Russia in the 16th century developed towards an estate-representative monarchy. Estates-representative monarchy- this is a type of power when the monarch rules the country, relying primarily on class-representative institutions that exist in the vertical of central power. These representative institutions express the interests of all free classes of society.

A number of domestic historians believe that an estate-representative monarchy in Russia began to take shape already in the 15th century. during the period of completion of the political process of unification of Rus'. Then, under the sovereign of all Rus' Ivan III, the Boyar Duma acted as a permanent advisory body in the system of supreme power.

The Boyar Duma represented and expressed the interests of large landowners, many of whom had recently been great or appanage princes, but gradually during the formation single state turned into subjects of the great Moscow princes and sovereigns. The Boyar Duma under Ivan III and Vasily III performed two functions. Firstly, it provided support for the power of a single monarch - the sovereign of all Rus'. Secondly, it contributed to overcoming still remaining elements and trends feudal fragmentation and separatism.

In Russia in the middle of the 16th century. Along with the Boyar Duma, a new political structure began to operate in the system of public administration - Zemsky Sobors, or “councils of the whole earth,” as their contemporaries called them.

The appearance of Zemsky Sobors in the system of political power was not an accidental or temporary phenomenon. It became the call of the times along with the reforms of the mid-16th century, which were energetically carried out by the Middle Duma, or Elected Rada with the direct participation of Ivan IV.

Political development Russia in the 16th century it was going contradictory. The unification of Russian lands within a single state did not lead to the disappearance of numerous remnants of feudal fragmentation. After the death of Vasily III, a fierce struggle between boyar groups for power began under the young heir. The political actions of the warring factions (the Shuiskys, Belskys, Glinskys, etc.) differed little from each other, but greatly weakened and disorganized the system of government of the country, which was expressed in the growth of the arbitrariness of the local rulers and the dissatisfaction of the tax and service population with the boyar rule as a whole.

The beginning of the reign of young Ivan IV was marked by an aggravation of social contradictions. The muted dissatisfaction of the masses with the endless princely-boyar intrigues, infighting, local lawlessness, bribery and other abuses of officials resulted in a period popular uprisings, the most significant of which was the Moscow uprising of 1547.

During the unification of the country, the power of the Moscow sovereigns increased enormously, but did not become unlimited: the monarch could not do without the participation of the boyar aristocracy in government. Through the Boyar Duma, the nobility ruled in the center, it commanded the troops, controlled all local government (the boyars received the largest cities and counties of the country to “feed”).

Thus, in order to strengthen Russian statehood, it was necessary to speed up political centralization and rebuild the management system on a new basis with strengthening the power of the monarch. Many people in Rus' understood this. It is characteristic that among the members of the Chosen Rada was Metropolitan Macarius, a native of the lower classes (small Kostroma patrimonial landowner, rich, but not well-born) Alexey Adashev, nobleman Ivan Peresvetov - people of broad education and passionate advocates of the ideology of autocracy. For the first time in the history of Russian social thought, I.S. Peresvetov formulated the idea of the impossibility of transforming the system of government and military service in Russia without limiting the political dominance of the boyar aristocracy and involving the nobility in state affairs. The 18-year-old king passionately supported these ideas. At the Council of the Stoglavy (1551) he proposed an extensive program of reforms.

A period of transformations began, which received historical science the name “reforms of the 50s of the 16th century.” Historians will highlight 6 reforms: public administration, local government, military, judicial, tax and church.

became central public administration reform, as a result of which the following vertical of supreme power took shape in the country.

Tsar , in whose activities the elements of autocracy became more and more clearly intensified, i.e. such a power that is ready to cooperate with representatives of all free classes, but does not consider it possible to put up with the class privileges of the boyars and princes, including the immunity of the last appanage princes.

Boyar Duma, the status and composition of which have changed significantly. During 1547-1549 the number of Duma officials increased to 32 people, of which 18 became members of the Duma for the first time. Since the composition of the Duma was approved and determined by the tsar, there is no doubt that Ivan IV replenished it with his like-minded people. Almost all the leaders of the Chosen Rada became its members.

The social composition of the Duma has changed. If previously the Duma boyars and okolnichy sat in it with the tsar, i.e. There were two Duma ranks and only boyars received them, but now two new ranks appeared - Duma nobles and Duma clerks, which strengthened the state element of the Boyar Duma.

The Duma from an advisory body turned into an advisory-legislative body, in charge of a wide range of judicial and administrative matters. The legislative law of the Duma, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, was first confirmed by the Code of Laws (1550), where Article 98 read: “And there will be new cases that are not written in this Code of Laws, and how those cases are carried out with the sovereign’s report and with all the boyars, and those cases in this Attribute to the Code of Law.” This did not mean that the sovereign could not decide matters or issue laws without the Duma. But, as a rule, meetings of the Duma took place in the presence of the tsar (“the tsar sitting with the boyars about business”) or by decree and authority of the tsar in his absence.

Zemsky Sobors became a new central government body with an advisory and legislative character. The most important issues of domestic and foreign policy were brought up for their consideration, on which the tsar considered it necessary to consult with the zemshchina, find agreement with it, and therefore counted on the support of the entire people.

The Councils were attended by: the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Council (representatives of the highest clergy headed by the Metropolitan), elected representatives from service people (primarily the nobility), from the townsman “tax” population (merchants, artisans) and even from the black-growing peasantry.

With the beginning of the convening of Zemsky Sobors in Russia, an estate-representative monarchy emerged, the social base of which was the service class (nobility) and the population of cities, i.e. those social strata of society that were most interested in a strong centralized state.

At the first Council (1549), Ivan IV wanted to reconcile the representatives of the population with the regional rulers - the “feeders”. The cathedral received the name “Cathedral of Reconciliation”. Feeders openly abused power during the period of boyar rule, causing anger and discontent among service and tax-paying people. Ivan IV addressed the Council with the following words: “People of God and given to us, I pray for your faith in God and love for us: now it is impossible for us to correct your insults and ruins, I pray you, leave each other your enmities and burdens.”

We were talking about a lot of claims from the population against feeding providers. The petition hut, headed by A. Adashev, could not cope with their consideration. The tsar asked for a kind of amnesty for these claims, but was not going to forgive the insults inflicted by the governors on the local population. The Council “honestly and sternly” (according to the wording of those times) accepted the tsar’s appeal and the proposal to draw up a new Code of Law with the aim of establishing a firm order of administration and legal proceedings, limiting the power of feeders. Thus began the attack of the supreme power and zemshchina on the privileges of regional rulers - the noble princely-boyar nobility.

Zemsky Sobors operated in the country for about 100 years and had a number of features that distinguished them from representative institutions in Western Europe. It should be borne in mind that in the West there was no single principle in class representation. Researchers highlight specific features of the Russian estate-representative monarchy of the 16th-17th centuries:

Zemstvo councils were convened at the will of the tsar, and therefore were not a regularly functioning body;
they had no legal status and did not have the right of legislative initiative; their right is to discuss and make decisions on those issues that are put before the Council by the Tsar;
Deputies-representatives were not elected to the Councils. Mostly people from local self-government were invited as representatives from the estates: heads and elected local noble and townspeople societies, zemstvo judges, provincial and townsman elders, favorite heads, kissers; from peasant communities - village elders.

IN. Klyuchevsky noted that the composition of the Councils was changeable, lacking a solid, stable organization, and therefore the Zemsky Councils did not limit the power of the tsar, being “a handout, not a concession,” “not a recognition of the people’s will as a political force, but only a merciful and temporary expansion of power to subjects who did not detract from its completeness.” For Klyuchevsky, the “inconsistency” of Zemsky Sobors in Russia in comparison with the bodies of Western European representation was obvious: “It is known what an active source of popular representation in the West was the government need for money: it forced us to convene government officials and ask them for help. But the ranks helped the treasury is not in vain, they extorted concessions" (emphasis added - Author). This was the difference between the Russian and Western European representation. The people's representatives there pulled on themselves, in Russia - on the state, and therefore at the Councils issues concerning everyone and the whole earth were resolved, and no one extorted concessions. IN. Klyuchevsky wrote: “It was as if some higher interest reigned over the entire society, over the scores and squabbles of warring social forces. This interest is the defense of the state from external enemies... Internal, domestic rivals were reconciled in view of external enemies, political and social disagreements fell silent when faced with national and religious dangers...”

Order system in the Moscow state it finally took shape by the mid-50s of the 16th century. Orders were the first functional governing bodies. They were formed gradually as needed, to solve certain administrative and managerial problems.

The most important orders of national importance were the following:

Ambassadorial order, responsible for external relations;
Local order, was in charge of local lands, distributed them to service people, controlled local land tenure;
Rank order, was in charge of military affairs and the appointment of command (voivodship) personnel;
Serf order, dealt with the registration of serfs;
The Robbery Order was in charge of the most important criminal cases throughout the state;
Orders of the Great Treasury and the Great Parish, dealt with finances and government affairs, etc.

In addition to the national ones, territorial orders were created: Kazan, Tver, Little Russian (XVII century).

The bosses, or “judges” of the most important orders, were the boyars and “people of the Duma”; clerks (secretaries) and clerks (scribes) worked with them in orders. Secondary orders were controlled by nobles with clerks or clerks alone.

Thus, in the middle of the 16th century. The system of public administration at its highest, central level was significantly strengthened, a bureaucratic layer of managers became visible in it for the first time, and the role of the nobility in solving public affairs increased.

The reformers understood perfectly well that strengthening centralization was impossible without a corresponding change in the system of local government, without breaking the institution of governorship, which was fraught with separatism, ready at any moment to turn into open opposition to the sovereign power. A number of decisive measures were taken, which are generally considered to be local government reform.

It is known that since the time of Ivan III, local government in the Moscow state was in the hands of governors and volostels. Governors were placed at the head of districts, volostels governed volosts. At the disposal of the governors and volostels there was a considerable staff of servants and henchmen - tiuns, closers, praevets, and weekmen. Not being an official apparatus, they were appointed and controlled, and therefore were responsible only to their masters - governors and volosts. Both of them were interested in their position insofar as it “fed” them. “Manager,” writes V.O. Klyuchevsky, - fed at the expense of the governed in the literal sense of the word. Its contents consisted of feed and duties. Feed was contributed by entire societies within certain periods, and individuals used taxes to pay for the government acts they needed.”

Governors were appointed according to the principle of birth. They became eminent boyars, former appanage princes who became serving boyars. Many of them received control of lands in which their grandfathers and fathers had recently been complete rulers. Not only the governors and volosts with their families, but also their numerous relatives, a staff of servants, and personal guards fed at the expense of the zemstvo society. The maintenance of the viceroyal apparatus placed a heavy burden on local society.

The management of feeders was associated with endless abuses and litigation between zemstvo people and managers, which the central government was forced to deal with. A special petition hut was created, but, as mentioned above, it could not cope with the flow of complaints about the feeders.

The reorganization of local government pursued two goals: to weaken the role of the boyar aristocracy locally and to more firmly connect districts, volosts and camps with central government, subordinating them directly to Moscow.

First, these tasks found their implementation and legal codification in the new Code of Laws (1550). The limitation of the power of governors was expressed in the introduction of mandatory participation in the local court of elected representatives of local government - headmen and their assistants - kissers. The Code of Law’s article reads: “Don’t judge the court without the headman and without the kissers.”

According to the Code of Law of 1497, defenders of local interests were required to monitor the correctness of the proceedings in the local court. If they disagreed with the court's decision, they could complain (file petitions) to a higher authority - the Petition Izba in Moscow. Now they have the right to take part in the court's decision.

The results were immediate. IN. Klyuchevsky pointed out that in 1551 “the boyars, clerks and feeders made peace with all the lands in all sorts of matters”, that “the zemstvo elected judges conducted the cases entrusted to them not only without obligation (i.e. without bribes) and without red tape, but also without compensation "

In 1555, the labial reform, begun by Elena Glinskaya, was completed. Lips(districts) - larger administrative-territorial units, including several counties, were created in places where local land ownership of service people was concentrated. As a result, labial institutions spread throughout the country. Court cases concerning criminal offenses passed from governors and volosts into the hands of labial elders, chosen from the local nobility. The lip elders were directly subordinate to the Robbery Order.

In 1555-1556. Was held zemstvo reform, as a result of which the feeding system was finally eliminated. The meaning of this reform, which became widespread mainly in the black-plowed north and in parts of the central volosts, where the free “sovereign” peasantry remained, was reduced to replacing governors and volostels with bodies of zemstvo administration - zemstvo judges And zemstvo elders, favorite heads And kissers, chosen from among the townspeople and the wealthy circles of the black-growing peasantry.

The zemstvo authorities carried out trials and executions on matters of minor importance, distributed taxes (taxes) to local societies and collected them. The feeders found themselves out of work, and most importantly, they were deprived of that part of the local taxes that constituted their “fed farm-out”. These taxes now went to the royal treasury, and later to special financial orders and went primarily to support the noble army.

Judicial reform was started by updating the legislative code of 1497. Its goal, like all reforms of the 16th century, was to strengthen the central government.

The new legislative code strengthened the system of punishments, up to the death penalty, for attempts on feudal property and for speaking out against the authorities, which were qualified as “robbery of dashing people.”

The Code of Law abolished some tax benefits for monasteries, which contributed to the replenishment of the royal treasury.

Legal enslavement of the peasantry did not go any further. However, having confirmed St. George’s Day, the Code of Law increased the “payment for the elderly” and established a payment “for the cart” for the taken away peasants. The peasant's departure from the feudal lord new system payments and settlements became impossible. Every peasant who lived with the feudal lord for at least five years was declared an “old-timer” by the Code of Law, who lost the right to leave.

In order to strengthen the central control system, an important concern of the government of Ivan IV was the reorganization of the armed forces. A number of significant transformations were carried out, allowing them to be considered as military reform.

In 1550, the “Judgment on Voivodes” came into force, which limited localism in the army. From now on, strict unity of command and subordination of the governors to each other were established according to the instructions of the sovereign - “whoever is sent with whom obeys him.” New order contributed to the elimination of the traditions of feudal fragmentation in the army. A system of official subordination was introduced, discipline and combat effectiveness of the regiments increased. However, completely eliminate localism(the right to occupy a position based on nobility and length of service with the Moscow Grand Dukes, as well as seniority in the family) the tsar did not dare.

The government of Ivan IV provided some legal basis for the parochial accounts. In 1555, the “Sovereign Genealogy” was compiled, which contained information about the origin of the most noble princely and boyar families that had the rights to localism. In 1556, a new extensive document appeared - “The Sovereign's Rank”, which included records of the service of princes, boyars and nobles (a kind of service record), starting from the 70s of the 15th century. These two documents allowed the Tsar and the Boyar Duma to control and, if necessary, suppress disputes among the feudal nobility.

In 1556, simultaneously with the abolition of feedings, the “Code of Service” (the first military regulations) was issued, which precisely defined the norms for military service of all landowners. According to the Code, each feudal lord - patrimonial owner and landowner - had to bear military service by country(by origin) (see Service people) and, if necessary, field mounted warriors in full armor at the rate of one warrior for every 150 acres of land.

The shortage of soldiers or weapons was punishable by a fine. Children of boyars and nobles served from the age of 15. From this age, a nobleman went from being an undergrowth to novikom The service continued until death or injury and was inherited. The equalization in relation to the service of patrimonial owners and landowners, who equally entered the service according to the formula “horse, man and weapon,” deprived the boyars of privileges, which, in fact, turned into service people, obliged to the tsar for military service for owning the land.

However, the Moscow boyar-noble army, even in its updated form, continued to remain an armed militia that did not know any systematic training and which, having returned from a military campaign, went home.

At the same time as reforming the traditional form of the country's armed forces, the government of the Elected Rada took steps to create more regular units that would be constantly at the disposal of the supreme power. In 1550, it was decided to “place” a “selected thousand” service people in the Moscow district. A list was compiled - the “Thousandth Book”, which included 1078 people. But it was not possible to carry out the dislocation (to give estates within a radius of 60-70 versts from Moscow): the required amount of free land was not found near Moscow.

In parallel with the streamlining of service “according to the fatherland,” a new form of military service was implemented - by instrument(see Service people), i.e. according to a special set for cash and land salaries. This is how the Cossacks, city guards, gunners and archers served. Streltsy army was organized in 1550 on the basis of the squeaker detachments created under Vasily III. At first, 3 thousand people were recruited into the Streltsy army; it was consolidated into separate “orders” of 500 people. By the end of the 16th century. There were 25 thousand archers. They were in charge of the Streletsky Order.

