After the unification of the main lands of North-Eastern Rus' around Moscow in the mid-50s of the 15th century. The creation of a state apparatus began on foundations that differed from those on which the reign of Vasily the Dark's predecessors was built. First of all, the territorial and administrative structure of the state was changed. To replace the destroyed estates, new ones were created, but not on a clan basis (descendants of Kalita), but on a family basis - they all belonged to the children of Vasily II.
But the main territory of the Moscow Principality remained subject to the Grand Duke. The main feature of this period was the transition of appanages to the county system. Initially they appear in Moscow lands, and in the middle of the century their number increases significantly due to the newly annexed lands.
Power in the districts is concentrated in the hands of governors, who, as a rule, become the boyars of the Grand Duke. As fiefs are annexed to Moscow, the power of governors extends to specific lands (Galich, Uglich, Mozhaisk, etc.).
Even in the previous period, the rights and privileges of governors were determined by statutory letters of governorship, the norms of which went back to the Russian Pravda. But no such letters have survived from the reign of Vasily II.
The creation of local administration was ahead of changes in the central government apparatus. The head of the Moscow Grand Duchy was Vasliy II. He was not distinguished by either determination or will, and he did not possess military leadership talents. After being blinded in 1446, Vasily II could hardly take an active part even in the most important events. Real power during his reign belonged first to his guardians, and after he reached adulthood - to the boyar advisers.
The role of the boyars increased significantly. The boyars headed the Sovereign's court as a military-administrative corporation. The leadership of the palace apparatus came from among the Old Moscow boyars, devoted to the interests of the grand duke. Representatives of one boyar family were usually appointed to palace positions for life.
In the mid-40s of the 15th century. The Sovereign's court was divided into the Palace, which remained an economic and administrative organization that provided for the needs of the Grand Duke and his family, and the Court, a military-administrative corporation that became the core of the armed forces of the Moscow principality.
Along with the boyars and boyar children (nobles), the descendants of the once independent Russian princes (Suzdal, Rostov, Yaroslavl and others), the so-called service princes, began to be involved in the execution of state orders.
The judicial system has undergone certain changes. Their essence was to reduce the judicial privileges of landowners and transfer cases of significant crimes to the administration of the governors' apparatus.
In the middle of the century, a new coinage reform was carried out and the issue of national coins was resumed at the grand ducal court. The coins minted by the Galician princes during the feudal war were taken as a model, and the weight of the coin increased slightly.
All these measures contributed to the further strengthening of the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow.
Reign of Ivan III
After the death of Vasily II the Dark, the Moscow throne was taken by his eldest son Ivan Vasilyevich (1462 - 1505), who became his father’s co-ruler during his lifetime. It was Ivan III who completed the two-century process of unifying Russian lands and overthrowing the Golden Horde yoke. Distinguished by his great intelligence and willpower, this great Moscow sovereign completed the collection of lands under the rule of Moscow.
If at the beginning of his reign the Moscow state was surrounded by sovereign possessions, the lands of “Mr. Veliky Novgorod”, the appanages of the independent princes of Tver, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Ryazan, then at the end of the 15th century colossal political changes took place in Eastern Europe. The Moscow state began to border directly on Sweden, German possessions in the Baltic states, Lithuanians and the remnants of the Golden Horde in the south.
Ivan III laid the foundations of Russian autocracy, not only significantly expanding the territory of his state, but also strengthening its political system and state apparatus, sharply increasing the international prestige of Moscow. The establishment of magnificent court etiquette and new state symbols reflected the new status of the country.
Ivan III was the actual creator of the Moscow state.
Annexation of the lands of Novgorod to Moscow
The most important task facing Ivan III in unifying the Russian lands was the annexation of the vast lands of Veliky Novgorod, which was also claimed by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Novgorod boyars, being under constant pressure from two powerful, competing powers - Moscow and Lithuania, understood that the independence of Novgorod could only be preserved by concluding an alliance with one of them. At the same time, the Moscow party was mainly composed of simple Novgorodians, who saw in the Moscow prince primarily an Orthodox sovereign. And the Lithuanian party was supported by the absolute majority of boyars and “best people” who sought to preserve their traditional privileges.
In 1471, the Novgorod authorities concluded an agreement with Lithuania, according to which the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir IV Jagailovich undertook to defend Novgorod from Moscow and send his governor to Novgorod. The initiator of this agreement was the widow of the Novgorod mayor and the actual head of the boyars, Marfa Boretskaya.
Having learned about the transition of Novgorod to Lithuania, in May 1471 Ivan III decided to march on the free city.
At the same time, the war with Novgorod was given the appearance of a campaign for the Orthodox faith, against apostates. The Moscow army was led by Prince Daniil Kholmsky. Casimir IV did not dare to open war with Moscow and the help he promised was never provided. The vanguard of Moscow troops first burned the city of Rusa and defeated the advanced Novgorod detachments on the banks of the Ilmen. July 14, 1471 on the river. Sheloni took place a decisive battle in which the Moscow army completely defeated the Novgorod militia.
The road to Novgorod was open. Realizing the hopelessness of their situation, the Novgorod authorities surrendered to the mercy of the winner. The Grand Duke of Moscow forgave the apostates, obliging them to pay a huge ransom - 15.5 thousand rubles (the price of several peasant households at that time was 2 - 3 rubles). From that time on, Novgorod recognized itself as the fatherland of Ivan III, who was given the right to judge the Novgorodians.
The Novgorod authorities completely refused any relations with Lithuania. However, the unrest continued. Then, on November 23, 1475, Ivan III entered Novgorod, accompanied by a large retinue, playing the role of a fair judge defending the offended. Arrests were made among the Novgorod boyars. And in 1477, the Novgorod ambassadors recognized Ivan III as their sovereign, which meant the unconditional submission of Novgorod to the power of Moscow.
After this, the Grand Duke demanded direct control of Novgorod and the elimination of its independence. At first the Novgorodians refused to obey. But Ivan III besieged the city in January 1478, and soon its inhabitants had to capitulate. The veche bell was taken to Moscow, the posadnichestvo was liquidated, and Moscow governors began to govern the city. In 1484 - 1499. the lands of the Novgorod boyars were confiscated, and the landowners themselves were evicted to the central regions of the Moscow state. The Novgorod Republic ceased to exist.
Pskov still retained its self-government, but was also under the harsh hand of the Grand Duke of Moscow.
Strengthening the state system under Ivan III
The unification of Russian lands around Moscow represented a qualitatively new stage in the development of Russian statehood. The territory of the Moscow state, which had grown significantly, required a centralized management system. Trying to elevate the grand-ducal power over the feudal nobility, the government of Ivan III consistently formed a multi-level system of service people. The boyars, swearing allegiance to the Grand Duke, assured their loyalty with special “letters of oath.”
The Moscow sovereign received the right to impose disgrace on the boyars, removing them from public service, confiscating their estates or, conversely, granting them new ones. The functions of public administration gradually became more complex, which predetermined the separation of the palace economy. Already from the middle of the 15th century. the “treasury” (later the state yard) is distinguished. And since 1467, the positions of state clerk and clerks appeared, in charge of the office work of this institution, which dealt not only with finances, but also with embassy, local, pit and other affairs.
From the end of the 15th century. a state body of a centralized state is formed - the Boyar Duma. In addition to the boyars of the Moscow prince, it also included former appanage princes. The Duma decided on the most important matters and was a legislative body.
In order to centralize and unify the procedure for judicial and administrative activities, a new set of laws was drawn up in 1497 - the Code of Laws of Ivan III, which established uniform norms of tax liability and the procedure for conducting investigations and trials. It was aimed primarily at protecting the life and property of feudal landowners, as well as the state as a whole.
It is characteristic that one of the articles of the Code of Law (57th) limited the right of peasants to leave their feudal lord for other lands for a strictly defined period - a week before St. George's Day (autumn - November 26) and during the week after, with the obligatory payment of "elderly" - payments for the years lived in the amount of about 1 ruble. The Code of Law also limited servitude in the city. Thus, the number of tax-payers, or taxpayers, among the urban population increased.
The growth of the authority of the Grand Duke of Moscow was facilitated by the second marriage of Ivan III (to the niece of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine Palaeologus, Sophia). He was actively supported by the papal throne, since, according to the Pope, such a union would contribute to the unification of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But this plan met with sharp resistance from the Russian clergy.
On November 1, 1472, Sophia Paleologus and Ivan III were married in Moscow according to the Orthodox rite. After this, new magnificent ceremonies were introduced at the Moscow court, and the Byzantine double-headed eagle was introduced as the state emblem. Barmas and Monomakh's hat became special signs of the sovereign's dignity.
Testament of Ivan III
Ivan III declared his son from his first wife, Ivan the Young, his first heir and co-ruler, but in 1490 he died, leaving behind his 6-year-old son Dmitry. As a result, there were two contenders for the throne - Dmitry and the 10-year-old son of Ivan III and Sophia Paleologus Vasily.
A dynastic crisis arose: Ivan III declared either his grandson or his son as his heir, depending on the development of court intrigues, until, finally, in the spring of 1502, Dmitry Ivanovich and his mother were sent to prison. Vasily Ivanovich was proclaimed the heir of the sovereign and Grand Duke of Moscow.
In his spiritual letter, Ivan III summed up the results of his more than 40-year reign. He inherited more than 60 cities to Vasily, while all his other sons received 30 cities. Vasily's younger brothers did not have the right to mint coins or judge criminal cases in their destinies; escheat possessions also passed to Vasily. The brothers swore an oath to obey Vasily in everything, and in the event of his death, to obey his eldest son - their nephew.
Socio-economic development of Russia in the 15th century
In the 15th century The boyars completely lost the right of free passage. Now they were obliged to serve not the appanage princes, but the Grand Duke of Moscow and swore allegiance to him in this. The number of boyars in the Moscow state grew as its borders expanded.
The 15th century was a time of active growth of landownership. From the second half of the 15th century. The process of dissemination and legalization of the local system begins. The expansion of the social stratum of landowners contributed to the strengthening of the centralized Moscow state.
The first elements of legal enslavement of peasants began to appear in the second half of the 15th century. From the middle of the century, the earliest princely charters were preserved, prohibiting peasants from leaving their owners, but so far they were fragmentary.
The first nationwide legal act that limited the freedom of peasant transitions was the Code of Law of 1497, according to which peasants could “refuse” a boyar or landowner only once a year. This was the first open step towards the establishment of serfdom in Rus'. Attempts to restrict the freedoms of peasants were also manifested in the policy of financial enslavement. Having received a loan from a landowner or feudal lord, the peasant could no longer leave it until the debt was paid, and this often lasted for many years and decades. The most powerless part of debtors was called enslaved people (the first mention of them came at the end of the 15th century).
In the 15th century The Russian economy is developing rapidly. The changes affected craft production, construction, and agriculture. The basis for progress in agriculture was the almost universal transition to three-field farming. Relog, i.e. “abandonment” of lands for several years, was used only when cultivating new lands. The use of organic fertilizers has become a necessary component of agricultural work.
Increased productivity in agriculture led to an increase in the urban population, which in turn contributed to the growth of crafts and trade. Any new technologies in Rus' in the 15th century. did not appear, except for the production of firearms. But throughout the century, there was both a quantitative and qualitative growth in craft production, specialization deepened, and the number of craft settlements and cities increased.
Bibliography
To prepare this work, materials from the site http://www.bestreferat.ru were used
Archivist- an official, chief responsible for the grand ducal, zemstvo or city archive.
Budovnichy- monitored all civil buildings in cities and collected taxes for their construction.
Mayor- was elected as a voist for a period of one year from the top of the rich residents of the city, and after the end of the term he gave a report for his work to the Rada, which he headed for a year. He also presided over the local Burmister-Radetsky court, and the mayor also presided over the courts that considered civil cases and other property disputes of townspeople. Managed the city treasury.
Voight city- head of administration in cities. Chairman of the Voitovsko-Lavnichi court. He had significant sources of income from: taxes in kind, ship duties, shares from market trade, shops, taverns, land donations. Appointed by the Grand Duke of Lithuania from among the wealthy burghers or large gentry.
Voight rural- head of administration in villages. The elder came to replace the position after the judicial-administrative reform of 1565-1566. Subordinated there were several villages that made up the administrative-territorial unit of Voitovstvo. He collected taxes, kept order and ensured that the peasants did not run away, was responsible for the condition of roads and bridges, and for fire safety. As a reward for service, he was exempt from duties and received a land allotment from 0.5 to 1 portage. He was appointed as the master's constable and reported every week to the master's court.
Gaevnik- position from the 15th to the 16th centuries. I was watching the guys with the side tree. He received a portion of the honey tribute he collected. He obeyed the ruler.
A nobleman of his royal favor or a nobleman of the ruler- position at the court of the Grand Duke of Lithuania. He carried out various assignments for the protection of castles and embassies, acted as a diplomatic representative, and conducted audits of grand ducal and state estates.
Power- replaced tiuna in the mid-16th century. He performed the administrative and judicial functions of the state estate (power) subordinate to him: collecting taxes, monitoring the repair and condition of buildings, organizing security, providing labor for the estate, conducting an inventory, distributing wasteland to the gentry for military service. Also, Derzhavets tried the master's peasants and townspeople in cities without Magdeburg law. Foresters, beaver guards, guards, clerks, stable keepers and vizhi were subordinate to him.
Foreman- managed a dozen, small administrative territorial units consisting of several villages. He maintained order and monitored the performance of duties by the peasants. In the mid-16th century it was replaced by the voight.
Deacon- clerk and head of the office in various institutions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania-, head of the office of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Minister of Foreign Affairs, the highest official who led the state during the absence of the Grand Duke. He made decisions on behalf of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, kept the large state seal with the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was in charge of the metrics of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the state archive), and supervised the preparation of collections of laws. Presided over the assessor and court courts. Subordinate to him were the clerk of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the clerk of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Keyholder- an official of the local administration subordinate to the voivode. He was in charge of collecting honey tribute to the state treasury.
Equerry- great, courtier, zemsky. He observed the grand ducal herds and stables. The position has existed since the 15th century.
