Localism is the rules and norms developed during the formation of estates, which determined the rank of the family and its individual members, their relationships with other families when appointed to military service, administrative position, participation in official celebrations. Localism has its roots in the initial periods of human history, when the idea of seniority within society developed, but the heyday of localism occurred in the Middle Ages.
Localism existed in many European countries since ancient times, regulating class and inter-class relations. At some stage, such relations began to be formalized by law, and localism was preserved mainly in court life. There are colorful stories from contemporaries about the difficulties of the work of the Estates General in France in the 16th-17th centuries, when the laws on the seniority of peers and the nobility of their family came into conflict. Peers dissatisfied with their place in parliament did not attend meetings. And the ladies of the court tore each other's dresses and ruined their hairstyles, fighting for a more honorable place at the queen's reception.
In Russia there were no laws regulating relations within classes; the nobility of a family was calculated primarily by the length of its service to the Moscow princes and the ranks of this service.
We find the first reliable records of the regulation of official relations in documents of the late 15th century. Boyar Fyodor Saburov turned to the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, a former Moscow nobleman who had retired, Gennady Buturlin, with a request to remember and write to Moscow what “places” the boyars of the Moscow princes had, who “sat” under whom.
The interest in such news at this particular time is understandable. With the formation of a unified Russian state, a unified structure of the feudal class was formed, seniority was established between families that had previously served the great and appanage princes in different principalities. Perhaps at this moment localism accelerated the formation of new class structures, helping to unite families with common ancestors: after all, service at the Moscow court of one family of the clan helped all relatives to advance in service.
But very soon the negative sides of localism were also revealed: the governors, dissatisfied with the appointment, refused to go on a campaign, and it became increasingly difficult to organize military operations. Already from the middle of the 16th century. the principle of going on a hike “without places” appears; such an appointment could not be the subject of dispute. From the second half of the 16th century. local court cases are ongoing.
Anyone offended by an “inappropriate” appointment to the service (beneath one who was less noble and whose ancestors did not hold such high positions) could submit a petition, oral or written, preferably personally to the king. Members of the Sovereign's court did this in the palace when they met the Tsar at a celebration or when he was going to church.
Such disputes were resolved in court, but the decision came on behalf of the king. The trials dragged on and could last for years: relatives entered into disputes, since a low appointment could affect their service, more and more documents were collected about the merits of their ancestors, and repeated trials were required. The business could continue after the death of the “local” if the family was interested in it.
The court decision determined the punishment for the accused: it indicated how many “places” one of the litigants was considered lower than the other. Sometimes there was a decision to “surrender” the loser to the court. This was a developed ritual in which it was necessary to publicly ask for forgiveness from the winner.
TO end of XVI I century Localism was already complicating the activities of the state apparatus. It spread widely not only among feudal lords, but also among the administrative bureaucracy. By decree of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich of January 12, 1682, localism was abolished. The king ordered all local affairs to be burned.
After the Zemsky Sobor of 1682, which abolished localism, official local documents from the state archives were burned. Many local documents stored in the personal archives of service people were also destroyed. Survivors documentary materials(local affairs, as well as rank and genealogy books and other sources) are only the remnants of a huge array of local documentation. Relatively many remains of this kind have come down to us, but it is very difficult to compare data from these sources, which are often not completely preserved: the researcher is overwhelmed by the abundance of scattered and difficult to compare facts. The matter is further complicated by the fact that, apparently, there were no sufficiently detailed parochial rules and norms and when resolving parochial cases they relied on precedents - “cases”. All this significantly hinders the study of the history of localism with due thoroughness and makes it difficult to determine the characteristic features and significance of localism at various stages of its development.Historians could not ignore localism; this phenomenon is too striking when familiarizing themselves with the history of Russia in the 16th-17th centuries, but they judged localism, as a rule, only on the basis of a few, sometimes arbitrarily chosen, examples. At the same time, the localism of the 16th century. (when the helm of power was predominantly a hereditary aristocracy) automatically transferred the characteristics of localism of the 17th century. (the documentation of which has been preserved more fully), i.e., the time when many noble families had already “passed away without a trace” (Kotoshikhin’s words). Localism has been poorly studied in comparison with the facts of foreign history (the exception is a small article by A. N. Savin about localism at court Louis XIV) 221: most scientists believed that this phenomenon is characteristic only of Russian history. general absolutism. True, for them, like the Moscow boyars, the fatherland was closely intertwined with the sovereign's favor. The seniority of a peer is determined by the date the peerage was awarded, and not by breed.” To date, many documents related to the history of localism have been published and described. Special works have appeared on the history of localism 222, on local terminology2; characteristics of localism are found in many generalizing works of historians and in journalistic works3. However, in the historiography of localism, a curious phenomenon is observed: researchers who specifically studied local documentation (D. A. Valuev, A. I. Markevich) are cautious in their judgments223, while historians who have not been thoroughly familiar with local materials in all their diversity, on the contrary, are decisive in their characteristics, although they differ among themselves in their views on localism.
Trying to evaluate historical meaning localism was undertaken in the second half of the 19th century. and in the general works of N. I. Kostomarov and V. O. Klyuchevsky. Kostomarov believed that “although this custom often harmed state affairs“, at the same time “he was useful for the success of the autocracy, because he did not allow the boyars to unite, form common class interests among themselves and stand up for them. Family honor... was measured among the boyars only by service to the sovereign. Children and grandchildren could be proud of the merits of their fathers and grandfathers only in the service environment... This selfishness of the service class, this service attachment of everyone to the will of the great led to the conclusion that localism is an institution of service seniority based on custom, subordinating tribal interests to official and non-official ones. representing a serious political privilege of the service class 4. The monographic works of A. I. Markevich contain many valuable specific observations, only partially summarized in his article “What is localism?” 5. (The main conclusions of the works of D. A. Valuev, A. I. Markevich, V. O. Klyuchevsky are presented in the article by A. I. Savin p.) of the prince, this absence of class interests was the most important means of strengthening autocratic power" 1.
V. O. Klyuchevsky has a different point of view on localism, who considered the idea of localism “strictly conservative and aristocratic,” reflecting the view of the titled boyars “on their governmental significance not as a grant from the Moscow sovereign, but as their hereditary right inherited from their ancestors independent of this sovereign, established by itself, by the course of events.” Localism established, according to V. O. Klyuchevsky, not “the family heredity of official positions,” “but the heredity of official relations between families.” Klyuchevsky wrote about the “fatal hereditary arrangement” of service people: “Everyone’s official position was predetermined, not won, not deserved, but inherited.” “Localism,” believed V. O. Klyuchevsky, “had a defensive character. The nobility that served them was protected both from arbitrariness from above, on the part of the sovereign, and from accidents and machinations from below, from individual ambitious individuals who sought to rise above their fatherland and hereditary status.” “To evaluate service suitability by origin or service of ancestors meant subordinating public service to custom, which... in the sphere of public law became essentially anti-state.” At the same time, V. O. Klyuchevsky noted - this is especially important - that although localism united the boyars into a corporation, it “did not increase, but rather weakened the strength” of the boyars, scattered families, “destroyed the class morally and politically” - “localism it was harmful both to the state and to the boyars themselves, who valued them so much.” State power, wrote V. O. Klyuchevsky, could tolerate localism “until it itself understood its real tasks or did not find people suitable for service in non-pedigree classes. Peter the Great looked at localism with a strictly state view, calling it “an extremely cruel and harmful custom, which, like the law,
As you can see, V. O. Klyuchevsky, in characterizing localism, relies on the views of the princes (apanage princes) and hereditary boyars of the 16th century, focusing the reader’s attention not so much on local practice, but on local ideology. In assessing localism, he relies on the opinion of contemporaries of the council of 1682, which abolished localism when it had completely outlived its usefulness and did not find support either from the central government or from groupings of the feudal class. V. O. Klyuchevsky paid little attention to the detailed observations of A. I. Markevich, who studied the history of localism by reign, and formulated responsible conclusions without actually taking into account the special literature on localism.
The authority of V. O. Klyuchevsky as a scientist and his remarkable literary skill contributed to the popularization of his views on localism. At the same time, the emphasis was gradually placed on the characteristics of those aspects of localism that impeded state centralization, and localism itself was considered primarily in terms of military history, more precisely, even in terms of the history of military service, where the harmful consequences of localism were especially noticeable. This point of view was also established in the works of Soviet scientists, as exemplified by the articles on localism in the first and second editions of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. It is taken for granted that localism has always played a reactionary role, has always been an obstacle to the cause of state centralization, and the Moscow rulers have always waged a stubborn struggle against it9. Therefore, posing the question “Localism in the late 1870s. This work provides references to the “Course of Russian History” 8, prepared by the author for publication at the beginning of the 20th century, because it was in this work that Klyuchevsky formulated the main conclusions of his many years of reflection. *
Melo used the works
A, I. Markevich and S. B. Veselovsky, characterizing the sources on the origin, composition and social nature of service landowners, although D. A. Korsakov back in 1896 noted the importance of A. I. Markevich’s instructions and that local affairs contain precious material for checking genealogies 10. Art and absolutism” may seem strange at first. Why write about something that is already clear?
Meanwhile, the already traditional view of localism turns out to be extremely one-sided and cannot in any way explain either the duration of the existence of the institution of localism or the absence of a serious fight against it by the central government during the 16th century.
century 224. It is hardly accidental that localism accompanied the process of transforming the Russian centralized state into an absolutist one. Wasn't localism itself a reflection of this process?
In order to answer questions as comprehensively as possible about the characteristic features of localism and its role in the process of establishing absolutism in Russia 225, it is necessary to carefully study all the surviving information from sources about localism226, comparing them with chronologically simultaneous data on social political history Russian state of the late XV-XVI centuries. Without such work, judgments about localism can only be speculative. In this work, the author limited himself to raising some questions and making preliminary conclusions.
Localism (more precisely, service-tribal localism) is an institution that regulated service relations between members of service families in the military and *** One should try to reconstruct the localist legislation reflected in the surviving localist documentation. Local affairs, which are a valuable source on political history, the history of state institutions and troops, the history of life and social thought of the feudal class, have not yet been studied in terms of source studies. administrative service and at court. The name localism comes from the custom of being “considered” by “places” (at the table and in the service). “Place” depended on “fatherland”, “paternal honor”, which was composed of two elements - pedigree (i.e. origin) and the service career of the service man and his ancestors.
The position of a service person among others was determined in two ways: in relation to relatives (based on genealogical books) and in relation to strangers (based on discharge books and other documentation). According to “local arithmetic” (Klyuchevsky’s expression), service people of equal status were considered “equals” or “a mile away.” A service man had to “know his limits”; and when appointed to a position, when performing court ceremonies (including when allocating seats at the table during official receptions227; “replace” - give a place at the table) he made sure that his “honor” was not “damaged”, calculating, Below whom should he serve “together”, who is “a mile away” from him and who “in the fatherland” did not have enough places with him. To be “higher” meant to be “honest.” This calculation was usually made based on previously recorded “cases.” Persons of equal status - “locals” - sometimes performed the service in order of priority. Dissatisfied with the appointment, service people “beat the sovereign with their foreheads in places” (“beat them with their foreheads in the fatherland”, “were looking for the fatherland”), showing “in the fatherland bills of honor” and asking to give them “defense”. These petitions were considered by special local Duma commissions (and sometimes by the sovereign himself): they “listened to this case, and by case, by rank, who was larger or smaller or a mile away, and by genealogy, who was related to whom.” those governors who were considered close” 12.
Approximately. Since the second half of the 15th century. At the court of the Moscow Grand Duke, the princes are already firmly settled as service people, having noticeably supplanted the sayings: “to sit higher,” “to sit lower,” “to sit under someone,” “to sit taller than other boyars,” “to sit beyond counting.” ”, etc. The expressions “sit down”, “change seats” meant “take a place higher”. The original Moscow untitled boyars and the princes and boyars formed the aristocratic government entourage of the sovereign of all Rus'. The complex hierarchical relationships of the newcomer princes among themselves and with untitled boyars were determined by local customs. The criterion was primarily appointments in the Moscow service; this implied the superiority of the Moscow service over the service of other principalities (great and appanage).
Localism (and, consequently, local rules) as a mandatory practice of relationships between service people of the Russian state has been known since approximately the 15th century,13 and local documentation has been preserved mainly from the second half of the 16th - 17th centuries, when the original local rules were already in place -changed to some extent under the influence of the central government228. Initially, localism regulated, as far as we know, only the relationships between the highest strata of the “service people” of the sovereign of all Rus' - the hereditary aristocracy, primarily in the court sphere 14 (also, possibly, the tsar’s immediate court servants); Subsequently, parochial norms spread to other categories of service people.
The question of the origin of localism is very complex and, moreover, entangled in historiographical layers. Apparently, the roots of localism as a feudal-hierarchical institution can be sought back in the period of formation and establishment. relations of vassalage229, but this topic chronologically goes far beyond the scope of this work 230. For the topic of this work, it is important to note that *** Here one should pay attention to the features of vassalage in ancient Rus' (“vassalage without fiefs,” according to Marx’s definition).
**** Of particular interest are the Nizhny Novgorod “local” charters of 1367-1368, which deserve special study in terms of the history of localism. That the approval of local jurisprudence on the mutual relations of large feudal lords at the court of the sovereign of all Rus' chronologically coincided with the completion of the process of unification of Russian lands as part of a single state, a significant increase in the international prestige of the Russian state and its expansion international relations. The change in parochial norms and the spread of parochial practice to other groups of the feudal class chronologically coincided with the processes of redistribution of land property between feudal lords, modification of the forms of land ownership of feudal lords and clarification of the degree of dependence of land ownership on the official position of the feudal lord, with the strengthening of the bureaucratic principle and the power of the autocrat in the system of public administration.
When elucidating the origin of localism, they usually note druzhina traditions, official and court orders 231 and especially the long-standing traditions of inter-princely relations 17 that developed at the courts of the Russian Grand Dukes. Of course, these factors played a particularly significant role, but one should also take into greater account the influence of court ceremonial and official etiquette at the courts of eastern rulers and the Byzantine court specifically when distributing “seats” at the sovereign’s table. The personnel of the “sovereign court” (except for those who directly performed official duties in the palace) was at first vague and motley, and the large retinue of the sovereign apparently included service people of the princes and boyars who were at the “sovereign court.” The most important stages in the organization of the “sovereign court” were the reform of 1550 (the organization of the “Chosen Thousand”) and especially the oprichnina reform. With the introduction of the oprichnina, the guards (reminiscent of the guards of subsequent times) of the 19th emperor appeared in the palace (or, more precisely, the idea that had developed in Rus' about this and about the complete power of the Sultan over all subjects) and especially the closeness of parochial norms to the customs of the Polish-Lithuanian aristocracy 232.