The Streletsky army was permanent: it did not disband between campaigns, like the noble militia. However, the Streltsy army was not regular. Streltsy lived with their families in Streltsy settlements in Moscow, in the Moscow district, in major cities countries. In their free time from guard duty, the archers were engaged in crafts and trade. Already in the middle of the 16th century. Streltsy were a powerful fighting force in Russia.

By the end of the 16th century. the total number of Russian troops reached 100 thousand people, not counting 2.5 thousand hired foreigners (foreigner servicemen).

Maintaining and arming a large army required enormous funds, which in turn caused a number of changes in the tax system. Tax reform included a number of measures. The lands were newly described and a single all-Russian unit (measure) of taxation was established - big plow(see Soha). Its size depended on the quality of the land and the social (class) affiliation of its owner. In rural areas, the land tax - “per plow” - was paid by black-plowed peasants and the clergy. In the city, a “plow” included a certain number of households. According to the calculation of “soh”, duties were collected and warriors were deployed.

New taxes were introduced: “pishchalny” - for the maintenance of the Streltsy army, “polonyanechny” - for the ransom of prisoners.

The general process of centralization of power could not but affect the Orthodox Church, since it played important role in all spheres of life of society and the state. The church itself in a single state also needed stricter centralization. But for the authorities, the solution to the issue of church and monastic land ownership acquired particular importance. The solution to both looming problems of church and state was the essence church reform.

The issue of church-monastic land ownership became the subject of special consideration at a meeting of the Church Council in 1551, convened on the initiative of Ivan IV. Its decisions were compiled into 100 chapters (the collection “Stoglav”), so it received the name of the Stoglavy Council.

The government of Ivan IV intended to carry out, with the consent of the Council, the liquidation of church and monastic land ownership. These lands were needed to provide estates to service people for military service, primarily nobles - the support of the centralized state. However, the majority of the Council participants, led by Metropolitan Macarius, achieved a compromise decision:

the right of the clergy to own real estate was recognized as inviolable;
monastic land ownership decreased somewhat, since all princely-boyar grants to monasteries made after the death of Vasily III (1533) were annulled;
monasteries were forbidden to buy land without the consent of the king and engage in usury, both in kind and in cash; the descendants of appanage princes were forbidden to transfer lands to monasteries “for the sake of their souls”;
spiritual feudal lords could no longer establish new “white” settlements and courtyards in cities and had to participate in the collection of “polonian money.”

The decisions of the Council reflected the changes associated with the centralization of the state. Church rituals were unified, an all-Russian list of saints was compiled, and a number of measures were taken to strengthen the morality of the clergy.

Thus, as a result of reforms in the country, the restructuring of the central authorities was completed, a unified order system emerged that met the needs of the political centralization of the Russian state, the functions of the service order bureaucracy expanded, broad local self-government emerged, and prospects for a military and official career opened up for the middle nobility.

However, according to a number of historians, these reforms were generally of a compromise nature. On the one hand, they strengthened the state by achieving the consent of all classes, which caused an increase in the still hidden opposition on the part of the landed aristocracy, on the other hand, they strengthened the autocratic power of the tsar. “Torn apart by contradictions between the heterogeneous social elements from which it was composed, the government of compromise was not durable and fell as soon as Ivan the Terrible was faced with the question of a decisive struggle against the boyars,” notes historian A.A. Zimin. “Only during the harsh years of the oprichnina did the nobility manage to deal a decisive blow to the political prerogatives of the boyars and begin the final enslavement of the peasants.”

The historiography of the oprichnina is replete with controversial and contradictory judgments. There is also the Karamzin idea, in which the oprichnina is viewed only as a meaningless creation of a mentally ill tyrant king. This point of view was generally shared by V.O. Klyuchevsky.

Historian S.M. Soloviev approached this problem differently. Following his concept of the historical development of Russia as a process of gradual replacement of “tribal” principles with new “state” principles, he believed that the reign of Ivan the Terrible was the time of the final victory of state principles, while the oprichnina was the last decisive blow to clan relations, the bearer of which was the boyars. And therefore, despite all the cruelties, the king’s activities were a step forward.

In Soviet historiography, the main attention was paid only to the socio-economic essence of the oprichnina policy.

Modern historians also interpret the oprichnina differently. Some of them consider it not an accidental and short-term episode, but a necessary stage in the formation of autocracy, the beginning of the formation of its apparatus of power. Other historians see in the oprichnina policy the tsar’s desire to force centralization and strengthen the regime of his power, but in the absence of appropriate historical prerequisites, this task could only be accomplished through violence and terror.

At the same time, the background against which the tragedy of the oprichnina unfolded is lost sight of, namely: the presence in the country of class-representative institutions and broad local self-government. It was already noted above that class-representative institutions did not limit the power of the tsar; they remained his support. Separating the zemshchina from the oprichnina, the tsar had to be sure that she would not betray him, would not openly or covertly side with the boyars. And so it happened. The zemshchina endured, bore a heavy tax burden, defended itself from enemies and invasions, fulfilled its duty in the Livonian War, grumbled, adapted, but did not betray the tsar and thereby confirmed the historical expediency of the actions of Ivan the Terrible aimed at centralizing state power.

One can hardly agree with the interpretation of the Zemsky Councils of 1566 and 1580. as a continuation of the formal tradition of the beginning of the reign of Ivan IV, and to see in them only a demonstration of humility, an expression of almost servility on the part of the zemshchina. Firstly, Zemsky Sobors had not yet become a tradition; they were just beginning to develop their political course. Secondly, the tsar-autocrat could, in the conditions of the unfolding anti-boyar terror, not take into account the opinion of the Council. And yet he collected them. The Zemsky Sobor of 1566 decided to continue the Livonian War not only because the tsar supposedly wanted this, but also because the serving nobility did not want to lose the lands acquired during the war, and the trade and merchant leaders of the cities hoped to go with their goods through the Baltic to European markets.

Moreover, the Council of 1566, represented by several of its participants, dared to submit a petition to the Tsar, where he spoke out against the oprichnina system.

The historian R.G. most succinctly defined the meaning of the oprichnina. Skrynnikov, who views it as the result of a clash between the powerful feudal aristocracy and the rising autocratic monarchy, which relied on the nobility and the top of the trade and craft settlement, and it was on the shoulders of these classes that all local government then rested.

The historical path of tsarism to autocracy began with the oprichnina, i.e. unlimited power of the monarch. This path was started by Ivan the Terrible and completed by Peter I, who highly valued his predecessor.

The second half of the reign of Ivan IV is a bloody period in the history of the autocratic monarchy, but terror does not express the whole essence of the state-political and social structure that developed in the country in the 50s of the 16th century.

The political possibilities of an estate-representative monarchy can be judged by the totality of the issues that were resolved by Zemstvo Councils in the 16th-17th centuries, by the role of zemstvo representative institutions and the system of zemstvo self-government in overcoming the crisis of the Time of Troubles and its consequences.

At Zemsky Sobors, issues of war and peace were considered and resolved. Councils of 1566, 1580 decided on the continuation or end of the Livonian War; Cathedral 1632-1634 approved the intention of the supreme power to return the Smolensk lands, and he also put an end to the war for Smolensk with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; The Council of 1642 spoke in favor of lifting the siege of the Turkish fortress of Azov by the Don Cossacks, who held it for five years, since Russia did not have the strength for a war with Turkey; The Council of 1653 adopted a resolution on the reunification of Ukraine with Russia and declared war on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

New legislation was adopted at Zemsky Sobors. The Council of 1549 decided to compile the Code of Laws, and the Council of 1649 compiled an extensive, updated code - the Council Code, according to which the country lived until 1832.

At the Zemsky Councils of 1616, 1619, 1621, 1628, the financial problems of the state were resolved. At these Councils, the zemshchina agreed to new taxes and duties, to emergency collections, thereby helping to overcome the consequences of the Time of Troubles.

And, finally, the authority of the Zemsky Sobors was especially clearly manifested when it was at them that decisions were made to elect new monarchs to the throne, after the death of Fyodor Ivanovich (1584-1598) ended the Rurik dynasty on the Russian throne. The Zemsky Sobor of 1598 voted for the “installation of Boris Godunov as tsar”; The Council of 1613 approved a new dynasty - the Romanovs.

The decision of the Councils was unconditional; no one could challenge it. Otherwise, the boyars would not have started an impostor intrigue in order to remove Boris Godunov, whom they did not like, from the throne in the name of the supposedly “legitimate” heir.

Political power zemstvo self-government was obvious in the most critical moments in the history of the Russian state. It should be borne in mind that overcoming the Troubles became possible when the zemshchina realized the main impending danger of the first civil war in Russia - the loss of statehood as such. Its military self-organization is the First People's Militia, which began the national liberation struggle against the Poles and Swedes, without stopping the struggle against the boyar government in Moscow. This just cause was completed by the Second People's Militia, led by the townsman Kuzma Minin.

From the second half XVI I century The Russian political system evolved towards absolutism. Absolutism- an unlimited monarchy in which all political power belongs to one person.

The establishment of absolutism was accompanied by the gradual withering away of medieval representative institutions, which during the period of the estate-representative monarchy acted along with royal power, as well as the weakening of the role of the church in government.

Boyar Duma during the 17th century. turned from a legislative-advisory body into an advisory body under the tsar. The boyars, frightened by the scale of the class struggle, no longer opposed themselves to the autocracy, did not try to put pressure on the monarch or challenge his decisions. Under Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), more than half of the Duma consisted of nobles. The king preferred to choose smart and gifted people, to promote them according to their abilities, and not just according to the nobility of their family. So, his favorite boyar, head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin came from a poor family of Pskov servicemen. At meetings of the Boyar Duma, the tsar himself was often present, led the meetings, and wrote down in advance on a piece of paper issues that needed to be consulted with the Duma. After listening to advice, he made decisions on his own if he did not find agreement. But most often the Duma agreed with the tsar.

For a long time, the government relied on the support of such class-representative institutions as the Zemsky Sobors, resorting to the help of elected people from the nobility and the top of the town's society, mainly in difficult years of struggle with external enemies and in internal difficulties associated with raising money for emergency needs. Zemsky Sobors operated almost continuously during the first 10 years of the reign of Mikhail Romanov, acquiring for some time the significance of a permanent representative institution under the government. The council that elected Michael to the throne (1613) sat for almost three years. The following Councils were convened in 1616, 1619 and 1621.

After 1623 there was a long break in the activities of the Councils. The new Council was convened in connection with the need to establish emergency monetary levies from the population, as preparations were being made for the war with Poland. This Council did not disperse for three years (1632-1634). During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, Zemsky Sobors met several more times.

The last Zemsky Sobor met in 1653 to resolve the issue of reunifying Ukraine with Russia. After this, the government convened only meetings of individual class groups (service people, merchants, guests, etc.). However, the approval of “the whole earth” was considered necessary for the election of sovereigns. Therefore, the meeting of Moscow officials in 1682 twice replaced the Zemsky Sobor - first with the election of Peter to the throne, and then with the election of two kings - Peter and Ivan, who were to rule jointly.

Zemsky Sobors as bodies of class representation were abolished by the growing absolutism, just as it happened in the countries of Western Europe.

But the refusal of the autocratic government to support class representation when resolving fundamental issues of domestic policy was not painless for the authorities. To the decision of the government of Alexei Mikhailovich to introduce a tax on salt, collect arrears for previous years, reduce the salaries of service people “according to the instrument”, etc. without the “council of all the earth,” the people responded with massive uprisings (Salt Riot, Bread Riot, Copper Riot). This was a natural reaction of the zemshchina, accustomed to the fact that monarchs took their opinion into account. To break this zemstvo habit it was necessary to use armed forces and massacres.

The church reform and the subsequent split in Orthodox society, the establishment of the Monastic Order, which took control of the activities of the church, made the church itself completely dependent on the state, nullifying its participation in resolving state issues.

But the role of orders steadily increased, which indicated the complexity of public administration. In the 17th century their total number reached 80. The functions of the orders became extremely confusing, even intertwined with each other, which gave rise to red tape in business and contributed to bribery of clerks and clerks.

The role and size of the bureaucratic layer in management structures also steadily increased. If in 1640 there were 837 clerks, then by the end of the century there were almost 3 thousand people.

The local government system was changing. The role of elected (zemstvo) elders was increasingly narrowed, but the role of governors appointed by Moscow increased. The country was divided into counties, which in turn were divided into volosts and camps. At the head of each territorial unit there were governors who, being “on the sovereign’s salary,” collected taxes from the population, robbing them in the process.

“The time that immediately followed the Troubles,” writes historian S.G. Pushkarev, - demanded strong government power at the local level, and so, the “voivodes”, who had previously been mainly in the border regions “to guard” from enemies, in the 17th century. appear in all cities of the Moscow State, throughout its vast expanse, from Novgorod and Pskov to Yakutsk and Nerchinsk! Voivodes concentrate all military and civil power in their hands. Voivodes act according to the “mandates” (instructions) of Moscow orders, to which they obey. Only provincial institutions with provincial elders at their heads are preserved as a special, formally independent department. Zemstvo institutions in posads and volosts are also preserved, but during the 17th century they were They are increasingly losing their independence, increasingly turning into subordinate, auxiliary and executive bodies of the voivodeship administration. In the period from the 50s of the 16th century. until the 50s of the 17th century. The Moscow state can be called an autocratic zemstvo state. From the half of the 17th century. it becomes autocratic-bureaucratic. In the northern regions and in the 17th century. The peasant “world” is preserved - the volost assembly with its elected bodies, but the scope of their competence is increasingly narrowed. The volost court is subject to the supervision of the voivode and now decides only minor cases. The government begins to interfere in the economic life of peasants, limiting (or trying to limit) their right to freely dispose of land. The townspeople and peasant worlds bear collective responsibility for the proper collection of state taxes, and the main responsibility of the elected peasant authorities becomes the timely and “tax-free” collection of these taxes, and the main concern of the governors becomes coercion and punishment of those who, through their “oversight and negligence,” allow shortfalls and late payments."

Thus, the second half of the 17th century. is a time of decline of the zemstvo principle and growing bureaucratization in the central and local government of the Moscow state.

It was an objective process. It is due to a number of new phenomena. The feudal class consolidated. Gradually but steadily the differences between patrimonial and local forms of land ownership were erased. The boyars and nobility merged into a single class-estate, as evidenced by the Council Code of 1649, which allowed the exchange of an estate for a votchina, an estate for an estate. This meant that the estate ceased to be a personal and conditional possession and, like the estate, acquired hereditary status.

The legal immaturity of the classes, especially the tax people (the bulk of the population), characteristic of traditional society, contributed to the concentration of power and its self-organization. This process was also fueled by the fact that in the country, albeit slowly, more rational social relations were maturing, inevitable in the context of the growth of commodity-money exchange and the formation of new bourgeois relations in the depths of mature feudalism. It should be remembered that two more factors acted in favor of the self-organization of the authorities: the territorial vastness of the country and the constant tension on its borders, which forced the authorities not only to preserve the autocratic tradition, but to lead it to absolutization.

In the 17th century The principles of army organization, its personnel and functions changed. Its main responsibility was not only to protect the territory of the feudal state from external attack, but also to maintain internal order and obedience of the masses to the king. Although the combat effectiveness of the Streltsy army was relatively low, under Alexei Mikhailovich the number of Streltsy reached 40 thousand. But this force was not the main one. At the same time, another type of army is being created. Already under Mikhail Fedorovich, the first regiments of the new, or “foreign system” appeared - soldiers (infantry), reiters (cavalry) and dragoons (mixed formation). These regiments were staffed by the children of the boyars (reitars) and various kinds of free “willing” people (soldiers and dragoons). The training of new formations was carried out by hired foreign officers. The treasury provided these regiments with weapons, equipment and paid salaries. In the 17th century regiments of the new system were created temporarily, for the period of the war, and were disbanded at the end of hostilities. Only foreign mercenary officers remained in the service and pay of the Moscow government; they lived in the German settlement near Moscow. But by the end of the century, soldier regiments began to be staffed from among the “dating people”, i.e. peasants and townspeople. Every 20-25 households gave one man to serve as a soldier for life. This system formed the basis for the formation of the army under Peter I (recruitment).