Kraichy- He occupied a high place in the hierarchy of orders. I cut up the food served to the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Young representatives of magnate families were usually appointed to this position.
Kukhmistr- supervised the court cooks and kitchen. Subordinate to him were: steward, podstolnik, chashnik, podchashy, krachiy, beer keeper. The position has been known since the 15th century.
Lentvoit- assistant vojt in cities with Magdeburg law. He was appointed by the voit and obeyed him.
Forester- observed the grand ducal forests and hunting grounds in a certain territory. He obeyed the hunter.
Hunter- kept order in the forests and directed the hunt. Divided by level into the great, the zemstvo, the deputy of the great hunter, and the courtier. Since the 16th century, an honorary title without specific duties.
Lustrator- Conducted periodic inventories of state property to indicate the profitability of state property. Opposing him was considered a serious state crime.
Marshal ON- received foreign ambassadors, led the court of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, led the Grand Duke's guard and court guards, monitored the etiquette and rules at the court of the Grand Duke. He appointed nobles and presided over the Rada of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and also considered cases of crimes committed at court.
Zemsky Marshal (povet)- led the povet gentry and presided over povet soymiks and zemstvo courts.
Marshal of the courtyard- led the administration of the Grand Duke's court. Deputy Marshal ON
Mernik (mernichy)- Member of the subcomorian court. He measured the boundaries of land plots and marked the boundaries.
Metricant- monitored the archives of the Grand Duke's office and the issuance of privileges.
Swordsman- carried a naked sword in front of the Grand Duke of Lithuania as a symbol of power during the celebrations. The same position was in the povets. Later she became a courtier.
Mostovoy- monitored the serviceability of bridges, roads and crossings in the 16th - 18th centuries.
Mytnik- collected duties and taxes (taxes) from merchants for the import and export of goods.
Viceroy- assistant to the voivode and headman, who performed some administrative and judicial functions in voivodeships and povets in the 16th - 17th centuries.
Pivnichy- was in charge of the Grand Duke's pubs, responsible for the storage, quality and delivery of beer to the table.
Clerk- a position that existed in administrative institutions and courts in the 15th - 18th centuries. Must have been able to read, write, count and think logically. There were: clerk of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, courtyard clerk, treasure clerk, city clerk, zemstvo clerk, etc.
Pobortsa- collected taxes and received remuneration for his service from the amounts he collected.
Povovoda- deputy governor for administrative and judicial affairs in the 15th -18th centuries. controlled taxes, trade, availability and serviceability of standards of measures and weights in the territory of his voivodeship.
Sub-Chancellor- Deputy Chancellor in the 15th - 18th centuries. He was a member of the Rada of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and kept the small state seal. Like the chancellor, he was involved in domestic and foreign affairs, managing the work of secretaries and clerks in the office of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Connector- assistant key keeper.
Subcomorium courtyard- was an adviser and monitored the order and decoration in the premises of the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Appointed from the large nobility. He was a member of the Rada of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Podkonyushy- deputy groom who had grooms subordinate to him. He looked after the grand ducal herds and stables.
Great Podskarbiy- dealt with state financial affairs, taxes, managed the grand ducal income and kept the regalia.
Podskarbiy dvorniy- Deputy Treasurer of the Great, managed the estates designated for the maintenance of the Grand Duke's table.
Sub-elder (surragator)- deputy headman, de facto head of the city court. During the war he remained in place with the army in the city. Often, along with his main position, he could hold the position of steward and mayor.
Podstoliy- deputy steward, helped set the grand ducal table.
Podchashy- deputy cup maker. Before serving the drink to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, he tried it himself. The position was considered very honorable, and only representatives of the Mangat clans were appointed to it.
Radca- was chosen or appointed from among the rich townspeople. Member of the administrative body of city government, magistrate and council.
Regent- a leadership position in the offices, head of the archive, was responsible for office work in the office, was one of the secretaries, entered documents into the books of the Metrics of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and issued their official copies-extracts, acted as a notary, submitted grand-ducal, chancellor, and sub-chancellor documents for signature. He was appointed chancellor or sub-chancellor and confirmed by the Grand Duke of Lithuania.
Secretary of the Great Seal ON- Assistant to the Chancellor in the Office of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. He put a large seal on documents coming out of the Grand Duke's chancellery and was involved in paperwork.
Gospodar's Secretary- was directly involved in office work and performed the duties of an auditor, measurer, commissar, and fighter.
Secretary of the Small Seal of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania- assistant to the sub-chancellor, applied the small seal to documents issued from the grand ducal chancellery, conducted office work for the sub-chancellor.
Skarbnik- keeper of the povet treasury and taxes collected from the population of the povet, compiled inventories of the properties of those obliged to pay taxes. He was subordinate to the VKL. He was also in voivodeships and povets.
Centurion- through the foremen appointed by him, he monitored the fulfillment of duties by the townspeople and the payment of taxes. He carried out castle work for the defense of the castle, participated in meetings of the city council. Without his approval, Voight could not make important decisions.
Stolnik- was responsible for setting the grand ducal table. The sub-stol was subordinate to him.
Tiun- 1) in the 15th century he ruled the grand-ducal courts with volosts that were not part of the judicial-administrative units. He collected tribute, managed the farm, judged the peasants. Appointed Grand Duke of Lithuania. Since the 16th century, the holder came to replace him. 2) He was in charge of the noble household. Appointed from among the peasants, servants of the courtyard, and sometimes from the gentry. He was responsible for the consumption and safety of grain, monitored the work of peasants on the estate, and judged ordinary people. For his service he received an earthly allotment exempt from duties, or was simply exempted from various duties.
Chashnik-poured drinks into dishes brought by the cup-holder of the Grand Duke of Lithuania. The position has been known since 1409. Later it became very honorable and only representatives of magnate families were appointed to it.
Shafar- was responsible for collecting state taxes in the povet. He took the taxes he collected from the fighters to the state treasury in Vilna. He was elected by the gentry of the povet. On private estates he served as an accountant and housekeeper.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
1. The system of ranks and positions in the collegial government of Russia in accordance with the “Table of Ranks” (1722)
2. The highest bodies of the centralized state: the Boyar Duma, Zemstvo Councils (XV - XVI centuries)
3. Feudal-hierarchical system and grand-ducal government in the Russian state
3.1. Give the name of the detachment of warriors who united around the prince and constituted a privileged layer of Russian feudal society in the 9th - 11th centuries
3.2 The governors in the grand ducal administration performed the functions
3.3 Name the sovereign (Grand Duke, Tsar), during whose reign the feeding system was eliminated
3.4 Give the name of the code of laws of the Russian state, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, which completed the legal
3.5 Give the name of the feudal-hierarchical system in the Russian state (XI - XVII centuries), which officially regulated service relations between members of service families in the military and administrative service, as well as at the court of the Grand Duke (Tsar)
Bibliography
1. The system of ranks and positions in the collegial administration of Russia in accordance with the “Table of Ranks” (1722)
Approved on January 24 (February 4), 1722 by Emperor Peter I, it existed with numerous changes until the 1917 revolution.
All ranks of the “Table of Ranks” were divided into three types: military, state (civilian) and courtiers and were divided into fourteen classes. A rank was assigned to each class, but the concept of “rank” itself was not explained, due to which some historians considered it literally and only in the rank system, while others - as one or another position.
Peter’s “Table of Ranks” numbered 262 positions, but positions were gradually excluded from the “Table of Ranks” and disappeared completely at the end of the 18th century. The names of a number of civil positions turned into civil ranks, regardless of the real responsibilities of their holder. Thus, the titles of the ranks “collegiate secretary”, “collegiate assessor”, “collegiate councilor” and “state councilor” originally meant the positions of secretary of the collegium, member of the collegium council with an advisory and casting vote, and president of the “state” collegium. “Nadvornyy councilor” meant the chairman of the courthouse court; court courts were abolished already in 1726, and the name of the rank remained until 1917.
Petrovskaya “Table”, defining a place in the hierarchy of the civil service, to some extent provided an opportunity for talented people from the lower classes to advance. “So that those willing to give to the service and honor them, and not receive impudent and parasites,” read one of the descriptive articles of the law.
The law of February 4 (January 24), 1722, consisted of a schedule of new ranks in 14 classes or ranks and 19 explanatory paragraphs to this schedule. Newly introduced military ranks (in turn subdivided into land, guards, artillery and naval), civil and court ranks were separately assigned to each class. The content of the explanatory paragraphs is as follows:
The princes of the imperial blood have, in all cases, the presidency over all the princes and “high servants of the Russian state.” With this exception, the social position of employees is determined by rank, not breed.
For demanding honors and places above rank at public celebrations and official meetings, a fine equal to two months' salary of the person being fined is imposed; ? The fine money goes to the informer, the rest goes to the maintenance of hospitals. The same fine applies for giving up your seat to a person of lower rank.
Persons who have been in foreign service can receive the corresponding rank only if they are confirmed to have “the character that they received in foreign service.” The sons of titled persons and generally the most distinguished nobles, although, unlike others, have free access to court assemblies, they do not receive any rank until “they show no service to the fatherland and receive character for it.” Civil ranks, like military ones, are given based on length of service or special “notable” service merits.
Each must have a crew and livery appropriate to his rank. Public punishment in the square, as well as torture, entail the loss of rank, which can be returned only for special merits, by a personal decree publicly announced. Married wives “are ranked according to the ranks of their husbands” and are subject to the same penalties for offenses against their rank. Girls are considered several ranks lower than their fathers. All who have received the first 8 ranks in the civil or court department are hereditarily ranked among the best senior nobility, “even if they were of low breed”; in military service, hereditary nobility is acquired by receiving the first rank of chief officer, and the rank of nobility applies only to children born after the father has received this rank; If, after receiving the rank, he has no children, he can ask for the grant of nobility to one of his premature children.
The ranks were divided into chief officers (up to class IX, that is, captain/titular adviser inclusive), staff officers and generals; The ranks of the highest generals (the first two classes) were especially distinguished. They were entitled to the appropriate address: “Your Honor” for chief officers, “Your Excellency” for staff officers, “Your Excellency” for generals and “Your Excellency” for the first two classes.
The ranks of class V (brigadier/state councilor) stood apart, not being classified as either officers or generals, and they were entitled to the address “your honor.” It is curious that Peter, emphasizing in everything his preference for the military over civilians, did not want to establish first-class civil ranks; however, having bowed to Osterman’s persuasion, for reasons of diplomatic prestige, he equated the rank of chancellor, as the head of the diplomatic department, to first class.
Only later was the rank of Actual Privy Councilor, First Class, established. This preference was also expressed in the fact that if in the army hereditary nobility was obtained directly with the rank of XIV class, then in the civil service - only with the rank of VIII class (collegiate assessor), that is, with the achievement of the rank of staff officer; and since 1856, this required reaching the rank of general, receiving the rank of full state councilor.
In this regard, the relatively low (not even general!) rank that was assigned to the president of the “state” collegium, that is, according to European standards, to the minister, is also indicative. Subsequently, the ministers had a rank no lower than actual privy councilor.
Table of ranks
|
Civil (state) ranks |
Military ranks |
Court officials |
||
|
Chancellor (Secretary of State) Actual Privy Councilor 1st Class |
Generalissimo Field Marshal General Admiral General |
|||
|
Actual Privy Councilor Vice-Chancellor |
General of Infantry (until 1763, from 1796) General of the cavalry (until 1763, from 1796) Feldzeichmeister General in artillery (until 1763) General-in-Chief (1763--1796) General of Artillery (from 1796) Engineer-General (from 1796) General-Plenipotentiary-Kriegs-Commissar (1711--1720) |
Chief Chamberlain Chief Marshal Chief of the Rackmaster Chief Jägermeister Chief Chamberlain Ober-schenk Chief Master of Ceremonies (since 1844) Ober-Forschneider (from 1856) |
||
|
Privy Councilor (from 1724) |
Lieutenant General (before 1741, after 1796) Lieutenant General (1741--1796) Vice Admiral General Krieg Commissioner for Supply (until 1868) |
Marshal Chamberlain Ringmaster Jägermeister Chief Master of Ceremonies (since 1800) Ober-Forschneider |
||
|
Privy Councilor (1722--1724) Actual State Councilor (since 1724) |
Major General Lieutenant Colonel of the Guard (1748--1798) General of Fortification (1741--1796) Schoutbenacht in the fleet (1722--1740) Rear Admiral in the Navy (since 1740) Ober-Ster-Krieg Commissioner for Supply (until 1868) |
Chamberlain (from 1737) |
||
|
State Councillor |
Brigadier (1722--1796) Captain-Commander (1707--1732, 1751--1764, 1798--1827) Prime Major of the Guard (1748--1798) Stehr-Krieg Commissioner for Supply (until 1868) |
Master of Ceremonies (since 1800) Chamber cadet (from 1800) |
||
|
Collegiate Advisor Military Advisor |
Colonel Captain 1st rank in the navy Second Major of the Guard (1748--1798) Colonel of the Guard (since 1798) Ober-Krieg Commissioner for Supply (until 1868) |
Chamber-fourier (until 1884) Chamberlain (until 1737) |
||
|
Court Councilor |
Lieutenant colonel Military foreman among the Cossacks (since 1884) Captain 2nd rank in the navy captain of the guard in the infantry captain of the guard in the cavalry Krieg Commissioner for Supply (until 1868) |
|||
|
Collegiate Assessor |
Prime Major and Second Major (1731--1798) Major (1798--1884) Captain (since 1884) Captain in the cavalry (since 1884) Military foreman among the Cossacks (1796--1884) Esaul among the Cossacks (since 1884) Captain 3rd rank in the navy (1722--1764) Lieutenant commander in the navy (1907--1911) Senior lieutenant in the navy (1912--1917) Staff Captain of the Guard (from 1798) |
Titular chamberlain |
||
|
Titular Councilor |
Captain in the infantry (1722--1884) Staff captain in the infantry (since 1884) Lieutenant of the Guard (from 1730) Captain in the cavalry (1798--1884) Staff captain in the cavalry (since 1884) Esaul among the Cossacks (1798--1884) Podesaul among the Cossacks (since 1884) Captain-lieutenant in the fleet (1764--1798) Lieutenant commander in the navy (1798--1885) Lieutenant in the Navy (1885--1906, from 1912) Senior lieutenant in the navy (1907--1911) |
Chamber cadet (until 1800) Gofcourier |
||
|
Collegiate Secretary |
Captain-lieutenant in the infantry (1730--1797) Staff captain in the infantry (1797--1884) Second captain in the cavalry (until 1797) Staff captain in the cavalry (1797--1884) Zeichvarter in artillery (until 1884) Lieutenant (since 1884) Second Lieutenant of the Guard (from 1730) Podesaul among the Cossacks (until 1884) Sotnik among the Cossacks (since 1884) Lieutenant in the Navy (1722--1885) Midshipman in the Navy (since 1884) |
|||
|
Ship's secretary (to 1834) |
Ship's Secretary in the Navy (until 1764) |
|||
|
Provincial Secretary |
Lieutenant (1730--1884) Second lieutenant in the infantry (since 1884) Cornet in the cavalry (since 1884) Ensign of the Guard (1730--1884) Centurion among the Cossacks (until 1884) Cornet of the Cossacks (since 1884) Non-commissioned lieutenant in the navy (1722--1732) Midshipman in the navy (1796--1884) |
Valet Mundschenk Tafeldeker Confectioner |
||
|
Office receptionist Provincial Secretary Senate Recorder (1764--1834) Synod registrar (since 1764) |
Second lieutenant in the infantry (1730--1884) Ensign in the infantry (since 1884, only in wartime) Second lieutenant in artillery (1722--1796) Midshipman in the Navy (1860--1882) |
|||
|
Collegiate Registrar |
Fendrik in the infantry (1722--1730) Ensign in the infantry (1730--1884) Cornet in the cavalry (until 1884) Junker bayonet in artillery (1722--1796) Cornet of the Cossacks (until 1884) Midshipman in the navy (1732--1796) |
Military ranks above the table of ranks:
Generalissimo
Military ranks below the table of ranks
Sub-ensign, sub-squire; harness-ensign (in the infantry), harness-junker (in artillery and light cavalry), fanen-junker (in dragoons), estandard-cadet (in heavy cavalry).