At the court of the sovereigns of all Rus' there were many eastern princes, and they “visited” “foreignly” (that is, as especially noble foreigners) the princes Rurikovich and Gediminovich, and the khans and khanychi were called “kings” and “princes” and received special royal “destinies” (Kasimov, Kashiru, Zvenigorod, etc.) 233. To have “kings” and “princes” at court was “very honest” according to the concepts of people of the 16th century.20 In Moscow they were very interested in the customs of eastern courts (“yurts1”), peculiarities of government in the East and highly valued the “state honor” of the eastern rulers. “Kings” in official documents of the 16th century. were titled primarily to eastern rulers, and in the struggle for recognition royal title Moscow sovereigns by Western European monarchs special meaning attached to the fact that Ivan IV also became the Tsar of Kazan and Astrakhan in the 1550s21. Foreign observers (already Herberstein) emphasized the certainty in the power of the Moscow sovereigns; at the end of the 16th century they wrote about the similarities of Russian and Turkish modes of government (for example, J. Fletcher). Even more significant is the fact that Peresvetov is an example to follow for the Russian The king believed in the way of government of the Turkish sultan.0 234.
killed Muslims according to their customs. There they obeyed the Koran (the royal ambassador to * spoke about this in 1570).
In Peresvetov’s writings, specialists in the history of Turkey capture facts characteristic of the Ottoman state in the mid-16th century.25 According to A.E. Krymsky, the “living ideal for Peresvetov” was his contemporary Sultan Suleiman the Legislator (the Magnificent), “only his Peresvets could have a variety of sources of information about Sultan Turkey. It should be especially noted that there were many Russians (more precisely, Slavs) in the Ottoman Empire: Venetian ambassadors wrote (in the 16th century) that all the servants in Istanbul - both Turks and Christians - were Russian slaves and slaves31; at the court of the sultans they spoke the Slavic language32. (The question of the impact of eastern court customs on the customs of the “Moscow Kingdom”, as well as such problems as the peculiarities of land ownership of feudal lords and the forms of interdependence of land ownership and public service of feudal lords, the originality of ideas about the nature of royal power, the reasons for the long-term preservation of the institution of servitude in Russia and others *,
Peresvetov’s writings, retroactively, transfers his state ideals to the personality of the Sultan of the 15th century, Mehmed II the Conqueror” 2G. In V. A. Gordlevsky’s monograph on the Seljuk state of Asia Minor (which also did not attract the attention of recent researchers of Peresvetov’s work), data is found on state system, public perceptions, and customs of the Turks, allowing us to identify additional lines of convergence between the program of transformations declared by Peresvetov and facts from the history of the Turkish Middle Ages. Already in the first Muslim monument of the Turks, “Kutadgu-bilig”, generosity is spoken of as an attractive force for warriors: “A military leader must value his people.” Lenas complained for military valor, and the land (“timar”) given to the warrior who, at the first call of the sovereign, came to war armed, was preserved as long as the tnmarpot could
"to show military valor." Participation in the war was recognized as the duty of the feudal lord, which he performed willingly, as he hoped for rich booty and reward (land, movable property, slaves). The Sultan had freedom over the life and death of his vassals, viewing them as slaves 2,” and preferred to get rid of vassals who were growing stronger or becoming lazy. “We need to tear out the old trees and plant young trees in their place,” said one of the sultans, pondering how to get rid of those to whom he owed the throne. According to the same V. A. Gordlevsky, in Istanbul of the 16th century much of the Byzantine order of government and court ceremonial was preserved29 and the Sultan considered himself as the legal heir Byzantine emperors 30. *
Characteristic for Russian autocracy The features of eastern despotism have been noted more than once. V.I. Lenin spoke about Russian absolutism, imbued with Asian barbarism 33. In this regard, this remark is extremely interesting
Istanbul24).
*** D muunAuuai are still awaiting comparative study, necessarily together with specialists in oriental studies.)
At the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th century. It was especially important for the sovereigns of all Rus' to attract to their court and retain in their service the appanage “Verkhovsky” princes Gediminovich and Rurikovich, who served “on both sides”: both the Moscow and Lithuanian great princes. The most prominent of the newcomer Verkhovsky princes (i.e., those who lived in the upper reaches of the Oka) were related to the great princes of Moscow and retained their appanages longer than other large feudal lords. They tried to keep them in the Moscow service: they were the first to take cross-kissing notes about not leaving; They were also forgiven a lot (even the executions during the reign of Ivan the Terrible initially had little impact on these princes). The supreme princes, as appanage princes, had the right to participate in the Gospodar Duma of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, while other, non-appanage princes entered the Gospodar Duma only upon receiving the zemstvo or court order *. When luring the Verkhovsky princes to Moscow service, the Moscow sovereigns took into account that in Lithuania at the end of the 15th and especially in the 16th centuries. more than once attempts were made to extend to Lithuanian magnates who adhered to Orthodoxy the actions of the “Gorodelsky Privilege” of 1413, which limited the rights of “schismatics”®6, and that the kings of V. G. Belinsky that Ivan IV “became not a transformer of Russia, but a formidable punishment of the eastern form of its state life” M. N. P. Ogarev in an article unpublished during his lifetime “What would Peter the Great do?” noted that Peter I found “forms of Asian courtiership and half-Tatar morals” when the boyars around him reduced “state interests to the low level of servile interests - to localism” 35.
Revealing some features of the similarity of the state system and court and military customs of the Russian and Eastern monarchies, it follows
At the same time, we strongly warn against attempts to identify Russia in the 16th and 17th centuries. with eastern despotisms. Speech cannot go on in this case about the socio-economic and socio-political characteristics of Russia as a whole, which has always remained a country primarily of the European type of social development. *
In the Polish-Lithuanian state, official honor was considered higher than family honor. For example, ki. Janusz Ostrogski - the first senator by position - sat in the Senate above his father 37, they clearly favored the POLISH magnates 235 more than the Lithuanian ones.
It can be assumed that at the end of the 15th century. parochial customs, or more precisely, parochial relations between untitled persons were considered even in Rus' as Lithuanian. “And you are doing this according to Lithuanian custom,”38 Ivan III reproached the local boyar, and the Lithuanian lords at the beginning of the 16th century. wrote to the Moscow boyars: “But for your grace, we did not write I am by name, because at that time we do not know your place, where someone sits after whom in the rada (i.e., in the Boyar Duma - S. Sh.) of your sovereign.” 39. The ambassadors of Ivan the Terrible to the Polish king received a strict order to “investigate” the parochial position of the fugitive Prince Kurbsky: “To what extent with whom is the king keeping him” 236; and in the message sent to Khodkevich on behalf of Vorotynsky and written, apparently, by Ivan the Terrible himself, the fact of “great salary and approach” by the king of Kurbsky (“and in honor he did”) 237, who “was not the tenth in Moscow rodehs, was mockingly played up, and not even the twentieth, also in the localities”40.
In 1567, the king and hetman Gr. Khodkevich, in letters to princes I. D. Belsky, I. F. Mstislavsky, M. I. Vorotynsky and boyar I. P. Fedorov, invited them to serve the king, enticing them with the aristocratic liberties of their country, promising even before (in 1554), the ambassador to the Polish king, “they learned to ask something about the Rostov affair about Prince Semyonovo” (that is, about his attempt to escape abroad), was ordered to answer: “But he is undersized, but the sovereign granted with the portly ones” (i.e., granted by the boyars). To the question: “Many boyars and nobles wanted to go away with Prince Semyon?” - they were ordered to say: “Who would be kind to such a fool? Only his tribe, the same fools, stole with him.”44 to equate the Russians KІіЯZhat to the appanage princes of Rechi I
(ospolita (“and not to impute, as it is fitting for a great family to chiniti”). The boyars’ responses were, as researchers suggest, written by the tsar himself. In these response messages, the Gediminovichs (Velsky and Mstislavsky) pointed out to the king their relationship with him and the impossibility of them to be “subjects of their brother” (king) and “on equal footing” with the appanage princes. At the same time, the high position of these “first advisers” in the Russian state was emphasized (“And what do you promise us with our appanage princes to be on equal terms, and for us with our subjects as in the equality of being? And we are superior to the Tsar's Majesty in salary and are now superior to all those, and not in equality"45, we read in Velsky's message. Rurikovich Vorotynsky also wrote: “We are the Tsar's Majesty's mercy and so we are superior to those princes."46 The princes wrote that their ancestors, persecuted in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, found a worthy reception from the sovereigns of all Rus'. Velsky reminds the king of his grandfather, who “barely” fled away in a single koshul (i.e., shirt. - S. Sh.) to true Orthodoxy,” and Ivan III “bestowed his great salary and honor and gave worthy honor to no one in his land, he did not impose the highest on us, nor equalities, even to this day; and the Tsar’s Majesty has many natives of many royal and great principalities and from many states, and all of them, at His Tsar’s Majesty’s command, walk under our command”47 (indeed, Velsky is usually in first place in the list of nobles). Mstislavsky also added that he holds “the great place of His Royal Majesty Velikiy Novgorod”, which was once occupied by his ancestor (“and that is our dignity, from which the dignity of our ancestors yours (i.e. the king - S. Sh.) kicked out your ancestors, and the Tsar’s Majesty again granted us that dignity”) 48. In their letters to Khodkevich, they point out with contempt the inadmissibility of his appeal to such noble nobles, who “have many service books at your disposal by the Tsar’s Majesty”49.
“Moreover, it is not proper for our Majesty to speak to you godless people,”50 is written in Velsky’s message. The same is true in the message on behalf of Vorotynsky: “Otherwise it’s hard for you, the peasants, to be in brotherhood with us, princes.”51 It is not surprising that it is in these epistles that the concepts of the difference in power of the “patrimonial” (i.e., the king) and the “planted” (i.e., the king) sovereigns, the nature of the “free royal autocracy” and the duties of the king’s subjects are formulated to faithfully serve one’s sovereign (“and in the sovereign’s will, to be better subjects”, “we, as we are worthy of honor and first council, will directly deserve and deserve faithful obedience to the royal majesty with greed”) 52.
Local issues were given considerable importance in the relations between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the beginning of the 17th century. From 1613, a long list of names and positions came down: “The lords and senators of Poland and Lithuania from the Polish king from Zhidmont and the sitter in places”53, whose data were undoubtedly used in the diplomatic practice of the Russian state; and the king’s ambassadors back in 1615 tried to infringe on the parochial pride of one of the Vorotynskys, sarcastically pointing out to him: “But you don’t have... Kuzma Minin, a slaughterer from Nizhny Novgorod, is the treasurer and great ruler, he owns you all, and many others like that.” they sit at work according to their orders”54.
Parochial norms were established in the context of the preservation of significant remnants of feudal fragmentation in the centralized Russian state, in the struggle of the central government with the privileges of the recently independent and semi-independent sovereigns of small “lands” and principalities55. This explains the dual political nature of localism. Localism was a kind of compromise between the central government and the top groups of feudal lords and these groups among themselves. The central government hoped to use localism as a means of overcoming the remnants of feudal fragmentation and, relying on the service principle of the local system, to further subjugate the princes. In this, the central government was supported by untitled boyars, who believed that it was easiest for them to resist the competition of the princes precisely on the career ladder. In turn, the princes hoped, with the help of localism, to retain their hereditary privileges and indeed, to a certain extent, fettered the initiative of the central government.56 Thus, the princes and boyars sought in localism protection from the central government and from the competition of other “big” people, and the central government power - protection from large feudal lords. Localism was not only the defense of the aristocracy from the central government, as V. O. Klyuchevsky believed, but also the defense of the still unestablished autocratic central government from the ancient aristocracy, and initially it turned out to be more beneficial precisely for the central government.
In localism we find a mixture of antiquity and newness, a hierarchical principle inherited from the times of feudal fragmentation, and strict service dependence, characteristic of an increasingly centralized and bureaucratized state system*. During the period of feudal fragmentation “ko- * Local norms in the 16th century. were obviously accepted among senior clergy- white and black. In the chronicle, under 7054, we read that the Grand Duke “granted - indicated places to Archimandrite Troetsky of the Sergius Monastery, and Abbot Kirilovsky, and Pavnutevsky, and Osifovsky: Troetsky near Chudovsky, and Kirilovsky near Andronnikovsky, and Pavnutyevsky near Epiphany in Moscow for bargaining, and Osifovsky near Paviutevsky; and there were no places for them before”57 (emphasis added - S. Sh.). Another manuscript clarifies the reason for this decision and its date. This took place in connection with a large reception in the palace (the sovereign “created a great feast”) after the crowning of Ivan IV on January 16, 1547. Nil Kurlyatev, a tonsured monk of Pavlov’s monastery, who wrote this manuscript, also notes: “And before that, those abbots had not been in these places "5v. It can be assumed that the abbots and archimandrites of some (or even all) Moscow monasteries were previously considered “places”, and in 1547 this custom was extended to the most significant of the non-resident monasteries, the abbots and archimandrites of which were thereby included in the number of close courtiers sovereign. In the inventory of the Tsar’s archive (1570s) they mention “the names of the list of archimandrites and abbots who sit under them”59. We also know about “rank lists” of the highest black clergy at the end of the 16th century. (we learn about this from the approved charter of the Zemsky Sobor in 1598). In the chronicler compiled at the beginning of the 17th century. surrounded by the patriarch, in the description of the “anointing to the throne” of Fyodor Ivanovich in the Assumption Cathedral (1584), the order of the places of the “sanctified authorities” is especially noted (who was on which side of the sovereign and “under” whom - in what order) 60. Thus Thus, some observations about the nature and ways of spreading localism among secular feudal lords can also be applied to the higher black clergy. |)ol, - according to the definition of F. Engels, - represented the pinnacle of the entire feudal hierarchy, the supreme head, without whom the vassals could not do and in relation to whom they were at the same time in a state of continuous rebellion”61. With the centralization of the Russian state, the internecine battles of the feudal lords, which filled the “Middle Ages with their noise,”62 were replaced by political conspiracies and infighting among local governors and courtiers, who based their claims on long-standing ideas about feudal “honor.” Without actively speaking out against localism, curbing tribal claims with rank fetters63, codifying local norms, central government and in this case, she remained “a representative of order in disorder”64, because the complex, at first glance even chaotic, system of parochial relations was enclosed within a rigid framework determined precisely by the central government. The central government determined possible solutions on all parochial disputes, and therefore the limits of parochial demands. Localism, despite all the discord that accompanied it, essentially became an instrument of social discipline and tied the aristocracy to the court. Entangled in a web of parochial accounts and family memories, the hereditary aristocracy found itself powerless before the autocratic power of the sovereign, before the progressive movement of an increasingly complex and strengthened bureaucratic machine.
