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 over Lithuania, whose claims to become an alternative to Moscow Russia for a number of the reasons described above turned out to be untenable, Moscow finally secured the status of the main all-Russian center and priority in the matter of restoring 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, Moscow was also assigned the role of the spiritual and ecclesiastical center of the Russian lands.

Before proceeding to the description of further events, let us briefly dwell on the characteristics of the reasons and conditions that contributed to the rise of Moscow and ensured her primacy in the consolidation of the Russian lands and the creation of a single Russian state. It should be remembered that since 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 in the possession not of the Monomakhovichs, but of the younger Svyatoslavichs, the descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich), fought a stubborn internecine struggle for the grand-princely Vladimir table. Having achieved the princely table, the princes remained to live in their inheritance, annexing only to it during their great reign the territory of the Grand Duchy 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 Duke", but also opened up wide opportunities for material enrichment. At the same time, under the conditions of the appanage order that existed in this period, the occupation of the grand ducal table was determined not only by the right of seniority, as before, but also by the strength of the appanage prince, therefore the struggle for the possession of Vladimir was mainly between strong appanage princes. At the beginning of the XIV century. along with the princes of Tver and Ryazan, the Moscow princes also enter this struggle.

As an independent destiny Muscovy arose at the end of the life of Alexander Nevsky (he was the last of the great dukes who reigned according to an old custom in Vladimir itself), who divided his lands between his sons. The first prince of the then 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 either Mozhaisk, or Klin, or Dmitrov, or Kolomna, but owned only an insignificant space between these points, along the course of the Moskva River. This, however, did not prevent the Moscow princes from joining in the litigation for the grand-princely Vladimir table. The position of a junior inheritance, deprived of many privileges of senior inheritances, forced the Moscow princes to act decisively, often using any means to achieve their goal. After the death of Prince Daniil Alexandrovich (1303), a long-term struggle for the 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 was established in 1328 with the help of the Horde (after he suppressed the anti-Horde uprising in Tver together with the Tatar army) on the grand prince of Vladimir.

Since that time, the title of the Grand Duke of Vladimir will forever remain with the Moscow princes. Using it, they not only strengthened the position of their fiefdom - the Moscow inheritance, but also significantly expanded its territory. Beginning with Ivan Kalita, the Moscow princes used the right transferred to them by the Horde to collect tribute from all of 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 the convenient middle geographical position of the Moscow region, located between the Kiev and Vladimir-Suzdal lands, on the one hand, and Novgorod and the Ryazan principality, on the other, which provided not only trade, but also political benefits to Moscow. According to S. M. Soloviev, the metropolitans moved from Vladimir to Moscow, because they considered it necessary to be in a 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 the personal qualities of the Moscow princes, who, according to another author, managed to make the Tatars an instrument for raising their own power. The very position of the princes, whose great reign depended on the will and whims of the khan's power, had to develop in them political dexterity and diplomatic tact in order to attract the mercy of the khan and preserve the grand throne in this way. S. F. Platonov points to the political shortsightedness of the Tatars, who could not timely notice the strengthening of the Moscow principality, which was dangerous for them. Finally, an important role was played by the sympathy for the policies of the Moscow princes on the part of the main strata of the population of Muscovite Rus, who were beneficial to the relative stability and the absence of civil strife in the Moscow principality.

After the final elimination from the political arena under the grandson of Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359-1389), the main rival of Moscow - Tver, who also fought for hegemony in North-Eastern Russia, and especially after the victory at the Kulikovo field in 1380, a new stage begins 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 handed over 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 Rus, which testified to the irreversibility of the process of the unification of Rus into a single state under the auspices of Moscow. This process was completed in the second half of the 15th - early 16th century. under Ivan III (1462–1505) and Vasily III (1505–1533), when a single Moscow state was formed. At the same time, under Ivan III, after "standing on the Ugra River" in 1480, an end was put to the Mongol-Tatar yoke, which had lasted for two and a half centuries.

At the same time, the Moscow princes continued to wage a struggle with the Lithuanian principality, as did 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 clashes between the two powers. Lithuania competed with Moscow because of its influence on Pskov and Novgorod, as well as on the Smolensk princes. During the aggravation of the 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 transformations 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, were transformed from the former patrimonials into the 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 most of the political rights. The participation of appanage princes in general state affairs is significantly limited. In order to prevent the dynastic struggle, the Moscow princes began to actively interfere in the ownership relations of the appanage princes, limiting their immunity. In the spiritual letter (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 were the significant political advantages of the eldest of the grand duke's sons (sole financial management of the capital, exclusive right of the court important criminal issues, the exclusive right to mint a coin), but an important innovation was also made. If earlier, in accordance with the specific order of ownership of the appanage princes, they were considered their property (estates) and could be transferred at their personal discretion, then from now on, upon the death of the despotic prince, his "escheat" inheritance passed to the Grand Duke. Vasily III acted even more harshly, 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 were gradually realizing their new significance as heads of the national state. Although the power of the first Moscow sovereigns continued to bear, as V.O. Initially, this was expressed only externally: in new titles, in diplomatic practice, in new court ceremonies. The head of state is awarded the title " Grand Duke of All Russia"(this title was assigned to Ivan III), as well as the tsar and autocrat, equal in status to the emperor and the Ottoman sultan.

The importance 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 Palaeologus, whom the Grand Duke "discharged" 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 Union of Florence, to introduce the union to Moscow. Although the pope's hopes were not destined to come true, the arrival of Sophia Palaeologus in Moscow had certain consequences for the Moscow court. Instead of the informal, "unceremonious" relations of the prince with those around him, which were customary for medieval Russia, a magnificent ceremony began gradually to be established at the court of the Moscow prince, serious changes took place in the character of Ivan III himself: he began to discover a new, unusually high idea of ​​his power, demanded signs of attention to yourself. It is significant that even then, having decided the issue of succession to the throne first in favor of his grandson Dmitry and imposing disgrace on Sophia and his son from the marriage with Sophia Vasily (events known in history as the first dynastic crisis in the Moscow state), Ivan III married Dmitry not for a great reign, but specifically for the kingdom.

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

Formation of the system of public administration in Muscovite Rus

Formed in the second half of the 15th century. a single Russian (Moscow) state was formed as estate monarchy, in which the great Moscow prince shared power with representatives of the ruling class - boyars, appanage and service princes, as well as the church, which still retained strong positions and significant independence in the political system of Russian society. The top of the estate pyramid was Tsar's yard as a closed corporate estate organization of the ruling class, its upper strata, who were directly involved in governing the state, from which the top-level management cadres were drawn. At the very top of this pyramid were Duma officials, 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 great prince sentenced from the boyars").