By 1680, the Russian army had 41 regiments of soldiers (61,288 people) and 26 regiments and spear regiments (30,472 people). The number of boyar militia decreased to 27,927 people, about 20 thousand archers remained. Thus, the nascent regular army became increasingly important in maintaining and strengthening the autocratic-monarchical system in Russia.

The Code of 1649 is another evidence of the movement towards absolutism, the strengthening of central power, and the increasing role of the nobility. The Zemsky Sobor, which adopted new Russian legislation, is notable for the fact that it was assembled on the initiative of the zemshchina. Elected people at the Council itself took part in the drafting of all parts of the Code, even those that did not concern their own interests. This caused discontent among the Moscow boyar and administrative bureaucracy. Due to her governmental position, she could not accept such rules of interaction between government and society, much less allow them as a norm of social cooperation.

Historian S.F. Platonov comes to the following conclusion on this issue: “Serving in the 17th century. the political body of the middle classes of Moscow society, the Councils were at first in close unity with the monarch, who at the time of his election was himself the favorite leader of the same middle classes. The friendly co-government of two kindred political authorities, the tsar and the Council, lasted until the supreme power was emancipated from class influences and until a courtly aristocratic bureaucracy formed around it. At the first signs of discord between the zemstvo representation and “ strong people", between the lower and upper houses of the Zemsky Sobor in 1648, the government environment ceases to use the help of the Council... The Zemsky Sobor is no longer trusted because they associate its activities with that “great turmoil in the world” that shook the state in 1648-1650. The authorities are no longer looking for further support in the Councils, but in their own executive bodies: the bureaucratization of management begins, the “command” principle, to which Peter the Great gave full expression in his institutions, triumphs.”

By the first quarter of the 18th century. refers to the final approval and formalization of absolutism in Russia. It is associated with the radical transformations of the entire political system of the state undertaken by Peter I.

As a result of the public administration reform, a new vertical of central institutions emerged: the emperor - the Senate as an executive and administrative body - collegium as public and state bodies in charge of the most important areas of public administration. The activities of the Senate and collegiums were regulated by strict legal norms and job descriptions. In this vertical of power, the principle of subordination of lower bodies to higher ones was clearly implemented, and it was focused on the emperor.

Provincial reform of 1708-1710. changed the system of local government. Local self-government was liquidated, and at the head of all territorial-administrative units were placed persons who carried out state service and received salaries for it - governors, provincial commissioners, district and volost governors. The principle of interaction between these local authorities is the same - subordination from bottom to top.

Church reform turned the church organization into part of the state apparatus. The Synod, as the highest body of the church organization, was already perceived by Peter I's contemporaries as the 13th collegium.

Administrative transformations completed the formation of an absolute monarchy in the political system of Russia. Acceptance of the title by Peter I emperor was not only an external expression, but also evidence of absolutism established in Russia: “... His Majesty is an autocratic monarch, who should not give an answer to anyone from above about his affairs, but he also has his own power and authority to the state and lands, like a Christian sovereign , to rule according to your own will and good will,” read the 20th article of the Military Regulations.

What reforms of the 50s of the 16th century. contributed to the strengthening of the Russian state and the formation of an estate-representative monarchy?
Name the specific features of the Russian estate-representative monarchy of the 16th-17th centuries.
What distinguished Zemsky Sobors in Russia from estate-representative institutions in Western Europe?
How to explain that historical fact, that during the period of the oprichnina and in the subsequent years of his reign, Ivan IV did not eliminate the practice of convening Zemsky Sobors?
What were the political possibilities of an estate-representative monarchy in the 16th-17th centuries?
What stages in the development of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia can be identified? Determine the chronological framework of each of them and provide arguments for your gradation.
What processes in the country's social life contributed to the transition from an estate-representative monarchy to absolutism? When did this process begin and what exactly was it accompanied by?
As a result of what reforms of Peter I the zemstvo element in the management system was finally eliminated and the political institutions of an absolute monarchy were formed?

- 83.15 Kb

Apparently, the boyars themselves did not realize how radically they were breaking the old order, turning a historically customary relationship into a legally binding relationship. This is probably why the new thought was not a new beginning in the structure of the Moscow state. 49 Thus, the Boyar Duma, which throughout the turmoil tried to expand its competence, eventually ceded its powers to the Zemsky Sobor, which began to play a huge role in the beginning of Mikhail’s reign.

3. XVII century. The transition from estate-representative monarchy to absolutism.

In the 17th century With the establishment of a new dynasty in Russia, the estate-representative monarchy began to be restored. Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov ascended the throne very young, at 16 years old. He, of course, needed support. First he finds her in the person of his mother, Marfa, and his maternal relatives - the boyars Saltykovs. But in 1619, the tsar’s father, Filaret, returned from Polish captivity, proclaimed Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', becoming Michael’s de facto co-ruler.

Under the new tsar, as in times of troubles, the boyars tried in every possible way to limit the sovereign's power. That's why Russian monarchy XVII century often called an autocracy with a Boyar Duma, which still remains the supreme body on matters of legislation, administration and justice. The king regularly consulted with her. But the composition of the Duma has changed significantly. In the 17th century the number of its members was constantly increasing. In 1613 it included 29 people, in 1675 – 66, in 1682 – 131. Among the members of the Duma were boyars, Duma nobles and Duma clerks. The main role belonged to the boyars. In fact, the boyars, having united in Moscow in the Boyar Duma, felt themselves to be the rulers of the Russian land. And all significant matters were decided “according to the boyar’s verdict and decree of the sovereign.” 50

At the same time, along with the “big” Boyar Duma, a small Duma appeared, “close”, “secret”, “room” - a group of the most proxies king Together with the Duma members, persons who were not members of the “big” Duma could participate in it; everything depended on the will of the sovereign. Gradually her role increased; The “big” Duma, on the contrary, was falling 51. This was largely due to its large composition. So, if earlier the Duma could meet every day and quite promptly, now it was difficult to do this. She began to gather only on solemn, ceremonial occasions. The actual functions of the Duma began to be carried out only by the “close” Duma, which, since the time of Alexei, became a permanent institution, consisting of a certain number of persons and acting on behalf of “all boyars.”

At the beginning of Mikhail's reign, Zemsky Sobors played a huge role, which were convened almost annually. At first they expressed the will of “the whole earth,” but later, when Mikhail’s father returned from Polish captivity, a permanent government was formed and the role of the council deputies was reduced to raising petitions before the supreme power 52 . From the second half of the 17th century. the convening of Zemsky Sobors ceases altogether. In 1651 and 1653 they convene for the last time in full. Then they turn into conferences of kings with representatives of classes on certain issues.

Thus, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), a new trend in the development of the country’s political system was clearly identified - the transition from an estate representative monarchy to an absolute monarchy.

Absolutism is a form of feudal state in which the monarch has unlimited supreme power. With absolutism, the state achieves highest degree centralization. The absolute monarch rules, relying on the bureaucratic apparatus, a standing army and police, and the church is subordinate to him.

In January 1649, the Zemsky Sobor adopted the Council Code, which consisted of 25 chapters and 967 articles. Its main focus was on judicial proceedings and criminal law. In accordance with the second chapter of the Code “On State Honor and How to Protect Its State Health,” containing 22 articles, the death penalty was provided for even for criminal intent against the monarch 53 . The Code also recorded the position of various classes in the state, the procedure for military and public service, and issues of public administration in the center and locally. Thus, a serious step was taken in the direction of movement towards absolutism. After the adoption of the Code, legal acts appeared in the legislative practice of the Russian state, issued on behalf of the monarch, in which the Boyar Duma did not take part.

An important step in limiting the special position of the boyars was the act of abolishing localism in 1682. Thus, aristocratic origin loses importance when appointed to senior government positions. It is replaced by length of service, qualifications and personal devotion to the sovereign and the system. These principles would later be formalized in the Table of Ranks (1722). Klyuchevsky writes that “the abolition of localism in 1682 marked quite precisely the historical hour of its death as a government class” 54. Klyuchevsky also notes that in the 17th century. The boyars, who had already achieved significant success in their economic work after the shocks, disappeared as political power, lost in society with a new set of concepts and classes, dissolving into the serving noble masses.

The final formation of absolutism and its ideological justification dates back to the beginning of the 18th century, when Peter I, in his interpretation of Article 20 of the Military Regulations (1716), wrote that “...his Majesty is an autocratic Monarch who does not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs.” must; but the States and lands, like a Christian sovereign, have the power and authority to rule according to their own will and good will” 55 .

Already by early XVIII century, as new bodies of power and administration are formed in the Russian state, the Duma ceases to act as a body of representative power of the boyars. In 1699, under the Boyar Duma, the Near Office was established for financial control over the receipt and expenditure of funds from all orders. Soon her competence expanded. As a result, it becomes the meeting place of the increasingly shrinking Boyar Duma. In 1708, as a rule, 8 people participated in the meetings of the Duma, all of them administered various orders, and this meeting was called the Council of Ministers. At its meetings, various issues of government were discussed. The council of ministers, unlike the Boyar Duma, met without the tsar and was mainly occupied with carrying out his instructions. This was an administrative council answerable to the king.

N.M. Karamzin comments on the changes that were carried out during the reign of Peter: “For centuries, the people got into the habit of honoring the boyars as men marked by greatness - they worshiped them with true humiliation, when they, with their noble squads, with Asian pomp, to the sound of tambourines they appeared on the hundred, marching to the temple of God or to the council of the sovereign. Peter destroyed the dignity of the boyars: he needed ministers, chancellors, presidents! Instead of the ancient glorious Duma, the Senate appeared, instead of orders - collegiums, instead of clerks - secretaries, and so on. The same meaningless change for Russians in the military ranks: generals, captains, lieutenants expelled governors, centurions, Pentecostals, etc. from our army. Imitation has become the honor and dignity of Russians” 56.

Thus, by 1710, the Boyar Duma itself turned into a rather close council of ministers (the members of this close council are called ministers in Peter’s letters, in papers and acts of that time) 57 . But after the formation of the Senate, the Council of Ministers (1711) and the Near Chancellery (1719) ceased to exist. Thus, the centuries-old history of the existence of the Boyar Duma ended, and at the same time, the absolute power of the monarch was finally established in the country.

Conclusion.

The Boyar Duma has gone through a long, centuries-old history: from the Princely Duma of the times of Vladimir the Saint to the Council of Ministers during the reign of Peter I.

Century after century, the state apparatus, the volume of princely power, and the territory of the state changed. At the same time, the functions, composition and position of the Boyar Duma changed.

We find the first mentions of the Princely Duma, which was a permanent council under the prince, which included his closest associates, from the first pages of the Old Russian chronicle, continuing throughout the entire appanage period.

By the beginning of the 14th century. and especially from the end of the 15th century, the boyars can already be spoken of as the highest government officials. In the 16th century the word “boyar” transforms its meaning, and now it is, first of all, a member of the council under the Grand Duke, to whom the boyar rank was “confirmed” officially.

The special nature of the development of the political system of the Moscow state was predetermined by its “patrimonial” features. All power was concentrated in the hands of the autocratic monarch, who purposefully and steadily built it along a strict vertical line. The distribution of positions in government bodies was carried out on the basis of a unique system - “localism”.

At the same time, in the 16th century. as a single centralized state and, accordingly, state property takes shape, the political rights of the boyars are limited; Changes also occur in the social composition of the boyars. The grand ducal government, and subsequently the royal government, persistently suppressed the actions of those boyars who resisted its policy of centralization. In the era of Ivan the Terrible, the tsar, driven by the idea of strengthening central power, established oprichnina in Rus', which ultimately did not lead to the expected results. But nevertheless, this greatly weakened the boyars and their power.

IN early XVII c., during the Time of Troubles, the boyars were rehabilitated. They play a huge role in political life countries, it is their voice that becomes decisive in relation to all the most important issues. At the same time, the importance of the Zemsky Sobor is increasing, in whose activities the people see the source of justice and fairness. So, in January 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected a new tsar - Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. Under the new tsar, as in times of troubles, the boyars tried in every possible way to limit the sovereign's power. Therefore, the Russian monarchy of the 17th century. often called an autocracy with a Boyar Duma, which still remains the supreme body on matters of legislation, administration and justice.

Thus, in the XVI-XVII centuries. a sovereign without a Duma and a Duma without a sovereign, from the point of view of people of that time, were equally abnormal phenomena. The Code of 1649 recognizes boyar sentences as legislative sources on a par with state decrees. The inseparability of the tsar and the Duma was reflected in the general legislative formula “the tsar indicated and the boyars sentenced.” 58

But already from the second half of the 17th century. a new trend in the development of the country's political system is clearly indicated - the transition from an estate-based representative monarchy to an absolute monarchy. Thus, Zemsky Sobors, whose activity during Mikhail’s reign was almost continuous, ceased to be convened, and the Boyar Duma, expanding in its composition, received less and less opportunity to gather for meetings. As a result, the Middle Duma is formed, which since the time of Alexei has become a permanent institution, consisting of a certain number of persons and acting on behalf of “all boyars.”

With the adoption of the Council Code in 1649, a serious step was taken in the direction of movement towards absolutism. After the adoption of the Code, legal acts appeared in the legislative practice of the Russian state, issued on behalf of the monarch, in which the Boyar Duma did not take part.

An important step in limiting the special position of the boyars was the act of abolishing localism in 1682. Thus, aristocratic origin loses importance when appointed to senior government positions.

Already by the beginning of the 18th century, as new bodies of power and administration were formed in the Russian state, the Duma ceased to act as a body of representative power of the boyars. At the same time, absolutism is finally taking shape.

In 1699, the Near Chancellery was established under the Boyar Duma, which eventually became the seat of the increasingly shrinking Boyar Duma. Further, the activities of the Near Chancellery turn into permanent meetings of the Council of Ministers, consisting of 8 people. But after the formation of the Senate, the Council of Ministers (1711) and the Near Chancellery (1719) ceased to exist, along with the centuries-old history of the existence of the Boyar Duma.

According to a number of scientists, the Boyar Duma played such a significant role in government that the Russian statehood of the Moscow period can be called oligarchic. 59 However, the new era required radical changes. Thus, the early form of absolutism, which developed in the second half of the 17th century. with the Boyar Duma and the boyar aristocracy, turned out to be insufficiently adapted to solving the emerging domestic and especially foreign policy problems. But only noble empire, formed as a result of the reforms of Peter I, with its extreme authoritarianism, extreme centralization, powerful security forces, a powerful ideological system in the form of the Church, an effective system of control over the activities of the state apparatus, turned out to be able to successfully solve the problems facing the country.

1 24 – (on page 49) see Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Decree. op. – P. 44-51, Presnyakov A.E. Decree. op. – T. II. – P. 371-504.

2 Kolesnikov, V.N. People's government and parliament. – St. Petersburg: publishing house SZAGS, 2006. – P. 86

3 Ibid., p. 87

4 Vladimirsky-Budanov, M.F. Decree. op. pp. 177-180

5 Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries... T.2: Legislation of the period of formation and strengthening of the Russian centralized state. P.120

6 History of state and law of Russia. Course of lectures - Belkovets L.P., Belkovets V.V. http://vuzlib.net/beta3/html/ 1/11137/

7 Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. Book III. 1463-1584 http://www.litru.ru/?book= 25441&description=1

8 Zagoskin N.P. History of law of the Moscow State. History of central administration in the Moscow state. According to the edition of 1879 (News and scientific notes of Kazan University) // Allpravo.Ru - 2004 http://www.allpravo.ru/ library/doc313p0/instrum2850/ print2851.html

9 Eremin p. 16

10 V.O.Klyuchevsky. Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus' http://www.sedmitza.ru/text/ 438814.html

11 Terminology of Russian history. Vasily Klyuchevsky http://vivatfomenko.narod.ru/ lib/terminologiya.html

12 In monuments of the 11th, 12th centuries. the components of the squad are designated by such terms as “boyars” and “grid”. The word “boyars” denoted the senior squad, therefore, the junior squad consisted of “gridi”, or the so-called “youths” and “children”. Thus, “grid” is the oldest term denoting a junior squad

13 Terminology of Russian history. Vasily Klyuchevsky http://vivatfomenko.narod.ru/ lib/terminologiya.html

14 http://www.sedmitza.ru/text/ 438817.html V.O. Klyuchevsky. Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus' (chapter 2)

15 Eremyan, p.16

16 Ibid., p. 17

17 Vernadsky G., p. 51

Article 18 THE FIGHT AGAINST JUDICIAL ARRICTRY OF OFFICIALS IN MOSCOW Rus' (XVI-XVII centuries)

Description

Objectives of this coursework:
1) consider the process of formation of the boyars as an estate, as well as the process of formation of the Boyar Duma.
2) analyze what the significance of the Boyar Duma was in the 15th-16th centuries.
3) consider the role of the boyars in political life during the Time of Troubles.
4) identify patterns of gradual weakening of the role of the Boyar Duma in the conditions of the emergence of absolutist tendencies.

