Localism is a specific system of distribution of positions in Rus' in the Middle Ages. When obtaining a position, the nobility of the family was taken into account. This gave rise to monopolization, which gave the ability to receive high places only to princes and boyars, leaving with nothing the local nobles who were the support of the Russian state and the formation of a centralized system in the country.
The history of the emergence of localism
Localism is a system that allows the distribution of positions depending on the nobility of the family and the official position of relatives. Such a system appeared at the beginning of the 15th century, but did not last long. On January 12, 1682, localism was abolished by the verdict Zemsky Sobor.
There were many prerequisites for the emergence of localism in the Middle Ages. The main role was played by adopted elements from Polish-Lithuanian legislation. It was there that for the first time they began to actively develop the transfer of power by inheritance or obtaining a position according to the nobility of the family. The hierarchy of distribution of official roles is confusing, which is why scandals often broke out among relatives, which could only be resolved by the tsar with the participation of officials of the rank order.
Highlight several criteria having a great influence on obtaining a high position.
- When distributing positions age was taken into account. For example, an older brother or sister always had priority when obtaining a high official position.
- Position in service gave the right to have greater priority for career advancement. If a person proved himself while serving in the army or at work, he received a slight advantage over his relatives. This factor was taken into account if family members were in an equal position.
- Played the main role surname. Depending on the level of service occupied, relatives distributed positions among other family members.
This system was abolished in 1682 by the verdict of the Zemsky Sobor on the orders of Fyodor Alexandrovich, and the reason for this was the struggle to strengthen the armed forces of Russia.
Evaluation of the parochial system in history
Most historians are inclined to the negative influence of localism on the development of the Russian state, since official positions were distributed according to nobility. Thus, most of the controlling positions in the state were occupied by people who did not have the abilities or talents to lead the country. There are many examples in history when the stupidity of high-class people led to big problems. Localism also made it possible to practically guarantee a high place for people from a noble family and therefore many did not show due diligence in achieving a high position and learning to control the state.
Even despite the great negative qualities of such a system, there are also positive aspects. Localism of some sort reconciled aristocrats from different states. At the turn of the 15th-17th centuries, the aristocracy consisted of Tatar princes, Russian princes who appeared during the annexation of new lands, and Lithuanian-Russian fugitive boyars. Each of them, thanks to the system, knew the position that he would occupy and what would be inherited thanks to the noble name of the family. Such a distribution of positions eliminated many disputes and conflicts that could arise among people of different character, nationality and mentality.
Main problems of localism
The first problem that led to the limitation of the localism system was associated with military reforms. They were carried out during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Under the local system, positions in the army were occupied according to pedigree, which had a negative impact on combat training. Many family members who inherited the post had no idea how to lead an army, much less fight. The first amendments to this system affected the distribution of positions in the Russian army. Ivan the Terrible banned the use of localism and left this system only to the political system, but this also had its problems.
The boyars, called to serve according to their line of descent, ceased to support and develop the state. Most of the time was spent on family disputes and clarifying the situation before the king. Typically a parochial system even determined a place at the table with the Russian sovereign, and many defended their position on this issue, proving their superior position. Disputes had to be resolved by the king, and at some point such “parochial disputes” became too many.
Such negative aspects of the parochial system led to the fact that it lost its weight in the distribution of positions. This turn of events was also facilitated by the Russian sovereign, who constantly made his own amendments. At some point, localism completely lost its effectiveness, but it was officially abolished only 100 years later, on January 12, 1682, by the decision of the Zemsky Sobor. All books that described localism systems were burned that same year.
Using the Localism System Today
Modern states do not officially use and have a negative attitude towards the use of localism, but there is also an unofficial spread. In most CIS countries, at an unofficial level, power or official positions are transferred by inheritance. This not only violates the image of states, but also leads to a deterioration in work in various areas. For example, if a father was a first-class surgeon, this does not mean that his son or daughter will have the same knowledge and talent. The transfer of official position by family tree has a negative impact on the work and success of the person himself, because the burden of responsibility and expectations after a relative increases.
In Russia, they are fighting a similar problem in the following ways:
- attracting young specialists immediately after receiving the necessary education;
- quality control of the work performed.
It even happens that firms or government organizations hire only 1–2 people per family.
Conclusion
When studying the history of Russia, it is imperative to know the definition, when it was created and the reasons for the abolition of localism. Wikipedia, various literary publications, video materials and the opinions of many historians will help you understand this issue more broadly and, perhaps, reveal your point of view on this issue.
