Localism. This word has become firmly established in our colloquial. To be local means to oppose private interests to state ones. Localism regulated service relations between members of service families at court, in military and administrative service, and was a feature political organization Russian society.
This name itself comes from the custom of being considered “places” in the service and at the table, and the “place” depended on the “fatherland”, “paternal honor”, which consisted of two elements - pedigree (that is, origin) and career the serviceman himself and his ancestors and relatives.
Localism arose at the court of the Grand Duke of Moscow at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, as a consequence of the centralization of the state and the liquidation specific system. The boyar's place in the service-hierarchical ladder of ranks was determined taking into account the service of his ancestors at the court of the Grand Duke. In accordance with this procedure for appointment to military and government positions were determined not by a person’s suitability or ability, but by his “patronymic” (nobility) and the position of his relatives (father, grandfather). It turned out that if the fathers of two service people were in joint service so that one of them was subordinate to the other, then their children and grandchildren had to be in the same relationship. A person could not accept an “inappropriate” (insufficiently honorable) appointment, since this would cause damage to his entire family. Localism was especially beneficial to the untitled old Moscow boyars, who were proud not just of their nobility, but of their merits in the service of the Moscow princes. However, localism prevented the advancement of capable but humble people. Local disputes turned out to be especially dangerous during military campaigns. Localism reflected the power of aristocratic families. However, appointment to the service became a complex and confusing procedure, accompanied by the so-called. “local disputes”, lengthy litigation, legal proceedings, which constituted a significant inconvenience already in mid-16th century century.
Localism, on the one hand, divided the nobility into rival clans, and on the other hand, consolidated it, assigning it to a narrow circle of noble families. exclusive right to fill senior positions.
Localism was one of those institutions feudal state, which provided a monopoly right to a leadership role in the most important organs state to representatives of the feudal nobility. The essence of localism was that the possibility of a person occupying any post in administrative bodies or in the army was predetermined by local accounts, that is, the mutual relationships between individual feudal - princely or boyar - surnames, and within these surnames - the mutual relationships between individual members of these families. At the same time, the possibility of changing these ratios was excluded, since this would mean a change in the order of places in the service, court or military hierarchy. This led to the fact that in order for a person to occupy this or that post, it was necessary that the position of this person in the local hierarchy corresponded to the position occupied in this hierarchy by that post, and the occupation of which this person claimed.
By the first half of the 16th century, the relationship between noble families was strictly established, and Moscow government in all his official appointments, he carefully observes the rules of local regulations. The official genealogy book - "The Sovereign's Genealogist", which contained the names of the most important service families in the order of generations, was compiled at the beginning of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The surnames placed in the sovereign's genealogy were called genealogies. The seniority of persons of the same surname was determined by genealogy when they had to serve in the same service.
To determine the seniority of persons different surnames in 1556, a book was compiled - “The Sovereign's Rank”, where the lists of appointments of noble persons to the highest positions of the court, in the central and regional administration, by heads of orders, governors and governors of cities, regimental marching governors, etc. were recorded. The sovereign category was compiled from the usual weather lists of services for 80 years ago, i.e. since 1475.
Service relationship determined by the sovereign's pedigree noble person to his relatives and the attitude towards foreigners established by the Sovereign was called his “parochial fatherland”; The position of his family among other noble families, confirmed by an entry in the category, constituted “family honor,” which determined the official dignity of a noble person.
Localism, therefore, established not the heredity of official positions, but the heredity of official relations between individual noble families. “Fatherland” was acquired by birth, descent, and belonging to a noble family. But this inherited paternal honor was supported by service appropriate to the ancestral fatherland. The voluntary or involuntary evasion of a noble person from service led to the “obscurity” of his entire family. It was difficult for a person who grew up in rigidity to advance to high place.
The main bodies of power at the national level in that period were the tsar and the Boyar Duma, which consisted of secular and spiritual feudal lords, constantly acting on the basis of the principle of localism and relying on the professional (noble) bureaucracy. It was an aristocratic advisory body. The Tsar combined in one person the legislative, executive and judiciary simultaneously.
Industry bodies central control became orders (Posolsky, Local, Razboinichiy, State, etc.), which combined administrative and judicial functions and consisted of a boyar (head of the order), clerks and scribes. Under Ivan III, the organs of the administrative apparatus were born.
There were special commissioners on the ground. Along with sectoral orders, territorial orders later began to emerge, in charge of the affairs of individual regions.