Sergeant major, sergeant, conductor.
Senior combat non-commissioned officer (until 1798 sergeant, boatswain).
Junior non-commissioned officer (until 1798 junior sergeant, corporal, boatswain).
2. The highest bodies of the centralized state: the Boyar Duma, Zemstvo Councils (XV- XVI centuries)
Significant changes in the system of public administration occurred during the completion of the formation of the Russian state at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. The interaction of classes and estates and class struggle also had an impact on the restructuring of the state system and the legislative activity of the state.
The suzerainty-vassalage relationship characteristic of the period of feudal fragmentation is replaced by the sovereign power of the prince. Since the end of the 15th century, the head of the Russian centralized state was the Grand Duke, who had a wide range of rights and powers. He issued laws, led government administration, and had the powers of the highest court. Princely power is becoming increasingly stronger over time.
Initially, the Grand Duke could exercise his legislative, administrative, and judicial functions within the boundaries of his principality. With the fall of the power of the appanage princes, the Grand Duke became the true ruler of the entire territory of the state. But it’s too early to talk about autocracy. The power of the monarch is still limited by other bodies of the early feudal state, primarily the Boyar Duma.
Boyar Duma
The Boyar Duma constituted the circle of the tsar's closest advisers and employees and for a long time stood at the head of the ancient Russian administration. The boyars in the 16th-17th centuries were the highest “rank”, or rank, with which the sovereign “bestowed” his closest assistants. However, he never promoted “thin people” to the boyar rank. There were several dozen noble families, mostly princely, whose members (usually the senior members) “had been boyars.” The second rank in the Duma was the “okolnichy” - also on the “salary” of the tsar. These first two Duma “ranks” were replenished exclusively by representatives of the highest Moscow aristocracy, and only in the 17th century. There were isolated cases of boyars being granted to people from the middle service stratum (like Matveev or Ordin-Nashchokin under Tsar Alexei).
The fugitive Moscow clerk Kotoshikhin paints the following picture of Duma meetings:
“And the Tsar gets his idea of something to announce, and announcing it, he orders them that the boyars and Duma people, thinking about this matter, give a way; and which of those boyars is larger and more reasonable, or which of the smaller ones, and they announce their thoughts in a way; and some boyars, having set their rules, do not answer anything, because the tsar favors many of the boyars not according to their intelligence, but according to their great breed, and many of them are not scholars or students of literacy; However, besides them, someone will be found to answer wisely from the larger and from the smaller boyars. And on whatever matter is to be sentenced, the tsar and the boyars order the Duma clerk to mark it, and that sentence to be written down.”
The number of boyars and okolnichy was small, it rarely exceeded 50 people. In addition to the main, aristocratic, element, the Duma included several Duma nobles and three or four Duma clerks, secretaries and speakers of the Duma.
The rights and powers of the Duma were not determined by special laws; the wide sphere of its competence was determined by old custom or the will of the sovereign. “The Duma was in charge of a very wide range of judicial and administrative matters; but actually it was a legislative institution” (Klyuchevsky). The legislative significance of the Duma was even directly approved by the Tsar's Code of Law; Art. The 98th Code of Laws read:
“And if there are new cases, but are not written in this Code of Laws, and as those cases from the sovereign’s report and from all the boyars are sentenced, those cases should be attributed to this Code of Laws.”
The usual introductory formula for the new laws read: “the sovereign indicated and the boyars sentenced.” It must, however, be borne in mind that such a procedure of legislation was not formally obligatory for the sovereign. Sometimes he decided cases and issued orders that had the character of legislative decrees, single-handedly; sometimes he discussed and resolved them with a small circle of advisers - the so-called close or chamber Duma of the sovereign. The general meeting of the Duma received cases either by decree of the sovereign or by reports from orders. According to the Code of 1649, the Duma is the highest court for those cases that cannot be resolved in orders.
The tsar himself was sometimes present at the meetings of the Duma (such meetings were called “the Tsar’s seat with the boyars about business”), sometimes the Duma decided matters by decree and authority of the sovereign, in his absence. To resolve particularly important matters, a joint meeting of the Duma and the “consecrated council”, consisting of representatives of the highest clergy, was convened.
As needed, special commissions were allocated from the general composition of the Duma - “response” (for negotiations with foreign ambassadors), “laid” (for drawing up a draft of a new Code), judgment and execution. At the end of the 17th century. The “Execution Chamber” turned into a permanent institution.
The service of the boyars of the Okolnichi and Duma people (as the Duma nobles and clerks were called) was not limited to their “seat” in the Duma. They were appointed ambassadors to foreign sovereigns, commanders (“judges”) of the most important orders, regimental commanders and city commanders in large and important cities.
In the second half of the 16th century, under Ivan IV, who fought against the boyar opposition, the convening of Zemsky Sobors - estate representative bodies - began. At this time, the so-called “Chosen Rada” (Near Duma) was formed - a council under the tsar. The network of orders, mainly of a military nature, is expanding: Streltsy, Pushkar. After the division of the country into oprichnina and zemshchina, their own oprichnina and zemstvo orders arise, independent of each other.
Zemsky Sobors
Zemsky Sobors, or “councils of the whole earth,” as their contemporaries called them, arose simultaneously with the Muscovite kingdom. The “laid down” cathedral 1648-49. adopted the basics of state legislation. Councils of 1598 and 1613 had a constituent character and personified the supreme power in the state. During the Time of Troubles and immediately after it, the activities of zemstvo councils played a very important role in the restoration of the “great Russian kingdom” destroyed by the Time of Troubles.
The first Moscow Tsar, three years after accepting the royal title, convened (in 1549) the first Zemstvo Council, at which he wanted to reconcile representatives of the population with the former regional rulers, the “feeders,” before abolishing the “feedings.” However, our information about the first Zemsky Sobor is too brief and vague, and we know little about its composition and activities. But it is known, according to documents, the composition of the second Zemsky Sobor, which Ivan IV convened in 1566 (during the Livonian War) to decide the question of whether to reconcile with the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania on the terms he proposed. The Council spoke in favor of continuing the war, leaving the solution to the issue to the tsar: “but God knows everything and our sovereign...; and we expressed our thought to our sovereign...”
After the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, with whom the Rurik dynasty on the Russian throne ended, the Zemsky Sobor was to acquire a constituent character: there was no longer a “natural” tsar in Moscow, and the cathedral had to elect a new tsar and found a new dynasty (in 1598). The council, led by Patriarch Job, elected Boris Godunov as tsar; True, in order to substantiate and justify the act of electing the tsar by his subjects, the electoral document contains a fantastic statement that both last tsars of the old dynasty “ordered” or “handed over” their kingdom to Boris, and emphasizes Boris’s family connection with the “royal root”, but at the same time the letter states: “... and the whole land was given up and set up worthy of the present Tsar and Grand Duke Boris Fedorovich, the autocrat of all Rus', the sovereign of the Russian land”; Moreover: “the patriarch said: the voice of the people, the voice of God”...
In the subsequent storms of the Time of Troubles, the “voice of the people” turned from a rhetorical fiction into a real political force. When in 1606 the boyar Prince Vasily Shuisky ascended the throne “without the will of the whole earth,” many refused to recognize him as their king and uprisings broke out against him everywhere; “The whole land of Russia shook with hatred against him, for which he reigned without the will of all cities.”
In 1610, when the Moscow boyars and “servicemen and tenants”, being “between two fires” (between the Poles and the Russian “thieves’ people”) agreed to accept the Polish prince Vladislav as king, they concluded an agreement with him that formally limited him power and which provided for the council of the whole earth as a normally functioning legislative body: ...the court will be and be carried out according to the previous custom and according to the code of law of the Russian State; and they will want to replenish something to strengthen the courts, and the Sovereign will allow it, with the Duma of the boyars and the whole earth, so that everything will be righteous.”
In the Lyapunov militia of 1611, “to build the land and engage in all kinds of zemstvo and military affairs” were supposed to be three governors, “who were elected by the whole Earth according to this verdict of the whole Earth”; “and if the boyars, who have now been elected by the whole earth for all sorts of zemstvo and military affairs into the government, do not take care of zemstvo affairs and carry out reprisals in everything to the truth, ... and we, with the whole earth, are free to change the boyars and governors, and elect others to that place speaking to the whole Earth."
In the second zemstvo militia of Prince Pozharsky, during his stay in Yaroslavl (in the spring of 1612), a permanent “council of all the earth” was formed, which represented a temporary government for the militia and for a significant part of the country. In the correspondence of cities among themselves and military leaders with cities in 1611 - 12. The idea is constantly expressed about the need to elect a sovereign by “general council”, “by the whole Earth”, “by the world council”, “on the advice of the entire state”, etc. Such a “world council” was convened in Moscow immediately after its liberation from the Poles, “and all sorts of servicemen and townspeople and district people, for the sake of the sovereign’s fleece, came to the reigning city of Moscow for council.” We know that after much debate and disagreement, the elected people agreed on the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov, and the council “over the entire peaceful, favorable general council” proclaimed Mikhail tsar (in 1613).
The new tsar remained on the throne largely thanks to the support of the zemstvo councils, which met almost continuously during the first 10 years of his reign. The Tsar's father Filaret, who returned from Polish captivity and became the Patriarch of Moscow and co-ruler of his son in 1619, also found it necessary to cooperate with the government and the elected body.
With the strengthening of state power in the 2nd half of the 17th century, with the growing bureaucratization of management and with the weakening of local zemstvo self-government, zemstvo councils fell into decay.
The composition of the zemstvo cathedrals included three elements: the “consecrated cathedral” of representatives of the highest clergy, the boyar duma and representatives of the service and townspeople classes of the Moscow state (usually about 300 - 400 people). In the 16th century, not specially elected deputies were invited as representatives of the population, but mainly officials who headed local noble and townspeople's societies. When making this or that decision, the members of the council obliged at the same time to be responsible executors of this decision. In the era of the Time of Troubles, cathedral representation could, of course, only be elective, and under the new dynasty, the main element at the cathedral are those “good, reasonable and consistent people” whom the earth will choose.
“In general, the composition of the cathedral was very changeable, lacking a solid, stable organization” (Klyuchevsky). The permanent elements of the cathedral representation were representatives of the service and townspeople population (in different numbers and in different combinations). The free northern peasantry, which formed common “all-district worlds” with the townspeople, was also represented at the councils, but the mass of serfs was not represented there.
3 . Feodal-hierarchicalwhat systemAndgrand ducal administrationin the Russian state
3.1 Give the name of the detachment of warriors who united around the prince and made up the privileged layer of the Russian feud flax society in the 9th - 11th centuries
Druzhimna - princely army. The squad is as necessary an element in ancient Russian society as the prince. The prince needed military strength both to ensure internal order and defense against external enemies. The warriors were a real military force, always ready for battle, as well as advisers and servants of the prince.
As a military force, the squad helps the prince in obtaining a profitable table, raises the importance of the prince in the eyes of the people: the prince who managed to group the largest number of skilled warriors around himself is the most reliable defender of his principality - and this was of enormous importance in an era of constant intense struggle with foreigners . Therefore, princes value their squad, take care of it, and generously reward it.
3.2 The governors in the grand ducal administration performed functionsshares
1). Heads of the entire princely administration;
2). Candidate for position (to "place");
3).Representative of the princely administration in other cities;
4). Manager of the princely court
Answer 3). Representative of the princely administration in other cities
3. 3 Name the sovereign (Grand Duke, Tsar), during whose reign the feeding system was eliminated
Feeding - a type of grant from the great and appanage princes to their officials, according to which the princely administration was maintained at the expense of the local population during the period of service.
Eliminated under Ivan IV the Terrible by the zemstvo reform of 1555 - 1556. In 1555, a decree was issued abolishing feedings, which, however, was not applied immediately and not everywhere: sources continue to mention feedings during the second half of the 16th century. Fees for the maintenance of feeders were transformed into a special tax in favor of the treasury (“fed payback”), established in a certain amount for various categories of lands (noble, black, palace). Tax collection was carried out on black lands by zemstvo elders, and in areas of local patrimonial land ownership by special collectors or city clerks.
