Introduction

For research in your test work I chose the topic of estate-representative monarchy in Russia.

In my opinion, this topic is very interesting to study.

In general, the history of the Russian state is based on a certain basis, in connection with which there is a change in the types and forms of the state and legal systems. The development of state and law is part of human history, closely connected with the history of the national economy, culture and other sectors human activity.

With the establishment of an estate-representative monarchy, the struggle between the ideologists of strong royal power and the bearers of the ideas of feudal fragmentation intensified, which is reflected in the historical documents that have reached us. The 17th century is characterized as a new period of Russian history.

One of the important issues in the history of the Russian people is the question of Ivan the Terrible. Ivan the Terrible already seemed to his contemporaries to be a mysterious and terrible person: The most exalted and most glorious of all who were, and I am glorified from the end of heaven to the end of them. , ? clerk Ivan Timofeev writes about him and adds: ... his land hated the cities... and the whole land of his dominion, like an ax, he cut the floors in half . The same mystery entered Ivan IV into historical science. For most historians this was a psychological problem ; interested in the very personality of Ivan the Terrible and the conditions in which it was created. Some historians even questioned whether Grozny was mentally normal. But already in the works of Solovyov and Platonov, attempts were made to approach this issue differently: they regarded the activities of Ivan IV as a moment of decisive battle state principle, embodied by this formidable sovereign, with specific antiquity.

In my opinion, the topic I have chosen is very interesting. During this period, a lot of interesting people live, significant events for Russia occur.

Chapter 1. Main trends in the socio-economic and political development of Russia in the 16th-17th centuries.

The existence of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia covers a period that lasted over 100 years and was intense important events. An active foreign policy brought Russia new territories. It was possible to defeat the old enemies - the Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian khanates. As a result, the Lower and Middle Volga regions, as well as Siberia, became part of Russia. The development of these territories began.

In the middle of the 17th century. A major event occurred historical significance- in 1654, left-bank Ukraine, by the will of its people, was reunited with Russia.

The increased exploitation of peasants and serfs leads to an intensification of the class struggle in the country (uprisings, unrest, peasant war under the chairmanship of I.I. Bolotnikov). The Livonian War and the oprichnina cause great devastation in the country. The situation is complicated by foreign intervention.

After foreign interventionists were expelled from the country, a new economic recovery began. However, it took a long time to overcome economic difficulties. Even by the 40s of the 17th century. In the country, only 40% of the previous arable land was cultivated, which gave rise to hunger and impoverishment of the poorest population.

In the middle of the 17th century. The process of final enslavement of the peasants was completed. Back at the end of the 16th century. A decisive step was taken to legally formalize the enslavement of peasants, which was expressed in the abolition of the right of peasants to transfer from one feudal lord to another. At first, this measure was proclaimed as temporary. A special decree introduced reserved years, during which peasants were prohibited from leaving their lands. Then the lesson years are entered. In 1597, a decree was issued on a five-year period for searching for fugitive peasants. Subsequently, the terms for searching for runaway peasants were changed in the legislation, but this institution remained until 1649. This situation made it possible for the boyars - large patrimonial owners - to lure peasants to themselves. The Council Code of 1649 finally formalized the enslavement of the peasants by abolishing fixed-term summers. From now on, the search for fugitive peasants became indefinite. During this period, serious contradictions were observed among the ruling class; there was a fierce struggle between the monarchs and their supporters with the top of the boyar aristocracy, who opposed the centralization of the state. The estate-representative monarchy emerged as a result of the struggle to strengthen the centralized state.

After the expulsion of the interventionists, the country began to strengthen not only economically. Beginning with the Zemsky Sobor of 1613, which elected a new tsar, the Russian state gradually strengthened. By the middle of the 17th century. It is becoming powerful again, capable of conducting an active foreign policy.

Chapter 2. Changes in the social system. Boyar-princely aristocracy and its political position. The military service class is the nobles. Dependent population. The final enslavement of the peasants: legislative abolition of St. George's Day and school years. Limitation of the institution of servitude. Posad people

The economic basis of society during this period remained the same - feudal relations, which have now reached full development. The enslavement of the peasants was completed, and the corvée system of farming was developed. In addition to corvee, peasants performed a number of other duties.

The oprichnina undermined the economic power of the former appanage princes, the tsar's land holdings increased, and the importance of local land ownership gradually began to increase.

Along with the development of feudalism, other processes are taking place in society. In the 17th century, manufacturing production appeared and developed, and the prerequisites were created for the emergence of bourgeois relations, although manufactories still existed on a feudal basis. Cities are growing, the role of the townspeople is increasing, and trade is developing more and more intensively.

The first feudal lord in the country was Tsar Ivan IV, who continued the economic policy pursued by Ivan III, who relied on the nobles. Oprichnina contributed to the further strengthening of the economic power of the tsar. Having taken away a huge amount of land from the boyars, the tsar acquired a significant fund to distribute in the form of estates. Using this fund, he was able to attract to his side the nobility, who were interested in centralizing and strengthening the power of the monarch. The ruling class in feudal society - the feudal lords - was not a homogeneous mass, but consisted of various layers.

The largest feudal lords included the boyar-princely aristocracy. It consisted of two main groups. The first group consisted of former appanage princes who lost their former political privileges, but retained their former status before the introduction of the oprichnina. economic importance, then they merged with the bulk of the boyars. The second group of feudal lords included large and medium-sized boyars. The interests of these two groups were different on some issues. They pursued a single line only in relation to the exploited population.

The former appanage princes consistently and unswervingly opposed centralization; they took measures to weaken the tsarist power. The oprichnina was directed mainly against this group of the feudal elite. The bulk of the boyars at the first stage of the reign of Ivan IV supported the tsarist power and measures to strengthen the centralized state. The boyars believed that the main role in the life of the country should be played by the Boyar Duma, with whose opinion the tsar had to agree. Subsequently, especially after the introduction of oprichnina terror, a conflict arose between the tsar and the boyars.

