Правление Федора Алексеевича (1676-1682): дискуссионные вопросы в новейшей отечественной историографии

The figure of Tsar Fyodor Alekseyevich and events that took place in Russia during his brief reign came into the focus of historians’ attention only in the late XX century. Since then they have become the object of vigorous debates in domestic historiography. The purpose of this article is to summarize the historiographical positions on the main controversial issues, most of which chronologically go beyond the reign of Fyodor Alekseyevich. The article addresses the questions of continuity of the Tsar’s policy, the basic tendencies in the evolution of state power, the degree of independence of the governance, the western influence, the beginning of the New Age, and the character of the implemented reforms. It is noted that while discussing the issue of the degree of the Tsar’s governance independence, most researchers express an opinion that his personal participation in state affairs gradually increased. However, Sedov’s thesis about the weakening of the autocracy during the reign of Tsar Fyodor needs additional argumentation. The position of historians who tend to trace the connection of the policy of Fyodor Alekseyevich both with the transformations of his predecessors and with the reforms of Peter the Great seems quite productive. When considering a particularly heated discussion about the beginning of the New Age, it was revealed that most historians are not inclined to draw a clear line between the New Age and the Middle Ages. It is noted that a number of researchers adhere to the point of view of superficial Europeanization during the reign of Tsar Fyodor. However, for most historians this version of the search for the “new”, not accompanied by the rejection of the “old”, seems to be a real alternative to the radical and cruel Petrine Europeanization. Together with the positive assessment of the nature of the reforms carried out by Fyodor Alekseyevich and the methods he used, this position leads to the opinion contained in modern historiography about the unrealized possibility of the evolutionary development of the country. It is emphasized that the idea of this period as one of the bifurcation points in Russian history should stimulate further study of the Russian state on the eve of Peter the Great’s reforms.