The rivalry between Moscow and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for hegemony in the unification of Russian lands had far-reaching consequences. Having won the dispute with Lithuania, whose claims to become Russia alternative to Moscow for a number of reasons described above proved to be untenable, Moscow finally secured the status of the main all-Russian center and priority in recreating a single state, liberating Russia from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. In the second quarter of the XIV century. under Metropolitan Theognost, who sympathized with Moscow just like his predecessor, Metropolitan Peter, as a result of the transfer of the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow, the role of the spiritual and ecclesiastical center of the Russian lands was also assigned to Moscow.

Before proceeding to a description of further events, let us briefly describe the causes and conditions that contributed to the rise of Moscow and ensured its primacy in the consolidation of Russian lands and the creation of a single Russian state. It must be remembered that from the moment of its inception, Moscow was part of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus, which was in the possession of the offspring of one of the most powerful Russian princes, Vsevolod the Big Nest. His descendants, who formed a number of princely lines in Tver, Suzdal and Rostov (with the exception of the Ryazan land, which was not in the possession of the Monomakhoviches, but of the younger Svyatoslavichs, descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich), waged a stubborn internecine struggle for the grand princely Vladimir throne. Having achieved the princely table, the princes remained to live in their inheritance, attaching only to it for the duration of their great reign the territory of the great principality of Vladimir with all its income and military forces. Thus, the possession of Vladimir not only allowed the princes to strengthen their positions with the authority of the "grand prince", but also opened up wide opportunities for material enrichment. At the same time, under the conditions of the appanage order that existed in this period, the occupation of the grand-ducal table was determined not only by the right of seniority, as before, but also by the strength of the appanage prince, so the struggle for the possession of Vladimir was mainly only between strong appanage princes. At the beginning of the XIV century. along with the princes of Tver and Ryazan, the princes of Moscow also enter this struggle.

As an independent lot Muscovy arose at the end of the life of Alexander Nevsky (he was the last of the great princes who reigned according to the old custom in Vladimir itself), who divided his lands between his sons. The first prince of the still tiny Moscow principality and the founder of the Moscow dynasty was his youngest son Daniil Alexandrovich. As S.F. Platonov writes, Daniil did not yet own Mozhaisk, or Klin, or Dmitrov, or Kolomna, but owned only an insignificant space between these points, along the course of the Moscow River. This, however, did not prevent the Moscow princes from joining the litigation for the grand princely Vladimir table. The position of the younger appanage, deprived of many privileges of the older appanages, forced the Moscow princes to act decisively, often using any means to achieve their goal. After the death of Prince Daniel Alexandrovich (1303), a long-term struggle for a great reign between the princes of Tver and Moscow began, often turning into a bloody feud. This struggle ended with the victory of the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita, who in 1328 established himself on the throne of Vladimir with the help of the Horde (after he, together with the Tatar army, suppressed the anti-Horde uprising in Tver).

Since that time, the title of Grand Duke of Vladimir forever remains with the Moscow princes. Using it, they not only strengthened the positions of their fiefdom - the Moscow inheritance, but also significantly expanded its territory. Starting with Ivan Kalita, the Moscow princes used the right transferred to them by the Horde to collect tribute from all over Russia and deliver it to the Horde, which also served powerful tool the growth of the economic and financial power of the Moscow principality, the expansion of its territory and the establishment of control over other principalities. Researchers name a number of other reasons that contributed to the strengthening of the Moscow principality. One of them is a convenient middle geographical position of the Moscow region, located between the Kiev and Vladimir-Suzdal lands, on the one hand, Novgorod and the Ryazan principality, on the other, which gave not only trade, but also political benefits to Moscow. According to S. M. Solovyov, the metropolitans moved from Vladimir to Moscow, because they considered it necessary to be in the central point between the northern and southern regions of Russia. In addition, the fullness of the power of the Moscow prince corresponded to their ideas about the sovereign power of the sovereign, taken from Byzantium.

Equally important were the personal qualities of the Moscow princes, who, according to another author, managed to make the Tatars an instrument for raising their own power. The very position of the princes, whose great reign depended on the will and whims of the khan's power, had to develop in them political dexterity and diplomatic tact in order to attract the favor of the khan and preserve the grand prince's throne in this way. S. F. Platonov points to the political short-sightedness of the Tatars, who failed to notice in time the strengthening of the Moscow principality, which was dangerous for them. Finally, an important role was played by sympathy for the policy of the Moscow princes on the part of the main sections of the population of Moscow Russia, who benefited from the relative stability and absence of civil strife in the Moscow principality.

After the final removal from the political arena under Ivan Kalita’s grandson Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359–1389), Moscow’s main rival, Tver, which also fought for hegemony in North-Eastern Russia, and especially after the victory at the Kulikovo field in 1380, a new stage in socio-political development of Russia: the Moscow principality is turning from a specific one into an obvious center for the consolidation and unification of Russian lands. Dmitry Donskoy, in whose reign the white-stone Kremlin was erected in Moscow (1367), for the first time transferred the great reign to his son Vasily I without the sanction of the Golden Horde. The long twenty-year dynastic war that followed (1433-1453) ended with the victory of the Moscow prince Vasily II the Dark, supported by the majority of the population of Muscovite Russia, which testified to the irreversibility of the process of unification of Russia into a single state under the auspices of Moscow. This process was completed in the second half of the 15th - early 16th centuries. under Ivan III (1462-1505) and Vasily III (1505-1533), when a single Moscow state was formed. Then, under Ivan III, after "standing on the river Ugra" in 1480, an end was put to the Mongol-Tatar yoke that had lasted two and a half centuries.

At the same time, the princes of Moscow continued to fight the principality of Lithuania, just like Moscow, which sought to rally the weaker Russian regions around a strong political center. Regarding these areas in the XV century. and later there were continuous skirmishes between the two powers. Lithuania competed with Moscow for influence over Pskov and Novgorod, as well as over the Smolensk princes. During the aggravation of contradictions in the Novgorod land, which arose due to the desire of Pskov to secede from Novgorod, the Pskovites were supported by Lithuania, and Novgorod by the Moscow princes.

The formation of a unified Russian (Moscow) state was accompanied by a number of fundamental changes in the system of state power and administration. Serious changes occurred primarily in the legal status and state-political ideology of the Moscow princes, who, in connection with the creation of a single state, turned from former patrimonies into sovereigns of one of the largest powers in Europe. If before the Grand Duke surpassed his specific relatives most often only in the size of his possessions and material resources, now he concentrated in his hands the majority of political rights. The participation of specific princes in national affairs is significantly limited. In order to prevent a dynastic struggle, the Moscow princes began to actively interfere in the property relations of the specific princes, limiting their immunity. In the spiritual charter (testament) of Ivan III, which V. O. Klyuchevsky considered the first attempt in the history of Russian state law to determine the composition of the supreme power, not only legally fixed the significant political advantages of the eldest of the sons of the Grand Duke (sole financial management of the capital, the exclusive right of the court according to important criminal issues, the exclusive right to mint coins), but an important innovation was also made. If earlier, in accordance with the specific order, the possessions of specific princes were considered their property (patrimonial estates) and could be transferred at their personal discretion, then from now on, after the death of a sonless prince, his “escheat” inheritance passed to the Grand Duke. Vasily III acted even more harshly, forbidding his brothers to marry, thus turning their destinies into escheat.

The new situation could not but affect the political behavior and nature of the power of the Moscow princes, who gradually realized their new importance as heads of the national state. Although the power of the first Moscow sovereigns continued to bear, in the words of V. O. Klyuchevsky, the imprints of specific simplicity, it was still distinguished by its former democracy (the tsar could be scolded, disagreed with him), gradually it surrounds itself with a special halo that elevated it above the rest of society. Initially, this was expressed only externally: in new titles, in diplomatic practice, in new court ceremonies. The head of state is given the title of " Grand Duke of All Russia"(this title was assigned to Ivan III), as well as the king and autocrat, equivalent in status to the emperor and the Ottoman sultan.

The significance of the political demonstration, designed to emphasize the new role of Moscow and its leaders in the system of European states, was also the marriage of Ivan III to the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Zoe-Sophia Paleolog, whom the Grand Duke "ordered" from Italy (after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. Byzantium ceased to exist). In this marriage, according to sources, the Pope himself was interested, hoping with the help of Sophia, brought up in the spirit of the Florentine Union, to introduce a union in Moscow. Although the pope's hopes were not destined to come true, the arrival of Sophia Paleolog in Moscow had certain consequences for the Moscow court. Instead of the informal, "unceremonious" relations of the prince familiar to medieval Russia with those around him, magnificent ceremonial gradually began to take hold at the court of the Moscow prince, serious changes took place in the character of Ivan III himself: he began to reveal a new, unusually high idea of ​​​​his power, demanded signs of attention to yourself. It is significant that even then, having resolved the issue of succession to the throne, first in favor of his grandson Dmitry and disgraced Sophia and his son Vasily from his marriage to Sophia (events known in history as the first dynastic crisis in the Muscovite state), Ivan III married Dmitry not for a great reign, but for the kingdom.

At the same time, under Ivan III, national-state symbols began to take shape: the image of a two-headed eagle appeared on the state seal of the Grand Duke, which, according to scientists, was a common Christian symbol of the unity of secular and spiritual power. At the same time, the attention of the Moscow rulers to the essence of the supreme power, its origin and purpose is increasing, including from the point of view of giving it a new sacred meaning, which is expressed in the appearance first in diplomatic correspondence, and then in the state law of the Moscow State of the new formula "God's grace sovereign" .

Formation of the public administration system in Muscovite Russia

Formed in the second half of the 15th century. a single Russian (Moscow) state was formed as estate monarchy, in which the Grand Duke of Moscow shared power with representatives of the ruling class - boyars, appanage and service princes, as well as the church, which still retained strong positions and significant independence in the political system of Russian society. The top of the estate pyramid was Sovereign's Court as a closed corporate class organization ruling class, its upper strata, who were directly involved in government, from which top-level management personnel were drawn. At the very top of this pyramid were Duma ranks, members Boyar Duma who ruled the state together with the Grand Duke. Unlike the later Petrine Senate, which appeared at the beginning of the 18th century, the Boyar Duma was not only the highest body of state power and the highest administrative institution, but also had legislative functions. The Grand Duke issued decrees ("sentences") not alone, but together with the Boyar Duma ("the Grand Duke sentenced the boyars").

Duma ranks were boyars And roundabout. The name of the latter is associated with the special functions performed by these representatives of the ruling elite, who were in charge of individual territories of the state - "outskirts" or monitored the implementation of the orders of the prince in the field. The meaning of the boyar title has also changed. If earlier the privileged part of the large landowners-patrimonials who came out of the environment of the senior squad of the prince was ranked among the boyars, now the term "boyar" was applied only to members of the Boyar Duma as the highest class institution of the Moscow state.

Appointments to the Duma and other top government positions in the Muscovite State were based on principle of parochialism(derived from the phrase "to be considered places"), according to which the basis for obtaining a position could be the nobility of origin, generosity ("breed") and the service of ancestors to the Grand Duke, and by no means the presence of knowledge and abilities. Despite the obvious shortcomings (the impossibility of promotion to high government posts of people of humble origin), the system of parochialism was at that time an important means of subordinating the boyar aristocracy to the central government And no less important mechanism for maintaining power in the hands of the boyar aristocracy. At the same time, it was the only possible one under those conditions. a way to regulate relations within the ruling elite, in the environment of which serious changes took place under the influence of new processes.