Boyar Duma in the Time of Troubles.
The beginning of the Troubles. Her reasons. Change in the position of the boyars.
Boyars in the Time of Troubles.
Results of the Troubles.

17th century The transition from estate-representative monarchy to absolutism.
CONCLUSION

Practical lesson No. 4. terms: Estates-representative monarchy- a form of government that provides for the participation of class representatives in governing the state and drawing up laws. Absolute monarchy (from Latin absolutus - unconditional)- a type of monarchical form of government, in which the entirety of state (legislative, executive, judicial), and sometimes spiritual (religious) power is legally and actually in the hands of the monarch. Split

A church schism was originally considered to be any falling away from the Church of a group of believers. Schism of the Christian Church- the church schism of 1054, after which the Church was finally divided into Roman Catholic and Orthodox. Reiters(German Reiter - “horseman”, short for German Schwarze Reiter - “black horsemen”) - mercenary horse regiments in Europe and Russia in the 16th-17th centuries. The name "Black Riders" was originally used to refer to mounted mercenaries from southern Germany who appeared during the Schmalkaldic War between German Catholics and Protestants. Old Believers, Old Orthodoxy- a set of religious movements and organizations in line with the Russian Orthodox tradition, rejecting the church reform undertaken in the 1650s - 1660s by Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the purpose of which was to unify the liturgical rite of the Russian Church with the Greek Church and, above all, with the Church of Constantinople.

Formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia in the 2nd half. XVII century

1. The transition from an estate-representative monarchy to an absolute one. Features of the formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia.

An estate-representative monarchy is a type of power where the monarch, in leading the country, relies primarily on estate-representative institutions. These representative institutions express the interests of all free classes of society. An estate-representative monarchy in Russia began to take shape already in the 15th century. during the period of completion of the political process of unification of Rus'. Then, under the sovereign of all Rus' Ivan III, the Boyar Duma acted as a permanent advisory body in the system of supreme power.

In its most complete form, the estate-representative monarchy took shape in Russia in the middle of the 16th century, when, along with the Boyar Duma, a new political structure began to operate in the system of public administration - Zemsky Councils, which became the dictate of the time along with the reforms of the mid-16th century.

A period of transformations began, called the “reforms of the 50s.” XVI century

Researchers highlight the following specific features Russian estate-representative monarchy of the 16th - 18th - 17th centuries:

1. Zemsky councils were convened at the will of the tsar, and therefore not periodically, but as needed;

2. They had no legal status and did not have the right of legislative initiative; their right is to discuss and make decisions on those issues that are put before the Council by the Tsar;

From the second half of the 17th century. the transition to absolutism began. Absolutism is an unlimited monarchy in which all political power belongs to one person.

Provincial reform of 1708-1710. changed the system of local government. Local self-government was abolished, and at the head of all administrative-territorial units were placed persons performing state service and receiving salaries for it - governors, provincial commissioners, district and volost governors.

Features of the formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia.

By the end of the 17th century. In Russia, an absolute monarchy begins to take shape, which did not arise immediately after the formation of a centralized state and the establishment of an autocratic system, because autocracy is not absolutism.

An absolute monarchy is characterized by the presence of a strong, extensive professional bureaucratic apparatus, a strong standing army, and the elimination of all class-representative bodies and institutions. These signs are also inherent in Russian absolutism. However, it also had its own significant features:

Absolute monarchy in Europe took shape under the conditions of the development of capitalist relations and the abolition of old feudal institutions (especially serfdom), and absolutism in Russia coincided with the development of serfdom;

The social basis of Western European absolutism was the alliance of the nobility with the cities (free, imperial), and Russian absolutism relied mainly on the serf-dominated nobility, the service class.

The establishment of an absolute monarchy in Russia was accompanied by widespread expansion of the state, its invasion into all spheres of public, corporate and private life. Expansionist aspirations were expressed primarily in the desire to expand their territory and access to the seas.

WITH 1708 Mr. Peter began to rebuild the old authorities and management and replace them with new ones. As a result, by the end of the first quarter of the 18th century. The following system of government and management bodies has emerged.

IN 1711 a new supreme body of executive and judicial power was created - the Senate, which also had significant legislative functions. It was fundamentally different from its predecessor, the Boyar Duma.

IN 1708 - 1709 gg. The restructuring of local authorities and administration began. The country was divided into 8 provinces, differing in territory and population.

Features of the absolute monarchy in Russia:

the establishment of serfdom, instead of the development of capitalism and the abolition of old feudal institutions (as was the case in Europe);

in Europe, the support of the monarch was the alliance of the nobility and the cities, in Russia - the feudal nobility and the service class.

From October 1721 Peter I is given the title of emperor for his victory in the Northern War and Russia becomes an empire.

The absolute monarchy was overthrown as a result of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917.

Ministry of Education Russian Federation

Moscow State University print

Part-time form of study

Department of History and Cultural Studies

Test

by discipline " National history»

Topic: “The evolution of Russian statehood:

from an estate-representative monarchy

to absolutism (XVI - early XVIII centuries) »

Moscow

1. Introduction – 3 pages.

2. Reforms of the 50s. XVI century and the establishment of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia – 4 pages.

3. Political features of Zemsky Councils of the 16th - 17th centuries – 19 pages.

4. Features of the establishment of absolutism in Russia – 21 pages.

5. Conclusion – 35 pages.

6. List of references used – 36.

EVOLUTION OF RUSSIAN STATEHOOD:

FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE MONARCHY

TO ABSOLUTISM ( XVI - START XVIII centuries)

1. Introduction

The development of Russia is inseparably linked with the growing power of Russian princes, tsars, and emperors. Basically, all reforms in Russia were aimed at maintaining and strengthening the vertical of central power. In the XVI - beginning. XVIII centuries The evolution of Russian statehood took place from an estate-representative monarchy to absolutism.

An estate-representative monarchy is a type of power where the monarch, in leading the country, relies primarily on estate-representative institutions that exist in the vertical of central power. These representative institutions express the interests of all free classes of society. An estate-representative monarchy in Russia began to take shape already in the 15th century. during the period of completion of the political process of unification of Russia. Then, under the sovereign of all Rus' Ivan III, the Boyar Duma acted as a permanent advisory body in the system of supreme power.

The Boyar Duma represented and expressed the interests of large landowners. The Boyar Duma under Ivan III and Vasily III performed two functions. Firstly, it provided support for the power of a single monarch-sovereign of all Russia. Secondly, it contributed to overcoming the elements and tendencies of feudal fragmentation and separatism.

In its most complete form, the estate-representative monarchy took shape in Russia in the middle of the 16th century, when, along with the Boyar Duma, a new political structure began to operate in the system of public administration - Zemsky Sobors or “councils of the whole earth,” as their contemporaries called them.

The appearance of Zemsky Sobors in the system of political power was not an accidental or temporary phenomenon. They became the dictates of the times, along with the reforms of the mid-16th century, which were energetically carried out by the Near Duma or the “Elected Rada” with the direct participation of Ivan IV.

The very name “Chosen Rada” belongs to Prince A. Kurbsky and was first used in his essay “The History of the Grand Duke of Moscow.” In fact, with this term he designated the circle of people close to the tsar who made up his Near Duma, with which he constantly consulted and whose participants were the government of Ivan IV. The Rada included A. Adashev and M. Vorotynsky, the Tsar’s confessor - the rector of the Annunciation Cathedral in the Kremlin, Archpriest Sylvester, and Prince A. Kurbsky.

Political development of Russia in the 16th century. it was going contradictory. The unification of Russian lands within a single state did not lead to the immediate disappearance of numerous remnants of feudal fragmentation. After the death of Vasily III (1505-1533), a fierce struggle between boyar groups for power began under the young heir. The political actions of the warring factions (the Shuiskys, Belskys, Glinskys, etc.) differed little from each other, but greatly weakened and disorganized the country's governance system, which was expressed in the growth of arbitrariness of the local rulers and the dissatisfaction of the tax and service population as a whole with the boyar rule.

2. Reforms of the 50s.

and the establishment of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia.

The beginning of the reign of young Ivan IV was already marked by a clear aggravation of social contradictions. The muted dissatisfaction of the masses with the endless princely-boyar intrigues and infighting, local lawlessness, bribery and other abuses of power resulted in a period of popular uprisings, the most significant of which was the Moscow uprising in the spring of 1547.

It should be borne in mind that during the unification of the country, the power of the Moscow sovereigns increased enormously, but did not become unlimited: the monarch shared power with the boyar aristocracy. Through the Boyar Duma, the nobility controlled the center, it commanded the troops, controlled all Local government (the boyars received the largest cities and counties of the country to “feed”).

Thus, in order to strengthen Russian statehood, it was necessary to speed up political centralization and rebuild the management system on a new basis with the inevitable strengthening of the power of the monarch. Many people in Rus' understood this. It is characteristic that among the members of the “Elected Rada” were Metropolitan Macarius, a native of the lower classes - a small Kostroma patrimonial landowner Alexei Adashev, a nobleman Ivan Peresvetov - people who were widely educated and passionate advocates of the ideology of autocracy. For the first time in the history of Russian social thought, I.S. Peresvetov formulated the idea of the impossibility of transforming the system of government and military service in Russia without limiting the political dominance of the nobility, without involving the nobility in state affairs. The 18-year-old tsar passionately supported these ideas and became the mouthpiece of the reformers when, speaking at the Council of the Hundred Heads (1551), he proposed an extensive program of reforms.

A period of transformations began, which received the name in historical science - “reforms of the 50s.” XVI century Historians identify six reforms: public administration, local government, military, judicial, tax and church.

The reform of public administration became central, as a result of which the following vertical of supreme power took shape in the country:

The Tsar, in whose activities the elements of autocracy were becoming more and more clearly intensified, i.e., a power that is ready to cooperate with representatives of all free classes of society, but does not consider it possible to put up with the class privileges of the boyars and princes, including the immunity of the last appanage princes, bearers feudal duality;

Boyar Duma, the status and composition of which has changed significantly:

a) During 1547 - 1549. The composition of the Duma was renewed and replenished. The number of Duma officials increased to 32 people, of which 18 became members of the Duma during these years. Since the composition of the Duma was approved and determined by the tsar, there is no doubt that he replenished it with his like-minded people. Almost all the leaders of the Elected Rada became its members;

b) The social composition of the Duma has changed. If previously the Duma boyars and okolnichy met in it with the tsar, i.e. there were two Duma ranks and only boyars received them, now two new ranks have appeared - Duma nobles and Duma clerks, which strengthened the state element of the Boyar Duma;

c) The Duma from an advisory body turned into an advisory-legislative body, in charge of a wide range of judicial and administrative matters. The legislative right of the Duma, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, was first confirmed by the Code of Laws (1550), where Article 98 read: “And there will be new cases, but not written in this Code of Laws, and like those cases from the sovereign the report and from all the boyars the verdict is carried out, and then the cases are attributed in this Code of Laws.” This did not mean that the sovereign could not decide matters or issue laws without the Duma. But, as a rule, meetings of the Duma took place in the presence of the tsar (“the tsar sits with the boyars about business”), or by decree and authority of the tsar in his absence.

Zemsky Sobors or “councils of the whole earth” became a new body of central government:

a) The councils had a deliberative and legislative character. Fundamental issues of domestic and foreign policy were brought up for their consideration, on which the tsar considered it necessary to consult with the zemshchina, to find agreement with it, and therefore counted on the support of the entire people;

b) The Councils were attended by: the Boyar Duma, the “Consecrated Cathedral” (representatives of the highest clergy headed by the Metropolitan), elected representatives from service people (primarily the nobility), from the townspeople’s “tax” population (merchants, artisans) and even representatives from Black Hundred peasantry.

With the establishment of the convening of Zemsky Sobors in Russia, an estate-representative monarchy emerged, the social base of which was the service class (nobility) and the population of cities, i.e. those social strata of society that were most interested in a strong centralized state.

At the first Council (1549), Ivan IV wanted to reconcile representatives of the population with the regional rulers - the “feeders”. The cathedral received the name “Cathedral of Reconciliation”. The “feeders” openly abused power during the period of boyar rule, causing anger and discontent among service and tax-paying people. Ivan IV addressed the Council with the following words: “People of God and given to us, I pray for your faith in God and love for us: now it is impossible for us to correct your insults and ruins, I pray you, leave each other your enmities and burdens.” We were talking about a lot of claims from the population against feeding providers. The petition hut, headed by A. Adashev, could not cope with their consideration. The tsar asked for a kind of amnesty for these claims, but was not going to forgive the “insults” inflicted by the governors on the local population. The Council “honestly and sternly” (according to the wording of those times) accepted the tsar’s appeal and the proposal to draw up a new Code of Law, with the aim of establishing a firm order of administration and legal proceedings, limiting the power of the “feeders”. Thus began the attack of the supreme power and zemshchina on the privileges of regional rulers - the noble princely-boyar nobility.

Zemsky Sobors operated in the country for about 100 years and had a number of features that distinguished them from similar representative institutions in Western Europe. It should be borne in mind that in the West there was no single principle in class representation. Researchers identify the following specific features of the Russian class-representative monarchy of the 16th - 18th - 17th centuries:

1. Zemsky councils were convened at the will of the tsar, and therefore not periodically, but as needed;

2. They had no legal status and did not have the right of legislative initiative; their right is to discuss and make decisions on those issues that are put before the Council by the Tsar;

3. There was no elective election of deputies-representatives to the Councils. As representatives from the estates, mainly persons from local self-government were invited: heads and elected local noble and townspeople societies: zemstvo judges, provincial and townsman elders, favorite heads, kissers; from peasant communities - village elders. V.O. Klyuchevsky noted that the composition of the Councils was changeable, lacking a solid, stable organization, and therefore the Zemsky Councils did not limit the power of the tsar, they were “a handout, not a concession,” “not a recognition of the people’s will as a political force, but only a merciful and a temporary expansion of power over subjects without detracting from its completeness.”

V.O. Klyuchevsky treats the Zemsky Sobors with some compassionate sympathy, noting their “inconsistency” in comparison with the bodies of Western European representation: “It is known what an active source of popular representation in the West was the government need for money: it forced government officials to convene and ask their assistance.

But the officials did not help the treasury for nothing, they extorted concessions.” This was the difference between the Russian and Western European representation. The people's representatives there pulled on themselves, in Russia - on the state, and therefore at the Councils issues affecting everyone, the whole earth, were resolved, and no one pulled on themselves or extorted concessions. The same V.O. Klyuchevsky is forced to admit: “It was as if some higher interest reigned over the entire society, over the accounts and squabbles of warring social forces. This interest is the defense of the state from external enemies... Internal, domestic rivals were reconciled in view of external enemies, political and social disagreements fell silent when faced with national and religious dangers...”

The order system in the Moscow state became, as it were, the final structure in the system of central government. It finally took shape in the mid-50s. XVI century Orders were formed gradually, as needed, to solve certain administrative and managerial problems.

The most important orders of national importance were the following: The Ambassadorial Order, which was in charge of external relations; The local order was in charge of local lands, distributed them to service people, controlled local land ownership; The discharge order was in charge of military affairs and the appointment of command (voivodship) personnel; The serf order was engaged in the registration of serfs; The Robbery Order was in charge of the most important criminal cases throughout the state; there were several court orders; The orders of the Great Treasury and the Great Parish dealt with finances and government affairs, etc.

In addition to the national ones, territorial orders were created: Kazan, Tver, Little Russian (XVII century).

The bosses or “judges” of the most important orders were the boyars and “people of the Duma”; clerks (secretaries) and clerks (scribes) worked with them in orders. Secondary orders were controlled by nobles with clerks or clerks alone.