Thus, the concepts of the times of feudal fragmentation were skillfully used by the central government in its own interests. Local customs clearly determined that the official position of a noble person was ensured primarily by faithful hereditary service to the Moscow sovereign and the degree of closeness of his relatives to the sovereign 65.
The feudal curia, which consisted of hereditary local aristocrats and the most prominent of the alien princes, was replaced by the Boyar Duma, whose members became members by appointment and official salary. In the first half of the 16th century. The princes - owners of significant estates - gradually moved from the ranks of "servants" - high vassals to the position of grand-ducal boyars, who at the same time lost the remnants of their former political independence. Very interesting are the observations of A. A. Zimin regarding the princes of the western outskirts of the Russian state66. The surviving digit records suggest that the “servants” were originally larger number larger feudal lords than hitherto believed. In the 1520s, they were, apparently, some Rurikovichs from eastern regions states - Gorbatye, Mikulinsky, possibly I.D. Penkov. They were written in the ranks ahead of some boyars, but without the boyar rank67. And in the 1550s, in addition to M. I. Vorotynsky, I. D. Belsky was also a “servant”. He, like his uncles in the 1520s-1530s, stood above the boyars on the local ladder and became a boyar only in the 1560s 238.
The consolidation of parochial customs essentially subordinated the family honor to the servant 239. Parochial customs, to some extent, equated hereditary appanage princes with the hereditary untitled boyars of the Russian great princes - both of them were previously considered as service people of the Moscow sovereign. Thus, legally and psychologically, the very idea of political independence princes. Localism provided the central government with a method from the second half of the 16th century, when “the family honor was subordinated to the rules of service thanks to the finally developed ritual of court life, the order of military and civil service, as well as the intricacy of local accounts of family honor - accounts that were often cut like a Gordian knot »6c. It is important to note that for the period to which the bulk of the documents belong, which allows one to judge the nature of localism, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky (unlike V. O. Klyuchevsky) considered the predominance of the official principle over the family principle to be typical. the fight against “rebellions” of the princes, as well as untitled aristocrats, since the betrayal of one member of the clan “crushed in the fatherland” the entire clan (Kurbsky’s relatives, for example, after his flight were demoted by 12 steps!) and forced the princes themselves to restrain each other69. All this ultimately contributed to the weakening of the political power of the aristocracy70.
It was precisely this side of localism that the Englishmen Horsey and Fletcher, who were in Russia in the 1570s and 1580s, paid special attention to. Localism helped the central government to divide the aristocracy, split large feudal lords into groups and find support in one of them against the other. What they were unable to achieve to weaken the boyars by “bringing on little people” and executions during the oprichnina era was achieved with the help of “local arithmetic.” Local disputes both under Ivan the Terrible71 and at the end of the 16th century. were also used for political purposes. S.P. Mordovina noted that the disgraces of the Romanovs, R.V. Alferyev, B.Ya. Belsky, even the not at all well-born V.Ya.-Shchelkalov were invariably preceded by the “ruin” of their family honor 72. Localism, thus, turned out to be one of reasons for the extinction of aristocratic families that fell “in disgrace” - a decrease in ranks (as they wrote in local affairs) “was done. .. state disgrace"73.
Was it typical for localism? service and clan seniority. Meanwhile, attention is sometimes focused only on the tribal origin and localism is considered as a kind of caste system. Surviving sources allow us to refute this opinion. Noble origin had to be combined with the service of ancestors; families, even the most noble ones, whose representatives did not receive high official appointments for a long time or “lived in disgrace”, found themselves in “ossification” 240. The official point of view in Lithuania (in such cases the expression “passing through the place” was used) the entire Kvashnin family was “ in disgrace with the state.” In the local memory of 1589, V. A. Kvashnin wrote: “... and the sovereign at that time for all genders is clearly expressed in the Nikon Chronicle when mentioning the Beleutovs, whose origin was associated with the legendary Redega (Kasozh prince Rededya) : “...and the Beleutovs came from Redega, but they became ossified, but they were great in origin”78. An unconditional award to a boyar based on only one breed is an extremely rare phenomenon79. Even in the family of the Vorotynsky princes, A.I. Vorotynsky (the son of a boyar and the father of the boyars) could remain a steward until the end of his life. Seedy branches of once noble families fell out of genealogical books. In the “Velvet Book”, in many clans, entire surnames are shown as “cut out” (i.e., extinct), the existence of which is confirmed by various sources of the late 17th century.80
True, servicemen arriving from abroad initially received a place among others not for their merits (they most often did not yet have time to provide them to the sovereign of Iseya Rus), but depending on the origin and political (or military) situation in their homeland - such feudal lords recognized as high “for foreignness” *. lived in disgrace, and we, the sovereign, drinking our sin, did not dare І1I about what to beat the sovereign with, III about the fatherland, PI about the place” 75. Subsequently, it was disgrace that explained the loss of his ancestors from the parochial accounts of the prince. D. M. Pozharsky76. Kotoshikhin later (in the 1660s) also noted that “many good and high families... did not come in honor... for religious services” 77.
"The Tatar princes (Khanychs) and their descendants stood out especially - even in the first half of the 16th century - in terms of their position, and “kinship with the Tatars was still considered honorable.”81 In the “Sovereign Genealogy,” the families of the kings of Astrakhan, Crimea and Kazan are named immediately after for the appanage princes of Kiev, Vladimir and Moscow, i.e., before the birth of the descendants of the princes of Lithuania, Chernigov, Tver, Suzdal, etc.82 In the second half of the century, the influence at the court of descendants of descendants from the East increased even more and they were actually outside the parochial accounts (they were not tied by the shackles of memories of family parochial traditions and “losses”), In 1593, Prince I." Vyazemsky, recalling the Astrakhan campaign of 1554, spoke about his uncle, a prominent participant in the campaign: “And although they were on that campaign with the Tatars, the sovereign is free to do so - and they live not a mile away from the Tatars; The Vorotynskys were from the Tatars." the Moscow court, as a rule, already depended on his career.
The land wealth of the service families, as is known, was also created in the 16th century. not on the basis of stable family land ownership, but depending on personal career success. The strong landowning tradition of a famous service family, as S. V. Rozhdestvensky showed, was supported “mainly by the invariably happy career its members"86. Here one can already detect a fairly close relationship between the institution of localism and feudal land ownership.
The concept of “honesty” of a family and an individual was associated with ideas about official honor, the amount of salary, that is, with the degree of favor of the sovereign and closeness to his person. Both according to the Code of Laws and the Council Code, fees for “dishonor” were charged in proportion to the salary, depending on the remuneration - thus, the basis was established as purely official. It was the official position of relatives that received primary attention when analyzing local affairs *. The closest official position of relatives was especially important. “You are being stupidly local not to your father, but to your grandfather,”87 they reprimanded petitioners in the 17th century. Therefore, the younger branches of the once famous families, who had been promoted, tried to take advantage of the local “find” to break away from their older relatives who had suffered a “loss”**. He preferred to his Russian kiyaeys and boyars, who for many centuries considered the service of their ancestors, and even the Siberian princes... to them. And even in the second half of the 17th century, Kotoshikhin pointed out that the baptized Siberian and Kasimov princes “in honor... are superior to the boyars; but they don’t attend or sit in the Duma. .." ®. *
In local accounts, service by rank was taken into account first, and only then were they calculated according to genealogies. In the local case of 1609 we read: “That is, that from Bolshov’s brother the knee will go, but in the ranks they will be small and thin, and from Menshov’s brother they will go, but in the rank they live great, and those, sir, are thin with good ones according to their genealogy. they do not litigate, but litigate by chance in the rows” centuries.
** This was reflected in the process of family formation and influenced it. If for the first half of the 16th century. characteristic was the instability of family nicknames - the same persons from the sources under K mid-16th century V. The princes themselves emphasized their official merits. Even Kurbsky, proudly recalling that during the capture of Kazan he was entrusted with the command of a regiment of the right hand, considered it necessary to especially note: “I have come to that dignity (i.e. to a high position in the rank lists. - S. Sh.) not a tuna, but in the degree of a military sigh”91. In the parochial disputes of the 1570s, service was recognized as more valuable than “breed”92.
Not only an unfavorable relationship with a representative of another family on the career ladder, but also some positions were considered humiliating to the entire clan. Thus, the service man and his relatives "reduced the departure for service to the appanage93. The difference between the "rank" and "non-rank" services was especially great. In a local dispute in 1629, Prince Priimkov wrote in such expressions about the advantage of his family compared to the family of princes Pozharsky* (also Rurikovich): “Parents
our people are of the rank, and the Pozharsky princes, besides the mayors and governors, have never been anywhere lower; and the former sovereigns and your sovereign code, that the mayor and provincial elders with rank people and the last governors do not care”94. In the second half of the XVII
V. even a special Local Directory was compiled “lost to every clan according to its nickname” **. The unknown compiler, not without gloating over these names, then in the second half of the 16th century, especially at the beginning of the 17th century. a relatively clear distinction of surnames and the contrast of family nicknames of one branch of the family with others is already noticeable - in local affairs we encounter formulations of this type: “The Basmanovs and the Pleshcheevs diverged in kinship and nicknames * 89 (in the middle of the 16th century, the famous guardsman A.D. Basmanov was called Bas - Manov-Pleshcheev) and. *
The Pozharsky princes in the 1550s belonged to the middle class of service people, were poor and could not even imagine the required number of slaves for military service 95.
** Full title of the manuscript: “A book of lists for the quick search of fatherly affairs, for reproaching the fatherland and erasing them, who will have an account with whom in the fatherland, and then the name is written in this book. The clans according to articles and in those articles under the heads of those clans are erased to each clan according to its nickname. It was copied from the discharge books, and from the Ambassadorial Prikaz, and from other orders from the files, all named articles, and in this book the names are written by year, who previously obtained facts regarding 280 names “for reproach to the fatherland and their loss,” starting from the time of Ivan the Terrible. Low official appointments are also obsessively mentioned there: clerks, labial, stanitsa, Streltsy heads *, lowlifes, etc.
At the same time, localism did not create such insurmountable obstacles for the penetration of low-born persons who had especially distinguished themselves in the service into the environment of the family nobility; Moreover, the causality of parochial accounts could always be used to the advantage of the government. They acted according to the proverb: “Whose clan is loved, that clan rises.”
It is no coincidence, of course, that the establishment of parochial norms as state service norms coincided in time with the registration of the first rank and genealogy books; and in the middle of the 16th century. On the initiative of the central government, parochial relations between military leaders were regulated by law (“The Verdict” of 1550) ** and the official Rank Book and the “Sovereign Genealogist” were created. “The Sovereign's Genealogist” clearly reveals Ivan IV's desire to humiliate the family aristocracy - the Rurikovichs and Gediminovichs, equating them with the untitled nobility and alien eastern princelings. This was very aptly noted by V.N. Tatishchev, characterizing the tendency of the “Sovereign’s genealogist”.
^_Ivan IV, he wrote, “ordered a genealogical book to be compiled, in which, leaving many princely families, he filled and equalized them with noble gentry”97. “Noble noble families” are those untitled families whose representatives occupied high positions just by the middle of the 16th century.
It is characteristic that at the end of “The Sovereign's Genealogist” there are three clans that advanced to the Moscow service much later than others - the Laskirevs, the Trahapiotovs and the Adashevs. At the same time, trying to build up what kind of affairs and with whom they were, m and what kind of chips, and what kind of things were done” 96. *
A.S. Pushkin noted: “Despite the benefits, the nobles disdained the Streltsy service, and considered it fifth for their family” 9th century.
** The “sentence” of 1550 was not directed against the local
ties as an institution (this opinion was held by I. I. Smirnov) 99. By introducing certain parochial norms, the “Sentence” ultimately limited localism, at the same time legitimizing it, but by no means prohibiting 10°. honor the reigning house, they wanted to show what glorious royal and princely families serve the Moscow sovereigns 101 - and the titled families were included in the “Rodoslovets” with great completeness (even those where there was not a single Duma member); Among the untitled clans were those whose representatives belonged to the Duma ranks even during the period of compilation of the “Rodoslovets” 102.
The circle of parochial persons initially should have been limited to the surnames included in the Rank Book and in the “Sovereign Genealogist,” and these were the clans whose representatives served (using Kurbsky’s expression) in the ranks of the Synclite, i.e., Duma, and in the Stratilat, i.e. military commanders |03. But gradually “young people”, who “didn’t have enough” of the ancient clans, also begin to become locals. These are, first of all, “named people” 241, that is, less noble persons, and service people who occupied less prominent positions, but were also included in various official lists. It is they, one can assume, who were recognized (already in the documentation of the 17th century) as “distinguished people”^
As already noted, localism arose among patrimonial people - hereditary landowners and persons who held high positions from generation to generation - and was based on the idea of \u200b\u200bheredity of privileges (“fatherly honor”). During class monarchy, when the large feudal lords still “retained a monopoly in military affairs” 104, localism emphasized the special position of the boyars, as if sanctifying their class privileges. However, initially there were apparently not many local proceedings; they were often limited to announcing a protest on the occasion of an official appointment. It is quite understandable that the nobles (most of them not patrimonial landowners, but landowners), as persons who were promoted primarily due to their own merits, could not see parochial conventions as an obstacle to their advancement up the career ladder.
In the middle of the 16th century. Traditional concepts of a state award, depending on hereditary honor, also coexist with the idea of an award for length of service. This is reflected in modern monuments of social thought. If Metropolitan Macarius in 1547 taught Ivan IV and his wife Anastasia after the wedding ceremony: “Please favor your bolyars and bolyarins and all nobles and respect them for their fatherland” |08, then in the writings of Ivan Peresvetov one can easily detect a decisive protest against this custom . “Wise philosophers have not praised this for a long time, that those who approach the Tsar with greatness, not from military service, nor from any other wisdom...” writes Peresvetov in the Great Petition and advises, “that a warrior will fiercely play a mortal game against the sovereign’s enemy and firmly will stand for the Christian faith, otherwise the names of such warriors will be exalted" 242. This idea is formulated even more sharply in "The Tale of Magmet-Saltan": "But it is not known what kind of children they are, but for their wisdom the king put a great name on them for so that they also succeed in serving the king faithfully” 10e.
The aspirations of the nobility were satisfied in a peculiar form (characteristic, however, of the government policy of the time of Ivan the Terrible): parochial norms were preserved, but they gradually began to be extended to persons of less noble origin, i.e. the institution of parochialism gradually lost the character of a special privilege, the right to parochialism ceased to be a sign exclusivity. their sovereign command to lay down their heads and pour out their blood; and the sovereigns, according to their services, favor them, and where anyone, whatever profit they want, desires and seeks. And this is not a new thing; From ancient years it has been said: then the soldiers will have fun and their belongings, when the army is erected"110. IN late Middle Ages exactly military valor, fearlessness, readiness to die for the cause of his master were recognized as the characteristic features of a real knight in Western Europe111. Localism covered new positions and an increasing number of persons243. This could only happen because there were no sharp social boundaries between the boyars and the elite of the nobility112: the boyar stratum was replenished with people from less noble families, and at the same time, many descendants of the princes fell “into thinness” and became “area nobles” 244.