The foundations of local government are laid. The basis of local government was the feeding system. The country was divided into counties, counties into volosts. In return for the evicted princes, Ivan III begins to send governors. These were close associates of Ivan III, who were given lands to manage for their merits. Governors and volostels (in districts and volosts) were appointed by the Grand Duke and in their activities relied on a staff of officials (righteous men, closers, etc.). They were in charge of administrative, financial and judicial bodies, did not receive salaries from the treasury, but “fed” at the expense of the population of the territory entrusted to them, deducting part of the fees from local population to yourself. Two or three times a year the population was obliged to supply basic “feed” in the form various products. Additional source income for the governor was court and known part duties from auctions and shops. The feed collected from the population was not regulated. The term of office was not limited.
The activities of the governors and staff of officials were only an addition to the main thing - the right to receive “feeding”, i.e. collect part of taxes and court fees in one’s favor - “judgment”.
Feeding was given as a reward for previous service. Initially, the feeding system contributed to the unification of the Russian state. Moscow service people were interested in expanding the possessions of Moscow, since this increased the number of feedings. But the feeding system had major drawbacks. For feeders, management turned out to be only a burdensome appendage to obtaining “feed”. Therefore, they performed their duties poorly and often entrusted them to the tiuns. In addition, there was no order in receiving feedings. This system of local government did not correspond to the tasks of centralization. In the distribution of positions there arises new principle which is called localism.
The Moscow Grand Dukes (and then the Tsars) waged a stubborn struggle against localism, since localism bound them and put their actions under the control of the feudal nobility. The feudal nobility, in turn, stubbornly fought to maintain parochial privileges.
The first steps in the field of limiting viceroyal administration were taken by Ivan III way introducing into practice the issuance of special charters to localities that regulated the rights and responsibilities of governors and volosts. The earliest known charter of this time is the Belozersk charter of 1488. The main attention is paid to the regulation of the activities of bodies administrative management, function relationships local authorities and grand-ducal governors, as well as the division of jurisdiction between the local viceroyal court and the central grand-ducal court. The Belozersk charter is considered the predecessor of the Code of Law of 1497.
According to the Code of Law of 1497, the terms of activity of governors were shortened (from one to three years), and the “revenue items” of feeding were reduced, which are now usually converted into money.
The food consisted of “incoming food” (when the governor entered for feeding), periodic taxes two or three times a year (in kind or cash), trade duties (from out-of-town merchants), judicial, marriage (“brooding marten”) duties. For exceeding the feed rate, the governor faces punishment. The composition of the subordinate bodies of the viceroyal administration is also of a private-public nature; the court sends through slaves-tiuns (2 assistants) and finalists (summoning about ten people to court), between whom it divides the camps and villages of the district, but responsibility for their actions falls on itself.
In November 1549, a verdict on localism was issued. In the “Questions” of Ivan IV to the Stoglavy Cathedral, the circumstances and motives for issuing the verdict on localism are set out in the following way: “My father, Metropolitan Macarius, and archbishops, and bishops, and princes, and boyars. I was appointed in Kazan with all the chris-loving army and I put my advice to my bolyars in the most pure and conciliar before you, my father, about a place in the governors and in any assignments in any rank, not to be parochial, whoever they send with whomever, so that the military matter in that there was no chaos; and that was a loving sentence for all the boyars.” Thus, the purpose of issuing the verdict “On Places” was to create conditions to prevent “disruption” of “military affairs” during the campaign, resulting from localism in “parcels” and in “discharge”.
The localism verdict of November 1549 consists of two parts. The first part of the sentence is dedicated to the commanders of the main five regiments into which the army was divided: Big, Right Hand, Left Hand, Advanced and Sentry. In the second part we're talking about about the rest of the service people - non-governors.
In its content, the verdict of 1549 formally represents an act defining parochial relationships between individual voivodeship positions. Within the framework of recognizing the legitimacy of localism, there is another group of norms formulated by the verdict: on the procedure for regulating those cases when the official relations between certain service people do not correspond to the local accounts between them. However, the essence of the 1549 verdict on localism was not simple regulation parochial accounts in the regiments, but in the fight against localism.
To understand the political orientation of the verdict on localism, the interpretation that was given to this verdict during the campaign of 1549-1550 gives a lot. after the arrival of Metropolitan Macarius in Vladimir, when the question of localism was the subject of discussion between the tsar, the metropolitan and the boyars, and the just adopted verdict on localism was again confirmed. Based on this confirmation, Macarius, in his address to the service people, formulated as follows the order by which the service of all categories of service people during the campaign was to be determined: “And what is the matter with the luchitsa, who is with whom the king and Grand Duke he will send for his own business, and although there will be someone with whom and it will not be useful for his fatherland, the boyars, and the governors, and the princes, and the boyars’ children for the zemstvo business all went without places. And who cares about the bill, and how, God willing, he will come from his own place and from the land, and the sovereign will then give them the bill.”
