Sovereign of all Rus'. The hierarchical pyramid of power of the Russian centralized state was crowned by tsarist power. It was not restricted either politically or legally. Ivan III actually became the first tsar of the Russian centralized state. He had legislative, administrative and judicial powers, which he constantly expanded. His status developed in accordance with state law, which he himself established.
To give weight to the royal decisions taken, the procedure for applying the seal was introduced. For the first time in Rus', Ivan III introduces a symbol of royal power - coat of arms, which in 1472 became a double-headed eagle. The image of a double-headed eagle in 1497 appears on the royal seal, which is already becoming a "stamp seal", that is, it is becoming more important.
An interesting fact is the acquisition of the coat of arms. It is known that Ivan III was married to Sophia Paleolog, a representative of the Byzantine imperial family. After the conquest of Byzantium Ottoman Empire the double-headed eagle, the coat of arms of the Byzantine emperor, passed, as if by inheritance, to the only heiress of the Byzantine kings - Sophia Palaiologos, daughter of the brother of the last emperor of Byzantium, Constantine Palaiologos. And from Sophia in connection with marriage - to Ivan III. As successor to the fallen Byzantine throne, husband of Sophia Palaiologos from 1485 began to call himself king on occasion, but more often - “ sovereign of all Rus'». Russian word"king" is a somewhat distorted Slavic translation of the Byzantine word "caesar".
Ivan III, in order to strengthen autocratic power, carried out significant state and legal reforms that concerned the boyar duma, orders, the legal system, etc. Thanks to his reforms, the former fragmentation was gradually replaced by centralization.
Ivan III has other merits before Russia. According to many historians, this is one of the key figures in our history. This reformer, firstly, laid the foundations of autocracy; secondly, he created the state apparatus for governing the country; thirdly, he built the residence of the head of state - the fortified Moscow Kremlin; fourthly, he established the rules of court etiquette; fifthly, he issued a code of laws (Sudebnik), binding on all citizens of the state.
Boyar Duma. The Boyar Duma was entrusted with state administration, judicial and diplomatic functions. Deciding state affairs, the Duma gradually became a legislative body under Ivan III. With her participation, the famous Code of Laws of Ivan III was introduced, which established a unified legal system of a centralized state. In addition, the Duma led the system of orders, exercised control over local government, and resolved land disputes. To conduct business, a Duma office was created.
In the Boyar Duma, in addition to the Moscow boyars, from the middle of the 15th century. local princes from the annexed lands began to sit, recognizing the seniority of Moscow. The Council made decisions by majority vote. If the consent of the boyars was not reached, the controversial points were discussed until its entire composition came to a consensus. To put it in a modern way, the Duma was looking for a consensus. If, for some reason, no agreement was reached, then they went to a report to the head of state, and the matter was resolved by the sovereign.
Term boyar gradually began to mean not just a major feudal lord, but a life-long privileged member of the Boyar Duma. The second most important rank of the Boyar Duma was devious. At the end of the XV century. The Duma included 12 boyars and no more than 8 okolnichy. When deciding the most important state affairs, church hierarchs and prominent representatives of the nobility were invited to meetings of the Boyar Duma. In the future, such joint meetings became the basis for the formation of Zemsky Sobors.
Boyars and roundabout steel pledge allegiance Grand Duke, confirming it with "swearing letters". The Moscow sovereign endowed himself with the right not only to remove the boyars from public service, but also confiscate while their estates, land allotments with property.
Treasury yard. The main administrative body of the Moscow state was the Treasury yard. It was the prototype of the government. The future order system grew out of two nationwide departments: the Palace and the Treasury. The palace controlled the lands of the Grand Duke, the Treasury was in charge of finances, the state seal, and archives. The tsar introduced new positions of sovereign people: a state clerk and clerks in charge of embassy, local, yama, financial affairs.
Palace and palaces. The Palace was created to manage the royal lands and property. Gradually, his functions were supplemented by other duties, for example, to consider land disputes and carry out legal proceedings. Novgorod, Tver and other palaces, as well as orders, were created to manage the territories on the ground.
Central authorities. For the local execution of royal decrees, other instructions and orders from the center, permanent administrative bodies were created. Proper boyars and nobles were entrusted to lead certain areas in the state. Under the jurisdiction of the most authoritative boyars, separate territories ("paths") were transferred, in which the highest officials carried out administration and legal proceedings. Simultaneously with the creation new system management was strengthening the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow, the sovereign of all Rus'. The new "vertical of power", created in the era of Ivan III, significantly increased the centralization government controlled, made Moscow the real capital of a vast country.
The formation of orders, categories, counties, volosts spoke of a rather harmonious (for that time) system of state administration. This system was also enshrined in the legal framework created by Ivan III in order to strengthen his power, which increasingly acquired autocratic features.