3. 4 Give the name of the code of laws of the Russian state, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, which completed the legal
The Council Code is a set of laws adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in 1648-1649. under Alexei Mikhailovich.
3. 5 Give the name of the feudal-hierarchical system in the Russian state (XI - XVII centuries), officially regulated official relations between members of service families in the military and administrative service, as well as at the court of the Grand Duke (king)
Tambel o ramngs (“Table of ranks of all military, civil and court ranks”) - a law on the procedure for public service in the Russian Empire (ratio of ranks by seniority, sequence of ranks).
Bibliography
1. Presnyakov A. E. “Russian autocrats” M., 1999.
2. Eroshkin N. P. “History of state institutions of Russia before the Great October Socialist Revolution” M., 1995.
3. “Development of Russian law in the 15th - first half of the 17th centuries” M., 1996.
4. “Russian legislation of the X - XX centuries. Legislation of the period of formation and strengthening of the Russian centralized state" M., 1998., volume 2.
5. Karamzin N. M. “Traditions of the Ages” M., 1988.
6. Titov Yu. P. “History of state and law of Russia” M., 1996.
Similar documents
The subject of science is the history of the Russian state and law. Formation of the Russian centralized state and its legal system. Creation of the Soviet state. Difficulties in the formation of Russian statehood. Formation of the legal system.
training manual, added 07/08/2009
Fundamentals of the rule of law. The system of separation of powers in a rule of law state. The rule of law in the Russian Federation. Human rights and freedoms in the value system. Mutual responsibility of the individual and the state. The practice of establishing a rule of law state in Russia.
abstract, added 03/09/2011
The mechanism of the state, the organization and activities of the state apparatus. State bodies as an element of the state mechanism. Principles of the theory of separation of powers and building the rule of law. System of the mechanism of the state of the Russian Federation.
course work, added 11/18/2010
Voluntary entry of Bashkortostan into the Russian state. Legal status of the population of Bashkortostan. The policy of the tsarist government in the region. The system of the tsarist colonial administration and local Bashkir self-government. System of law.
test, added 02/20/2009
The process of formation of the Russian centralized state. Stages of political unification in Rus'. Reasons for the formation of an unlimited monarchy, Mongol and Byzantine influence. Law books of 1497 and 1550: their general characteristics and sources.
course work, added 10/28/2013
The place and significance of the history of state and law in the system of social sciences. Medieval literature about the state and law of Europe and the East. Political and legal thought about the evolution of state and law in modern times, models of modern interpretation.
course work, added 10/17/2009
The concept and characteristics of a rule of law state. The system of separation of powers in a rule of law state. Law supremacy. Human rights and freedoms in the system of values and the state.
thesis, added 05/28/2002
The place and role of the theory of state and law in the system of sciences, its subject and methodology. Reasons for the emergence of state and law. Signs and typology of the state, types of government and political regimes. Representative bodies of government.
cheat sheet, added 01/09/2011
Development of the concept of the state in the course of history. Analysis of the main features of the state. Concept, foundations and system of state power, its subjects. The problem of the relationship between state power, law and public administration. Functions of the state.
abstract, added 01/25/2009
History of the formation and development of public service in Russia; the formation of Russian classes since the time of Peter the Great, his attitude towards them. The system of military and naval ranks according to Peter's Table of Ranks. Education of the privileges of the nobility.
The most important result of the socio-political development of Russia by the beginning of the 16th century. was the completion of the creation of a single state, which became one of the most powerful European powers of that time. At the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. Along with the unification of the main Russian lands around Moscow, the construction of an all-Russian state apparatus took place. This process, based on underlying socio-economic processes, proceeded slowly but steadily. After the annexation of Tver (1485), part of Ryazan (1503) and the Seversky lands (1494-1503), in North-Eastern Rus', in addition to the unified Russian state, there were only two independent state entities - the Grand Duchy of Ryazan and the Pskov Feudal Republic. But they too were in semi-vassal dependence on Moscow. Ryazan Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich was married to the sister of the Russian sovereign, Anna. After the death of Vasily (1483), his eldest son Ivan in the same year recognized himself as the “younger brother” of Ivan III. But what can we say about his younger brother, Fedor, who received Perevitesk? After the death of the childless Fedor (1503), Ivan III * received his lands. After the death of Ivan Vasilyevich Ryazansky (1500), his grandmother Anna became the guardian of the young Prince Ivan (until her death in 1501), then Agrafen’s mother.
* (DDG, No. 76, p. 283-290; No. 89, p. 357-358.)
Pskov has long maintained friendly relations with Moscow. The Russian sovereign sent the prince-governor there. Pskov also coordinated its foreign policy with Ivan III. Part of the Russian lands (primarily Smolensk) was still part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Completing the unification of the Russian lands into a single state remained the most important task, which the government of Vasily III soon successfully completed.
The single state created in North-Eastern Rus' was multinational. Along with the Russians, it included some peoples of the Middle Volga region (Mordovians), and after the annexation of Novgorod - Karelians, Komi and other peoples of the North. This fact was of great importance, despite the fact that initially non-Russian peoples did not constitute any significant part of the country's population in quantitative terms. The traditions of living together of different peoples within the framework of one statehood had a noticeable impact on the further development of Russia, and in particular on its relations with the peoples of the Volga region. A strong group of feudal nobility, oriented toward Moscow, formed in the Kazan Khanate. The temporary annexation of Kazan in 1487 was a harbinger of the future entry of the entire Middle and Lower Volga region into the Russian state.
A special place in the system of feudal formations in Russia at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. occupied by the vassal Kasimov principality. The government provided direct financial support (“yasak”) to Tatar princes in Russian service. In turn, the princes and their cavalry were obliged to perform military service for the Russian sovereign. Connected by family ties with the Crimean and Kazan khans, they represented an important trump card for the Russian government both in a complex diplomatic game and sometimes in direct armed clashes with Kazan, Crimea and the Great Horde. The position of the Tatar princes on the class-hierarchical ladder of the feudal nobility in Russia was so high that even in the middle of the 17th century. they were considered "an honor... the boyars are superior, but they do not attend or sit in any Duma." In the Sovereign's genealogy of the mid-16th century. Tatar princes are placed directly behind the descendants of the appanage princes of the Moscow house *.
* (Kotoshikhin G. About Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovovich. 4th ed. St. Petersburg, 1906, p. 27; Genealogical book of princes and nobles of Russia and those traveling abroad..., part I, p. 24-27.)
The formation of the Kasimov principality is associated with the name of the son of Ulu-Mukhammed Kasim, who left for Rus' in 1446. For the support provided to the Moscow Grand Duke in the fight against Dmitry Shemyaka around 1452, he received the town of Meshchersky (Kasimov) and became the founder of this principality, which played an important role in preparing for the annexation of Kazan. After the death of Qasim (around 1469), the principality was inherited by his son Danyar. According to the end of 1473, Ivan III with his brothers Boris Volotsky and Andrei Uglitsky, they were supposed to hold Danyar “from one”, i.e. jointly. The same formula was repeated before the end of 1481. A certain part of the income from both the possessions of the appanage princes and from Ryazan was allocated to Danyar. A. Contarini, who visited Rus' in 1476, wrote: Ivan III annually visited “one Tatar, who, on the prince’s salary, kept five hundred horsemen. They said that they stood on the borders with the possessions of the Tatars for protection, so that they would not harm the country (Russian prince )". It was obviously about Danyar. Around 1483-1486 Danyar left the historical scene and his place was taken by Nur-Dowlat, the eldest son of the first Crimean Khan Hadji-Girey. In February 1480, he went to Rus' and brought “wool” to pledge allegiance to the sovereign. In the final agreements of Ivan III with Boris Volotsky and Andrei Uglitsky in 1486, the old order was confirmed - to keep the Kasimov prince “from one”, in this case Nur-Dowlat. Since his son Sytylgan took part in the 1491 campaign against the Horde, it must be assumed that Nur-Dowlat himself had already died by that time. Sytylgan was paid a “exit” to Kasimov (“Tsarevich’s town”) and according to the will of Ivan III (November 1503) *.
* (Velyaminov-Zernov V.V. Research on the Kasimov kings and princes, part I. St. Petersburg, 1863, p. 28, 90; PSRL, vol. 28, p. 133, 134; DDG, No. 69, p. 226; No. 70, p. 238; No. 72, p. 254; No. 73, p. 270; No. 76, p. 284; No. 81, p. 318; No. 82, p. 325; No. 89, p. 362; Wed No. 90, p. 365; Barbaro and Contarini about Russia, p. 226, 243.)
At the end of the 15th century. Other cities occasionally fell into the feeding of the princes. So, after Abdul-Letif expelled Magmed-Amin from Kazan in the spring of 1497, he received Kashira, Serpukhov and Khotun to feed. In 1502, the roles changed, and Magmed-Amen went to Kazan, and Abdul-Letif ended up in captivity on Beloozero. The feeding cities of the Tatar princes occupied an intermediate position between the estates of serving princes and ordinary feeding places *. Unlike Kasimov, their owners changed quite often, and the composition of these cities was not strictly defined.
* (IL, p. 132, 143. The rapprochement of the princes’ possessions with estates and the assertion that they were for life (Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichnina and the last appanage reigns in Rus'. - IZ, 1965, vol. 76, p. 170) seem incorrect.)
The Russian state included several other semi-independent entities. Vasily the Dark around 1461-1462. created the Dmitrovsky inheritance of his son Yuri, the Uglichsky - of Andrei Bolshoi, the Volokolamsky - of Boris, the Vologda - of Andrei Menshoy *. There was the Rostov inheritance of his widow Maria and the Belozersk-Vereisky principality of his cousin Mikhail Andreevich. By the time under study, the composition of the appanage principalities had changed greatly. In 1472, after the death of Prince. Yuri, Ivan III took possession of his inheritance. In 1481, the childless Andrei Menshoi died, in 1485 - Princess Marya. Their lands were also inherited by Ivan III. After the death of Mikhail Andreevich, Ivan III, according to the prince’s will, also received his possession (Mikhail’s son, Vasily, fled to Lithuania in 1483). In 1491, Prince was “caught”. Andrei Bolshoi, who died in captivity in 1493. His sons, Ivan and Dmitry, were also imprisoned for many years. After the death of Boris Vasilyevich (1494), his inheritance was divided between his sons - Ivan (Ruza) and Fedor (Volokolamsk). Childless Ivan (died in 1503) left his inheritance to Ivan III.
* (DDG, No. 61, p. 193-199.)
So, the appanages were actually liquidated by Ivan III (except perhaps Volokolamsky). But this spoke more about the general trend in the development of the unification process than about its results. Appanage traditions were still strong, and the socio-economic conditions for the development of individual lands retained obvious features of feudal fragmentation. In 1503, Ivan III in his will restored the inheritance for his sons (Yuri received Dmitrovsky, Dmitry - Uglitsky, Semyon - Kaluga, Andrei-Staritsky) *. In terms of the composition of the territory and political significance, these appanages were inferior to their predecessors, and their liquidation was only a matter of time.
* (Zimin A. A. Dmitrovsky appanage and appanage courtyard in the second half of the 15th - first third of the 16th century. - VIEW, vol. V. L., 1973, p. 182-195; him. Appanage princes and their courts in the second half of the 15th and first half of the 16th centuries. - History and genealogy, p. 161 -188; him. Novgorod and Volokolamsk in the XI-XV centuries. - NIS, vol. 10. Novgorod, 1961, p. 97-116; him. From the history of feudal land ownership in the Volotsk appanage principality. - KDR, p. 71-78; DDG, No. 89, p. 353-364.)
The unification of the Russian lands into a single state did not mean their complete merger, either economically or politically, although it contributed to this process. The grand ducal power waged a stubborn struggle for the complete subjugation of independent and semi-independent lands. One of the means of this struggle, as A.V. Cherepnin showed, was the drawing up of agreements between the Grand Duke and his appanage relatives, according to which they recognized the political sovereignty of the Moscow sovereigns. During the time under study, the remains of Ivan III with the princes Andrei Bolshoi Uglitsky (1481, 1486), Boris Volotsky (1481, 1486), Mikhail Andreevich Vereisky (1482 and 1483), Ivan Ryazansky (1483) and Mikhail Borisovich Tverskoy (1481-1485) *. In fact, the Tver and Ryazan princes were elevated to the rank of appanages.
* (Cherepnin. Archives, part 1, p. 162-175, 189-191; DG, No. 70, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82, p. 232-249, 277-290, 293-301, 322-328.)
According to the final provisions, the complete subordination of appanage princes to the sovereign in foreign policy affairs was established. The appanage prince recognized himself as a “young brother” in relation to the overlord. He had to “want the good” of the Grand Duke in everything, and in particular, all the “enemies” of the Grand Duke were supposed to become his “enemies.” The appanage princes were obliged not to conclude any final agreements on their own and not even to conduct negotiations with anyone ("exile") without the knowledge of the Grand Duke, especially with Lithuania, the Pskovians and Novgorodians, Mikhail Tversky, and the Horde. They were obliged either to participate in the military actions of the Grand Duke themselves, or to send their governors. Thus, Andrei Uglitsky and Boris Volotsky went on a campaign against Tver in 1485. Boris Volotsky sent troops to the Horde in 1491. During the war with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the regiments of Ivan Ruzsky and Fyodor Volotsky were sent to Dorogobuzh. In the unsuccessful campaign of the son of Ivan III - Dmitry Zhilka to Smolensk (1502), the Volotsk and Ruza princes also took part. When in 1491 Prince Andrei refused to send his troops on a campaign against the Horde, this became the reason for his “capture”. Paintings (ranks) of specific troops that participated in all-Russian campaigns were kept in the Sovereign Archive *. In order to bind the appanage princes more closely to the grand-ducal court, dynastic marriages were concluded. Thus, the son of the Belozersk prince Mikhail Andreevich, Vasily, was married to the niece of Sophia Paleolog.
