Creation of the cabinet of ministers in the 18th century. The Cabinet of Ministers as a revamped Supreme Privy Council

Cabinet of Ministers- supreme government agency, formed on October 24 (November 6), 1731 by decree of Empress Anna Ivanovna. On November 30 (December 12), 1741, after the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna, he lost his powers and was transformed into the Personal Office of the Empress. In 1756, its functions were transferred to the Conference at the Imperial Court.

1. History
2 Composition
3 Literature
4 Notes

Story

Having come to power in 1730, Anna Ioannovna restored the Senate instead of the Supreme Privy Council. The day after the abolition of the Privy Council, Anna Ioanovna, by decree of November 6 (November 19), 1731, established the Cabinet of Ministers.

In 1735, a decree was issued by which the signature of three cabinet ministers was equated to the imperial signature.

During the reign of Anna Leopoldovna, under the influence of Minich, the Cabinet was divided into 3 departments:

Count Burchard Christopher Minich, with the rank of first minister, was in charge of the army, cadet corps and affairs on the Ladoga Canal;
Count Andrei Ivanovich Osterman - foreign relations and the fleet;
Prince Cherkassky Alexei Mikhailovich and Count Mikhail Gavrilovich Golovkin were provided with “everything that relates to internal affairs of the Senate and Synod, and about state chamber board fees and other income, about commerce, about justice and other things related to that.”

Individual cabinet ministers, in charge of their departments, personally decided matters in them, communicating only “for coordination” their opinions to other ministers. Only particularly important matters were to be resolved general council. In its new form, the Cabinet did not last long: following the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna to the throne, it was abolished by decree of November 30 (December 12), 1741.

Compound

The cabinet consisted of three ministers. In addition to them, Anna Ioanovna’s favorite, Duke Ernst Biron, intervened in the activities of the Cabinet before the regent of Ivan V, Anna Leopoldovna, came to power.

IN different time The Cabinet as First Minister included:

Count Gabriel Ivanovich Golovkin - 1731-1734
Count Pavel Ivanovich Yaguzhinsky - 1734-1738
Prince Artemy Petrovich Volynsky - 1738-1740
Count Alexey Petrovich Bestuzhev-Ryumin - 1740
Count Burchard Christopher Minich - November 1740 - March 3, 1741

The second minister included:

Count Andrei Ivanovich Osterman 1731-1741

At various times, the Cabinet included as third minister:

Prince Cherkassky Alexey Mikhailovich - 1731-1741

In addition, during the reign of Anna Leopoldovna, together with the third minister, the cabinet included:

Count Mikhail Gavrilovich Golovkin - November 1740 - March 3, 1741

Literature

“New popular encyclopedia. History of the Fatherland" edited by Vladimir Mikhailovich Solovyov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor. Moscow, 2000, AST-press
Office, institution // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg, 1890-1907.

Specialty of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation07.00.02
Number of pages 189

1. Methodological introduction.

2. Statement of the problem.

3. Review of sources.

4. Historiographical review.

Chapter 1. Cabinet of Ministers of Anna Ioannovna and its place in the system of government institutions.

1. Higher councils under the person of the emperor in the political system of Russian absolutism of the 18th century.

2. Formation of the Cabinet of Ministers.

3. The competence of the Cabinet of Ministers and its place in the system of autocratic bodies.

4. The apparatus of the Cabinet of Ministers and the specifics of its office work.

ChapterP. Composition of the Cabinet of Ministers.

1. Features and principles of appointment of ministers.

2. “Consultations” and “conferences” under the Cabinet of Ministers.

3. “Soul” and “body” of the Cabinet.

ChapterSH. The specifics of the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers as the highest authority during Anna’s reign.

1. Regulatory and organizational issues in the activities of the Cabinet, “one day in the life of the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna.”

2. The Cabinet of Ministers and the “noble question.”

Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Domestic History", 07.00.02 code VAK

Artemy Petrovich Volynsky: personality and activities 2008, Candidate of Historical Sciences Kryuchkov, Nikolai Nikolaevich
"The era of palace coups" 1725-1762. in the context of Russian political history 2004, Doctor of Historical Sciences Kurukin, Igor Vladimirovich
Russian Empress Elizaveta Petrovna in the assessments of domestic historians 2003, Candidate of Historical Sciences Kozlova, Anna Aleksandrovna
The governor's corps and the central government: the problem of relationships: based on materials from the provinces of the Black Earth Center of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. 2011, Doctor of Historical Sciences Minakov, Andrey Sergeevich
The powers of the Russian monarch during the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna 2010, Candidate of Historical Sciences Murashov, Ilya Yurievich

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna”

1. Methodological introduction At the moment, turning to theoretical and methodological topics is due not only to the need to clearly define the author’s basic approaches to scientific analysis in the context of the rejection of dogmatized methods research work, but also by the very specificity of the stage currently being experienced by historical knowledge. If in the previous period the ideological and methodological principles of any work were clear and did not imply discussion, and this section of dissertation research had a largely formal and purely symbolic meaning, now, on the contrary, the formulation of the methodological foundations of the author’s approach to the topic acquires particular relevance and urgency.

An enviable methodological and doctrinal pluralism that emerged at the turn of the century under the influence of socio-political processes (some historians remain in the bosom of Marxist methodology, continuing to study social phenomena in line with the relationship between the base and the superstructure; others have quite clearly switched to the position civilizational approach, schools of annals, elite theory, historical positivism, etc.; still others have not yet decided on the choice of the most acceptable methodological structures) had a very negative impact on the style and fruitfulness of scientific discussions.

At the same time, it should be recognized that the differences between modern historians in general theoretical and methodological approaches to assessing the phenomena of the past also reflect deeper processes occurring in historical science. Not only questions about the driving forces of history, the causes and nature of changes in the economy and political system of states, their inclusion in a civilizational or formational context, but the very possibility of verifying historical knowledge, the ways of achieving truth in humanitarian research, its criteria and specifics have become hotly debated.

At the present moment, the question of the relationship between historical science and ideology has also acquired theoretical and methodological resonance. There is a huge temptation, using the relevant experience of the first post-revolutionary decades, which passed in an irreconcilable struggle against “bourgeois falsifiers of history”, “with fire and sword,” to eradicate the Soviet methodological heritage due to its “scientific inconsistency, limitations, one-sidedness” and generally “unsatisfactory” (73; 15).

This process, it seems, has both objective and subjective prerequisites. As for the objective ones, it is quite obvious: arguments from history yield to the force of ideological pressure only temporarily, and the effect of the pendulum set in motion by the force of Russian political reforms inevitably had to actualize the problem of cleansing from the largely artificially imposed conceptual layers of the Soviet period.

At the same time, the evolution of historical knowledge has shown that whenever scientists adhere to one or another rigid scheme for interpreting historical reality, many important aspects of the historical process fall outside the scope of research interest. Much more productive in this regard seems to be a combination of various methods and techniques for studying the past, the search for interdisciplinary connections dictated by the subject area and allowing for a more comprehensive and comprehensive analysis of the object of study. From this perspective, the main criterion for the value of any concepts or factual constructions should remain not their relationship with others (including canonically recognized or scientifically established ones), but with the subject of research. ^ Modern historical research is a set of procedures or methods for adapting general and particular scientific methods to the study of each time specific and unique historical phenomena and processes, suggesting a certain combination and proportion of “traditional” - qualitative and “new” - empirical, quantitative ways of knowing.

Overcoming the doctrine of class and vulgar economic determinism in the analysis and interpretation of historical realities dictates the need to abandon predetermination and bias in assessing the past, contrasting ideologically verified positions with objective scientific analysis. In addition, the complex significance of the principle of objectivity in historical knowledge goes beyond the current period of “change of milestones.” According to the author, it is objectivity (“concept through fact”) that makes it possible to establish real rather than imaginary (“fact through concept”) patterns and trends in historical reality, to discover the background of events, phenomena, processes, to analyze their driving forces and directions of development .

In turn, the significance of the principle of historicism is determined, first of all, by the need to consider events and phenomena of the past on the basis of observing the time sequence and the natural continuity of the change of periods and stages, each of which is analyzed as a relatively completed cycle. Following it, we can consider the development historical events both in chronological sequence and in their conceptual unity. Each historical fact, as well as their totality (processes, trends, lines of domestic and foreign policy, etc.) are analyzed in the process of their emergence, formation, change and development. Consideration of real historical facts and phenomena from the point of view of their genesis, continuity and mutual influence makes it possible to understand their essence and changes at various stages of development. Finally, it is historicism that makes it possible to clarify the reasons for the emergence of certain problems and more general tasks in the field of public administration at one time and not another, at one or another stage of the development of society.

The principle of systematicity directs the researcher to consider each historical fact as a system of interconnected elements. A systematic approach allows us to define, formalize and describe the diversity of connections between the phenomena and processes of historical reality, and clearly identify their components. It makes it possible to compare and contrast various specific historical phenomena and trends, and to apply mathematical methods of system analysis. Broad prospects for understanding and explaining historical phenomena are opened by the use of methods and ideas of synergetics - the science of self-organization in complex systems, a classic example of which, of course, is the political system of society as a whole and, in particular, the top management apparatus.

The above-mentioned general scientific theoretical approaches to the object of research are implemented by the dissertation candidate in a number of narrower methods of scientific knowledge: comparative historical and specific historical analysis, logical procedures of comparison and analogy, definitions and classifications.

The use of historical comparative studies is determined by the desire to obtain a more complete understanding of the similarities and differences between the Cabinet and other higher councils under the person of the emperor, about the typical and special, about the trends and prospects for its development.

In addition to the above, the author also used the periodization method, which allows us to present the activity of the research object in a more systematic and attributed form. Considerable attention is paid to the analysis of the personal characteristics and life path of cabinet ministers.

Particular emphasis should be placed on the value of quantitative methods for collecting and analyzing information and using statistics. With their help, in particular, the task of summarizing data from the Cabinet's office documentation was realized, material was selected and systematized, reflecting the specifics of its regulations, the frequency and composition of meetings. The use of mathematical apparatus makes it possible to process large volumes of data, their subsequent generalization and comparison, identification and comparison of trends, as well as their visual display in the form of tables, graphs, diagrams.

The choice of these methods, in our opinion, fully corresponds to the goals and objectives of the work formulated below, and is determined and conditioned by them.

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Domestic History”, Savelyeva, Ekaterina Nikolaevna

Conclusion.

So, studying the history of the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna shows that this institution occupies special position among the highest councils under the person of the Russian emperor in the 18th century.

The reasons that led to its appearance can be divided into two groups. Objectively, the emergence of the Cabinet met the need of the Russian absolutist system to complete the bureaucratic pyramid. It is no coincidence that “secret councils on main state affairs” are integral elements of the political system of the Russian autocracy: being part of the state apparatus of the monarchy, these bodies, their features and development trends largely reflect the typological characteristics of Russian absolutism of the 20-60s of the 18th century.

In addition to the “system conditionality,” the very complication of the monarch’s managerial functions required the creation of a personal apparatus under the emperor, which would engage in preparatory work, control current issues of public administration, leaving the latter only with the determination of “main lines.”

These trends were reflected in the organization of Anna’s Cabinet. On the one hand, (and this explains the legal uncertainty of his competence), the task included “organizational support” of the crown bearer, performing the functions of a personal secretariat, which means “subjects of jurisdiction” were often determined by momentary necessity, which was enough to be foreseen, much less enshrined in law hard. On the other hand, the nature of his relationships with other authorities, the special place he occupied in the political system since 1735 reflect an attempt to “crown the building.”

In addition, the creation of the Cabinet can be explained by Anna Ioannovna’s desire to balance the contradictions within the rather motley (in political and property terms) noble class. By providing the initiative and inviting representatives of various groups of nobility to participate in governing the country, absolutism received the opportunity to qualitatively assess their influence, urgency and relevance of demands. Finally, the conscious opposition of one “party” to another made it possible for the autocracy to feel quite independent.

No less important is the following consideration: the delegation of a number of functions of the supreme power to a well-known body took the figure of the emperor himself beyond the scope of criticism of the political line and created the illusion of a “deceived good king” - fertile ground for popular patriarchal monarchism.