During the period of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia, the previously established principle of filling government positions in accordance with birth, nobility, and not according to personal business qualities (localism) was preserved. The most important posts in the state were in the hands of former appanage princes and boyars. With the help of localism, the feudal nobility did not allow the monarch to decide personnel issues independently, without taking into account the interests of the boyar-princely feudal elite. The ruling class also included the clergy, who were major feudal lords. The church had huge land holdings. A large number of peasants worked on lands owned by monasteries and other church organizations. The monarchs tried to limit church land ownership, but all these attempts were unsuccessful. Only Ivan IV managed to achieve some restrictions on the growth of church land ownership.

The peasantry was divided into black tax and privately owned. During the years of devastation in the country, a mass exodus of peasants from their places began. Previously, peasants were chained to the land by their farming. In this regard, they rarely took advantage of the opportunity provided by law to transfer from one feudal lord to another on St. George’s Day. When peasant farms began to be devastated due to the Livonian War and the oprichnina, they began to leave their lands in search of better places. A measure to combat the migration of peasants was their enslavement.

During this period, servitude still existed. His legal status remained the same. However, it is developing new category dependent people, which arose in previous period, - enslaved people. They were formed from free people (mainly from peasants who had lost their lands). In order to become enslaved, it was necessary to compulsorily issue a service servitude charter, which established the legal status of the enslaved person.

To draw up a bonded charter, certain conditions were necessary (the person must reach a certain age, be free from serfdom and from public service, etc.).

In the second half of the 16th century. and in the 17th century. The growth of cities, crafts, and trade continues. The number of posad population, which is attached to the posads, increases significantly. The top of the settlement were large merchants - guests and people of the living room and cloth hundreds. The bulk of the settlement consisted of small traders and artisans who carried out various types of duties. In addition, in the cities there were courtyards and entire settlements of monasteries and secular feudal lords. Their owners did not bear the sovereign's tax; they were “white” people, white locals. Accordingly, peasants and slaves who lived in the households of the Belomest residents bore duties in favor of their masters, but did not pay city taxes.

At the end of the 16th century. - XVII century a conflict was brewing between the Belomestians and the black townspeople. The fact is that the owners of the white settlements lured people from the black ones. In conditions of mutual responsibility, the remaining residents of black settlements had to pay taxes for those who left. In addition, artisans who worked for white locals on more favorable terms created strong competition for black artisans. During the Moscow uprising of 1648, the demand for the abolition of white settlements was also put forward. This requirement was satisfied by the Council Code of 1649, which established that white seats were everywhere abolished. The shops and craft enterprises of the white residents and their people had to be sold to the black population or recorded as tax.

A step in depriving peasants of freedom was the Code of Laws of 1550. It confirmed the provision on St. George's Day, but at the same time increased the amount of the elderly paid by peasants by 2 altyns. In general, this Law Code did not play a significant role in the enslavement of the peasants, but it supported the emerging trend, as if “tightening the screws.”

The basis of the legislative material from the end of the 16th century has been relatively well preserved to this day. There are many sentences devoted not only to the most important, but also to unimportant subjects. Among the most significant laws of the 16th century, only one is definitely missing, which had a huge impact on the entire course of economic development Russia. This is a decree on the enslavement of peasants.

Legislation on peasant question can be traced from the end of the 16th century to the Council Code of March 9, 1607, but in this chain one (perhaps the most important) link is missing - the law on the abolition of St. George’s Day. In Soviet historiography, the problem of reserved years was thoroughly studied in the works of many historians. For example, B.D. Grekov presented the specific course of enslavement as follows. Under Ivan the Terrible, at the very beginning of the 80s of the 16th century, the government issued a decree on reserved years, by virtue of which all peasants were deprived of the right to move from one owner to another on St. George’s Day. S.B. Veselovsky agreed with B.D.’s conclusion. Grekov, but suggested that under Ivan the Terrible, the protected years operated in a certain, limited territory. And according to the theory of B.D. Grekov’s protected years immediately acquired the significance of a national measure.

The analysis of early documentary sources should be supplemented by a study of later sources on the enslavement of peasants, among which the most important is the chronicle evidence preserved in the Belsk Chronicle of the 17th century. So we have two versions. According to one of them, Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich banned the peasants’ exit, and on the other, Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. However, a comparison of the Belsk Chronicle and the Code of 1607 does not speak in favor of the first. The entry in the Belsk Chronicle was made at least 25 years later than the Code of 1607 was created, therefore, at least half a century separated the time of compilation of the chronicle article from the estimated time of establishing reserved years. In addition, nothing is known about the author of the article; his note about the “spell” of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich is of a purely literary nature. There is no hint in it that its author used any documents about peasant enslavement. The Code contains a direct indication that its text was compiled in the Local Prikaz, which prepared and kept all laws on the peasant issue. One can hardly doubt the competence of the authors of the Code.

Chapter 3. Transition to an estate-representative monarchy. Strengthening royal power. Reforms of Ivan the Terrible. Influence Livonian War and oprichnina as a form of state terror on the socio-political development of Russia. Reducing the role of the Boyar Duma. Zemsky Sobors. Mandatory branch system of central management. Military structure: Streltsy army and noble militia. Financial reform

aristocracy class representative monarchy

In the middle of the 16th century, the form of the state changed significantly. The early feudal monarchy was replaced by an estate-representative monarchy. The reason for the emergence of an estate-representative monarchy was the relative weakness of the monarch, who sought to establish autocracy, but was forced to share power with the Boyar Duma. Tsarism arose a need, as a counterbalance to the Boyar Duma, to attract nobles and the elite of the townspeople to government administration.

