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 an alternative Russia 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 dwell on the characteristics of those 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 during 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 as a powerful means of increasing the economic and financial power of the Moscow principality, expanding its territory and establishing 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 the Moscow region, located between the Kyiv 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.

Of no less importance were personal qualities 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 that 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 Muscovite Russia, who benefited from the relative stability and absence of civil strife in the Muscovite principality.

After the final elimination from the political arena under the grandson of Ivan Kalita 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 took place, first of all, 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, upon the death of a sonless prince, his “escheat” inheritance passed to the Grand Duke. Acted even harder Vasily III, forbidding his brothers to marry, thus turning their inheritances 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, according to 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 a 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 Palaiologos, 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 marriage with Sophia (events known in history as the first dynastic crisis in the Muscovite state), Ivan III during his lifetime 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. new formula"By the grace of God, sir."

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 - the 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 estate organization of the ruling class, its upper strata, who were directly involved in government, from which management personnel were drawn top level. 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 the 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 groom led horse breeding (the path of the stable), the hunter - the prince's hunting (the path of the hunter), the chasnik - the on-board economy (the path of the chalice), 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 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 Muscovite 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 authorities in the localities, they eventually concentrated all 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 of the Dvina land issued at one time by Vasily I), 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 under conditions of sufficient development of civil society institutions, primarily public self-government (as was the case, for example, in the United States and Canada), or under well-established mechanisms for coordinating the interests of various strata and groups of society (consensus, or "community" , by the definition of A. Leiphart, democracy), or in conditions of strict centralization and hierarchy of political and social institutions and structures with the dominance of violent methods of management, which, in fact, eventually became one of characteristic features 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 the third model of development, and contributed to the victory of the despotic variant 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 the strengthening of 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 unceasing 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) also has its weaknesses, 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 state, as it was in European countries rather than 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 time to strengthen: as a result of the forcible unification of lands around Moscow, they were replaced by relations of subjection, and in the most rigid "slave" form. Already under Ivan III, the former independent appanage princes, having become subjects of the Moscow sovereign, began to address 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), an arrogant statement: "To whom I want, I will give the prince."

This psychology of the owner, which arose during the period of long appanage development of Russia and strengthened in the conditions of the expanding state, remained for a long time in the minds of the Moscow unifier 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 to Ancient Russia, view of autocracy as the unlimited autocracy of the tsar (autocracy), the justification of which is usually associated with the name of Ivan the Terrible, begins to assert itself. The idea of ​​autocracy was most consistently expressed by Ivan IV in his correspondence-controversy 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, Grozny, 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. AT scientific literature the prevailing opinion is that these changes were due to two events that had global importance: 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 "tsars", 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, it should, however, be noted that, in our opinion, they still do not answer the main question: what ultimately contributed to the strengthening of authoritarian and despotic features in the policy of 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 no less important factor is often not taken into account. important factor. 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 according to the Union of Brest in 1596 and the ensuing 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. Since that time, one can observe a sharp change in both the foreign and domestic policies of the Muscovite state, expressed in an active rejection of the West and an equally decisive turn towards the East, towards pochvennichestvo. If Ivan III still considered himself a European sovereign, the heir to Byzantium, and his policy in many ways contributed to the strengthening of Moscow’s close relations with Western countries that were being established at that time (under him, especially after Sophia Paleolog’s arrival in Russia, visits to Moscow by foreigners became frequent, in the Moscow Kremlin, the famous Assumption Cathedral and the Palace of the 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 unequivocally 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 relying 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 placed at the head of the zemshchina at first the captive baptized Kazan "king" Ediger-Simeon, and later in 1574 crowned another Tatar, the Kasimov Khan Sain-Bulat, to the kingdom, 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, the necessary conditions had not yet been created for the formation of this type of government in the Moscow state: a) an extensive bureaucratic apparatus had not been formed (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 been developing for over a hundred years naturally, through clashes 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 contemporary research, 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 vertical of power 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 management information that must be circulated in communication channels political system huge state, and secondly, due to the stretching of the network of political power, the presence a large number 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 elected 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 critical issues domestic and foreign policy of the country. Having turned into a huge multinational and multi-confessional 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 clerk's 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 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 representatives of the boyars to the Moscow princely family. Of great importance was the decision of the authorities at the same time to limit localism 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 "Regulation on Service" was adopted, which established the general procedure for carrying 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 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 when the Zemsky Sobors appeared, 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 met sporadically to hear government declarations and authorize already adopted laws(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 with the Western parliaments, which by this 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), they were invited at the choice of the tsar necessary people, representatives of estates and service bureaucracy. 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-sectoral 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. Growing out of the former 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 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 sat 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 obligatory universal introduction of elected elders and kissers into the court, and ended with charters that abolished feedings.” 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, there was a phased replacement of the governorship, which was based on a system of feeding, with 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 estate principle 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 lip authorities were subordinate throughout the state. He also had the exclusive right to sanction the verdicts of the lip authorities relating to 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 tsar, a kind of personal royal "destiny"), 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 occurred due to the ambitions of the members of the Chosen Council, 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 - princes Elected Rada, according to the supporters of this point of view, was an instrument of the specific-princely policy, defended its interests and therefore had to sooner or later come into sharp conflict with the Muscovite tsar, who was aware of his sovereignty. Ivan the Terrible, in a polemic with Kurbsky, unequivocally 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 are inclined to give the oprichnina (which, in our opinion, is closer to the truth) a broader political meaning, believing that it was directed against the offspring of specific princes with its edge and aimed at depriving them of their traditional rights and advantages.