Duma ranks included boyars and roundabout... The name of the latter is associated with the special functions that were performed by these representatives of the ruling elite, who were in charge of individual territories of the state - "outskirts" or who monitored the execution of the prince's orders on the ground. The meaning of the boyar title also changed. If earlier the privileged part of the large landowners-patrimonials who emerged from the prince's senior squad were ranked among the boyars, now the term "boyar" was applied only to members of the Boyar Duma as the highest estate institution of the Moscow state.

The appointment to the Duma and other higher government positions in the Moscow state was based on parochialism(a derivative of the phrase "to be considered places"), according to which the basis for obtaining a position could be the nobility of origin, gentility ("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 promoting people of common origin to high government posts), the system of parochialism was at that time an important means of subordinating the boyar aristocracy to the central government and an equally important mechanism for maintaining power in the hands of the boyar aristocracy... At the same time, it was the only possible one in those conditions. a way of regulating relations within the ruling elite, in whose environment, under the influence of new processes, serious changes took place.

The formation of a single state led to major changes in the composition and position of the ruling class. Along with the old Moscow boyars, many new people and ranks appeared at the court of the Moscow Grand Duke. A significant part of the local princely aristocracy - serving princes, i.e. 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 and representatives of the Tatar nobility (Tatar murzas) who came under the rule of the Moscow Grand Duke. Unlike the appanage princes (brothers of the Grand Duke) who retained many of their privileges, whose rights and duties were determined by agreements with the Grand Duke, the service princes were deprived of the right to claim the Grand Duke's throne and had to carry out 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 posts in the army, central and local government.

At the same time, already in the second half of the 15th century. in parallel with the Boyar Duma, the Moscow grand dukes are beginning to create informal structures from persons close to them, with whom they make the main state decisions. The first court titles 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 of public administration.

In the second half of the 15th - early 16th century. during the formation of the unified Moscow state retained its importance palace and patrimony system of government, built on a purely territorial principle of management. During this period, there were only two state departments - Castle and Coffers... At the head of the Palace stood Butler, who was in charge of the princely economy and had a great influence on the solution of national affairs. Other courtyard servants obeyed him, for the most part, who came from the midst 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 "good" boyars and were in charge of various branches of the Grand Duke's economy - "paths": the equestrian was in charge of horse breeding (the path of the equestrian), the hunter - the princely hunt (the path of the hunter), the chashnik - the onboard farm (the path of the chaste), etc. Gradually, in the course of further centralization, the paths began to be transformed into orders (Konyushenny order, Kazenny order, Discharge order, etc.), which prepared the replacement of territorial (palace) management by functional (order).

A number of important branches of government were administered by treasurer and the Treasury headed by him. Western sources call him the 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 archives, he was also in charge of the state seal, managed the Yamsk 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 to the fact that the formation of the system of public administration in Muscovite Rus 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 the unified Moscow state, the remnants of the former specific 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 Ryazan was subordinated to Vasily III ), centralizing tendencies are intensifying. A unified management system for 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 previous order and was distinguished by a great variety. It was based on several criteria: the economic and demographic potential of the region; the military significance of the territory; historical heritage (the region belongs to a particular principality). New administrative units created locally - counties, divided into volosts and stans, were extremely vast and coincided in their territory with the territory of the former appanage principalities. The appanages annexed during the unification of the lands around Moscow, merging into the Grand Duchy of Moscow, retained their integrity, and only under Ivan III they begin to split up and gradually disappear.

These territories were administered by the princely governors from the boyars and volostels recruited from smaller feudal lords. Not receiving a salary from the Grand Duke, they, as before, together with their staff, lived at the expense of funds collected from their subordinate territory, “fed” from their positions, carrying out local economic, administrative, fiscal and judicial (“lip”) activities. Their activities were regulated by special charter letters issued to the local population. At the same time, in the new conditions of a single state, there is an ever-increasing tendency to limit the power of the governors, who are gradually being 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 they were appointed city ​​clerks(later, in the 18th century, this position was transformed into the position of mayors who performed police functions in cities). As agents of the central government in the localities, they eventually concentrated in their hands all the administrative and financial power, both in cities and in the districts.

A striking example of the strengthening of centralizing tendencies in the Muscovite state is the issue issued by Ivan III at the end of the 15th century. (1488) to the population of the Belozersk land Belozerskaya Statutory Charter (hereinafter - BUG), which some researchers rightly consider the first legislative act of the unified Russian state and the founder of a new legislative tradition. A fundamentally important feature of the BUG, ​​which distinguished it from all previous charter letters (for example, from the 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 ecclesiastical possessions. and equalized all owners in the face of state power. All residents of the county were henceforth placed in the same position and were regarded as subjects of the state, subject to its administration (the governor and his apparatus).

On the other hand, the BUG established strict regulation of the activities of the governor administration itself and its relations with the local population. First, for the first time, both the order of activity of the governor's office 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 Belozersk land, who received the right to file complaints with the supreme power. The BUG established the right of the "world" 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 XVI century. the system of zemstvo and lip institutions grew, which at first limited and then supplanted the governorship apparatus, preparing the final liquidation of the "feeding" system in 1555 by Ivan the Terrible. Of great importance for strengthening statehood was the Code of Law of Ivan III, adopted in 1497, which was the first all-Russian code of laws in the Moscow 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 for such states: a single supreme power, a professional management 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 Muscovite 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 centuries it increased more than six times, and the country's population in the middle of the 16th century was about 9 million people by compared with 5-6 million people at the end of the 15th century). This inevitably required a reorganization of the entire system of public administration, since the old polycentric model no longer corresponded to the new conditions for the development of Russian statehood.

At the same time, the process of forming a centralized state in Muscovite Rus was significantly different 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 was 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 a forced character, based mainly on power and military methods of government.