Macarius's speech, included in the text of the official Book of Discharges, can be considered as a kind of official commentary on the text of the verdict on localism. The essence of the verdict of 1549 is set out in exactly the same way in “ Royal matters"The Council of the Stoglavy, where the verdict on parochialism is characterized as a law establishing the principle: “About the place in the governors and in any parcels in any category, do not be parochial, no matter who is sent wherever with whom.”
Thus, both according to the testimony of Macarius and according to the statement of Ivan IV himself, the meaning of the verdict on localism was the establishment of service in regiments “without places” and the prohibition of “localism” during the campaign.
Being one of the earliest political reforms of the 40-50s, the verdict on localism reflected general character government policies and demonstrated the forms and ways of implementing this policy.
In 1556, the system of feeding and viceroyal administration was reformed. In counties with a greater share of private feudal land ownership, power passed into the hands of provincial elders, elected from the nobility of the given county. And in areas with a black-growing population, zemstvo elders were elected.
The previous levies in favor of the feeder were replaced by a special fixed tax - “fed tax”, which went to the treasury. From these incomes, monetary “help” began to be paid to servicemen for entering military service.
In historiography, there is a generally accepted opinion that the feeding system was eliminated during the reforms of Ivan IV in 1555-1556, and as if this was important step on the path of state building. This opinion assumes that the king’s “sentence” was carried out strictly, and that the government ceased to fulfill its feeding function. However, this is not the case. Execution ancient function easily discernible in the new forms it has taken.
Firstly, by allocating estates to his servants, the king increased the number of feeders. Secondly, by paying for his service mainly in kind, the tsar established himself as a breadwinner. Higher ranks they received palace food (meat, fish, wine, hops, hay, malt), and the lower classes received other products (grain, flour, salt, oats). Service people were still paid in money, although partially and irregularly. However, the expression “cash feed”, used to denote this type of payment, betrayed the feeding function of the authorities.
Since cash salaries were unreliable and payments in kind were insufficient, clerks and service people resorted to the practice of “feeding from business.” Honors and commemorations (in money or in kind), offered to them in order to speed up the resolution of the matter, were considered a legitimate source of their income. The government threatened punishment only for promises, but in practice they were difficult to distinguish from honors and commemorations.
The first restrictions on the use of power were established by custom, statutory rules, and the norms of Russian Pravda and represented the determination of the size and procedure for collecting taxes from the population. Abuses were expressed mainly in excessive exactions. In the statutory charters of the viceroyal administration, in the veche charters, a line was also drawn between what was permitted and what was not permitted, promises were distinguished between permitted and “secret,” and violation of the department’s boundaries was prohibited.
The destruction of the cohesion of private interests with state interests began in the 14th century, when the concept of princely service first appeared in contracts between princely families and families. The public legal element penetrates into official relations with the strengthening political system, which was directly related to increased attention to the proper performance of their functions by officials. The existence of feeding played a very negative role in the development of official relations - official abuses at that time were of the nature of an everyday phenomenon.
In the Code of Law of the Grand Duke (1497), the concept of bribery as a prohibited act appeared. In general, the prohibition of violation of certain forms of official discipline was associated with the activities of the court. The Code of Law of 1550 knows the punishable acceptance of promises, unintentional and intentional injustice, expressed in making an incorrect decision in a case under the influence of the received reward, embezzlement.
In the Code of Law of 1550, the legislator made a distinction between two forms of corruption: extortion and bribery. In accordance with Art. 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Law, bribery meant the performance of actions in the service of an official, participant judicial trial, when considering a case or complaint in court, which it carried out contrary to the interests of justice for a fee. Extortion was understood as the receipt by an official of the judicial authorities of duties permitted by law in excess of the norm established by law.
By 1556, the system of maintaining the administrative apparatus through in-kind and monetary fees was abolished in Russia and replaced zemstvo administration with the establishment of wages.
In 1561, Tsar Ivan the Terrible introduced the Charter of Judgment, which established sanctions for receiving bribes by judicial officials of the local zemstvo administration.
The Council Code of 1649 already presented groups of such crimes; general and special, committed by officials. The administration of justice was the task of almost every administrative body, which opened up wide opportunities for abuse, so the first place was occupied by injustice: intentional, caused by selfish or personal motives, and unintentional.
On August 16, 1760, Empress Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great, issued a decree prohibiting government positions from being considered “feeding” for officials. According to the decree, the official did not “stand to be fed,” as had been the case since ancient times, but, first of all, pledged to “diligently correct the service” - in otherwise he could have been demoted or retired altogether. In today's language, Elizabeth banned “going to power for money,” that is, she opened the fight against corruption.
But also in late XVII century, 150 years after its abolition, the feeding system remained quite effective. If it was, as it were, disguised as new types of practice, then the presentation that came into use at the same time, on the contrary, kept in sight and even emphasized the feeding function of the supreme royal and patriarchal power. Filing became a means of establishing and maintaining localism, that is, the hierarchy of the nobility. The presentation, this sign of closeness to the Tsar or, rather, a magical connection with him or the Patriarch, should undoubtedly be considered as an element of the charisma of Russian rulers.
