Imperial title. By God’s hastening grace We are Peter the Third, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Siberia, Sovereign of Pskov and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn and Ditmarsen, Count of Oldenburg and Delmengorst, Prince of Estland, Livonia, Korelsky, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Vyatsky, Bulgarian and others, Sovereign and Grand Duke of Novagorod, Nizovsky lands, Chernigov, Ryazan, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozersky, Udorsky, Obdorsky, Kondiysky and all northern countries Lord and Sovereign; Iveron lands, Kartalin and Georgian Kings, and Kabardian lands, Cherkasy and Mountain Princes and other Hereditary Sovereign and Possessor.
Random guest
Immediately after the violent death of “unfortunate Peter III” (the expression of A.S. Pushkin) and until the end of the twentieth century, the “third emperor” of the Russian state was portrayed as a highly unattractive ruler. “An accidental guest of the Russian throne, he flashed like a shooting star on the Russian political horizon, leaving everyone perplexed as to why he appeared on it,” was the verdict of Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky.
Assessments by other historians were equally unflattering and derogatory.
Firstly, in terms of state activities, Peter III pursued an anti-national policy. “Contrary to the national interests of Russia, he made peace with Prussia, which negated the results of the victory of Russian troops in the Seven Years’ War. He introduced German orders into the army.” This is what the Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary stated.
Secondly, in human terms the monarch was a repulsive and almost disgusting figure. “A narrow-minded tyrant”, “a hater of everything Russian”, “a lackey of Frederick II”, “a chronic drunkard” – said the impartial reviews of historians, who were largely based on the tendentious memories of the one who carried out a coup d’etat and overthrew Peter III from the throne.
“Memoirs” of Catherine the Great preserved for posterity the repulsive image of her unlucky husband. Deliberately exaggerating the colors, the Empress seeks to present Peter III as a man who was completely unsuited for the royal role. He loves to drink and, forgetting about his duty as the heir to the throne, gets drunk with lackeys and similar court servants.
“From the age of ten, Peter III showed a tendency to drink.”
As a result of the abuse of strong drinks, Pyotr Fedorovich allegedly does not know what mercy is, and women’s tears only provoke his cruelty.
“Instead of awakening compassion, tears and screams only further inflamed the Grand Duke’s anger; pity for his soul was painful and even unbearable.”
Pyotr Fedorovich is not only poorly educated, hot-tempered, rude and cruel. He is an “incapable husband” and an over-aged “idiot”, who in his mature years continues to play with toy soldiers with a serious expression and adores children’s toys.
“Once, when I entered the chambers of His Imperial Highness as a peacemaker, my gaze was struck by a huge rat, which the Grand Duke ordered, according to all the rules of legal proceedings, to hang in the middle of the office, fenced off by his order with a partition. I asked him what this picture meant, and he replied that the rat had committed a criminal offense and deserved the death penalty under martial law. The rat climbed over. the shaft of a cardboard fortress standing on the table in his office and ate two sentries made from starch paste who were standing guard on one of the bastions, after which the Grand Duke ordered the scoundrel to be tried according to the laws of war. The Rat was caught by his guard dog, and the criminal was ordered to be hanged. than I can be sure; it will hang for three days for the edification of the public. I burst out laughing at his extravagant trick. However, in view of the importance that he attached to this execution, he did not like my laughter very much. I left, justifying myself with a woman’s ignorance of military laws, but he continued to sulk at me for my laughter. In favor of the rat, it could be said that she was hanged without interrogation or hearing her justification.”
Princess Ekaterina Romanovna Dashkova, a friend of the empress, made a minor clarification that did not change the overall hopeless picture and negative conclusion: Peter Fedorovich was not created for the role of ruler of the Russian state.
“He was not angry, but the limitations of his mind, upbringing and natural inclinations developed from him a good Prussian corporal, and not the sovereign of a great empire,” wrote Princess Dashkova.
This is how his irreconcilable enemies judged the “third emperor”.
Legislative activity
However, at the end of the “mad and wise” 18th century, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin, calling for historical justice, declared with passionate fervor that “deceived Europe all this time judged this sovereign from the words of his mortal enemies or their vile supporters. The strict court of history, without doubts, he will be reproached for many mistakes, but the one that ruined him was called weakness…”
Portrait of Peter III by an unknown artist. Photo: Wikipedia
We had to wait exactly two centuries for the strict judgment of history. Only at the end of the twentieth century, the St. Petersburg historian Alexander Sergeevich Mylnikov, having entered into an imaginary mental dialogue with his hero, wrote a carefully researched book “Peter III” based on unpublished archival documents. The historian made a successful attempt to abandon the usual stereotypes and mythologies in relation to the “unfortunate Peter III” and gave a balanced and objective portrait of the “third emperor”, who in his state activities not only continued the internal policy of his own grandfather Peter I, but also introduced a tangible element into it humanity. On the one hand, Peter III certainly continued to strengthen serfdom. On the other hand, for the first time in Russian legislation, the murder of a serf was qualified as “tyrant torture” and was certainly prohibited. The word did not differ from the deed. By Senate decree on February 25, 1762, Voronezh lieutenant V. Nesterov was forever exiled to Nerchinsk for bringing a servant to death.