Tsar Ivan IV, fighting against the boyar aristocracy, did not trust the Boyar Duma and increasingly relied on the so-called “Close Duma,” which included persons especially close to the tsar. He mainly consulted with them. At this time, the composition of the Boyar Duma changed significantly. Some of its members - high-born boyars - were executed or expelled. Their places in the Duma were taken by the tsar's relatives and less noble representatives - nobles and clerks. The role of the Duma was also influenced by oprichnina terror. It was dangerous at that time to contradict the tsar and his guardsmen. There could not yet be autocracy in Russia during the time of Ivan IV, but the tsar strove for it. By introducing the oprichnina, he pursued not only economic goals, which consisted of undermining the economy of the former princely appanages and eliminating the economic fragmentation of the country. The political significance of the oprichnina was that, through terror against the princely-boyar feudal aristocracy, Ivan IV attempted a coup d'etat in order to establish an absolute monarchy. The Tsar was hindered primarily by the Boyar Duma; he wanted to get rid of its tutelage and become an unlimited monarch.

After the introduction of the oprichnina, the political system temporarily underwent some changes. Two systems of power and control emerged. In the zemshchina everything remained the same - the Boyar Duma functioned there - the highest body of state power, sharing power with the tsar. In the oprichnina, virtually unlimited power belonged to the tsar. There was a special system government agencies: oprichnina Duma, special oprichnina orders, oprichnina army, oprichnina treasury. The Oprichnina Duma controlled the Boyar Duma, significantly limiting its rights.

The coup attempt still failed. The terror led to the execution of not only opposition boyars, but also many nobles.

Oprichnina terror could not destroy the opposition of the boyar aristocracy. The clergy spoke out against terror. Metropolitan Phillip in his sermon before large mass the people directly demanded the abolition of the oprichnina. The tsar dealt with him, obtaining a resolution from a church council to sentence Phillip to death. Then Ivan IV commuted this sentence to life imprisonment in a monastery prison. However, the tsar was forced to abolish the oprichnina, as he realized that he could lose any social support at all, because all layers of the ruling class were already dissatisfied with the terror - the boyars, the clergy, the nobles.

The meaning of oprichnina cannot be determined unambiguously. The land confiscations carried out at the beginning of the oprichnina weakened the boyar aristocracy and strengthened the tsarist power. At the same time, oprichnina terror led to significant destruction of the productive forces. The oprichnina contributed to the political rise of the nobles. However, it did not destroy the significance of the Boyar Duma as the highest body of state power, nor did it shake the principle of localism, which protected the privileges of the nobility.

Localism was one of those institutions of the feudal state that provided representatives of the feudal nobility with a monopoly right to a leadership role in the most important bodies of the state. The essence of localism was that the possibility of a person occupying any post in administrative bodies or in the army was predetermined by local accounts, that is, the mutual relationships between individual feudal - princely or boyar - surnames, and within these surnames - the mutual relationships between individual members of these families. At the same time, the possibility of changing these ratios was excluded, since this would mean a change in the order of places in the service, court or military hierarchy. This led to the fact that in order for a person to occupy a particular post, it was necessary that the position of this person in the local hierarchy corresponded to the position occupied in this hierarchy by the post for which he was applying. this person.

The most specific body of state power of this period were the zemstvo councils. An important reason their convening was an intensification of the class struggle. Zemstvo Sobors were convened at the most acute moments of the class struggle, when resolving issues of peace, war, expulsion of interventionists, and finding means to overcome economic devastation. The first cathedral (called the Council of Reconciliation) was convened by the tsar and the feudal lords, frightened by the uprising of the townspeople in Moscow, in 1549. The zemstvo cathedrals included the tsar, the Boyar Duma, and the top clergy (the Consecrated Cathedral) in full. They made up as if upper house, whose members were not elected, but participated in it in accordance with their social status. The lower house was represented by elected officials from the nobility, clerks, and upper townspeople (merchants, large merchants). A significant role in zemstvo councils was played by nobles, clerks and especially merchants, whose participation was important for solving various money problems. Zemsky councils in most cases were convened on the initiative of the tsar. The convening of this body was also carried out on the initiative of certain classes or groups of the population. The cathedral was opened by the clerk or the king himself. In most cases, meetings and discussions of issues took place by class. Boyars and clergy, as a rule, sat separately. The decisions of the councils were formalized in special protocols, which were called conciliar acts. They were sealed with the seals of the king, patriarch and higher ranks.

After the expulsion of foreign interventionists, in the first years of the reign of Mikhail Romanov, the country experienced economic devastation and serious financial difficulties. Tsarism needed the support of various segments of the population, especially the richest circles of merchants.

Since the 20s of the 17th century. tsarist power became somewhat stronger, zemstvo councils began to meet less frequently. There is no reason to classify Zemsky Sobors as the advisory bodies of the Tsar. They were the highest bodies of state power.

The reforms of the 50s of the 16th century especially reveal the state and political talent of Ivan the Terrible. The most important feature political history The Russian state consists of numerous reforms aimed at further development and strengthening of the Russian centralized state. A common feature reforms is their anti-boyar orientation. Proclaiming these reforms, the government of Ivan IV portrayed them as measures whose purpose was to eliminate the consequences of boyar rule and strengthen the economic and political positions of those social groups whose interests it expressed and on which it relied - nobles, landowners and upper towns.

At the same time, there is reason to say that the government of Ivan IV has a whole plan of reforms covering a wide range of issues domestic policy and included measures in the field of land ownership, and financial reforms, and, finally, church reforms. The starting point in carrying out reforms was the speech of Ivan IV on February 27, 1549 at a meeting of the Boyar Duma together with the “consecrated council” (i.e., the highest representatives of the church). This speech was programmatic in nature and was a declaration setting out the basic principles of government policy; a sharply negative assessment of boyar rule was given.

The main issue addressed in the declaration is the question of boyar children and their interests, all three points of which are devoted to them: first, an assessment of the situation of boyar children in the past, during boyar rule, then the requirement that the continuation of “forces”, “grievances” and “sales” in relation to boyar children and the formulation of sanctions if they do occur.

The issue of boyars is interpreted in exactly the opposite way. Boyars are seen as the main source of violence, “grievances” and “sales” inflicted on boyar children in the past, during the years of boyar rule, and as a potential source of the same actions in the present and future. Therefore, Ivan IV’s appeal to “all boyars” was in the nature of an ultimatum, under the threat of disgrace and “execution” for those boyars who tried to continue or resume this kind of action. On the same day, February 27, 1549, another speech by Ivan IV took place. In its meaning, it was like a repetition of the government declaration, but not in front of the boyars, against whom the spearhead of the policy proclaimed in the declaration was directed, but in front of the boyars’ children and nobles, whose interests were reflected and protected by the government declaration.