To modernize the armed forces of the Muscovite kingdom, it was convened under Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich in the year 1682. The abolition of localism occurred in the same year, which was a major step towards democratization and improvement not only Russian troops, but also the entire administrative management system as a whole. This measure became the harbinger of the famous Peter’s reforms, the essence of which was to eliminate the principle of nobility in determining the service and highlighting personal merits.
About the ruler
The most important reform in the 17th century was the abolition of localism. Under which king did this transformation take place - one of the most interesting topics in domestic historiography. The corresponding resolution was adopted during the reign of which was marked by a number of reforms aimed at strengthening autocratic power. Under him, an attempt was made to change the system of administrative and church governance, but due to his early death, this measure was never implemented.
Characteristics of the concept
Of particular importance in Russian history has the year 1682. The abolition of localism was perhaps its most important event, since it led to a radical transformation of a significant part of society. But, before talking about the essence and significance of this reform, it is necessary to outline the main features of the time under consideration.
The end of the 17th century was a transitional era in the life of our country, because it was then that the government clearly realized the need for change and serious reforms. At the same time, the old order was still very strong, including the system of localism. This is how in the old days they called the principle of filling positions in accordance not with personal service, but with the degree of birth and nobility of a person. This led to endless disputes between representatives of the boyar families, who laid claim to higher places, citing their ancient and noble origins.
Composition of the nobility
This state of affairs complicated the work of the state apparatus and military forces. After all, the essence of localism came down not to a person’s abilities, but to determining the degree of his nobility and birth.
Here a few words should be said about the composition of the Moscow boyars: it included representatives of the ancient capital’s aristocracy, alien Lithuanian and Tatar princes, as well as nobles annexed to Moscow appanage principalities. All of them, as a rule, were members of the Sovereign Duma, engaged in civil and military administration. However, endless disputes about which of them should be superior interfered with the work of the ever-expanding state apparatus, which needed a more flexible system for effective control.
Very often, during military campaigns, boyars and governors were busy not so much with conducting military operations, but with finding out which of them was supposed to be the boss and which was the subordinate, which, of course, sometimes led to sad consequences.
System strength
The Zemsky Sobor on the abolition of localism, in fact, changed the entire familiar administrative structure in our country. After all, on this principle over several centuries the system was based government controlled. Therefore, the question naturally arises about the reasons for the stability of this system. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the Moscow princes and tsars themselves supported it, actively participating in the disputes of the boyars and assigning them to service based on their origin and degree of relationship. Secondly, constant growth the Moscow nobility at the expense of nobles from other appanage principalities demanded some order in the distribution of posts, and localism with its stable structure was best suited for this. Thirdly, this procedure was formalized in bit books ah and genealogies, which from generation to generation served as the basis for disputes and claims.
Assessments in historiography
The verdict to abolish localism was a natural consequence of the need to eliminate the cumbersomeness and complexity of the state apparatus based on this system. However, the modern historian D. Volodikhin notes some positive features of this system, indicating that it ensured harmony and some strength of the entire system. According to the researcher, this principle preserved for the time being the unity of the class, despite disputes and bickering over the rank. However, most researchers still agree that such a rule for filling positions had an extremely negative impact on the management system.
Prerequisites for reform
Based on the above, we can name the following reasons for the abolition of localism: the need to create a more efficient and mobile administrative structure, the desire of the tsarist government to attract truly talented and capable service people. This reform should be considered as a continuation of the policy of previous Moscow rulers, primarily Mikhail Fedorovich, to create the so-called regiments of the new system. So, already at the beginning of the 17th century, the need to overcome the old system of staffing became obvious.
Cathedral
A new meeting of representatives of the clergy met in the year 1682. The abolition of localism was one of the main consequences of his administrative decisions. However, it should be noted that this cathedral was devoted more to religious issues and was a continuation of church reform. At this meeting, the main issues brought up for consideration concerned the organization of new dioceses, monasteries, and the correction of the Official Book. However, the need to abolish the outdated model of replacing military and government officials became so urgent that they decided to destroy the rank books. It can be said that decision the abolition of the old service system was a step forward in military and public administration.
Meaning
One of the most important reforms in the history of Russia was carried out in the year 1682. The abolition of localism brought to the fore promotion through personal service. Therefore, Peter I cannot be considered the founder of this reform: the first emperor only strengthened and legislated what existed before him.
In the Russian state, the main advisory body under the prince and the tsar was the Boyar Duma, which existed from the end of the 14th century until the end of the 17th century, when it was transformed into the Senate. The so-called localism was widespread there. What it is? Why, over time, did the kings first begin to limit it, and then abolish it altogether? Let's figure it out.