Thus, in the middle of the 16th century. The system of public administration at its highest, central level was significantly strengthened; for the first time, a bureaucratic layer of managers was visible in it; the role of the nobility in solving public affairs increased.

It is known that since the time of Ivan III (1462-1505), local government in the Moscow state was in the hands of governors and volostels. Governors ruled cities and districts. The volostels governed the volosts. At the disposal of the governors and volostels there was a considerable staff of servants and henchmen - tiuns, closers, praevets, and non-dealers. Not being an official apparatus, they were appointed and controlled, and therefore were responsible only to their masters - governors and volosts. Both of them were interested in their position insofar as it “fed” them.

Governors were appointed on the basis of birth. They became eminent boyars, former appanage princes who became serving boyars. Many of them received land management. Not only the governors and volosts with their families, but also their numerous relatives, a staff of servants, and personal guards fed at the expense of the zemstvo society. The maintenance of the viceroyal apparatus placed a heavy burden on local society.

The reorganization of local government pursued two goals: 1) to weaken the role of the boyar aristocracy in the localities; 2) more firmly connect counties, volosts and camps with central government, subordinating them directly to Moscow.

At first, these tasks found their implementation and legal codification in the new Code of Laws (1550). The limitation of the power of governors was expressed in the introduction of mandatory participation in the local court of elected representatives of local government - headmen and their assistants - kissers.

The difference between this legal norm and the Code of Laws of 1497 is that before, defenders of local interests had to monitor the correctness of legal proceedings in the local court. In case of disagreement with the decision of the local court, they could complain (file petitions) to a higher authority - the Petition Izba in Moscow. Now they received the right to take part in the court's decision.

The results were immediate. V.O. Klyuchevsky points out that by 1551 “the boyars, clerks and feeders had made peace with all the lands in all sorts of matters”, that “the zemstvo elected judges conducted the cases entrusted to them not only without obligation and without red tape, but also without compensation.”

In 1555, the labial reform, begun by Elena Glinskaya, was completed. Guba - larger administrative-territorial units, including several counties, were created in places where local land ownership of service people was concentrated. As a result, labial institutions spread throughout the country. Court cases concerning criminal offenses passed from governors and volosts into the hands of provincial elders chosen from the local nobility. The lip elders were directly subordinate to the Robbery Order.

In 1555-1556 A zemstvo reform was carried out, as a result of which the feeding system was finally eliminated. The meaning of this reform, which became widespread mainly in the black-sown north and in parts of the central volosts, where the free “sovereign” peasantry remained, boiled down to the replacement of governors and volostels with bodies of zemstvo administration - zemstvo judges and elders, “favorite heads” and kissers chosen from among the townspeople and wealthy circles of the black-sown peasantry.

The zemstvo authorities carried out trials and executions on matters of minor importance, distributed taxes (taxes) to local communities and collected them. The feeders found themselves out of work, and most importantly, they were deprived of that part of the local taxes that constituted their “feed payback.” These taxes now went to the royal treasury, and later to special financial orders and went primarily to support the noble army.

Judicial reform was begun by updating the legislative code of 1497. Setting the main goal of strengthening the central government, the Code of Law of 1550, as indicated above, only limited the power of governors, and the provincial and zemstvo reforms finally eliminated the institution of governorship, replacing it with a democratic system of local self-government.

The Code of Law abolished some tax benefits for monasteries, which contributed to the replenishment of the royal treasury.

The legal enslavement of peasants did not go any further. However, having confirmed the “St. George’s Day”, the Code of Law increased the payment “for the elderly” and established a payment “for the cart” for the deported peasants. The peasant's departure from the feudal lord with the new system of payments and calculations became impossible. Every peasant who lived with the feudal lord for at least five years was declared an “old-timer” by the Code of Law, who lost the right to secede from the feudal lord.

In the general matter of strengthening the central system of government, an important concern of the government of Ivan IV was the reorganization of military forces. Here a number of significant transformations have been carried out, allowing them to be summarized as military reform.

1. In 1550, the “Sentence on Voivodes” came into force, which limited localism in the army. From now on, strict unity of command and subordination of the governors to each other were established according to the instructions of the sovereign - “whoever is sent with whom obeys him.” The new order contributed to the elimination of the traditions of feudal fragmentation in the army. By limiting localism in the military organization, a system of official subordination was introduced, discipline and combat effectiveness of the regiments increased. However, the tsar did not dare to completely eliminate localism (that is, the right to occupy a position based on nobility and length of service with the Moscow Grand Dukes, as well as seniority in the family).

In limiting localism in military organization The government of Ivan IV went further, bringing some legal basis to local accounts. In 1555, the “Sovereign Genealogy” was compiled, which contained information about the origin of the most noble princely and boyar families that had the right to localism. In 1556, a new extensive document appeared - “The Sovereign's Rank”, which included records of the service of princes, boyars and nobles (a kind of service record), starting in the 70s. XV century These two documents became the original reference document, allowing the Tsar and the Boyar Duma to control and, if necessary, suppress disputes among the feudal nobility.

2. In 1556, simultaneously with the abolition of feedings, the “Code of Service” was issued, which precisely defined the norms for military service of all landowners. According to the Code, each feudal lord - patrimonial owner and landowner - had to perform military service and, if necessary, field mounted warriors in full armor at the rate of one warrior for every 150 acres of land.

The shortage of soldiers or weapons was punishable by a fine. Children of boyars and nobles served in the service from the age of 15. The service continued until death or injury and was inherited, i.e. "by fatherland." The equalization in relation to the service of patrimonial owners and landowners, who equally went to work according to the formula “horse, people and weapons,” deprived the boyars of privileges, which essentially turned into service people, obliged to the tsar for military service for owning the land.

3. Simultaneously with the reform of the traditional form of the country's armed forces, the government of the “Elected Rada” took steps to create more regular units that would be constantly at the disposal of the supreme power. In 1550, it was decided to “place” a “selected thousand” service people in the Moscow district. A list was compiled - “The Thousandth Book”, which included 1078 people. But it was not possible to carry out the dislocation (to give estates within a radius of 60 - 70 versts from Moscow): the required amount of free land was not found near Moscow.

4. It was not possible to create a core of noble militia that would become a reliable military support for the autocratic power and state, but we must pay tribute to the foresight of the government of reformers. In parallel with the streamlining of service according to the “fatherland”, a new form of military service was implemented - “according to the device”, i.e. according to a special set for cash and land salaries. This is how the Cossacks, city guards, gunners and archers served. The Streltsy army was organized in 1550 on the basis of the squeaker detachments created under Vasily III. At first, 3,000 people were recruited into the Streltsy army; it was consolidated into separate “orders” of 500 people. By the end of the 16th century. Streltsy troops numbered 25,000 people.

The Streletsky army was permanent: they did not disband between campaigns, like the noble militia. However, the Streltsy army was not regular. Streltsy lived with their families in Streltsy settlements in Moscow, in the Moscow district, and in large cities of the country. In their free time from guard duty, the archers were engaged in crafts and trade. They were in charge of the Streletsky Order. Already in the middle of the 16th century. The permanent Streltsy army was a powerful fighting force in Russia.

By the end of the 16th century. the total number of Russian troops reached 100 thousand people, not counting 2.5 thousand hired foreigners.

The lands were described anew and a single all-Russian unit (measure) for taxation of land was established - the “big plow”. Its size depended on the quality of the land and the social (class) affiliation of its owner. In rural areas, the land tax - “per plow” - was paid by Black Hundred peasants and the clergy. In the city, a “plow” included a certain number of households. According to the calculation of “soh”, duties were collected and warriors were deployed.

New taxes were introduced: “pishchalny” - for the maintenance of the Streltsy army, “polonyanechny” - for the ransom of prisoners.

The general process of centralization of power could not but affect the Orthodox Church, since it played an important role in all spheres of life of the then society and state. The Church of a single state also needed stricter centralization. But for the authorities, the solution to the issue of church and monastic land ownership acquired particular importance. The solution to the common pressing problems of the church and the state was the essence of the church reforms.

The issue of church-monastic land ownership became the subject of special consideration at the meetings of the church council in 1551, convened on the initiative of Ivan IV. Its decisions are summarized in 100 chapters, which is why it received the name of the Stoglava Cathedral or Stoglav.

The government of Ivan IV intended to carry out, with the consent of the Council, the liquidation of church and monastic land ownership. These lands were needed to provide estates to service people for military service, primarily nobles - the support of the centralized state. However, the Josephite majority of the Council, led by Metropolitan Macarius, achieved a compromise decision:

1) the right of the clergy to own real estate was recognized as inviolable;

2) monastic land ownership decreased somewhat, because all princely-boyar grants to monasteries made after the death of Vasily III (1533) were annulled;

3) monasteries were prohibited from purchasing land without the consent of the king and engaging in usury, both in kind and in cash; the descendants of appanage princes were forbidden to transfer lands to monasteries “for the sake of their souls”;

4) spiritual feudal lords could no longer establish new “white” settlements and courtyards in cities and had to participate in the collection of “polonian money.”

Thus, as a result of the reforms in the country, the restructuring of the central authorities was completed, a unified order system emerged that met the needs of the political centralization of the Russian state, the functions of the service order bureaucracy expanded, broad local self-government emerged, and prospects for a military and service career opened up for the middle nobility.

However, according to a number of historians, these reforms were generally of a compromise nature. On the one hand, they strengthened the state by achieving the consent of all classes, which caused an increase in the still hidden opposition on the part of the landed aristocracy, on the other hand, they strengthened the autocratic power of the tsar. “Torn apart by contradictions between the heterogeneous social elements from which it was composed, the government of compromise was not durable and fell as soon as Ivan the Terrible was faced with the question of a decisive struggle against the boyars,” notes the historian A. A. Zimin. “Only in the harsh years of the oprichnina did the nobility managed to deal a decisive blow to the political prerogatives of the boyars and begin the final enslavement of the peasants.”

The historiography of the oprichnina is replete with controversial and contradictory judgments. There is also the Karamzin idea, in which the oprichnina is viewed only through the prism of the “tyrant king” as a senseless creation of a mentally ill monarch. This point of view was generally shared by V.O. Klyuchevsky.

The historian S.M. Soloviev approached this problem differently. Following his concept of the historical development of Russia as a process of gradual replacement of “tribal” principles with new “state” principles, he believed that the reign of Ivan the Terrible was the time of the final victory of state principles, while the oprichnina was the last decisive blow to clan relations, the bearer of which was the boyars. And therefore, despite all the cruelties, the king’s activities were a step forward.

In Soviet historiography, the main attention was paid only to the socio-economic essence of the oprichnina policy.

Modern historians also interpret the oprichnina differently. Some of them consider it not an accidental and short-term episode, but a necessary stage in the formation of autocracy, the initial form of the apparatus of its power. Other historians see in the oprichnina policy the tsar’s desire to force centralization and strengthen the regime of personal power, but in the absence of appropriate historical prerequisites for solving this task, its implementation could be carried out along the paths of violence and terror.

At the same time, we somehow lose sight of the background against which the tragedy of the oprichnina unfolded, namely: the presence in the country of class-representative institutions and broad local self-government. It was already noted above that class-representative institutions did not limit the power of the tsar, but they remained his support by the fact that they did not try to oppose his will. Separating the zemshchina from the oprichnina, the tsar had to be sure that she would not betray him, would not openly or covertly side with the boyars. And so it happened. The zemshchina endured, bore its heavy tax cross, defended itself from enemies and invasions, fulfilled its duty in the Livonian War, grumbled, adapted, but did not betray the tsar and thereby confirmed the historical expediency of the previous actions of Ivan the Terrible - the course towards centralization.

One can hardly agree with the interpretation of the Zemsky Councils of 1566 and 1580 as a formal tradition of the beginning of the reign of Ivan IV and see in them only a demonstration of submission, an expression of almost servility on the part of the Zemshchina. Firstly, Zemsky Sobors had not yet become a tradition; they were just beginning to develop their political resource. Secondly, the tsar-autocrat could, in the conditions of the unfolding anti-boyar terror, not take into account the opinion of the Council. And yet he collected them. The Zemsky Sobor of 1566 decided to continue the Livonian War not only because the tsar supposedly wanted this, but because the serving nobility did not want to lose the lands acquired during the war, because the trade and merchant elites of the cities hoped to leave with their goods through the Baltic to European markets. It is impossible not to take their interests into account in the decision of the Council.

Moreover, the Council of 1566, represented by several of its participants, dared to submit a petition to the Tsar, where he spoke out against the oprichnina system.

The historian R.G. Skrynnikov most succinctly defined the meaning of the oprichnina, who views it as the result of a clash between the powerful feudal aristocracy and the rising autocratic monarchy, which relied on the nobility and the top of the trade and craft settlement, and it was on the shoulders of these classes that all local government then rested.

From a historical perspective, the second half of the reign of Ivan IV is a bloody zigzag of an autocratic monarchy, but this zigzag does not express the essence of the state-political and social structure that developed in the country in the 50s. XVI century

3. Political features of zemsky councils XVI - XVIII centuries

The political possibilities of an estate-representative monarchy can be judged by the totality of those issues that were resolved by the Zemsky Councils of the XIV-XVII centuries. and the role of zemstvo representative institutions and the system of zemstvo self-government in overcoming the Time of Troubles and its consequences.

At the Zemsky Councils, issues of war and peace were considered and resolved:

Councils of 1566, 1580 - each in its own way predetermined the continuation and end of the Livonian War;

The Council of 1632 - 1634 approved the intention of the supreme authorities to return the Smolensk lands and it also put an end to the end of the war for Smolensk with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth;

The Council of 1642 spoke in favor of lifting the siege of the Turkish fortress of Azov by the Don Cossacks, who had held it for five years, since Russia did not have the strength to fight a war with Turkey;

The Council of 1653 agreed to accept the Ukrainian people into the Russian state and declared war on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

At Zemsky Sobors decisions were made to update legislation. This was done by the Councils of 1549 and 1649. The result of the first of them was the Code of Laws of 1550, and the second - an extensive, updated code of the Council Code, according to which the country lived until 1832.

The financial problems of the state were resolved at Zemsky Councils in 1616, 1619, 1621, 1628. At these councils, the zemshchina agreed to new taxes and duties, to emergency monetary collections, thereby helping to overcome the consequences of the Time of Troubles, and building a solid foundation for the rule of the first tsar from the Romanov dynasty, Mikhail Fedorovich.

And finally, the authority of the Zemsky Councils was especially clearly demonstrated when it was with their consent that new monarchs were placed on the throne after the death of Fyodor Ivanovich (1584 -1598) ended the Rurik dynasty on the Russian throne.

Cathedral 1613 approved a new dynasty - the Romanovs.

The decision of the Councils was unconditional; no one was allowed to challenge it. Otherwise, the boyars would not have started an impostor intrigue in order to remove Boris Godunov, whom they did not like, from the throne in the name of the supposedly “legitimate” heir.

The political power of zemstvo self-government became obvious at the most critical moments in the history of the Russian state. It should be borne in mind that overcoming the turmoil became possible when the zemshchina realized the main looming danger of the first civil war in Russia - the loss of statehood as such. Its initial military self-organization is the first people's militia, which took the first steps along the path of national liberation struggle against the Poles and Swedes, without abandoning the struggle against the boyar government in Moscow. This just cause was completed by the second people's militia, led by the townsman Kuzma Minin.

4. Features of the establishment of absolutism in Russia.

The class struggle of the peasants and townspeople largely determined the evolution of the state system in Russia. From the second half of the 17th century. the transition to absolutism began. Absolutism is an unlimited monarchy in which all political power belongs to one person.

Boyar Duma during the 17th century. turned from a legislative and advisory body into an advisory body under the king. The boyars, frightened by the scale of the class struggle, no longer opposed themselves to the autocracy, did not try to put pressure on the monarch or challenge his decisions. Under Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), more than half of the Duma was composed of nobles. The king preferred to choose smart and gifted people, to promote them according to their abilities, and not just according to the nobility of their family. Thus, his favorite boyar, head of the embassy department A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin, came from a poor family of Pskov servicemen. At meetings of the Boyar Duma, the tsar himself was often present, led the meetings, and wrote down in advance on a piece of paper issues that needed to be consulted with the boyars. After listening to advice, he made decisions on his own if he did not find agreement. But most often the boyars agreed with the tsar.