The formation of a single state led to great changes in the composition and position of the ruling class. Along with the old Moscow boyars, many new people and ranks appear at the court of the Moscow Grand Duke. A significant part of the local princely aristocracy, the service princes, was transferred to the position of the boyars. former independent princes who lost their sovereign rights to their reigns when they transferred to the service of the Moscow prince. Among them were the princes of North-Eastern Russia, and the Lithuanian princes who came under the authority of the Grand Duke of Moscow and representatives of the Tatar nobility (Tatar murzas). Unlike the appanage princes (brothers of the Grand Duke) who retained many of their privileges, whose rights and obligations were determined by agreements with the Grand Duke, the serving princes were deprived of the right to claim the occupation of the Grand Duke's throne and had to perform military service under the Moscow sovereign as his subjects. According to some reports, more than half of the Boyar Duma during this period were princes. They occupied the most important positions in the army, central and local government.

At the same time, already in the second half of the XV century. in parallel with the Boyar Duma, the Moscow Grand Dukes begin to create informal structures from persons close to them, with whom they make the main state decisions. The first court ranks appear" introduced boyars"as permanent advisers to the Grand Duke, in whose hands the real administrative functions were actually concentrated, the solution of many issues government controlled.

In the second half of the 15th - early 16th century. during the period of the formation of a unified Moscow state, it retained its significance palace and patrimonial system of state administration built on a purely territorial principle of governance. During this period, there were only two nationwide departments - Castle And Coffers. At the head of the Palace was Butler, who was in charge of the princely economy and had a great influence on the decision of national affairs. Other court servants were subordinate to him, for the most part they came from the environment of the old Moscow untitled boyars, service people, as well as former appanage princes who had lost their sovereign rights and their estates. They were called "traveling" boyars and they were in charge of various branches of the economy of the Grand Duke - "ways": the equestrian led horse breeding (the equestrian path), the hunter - princely hunting (the path of the hunter), the chasnik - the on-board economy (the path of the chasers), etc. Gradually, in the course of further centralization, the paths began to be transformed into orders (Stable order, Treasury order, Discharge order, etc.), which prepared the replacement of the territorial (palace) administration with functional (mandatory) administration.

A number of important branches of state administration were under the jurisdiction of treasurer and the Treasury headed by him. Western sources they call him chancellor, thereby emphasizing his special position in the system of government of the Moscow state. The treasurer was not only the keeper of the grand ducal treasury and the archive, he was also in charge of the state press, managed the yam and local affairs, and led foreign policy together with the prince. At the same time, the concentration of such diverse functions in one hand testified that the formation of the state administration system in Muscovite Russia was still at the very beginning, there was still no clear division of functions and powers between government departments, and the administrative system had not yet been formed.

In the second half of the 15th - early 16th century. within the framework of a single Muscovy state, the remnants of the former appanage system are being liquidated (in the 1470s, after the campaigns of Ivan III, Novgorod and its lands were included in the Moscow Grand Duchy, in 1485 the independence of the Tver principality was liquidated, later, under Vasily III, Ryazan was subordinated ), centralizing tendencies are intensifying. A unified system for managing the territory of a huge state could not yet take shape. The new administrative-territorial division that arose in the process of land unification retained the archaic features of the former order and was distinguished by great diversity. It was based on several criteria: the economic and demographic potential of the region; the military significance of the territory; historical heritage (affiliation of the region to a certain principality). The new administrative units created on the ground - counties, divided into volosts and camps, were extremely extensive and coincided in their territory with the territory of the former specific principalities. The appanages attached during the unification of the lands around Moscow, merging into the Grand Duchy of Moscow, retained their integrity, and only under Ivan III did they begin to fragment and gradually disappear.

These territories were administered by princely governors from the boyars and volosteli recruited from smaller feudal lords. Not receiving a salary from the Grand Duke, they, as before, together with their apparatus, lived at the expense of funds collected from the territory subordinate to them, "fed" from their position, carrying out local economic, administrative, fiscal and judicial ("labial") activities. Their activities were regulated by special charters issued to the local population. At the same time, in the new conditions of a unified state, there is an ever-increasing tendency to limit the power of the governors, who are gradually placed under the control of the princely administration. In this policy, the central government relied on the growing role in local communities of a new layer of landowners - the nobility, from which were appointed city ​​clerks(subsequently, in the 18th century, this position was transformed into the position of mayor, who performed police functions in cities). Being agents of the central government in the localities, they eventually concentrated all the administrative and financial power in their hands, both in cities and in counties.

A vivid example of the strengthening of centralizing tendencies in the Muscovite state can be the decree issued by Ivan III at the end of the 15th century. (1488) to the population of the Belozersk land, the Belozersk Statutory Charter (hereinafter referred to as the BUG), which some researchers rightly consider the first legislative act of the unified Russian state and the ancestor of a new legislative tradition. A fundamentally important feature of the BUG, ​​which distinguished it from all previous statutory charters (for example, from the Statutory charter issued by Vasily I to the Dvina land), which provided the lands with wide autonomy, was that it significantly limited the administrative tax immunity of local secular and church possessions. and equalized all owners in the face of state power. From now on, all residents of the county were placed in the same position and were considered as subjects of the state, subject to its administration (viceroy and his apparatus).

On the other hand, the BUG established strict regulation of the activities of the vicegerent administration apparatus itself and its relations with the local population. Firstly, for the first time, both the procedure for the activity of the governor's administrative apparatus, and its composition, the amount of payments in favor of the governor and his people were accurately recorded. The governor is separated from the population, a new position is established between him and the population sotsky as a representative of the central government, who could participate in the court of the governor. Secondly, the power of the governor could be controlled not only "from above", but also "from below" by the population of the Belozersky land itself, which received the right to complain to the supreme authority. The BUG established the right of the "peace" to participate in the administrative and judicial activities of local authorities. According to researchers, these changes in local government were the grain, from which then in the middle of the 16th century. the system of zemstvo and provincial institutions grew up, which first limited and then ousted the governor's apparatus of government, preparing the final liquidation of the "feeding" system in 1555 by Ivan the Terrible. Of great importance for the strengthening of statehood was the Sudebnik of Ivan III, adopted in 1497, which was the first all-Russian code of laws in the Muscovite state.

Features of the formation of a centralized state in Russia and the formation of an autocratic form of government

It is generally accepted that the Russian centralized state, with the attributes inherent in such states: a single supreme power, a professional administrative apparatus, a single legislation and a system of finance, was mainly formed in the 16th century. The main factor that accelerated the process of centralization of Moscow Rus was the rapid increase in the territory of the Russian state (according to some sources, from the middle of the 15th to the middle of the 16th century, it increased more than six times, and the population of the country in the middle of the 16th century was about 9 million people according to compared with 5–6 million people at the end of the 15th century). This inevitably required the reorganization of the entire system of state administration, since the old polycentric model no longer met the new conditions for the development of Russian statehood.

At the same time, the process of formation of a centralized state in Muscovite Russia differed significantly from similar processes in Western European societies. If in the West the emergence of centralized states in the XVI-XVII centuries. was prepared evolutionarily and carried out on the basis of internal economic development (economic, trade relations, market), then this process took place in a completely different way in the Russian lands. From the very beginning, the centralization of the state in Muscovite Rus acquired an accelerated character, relying primarily on power and military methods of government.

As the main reason for this nature of state centralization, many authors single out the peculiarity of the geopolitical conditions in which the formation of a single Russian state took place, and, in particular, the vastness of its territory, the length of its borders, and the instability of the geopolitical space. In our opinion, this provision needs to be clarified. As the experience of world history shows, the management of an extended political space can be carried out in three main modes. This can happen either in conditions of sufficient development of institutions civil society, first of all public self-government (as it was, for example, in the USA and Canada), or in the conditions of well-established mechanisms for coordinating the interests of various strata and groups of society (consensus, or "community", according to A. Leiphart's definition, democracy), or in the conditions of rigid centralization and hierarchism of political and public institutions and structures with the dominance of violent methods of management, which, in fact, over time became one of the characteristic features of political management in different periods of Russian history. A number of factors, discussed below, led to the establishment in Russia of not the first and not the second, but precisely the third model of development, and contributed to the victory of the despotic version of centralization.

First of all, we should not forget that the formation of the Russian centralized state, unlike the states of Western Europe, took place to a large extent under the influence of an external factor, was accelerated by external danger. It was not a natural economic ("from below"), but a forceful ("from above") political unification, caused by the desire of the Moscow princes to free themselves from the Horde yoke, which could not but lead, as already noted, to strengthening the authoritarian nature of the power of the Moscow princes, who by force annexed to Moscow, the former independent specific principalities. The opposition to the Principality of Lithuania that lasted for more than two centuries, as well as the ongoing struggle against the "Horde heritage" - the Crimean and especially Kazan khanates, which delayed the colonization movement of Russia to the East and were, according to contemporaries, a chronic ulcer of Moscow life, also did not contribute to softening the character of Russian state power.

It should be noted that in our public consciousness to the end the significance of the influence of external danger is not comprehended and the associated desire of certain countries for internal unity on the nature of the political development of society, usually accompanied by an increase in public life of authoritarian tendencies to the detriment of democratic values ​​and institutions.

Perhaps one of the first to draw attention to this feature was A. Leiphart in his major study "Democracy in multi-component societies." According to the scientist, the feeling of vulnerability and insecurity in any country gives a strong impetus to strengthening the internal solidarity of the people. However, this striving for unity (“supra-segment orientations,” in the author’s terminology) has its own weak sides, since it always reduces the intensity of opposites in society, which cannot but also affect the nature of state power and its relationship with the population. In Russia, this influence, as a rule (suffice it to recall our recent Soviet past), was not in favor of the development of democratic traditions in society: very often, on this basis, as already mentioned, the state sought to make the private dependent on the general, to subordinate the interests of the individual to the national interest. . From the point of view of the problem we are discussing, the constant external danger, among other things, had as its consequence the slow development of estates in Russia, since in a society placed in extraordinary conditions of historical survival (this can never be discounted when studying the features of the formation and development of Russian statehood), estate-corporate interests recede into the background.

The nature of power in Muscovite society was no less influenced by the fact that the formation of the Russian centralized state did not take place within the framework of the bourgeois, as was the case in European countries, but the feudal mode of production. If in the West feudal relations, which were based on the system of contract - vassalage, were gradually supplanted by emerging market relations, then in Russia contractual relations were abolished before they had had time to strengthen: as a result of the forcible unification of lands around Moscow, they were replaced by relations of subjection, the most rigid "slave" form. Already under Ivan III, the former independent appanage princes, having become subjects of the Moscow sovereign, began to turn to their master: "I am your serf." Considering himself the sovereign "sovereign of all Russia", the master of the Russian land, the Muscovite sovereign could already afford, when appointing an heir (during the first dynastic crisis we mentioned), the arrogant statement: "To whom I want, I will give the prince."

This psychology of the owner, which arose during the period of long specific development of Russia and strengthened in the conditions of the expanding state, remained for a long time in the minds of the Moscow unifying sovereigns, who considered the process of creating a unified Russian state primarily as an expansion of their Moscow principality, their patrimony. As V. O. Klyuchevsky noted in this regard, the patrimony and the sovereign continued to fight in the Moscow princes. They declared claims to the role of the all-Russian state power, but they wanted to possess the Russian land as a fiefdom, at a private specific level.

In the XVI century. in the political ideology of the Moscow sovereigns, a new, unfamiliar Ancient Russia, a view of autocracy as the unlimited autocracy of the tsar (monocracy), the rationale for which is usually associated with the name of Ivan the Terrible. The idea of ​​autocracy was most consistently expressed by Ivan IV in his correspondence-polemic with Prince-Boyar A. M. Kurbsky, who fled to Lithuania in connection with the oprichnina declared by the tsar. Responding to the prince's accusations of the tsar's unfair treatment of the boyars, Terrible, with rare frankness and harshness, rejected all claims to power by the boyar oligarchy "lobbied" by Kurbsky, declaring that the Moscow "princes" were mere subjects of the monarch, of whom he had "more than one hundred."