However, the factors in the emergence of the Cabinet of Ministers and the parameters of its evolution are determined not only by the objective laws of development of the political system of an unlimited monarchy. His fate also reflected the intricacy of subjective circumstances: here are the empress’s personality traits, her specific business qualities, Biron’s rivalry with Osterman, and the confrontation between numerous court parties.

As for the competence of the Cabinet, as the study shows, the dominant line in its development should be considered universalization. Of course, the logic of centralization of the autocratic system itself turned out to be dominant here. However for of this institution the noted direction should hardly be considered promising: the abundance of immediate tasks prevented the Cabinet from focusing on strategic issues. Almost every meeting of the Cabinet is devoted to the consideration of reports, petitions, collection of certificates and information on various issues of supreme government. The need to work with such a volume of documents and conduct extensive correspondence, on the one hand, gave his activities a lively and varied character, and on the other, forced him to go along with the flow of administrative routine.

Analysis of the flow of incoming documentation confirms the thesis that the Cabinet of Ministers combined the functions of the personal office of the monarch and the supreme body executive power, which took over a significant part of the empire’s document flow. A status of this kind required a special style of documentation, which made it possible not only to coordinate the activities of individual authorities, but also to exercise effective control over their work, requiring direct reports and reports. This not least explains the need for a position “independent” of the empress at the top of the bureaucratic pyramid. That is why the thesis about the subjectively motivated desire of ministers to “pull the blanket” over themselves apparently reveals only part of the problem. The style of “managers - managed” was demanded by the very setting of management tasks for the Cabinet at all levels, which could only be adequately fulfilled by establishing oneself on the bureaucratic Olympus of the empire.

A comparison of facts from the history of the creation of the Cabinet of Ministers convinces that at the origins of its establishment was A.I. Osterman, one of the most influential dignitaries of Anna’s reign. The thesis about Biron's absolute influence does not stand up to the test of authenticity.

Our analysis of the journals of the Cabinet of Ministers through the prism of the decision-making procedure, the mechanism for their development and approval allows us to state that, despite the lack of transcripts of meetings and the comparative paucity of information reflecting the personal contribution of each of the dignitaries who worked in the Cabinet, it can still be confidently stated that that A.I. Osterman played a key role in it throughout his reign. Even during the period when Andrei Ivanovich was not able to personally participate in meetings, the entire production process took place under his daily control.

As for the role of the Empress, it can be noted that even after withdrawing from direct participation in the activities of the Cabinet (since 1732), Anna continued to carefully monitor its work. Of course, to say that the highest level of control was daily would be an exaggeration. There were periods when the Cabinet existed almost completely autonomously, but it is absolutely incorrect to say that since 1735 Anna Ioannovna set a course for complete self-removal from government affairs. The procedure for the report from the Cabinet is preserved (although its regulations are significantly shortened), the Empress personally (or, more often, through proxies) conveys her instructions to the ministers, and finally appoints a special secret cabinet secretary for these purposes.

Andrei Ivanovich’s influence can also be traced when considering the evolution of the personnel of this body. Since there were no objective criteria for selecting ministers, the test of “loyalty” came to the fore, replacing the requirements of preparedness and competence in matters of public administration.

In the political practice of that era, no unified approaches to the formation of the country's highest government institution were developed. The appointment of new members was chaotic and subjective. In many respects, however, this is explained by the peculiarities of the absolutist model of power, which is always associated with a certain subjectivism in the principles of recruiting power structures. At the same time, changes even in the composition of such a limited (in quantitative terms) institution reflected the specifics of the alignment of political forces in each individual period of the reign. In this regard, it is no coincidence that the Cabinet was perceived by contemporaries not as an integral state body, but as an instrument of influence of individual court parties and leaders.

The narrow composition of this institution was also predetermined by the tendency to personify power, characteristic of the absolutist model. However, the notorious behind-the-scenes and isolation of the Cabinet for inspection turns out to be illusory, and the circle of people involved in developing the government policy, taking into account the institution of consultations under the Cabinet, is significantly expanding. With the growing independence of the Cabinet from other administrative authorities and its immersion in the everyday management process, the collegiality in its work is gradually leveled out, coinciding, which is very symptomatic, with a decrease in the level of issues under consideration to a purely administrative one.

In the relationship of the Cabinet with other institutions (primarily with the Governing Senate), there is a tendency to establish relations of “dominance-subordination”. The cabinet, experiencing a gradual but steady process of universalization of competence, concentrates in its hands all the threads of public administration. In this regard, the transfer of the function of promulgation to him in 1735 (that is, the actual delegation of the powers of monarchical power to him) seems logical.

Assessing the mechanism of work of the Cabinet, it can be stated that despite the significant increase in the volume of incoming documentation - during the heyday of the Cabinet, it considered from one and a half to two dozen cases at each meeting, the ministers managed to maintain an informal approach to their duties, consider each case on its merits, requesting the entire complex of necessary information and maintaining a relatively high pace of consideration. Of course, there were delays, but their reasons were not so much the Cabinet’s mistakes as the delay in the consideration of cases in previous instances.

Moreover, as a result of the work carried out, we can talk about such a phenomenon as the “Osterman style” in solving particular issues. In most cases, the Cabinet sought to assess the circumstances objectively and make a decision based on the interests of each individual. Rigidity and administrative pressure manifested themselves, as a rule, in relation to specific officials and ineffective management decisions. Here the Cabinet asked to the fullest extent of the law and used the full range of prerogatives available to it in order to stop the identified abuses. In terms of concern for the development of domestic industry, increasing budgetary responsibility and discipline, we see a clear focus on strict government regulation and protectionism, the desire to expand the financial capabilities of the treasury, and develop the domestic industry.

At the same time, the work of the Cabinet cannot be considered effective on a number of issues. First of all, his activities in the case of peasant poverty deserve critical assessment. Put on the agenda for purely opportunistic reasons (hunger and problems with collecting the poll tax), although it became the subject of a number of meetings (including as part of special councils), it nevertheless remained in “suspense” without any no clear solution.

The problems of supplying the active army and developing military infrastructure placed a colossal burden on the cabinet ministers. In this case, matters were resolved without any delay (within one day), the work was carried out in close contact with Field Marshal Minich and the military board as a whole.

The activities of the Cabinet of Ministers on the question of the nobility reveal the contradictory position of this institution in the system of autocratic bodies. On the one hand, textual analysis of the “Report from the Cabinet on the Service of the Nobles” and the manifesto of December 31, 1736 indicates that it was the cabinet ministers who “had a hand” in developing the conceptual guidelines for the internal political line in this area. On the other hand, inevitably overwhelmed by the “routine”, he was physically deprived of the opportunity to develop even the mentioned document in detail, having taken upon himself the full burden of the practical implementation of his ideas.

Of course, the removal of the Cabinet as an institution from the process of directly developing the main internal political measures did not exclude the personal influence of its members on the development of certain decisions. But in general, the functions of the personal office and the controlling core of the bureaucratic system did not initially imply an active role for this institution in legislative practice.

Thus, the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna appears primarily as an administrative body, the functions and powers of which were determined by the situational characteristics of the internal political situation. The conductors of his influence on the legislative mechanism of the empire were the palace and backstage connections of its members, since he himself was absorbed in routine administrative work.

In general, the peculiarities of the development of the powers and functions of the Cabinet make it possible to propose the following periodization of its history. In the first period (until October 1731), the Cabinet acted virtually “illegally”, and therefore, obviously, carried out, first of all, special instructions from the EIV. The second period (October 1731-June 173 5) was marked by the gradual introduction of the Cabinet into all areas of management activity. The functions of the personal Chancellery and the supreme governing body are merging. The third period (1735-1740) was the heyday of the Cabinet of Ministers of Anna Ioannovna, when the political line of the reign, from idea to practical implementation, was developed directly within the walls of this institution.

List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Historical Sciences Savelyeva, Ekaterina Nikolaevna, 2004

1. Bassevich Notes.//Peter the Great. M., 1993

2. Berchholtz. Diary of a chamber cadet, kept by him in Russia during the reign of Peter the Great from 1721. to 1725//Peter the Great. Memoirs, diary entries, anecdotes M., 1993.

3. Biron E.I. Note.//Circumstances that prepared the disgrace of E.I. Biron.//Time 1861 N2

4. Papers of the Cabinet of Ministers.//Collection of the Russian Historical Society T. 104,106,108,111,114,117, 120,124,126,130,138,146. Yuryev, 1898-1915

5. Volynsky A.P. Project on the improvement of public affairs.//Gautier Yu.V. Project on the improvement of state affairs by A.P. Volynsky.//Affairs and days1. V Pg., 1922 book.Z.

6. Volynsky A.P. A note about the change in the form of government initiated in Moscow in 1730.//The Salnikeev case.//The affairs and days of Pg., 1922 book.Z

7. General regulations. St. Petersburg, 1819

8. De Liria. Reports.//With a sword and a torch. M., 1991

9. De Liria. Notes of the Duke of Lyria. St. Petersburg, 1845.

10. From the correspondence of A.P. Volynsky.//Monuments of new Russian history. T2 St. Petersburg, 1872.

11. U 11. Lefort I. Letters and other papers.//With a sword and a torch. M., 1991

12. Manstein Notes on Russia.//With a sword and a torch. M., 1991.

13. Manyan Reports.// Sat. RIO tt.75,81

14. Mardefeld G. Excerpts from memories.//With a sword and a torch. M., 1991

15. Marquis de la Chetardie in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1862

16. Minich B.-H. An essay giving an idea of the way of government of the Russian Empire.//Timelessness and temporary workers. L., 1991. P.46-68

17. Minikh E. Notes. // Timelessness and temporary workers. L., 1991 pp. 94-186.

18. Osterman A.I. General condition // Northern archive of St. Petersburg 1828.

19. Osterman A.I. A note for memory. //Archive of Prince Vorontsov, book 24 M., 1880 P.1-5.

20. Osterman A.I. Opinion about the state and needs of Russia in 1740. // Monuments of new Russian history. T.Z St. Petersburg, 1873

21. Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire, ed. 1 St. Petersburg, 1830.TT.4-11.

22. Project 25.//Monuments of new Russian history St. Petersburg, 1871 T.1 P.6-7.

23. Project of the Society./DT Memorials of New Russian History. St. Petersburg, 1871 T.1 P.7-8.

24. Project 15.//Korsakov D.A. Accession of Empress Anna Ioannovna. M., 1929 Appendix 2. P. 10.

25. Project 330.//Monuments of new Russian history. St. Petersburg, 1871 T.1 P.4-5.

26. Project 361 .//Yukht A.I. State activities of V.N. Tatishchev in the 20s and early 30s of the 18th century. M., 1985 P.275.

27. Project 13.//Korsakov D.A. Accession of Empress Anna Ioannovna. M., 1929 Appendix 2. P. 12. "

28. Rondo K. Reports. // Sat. RIO vol. 66,76,80,85.

29. Rondo K. Notes of an English resident about some nobles of the Russian court in 1730. // Letters from Lady Rondo. St. Petersburg, 1874.

30. Rondo Letters from a lady who lived for several years in Russia.//Timelessness and temporary workers. L., 1991.

31. RGADA f. 16 (Internal management)3 4. RGADA F. 4,5,11 (Correspondence different persons)35. RGADA F.6 (Criminal cases)

32. Shakhovskoy Ya.P. Notes Part 1 St. Petersburg, 1872

33. Shcherbatov M.M. About the damage to morals in Russia. // The century is crazy and wise. XVIII century. M., 1986.

34. Yaguzhinsky P.I. A note on the state of Russia.//Readings of the Society for the History of Russian Antiquities. 1860 book 4.1. Bibliography:

35. Alekseev A.S. The legend about the oligarchic tendencies of military-technical cooperation during the reign of Catherine I. M., 1896.

36. Alekseev A.S. Strong people in military-technical cooperation//Russian Review. 1897 N6-11

37. Alekseev A.S. Strong people in the military-technical cooperation of PetraP and the role of Prince Golitsyn during the accession of Anna Ioannovna. M., 1898.