The logical result of the political events of February 27 was the law of February 28, 1549, which represented the beginning of the implementation of the policy proclaimed in the declarations of Ivan IV. The law on February 28 was adopted without the participation of “all boyars”: having obtained from them acceptance of the demands formulated in the tsar’s declaration, the government of Ivan IV did not consider it necessary to submit the text of the new law to “all boyars” for consideration and it was adopted at a meeting of the “near Duma” with with the participation of Metropolitan Macarius.

A review of the materials related to the February declaration of Ivan IV shows that by this time the government’s policy had already been defined as a policy of protecting the interests of landowners (children of boyars) and the struggle to eliminate the consequences of boyar tyranny during the boyar rule.

The government of Ivan IV, speaking against the boyars and in defense of the boyars' children - the landowners, sought to present itself as a defender of "all the peasants of their kingdom." The obvious goal is to use statements about the protection of all “peasants” to cover up the class nature of the policies of Ivan IV as the authority of the ruling class of feudal serfs. The tendency to portray the policy of the government of Ivan IV as having a “nationwide” character appears especially clearly in the speech of Ivan IV at the Council of the Stoglavy in 1551. The Tsar submitted the following questions (“Royal Questions”) to the consecrated council and “all boyars” for consideration:

About the fight against localism,

On the revision of estates, estates and feedings,

About monastic, princely and boyar settlements,

About the elimination of cramps,

On the liquidation of townhouses,

About duties for transportation across the river and for travel over the bridge,

About outposts along the borders,

On the establishment of patrimonial books and on the regulation of service from patrimonial lands,

On the regulation of the matter of distribution of estates,

On the procedure for providing for widows of boyar children,

On the procedure for supervising Nogai ambassadors and guests,

About the general land census.

Significant reform was carried out in church life. In 1551, a church council was held, which received the name Stoglavogo, since its decisions were written down in a book consisting of one hundred chapters. The main objectives of church reform were the unification of church rituals and the creation of a single pantheon of Russian saints. This was necessary in order to eliminate the differences in the performance of church rituals and the veneration of saints that had accumulated during the times of feudal fragmentation. Another task was to raise the authority of the church, which was undermined by some decline in the morality of the clergy (abuse of church officials, debauchery, drunkenness).

In addition, at a meeting of the church council, the government of Ivan IV came up with a proposal to liquidate monastic land ownership, but it was not accepted due to the disagreement of the Osiplyan majority of the council. But it was still possible to somewhat limit monastic land ownership by canceling in favor of Ivan IV the princely-boyar lands granted to the monasteries during his childhood, starting in 1533. Monasteries were prohibited from purchasing lands without royal permission, and the descendants of appanage princes had no right without the knowledge of the king transfer their lands to the church “for the sake of their souls.” With this, the government took control of monastic land ownership. Ultimately, church reform was carried out on the basis of a compromise between the Osiphlian majority of the clergy and the non-acquisitive government.

Land reform.

The main place in the program of government activities is occupied by the land issue. Specific gravity The land issue in the reform plan developed by the government of Ivan IV is already evident in the fact that out of the 12 points that make up the “Tsar’s Questions,” five are devoted to land matters. The government plan outlined a general revision of the lands owned by service people. The need for this event was motivated by the fact that the years of boyar rule led to major changes in the field of land ownership, expressed in the concentration of a huge amount of land, compared with the times before the death of Vasily III, in the hands of some and in an equally large scale of landlessness in others. The task facing the government was to return the “insufficient” land at the expense of the “surplus” lands identified from those who increased their holdings during the reign of the boyars. One of the most important acts of policy of the government of Ivan IV is the verdict on May 11, 1551. The significance of this verdict lies in the fact that it formulates the basic principles of policy regarding the two most important categories of feudal landownership: monastic and princely. The verdict established a number of measures directed against monastic land ownership:

It was prohibited for monasteries (and other representatives of church landownership) to purchase estates “without reporting” to the tsar: “in advance, the archbishop, and the bishop, and the monastery of estates without the knowledge of the tsar, the Grand Duke, and do not buy from anyone without a report, but by the prince and boyar children and all people of estates You can’t sell without a report. And whoever buys and who sells the estate without a report, and those who buy it have lost their money, and the seller has the estate; and when the estate is taken over by the Tsar and the Grand Duke, there is no money.”

Another clause of the sentence extended the obligation of the “report” to land contributions to the monastery: “whoever, without the sovereign’s knowledge, gives his patrimony to his liking, and transfers that patrimony from the monasteries to the sovereign without any money.”

The third provision of the sentence established special restrictions for patrimonial owners of a number of localities, for princes in the first place.

Finally, a special section of the sentence regulated the procedure for the “redemption” by relatives of estates given to monasteries.

The listed points, however, did not exhaust the content of the verdict. Moreover, it can be said that the main political edge of the verdict was not in them. While regulating issues of monastic land ownership for the future, the verdict simultaneously included a number of points aimed at revising the past in matters of the development of monastic land ownership. And here again we see the main political motive that is invariably found in all the activities of the 50s in the field of land policy - the elimination in the interests of the nobility of the results of land policy during the boyar rule.

The verdict provides a clear description of monastic expansion in the land issue, which characterized the activities of monasteries during boyar rule. Expansion took place in four directions:

) acquisition of manorial and black lands for debts;

) violent seizure of lands “from the children of boyars and from Christians”;

) expansion of possessions by bribing scribes;

) staging monastery repairs “on the sovereign’s lands.”

This description of the methods and ways for monasteries to increase their land holdings, used by monasteries during the years of boyar rule, is given with a very specific goal - the complete elimination of the results of monastic expansion: in relation to all lands acquired by monasteries during the years of boyar rule, it was prescribed to “find whose lands were from ancient times , for the same land and teaching." Along with monastic land ownership, another category of land, about which we're talking about in the verdict of May 11, 1551, is princely land ownership."