As the main reason for this nature of state centralization, many authors highlight the originality 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 the borders, and the instability of the geopolitical space. In our opinion, this provision needs to be clarified. As the experience of world history shows, the management of an extended political space can be carried out in three main modes. This can happen either in conditions of sufficient development of civil society institutions, primarily public self-government (as was the case, for example, in the USA and Canada), or in conditions of well-established mechanisms for coordinating the interests of various strata and groups of society (consensus, or "community" , according to A. Leiphart's definition, democracy), or under conditions of rigid centralization and hierarchy of political and social institutions and structures with the dominance of violent methods of government, which, in fact, over time, became one of the characteristic features of political governance in different periods of Russian history ... A number of factors, considered by us below, conditioned the establishment in Russia of not the first or the second, but the third model of development, contributed to the victory of the despotic version of centralization.

First of all, one should not forget that the formation of the Russian centralized state, in contrast to the states of Western Europe, took place largely under the influence of an external factor, was accelerated by an external threat. This was not a natural economic ("below"), but a forceful ("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, to Moscow, the former independent appanage principalities. The opposition to the Lithuanian principality that lasted for more than two centuries, as well as the unceasing struggle against the "Horde heritage" - the Crimean and especially the 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 research "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 ("suprasegmental orientations", in the author's terminology) also has its weaknesses, since it always reduces the intensity of opposites in society, which cannot but affect the nature of state power and its relationship with the population. In Russia, this influence, as a rule (it is enough 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 tried 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 disregarded when studying the peculiarities of the formation and development of Russian statehood), class-corporate interests recede into the background.

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

This psychology of the owner, which arose during the period of long specific development of Rus and strengthened under the conditions of the expanding state, remained for a long time in the minds of the Moscow unifying sovereigns, who viewed the process of creating a unified Russian state primarily as an extension of their Moscow principality, their fiefdom. As V.O. Klyuchevsky noted in this regard, the patrimonial landowner and the sovereign continued to fight in the Moscow princes. They claimed the role of the all-Russian state power, but 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 an unlimited autocracy of the tsar (autocracy) begins to take hold, the rationale for which is usually associated with the name of Ivan the Terrible. The idea of ​​autocracy was most consistently expressed by Ivan IV in his polemic correspondence with the boyar prince 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 attitude towards the boyars, Grozny with rare frankness and sharpness rejected all claims to power of the boyar oligarchy "lobbied" by Kurbsky, stating that the Moscow "princes" were ordinary 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. the political consciousness of the Moscow sovereigns has already formed an idea of ​​God's chosenness and independence of the Moscow state. In the scientific literature, the prevailing opinion is that these changes were caused by two events of global significance: the fall of the Golden Horde and the collapse of the Byzantine Empire. Freed from the double 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 to take on the role of successors of the Roman Caesars and God's anointed ones on earth. The fall of Byzantium gave rise to 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 later 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 be noted, however, that they, in our opinion, still do not provide an answer to the main question: what ultimately contributed to the strengthening of authoritarian and despotic features in the policies of the Moscow sovereigns, the fundamental principle of which, over time, 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 said earlier, was not ready to implement 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 princes-unifiers, which testified, according to researchers, to the absence at that time of any clear rational alternatives to the political structure of the state at the new stage. Within the framework of the prevailing notion at that time - the patrimonial (patrimonial) structure of power - the Russian sovereigns were accustomed to regard the power itself as their property.

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

All this could not but affect the national feelings and political consciousness of the Russian political elite, which, over time, increasingly began to mistrust not only the Catholic West, but also many European values ​​and institutions. 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 took place during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, with whose name a number of modern scholars rightly associate the strengthening of Eastern ("Orientalist") features in the political life of Russian society. It was from this time that one can observe a sharp change in both the foreign and domestic policy of the Moscow state, expressed in an active rejection of the West and an equally decisive turn towards the East, towards soil cultivation. If Ivan III still considered himself a European sovereign, the heir to Byzantium, and his policy in many ways contributed to the strengthening of the close relations between Moscow and Western countries that were being established at that time (under him, especially after Sofia Paleologue's arrival in Russia, in the Moscow Kremlin, the famous Assumption Cathedral and the Faceted Chamber 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 modern authors writes, to the Golden Horde origin of his royalty as the legitimate heir to the disintegrated empire of Genghis Khan.

A phenomenon of the same order in a certain sense can be considered the official acceptance of the title of tsar by Grozny in 1547: it is known that this title, originally applied to the Byzantine emperors, from 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 the official application of the royal title, limiting himself, as already mentioned, to a temporary wedding "for the reign" of his grandson Dmitry. According to A. Ya. Flier, indirect confirmation of the outlined in the middle of the XVI century. turn to soil cultivation can be the secondary canonization of Alexander Nevsky by Ivan IV. Nevsky's policy of consistently opposing Catholic aggression while maintaining neutrality towards the Golden Horde obviously appealed to the Moscow Tsar (this also gives some researchers reason to call the legendary prince the first "Eurasian" in Russian history).

A special place in the series of changes in the behavior and nature of the supreme power belongs to oprichnina Ivan the Terrible, which can be considered as the desire of the tsar, who acted bypassing the Boyar Duma and relied on the oprichnina army personally loyal to him (a kind of "praetorian guard" of the tsar), to establish regime of personal unrestricted power... In his letters to Kurbsky, Ivan the Terrible already stated without any ambiguity: "the Russian autocrats initially own their state themselves, and not their boyars and nobles", "who made you judge me." It is interesting that, having divided the whole country into oprichnina and zemshchina, when the new order was established, the tsar put the captive baptized Kazan "tsar" Ediger-Simeon at the head of the zemshchina, and later in 1574 he crowned another Tatar, Kasimov's 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 accelerate the 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 imperial government as a military-bureaucratic dictatorship headed by the commander-in-chief - the king. However, for the formation of this type of government in the Moscow state, the necessary conditions have not yet been created: a) a ramified bureaucratic apparatus has not developed (bureaucratic departments in the form 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 be, of course, a great simplification to believe that the Moscow state initially lacked the conditions for the formation of politics in its classical understanding, as a system for finding compromises and reconciling interests (private, corporate, general and state). The process of forming a unified Russian (Moscow) state, which developed over a hundred years in a natural way, through collisions and attempts to harmonize the interests of the main political and social subjects of that time - the boyars and the emerging autocracy, representatives of the Church, free cities, does not give grounds for such straightforward conclusions ... As noted in one of the modern studies, in the Moscow state "a system of interests close to the European model began to mature," and in the clash of these interests on Russian soil, the functions of politics began to take shape as a system of social regulation of power, building balances and balances in the correlation of various interests ...