Localism is a system of feudal hierarchy in the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. The term comes from the custom of being considered “seats” in the service and at the sovereign’s table.
Localism arose at the court of the Grand Duke of Moscow at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, as a consequence of the centralization of the state and the elimination of the appanage system. The boyar's place in the service-hierarchical ladder of ranks was determined taking into account the service of his ancestors at the court of the Grand Duke.
There were historical prerequisites for the emergence of localism. With the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow, the Rurik princes who had lost their appanages rushed to the capital in large numbers to occupy as significant places as possible here. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that together with their masters, Ryazan, Rostov and other boyars came to the Mother See. Naturally, this state of affairs could not suit the local aristocracy, accustomed to its exclusive position around the Grand Duke of Moscow.
Muscovites tried in every possible way to push the serving princes and their boyars away from important services. And although they did not succeed in doing this fully, over time a system of clan accounts arose, thanks to which a relative balance was established among the families that became part of the nobility. At the same time, this system protected them from the claims of those who remained outside the upper class.
Russian historian S.M. Solovyov notes that another reason for the emergence of localism in Rus' is that the Russian aristocracy was much less tied to a specific territory than the Western European aristocracy. This is what he writes in his book “History of Russia from Ancient Times” (vol. 6, chapter 7):
With the names of nobles of Western Europe, we are accustomed to encounter particles von, de with the proper names of land plots and castles. If all news about the origin of the Western European upper class disappeared, then from family names alone we would conclude that we are dealing with landowners, that land ownership is the basis of class significance. But let’s turn to our boyars, to their names: what will we meet? "Danilo Romanovich Yuryevich Zakharyin, Ivan Petrovich Fedorovich." Both the ancient princes and the boyars have no trace of an attitude towards land ownership, and one phenomenon explains the other: if the princes did not have permanent volosts, they changed them according to family accounts, then their squad also changed volosts along with them, could not sit on In some places, to take deep roots into the ground, to acquire independent zemstvo significance through land ownership, it depended, received its means of subsistence and significance from the prince or from a whole princely family, for the warriors passed from one prince to another. What was the main interest of the Russian boyar, this is expressed in his name: to the name received at birth or at baptism, he adds the name of the father of his grandfather and great-grandfather, carries with him his genealogy and firmly stands for the fact that there is no ruin or humiliation for the family; From here the phenomenon of localism becomes clear to us - tribal interest dominates.
The obvious and major drawback of localism immediately becomes clear - appointments to military and government positions were determined not by a person’s suitability or ability, but by his “patronymic” (nobility) and the position of his relatives (father, grandfather).
To illustrate the complexity of parochial relations, I will cite a wonderful excerpt from the book by M.K. Lyubavsky "Lectures on ancient Russian history until the end of the 16th century."
Thus, for example, the descendants of the great princes sat higher and were appointed to higher and more honorable positions than the descendants of appanage princes, and even more so of simple, even noble Moscow boyars. The descendants of appanage princes sat and were appointed above the boyars, but not always: those of them whose ancestors were servants of other appanage princes sat and were appointed lower than the boyars who served the great princes, etc. In addition to these general rules, local rules also governed precedents. It was taken into account how certain princes or boyars and their ancestors were previously seated and appointed to serve, who was a mile away from whom, who was higher or lower, etc. These precedents were consulted in official or private rank books containing records of all official celebrations and official appointments. In cases where there were no precedents for the joint appointment of certain persons or their ancestors to the service, they tried to find precedents for their joint appointment with third parties or their ancestors and in this way establish the correct relationship between them. But since different persons of a certain family were not equal to each other, some were considered older, others younger, then in local appointments and accounts not only the “fatherland”, the general position of the clan, but also genealogical degrees were taken into account. Therefore, for example, the son or grandson of a famous person was not considered equal in honor to the person to whom his father or grandfather was equal, but was several places lower than him. Therefore, during official appointments, inquiries were made not only in the ranks, regarding who sat under whom before or was appointed to a position, but also in the genealogies, who was assigned to whom and by whom. Based on these two coefficients, subtle and complex calculations were made, often confused and deliberately confusing and therefore arousing bickering, disputes and quarrels.