So, in the question of the princely estates and estates of Tver and other cities, as well as in the question of monastic land ownership, the verdict restored the “old times” violated after Vasily III and meant a return to the policy in relation to princely land ownership that was carried out before the reign of the princely land. boyar groups of the 30-40s of the 16th century.

The policy formulated in the verdict is characterized by one feature: The restrictions introduced regarding patrimonial land ownership were not of a universal nature, but applied only to three princely families and to a certain group of localities of the Russian state. Thus, the verdict of May 11, which marked the beginning of the policy of struggle of the government of Ivan IV to eliminate the economic basis of the power of the princes - their estates - dealt the first blow to the most powerful group of former independent feudal lords - the princes. An expression of the same policy are the provisions of the verdict of May 11, directed against all patrimonial owners in the whole of Tver and other areas listed in it.

All these areas were territories of former independent feudal state entities, which became part of the Russian centralized state in the second half of the 15th century and in the first decades of the 16th century, and the establishment of central government control over the patrimonial land ownership of these areas expressed a policy of struggle for the subordination of the former feudal landowners of the appanage principalities to the government of the Russian centralized state.

Military reform.

The “Code of Service” of 1556 completes not only the development of the legal foundations of local land ownership, but at the same time it is also the completion of the process of restructuring the army of the Russian state - a process whose beginning dates back to the second half of the 15th century and which consisted in the creation of a new type of army on the spot old military squads from the times of feudal fragmentation. The Code of 1556 established the procedure for military service, according to which each feudal lord (patrimonial landowner and landowner) was obliged to field a set number of soldiers on horseback and in full armor from a certain amount of land (150 acres). Those feudal lords who fielded more warriors than the norm received a monetary reward, and those who fielded fewer warriors than the norm paid a fine. This order contributed to an increase in the number of troops and prevented boyars from evading service. Periodic military reviews served the same purpose. Those who did not show up for services or reviews had their estates and estates taken away. The adoption of the Service Code contributed to increasing the combat effectiveness of Russian troops, which was important for Ivan IV’s active foreign policy.

The next government reform concerned the reorganization of central government bodies - orders. The most important orders were: Ambassadorial, Discharge, Local, Petition, Robber and Zemsky. The command system of government contributed to the elimination of the remnants of feudal fragmentation and strengthened the centralization of the state. The Polish order was in charge of foreign policy affairs. It was headed by clerk Ivan Mikhailovich Viskovaty. The Ambassadorial Order was assigned an additional function - to control the unofficial relations of Russian boyars and clergy with Lithuanian lords and clergy, as well as all other relations with foreign states. The discharge order was a kind of headquarters of the armed forces and was in charge of the noble cavalry.

The order recorded all cases of appointment to service and transfers in positions. There was also a Cossack order, which was in charge Cossack troops. The local order was in charge of the distribution of estates among service people. The local order led an active struggle against the flight of serfs. Adashev was in charge of the Petition Hut. This institution was supposed to accept petitions addressed to the king and conduct investigations into them. It was the highest control body. The robber order was engaged in the fight against “robberies” and “dashing people”. The Zemstvo Prikaz ruled Moscow and was responsible for order in it. During the formation of the order system, the leading role belonged to military administrative orders. At this time, a reorganization of the army took place. Ivan IV created a streltsy army armed with firearms. Streltsy were recruited on a voluntary basis from townspeople and free people, receiving a very meager salary from the treasury.

The Streltsy army was not like a regular army; barracks discipline was not introduced there. Streltsy lived in their houses with their families (streltsy settlements). Along with military service, they were engaged in trade, crafts, and gardening. The Streletsky Order was created to guide the Streltsy. At the end of the 17th century. a system of court orders was created (Moscow, Vladimir, Kazan, etc.), which performed the functions of the highest judicial bodies. In the second half of the 16th century. the need arose to separate the Serf Prikaz from the treasury, since indentured servitude was rapidly developing. The main responsibility of the Serf Order was to register servitude records in special enslavement books.

Chapter 4. Local government and its reorganization: the introduction of provincial and zemstvo self-government. Voivodes, their functions

In the middle of the 16th century. A reform of local government was carried out, reflecting the aspirations of the nobility and the top of the town. The feeding system was replaced by a system of provincial and zemstvo self-government. The nobles and boyar children elected the head of the provincial body - the provincial elder, who was confirmed in office by the Robust Order. He also gave the appropriate order explaining the rights and responsibilities of the governor. The office of the provincial headman consisted of kissers elected by the townspeople and the top of the black peasantry. Each labial organ had a special office - a labial hut, and office work in it was carried out by a labial clerk. The provincial authorities investigated and tried cases of murder, robbery, theft, and monitored prisons.

Simultaneously with the creation of labial organs, zemstvo reform was carried out.

The jurisdiction of zemstvo bodies included, first of all, the collection of taxes and the analysis of civil and minor criminal cases. Provincial and zemstvo bodies performed simultaneously administrative and judicial functions. The court was not yet separated from the administration. Peasants' War under the leadership of Bolotnikov and years of foreign intervention convinced tsarism that local labial and zemstvo bodies could not be completely relied upon. These bodies continued to function, but additionally the position of governor was established, who were appointed by the Rank Order from among the boyars and nobles and approved by the Tsar and the Boyar Duma. The voivode obeyed the order that was in charge of the city or county where he was to serve. In large cities, several governors were appointed, but one of them was considered the main one. They received a salary from the treasury, because the principle of feeding was abolished. One of the main tasks of the governor was to ensure financial control. They kept records of the amount of land and the profitability of land plots of all farms. The collection of state taxes was directly carried out by elected elders and kissers, but they were supervised by voivodes.

An important state function of the governor was recruiting military service service people from the nobles and children of the boyars. According to the requirements of the Discharge Order, the voivode sent military personnel to their places of service. He was also in charge of the archers and gunners, and monitored the condition of the fortresses.