In the aspect of this problem, the one undertaken in 1549–1560 was of particular importance. By the "government" of Alexei Adashev ("the Chosen Rada", as Prince Kurbsky called him) a series of reforms, which 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 supposed to update all aspects of Moscow life. In the course of the reforms, an order system of central government was generally created, the system of local authorities (lip and zemstvo reforms) was rebuilt, reforms were carried out in the judicial sphere and a new all-Russian code of laws was created - the Code of Laws of 1550.

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

This model of power, based on the synthesis of the state (monarchical) and zemstvo (corporate) principles, which is traditional for Russian society, in the future could have a significant impact on the development of state power in the Moscow 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, in the opinion of 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 the further development and strengthening of the estate-representative monarchy.

However, already in the 60s and 70s. XVI century In the course of the oprichnina, which reflected, as noted above, the desire of the Moscow tsar to establish a regime of personal unlimited power and 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 general European trends, began to be built on the basis of uncontrolled rule, on the one hand, and the principles of subjection and mass servility, on the other.

The centralized state and the peculiarities 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 above material, the main trend in the political development of the Moscow state in the XVI century. there was a tendency towards centralization of state power and management and the establishment of an autocratic form of government. At the same time, the process of forming a centralized state in Russia was complicated and contradictory. Since the middle of the XVI century. Russia, in connection with the inclusion in its composition of foreign and non-confessional territories and states (primarily the former possessions of the Golden Horde - the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates) began to develop into empire and therefore did not differ in the stability of the geopolitical space, which acquired a fluid character. The consequences of this peculiarity of Russia's development, to one degree or another, had an effect throughout its entire subsequent history, prompting the central government to take often inadequate steps, expressed in an effort to build a power vertical of a super-centralized state.

However, these attempts were initially doomed to failure, since in the conditions of a huge state, vertically oriented power could not be effective: firstly, due to the huge volume of management information that must circulate in the communication channels of the political system of a huge state, and secondly, from -the length of the network of political power, the presence of a large number of decision-making centers. Therefore, from the very beginning, a relatively independent subsystem of social and political administration arose and functioned effectively in the Moscow state alongside the state authorities and administration. In the XVI-XVII centuries. it was represented by Zemsky sobors as the highest estate-representative institutions and local elective zemstvo institutions (zemstvo huts led by zemstvo elders, labial huts headed by labial elders). The peculiarity consisted in the fact that, unlike Western countries, estate-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 Muscovy in the XVI century. there was a gradual increase in the political life of the country two main contradictions, which were a consequence of the complex process of centralization of the state and determined its evolution throughout the subsequent 17th century. The first of these contradictions was associated with a confrontation that had emerged even in the process of the formation of a single Russian state. between the princely power and the boyar aristocracy, striving to preserve traditional independence and aspiring to a share of power in the state. At the same time, a contradiction arises and gradually intensifies within the ruling elite between a traditional group of nobility(boyar aristocracy) and new social elite(the highest bureaucracy), which has won more and more solid 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 Muscovite Rus - Boyar Duma, who was in charge of the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy of the country. Having turned into a huge multinational and multi-confessional state, Russia needed to reorganize the entire management system according to the bureaucratic imperial principle, which in itself implied the need changes in the social support 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, "princes", with whom, according to the logic of things, they had to somehow share power. A more reliable support for the emerging autocracy under these conditions could become the poor strata of the nobility and the order bureaucracy, created by the state itself and to a much greater extent 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 power could rely. It took shape as a military estate at the end of the 15th century. from among the small landowners who, unlike the previous princely warriors, received land (estates) on military service conditions (conditional land ownership), the nobility had to faithfully serve the Moscow sovereigns. In turn, taking care of increasing military forces, the Moscow tsars strove to create favorable conditions for a new layer of landowners, distributing land to the nobles along with the peasants who were "sitting" on them, who were charged with the obligation to support the landowners with the help of the quitrent paid to them, the performance of corvee and other duties ... Over time, the role of the nobility in the system of government increased. As already noted, even under Ivan III, a special institute of city clerks, which was, according to scientists, the first noble body of local government. Later, in the course of Ivan IV's early childhood in 1539-1541. lip reform ("lip" - an administrative and criminal-police district corresponding to the county), many important criminal cases, which were previously under the jurisdiction of governors and volostels, were transferred into the hands of the lip chiefs elected from the nobility. By the middle of the XVI century. the nobility gradually begins to play a leading role in the local government system.

At the same time, the tsarist government was taking steps aimed at limiting the political influence of the Boyar Duma. Pursuing a purposeful class policy in order to strengthen its positions, the emerging autocracy seeks to modernize the Russian aristocracy. The first step in this direction was the expansion of the Boyar Duma at the expense of serving noble families and representatives of the nascent bureaucracy. New Duma officials appear in the Boyar Duma - Duma nobles representing the third Duma rank, which gave the right to participate in Duma meetings, and Duma clerks... The process of gradual bureaucratization of the Boyar Duma is being observed. These new phenomena gave the basis for V.O. Klyuchevsky to conclude that since the middle of the XVI century. in the power structures of the Muscovite state, the generic principle is gradually replaced by the service one.

Although boyar ranks still complained only to representatives of the most noble, mainly princely, surnames, and the ranks of the boyar and okolnichgo, in accordance with the generic principle, were hereditary (passed on 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 serve, in particular, the "Sovereign Genealogy" published in 1550, which clarified and systematized the principle of parochialism. In contrast to the "boyar lists" and category books that existed at that time, in which the general genealogy and military service of noble families were recorded, the "Sovereign Genealogy" instead of abstract nobility highlighted the concrete service of the boyars representatives to the Moscow princely family. Of great importance was the decision of the authorities at the same time to restrict parochialism during hostilities, which was caused by the need to increase the state's combat readiness (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 declare to his boyars: "to be without places." The creation of a permanent Streltsy troops... In 1555-1556. a special "Code of Service" was adopted, which established a general procedure for carrying out military service for all categories of landowners.