Around the second half of the 16th century. A service hierarchy was already taking shape, consisting of three groups: Duma ranks, Moscow ranks, city or district ranks. Accordingly, the system of localism becomes more complex; and in this regard, dating from the middle of the 16th century. of the new period in the history of localism (about which A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky writes) is quite legitimate. Service “honest”, “class” from the middle of the 16th century. they begin to count not only the service of the governor, but also the heads in the regiments, the heads who went around in Moscow, the persons who met and saw off the ambassadors and negotiated with them (“who were in charge”), who “said” ranks, bells, etc., i.e., the service of “Moscow officials”. The number of local disputes is noticeably increasing113. It can be assumed that in the 1550s the circle of persons who had the right to initiate local disputes was limited to those who were included in the lists of the Thousand Book and the Yard Notebook.
There was a definite tendency in those years towards the equalization of various groupings of the feudal class, the weakening political positions boyars, the suppression of many boyar families and the exclusion of some of them from genealogical lists, a very noticeable expansion of the composition of prominent officials (“named people”) - all this leads to a certain “democratization” of the initially strictly aristocratic institution of localism.
Parochial ideas penetrated and were externalized in the petition (1575) submitted by the pack. Zasekin: “Before this, the sovereign sent those Duma nobles to his sovereign service e boyars and with okolnichy or z boyar children 3 large clans, and not with such square nobles” 114. political relations 245. The struggle for the place of the Russian state among other states , for the position of a great power, as well as the dispute over the title, was entwined with parochial prejudices and in diplomatic documents was reflected in the formulas of parochial terminology 246. Ambassadors abroad were obliged to adhere to parochial rules; During official receptions, ambassadors were punished “to be ahead of other ambassadors” and to sit at the table “above other ambassadors”247, and with the ambassadors of the Sultan or Emperor (i.e. representatives of the generally recognized great powers) “not to go to the embassy or to the table in any way.” "(this was noted in the order of Ivan IV in 1567 to the ambassadors to King Sigismund II Augustus) "5. Depending on the official norms, an exchange of prisoners was also carried out: “whoever is more suitable according to his mileage” and those boyar children “who promised an exchange not according to their own verst" (“and you were called boyars”), were returned back248.
The long existence of localism, the deep penetration of local prejudices into consciousness is explained, of course, by the peculiarities of social psychology, the very system of social views of people of the Middle Ages, the routine nature of social thinking, and the fact that, in the words of F. Engels, “the nobility became rigid in immobility”116. Parochial psychology and ideology, the conventions of parochial practice can be *** They tried to apply the same custom to external form relations between Russian ambassadors and foreign officials. The Russian ambassador (in 1600-1601) refused to go to dinner with the Lord Mayor of London, having learned that he would sit at the table in a “larger place |20.
**** Qg we read echoes in the Polish Ambassadorial Book under 1566. 121 Such ideas are clearly expressed in the message of Tsar Ivan to Vasily Gryazny, who was in Crimean captivity |22. understand only by taking into account the entire characteristic “regime of medieval regulation” 123 and the concepts of the people of that century about various stereotypes of behavior (and origin) for representatives of certain social groups (“what is written in someone’s family”). According to the apt remark of V. O. Klyuchevsky *, then “individuals hid behind types” |24, the individual, the special should not be shown, it was necessary to follow a predetermined etiquette in everything. The social position of the feudal lord (and, accordingly, the degree of his danger both for the monarch and for other feudal lords), his social duties and ideals, including the concept of “honor”**, even the characteristic features of the external way of his life were, as it were, predetermined.
For parochial ideology and psychology of the 16th century. was characterized by the idea of the special privileges of persons of “high princely blood” (an expression of Ivan the Terrible) 125. Tsar Ivan *** himself and the boyars around him, who had not forgotten, were imbued with this psychology * V. O. Klyuchevsky noted: “The face was drowning in society, in an estate, a corporation, a family, he had to express and support with his appearance and environment not his personal feelings, tastes, views and aspirations, but the tasks and interests of the social or state position he occupied” | 2c. The work of V. O. Klyuchevsky “On the artist’s view of the setting and attire of the person depicted” gives a lot for understanding the social psychology of a person in the Russian Middle Ages, although the author somewhat exaggerates the degree of its routine. In this regard, it is interesting to compare the observations of A. V. Artsikhovsky and others about the conventions of depiction in Russian miniatures of the 16th century, D. S. Likhachev about the so-called literary etiquette |27, A. Ya. Gurevich and others about stereotypical forms of social behavior and customs , rituals, rites, terminology, formulas, symbolic images, normative for a given society and possessing the power of tradition (or fashion) of the 12th century. A detailed study of localism in terms of ideas about sign systems(as Yu. M. Lotman wrote about) 12th.
** “The sleeping honor, which consists in the readiness to sacrifice everything to maintain some conditional rule, is visible in all the brilliance of its madness in our ancient localism” 130, noted A. S. Pushkin. What seemed “madness” to an enlightened person at the beginning of the 19th century was perceived completely differently by his distant ancestors.
*** Ivan the Terrible’s parochial excursion is curious: “Does Sheremetev care about the former greatness of his ancestors? Book Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, having become king, considered it necessary (at the beginning of the 17th century!) to remind: “Before our ancestor, the Grand Duke Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky, my ancestors were in this Russian state and for this reason they divided their inheritance in Suzdal, not by taking away and not from captivity, but by kinship, as large brethren were accustomed to sit in large places” 132. And in the second half of the 16th century. The words of the prince might not have seemed at all like the safe, caustic idle talk of an embittered and offended fugitive. Kurbsky that “the princes of Suzdal were drawn from the family of the great Vladimir, and the power of the eldest Russian was on them, among all the princes, for more than two hundred years” *. It is not without reason that Kurbsky also pointed to the origin of the “great princes of Tver” from the Suzdal princes and referred the reader to the official chronicle to confirm his words: “It is better known about this in the Russian chronicle book”133. The Englishman Fletcher, who was in Russia during the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich, did not sufficiently understand localism, nevertheless correctly noticed the dual nature of the process of changing the political position of the princes. They, in his opinion, lost everything except the title (a clear exaggeration), but at the same time B1 continued to occupy first places in all public meetings; in society they strictly adhered to the intra-class privileges of groupings of the feudal class**, and even the poorest of the kiyazhat “hotly looked at the Shchenyatevs?”131 (The Shchenyatevs are a noble family of the Gedimiovich princes). *
The eldest of the Suzdal princes, Prince. A. B. Gorbaty was called a contender for the Moscow throne in the mid-1560s 134. And even before that, Prince Gediminovich. S. F. Belsky, who fled to Lithuania in 1534, and then from there moved to the Crimea, made claims to his “grandfather” - the Ryazan principality (his maternal grandfather was the Ryazan prince). Semyon Velsky was assigned a significant role in the plans for the dismemberment of the Russian state, the implementation of which was hoped for in Poland, Crimea and Istanbul 135.
** This was also typical for the French nobility of the 16th-17th centuries. Impoverished, having lost their usual social position, noble people tried to remind them of their genealogical claims (cruelly ridiculed later by La Bruyère) and were by no means inclined to even allow the possibility of comparing them with persons not of “blue blood” 136. and took to heart any dishonor OR insult to the SV "OIH inheritance rights 249.
These family traditions were firmly remembered not only by the princes, but also by the tsar, who, in letters to Kurbsky, tried in every possible way to humiliate him and the other princes, completely in the spirit of local feuds. And if Kurbsky reminds the tsar that all the Rurikovichs are “desired” from the family of Vladimir of Kiev, and writes with hatred about the “since ancient times blood-drinking family” of the Moscow princes, then Grozny did not fail to hurt the arrogant boyar “who wanted” “with his treacherous custom to be the ruler of Yeroslavl ", reminding Kurbsky of his father’s service to his boyar Prince. Kubensky137 and about the insignificance of his relatives, the Prozorovsky princes, in comparison with the Moscow Tsar: “And what are the Prozorovskys themselves like before us? Otherwise, we’re not keeping up with their ships!.. And I had more than one hundred Prozorovskys!” 138 “Why should Prince Volodymer be in the state? Born from the fourth appanage. What is his dignity to the state, which is his generation?..”139 - the tsar wrote angrily about his cousin(The Terrible passionately reprimanded Kurbsky for minor insults inflicted on him by the arrogant princes).
The dispute for primogeniture, for the primacy among the Russian princes, had not yet completely ended, and public consciousness (both of the king and the princes) clearly lagged behind social practice. The remnants of feudal fragmentation were still too strong, they were too noticeable in the consciousness of the king’s entourage; i-^Iiyan 1U; trying to consolidate the GDPYu pplttitsrruusch nrchanignipgt^ pt yaristocracy (and without THAT, VERY noticeable). I couldn’t think of anything better than to create a special destiny for myself - first the oprichnina, and then even began to call myself the prince of Moscow, Rostov and Pskov 250."
To break away from the princes related to him, the Podkovichs. He supported the Gediminovichs, because in the court environment they were less favorable to them than to the Rurikovichs.
** This is how Ivan IV is titled in a decree on the Dvina dated November 19, 1575. 141 moving forward to an unattainable height for them, the Terrible in every possible way emphasizes his origins from “August Caesar” and the Byzantine emperors, especially in relations with other monarchs (so in parochial relations are already involved in foreign sovereigns!), lists the historical merits of his ancestors, the Moscow Grand Dukes (again in accordance with parochial norms, especially highlighting the “service” of immediate relatives). Finally, it is of great importance for the outcome of the dispute for the primacy position among other Rurikovichs, Ivan IV was crowned king - no Rurikovich had the royal title before him!142
According to the concepts of Ivan the Terrible, one’s own greatness meant, first of all, the belittlement and humiliation of everyone else. And, meticulously maintaining his prestige as an autocratic sovereign, 251 he himself diligently formulated the terminology of his omnipotence, importunately repeated incantations about his exclusivity. It is no coincidence, of course, that it was under Ivan the Terrible that the process of further political “subjugation” of the nobility, which began also with the strengthening of the power of the sovereign of all Rus'. This is probably due, to a large extent, to the spread of the concept of the dependence of courtyard people to all service people of the Russian state, with the transfer of the features of palace management to the national government. Moreover, the nobles, i.e., courtyard people - servants of the "sovereign court" (including military servants), often descended from unfree people, initially seemed superior to the children of the boyars. The process of merging nobles and children of boyars into one estate - "nobility" is parallel to the process of merging layers of the highest nobility into the estate "boyars" : both princes and untitled boyars.Simultaneously with these phenomena, nibotism is only a characteristic feature of the time of feudal fragmentation, alien to the policy of centralization, but he correctly noted that already in the middle of the 16th century. “the beginning of personal merit” replaced the idea of the mandatory heredity of official position. leveling of the main feudal classes, there was also an increasing subordination of all feudal lords as a whole to autocratic power and an increasingly noticeable separation of the power of the sovereign from the power of the class of feudal lords, which ultimately found formalization in the absolutist power of the monarch (this did not at all change the class essence of the power of the autocratic monarch, which was and remained a concentrated expression of the interests of the class of feudal serf-owners as a whole; of course, there can be no talk of any supposedly supra-class nature of the power of the monarch or the state in general).
This was reflected very clearly in the parochial ideology. Emphasizing the differences in the official appointments and origins of individual noble people, the sovereign at the same time acted as the sole arbiter of their parochial disputes and in every possible way emphasized the fact that in relation to him, the sovereign, all these feudal lords suing among themselves remained serfs. This idea was formulated more than once by Ivan the Terrible himself in the documents he signed (“I am free to reward my slaves, but I am also free to execute them”), in letters written by the Tsar on behalf of the boyars in 1567
252, and in embassy orders (“our sovereign is free to execute and reward his servants”), 44. We find similar wording in documents signed by the nobles themselves; and Fletcher 145 quite rightly drew the attention of his readers to the fact that in all appeals to the tsar, even the most noble boyars call themselves serfs 253. They also called themselves in the documents that defined their relationship with the sovereign. “Free servants” became “ servants of the sovereign"^!
n In the local documentation this can be seen with great convincingness. Ivan IV, as is known, brought closer to himself the noblest and richest of Gedimino- political terminology than to state law; but terminology should not be neglected: the history of political terms is the history, if not of political forms, then political ideas» 14th century whose - I. D. Belsky and I. F. Mstislavsky, distinguishing them from among other princes, especially the Rurikovichs, who, thanks to their common origin with the tsar, could claim a high position in government. “These two and I make up the three pillars of Moscow. The whole power rests on the three of us,”149, the tsar’s words about his “first advisers” were reported in Moscow. 254 However, appointed in 1565 to sort out the parochial dispute between two governors, they turned to the tsar in the most humiliating terms, without resolving the dispute on the merits . The letter began characteristically: “To the Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, your servants Ivanets Velsky and Ivanets Mstislavsky and all the boyars beat their foreheads.” It was further noted that the tsar “ordered us, your servants, to judge them (that is, the governor - S. Sh.), and the document ended with the phrase: “And we, sovereign, ordered you to serve in your sovereign service; and about that, sir, to us, our servants, as you indicate: to whom you order to write in advance” 150. The most noble of the Rurikovichs, Prince. I. P. Shuisky answered in 1581 to the commission that was examining the parochial dispute with him of Prince V. Yu. Golitsyn: “The sovereign is free to use his servants as he pleases.” “God and the sovereign will do as much as they can,” said a well-born boyar in 1584. T. R. Trubetskoy. “It is done by royal mercy, one lives both in honor and in dishonor,” wrote in the 17th century. famous Prince D. M. Pozharsky. “We, your slaves, were honest by your sovereign mercy, and dishonest by your sovereign decree” (words of Prince F.S. Kurakin, 1640), 51. How these parochial formulas of the noblest princes resemble the words of the “martyr” Vasyushka Gryazny, it is humiliating and flattering that neither the Velskys nor the Mstislavskys were executed, although crucifixion records were taken from them; Rumors about their “betrayals” were quite widespread, and the tsar himself questioned the “Polonyaniki” who had returned from the Crimea in the dungeon about the “treasonous activities of the princes” 152. according to Ivan IV, who wrote from Crimean captivity: “You, sovereign, are like a god - both small and you fix a lot” -15,^
Thus, official ideology localism of the XVI-XVII centuries. difficult to call and characterize only as “aristocratic”. This is also one of the forms of expression of the ideology of “autocracy”, based on the suppression of personal dignity, on the recognition of all subjects (including the most noble) as the tsar’s slaves, and “the idea of a great autocracy,” wrote A. I. Herzen, “is the idea of a great enslavement”,54.