For a long time, the government relied on the support of such class-representative institutions as the Zemsky Sobors, resorting to the help of elected people from the nobility and the top of the township society, mainly in difficult years of struggle with external enemies and in internal difficulties associated with raising money for emergency needs. Zemsky Sobors operated almost continuously during the first 10 years of the reign of Mikhail Romanov, acquiring for some time the significance of a permanent representative institution under the government. The council that elected Michael to the throne (1613) sat for almost three years. The following Councils were convened in 1616, 1619 and 1621.

After 1623, there was a long break in the activities of the Councils related to the strengthening of royal power. The new Council was convened in connection with the need to establish emergency monetary levies from the population, as preparations were being made for the war with Poland. This Council did not disperse for three years (1632 - 1634). During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, Zemsky Councils met several more times.

The political authority of the Zemsky Sobors, which stood high in the first half of the 17th century, was not durable. The government subsequently reluctantly resorted to convening zemstvo councils, at which elected people sometimes criticized government measures.

The last Zemsky Sobor met in 1653 to resolve the issue of reunification of Ukraine. After this, the government convened only meetings of individual class groups (service people, merchants, guests, etc.). However, the approval of “the whole earth” was considered necessary for the election of sovereigns. Therefore, the meeting of Moscow officials in 1682 twice replaced the Zemsky Sobor - first with the election of Peter to the throne, and then with the election of two tsars Peter and Ivan, who were to rule jointly.

Zemsky Sobors, as bodies of class representation, were abolished by the growing absolutism, just as happened in the countries of Western Europe.

But the refusal of the autocratic government to seek agreement with class representation when resolving cardinal issues of domestic policy was not painless for the authorities. On the decision of the government of Alexei Mikhailovich to introduce a tax on salt, to collect arrears for previous years, to reduce the salaries of service people “according to the instrument”, etc. without the “council of all the earth,” the people responded with massive uprisings (salt riot, grain riot, copper riot). This was a natural reaction of the zemshchina, accustomed to the fact that monarchs took their opinion into account. To break this zemstvo habit it was necessary to use armed forces and massacres.

But the role of orders steadily increased, which indicated the complexity of public administration. In the 17th century their total number sometimes reached 80. The functions of the orders became extremely confusing, even intertwined with each other, which gave rise to red tape in business and contributed to bribery of clerks and clerks.

The role and size of the bureaucratic layer in management structures also steadily increased. If in 1640 there were 837 clerks, then by the end of the century there were almost 3 thousand people.

The local government system was changing. The role of elected (zemstvo) elders was increasingly narrowed, but the role of governors appointed by Moscow increased. The country was divided into counties, which in turn were divided into volosts and camps. At the head of each territorial unit were governors who, being on the “sovereign’s salary,” collected taxes from the population, robbing them in the process.

“The time that immediately followed the Time of Troubles,” writes historian S.G. Pushkarev, “required strong government power on the ground, and so the “voivodes,” who had previously been primarily in the border regions “to guard” from enemies, in the 17th century. appear in all cities of the Moscow State, throughout its vast expanse, from Novgorod and Pskov to Yakutsk and Nerchinsk! Voivodes concentrate all power, military and civil, in their hands. Voivodes act according to the “mandates” (instructions) of Moscow orders, to which they obey. Only “labial” institutions, headed by provincial elders, are preserved as a special, formally independent department. Zemstvo institutions in posads and volosts are also preserved, but during the 17th century they were They are increasingly losing their independence, increasingly turning into subordinate, auxiliary and executive bodies of the voivodeship administration. In the period from the half of the 16th century. until the half of the 17th century. “The Moscow state can be called an autocratic zemstvo state. From the half of the 17th century. it becomes autocratic-bureaucratic” (Bogoslovsky). In the northern regions and in the 17th century. The peasant “world” is preserved - the volost assembly with its elected bodies, but the sphere of their competence is increasingly narrowed. The volost court is subject to the supervision of the voivode and now decides only minor cases. The government begins to interfere in the economic life of peasants, limiting (or trying to limit) their right to freely dispose of their lands. The townspeople and peasant worlds bear collective responsibility for the proper collection of state taxes, and the main responsibility of the elected peasant authorities becomes the timely and “tax-free” collection of these taxes, and the main concern of the governors becomes coercion and punishment of those who, through their “oversight and negligence,” allow shortfalls and late payments.

Thus, the second half of the 17th century. “is a time of decline of the zemstvo principle and growing bureaucratization in both the central and local government of the Moscow state.”

In the 17th century The principles of army organization, its personnel and functions changed. Its main responsibility was not only to protect the territory of the state from external attack, but also to maintain internal order and obedience of the masses to the king. Although the combat effectiveness of the Streltsy army was relatively low, under Alexei Mikhailovich the number of Streltsy reached 40 thousand. But this force was not the main one. At the same time, another type of army is being created. Already under Mikhail Fedorovich, the first regiments of the new system - or “foreign system” - were created - soldiers (infantry), reitar (cavalry) and dragoons (mixed formation). These regiments were staffed by the children of the boyars (reitars) and various kinds of free “willing” people (soldiers and dragoons). The training of new formations was carried out by hired foreign officers. The treasury provided these regiments with weapons, equipment and paid salaries. In the 17th century regiments of the new system were created temporarily, for the duration of the war, and were disbanded at the end of hostilities. Only foreign mercenary officers remained in the service and pay of the Moscow government; they lived in a German settlement near Moscow. But by the end of the century, soldier regiments began to be staffed from among the “dating people”, i.e. peasants and townspeople. Every 20 - 25 households gave one man to serve as a soldier for life. This system formed the basis for the formation of the army under Peter I (recruitment).

The Council Code of 1649 is another evidence of the movement towards the absolute, the strengthening of central power, and the increasing role of the nobility.

Affirmation of absolutism

As a result of the public administration reform, a new vertical of central institutions was formed: the emperor - the Senate as an executive and administrative body - the collegiums as national executive bodies in charge of the most important areas of public administration. The activities of the Senate and collegiums were regulated by strict legal norms and job descriptions. In this vertical of power, the principle of subordination of lower institutions to higher ones was clearly implemented, and they were confined to the emperor.

With the outbreak of the Northern War, the state machine turns out to be less and less able to withstand the ever-increasing burden of problems. The county administration turned out to be helpless in ensuring that the population of the counties fulfilled various types of duties (recruitment, natural labor, labor), and in collecting taxes.

The formation of provinces dealt a powerful blow to the traditional command system of government. The emergence of provinces entailed the elimination of territorial orders. A number of all-Russian orders (Local, Zemsky, Town Hall, etc.) were transformed into branches of the Moscow provincial chancellery, since previously the powers of these orders covered mainly the densely populated Center, which now found itself as part of the impressive Moscow province.

It is clear that the reform of local government was subject to military necessity. The transformed administration, first of all, aimed at fully satisfying military needs. When determining provincial budgets, the most important items of national expenditure were taken into account: diplomacy, army, artillery, navy. The corresponding expenses were assigned proportionally to one or another province. In addition, in February 1711, it was decided to divide the regiments into provinces. Each regiment had its own provincial commissar, who was responsible for uniforms, supplies, staffing levels of people and horses. He was in charge of the regimental treasury, into which tax revenues from the province to which the corresponding regiment was assigned were poured. The provincial commissars mentioned above acted as lower officials of the Kriegs-Commissariat office. The head of the last Ober-Stern-Kriegs-Commissar usually stayed in the active army, but the very institution of the Kriegs-Commissariat existed under the Senate. Let us pay attention to the fact that the Kriegs Commissariat office appeared in the spring of 1711, when the Senate was created. With the formation of the Senate, the provinces were placed under the latter's control, as well as the most important of the remaining orders in charge of the armed forces, foreign policy. The military-administrative system that took shape by 1711 undoubtedly contributed to the achievement of victory in the Northern War.

If at the first stage of reforms military necessity prevailed, then subsequently, from the end of 1717. - beginning of 1718, Peter I begins to focus on a number of theoretical principles drawn from Western European rationalist philosophy, jurisprudence, and the doctrine of the state. Particularly widespread by the beginning of the 18th century. received Hobbes's "contractual theory", which based the state not on a divine principle, but on the agreement of people, for the sake of peace and harmony in society, transferring power to the state. However, such a concept of the emergence of the state opened up a wide field for experimentation with the state itself, and the goal of any transformation began to be seen in the improvement of the state organism. The state is perceived as an ideal social instrument, thanks to which it is possible to transform both nature and man himself.

Peter I was familiar with many ideas of Western European thinkers regarding the organization of the state. It is no coincidence that the tsar considered it necessary to publish in Russian Puffendorf’s book, “On the Position of a Citizen and a Man,” which he liked so much. Peter I was especially interested in the experience of Sweden and its state institutions. It can be assumed that Sweden represented a kind of model state for Peter I.

Peter I was convinced that coherence and efficiency of work state mechanism depend on the careful development of a regulatory document that would define the general functions of the institution, its mode of operation, the responsibilities of a specific official, and the procedure for office work. Therefore, it is not surprising that Peter I, with such tenacity and perseverance, regardless of time, drew up, rewriting them more than once, just regulations, striving for detailed regulation of the activities of a separate institution, each specific official. Moreover, on the initiative of Peter I, the “General Regulations” were prepared, which contained the most general principles and rules for the work of all institutions and officials. Note that at that time there were no analogues to this document in Europe. In Sweden, a similar document was created only after 50 years.

In 1722, the Regulations of the Admiralty College were developed, which also included regulations for at least 56 individual positions. It should be noted that Peter I gave orders to apply it in the activities of the created boards. It is important to note that, in the view of the reformer tsar, the state became a version of the army organization. A state institution was considered similar to a military unit, the regulations were related to the military regulations, and the official was equated to a military man. In 1716, the norms of the Military Regulations, by order of Peter I, were recognized as fundamental in relation to all civilian institutions.

Of course, we must take into account that the transformative activities of Peter I took place in war conditions. As V.O. Klyuchevsky noted, “Peter almost did not know the world: all his life he fought with someone: now with his sister, now with Turkey, Sweden, even with Persia. Since the autumn of 1689, when the reign of Princess Sophia ended, out of 35 years of his reign, only one 1724th The year passed quite peacefully. Yes, from other years you can get no more than 13 peaceful months.” But it's not only that. For Peter I, the army represented the desired model of social structure, the most perfect social institution. It is important to understand the mentality of that time, when the line between military and civilian service did not seem impenetrable. Civil service could well have been entrusted to a military man. Guardsmen were especially actively involved in performing the functions of public administration. Sergeant of the Preobrazhensky Regiment Ukraintsev was even entrusted with organizing the construction of a metallurgical plant in the Urals.

Military ranks received an advantage over others in the famous Table of Ranks, approved on January 24, 1722. The full name of this document is as follows: “Table of ranks of all military, civil and court ranks, which are in which class: and which are in the same class , they have the seniority of the time of entry into rank among themselves, however, the military ones are higher than the others, even if someone in that class was awarded older.” The table of ranks consolidated the rationalization of the administrative service, establishing a new bureaucratic division, which was based on the principle of seniority and suitability. The explanation attached to the Table noted that nobility in itself, without service, means nothing and does not create any position for a person. People of noble family are not given any rank until they show merit to the sovereign and the fatherland. All this meant a break with the previous management tradition.

Military				Civil
Land		Artillery		Civil
1. General - Field Marshal			Admiral General
2. Generals of cavalry, infantry and stadtholder		General - Feldzeigmeister	Admirals of other flags	Actual Privy Councilors
3. General - lieutenants		General - Lieutenant	Vice Admiral	Prosecutor General
4. General - majors	Colonel	Major General, Major General of Fortification	Schoutbenachty	Presidents of boards, privy councilors, chief prosecutor
5. Foreman; Obersterkrieg Commissioner, General Provision Master	Lieutenant Colonels	Artillery Colonels	Captains-commanders, captain over the port, chief sarvaer, quartermaster	Vice-presidents of the boards, Chief Waldmeister, Chief General of Police, Postal Director, Director of Buildings, Archpriest
6. Colonels-treasurers, adjutant generals, quartermaster generals, chief provisions master		Lieutenant colonels from artillery, colonels-engineers	Captains of the first rank, ship's sarvaer, prosecutor	Prosecutors in the collegiums, privy councilors, chief secretary of the Senate, advisers in the collegiums
7. Lieutenant colonels, auditor generals, provisions masters-wagenmeisters	Captains	Majors, lieutenant colonels-engineers	Captains of the second rank	Vice-presidents in the courts, chief secretaries of the Foreign Collegium and the Admiralty
	Captain-lieutenants	Major Engineer	Captains of the third rank. Shipwrights	President in the Magistrate in the Residence, chief commissars, assessors in the boards, chief secretaries in other boards, chief bergmeister, court councilor
9. Captains, Chief Provision Master, Headquarters General, Chief Auditors, Field Postmasters	Lieutenants	Lieutenant captains, engineer captains, commissars at gunpowder and saltpeter factories	Lieutenant captains, galley masters	Titular Councilor, Chief of Police in the Residence, Mayors from the Magistrate, Professors at the Academies, Doctors at various faculties, Translator and Recorder of the Senate
10. Captain-lieutenants	Non-commissioned lieutenants	Lieutenants, engineering lieutenants, auditor, Chief Wagenmeister, captains over craftsmen	Lieutenants	Secretaries of other boards, burgomasters from the Magistrate in the provinces, translator and protocolists in the Military, foreign board and the Admiralty, bergmeister
			Ship's secretaries
12. Lieutenants	Fendricks	Non-commissioned lieutenants, engineering lieutenants, Wagenmeisters, bayonet cadets, non-commissioned engineering lieutenants	Non-commissioned lieutenants, skippers of the first rank	Secretaries in court courts and offices in provinces, ratmans in the Residence
13. Non-commissioned lieutenants		Bayonet cadets, engineering non-commissioned lieutenants		Secretaries in the provinces, mechanicus, collegiate: translators, protocolists
14. Fendricks, Headquarters Furiers		Engineering fendricks	Ship commissars, skippers of the second rank, constables	Commissioners at the Collegiums, archivist, registrar and accountants at the Collegiums, postmasters in Moscow and other cities

IN real life The administrative system created suffered from many weaknesses. The country certainly did not have a sufficient number of experienced, qualified personnel capable of mastering cameralist principles. There was no stable funding for the state apparatus; officials could not see their small salaries for years, preferring to “feed from business.” Peter I relied on repression and the strictest punishments, believing that the lack of intelligence of his subjects should be compensated by fear. In a decree dated May 11, 1721, to the President of the Chamber Collegium, Dmitry Mikhailovich Golitsyn, Peter I noted: “... you yourself know, although what is good and necessary, but a new thing, our people will not do without coercion.” Collegium officials were deprived of a month's salary for a one-day absence, and every hour of premature departure from the collegium resulted in the loss of a week's salary.

Focusing on foreign models in his reform activities, Peter I sought to adapt foreign institutions to Russian custom, which for the tsar meant the existence of unlimited supreme power, the absence of an estate-representative body, and developed self-government in cities and rural areas. Peter I sought to reproduce only the Swedish institution of collegiums in Russian conditions. It is characteristic that at the end of 1718. The Senate, when considering the issue of using the Swedish system of local government in Russia, decided that it was unacceptable for Russia.

Church reform completed the process of nationalization of religion, turning the church organization into part of the state apparatus. The Synod, as the highest body of the church organization, was already perceived by Peter I's contemporaries as the 13th collegium.

Peter I, with all his passion for drawing up regulations, nevertheless did not set out to accurately determine the nature of his power as emperor, his duties. It seems that Peter I recognized the only possible autocratic form of government for Russia. Peter's turner A.K. Nartov once heard the tsar talking with J. Bruce and A. Osterman: “Strangers say that I command slaves as if they were slaves. I command subjects who obey my decrees. These decrees contain good, not harm to the state. English liberty is out of place here, like a pea against a wall. The people must know how to govern them.” In the Military Regulations of 1716. it was stated that “His Majesty is an autocratic monarch who should not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs, but he has the power and authority to rule his states and lands, like a Christian sovereign, according to his will and good will.” We encounter a similar statement in the Spiritual Regulations: “The power of monarchs is autocratic, which God himself commands to obey.”