AT 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 the most acute state crisis in Russia, and then plunged the country into a long period of the 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 primarily 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 that are directly related 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 (in connection with the oprichnina terror) of a large 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.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

ALL-RUSSIAN CORRESPONDENCE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTE

TEST

By discipline " National history»

Student: Ivashchenko A.A.

Faculty: Management and Marketing

Specialty: "Bachelor of Management"

Record book number: 10MLD11514

Lecturer: Bershadskaya O.V.

Krasnodar - 2010

Topic #9: Formation of the Russian centralized state in the 16th century.

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………3

Chapter 1. Ivan the Terrible and features of the centralization of Russia…..………..…4

1.1 Ivan IV the Terrible - sovereign and man…………………………….4

1.2 Formation of the power system in the centralized Russian state………………………………………………………………………....5

Chapter 2. State reforms of Ivan the Terrible. ……………………….6

2.1. Domestic policy of Ivan the Terrible in the 1550s……………..…6

Chapter 3. Oprichnina……………………………………………………………..…9

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..…10

Test………………………………………………………………………………………………………11

Application…………………………………………………………………………………………12

Introduction

As in Western Europe after a period of feudal fragmentation, in Russia in the XIV - XV centuries. the time has come for the formation of a unified Russian state.

Giving an explanation for this phenomenon, most historians are inclined to believe that the decisive incentive for the unification of the Russian lands was as follows: during this period, the most acute question arose about the survival of the Russian state, the preservation of the identity of the Russian people with its culture and religion. In opposition to the East (Golden Horde) and the West (Principality of Lithuania), the foundations of a unified Russian state were laid.

The Russian state especially developed during the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible. Ivan IV faced great challenges: It was necessary to create a unified system of central and local governments, to approve a single legislation and court, troops and taxes, to overcome the differences inherited from the past between individual regions. The first thing the king did was to strengthen and expand the governing bodies. The tsar created a council, which included people close to the tsar (AF Adashev, priest Sylvester, Prince Kurbsky, Macarius). This council became known as the Chosen Rada. The tsar and the elected Rada decided to carry out reforms in the country.

The purpose of this work is to consider the formation of a centralized Russian state in the XIV-XVI centuries.

Based on the purpose of the work, we define the tasks:

1. To study the formation of a system of power in a centralized Russian state.

2. Consider the development of the Russian state during the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible.

1.1 Ivan IV the Terrible - a sovereign and a man.

Speaking of personalities Ivan the Terrible, it should be noted that he had an excellent memory, was well-read, showed himself to be a talented writer (messages to Kurbsky, Queen Elizabeth I of England, guardsman Vasily Gryaznov). The personal life of the king was not easy either. Ivan the Terrible had seven wives, including Vasilisa Melentyevna, whom the tsar did not marry. The first wife, Anastasia Romanovna Zakharyina, gave birth to six children and died in 1560. In 1561, Ivan the Terrible married the daughter of the Kabardian prince Temryuk. The third wife, Marfa, daughter of the boyar Vasily Sobakin-Nagogo, died 18 days after the wedding (1571). Then there were Anna Alekseevna Koltovskaya (1572), imprisoned in a monastery in 1574, Anna Vasilchikova (1575) and Vasilisa Melentievna (1579). In 1580, the tsar married Maria Fedorovna Nagoya, who gave birth to Tsarevich Dmitry. Quiet and meek Mary was afraid for her fate and the fate of her child. The fear of his wife annoyed the king, and he wanted to divorce Mary and marry some foreign princess. But on March 18, 1584, at the age of 54, Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible died. He was buried in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Ivan the Terrible had three sons. The eldest - Ivan, died during the life of his father, the middle one - Fedor, became the heir to the throne, but had no children, the youngest - Dmitry , died under unclear circumstances (probably due to negligence during the game). In historical science, the assessment of the activities and personality of Ivan IV is extremely ambiguous and inconsistent.