As we can see, it is an extremely confusing and complex system, which inevitably led to frequent disputes and strife, which the Tsar and the Boyar Duma were forced to sort out. Localism made the boyars incapable of a common cause, of united activity in any direction. It is no coincidence that during the Time of Troubles, the Moscow boyar elite actually betrayed Russia, and salvation came from Nizhny Novgorod.
In the 1st half of the 16th century. Localism was observed only among the boyars and former appanage princes. From the middle of the 16th century. it penetrates among the nobles, and in the 17th century. even among merchants and city officials.
Often, those appointed to the position would bash the Tsar that it was not right for him to serve below such and such a boyar, for such a “loss of honor” could create a precedent for lowering the status of his descendants.
It should be noted that there are two diametrically opposed views on localism. According to the first, localism was unprofitable for the kings, since it limited them in personnel appointments and allowed the nobility to control this process; according to the second, localism helped the kings weaken and divide the aristocracy.
The truth, apparently, is somewhere in the middle.
Local disputes were especially dangerous during hostilities, when the appointment of governors was delayed due to such disputes and this interfered with the combat effectiveness of the army.
Ivan the Terrible realized this danger, and in 1549, during his campaign against Kazan, he banned local litigation during the campaign. At his request, Metropolitan Macarius addressed the army with the words: “And the sovereign wants to pay you for your service, and take care of your fatherland, and you would serve... and there would be no discord and no place between you...”
This practice was enshrined in the "Sentence of Places and Governors in Regiments" of 1550.
In the summer of July 7058, the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia sentenced with his father Macarius, Metropolitan, and with his brother with Prince Yuri Vasilyevich, and with Prince Volodimer Andreevich, and with his boyars, and ordered them to write in their official attire where to be on Tsarev and the Grand Duke, the service of boyars and governors by regiment: in the large regiment of life to the great governor, and in the advanced regiment, both the right hands and left hands of the governors and the guard regiment to the first governors of the life of the menshi of the large regiment of the first governor. And who will be the other [second] in the larger regiment of the governor, and before that larger regiment, the other governor is the right hand of the larger governor, there is no matter, they have no place to live.
And which governors will be in the right hand, and the first regiment and guard regiment will be the first right hands, no less. And the left hands of the governors should be no less than the advanced regiment and the guard regiment of the first governors. And the left hands of the governors would be less than the right hands of the first governor. And the other governor in the left hand will be less than the other governor in the right hand.
And the prince and the great nobleman, and the children of the boyars in the service of the Tsarev and the Grand Duke with the boyars and with the governor or with the light governors of the Tsarev and the Grand Duke for the purpose of being without places. And in the service attire, the Tsar and the Grand Duke ordered it to be written down that the boyar children and the great nobles were to serve in Tsarev and the Grand Duke's service with the governors not according to their fatherland, and there was no damage to their fatherland.
And which of the greater nobles will now be with the lesser voivodes where in Tsarev and the Grand Duke’s service not in their own fatherland, but ahead of them luchitsa which of those magisterial nobles themselves will be voivodes and with the same voivodes with whom they were, or luchitsa where to be on some kind of mission, and with those governors with whom they were, counting then, and to be then in the governors of their own fatherland; and before that, although they were with some governors and lesser ones in the service, and that noble with those governors in the account in their fatherland, there is no destruction according to the sovereign's Tsarev and the Grand Duke's verdict.
In July 1577, the royal governors moved to the city of Kes (now Cesis is a city in Latvia) and replaced themselves. Prince M. Tyufyakin twice annoyed the Tsar with petitions. “It was written to him from the king with fear that he was making a fool.” But other governors also did not want to accept the painting: “But the sovereign’s governors again hesitated and did not go to Kesi. And the sovereign sent the ambassadorial clerk Andrei Shchelkalov from Moscow with a grunt, the sovereign sent the nobleman Daniil Borisovich Saltykov from Sloboda, and ordered them to go to Kesi and carry out their business past the governor, and the governors with them.” Thus, the governors who began to “fool” were reassigned to the much less noble guardsman Daniil Saltykov.
Of great importance, limiting localism, was the decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645–1676) that when serving in the regiments, the captains and colonels of the Moscow Streltsy regiments should obey only the first boyars and governors, in connection with which the corresponding letters ordered that these Streltsy commanders be identified only “ to the great boyars and governors."
The lesson of the Time of Troubles did not serve our nobility in terms of their attitude towards localism.