Accepting the title of Father of the Fatherland, Emperor and Great, Peter I said: “The grace of God, after twenty years, crowns hard labor and establishes the well-being of the state... Hoping for peace, one should not weaken in military affairs... One must work for the benefit of the common profit... which will make the people relieved.” .

In 1721, in connection with the triumphant end of the Northern War and the conclusion of the Treaty of Nystadt, which consolidated the victory, grandiose festivities began in the capital in September, ending in October with the ceremony of Peter I accepting the title of Peter the Great, Father of the Fatherland and Emperor of All Russia. All the senators, addressing their request to the king to accept this title, referred to the fact that “usually the Roman Senate publicly presents such titles to them as a gift for the noble deeds of their emperors.”

The title of Peter I as Emperor of All Russia and the proclamation of the Russian state as an empire were a manifestation of significant changes, a reflection of the country’s new position in the system of European states, its firm entry into the circle of European powers. It is characteristic that the diplomatic service acquired new organizational forms. Periodic embassies sent to England, France, Holland, and Austria were replaced by permanent diplomatic missions in leading Western European countries, whose ambassadors, in turn, received accreditation at the royal court in St. Petersburg. However, it should be taken into account that during the life of Peter the Great imperial title it was recognized by Venice, Prussia, Holland, Sweden, and Denmark. However, this does not change the fact that the power of Russia forced it to be taken into account when resolving all significant issues in Europe.

Peter called himself the First, which was new and unusual in Russian history. After all, earlier Russian monarchs did not “number” themselves, recognizing the naming “by patronymic”, which was supposed to emphasize loyalty to tradition and the precepts of antiquity. By calling himself the First, Peter thereby showed that the transformation of Russia under him was decisive and irrevocable.

Administrative transformations completed the formalization of the absolute monarchy in the political system of Russia. Peter I’s acceptance of the title of emperor was not only an external expression, but also a confirmation of the absolutism that had become established in Russia: “... His Majesty is an autocratic monarch who cannot answer anyone from above about his affairs. must, but the state and lands also have their own strength and power, like a Christian sovereign, to rule according to his own will and good will,” read the 20th article of the Military Regulations.

5. Conclusion

The evolution of Russian statehood from an estate-representative monarchy to absolutism was historically inevitable and justified. It's natural historical development countries, the transition from feudalism to bourgeois relations. The final approval and formalization of absolutism in Russia dates back to the first quarter of the 18th century. Throughout the entire period under review, the Russian autocrats-reformers Ivan IV and Peter I had a huge impact on the development of Russia. They carried out, each in their time, radical transformations of the entire political system of Russia, bringing it to an ever higher level.

Let's hope that Russia will still confirm its right to be called the strongest country in the world, which will be taken into account by all states near and far.

6. List of used literature:

1. “History of the Fatherland. Tutorial for students correspondence department» Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing house MGUP, 2000

2. I. Yu. Zaorskaya, M. V. Zotova “The formation and rise of the Russian state in the 15th – 18th centuries (Positions, comments, documents). Tutorial." M, Publishing house MGAP "World of Books", 1994

3. M. V. Zotova " encyclopedic Dictionary. Chronology Russian history(IX – XIX). Issue 1" M. Publishing house MGUP "World of Books", 1998

1. “History of the Fatherland. Textbook for correspondence students" Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing House MGUP, 2000 p. 57

2. I. Yu. Zaorskaya, M. V. Zotova “The formation and rise of the Russian state in the 15th – 18th centuries (Positions, comments, documents). Tutorial." M, Publishing House MGAP "World of Books", 1994 p. 54

"The history of homeland. Textbook for correspondence students" Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing House MGUP, 2000. 56-60

"The history of homeland. Textbook for correspondence students" Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing House MGUP, 2000. 60-69

"The history of homeland. Textbook for correspondence students" Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing House MGUP, 2000. 69-70

"The history of homeland. Textbook for correspondence students" Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing House MGUP, 2000. 71-74

"The history of homeland. Textbook for correspondence students" Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing House MGUP, 2000. 88

"The history of homeland. Textbook for correspondence students" Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing House MGUP, 2000. 88-89

"The history of homeland. Textbook for correspondence students" Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing House MGUP, 2000. 89-91

M. V. Zotova “Encyclopedic Dictionary. Chronology of Russian history (IX – XIX). Issue 1" M. Publishing house MGUP "World of Books", 1998 p.134-137

M. V. Zotova “Encyclopedic Dictionary. Chronology of Russian history (IX – XIX). Issue 1" M. Publishing house MGUP "World of Books", 1998 p.132

"The history of homeland. Textbook for correspondence students" Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing House MGUP, 2000. 92-93

"The history of homeland. Textbook for correspondence students" Under the general editorship of M. V. Zotova. M, Publishing House MGUP, 2000. 75

Territory and population In the 17th century. The expansion of the territory of Russia continued due to the inclusion of new lands of Siberia, the Southern Urals and Left-Bank Ukraine, and the further development of the Wild Field.

The territory of the country was divided into counties, the number of which reached 250.

As before, counties were divided into camps and volosts. The center of the camps was the village. In the lands that were recently included in Russia, the administrative system remained the same.

The population was at the end of the 17th century. 10.5 million people.

Social structure of the 17th century. characterized by the consolidation of the main classes into classes-estates. Estate is a social group of the population that has rights and responsibilities enshrined in custom or law and inherited. A class organization, usually including several classes, is characterized by a hierarchy expressed in the inequality of their position and privileges. In the 17th century a royal decree was adopted, according to which estates could be transformed into estates. As a result, the structure of feudal land ownership changed. There was a process of gradual convergence of the legal status of estates and the status of estates.

The consolidation of the exploited class took place contradictorily, but in accordance with the main four groups of peasant owners: the feudal state, the church and its organizations, the ruling dynasty as a patrimonial land, and individual feudal lords. Based on this, the peasants were divided into state peasants, economic peasants, palace peasants and landowners.

There is a tendency towards closed classes - the proportion of the tax-paying population at the end of the 17th century. increased to 91.3%.

The urban population is consolidating; in the 17th century Its name was established - townspeople. At this time, a hierarchy of the urban population developed: the guests and the living hundred (merchants trading abroad), the cloth hundred, the black hundreds (medium, small and retail traders) and settlements (craft districts and workshops).

Guests, in addition to trading operations, carried out financial services: they managed customs, distributed items of income and expenses, occupied the positions of heads and clerks in public places, collected duties from foreign merchants, and traded government goods. The increasing role of the merchants was associated with the development of commodity-money relations in the country and the beginning of the formation of an all-Russian market. The state supported merchants. In the 17th century in Russia, the plurality of trade duties was replaced by a single ruble duty; In order to protect Russian merchants from foreign competition, the New Trade Charter was adopted.

“Black” townspeople lived on land that was state property. They were entrusted with a tax for the benefit of the state. Their land, on which they lived, they could only sell to other “black tax” people.

In the 17th century The feudal-serf system of Russia is being strengthened; in essence, the national system of serfdom is being finally formalized. The final stage of enslavement of peasants in Russia came in 1649, when the Council Code finally abolished St. George's Day and assigned privately owned peasants to landowners, boyars, and monasteries. The dependence of privately owned peasants on feudal lords and the state increased. Landowners were granted broad serfdom rights. Thus, this legislative document established the heredity of serfdom, as well as the right of the landowner to dispose of the property of the serf. At the same time, the tsarist government made landowners responsible for the performance of state duties by peasants.

Public administration The general trend in the development of the Russian state system in the second half of the 17th century. - the transition from autocracy with the Boyar Duma and the boyar aristocracy, from an estate-representative monarchy - to an absolute one.

Absolutism is a form of government in which the supreme power in the state fully and undividedly belongs to the monarch. Under absolutism, the feudal state reaches the highest degree of centralization, a branched apparatus, a standing army and police are created, and the activities of class representation bodies, as a rule, cease.

Boyar Duma The Boyar Duma played a major role in governing the state at the beginning of the century. It was believed that the Tsar in Rus' ruled the country together with the Duma. The Duma included representatives of four Duma ranks: boyars, okolnichy, Duma nobles and Duma clerks. The most important and prestigious was the first rank - boyar. The king appointed persons from two dozen of the most noble families, descendants of the ruling houses, to this rank. Ancient Rus', as well as old Moscow boyar families. Okolnichy were princes and descendants of Moscow boyars. All of them came from 60 of the most ancient and noble families1. The rank of Duma nobles was received by nobles who rose to the top thanks to personal merit, long and faithful service to the sovereign: there was not a single prince here. An exception was Kuzma Minin, a Nizhny Novgorod merchant, a representative of the “third estate”, who received the rank of Duma boyar for saving the Fatherland in a time of foreign ruin. In general, Duma nobles became duma nobles in the 17th century. representatives of 85 families of the minor Russian nobility.

Duma clerks were promoted from simple clerks, and sometimes clerks. They, as a rule, were bureaucratic businessmen and played big role in management matters. Their functions included reporting the matter to the Duma and forming its decision.

The numerical composition of the Boyar Duma changed. At the end of the 70s. XVII century it had 97 members, of which 42 were boyars, 27 okolnichy, 19 Duma nobles and 9 Duma clerks1. Thus, the aristocratic character of the Duma was preserved, although more and more nobles and clerks penetrated into the Duma.

At the meetings of the Duma, at the direction of the tsar, the most important state affairs were discussed: declaration of war, conclusion of peace, collection of emergency taxes, adoption of a new law, controversial issues regarding the presentation of orders, and complaints from individuals. The decision of the Duma became a law or its explanation, and the Duma was a legislative, administrative and supervisory body.

The Chairman of the Duma was the Tsar, and in his absence, a noble boyar on behalf of the Tsar. In the case when the tsar was not present, the decision of the Duma was recognized as a draft and its final approval by the sovereign was required. Particular attention in the Duma was paid to diplomatic and military issues. The Duma controlled diplomatic correspondence. For negotiations with foreign ambassadors, the Duma created temporary “response” commissions, and then heard reports on the progress of these negotiations. The duties of the Duma Secretary for External Relations were performed by the clerk who headed the Ambassadorial Prikaz.

XVII century was a period of significant growth in the role of the Boyar Duma, since tsarist power during the Time of Troubles was weakened and there was a struggle for the Russian throne. The importance of the Duma especially increased when in 1606-1610. on the throne was Vasily Shuisky (1552-1612). He submitted to the demands of the boyars and accepted the letter of the cross from them, which meant an unprecedented limitation on the power of the tsar by the boyars. After his deposition, there was even a period in Rus' when all power temporarily passed to the Boyar Duma. It then consisted of seven influential boyars, so its rule during the interregnum received in history the name of the seven-boyars. During these years, Rus' was on the verge of losing its statehood, i.e. state independence.

In the middle of the 17th century. The role of the Boyar Duma is gradually decreasing, which was one of the signs of Russia's movement towards an absolute monarchy. Along with it, under the tsar there was the so-called Near or Secret Duma - a narrow circle of especially trusted persons, advisers to the supreme ruler. To manage current affairs in the event of the tsar’s departure from the capital, the Boyar Duma created temporary commissions; more important matters were sent “on campaign” to the king. Under the Boyar Duma from 1681 to 1694. There was a Chamber of Spreading, which included 11 or more members. This was a special judicial department for the consideration of controversial civil cases.

Zemsky Sobors In the 17th century. Zemsky Sobors remained bodies of class representation, but their role changed significantly - the representation of nobles and townspeople increased. During

XVII century The dynamics of the importance of Zemsky Sobors was uneven. Thus, at the beginning of the century, due to social upheavals, foreign invasions, and the weakening of state power, the role of Zemsky Sobors greatly increased.

A special role fell to the Zemsky Council (or the Council of the Whole Land), created during the second militia in 1612. It included representatives of the boyars and clergy, the sacred rank and townspeople. This Council established temporary orders in Yaroslavl (Local, Discharge, Eastern, Monastic, etc.) and a monetary court. From this list it is clear that the leadership of the people's army, in addition to military affairs, resolved many other issues - diplomatic, financial, church, land. Essentially, it has become the supreme body of power (both legislative and executive), deciding issues of domestic and foreign policy. This was the time when cathedrals played the most important and progressive role in the socio-political life of Russia. For example, the verdict passed by the Zemsky Sobor on June 30, 1611 in a “stateless time” is recognized as an act of general historical significance.

Of exceptional importance was the Zemsky Sobor of 1613, convened with the aim of restoring state power in Russia - electing a new tsar to the Russian throne. To convene it, letters were sent throughout the country.

In terms of its composition, this Council was the most representative in the entire history of the Zemsky Councils of Russia. Approximately 700-800 people took part in it. This was the only Council that was attended, in addition to the upper classes, by representatives of the Streltsy, Cossacks, palace and black-mown peasants. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky, this Council can be considered the first reliable experience of real representation.

As you know, sixteen-year-old Mikhail Romanov (1613-1645) was elected tsar.

The new royal dynasty of the Romanovs established itself on the Russian throne in 1613, its representatives ruled the country for 300 years. The Romanov tsars acquired a magnificent title: “ by God's grace Great sovereign, king and Grand Duke, Autocrat of All Russia,” where, as we see, the idea of the divine origin of power dominates. In the 17th century the concept of the Romanovs being chosen by God was formed; its author was the cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Abraham Palitsyn (7-1626). He is the author of “The Tale of Abraham Palitsyn” - a collection of historical stories of a journalistic nature, containing valuable information on the history of Russia in the 17th century.

After the expulsion of the interventionists in the first years of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the country experienced devastation and experienced enormous financial difficulties. And the king needed support from various segments of the population, especially merchants who owned money. During this period, Zemsky Sobors met almost

continuously. They turned into bodies of administrative power, where representatives of the nobility and townspeople played a decisive role, and at first they expressed the will of “the whole earth” in their own way. However, after the return of Metropolitan Philaret (1554/55-1633), the father of Tsar Mikhail Romanov, from Polish captivity to Moscow in 1619, and the formation of a permanent government, the role of Zemsky Sobors and cathedral deputies decreased, they began to meet less frequently. If in the period 1613-1622. The councils operated almost continuously, from 1622 to 1632. they were not going to, although perhaps there will be sources archival documents, indicating the opposite. In the period 1632-1653. Zemsky Sobors met rarely, but the issues they considered were very important: the Council Code of 1649, the uprising in Pskov, Russian-Polish, Russian-Crimean relations, the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, the question of Azov. Zemsky Sobors of this period are characterized by the active participation of class groups presenting demands to the government. After 1653, the activity of the cathedrals faded, and only in 1683-1684. there is a slight rise, which turned out to be the eve of their fall. This trend expressed the development of an estate-representative monarchy into an absolute one.

Orders of the 17th century. occupies a special place in the development of the public administration apparatus in Russia. During this period, commodity-money relations developed in Russia, bourgeois ties emerged, manufactories arose, the class struggle intensified, and the tasks facing the feudal state expanded. It was in this century that instead of a small and, to a certain extent, random group of people, a special special stratum came to work in government institutions in Russia, which received the general name of clerks. Orderly people are a special group that was formed in the 17th century. into a class group of service people whose main duty was to work in government institutions in the center and locally.

A state institution has such defining features as subordination to the central government, the presence of a permanent staff and a budget.

The process of consolidation of the top of the service class into the class of nobility, spanning the 15th-17th centuries, was reflected in a change in the form of government, in the gradual development of an estate-representative monarchy into an absolute one. It was shown above how the evolution of such institutions of supreme rule as the Boyar Duma and Zemsky Sobors proceeded, how their role decreased and the power of the tsar strengthened. An indicator of the strengthening of autocracy is also the ongoing bureaucratization of executive bodies.

new in the center and locally. This was manifested in the formation and expansion of their states, without which the implementation of autocratic rule is impossible. This corporation in the 17th century. was just being formed and was the unquestioning conductor of the decisions of the supreme power.

Historians believe that the first half of the 17th century. - the heyday of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia. This stage also corresponds to the flourishing of the order system and its gradual introduction into all branches of management. This system, as was shown, took shape in the 16th century, and in the 17th century. it increasingly penetrated into the sphere of local government. This process was accompanied by the flourishing of the Zemsky Sobors and the strengthening of the Boyar Duma. When in the 10-20s. XVII century The system of public administration, destroyed by the turbulent events of the Time of Troubles, was restored, and approximately 20 of the former central institutions began to function. The need for large financial expenses for economic needs led to an increase in the fiscal activity of orders. Therefore, quarter orders were issued, a number of new permanent and temporary central institutions for collecting taxes were created (order of the Great Treasury).