A new look at the essence of supreme power was fully consistent with the emerging new political situation: by the beginning of the 16th century. in the political consciousness of the Moscow sovereigns, the idea of ​​God's chosenness and independence of the Moscow state was already formed. In the scientific literature, the opinion prevails that these changes were due to two events of world significance: the fall of the Golden Horde and the collapse of the Byzantine Empire. Having freed themselves from the dual dependence of the Mongol khans and the Greek "kings", the Russian grand dukes felt themselves not only independent, but also self-sufficient, called by fate and history itself to assume the role of successors to the Roman Caesars and God's anointed on earth. The fall of Byzantium brought to life the idea that it was Moscow that could and should henceforth become the center of Orthodoxy, the "Third Rome" and "the last Orthodox kingdom." Formulated by the Russian monk Philotheus in his letters of appeal to Vasily III, this idea subsequently formed the basis of the state ideology of the Muscovite kingdom.

Without denying the enormous influence of these changes on the evolution of the political consciousness of the Moscow political elite, however, it should be noted that, in our opinion, they still do not give an answer to main question: which ultimately contributed to the strengthening of authoritarian and despotic features in the policy of the Moscow sovereigns, the fundamental principle of which eventually became the principle of unlimited autocracy. In our opinion, the answer to this question should be sought primarily in the fact that the political elite of the Moscow state itself, as we have already said, turned out to be unprepared for the implementation of Western forms of politics and state power arising from consent, from the political process, and not from the personal will of the ruler. A certain role in this was played by the above-mentioned patrimonial psychology of the Moscow unifier princes, which, according to researchers, testified to the absence at that time of any clear rational alternatives to the political structure of the state at a new stage. Within the framework of the idea that prevailed at that time - the patrimonial (patrimonial) arrangement of power - Russian sovereigns were accustomed to considering power itself as their own property.

At the same time, when analyzing the evolution of power in Muscovite Russia, another equally important factor is very often not taken into account. We are talking about the existence in the political development of Russia of sustainable anti-Western traditions, formed in the national political consciousness during the period of the struggle of the Russian princes against the aggression of the German knights and strengthened under the influence of Moscow's long opposition to the offensive policy of Poland and Lithuania. Hostility towards the West, which was based on the antagonism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, especially intensified after the rejection by Rome of the Western Russian Orthodox metropolitanate under the Union of Brest in 1596 and the subsequent forcible introduction of Uniatism in the southwestern Russian lands.

All this could not but affect the national feelings and political consciousness of the Russian political elite, which, over time, began to treat not only the Catholic West, but also many European values ​​and institutions with increasing distrust. It can be assumed that it was this situation that prompted Ivan III to abandon the royal title, which, as you know, was offered to him by the embassy of the German emperor.

However, more significant changes in the political mentality of the Moscow authorities occurred during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, with whose name a number of modern scholars rightly associate the strengthening of eastern (“orientalist”) features in the political life of Russian society. It is from this time that a sharp change can be observed both in the external and in domestic politics Muscovy, expressed in the active rejection of the West and an equally decisive turn to the East, to pochvennichestvo. If Ivan III still considered himself a European sovereign, the heir to Byzantium, and his policy in many ways contributed to strengthening the close relations between Moscow and Western countries that were being established at that time (under him, especially after the arrival of Sophia Paleolog in Russia, visits to Moscow by foreigners became frequent, in the Moscow Kremlin, the famous Assumption Cathedral and the Palace of Facets by Italian architects), then we observe a completely different turn in the policy of Ivan the Terrible. Having come to power, he began his reign with the conquest of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, thereby unambiguously appealing, as one of the famous contemporary authors writes, to the Golden Horde origin of his royalty as the legitimate heir to the collapsed empire of Genghis Khan.

In a certain sense, the official adoption by Grozny of the title of tsar in 1547 can also be considered a phenomenon of the same order: it is known that this title, originally applied to the Byzantine emperors, since the time of the Mongol conquests, was also transferred by the Russian princes to the Golden Horde rulers. It should be noted that Ivan III (probably for these reasons) refrained from officially using the royal title, limiting himself, as already mentioned, to temporarily crowning his grandson Dmitry "to the kingdom". According to A. Ya. Flier, an indirect confirmation of the emerging in the middle of the XVI century. The second canonization of Alexander Nevsky by Ivan IV can serve as a turn to pochvennichestvo. The policy pursued by Nevsky of consistent opposition to Catholic aggression while maintaining neutrality in relation to the Golden Horde obviously impressed the Muscovite tsar (this also gives some researchers a reason to call the legendary prince the first "Eurasian" in the history of Russia).

A special place among the changes that have taken place in the behavior and nature of the supreme power belongs to oprichnina Ivan the Terrible, which can be regarded as the desire of the tsar, who acted bypassing the Boyar Duma and relied on the oprichnina army personally loyal to him (a kind of "praetorian guard" of the tsar), to establish regime of personal unrestricted power. In his letters to Kurbsky, Ivan the Terrible already stated without any ambiguity: "Russian autocrats initially own their own state, and not their boyars and nobles," "who put you as a judge over me." It is interesting that, having divided the whole country during the approval of the new order into the oprichnina and the zemshchina, the tsar put at the head of the zemshchina at first the captive baptized Kazan "king" Yediger-Simeon, and later in 1574 he crowned another Tatar, the Kasimov Khan Sain-Bulat, in the baptism of Simeon Bekbulatovich.

At the same time, the oprichnina reflected the tsar's desire to force events and carry out an accelerated centralization of the country by extraordinary methods. A number of authors see in the oprichnina the first attempt in the history of Russia to establish in the country imperial type of government as a military-bureaucratic dictatorship headed by the commander-in-chief - the tsar. However, for the formation of this type of government in the Muscovite state have not yet been created the necessary conditions: a) an extensive bureaucratic apparatus did not take shape (bureaucratic departments in the person of Moscow orders were just beginning to be created); b) there was no professional standing army as an indispensable attribute of all states of the imperial type.

It would, of course, be a great simplification to consider that in the Moscow state there were initially no conditions for the formation of politics in its classical sense, as a system for finding compromises and reconciling interests (private, corporate, general and state). The process of formation of a unified Russian (Moscow) state, which has developed over a hundred years in a natural way, through a clash and attempts to harmonize the interests of the main political and social actors of that time - the boyars and the emerging autocracy, representatives of the Church, free cities, does not give grounds for such straightforward conclusions . As noted in one of the modern studies, in the Moscow state "a system of interests close to the European model began to mature," and in the clash of these interests on Russian soil, the functions of politics began to take shape as a system of social regulation of power, building balances and balances in the ratio of various interests .

In the aspect of this problem, of particular importance was undertaken in 1549-1560. "Government" of Alexei Adashev ("The Chosen Rada", as Prince Kurbsky called it) a series of reforms that are considered by many historians as a real alternative to the despotic autocracy that was taking shape in Russia. These reforms, as conceived by their authors, were to renew all aspects of Moscow life. In the course of the reforms, on the whole, an order system of central administration was created, the system of local authorities was rebuilt (lip and zemstvo reforms), reforms were carried out in the judiciary, and a new all-Russian code of laws, the Sudebnik of 1550, was created.

But it's not only that. From the very beginning, the reforms of the "Chosen Rada" had a dual meaning. On the one hand, the creation of central government bodies, a permanent army, the abolition of feeding and the restriction of the immunities of secular and church feudal lords, as well as a number of other measures implemented by the "government" of Adashev, contributed to the further centralization of the Muscovite state and strengthening the power of the tsar. On the other hand, the reforms outlined the main line for the development of Russian statehood on the principles of estate representation, which involves the formation of elected estate-representative institutions both at the lower and upper levels of government and administration (Zemsky sobors, zemstvo and labial huts).

This model of power, based on the synthesis of state (monarchist) and zemstvo (corporate) principles, traditional for Russian society, in the future could have a significant impact on the development of state power in the Muscovite state and the nature of its relationship with society. Along with the introduction of uniform principles of statehood in the process of implementing the reform, the adoption of all-Russian legislation, according to scientists, it objectively reduced the boundaries of the arbitrariness of the supreme power, limited the sole rule of Ivan the Terrible and could lead to further development and strengthening of the estate-representative monarchy.

However, already in the 60-70s. 16th century in the course of the oprichnina, which, as noted above, reflected the desire of the Moscow tsar to establish a regime of personal unlimited power and was accompanied by a fierce struggle between various social forces, this line of political development was interrupted for a long time, and relations between power and society, in contrast to common European trends, began to be built on the basis of uncontrolled domination, on the one hand, and the principles of servility and mass servility, on the other.

Centralized state and features of the organization of the highest bodies of political power of the estate-representative monarchy in the 16th century.

As can be seen from the material presented above, the main trend in the political development of the Muscovite state in the 16th century. there was a tendency towards the centralization of state power and administration and the establishment of an autocratic form of government. At the same time, the process of forming a centralized state in Russia was complex and contradictory. Since the middle of the XVI century. Russia, in connection with the inclusion of other national and other confessional territories and states (primarily the former possessions of the Golden Horde - the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates), began to develop in empire and therefore did not differ in the stability of the geopolitical space, which acquired a fluid character. The consequences of this feature of Russia's development to one degree or another affected throughout its subsequent history, prompting the central government to take often inadequate steps, expressed in the desire to build a power vertical of a super-centralized state.

However, these attempts were initially doomed to failure, since in the conditions of a huge state, vertically oriented power could not be effective: firstly, due to the huge amount of administrative information that must be circulated in the communication channels of the political system of a huge state, and secondly, from -for the extension of the network of political power, the presence of a large number of decision-making centers. Therefore, from the very beginning, a relatively independent subsystem of public and political administration arose and effectively operated in the Muscovite State alongside the state bodies of power and administration. In the XVI-XVII centuries. it was represented by the Zemsky Sobors as the highest class-representative institutions and local elective Zemstvo institutions (zemstvo huts headed by zemstvo elders, labial huts headed by labial elders). The originality consisted in the fact that, unlike Western countries, class-representative bodies in Russia arose first at the level of local government (zemstvo and labial huts), and only then - on the upper floors of political administration (Zemsky cathedrals).

The main content of the political and state development of the Moscow kingdom in the XVI century. there was a gradual increase in the political life of the country two main contradictions, which were the result of a complex process of centralization of the state and determined its evolution throughout the subsequent 17th century. The first of these contradictions was connected with the confrontation that emerged in the process of the formation of a single Russian state. between the princely power and the boyar aristocracy, which sought to preserve traditional independence and claimed a share of power in the state. At the same time, a contradiction arises and gradually intensifies within the ruling elite between traditional group of nobility(boyar aristocracy) and new social elite(higher bureaucracy), which was gaining more and more strong positions in connection with the development of the administrative apparatus of management (Moscow orders).

The emerging contradictions in the system of power relations could not but affect the position of the highest legislative and administrative body of Moscow Rus - Boyar Duma who was in charge of the most important issues of the country's domestic and foreign policy. Having turned into a huge multinational and multiconfessional state, Russia needed to reorganize the entire system of government according to the bureaucratic imperial principle, which in itself implied the need changes in the social base of power. Relying on an autocratic form of government, the Moscow tsars could not fully rely on the boyar aristocracy, a significant part of which belonged to the descendants of the old Russian dynasties, the "princes", with whom, logically, they had to somehow share power. A more reliable support for the emerging autocracy in these conditions could be the poor strata of the nobility and the prikaz bureaucracy, created by the state itself and much more dependent on the central government than the Moscow boyars.