What is localism?
The definition of the term is related to the word place. It was the place at the princely table that the boyars considered their position. And the closer the boyar was to the prince or tsar, the more influential he was in the Duma. Thus, localism- this is the position of the boyars in the Boyar Duma, which was determined by the nobility of the family and was inherited. This is a kind of system for distributing positions between members of the Duma, which has existed in the Russian state since the 14th century.
From the history
Localism dates back to ancient times, when princes surrounded themselves with a princely council with an advisory voice. In the 14th century, the Boyar Duma became the official highest authority with advisory functions. The last word, of course, always remained with the prince, later the king. In the Duma, positions were distributed according to the nobility of the family.
Ivan the Terrible fiercely waged the fight against the rebellious boyars (and he introduced the oprichnina for this purpose). He was the first to limit localism, which led to the opportunity for people from less noble families, but gifted and talented, to get into the Duma. This happened in 1550.
Localism was finally abolished at the Zemsky Sobor in 1682, during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich Romanov.
Reasons for the abolition of localism
Localism turned the Boyar Duma into a closed group, because only representatives of certain noble families could enter it.
Often in the Duma there were disputes between boyars who sought to prove the nobility of their family. Disputes were resolved by the prince, and later by the tsar with members of the Discharge Order. Although it should be noted that localism protected the country from these boyar disputes, which sometimes even reached serious clashes.
The nobility of a family was not always at the same time a sign of a person’s intelligence and abilities. This led to the fact that in the Boyar Duma there were limited people who were not capable of governing the state.
Localism hampered the attraction of talented, intelligent, good organizers and administrators to government bodies, which hampered the development of the country as a whole.
The figurative meaning of the word “localism”
Localism is a specific system of distribution of positions in Rus' in the Middle Ages. When obtaining a position, the nobility of the family was taken into account. This gave rise to monopolization, which gave the ability to receive high places only to princes and boyars, leaving with nothing the local nobles who were the support of the Russian state and the formation of a centralized system in the country.
The history of the emergence of localism
Localism is a system that allows the distribution of positions depending on the nobility of the family and the official position of relatives. Such a system appeared at the beginning of the 15th century, but did not last long. On January 12, 1682, localism was abolished by the verdict Zemsky Sobor.
There were many prerequisites for the emergence of localism in the Middle Ages. The main role was played by adopted elements from Polish-Lithuanian legislation. It was there that for the first time they began to actively develop the transfer of power by inheritance or obtaining a position according to the nobility of the family. The hierarchy of distribution of official roles is confusing, which is why scandals often broke out among relatives, which could only be resolved by the tsar with the participation of officials of the rank order.
Highlight several criteria having a great influence on obtaining a high position.
- When distributing positions age was taken into account. For example, an older brother or sister always had priority when obtaining a high official position.
- Position in service gave the right to have higher priority for promotion career ladder. If a person proved himself while serving in the army or at work, he received a slight advantage over his relatives. This factor was taken into account if family members were in an equal position.
- Played the main role surname. Depending on the level of service occupied, relatives distributed positions among other family members.
This system was abolished in 1682 by the verdict of the Zemsky Sobor on the orders of Fyodor Alexandrovich and the reason for this was the struggle to strengthen armed forces Russia.
Evaluation of the parochial system in history
Most historians are inclined to the negative influence of localism on the development of the Russian state, since official positions were distributed according to nobility. Thus, most of controlling positions in the state were occupied by people who did not have the abilities or talents to lead the country. There are many examples in history when the stupidity of high-class people led to big problems. Localism also made it possible to practically guarantee a high place for people from a noble family and therefore many did not show due diligence in achieving a high position and learning to control the state.
Even despite the great negative qualities of such a system, there are also positive aspects. Localism of some sort reconciled aristocrats from different states . At the turn of the 15th-17th centuries, the aristocracy consisted of Tatar princes, Russian princes who appeared during the annexation of new lands, and Lithuanian-Russian fugitive boyars. Each of them, thanks to the system, knew the position that he would occupy and what would be inherited thanks to the noble name of the family. Such a distribution of positions eliminated many disputes and conflicts that could arise among people of different character, nationality and mentality.
Main problems of localism
The first problem that led to the limitation of the localism system was associated with military reforms. They were carried out during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Under the local system, positions in the army were occupied according to pedigree, which had a negative impact on combat training. Many family members who inherited the post had no idea how to lead an army, much less fight. The first amendments to this system affected the distribution of positions in the Russian army. Ivan the Terrible banned the use of localism and left this system only political system, but there were problems here too.