Of course, already in the 16th century. noted that localism is “a ruin for the sovereign’s cause.” Therefore, from the middle of the 16th century. measures were taken to streamline localism155, and the discharge books retained the formidable shouts of Tsar Ivan against local governors (especially during military operations) 156. However, throughout the entire 16th century. localism was essentially officially encouraged, although during important military campaigns “non-revenge” 255 was declared (“as the service of the Minets, the count will be”), and at meetings of the Boyar Duma “non-revenge” 157 was accepted once and for all.
The oprichniki were also parochial among themselves|58: local feuds between the governors of the oprichnina troops are known159. The guardsmen from the genealogical families took local failures so close to their hearts that one of them (M.A. Bezpin-Nashchokin) “wanted a post-street citizen from that boyar accusation”60. However, subsequently the appointments noted in the oprichnina ranks were disputed in local disputes. “And even if this was the order, and it was the sovereign’s will, in the oprichnina, the sovereign is free to do so,” they declared in 1593; in the 17th century M. Velyaminov, collaborating with the book. V. Vyazemsky, said even more sharply: “From time immemorial... The Vyazemsky princes were policemen, but they showed up only in the oprish years, at which time... Prince Ofonasiy Dolgoy-Vyazemsky encroached on peasant blood”161. They also lived locally in the mid-1570s, when the Grand Duke went to Prince Mikhail and was with him without places: Prince Ondrei Katyrev, Prince Dmitry Kurakii, Kiyaz Danilo Odoevskoy, Kiyaz Peter Telyatevskoy and other kiazis” 162. formally. Simeon Bekbulatovich was considered - parochial petitions were written in the name of “Sovereign Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of Moscow163; Ivan IV himself dealt with local affairs.
The damage caused by localism to state interests already in the 16th century. was very big. Some military defeats were a direct consequence of the parochialism of the governors, who sacrificed the interests of the state for the sake of maintaining the “fatherly honor” of their family. But they not only did not want to resist the abuses of localism and decisively limit the scope of its action, but they could not. Towards the abolition of localism in the middle of the 16th century. no, they were still prepared neither politically nor psychologically. It took time for certain changes to occur in the social consciousness of the ruling class. ;
Such changes became noticeable towards the end of the 16th century*, and especially at the beginning of the 17th century. “...Living traces of the previous car? The tonomies" of individual "lands" and principalities 164 gradually disappear and the strict ritual of court life and the order of military and civil services are finally developed. The political and economic forces of the boyars have significantly decreased, and its composition itself has changed significantly: “the former big birth, princes and boyars, many were completely passed over”165. Among the foreigners of the local boyars, now only immigrants from the East “visited” the 257. perpetrators; and in this place with 1st Prince Yury, no one has ever been within his, Sheremetev’s, verst” 167. Approaching the sovereign of the Verkhovsky princes, | obviously it didn't count! offensive to the indigenous Russian princes, since in “! Rus' there was an idea of the Lithuanian land as
about the close Russian land \ (part of the once united ancient non-Russian state, family ties of Lithuanian and Russian princes, one religion, a common state language back in the 16th century, similar customs, etc.). І In the contractual records of 1610, Hetman Zholkiewski with the Moscow boyars on the election of the Polish prince as king specifically stipulated: “And the Moscow princely and boyar families are foreigners in the fatherland and in honor not to oppress or demote” 1b8. Among the boyars, new families emerged, mainly from the younger ones branches of ancient families (both princes and untitled nobility), and they made up the highest stratum of service people of the Moscow kingdom.In 1553 (even according to the chronicle postscript of the late 1570s-1580s), the boyars, refusing to swear allegiance to their young son Tsar Ivan, motivated this by the reluctance to serve the insufficiently noble Zakharyins, and in 1613, a descendant of the Zakharyins turned out to be a more desirable candidate for the royal throne than titled persons; even before, in 1598, the untitled brother-in-law of the last of the Rurikovich kings, B.F., was elected king. Godunova:
In the second half of the 16th century. The view of flight abroad as treason was firmly established (Kurbsky’s life abroad was spoken of in Russia with contempt 258) and the idea of the right of a boyar’s departure was finally erased from consciousness.
Gradually, an increasingly noticeable consolidation of the feudal class takes place. If in the middle of the 16th century. “Estration” of service people, even princes, was a frequent occurrence and the ideologist of the nobility, Peresvetov, drew attention to the need to fight it, then in the middle of the 17th century
V. this is already a rarity; if at the beginning of the 17th century. service people, and even large groups of them, could be found in the ranks of participants in mass popular movements, then to mid-17th century V. service people immediately and with a united front oppose any manifestation of anti-feudal and anti-tsarist sentiments. The massive people's war of the early 17th century, frightening the feudal lords, contributed to the final clear demarcation of social classes. In the peasant war under the leadership of Razin, there are no longer any fellow travelers from among the small Kursk reign” - the copyist replaced the contemptuous words that were more understandable to his contemporary: “It would be better for me to die than for the Kurbsky reign.” 169. feudal lords: small and medium-sized feudal lords participated in the suppression of this movement with no less cruelty and class conviction than the great feudal lords.
With the well-known “democratization” of the ruling class of feudal lords, there also occurs a further “democratization” of localism, expanding the scope of its action. The concept of honor and the practice of localism widely extended to the urban nobility |70. This indicates an increasing class consolidation of the class of feudal lords as a whole. If at the beginning of the 16th century localism was initially a sign of the class limitations of a relatively narrow layer of the boyars, and from about the middle of the 16th century it became an attribute of relationships and ranks of Moscow, then in the 17th
V. parochial norms penetrate among city officials, first of all, of course, into their upper strata (elected nobility). By the middle of the 17th century. persons who had local privileges represented the upper layers of the ruling class of feudal lords (and naturally, this layer was headed by the boyars 259). Finally, clerks and even guests are drawn into parochial disputes. This is how the composition of “honest” persons applying for participation in the political life of the state is finally formed, i.e., the social elite is essentially peeled off feudal state XVII century, opposing the rest of the country's population, including, to some extent, the small nobility.
Localism actually ceases to be a privilege of the aristocracy, although it continues to be seen as a sign of “aristocratism,” and recently promoted service people are increasingly resorting to localism, fearing that their “aristocratism” is not sufficiently noted and is not recognized by everyone. From the 17th century Many local cases have been preserved and even more references to such cases, which were initiated by representatives of families, in the 16th century. completely unknown; and “beginning from the great and to the lesser honor, this happened,” they wrote about localism at the end of the 17th century.171 rotates over time into the clan. A similar phenomenon is, to one degree or another, noticeable in the history of Western European states 17E. Local petitions often provide information about the servile position of the founders of noble families, including those who ascribed to themselves a very noble origin. Information of this kind is often actually confirmed in sources of the 15th-16th centuries. “The Sovereign's Genealogist” is replenished “at will” with new names 260. At the same time, family genealogies and special local books are distributed for parochial purposes, where “cases” concerning a certain clan and the official relations of its members with representatives of other clans are distributed 261. We have reached us and the rank books of a private edition with the addition - “tricks” - about “what never happened in the sovereign ranks.” Such handwritten books, as well as “household memorial genealogies” 174, containing many, most often legendary, data on the service of representatives of one or another clan, were copied (sometimes even by the family people themselves, “with their own hands”) and carefully stored. The information in such books was supposed to remain a family secret, and only if necessary was it unexpectedly brought in in a parochial manner.
In the 17th century politically dangerous for the cause of centralization could be found in the local regime (on Prince Prozorovsky, Prince Lykov, Ochin-Pleshcheev, etc.) 177.
*** An interesting entry on such a book of ranks by one of the Buturlins (made in the third quarter of the 17th century): “And this book is broken up and not given to anyone and not shown to anyone, because in this book it is written about all the many companies, therefore it’s not for anyone , know for yourself. And I, Ivan, signed this book with my own hand. And which articles are about yourself, and you make yourself a special notebook and write out for yourself exactly: what year and what year who was with whom, etc., the claims of the hereditary aristocracy turned into historical memories. At the same time, the harmful consequences of localism (especially the behavior of governors during military operations) are becoming increasingly harmful and intolerable for the state. The uselessness of localism is being felt more and more noticeably. Society is gradually losing respect for these seemingly primordial relationships between service people, although due to tradition the number of parochial cases continues to increase. A disrespectful attitude towards localism was reflected in the well-known caustic remarks of Kotoshikhin, 179 and in the dissemination of parody discharge records, and in descriptions of fictitious embassies (to the Sultan).
Localism has become obsolete. If in the 16th century localism to a certain extent contributed to the approach of absolutism, then in the 17th century. it became an obstacle on the way to his final approval. With the growth of bureaucracy in an absolutist state, opportunities for the manifestation of social independence are gradually eliminated both by the top of society (elimination of localism) and by a wider circle of people (termination of the activities of zemstvo councils).
The central government is taking increasingly effective measures against localism: individual service people are given “non-replacement letters” for a certain period of time, and “replacementlessness” is declared not only during military campaigns, but also during palace receptions and festivities. For “trouble” in the royal “wedding matter” 180 “by their breed, or places, or rank,” the perpetrators were deprived of estates and estates or even “executed by death” 263.
The conciliar verdict of 1682 dates the beginning of a serious fight against localism already to the time of the first Romanov. The Romanovs’ opposition to the spread of this institution is explained in addition to the need to eliminate obstacles to public administration and the fact that the new Moscow kings, who by their origin belonged to the untitled nobility, could to some extent fear the attempts of the surviving descendants of noble princely families to use localism in their interests.
By the end of the 17th century. in localism, both the central government and the ruling class groupings finally ceased to be interested, which was reflected in the decision of the participants of the council of 1682264, which abolished “for the perfect... military, and in embassy, and in all matters of profit and a better dispensation “This is “God-hated, hostile, brother-hating and love-driving localism” 265 (words of Patriarch Joachim), 82. The decision to abolish localism can also be associated with military reforms183. With the abolition of localism, a significant obstacle to the promotion of persons to military 184 and administrative service for their service merits was eliminated.
Usually, when characterizing the decision to abolish localism, they point first of all to the interest of the nobility in this act and the active role of the higher clergy in the person of Patriarch Joachim. The position of the boyars is most often portrayed in such a way that the boyars were forced to give up this privilege that was dear to them only under the pressure of other participants in the council. Meanwhile, materials from the Council of 1682 and other sources allow us to come to a different conclusion. The boyars (at least for the most part) also turned out to be interested in the abolition of localism - the democratization of this institution led to the actual loss of the privileged position by the boyars. Parochial disputes and clashes between the descendants of “family people” and newly promoted service people humiliated the aristocracy, and family people also wanted to get rid of the difficult responsibility of maintaining their prestige by observing parochial customs.
One of the initiators of the abolition of localism was the noble boyar Prince. V.V. Golitsyn, and formally the reason for the abolition of localism was the impossibility, when organizing new military units, to provide Khovansky buduzes in the same 1682: “...and the boyars dishonored many of their masters and their brethren and brazenly reviled and at their time they did not assign” 185. more young representatives of the most noble families to a service worthy of their family honor, “so that in future there would not be reproach and reproach from those families.” Another thing is even more important: the genealogical books 266 created by decision of the same council were precisely supposed to emphasize the special position of family people in the state. It was proposed to compile books of several categories depending on the period of service of the ancestors of the families - the first book was to include those “honest and princely families” that had been in the service under Ivan the Terrible, and it was supposed to be based on the “Sovereign Genealogist” of 1555. 187 Thus, differences in origin (and again in duration of service) between groupings of the ruling class were fixed by law.
The project of the same year 188 on “noble eternal governors” 267 is also associated with attempts to strengthen the position of family people. Some family people hoped, taking advantage of the illness of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich and the infancy of his heirs, to establish a boyar oligarchy of a few families (or even individuals). But these projects were doomed to failure. Political possibilities of the boyars by the end of the 17th century. were already exhausted, the boyars had finally lost their sense of class solidarity by this time, and the most far-sighted or progressively thinking boyars, realizing the chimerical nature of efforts to restore the political prestige of the aristocracy, soon found themselves among the employees of Peter I, who declared a decisive war on boyar conservatism.
An indicator of Peter’s complete disrespect for parochial norms is the granting of special powers to the prince’s steward during the Tsar’s absence (during the years of the “Great Embassy”). F. Yu. Romodanovsky. From such a seniority of boyars, okolnichy and dumiy people in 34 degrees, it was also compiled under Fyodor Alekseevich 190. Interesting are the observations of A. I. Markevich 191 about the proximity of the project to Western European forms, as well as to Peter’s legislation. The demise of the ancient customs of the serving nobility was only a step away from the forced cutting of beards and the All-Joking Council, which also killed traditional respect for cathedrals. They decided to finally bury the ancient customs with mockery and laughter.
The abolition of localism cleared the way for such reforms as the abolition of Duma ranks and the Boyar Duma and the establishment of the Table of Ranks. In the 17th century: they said that the tsar “rewarded his service with estates and money, and not with the fatherland”; Peter I dared to take aim at this familiar idea - under him they began to award people with titles. It is clear that the memory of localism, as if symbolizing previous social habits, could not help but be hated by Peter and the “Petrov’s chicks” who rose from the bottom. The abolition of localism - this rudiment of medieval thinking and medieval political system(adapted, however, by the “autocracy” to its goals) - is one of the indicators of the evolution of the autocracy noted by V. I. Lenin in “a direction that can be called the direction towards a bourgeois monarchy” 192.
With the destruction of localism, however, neither local ideology nor local psychology 268 disappeared; moreover, local practice was not immediately eradicated193. Family people of the 18th century. For a long time they still clung to genealogical memories and parochial prejudices. The fear of being punished for crimes (real or imaginary) of relatives, for belonging to “the hated name of a villainous family,” did not disappear for a long time. We find these words in a letter from Prince. Ya. F. Dolgorukop The largest diplomat of the time of Peter I, book. B.I. Kurakin persistently thought about how to “find a means of opposing narrowly egoistic needs to general, local interests - national and national interests. y,., (to name noble families at the proper height" t9S. He decided to write a book with objections to those who were convinced "that princely and noble families do not represent anything special, that although they are noble, they are still people, like them" 196. An attempt to some extent fulfill the wishes of Prince Kurakin and revive the influence of the boyar aristocracy took place during the reign of the boy Peter II and especially in the first months of 1730, when, in the words of A. S. Pushkin, " Our old Aristocracy for a moment regained its former strength and influence,” 97. According to the project of the supreme leaders, “to the highest government agencies it was supposed to select members “from family people, from the generals and from the noble nobility... and especially old and noble families will have advantages, will receive ranks and will be assigned to affairs according to their dignity” |98. The rise of two princely families - the Golitsyns and the Dolgorukys - seriously alarmed the gentry, that is, the top of the new nobility, who energetically opposed the oligarchic plans of the rulers.