By the middle of the XVI century. local service nobility was already a very real force on which the tsarist government could rely. Formed as a military estate at the end of the 15th century. from the composition of small landowners, who, unlike the former princely combatants, received land (estates) on the terms of military service (conditional land ownership), the nobility had to faithfully serve the Moscow sovereigns. In turn, taking care of increasing the military forces, the Moscow tsars sought to create favorable conditions for a new layer of landowners, distributing land to the nobles along with the peasants who "sat" on them, who were charged with the duty to support the landowners with the help of the quitrent paid to them, the performance of corvée and other duties. . Over time, the role of the nobility in the system of state administration increased. As already noted, even under Ivan III, a special institute of city clerks, which, according to scientists, was the first noble body of local government. Later, in the course of Ivan IV's infancy in 1539–1541. of the lip reform ("lip" - the administrative and criminal police district corresponding to the county), many of the most important criminal cases that had previously been under the jurisdiction of governors and volostels were transferred to the hands of the elected from the nobles of the labial elders. By the middle of the XVI century. the nobility gradually begins to play a leading role in the system of local government.

At the same time, the tsarist authorities are taking steps aimed at limiting the political influence of the Boyar Duma. Pursuing a targeted class policy in order to strengthen its position, the emerging autocracy seeks to modernize the Russian aristocracy. The first step in this direction was the expansion of the composition of the Boyar Duma at the expense of serving noble families and representatives of the emerging bureaucracy. New Duma ranks appear in the Boyar Duma - duma nobles representing the third Duma rank, which gave the right to participate in Duma sessions, and Duma clerks. There is a process of gradual bureaucratization of the Boyar Duma. These new phenomena gave grounds to V. O. Klyuchevsky to conclude that starting from the middle of the 16th century. in the power structures of the Moscow state, the tribal principle is gradually being replaced by the service one.

Although the boyar ranks still complained only to representatives of the most noble, mainly princely, families, and the ranks of the boyar and okolnichiy were hereditary in accordance with the tribal principle (they were transmitted in the same families), the tsarist government sought to tie the boyars to the central government, to make it obedient to the will of the monarch. This goal was to be served, in particular, by the Sovereign's Genealogy published in 1550, which specified and systematized the principle of parochialism. In contrast to the "boyar lists" and category books that existed at that time, which recorded the general genealogy and military service of noble families, "The Sovereign Genealogist" instead of abstract nobility brought to the fore the concrete service of the representatives of the boyars to the Moscow princely family. Of great importance was the decision of the authorities at the same time to limit parochialism during hostilities, which was caused by the need to increase the combat readiness of the state (very often people who did not have knowledge of military affairs, but who occupied military positions by inheritance, were at the head of the army). From now on, opening hostilities, the tsar could announce to his boyars: "to be without places." The strengthening of the power of the king was also facilitated by the creation of a permanent archery troops. In 1555-1556 A special "Codex on Service" was adopted, which established the general procedure for military service for all categories of landowners.

Serious changes took place by the middle of the 16th century. and in relationships between state and church, which for a long time was one of the institutions of social control, which had a significant impact on the supreme power. In contrast to the boyars, economically and politically connected with the autocratic power, the Church and its pastors (especially the metropolitan), at least until the middle of the 16th century. acted as a spiritual counterbalance to the omnipotence of the state. Strengthening its positions, the tsarist government sought to limit the possibilities of the Church and subordinate it to the state. This was facilitated by the new political situation. After the transfer of the center of Orthodoxy from Byzantium to Moscow, the Moscow tsars, who considered themselves the direct heirs of Byzantium, God's anointed on earth, also began to consider themselves, like the Byzantine emperors once, responsible for all Orthodox, standing above the Church. It is known, for example, that Vasily III already appointed metropolitans without taking into account the opinion of the church council. His son Ivan IV found it possible to act more decisively and arbitrarily towards the Church, deciding to physically eliminate Metropolitan Philip Kolychev, who dared to object to the tsar and opposed the oprichnina terror, which was impossible in any of the Christian states.

The tsar's victory ended the "controversy" that had lasted more than half a century between the nonpossessors and the Osiflyans on the issue of church land ownership. Disagreeing with the decision of the Church (Stoglavy) Council, held at the beginning of 1551, which, under the influence of the Osiflyan majority, refused to accept the program of secularization of church lands proposed by the tsar, Ivan the Terrible by a special sentence forbade church feudal lords, under the threat of confiscation, to buy patrimonial lands without a preliminary "report" about it to himself king. Thus, already in the XVI century. the Roman idea (the Roman understanding of history as the history of the state), in the words of the Russian philosopher Vl. Solovyov, began to conquer "holy Russia".

From the middle of the XVI century. estate-representative institutions began to be convened to discuss issues of national importance - Zemsky Sobors, the composition of which throughout the XVI century. practically did not change. The Zemsky Sobor included in its entirety the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral, as well as representatives of the estates - the local service nobility and urban (posad) leaders. Later, representatives of the prikaz bureaucracy began to be involved in the work of the Zemsky Sobors. From the point of view of the national characteristics of state administration, the Zemsky Sobors, in a certain sense, continued the Russian veche traditions, with the participation of various segments of the population ("land") in solving common affairs, characteristic of medieval Russia. At the same time, given the peculiarities of the political situation and the time of the appearance of Zemsky Sobors, it is hardly necessary to exaggerate their real participation in the development of government policy, and even more so to attribute to them, as is often done, the function of limiting royal power. Under the conditions of the emerging autocracy, their role most often came down to providing support for the policy of the tsarist government, which still needed to legitimize its decisions. In most cases, they occasionally met to hear government declarations and sanction laws already passed (sentences). Not trusting the local authorities and governors, the government, through the Zemsky Sobors, could receive information about the state of affairs in the province, the needs of the population, and more often about its capabilities for waging war.

Compared to the Western parliaments, which by that time had accumulated rich experience (in England, France and Spain they arose as early as the 13th-14th centuries), the Zemsky Sobors in Russia were not representative institutions in the exact sense of the word. They not only did not limit the power of the king, but also did not have more or less definite functions, a clear system of representation. In addition, Zemsky Sobors, at least in the 16th century, were not elected bodies. In fact, they were a "parliament of officials", to whose meetings, in addition to the secular and spiritual elite (the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral), the necessary people, representatives of the estates and the service bureaucracy, were invited at the choice of the tsar. According to the apt remark of V. O. Klyuchevsky, an authoritative researcher of the estate system in Russia, who called the Zemsky Sobors “state meetings”, this institution was not so much a popular representation as an “expansion of the central government”, “a meeting of the government with its own agents”.

In contrast to Western countries, where the creation of parliaments was the result of political struggle, in Russia class assemblies appeared at the behest of the central government to satisfy its administrative needs. To a large extent, such a situation could have developed because Russia did not know either developed feudalism or genuine class consciousness, which distinguished the countries of medieval Europe. Oprichnina terror played a certain role in this process. According to the Polish historian K. Valishevsky, "the oprichnina, together with the system of localism, managed to erase all the privileges and advantages based on historical rights," which largely predetermined the development in Russia in the direction of strengthening the autocratic form of power. It seems interesting the point of view of some researchers who propose to consider the Zemsky Sobors as a kind of synthesis of eastern (Byzantine) form and western (Polish-Lithuanian) content. As for autocratic power itself, it was rather a cross between Eastern despotism and Western European absolutism.

Restructuring of central and local authorities and administration in the middle of the XVI century. Oprichnina and its consequences

In the XVI century. in the Moscow state, within the framework of the estate management model, a unified system of central and local government institutions is being formed, called orders. Built according to the functional-branch principle, the new executive authorities were the first bureaucratic system of government in the history of Russia, which for two centuries ensured the functioning of a huge state. Having grown out of the previous system of palace and patrimonial administration in the process of its restructuring into a single centralized state system, Moscow orders relied on a relatively developed system at the time of their formation. deacon administration. Coming from the lower classes of Russian society, priests and even serfs, who performed clerical functions under the boyars-managers in the conditions of specific Russia, the princely clerks, as the state administration developed, began to play an independent and increasingly significant role in state affairs. By the middle of the XVI century. they already constituted an unknown in Ancient Russia layer of professional officials and began to influence big politics.

From those that arose in the second half of the 16th century. orders were the most important Ambassadorial, Discharge and Local orders. The sphere of their activity was the issues of foreign policy, defense of the state, construction, recruitment of the armed forces, endowing the service nobility with land property. Of particular importance was petition order, which was a kind of control body of the state, controlled the activities of the emerging bureaucracy (it accepted and analyzed petitions from nobles and boyar children). In addition, there were a number of other orders that controlled various groups of service people: Streltsy order(disposed of the archers, performed police functions in Moscow and some other cities), Pushkar Order(Engaged in artillery and engineering affairs), Armouries(He was in charge of the manufacture and storage of firearms). A special group was palace orders, who managed various branches of the princely, and then the royal economy: they included those who grew up from the Treasury Government Order, Order of the Grand Palace and adjoining them Konyushenny, Huntsman, Falconer and Bed orders. At the same time, in the middle of the 16th century, the first financial orders appeared: in particular, a special Grand Parish Order responsible for collecting state taxes.

Orders were subordinate only to the tsar and the Boyar Duma and were responsible to them. All orders were considered equal, acted on behalf of the sovereign and were communicated among themselves by the so-called "memory" (the exception was the Discharge Order: it was in a special position under the Boyar Duma, was older than other orders and sent them decrees). At the head of the orders was the so-called Presence (the leadership of the orders was collegiate), all members of which were called judges and appointed by the king himself. Headed orders, as a rule, Duma clerks, in whose subordination were clerks who were in charge of business.

In the XVI century. the administrative activity of orders was not separated from the judiciary, on the contrary, each order was at the same time a judicial department within the framework of its powers and subjects of jurisdiction. For this purpose, at each order, special officials were allocated (children of the boyars, weekly workers, batmen and other lower employees), whose duties included bringing to trial, detention, imposing penalties and sentencing.

The creation of an order management system was of fundamental importance for the development of the Muscovite state. With its help, the central government hoped to put an end to the disorganization of the government apparatus, which had already become apparent at the beginning of the reign of Ivan the Terrible in connection with the struggle for power between boyar groups. The confusion in the public administration system, along with the unlimited arbitrariness of the governors, was a real disaster for the country, so the creation of a unified central government system was an urgent need. The orders were also entrusted with the implementation of the planned transformations in various spheres of public life.

The command system of administration was, of course, far from perfect. In comparison with the rationally organized administrative apparatus that developed in Russia during the administrative reforms of Peter I, it lacked a strict hierarchy of levels of government, institutions and ranks. Unlike the Petrine Collegia, most of which were created by a one-time decree and according to a strictly defined plan, Moscow orders arose spontaneously over a long period of time as the functions of a single state expanded or in connection with the annexation of new territories to Russia. Therefore, orders often duplicated each other, the subjects of jurisdiction between individual departments in the order management system were not clearly distributed, it was cumbersome and overorganized. Most of the orders combined administrative, financial and judicial functions at the same time, combined functional management with territorial. In addition to orders with functions common to the entire state, there were orders that were established to manage the newly annexed territories and were of a territorial nature (one of them was the Order of the Kazan Palace created after the capture of Kazan). Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, the formation of the prikaz system was a powerful means of creating and strengthening a centralized state in Muscovite Russia.

The process of centralization of state administration affected not only the highest and central levels of power and administration, but also local government system. At the same time, the previously noted contradictions of the vertical organization of power in the conditions of a huge state, as well as the underdevelopment of the system of state administration and political communications, forced the Moscow government to look for other alternatives to the political and administrative centralization of society. As such an alternative, as already mentioned, in the middle of the XVI century. was elected restructuring of the management system on the basis of estate representation and the revival of the "zemstvo principle" in local government.

In the decisions of the Stoglavy Sobor, which met on ecclesiastical and "zemstvo" affairs, in the collection of canonical resolutions adopted by it ("Stoglav"), as well as in the Sudebnik "corrected" with the approval of this cathedral (Sudebnik 1550), a broad program was outlined and a plan was drawn up restructuring of local government. As noted by V. O. Klyuchevsky, this plan "began with the urgent elimination of lawsuits between the zemstvos and feeders, continued with the revision of the Code of Laws with the mandatory universal introduction of elected elders and kissers into the court, and ended with statutory letters that canceled feeding." Due to the fact that the primitive system of "feeding" that existed for a long time no longer corresponded to the new tasks of the state and the complicated public order, it was decided to replace it with a new system of local government.