This is what Sergei Stepanov writes in his training course “Political History of Russia”:
So, on July 11, 1613, on the day of Mikhail Romanov’s crowning of the kingdom, Prince Dmitry Pozharsky was “conquered with boyars,” and the next day, on the royal name day, Kozma Minin was granted a Duma nobleman. However, the personal merits of the leaders of the second militia meant nothing to the nobility. At the ceremony of telling the boyars “at the fairy tale,” Pozharsky was assigned to stand by the Duma nobleman Gavrila Pushkin, who struck with his brow that it was inappropriate for him to stand at the fairy tale and be less than Prince Dmitry, because his relatives had never been less than the Pozharskys. And this episode was not the only one. V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about D. M. Pozharsky: “Even though he cleared the Moscow state of thieves-Cossacks and Polish enemies, he was made a boyar from among the noble stolniks, received “great estates”: they found fault with him at every opportunity case, repeating one thing that the Pozharskys are not people of rank, they have not held major positions, except for mayors and provincial elders, they have never been anywhere before.” Once, as a result of a local dispute, the savior of the fatherland was “sent away by the head” to the boyar B. Saltykov and in disgrace, under escort, was escorted from the royal palace to the porch of an insignificant but well-born rival. For their seats in the Boyar Duma and at ceremonies, the boyars were ready to suffer disgrace and imprisonment. In 1624, at the wedding of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, the royal decree announced to everyone “to be without places,” but the boyar Prince I.V. Golitsyn refused to come to the wedding, saying: “Although the sovereign ordered execution, I can’t be less than Shuisky and Trubetskoy.” ". For disobedience, I.V. Golitsyn’s estates were confiscated, and he and his wife were exiled to Perm. However, his relatives apparently considered such tenacity commendable and imitated the boyar in defending family honor. In 1642, the nephew of this boyar, Prince I.A. Golitsyn, at the reception of foreign ambassadors, entered into a parochial dispute with Prince D. M. Cherkassky, but it was announced to him through the Duma clerk: “There was a sovereign with foreigners in the golden chamber, and you, Prince Ivan, at that time wanted to sit above the boyar Prince Dmitry Mamstrukovich Cherkassky and called him his brother and thus dishonored him: the boyar Prince Dmitry Mamstrukovich is a great man and their honor is old, under Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich his uncle, Prince Mikhail Temryukovich, was in great honor." As a result, instead of the Boyar Duma, Prince I. A. Golitsyn was sent to prison.
Legally, localism was finally abolished at the end of the reign of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. On November 24, 1681, after the end of the war with Turkey, the tsar instructed Prince V.V. Golitsyn and his comrades “in charge of military affairs” to bring the Russian army into line with modern requirements. In turn, Vasily Golitsyn, “having told the elected people his great sovereign’s decree,” immediately demanded “that they, the elected people, declare in what military dispensation it is more appropriate for stewards, solicitors, nobles, and tenants to be.”
Due to the fact that representatives of the most seedy Moscow clans did not want to get into command ranks, in which aristocrats do not serve, the electors asked: firstly, that the sovereign would order from now on to enroll as captains and lieutenants young men of all clans of the Court, who are now not on the lists , “as soon as they enter the service and are promoted to ranks”; secondly, the great sovereign would have instructed the representatives of the Moscow nobility in all services to be “among themselves without places, where the great sovereign will indicate to whom, and from now on, no one should be considered by rank or place, and rank cases and places should be set aside and eradicated.”
On January 12, 1682, the tsar gathered the patriarch with the clergy and the present composition of the Duma, announced to them the petition of the elected representatives and supported it with a very eloquent speech. With general agreement, Fyodor Alekseevich ordered the boyar Prince M.Yu. Dolgorukov with Duma clerk V.G. Semyonov to bring all the available local rank books and invited the clergy to immediately destroy them, declaring that from now on everyone will serve without places, they should not be considered old services under pain of punishment. Instead of rank books, genealogical books were created, which were intended not as a tool for appointment to positions, but to codify all noble families.
(Read more about the abolition of localism in a special article on our website.)
But even after 1682, clashes based on family honor did not stop. Peter I had to fight this evil, who was forced to repeatedly remind about “the resignation of those previously former places and fatherly rank disputes,” threatening those who disobeyed with torture and execution “in accordance with the present court.”
The strengthening of royal power was accompanied by some changes in the system of government of the country. For example, in 1682 localism was abolished. Students are asked to remember:
What order was called localism?