Local authorities. Former appanage princes retained some powers of authority. Within their possessions, they had the right to collect taxes from the population, to administer the court. From their midst, voevodas and thousandths were appointed by the Moscow prince, who, in war time led the people's militia.
In cities introduced new position local government - city clerks, in counties administrative functions were performed by governors, in volosts - volostels.
The system of central and local government bodies in the Russian centralized state (XIV century - early XVI century) is as follows.
System of public authorities
Sudebnik of Ivan III. A huge role in strengthening the unified state was played by the new legal system introduced by Ivan III. It united the central and local bodies of state power, which were guided by the same laws for the whole country and demanded their implementation from the royal subjects. The Sudebnik of Ivan III, published in 1497, consolidated the new public order introduced by the authorities in the country since the days of Russkaya Pravda.
It should be emphasized that important innovations related to state law were introduced into the Sudebnik. For example, the transfer of power in the state was no longer by inheritance, as before, but by the will of the sovereign. He now appointed his successor. Power began to acquire autocratic features. For the sake of small and medium-sized feudal lords, new social groups, the Sudebnik also established some restrictions on the activities of local officials - feeders. According to Art. 43 governors and volostels were deprived of the right to decide "the most important matters."
Sudebnik of Ivan III laid the foundation for the enslavement of the peasants. He forbade the transition to another feudal lord for 50 weeks a year, except for the week before and after St. George's Day (November 26), when all work on the land was completed and the harvest was harvested in bins. Moreover, in 1497 the state legislated another essential condition for changing the legal dependence on the feudal lord: the obligatory payment of the "elderly" - a kind of ransom from this dependence.
The legal, organizational and other measures taken by Ivan III to strengthen state power testify to the creation of a new centralized state.
Short description
The purpose of the study is to study the process of formation of the Russian centralized state.
As part of achieving this goal, the following tasks can be distinguished:
- to state the prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized state;
- to study the process of formation of the Russian centralized state "and the formation of a centralized nation state;
- to identify the features of the structure of public administration of the Russian state.
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...4
1 Features of the formation of the Russian centralized state..6
Grand ducal power and the beginning of the formation of the bureaucratic apparatus of government………………………………………………….....18
2 Features of the structure of public administration of the Russian
2.1Transformation of the political system and administrative bodies.22
2.2 General characteristics of the state mechanism of government in the XV - XVI centuries………………………………………………………………...……..26
2.3 State structure and system formation public institutions in the XV - XVI centuries……………………………………………….…34
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………42
List of used sources and literature…………………………..44
Annex A Scheme of authorities and administration of Russian
centralized state…………………………….45
states…………………………………………………..46
states……………………………………..…………....47
Attached files: 1 file
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Federal state budget educational
institution of higher professional education
"Komsomolsk-on-Amur State
Technical University"
Faculty of Humanities
Department of History and Archiving
COURSE WORK
in the discipline "History and organization of office work in Russia"
Formation of the Russian centralized state and the structure of state administration (XV-XVI centuries)
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...4
1 Features of the formation of the Russian centralized state..6
- Prerequisites for the formation of a Russian centralized state ...... 6
- Formation of a centralized Russian state…………..13
- Grand ducal power and the beginning of the formation of the bureaucratic apparatus of government…………………………………………………. ....18
2 Features of the structure of public administration of the Russian
states of the XV – XVI centuries…………………………………………………………22
2.1Transformation of the political system and administrative bodies.22
2.2 General characteristics of the state mechanism of government in the XV - XVI centuries………………………………………………………………. ..……..26
2.3 The political system and the formation of a system of state institutions in the XV - XVI centuries………………………………………………….…34
2.4 The social structure of society………………………………..………….38
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………42
List of used sources and literature…………………………..44
Annex A Scheme of authorities and administration of Russian
centralized state… ………………………….45
Annex B Scheme Judicial bodies of the Russian Centralized
states………………………………………………… ..46
Annex B Scheme of the territory of the Russian Centralized
states……………………………………..……… …....47
Introduction
The problem of the formation of the Russian centralized state has long attracted the attention of historical science. How did a powerful single state emerge from disparate and warring lands and principalities? How could a state that was not so militarily powerful resist strong neighbors? What factors predetermined the formation and development of the Russian state? These questions are still raised and resolved in historical research. Many features of this process (the autocratic nature of the central government, the multinational nature of the Russian state, etc.) are still manifesting themselves. Therefore, this topic continues to be relevant.
Many historians expressed their opinion on this topic, the works of some of them were used in writing this work. The most significant of them are the works of L.V. Cherepnin, V.I. Buganova, F.N. Nesterova and others. All of them consider various aspects of the topic.
The purpose of the study is to study the process of formation of the Russian centralized state.
As part of achieving this goal, the following tasks can be distinguished:
Outline the prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized state;
To study the process of formation of the Russian centralized state" and the formation of a centralized multinational state;
Reveal the features of the structure of public administration of the Russian state.