The boyars, called to serve according to their line of descent, ceased to support and develop the state. Most of the time was spent on family disputes and clarifying the situation before the king. Typically a parochial system even determined a place at the table with the Russian sovereign, and many defended their position on this issue, proving their more high position. Disputes had to be resolved by the king, and at some point such “parochial disputes” became too many.
Such negative aspects of the parochial system led to the fact that it lost its weight in the distribution of positions. This turn of events was also facilitated by the Russian sovereign, who constantly made his own amendments. At some point, localism completely lost its effectiveness, but it was officially abolished only 100 years later, on January 12, 1682, by the decision of the Zemsky Sobor. All books that described localism systems were burned that same year.
Using the Localism System Today
Modern states they do not officially use and have a negative attitude towards the use of localism, but there is also an unofficial spread. In most CIS countries, at an unofficial level, power or official positions are transferred by inheritance. This violates not only the image of states, but also leads to a deterioration in work in various fields. For example, if a father was a first-class surgeon, this does not mean that his son or daughter will have the same knowledge and talent. The transfer of official position by family tree has a negative impact on the work and success of the person himself, because the burden of responsibility and expectations after a relative increases.
In Russia, they are fighting a similar problem in the following ways:
- attracting young specialists immediately after receiving necessary education;
- quality control of the work performed.
It even happens that companies or state organizations Only 1–2 people per family are hired.
Conclusion
When studying the history of Russia, it is imperative to know the definition, when it was created and the reasons for the abolition of localism. Wikipedia, various literary publications, video materials and the opinions of many historians will help you understand this issue more broadly and, perhaps, reveal your point of view on this issue.
Localism is a system of feudal hierarchy in the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. The term comes from the custom of being considered “seats” in the service and at the sovereign’s table.
Localism arose at the court of the Grand Duke of Moscow at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, as a consequence of the centralization of the state and the elimination of the appanage system. The boyar's place in the service-hierarchical ladder of ranks was determined taking into account the service of his ancestors at the court of the Grand Duke.
By the advent of localism there were historical background. With the unification of Russian lands around Moscow, the Rurikovich princes lost their inheritance in large number rushed to the capital to occupy as significant places as possible here. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that together with their masters, Ryazan, Rostov and other boyars came to the Mother See. Naturally, this state of affairs could not suit the local aristocracy, accustomed to its exclusive position around the Grand Duke of Moscow.
Muscovites tried in every possible way to push the serving princes and their boyars away from important services. And although they did not succeed in doing this fully, over time a system of clan accounts arose, thanks to which a relative balance was established among the families that became part of the nobility. At the same time, this system protected them from the claims of those who remained outside the upper class.
Russian historian S.M. Solovyov notes that another reason for the emergence of localism in Rus' is that the Russian aristocracy was much less tied to a specific territory than the Western European aristocracy. This is what he writes in his book “History of Russia from Ancient Times” (vol. 6, chapter 7):
With the names of nobles Western Europe we are used to seeing particles background, de s proper names land plots, castles. If all news about the origin of the Western European upper class disappeared, then from family names alone we would conclude that we are dealing with landowners, that land ownership is the basis of class significance. But let’s turn to our boyars, to their names: what will we meet? "Danilo Romanovich Yuryevich Zakharyin, Ivan Petrovich Fedorovich." Both the ancient princes and the boyars have no trace of an attitude towards land ownership, and one phenomenon explains the other: if the princes did not have permanent volosts, they changed them according to family accounts, then their squad also changed volosts along with them, could not sit on In some places, to take deep roots into the ground, to acquire independent zemstvo significance through land ownership, it depended, received its means of subsistence and significance from the prince or from a whole princely family, for the warriors passed from one prince to another. What was the main interest of the Russian boyar, this is expressed in his name: to the name received at birth or at baptism, he adds the name of the father of his grandfather and great-grandfather, carries with him his genealogy and firmly stands for the fact that there is no ruin or humiliation for the family; From here the phenomenon of localism becomes clear to us - tribal interest dominates.
The obvious and major drawback of localism immediately becomes clear - appointments to military and government positions were determined not by a person’s suitability or ability, but by his “patronymic” (nobility) and the position of his relatives (father, grandfather).
To illustrate the complexity of parochial relations, I will cite a wonderful excerpt from the book by M.K. Lyubavsky "Lectures on ancient Russian history before late XVI century."