Conclusion

Century from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. is marked by a significant expansion of the territory of the Russian state, mainly in the east. Government measures to centralize management lead to the strengthening of the state.

This period characterized by noticeable changes in the social order.

The unfolding struggle between the feudal aristocracy and the bulk of the feudal class leads to an increasingly strengthening of the position of the nobility. The development of the exploited class is characterized by the final enslavement of the peasants, as well as the ever-increasing convergence of the status of peasants and slaves.

The entry of feudalism into the stage of maturity corresponds to a change in the form of the state, which becomes an estate-representative monarchy. The power of the monarch is strengthened, which finds its outward expression in the new title. At the same time, the king still cannot do without special bodies that express the will of the classes. The most important of them is the Zemsky Sobor. The role of the Boyar Duma is gradually declining. The new form of the state also corresponds to new local bodies. The system of feeding is being replaced by a system of provincial and zemstvo self-government, which noticeably infringes on the political and economic interests of the boyars and attracts the broad masses of the nobility and the top of the settlement to governance.

Bibliography

1. Zimin A.A. Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. ? M., 1964.

Zimin A.A. Reforms of Ivan the Terrible. ? M., 1960.

Isaev. History of state and law of Russia. ? M., 1999.

Stages of development:

1) Before the siege of the Rurik dynasty

2) Same as troubled times

3) Complete cessation of conciliar activities

27. The social system of the period of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia (mid-16th - mid-17th centuries).

1. Ruling class is divided quite clearly

For the feudal aristocracy (boyars), the economic base is patrimonial land ownership

For the service class (nobles), the economic base is local land ownership.

The consolidation of the feudal class was accompanied by the strengthening of its privileges: the monopoly right to own land, exemption from duties, advantages in the judicial process and the right to hold official positions.

2. Urban population

Receives the stable name "posad people".

A certain hierarchy has emerged:

a) guests and living room hundred (merchants trading abroad) - were granted significant privileges and were exempt from a number of taxes and duties.

b) cloth hundred - were endowed with significant privileges and were exempt from a number of taxes and duties.

c) black hundreds (medium, small and retail traders)

d) settlements (craft districts and workshops)

A significant part of the courtyards in the city belonged to spiritual and secular feudal lords, exempted from the state “tax” (direct sovereign tax, streltsy tax, Yam money, etc.) and were called “white settlements”. They represented serious competition to the posad, luring qualified labor from the “black settlements”. Therefore, the townspeople repeatedly raised the question of returning to the settlement the people who had left and the town property mortgaged by the “whitelisters” (people who bought communal land but did not join the community).

The Council Code of 1649 basically solved this problem by securing the posad's monopoly on crafts and trade, including white settlements in the state tax, and returning departed tax-payers to the posad.

At the same time, the entire population was assigned to the settlement; moving from settlement to settlement was prohibited.

Peasants

The attachment of peasants to the land began much earlier.

a) The first legal act in this direction was Art. 57 of the Code of Law of 1497, which established the “St. George’s Day” rule (a certain and very limited period of transition, payment of “elderly”).

b) This provision was developed in the Code of Laws of 1550. From I581, “reserved years” were introduced, during which even the established transition of peasants was prohibited.

c) Compiled in 50–90 years. XVI century scribe books became the documentary basis in the process of attaching peasants. From the end of the 16th century. decrees began to be issued on “pre-scheduled years”, which established the time frame for the search and return of fugitive peasants (5 - 15 years).

d) The final act of the enslavement process was the Council Code of 1649, which abolished the “lesson summers” and established the perpetuity of the investigation. The law determined punishments for harborers of runaway peasants and extended the rule of attachment to all categories of peasants.

Attachment developed in two ways:

Non-economic

Economic (bonded).

In the 15th century There were two main categories of peasants:

The old residents ran their own households and carried out their duties in full, forming the basis of the feudal economy. The feudal lord sought to secure them for himself, to prevent the transfer to another owner.

Newcomers, as new arrivals, could not fully bear the burden of duties and enjoyed certain benefits, received loans and credits. Their dependence on the owner was debt-like and enslaving.

According to the form of dependence, a peasant could be:

Ladle (work for half the harvest)

Serebryanik (work for interest).

Non-economic dependence was manifested in its purest form in the institution of servitude. The latter has changed significantly since the times of Russian Pravda:

The sources of servitude are limited (servitude under city key management is abolished, it is forbidden to servile “children of boyars”)

Cases of slaves being released into freedom are becoming more frequent.

The law differentiated entry into servitude (self-selling, key-holding) from entry into bondage.

The development of indentured servitude (unlike full indentured servitude could not be passed on by will, his children did not become serfs) led to the equalization of the status of serfs with serfs.

28. The state system of the period of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia (mid-16th - mid-17th centuries).

Estate-representative monarchy is an important stage in the history of the feudal state and law, corresponding to the era of mature feudalism. This political form develops as a result of the struggle of monarchs (grand dukes and kings) for the further strengthening of the centralized state.

The power of the monarch during this period is not yet strong enough to become absolute. Within the ruling class, monarchs and their supporters fought with the top of the feudal aristocracy (former appanage princes, large boyars), who opposed further centralization of the state. In this struggle, the monarchs relied on the nobles and the elite of the townspeople, who had to be more widely attracted to power.

Unlike the early feudal state, only one form of government was now possible - monarchy. But the status of the monarch is changing somewhat. Ivan IV proclaims himself Tsar, and the title sticks. This was not a mere formality, but reflected the real increase in the power of the monarch.

1. Boyar Duma

At the same time, the tsar cannot do without the old, traditional body - the Boyar Duma. True, the significance of the Boyar Duma changes over the period. However, the Boyar Duma limits the monarch. The introduction of the oprichnina could not fundamentally change anything. The tsar was forced to abandon it only a few years later, as he realized that he could lose all social support, since all layers of the ruling class were already dissatisfied with the terror. The oprichnina did not destroy the significance of the Boyar Duma as the highest body of state power.