Local prejudices were apparently still very tenacious in those years. No wonder the book. A.D. Kantemir (later an active participant in the events of 1730) in a satire of 1729 with the characteristic subtitle “On the envy and pride of the malevolent nobles” is evil. ridiculed parochial claims. A noble loafer who boasted of the high position of his family back in the time of Prince. Olga, who referred to armorials, “different types of letters,” genealogical books and order records (“from his great-grandfather’s great-grandfather, to start closer, the dumnago, the governor was not lower than anyone”), Kantemir contrasts the personal merits of those who “begin a noble family with themselves” |99. The satire presents Peter’s point of view on the nobility as a class that once arose from the merits of its ancestors and therefore is open to continuous renewal by introducing new persons into it who have come to the fore through their useful deeds 200. However, the ideologist of the nobility of the 1730s, the author of an extensive project government reforms, Cabinet Minister A.P. Volynsky “all swaggered and boasted of his surname, due to the royal family” 201.
The strongest blow to parochial remnants was dealt by the 1762 manifesto “On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility,” which freed the GOSPOD class from compulsory service. It had a colossal influence not only on court life, but also on business:; public administration and public life have been acquired since the second quarter of the 18th century. “random269 or (“strong”) people.” (In matters of government, it is not the power of state seats, but the power of persons, noted contemporary N.I. Panin). The lot of the hereditary aristocracy became opposition, which gradually became more and more harmless and dissolved by the end of the 18th century. in toothless conversations on the sidelines of the English Club, and in helpless rancor in the living rooms of landowners' estates. Ideologist of the noble aristocracy of the second half of the 18th century. book M. M. Shcherbatov, who mourned the fact that “it was not families that became respectable, but ranks, merits, and lengths of service,” tried in vain to arouse “the spirit of noble pride and firmness in the hearts of noble-born Russians” with references to the customs of their ancestors 202.
M. V. Lomonosov, proud that he achieved everything he achieved through his personal efforts and, despite class obstacles and prejudices, took a strong social position, wrote in 1751 in the drama “Tamira and Selim”: “Whoever boasts of his birth, boasts about someone else’s” 203. This is already the view of a man of modern times. “Boasting of an ancient breed” outraged A. N. Radishchev. He ridiculed those nobles who are carried away by genealogies and lament the destruction of localism 204.
At the beginning of the 19th century. parochial customs seemed to be a characteristic feature of the old Moscow nobility: “In Moscow, from time immemorial, it has been practiced that honor is given to father and son” (“Woe from Wit”). Longevity, regardless of origin, was gradually established as the most important means of personal advancement of a person in both the military and civil service, and the ability to curry favor - sometimes even in the most humiliating ways - began to be “valued” as the highest dignity. A different point of view expressed by A. S. Griboyedov in the first quarter of the 19th century. through the lips of Chatsky, seemed to the “serving people” of that era a sign of madness.
Parochial ideology, or more precisely, genealogical prejudices, was uniquely reflected even in the minds of progressive thinkers of the early 19th century. - Decembrists, Pushkin, later Lermontov. Pushkin had a romantic idea of the political independence of the clan nobility 270. “The heredity of the highest nobility,” wrote A. S. Pushkin 205, “is a guarantee of its independence; the opposite is inevitably associated with tyranny, or rather with low and flabby despotism.”271 Hence the admiration of localism as a sign of aristocratic pride, and regret about the humiliation of the clan nobility. 206. The advanced noble intelligentsia from the hereditary genealogies of people - “fragments of the game of happiness of the offended clans” - seemed to oppose themselves to the reactionary court “rabble” - arrogant descendants“the famous meanness of the illustrious fathers” (words of M. Yu. Lermontov), which tightly surrounded the throne of the autocrat. And only when the noble revolutionaries were replaced by raznochintsy revolutionaries, localism was finally ridiculed and humiliated in fiction by Nekrasov’s arguments about the “noble tree”, about the “family tree” (“Comune of Rus' to live well”).
The legend of localism as an expression of aristocratic initiative and an institution that limited the power of the monarch and protected the nobility from royal tyranny apparently arose in the first half of the 18th century.
v.272 What was desired was presented as reality, and some historians found themselves captive of these ideas of aristocratic opposition to imperial despotism. *** Family people already under Peter I associated the decline in their prestige with the abolition of localism. Prince B.I. Kurakin in “The History of Tsar Peter Alekseevich”, characterizing the childhood years of Peter I, wrote: “And in that reign the decline of the first families began, and especially the name of the princes was mortally hated and destroyed” 200. The legend of localism was accompanied by the legend of zemstvo councils as organs of participation of the third estate - the ancestors of the later bourgeoisie - in government. And here the desired was passed off as reality. And the same ideologists of the bourgeoisie and preachers of the progressive role of the state in the history of the people, taking the main thesis of the aristocratic legend about localism, assessed localism only as a harmful phenomenon in Russian history, which hindered the strengthening of the state and the involvement of “non-family” people in public activities. All this taken together left an imprint on the historiography of localism, where in most works journalistic reasoning and conclusions prevail over source research. The history of localism essentially still awaits research.
Page 70
How was class society formed in Russia? When did appanage principalities appear in Rus'?
In Russia in the 16th century. a class society was formed. But the rights of different classes were not legally established; There was no corporate cohesion within them, as there was in Western Europe. In Russia, state power had a decisive influence on the formation of estates, so they differed not so much in their rights as in their responsibilities in relation to the state.
Appanage principality (udel) (from “deeds”, “to divide” - part) is a territory in Rus' in the 12th-16th centuries, formed as a result of the fragmentation of large principalities that arose on the site of the Old Russian state during the period of feudal fragmentation, after its collapse. The appanage principalities, in turn, were split into smaller appanages. The territory of the appanage principality was a territorial possession under the control of the prince. Most often, new appanage principalities appeared as a result of land redistribution, donations and inheritance. Formally, the appanage principalities were under the authority of the Grand Duke, but they had their own coin, institutions, and power, that is, they were practically independent states. The emergence of appanage principalities ceased due to the formation of the Russian centralized state. Last thing appanage principality in the Moscow kingdom - Uglich - was liquidated in 1591 after the death of Dmitry, the son of Ivan IV Vasilyevich.
Page 71
Remember what localism is.
Localism is a system of distribution of positions depending on the nobility of the family that existed in the Russian state. Localism was abolished by the verdict of the Zemsky Sobor on January 12, 1682.
Page 73
What is serfdom?
Serfdom is a set of state laws that assigned peasants to a specific plot of land, and also made peasants dependent on the landowner.
Page 74
What are settlements?
Sloboda was usually called a settlement whose residents were engaged in public service(ensure the vital activity of the Russian state) in one direction or another and were named according to their orders or main specialists (ranks): Yamskaya, trading, Kuznetskaya, pottery, Pushkarskaya, Streltsy, Sokolnichya, soldiers', sailors' settlements and so on.
Page 75. Questions and tasks for working with the text of the paragraph
1. List the main duties of the nobles in relation to the sovereign.
The main duties of the nobles in relation to the sovereign:
Service as part of the “sovereign court”
Participation in military campaigns and shows
2. What sphere of relations was regulated by localism?
Localism regulated the sphere of relations between nobles in service.
3. What new happened in the situation of the peasantry in the 16th century? What caused these changes?
The situation of the peasantry in the 16th century. changed: from 1581, peasants were forbidden to leave their estates and estates - reserved summers were introduced; in 1597, a 5-year period for searching for runaway peasants was introduced - fixed summers. These changes were caused by the fact that increased taxes and crop failures led to the desolation of the noble estates. To save taxpayers and provide estates with workers, the government took these measures.
4. What duties did the peasants bear in favor of the master?
Duties of peasants in favor of the master:
Corvee,
Payment of small income in chickens, eggs, butter, etc.
Construction
Plowing the master's land
Improvement work on a noble estate
Procurement of feed for livestock
Fishing.
5. What does the concept of “state-owned” mean in the phrase “...white yards and settlements, exempt from government payments and duties...”?
The concept of “state-owned” in the phrase means state-owned, i.e. to the treasury
6*. What event, in your opinion, can be considered the beginning of serfdom in Russia? Explain your point of view.
The beginning of serfdom in Russia can be considered the introduction of reserved years in 1581, when peasants were forbidden to leave the estates and estates of their masters. This law consolidated not only the economic dependence, but also the personal dependence of the peasants.
7*. Using additional literature and the Internet, find out the procedure for carrying the “tax” in the 16th century. Present the result of the task in the form short message in front of classmates.
The procedure for carrying the “tax” in the 16th century.
Tax - in the Russian Kingdom, a tax obligation of more or less settled, wealthy households in relation to the state. In its usual size, the tax not only exceeded the size of the quitrent, but sometimes rose above the solvency of the population. A quitrent has always been considered easier than a tax. The term “tax” often combined all types of direct taxes. In ancient charters, tax is replaced by the word “burden”; The tax was not imposed on a member of the community, but on a certain unit, a district, a volost, as a set of farms. Physical or entity, subject to tax, had to own an economy, which was divided into a main center and secondary parts. These parts were pulled towards the center and were called tax units. Hence, the object of tax, a plot of arable land, an allotment began to be called a tax. Civil service assigned by the government, military service, domestic service, court service, and partly belonging to the merchant class were exempt from taxes.
The townspeople's population was personally free, but the state, interested in the regular receipt of payments, sought to attach tax-drawers to the townspeople. Therefore, for leaving the posad without permission, even for marrying a girl from another posad, they were punished with death.
Page 75. We think, compare, reflect
1. What was the structure of Russian society in the 16th century?
The structure of Russian society in the 16th century.
Boyars, Nobility
Clergy
Heavy population: peasants and townspeople
2. Explain the meaning of the concepts “prescribed summers” and “reserved summers.”
“Temporary summers” - years of searching for runaway peasants
“reserved summers” - years during which it was forbidden to leave the estates
3. Using additional literature and the Internet, find out how the management system differed in peasant communities and cities. Did such a management system contribute to the development of Russia?
Rural society (community, rural community, peasant community, world) is a unit of administrative and economic self-government of peasants of the Russian Empire. Several rural societies made up the volost. Rural societies were governed by village assemblies, which elected village elders. They were collectively responsible for the payment of taxes by their members.
The heavy population was divided into black settlements and black hundreds.
Townspeople settled in the black settlements, supplying various supplies to the royal palace and working for palace needs. The tax was paid from the place and from the fishery. Duty is communal. Taxes and duties were distributed by the community.
Simple townspeople, engaged in small trade, crafts and trades, were brought together into the black hundreds. Each Black Hundred constituted a self-governing society with elected elders and centurions.
As can be seen from the above passages, the systems of government in peasant communities and cities were very similar.
Such a control system historical period contributed to the development of Russia, as it ensured a guaranteed flow of taxes to the treasury. After all, both in the city, the suburb, and in peasant community there was collective responsibility for paying taxes, and a strong community - a strong state.
Coat of arms of the family of Counts Sheremetevs (Sheremetevs)
In the middle of the golden shield in a red field, surrounded by a laurel crown, there is a golden crown, i.e. the coat of arms of the ancient Prussian rulers, and under it two silver crosses marked perpendicularly. In the lower part, on a golden shield, there is a cap, which in ancient times served as a distinction for the boyars, in which many held ranks of the Sheremetev family, and at the bottom of the cap there is a spear and a sword, placed crosswise on a silver crescent, with its horns facing upward. The shield is covered with a count's crown, on the surface of which there is a tournament helmet crowned with an image of an idolatrous oak tree, on the sides of which two silver hexagonal stars are visible. The shield is held by two lions with golden foreheads, and in the mouth there are laurel and olive branches, of which the one standing on the right side has a scepter in his paws, and on the left side there is an orb in memory of the fact that the ancestors of the Kolychev family were rulers in Prussia. The mantling on the shield is gold, lined with red. Under the shield is the inscription: DEUS CONSERVAT OMNIA.
The shield is divided perpendicularly into two parts, of which the right half of the Belago Eagle in gold is depicted in a golden field on the head of the Crown. On the left side, in a red field, three Clubs are indicated crosswise, having golden handles and spears. The shield is topped with an ordinary noble helmet with a noble crown on it and three ostrich feathers. The marking on the shield is red, lined with gold.
The shield, which has a silver field, depicts a red heart pierced by an arrow. The shield is topped with an ordinary noble helmet with a noble crown on it and three ostrich feathers. The marking on the shield is silver, lined with red. The shield is held by two warriors in armor, each holding one spear in their hands. The ancestor of the Aksakov family, Shimon Afrikanovich, after baptism he was named Simon, left in 6535/1027 to visit the Grand Duke Yaroslav Vladimirovich in Kyiv from the Varangian land and with him three thousand people. This Simon had great-grandchildren, Fyodor Vasilyevich Voronets and Yuri Vasilyevich Grunka, who had a grandson Velyamin Andreevich. From Fyodor Voronets came the Vorontsovs, and from Velyamin - the Velyaminovs. This Velyamin Andreevich had a grandson, Ivan Fedorovich Aksak. The descendants of this family, the Aksakovs, To the Russian Throne Nobles served in various ranks and were granted estates by the Sovereigns. All this is proven by a certificate from the Patrimonial Department, the pedigree of the Aksakovs and other certificates.
The shield is divided into four parts, of which in the first part, in a blue field, a silver centaurus is depicted with a sail fluttering from the left to the right hand. In the second part, in a red field, a golden crowned lion with a saber raised upward is placed. In the third part, in the red field, there is a golden cross. In the fourth part, in a blue field, there is a silver crescent, with its horns facing to the right. The shield is topped with an ordinary noble helmet with a noble crown on it and three ostrich feathers. The marking on the shield is blue and red, lined with gold. The shield is held by two lions.
The shield, which has a silver field, depicts a red vulture facing the right side. The shield is topped with an ordinary noble helmet with a noble crown on it, on the surface of which seven peacock feathers are visible. The marking on the shield is blue and red, lined with silver. The shield is held by two armed warriors, each holding one spear.