38. Alekseev A.S. Russian state law. Lecture notes. M., 1895.

39. Andreev V.V. Representatives of the authorities in Russia after Peter I St. Petersburg, 1870.

40. Anisimov E.V. Anna Ioannovna.// Questions of history. 1993, N4.

41. Anisimov E.V. Anna Ioannovna. M., 2001.

42. Anisimov E.V. Internal policy of military-technical cooperation. L., 1975.

43. Anisimov E.V. Travelers who have gone before us. // Timelessness and temporary workers L, 1991.

44. Anisimov E.V. Russia in the middle of the XVIIIb. The fight for Peter's legacy. M., 1986.

45. Bantysh-Kamensky D.N. Biographies of Russian generalissimos and field marshals. St. Petersburg, 1840.

46. U 50. Bantysh-Kamensky D.N. Dictionary of memorable people of the Russian land. St. Petersburg, 1847.

47. Berkh V.N. Biography of the first Russian admirals St. Petersburg, 1831.

48. Bestuzhev-Ryumin K. Russian history. St. Petersburg, 1872.

49. Bestuzhev-Ryumin A.P. (article by A. Presnyakov) // Russian Biographical Dictionary T.2. St. Petersburg, 1900.

50. Bogoslovsky M.M. Sovereigns from the House of Romanov 1613-1913: biographies of the sovereigns and sketches of their reigns. M., 1913.1.у 55. Bogoslovsky M.M. Constitutional movement of 1730. Pg., 1918.

51. Boytsev M.A. “Klia’s terrible voice.” // With a sword and a torch, M., 1991.

52. Bondarenko V.N. Essays on the financial policy of the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna. M., 1913.

53. B*** Short description life of A.I. Osterman.// Magazine for benefit and pleasure. 1805 4.2 N4.

54. Valishevsky K. The Kingdom of Women. M., 1989.

55. Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Review of the history of Russian law. Pg.-Kyiv, 1915

56. Voznesensky S.V. Noble reaction after the death of Peter1: from the era of palace coups. // Russian past. 1923, book 2.

57. Volgin I. Metamorphoses of power. Attempts on the Russian throne in the XVIII-XIXbb. M., 1994.

58. Volkova I.V. Kurukin I.V. The phenomenon of palace coups in the political history of Russia in the 17th-19th centuries.//Questions of History 1995N5-6

59. Vorovsky V.V. On the nature of absolutism.//Collected works M., 1932 Vol.

60. Gelbig Russian chosen ones. Berlin, 1900

61. German E. The reign of Anna Ioannovna.//Russian archive. 1866. N1,2,5,10,11-12.

62. Golikova N.B. Kislyagina JI.T. System of public administration.//Essays on Russian culture XVIIIb. 4.2, M., 1987.

63. Gordin Y. Between slavery and freedom. M., 1994.

64. State institutions of Russia in the XVIIIb. M., 1960.

65. Gauthier Y. “Project on the improvement of state affairs” by A.P. Volynsky. // Affairs and days. Pg., 1922, book Z.

66. Gradovsky A.D. Supreme Administration of Russia XVIIIb. and prosecutor generals. St. Petersburg, 1866.

67. Gradovsky A.D. Collected works. T.VTII St. Petersburg, 1899-1901.

68. Gurevich A.Ya. Problems of historical knowledge. // National history and historiography. M., 1998.

69. Bicentenary of the Cabinet of Her Imperial Majesty 1704-1904. St. Petersburg, 1911.

70. Demidova N.F. Bureaucratization of the state apparatus of absolutism in the XVII-XVTIIbb.// Absolutism in Pocchh (XVII-XVIIIbb.) M., 1964.

71. Dolgorukov V.P. Count A.I. Osterman.//Russian conversation 1841 Vol.2

72. Dolgorukov P.V. The time of Emperor Peter II and Empress Anna Ioannovna M., 1909.

73. Dubrovsky S.M. Noble Monarchy XVIIIb.JL, 1936.

74. Eroshkin N.P. History of state institutions of pre-revolutionary Russia. M., 1983

75. Zagoskin N.P. Supreme leaders and nobility 1730. Kazan., 1881.

76. Zaichkin I.A. Pochkaev I.N. Russian history M., 1992

77. Zvyagintsev A.G. Orlov Yu.G. Russian prosecutors, XVIII century. M., 1994.

78. Zezyulinsky N.F. The unequal struggle between Volynsky and Biron according to primary sources. St. Petersburg, 1908.

79. F- 84. Ivanovsky A.V. Textbook state law. Kazan, 1913

80. To the discussion about absolutism in Russia./LZoprosy istorii. 1972 N4.

81. Karatygin P. Family relationships Count A.I. Osterman.//Historical Bulletin 1884 N9.

82. Karnovich E. The plans of the leaders and petitioners in 1830//technical notes 1872 N1.

83. Karnovich E. The significance of Bironovism in Russian history.// Domestic notes. 1873 N10.у 89. Karnovich E. Family nicknames and titles in Russia and the merger of foreigners with Russians. St. Petersburg, 1876.

84. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. T.4 M., 1984.

85. Knyazkov S. Essays on the history of Peter the Great and his time. St. Petersburg, 1914//Reprint M. 1990.

86. Korsakov D.A. Accession of Empress Anna Ioannovna. Kazan, 1880.

87. Korsakov D.A. From the life of Russian figures. Kazan, 1891.

88. Kostomarov Empress Anna Ioannovna and her reign. // Russian history in the biographies of its main figures. St. Petersburg, 1873-1888.

89. Kochubinsky Count A.I. Osterman and the division of Turkey. Odessa, 1899.

90. Kurlyandsky I.A. Anna Ioannovna. In the palm of fate.//On the Russian throne. M., 1993.

91. Leshkov V. Features of management in Russia according to decrees XVIIIb. in 1725-62. M., 1863.

92. Lurie S.S. Palace coups. // Questions of history 1965 N7, 1968 N3.

93. Lyubavsky M.K. Russian history XVIIIb. M., 1913.

94. Medushevsky A.N. The establishment of absolutism in Russia. M., 1994.

95. Milyukov P.N. Supreme leaders and nobility. Rostov-on-Don, 1905.

96. Milyukov P.N. Attempts at state reform during the accession of Empress Anna Ioannovna. // Collection in favor of Sunday schools M., 1894.

97. Noskov N.D. Attempts to limit autocracy in the XVII-XIXbb. St. Petersburg, 1906.

98. Olminsky M.S. State, bureaucracy and absolutism in the history of Russia. M.-L., 1925.

99. Ostermania//\u\t.ostermania.ga

100. Eighteenth century. ed. Barteneva. T.Z. M., 1868-1869.

101. Domestic history. Encyclopedia. TT. 1-2 M., 1994-1996

102. Essays on the history of the USSR. The period of feudalism. Russia in the second quarter of the XVIIIb. M., 1957.109. . Pavlenko N.I. Ideas of absolutism in legislation XVIIIb.// Absolutism in Russia (XVII-XVIIIbb.) M., 1964.

103. Pavlenko N.I. Anna Ioannovna M.2002

104. Pavlenko N.I. Peter the Great. M., 1994.

105. Pavlenko N.I. Petrov's nest chicks. M., 1994.

106. Pavlenko N.I. Passion at the throne.// Motherland 1994-1995.

107. Pavlenko N.I. Passion at the throne. M., 1996

108. Pavlov-Silvansky P.N. Cherkassky A.M.//Russian biographical dictionary. T.22. St. Petersburg, 1905.у 116. Pekarsky P.P. Marquis de la Chetardie in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1862.

109. Petrukhintsev N.N. Internal political program of the beginning of the reign of Anna Ioannovna and government policy in relation to the army and navy (1730-1735) Diss. M., 1990.

110. Petrukhintsev N.N. Internal political program of the reign of Anna Ioannovna M 1998

111. Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history St. Petersburg, 1909.

112. Pokrovsky M.N. Russian history from ancient times. M.:Mir, 1911-^ 1917.T.4 book 7.

113. Polievktov Count A.I. Osterman. St. Petersburg, 1905.

114. Protasov G. A. Noble projects 1730. Source study.//Source studies. Issue 2. Tambov. 1971,

115. Protasov G.A. Tatishchev's note on the arbitrary reasoning of the nobility in the events of 1730. // Problems of source study. M., 1963, T.P.

116. Protasov G.A. "Conditions" 1730 and their continuation.//Scientific notes ^ Tambov State. ped. in-ta. Tambov, 1957, Issue 15.

117. Protasov G.A. Was there " political plan"D.M. Golitsyn. // Source studies. Issue Z. Tambov, 1973.

118. Pushkarev S.G. Review of Russian history. M., 1991

119. Rogozhin A.I. Yarmysh A.N. State and law of Russia during the period of formation and development of absolutism (second half of the 17th - end of the 18th century). Kyiv, 1989.

120. Romanovich-Slovatinsky A. Nobility from the beginning of the XVIIIb. until the abolition of V serfdom. Kyiv., 1912.

121. Semevsky M.I. Elizaveta Petrovna before her accession to the throne.// Russian word. 1859, book 2.

122. Semevsky M.I. The first year of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna. // Russian Word. 1859, book 6.

123. Semin M. Bironovschina.//Historical magazine. M., 1938 N4.

124. Skalkovsky A. Admiral General A.I. Osterman. // Marine collection 1857 4.30.у 133. Soviet encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1991.

125. Soloviev S.M. History of Russia from ancient times. M., 1963.book.X T.X1X-XX.

126. Solovyov S.M. About the history of new Russia. M., 1993

127. Stroev V. Bironovschina and the Cabinet of Ministers. Essay on the internal policy of Empress Anna. M., 1909, 4.1-2.

128. Titlinov B.V. The government of Empress Anna Ioannovna in its attitude to affairs Orthodox Church. Vilna, 1905.

129. Troitsky S.M. Historiography of “palace coups” in Russia. // Questions of history, 1966, N2.

130. Troitsky S.M. Comments on XIX and XX vols. S.M. Solovyova.//Soloviev S.M. History of Russia from ancient times. M., 1963, book X, tt.-XIX-XX.

131. Troitsky S.M. Russia in XVIIIb. M, 1982.

132. Troitsky S.M. Russian absolutism and the nobility in the XVIIIb. M., 1974.

133. Troitsky S.M. Financial policy of Russian absolutism in the XVIIIb. M., 1966.

134. Tyrtov E. The life of Count A.I. Osterman. M., 1809.

135. Tyurin V. Verkhovniki and Bironovism.//Knowledge is power 1992 N9.

136. Ulanov V.Ya. The era of palace revolutions.// Three centuries. M., 1913, Issue 4.

137. Faizova I.V. Materials of the king's office as a source of history Russian nobility XVIII century. Saratov, 1990.

138. Fedosov I. A. Social essence and evolution of Russian absolutism. //Questions of history 197Ш7. (for historiography, see green notebook.)

139. Filippov A.N. Volynsky as a cabinet minister.//Historical Bulletin 1904 T.84.

140. Filippov A.N. History of the Senate during the reign of the Military-Technical Cooperation and the Cabinet. Yuryev, 1895.

141. Filippov A.N. The Cabinet of Ministers and its comparison with the military-technical cooperation. Yuryev, 1898.

142. Filippov A.N. The Cabinet of Ministers and the Governing Senate.//Collection of jurisprudence and social knowledge. M., 1897, T.7.

143. Filippov A.N. New data about the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna.//Russian Thought. 1901 NN1,4,12.

144. Filippov A.N. Preface.//RIO T. 104

145. Firsov N.N. Accession to the throne of Elizabeth Petrovna. Kazan, 1887.

146. Fursenko V. Yaguzhinsky P.I.//Russian Biographical Dictionary.T.25 St. Petersburg, 1913.

147. Khandorin V.G. Maksimov A.G. The truth about the Russian “iron mask”.//On the Russian throne. M., 1993.

148. Chernikova T.V. Political processes of the 30s. XVIIIb. in Russia. PhD dissertation M., 1989

149. Chistovich I.A. Feofan Prokopovich and his time. St. Petersburg, 1868.

150. Shansky D.N. To the characteristics of the highest state institutions of Russia in the 18th century (20-60s) // State institutions of Russia XVI-XVIIIbb. M, 1991.