(Localism was the name for such an order in which all government and military positions in the country were distributed among the boyars not according to merit, but by breed. The most noble and well-born, despite their illiteracy and inability, received the highest ranks in the state).
It is advisable that students try to independently assess the fact of the abolition of localism. Therefore, you can ask them the question:
What significance, in your opinion, did the abolition of localism have?
Complementing the answers of the guys 1, it is necessary to achieve an understanding that the abolition of localism dealt a blow to the boyars, the largest part of the feudal lords who owned estates and inherited lands. It was the boyars who were the most noble and well-born; they competed with the tsar, trying to share power with him. The abolition of localism contributed to the advancement of another part of the feudal lords - the local nobility, who received land from the hands of the tsar and needed strong state power. The nobles were the backbone of the royal power. The Tsar appointed nobles to the highest government and military positions. Gradually they gain more and more influence in the army, the Boyar Duma, orders, counties, etc. The abolition of localism, therefore, on the one hand, contributed to strengthening the position of the nobility, and on the other, to the centralization of power in the hands of the tsar.
3. Orders
Regardless of the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Councils, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich most often limited himself to meetings with a few especially trusted persons or, without consulting anyone, made this or that decision. But for the affairs of current management there were still orders. The development of the Russian state in the 17th century, changes in the country's economy (the growth of cities, industry, the development of commodity-money relations), the aggravation of class contradictions, the annexation of large new territories, the establishment of broader ties with foreign states required the expansion and improvement of the entire administrative apparatus. The number of orders increased to 50, their functions expanded, and the staff grew. The largest was, for example, the Ambassadorial Prikaz, which was in charge of relations with foreign states. The order had 14 clerks and more than a hundred translators. “And in that order,” reports Grigory Kotoshikhin, “the affairs of all the surrounding states are known, and foreign ambassadors are received and they receive leave; so they send Russian ambassadors and envoys and messengers to whatever state happens to be... And sometimes those translators in Moscow work all day long... Interpreters spend day and night in the Prikaz, about 10 people a day” 2 . There were several orders
1 Students often give a one-sided answer to this question, noting only the fact that the abolition of localism contributed to the promotion of knowledgeable and capable people to government positions.
2 Reader on the history of the USSR, XVI-XVII centuries. - M.: Publishing house. socio-economic literature, 1962. - P. 496.
call, dealing with issues of property and class relations. Thus, the Local Prikaz was in charge of the distribution of estates to the nobles, Kholopy dealt with affairs about serfs, while ensuring the class interests of the nobility. The robber order protected feudal property, etc. The appearance of the Streletsky and Inozemny orders (along with the old ones - Pushkarsky, Reitarsky, Razryadny) was a consequence of changes carried out by the government in the country's armed forces. Separate orders: Siberian, Kazan, Little Russian and others - governed vast territories of the Russian state. At the head of each order was a clerk, who was appointed by the tsar from among the boyars and nobles. From their midst, the tsar’s special confidants subsequently emerged, with whom he consulted when making the most important state decisions. The orders were entirely subordinate to the tsar, prepared cases at his request for final consideration and approval by the tsar, and carried out decisions and decrees adopted by the tsar. For the purpose of more specific acquaintance with the activities of orders, a picture by S.V. is used. Ivanov’s “Pikaznaya Izba” 1, which reflects the typical, everyday work of one of the orders. The students' attention is drawn to the fact that the order's hut consists of two rooms: a small room, which was called the “breech”, since the treasury and the most important documents of the order were kept in it, and a large entrance hall, where the clerks worked. In the “kazenka” the following people sit at the table: the head of the order - the “judge” from the boyars and the clerk - the chief secretary of the order. The final solution to this or that issue depends on them. The door to this room is guarded by an armed policeman. He stands at the door, leaning against the ceiling.
Considering with your students the events that took place in the first room depicted in the foreground of the picture, you should ask them the following questions:
What kind of work do clerks sitting at a desk do?
Who is in the hut as petitioners?
Are all applicants given the same treatment?