The transformation of local government took a long time. At the first stage, until the abolition of feeding in 1555, the feeders were placed under the control of public representatives. In general, the transformations were carried out through two successive reforms - labial, which began in 1539-1541 by Elena Glinskaya (the mother of Ivan the Terrible) in 1539-1541. measures aimed at limiting the power of the governors, and was completed by the "government" of Adashev, and zemstvo, carried out in 1555–1556. As a result of these reforms, phased replacement vicegerent administration, built on a feeding system, by elected gubernatorial institutions - labial huts (as class-representative bodies of the nobility) and zemstvo self-government bodies (zemstvo huts), elected from wealthy townspeople and black-haired peasants. Thus, the government not only significantly weakened the power of the regional feudal nobility and strengthened the position of the nobility in local government, but also for the first time in the history of Russia really introduced the beginning of elective self-government into the practice of state building.

The created local self-government bodies were built on the principle of estates and did not have prerogatives separate from the state, were not, in modern terms, independent within their powers. Elected from the nobility labial wardens and their helpers kissers"(" Kiss the cross ", i.e. swear) were approved in office by the Rogue Order as a judicial and police body, to which the labial authorities were subordinate throughout the state. He also had the exclusive right to sanction the verdicts of the labial authorities concerning cases related to In some cities (Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Kazan, taken by the troops of Ivan the Terrible in 1551), city self-government bodies were not created for political and other reasons, the power in these cities was in the hands of governors appointed by the central government.

The main result of the transformations of Ivan IV in the system of local government was the creation of a unified administrative apparatus throughout the state.

In the early 1560s, accusing his boyars and service people of treason and dividing the country into two independent parts, zemshchina and oprichnina(as a specially allocated property belonging to the king, a kind of personal royal "lot"), Ivan the Terrible switched to a new policy - the policy of oprichnina terror, which in essence meant a coup d'état. The reforms were interrupted. Most of the members of the Chosen Rada were subjected to cruel repressions, Archpriest Sylvester, who, according to sources, was a real temporary worker under the tsar, was removed from Moscow, another tsar's favorite, Adashev, was exiled, and then executed.

There is an opinion that the tsar's break with his government was due to the ambitions of the members of the Chosen Rada, who sought to strengthen their influence on affairs with a number of decrees and customs that were inconvenient for the Moscow autocrats. Consisting of the descendants of specific princes - the princes, the Chosen Rada, according to supporters of this point of view, was an instrument of specific princely policy, defended its interests and therefore had to sooner or later come into sharp conflict with the Moscow tsar, who was aware of his sovereignty. Ivan the Terrible, in a polemic with Kurbsky, unambiguously hinted to the disgraced prince what goals, in his opinion, were pursued by these people, who "secretly" from him consulted about worldly, i.e. state affairs. They not only, in his words, arbitrarily and illegally, "like the wind," like Sylvester, handed out ranks and estates, but also began to "remove power" from the tsar himself, opposing boyars and "princes" to him.

Due to the lack of necessary sources, including original documents on the establishment of the oprichnina, we cannot judge with sufficient certainty the reasons for such an unexpected turn of events. In the scientific literature, one can find various explanations for the phenomenon of oprichnina, which always seemed strange, according to the witty remark of one of the authors, both to those who suffered from it and to those who studied it. Some historians saw in the oprichnina an instrument of struggle against the boyars, moreover, more than unsuccessful. V. O. Klyuchevsky, following S. M. Solovyov, called it "the high police for high treason", emphasizing the political aimlessness of the oprichnina: caused by a collision, the cause of which was order, it, according to the scientist, was directed against persons, and not against order. Others tend to give the oprichnina (which, in our opinion, is closer to the truth) a wider political sense, believing that it was directed with its edge against the offspring of specific princes and had the goal of depriving them of their traditional rights and advantages.

In the latest research, a not unfounded point of view is affirmed, according to which, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, two opposite concepts of centralization. The Moscow sovereign was not satisfied not so much with the content as with the pace of the structural reforms being carried out by the Chosen Rada. In an effort to suppress the real and imaginary opposition of the boyars and specific "princes", the tsar chose the path of accelerated centralization of the country. However, this policy initially contained a deep contradiction, the growth of which first led to an acute state crisis in Russia, and then plunged the country into a long period of Troubles, catastrophic in its consequences. The essence of this contradiction was that, having set a course for accelerated centralization in a country where the necessary economic and social prerequisites for building a centralized state had not yet been created, the Muscovite tsar was forced to rely mainly on coercion and force, to embark on the path of terror. This has always been the case in Russia, when the authorities tried to replace their real weakness and their unwillingness (or inability) to engage in the painstaking work of creating a state apparatus by forceful methods of management.

Of all the consequences of the oprichnina, two main ones can be distinguished, having direct relation to the subject of our conversation. One was the final approval in the Muscovite state of the form of despotic autocracy as the unlimited personal power of the monarch, accompanied by an unprecedented violation of the rights of the individual, the suppression of any manifestation of independent thought and freedom in all strata of Russian society, which turned people, regardless of social status, into slaves of the autocracy. Another result of the oprichnina was the outbreak already in the 70s and 80s. 16th century the most severe economic crisis caused by the ruin (due to the oprichnina terror) of a significant territory of the country and prepared the conditions for the Time of Troubles at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. As noted by V. O. Klyuchevsky, directed against imaginary sedition, the oprichnina prepared real sedition, giving rise to a split and deep discontent in various sectors of society.

One of the main reasons for the assertion in the Muscovite state in the second half of the 16th century. despotic autocracy, in our opinion, should be sought, using modern vocabulary, in weaknesses in the institutional policy framework in the society of that time. In relation to that situation, this was expressed in the political lack of independence of the Russian aristocracy (boyars), the underdevelopment of estates and the weakness of Russian cities (and, consequently, the middle class), which in the West were the real opposition to the central government, preventing it from turning into despotic power. Cities in Russia for a long time had a predominantly feudal character, were created as strongholds of princely power, and before the unification of Russian lands were the administrative centers of specific princes. During the period of the Mongol conquests, many of them were destroyed, gradually lost the remnants of their former liberties, found themselves in conditions of external danger, in the complete power of local princes and their squads.

As for the Russian estates, they (partly for the reasons already indicated, partly due to the vast expanse of Russia and the outflow of the population to the outskirts of the state) formed very slowly, were created by the state itself, served it and, unlike Western countries, differed, according to subtle observation. O. Klyuchevsky, "not so much rights as duties." The terrible years of the oprichnina, according to the famous Russian conservative thinker L. A. Tikhomirov, really deeply conceived and executed with iron energy, finally buried the former independence and privileges of the boyars, both the Church and free cities.

Short description

The purpose of the study is to study the process of formation of the Russian centralized state.
As part of achieving this goal, the following tasks can be distinguished:
- to state the prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized state;
- to study the process of formation of the Russian centralized state" and the formation of a centralized multinational state;
- to identify the features of the structure of public administration of the Russian state.

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...4
1 Features of the formation of the Russian centralized state..6


Grand ducal power and the beginning of the formation of the bureaucratic apparatus of government………………………………………………….....18
2 Features of the structure of public administration of the Russian

2.1Transformation of the political system and administrative bodies.22
2.2 General characteristics of the state mechanism of government in the XV - XVI centuries………………………………………………………………...……..26
2.3 Political system and system formation public institutions in the XV - XVI centuries……………………………………………….…34

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………42
List of used sources and literature…………………………..44
Annex A Scheme of authorities and administration of Russian
centralized state…………………………….45

states…………………………………………………..46

states……………………………………..…………....47

Attached files: 1 file

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal state budget educational

institution of higher professional education

"Komsomolsk-on-Amur State

Technical University"

Faculty of Humanities

Department of History and Archiving

COURSE WORK

in the discipline "History and organization of office work in Russia"

Formation of the Russian centralized state and the structure of state administration (XV-XVI centuries)

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...4

1 Features of the formation of the Russian centralized state..6

1. Prerequisites for the formation of a Russian centralized state ...... 6
2. Formation of a centralized Russian state…………..13
3. Grand ducal power and the beginning of the formation of the bureaucratic apparatus of government…………………………………………………. ....eighteen

2 Features of the structure of public administration of the Russian

states of the XV – XVI centuries…………………………………………………………22

2.1Transformation of the political system and administrative bodies.22

2.2 General characteristics of the state mechanism of government in the XV - XVI centuries………………………………………………………………. ..……..26

2.3 The political system and the formation of a system of state institutions in the XV - XVI centuries………………………………………………….…34

2.4 The social structure of society………………………………..………….38

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………42

List of used sources and literature…………………………..44

Annex A Scheme of authorities and administration of Russian

centralized state… ………………………….45

Annex B Scheme Judicial bodies of the Russian Centralized

states………………………………………………… ..46

Annex B Scheme of the territory of the Russian Centralized

states……………………………………..……… …....47

Introduction

The problem of the formation of the Russian centralized state has long attracted the attention of historical science. How did a powerful single state emerge from disparate and warring lands and principalities? How could a state that was not so militarily powerful resist strong neighbors? What factors predetermined the formation and development of the Russian state? These questions are still raised and solved in historical research. Many features of this process (the autocratic nature of the central government, the multinational nature of the Russian state, etc.) are still manifesting themselves. Therefore, this topic continues to be relevant.

Many historians expressed their opinion on this topic, the works of some of them were used in writing this work. The most significant of them are the works of L.V. Cherepnin, V.I. Buganova, F.N. Nesterova and others. All of them consider various aspects of the topic.

The purpose of the study is to study the process of formation of the Russian centralized state.

As part of achieving this goal, the following tasks can be distinguished:

Outline the prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized state;

To study the process of formation of the Russian centralized state" and the formation of a centralized multinational state;

Reveal the features of the structure of public administration of the Russian state.

The object of this study is the analysis of the conditions of "Formation of the Russian centralized state" .

At the same time, the subject of the study is the consideration of individual issues formulated as the objectives of this study.

source base term paper are the scientific and journalistic works of Dmitriev Yu.A., Isaev I.A., Karamzin N.M., Klyuchevsky V.O., Solovyov S.M., Tolstaya A.I. and etc.

The methodological basis of the study was made up of general and particular scientific methods of cognition of the object of study: dialectical, formal-logical and historical.

The work has a traditional structure and includes an introduction, the main part, consisting of 2 chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and applications.

The work used descriptive, statistical, analytical and other methods.

The introduction substantiates the relevance of the choice of topic, sets the goal and objectives of the study, characterizes the research methods and sources of information.

The first chapter is devoted to the peculiarities of the formation of the Russian centralized state. It displays the prerequisites for the formation and formation of a centralized state.

The second chapter of the course work contains features of the structure of state administration of the Russian state in the XV - XVI centuries. It reveals the issues of transformation of the political system and administrative bodies and the state system, gives a general description of the state mechanism of government, and considers the social structure of society.

In conclusion, the main results of the study are formulated.

The appendix displays schemes of the judicial and state authorities of the Russian centralized state and presents a scheme of the territory.

1 Features of the formation of the Russian centralized

states

1. Prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized

states

If you look at a map of Russia in the middle of the 15th century, then the first thing you should pay attention to is the border that separates the Russian lands from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Mongol-Tatar khanates. The border passes near Moscow. Even Kyiv, the former capital of the Old Russian state, is part of the Principality of Lithuania. Russian lands are fragmented; the main ones are Moscow, Tver, Ryazan principalities.

At this time, in Western Europe, the process of formation of united states: England, France, Spain. The Ottoman Empire is strengthening in the East. In 1453, the Turks captured Constantinople and established themselves in the Balkans. It was very important for Russia to overcome fragmentation.