151. Schmidt S.O. Internal policy of Russia in the mid-18th century.//Questions of History 1987 N3.

152. Shishkin I. A. P. Volynsky./Utechestvennye notes. 1860 T.Z.

153. Shishkin I. Events in St. Petersburg in 1740-41 // Domestic notes. 1859, N5.

154. Schroeder Count A.I. Osterman.//Genius of the times 1808 4.2.NN65,83,84,85.

155. Shubinsky S.N. Count A.I. Osterman. St. Petersburg, 1863.

156. Shchebalsky P.K. Anne's accession to the throne.// Russian Bulletin 1859, book L.T. 19.

157. Eidelman N.Ya. Edge of centuries. M., 1988.

158. Yukht A.I. State activities of V.N. Tatishchev in the 20s and 30s XVIIIb. M., 1985.

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 (Moscow time), except Sunday

Savelyeva Ekaterina Nikolaevna. Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna: Dis. ...cand. ist. Sciences: 07.00.02: Moscow, 2004 189 p. RSL OD, 61:04-7/1039

Introduction

Chapter I. Cabinet of Ministers of Anna Ioannovna and its place in the system of government institutions 28

1. Higher councils under the person of the emperor in the political system of Russian absolutism of the 18th century 28

2. Formation of the Cabinet of Ministers 37

3. The competence of the Cabinet of Ministers and its place in the system of autocratic bodies 44

4. The apparatus of the Cabinet of Ministers and the specifics of its office work 51

Chapter II Composition of the Cabinet of Ministers 65

1. Features and principles of appointment of ministers 65

2. “Consultations” and “conferences” under the Cabinet of Ministers 80

3. “Soul” and “body” of Cabinet 86

Chapter III. Specifics of the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers as the highest authority during Anna’s reign 122

1. Regulatory and organizational issues in the activities of the Cabinet, “one day in the life of the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna” 122

2. The Cabinet of Ministers and the “noble question 157”

Conclusion 174

List of sources 181

References 183

Introduction to the work

1. Methodological introduction

At the moment, turning to theoretical and methodological themes is due not only to the need to clearly define the author’s basic approaches to scientific analysis in the context of the rejection of dogmatized methods of research work, but also to the very specifics of the stage currently being experienced by historical knowledge. If in the previous period the ideological and methodological principles of any work were clear and did not imply discussion, and this section of dissertation research had a largely formal and purely symbolic meaning, now, on the contrary, the formulation of the methodological foundations of the author’s approach to the topic acquires particular relevance and urgency.

An enviable methodological and doctrinal pluralism that emerged at the turn of the century under the influence of socio-political processes (some historians remain in the bosom of Marxist methodology, continuing to study social phenomena in line with the relationship between the base and the superstructure; others quite clearly switched to the positions of the civilizational approach, the school of annals, the theory of elites, historical positivism, etc.; still others have not yet decided on the choice of the most acceptable methodological constructions) had a very negative impact on the style and fruitfulness of scientific discussions.

At the same time, it should be recognized that the differences between modern historians in general theoretical and methodological approaches to assessing the phenomena of the past also reflect deeper processes occurring in historical science. Not only questions about the driving forces of history, the causes and nature of changes in the economy and political system of states, their inclusion in a civilizational or formational context, but the very possibility of verifying historical knowledge, the ways to achieve truth in humanitarian research, its criteria and specifics have become hotly debated.

At the present moment, the question of the relationship between historical science and ideology has also acquired theoretical and methodological resonance. There is a huge temptation, using the relevant experience of the first post-revolutionary decades, which passed in an irreconcilable struggle against “bourgeois falsifiers of history”, “with fire and sword”, to eradicate the Soviet methodological heritage due to its “scientific inconsistency ... limitation, one-sidedness” and generally “unsatisfactory” ( 73; 15).

At the same time, the evolution of historical knowledge has shown that whenever scientists adhere to one or another rigid scheme for interpreting historical reality, many important aspects of the historical process find themselves outside the scope of research interest. Much more productive in this regard seems to be a combination of various methods and techniques for studying the past, the search for interdisciplinary connections dictated by the subject area and allowing for a more comprehensive and comprehensive analysis of the object of study. From this perspective, the main criterion for the value of any concepts or factual constructions should remain not their relationship with others (including canonically recognized or scientifically established ones), but with the subject of research. Modern historical research is a set of procedures or methods for adapting general and particular scientific methods to the study of specific and unique historical phenomena and processes each time, suggesting a certain combination

combination and proportion of “traditional” - qualitative and “new” - empirical, quantitative methods of cognition.

In turn, the significance of the principle of historicism is determined, first of all, by the need to consider events and phenomena of the past on the basis of observing the time sequence and the natural continuity of the change of periods and stages, each of which is analyzed as a relatively completed cycle. Following it, one can consider the development of historical events both in chronological sequence and in their conceptual unity. Each historical fact, as well as their totality (processes, trends, lines of domestic and foreign policy, etc.) are analyzed in the process of their emergence, formation, change and development. Consideration of real historical facts and phenomena from the point of view of their genesis, continuity and mutual influence makes it possible to understand their essence and changes at various stages of development. Finally, it is historicism that makes it possible to clarify the reasons for the nomination of certain

other problems and more general tasks in the field of public administration at one time and not another, at one or another stage of the development of society.

The principle of systematicity guides the researcher to consider

w of each historical fact as a system of interconnected elements.

A systematic approach allows us to define, formalize and describe the diversity of connections between the phenomena and processes of historical reality, and clearly identify their components. It makes it possible to compare and contrast various specific historical phenomena and trends, and to apply mathematical methods of system analysis. Broad prospects for understanding and explaining historical phenomena

^ opens up the use of methods and ideas of synergetics - the science of

self-organization in complex systems, a classic example of which, of course, is the political system of society as a whole and, in particular, the top management apparatus.

t& The use of historical comparative studies is driven by the desire

get a more complete understanding of the similarities and differences between the Cabinet and other high councils under the person of the emperor, about what is typical and special, about the trends and prospects for its development.

^ The value of quantitative methods of collection and

analysis of information, application of statistics. With their help, in particular, the task of summarizing the data from the office documentation of the Cabinet was realized, material was selected and systematized, reflecting the specifics

its regulations, frequency and composition of meetings. The use of mathematical apparatus makes it possible to process large volumes of data, their subsequent generalization and comparison, identification and comparison of trends, as well as their visual display in the form of tables, graphs, diagrams.

The choice of these methods, in our opinion, fully corresponds to the goals and objectives of the work formulated below, and is determined and conditioned by them.

2. Statement of the problem.

A systematic and objective approach to the analysis of the history of Russia of the 20-60s of the 18th century, in fact, poses a rather voluminous task of a conceptual nature to the researcher. Its essence is to reasonably and consciously accept or, on the contrary, refute the approach that has already developed in the wake of the era to its interpretation as a chaotic “timelessness” between the era of grandiose transformations of Peter I and the “golden age” of the “noble empire” of Catherine the Great. Agreeing with this statement, the researcher a priori deprives himself of the opportunity to raise the question of the continuity of domestic and foreign policy in the post-Petrine era, focusing on the search for exclusively subjective roots both in individual events and in entire directions of the policy pursued. At the same time, naturally, both the self-development mechanisms of the absolutist model and intra-system restrictions in the form of the hierarchical structure of the empire’s power apparatus and specific management institutions remain outside the scope of consideration.

Of course, it is hardly reasonable to completely ignore the assessment of the period of palace coups, widely circulated in pre-revolutionary historiography, as a time of “the rampant personal passions and personal aspirations, unconnected by anyone or anything...” (159;275).

The radical structural reforms undertaken by Peter actually led to a sharp increase in friction at all levels of the social system, forming a paradigm of extreme tension in the political

^ history of subsequent decades. It is quite natural that precisely in these

conditions, the first political “parties” or “groupings” began to take shape, in whose hands the fate of the monarchy actually ended up in the period 1725-1762. Their confrontation throughout this period was one of the dominant factors in the rotation of the top.

On the other hand, in the second third of the 18th century there was not just a change of persons on the Russian throne, marking the victory of certain groups of the elite, not just changes in the composition and structural links of the state apparatus, it was about ways and methods of overcoming the confrontational charge of Peter’s reforms.

Thus, it seems that palace coups are not only a manifestation of the “gallant age” with its court intrigues, not only years of realization of personal aspirations and ambitions in the struggle for power, not random episodes in Russian history, but the manifestation of deep processes in the social and political development of the country, closely related to reforms

fї turn of XVII-XVIIIbb. In this sense, turning to the history of Russia for this

period seems extremely relevant: after all, even then Russia for the first time faced the problem of adapting the largely contradictory legacy of radical reforms.

Finally, it should be recognized that a balanced analysis of the era not only provides ample ground for historical reminiscences, plots of dramatic literature and film scripts, but also allows us to pose and solve problems that have “cross-cutting significance” for historiography: typology and specificity

^ Russian absolutism of the 18th century, the role of the highest state

institutions in the power apparatus of the empire, features of the management mechanism in the era of the formation of the classical autocratic model, intra- and extra-institutional limiters of the will of the monarch, issues

forecasting and goal setting in the development and preparation of domestic and foreign policy measures.

The special place of Anna Ioannovna’s reign is due in this context at least to the fact that, removed from Mitava in the wake of the most acute internal political crisis of 1730-31, the Duchess of Courland was virtually unanimously viewed as a figure incomparable with the scope of powers and the very appointment of the monarch in the system of absolutism. However, the organic conflict between the inability of the crowned person to govern and the tasks facing the country at the turn of the 30-40s of the 18th century did not lead to the transformation of the political system of absolutism. Moreover, without interrupting the period of familiarization of the newly-made empress with the affairs of the empire, which was absolutely necessary in this case, a whole series of meaningful events continued to be prepared and implemented, both in domestic and foreign policy. Finally, refuting the confidence of the “higher-ups” in Anna’s weak will and incompetence as a guarantee of the camarilla’s omnipotence, having overcome the “Conditions”, the autocracy survived. In this regard, a fair assumption arises that the stability and continuity of the political system was ensured not only by the subjective qualities of the monarch, not only by the reliance in the policies pursued on the interests and aspirations of the “prime class” (which, in turn, saw precisely in the absolute power of the monarch a guarantee of their protection and strict observance), but also in the very hierarchy of state institutions of the empire, which, not by chance, was crowned by the Governing Senate and the Cabinet of Ministers, which essentially performed the functions of a collective “quasi-monarch”. It was around them that a vast group of elite rallied - experienced dignitaries of Peter the Great's galaxy, ready to take over the management of the empire. Thus, the history of the Cabinet of Ministers, from our point of view, illustrates a rather specific situation for Russian absolutism, when a system, the classic feature of which is traditionally recognized as “whole

and the indivisible "belonging of the supreme power to the king, survives essentially contrary to this thesis.

The extremely intensive and fruitful activities of the Cabinet actually

^, compensated for the costs of the subjective factor. It is the cabinet ministers

(and personally A.I. Osterman) prepared for implementation the program initiatives of the reign, exercised control over the administrative apparatus of the empire, balanced the excesses of favoritism, maintaining an unstable internal political balance and developing an expansionist line in foreign policy. Simply put, not only after 1735, but from the very moment of its creation, the Cabinet of Ministers coordinated the work of all links of the state organism, concentrated in its hands all the threads of public administration.

That is why a comprehensive analysis of the composition, administrative mechanism and activities of the Cabinet of Ministers allows us not only to fill the historiographical vacuum formed under the influence of theoretical and methodological excesses of the Soviet period around one of the most unique highest pre-revolutionary state institutions of the empire, but also to reveal through its example the most important features adoption mechanism

f government decisions, specific collisions of political struggle around certain

other events. Finally, the fate of the Cabinet of Ministers reflects the evolution of the system of government bodies of the Russian autocracy, the principles of its organization and functioning.

Thus, the purpose of this study is to study the history of the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna, to clarify its role and place in the system of Russian absolutism in the 1730-1740s of the 18th century.