Serious changes took place by the middle of the 16th century. and in relationships between the state and the Church, which for a long time was one of the institutions of social control that had a significant impact on the supreme power. In contrast to the boyars, who were economically and politically connected with the autocratic power, the Church and her 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 position, the tsarist government sought to limit the possibilities of the Church and subordinate it to the state. This was also 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 who stood above the Church. It is known, for example, that already Basil III appointed metropolitans without taking into account the opinion of the church council. His son Ivan IV found it possible to act in relation to the Church more decisively and despotically, 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 victory of the tsar ended the "controversy" which had lasted more than half a century between the non-possessors and the Osiphlans on the issue of church land tenure. Disagreeing with the decision of the church (Stoglav) council that took place at the beginning of 1551, which, under the influence of the Osiflian majority, refused to accept the program of secularization of church lands proposed by the tsar, Ivan the Terrible with a special sentence forbade church feudal lords, under threat of confiscation, to buy patrimonial lands without a preliminary "report" about this. the 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. to discuss issues of state importance, class-representative institutions began to be convened - Zemsky Cathedrals, 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 city (posad) upper classes. Later, representatives of the order bureaucracy began to be involved in the work of Zemsky Sobors. From the point of view of the national characteristics of state administration, Zemsky Sobors in a certain sense continued the Russian veche traditions, with the participation of various strata of the population ("land") in solving common affairs, characteristic of medieval Russia. At the same time, given the peculiarities of the political situation and the time of the appearance of Zemsky Sobors, one should hardly exaggerate their real participation in the development of government policy, and even more so, ascribe to them, as is often done, the function of limiting the royal power. Under the conditions of the emerging autocracy, their role was most often reduced to providing support for the policy of the tsarist government, which still needed to legitimize its decisions. In most cases, they met from time to time to hear government declarations and to approve already adopted laws (sentences). Not trusting the local authorities and voivods, the government, through the Zemsky Sobors, could receive information about the state of affairs in the province, the needs of the population, and more often about its capabilities for waging war.

Compared to Western parliaments, which by this time had accumulated a wealth of experience (in England, France and Spain they arose in the 13th – 14th centuries), Zemsky Sobors in Russia were not, in the exact sense of the word, representative institutions. They not only did not limit the power of the tsar, 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 (Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral), the right people, representatives of the estates and the service bureaucracy, were invited at the choice of the tsar. According to the apt remark of the authoritative researcher of the estate system in Russia V.O. Klyuchevsky, who called Zemsky Sobors "state conferences", this institution was not so much a people's representation as an "extension of the central government," "a meeting of the government with its own agents."

Unlike in 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 meet its administrative needs. To a large extent, a similar situation could have arisen because Russia did not know either developed feudalism or genuine class consciousness, which was the difference between the countries of medieval Europe. A certain role in this process was played by the oprichnina terror. According to the Polish historian K. Waliszewski, "the oprichnina, together with the system of parochialism, managed to erase all privileges and advantages based on historical rights," which largely predetermined the development in Russia towards strengthening the autocratic form of power. An interesting point of view of some researchers who propose to consider Zemsky Sobors as a kind of synthesis of the eastern (Byzantine) form and the western (Polish-Lithuanian) content... As for the 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 16th century. Oprichnina and its consequences

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

Of those that arose in the second half of the 16th century. the most important orders were Ambassadorial, Discharge and Local orders. The sphere of their activity was questions of foreign policy, state defense, construction, manning of the armed forces, endowing the serving 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 nascent bureaucracy (he received and disassembled petitions from noblemen and boyar children). In addition, there were a number of other orders that governed various groups of service people: Streletsky order(disposed of archers, performed police functions in Moscow and some other cities), Pushkar order(was engaged in artillery and engineering affairs), Armouries(supervised the manufacture and storage of firearms). A special group consisted of palace orders, who ruled various branches of the princely and then the tsarist economy: these included those who grew out of the Treasury State order, Order of the Grand Palace and the adjoining Konyushenny, Lovchiy, Sokolnichy and Postelnichy orders. At the same time, in the middle of the 16th century, the first financial orders appeared: in particular, a special Big parish order in charge of collecting national taxes.

Orders obeyed only the tsar and the Boyar Duma and were responsible to them. All orders were considered equal, acted on behalf of the sovereign and communicated among themselves by so-called "memories" (the exception was the discharge order: he 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 collegial), all members of which were called judges and were appointed by the king himself. The orders were led, as a rule, Duma clerks, subordinate to which were clerk who were in charge of office work.

In the XVI century. the administrative activity of orders was not separated from the judicial, on the contrary, each order was simultaneously a judicial department within the framework of its powers and subjects of jurisdiction. For this purpose, with each order, special officials were allocated (boyar children, week-attendants, orderlies and other lower servants), whose duties included bringing to trial, detention, imposition of penalties and the imposition of punishments.

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

The order management system was, of course, far from perfect. In comparison with the rationally organized administrative apparatus that emerged in Russia during the administrative reforms of Peter I, it lacked a strict hierarchy of levels of government, institutions and ranks. Unlike Peter's collegia, most of which were created by a one-time decree and according to a strictly defined plan, Moscow orders arose spontaneously for a long 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 and territorial management. 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 an order system was a powerful means of creating and strengthening a centralized state in Muscovite Rus.

The process of centralization of public administration has affected not only the highest and central levels of government and administration, but also local government system... At the same time, the contradictions we noted earlier in the vertical organization of power in a huge state, as well as the underdevelopment of the system of government 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 16th 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 Stoglav Council, which met on church and "zemstvo" affairs, in the collection of canonical resolutions adopted by it ("Stoglav"), as well as in the "corrected" with the approval of this Council (Code of Law 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 liquidation of lawsuits between the zemstvo and the nurses, continued revision of the Code of Laws with the obligatory widespread introduction of elective elders and kissers to court, and ended with statutory letters that canceled the feeding." Due to the fact that the primitive system of "feeding" that had 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. In the first stage, before the abolition of feeding in 1555, the feeders were placed under the control of the public elective. In general, the transformations were carried out through two successive reforms - labial, which began a number of those taken by the entourage of Elena Glinskaya (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 governor's administration, which was based on a feeding system, with elective labial institutions - labial huts (as the estate-representative bodies of the nobility) and zemstvo self-government bodies (zemstvo huts), selected from wealthy townspeople and black-wooded 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 actually introduced into the practice of state building the beginning of elective self-government.

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 language, independent within the limits of their powers. Elected from the nobles labial wardens and their assistants - " kissers"(" kiss the cross ", that is, to swear an oath) were confirmed in office by the Robbery Order as a judicial-police body, which subordinated the labial organs throughout the state. In some cities (Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, taken by the troops of Ivan the Terrible in Kazan in 1551), city government bodies were not created for political and other reasons, power in these cities was in the hands of the 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 servicemen of treason and dividing the country into two independent parts, zemshchina and oprichnina(as a specially highlighted property belonging to the tsar, a kind of personal tsarist "destiny"), Ivan the Terrible moved on to a new policy - the policy of oprichnina terror, which essentially meant a coup d'etat. The reforms were interrupted. Most of the members of the Chosen Rada were severely repressed, Archpriest Sylvester was removed from Moscow, who, according to sources, was a real temporary worker under the tsar, was exiled and then executed by another tsar's favorite Adashev.