1.2 Formation of the system of power in the centralized Russian state.

In parallel with the unification of the Russian lands, the creation of the spiritual foundation of the national state, the process of strengthening the Russian statehood, the formation of a centralized Russian state was going on. The prerequisites for this process were laid during the period of the Mongol conquests. Researchers note that the vassal dependence of Russian lands on the Golden Horde to a certain extent contributed to the strengthening of Russian statehood. During this period, the volume and authority of princely power within the country increase, the princely apparatus crushes the institutions of people's self-government and the veche - the oldest body of people's power gradually disappears from practice throughout the historical core of the future Russian state. During the period of the Golden Horde yoke, city liberties and privileges were destroyed. The outflow of money to the Golden Horde prevented the emergence of the "third estate", the backbone of urban independence in the countries of Western Europe.

Moreover, the process of joining other states, "principal states" to Moscow most often took place by force and assumed the subsequent violent nature of power in the unifying state. The feudal lords of the annexed territories became the servants of the Moscow ruler. Thus, due to a number of reasons, elements of Eastern civilization predominate in the formation of the statehood of the Muscovite kingdom.

Chapter 2. State reforms of Ivan the Terrible .

Especially the state and political talent of Ivan the Terrible is revealed by the reforms of the 50s of the 16th century. The most important feature of the political history of the Russian state in the 50s are numerous reforms aimed at further development and strengthening of the Russian centralized state.

common feature reforms of the 50s is their anti-boyar orientation. Proclaiming these reforms, the government of Ivan IV portrayed them as measures whose purpose was to eliminate the consequences of boyar rule, to strengthen economic and political positions. Those social groups whose interests it expressed and on which it relied - nobles, landowners and upper tenants.

2.1. Domestic policy of Ivan the Terrible in the 1550s.

Domestic policy of Ivan the Terrible in the 1550s . was associated with activities The chosen one is glad. Together with his closest associates - landowner A. Adashev, princes A. Kurbsky and M. Vorotynsky , Metropolitan Macarius, confessor of the Tsar Sylvester and a major official I. Viskovatym in the 50s. The elected council lasted until 1560, she carried out transformations called reforms in the middle of the sixteenth century.

Ivan IV carried out important reforms to strengthen the centralization of the country.

In 1549, for the first time in history, the Zemsky Sobor . Subsequently, representatives of the merchant class and the urban elite took part in the Zemsky Sobors. Zemsky Sobor - elected people from all cities of the Russian land. The convocation of Zemsky Sobors meant the establishment in Russia estate-representative monarchy. At the council of 1549, it was decided to create a new Sudebnik. In 1550 was adopted Sudebnik of Ivan IV .

Sudebnik 1550- a collection of laws of the period of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia, approved in 1550 by the first Zemsky Sobor in Russia . It was created in order to improve the organization of law and order, to put it under the control of the central government. According to the Sudebnik, the court was carried out by the tsar's governor, while an elected zemstvo headman had to participate. The Sudebnik abolished the tax benefits of the monasteries, which strengthened the central government and weakened the material basis of the churches. The Sudebnik determined the situation serfs, clarified the procedure for paying the elderly, etc. Confirmed Yuriev day. The Sudebnik of 1550 contributed to the elimination of political fragmentation in Russia.

Government reform. Under Ivan the Terrible, a system of central government bodies was formed - orders.

Great importance had reorganization of local government. lip reform , begun in 1539, was completed mainly in 1555-1556. As a result, the local court for the most important criminal cases was removed from the hands of the governors and volostels and transferred to the labial elders, who were selected (usually by counties) from the provincial boyar children. The labial elders obeyed the Robbery Order. (See the scheme "Government and administration in the 2nd half of the 16th century") (app.).