What can be said about the organization of work in orders? (Guys, answering the questions posed, should note that
clerks working at a large table prepare material for solving certain issues. They write with quill pens on pieces of paper and glue them one to another, winding them on sticks into long scrolls. On the table are inkwells, a pot of
1 The work on the painting was compiled on the basis of its description in the methodological manual by P. S. Leibengrub “Studying the history of the USSR in the 7th grade.” - M.: Education, 1967. - P. 222.
glue, paper, feathers, etc. However, the room is in terrible disarray. The table is so crowded that one of the clerks, bent over, fills out a scroll, placing it on his knees, while others are distracted from their work, talking among themselves and with visitors, examining their offerings. It was no coincidence that the petitioners came with bundles, bagels, poultry, fish, etc. They brought their gifts, hoping to achieve a solution to the matter. Not all visitors are equally received in the official hut. The common people wait patiently at the door, and the boyar in a rich fur coat is treated like a master; the clerk's assistant obsequiously explains something to him).
Indeed, in the orders, cases were resolved for a long time, stupidly, and often a case took several years to be sorted out. Red tape and bribery accompanied the work of the orders; even the saying of those years said: “Don’t go to court with nothing but your nose, but go with your bag.” And the very expression “red tape” arose in connection with the work of orders: the longer the case dragged on, the longer the scroll became, its ribbon dragged, sometimes reaching 50-80 meters.
When assessing the above facts, it is important to draw students’ attention to the fact that the reason for this situation was not that the orders were filled with careless and incapable people, but that the entire order system of that time was a typical manifestation of the feudal management organization. Each order, in addition to its main management function, was in charge of a territory or population group. Even the Ambassadorial Prikaz received a certain area under control. In relation to the group of the population placed under the control of the order, the latter acted as a sovereign master, was in charge of the collection of taxes and taxes, lands and crafts, and exercised judicial and administrative power over the population subject to him. Hence - bribery, bribery, embezzlement. The functions of individual orders did not have a clear distribution of cases. Often the same issues were under the jurisdiction of different orders, and a wide variety of cases were under the jurisdiction of one order. This led to terrible confusion and red tape. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich tried to overcome the confusion and fragmentation of government and concentrate power in his hands. To this end, he undertook the reorganization and merger of some orders, the subordination of several orders to one person or one order. For example, the Tsar’s father-in-law I.D. Milo-Slavsky ruled with five orders 1. One of the attempts to centralize power was the organization of the Order of Secret Affairs, which should
1 See: Sakharov A.M. Essays on the history of the USSR, XVII century. - M.: Uchpedgiz, 1958. - P. 55.
The wives were in charge of monitoring the activities of all orders. “And that order was arranged under the current tsar,” writes G. Kotoshikhin, “so that his royal thoughts and deeds would be fulfilled according to his wishes, and the boyars and duma people would not know anything about it” 1 . The order had at its disposal a huge number of agents sent throughout the country and reporting to the king on the state of affairs. However, all the king’s attempts to streamline the work of the orders did not give the desired result.
To modernize the armed forces of the Muscovite kingdom, it was convened under Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich in the year 1682. The abolition of localism occurred in the same year, which was a major step towards democratization and improvement not only of the Russian troops, but also of the entire administrative management system as a whole. This measure became the harbinger of the famous Peter’s reforms, the essence of which was to eliminate the principle of nobility in determining the service and highlighting personal merits.
About the ruler
The most important reform in the 17th century was the abolition of localism. Under which king this transformation took place is one of the most interesting topics in Russian historiography. The corresponding resolution was adopted during the reign of which was marked by a number of reforms aimed at strengthening autocratic power. Under him, an attempt was made to change the system of administrative and church governance, but due to his early death, this measure was never implemented.
Characteristics of the concept
The year 1682 is of particular importance in Russian history. The abolition of localism was perhaps its most important event, since it led to a radical transformation of a significant part of society. But, before talking about the essence and significance of this reform, it is necessary to outline the main features of the time under consideration.
The end of the 17th century was a transitional era in the life of our country, because it was then that the government clearly realized the need for change and serious reforms. At the same time, the old order was still very strong, including the system of localism. This is how in the old days they called the principle of filling positions in accordance not with personal service, but with the degree of birth and nobility of a person. This led to endless disputes between representatives of the boyar families, who laid claim to higher places, citing their ancient and noble origins.
Composition of the nobility
This state of affairs complicated the work of the state apparatus and military forces. After all, the essence of localism came down not to a person’s abilities, but to determining the degree of his nobility and birth.