^ In this regard, the objectives of this work are:

1. determine the reasons and factors for the emergence of the Cabinet of Ministers, highlight the general and special in its comparison with similar institutions of both Russian and European absolutism;

2. trace the genesis of the idea of creating this organ, features
legal registration of the procedure for its appearance;

3. find out the principles of forming the Cabinet and organizing it
F apparatus, criteria for selecting members;

4. based on a retrospective review of the biographies of cabinet ministers
qualitatively evaluate everyone’s contribution to the development of domestic policy,
“degree of compliance” with the position held;

characterize its competence from a legal point of view;

consider the evolution of the functions of this institution, the characteristic features of its relationship with the empress and other government institutions, the specifics of office work;

7. reconstruct the mechanism of work of the Cabinet, “profiles”
specialization" of the cabinet ministers, analyze its workload,
dynamics of business activity of members;

8. analyze the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers on the nobility
question in order to correct the idea of the real place of a given
institutions in the administrative apparatus of the empire.

Solving these problems will make it possible to complement the understanding of

f features of the legislative and administrative mechanism, problems

development of the internal political course of the domestic autocracy of the second

third of the 18th century, the real balance of power in the highest spheres in

period under consideration.

F-

3. Review of sources.

From a source study point of view, the period of “palace coups” represents fertile ground for a specialist: the history of the second third of the 18th century is covered by many published and archival documents. In this sense, the reign of Anna Ioannovna is no exception.

When working on the topic, an extensive complex was used historical documents. Among them, the main place is occupied by published materials. Based on the classification accepted in source studies, they can be divided into several groups: legislative acts, official records, projects and notes, as well as diary entries and memoirs of contemporaries.

The legislative materials on which the study was based were published in the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, first edition (21). Their analysis makes it possible to determine (albeit exclusively from a formal legal point of view) the competence and functions of the Cabinet of Ministers, and shows, from the standpoint of a normative approach, its role and place in the system of government bodies. In addition, legislative acts make it possible to reconstruct the structure of the apparatus of a given institution, determine the direction, parameters and volume of document flow, and the composition of the body in question. Finally, it was in the lawmaking of the era under consideration (in its final form) that the results of the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers were reflected.

However, legislation is a very specific source. Its “publicity” and official nature makes it almost impossible to clarify the real situation in the country, the balance of power in higher spheres, and the details of the development of certain decisions. In addition, when working with the PSZ, significant gaps were discovered: in particular, it lacks one of the two decrees that announced the creation of the Cabinet of Ministers. An attempt made at the end of the 19th century under the editorship of

the largest pre-revolutionary specialist in the history of Russia in the 18th century, A.N. Filippov, published the sources of the “Papers of the Cabinet of Ministers” (See 4). The given publication also contains regulatory and legal material remaining outside the PSZ.

In terms of information content, office documentation differs very significantly from dry legal norms. It is she who makes up the bulk of the papers published in the RIO Collections. The mentioned publication covers the entire period of existence of this institution, but the nature of the documentation for 1731-1733 differs significantly from the materials of subsequent times. If the early period of the history of the Cabinet is represented by journals, highest resolutions, reports, letters, petitions and other papers that reveal the peculiarities of the relationship of this body with the Empress, various institutions and persons, then the subsequent years (1734-1741) are covered exclusively by the journals of the Cabinet of Ministers - daily records about its meetings.

It is characteristic that even the amount of information contained in the journals of the first and second stages varies greatly. In 1731-1733, each journal necessarily included the following information: the date of the meeting, the composition of those present, a list of issues discussed and a statement of the essence of the most important, decisions made. In addition, the journals indicated which of the cabinet ministers reported to the empress on the progress of work. This information allows you to set the frequency of meetings, specify the role of each individual member in the work of the body (starting from the fact of presence and ending with the frequency of business communication with the empress). Finally, it is possible to accurately determine the range of issues that were under the jurisdiction of the Cabinet of Ministers and clarify the nature of its specialization.

The journals of 1734-1741 include all of the listed components with the exception of the composition of those present and instructions about the speaker. Upon superficial examination, this actually depersonalizes the picture of the institution’s work and formalizes information about

its functioning. In fact, some of the missing data can be restored using indirect evidence. A more significant drawback of journals is the lack of records of the procedure for discussing the issue. Disagreements and discussions between Cabinet members in this regard are almost impossible to restore.

In addition to legislative and office documentation, numerous projects and notes were used in the work on the topic. Some of them belong to the pen of the cabinet ministers themselves - A.P. Volynsky, A.I. Osterman, P.I. Yaguzhinsky (5,6,19,20,38). They are devoted to the analysis of current domestic political problems and the search for options for solving them. This group of sources makes it possible to specify the positions of Cabinet members on a number of important issues and to assess their level of awareness of pressing problems of public administration.

Other documents of the group under consideration appeared in connection with the well-known events of the winter of 1730 (See 22-27, 31) and represent (in a simplified way) petitions for expanding the rights and privileges of the noble class. Their source study characteristics, given in the works of G.A. Protasov (See 122), are obviously exhaustive, which allows us to focus on assessing general level information content.

At comparative analysis the main ideas of the "gentry projects"
we can highlight the most popular among the nobility

transformative ideas, as well as determine the degree of influence of public sentiment on the activities of the government represented by the Cabinet of Ministers.

A special group of sources consists of documents of personal origin: diaries, memoirs, reports and letters of contemporaries. On the one hand, their use provides rich illustrative material, allows you to see the era through the eyes of eyewitnesses, reveals unknown details and details of historical events, and gives vivid, imaginative characteristics to the courtiers. The information they contain illuminates the hidden mechanisms of the political process. On the other side,

the objectivity of the information reported is often more than doubtful. Using data from such documents requires careful double-checking.

By nature of origin specified documents can be divided into two main categories. Some of them belong to foreign authors who lived in Russia for a very limited period of time (most often “on duty”). These are, first of all, the writings of ambassadors and members of their families (Spanish envoy de Liria (8,9), Saxon-Polish ambassador I.L. Lefort (11), French “residents” Magnan (ІЗ) and de la Chetardie (15), Prussian envoy Mardefeld (14), English plenipotentiary K. Rondo (28,29) and his wife (ZO)). When turning to these documents, one should keep in mind not only subjectivity in assessments (for example, it is known that I.L. Lefort (nephew of Franz Lefort, who was in Russian service from 1715 to 1720, and from 1721 to 1734 was a representative Polish King Augustus II at the Russian court) was considered “insider” by the Dolgorukys and Golitsyns, and C. Rondo did not hide his antipathy towards A.I. Osterman), but also the influence on the author’s position of the vicissitudes of interstate relations, diplomatic intrigues (the Polish question, the Turkish problem, balance of power in Europe).

The awareness of some authors is also questionable. Thus, on the issue of creating a Cabinet, almost all of them were forced to content themselves with rumors circulating in St. Petersburg, without being allowed to consult more competent sources. And in general, insight into the intricacies of the internal political situation was not their main responsibility. For example, it is generally accepted that the brevity of the notorious dispatches of Axem von Mardefeld sharply reduces their value as a historical source. In addition, the author did not have a deep understanding of the events taking place in Russia.

The “Diary of the Duke of Lyria” (9) that has come down to us is a significantly revised and abbreviated dispatch from the Spanish ambassador to Russia (1727-November 1730), intended “for his own

pleasure and for the instruction of his children." They convey the essence of the events witnessed by the diplomat, but the Duke of Lyria and Berwig is very biased in their interpretation. Due to the specific nature of his character, he gave very bilious and harsh characteristics to the main figures in the Russian political scene, while respecting the interests of the Spanish crown. The French resident Magnan is also biased in his “Reports” (devoid of any literary treatment) (13)

The characteristics of Claudius Rondo are also very contradictory. Despite the fairly informative material of his “Notes” and “Reports,” for example, bias in the coverage of the clash between Osterman and Yaguzhinsky is obvious.

Another group of documents belongs either to domestic statesmen (Ya.P. Shakhovsky (36), M.M. Shcherbatov (37)), or to foreigners permanently living in Russia (Berchholtz (2), Manstein (12), B.H. Minich (Ib) and E. Minich (17)). Naturally, their assessments strongly depended on the authors’ affiliation with court groups, the degree of proximity to the court, and even the characteristics of their own political career at the time being described. In addition, the specificity of the sources of this group is that they belong to people of two generations, that is, they can be ranked according to the level of information and objectivity.

One of the most reliable sources is considered to be “Notes on Russia (1727-1744)” by Christian Hermann Manstein (See 12). Written, however, in Prussia, but “on fresh tracks,” they demonstrate an accurate acquaintance with the details of events and masterful literary presentation. “Note on the corruption of morals in Russia” by M.M. Sherbatov is distinguished by its obvious bias (See 37). Based primarily on the author’s own memories and “family traditions,” it contains numerous factual inaccuracies. The notes of B.H. Minich (16) are the fruit of the collective efforts of the memoirist and G.F. Miller.

The notes of P.V. Dolgoruky are a collection of information from various sources, family traditions of the Dolgoruky family and other noble families of the era in question. In addition, the geneology of the family, family papers, and archival materials were used, which makes it possible to consider them in fact as a fact of the historical and scientific tradition of the issue.

In addition to published documents, RGADA materials were used when writing the work. First of all, documents from fund No. 177 (Papers of the Cabinet of Ministers). The fund contains 1,375 storage units, including the decree on the establishment of the Cabinet, reports of cabinet ministers to the empress, “opinions” and projects of cabinet ministers, correspondence of ministers on issues of domestic and foreign policy of Russia, as well as personal decrees of the period under review, journals of Cabinet meetings for 1731-1740, registers of incoming documents. In the work, the author also used materials from funds No. 16 (Internal management: reports and reports to Anna Ioannovna and the Cabinet, correspondence of the Cabinet, fragments of the personal archives of Biron, Cherkassky, Osterman, Minikh), No. 11 (Correspondence of various persons, including members Cabinet of Ministers), No. 4 (Correspondence of persons of the imperial family with other high-ranking persons), No. 5 (Correspondence of high-ranking persons with private individuals), as well as fund No. 6 (Criminal cases of state crimes - the “Volynsky case” is of particular interest to the author and materials of the investigative commission about Vice-Chancellor Count A.I. Osterman.) (See 32-35 respectively).

Thus, the wide range of historical sources involved in the work makes it possible to sufficiently reveal in depth the problems of the history of the highest state institutions of Anna’s reign that are new to domestic historiography, and to trace the stages of development of the most important internal political events.

4. Historiographical review.

The depth and variety of unresolved issues of the period of “palace coups” have been exciting the minds of domestic historians and publicists for more than one century. The complexity and diversity of points of view force us to turn to a brief consideration of them before moving on to the actual historiography of the Cabinet of Ministers of Anna Ioannovna.

The second quarter of the 18th century remained in the historiographic tradition as a kind of “timelessness”, the assessment of which is still influenced by the cliches that developed back in the 18th-19th centuries. Even then, a tradition of disdainful attitude towards the “kingdom of women” was established: “this is a time of rampant personal passions and personal aspirations, unbound by anyone or anything, a time of fermentation of young unsettled forces, expressed either in terrible or funny events, a time of the most spectacular novels, dramas and tragedies.” (134;446). This point of view was obviously formed for two main reasons. Firstly, since the 20s of the 18th century. originates a tendency to distort historical truth to suit political expediency. So, under Peter II in 1727. The Supreme Privy Council ordered that all manifestos about the “case of Tsarevich Alexei” be confiscated from the population and government institutions. In 1741 Elizabeth ordered to rewrite, destroy or hide all official documentation of the previous reign, as well as images, coins, dedications in books related to Ivan Antonovich, whom she had overthrown. Since Catherine's time, other methods of “correcting the past” have been used. The Empress and her employees tried to prove that she was the true heir of Peter I, the continuer of his work. The Empress herself monitored the “correct” coverage of history and personally supervised the process of preparing a textbook for secondary schools. As a rule, in most teaching aids on Russian history of the late XVIII - early XIX centuries. There was no information at all about the events of 1730, 1740-41 and 1742 (For more details, see 135)

Secondly, the main complex of historical sources on the history of the 18th century. began to be put into circulation only from the middle of the 19th century. Therefore, the objectivity of researchers of an earlier period is more than doubtful: their works were, as a rule, based on subjective opinions and assessments, often not confirmed by real facts.