* (IL, p. 125; PSRL, vol. 6, p. 48; vol. 28, p. 155, 321; RK, p. 21, 37; GAR, vol. 1, p. 72.)
In internal political affairs, appanage princes were less constrained. They only pledged not to accept serving princes and not to own lands on the territory of the great reign. At the same time, Ivan III attracted them to participate in national affairs. So, his children Vasily, Yuri and Dmitry * were present at the council in 1503. But the participation of appanage princes in internal political affairs of the state was very limited. The Grand Duke was distrustful of their activities. His relatives had complete control over the destinies, with the exception of “mestnye” (joint) cases, which were judged by judges of both sides. The appanage princes paid into the grand ducal treasury and exit" (Horde). They were in charge of the court on land and "robbery" cases. They issued fed, tarkhan and unconvicted letters to their feudal lords. They also had palaces with a clerk's apparatus and palace villages. "tributers" and "customs officers" collected customs duties, tributes and other levies into the specific treasury. Cities and volosts were governed by governors and volosts with tiuns. There were also specific boyar dumas.
* (Begunov Yu. K. “Another word”..., p. 351.)
The fragility of this system is to a certain extent explained by the weakness of the social base on which the appanage princes relied. Their courts, and especially the dumas and palaces, consisted primarily not of the local nobility, but of representatives of the Old Moscow princely and boyar families, as a rule, “seedy” branches. This was supposed to cause discontent among local landowners who did not have the opportunity to break into the immediate environment of the appanage rulers. Appanage princes and boyars found themselves connected by kinship and other relationships with the grand ducal nobility. Therefore, they were not a reliable support for their overlords. In the fight against the grand ducal power, the appanage princes, therefore, could not count on the active support of either the nobility or ordinary feudal lords.
The position of Tver after its annexation to Moscow was peculiar. It was, as it were, an inheritance under the control of the heir to the throne, Ivan Ivanovich. After the death of Ivan the Young (1490), Prince Vasily ruled Tver for some time, then his power over Tver was limited, and he lost it completely in 1497. Tver had its own boyars.
Novgorod and its lands retained the features of feudal isolation. The agrarian reform carried out there (the destruction of boyar and lordly land ownership and the creation of a local system) did not eliminate many of the specific features of the former statehood.
The feudal church also remained a state within a state. Possessing vast lands and tax privileges, the church was one of the largest socio-political forces in the country. She claimed not only ideological supremacy, but also active participation in the political life of the country. At the end of the 15th century. the ideology of militant churchmen was taking shape. V.I. Lenin characterized the components of the ideology of “pure clericalism”, rooted in the ideas of militant churchmen: “The Church is above the state, as the eternal and divine is above the temporal, earthly. The Church does not forgive the state for the secularization of church property. The Church demands primacy and dominant position"*. The church leadership managed to defeat the government's secularization plans. The task of subordinating the church to the grand ducal power had not yet been resolved.
* (Lenin V.I. PSS, vol. 17, p. 431.)
Semi-appanage estates were held by the so-called service princes. The descendants of the Rostov and Yaroslavl princes gradually lost the remnants of their sovereign rights. In 1473/74, Ivan III acquired the second half of Rostov from princes Vladimir Andreevich and Ivan Ivanovich. The Penkov princes in Yaroslavl and the Yukhotsky princes in Yukhot (Yaroslavl) continued to use elements of sovereign rights. But gradually they lost them, and by the beginning of the 16th century. The most prominent of the Rostov and Yaroslavl princes became part of the Boyar Duma. The defection of the most prominent representatives of the nobility of South-Western Rus' to the side of Ivan III led to the fact that the Vorotynsky, Belevsky and Odoevsky princes found themselves in the position of serving princes, preserving the remnants of their ancient possessions in Vorotynsk, Odoev and Novosil. The Velsk and Mstislavskys received small lands in North-Eastern Rus'. They left for Rus' in 1499-1500. princes Trubetskoy, Mosalsky, Semyon Ivanovich Starodubsky and Vasily Ivanovich Shemyachich Novgorod-Seversky *.
* (PSRL, vol. 24; With. 192; Veselovsky S. B. The last destinies in North-Eastern Rus'. - IZ, 1947, vol. 22, p. 101-131; Tikhomirov M.N. Russia in the 16th century, p. 46-52; Zimin A. A. Suzdal and Rostov princes in the second half of the 15th - first third of the 16th centuries - VID, vol. VII. L., 1976, p. 56-69; him. Serving princes in the Russian state at the end of the 15th - first third of the 16th century. - DSKR, p. 28-56.)
Annexation at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. vast territories of Southwestern Rus' led to the creation of a special system of relations between these lands and the grand princely authorities. It did not imitate the appanage system of the past, but left significant sovereign rights to local rulers, the so-called servants. The layer of service princes occupied a sort of intermediate position between the appanage princes and the princes of North-Eastern Rus', who had lost their sovereign rights to the old lands. The possession of the serving princes was considered by the government not as an independent reign, but as a fiefdom (irrespective of whether the servant received it from the Grand Duke or whether it passed to him from his ancestors). The serving prince was not a close relative of the Grand Duke and did not have any rights (unlike appanage rights) to occupy the Grand Duke's throne. The rights and responsibilities of a serving prince are clearly depicted after the end of 1459 between the Novosilsk and Odoevsk princes Ivan Yuryevich and his brothers Fyodor and Vasily Mikhailovich with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir. The princes pledged to faithfully serve Casimir, his children and, in general, those who would later be the Grand Duke of Lithuania; they promised to be “in the will” of the Lithuanian prince, and in particular to be allies in his fight against his enemies. From now on, without his permission, the princes could not enter into contractual relations with anyone. Casimir himself pledged not to enter the Novosil and Odoev lands. The court on controversial issues should be joint - the Lithuanian prince and the princely servants. In the conditions before the end of 1459, there were many features close to the agreements of the Russian sovereign with his appanage relatives. Ivan III spoke on behalf of the servicemen in the most important international treaties (in particular, in the treaty with the Principality of Lithuania in 1494) *. The serving princes, like the appanage princes, participated with their troops in the military actions of Ivan III (including the Russian-Lithuanian war of the early 16th century). The lands of the princely servants should not have left the grand-princely sovereignty (even if the princes had no “children,” that is, if their possessions were escheated).
* (DDG, No. 60, p. 192-193; No. 83, p. 330; Sat. RIO, vol. 35, p. 299-300.)
It is not known whether there were similar endings of the Russian sovereign with his servants. But the essence of their relationship with the grand ducal power was reminiscent of those that were set out in the end of 1459. The fact that the service princes were considered to be of lower rank than the appanage princes is evidenced by the end of Ivan III with the appanage brothers, which contained their obligation not to accept “service princes” with fiefdoms. The serving princes did not form a single cohesive corporation. Among them, Semyon Mozhaisky and Vasily Shemyachich stood out, occupying a semi-independent position. It was these princes, formally listed as servants, who were considered, as it were, patrons of the Severn princes, who were often under their command during wars in the southwest of Rus' *.
* (DDG, No. 81, p. 315-322; RK, p. 34.)
The grand ducal power had various means of influencing the policies of the serving princes. One of these was the replacement of their lands, which resulted in the servants losing ties to the local landowner corporations of the Southwest. Another remedy was opal. Having retained for the servants on the outskirts of the Russian state part of their ancient rights and privileges on their patrimonial lands *, the government formally placed them above the old Moscow princes and boyars. They could not be parochial with the princely servants. And at the same time, the serving princes were removed from the real governance of the country. They were not members of the Boyar Duma, did not participate in negotiations with ambassadors, and were not sent by governors. Gradually, as the state apparatus was formed and strengthened, their political role decreased.
* (The preservation of a layer of service princes precisely on the outskirts of the state was well understood by the compiler of the VVL. He noticed that the prince. Fyodor was brought together with Vym in 1502 because “the place of Vym is not a border place” (VVL, p. 264).)
These are the features in the management of individual lands at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, which were noted by V.I. Lenin, emphasizing the presence of strong features of feudal isolation of individual lands *.
* (See Lenin V.I. PSS, vol. 1, p. 153-154.)
Central power in the country was exercised by the Grand Duke, the Boyar Duma, palace institutions and the clerk's apparatus. The Grand Duke issued orders of a legislative nature (Code of Laws, statutory and decree charters, etc.). He had the right of appointment to senior government positions. The Grand Duke's Court was the highest court. The most significant military enterprises were headed by the Grand Duke. During the time under study, he acted as a military leader only twice: in the campaign against Tver in 1485 and in 1495/96, when he went to Novgorod at the head of his court. The last “campaign” was a military inspection trip, only outwardly repeating the Novgorod campaigns of the 70s of the 15th century. Relations with foreign powers were also within the competence of the sovereign.
And yet, despite such a wide range of political prerogatives, the Grand Duke of All Rus' cannot be imagined on the model of an absolutist sovereign or an eastern despot. The power of the Grand Duke was limited by strong traditions, rooted in patriarchal ideas about the nature of power, which also had religious sanction. The new came through with difficulty and was hidden behind the desire to live like our fathers and grandfathers. Thus, when appointing Duma positions, the Grand Duke had to take into account the traditional circle of boyar families and the procedure for appointment. With the greatest difficulty, the family principle paved the way for itself, replacing the clan principle. The Grand Duke could not yet break the tradition of allocating inheritance to his children - one of the foundations of the structure of the state of that time, although he waged a decisive struggle against the autocracy of the appanage brothers.
The sources allow us to quite clearly imagine the state activities of Ivan III, but on their basis it is not easy to recreate his appearance and character. The Italian Contarini, who visited Moscow in 1476, wrote: “...he was tall, but thin, in general he was a very handsome man.” The Kholmogory chronicler mentions Ivan Vasilyevich's nickname - Hunchback. Obviously, Ivan III was slouching. That, perhaps, is all that is known about the appearance of the Grand Duke. The Lithuanian chronicler wrote that he was “a man of a brave heart and a feller.” Not inclined to make hasty decisions, he listened to the opinions of those around him. According to Ivan Bersen Beklemishev, who knew him, “I strive against myself (disagreement - A.Z.) loved.” According to A.M. Kurbsky, he achieved success “through his many consultations with his wise and courageous siglit; for it is good, they say, to be in his kindness, and nothing can be started without the deepest and most advice.” Ivan IV honored his grandfather, who had the nickname the Great, as “the collector of the Russian land and the owner of many lands” *.
* (Barbaro and Contarini about Russia, p. 229; PSRL, vol. 33, p. 134; vol. 32, p. 92; AAE, vol. I, no. 172, p. 141-142; PL, vol. II, p. 224; Likhachev N.P. Nicknames of Grand Duke Ivan III. St. Petersburg, 1897; RIB, vol. XXXI, stlb. 216; Messages of Ivan the Terrible. M. -L., 1951, p. 202.)
Ivan III was one of the outstanding statesmen of feudal Russia. Possessing an extraordinary mind and breadth of political ideas, he was able to understand the urgent need to unite the Russian lands into a single power and lead those forces that led to the triumph of this process. During more than 40 years of his reign, on the site of numerous independent and semi-independent principalities, a state was created, the size of the territory six times larger than the legacy of his father. The Grand Duchy of Moscow was replaced by the State of All Rus'. The dependence on the once formidable Horde was over. Russia from an ordinary feudal principality grew into a powerful power, the existence of which not only its closest neighbors, but also the largest countries in Europe and the Middle East had to reckon with. The successes of the unification policy and victories on the battlefield were carefully prepared at the diplomatic negotiating table thanks to the ability of Ivan III to establish good neighborly and friendly relations with those countries that showed goodwill and peaceful aspirations.
All these successes would have been impossible without Ivan III’s deep understanding of the tasks and ways of establishing autocracy in Rus'. A characteristic feature of his policy was caution and consistency in the implementation of plans. The Grand Duke, understanding the enormous power of traditions rooted in the conditions of life at that time, carried out the unification of the lands around Moscow without any desire to precede events, through a series of intermediate stages that ultimately led to the triumph of the cause of centralization. Therefore, the final inclusion of the annexed territories into a single state lasted for several decades. It was the same with Novgorod, Tver and Ryazan.
To achieve far-reaching political goals, reliable means were needed. They could only be provided by a new state apparatus, which was also supposed to become an instrument for the subjugation of peasants and townspeople, the direct creators of material values. Ivan III understood the importance of a strong army, which he created and provided with land, the Treasury and the court as authorities. The new clerical administration became a reliable means of daily implementation of the grand ducal plans.
Relying on the centuries-old tradition of his predecessors on the grand-ducal throne, Ivan III - this, in the words of K. Marx, “the great Machiavellian” - did not shy away from new people or new ideas. He willingly used the advanced experience of Western European science and technology, invited prominent architects, doctors, cultural figures, and craftsmen to his court, and attracted Greek experts to organize the diplomatic service. Possessing an excellent knowledge of people, he brought forward talented military leaders, smart diplomats, and business administrators from those around him, sometimes regardless of the vicissitudes of palace intrigue.
Ivan III was one of the most significant European monarchs who lived at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries. He remained a son of his time, a cruel and sometimes treacherous ruler. But when it came to state interests, he knew how to rise above many prejudices, including clerical ones. All this determines its place in Russian history during the creation of a unified state.
The entourage of Ivan III played a major role in governing the country, in which there was a struggle between various political groups. In all state events, the Grand Duke coordinated his orders with the opinion of the members of the Boyar Duma - the council of the feudal nobility under the Grand Duke. The Boyar Duma at the time under study consisted of two ranks - boyars and okolnichy. Its numerical strength was small. At one time it included 10-12 boyars and five or six okolnichy. The boyars were formed from the old Moscow untitled boyar families (Kobylins, Morozovs, Ratshichis, etc.) and princes who had long ago lost their sovereign rights (Gediminovics, Obolenskys, Starodubskys). The influence of individuals and boyar families on the course of political struggle changed at different times. So, at the end of the 15th century. The influence of the Patrikeev group sharply increased (their supporters made up almost half of the Duma members). The dominance in the Duma of princes from the Patrikeev circle contributed to their disgrace in 1499.