Here a few words should be said about the composition of the Moscow boyars: it included representatives of the ancient capital's aristocracy, alien Lithuanian and Tatar princes, as well as nobles of the appanage principalities annexed to Moscow. All of them, as a rule, were members of the Sovereign Duma, engaged in civil and military administration. However, endless disputes about which of them should be superior interfered with the work of the ever-expanding state apparatus, which needed a more flexible system for effective control.
Very often, during military campaigns, boyars and governors were busy not so much with conducting military operations, but with finding out which of them was supposed to be the boss and which was the subordinate, which, of course, sometimes led to sad consequences.
System strength
The Zemsky Sobor on the abolition of localism, in fact, changed the entire familiar administrative structure in our country. After all, the system of public administration has been based on this principle for several centuries. Therefore, the question naturally arises about the reasons for the stability of this system. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the Moscow princes and tsars themselves supported it, actively participating in the disputes of the boyars and assigning them to service based on their origin and degree of relationship. Secondly, the constant growth of the Moscow nobility at the expense of nobles from other appanage principalities required some order in the distribution of positions, and localism with its stable structure was best suited for this. Thirdly, this order was normatively formalized in rank books and genealogies, which from generation to generation served as the basis for disputes and claims.
Assessments in historiography
The verdict to abolish localism was a natural consequence of the need to eliminate the cumbersomeness and complexity of the state apparatus based on this system. However, the modern historian D. Volodikhin notes some positive features of this system, pointing out that it ensured harmony and some strength of the entire system. According to the researcher, this principle preserved for the time being the unity of the class, despite disputes and bickering over the rank. However, most researchers still agree that such a rule for filling positions had an extremely negative impact on the management system.
Prerequisites for reform
Based on the above, we can name the following reasons for the abolition of localism: the need to create a more efficient and mobile administrative structure, the desire of the tsarist government to attract truly talented and capable service people. This reform should be considered as a continuation of the policy of previous Moscow rulers, primarily Mikhail Fedorovich, to create the so-called regiments of the new system. So, already at the beginning of the 17th century, the need to overcome the old system of staffing became obvious.
Cathedral
A new meeting of representatives of the clergy met in the year 1682. The abolition of localism was one of the main consequences of his administrative decisions. However, it should be noted that this council was devoted more to religious issues and was a continuation of church reform. At this meeting, the main issues brought up for consideration concerned the organization of new dioceses, monasteries, and the correction of the Official Book. However, the need to abolish the outdated model of replacing military and government officials became so urgent that they decided to destroy the rank books. We can say that the decision made to abolish the old service system was a step forward in military and public administration.
Meaning
One of the most important reforms in the history of Russia was carried out in the year 1682. The abolition of localism brought to the fore promotion through personal service. Therefore, Peter I cannot be considered the founder of this reform: the first emperor only strengthened and legislated what existed before him.
The reign of Fyodor Alekseevich turned out to be generally calm. He ruled humanely, he managed to moderate the excessive appetites of his maternal relatives - the Miloslavskys, who were replaced in management by worthy and experienced people - the boyars Yazykov and Likhachev, and later Prince V.V. Golitsyn. Under Fyodor, the autocracy no longer needed the support of society, the power of local governors increased, in 1678–1679. They conducted a household census, and from then on subjects paid taxes from their households, and not from the land (from the “plow”) as before. Those around the tsar discussed reform projects that anticipated the reforms of Peter I. In January 1682, localism was abolished - a system in which positions were occupied by people depending on the nobility and merits of their family. This led to strife over “place” and made management difficult. Fedor ordered the abolition of localism by decree, and the books in which the “local account” was kept were burned in ovens in front of witnesses. The main criteria for promotion were personal abilities and length of service. Moscow under Fyodor Alekseevich had long lived a different, new life. At court, more and more people appeared without a traditional beard, dressed in newfangled Polish dress. Western innovations were included in life and everyday life. A variety of foreign objects appeared in the palace and houses of the nobility - embossed leather wallpaper, furniture, dishes, cups and jewelry. Russian artists also began to work in a new way. On the walls they began (as they said then) to “put parsuns” - portraits painted from life. Foreigners noted that members of the royal family understood Polish and dressed in Polish clothes. Writers, clergymen, and teachers who came from Ukraine—bearers of Polish and Ukrainian baroque culture softened by Orthodoxy—had a huge influence on the way of life of the Russian elite. New things appeared in church and civil architecture (“Naryshkin baroque”).