The most important decree of the tsar was "The tsar's verdict on feeding and about the services "(1555 - 1556). The main idea of ​​this decree was that the self-government was recognized as a “royal service”, which was delegated to the places by the supreme power. By 1556 the feeding system was largely eliminated. The collection of taxes, which was previously in charge of the feeders, was now transferred to the "favorite heads." The collected taxes went to the royal treasury.

Military reform of 1550 . During military campaigns it was limited parochialism upon appointment to the command of troops. According to the reform, the recruitment of the army went two ways:

the first recruitment into the army of "service people on the device" in the first place - archers. At first there were 3 thousand of them, then - 25 thousand archers.

second - service people "in the fatherland" - the boyars and nobles who were part of the militia. The Service Code of 1556 established a uniform procedure for military service both from the estates and from the estates: each secular feudal lord was obliged to put up one person on a horse and fully armed from 150 acres of land at his disposal. Stoglavy Cathedral . In 1551 . a church council (meeting) was convened, which went down in history as Stoglavy. He received such a name, since the collection of his decrees consisted of one hundred chapters (“Stoglav”). The church approved the Sudebnik and the tsar's reforms. Thus, the reforms of the 1550s. the reign of Ivan IV were aimed at strengthening the central government. .

Chapter 3. Oprichnina.

In 1565 Grozny announced the introduction of the Oprichnina in the country. The country was divided into two parts: "Sovereign Grace Oprichnin" and Zemstvo. In Oprichnina, mainly the northeastern Russian lands fell, where there were few boyars-patrimonials. The center of the Oprichnina was Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, the new residence of Ivan the Terrible, from where, on January 3, 1565, the messenger Konstantin Polivanov delivered a letter to the clergy, the boyar Duma and the people about the abdication of the king from the throne. Although Veselovsky believes that Grozny did not announce his resignation from power, the prospect of the departure of the sovereign and the onset of "stateless time", when the nobles can again force the city merchants and artisans to do everything for them for free, could not but excite the Moscow citizens.

The decree on the introduction of the Oprichnina was approved by the highest bodies of spiritual and secular power - the Consecrated Cathedral and the Boyar Duma. There is also an opinion that this decree was confirmed by the decision of the Zemsky Sobor.

The beginning of the formation of the oprichnina army can be considered the same year 1565, when a detachment of 1000 people selected from the "oprichnina" counties was formed. Each oprichnik took an oath of allegiance to the tsar and pledged not to communicate with the zemstvo. In the future, the number of "guardsmen" reached 6,000 people. The Oprichnina army also included detachments of archers from the Oprichnina territories. From that time on, service people began to be divided into two categories: boyar children, from the zemshchina, and boyar children, “yard and city”, that is, those who received the sovereign’s salary directly from the “royal court”. Consequently, the Oprichny army should be considered not only the Sovereign Regiment, but also service people recruited from the oprichny territories and served under the command of the oprichny (“yard”) governors and heads.

Conclusion.

Thus, in the formation of the Russian centralized state in the XIV - XVI centuries. dominated by features characteristic of the eastern type of development. A system of authoritarian power is being formed, private ownership of land and a class of independent large land owners are being practically destroyed. Nevertheless, Russian statehood cannot be fully attributed to Eastern despotism. For a long time, such bodies of public representation as the Boyar Duma, Zemsky Sobors, and Zemstvo self-government functioned in it.

During the reign of Ivan IV, the territory of the state expanded significantly due to the addition of new lands in the Volga region and Siberia.

During the reign of Ivan IV, two main stages can be distinguished, this is before and after the oprichnina. The main part of the reforms falls on the first period. We tend to adhere to the traditional point of view that the sharp change in the reformist policy of Ivan IV was influenced by the negative attitude of the privileged strata of Russian society towards his reforms. Ivan set himself the task of improving the Russian state not only in the upper strata, but also at the national level, as it seemed to him, although the work traces the path of reforms only at the level of the upper classes. We know that there are things in history that stand above facts and are often personal. It is these aspects of the historical process that make it possible to conclude that the positive reforms of the 50s would have continued if they had not encountered the resistance of the Russian aristocracy and had not been transformed into an oprichnina, but on the other hand, they played a huge positive role in the history of the Russian state. The Moscow kingdom is turning into a large centralized Russian state with autocratic power.

Test.

Is this statement true?