2. Zemsky Sobors

Zemstvo councils became a fundamentally new supreme body of the state. Through them, the tsar attracted certain circles of the nobility and townspeople to govern the state. Zemsky councils were necessary for the monarch:

To support major events - waging war, finding new income, etc.

The kings, relying on the zemstvo councils, could implement appropriate policies through them even against the will of the Boyar Duma.

Structure:

1. Upper house

The tsar entered the zemstvo councils. The Boyar Duma, the top clergy - the Consecrated Cathedral in its entirety. They constituted the upper chamber, whose members were not elected, but participated in it in accordance with their position.

2. Lower house

It was represented by elected representatives of the nobility, the upper classes of the townspeople (merchants, large merchants). Elections to the lower house were not always held. Sometimes, when an urgent council was convened, representatives were invited by the king or local officials.

A significant role in the zemstvo councils was played by nobles, and especially merchants, whose participation was especially important for solving various financial problems (for providing funds for organizing a militia, etc.).

The convening of the last councils dates back to the second half of the 17th century.

In the middle of the 16th century. The transition from the palace-patrimonial to the command system of management was completed. Gradually, an extensive system of orders developed.

During the formation of the order system, the leading role belonged to military administrative orders. At this time, a reorganization of the army took place. It was based on noble cavalry and archers, which appeared as a result of the reform carried out by Ivan IV.

The personnel of the boyar and noble cavalry was in charge of the Rank Order, which recorded all cases of appointment to service and transfers in positions. Appointments to positions were made in accordance with the principle of localism - according to birth, nobility.

During the period of the estate-representative monarchy, the embryo of a central police body arose. At first, the Boyar Duma Commission on Robbery Affairs acted, then the Robbery Order was created. He developed orders for local authorities on issues of combating ordinary crimes and appointed relevant officials locally.

At the end of the 17th century. a system of court orders was created (Moscow, Vladimir, Dmitrov, Kazan, etc.), which performed the functions of the highest judicial bodies. Subsequently, these orders, as well as the Petition, merged into a single Judicial order.

The transition to an estate-representative monarchy also led to a significant change in local government. The feeding system was replaced by a new one based on the principle of self-government. In the middle of the 16th century. instead of governors-feeders, labial organs were introduced everywhere. They were chosen from among certain segments of the population. The nobles and boyar children elected the head of the provincial body - the provincial elder, whom he confirmed in office. Robbery order. The provincial headman consisted of kissers. Kissers are elected officials who were so called because they kissed the cross with an oath to serve faithfully in that office.

The jurisdiction of the zemstvo bodies included, first of all, the collection of taxes and the court in civil and minor criminal cases. Larger cases were considered by provincial authorities. Zemstvo elders and other officials performed their duties in considering civil and criminal cases without collecting fees from the population. Thus, the previous order was abolished, in which the feeding governors collected numerous duties into their own pockets.

29. Development of law in the mid-16th – mid-17th centuries. Types of legislative documents.

In the estate-representative monarchy, the legislative activity of the state intensified significantly. The reign of Ivan 4 was marked by the use of a new code of law in 1550. Compared to the Code of Laws of Ivan3, it had more articles. Much attention was paid to the regulation of estates and local land ownership. In the 50s of the 16th century legal regulation were exposed various areas public life. Thus, at an illuminated gathering in Moscow in 1551, Ivan 4 gave a speech where he formulated 67 questions of the church and asked for answers to them, according to the rule of the holy apostles and holy fathers. As a result, a collection of legal rights appeared under the name Stoglav, at the same time, in the royal circle, a collection of everyday and moral rules was compiled, it contained quite serious punishments. With the help of which the state intended to combat moral violations. During the period of troubles, a consolidated code of law appeared in 1606-1607, which represented the version of Ivan4. At the end of the Time of Troubles in Russia there was an acute lack of a fair law. This demand was one of the slogans of the uprising of 1641. The Council Code of 1649 appeared.

30) Council Code of 1649: general characteristics, significance in the history of Russian law. The Conciliar Code is a set of laws of the Russian state, a monument of Russian law of the 17th century, the first legal act in Russian history that covered all existing legal norms, including the so-called “newly ordered” articles. At the end of the Time of Troubles, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich from the new dynasty - the Romanovs began active legislative activity. The intensive growth in the number of decrees for the period from the Code of Laws of 1550 to the Code of 1649 is visible from the following data: 1550-1600. - 80 decrees; 1601-1610 −17; 1611-1620 - 97; 1621-1630 - 90; 1631-1640 - 98; 1641-1648 - 63 decrees. As a result, by 1649 in Russian state existed great amount legislative acts that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other. This chaos was “contributed” to the scattering of regulations across departments (traditionally, new laws were issued at the request of one or another sectoral order, and after approval they were “attached” to the index book of this order). There was also a lack of coordination in law enforcement activities: often only officials of a specific order knew about a new entry in the decree book. In addition, the casual nature of the legal norms of the previous period became ineffective. The legislator now sought to regulate the legal framework, that is, to move to a normative interpretation of legal norms. The outbreak of war in Moscow in 1648 also prompted the adoption of the Code. Salt riot; One of the demands of the rebels was the convening of the Zemsky Sobor and the development of a new code. The revolt gradually subsided, but as one of the concessions to the rebels, the tsar convened the Zemsky Sobor, which continued its work until the adoption of the Council Code in 1649. To develop the draft Code, a special commission was created headed by Prince N.I. Odoevsky. It included Prince S.V. Prozorov, okolnichy Prince F.F. Volkonsky and two clerks - Gavrila Leontyev and Fyodor Griboedov. It was then decided to start practical work Zemsky Sobor on September 1. He was intended to review the draft Code. The cathedral was held in a broad format, with the participation of representatives of the townspeople's communities. The hearing of the draft Code took place at the cathedral in two chambers: in one were the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral; in the other - elected people of various ranks. Deputies of nobles and townsmen had a great influence on the adoption of many norms of the Code. On January 29, 1649, the drafting and editing of the Code was completed. Externally, it was a scroll consisting of 959 narrow paper columns. At the end were the signatures of the participants of the Zemsky Sobor (315 in total), and along the gluing of the columns were the signatures of the clerks. From this original scroll (for the storage of which more than a century later, under Catherine II, a silver reliquary was made) a copy was compiled in the form of a book, from which 1200 copies were printed twice during 1649, 1200 copies in each edition. The Council Code of 1649 was a new stage in the development of domestic legal technology. All the delegates of the Council signed the list of the Code, which in 1649 was sent to all Moscow orders for guidance in action. The electors introduced their amendments and additions to the Duma in the form of zemstvo petitions. Some decisions were made through the joint efforts of elected officials, the Duma and the Sovereign. The significance of the Council Code 1) The Council Code generalized and summarized the main trends in the development of Russian law in the 15th-17th centuries. 2) It consolidated new features and institutions characteristic of the new era, the era of advancing Russian absolutism. 3) The Code was the first to systematize domestic legislation; An attempt was made to differentiate the rules of law by industry. The Council Code became the first printed monument of Russian law. Before him, the publication of laws was limited to their announcement in marketplaces and in churches, which was usually specifically indicated in the documents themselves. The appearance of a printed law largely eliminated the possibility of abuses by governors and officials in charge of legal proceedings. The Council Code has no precedents in the history of Russian legislation. In terms of volume it can only be compared with Stoglav, but in terms of the wealth of legal material it surpasses it many times over.