The object of this study is the analysis of the conditions of "Formation of the Russian centralized state" .
At the same time, the subject of the study is the consideration of individual issues formulated as the objectives of this study.
source base term paper are the scientific and journalistic works of Dmitriev Yu.A., Isaev I.A., Karamzin N.M., Klyuchevsky V.O., Solovyov S.M., Tolstaya A.I. and etc.
The methodological basis of the study was formed by general and particular scientific methods of cognition of the object of study: dialectical, formal-logical and historical.
The work has a traditional structure and includes an introduction, the main part, consisting of 2 chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and applications.
The work used descriptive, statistical, analytical and other methods.
The introduction substantiates the relevance of the choice of topic, sets the goal and objectives of the study, characterizes the research methods and sources of information.
The first chapter is devoted to the peculiarities of the formation of the Russian centralized state. It displays the prerequisites for the formation and formation of a centralized state.
The second chapter of the course work contains features of the structure of state administration of the Russian state in the XV - XVI centuries. It reveals the issues of transformation of the political system and administrative bodies and the state system, gives a general description of the state mechanism of government, and considers the social structure of society.
In conclusion, the main results of the study are formulated.
The appendix displays schemes of the judicial and state authorities of the Russian centralized state and presents a scheme of the territory.
1 Features of the formation of the Russian centralized
states
- Prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized
states
If you look at a map of Russia in the middle of the 15th century, then the first thing you should pay attention to is the border that separates the Russian lands from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Mongol-Tatar khanates. The border passes near Moscow. Even Kyiv, the former capital of the Old Russian state, is part of the Principality of Lithuania. Russian lands are fragmented; the main ones are Moscow, Tver, Ryazan principalities.
At this time, in Western Europe, the process of formation of united states: England, France, Spain. The Ottoman Empire is strengthening in the East. In 1453, the Turks captured Constantinople and established themselves in the Balkans. It was very important for Rus' to overcome fragmentation.
The formation of the Russian centralized state was the end of a long process, the beginning of which dates back to the 14th century.
The famous grandson of Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Donskoy, can rightfully be considered the founder of the power and political significance of the Moscow state. It was after the victory of the Russian troops on the Kulikovo field that the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow was completed, which finally ended at the end of the 15th century. during the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505).
Describing the process of overcoming feudal fragmentation and the formation of a centralized state in Rus', F. Engels noted: “... in Russia, the conquest of appanage princes went hand in hand with liberation from Tatar yoke, which was finally fixed by Ivan III. Unification became possible only when the socio-economic conditions were ripe for it.
The emergence of centralized states is a natural stage in the development of feudalism following the early feudal period. It occurs at a stage of feudalism when more or less strong ties are established between individual regions of the country as a result of the growth of the social division of labor, the development of handicrafts and commodity production, and the growth of cities.
But, as usual, in our country this process had its own characteristics: if in Europe centralization took place at the stage of the decomposition of feudalism simultaneously with the beginning of the formation of a single internal market, i.e. in the conditions of the beginning of bourgeois development, then in Russia centralization was accompanied by the strengthening and development of feudalism, the growth of serfdom throughout the country. As a result, the association had insufficient economic prerequisites with clearly expressed political prerequisites. Another feature was determined by the weaker urban development than in Europe. As a result, the leading social force of the association was not the townspeople and merchants, as in the West, but the landowners: first the boyars, and then the nobility. The third feature was the special role of political power due to external danger.
Historians interpret the prerequisites for the formation of a centralized state in different ways. The main reason, according to the majority, is the Mongol-Tatar yoke, which forced the Russian princes to take a different look at their relations with other princes. The desire to get rid of the Mongol-Tatar yoke was common, but for this it was necessary to create a strong state capable of defeating the Golden Horde.
The second reason, which is called by historians, is the strengthening of economic ties between the Russian lands, caused by general economic growth. Despite the fact that the country's economy as a whole remained natural in the 14th-15th centuries, economic ties between its individual parts intensified. During this period, agriculture developed in Russia, restored after the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the rise of productive forces in agriculture occurs mainly due to the expansion of the area sown with agricultural crops. During this period, the peasants are intensively plowing the wastelands - lands abandoned as a result of enemy raids, feudal wars and crop failures. Agricultural production increased significantly, which made it possible to increase the development of animal husbandry and sell grain to the side. The need for agricultural tools also increased, which led to the development of handicrafts in the countryside. Crafts grew rapidly, especially in the city, their technical level increased, blacksmithing, foundry, construction and pottery, as well as jewelry, developed.
Figure 1 - Prerequisites for the formation of a centralized state
Handicraft production was greatly developed in Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov and other cities. There was a separation of artisans from peasants, an increase in the urban population, which contributed to the growth of trade between the city and the countryside. In the XIV-XV centuries. old cities grew and new ones arose. The role of cities as trading centers increased.