The formation of the Russian centralized state was the end of a long process, the beginning of which dates back to the 14th century.

The famous grandson of Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Donskoy, can rightfully be considered the founder of the power and political significance of the Moscow state. It was after the victory of the Russian troops on the Kulikovo field that the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow was completed, which finally ended at the end of the 15th century. during the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505).

Describing the process of overcoming feudal fragmentation and the formation of a centralized state in Russia, F. Engels noted: “... in Russia, the subjugation of the appanage princes went hand in hand with the liberation from the Tatar yoke, which was finally secured by Ivan III.” Unification became possible only when the socio-economic conditions were ripe for it.

The emergence of centralized states is a natural stage in the development of feudalism following the early feudal period. It takes place at a stage of feudalism when more or less strong ties are established between individual regions of the country as a result of the growth of the social division of labor, the development of handicrafts and commodity production, and the growth of cities.

But, as usual, we this process had its own characteristics: if in Europe centralization took place at the stage of the decomposition of feudalism simultaneously with the beginning of the formation of a single internal market, i.e. in the conditions of the beginning of bourgeois development, then in Russia centralization was accompanied by the strengthening and development of feudalism, the growth of serfdom throughout the country. As a result, the association had insufficient economic prerequisites with clearly expressed political prerequisites. Another feature was determined by the weaker urban development than in Europe. As a result, the leading social force of the association was not the townspeople and merchants, as in the West, but the landowners: first the boyars, and then the nobility. The third feature was the special role of political power due to external danger.

Historians interpret the prerequisites for the formation of a centralized state in different ways. The main reason, according to the majority, is the Mongol-Tatar yoke, which forced the Russian princes to take a different look at their relations with other princes. The desire to get rid of the Mongol-Tatar yoke was common, but for this it was necessary to create a strong state capable of defeating the Golden Horde.

The second reason, which is called by historians, is the strengthening of economic ties between the Russian lands, caused by general economic growth. Despite the fact that the country's economy as a whole remained natural in the 14th-15th centuries, economic ties between its individual parts intensified. During this period, agriculture developed in Russia, restored after the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the rise of productive forces in agriculture occurs mainly due to the expansion of the area sown with agricultural crops. During this period, the peasants are intensively plowing the wastelands - lands abandoned as a result of enemy raids, feudal wars and crop failures. Agricultural production increased significantly, which made it possible to increase the development of animal husbandry and sell grain to the side. The need for agricultural tools also increased, which led to the development of handicrafts in the countryside. Crafts grew rapidly, especially in the city, their technical level, blacksmithing, foundry, construction and pottery, as well as jewelry, developed.

Figure 1 - Prerequisites for the formation of a centralized state

Handicraft production was greatly developed in Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov and other cities. There was a separation of artisans from peasants, an increase in the urban population, which contributed to the growth of trade between the city and the countryside. In the XIV-XV centuries. old cities grew and new ones arose. The role of cities has grown shopping centers.

Economic ties were formed on the scale of the whole of Russia, and after that the need arose for the development of foreign trade. All these factors demanded the political unification of the Russian lands.

In this, first of all, the nobles, merchants, artisans and all broad sections of society were interested.

There were other reasons for unification, in particular the intensification of the class struggle. In the XV century. along with the economic upsurge, feudal ownership of land is growing and the oppression of the peasants is intensifying. The deepening of feudal oppression was expressed not only in the enslavement of previously free peasants, but also in the strengthening of their personal dependence, as well as in the growth of corvée and dues. The feudal lords strove for the economic and legal enslavement of the peasants, and the peasants strove for freedom and resisted, which was expressed in the murder of feudal lords, arson of their estates and seizure of property.

Under these conditions, a powerful centralized state was needed, capable of fulfilling its main function - suppressing the resistance of the exploited masses. Particularly interested in this were small and medium-sized feudal lords, who could not cope with the suppression of the uprisings of their peasants. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the strengthening of serfdom goes simultaneously with the formation of a single state. The Sudebnik of Ivan III (1497) indicated that peasants could leave the feudal lord a week in advance and within a week after St. George's Day (November 26 of each year). Moreover, the peasant was obliged to pay the "old" for the use of the hut and outbuildings. This year is considered the beginning of the general enslavement of the peasants. Personal dependence passes into the highest form - serfdom.

Consequently, the feudal lords, both secular and spiritual, were primarily interested in strengthening the central power. The townspeople also supported the Moscow princely power, hoping that it would lead to an end to civil strife and the development of trade. The peasants also hoped to find help from the Grand Duke from the oppression of local feudal lords. Thus, all segments of the population, although for different reasons, were interested in creating a strong centralized state. The opponents of the unification were large feudal lords - princes who did not want to lose their power.

QUESTIONS

1. What factors contributed to the fact that it was under Ivan III and Vasily III that the dependence of Russia on the Horde was eliminated and the unification of Russian lands was completed?

Factors that contributed to the completion of the unification of Russian lands:

The final weakening of the Golden Horde;

The conflict between the Golden Horde and the Crimean Khanate, which supported Ivan III;

The weakening of Novgorod and Tver, which allowed Ivan III to capture them;

The weakening of Lithuania.

Strengthening the power of the Moscow prince.

2. Give the characteristic of system of authorities of the Russian centralized state.

At the head of the Russian state was the sovereign, who was the bearer of the supreme secular power: he issued legislative acts, headed the highest judicial body - the grand prince's court, commanded the troops during the most important campaigns. The royal throne was inherited from father to son.

The advisory body was the Boyar Duma. In the circle of Duma officials, the sovereign discussed economic, diplomatic, and military issues. The distribution of power in the Duma, and hence the places that its members occupied during meetings, depended on the nobility and antiquity of the family. This principle is called localism. Approximate monarch - the boyars and service people - made up the sovereign's court.

Issues of collection and distribution Money state was engaged in the Treasury. A special service - the Palace - was in charge of the sovereign's land holdings. As the administrative apparatus expanded to manage specific state affairs, orders began to appear in which clerks and clerks served.

Since 1549 (under Ivan IV), Zemsky Sobors began to be convened, which testified to the formation of a class-representative monarchy of a special type.

The whole state was divided into counties, which, in turn, consisted of smaller camps and volosts.

3. What changes in the social structure of society led to state policy aimed at strengthening the army?

The state policy aimed at strengthening the army led to the formation of new social groups:

1) landowners are nobles who received land with peasants for their service. At the first call of the sovereign, they were obliged to appear in the army, having a horse, all the necessary weapons and armor, along with their armed servants. The landowners, in contrast to the Western European feudal lords, were not absolute masters of their possessions. Without the consent of the sovereign, the estates were forbidden to be sold, transferred to heirs.

2) archers - these were infantrymen (less often - cavalrymen), armed with firearms. The Streltsy army was formed from townspeople. They were exempted from paying taxes, received a small monetary salary, and in addition to their service, they could engage in crafts and petty trade.

4. How do you understand the political significance of the idea "Moscow is the third Rome"?

The announcement of Moscow as the third Rome contributed to the rise of the Moscow principality during the period of Ivan III. Moscow was declared the center of political and church life. It also gave a reason to call herself the protector of all Orthodox, which contributed to the annexation of a number of new lands.

5. Which of the symbols of the Russian state have survived to this day? What significance do they have for us today?

Such symbols of the Russian state as the image of George the Victorious sitting on a horse and a double-headed eagle have survived to this day.

The current double-headed eagle is crowned with three golden crowns - symbols of the state sovereignty of our country, in its paws - a scepter (a sign of the triumph of the law) and an orb (a symbol of the unity of the people).

On the chest of the eagle is a shield, in the scarlet field of which, riding to the right for the viewer, standing facing the shield, a silver horseman in an azure cloak, striking with a spear a black overturned and trampled by a horse dragon.

TASKS

1. Using map No. 8 (p. VII), determine which lands were part of the Moscow principality by 1462. What time is considered the period when the unification of Russian lands was completed? Name the territories that became part of the Muscovite state during this period.

By 1462, the Belozersky, Kostroma, Galician, Uglitsky, Dmitrov lands, as well as the territories of the great Vladimir principality, became part of the Moscow principality.

The collection of lands was completed in 1510 with the annexation of Pskov and in 1521 - the Ryazan principality. During this time, Novgorod (1478), Tver (1485), territories in the upper reaches of the Oka and Desna - Seversky lands, and also Smolensk were annexed.

2. Describe the relationship between church and state that developed in the process of formation of the Russian centralized state. What could be the prospect of resolving the issue of church land ownership?

The Church played an important role in the unification of the Russian state. Its hierarchs advocated the unity of the lands, sought to reconcile the princes. It was among church leaders after the fall of Byzantium that the idea was born that the Muscovite state was destined to become the successor to the great Christian empires.

The prospect of resolving the issue of church land ownership would be the secularization of land in favor of the state with monetary compensation. Then the clergy would receive funds for the distribution of their lands, and the state of the land to strengthen their power.

3. Give a description of the common features and differences in the class structure of Russian and Western European medieval society.

Russian society, like Western European society, was divided into three main classes: the nobility (chivalry), the clergy, and the peasantry. You can also highlight the fourth estate, which was just undergoing consolidation - the townspeople.

Nobles as in Western Europe, and in Russia they had exclusive rights to own land, they did not pay taxes, they levied taxes from the third estate (peasants), as a rule they served in the army and participated in government. Unlike Western Europe, landownership was widespread in Russia, and not hereditary (except for the specific princes), also the nobles in Russia owned serfs, but in Western Europe they did not.

The clergy in Western Europe and in Russia was considered a privileged estate. As in Europe, as central political power grew stronger, it lost its influence. In contrast to Europe, the economic position of the clergy in Russia was significantly strengthened, which was reflected in the growth of church land ownership.

The peasants were an unprivileged class, they paid taxes, did not have the right to own land, but only to use it. The difference in the position of the peasants in Western Europe from Russia was that they were personally free, while in Russia there was a process of complete enslavement of the peasants.

Also in Russia, in the social structure of society, there was such a feature as the presence of the Cossack estate.

2.2. Formation of the Russian centralized state

Completion of the unification of lands around Moscow. The correct, far-sighted policy of the Moscow princes, the descendants of Dmitry Donskoy, largely contributed to the overcoming of feudal fragmentation and the unification of the Russian principalities, the cessation of civil strife. So, VasilyI(1389-1425), the son of Dmitry Donskoy, managed to conclude a special agreement with the Principality of Tver in order to counter the raids of the Golden Horde. In addition, Vasily I married the Lithuanian Princess Sophia, which significantly eased the tension in Russian-Lithuanian relations. Vasily I managed to get a label for Nizhny Novgorod, Mur, Tarusa. All this contributed to the rise of Moscow, the unification of Russian lands around it and the formation of the Russian centralized state.

A huge merit in the expansion of the territory of the Russian state belongs to Ivan III (1462–1505). Under his rule, Yaroslavl was annexed to Moscow (1463), the annexation of Rostov (1474) and Tver principalities was completed. In 1489, Vyatka land, rich in furs, submitted to Ivan III. In 1503, the princes Vyazemsky, Odoevsky, Vorotynsky, Chernigov, who broke off their relations with Lithuania, came under the jurisdiction of the Russian state.

The Novgorod Republic, which still possessed considerable power, remained independent of the Moscow prince for a long time. In Novgorod in 1410, a reform of the posadnik administration took place: the oligarchic power of the boyars increased. Fearing the loss of their privileges in the event of submission to Moscow, part of the Novgorod boyars, led by the posadnik Marfa Boretskaya, concluded an agreement on the vassal dependence of Novgorod from Lithuania.