Thus, for example, the descendants of grand dukes sat higher and were appointed to higher and more honorable positions than the descendants appanage princes, and even more so simple, even noble Moscow boyars. The descendants of appanage princes sat and were appointed above the boyars, but not always: those of them whose ancestors were servants of other appanage princes sat and were appointed lower than the boyars who served the great princes, etc. In addition to these general rules, there were also precedents in place in the local regime. It was taken into account how certain princes or boyars and their ancestors were previously seated and appointed to serve, who was a mile away from whom, who was higher or lower, etc. These precedents were consulted in official or private rank books containing records of all official celebrations and official appointments. In cases where there were no precedents for the joint appointment of certain persons or their ancestors to the service, they tried to find precedents for their joint appointment with third parties or their ancestors and in this way establish the correct relationship between them. But since different faces of a certain kind, they were not equal to each other, some were considered older, others younger, then in local appointments and accounts not only the “fatherland” was taken into account, general position kind, but also genealogical degrees. Therefore, for example, a son or grandson famous person was not considered equal in honor to the person to whom his father or grandfather was equal, but was several places lower than him. Therefore, during official appointments, inquiries were made not only in the ranks, regarding who sat under whom before or was appointed to a position, but also in the genealogies, who was assigned to whom and by whom. These two coefficients were used to produce thin and complex calculations, often confused and deliberately confused and therefore aroused bickering, disputes and quarrels.
As you can see, it is extremely confusing and a complex system, which inevitably led to frequent disputes and strife, which the Tsar and the Boyar Duma were forced to sort out. Localism made the boyars incapable of common cause, to friendly activity in any direction. It is no coincidence that during the Time of Troubles, the Moscow boyar elite actually betrayed Russia, and salvation came from Nizhny Novgorod.
In the 1st half of the 16th century. Localism was observed only among the boyars and former appanage princes. From the middle of the 16th century. it penetrates among the nobles, and in the 17th century. even among merchants and city officials.
Often, those appointed to the position would bash the Tsar that it was not right for him to serve below such and such a boyar, for such a “loss of honor” could create a precedent for lowering the status of his descendants.
It should be noted that there are two diametrically opposing views to the locality. According to the first, localism was unprofitable for the kings, since it limited them in personnel appointments and allowed the nobility to control this process; according to the second, localism helped the kings weaken and divide the aristocracy.
The truth, apparently, is somewhere in the middle.
Local disputes were especially dangerous during hostilities, when the appointment of governors was delayed due to such disputes and this interfered with the combat effectiveness of the army.
Ivan the Terrible realized this danger, and in 1549, during his campaign against Kazan, he banned local litigation during the campaign. At his request, Metropolitan Macarius addressed the army with the words: “And the sovereign wants to pay you for your service, and take care of your fatherland, and you would serve... and there would be no discord and no place between you...”
This practice was enshrined in the "Sentence of Places and Governors in Regiments" of 1550.
In the summer of July 7058, the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia sentenced with his father Macarius, Metropolitan, and with his brother with Prince Yuri Vasilyevich, and with Prince Volodimer Andreevich, and with his boyars, and ordered them to write in their official attire where to be on Tsarev and the Grand Duke, the service of boyars and governors by regiment: in the large regiment of life to the great governor, and in the advanced regiment, both the right hands and left hands of the governors and the guard regiment to the first governors of the life of the menshi of the large regiment of the first governor. And who will be the other [second] in the larger regiment of the governor, and before that larger regiment, the other governor is the right hand of the larger governor, there is no matter, they have no place to live.
And which governors will be in right hand, and the forward regiment and the guard regiment, the governors, will be the first to be right hands, not inferior. And the left hands of the governors should be no less than the advanced regiment and the guard regiment of the first governors. And the left hands of the governors would be less than the right hands of the first governor. And the other governor in the left hand will be less than the other governor in the right hand.
And the prince and the great nobleman, and the children of the boyars in the service of the Tsarev and the Grand Duke with the boyars and with the governor or with the light governors of the Tsarev and the Grand Duke for the purpose of being without places. And in the service attire, the Tsar and the Grand Duke ordered it to be written down that the boyar children and the great nobles were to serve in Tsarev and the Grand Duke's service with the governors not according to their fatherland, and there was no damage to their fatherland.
And which of the greater nobles will now be with the lesser voivodes where in Tsarev and the Grand Duke’s service not in their own fatherland, but ahead of them luchitsa which of those magisterial nobles themselves will be voivodes and with the same voivodes with whom they were, or luchitsa where to be on some kind of mission, and with those governors with whom they were, counting then, and to be then in the governors of their own fatherland; and before that, although they were with some governors and lesser ones in the service, and that noble with those governors in the account in their fatherland, there is no destruction according to the sovereign's Tsarev and the Grand Duke's verdict.
In July 1577, the royal governors moved to the city of Kes (now Cesis is a city in Latvia) and replaced themselves. Prince M. Tyufyakin twice annoyed the Tsar with petitions. “It was written to him from the king with fear that he was making a fool.” But other governors also did not want to accept the painting: “But the sovereign’s governors again hesitated and did not go to Kesi. And the sovereign sent the ambassadorial clerk Andrei Shchelkalov from Moscow with a grunt, the sovereign sent the nobleman Daniil Borisovich Saltykov from Sloboda, and ordered them to go to Kesi and carry out their business past the governor, and the governors with them.” Thus, the governors who began to “fool” were reassigned to the much less noble guardsman Daniil Saltykov.