Economic ties were formed on the scale of the whole of Rus', and after that the need arose for the development of foreign trade. All these factors demanded the political unification of the Russian lands.
In this, first of all, the nobles, merchants, artisans and all broad sections of society were interested.
There were other reasons for unification, in particular the intensification of the class struggle. In the XV century. along with the economic upsurge, feudal ownership of land is growing and the oppression of the peasants is intensifying. The deepening of feudal oppression was expressed not only in the enslavement of previously free peasants, but also in the strengthening of their personal dependence, as well as in the growth of corvée and dues. The feudal lords strove for the economic and legal enslavement of the peasants, and the peasants strove for freedom and resisted, which was expressed in the murders of feudal lords, the burning of their estates and the seizure of property.
Under these conditions, a powerful centralized state was needed, capable of fulfilling its main function - suppressing the resistance of the exploited masses. Particularly interested in this were small and medium-sized feudal lords, who could not cope with the suppression of the uprisings of their peasants. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the strengthening of serfdom goes simultaneously with the formation of a single state. The Sudebnik of Ivan III (1497) indicated that peasants could leave the feudal lord a week in advance and within a week after St. George's Day (November 26 of each year). Moreover, the peasant was obliged to pay the "old" for the use of the hut and outbuildings. This year is considered the beginning of the general enslavement of the peasants. Personal dependence passes into the highest form - serfdom.
Consequently, the feudal lords, both secular and spiritual, were primarily interested in strengthening the central government. The townspeople also supported the Moscow princely power, hoping that it would lead to an end to civil strife and the development of trade. The peasants also hoped to find help from the Grand Duke from the oppression of local feudal lords. Thus, all segments of the population, although for different reasons, were interested in creating a strong centralized state. The opponents of the unification were large feudal lords - princes who did not want to lose their power.
In parallel with the unification of the Russian lands, the creation of the spiritual foundation of the national state, the process of strengthening the Russian statehood, the formation of a centralized Russian state was going on. The prerequisites for this process were laid in the period Tatar-Mongol yoke. Researchers note that the vassal dependence of Russian lands on the Golden Horde to a certain extent contributed to the strengthening of Russian statehood. During this period, the volume and authority of princely power within the country increase, the princely apparatus crushes the institutions of people's self-government, and the veche - the oldest body of democracy gradually disappears from practice throughout the historical core of the future Russian state (Lyutykh A.A., Skobelkin O.V. ., Thin V.A. History of Russia. Course of lectures. - Voronezh, 1993. - P. 82).
During the period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, city liberties and privileges were destroyed. The outflow of money to the Golden Horde prevented the emergence of the "third estate", the backbone of urban independence in the countries of Western Europe.
The wars with the Tatar-Mongol invaders led to the fact that during them most of the combatants - feudal lords - were destroyed. The class of feudal lords began to revive on a fundamentally different basis. Now the princes distribute land not to advisers and comrades-in-arms, but to their servants and stewards. All of them are in personal dependence on the prince. Having become feudal lords, they did not cease to be his subordinates.
Due to the political dependence of the Russian lands on the Golden Horde, the unification process proceeded under extreme conditions. And this left a significant imprint on the nature of power relations in the emerging Russian state. The process of joining other states, "principal lands" to the Moscow principality most often relied on violence and assumed the violent nature of power in the unifying state. The feudal lords of the annexed territories became the servants of the Moscow ruler. And if the latter, in relation to his own boyars, by tradition, could maintain some contractual obligations that still come from vassal relations, then in relation to the ruling class of the annexed lands, he was only a master for his subjects. Thus, due to a number of historical reasons in the formation of the statehood of the Muscovite kingdom is dominated by elements of Eastern civilization. Relations of vassalage, established in Kievan Rus to the Tatar-Mongol yoke, yield to the relationship of allegiance.
Already during the reign of Ivan III in the Russian state, authoritarian system, which had significant elements of oriental despotism. The "Sovereign of All Rus'" possessed a volume of power and authority immeasurably greater than that of European monarchs. The entire population of the country - from the highest boyars to the last smerd - were subjects of the tsar, his serfs. The relations of allegiance were introduced into the law by the Belozersky statutory charter of 1488. According to this charter, all estates were equalized in the face of state power.