Having learned about the conspiracy of the boyars with Lithuania, the Moscow prince Ivan III took decisive measures to subjugate Novgorod. The campaign of 1471 was attended by the troops of all the lands subject to Moscow, which gave it an all-Russian character. Novgorodians were accused of "falling away from Orthodoxy to Latinism."

The decisive battle took place on the river. Sheloni. The Novgorod militia, having a significant superiority in strength, fought reluctantly; Muscovites, according to chroniclers close to Moscow, “like roaring lions,” attacked the enemy and pursued the retreating Novgorodians for more than 20 miles. Novgorod was finally annexed to Moscow in 1478, two years before the liberation from the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

Ivan III for collecting Russian lands received the honorary title "God's grace Sovereign of All Russia, Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov, and Tver, and Yugra, and Perm, and Bulgaria, and other lands.

The famous Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote in this regard: “If you imagine the new borders of the Moscow Principality created by the listed territorial acquisitions, you will see that this principality has absorbed a whole nationality ... Now all this (Russian) nationality is united under one state power.

The accession to Moscow of the Novgorod, Vyatka and Perm lands with the non-Russian peoples of the north and northeast living here expanded multinational composition Moscow principality.

Thus, under Ivan III the formation of a unified Russian state- the largest power in Europe, with which other states began to reckon.

The creation of the Russian centralized state is the most important stage historical development our country, which is associated with overcoming feudal fragmentation.

The formation of a single state created the necessary conditions for the further economic and political development of Russia, the improvement of public administration and the legal system. The strong state that developed under Ivan III put an end to the Mongol-Tatar yoke, which lasted almost 2.5 centuries in Russia.

The final overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke happened under Ivan III after the "great standing" of the Moscow and Mongol-Tatar troops on the river Ugra in 1480 Ivan III managed to attract to his side the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey, whose troops attacked the possessions of Casimir IV, disrupting his speech against Moscow. At the head of the Horde troops was Akhmat Khan, who made an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir IV. After standing on the Ugra for several weeks, Akhmat Khan realized that it was hopeless to enter the battle. At this time, his capital Saray was attacked by the Siberian Khanate. Upon learning of this, the khan turned his troops to Saray. The confrontation between Russia and the Golden Horde is over. In 1502, the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey inflicted a crushing defeat on the Golden Horde, after which its existence ceased.

The final overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke accelerated the process of uniting the lands around Moscow and the formation of the Russian centralized state.

Under Ivan III, for the first time, the modern term “Russia” began to be used in relation to our state.

2.3. The system of power in the Russian centralized state

Sovereign of all Russia. The hierarchical pyramid of power of the Russian centralized state was crowned by tsarist power. It was not restricted either politically or legally. Ivan III actually became the first tsar of the Russian centralized state. He had legislative, administrative and judicial powers, which he constantly expanded. His status developed in accordance with state law, which he himself established.

To give weight to the royal decisions taken, the procedure for applying the seal was introduced. For the first time in Russia, Ivan III introduces a symbol of royal power - coat of arms, which in 1472 became a double-headed eagle. The image of a double-headed eagle in 1497 appears on the royal seal, which is already becoming a "stamp seal", that is, it is becoming more important.

An interesting fact is the acquisition of the coat of arms. It is known that Ivan III was married to Sophia Paleolog, a representative of the Byzantine imperial family. After the conquest of Byzantium by the Ottoman Empire, the double-headed eagle, the coat of arms of the Byzantine emperor, passed, as if by inheritance, to the only heiress of the Byzantine kings - Sophia Palaiologos, daughter of the brother of the last emperor of Byzantium, Constantine Palaiologos. And from Sophia in connection with marriage - to Ivan III. As successor to the fallen Byzantine throne, husband of Sophia Palaiologos from 1485 began to call himself king on occasion, but more often - “ sovereign of all Russia". The Russian word "tsar" is a somewhat distorted Slavic translation of the Byzantine word "caesar".

Ivan III to strengthen autocratic power, carried out significant state-legal reforms that concerned the boyar duma, orders, the legal system, etc. Thanks to his reforms, the former fragmentation was gradually replaced by centralization.

Ivan III has other merits before Russia. According to many historians, this is one of the key figures our history. This reformer, firstly, laid the foundations of autocracy; secondly, he created the state apparatus for governing the country; thirdly, he built the residence of the head of state - the fortified Moscow Kremlin; fourthly, he established the rules of court etiquette; fifthly, he issued a code of laws (Sudebnik), binding on all citizens of the state.

Boyar Duma. The Boyar Duma was entrusted with state administration, judicial and diplomatic functions. Deciding state affairs, the Duma gradually became a legislative body under Ivan III. With her participation, the famous Code of Laws of Ivan III was introduced, which established a unified legal system of a centralized state. In addition, the Duma led the system of orders, exercised control over local government, and resolved land disputes. To conduct business, a Duma office was created.

In the Boyar Duma, in addition to the Moscow boyars, from the middle of the 15th century. local princes from the annexed lands began to sit, recognizing the seniority of Moscow. The Council made decisions by majority vote. If the consent of the boyars was not reached, the controversial points were discussed until its entire composition came to an agreement. consensus. To put it in a modern way, the Duma was looking for a consensus. If, for some reason, no agreement was reached, then they went to report to the head of state, and the matter was resolved by the sovereign.

Term boyar gradually began to mean not just a major feudal lord, but a life-long privileged member of the Boyar Duma. The second most important rank of the Boyar Duma was devious. At the end of the XV century. The Duma included 12 boyars and no more than 8 okolnichy. When deciding the most important state affairs, church hierarchs and prominent representatives of the nobility were invited to meetings of the Boyar Duma. In the future, such joint meetings became the basis for the formation of Zemsky Sobors.

Boyars and roundabout steel pledge allegiance Grand Duke, confirming it with "swearing letters". The Moscow sovereign endowed himself with the right not only to remove the boyars from public service, but also confiscate while their estates, land allotments with property.

Treasury yard. The main administrative body of the Moscow state was the Treasury yard. It was the prototype of the government. The future order system grew out of two nationwide departments: the Palace and the Treasury. The palace controlled the lands of the Grand Duke, the Treasury was in charge of finances, the state seal, and archives. The tsar introduced new positions of sovereign people: a state clerk and clerks in charge of embassy, ​​local, yama, financial affairs.

Palace and palaces. The Palace was created to manage the royal lands and property. Gradually, his functions were supplemented by other duties, for example, to consider land disputes and carry out legal proceedings. Novgorod, Tver and other palaces, as well as orders, were created to manage the territories on the ground.

Central authorities. For the local execution of royal decrees, other instructions and orders from the center, permanent administrative bodies were created. Proper boyars and nobles were entrusted to lead certain areas in the state. Under the jurisdiction of the most authoritative boyars, separate territories ("paths") were transferred, in which the highest officials carried out administration and legal proceedings. Simultaneously with the creation of a new management system, the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow, the sovereign of all Russia, was strengthened. The new "vertical of power", created in the era of Ivan III, significantly increased the centralization of state administration, made Moscow the real capital of a vast country.

The formation of orders, categories, counties, volosts spoke of a rather harmonious (for that time) system of state administration. This system was also enshrined in the legal framework created by Ivan III in order to strengthen his power, which increasingly acquired autocratic features.

Local authorities. Former appanage princes retained some powers of authority. Within their possessions, they had the right to collect taxes from the population, to administer the court. From their midst, the Moscow prince appointed governors and thousandths, who in wartime led the people's militia.

In cities, a new position of local government was introduced - city clerks, in counties administrative functions were performed by governors, in volosts - volosts.

The system of central and local government bodies in the Russian centralized state (XIV century - early XVI century) is as follows.

System of public authorities

Sudebnik IvanIII. A huge role in strengthening the unified state was played by the new legal system introduced by Ivan III. It united the central and local government bodies, which were guided by the same laws for the whole country and demanded their implementation from the royal subjects. The Sudebnik of Ivan III, published in 1497, consolidated the new public order introduced by the authorities in the country since the days of Russkaya Pravda.

It should be emphasized that important innovations related to state law were introduced into the Sudebnik. For example, the transfer of power in the state was no longer by inheritance, as before, but by the will of the sovereign. He now appointed his successor. Power began to acquire autocratic features. For the sake of small and medium-sized feudal lords, new social groups, the Sudebnik also established some restrictions on the activities of local officials - feeders. According to Art. 43 governors and volostels were deprived of the right to decide "the most important matters."

Sudebnik of Ivan III laid the foundation for the enslavement of the peasants. He forbade the transition to another feudal lord for 50 weeks a year, except for the week before and after St. George's Day (November 26), when all work on the land was completed and the harvest was harvested in bins. Moreover, in 1497 the state legislated another essential condition for changing the legal dependence on the feudal lord: the obligatory payment of the "elderly" - a kind of ransom from this dependence.

The legal, organizational and other measures taken by Ivan III to strengthen state power testify to the creation of a new centralized state.

2.4. Ivan the Terrible and the strengthening of the Russian centralized state

BasilIII. Vasily III, the 26-year-old son of Ivan III and Sophia Paleologus, continued his father's work. He began to fight for the abolition of the appanage system. Taking advantage of the attack of the Crimean Tatars on Lithuania, Vasily III in 1510 annexed Pskov. 300 families of the richest Pskovites were evicted from the city and replaced by the same number from Moscow cities. Veche system was abolished. Moscow governors began to rule Pskov.

In 1514, Smolensk, conquered from Lithuania, became part of the Muscovite state. In honor of this event, the Novodevichy Convent was built in Moscow, in which the icon of Our Lady of Smolensk, the protector of the western borders of the Russian state, was placed. Finally, in 1521, the Ryazan land, which was already dependent on Moscow, became part of Russia.

However, the reign of Vasily III did not last long. Before his death, wanting to maintain power for his young son, Vasily III creates a Regency Council to govern the country. This was caused not only by the problems of state administration, but mainly by the desire of the sovereign to preserve the succession of the throne for his descendants.

IvanIV. After the death of Vasily III in 1533, his three-year-old son Ivan IV ascended the throne. In fact, the state was ruled by his mother Elena, the daughter of Prince Glinsky, a native of Lithuania. Both during the reign of Elena, and after her death in 1538 (there is an assumption that she was poisoned), the struggle for power between the boyar groups of the Velsky, Shuisky, Glinsky did not stop.

Boyar rule led to a weakening of the central government, and the arbitrariness of the estates caused widespread discontent and open speeches in a number of Russian cities.

The young Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, according to contemporaries, was endowed with a remarkable mind and strong will. However, having lost his parents early and brought up in an atmosphere of intrigue and boyar struggle for power, he grew up as a suspicious, vengeful and very cruel person. Ivan IV ascended the Russian throne at the age of 17, that is, at a young age.

Crowning the kingdom. In 1547 Ivan the Terrible was crowned king. From the hands of the Moscow Metropolitan Macarius, he received the famous Monomakh's hat and other symbols of royal power. From that moment on, the Grand Duke of Moscow officially began to be called the Tsar, and Russia officially became a monarchy. The coronation of the king strengthened the sacred beginning of royal power.

I.S. Peresvetov. The nobility expressed particular interest in carrying out reforms. A talented publicist of that time, nobleman Ivan Semenovich Peresvetov, was his peculiar ideologist. He addressed the tsar with messages (petitions) in which a peculiar program of transformations was outlined. I.S. Peresvetov was largely anticipated by the actions of Ivan IV.

Based on the interests of the nobility, I.S. Peresvetov, sharply condemned the boyar arbitrariness. He saw the ideal state system in a strong royal power, based on the nobility. “A state without a thunderstorm is like a horse without a bridle,” I.S. Peresvetov.

Zemsky Cathedral. It was problematic to manage a vast state with the help of archaic institutions and institutions, therefore, in the middle of the 16th century, the young tsar planned reforms of state administration. Ivan IV created a class-representative body of state power called the Zemsky Sobor.