A certain increase in the number of okolnichy testified to the tendency of the grand ducal power to weaken the aristocratic character of the Duma. Not yet having the opportunity to violate the ancient traditions of forming the composition of the Boyar Duma, the grand ducal government used other means to ensure the subordination of the feudal aristocracy to the government. Some of the influential princes were named grand duchesses (in 1500 V.D. Kholmsky married the daughter of Ivan III). From those representatives of the nobility who inspired fear, cross-kissing and sworn letters of allegiance were taken (in 1474, a similar letter was taken from Prince D. D. Kholmsky). In case of open disobedience to the will of the Grand Duke, the courts of the nobility were dissolved. This happened around 1483 with the courts of I.M. and V.M. Tuchko-Morozov, I.V. Oshchera and others. Boyars often fell into disgrace (for example, the Tuchkovs in 1485), and some were executed (in 1499 - Prince S.I. Ryapolovsky).
When appointed to the Boyar Duma, the Grand Duke had to take into account the tradition according to which the most noble families should be represented in the Duma according to the principle of seniority. But since the order of “candidates” to the Duma was not established, the Grand Duke could appoint a representative of one or another family earlier than another. Taking shape in the 15th century. parochial relations concerned primarily the old Moscow boyars; they did not parochialize with the princes, because they stood higher on the hierarchical ladder. The local account was determined by the services of the ancestors, and not by birth, because it was simply impossible to establish the greater or lesser birth of one untitled boyar family compared to another *.
* (Zimin A. A. Sources on the history of localism in the 15th - first third of the 16th century - AE. 1968. M., 1970, p. 109-118.)
The boyars occupied command positions in the country's armed forces and in the administrative apparatus. Boyars led regiments on campaigns, judged land disputes, and some acted as judges of the highest court. They served as boyars and governors in major cities. They also headed the commissions that conducted the most important diplomatic negotiations (primarily with the Principality of Lithuania). Members of the Boyar Duma were also sent to the most important diplomatic missions. The term "boyars" had a narrow and broad meaning. In a broad sense, boyars often called those representatives of the nobility who performed boyar functions: judicial (“with the boyar court”), diplomatic, etc. Butlers, treasurers and even clerks were sometimes called boyars. The boyars were the highest stratum of the Sovereign's court and played a major role in the political life of the country. The court consisted of two parts: “princes” and “children of the boyars” - and provided cadres of military leaders and administrators of a lower rank than the boyar administrators. The court was the main support of the grand ducal power *.
* (The composition of the Sovereign's court can be represented according to the discharge record of 1495/6 (RK, pp. 25-26).)
After 1485 and until the beginning of the 16th century. Along with the Moscow court, there was a Tver court with its boyar nobility (princes Telyatevsky, Mikulinsky, Dorogobuzhsky, boyars Borisov, Karpov, Zhitov). It was like the courtyard of the heir to the throne (first Ivan Ivanovich, then his son Dmitry). According to B. N. Flori, the end of the political and administrative isolation of Tver should be dated to 1504. The rank of Tver “boyars” was destroyed soon after 1509 *
* (Florya B. N. On the ways of political centralization of the Russian state (using the example of the Tver land). - Society and state of feudal Russia, p. 283-288.)
During the period of feudal fragmentation, there were no significant differences between the management of the princely (domain) lands themselves and the general state ones. Until the 60s of the 15th century. palace lands did not reach a significant size and their management was not allocated to a separate industry. As a unified state was created and new lands were annexed, the volume of the grand-ducal economy and the size of the grand-ducal lands expanded so much that it was necessary to create a centralized apparatus for managing these lands in Moscow. It was also necessary because in the second half of the 15th century. There was a gradual demarcation between the “black” (state) lands and the “palace” lands, which served the specific needs of the grand ducal court. The former were governed by governors and volostels under the control of the Boyar Duma; the management of the latter was entrusted to the butlers. The butlers were in charge of the courts in the palace territories, the exchange and surveying of the grand ducal lands, and gave lands for rent. At the same time, the butlers actively participated in solving the most important national affairs. At their disposal was a staff of clerks, who gradually specialized in performing various public services. Along with the treasurers, the butlers exercised control over the activities of the feeders *. The butlers also affixed their signatures to the letters of commendation. Their court was often the highest authority, accepting the "report" of judges on various cases in controversial cases. The majority of the Grand Duke's butlers came from among the untitled boyars, who had long been associated with Moscow. Of course, other important circumstances also played a big role in the appointment to this position (service at the grand ducal court, family ties with the court environment, etc.).
* (ASEI, vol. I, no. 541; Shumakov S. A. Review of letters of the College of Economy. - CHOIDR, 1917, book. III, p. 498; Sadikov P. A. Essays on the history of the oprichnina. M. -L., 1950, p. 215-216.)
The first butler known from reliable sources was Ivan Borisovich Tuchko-Morozov (1467-1475). Around 1475 he left his position, and in the early 80s he fell into disgrace. Probably, immediately after him the prince became a butler. Pyotr Vasilyevich the Great Shestunov (direct data about him as a butler dates back to 1489/90-1506). The groom (possibly back in the 70s) was Morozov’s brother, Vasily Borisovich Guchko. There is little information about the functions of stable horses. Later, the butler was considered “the first under the equerry,” and whoever “becomes the equerry, and he is the first boyar in rank and honor,” wrote in the 17th century. G. K. Kotoshikhin. N. E. Nosov believes that “through the department of the equerry, the grand ducal government initially exercised general control over the formation and material support of the noble local militia” *. It is not yet possible to support this guess with sufficient argumentation, but the groom’s involvement in the noble cavalry is very likely. Palace positions were not in the hands of the princely-boyar nobility, who were part of the Boyar Duma, but, as a rule, in the hands of untitled representatives of the Old Moscow families, who had long been associated with the grand-ducal power.
* (ASEI, vol. I, no. 541 (1489/90); Kashtanov S. M. Essays on Russian diplomacy, p. 437; Kotoshikhin G. Decree. cit., p. 88, 81; Kopanev A.I., Mankov A.G., Nosov N.E. Essays on the history of the USSR. End of the 15th - beginning of the 17th century. L., 1957, p. 69.)
New tasks faced the Grand Ducal Chancellery (Treasury) as the territory of the state expanded, and gradually the functions of the treasurer began to be allocated to a special position. Treasurers were appointed close to the Grand Duke, who knew both financial and foreign policy affairs well. It was they who exercised practical leadership of diplomacy. The first treasurers were the Khovrins, descendants of the Greeks who came from Surozh, and the Trachaniots, the Greeks who arrived in the retinue of Sophia Paleologus. So, the treasurer from the fall of 1491 to the end of 1509 was Dmitry Vladimirovich Khovrin. Assistant treasurer already in the 15th century. becomes a printer in charge of the state press. He applied the seal to legal documents, attachments and others (Articles 22, 23 of the Law Code of 1497). The first concrete information about printers dates back to the beginning of the 16th century. At the end of 1503, the printer was Yuri Maly Dmitrievich Trakhaniot *.
* (DDG, No. 89, p. 363.)
One of the persons closest to the sovereign was the bed-keeper, who was in charge of his “bed” and, perhaps, his personal office *. G.K. Kotoshikhin wrote that “the bed rank is as follows: he is in charge of the royal bed. And the honor of the bed guards is in charge of the okolnik.” About the bed guards of the late 15th - early 16th centuries. Only fragmentary information has survived. According to genealogical data, Ivan More was the bed-keeper under Ivan III. In 1495/96, this rank was held by Ersh Otyaev and Vasily Ivanovich Satin. At the beginning of the 16th century. S. B. Bryukho-Morozov ** was the bed keeper for some time.
* (Wed: Shmidt S. O. Government activities of A. F. Adashev. - UZ MSU, 1954, issue. 167, p. 38-39, 46.)
** (Kotoshikhin G. Decree. cit., p. 29; Rare sources on the history of Russia, vol. 2. M., 1977, p. 69; RK, p. 25. From 1494/5, Ruff was the bed-keeper; he died in 1499/1500; from 1501/3 six years - Semyon Ivanovich (?) Belly (Zimin A.A. On the composition of the palace institutions of the Russian state at the end of the 15th and 16th centuries - IZ, 1958, vol. 63, p. 204). According to the Sheremetev list, Bryukho was a falconer from 1501/2, and died in 1506/7.)
Next on the hierarchical ladder of palace ranks were the nurseries and hunters. They were recruited from the small nobility, but depending on their personal qualities they could occupy a prominent position at the grand ducal court. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, in the years when bed guards were known, neither hunters nor falconers were mentioned. Perhaps the person who performed the functions of a bed guard combined them with the duties of a hunter. In November 1474, the hunter was Grigory Mikhailovich Perkhushkov. In the autumn of 1495 - spring of 1496, Fyodor Mikhailovich Vikentyev and Davyd Likharev were nursery workers. Vikentyev continued to fulfill this position in June 1496. D. Likharev was a nursery in March 1502, when he was appointed to the embassy to the Great Horde. In 1501, Vikentyev carried out a tour of the lands. Among the falconers in charge of falconry, a major political figure was Mikhail Stepanovich Klyapik (mentioned as a falconer in 1503) - a person close to Prince Vasily. Falconers, hunters, nurseries and bedkeepers were always with the person of the Grand Duke and influenced current politics. There is no data for the period under study about the kravchis who presented the Grand Duke with a bowl of drinks during the festivities *.
* (PSRL, vol. 12, p. 156; ASEY, vol. 1, no. 487; vol. II, no. 330, 424; vol. III, no. 15; RK, p. 25; AFZH, part I, No. 40, p. 55; IL, p. 144; Sat. RIO, vol. 41, p. 418-419; Kotoshikhin G. Decree. cit., p. 25; Lyubich-Romanovich V. Tales of foreigners about Russia in the 16th and 17th centuries. St. Petersburg, 1843, p. 30-31; Zimin A. A. On the composition of palace institutions..., p. 205.)
Palace positions at that time were not only for life, but also, due to patriarchal traditions, were often retained within the same surname (among the Morozovs and Sorokoumovs-Glebovs). The first mentions of palace positions in the sources do not mean that it was then that they were created. Some of them (falconers, hunters, grooms, etc.) and their “paths” are mentioned in the end of the children of Ivan Kalita (mid-14th century), and in the middle of the 15th century. (before 1462) the “Chashnich Path” is mentioned. There is also information about the "capital route" *.
* (DDG, no. 2, p. 15; Wed charter around 1356 (ibid., no. 4). “Sokolnich’s way”, see also in the charter of 1507 (ASEI, vol. III, no. 26). For a mention of the Talitskaya wasteland as a “chashnich of the path” see: ASEI, vol. II, No. 496. For the “chashnich of the path” in Kostroma, see the charter of 1505-1533. (Acts of Yushkov, No. 63). Judging by the statutory charter of 1506 (ASEI, vol. III, no. 25), Pereslavl fishermen were included in the “stolnich way”. In 1486-1500 V. Oznobishin was granted “the sleigh men on their way” (ASEI, vol. III, no. 107).)
At the end of the 15th century. In connection with the creation of a unified state, the management of the grand ducal economy increasingly began to be isolated from the general government, occupying a less significant place in comparison with it. At the same time, if earlier the palace economy could be managed by persons from the palace servants of the Grand Duke, now it was headed by representatives of the Old Moscow boyars, devoted to the interests of the grand ducal power, or by people from the growing nobility. The great princes used the palace apparatus in the fight against the feudal nobility. The representatives of the ruling class most devoted to the grand ducal power were appointed primarily to palace positions. Only death, disgrace, or inclusion in the Boyar Duma could deprive a representative of the highest palace administration of the title of equerry, butler, etc.
As the last independent and semi-independent principalities annexed to the Russian state and the liquidation of appanages at the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries. there was a need to organize central management of these territories. Being part of a single state, appanages, as a rule, ceased to be a source for the creation of new principalities of the sovereign's closest relatives and gradually became an integral part of the national territory. At the same time, the economic fragmentation of the country had not yet been overcome, so there could be no talk of a complete merger of the newly annexed territories with the main ones. This explains the fact that the management of appanage lands in Moscow was concentrated in the hands of special butlers, whose department was structured on the model of the Moscow butler. By annexing the principalities to Moscow, the grand dukes took a significant part of the possessions of local feudal lords into the fund of palace and black-plow lands. The butler system initially ensured the management of these lands in the newly annexed territories.
The annexation of Novgorod and the emergence of a significant fund of grand-ducal lands there led to the creation of the department of the Novgorod butler. Already in November 1475, the Novgorod butler Roman Alekseev was mentioned. In May and December 1493 and in 1501, Ivan Mikhailovich Volynsky was the butler. Judging by the discharge books, in August 1495 the butler was Vasily Mikhailovich Volynsky. The Tver Palace was formed after the annexation of Tver to Moscow and the death of Ivan the Young, to whom Tver became his inheritance. For some time, the Tver lands were under the jurisdiction of Prince Vasily. The will of Ivan III (late 1503) mentions a Tver butler. Around 1497-1503 Kaluga and Staritsa butler was Ivan Ivanovich Oshcherin *. However, due to the creation of the Kaluga inheritance (in November 1503), the palace ceased to exist.
* (PSRL, vol. 25, p. 304; Sat. RIO, vol. 35, p. 94; IL, p. 59; RK, p. 24, 32; R, s. 48, 67; DDG, No. 89, p. 363; Florya B.N. Decree. cit., p. 286-287; Likhachev N.P. “The Sovereign’s Genealogist” and the Adashev family. - LZAK, vol. 11. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 57-58.)
The functions of regional butlers were close to the competence of the butlers of the Sovereign Palace. Supervision over the judicial-administrative power of governors, volosts and towns was concentrated in their hands. They exercised the highest judicial functions in relation to local feudal lords, the black-sown and palace population. The butlers controlled the issuance of immunity certificates to local feudal lords.