The shield is divided into four parts, of which in the first part, in the ermine field, the Prince's cap is depicted. In the second part, in a blue field, a hand with a sword, dressed in golden armor. In the third part, in a golden field, a single-headed blue eagle in a crown is visible, with outstretched wings, having a sword in its right paw and an orb in its left paw. In the fourth part, in a silver field, there is a bird standing on green grass with a gold ring on its nose. The shield is topped with an ordinary noble helmet with a noble crown on it and three ostrich feathers. The marking on the shield is blue and red, lined with gold. On the sides of the shield are two Hungarians with a saber, holding a shield in one hand, and in the other hand having an old Slavic coinage with a dark-colored handle, in their usual attire: in a red hat, trimmed with fur, in fur coats of marten fur, in a blue semi-caftan, with the loops on both sides are embroidered in gold, belted with a gold belt, wearing a red underdress and yellow Hungarian boots.
5. Using the Internet, prepare an electronic presentation “Moscow and its inhabitants in the 16th century.” Illustrate with examples the daily life of city residents from different classes.
The peoples of Russia in the second half of the 16th century.
Material for independent work And project activities students
Page 76
How did the process of Russia's transformation into the largest Eurasian power take place?
The transformation of Russia into a major Eurasian power was facilitated by the annexation of the territories and peoples of the Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberian khanates, the Volga region and the Urals.
Page 77
Remember what yasak is
Yasak is a tax in kind, which was levied in Muscovite Rus' and Tsarist Russia some peoples of the Volga region, Siberia and the Far East.
Page 78
What are serif strokes? Why were they built? Where was the first notch line?
The serif line is a line of fortifications for protection against attacks by the Crimean Tatars. The first serif line ran from Bryansk through Tula to Ryazan.
Page 78
What was the role of the Stroganov merchants in Russia's conquest of the Siberian Khanate?
In the conquest of the Siberian Khanate, the role of the misers Stroganovs was the main one; they provided Ermak’s campaign financially, invited him for a military campaign in Siberia, choosing him from many others as a brave and skillful chieftain. After all, he belonged to the number of Cossack atamans known for violence and robberies. With his comrades, he terrified not only peaceful foreign travelers, but also the neighboring nomadic uluses. His experience in military clashes with nomads could be very useful to the Stroganovs. The letter they sent to the Cossacks in April 1579 along with gifts said: “We have fortresses and lands, but few squads: come to us to defend Great Perm and the eastern edge of Christianity.” A cry was thrown out, and a gang soon gathered under the banner of the ataman Cossack freemen to go on a long journey. June 21, 1579 (according to other sources, at the end of the year) Don Ataman Ermak Timofeev with a large squad of Cossacks, having traveled a long way on light plows from Astrakhan to the tributaries of the Kama, arrived in the Perm possessions of the Stroganovs.
Long before this, the Stroganovs turned to the Tsar with a request to grant them territory beyond the Urals, along the Tobolu River and its tributaries “from the mouths to the peaks” in order to expand their possessions beyond the Urals, into Siberia. The Stroganovs' request was granted by a letter dated May 30, 1574, which was mentioned above.
The whole logic of events and the policies of the administration of Ivan the Terrible led the Stroganovs to the task of mastering the lands of the Siberian Khan Kuchum, therefore Ermak’s campaign in Siberia can hardly be considered the sole initiative of the Stroganovs themselves or the Cossacks led by Ermak. If the Stroganovs took the initiative to directly send Ermak’s squad to Siberia, then this step “corresponded to the spirit and meaning of the general instructions and instructions” from Moscow.
Ermak’s Siberian expedition was not an impromptu event caused solely by attacks on the Stroganovs’ estates. It was prepared by them for several years. This is indicated by the call from the Volga of Ermak with a detachment of Cossacks two years before, and the construction at the Stroganov shipyard on the Northern Dvina of two seaworthy ships for departure under the leadership of the Stroganov “servant of the Dutchman Oliver Brunel” along the northern sea route to the mouth of the Ob simultaneously with the performance in campaign of Ermak Timofeevich. On preliminary preparation The Stroganovs of Ermak’s campaign in Siberia is also indicated by the fact that in the Perm estates “zatina squeaks” were cast for him.
The simultaneous organization by the Stroganovs in 1581 of Ermak’s land campaign to the Irtysh and Ob and the sea campaign under the command of Oliver Brunel, according to historians, was not accidental. “Obviously, one or another access to this river (Ob) seemed desirable to them for the purpose of their trade with Asian countries - first of all with Mangazeya, and then with Central Asia and even with China.”
Ermak's squad, which received weapons, ammunition and provisions from the Stroganovs, was well organized. Ermak divided it into hundreds, which had their own banners and centurions - commanders. Their names were preserved by Siberian chroniclers. The most famous is Ivan Koltso, sentenced to death in absentia for past robbery adventures on the Don and Volga, sent by Ermak to Ivan the Terrible with the news of the annexation of Siberian lands to Moscow and joyfully pardoned and favored by the tsar. The names of other centurions are Yakov Mikhailov, Nikita Pan, Matvey Meshcheryak.
Page 78
From the history course of the Middle Ages, remember who the missionaries were.
MISSIONARY - a clergyman sent by the church to spread his religion among non-believers.
Page 80. Questions and assignments to the text of the material intended for independent work and project activities of students
1. How was the military service of the peoples who became part of Russia in the 16th century organized?
Military service was carried out by different segments of the population: the local nobility had to perform border guard duties and participate in military campaigns. Service people (“service Tatars” - interpreters, scribes, envoys), from whom were formed military units who carried out border and city service. For this they received cash and grain salaries and a number of trade and craft benefits.
During the construction of serif lines, which were populated by military servicemen from Russia and who received land plots for military service.
2. What main stages can be divided into the process of development of new territories by the Russian population? Support your conclusions with quotations from the text.
The main stages of the process of development of new territories by the Russian population:
1) Mid-16th century. – until the 70s. - construction of cities as stronghold military points “The fortresses of Laishev 1557, Tetyushi 1558, Tsarevokokshaisk, Urzhum 1584 and others were built here.”
2) from the 1570s. – construction of serif lines “The first of them ran from Temnikov to Alatyr and Tetyushi”; settlement of new territories by military servicemen and distribution of land plots to them “Newly built cities and fortified lines were populated by military servicemen who received small land plots and salaries from the state. Their responsibility also included processing government tithe arable land. The settlement of the Volga region was accompanied by the distribution here land holdings boyars (patrimonies) and nobles (estates).”
3. Why were the main settlers in the new lands made up of service people?
The basis of the settlers in the new lands were service people because it was an opportunity to improve their property situation.
4. What goal did the Russian government pursue in spreading Christianity among the newly annexed peoples? What methods of spreading Orthodoxy were prescribed by the “Mandate of Memory” published by Ivan IV?
The Russian government, spreading Christianity among the newly annexed peoples, pursued the goal of strengthening the state. A common faith is a strong basis for uniting the peoples of the state.
Methods of spreading Orthodoxy, which were prescribed by the “Mandate of Memory” published by Ivan IV: non-violent methods of baptism and even, on the contrary, the newly baptized were provided with benefits - exemption from yasak, for example.
5. What rights did representatives of other religions enjoy on the territory of the Russian state in the 16th century?
Representatives of other religions on the territory of the Russian state in the 16th century. They enjoyed the rights of free religion, built mosques in their places of residence, and in Moscow the Tatars had special settlement quarters.
Page 80. Working with a map
Name and show on the map the rivers along which in the 16th century. Russian people were being resettled in new territories.
The settlement of Russians took place along the rivers: Kama, Belaya, Ufa, Vyatka, Ural, Chusovaya.
Page 80. Studying the document
What privileges did Khan Utyamysh-Girey receive after baptism?
Khan Utyamysh-Girey after baptism received the privileges of living in royal palace and learn to read and write, get an education.
Page 81. We think, compare, reflect
1. Compare the process of spreading Christianity among the population of lands annexed to the Russian state in the 16th century with the baptism of Rus'.
The process of spreading Christianity among the population of the lands annexed to the Russian state in the 16th century, compared to the baptism of Rus', took place more gently, through non-violent methods, with the provision of benefits.
2. Describe the policy pursued by Ivan IV in the Volga region and Siberia.
The policy pursued by Ivan IV in the Volga region and Siberia is characterized as thoughtful and balanced. Where the annexation of lands by peaceful means was impossible (Kazan, Siberian Khanates), military actions were taken, and where the population swore allegiance to the Moscow Tsar, joining Russia took place peacefully.
3. What taxes did the population of the eastern lands annexed to Russia in the 16th century bear?
Population of the eastern lands annexed to Russia in the 16th century. paid a tax - yasak in grain or money, and carried out duties: military, arable, pit, construction, etc.
Localism. This word has become firmly established in our colloquial language. To be local means to oppose private interests to state ones. Localism regulated service relations between members of service families at court, in military and administrative service, and was a feature of the political organization of Russian society.
This name itself came from the custom of being considered “places” in the service and at the table, and the “place” depended on the “fatherland”, “paternal honor”, which consisted of two elements - pedigree (that is, origin) and the service career of the serving person himself and his ancestors and relatives.
Localism arose at the court of the Grand Duke of Moscow at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, as a consequence of the centralization of the state and the elimination of the appanage system. The boyar's place in the service-hierarchical ladder of ranks was determined taking into account the service of his ancestors at the court of the Grand Duke. In accordance with this procedure, appointments to military and government positions were determined not by a person’s suitability or ability, but by his “patronymic” (nobility) and the position of his relatives (father, grandfather). It turned out that if the fathers of two service people were in joint service so that one of them was subordinate to the other, then their children and grandchildren should have been in the same relationship. A person could not accept an “inappropriate” (insufficiently honorable) appointment, since this would cause damage to his entire family. Localism was especially beneficial to the untitled old Moscow boyars, who were proud not just of their nobility, but of their merits in the service of the Moscow princes. However, localism prevented the advancement of capable but humble people. Local disputes turned out to be especially dangerous during military campaigns. Localism reflected the power of aristocratic families. However, appointment to the service became a complex and confusing procedure, accompanied by the so-called. “local disputes”, lengthy litigation, legal proceedings, which constituted a significant inconvenience already in the middle of the 16th century.
Localism, on the one hand, divided the nobility into rival clans, and on the other hand, consolidated it, assigning to a narrow circle of noble families the exclusive right to fill the highest positions.
Localism was one of those institutions of the feudal state that provided representatives of the feudal nobility with a monopoly right to a leadership role in the most important bodies of the state. The essence of localism was that the possibility of a person occupying any post in administrative bodies or in the army was predetermined by local accounts, that is, the mutual relationships between individual feudal - princely or boyar - surnames, and within these surnames - the mutual relationships between individual members of these families. At the same time, the possibility of changing these ratios was excluded, since this would mean a change in the order of places in the service, court or military hierarchy. This led to the fact that in order for a person to occupy this or that post, it was necessary that the position of this person in the local hierarchy corresponded to the position occupied in this hierarchy by that post, and the occupation of which this person claimed.
By the first half of the 16th century, the relationship of noble families was strictly established, and the Moscow government, in all its official appointments, carefully observed the rules of the parochial order. The official genealogy book - "The Sovereign's Genealogist", which contained the names of the most important service families in the order of generations, was compiled at the beginning of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The surnames placed in the sovereign's genealogy were called genealogies. The seniority of persons of the same surname was determined by genealogy when they had to serve in the same service.
To determine the service seniority of persons of different families, a book was compiled in 1556 - “Sovereign Rank”, where the lists of appointments of noble persons to the highest positions of the court, in the central and regional administration, by heads of orders, governors and governors of cities, regimental marching governors, etc. .P. The sovereign category was compiled from the usual weather lists of services for 80 years ago, i.e. since 1475.
The official relationship of a noble person to his relatives, determined by the sovereign’s genealogy, and his relationship to foreigners established by the sovereign’s rank was called his “parochial fatherland”; The position of his family among other noble families, confirmed by an entry in the category, constituted “family honor,” which determined the official dignity of a noble person.
Localism, therefore, established not the heredity of official positions, but the heredity of official relations between individual noble families. “Fatherland” was acquired by birth, descent, and belonging to a noble family. But this inherited paternal honor was supported by service appropriate to the ancestral fatherland. The voluntary or involuntary evasion of a noble person from service led to the “obscurity” of his entire family. It was difficult for a person who grew up in rigidity to advance to a high place.
The main bodies of power at the national level in that period were the tsar and the Boyar Duma, which consisted of secular and spiritual feudal lords, constantly acting on the basis of the principle of localism and relying on the professional (noble) bureaucracy. It was an aristocratic advisory body. The Tsar combined in one person the legislative, executive and judiciary simultaneously.
The sectoral bodies of the central government were orders (Posolsky, Local, Razboinichiy, Kazenny, etc.), which combined administrative and judicial functions and consisted of a boyar (head of the order), clerks and scribes. Under Ivan III, the organs of the administrative apparatus were born.
There were special commissioners on the ground. Along with sectoral orders, territorial orders later began to emerge, in charge of the affairs of individual regions.
The foundations of local government are laid. The basis of local government was the feeding system. The country was divided into counties, counties into volosts. In return for the evicted princes, Ivan III begins to send governors. These were close associates of Ivan III, who were given lands to manage for their merits. Governors and volostels (in districts and volosts) were appointed by the Grand Duke and in their activities relied on a staff of officials (righteous men, closers, etc.). They were in charge of administrative, financial and judicial bodies, did not receive salaries from the treasury, but “fed” at the expense of the population of the territory entrusted to them, deducting part of the fees from the local population for themselves. Two or three times a year the population was required to supply basic “feed” in the form of various products. An additional source of income for the governor was the court and a certain part of the duties from trades and shops. The feed collected from the population was not regulated. The term of office was not limited.
The activities of the governors and staff of officials were only an addition to the main thing - the right to receive “feeding”, i.e. collect part of taxes and court fees in one’s favor - “judgment”.
Feeding was given as a reward for previous service. Initially, the feeding system contributed to the unification of the Russian state. Moscow service people were interested in expanding the possessions of Moscow, since this increased the number of feedings. But the feeding system had major drawbacks. For feeders, management turned out to be only a burdensome appendage to obtaining “feed”. Therefore, they performed their duties poorly and often entrusted them to the tiuns. In addition, there was no order in receiving feedings. This system of local government did not correspond to the tasks of centralization. A new principle emerges in the distribution of positions, which is called localism.
The Moscow Grand Dukes (and then the Tsars) waged a stubborn struggle against localism, since localism bound them and placed their actions under the control of the feudal nobility. The feudal nobility, in turn, stubbornly fought to maintain parochial privileges.
The first steps in the field of limiting viceroyal administration were taken by Ivan III way introducing into practice the issuance of special charters to localities that regulated the rights and responsibilities of governors and volosts. The earliest known charter of this time is the Belozersk charter of 1488. The main attention is paid to the regulation of the activities of administrative authorities, the relationship between the functions of local authorities and grand-ducal governors, as well as the division of jurisdiction between the local viceroyal court and the central grand-ducal court. The Belozersk charter is considered the predecessor of the Code of Law of 1497.