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

Due to the lack of necessary sources, including genuine documents on the establishment of the oprichnina, we cannot judge with a sufficient degree of reliability the reasons for such an unexpected turn of events. In the scientific literature, you can find various explanations of 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 a weapon of struggle against the boyars, more than that, more than unsuccessful. V.O. Klyuchevsky, following S.M. Soloviev, called it "the highest police for high treason", emphasizing the political aimlessness of the oprichnina: not against the order. Others are inclined to give oprichnina (which, in our opinion, is closer to the truth) a broader political meaning, believing that it was directed against the offspring of appanage princes with its edge and had the goal of taking away their traditional rights and advantages.

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

Of all the consequences of the oprichnina, two main ones can be distinguished, which are directly related to the subject of our conversation. One was the final approval in the Moscow state of the form of despotic autocracy as unlimited personal power of the monarch, accompanied by an unprecedented violation of individual rights, 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 autocracy. Another result of the oprichnina was the eruption already in the 70-80s. XVI century the most severe economic crisis caused by the devastation (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 V.O. Klyuchevsky noted, directed against imaginary sedition, the oprichnina prepared for real sedition, generating a split and deep discontent in various strata of society.

One of the main reasons for the establishment in the Moscow 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 then society. In relation to that situation, this was expressed in the political lack of independence of the Russian aristocracy (boyars), the underdevelopment of the estates and the weakness of the Russian cities (and, consequently, the middle class), which in the West were real opposition to the central government, preventing it from turning into despotic power. For a long time, cities in Russia were predominantly of a feudal nature; they were created as strongholds of princely power and, before the unification of the Russian lands, were the administrative centers of appanage princes. During the period of the Mongol conquests, many of them were destroyed, gradually lost the remnants of their former liberties, found themselves in external danger, in the full 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) were formed very slowly, were created by the state itself, served it and, unlike Western countries, differed, according to the subtle observation of B O. Klyuchevsky, "not so much with rights as with obligations." 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, the Church, and free cities.

Short description

The aim of the research is to study the process of formation of the Russian centralized state.
Within the framework of achieving this goal, the following tasks can be distinguished:
- to 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;
- to reveal the peculiarities of the structure of state administration of the Russian state.

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


Grand-dukes' power and the beginning of the formation of the bureaucratic apparatus of management ..................... 18
2 Features of the structure of public administration in the Russian

2.1 Transformation of the political system and administrative bodies. 22
2.2 General characteristics of the state management mechanism in the 15th - 16th centuries ………………………………………………………………… ... …… ..26
2.3 State system and the formation of a system of state institutions in the 15th - 16th centuries …………………………………………….… 34

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

states ………………………………………………… ..46

states …………………………………… .. ………… .... 47

Attached files: 1 file

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal State Budgetary Educational

institution of higher professional education

"Komsomolsk-on-Amur State

Technical University"

Faculty of Humanities

Department of "History and Archival Science"

COURSE WORK

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

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

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

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

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

2 Features of the structure of public administration in the Russian

states XV - XVI centuries ………………………………… ... ………………… 22

2.1 Transformation of the political system and administrative bodies. 22

2.2 General characteristics of the state governance mechanism in the 15th - 16th centuries …………………………………………………………………. .. …… ..26

2.3 State system and the formation of a system of state institutions in the 15th - 16th centuries …………………………………………….… 34

2.4 Social structure of society ……………………………… .. ………… .38

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

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

Appendix A Diagram of Russian authorities and administration

centralized state ... ………………………… .45

Appendix B Scheme Judicial bodies of the Russian centralized

states ………………………………………………… ..46

Appendix 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 scattered and warring lands and principalities? How could a not so militarily powerful state be able to withstand strong neighbors? What factors predetermined the formation and development of the Russian state? These questions are still raised and resolved in historical research. Many features of this process (the autocratic nature of the central government, the multinationality of the Russian state, etc.) are still evident today. Consequently, this topic continues to be relevant.

Many historians expressed their opinions 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 aim of the research is to study the process of formation of the Russian centralized state.

Within the framework of achieving this goal, the following tasks can be distinguished:

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

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

To reveal the peculiarities of the structure of state administration of the Russian state.

The object of this research is to analyze the conditions of the "Formation of the Russian centralized state".

In this case, the subject of the study is the consideration of individual issues formulated as the objectives of this study.

The source base of the course work is the scientific and journalistic works of Dmitriev Y.A., Isaev I.A., Karamzin N.M., Klyuchevsky V.O., Soloviev S.M., Tolstaya A.I. and etc.

The methodological basis of the research was formed by general and specific scientific methods of cognition of the object of study: dialectical, formal-logical and historical.

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

Descriptive, statistical, analytical and other methods were used in the work.

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

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

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

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

The appendix shows the schemes of the judicial and state authorities of the Russian centralized state and presents a diagram 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 the map of Russia in the middle of the 15th century, then the first thing you should pay attention to is the border separating the Russian lands from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Mongol-Tatar khanates. The border passes near Moscow. Even Kiev, the former capital of the Old Russian state, is part of the Lithuanian principality. Russian lands are fragmented; the main ones are the Moscow, Tver and Ryazan principalities.

At this time, in Western Europe, the process of the formation of unified states is under way: 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 completion of a long process, the beginning of which dates back to the XIV 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 was finally completed 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 conquest of appanage princes went hand in hand with liberation from the Tatar yoke, which was finally consolidated by Ivan III." Unification became possible only when the socio-economic conditions were ripe for it.

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

But, as usual, this process had its own characteristics: if in Europe centralization took place at the stage of decomposition of feudalism simultaneously with the beginning of the formation of a single internal market, i.e. in the conditions of the beginning bourgeois development, then in Russia centralization was accompanied by the strengthening and development of feudalism, the growth of serfdom on a national scale. As a result, the unification had insufficient economic prerequisites with clearly expressed political prerequisites. Another feature was determined by the weaker development of cities than in Europe. As a result, the leading social force of the unification 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 look differently at their relations with other princes. The desire to free oneself from 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 that historians name is the strengthening of economic ties between the Russian lands, caused by general economic growth. Despite the fact that, on the whole, the country's economy in the XIV-XV centuries remained natural, economic ties between its individual parts intensified. During this period, agriculture develops 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 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 outside. 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 increased, blacksmith, foundry, construction and pottery industries, as well as jewelry business developed.