At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. The clerks of the grand ducal chancellery (Treasury) gradually take control of all the most important branches of public administration. Under the leadership of the treasurer, they are in charge of embassy affairs. Such clerks as Fyodor Kuritsyn, Tretyak Dolmatov, Andrei Maiko, Vasily Kuleshin, Danila Mamyrev became prominent political figures. The clerks of the Sovereign treasury began to conduct office work on military operational matters. The "ranks" for the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th century, preserved in later rank books, testify in their accuracy to their modern recording by persons who were directly related to the state office. , borrowed from ambassadorial and discharge books. The clerks were the real executors of the plans of the grand ducal power. They formed the apparatus of the Boyar Duma, the Treasury and the palace. In their midst, a new state apparatus was born, which in the second half of the 16th century received the name of the clerk. Specializing in the execution of certain orders ( financial, diplomatic, military and Yamsk), clerks prepared the creation of governing bodies with a new, functional, rather than territorial distribution of affairs.
* (Belokurov S.A. About the Ambassadorial Order. M., 1906, p. 15-16, 32; Savva V. About the Ambassadorial Order. Kharkov, 1917; Buganov V.I. Rank books of the last quarter of the 15th - early 17th centuries. M., 1962, p. 99-131.)
Distribution of functions in the clerical environment at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. it was just planned. Of the 70 clerks, 23 served in the Ryazan and appanage principalities *. It is known about the rest that one was a stable clerk, one was a zemstvo clerk, two were palace clerks, and 10 were pit clerks. During the liquidation of appanages, appanage clerks, as a rule, were not part of the Grand Duke's clerkly apparatus. The Chronograph for 1498 lists 14 grand ducal clerks**. This figure approximately reflects the real number of court clerks (if you do not take into account the Yamskys and policemen).
* (Including 7 Ryazan clerks are known, 3 - Grand Duchess Maria, 3 - Prince. Andrei Uglitsky, 3 - book. Mikhail Belozersky, 2 - book. Andrei Vologodsky, 1 - Pskov, 2 - Volotsk, 2 - Dmitrov.)
** (PSRL, vol. 22, part I, p. 513.)
Since the 60s of the 15th century. Yamskaya chasing began to function as a national service. The Yamsk clerks were also in charge of drawing up full letters for slaves *. Natural Yam conscription by the beginning of the 16th century. was gradually replaced by cash payments. A regular yam service was created. Pit yards were built, roads were laid, and a staff of coachmen was formed. All this led to the emergence of Yamsk clerks, who were in charge of such a complex and important matter. The establishment of a communications service was caused by the needs of increased economic communication between individual lands, the formation of a single state and military-strategic tasks. Around 1462-1480 mentioned "yamskoy" (deacon) Alexander Borisov Voronov **. Around 1460-1490 The complete story was written by clerk Zakhar. Around 1470-1477 and in 1482 the “yamskaya” (secretary) Alexander Khludenev was known. The phrase “Yamsk clerk” was first used in 1492 by T. S. Moklokov. In 1499, the name “palace clerk” was mentioned for the first time (although, of course, the palace existed much earlier than that time) ***. In 1500, a “zemsky clerk” was mentioned. What this term really meant then is not entirely clear. Most likely, we were talking about the Grand Duke's clerk, as opposed to the palace ****. In 1496, the only time the “stable clerk” was mentioned (in the department of the nursery) *****. There were no special local clerks yet ******, although clerks at the end of the 15th century. were in charge of land surveying and land allocation, compiled scribe books, conducted legal proceedings and were present at the report to the highest authority on land disputes.
* (Gurlyand I. Ya. Yamskaya persecution in the Moscow state until the end of the 17th century. Yaroslavl, 1900, p. 44-50; Gorsky. Essays, p. 214-216; Alef G. The Origin and Early Development of the Muscovite Postal Sistem. - JGO, 1967, Bd XV, N 1, p. 1-15; ASEE, vol. III, p. 411-446; DG, no. 89, p. 361; Kolycheva E. I. Complete and report documents of the 15th - 16th centuries. - AE. 1961. M., 1962, p. 41-81.)
** (ASEY, vol. III, no. 397, 398. The Grand Duke’s “Diak of the State” was mentioned for the first time around 1445-1453. (ASEI, vol. II, no. 346, p. 343; Likhachev N.P. The oldest mention of a state clerk. - Sat. Archeology, institute, book VI. St. Petersburg, 1898, department III, p. 1- 2).)
*** (ASEI, vol. I, no. 624; vol. III, no. 401-403, 417; AFZH, part 1, no. 36.)
**** (Sat. RIO, vol. 41, p. 338. The opinion that from the functions of this clerk “later the Zemsky Prikaz grew up as an administrative and police institution in Moscow” (Chernov A.V. On the emergence of the zemsky order in the process of formation of the Russian centralized state. - Proceedings of the Moscow State Institute of Arts and Sciences, 1965, volume 19, p. 289), is not confirmed by sources.)
***** (AFZH, part I, No. 40.)
****** (Among the “local clerks” named by S. A. Shumakov, two (V. Amirev and V. Nelyubov) were mentioned in forged acts; T. Ilyin was in charge not only of land, but also of diplomatic and other affairs. The activities of the rest occurred in a later period (S. A. Shumakov, Excursions on the history of the Local Order. M., 1910, p. 48).)
Proving the existence of local clerks, A.V. Chernov refers to the petition of the Varnavinsky Monastery in 1664. It allegedly states that under Vasily III the monastery received a charter from the Local Prikaz. The petition only speaks about the founding of the monastery under Vasily III, and the words “both according to his sovereign decree, and according to the charter from the Pomesny order” mean the charter from the time of Mikhail Romanov. Mentioned in the same petition letter on June 26, 1530, signed by clerk Vasily Amirev and July 25, 1551, signed by clerk Vasily Nelyubov (the latter was given “from the Pomesny order”), as established by S. M. Kashtanov, are unreliable *. Thus, there is no data on the existence of the Local Order in the first half of the 16th century. No.
* (Chernov A.V. Decree. cit., p. 284; Shumakov S. A. Review of letters of the College of Economy. - CHOIDR, 1917, book. II, p. 136; Kashtanov S.M. Nazarov V.D., Florya B.N. Chronological list of immunity documents of the 16th century, part 3. - AE. 1966. M., 1968, p. 210, 230.)
According to N. E. Nosov, the Code of Law of 1497 “characterizes the moment of transformation of “orders” from personal orders into government institutions.” But in the words of the Code of Law of 1497 that the complainant should be sent to the one “to whom people are ordered to be in charge,” it is difficult to discern the presence of “orders” as state institutions *. L.V. Cherepnin is right in believing that in the Code of Laws of 1497 there is no data indicating the “formation of the order system.” “Documentary evidence” of the existence of orders around 1512 N.P. Likhachev saw in the letter of Vasily III to the Assumption Monastery: “... ordered you to appoint Ivan Semenov as your deacon, Ermola Davydov, Ushak Ortemev, and the palace deacon Theodore Khodyka and Stromil, or whoever else will take their place in those orders.” According to P. A. Sadikov, in 1512 a temporary commission was created - an institution of a banking nature. A.K. Leontyev also joined his opinion. I think this point of view is closer to the truth. Note also that Ushak Artemyev was a palace clerk back in December 1502, and Ermola Davydov was a Novgorod palace clerk in the spring of 1501. ** The charter of 1512 only speaks of the obligation to transfer money to clerks (both ordinary and palace) or those who will perform their duties.
* (Kopanev A.I., Mankov A.G., Nosov I.E. Decree. cit., p. 72. By “order” N. E. Nosov understands “permanent public places (institutions)” (p. 68). This definition left out the main thing - the functional essence of orders. Without taking it into account, Nosov classified both the regional and central palace departments of the treasurer and equerry as “orders,” which for the first half of the 16th century. cannot be considered orders.)
** (Law books of the XV-XVI centuries, p. 43; AAE, vol. I, no. 155, p. 125; Likhachev N.P. Rank clerks of the 16th century. St. Petersburg, 1888, p. 30, 33; Chernov A.V. Decree. cit., p. 281; Sadikov P. A. Decree op., p. 260; Leontyev A.K. Formation of a command system of management in the Russian state. M., 1961, p. 52-53; Sat. RIO, vol. 35, p. 340.)
A. M. Kurbsky wrote about the origin of the “clerks” (secretaries) of Ivan IV: the tsar “elects them not from the gentry family, nor from the nobility, but especially from the priests or from the simple people of the whole people” *. This characteristic is fully suitable for the composition of the clerks of the previous period. However, some of the “scribes” of the second half of the 15th - first quarter of the 16th centuries. left the small landowners. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine with sufficient accuracy which social stratum produced the bulk of clerks. The fact that clerks have lands does not indicate their noble origin, for clerks often acquired estates during their service.
* (RIB, vol. XXXI, stlb. 221.)
According to N. E. Nosov, orders as certain government institutions originated in the bowels of the princely palace *. The question of the relationship of the palace to the Treasury still cannot be considered resolved. But in the sources of the late XV - early XVI centuries. the separation of the “palace” clerks from the rest, i.e., the grand ducal ones, who were part of the Treasury, is noticeable. Nosov’s formulation not only erases the difference between the palace and the Treasury, but also does not take into account the role of the Boyar Duma in the formation of the order system, which was created by limiting, rather than expanding, the competence of palace departments. If the Treasury and the palace provided the main personnel for the apparatus of the emerging order system, then the Boyar Duma was the environment from which the leading officials of the most important central departments emerged. Boyar commissions were formed as needed to conduct foreign policy negotiations, courts on land and “robbery” cases, etc. The sources of the emerging order system were the Boyar Duma, the Treasury and the palace. At the same time, the palace and especially the Yamsk clerks were considered to be of a lower rank than the grand ducal (official) ones, although they often carried out similar assignments. One and the same clerk, in turn, could perform all sorts of functions: participate in diplomatic receptions, affix his signature to letters, etc. The practical work experience acquired by clerks gave the government the opportunity to use them primarily in one particular area. With the increase in the number of clerks, their specialization gradually grew.
* (Kopanev A.I., Mankov A.G., Nosov N.E. Decree. cit., p. 68.)
The importance of the first sprouts of the command system cannot be exaggerated. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. clerks were also part of the palace, individual branches of government administration had not yet separated from one another, and a specific staff for each of them had not yet been formed. Boyar commissions were temporary in nature and were not always combined with a specific staff of clerks. Functional distribution of responsibilities only in the middle of the 16th century. led to the formation of a new (mandatory) management system.
Local administration and justice were carried out by governors and volostels with their staff of tiuns, closers and righteous men. The governors were not only the highest judicial and administrative officials in the city, but also the supreme commanders of local troops. The governors and volosts were provided with a feeding system that gave them the right to collect various taxes from certain territories. The “natural” nature of remuneration for service corresponded to the weak development of commodity-money relations in the country. Feedings (that is, the territories from which taxes were collected) were called “paths” in the palace department. In the literature, the term "path" is mistakenly interpreted as department *. In fact, at the time under study, the “path” is a certain territorial-administrative unit, the population of which is sued and subject to taxes in favor of the administrators of the palace department (falconer, etc.). According to the form, the “go” certificates coincide with the documents transferring territories “for feeding”. The spiritual document of Ivan III mentions the Bezhetsk top "with volosts and with roads and villages and with all duties." In the fed charters, according to the observation of B. N. Flori, the term “path” is found until 1485, after which it is replaced by “feeding” **.
* (See, for example, SIE, vol. 11. M., 1968, p. 714; Florya B. N. Fed charters of the XV-XVII centuries. as a historical source. - AE. 1970. M., 1971, p. 111)
** (Wed. Acts of Yushkov, No. 17, 18, 22, 24; DDG, No. 89, p. 360. Behind I.D. Bobrov, the bed-man of Vasily III, “along the bed-bed’s path” was the Ukhra volost “from the wash to the road” (Rare sources on the history of Russia, issue 2. M., 1977, p. 70). In 1555, F.V. Kryukov was granted the “nursery” to feed, that is, essentially to the “path” (DAI, vol. I, no. 53). The patrol book of 1588/9 speaks of one property, which is “assigned to the stable path to the Domodedovo volost” (Speransky A.N. Essays on the history of the order of stone affairs of the Moscow state. M., 1930, p. 36). In the charter of 1547-1584. about the award of “falconer's way” to “feeding” are called “paths or volosts” (Acts of Yushkov, No. 162). Wed. charter of 1556 on the stable path (DAI, vol. I, no. 108). "Paths" can be compared with the Tatar "darugs" ("roads").)
The feeders came from both the feudal aristocracy and the ordinary mass of service people. In the largest cities, representatives of the nobility received governorships (in Moscow - the Gediminovichs, in Vladimir - Prince D. D. Kholmsky, in Vyazma - the okolnichy I. V. Shadra). The procedure for distributing cities for feeding generally resembled distribution for appanages: more noble persons received larger cities. At the same time, sometimes the order of receiving feedings reflected the traditions of the specific time. The timing of feedings was initially uncertain, possibly lifelong. In any case, in Moscow they were governors for life, and the Gediminovichs - from the 20s of the 15th century. to the 20s of the 16th century. In the 15th century The principle of feeding “by the year” developed, that is, feeding was given for a year and “restarted” for another six months or a year. Vasily III, according to S. Herberstein, distributed feeding “for the most part for use only for a year and a half; if he supports someone in special favor or favor, then he adds several months; after this period, all mercy ceases, and you six years in a row will have to serve for nothing.” However, the nobility could remain governors for a relatively long time. Thus, it is known that the okolnichy I.V. Shadra was governor in Vyazma from 1495 to 1505 *
* (Veselovsky S. B. Feudal land tenure in North-Eastern Rus', p. 263-280; Herberstein, p. 20-21; Florya B, N. Fed charters of the 15th-16th centuries. ..., With. 118; him. About some sources on the history of local government in Russia in the 16th century. - AE. 1962. M., 1963, p. 92-97; Zimin A. A. Viceroyal administration in the Russian state in the second half of the 15th - first third of the 16th centuries. - FROM 1974 t. 94 p. 273.)
