time, it petitioned to destroy the Supreme Privy Council and the High Senate, and restore the Governing Senate, as it was under Peter I, and so that the nobility would be elected by ballot for the lost seats, the Senate, governors and presidents. This request was signed by Chancellor Gr. Golovkin, two princes Trubetskoy, etc., up to 150 people in total. The Empress seemed surprised and said: “Weren’t the points that were presented to me in Mitau drawn up at the request of an entire people? So, Prince Vasily Lukich, you deceived me? She immediately tore up the clauses signed by Anna Ioannovna in Mitau in front of the entire meeting.