Unlike the countries of Western Europe, the process of centralization of the Russian state was accompanied by the enslavement of the peasants and was due not so much to internal as to foreign policy reasons.

1) Yes

2) No.

Explanation.

The political factor that led to the unification of the Russian lands was the intensification of the class struggle, the intensification of the class resistance of the peasantry. The rise of the economy, the possibility of obtaining ever greater surplus product induce the feudal lords to intensify the exploitation of the peasants.
Moreover, the feudal lords strive not only economically, but also legally to secure the peasants to their estates and estates, to enserf them.

Such a policy aroused the natural resistance of the peasantry, which took on various forms. Peasants kill feudal lords, seize their property, set fire to estates. Such a fate often befalls not only secular, but also spiritual feudal lords - monasteries. Sometimes a battle directed against the masters also acted as a form of class struggle. The flight of peasants takes on a certain scale, especially to the south, to lands free from landlords. Under such conditions, the feudal lords are faced with the task of keeping the peasantry in check and bringing serfdom to an end. This task could be solved only by a powerful centralized state capable of performing the main function of an exploiting state - suppressing the resistance of the exploited masses.

At the end of the XIV - beginning of the XV. the international position of Russia was significantly complicated by the increased danger from the Horde and other Asian conquerors, as well as the increased pressure on the Russian lands from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In this regard, the desire of the progressive people of that time to unite into a single powerful state was understandable.

Bibliography

1. Bushuev S.V., Mironov G.E. History of the Russian state: Historical and bibliographic essays. Book one. IX - XVI centuries. - M., 2001. - S. 254

2. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century/ A.P. Novoseltsev, A.N. Sakharov, V.D. Nazarov; resp. ed. A.N. Sakharov, A.P. Novoseltsev. M., 2005. - S. 440

3. History of Russia from ancient times to 1917/ V.Yu. Khalturin, S.P. Bobrov and others: Ed. V.Yu. Khalturina: Proc. allowance / Ivan. state energy un-t. - Ivanovo, 2009. - P.267

4. Klyuchevsky V.O. historical portraits. - M., 2006. - S. 109. ("Characteristics of Tsar Ivan the Terrible").

5. Kobrin V.B. Ivan the Terrible: Chosen Rada or Oprichnina // History of the Fatherland: People, Ideas, Decisions. Essays on the history of Russia IX - early XX century. - M., 2007.p. 204

6. Petrukhintsev N.N. Reasons for the enslavement of peasants in Russia at the end of the 16th century // Questions of history. 2004. No. 7.

7. Filyushkin A. Elected Rada - historical myth? // Motherland. - 1995. - No 7.

8. Sharov V. Oprichnina // Motherland. - 1991. - No 1.

9. Reader on the history of Russia: textbook. allowance / ed. - comp. Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Georgieva N.G., Sivokhina T.A. M., 2004.p.326

Moscow Russia. Moscow appanage princes and tsars 13 - early. 17th century// Kirillov V.V. Domestic history in diagrams and tables. M., 2005.S. 43.

Enslavement of the Russian peasantry: historical concepts, main stages // Kirillov V.V. Domestic history in diagrams and tables. M., 2005. S. 83.

Consequences of the oprichnina // Kirillov V.V. Domestic history in diagrams and tables. M., 2005.S. 64.

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 State structure 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 formed by 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 appanage princes went hand in hand with 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 occurs 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, in our country 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 as trading centers increased.

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 murders of feudal lords, the burning of their estates and the 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.

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

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.

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

1.5. The state apparatus The concept, features 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. State system 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. Political system during the formation of the Russian centralized state Russia during the formation of a single centralized state was an early feudal monarchy. Signs of the presence of centralized power in the late XV-early XVI centuries: 1) the presence

21. The trial of the Russian centralized state The trial during the formation and existence of the Russian centralized state in cases of minor crimes and property disputes was of an

57. Russia before and during the First World War. The state apparatus in Russia at this stage of time The main causes of the First World War: changes in the economy and politics of the great powers; activation colonial expansion 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. The first

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 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». Russian word"king" is a somewhat distorted Slavic translation of the Byzantine word "caesar".

Ivan III, in order to strengthen autocratic power, carried out significant state and 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 in 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, they discussed controversial points until all of its members came to a 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 a 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 new system management was strengthening the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow, the sovereign of all Russia. 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 of Ivan III. 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 bodies of state power, 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 the Sudebnik introduced important innovations related to public law. 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.