The power of governors and local volosts was limited and regulated by the Code of Law of 1497, statutory charters issued to the local population, and income lists received by feeders. The list of levies (feeds) going in their favor according to the income lists was, as it were, adjusted by statutory charters. According to the statutory Belozersk charter of 1488, the governor received traditional food from all dry land “without change” (both secular and spiritual feudal lords, who had immune privileges or not). When he took office, he was suited to the “new arrival.” At Christmas he received 2 altyns per plow for weeding meat, 10 money for 10 loaves of bread, 10 money for a barrel of oats, 2 altyns for a load of hay. The governors' tiuns received half as much food. The feed also went to the closers. The governor had the right to keep with him two tiuns and 10 closers (eight in the city and two in the camps) *. The governor also received all kinds of duties: customs (including appearance from guests - one dollar per person) and, in accordance with the Code of Laws of 1497, judicial.
* (ASEY, vol. III, no. 22, 114; Gorsky. Essays, p. 245-251.)
The restriction of the power of governors and volosts went not only through the regulation of exactions, but also through the removal of an increasing number of cases from their jurisdiction. Thus, “urban affairs” (the construction of city fortifications) was concentrated in the hands of town dwellers, who were replaced at the beginning of the 16th century. city clerks arrived. Town dwellers, customs officers, and tribute workers collected all kinds of taxes to the Treasury *. Numerous scribes and specially sent judges resolved land disputes, which previously were the responsibility of governors and volosts. Only the report of full (servile) charters was the prerogative of the viceroyal authority.
* (Nosov N. E. Essays on the history of local government of the Russian state in the first half of the 16th century, p. 21-38, 42; ASEE, vol. II, no. 476.)
The army continued to remain feudal. This meant that its basis was made up of cavalry from detachments of children of boyars and princes, who brought out their armed slaves. V.I. Lenin emphasized that even during the period of the “Moscow kingdom” “local boyars went to war with their regiments.” When recruiting regiments, the territorial principle was widely used. Detachments of “Tverians”, “Dmitrovians”, “Novgorodians”, “Pskovians”, etc. went on the campaign. Novgorodians and Pskovians were more often involved in military operations in Livonia, with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in the north. Ustyuzhans, Vologdas, and Permyaks took part in campaigns against Ugra.
The Seversky princes were busy defending the southwestern borders. Regiments from different lands of the country took part in large campaigns of an all-Russian nature. The five-regiment system (large regiment, forward regiment, right and left regiments and guard regiment) developed throughout the 15th century. and became normal. Along with the cavalry, an auxiliary (foot) army - "staff" - recruited from the staff * also took part in military operations.
* (Chernov A.V. Armed forces of the Russian state in the XV-XVII centuries. M., 1954, p. 17-42; Lenin V.I. PSS, vol. 1, p. 153; RK, p. 23; PSRL, vol. 12, p. 252; ULS, p. 88; PL, vol. I, p. 81. For the order of dialing “s sokh”, see information from 1480, 1485, 1500, 1501. (Nosov N. E. Essays..., pp. 116-118; Gorsky. Essays, p. 222).)
The government of Ivan III attached great importance to the creation of powerful artillery, without which it was not possible to count on the capture of large fortified cities. The outstanding architect and master Aristotle Fioravanti played a major role in the development of artillery. The Sophia II and Lviv Chronicles, dating back to the code of 1518, speak most thoroughly about his activities. The basis of his text, in the part that interests us, is the code of the 80s of the 15th century. *, the compiler of which may have been the metropolitan clerk Rodion Kozhukh, known from sources of 1461-1482. **
* (Lurie. Chronicles, p. 237, 238.)
** (See about him: Nasonov, p. 306-307; Lurie. Chronicles, p. 237.)
In the official chronicle, information about Aristotle, who went to Rus' in 1475, ends with the construction of the Assumption Cathedral. However, it also contains an enthusiastic description of his activity: “In that whole earth there was no one like him, not only for this stone work, but also for all sorts of other things, and bells, and cannons, and every kind of construction, and to strike and beat cities.” . In December 1477, Aristotle was assigned to repair the bridge across the Volkhov. In 1482, “Aristotle with cannons” took part in the campaign near Kazan. In 1483, after he was slaughtered “like a sheep,” one of the doctors, Aristotle, “fearing this, began to ask the Grand Duke for his land.” The answer was that the Grand Duke, “having caught him and robbed him, put him in Onton’s courtyard.” The disgrace was short-lived, and in 1485 “Aristotle with guns, and with mattresses, and with arquebuses” took part in the Tver campaign. This is the last mention of him in the sources. The creation of the Cannon Yard in Moscow is probably associated with the advent of Aristotle. In any case, the first mention of it dates back to the time of the Moscow fire of 1488. Under the same year, the chronicles report that Pavel Debossis lost a “great cannon.” Obviously, Aristotle had already died by then. Aristotle's versatile activities made such a deep impression on his contemporaries that they used the term "Aristotle" along with "architects", "captains" and others, denoting "wise people", masters of foreign origin *.
* (PSRL, vol. 25, p. 324, cf. With. 303-304; Wed vol. 23, p. 161; vol. 6, p. 234, 235, 237; vol. 20, part I, p. 328, 349, 352; vol. 24, p. 237; IL, p. 118, 126, etc.; PL, vol. I, p. 99 (1518). See also: Snegirev V. Aristotle Fioravanti and the restructuring of the Moscow Kremlin. M., 1935; Khoroshkevich A.L. Data from Russian chronicles about Aristotle Fioravanti. - VI, 1979, No. 2, p. 201-204.)
The oldest surviving cannon (made by Yakov) was drained in 1485. The cannon of 1491, which was drained by “Yakovlev’s disciples Vanya and Vasyuk” *, is also known. The creation of artillery that met the conditions of warfare at the beginning of the 16th century was a lengthy task. The failure at Smolensk in 1502 was to some extent explained by the insufficient artillery support.
* (Brandenburg N. E. Historical catalog of the St. Petersburg Artillery Museum, part I. St. Petersburg, 1877, p. 57, 105.)
Vasily III sought to fulfill the task of further development of artillery.
Large fortification works contributed to the reliable defense of the Russian state. The Kremlin became an outstanding military-defensive structure. A stone child was built in Novgorod. In 1492, the Ivan-Gorod fortress was erected on the Livonian border, opposing Narva.
The size of the army also increased sharply. Researchers believe that the total number of troops at that time reached approximately 200 thousand foot and horse soldiers. In the Battle of Vedroshi alone in 1500, according to Lithuanian data (perhaps somewhat exaggerated), a Russian cavalry army of 40 thousand people took part, not counting the foot soldiers. Livonian sources especially exaggerate the number of Russian troops, trying to embellish their military successes. Thus, in the summer of 1501, 40 thousand Russian soldiers allegedly went to the Baltic states from Pskov, and even 90 thousand people in the fall *.
* (Chernov A.V. Armed forces..., p. 33; PSRL, vol. 32, p. 167; Kazakova N. A. Russian-Livonian and Russian-Hansean relations..., p. 225 227.)
Along with building the armed forces, the government also paid attention to finding the funds necessary to support them, as well as to maintain the court and administrative apparatus.
The unification of the monetary system carried out by the grand ducal authorities created an all-Russian coin stock. The main monetary units were the “Moskovka” of the Grand Duke’s court and the “Novgorod”, issued in Novgorod. The ruble now consisted of 100 Novgorod or 200 Moscow money. The issuance of its own gold coins ("Ugric") in the name of Ivan III and his son Ivan reflected the increased financial power of Rus'*.
* (ORK XIII-XV centuries, part I, p. 342-343; ORK XVI century, part I, p. 228-229.)
The income of the grand ducal treasury consisted of various receipts. There were war trophies and proceeds from export trade. The sovereign's domain (palace) provided material support to the grand ducal court. Appanage princes paid large sums for the “Horde exit” (in 1486, Boris Volotsky had to give 60 rubles out of 1 thousand rubles *). The main population of the grand princely lands paid a direct tax - tribute, to which was added yam (Yam money) for organizing a communication service, "writing squirrel" - to scribes, myt (travel duty), tamga (trade duty), spot (for branding horses for money with horses from a ruble), and performed many other duties (city affairs, etc.). To collect taxes, it was necessary to maintain a large staff of tribute administrators, customs officers, gorodchiks, Yamsk clerks, and scribes. Sometimes taxes were farmed out.
* (DG, No. 81.)
The “special customs borders” that V.I. Lenin wrote about, characterizing the features of the economic and political fragmentation of the “Moscow kingdom”, were especially strong during the period under study. The existence of different taxes in different lands, and especially the variety of salary units, prevented the regular flow of income into the Sovereign treasury. To this we must add the extortion of administrators. Customs charters issued for individual regions (for example, the Belozersk customs charter of 1497) regulated the collection of customs duties, but could not protect the Treasury from theft. In the 80s of the 15th century, as B.N. Florya showed, there was a gradual process of eliminating the tax privileges of secular feudal lords. Now, as a rule, they already pay to the Treasury not only tribute, but also myt, tamga, yam and other taxes. In the 90s, things came to the complete elimination of the tax immunity of secular feudal lords. The same thing happened with the immunities of church feudal lords. In any case, from 1490-1505. letters with tax benefits have not been preserved *.
* (See Lenin V.I. PSS, vol. 1, p. 153; ASEE, vol. III, no. 23, p. 41-43; Florya B.N. Evolution of tax immunity of secular feudal lords of Russia in the second half of the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries, - ISSR, 1972, No. 1, p. 56-59; Kashtanov. Socio-political history, p. 12-13.)
The creation of the Code of Law of 1497 was a legal formalization of the process of the formation of a single state, although the features of legal isolation of individual lands continued to exist for a long time in the practice of legal proceedings.
The Russian state took shape in the form of a class monarchy *. It was from the end of the 15th century. Estates in Rus' begin to take shape - the feudal aristocracy with its body, the Boyar Duma, the nobility and clergy, the peasantry and townspeople. For representatives of the ruling class, a complex of rights and privileges arises, reflected both in legislative monuments and in the practice of everyday life.
* (Galperin G.V. Forms of government of the Russian centralized state in the 15th-16th centuries, p. 39-55.)
Successes in the unification process at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. could only be achieved at the cost of enormous efforts and sacrifices of the peoples of Russia, primarily Russian peasants and townspeople. The response to the strengthening of feudal oppression at that time was a sharp rise in class struggle both in the city and in the countryside, where peasants fought for land against the feudal lords with all the means at their disposal. A.D. Gorsky found that the total number of land conflicts in 1463-1500/01. (38-39 years old) increased more than 9 times compared to 1426-1462, covering 73% of all counties of North-Eastern Rus'. The leading role in this struggle was played by the black-growing peasantry (the performances of the landowner peasants were about half behind in terms of the rate of increase in the intensity of the struggle for land). At the same time, the peak of intensification of the struggle falls in the 80s and especially the 90s of the 15th century. Some decline (half as much as in the 90s) occurred in 1501-1505. *
* (Gorsky A.D. The struggle of peasants for land in Rus' in the 15th - early 16th centuries, p. 70, 73, 82, 89.)
The Sovereign of All Rus' Ivan III reigned for more than 40 years. The first period of his reign (1462-1480) largely saw the completion of the tasks set during the feudal war of the second quarter of the 15th century - the unification of the lands around Moscow and the elimination of the remnants of the Horde yoke. In the second period (1480-1505), the grand ducal government faced new tasks - the fight against the remnants of feudal decentralization and the creation of a united state apparatus. It was at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. in domestic and foreign policy, knots were tied that had to be untangled throughout the entire 16th century. The fight against the remnants of feudal fragmentation went in three directions. This is, first of all, the liquidation of appanage principalities (which ended with the fall of the Staritsa principality under Ivan the Terrible), the fight against Novgorod separatism (ultimately leading to the defeat of Novgorod in 1570) and, finally, the desire to subordinate the church to the state and secularize church lands (program of the council of 1503 was continued by the councils of 1550 and 1584).
Vasily III and Ivan the Terrible inherited the main directions of foreign policy formulated by Ivan III. Ivan the Terrible continued the struggle for the Baltic states, begun by Ivan III, in the Livonian War, but, however, did not achieve success. But the task of reunifying the Russian lands, and in particular the annexation of those that were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was carried out by the son and grandson of Ivan III. They continued the defensive strategy of their father and grandfather on the southern borders, realizing that only a strong, fortified rear could ensure the success of the eastern policy. The short-term annexation of Kazan in 1487 and the support of the Kasimov princes bore fruit in the middle of the 16th century, when Kazan and Astrakhan were included in the Russian state.
The development of the new state apparatus was not completed soon. The inclusion of service princes in the Boyar Duma was just beginning (it ended in the 30-50s of the 16th century). The power of the governors was limited by statutory charters and was eliminated only in the middle of the 16th century. Conciliar meetings appeared (such as the Church-Zemsky Council of 1503) - the prototype of the Zemsky Councils of the mid-16th century. Estate monarchy at the end of the 15th century. will take the form of a class-representative one in the middle of the next century. Following the first all-Russian Code of Law (1497), the second will follow in 1550. The restrictive immunity policy, under the sign of which all the most important financial and judicial events of the 16th century were carried out, is also rooted in the activities of Ivan III at the end of the 15th century. From the episodic functional division of responsibilities between the grand-ducal clerks of the Treasury and the palace at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries. in the middle of the 16th century. new institutions will emerge - huts (orders), which will become the most important national institutions of a new type.
Continuity is observed both in the development of forms of class struggle and in the directions of social thought. The traditions of the freethinkers of Novgorod and Moscow were adopted and developed by Theodosius Kosy and Matvey Bashkin. The emerging movements of militant churchmen (Josephites) and non-covetous people will be continued by both Metropolitan Macarius, on the one hand, and Archpriest Sylvester and Artemy, on the other. The ideas of “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” will become part of everyday diplomatic practice under Ivan IV, and scenes from it will be depicted on the royal seat (throne).
Thus, by the beginning of the 16th century. the revived Russia turned into a powerful multinational state, taking the path of centralization. Russia at that time was characterized by economic and cultural growth, the development of political, trade and cultural ties with many countries in Europe and Asia, and hitherto unprecedented foreign policy successes.
Entering the 16th century, Russia, like other European countries, found itself on the threshold of a new time. Broad prospects for further growth opened up before it, the paths for which were outlined in the last decades of the previous century.