The promotion of such social groups as the nobility and Cossacks during the fight against the Polish intervention predetermined the revival of the Local Prikaz, which was in charge of the mass distribution of land, and the Cossack Prikaz.

New for the order system was the formation of the Patriarchal Administration in connection with the increasing role of Patriarch Filaret in government. From that time on, a triple division of the order system was established in the country government agencies(state orders, palace, patriarchal), whereas in the 16th century. the division was twofold.

A feature of the orders of the first half of the 17th century. There was also a widespread use of temporary orders, although they were formalized by the legislative act of creation, defining their functions, staff, budget and appointment of the head. They differed from permanent ones in their functional and extraterritorial nature, speed and efficiency of work.

For the 17th century the number of orders increased from 44 in 1626 to 55 in 1698. The most important orders (Posolsky, Razryadny) were headed by Duma clerks. Part-time work was allowed, i.e. clerk service simultaneously in two orders. Boyarin B.I. Morozov, for example, was simultaneously a judge in five orders.

In many orders the staff did not exceed 10 people. In such orders as the order of the Great Parish, the Novgorod Quarter, and Razboyny, the staff consisted of 22-27 people. A special group was represented by the four largest orders: Local (73 people), Grand Palace(73 people), Kazan Palace (46 people), Discharge (45 people).

In 1637, a new territorial order appeared in the system of orders - the Siberian order, which was separated from the Kazan order to manage the newly annexed lands.

The orders issued a variety of documents: letters of complaint, decrees on behalf of the tsar, memos, orders-instructions to officials, reports and letters of torture. Charters were systematized by issuing consolidated documents - statutory charters.

In the second half of the 17th century. Significant changes are taking place in the socio-economic life of Russia: serfdom has finally taken shape, at the same time bourgeois ties are developing, an all-Russian market is being formed, the social stratification of the village is deepening, urban uprisings are occurring, outbreaks of the national movement in the Volga region and Siberia, Stepan Razin’s powerful peasant war. At the same time, it is possible to return the bulk of the lands lost at the beginning of the century. Siberia continues to be developed, the defensive line is moving south, southeast, southwest - new ones are being developed fertile lands, new cities are being created.

All these processes could not but affect the superstructural institutions. During this period, the estate-representative monarchy became obsolete, as it no longer corresponded to the tasks facing the state.

After the adoption of the Council Code of 1649, which satisfied the basic demands of the nobility and the elite of the town, their political activity weakened. The nobility was most interested in suppressing the resistance of the enslaved peasants. But since the old state apparatus could not cope with these tasks, it was necessary to change the forms of government by strengthening absolutist principles and restructuring the army.

These changes affected all levels of the system of government institutions. There is a bureaucratization of the supreme administration, the importance of councils is falling - the field of their activity is narrowing. The importance of the Boyar Duma decreases - at the end of the century it turns into a kind of advisory body of order judges. As noted, in 1681-1694. a special Execution Chamber was created, which was a sign of the bureaucratization of the Duma. The change in the character of the Duma is evidenced by the increase in its unborn part - the Duma clerks (from 2-3 to 11-12 people).

Significant changes are taking place in orders as central institutions. New territorial orders arose for the management of the liberated Russian lands and the annexed part of Ukraine (Lithuanian and Little Russian), as well as two orders associated with new phenomena in management: Monastic and Reitar, created to organize the management of the troops of the new system, which gradually replaced the noble militia.

Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. greatly affected the army. The total number of warriors decreased sharply, and it was only possible to restore it by the beginning of the 30s of the century. Since 1630, the creation of regular regiments began in Russia - soldiers, reiters, and dragoons. 20 years after this, they began to recruit peasants and townspeople. The number of soldiers and archers gradually increased, while the role of the local cavalry decreased. If in 1651 there were 37.5 thousand nobles and boyar children, then in 1680 there were 15.8 thousand.1 The number of soldiers increased sharply. Foreigners began to enlist in the Russian army.

The armament of the regiments became uniform: muskets and carbines instead of heavy arquebuses, hand grenades, regimental artillery, rifled multi-barreled weapons, cannon fans.

A special place in the order system was occupied by the order of Secret Affairs, headed by the tsar himself, created in 1654 and lasting until 1675. It was an institution of a new type, exercised control over the activities of the other orders, but first of all, it was the personal office of the tsar.

TSAR ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH After the death of Mikhail Fedorovich, Russia swore allegiance to his 16-year-old son Alexei Mikhailovich. In the first years of his reign, he submitted to the influence of his tutor, boyar Morozov, who became his closest advisor. This influence increased even more when Morozov became related to the tsar. Alexey Mikhailovich married Maria Ilyinishna Miloslavskaya, and a few days later Morozov married her sister...

The internal state of the state was not yet settled: the people suffered under the weight of taxes. The tax on salt and displeasure against Miloslavsky, who distributed profitable places to his relatives, who oppressed the people with their extortion, all this caused a rebellion (1648). The consequence of this rebellion was the removal of Morozov from affairs and his exile to the Kirillov Monastery. In 1649, a Zemsky Sobor was convened in Moscow, the result of which was the publication of a new set of laws, known as the “Cathedral Code”.

The reign of Alexei Mikhailovich was marked by a huge rebellion, in which Cossacks and peasants took part and whose leader was the Cossack Stepan Razin. The famous uprising of the Ukrainian Cossacks against the Polish aristocracy ended with the separation of Little Russia from Poland and its annexation to Moscow in 1654. The leader of this uprising was Bogdan Khmelnitsky. For the possession of Little Russia, Alexei Mikhailovich had to fight two wars with Poland: the first war - 1654-1656, the second - 1658-1667. In 1657, Bohdan Khmelnytsky died. The war with the Swedes ended with the Treaty of Kardis in 1661. For his kindness, Alexei Mikhailovich received the name “the quietest”. He was married twice - to Maria Miloslavskaya, from whom there were two sons, Fyodor and John, and several daughters, and from his marriage with Natalya Naryshkina, a son, Peter, was born in 1672 (Illustrated chronology... P. 90-92) .

This time was characterized by the development of palace institutions, their number increased from 14 to 19, and in 1664 a special

ny Court Palace Order. At the end of the 50s, the Accounting Order was created, which controlled the financial activities of the orders. In the 80s, a reform was carried out to enlarge orders, which led to a reduction in their number to 37-38.

In the second half of the 17th century. Combining the management of several orders was still practiced, and temporary orders were created.

In 1682, localism was abolished, i.e. the principle of occupying a position depending on the nobility of origin and official position of the ancestors. “Rank books”, where pedigrees and appointments to positions were recorded, were burned. Since that time, the principle of official conformity has been established.

Since local institutions could not cope with the search for runaway peasants, commissions or detective orders were organized. Only for 1658-1663. 25 commissions were sent from the Local Order to the localities. Since the 60s, the creation of commissions has become widespread.

The second point in the development of orders of this period is the sharp increase in the number of people employed in them. If the number of clerks in Russia was in the 40s. XVII century 1611 people, then in the 90s it almost tripled and reached 4567 people. Of these, most were employed in Moscow government agencies, and 1,918 people were employed in local government institutions.

Due to the growth in the size of the bureaucratic apparatus, remuneration for their labor became a significant item of government spending. The government made attempts to reduce the salaries of officials and stop the growth of their numbers.

The tendency to increase staffing has determined the need for training personnel suitable for ordered work. Such preparation was organized under the most populous Local Order.

Local government The difficult situation of the country during the years of foreign intervention, as well as the peasant war of Ivan Bolotnikov (? - 1608) exposed the imperfection of provincial and zemstvo government bodies, which turned out to be helpless. Therefore, in addition to them, governors are established. They were appointed by the Rank Order from among the boyars and nobles, and approved by the Boyar Duma and the Tsar. This meant strengthening central power at the local level to the detriment of the principle of election. IN big cities Several governors were appointed, but one of them was considered the main one. The governors received the sovereign's salary and could not arbitrarily rob the local population - this was their difference from the feeders.

One of the main functions of the voivodes was financial control, so the voivodes had to keep records of the amount of land and the profitability of the land plots of all farms. The governors also exercised control over the elders and tselovniks, who directly collected taxes.

Another task of the governor is to recruit servicemen from the nobles and children of the boyars for military service. For this purpose, the governor compiled lists and kept records, held inspections, and checked readiness for service. The voivode sent military personnel to places of service, which were determined by the Discharge Order. His duties included monitoring the condition of the fortresses. He was in charge of the archers and gunners.

Despite the fact that local government lagged behind the central government, significant changes also occurred there. From the middle of the 17th century. the number of administrative huts increased sharply, which was explained by the expansion of the borders of the state. New fortified cities were created in the newly annexed areas. At the end of the 17th century. there were 300 urban-type settlements. In most cities, a voivodeship administration was established with huts attached to it. By the mid-70s, the term zakaznaya izba (managerial hut) had become widespread. The official hut was headed by a clerk.

Thus, a contradiction arose in the local government of this period - the governor appointed from above had to lead the elected bodies - provincial and zemstvo huts. In the process of development of the voivodeship system, these bodies were increasingly subordinate to the voivodes, primarily in military and police matters. Since the regulation of the rights and obligations of governors was uncertain, opportunities for arbitrariness were created, which the governors widely used - bribes were good additional source income in excess of the royal salary. The arbitrariness of the governors in Siberia was especially significant.

In the evolution of the state apparatus of Russia in the 17th century. Two stages can be distinguished, the line between which is determined by a change in the form of government:

10-50s XVII century - the time of formation and execution of the order principle within the framework of the class-representative monarchy;

60-90s XVII century - a time of sharp change towards an absolutist form of government. It was at the second stage that a category of people engaged in management issues, unprecedented in number, was formed, and a type of institutions was created that functioned in the center and locally. It is on this basis that in the last decades of the century the executive apparatus of Russian absolutism was formed, which finally took shape in the 18th century.

State and Church During the period of the formation of absolutism, in the second half of the 17th century, the growing autocracy did not want to put up with the claims of the church to interfere in state affairs, its uncontrollable desire to increase its wealth. Disagreements are growing between the church and the secular authorities - the government is trying to limit the growth of monastic land ownership, as well as the judicial and fiscal immunities of clergy.

In the 17th century In Russia, a church reform was carried out, in which the central government and feudal lords were interested, who did not approve of the increase in the land holdings of the church. This was also driven by the need to unify churches, their theological systems and ritual practices in Russia and Ukraine in connection with reunification. This reform, with the consent of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, was carried out by Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681). However, the reform met with protest from the feudal clergy, who were afraid that the changes would undermine the authority of the church. There was a schism in the Russian church. Nikon's reform was refused to be recognized by adherents of the old order (Old Believers), among whom Archpriest Avvakum (1620 or 1621-1682) stood out. The split became one of the forms of social protest of the masses.

The Council Code enshrined the elimination of “white” monastic, patriarchal, and metropolitan settlements in cities, which was a tangible restriction on church land ownership. Relations between the church and the state became complicated. The Council Code prohibited the patriarch and other higher hierarchs from acquiring new lands. However, Nikon violated this ban and, having received land from the king for three new monasteries, he himself became the owner of these monasteries. Nikon used power not only in spiritual, but also in worldly affairs.

The Church retained privileges - the right to judge the inhabitants of its domains, to have service people, to have its own orders. Together with the Tsar, Nikon was called the Great Sovereign. He believed that spiritual power was higher than secular power, royal power. However, secular power during this period purposefully followed the path of centralization and bureaucratization, and the tsar could no longer put up with the claims of the patriarch. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, dissatisfied with Nikon, stopped attending services and inviting the patriarch to the palace. There was a break between the patriarch and the king. In 1660, a church council deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank.

Development of law The largest legislative monument of the 17th century. - Cathedral Code of 1649 This is the vault feudal law of the Russian state, published for the first time in printing, translated into almost all European languages and representing a significant step forward compared to the legislation of the previous period. A distinctive feature of this law is that it regulated not individual groups of social relations, but all aspects of the socio-political life of Russia at that time. It reflects the legal norms of various branches of law - civil, criminal, procedural.

Judicial system In the 17th century. the evolution of the judicial system includes the creation of a system court orders(Moscow, Vladimir,

Dmitrovsky, Kazansky, etc.), performing the functions of the highest judicial bodies. Subsequently, these orders, together with the Petition, merged into a single Judgment Order.

At the beginning of the 17th century. The Robbery Order, created in the 16th century, was transformed into the Robbery Detective Order, and by the end of the 17th century. - order of Detective Affairs (Detective order). All labial elders, kissers, clerks and prison guards were subordinate to him. He was in charge of cases involving robbers and “dashing people.”

The writ of tribunal was the highest court in civil cases. Acted as a court of second instance on decisions made by the lower courts of governors, governors and provincial elders. Its activities were based on a territorial principle.

The main socio-political process of the second half of the XV-XVI centuries. in the history of Russia there was a continuation of the unification of the Russian lands into a single centralized state, which ended under Ivan III. Distinctive feature formation of the Russian state was its multinational character. In the 15th century marks the final liberation from the Tatar-Mongol yoke.

Significant changes are taking place in social structure society. The military-service nobility, which was the social support of the central government, entered the historical arena, which led to the establishment of a new form of feudal land ownership (local), a change in the position of the boyars and its composition, as well as the establishment of a state system of serfdom.

By shape government structure Rus' remained a feudal monarchy, in which the power of the prince was significantly strengthened, starting with the establishment of Caesarism at the end of the 15th century, the establishment of the title of tsar under Ivan IV and his elevation to the title of autocrat in the 17th century. This evolution of the supreme power was supported by the corresponding ideology both by representatives of the Orthodox Church and by the public of the era. However, despite the autocracy, the tsar’s power still needed class-representative bodies, which were the Boyar Duma (from the 15th century), Zemsky Sobors (from the 16th century), and orders (from the 16th century).

From the 16th century Rus' became an estate-representative monarchy. The heyday of this form of government dates back to the first half of the 17th century. At this time, the role of the Zemsky Sobors and the Boyar Duma was strengthened. However, after the adoption of the Council Code in 1649, which satisfied the basic demands of the ruling classes and finally established serfdom, a general trend in the development of the state system from class-representative monarchy to absolutism was indicated in Russia. This can be seen in all links of the state apparatus, both central and local, its comprehensive bureaucratization and growth in numbers, the decline in the role of the Boyar Duma and Zemsky Sobors, in relations between the state and the church, in the emerging regular army, which is becoming increasingly important in maintaining and strengthening Russia's autocratic-monarchical system.

Unlike European medieval states, class representative institutions in Russia arose later: if in Spain they appeared in the XD-XDI centuries, in Germany, Portugal and England - in the XIII century, in France - in the XIV century, then in Russia the date of the first famous cathedral - 1549. Historians associate the later formation of a class-representative monarchy in Russia with the difficult conditions of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, when cities were devastated, their political organizations were weakened, and the development of the class system was delayed. But based on the chronicle news of the convening of the cathedral by Grand Duke Vsevolod Yuryevich in 1211, it is believed that this cathedral was the prototype of future Zemsky councils. Thus, the emergence of class-representative institutions on a national scale in Russia can be dated back to the 13th century, but the foreign yoke interrupted their development for a long time.

At the same time, Zemsky Sobors and estate-representative institutions in European states (Cortes, Parliament, States General, Reichstag, etc.) are similar to each other, phenomena of the same order.

Just as in Western countries, the estate-representative monarchy arose in Russia at the stage of developed feudalism.

Just like in Western countries, in Russia peasants were not allowed to attend cathedrals (with some exceptions). The agrarian nature of the economy, the weakness of Russian cities and the urban system determined the limited role of the third estate in political life.

The functions of estate-representative institutions in Russia and Western countries were similar - the right to vote taxes, submit and consider (parse) petitions, approve resolutions and decrees.

The procedure for convening estate-representative institutions, their continuity and duration of action both in Russia and in the West were unstable. In all countries, their emergence and convocations were preceded by political and class struggle. Events not only coincided across countries, but also overlapped. When the Russian Tsar learned of the execution of the English King Charles I, the Council Code of 1649 protected the Tsar's life, honor and health: for a crime against the sovereign's honor, execution or self-mutilation was now imposed in Russia.