According to the Code of Law of 1497, the terms of activity of governors were shortened (from one to three years), and the “revenue items” of feeding were reduced, which are now usually converted into money.
The food consisted of “incoming food” (when the governor entered for feeding), periodic taxes two or three times a year (in kind or cash), trade duties (from out-of-town merchants), judicial, marriage (“brooding marten”) duties. For exceeding the feed rate, the governor faces punishment. The composition of the subordinate bodies of the viceroyal administration is also of a private-public nature; the court sends through slaves-tiuns (2 assistants) and finalists (summoning about ten people to court), between whom it divides the camps and villages of the district, but responsibility for their actions falls on itself.
In November 1549, a verdict on localism was issued. In the “Questions” of Ivan IV to the Stoglavy Cathedral, the circumstances and motives for issuing the verdict on localism are set out in the following way: “My father, Metropolitan Macarius, and archbishops, and bishops, and princes, and boyars. I was appointed in Kazan with all the chris-loving army and I put my advice to my bolyars in the most pure and conciliar before you, my father, about a place in the governors and in any assignments in any rank, not to be parochial, whoever they send with whomever, so that the military matter in that there was no chaos; and that was a loving sentence for all the boyars.” Thus, the purpose of issuing the verdict “On Places” was to create conditions to prevent “disruption” of “military affairs” during the campaign, resulting from localism in “parcels” and in “discharge”.
The localism verdict of November 1549 consists of two parts. The first part of the sentence is dedicated to the commanders of the main five regiments into which the army was divided: Big, Right Hand, Left Hand, Advanced and Sentry. In the second part we're talking about about the rest of the service people - non-governors.
In its content, the verdict of 1549 formally represents an act defining parochial relationships between individual voivodeship positions. Within the framework of recognizing the legitimacy of localism, there is another group of norms formulated by the verdict: on the procedure for regulating those cases when the official relations between certain service people do not correspond to the local accounts between them. However, the essence of the 1549 verdict on localism was not the simple regulation of local accounts in the regiments, but the fight against localism.
For understanding political orientation The verdict on localism gives a lot to the interpretation that was given to this verdict during the campaign of 1549-1550. after the arrival of Metropolitan Macarius in Vladimir, when the question of localism was the subject of discussion between the tsar, the metropolitan and the boyars, and the just adopted verdict on localism was again confirmed. Based on this confirmation, Macarius, in his address to the service people, formulated as follows the order by which the service of all categories of service people during the campaign was to be determined: “But what does it matter, whoever the king and grand duke send with him to his work, and although it would be no good for someone to be with someone for their fatherland, the boyars, and the governors, and the princes, and the boyars’ children all went without places for the zemstvo business. And who cares about the bill, and how, God willing, he will come from his own place and from the land, and the sovereign will then give them the bill.”
Macarius's speech, included in the text of the official Book of Discharges, can be considered as a kind of official commentary on the text of the verdict on localism. The essence of the verdict of 1549 is set out in exactly the same way in the “Royal Questions” of the Stoglavy Council, where the verdict on parochialism is characterized as a law establishing the principle: “About a place in the governors and in any postings in any rank, do not be parochial, no matter who is sent wherever with whom.” .
Thus, both according to the testimony of Macarius and according to the statement of Ivan IV himself, the meaning of the verdict on localism was the establishment of service in regiments “without places” and the prohibition of “localism” during the campaign.
Being one of the earliest political reforms of the 40-50s, the verdict on localism reflected general character government policies and demonstrated the forms and ways of implementing this policy.
In 1556, the system of feeding and viceroyal administration was reformed. In counties with a greater share of private feudal land ownership, power passed into the hands of provincial elders, elected from the nobility of the given county. And in areas with a black-growing population, zemstvo elders were elected.
The previous levies in favor of the feeder were replaced by a special fixed tax - “fed tax”, which went to the treasury. From these incomes, monetary “help” began to be paid to servicemen for entering military service.
In historiography, there is a generally accepted opinion that the feeding system was eliminated during the reforms of Ivan IV in 1555-1556, and as if this was important step on the path of state building. This opinion assumes that the king’s “sentence” was carried out strictly, and that the government ceased to fulfill its feeding function. However, this is not the case. Execution ancient function easily discernible in the new forms it has taken.
Firstly, by allocating estates to his servants, the king increased the number of feeders. Secondly, by paying for his service mainly in kind, the tsar established himself as a breadwinner. Higher ranks received palace food (meat, fish, wine, hops, hay, malt), lower ranks received other products (grain, flour, salt, oats). Service people were still paid in money, although partially and irregularly. However, the expression “cash feed”, used to denote this type of payment, betrayed the feeding function of the authorities.
Since cash salaries were unreliable and payments in kind were insufficient, clerks and service people resorted to the practice of “feeding from business.” Honors and commemorations (in money or in kind), offered to them in order to speed up the resolution of the matter, were considered a legitimate source of their income. The government threatened punishment only for promises, but in practice they were difficult to distinguish from honors and commemorations.
The first restrictions on the use of power were established by custom, statutory rules, and the norms of Russian Pravda and represented the determination of the size and procedure for collecting taxes from the population. Abuses were expressed mainly in excessive exactions. In the statutory charters of the viceroyal administration, in the veche charters, a line was also drawn between what was permitted and what was not permitted, promises were distinguished between permitted and “secret,” and violation of the department’s boundaries was prohibited.
The destruction of the cohesion of private interests with state interests began in the 14th century, when the concept of princely service first appeared in contracts between princely families and families. The public legal element penetrates into official relations with the strengthening of the state system, which was directly related to increased attention to the proper performance of their functions by officials. The existence of feeding played a very negative role in the development of official relations - official abuses at that time were of the nature of an everyday phenomenon.
In the Code of Law of the Grand Duke (1497), the concept of bribery as a prohibited act appeared. In general, the prohibition of violation of certain forms of official discipline was associated with the activities of the court. The Code of Law of 1550 knows the punishable acceptance of promises, unintentional and intentional injustice, expressed in making an incorrect decision in a case under the influence of the received reward, embezzlement.
In the Code of Law of 1550, the legislator made a distinction between two forms of corruption: extortion and bribery. In accordance with Art. 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Law, bribery meant the performance of actions in the service of an official, a participant in legal proceedings, during the consideration of a case or complaint in court, which he performed contrary to the interests of justice for a fee. Extortion was understood as the receipt by an official of the judicial authorities of duties permitted by law in excess of the norm established by law.
By 1556, the system of maintaining the administrative apparatus through in-kind and monetary fees was abolished in Russia and replaced by zemstvo administration with the establishment of wages.
In 1561, Tsar Ivan the Terrible introduced the Charter of Judgment, which established sanctions for receiving bribes by judicial officials of the local zemstvo administration.
The Council Code of 1649 already presented groups of such crimes; general and special, committed by officials. The administration of justice was the task of almost every administrative body, which opened up wide opportunities for abuse, so the first place was occupied by injustice: intentional, caused by selfish or personal motives, and unintentional.
On August 16, 1760, Empress Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great, issued a decree prohibiting government positions from being considered “feeding” for officials. According to the decree, the official did not “stand to be fed,” as had been the case since ancient times, but, first of all, pledged to “diligently correct the service” - in otherwise he could have been demoted or retired altogether. In today's language, Elizabeth banned “going to power for money,” that is, she opened the fight against corruption.
But even at the end of the 17th century, 150 years after its abolition, the feeding system remained quite effective. If it was, as it were, disguised as new types of practice, then the supply that came into use at the same time, on the contrary, kept in sight and even emphasized the feeding function of the supreme royal and patriarchal power. Filing became a means of establishing and maintaining localism, that is, the hierarchy of the nobility. The presentation, this sign of closeness to the Tsar or, rather, a magical connection with him or the Patriarch, should undoubtedly be considered as an element of the charisma of Russian rulers.
The definition of localism is a system of norms in social, official, domestic environment nobility active in the 15th-17th centuries in Russia.
At one time, the Moscow prince united the lands around himself. The descendants of the former owners of these lands became part of the government class. It was the boyars who created the system of official relations, which is known as localism. Who are the boyars?
Boyars
In the old days, there was a Sovereign genealogist. Representatives of the most important service families were recorded in it. The genealogy was compiled under Ivan the Terrible. It was this document that was relied upon in the proceedings of genealogical disputes.
The surnames that were in the document began to be called pedigrees. This same lineage of nobility began to be called the Moscow boyars. To retain the right to belong to the nobility, it was necessary to enter the genealogical circle. To do this, among the ancestors there must be Moscow boyars, okolnichy and other high ranks.
Creation of localism
The custom of assigning seats to Moscow boyars at the prince's table appeared in the 14th century. Localism was formed by the middle of the 16th century. The system was constantly evolving. It included new clans that rose to prominence for various reasons.
Understanding what localism is is quite difficult. First of all, it is necessary to understand the principle of this system.
The principle of localism
In the modern world, when appointing persons to service, factors such as education, work experience, personal qualities, etc. are taken into account. Things were different in the 16th century on the territory of the Moscow kingdom.
When a person was chosen to fill the highest position, it was not the personal qualities of the applicant that were taken into account, but the significance of his last name. Also important was the genealogical position of each representative within his clan.
For example, the Odoevsky princes were placed above the Buturlins. Therefore, the representative of the Odoevskys received a higher position. At the same time, the older Buturlins could be compared with junior princes Odoevsky.
Of no small importance was not only the official position of the ancestors, but also how long ago it was. In other words, a representative of the nobility whose grandfather was a boyar claimed a higher appointment than a person whose father was a boyar. Only the male line was taken into account.
Seniority within the clan worked according to the following principle: younger brother one step below senior. From this scheme it turned out that the eldest son of the eldest brother was compared in rights to the fourth brother, that is, his uncle. In some cases, a person could occupy a level higher than he was entitled to in the hierarchy.
For the vast majority of government positions, employees were appointed according to the norms of localism. The clerks of the Rank Order were supposed to keep track of all appointments and record them in a special book.
Now let’s understand what localism is, more specifically.
In the court sphere
Since most of the people were related to the king’s family or were favorites, everyone was seated at the table with the sovereign according to etiquette and ceremony. Employees of the same rank were placed on a local basis.
The true essence of localism was revealed during the preparation for the ceremonies:
- wedding;
- coronation;
- procession;
- reception of ambassadors;
- visit to the summer palace.
Employees argued over getting a “place.”
In military service
To understand what localism is in regiments, the Judgment on Localism should be mentioned. It was compiled in 1550 under Ivan the 4th Terrible. But some of the wording was so vague that it caused a lot of controversy.
Each regiment was assigned one to four governors. The first governor of a large regiment was considered the main one. The commanders of other regiments stood a step lower. There was no clarity on many issues. For example, the position of the commander of the left-hand regiment was not fully determined.
Who resolved conflict situations?
Numerous disputes regarding localism in Russia have been resolved in different ways. The person who made the appointment could resolve the issue. Often the situation was examined by a boyar commission appointed by the tsar. In some cases, the ruler presided over the commission.
The judges were engaged in checking the facts using rank books, documents from personal archives, and information from the Rank Order. Testimony was also collected, and the counts of the “places” of the ancestors of the disputing parties were compared.
The decision could be influenced not only by the high positions of the ancestors, but also by information about lower services that dishonored the noble family. The person who lost the bet was charged with causing "dishonor". He was sentenced to pay a fine, formal short-term arrest, and was called “disobedient to the royal will.” Sometimes used Physical punishment. There was such a form of punishment as “delivery by head.” The losing person came under escort to the winner and publicly asked for forgiveness.
Failure to comply with the sentence could result in more severe consequences. Conflict proceedings could drag on for years without ending in anything. In rare cases, equality of the parties was recognized. Disputes were postponed during hostilities.
Limitation of localism
Such a system significantly complicated official appointments. It was especially difficult to distribute “places” in regimental voivodeships. The person had to meet the genealogical and rank requirements. At the same time, it was necessary to minimize the likelihood of possible family claims.
To eliminate disputes regarding the most important positions in the regiments, in 1550 the verdict of the Tsar and the Boyar Duma was announced. According to it, some positions were removed from the parochial account, they were declared “without places.”
The idea of localism
The system of localism is strictly conservative and aristocratic. The relationships between the surnames that were once established did not change. If fathers and grandfathers were in a certain service, their descendants took their place.
Localism was not a family inheritance of specific official positions. It was a heredity of service relationships between families. For example, Prince Odoevsky could occupy any position, but it had to be one step higher than that of Buturlin.
Political significance of localism
The introduction of localism led to the fact that the position of the boyars began to depend on the service of their ancestors. In other words, the political significance of the surname did not depend on the discretion of the king, the personal merits of the person or his success.
If the ancestors occupied a certain level, the descendants should also be on it. And it was not allowed to change this order. Neither the mercy of the sovereign, nor personal talents, nor services to the state could influence such a hierarchy.
There was no rivalry in the service, since everything was predetermined by pedigree. The place did not have to be earned or won, it was inherited. The service man did not pursue his own career; he could only look for a more profitable “place” for himself and sue for it in controversial situations. The whole family was watching him. In case of a career win, all his relatives were promoted. While a service “loss” demoted all representatives of the family.
The surname acted as a single whole in official clashes. Her interest stood above personal desires and moral motives. The clan nobility established official solidarity, mutual responsibility, and mutual responsibility among its representatives.
There is an example that explains the importance of localism for the boyars. In 1598 a campaign took place. In it, Prince Repin-Obolensky occupied a place below Prince Sitsky. He should have obtained a revision for himself, but did not do this because he was friends with Sitsky. The Obolensky family took offense at its relative. They turned to the king. The Emperor examined the case and made a decision that Prince Repin-Obolensky only lowered himself before the Sitsky family, that is, the Obolensky family will not sink lower than their fatherland. It turns out that localism protected the family name not only from arbitrariness on the part of the ruler, but also from rash decisions of individuals.
The boyar could lose his property, be expelled, or beaten. However, no one could force him to take a “place” in government below his fatherland.
Even the sovereign could not influence the distribution of seats. An example of this is the case of Volkonsky. When he wanted to become higher than the boyar Golovin, the court put him in prison. The Duma took the side of the well-born Golovin. That is, the king can enrich his servant, but cannot make him well-born. Only ancestors can do this.
Disadvantages of localism
To understand what localism is, you should learn more about the shortcomings of this system. Researchers highlight two main points.
Finally
Localism was a key element of the secular subculture of the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. This system developed norms of morality and etiquette, as well as historical and cultural genealogical traditions.
Young nobles were raised to be able to defend their family from outside attacks. Localism played a role important role in the development of noble self-awareness.