The economic basis of subject relations was predominance of state ownership of land. In Russia, noted V.O. Klyuchevsky, the tsar was a kind of patrimony. The whole country for him is property with which he acts as a full owner. The number of princes, boyars and other estates was constantly decreasing: Ivan IV reduced their share in economic relations in the country to a minimum. The decisive blow to private ownership of land was dealt by the institution of the oprichnina. From an economic point of view, the oprichnina was characterized by the allocation of significant territories in the west, north and south of the country as a special sovereign inheritance. These territories were declared the personal possessions of the king. And this means that all private owners in the oprichnina lands had to either recognize the supreme rights of the king or were subject to liquidation, and their property was confiscated. Large patrimonies of princes, boyars were divided into small estates and were distributed to the nobles for the sovereign's service in hereditary possession, but not in property. Thus, the power of the specific princes and boyars was destroyed, the position of the service landowners of the nobles was strengthened under the unlimited power of the autocratic tsar.
The policy of the oprichnina was carried out with extreme cruelty. Evictions, confiscation of property were accompanied by bloody terror, accusations of conspiracy against the king. The strongest pogroms were carried out in Novgorod, Tver, and Pskov. No wonder the words "oprichnina" and "oprichnik" became common nouns and were used as a figurative expression of gross arbitrariness.
As a result of the oprichnina, society submitted to the unlimited power of the sole ruler - the Moscow Tsar. The service nobility became the main social support of power. The Boyar Duma was still preserved as a tribute to tradition, but became more manageable. Economically independent from the government owners, who could serve as the basis for the formation of civil society, were liquidated.
In addition to state property, corporate, i.e., collective property, was quite widespread in the Moscow kingdom. The church and monasteries were the collective owners. Collective ownership of land and lands was owned by free communal peasants (chernososhnye). Thus, in the Russian state there was practically no institution of private property, which in Western Europe served as the basis for the principle of separation of powers, the creation of a system of parliamentarism.
Nevertheless, Russian statehood cannot be fully attributed to Eastern despotism. For a long time, such bodies of public representation as the Boyar Duma, Zemstvo self-government and Zemsky Sobors functioned in it.
The Boyar Duma as an advisory governing body existed in Kievan Rus. Then it was not part of the state apparatus. With the formation of a single centralized state, the Boyar Duma turns into the highest state body of the country. The composition of the Boyar Duma, in addition to the sovereign, included former appanage princes and their boyars. The most important power functions are practically concentrated in her hands. The Boyar Duma is the legislative body of the state. Without its "sentences" legislative acts could not come into force. She owned the legislative initiative in the adoption of new "statutes", taxes and the famous Code of Laws (1497, 1550), which were sets of legal norms and laws that were in force throughout the territory of a single state. At the same time, the Boyar Duma was also the highest executive body. She carried out the general management of orders, supervised the local government, made decisions on the organization of the army and land affairs. From 1530-1540 The Boyar Duma becomes a state bureaucratic institution.
From the middle of the XVI century. from the Boyar Duma, the so-called “Near Duma” stood out, and under Ivan the Terrible, the “Chosen Rada” (1547-1560), which consisted of a narrow circle of close associates of the tsar, such as the priest of the Annunciation Cathedral in the Kremlin Sylvester, the royal bedkeeper A. Adashev and others who solved urgent and secret issues. In addition to the Duma clerks, Ivan the Terrible introduced Duma nobles into the bureaucracy. The decisions of the "Chosen One" came on behalf of the tsar and were implemented by the Duma ranks, among which more and more were his favorites and relatives.
However, over the years, the Boyar Duma gradually becomes a conservative body that opposes the sovereign's undertakings. Ivan the Terrible pushes her away from legislative and executive power. The significance of the Boyar Duma will increase for a short time after his death, but by the end of the 17th century. it will no longer meet the urgent needs of government and will be abolished.
During the formation of the unified Russian state, the process of formation of the central executive authorities was going on. Already at the beginning of the XVI century. orders occupy an important place in the structure of public administration. The boyar usually stood at the head of the order. Directly executive activities were carried out by clerks and clerks recruited from among the service nobility. Orders are the bodies of branch management. They were created for various reasons, performed many functions, sometimes were of a temporary nature. The treasury was in charge of all the finances of the state. But at certain times, the order of the treasury also oversees south direction foreign policy. The state order was in charge of state institutions; zemsky - carried out police functions; yamskoy (postal) - was responsible for uninterrupted communications between Moscow and the interior of the country; robbery - was engaged in the analysis of criminal cases; bit - was in charge of recruiting the army, he was also in charge of the construction of fortresses and border towns; local - in charge of state lands, etc.
There were many small orders (stable, pharmacy, etc.) and a whole network of financial orders.
The development of artillery during the Livonian War led to the formation of the Pushkar order, which was in charge of the production of cannons, shells and gunpowder.
After the capture of Kazan and Astrakhan, the order of the Kazan Palace was organized - the department of territorial administration. Even at the end of the XV century. the Armory Chamber appeared - the arsenal of the Russian state. For more than a quarter of a century, it was headed by a talented diplomat and connoisseur of art B.I. Khitrovo.