It seems necessary to characterize the main milestones on the path to the formation of the traditional historiographical concept of the “era of palace coups.” In 30-50 years. XIX century in historical literature, the opinion is widespread that in 1725-41. in Russia there was a struggle between the Russian and foreign court parties for favoritism and influence on the imperial power (See, for example, the works of I. Shishkin (161-162), M.I. Semevsky (129-130)). The first attempts to connect political history Russia in the second quarter of the 18th century with the evolution of the transformative principles of Peter's reign (See the works of N.A. Polevoy, S.V. Eshevsky, P.K. Shchebalsky (165)). Prominent figures of the revolutionary democratic movement did not ignore the era of palace coups Russia XIX centuries. So V.G. Belinsky called the period of “palace coups” a “dark time” of Russian history, during which Russia languished “in the rut laid by Peter, not moving forward,” and A.I. Herzen even believed that all history was autocratic Russia and the Romanovs in the middle of the 18th century - "criminal case". Of course, such assessments are far from a truly scientific analysis, but the thesis about “the mediocre successors of Peter,” “who were unable to continue his traditions,” was later replicated on the pages of serious Soviet historical research (See 108;410).

In the context of the widespread dissemination of constitutional ideas in Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, many historians turned their attention to the palace coup of 1730. Some of them (D.A. Korsakov (92-93) and P.N. Milyukov (101-102)) assessed the “venture” of the supreme leaders as a desire for a constitutional regime while maintaining the monarchy. Others are very

were skeptical about the attempt to enroll D.I. Golitsyn “and his comrades” in the ranks of constitutionalists. S.A. Alekseev even published a special work, where he indignantly rejected “the legend about the oligarchic tendencies of the Supreme Privy Council” (39). It is difficult to overestimate the influence of V.O. Klyuchevsky’s ideas on the genesis of the traditionally negative assessment of the period 1725-1762. already because it is he who is the author of the term “era of palace coups” (90). Such a capacious definition was “adopted” by V.I. Lenin. His formula, according to which “coups were ridiculously easy, as long as it was a matter of taking away power from one group of nobles... and giving it to another” (Quoted on 108;411) was firmly established in Soviet historiography for a long time.

However, even S.M. Solovyov wrote: “the time from the death of Peter the Great to the accession to the throne of Catherine II is usually considered as a sad, unattractive time, a time of incapable rulers, palace coups, unworthy favorites, but we cannot share these views. The named time has the highest interest for the historian precisely because here the Russian people were left to themselves in view of the enormous material given by the transformations. How they will use this material is the question with which the historian will turn to his sources. They must tell him whether the named time was a time of stagnation or. movements. "(134;25 5)

In Soviet historiography, only a few authors substantively addressed this problem, trying to see in it something more than the transfer of power from one “handful” of feudal lords to another - the reaction of the nobility to the strengthening of the absolute monarchy. Thus, S.M. Troitsky came to the conclusion that “if the reasons and external circumstances of some coups were truly accidental (death due to illness, etc.), then the true reasons for the “palace coups” were hidden in the aggravation of intra-class contradictions among the ruling class of feudal lords , which was associated with

consolidating it into a single privileged class and the intensification of the anti-feudal struggle of the working masses" (141;67).

The first modern experiments in monographic study of the problem were reflected in the works of N.Ya. Eidelman (166) and E.V. Anisimov (44,47), who tried to reveal the mechanism of action of the absolute monarchy in crisis situations, to understand the peculiarities of the political system and political culture of the post-Petrine era. Russia. S.O. Schmidt believed that “the history of Russia in the mid-18th century... cannot be reduced primarily to the history of palace coups...” (160;113). Interesting characteristic of this period was given by M.A. Boytsev: “The era of revolutions is a direct consequence of Peter’s reforms, a kind of retribution for them” (56;8).

Recently, experts have been approaching the phenomenon of palace coups from the point of view of mechanisms for overcoming crises under an unlimited monarchy, “ways to resolve contradictions between the main components of the system of absolutism - autocratic power, the ruling elite and the ruling class” (63;32).

So, the era of palace coups seems to be one of the most developed in Russian historiography, and the reign of Anna Ioannovna is by no means “terra incognita” for historians.

In the historiographic tradition concerning the period 1731-1741, the stereotype of “Bironovism” dominated for a long time. Even in the already relatively progressive "Soviet encyclopedic dictionary"1991 (133) Bironovism is characterized as a reactionary regime - "the dominance of foreigners, the plunder of the country's wealth, general suspicion, espionage, denunciations, brutal persecution of the dissatisfied." The desire to present Anna's reign as a time of trampling on national interests, suppression of the Russian nation can be traced already in the first steps Elizaveta Petrovna. Only by the need to free the Russians from “the night owls and bats sitting in the nest of the Russian eagle, thinking evil to the state” with the goal of “freeing the Russian sons from captivity and bringing them to the first.”

In the 19th century, fiction played a special role in popularizing ideas about Bironovism as the dominance of foreigners (K.P. Masalsky, I.I. Lazhechnikov, etc.). These authors persistently convinced the reader of the extreme subjectivity of the formation of domestic policy in the 1730s and the reduction of the latter to a chain of loosely interconnected measures, often dictated by the whims and arbitrariness of the favorites in power. Due to this, the internal politics of Anna Ioannovna’s reign as an integral research problem was not posed or studied, which partly explains the lack of a scientifically developed picture of it until the early 90s of the last century.

At the end of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, only individual articles and publications of a memoir nature on the pages of “thick” magazines were devoted to the history of Annin’s reign.

Only in the 60s, in the wake of the growth of national self-awareness, which demanded the analysis of acute socio-political subjects in the history of Russia, the main range of issues being studied gradually began to take shape: “the idea of noble representation in the supreme power”, the phenomenon of Bironovism, biographies of key government figures. At the same time, in the deeply founded works of S.M. Solovyov and D.A. Korsakov, the first serious scientific versions of the events of 1730 were proposed (See 84-85, 134-135). Finally, the study of certain aspects of Anna Ioannovna’s domestic policy begins, mainly within the framework of works devoted to the activities of prominent representatives of Russian culture, the history of state institutions, and classes.

In the 1880-1900s, in the works of V.N. Bondarenko, A.A. Kizevetter, B.V. Titlinov, N.D. Chichulin, thanks to the active involvement of documentary multi-volume RIO (for the composition and nature of publication, see the review of sources ) issues related to the preparation and

implementation of individual, most significant events of Annin’s reign. The first generalizing studies also appear (eg 99).

However, in general, the reign of Anna Ioannovna in pre-revolutionary literature has been studied rather fragmentarily, and the dominance of the “Bironovism” stereotype led to a distortion of the essence of the mechanism for developing an internal political course, attributing the initiative to carry out certain actions to individuals: Biron, Osterman, Minich.

A complete picture of the domestic politics of the 1730s and the logic of its formation and development did not emerge in Soviet historical literature. It is known that the priority direction of research in the post-October period was the analysis of socio-economic processes of historical reality. Disproportionate emphasis was placed on plots class struggle. At the same time, the political system of the Russian Empire and the study of the peculiarities of the functioning of the administrative apparatus occupied a clearly secondary position. As a result, the domestic policy and foreign policy Anna Ioannovna was practically not considered as a subject of independent study in Soviet historiography, appearing only as a fragment in general studies, or as part training course stories.

In the post-Soviet period, the historiography of Annin's reign expanded significantly. This was facilitated by both the background interest in the era and the quite substantive attention of leading Russian specialists in the history of the 18th century (N.I. Pavlenko, E.V. Anisimov) to the personality of the Duchess of Kurdyandskaya, who one sees as “a practical woman who vigilantly followed court life , who knew how to navigate the balance of power at court and accurately determine who could be useful to her at the moment,” but “for whom the burden of the empress was too much for her... and she carried it with great difficulty” (110;21,93) . Another imagines that “she felt more like a zealous and strict mistress of a large estate, an estate, where she always had something to do.

The role of the supreme mother-in-law, all-Russian godmother, general godmother, undoubtedly pleased the empress” (45;93).

The certain bias that arose in this regard towards the analysis of the subjective factor based on the material of the reign was largely compensated by the output basic research N.P. Petrukhintsev, dedicated to a comprehensive consideration of the internal political course of the autocracy during the period under review. Examining all aspects of the internal politics of the period of Anna Ioannovna’s reign, the author comes to the conclusion that “the main result of Anna’s reign was, first of all, the stabilization and strengthening of the foundations of the political-administrative and social system created by Peter I,” despite the costs of the struggle between factions and individual figures around the throne. (118;913).

In relation to the topic of this study, the analysis of domestic historiography of Anna’s reign convincingly demonstrates the lack of systematic attention of researchers to the history of state institutions and, in particular, to the Cabinet of Ministers itself.

Meanwhile, back in the 19th century, a point of view was established in historiography, according to which it was the system of state institutions that was the key to the stability of the internal political course, the adequacy of the authorities’ perception of the objective needs of the country’s development (See, for example, 39-42, 71-72, etc.). The history of the highest councils and cabinets under the person of the emperor, which existed throughout the 18th century, was considered a particularly important research problem.

Due to the specific methodology, these legal historians considered the history of state institutions as a self-sufficient field of knowledge. It is in their works that the traditions of the formal legal approach to the analysis of political institutions originate. In the general complex of historical studies devoted to these issues, not the least place belongs to the historiography of the Cabinet of Ministers of Anna Ioannovna. However, the real place of this highest government body in

power system, its actual competence, and not its formal legal status, patterns of emergence and specific activity in fact they were not studied.

And yet, pre-revolutionary historiography is not limited to the works of legal scholars. Questions of the history of the Cabinet that remained outside their field of vision were successfully developed in the works of V.N. Bondarenko (57), V. Stroev (IZb), B.V. Titlinov (137), A.N. Filippov (148-153).

During the Soviet period, the history of state institutions of pre-revolutionary Russia long years found herself in a pen and only in the research of N.P. Eroshkin (Sm.79) and his school the process of her rehabilitation gradually began. However, the history of the Cabinet of Ministers during the reign of Anna Ioannovna as an independent scientific topic remained undeveloped. There was no place for him in the abundant creative heritage of Soviet historians. As a rule, its existence is only mentioned in general works.

Given general review literature does not relieve the need to highlight some controversial issues. The most controversial in the assessments of domestic historians were: the factors in the formation of the Cabinet, its prototype among the highest councils of the 18th century, the role of the absolute monarchy in the system of organs.

When determining the reasons for the appearance of Her Imperial Majesty's Cabinet, researchers, as a rule, adhered to one of two main points of view. Some believed that the Cabinet owed its formation to the action of subjective factors (39-40,46,102-104. Thus, A.N. Filippov believed that “the very creation of the Cabinet is explained by the personality of the Empress and the extraordinary conditions of her accession to the throne” (152;221) At the same time, A.D. Gradovsky, V. Stroev and B.V. Titlinov pointed out that the Cabinet is “a new combination of Osterman” (64;271, 136;290, 137;4). expressed the idea of the relationship between the emergence of this body and the victory of “a certain group in a certain struggle for power” (79;99).

attention to the objective prerequisites for its creation, the relationship with the trend of centralization of power, strengthening the administrative mechanism. Thus, D.N. Shansky, admitting that “Osterman and other politicians of his time

(* pursued their goals", emphasized the influence of "objective

circumstances"(159;124)

There is no unity in the works of domestic researchers on the issue of the prototype of the Cabinet. A.N. Shansky, N.B. Golikova, L.T. Kislyagina, N.P. Eroshkin, V.N. Bondarenko consider it only a “new edition” of the Supreme Privy Council (SmL8.S.2-3,28. pp. 79-80, 39. pp. 100, 112 pp. 123). V. Stroev draws an analogy between Anna’s and Peter’s cabinets, believing that “Osterman took advantage of the restoration of Peter’s institution for his plans (146; 288). A. N. Filippov tried to reconcile both positions, seeing in the Cabinet features of both the personal office of the empress, and state institution. (148; No. 4; 26). A.D. Gradovsky names a fundamentally different source for the emergence of this body: “the Prussian cabinet was the model for it” (71; 272).

It was not possible to reach a consensus on the question of the role of the Cabinet of Ministers in the mechanism of autocracy. It seems most controversial

(^ opinion of A.D. Gradovsky: “created with the aim of satisfying pride

several persons, he arrogated to himself participation in the internal government of the state insofar as it was necessary for these personal interests." The greatest laurels were promised in the foreign policy field, therefore "the cabinet did not like to look inside the country, it stuck to and lived on its surface." Intervention in the internal affairs was fragmentary and unsystematic. (See 71; 181-182) A.N. Filippov also denied independence to the Cabinet in the development of internal policy.