Figure 1 - Preconditions for the formation of a centralized state

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

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

First of all, the nobles, merchants, artisans and all wide strata of society were interested in this.

There were other reasons for the unification, in particular, the exacerbation 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 corvee and quitrent. The feudal lords strove for the economic and legal enslavement of the peasants, and the peasants strove for freedom and put up resistance, which was expressed in the murders of the feudal lords, the arson 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 the small and middle 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 proceeds simultaneously with the formation of a single state. In the Code of Law of Ivan III (1497) it was indicated that peasants can leave the feudal lord in a week and within a week after St. George's Day (November 26 of each year). Moreover, the peasant was obliged first to pay the "elderly" for the use of the hut and service buildings. 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 interested in strengthening the central power. The townspeople also supported the Moscow grand-ducal 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 against 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 union were large feudal lords - princes who did not want to lose their power.

2.2. Formation of the Russian centralized state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under Ivan III, the modern term "Russia" was used for the first time in relation to our state.

2.3. The system of power in the Russian centralized state

Sovereign of All Russia. The hierarchical pyramid of power in the Russian centralized state was crowned by tsarist power. It was not limited 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. Its status developed in accordance with state law, which it also established.

To give weight to the adopted royal decisions, a procedure for applying a seal was introduced. For the first time in Russia, Ivan III introduces the symbol of royal power - coat of arms, which in 1472 became a two-headed eagle. The image of a two-headed eagle in 1497 appears on the tsarist seal, which is already becoming the "official seal", that is, it acquires greater significance.

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

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

Ivan III also has other services to Russia. According to many historians, this is one of the key figures in our history. This reformer, first, laid the foundations of autocracy; secondly, he created a state apparatus for governing the country; thirdly, he built the residence of the head of state - the fortified Moscow Kremlin; fourth, he established the rules of court etiquette; fifthly, he issued a set of laws (Code of Laws), binding on all subjects 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 managed the system of orders, exercised control over local government, and resolved land disputes. A Duma chancellery was created to conduct business.

In the Boyar Duma, in addition to the Moscow boyars, from the middle of the 15th century. local princes from the annexed lands also began to sit, recognizing the seniority of Moscow. The Duma adopted decisions by a majority vote. If no agreement was reached between the boyars, controversial issues were discussed until the whole of its composition came to a common opinion. To put it in a modern way, the Duma was looking for a consensus. If, nevertheless, agreement was not reached for some reason, then they went to a report to the head of state, and the matter was decided by the sovereign.

Term boyar gradually began to denote not just a major feudal lord, but a privileged lifelong member of the Boyar Duma. The second most important rank of the Boyar Duma was devious. At the end of the 15th century. the Duma consisted of 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 devious steel swear allegiance to the Grand Duke, confirming it with "letters of oath". The Moscow sovereign endowed himself with the right not only to remove boyars from public service, but also confiscate at the same time, their estates, land plots with property.

State courtyard. The main administrative governing body of the Moscow state was the Kazenny Dvor. This was the prototype of the government. The future ordering system grew out of two state departments: the Palace and the Treasury. The palace ruled over the lands of the Grand Duke, the Treasury was in charge of finances, the state seal, and archives. The tsar introduced new positions of the sovereign's people: the official clerk and clerks in charge of ambassadorial, local, yamsk, and 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. To manage the territories on the ground, the Novgorod, Tver and other palaces, as well as orders, were created.

Central authorities. Permanent administrative bodies were created from the center for the implementation of the tsar's decrees, other instructions and orders on the ground. Good boyars and nobles were entrusted with leading certain directions in the state. Under the jurisdiction of the most authoritative boyars, separate territories ("paths") were transferred, in which the highest officials exercised management and legal proceedings. Simultaneously with the creation of a new management system, the power of the Moscow Grand Duke, the sovereign of all Russia, was strengthened. The new "vertical of power", created in the era of Ivan III, significantly increased the centralization of state administration, made Moscow the real capital of a huge country.

The formation of orders, ranks, counties, volosts spoke of a fairly harmonious (for that time) system of government. This system was also enshrined in the legal framework created by Ivan III with the aim of strengthening his power, which was increasingly acquiring autocratic features.

Local authorities. The former appanage princes retained some powers of power. Within the limits of their possessions, they had the right to collect taxes from the population, to administer court. From among them, the Moscow prince appointed the governors and the thousand, who led the people's militia in wartime.

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

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

The system of public authorities

Ivan's Code of LawIII. A huge role in strengthening the unified state was played by the new legal system introduced by Ivan III. It united together the central and local bodies of state power, which were guided by the same laws for the whole country and demanded their observance from the tsar's subjects. Published in 1497, the Code of Law of Ivan III consolidated the new social order introduced by the authorities in the country since the time of Russian Pravda.

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

Code of Law 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 the week after St. George's Day (November 26), when all work on the land was completed, and the harvest was collected in the bins. Moreover, the state in 1497 legislatively establishes 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.

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

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

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

In 1514, Smolensk, which was conquered from Lithuania, became part of the Moscow state. In honor of this event, the Novodevichy Monastery was built in Moscow, in which the icon of the Smolensk Mother of God, the defender of the western borders of the Russian state, was placed. Finally, in 1521, the Ryazan land, which was already dependent on Moscow, became part of Russia.

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

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

Boyar rule led to a weakening of the central government, and the tyranny of the patrimonials caused widespread discontent and open demonstrations in a number of Russian cities.

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

Kingdom wedding. In 1547 Ivan the Terrible was crowned king. From the hands of the Moscow Metropolitan Macarius, he received the famous Monomakh hat and other symbols of the royal power. From that moment on, the great Moscow prince officially began to be called tsar, and Russia officially became a monarchy. The coronation of the king strengthened the sacred principle of the royal power.

I.S. Peresvetov. The nobility expressed particular interest in carrying out reforms. The talented publicist of that time, the nobleman Ivan Semenovich Peresvetov, was a kind of its ideologist. He turned to the king with messages (petitions), which set out a kind of program of transformations. I.S. Peresvetov was largely anticipated by the actions of Ivan IV.