The legislative activity of Peter III was extraordinary. During the 186-day reign, judging by the official “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire,” 192 documents were adopted: manifestos, personal and Senate decrees, resolutions. And although many of these decrees and manifestos were prepared under Elizabeth Petrovna, they were issued by Peter III, who zealously took up state affairs from the very beginning of his reign. “In the morning he was in his office, where he heard reports <…>then hurried to the Senate or collegium. <…> In the Senate, he took on the most important matters himself energetically and assertively,” his former tutor Jakob von Staehlin wrote about his former ward.
The fruits of this energetic activity were not always for the benefit of Russia. Peter III, having decided to follow the example of Peter I, on the advice of the famous projector Count Pyotr Ivanovich Shuvalov, began the mass reminting of full-weight copper coins of his predecessor Elizaveta Petrovna. When the coin was re-minted, its denomination automatically doubled. 32 rubles of small coins were minted from a pound of copper. This rash measure did not manage to lead to a serious disorder in the finances of the Russian Empire. Immediately after the overthrow of Peter III from the throne, his lightweight coins were withdrawn from circulation and processed according to the previous weight standard.
However, other results of the state activities of Peter III did not pass without a trace and were preserved on the pages of the history of the Russian state.
1762, February 12 – on the personal initiative of the emperor, the Declaration on the Establishment of Peace in Europe was sent to the European powers.
February 18 – the manifesto “On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility” was announced. Here he announced his intention to free the nobles from compulsory public service. Prosecutor General A.I. Glebov proposed to the Senate, on behalf of the grateful nobility, to erect a golden statue of the emperor. Having learned about this, as S.M. wrote. Soloviev, Peter III replied: “The Senate can give gold a better purpose, and with my reign I hope to erect a more lasting monument in the hearts of my subjects.”
February 21 – a manifesto was announced to abolish the Office of Secret Investigative Affairs and transfer its responsibilities to the Senate.
February – April – manifestos and decrees were published on ending the persecution of Old Believers, consolidating the principles of religious tolerance and transferring monastic estates to state administration along with serfs.
April 24 (May 5) – a peace treaty was signed between Russia and Prussia.
June 8 (19) – the Union Treaty with Prussia on friendship and mutual assistance was signed.
Unexpected conclusion
For centuries, Peter III was accused of violating Russia’s national interests for rapprochement with Frederick II and the gratuitous return to him of East Prussia, conquered by the force of Russian arms. These unfounded accusations only added grist to the mill of “enlightened” Europe, which tirelessly reproaches “barbaric” Russia for its continuous territorial expansion. Historian A.S. Mylnikov looked at the situation on a large historical scale and made a paradoxical conclusion: “The experience of history has confirmed the significance of the agreements reached in 1762. No matter how one evaluates the pro-Prussian sympathies of Peter III, reconciliation with the neighboring country for a good century and a half laid the foundations for Russian-German good neighborliness as one of the essential guarantees of peace in Europe.” By committing this extraordinary act, Peter III gave his descendants a powerful argument in the ongoing information war. East Prussia, conquered by Russian weapons and returned to the Prussian king Frederick II, is Russia’s answer to the eternal question of Europe: “Where is your patent for nobility?” None of the European countries has a single similar argument in its arsenal.
Even the pre-revolutionary Russian historian Sergei Spiridonovich Tatishchev (1846-1906), having analyzed the legislative activities of Peter III and Catherine the Great, came to the conclusion: “No matter how great, at first glance, the difference in the political systems of Peter III and his successor is, it is necessary, however, to admit that in several cases she served only as a continuator of his endeavors.” Modern research has confirmed the validity of this conclusion: the legislative acts adopted during the short reign of Peter III largely became the foundation for the subsequent 34-year reign of Catherine II. Consequently, the “third emperor” was not a historical accident, as he had long been imagined, but a necessary link between the reigns of Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine the Great. This is precisely his indisputable right to the gratitude of his descendants.
Source: rodina-history.ru