L- “a purely business institution under the empress” (152;Ш2;С21). With another

On the other hand, V.N. Bondarenko and B.V. Titlinov assigned the Cabinet the first place in developing the internal political course of the reign (See 57; 15, 137; 11).

Thus, the historiography of the history of Anna Ioannovna’s Cabinet of Ministers indicates the need for a new approach to this topic. On the one hand, this is prompted by the lack of special studies devoted to it in the latest historical literature. On the other hand, there are heated controversial topics with an almost identical set of factual and documentary material.

title1 Higher councils under the person of the emperor in the political system of Russian absolutism of the 18th century title1

While analyzing the historiographical tradition of Anna’s reign, we have already drawn attention to the fact that specialists in the history of Russia in the 18th century have repeatedly debated the issue of analogues of the Cabinet of Ministers. In historical retrospect, its undeniable similarity both with the previous highest state institutions (Petrine’s Cabinet, the Supreme Privy Council) and with the bodies that arose decades later (the Elizabethan Cabinet and Conference, the Imperial Council of Peter III, and finally the Council at the highest court of Catherine the Great) seemed would have led historians to the conclusion about the regularity of the emergence of the institution of personal councils under the person of the emperor within the framework of the absolutist model of leadership of the country. However, contrary to this logic, the Cabinet was initially viewed in isolation, outside the general trends and patterns inherent in the political system of autocracy, as a kind of “political plagiarism”, a forced (due to subjective factor) borrowing in the new conditions of ready-made organizational forms and proven management technologies of the previous era. To consider this issue on a more systemic basis, from our point of view, is only possible by describing both the objective prerequisites for the emergence of bodies of this kind in the conditions of super-centralism characteristic of an absolute monarchy, and some specific historical (including subjective) conditions that contributed to its constitution .

Of course, personal advice in front of the emperor is not a purely Russian invention. Their emergence as the highest political institution of direct control (the latter clarification allows us to emphasize the qualitative difference from the numerous extra-institutional deliberative structures under the crowned person that have accompanied the monarchy “from time immemorial”) naturally coincides in time with the heyday of absolutism in Western Europe, and Russian samples have thus absorbed certain experience accumulated abroad.

The history of state building within the framework of the classical absolutist model (English, French and Danish monarchies of the 16th-17th centuries) provides abundant material for comparisons and comparative analysis.

One of the earliest examples of the institutional rise of the monarch's office in modern times appears to be the experience of the Danish crown, which at the beginning of the 16th century endowed it with administrative functions (relations with foreign states, taxation, finance). As a result, the aristocratic State Council temporarily lost control over the situation in the administrative sphere.

During the era of Henry VIII (1509-1547), an administrative reform was also carried out in England, as a result of which the Privy Council was finally formed, endowed with extensive domestic and foreign policy powers and having the character of a permanent executive body. Moreover, both in the legislative process and in fundamental issues of governing the country, he had the right to act on behalf of the monarch (thus, in particular, the Council was in charge of issues of finance and defense, determined domestic policy and foreign policy, introduced bills into parliament on behalf of the crown , intervened in the debate). Its composition (initially quite narrow - 9-10 members) included senior officials, and the secretary of the kingdom from a purely technical figure (the king's personal servant) gradually became one of the most powerful ministers - the coordinator of their work.

Features and principles of appointment of ministers

In the last decade, the thesis about the limitations of the Soviet historiographical tradition in terms of analyzing the subjective factor in the historical process has been actively replicated. Indeed, due to the prevalence of a vulgar understanding of a number of Marxist postulates, which assessed the place and role of each individual person in history as insignificant in comparison with the objective laws of social development, the thesis about the need to take into account the importance of the subject made its way into Russian historical science extremely painfully. At the same time, having once established itself as scientifically substantiated and full-fledged, recently in a number of cases it has led to a direct vulgarization of the very concept of historical regularity and the laws of history, which increasingly look like a derivative of human aspirations, intrigues and passions. The author sees the task of this section of the study, among other things, as determining the real weight of the subjective factor in the history of the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna.

The history of state institutions in the era of absolutism was, in a certain sense, at the forefront of methodological discussions. In Soviet historiography and jurisprudence (this issue has traditionally been recognized as interdisciplinary), there was often a conscious narrowing of the subject of research. Already the term “ government agency" was defined as "a group of civilians and military personnel specially organized by the state officials(officials) performing by coercion, with the help Money and office work certain tasks in the interests of the ruling class” (79;4). Thus, the “moment of will” and conscious, subjective goal setting was a priori absent. This or that institution appeared only as a function of the interests of the superior class.

The interpretation of the object of study, generally accepted in those years, looks even more specific. It, according to the absolute authority on this issue, N.P. Eroshkin, included “the internal organization of state institutions, the directions of their activities, the significance and place of each state institution in the apparatus.” At the same time, the “internal organization” was determined through the socio-economic reasons for the origin, changes and abolition of a state institution, the scope of its powers, that is, the degree of dependence on a higher authority, its competence, structure, staff, budget, forms and methods of activity, features of documentation and office work . (For more details, see pp. 8-9). It is quite obvious that there was an essential underestimation of the problems of the composition of a government institution, the style and level of relationships between its members, the features and principles of their appointment, the reasons and factors for personnel rotation, the struggle around specific creatures, and finally, the degree of their compliance with the management tasks of the moment.

Meanwhile, in relation to the bodies of supreme government, the importance of the subject is very great. It is here that “political dramaturgy” is often played out in a very narrow circle, and only by analyzing the composition of “actors and performers” can one understand who is the real producer and director of the “historical action”, and who are ordinary actors performing roles in someone else’s scenario of the political process. In relation to Russia in the 18th century, these considerations were further strengthened by the fact that the structuring of the elite, its division into political parties and organizations remained in its infancy, and lobbying for one or another domestic and foreign policy program was carried out almost exclusively “on a personal basis.”

Regulatory and organizational issues in the activities of the Cabinet, “one day in the life of the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna”

Before turning to the analysis of the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers as logical steps to implement its functions, that is, to the issues of developing and implementing certain political decisions, the author sees it necessary to dwell on the coverage of the driving forces and features of the production process, that is, those “working moments” that previously remained outside the scope of even special case studies. It is the analysis of regulatory and seemingly purely formal organizational issues that allows, from our point of view, to give a more comprehensive and systematic analysis of the Cabinet, to show it as a “living organism” that has absorbed the specifics of the bureaucratic procedures of the era, reflecting the approaches to the affairs of the reign of the newly proclaimed empress, finally, he periodically became hostage to the style and approaches to the work of individual dignitaries.

Formally, during the period under review, the work schedule of all state institutions of the empire was regulated by His Imperial Majesty’s General Regulations or Charter, published during Peter’s administrative reform, according to which state colleges, as well as all of their chancelleries and cantor ministers, not only in external and internal institutions , but also in the exercise of their rank, they have to act more submissively” (7). The document consists of 56 chapters and covers an almost exhaustive range of issues related to the public service, starting with explanations of the “advantages of Collegiums” and “Specified time for work”, and ending with the ban on the use of “abusive and obscene words” in public places.

As for the regulation of the very activities of government and management bodies, then, in our opinion, the following provisions appear to be the most relevant within the framework of this study:

- “Colleges have their seat every week, except for Sundays and the Lord’s holidays, and the State Angels, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and on Thursday the presidents usually gather in the Senate Chamber, on the most shortest days at the 6th hour, and on long days at the 8th hour, and be there for 5 hours.” (7;3)

- “Colleges have in the middle of the summer, together with the offices and cantors, a break from work, and, moreover, the freedom for four weeks to go to summer amusements in their toil, however, all members do not have to suddenly leave, but only a third part, namely in June, in July, in the months of August, the same applies to the boards of December from 25, January to 7 days, in Lent the first and passionate, cheesy and fresh weeks, from official affairs, except for the most basic needs, to have freedom.” (7; 10).

- “When Presidents, due to illness or other insanity, cannot come to the collegium, then they can call a secretary or a notary to come to them, and through them declare their opinion to the collegium, but they should never compose a collegium or protocol in the presidential house.” (7; 18).

According to the logic of the legislator, these provisions should have been an imperative not only for Peter’s colleges and ordinary chancelleries of the empire, but also for all management institutions at any level that would arise henceforth, which gives grounds to analyze from this point of view the work of the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna.

For the first time, the regulation on working hours of the Cabinet of Ministers was discussed at the first (documented) meeting - November 3, 1731 (4;T.Yu4). In the corresponding journal we read: “meetings in the Cabinet are held every week on 2 days: Monday and Thursday.” However, from the first days of work, meetings began to be held not according to the declared “preferential schedule”, but in fact without “days off”: the logs record the presence of ministers “at their workplaces” on the fourth, and fifth, and sixth, and eighth, and ninth November, and so on. almost daily, until the end of the period considered by the author, that is, until October 17, 1740. Rare exceptions were the Great church holidays(for example, Holy Week 1733 - March 22, 23, 24), namesake days (of the Empress herself, and, later, Anna Leopoldovna), as well as cases when all cabinet ministers were sick at the same time (for example, 05/14/1732 , 09/28/1732, etc.).

Cabinet of Ministers

the highest state institution of Russia during the reign of Empress Anna Ioannovna (1731-1741). Established on the basis of a personal decree of November 10, 1731 entitled “The Cabinet of Her Imperial Majesty.” Its creation was caused, first of all, by the need to make the management process more efficient, as well as by the desire to make it easier for the empress to make decisions on the most important issues through consultation with a circle of trusted persons. Therefore, initially the Cabinet had the functions of an advisory body and consisted of three people - G. I. Golovkin, A. I. Osterman and A. M. Cherkassky. Later, the Cabinet included P. I. Yaguzhinsky (from 1735), A. P. Volynsky (from 1738), A. P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin (from 1740) and B. Kh. Minikh (from 1740). The initial uncertainty of the scope of competence of the Cabinet, along with its high status in the management system, led to the fact that, as its activities progressed, the power of this body gradually spread to different areas of management. Subordinate to him were: the Medical Office, the Accounting, Provisions and Kriegs Commissariat Commissions, and from 1734 the Main Police Chief Office. The Cabinet had the right to request from all government agencies, including the Senate, any information on any issue. Finally, by decree of June 9, 1735, the signatures of all three cabinet ministers were equated to the signature of the empress. From that time on, the Cabinet actually acquired the functions of not only an executive body, but also a legislative body, subordinating the Senate, Synod and central collegiums. It was in the Cabinet that all the most important decisions on military, foreign and financial affairs were made. The Cabinet was liquidated after the accession of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna to the throne on December 12, 1741.

Political Science: Dictionary-Reference Book. comp. Prof. Science Sanzharevsky I.I.. 2010 .

Political science. Dictionary. - RSU.

V.N. Konovalov.

2010. See what “Cabinet of Ministers” is in other dictionaries:

CABINET OF MINISTERS, 1) the name of the government in some countries. 2) In Russia in 1731 there were 41 state bodies consisting of 3 cabinets of ministers, the official council under Empress Anna Ivanovna... Modern encyclopedia

CABINET OF MINISTERS, IN 1731 41 supreme state body consisting of three cabinet ministers, the official council under Empress Anna Ivanovna. In January August 1991, the government of the USSR. Source: Encyclopedia Fatherland ... Russian history

The official name of the government in Israel, Latvia, Japan, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and several other countries... Legal dictionary

The official name of the government in Israel, Latvia, Japan, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and several other countries. Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001 ... Dictionary of business terms

The highest executive body in Japan. Its history can be divided into two stages: from 1885 to 1945 and from 1945 to the present. In 1868, as a result of the Meiji Restoration, which abolished the government of the Tokugawa shogunate, ... ... All Japan was established

Executive power Executive power Head of state Dictator Monarch President Government Head of government Chancellor Chief of executive power Prime Minister Cabinet of Ministers Ministry Minister System ... Wikipedia

CABINET OF MINISTERS- the highest state institution in 1731–1741, created by decree of Anna Ioannovna as an official council under the empress “for the better and decent administration of all state affairs.” It was necessary to give the entire management process more... ... Russian statehood in terms. 9th – early 20th century

1) the name of the government in the USSR (January August 1991) and some other states. 2) In Russia in 1731-1741 the supreme state body consisting of 3 cabinet ministers, the official council under Empress Anna Ioanovna ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Cabinet of Ministers- (written with a capital letter as the official name of the government), e.g.: Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine ... Spelling dictionary of the Russian language

Artemy Petrovich Volynsky, cabinet minister, opponent of the “Bironovschina”

Artemy Petrovich Volynsky (1689 - June 27 [July 8] 1740, St. Petersburg) - Russian statesman and diplomat. In 1719-1730, Astrakhan and Kazan governor. In 1722, he strengthened his position by marrying the cousin of Peter the Great. Since 1738, the manager of the cabinet was the Minister of Empress Anna Ioannovna. Opponent of “Bironovism”. At the head of a circle of nobles, he drew up projects for state reorganization. Executed.