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

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

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

upper house: tsar, Boyar Duma, clergy;

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

Zemsky councils did not function constantly, they were convened by decree of the tsar. The initiative to convene the Zemsky Sobor could belong to both the tsar proper and the estates. The competence of the council was not clearly established, but the very fact of the tsar's convocation of representatives of various estates to solve important state problems testified to the formation of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia. The first Zemsky Sobor was convened by the tsar in February 1549 The emergence of estate-representative bodies of government meant that the most important decisions were sanctioned by representatives of the ruling class.

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

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

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

On the recommendations of the "Chosen Rada", Ivan the Terrible implemented personnel policy, appointing to responsible government posts people not only loyal to the sovereign, but also not noticed in bribery and other abuses of power. Advising the tsar to replace officials who compromise the state power, members of the "Chosen Rada", according to N.M. Karamzin, “they wanted to mark the happy change of state not with the cruel execution of thin old officials, but with the best election of new ones”.

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

Voevodo-order management system. As the name suggests, the new system of government had two components: a voivodship and an order, which at that time was a progressive step in the state structure and administration of Russia. The order management subsystem included the following main orders, a prototype of the line ministries.

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

Discharge order exercised control over the troops of the nobility, taking into account service people, their ranks and positions. The category was called the military list of military men with the designation of the position held in the army. The discharge order was also entrusted with providing service people with monetary and local salaries, determining fitness for military service. This department had the right to raise or lower an employee in the rank, increase or decrease his salary and even completely deprive him of the previously received land. In addition, the duties of the Discharge Order included the appointment of governors, governors, control of their activities, as well as the organization of the construction of fortresses on the Russian borders.

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

Ambassadorial order carried out diplomatic functions. Until the beginning of the XVI century. Russia did not have permanent diplomatic missions abroad. Therefore, the main task of the Ambassadorial Prikaz was the preparation and dispatch of Russian embassies abroad, as well as the reception and dispatch of foreign diplomats. This department was entrusted with the ransom of the Russians who were captured, as well as individual orders related to the activities of foreign merchants and artisans.

Serious order controlled courtyards, enslaved and other dependent people, carried out a court over them.

Rogue order headed the system of police-detective bodies, confirmed the positions of labial wardens, kissers and clerks, considered cases of robbery in the second court.

Printed order in charge of book printing, supervision of census takers and book publishers.

Pharmaceutical order was engaged in medicine.

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

The order was headed by a boyar or a clerk, depending on the importance of the department. They were major government officials. The orders were in charge of not only managing state affairs, but also collecting taxes, supervising the activities of county and regional institutions.

Voivods. With the strengthening of state power in the middle of the 17th century. posts were established voivode, which were selected by the discharge order from among the boyars and nobles, with their subsequent approval by the Boyar Duma and the tsar. Several voivods were appointed to large cities, one of them was considered the main one. Unlike the breeders, the governors received the sovereign's salary and could not rob the local population legally.

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

An important function of the governor was the recruitment of servicemen from the nobility and the children of the boyars for military service. The voivode drew up the relevant lists, kept records, conducted military inspections, and checked the readiness for service. At the request of the Discharge Order, the voivode sent servicemen to the duty station. He also commanded archers and cannons, watched the state of the fortresses.

The governor had a special clerk hut led by a clerk. It handled all the affairs of the city and county administration. The total number of the apparatus of local institutions of the country in the second half of the 17th century. began to approach two thousand people. As the governors strengthened their position, they were more and more subordinate to the lip and zemstvo organs, especially on military and police issues.

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

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

G. Serial design artist P. Efremov Moiseev N.N. M 74 Universum. Information. ... the calculations are partially outlined in the collective monograph: Moiseev N.N., Alexandrov V.V., Tarko A.M. Man ... printed - in his fatherland there are no prophets! Here...

QUESTIONS

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

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

Final weakening of the Golden Horde;

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

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

Weakening of Lithuania.

Strengthening the power of the Moscow prince.

2. Describe the system of government bodies of the Russian centralized state.

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

The Boyar Duma was the advisory body. In the circle of the Duma officials, the sovereign discussed economic, diplomatic and military issues. The distribution of powers in the Duma, and hence the seats that its members occupied during meetings, depended on the nobility and antiquity of the family. This principle is called parochialism. The monarch's close associates - boyars and servants - made up the sovereign's court.

The Treasury was in charge of collecting and distributing state funds. A special service - the Palace - was in charge of the sovereign's land holdings. With the expansion of the administrative apparatus for the management of specific state affairs, orders began to arise in which clerks and clerks served.

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

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

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

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

1) landowners are nobles who received land with peasants for their service. At the first call of the sovereign, they were obliged to appear in the army, having a horse, all the necessary weapons and armor, together with their armed servants. The landowners, unlike the Western European feudal lords, were not the sovereign masters of their possessions. Without the consent of the sovereign, it was forbidden to sell, transfer to heirs.

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

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

The declaration of Moscow as the third Rome contributed to the rise of the Moscow principality during the period of Ivan III. Moscow was declared the center of political and church life. This also gave rise to calling herself the defender of all Orthodox Christians, which contributed to the annexation of a number of new lands.

5. Which of the symbols of the Russian state have survived to this day? How important are they to us today?

To this day, such symbols of the Russian state have survived as the image of George the Victorious sitting on a horse and a two-headed eagle.

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

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

TASKS

1. Using map number 8 (p. VII), determine which lands were part of the Moscow principality by 1462. What time is considered the period of completion of the unification of the Russian lands? Name the territories that became part of the Moscow state during this period.

By 1462, the Belozersk, Kostroma, Galician, Uglitsk, and Dmitrov lands, as well as the territories of the Great Vladimir principality, were included in the Moscow principality.

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

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

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

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

3. Describe the general features and differences of the estate structure of Russian and Western European medieval society.

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

The nobles both in Western Europe and in Russia had exclusive rights to own land, they did not pay taxes, they collected taxes from the third estate (peasants), as a rule, they served in the army and took part in governing the state. In contrast to Western Europe, local land ownership was widespread in Russia, and not hereditary (except for appanage princes), also the nobles in Russia owned serfs, and in Western Europe they did not.

The clergy in Western Europe and in Russia was considered a privileged class. As in Europe, with the strengthening of central political power, it lost its influence. In contrast to Europe, in Russia the economic position of the clergy has significantly strengthened, which is reflected in the growth of church land tenure.

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

Also in Russia in the social structure of society there was such a feature as the presence of the class of the Cossacks.