It was on orders that Ivan the Terrible and his government entrusted the responsibility for carrying out major reforms in the middle of the 16th century. The final formalization of orders as institutions took place at the end of the 16th century, when a certain staff and budget were established for each of them, and special buildings were built on the territory of the Kremlin.
By the middle of the XVI century. total number orders reached 53 with a staff of 3.5 thousand people. With large orders, they created special schools for the training of qualified cadres of state officials. However, the main shortcomings of the mandative management system appeared quite early: the lack of clear regulation and distribution of responsibilities between individual institutions; red tape, embezzlement, corruption, etc.
In administrative terms, the main territory of the Russian state was divided into counties, and the county was divided into volosts and camps. Counties were called administrative districts, consisting of cities with lands assigned to it. There was no significant difference between a volost and a stan: a stan is the same rural volost, but usually directly subordinated to the city administration. Novgorod land was divided into pyatins instead of counties, and pyatins - into graveyards. The Pskov land was subdivided into lips. Novgorod graveyards and Pskov lips roughly corresponded to Moscow volosts.
General local administration was concentrated in the governors and volostels. The governors ruled the cities and suburban camps; the volost ruled the volosts. The power of governors and volosts extended to various aspects of local life: they were judges, rulers, collectors of princes' income, with the exception of income of purely palace origin and tribute; moreover, the governors were the military commanders of the city and county. The deputies of the Grand Duke were the boyars, and the volosts were service people, as a rule, from among the children of the boyars. Both of them, according to the old custom, were kept, or, as they said then, "fed", at the expense of the population. Initially, "feeding" (ie, exactions in favor of the governors and volosts) was not limited to anything. Later, in order to centralize local government and increase state revenues, “feeding” norms were established, as well as the exact amounts of judicial and commercial duties collected by governors and volosts in their favor were determined.
All paperwork in the local administration, as well as in the central one, was concentrated in the hands of clerks and clerks, who were also supported by the local population.
In addition to the general administration carried out by governors and volosts, there was also a system of palace, patrimonial administration in the localities, which was in charge of princely lands and palaces, as well as the performance of such obligatory palace duties (“princely affairs”), such as the obligatory participation of the local population in cleaning, threshing and transportation princely bread, feeding the princely horse and mowing hay for him, building a princely court, mills, participating in princely hunting, etc.
At the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. in the cities, so-called city clerks appeared - a kind of military commandant appointed by the Grand Duke from among the local nobles. City clerks were in charge of building and repairing city fortifications, roads and bridges, ensuring the transportation of military provisions, the production of gunpowder, storing ammunition, weapons and food for the troops. The task of the city clerks also included the holding of the county meeting of the city and peasant militias.
In order to create a uniform system of administration and court throughout the state, in 1497 the Sudebnik was published - the first set of laws in force, something between the criminal code and the constitution. The general trend towards the centralization of the country and the state apparatus led to the publication of a new Sudebnik of 1550. In the Sudebnik of 1550, for the first time in Russia, the law was proclaimed the only source of law. He abolished the judicial privileges of the specific princes and strengthened the role of the state judiciary. In Sudebnik, for the first time, punishment for bribery was introduced. The population of the country was obliged to bear the tax - a complex of natural and monetary duties. The Moscow ruble became the main payment unit in the state. The procedure for filing complaints against the governors was established, which ensured control over them by the local nobility. The right to collect trade duties passed into the hands of the state. A fundamental reform of management was carried out.
In 1555-1556. the feeding system was abolished. All volosts and cities were given the right to move to a new order of self-government, according to which volosts and cities had to pay a special quitrent to the sovereign's treasury - "feed farming". The power of governors was completely replaced by the power of elected zemstvo bodies. The latter were headed by the labial and zemstvo elders, who dealt with the analysis of criminal cases, the distribution of taxes, were in charge of the city economy, the allocation of land, that is, the basic needs of the townspeople and county people. Chernososhnye peasants, townspeople, service people, with the word "zemshchina" chose "tsolovalnikov" - jurors who kissed the cross, giving an oath to an honest trial.
In addition to the system of local self-government, an influential institution of democracy in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries. were zemstvo cathedrals. Zemsky Sobors were convened at the initiative of the sovereign to discuss the most important problems of domestic and foreign policy. The first Zemsky Sobor was convened on February 27, 1549 as a meeting of "every rank of people in the Muscovite state" or "the great Zemstvo Duma" to discuss the question of how to build local self-government and where to get money to wage war against Lithuania. It included members of the Boyar Duma, church leaders, governors and children. boyars, representatives of the nobility, townspeople. There were no official documents defining the principles for selecting participants in the council. Most often, the upper strata of the state hierarchy were included there by position, while the lower strata were elected at local meetings according to certain quotas. legal rights Zemsky Sobors did not have. However, their authority consolidated the most important state decisions.