Artemy Petrovich Volynsky (1689 - 06/27/1740)

Unknown artist

Volynsky came from the Volynsky noble family, descended from the prince and governor Bobrok-Volynsky. His father, Pyotr Artemyich, was a solicitor under Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, and then a steward, a judge of the Moscow court order, and a governor in Kazan. Mother - Evdokia Fedorovna Golovlenkova. It is usually believed that Artemy Petrovich was born in 1689.

Prince Vladimir Andreevich and Bobrok Volynets in ambush.

The Tsar's steward in the book “Clothes of the Russian State” by Fyodor Solntsev

Carier start

Volynsky owed his upbringing to the family of S. A. Saltykov. He read a lot, was a “master of writing,” and had a fairly significant library. In 1704, Volynsky was enlisted as a soldier in a dragoon regiment.

Saltykov Semyon Andreevich (1672-1742), count, senator.

Unknown artist

In 1711 he was already a captain and gained the favor of the tsar. He was with Shafirov during the Prut campaign, in 1712 he shared captivity with him in Constantinople, and the following year he was sent as a courier to Peter with a peace treaty concluded in Adrianople.

Pyotr Pavlovich Shafirov

Fountain Square, Adrianople

Two years later, Peter sent Volynsky to Persia, "in the character of a messenger". His mission had two goals: a comprehensive study of Persia and the acquisition of trade privileges for Russian merchants.

Volynsky completed both orders successfully (1718) and was promoted to adjutant general (there were only 6 of the latter at that time), and the following year he was appointed governor of the newly established Astrakhan province. Here he soon managed to introduce some order in the administration, improve relations with the Kalmyks, improve the economic life of the region and make many preparations for the upcoming Persian campaign.

The campaign undertaken this year in Persia ended unsuccessfully. Volynsky's enemies explained this defeat to Peter with supposedly false information delivered by Volynsky, and by the way pointed out his bribery. The Tsar cruelly punished Volynsky with his club and no longer trusted him as before. In 1723 it was taken away from him "full capacity", only administrative activities were provided, and he was completely excluded from participating in the war with Persia.

Peter I Alekseevich

Paul Delaroche

"Peter the Great's Fleet". Evgeniy Lansere

In 1722, Volynsky tried to strengthen his position by marrying the emperor’s cousin. Catherine I appointed Volynsky governor of Kazan and chief commander over the Kalmyks.

Portrait of Catherine I. J.-M. Nattier (1717)

Kazan, engraving

IN last days During the reign of Catherine I, Volynsky, through the machinations of mainly Yaguzhinsky, was dismissed from both positions.

Pavel Ivanovich Yaguzhinsky. Lithograph by A. T. Skino.

Under Peter II, thanks to his rapprochement with the Dolgorukys, his brother-in-law Cherkassky and others, in 1728 he again managed to obtain the post of governor in Kazan, where he remained until the end of 1730.

Unknown artist

His passion for profit and unbridled temper, which does not tolerate contradictions, reached their apogee in Kazan, which, despite the intercession of his “merciful” Saltykov and Cherkassky, causes the establishment of an “inquisition” over him by the government.

Artemy Petrovich Volynsky

Alexey Mikhailovich Cherkassky

Service under Anna Ioannovna

Dismissed from his post, in November 1730 he received a new appointment to Persia, and at the end of the next year (1731), remaining to wait in Moscow for the opening of the Volga, he was appointed, instead of Persia, as a military inspector under the command of Minich.

Artemy Petrovich Volynsky

Count Burchard Christoph von Münnich

Reinhold Gustav Löwenwolde

Portrait of the Duke of Courland Ernst Johann Biron (1737-1740). Unknown artist of the 18th century. Rundāle Palace, Latvia

Volynsky’s political views were expressed for the first time in "Note", compiled (1730) by supporters of autocracy, but corrected by his hand. He did not sympathize with the plans of the leaders, but was a zealous defender of the interests of the nobility. Currying favor with the then all-powerful foreigners: Minikh, Gustav Levenwolde and Biron himself, Volynsky, however, also converges with their secret opponents: P. M. Eropkin, A. F. Khrushchev and V. N. Tatishchev, and conducts conversations about the political situation of the Russian state and makes many plans to correct internal state affairs.

Pyotr Mikhailovich Eropkin

Engraving by Georgy Ivanovich Grachev

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev

Appointment to the position of cabinet minister

In 1733, Volynsky was the head of a detachment of the army besieging Danzig; in 1736 he was appointed Chief Jägermeister. In 1737, Volynsky was sent by the second (the first was Shafirov) minister to the congress in Nemirov to negotiate peace with Turkey. Upon returning to St. Petersburg, he was appointed, on February 3, 1738, cabinet minister.

Siege of Danzig in 1734

Owner of the Nemirov Palace, Hetman Potocki

In his person, Biron hoped to have support against Osterman. Volynsky quickly brought the affairs of the cabinet into system, expanded its composition by convening more frequently "general meetings", to which senators, presidents of colleges and other dignitaries were invited; subordinated the military, admiralty and foreign collegiums, which had previously acted independently, to the control of the cabinet.

Portrait of Andrei Ivanovich Osterman, 1730s. Podstanitsky collection.

Johann Philip Baer

"A. P. Volynsky at a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers,”

Painting by V. Jacobi

In 1739, he was the only speaker for the Empress on cabinet affairs. Soon, however, his main opponent Osterman managed to arouse the displeasure of the empress against Volynsky.

Empress Anna Ioannovna

Louis Caravaque

Although he managed, by arranging the comic wedding of Prince Golitsyn with the Kalmyk woman Buzheninova (who was historically correctly described by Lazhechnikov in “The Ice House”), to temporarily regain Anna Ioannovna’s favor, but the case of Trediakovsky’s beating that was brought to her attention and the rumors about Volynsky’s rebellious speeches finally decided his fate. Osterman and Biron presented their reports to the empress and demanded a trial of Volynsky; the empress did not agree to this.

“Ice House”, 1878. State Russian Museum.

Valery Ivanovich Jacobi

Trediakovsky, Vasily Kirillovich, Russian poet

Fyodor Stepanovich Rokotov

Conspiracy charge

Then Biron, who considered himself insulted by Volynsky for the beating of Trediakovsky, committed in his “chambers”, and for his defamation of Biron’s actions, resorted to the last resort: “It’s either me or him”, - he said to Anna Ioannovna. In early April 1740, Volynsky was forbidden to come to court; On April 12, as a result of the case reported to the empress in 1737 about 500 rubles of government money taken from the stable office by Volynsky’s butler, Vasily Kubanets, “ for particular needs" his master, house arrest followed, and three days later a commission composed of seven people began an investigation.

Valery Ivanovich Jacobi (1834-1902) “Jesters at the court of Empress Anna Ioannovna”

Fragment of the picture

Initially, Volynsky behaved bravely, wanting to show confidence that the whole matter would end happily, but then he lost heart and confessed to bribery and concealing government money. The commission was looking for and waiting for new accusations, and of these, it paid the most attention to the denunciations of Vasily Kubanets. Kubanets pointed to Volynsky’s speeches about the “vain anger” of the empress and the harm of a foreign government, to his intentions to change everything and take the lives of Biron and Osterman. Those interrogated, also based on the denunciation of Kubanets, "confidential" Volynsky largely confirmed this testimony.

Artemy Petrovich Volynsky

Important material for the prosecution then served as Volynsky’s papers and books, examined by Ushakov and Neplyuev. Among his papers, which consisted of projects and discussions, for example, “about citizenship”, “about human friendship”, “about the harm that happens to the person of the sovereign and the whole state in general”, the greatest significance was his "general project» about improvement in public administration, written by him on his own impulse, and another, with the knowledge of the empress, a project on the improvement of state affairs.

« General project on the improvement of internal state affairs"

The government in the Russian Empire should, according to Volynsky, be monarchical with the broad participation of the nobility as the leading class in the state. The next government authority after the monarch should be the Senate, with the significance that it had under Peter the Great; then comes the lower government, made up of representatives of the lower and middle nobility. Estates: spiritual, urban and peasant received, according to Volynsky's project, significant privileges and rights. Literacy was required from everyone, and broader education was required from the clergy and nobility, the breeding grounds for which were to be the academies and universities proposed by Volynsky. Many reforms were proposed to improve justice, finance, trade, etc.

Sentence

During further interrogation of Volynsky (since April 18, already in the secret chancellery), he was called an oathbreaker, attributing to him the intention to carry out a coup in the state. Under torture, Khrushchov, Eropkin and Soimonov directly indicated Volynsky’s desire to take the Russian throne himself after the death of Anna Ioannovna. But Volynsky, even under the blows of the whip in the dungeon, rejected this accusation and tried in every possible way to shield Elizaveta Petrovna, in whose name, according to new accusations, he allegedly wanted to carry out a coup.

Portrait of Elizaveta Petrovna in a men's suit. L. Caravaque (?). Mid-18th century.

Volynsky did not confess to his treasonous intentions even after the second torture. Then, by order of the empress, further search was stopped and on June 19 a general meeting was appointed for the trial of Volynsky and his “confidants”, which decided: 1) Volynsky, as the initiator of all that evil deed, should be impaled alive, having first cut out his tongue ; 2) his confidants - quartered, and then cut off their heads; 3) confiscate the estate and 4) send Volynsky’s two daughters and son into eternal exile.

On June 23, this sentence was presented to the empress, and the latter softened it, ordering the heads of Volynsky, Eropkin and Khrushchov to be cut off, and the rest of the “confidants” to be exiled after punishment, which was carried out on June 27, 1740 on Sytny Market Square. Returned from exile the following year after the execution, the children of Volynsky, with the permission of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, erected a monument on the grave of their father, who was buried along with Khrushchev and Eropkin near the gates of the church fence of the Sampsonievsky Church (on the Vyborg side). In 1886, at the initiative of M.I. Semevsky, a new monument was erected at the grave of Volynsky, Eropkin and Khrushchev with donations from private individuals.

Monument at the grave, Sampsonievsky Cathedral, St. Petersburg

Monument at the grave of Russian patriots Volynsky, Eropkin and Khrushchev

Creation of the cabinet of ministers in the 18th century. The Cabinet of Ministers as a revamped Supreme Privy Council

Story

Compound

Literature

Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Domestic History", 07.00.02 code VAK

Artemy Petrovich Volynsky: personality and activities 2008, Candidate of Historical Sciences Kryuchkov, Nikolai Nikolaevich

"The era of palace coups" 1725-1762. in the context of Russian political history 2004, Doctor of Historical Sciences Kurukin, Igor Vladimirovich

Russian Empress Elizaveta Petrovna in the assessments of domestic historians 2003, Candidate of Historical Sciences Kozlova, Anna Aleksandrovna

The governor's corps and the central government: the problem of relationships: based on materials from the provinces of the Black Earth Center of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. 2011, Doctor of Historical Sciences Minakov, Andrey Sergeevich

The powers of the Russian monarch during the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna 2010, Candidate of Historical Sciences Murashov, Ilya Yurievich

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna”

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Domestic History”, Savelyeva, Ekaterina Nikolaevna

List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Historical Sciences Savelyeva, Ekaterina Nikolaevna, 2004

Features and principles of appointment of ministers

Regulatory and organizational issues in the activities of the Cabinet, “one day in the life of the Cabinet of Ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna”

V.N. Konovalov.