From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures I-XXXII) authorThe Idea of Localism From the same parochial account emerges the idea of localism, which is strictly conservative and aristocratic. The later generations of the pedigree of people were to be placed in the service and at the table of the sovereign, as the first generations were placed. Relationship
From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures XXXIII-LXI) author Klyuchevsky Vasily OsipovichThe Disorder of Parochialism The intrusion of so many new people into the noble ruling circles has confused the parochial scores. Localism, as we have already seen (Lecture XXVII), built the boyar nobility into a closed chain of individuals and surnames, which in local disputes unfolded into a complex
From the book The Forgotten History of Muscovy. From the foundation of Moscow to the Schism [= Another history of the Muscovite kingdom. From the foundation of Moscow to the split] author Kesler Yaroslav ArkadievichTsar Fedor and the abolition of localism In 1674, the Tsar’s eldest son, Tsarevich Alexei, died. The right of inheritance passes to his brother Fedor. Alexei Mikhailovich has less than a year to live; his glorious reign comes to an end. With him, poor, weak Rus'
From Katara's book by Caratini Roger7 THE CATHEDRAL OF MONTPELIER AND THE COUNCIL OF LATERAN (January 1215 - January 1216) In fact, for the “noble Count” de Montfort, the victory he won over the Occitan troops turned out to be a Pyrrhic one, making his task even more difficult. Her only result was that she
From the book In the Shadow of Great Peter author Bogdanov Andrey Petrovich From the book Romanov Dynasty. Puzzles. Versions. Problems author Grimberg Faina IontelevnaFyodor Alekseevich (ruled from 1675 to 1682) and “The Time of Sophia” (ruled from 1682 to 1689) After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, eight of his children from his first marriage and three from his second survived. The senior princesses, Evdokia, Sophia, Marfa, Ekaterina, Marya, Fedosya, together with their three
author Istomin Sergey Vitalievich From the book The Failed Emperor Fyodor Alekseevich author Bogdanov Andrey PetrovichAbolition of localism The bureaucratic reform was conceived in a broader ideological context, the idea of which was vividly outlined by Sylvester Medvedev. According to his “Contemplation”, on November 24, 1681, Fyodor Alekseevich deigned to “begin” the consideration of the case regarding the ranks of his royal
From the book Stalin's Engineers: Life between Technology and Terror in the 1930s author Schattenberg Suzanne From the book National Unity Day: biography of the holiday author Eskin Yuri MoiseevichLocalism of Pozharsky Dmitry Mikhailovich, whose career made a big bureaucratic leap, often had to defend his right to high levels in the hierarchy, so it has long been noted that he is sometimes an involuntary participant, and sometimes an initiator of localism, which
From the book Khrushchev’s “thaw” and public sentiment in the USSR in 1953-1964. author Aksyutin Yuri Vasilievich1682 Ibid. pp. 62-64.
From the book I Explore the World. History of Russian Tsars author Istomin Sergey VitalievichFyodor Alekseevich Romanov - Tsar and Great Sovereign of All Rus' Years of life 1661–1682 Years of reign 1676–1682 Father - Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, Tsar and Great Sovereign of All Russia. Mother - Maria Ilyinichna Miloslavskaya, first wife of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Fyodor Alekseevich Romanov
From the book Native Antiquity author Sipovsky V.D.Destruction of localism Among various military enterprises and relations with other states, the Moscow government did not lose sight of internal affairs. Particular attention was paid to official unrest, education and the fight against schism. Service
From the book Native Antiquity author Sipovsky V.D.To the story “The Destruction of Localism” Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn (1643–1714) - prince, statesman. Under Fyodor Alekseevich, he was elevated to boyar, and headed the Vladimir court and Pushkar orders. Under Princess Sophia (1682–1689) the de facto head of government,
From the book Viceroys and Viceroyships at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 18th centuries author Talina Galina ValerievnaChapter V Attempts to reform the title-government system in the context of the abolition of localism. Close connection of viceroyal titles, the principles of their assignment with the rules of localism; a fundamental change in the title hierarchy in the early 80s. XVII century increase attention to
From the book The Great Russian Troubles. The causes of and recovery from the state crisis in the 16th–17th centuries. author Strizhova Irina MikhailovnaThe Disorder of Parochialism The intrusion of so many new people into the noble ruling circles has confused the parochial scores. Localism<…>built the boyar nobility into a closed chain of individuals and surnames, which in local disputes unfolded into a complex network of officials and