The era of Zemsky Sobors lasted over a century (1549-1653). During this time they were convened several dozen times. The most famous: in 1550 about the new Sudebnik; in 1566 during the Livonian War; in 1613 - the most populous (over 700 people) for election to Russian throne Mikhail Romanov; in 1648, the issue of creating a commission to draw up the Council Code was discussed, and, finally, in 1653 the last Zemsky Sobor decided to reunite Little Russia with the Moscow kingdom (Ukraine with Russia).
Zemsky Sobors were not only an instrument for strengthening the autocracy, but they contributed to the formation of the national-state consciousness of the Russian people.
In the second half of the XVII century. the activities of the Zemsky Sobors, as well as the Zemshchina, are gradually fading away. The final blow was dealt by Peter I: during the reign of the great reformer in the empire, the bureaucracy ousted the zemshchina.
An important element of Russian statehood, bringing it closer to Eastern civilization, is institution of serfdom.
The process of formation of serfdom was a long one. It is generated by feudal social order and was its main attribute. In an era of political fragmentation, there was no common law which determined the position of the peasants and their duties. Back in the 15th century. peasants were free to leave the land on which they lived and move to another landowner, having paid their debts to the former owner and a special fee for the use of the yard and land allotment - the elderly. But already at that time, the princes began to issue letters in favor of the landowners, limiting the peasant output, that is, the right of rural residents to "move from volost to volost, from village to village" for one period of the year - a week before St. George's Day (November 26 according to Art. . Art.) and a week after it.
Although there is no direct decree on the introduction of serfdom, the fact of its establishment in writing confirms the rule of St. George's Day in the Sudebnik of 1497. The condition for the transition was the payment of the elderly - compensation to the landowner for the loss of labor. Old-timers-peasants (who lived with the landowner for at least 4 years) and newcomers paid differently. The elderly amounted to a large, but not the same amount in the forest and steppe zones. Approximately, it was necessary to give at least 15 pounds of honey, a herd of domestic animals or 200 pounds of rye.
The Sudebnik of 1550 increased the size of the “elderly” and established an additional fee “for the wagon”, which was paid in case of the peasant’s refusal to fulfill the obligation to bring the landowner’s crop from the field. Sudebnik defined in detail the position of the serfs. The feudal lord was now responsible for the crimes of his peasants, which increased their personal dependence on the master.
Ivan the Terrible established the regime of "forbidden years", and the decree of Tsar Fyodor of 1597 introduced a 5-year investigation of fugitive peasants. B. Godunov either canceled or re-introduced the system of “reserved and lesson years”. V. Shuisky increased the "lesson years" to 10, and then 15 years, in addition, the sale of peasants without land was allowed.
The Council Code (1649) introduces an indefinite period for the search for and return of fugitive and forcibly exported peasants and punishment of their harborers. Thus ended the process of legal registration of serfdom in Russia.
Serfdom arose and developed simultaneously with feudalism and was inseparable from it. It was in serfdom that the opportunity was realized for the owners of the means of production to receive feudal rent from direct producers in its most diverse forms. Until the middle of the XVI century. quitrent in kind prevailed, more rarely in cash, and then corvee received priority.
In Russia, the peasants were divided into palace (royal), patrimonial, local, church and state. A feature of feudalism in Rus' was the development of "state feudalism", in which the state itself acted as the owner. In the XVI-XVII centuries. characteristic features The process of further evolution of feudalism was the intensified development of the state estate system, especially in the regions of the north and on the outskirts of the country.
In the center and south of Russia, there was a tendency to strengthen serf relations, which manifested itself in the further attachment of peasants to the land and the right of the feudal lord to alienate peasants without land, as well as the extreme limitation of the civil capacity of peasants. Tripartite peasant allotments in the first half of the 16th century. were 8 acres. The size of dues and corvee was constantly growing.
An indicator of the deep aggravation of social contradictions caused by the strengthening of serfdom was the mass popular uprisings in the 16th century: peasant uprising(1606-1607) under the leadership of I. Bolotnikov, urban uprisings, peasant war under the leadership of S. Razin (1670-1671) and others.
XVI-XVII centuries in the history of Russia were a turning point, when the development of feudalism was finally determined along the path of strengthening serfdom and autocracy.
QUESTIONS
1. What factors contributed to the fact that it was under Ivan III and Vasily III that the dependence of Rus' on the Horde was eliminated and the unification of Russian lands was completed?
Factors that contributed to the completion of the unification of Russian lands:
The final weakening of the Golden Horde;
The conflict between the Golden Horde and the Crimean Khanate, which supported Ivan III;
The weakening of Novgorod and Tver, which allowed Ivan III to capture them;
The weakening of Lithuania.
Strengthening the power of the Moscow prince.
2. Give the characteristic of system of authorities of the Russian centralized state.
At the head of the Russian state was the sovereign, who was the bearer of the supreme secular power: he issued legislative acts, headed the highest judicial body - the grand ducal court, commanded the troops during the most important campaigns. The royal throne was inherited from father to son.