Important, which limited localism, had a decree from Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645–1676) that when serving in the regiments, the captains and colonels of the Moscow Streltsy regiments should obey only the first boyars and governors, in connection with which the corresponding letters ordered that these Streltsy commanders be assigned only “to the great boyars and governors."
The lesson of the Time of Troubles did not serve our nobility in terms of their attitude towards localism.
This is what Sergei Stepanov writes in his training course"Political history of Russia":
So, on July 11, 1613, on the day of Mikhail Romanov’s crowning of the kingdom, Prince Dmitry Pozharsky was “conquered with boyars,” and the next day, on the royal name day, Kozma Minin was granted a Duma nobleman. However, the personal merits of the leaders of the second militia meant nothing to the nobility. At the ceremony of telling the boyars “at the fairy tale,” Pozharsky was assigned to stand by the Duma nobleman Gavrila Pushkin, who beat with his brow that he should stand at the fairy tale and less than a prince It is inappropriate for Dmitry to be there, because his relatives less than the Pozharskys have never been anywhere. And this episode was not the only one. V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about D. M. Pozharsky: “Even though he Moscow State cleared the Cossack thieves and Polish enemies, was promoted to boyar from among the noble stewards, received “great estates”: they found fault with him at every opportunity, repeating one thing that the Pozharskys were not people of the rank, they did not hold large positions, except for mayors and labial elders had never been anywhere before." Once, as a result of a local dispute, the savior of the fatherland was "sent away by the head" to the boyar B. Saltykov and escorted in disgrace under escort from royal palace to the porch of an insignificant but high-born rival. For their seats in the Boyar Duma and at ceremonies, the boyars were ready to suffer disgrace and imprisonment. In 1624, at the wedding of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich by royal decree It was announced to everyone “to be without seats,” but the boyar Prince I.V. Golitsyn refused to come to the wedding, saying: “Although the sovereign ordered execution, I can’t be less than Shuisky and Trubetskoy.” For disobedience, I.V. Golitsyn’s estates were confiscated, and he and his wife were exiled to Perm. However, his relatives apparently considered such tenacity commendable and imitated the boyar in defending family honor. In 1642, the nephew of this boyar, Prince I.A. Golitsyn at the reception foreign ambassadors entered into a local dispute with Prince D. M. Cherkassky, but it was announced to him through the Duma clerk: “There was a sovereign with foreigners in the golden chamber, and you, Prince Ivan, at that time wanted to sit above the boyar Prince Dmitry Mamstrukovich Cherkassky and called him your brother and thus dishonored him: the boyar Prince Dmitry Mamstrukovich is a great man and their honor is old, under Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich his uncle, Prince Mikhail Temryukovich, was in great honor." As a result, instead of the Boyar Duma, Prince I. A. Golitsyn was sent to prison.
Legally, localism was finally abolished at the end of the reign of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. On November 24, 1681, after the end of the war with Turkey, the tsar instructed Prince V.V. Golitsyn and his comrades “in charge of military affairs” to bring Russian army in accordance with modern requirements. In turn, Vasily Golitsyn, “having told the elected people his great sovereign’s decree,” immediately demanded “that they, the elected people, declare in what military dispensation it is more appropriate for stewards, solicitors, nobles, and tenants to be.”
Due to the fact that representatives of the most seedy Moscow clans did not want to get into command ranks, in which aristocrats do not serve, the electors asked: firstly, that the sovereign would order from now on to enroll as captains and lieutenants young men of all clans of the Court, who are now not on the lists , “as soon as they enter the service and are promoted to ranks”; secondly, I would point out great sovereign representatives of the Moscow nobility in all services should be “among each other without places where the great sovereign will indicate to whom, and henceforth no one will be considered by rank or place, and rank cases and places will be set aside and eradicated.”
On January 12, 1682, the tsar gathered the patriarch with the clergy and the present composition of the Duma, announced to them the petition of the elected representatives and supported it with a very eloquent speech. With general agreement, Fyodor Alekseevich ordered the boyar Prince M.Yu. Dolgorukov with Duma clerk V.G. Semyonov to bring all the available local rank books and invited the clergy to immediately destroy them, declaring that from now on everyone will serve without places, they should not be considered old services under pain of punishment. Instead of rank books, genealogical books were created, which were intended not as a tool for appointment to positions, but to codify all noble families.
(Read more about the abolition of localism in a special article on our website.)
But even after 1682, clashes based on family honor did not stop. Peter I had to fight this evil, who was forced to repeatedly remind about the “resignation of those before former places and fatherly disputes,” threatening those who disobey with torture and execution “according to this trial.”