It included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral (church hierarchs), as well as other representatives of the capital and local boyars and nobility. The Zemsky Sobor was a government body with legislative functions. It consisted of two chambers:

upper chamber: tsar, Boyar Duma, clergy;

lower chamber: representatives from the nobility and the upper classes of the townspeople.

Zemsky Sobors did not act constantly, they were convened by decree of the tsar. The initiative to convene the Zemsky Sobor could belong to both the tsar himself and the estates. The competence of the council was not clearly established, but the very fact that the tsar convened representatives of various estates to solve important state problems testified to the formation of a class-representative monarchy in Russia. The first Zemsky Sobor was convened by the Tsar in February 1549 The emergence of class-representative bodies of state administration meant that major decisions sanctioned by the ruling class.

Zemskaya Duma. Along with the Zemsky Sobor, state issues under Ivan the Terrible were also decided by the so-called Zemsky Duma. It was an advisory body under the king and was convened by him as needed. So, in July 1566, the tsar convened the Zemstvo Duma, which consisted of 339 people. It included church and monastery hierarchs, boyars, roundabouts, treasurers, clerks, other government officials, as well as noble nobles and merchants. The purpose of convening such a representative meeting of people of various classes was to work out Russia's position in difficult negotiations with Lithuania.

"Chosen Rada". The insufficient abilities of the young crowned bearer in the field of public administration led to the creation of another advisory body under him. Around the young Ivan IV, a council of close boyars was formed, which helped the 17-year-old monarch in governing the state, in carrying out structural reforms. This council of people close to the tsar was called the Chosen Rada or, in other sources, the Holy Union. So called it in the Polish manner A. Kurbsky in one of his works. In addition to Prince A. Kurbsky, the Chosen Rada included princes D. Kurlyatev, M. Vorotynsky, bed-keeper A. Adashev, Duma clerk I. Viskovaty, as well as Moscow Metropolitan Macarius and the tsar’s confessor, priest of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Kremlin Sylvester. This circle of people constituted the informal government under Ivan IV in 1549-1560.

The composition of the Chosen Rada represented the interests of various sections of the ruling class. Relying on these very authoritative people, young Ivan Vasilyevich successfully carried out those transformations that were called the reforms of the middle of the 16th century. This is how the historian N.M. described the interaction of Ivan the Terrible with the Chosen Rada. Karamzin: “The tsar spoke and acted, relying on a couple of the elect, Sylvester and Adashev, who accepted into the Holy Union not only the prudent metropolitan, but also all virtuous, experienced men, in venerable old age still zealous for the Fatherland ...”

On the recommendations of the Chosen Rada, Ivan the Terrible carried out a personnel policy, appointing people not only devoted to the sovereign, but also not seen in bribery and other abuses of power, to responsible government posts. Advising the tsar to change officials who compromise state power, members of the Chosen Rada, according to N.M. Karamzin, "they wanted to commemorate a happy state change not by the cruel execution of thin old officials, but by the best election of new ones."

During this short historical period, in which the Chosen Rada was able to operate, in state structure Russia has undergone significant changes. With her active participation in the country, a voivode-prikaz system of state administration was created.

Voivode-mandatory management system. As follows from the name of the new system of state administration, it had two components: voivodship and clerk. At that time it was a progressive step in the state structure and administration of Russia. The command subsystem of management included the following main orders, the prototype of sectoral ministries.

State order managed the state treasury and archive, as well as all merchants, silversmiths, mint.

bit order carried out management of the noble troops, taking into account service people, their ranks and positions. The discharge was called the military painting of military people with the designation of the position occupied in the army. The discharge order was also entrusted with providing service people with monetary and local salaries, determining suitability for military service. This department had the right to raise or lower an employee in rank, increase or decrease his salary, and even completely deprive him of the previously received land. In addition, the duties of the Discharge Order included the appointment of governors, governors, monitoring their activities, as well as organizing the construction of fortresses on Russian borders.

local order was in charge of all state land fund. He allocated estates from it to the serving nobility in the amounts that were previously determined by the Discharge Order. Therefore, these two departments worked closely with each other. The local order issued acts for the right to own land on behalf of the Boyar Duma, registering them in a special book.

Ambassadorial order exercised diplomatic functions. Until the beginning of the XVI century. Russia did not have permanent diplomatic missions abroad. Therefore, the main task of the Ambassadorial Order was the preparation and dispatch of Russian embassies abroad, as well as the reception and dispatch of foreign diplomats. This department was entrusted with the ransom of Russians who were taken prisoner, as well as separate assignments related to the activities of foreign merchants and artisans.

holopy order ruled domestic, bonded and other dependent people, carried out judgment over them.

Rogue order headed the system of police-detective bodies, approved the positions of labial elders, kissers and clerks, considered cases of robberies in the second court instance.

printed order he was in charge of printing issues, supervision of scribes and publishers of books.

Apothecary order dealt with medicine.

Kazan, Siberian and Little Russian orders formed after the accession of the respective territories to the Russian centralized state. During the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the order system developed and strengthened; with the increasing complexity of the tasks of state administration, the number of orders grew continuously, exceeding three dozen.

At the head of the order was a boyar or a clerk, depending on the importance of the department. They were major government officials. The orders were in charge not only of the administration of state affairs, but also of the collection of taxes, supervised the activities of county and provincial institutions.

Governors. With the strengthening of state power in the middle of the XVII century. positions were established governor, who were selected by the Discharge Order from among the boyars and nobles, with their subsequent approval by the Boyar Duma and the tsar. Several governors were appointed to large cities, one of them was considered the main one. Unlike feeders, governors received the sovereign's salary and could not legally rob the local population.

One of the main tasks of the governor was to ensure financial control. They kept records of the amount of land and profitability land plots in all farms. Under the supervision of the governor, state taxes were collected by elected elders and kissers.

An important function of the governor was the recruitment of service people from the nobility and boyar children for military service. The governor compiled the relevant lists, kept records, conducted military reviews, and checked readiness for service. At the request of the Discharge Order, the governor sent service people to the place of service. He also commanded the archers and gunners, watched the state of the fortresses.

Under the voivode there was a special command hut led by a deacon. All the affairs of the city and county were conducted in it. The total number of apparatus of local institutions of the country in the second half of the XVII century. began to approach two thousand people. As the governors strengthened their position, they were increasingly subordinate to the gubernatorial and zemstvo bodies, especially on military and police issues.

Other rights and obligations of the governors were so vague that they themselves specified them in the course of their activities, which created great opportunities for arbitrariness. Not satisfied with the salary, they sought additional sources of income with the help of extortion. The arbitrariness of these officials was especially great in Siberia, where the control of the center over the activities of the governors was extremely weak due to remoteness.

If we imagine the state and local self-government of that time in the form of a diagram, then it will look like this.

Document

G. Serial design artist P. Efremov Moiseev N.N. M 74 Universe. Information. ... the calculations are partly set out in the collective monograph: Moiseev N.N., Aleksandrov V.V., Tarko A.M. Man... printed - in his homeland there are no prophets! Here...

Review of the media and the blogosphere (7) press release of the interregional public movement "family love fatherland" dated December 12, 2010

Overview

Fatherland" Fatherland" Moiseev

Review of the media and the blogosphere (7) December 21, 2010 press release of the interregional public movement "family love fatherland" dated December 12, 2010

Overview

Regional branches of the Movement" ("Family, Love, Fatherland"/) Xenia: Re: Keep silent... interregional movement "Family, love, Fatherland" and some other public organizations. ... started in the USSR (see. Moiseev N. The "Gaia" system and the problem of the forbidden...

History of the state and law of Russia. Cribs Knyazeva Svetlana Alexandrovna

22. State apparatus of the centralized Russian state

The Russian state was headed Grand Duke, from the end of the 15th century he began to be called sovereign of all Russia. With the centralization of the state and the subordination of individual principalities to Moscow, the power of the Grand Duke increased. In the XIV-XV centuries. there is a sharp reduction of immunity rights, specific princes and boyars become subjects of the Grand Duke.

One of the means strengthening of the princely power was monetary reform, carried out at the beginning of the 16th century. She entered in the state single monetary system only the Grand Duke could mint a coin, the money of specific princes was withdrawn from circulation.

The Grand Duke did not have absolute power, he ruled the state with the support of the council of the boyar aristocracy - Boyar Duma. The Boyar Duma was permanent body, built on the principle localism (appointment to a public position depended on the nobility of the candidate's family). The Duma, together with the prince, carried out legislative, administrative and judicial activities. The composition of the Boyar Duma was constantly changing.

In the XIII-XV centuries. acted palace and patrimonial system of government. The main role was assigned princely court headed by butlers and palace departments - ways, who led worthy boyars (equestrian, falconry, steward, trapper and other ways). Over time, the court ranks turned into government positions.

The centralization of the state required the creation of a special administrative apparatus. From the end of the XV century. new bodies of central and local government are being formed - orders. These were permanent administrative and judicial institutions, whose competence extended to the entire territory of the state. Were created Ambassadorial, Local, Robbery, Treasury, Yamskoy and other orders. Orders combined administrative, judicial And financial functions. They had their states, order huts, office work, archives. The orders were headed boyars, they also included clerks, scribes and special commissioners. By the middle of the XVI century. command control system supplanted the palace and patrimony.

local government until the end of the 15th century. based on feeding system and carried out governors Grand Duke in the cities and volostels in the countryside. They were doing administrative, financial And court cases. At the beginning of the XVI century. new noble And zemstvo authorities- labial and zemstvo huts.

This text is an introductory piece.

21. Prerequisites and features of the formation of the Russian centralized state Overcoming feudal fragmentation and the creation of centralized states is a natural process in the development of feudalism. It was based on socio-economic factors:

67. The state apparatus during the First World War On August 1, 1914, the First World War. Russia entered the war on the side of the Entente (England and France) against Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. Reorganizations in the administrative apparatus immediately began. Advice

State veterinary supervision, state quarantine phytosanitary control (supervision) and state supervision in the field of seed production The activities of citizens may come under the scrutiny of veterinarians of the Rosselkhoznadzor or regional authorities

1.5. The state apparatus The concept, signs and principles of organizing the activities of the state apparatus The state apparatus is a system of bodies and institutions that exercise state power, tasks and functions of the state in practice. Signs

§ 1. Characteristics of the main legislative acts of the specific-veche and Moscow periods of the Russian state Military courts in the modern sense arose in Russia with the advent of a regular army, requiring the maintenance of a certain legal order

5. The political system of the ancient Russian state. Territorial device Kievan Rus. The legal status of the population of Rus Kievan Rus is an early feudal state. Estates, classes, forms of ownership, etc., have not yet been sufficiently formed in it.

12. Prerequisites for the formation of a Russian centralized state. Features of the Russian centralized state The Russian centralized state took shape in the XIV-XVI centuries. Groups of prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized state.1. Economic

13. Social system and legal status of the population during the formation of the centralized Russian state. The development of the process of enslaving the peasants During the formation of the centralized Russian state, quite significant changes took place in

14. The political system during the formation of the Russian centralized state During the formation of a single centralized state, Russia was an early feudal monarchy. Signs of centralized power in the late XV-early XVI centuries: 1) the presence

21. Trial of the Russian centralized state The trial during the formation and existence of the Russian centralized state in cases of petty crimes and property disputes was of an accusatory and adversarial nature.

57. Russia before and during the First World War. State apparatus in Russia this stage time The main causes of the First World War: changes in the economy and politics of the great powers; intensification of the colonial expansion of the great powers; striving for division

§ 6. The mechanism (apparatus) of the Russian state The problems of strengthening the Russian state naturally require that its working part, that is, the mechanism, act clearly, smoothly and efficiently.

Government Apparatus An important role in the current work of the government was acquired by its special bodies and committees. Their significance was determined in particular by the fact that the Cabinet worked, in fact, secretly and decisions were made by the prime minister on behalf of the entire government. First

---