The advisory body was the Boyar Duma. In the circle of Duma officials, the sovereign discussed economic, diplomatic, and military issues. The distribution of power in the Duma, and hence the places that its members occupied during meetings, depended on the nobility and antiquity of the family. This principle is called locality. Approximate monarch - the boyars and service people - made up the sovereign's court.
The Treasury was responsible for the collection and distribution of state funds. A special service - the Palace - was in charge of the sovereign's land holdings. As the administrative apparatus expanded to manage specific state affairs, orders began to appear in which clerks and clerks served.
Since 1549 (under Ivan IV), Zemsky Sobors began to be convened, which testified to the formation of a class-representative monarchy of a special type.
The whole state was divided into counties, which, in turn, consisted of smaller camps and volosts.
3. What changes in the social structure of society led to state policy aimed at strengthening the army?
The state policy aimed at strengthening the army led to the formation of new social groups:
1) landowners are nobles who received land with peasants for their service. At the first call of the sovereign, they were obliged to appear in the army, having a horse, all the necessary weapons and armor, along with their armed servants. The landowners, in contrast to the Western European feudal lords, were not absolute masters of their possessions. Without the consent of the sovereign, the estates were forbidden to be sold, transferred to heirs.
2) archers - these were infantrymen (less often - cavalrymen), armed with firearms. The Streltsy army was formed from townspeople. They were exempted from paying taxes, received a small monetary salary, and, in addition to their service, could engage in crafts and petty trade.
4. How do you understand the political significance of the idea "Moscow is the third Rome"?
The announcement of Moscow as the third Rome contributed to the rise of the Moscow principality during the period of Ivan III. Moscow was declared the center of political and church life. It also gave a reason to call herself the protector of all Orthodox, which contributed to the annexation of a number of new lands.
5. Which of the symbols of the Russian state have survived to this day? What significance do they have for us today?
Such symbols of the Russian state as the image of George the Victorious sitting on a horse and a double-headed eagle have survived to this day.
The current double-headed eagle is crowned with three golden crowns - symbols of the state sovereignty of our country, in its paws - a scepter (a sign of the triumph of the law) and an orb (a symbol of the unity of the people).
On the chest of the eagle is a shield, in the scarlet field of which, riding to the right for the viewer, standing facing the shield, a silver horseman in an azure cloak, striking with a spear a black overturned and trampled by a horse dragon.
TASKS
1. Using map No. 8 (p. VII), determine which lands were part of the Moscow principality by 1462. What time is considered the period when the unification of Russian lands was completed? Name the territories that became part of the Muscovite state during this period.
By 1462, the Belozersky, Kostroma, Galician, Uglitsky, Dmitrov lands, as well as the territories of the great Vladimir principality, became part of the Moscow principality.
The collection of lands was completed in 1510 with the annexation of Pskov and in 1521 - the Ryazan principality. During this time, Novgorod (1478), Tver (1485), territories in the upper reaches of the Oka and Desna - Seversky lands, and also Smolensk were annexed.
2. Describe the relationship between church and state that developed in the process of formation of the Russian centralized state. What could be the prospect of resolving the issue of church land ownership?
The church played important role in the unification of the Russian state. Its hierarchs advocated the unity of the lands, sought to reconcile the princes. It was among church leaders after the fall of Byzantium that the idea was born that the Muscovite state was destined to become the successor to the great Christian empires.
The prospect of resolving the issue of church land ownership would be the secularization of land in favor of the state with monetary compensation. Then the clergy would receive funds for the distribution of their lands, and the state of the land to strengthen their power.
3. Give a description of the common features and differences in the class structure of Russian and Western European medieval society.
Russian society, like Western European society, was divided into three main classes: the nobility (chivalry), the clergy, and the peasantry. You can also highlight the fourth estate, which was just undergoing consolidation - the townspeople.
Nobles both in Western Europe and in Russia had exclusive rights to own land, they did not pay taxes, they levied taxes from the third estate (peasants), as a rule they served in the army and participated in government. Unlike Western Europe, landownership was widespread in Russia, and not hereditary (except for specific princes), and the nobles in Russia owned serfs, but in Western Europe they did not.
The clergy in Western Europe and in Russia was considered a privileged class. As in Europe, as central political power grew stronger, it lost its influence. In contrast to Europe, the economic position of the clergy in Russia was significantly strengthened, which was reflected in the growth of church land ownership.
The peasants were an unprivileged class, they paid taxes, did not have the right to own land, but only to use it. The difference in the position of the peasants in Western Europe from Russia was that they were personally free, while in Russia there was a process of complete enslavement of the peasants.
Also in Russia, in the social structure of society, there was such a feature as the presence of the Cossack estate.