31) Legal status of peasants, townspeople and serfs in the 17th century. (according to the Council Code of 1649 .).According to the Council Code of 1649, the peasant was finally turned into the property of the owner, who could dispose of labor, property, the very personality of the peasant and even his family. When studying the legal status of peasants, one must keep in mind that the Code, without interfering in many relations feudal lords with peasants, leaves full scope for the arbitrariness of patrimonial owners and landowners. For example, in the Code there are no rules regulating the amount of peasant duties. For the murder of a peasant, the feudal lord was subject to imprisonment, and as compensation for losses to the feudal lord who suffered from the loss of the peasant, he gave the best peasant with his wife and children from his farm. They establish responsibility for the reception of runaway peasants who fled after the Council Code of 1649. The landowners who accepted the runaways were are obliged not only to return them, but also to pay a certain amount to the rightful owner of the peasants. At the same time, a judicial procedure (“by trial and investigation”) is established for resolving disputes about the return of peasants. The Council Code retains the division of serfs into full, report, old and bonded, differing in the degree of dependence. All slaves, except for bonded ones, were “strong” to their masters. Throughout their lives and with their families, they were inherited by the relatives of the deceased slave owner. The main source of replenishment of enslaved slaves were unenslaved elements of society. Bought Tatars also replenished the serfs. At the same time, the Code strictly regulated the sources of replenishment of indentured servitude. Thus, bondage was formalized only from the age of 15. It was forbidden to enslave the enslaved and non-served children of the boyars. Bonded slaves were dependent on their masters for the period established by the enslavement charter. Children of indentured servants were not inherited. The Code of 1649 comprehensively regulated the process of formalizing dependence on service bondage. The slave order was obliged to strictly check the place of birth, origin and occupation of slaves. A person who became an enslaved slave was paid a “salary.” A feature of the legal status of an enslaved slave was dependence on the master until his death. It was forbidden to include enslaved slaves in charters, transfer them as a dowry or in a will. The economic basis for the lack of rights of slaves, unlike peasants, was the lack of their property. In the process of formation and development of the Russian centralized state, a class of townspeople was formed who lived on the sovereign’s land and bore duties in favor of the state. Posad was a special area of ​​application of feudal law. The Council Code of 1649, for the first time in the history of Russian feudal legislation, dedicated a special law to the posad and the posad people. They paid rent to the sovereign from the courtyards and shops they owned, and carried out a number of other duties, expressed in the construction of city fortifications, the provision of horses for racing, etc. Some of the streets and houses in the suburbs belonged to private, clergy and secular persons - all These settlements were called white settlements, or white places. They were exempt from the royal tax, that is, they were in a privileged position compared to the townspeople tax population. The Council Code regulated the legal status of the townspeople and, first of all, attached them to a given town.

Estate-representative monarchy is an important stage in the history of the feudal state and law, corresponding to the era of mature feudalism. This political form develops as a result of the struggle of monarchs (grand dukes and kings) for the further strengthening of the centralized state.

Estate-representative monarchy is a form of government in which the monarch (tsar) governs the state together with elected estate-representative bodies (Zemsky Sobors). In Russia, this form of government was unlimited monarchical. Ivan the Terrible proclaimed himself tsar, this title reflects the actual increase in the power of the monarch.

Economic background formation of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia:

Division of labor between individual areas;

Specialization in craft and manufacturing production;

Expansion of trade relations with the West.

At this time, the bureaucratic apparatus is expanding, government spending on its maintenance is increasing, and there is a need to find new sources of financing for government agencies and military formations. To this end, the sovereign finds a way out in the representation of merchants in the Zemsky Sobors, providing himself with constant financial support from the trading class and large merchants for organizing the militia.

Political background:

Foreign policy: Zemsky Sobors appeared - a new supreme body of the state, through which the tsar could pursue his own policies regardless of the opinion of the Boyar Duma (waging war, trade relations with foreign countries). The importance of the Boyar Duma gradually decreased. But, nevertheless, it still limited the monarch; - intrastate - the first impetus for the convening of the Zemsky Sobor was the uprising of the townspeople in Moscow in 1549. The monarchy hoped to resolve the conflict by involving not only boyars and noble circles of the population, but also representatives of other classes in governing the state. The Zemsky Sobors included the sovereign and the Boyar Duma. Consecrated Cathedral. The Sovereign, the Duma and representatives of the clergy were the upper chamber of the Zemsky Sobor, whose members were not elected, but participated in accordance with their position. The lower house was represented by elected members of the nobility, the upper classes of the townspeople (merchants, large merchants).

Features of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia:

- the short duration of this period;

Is not independent form rule, and the transition from the early feudal monarchy to the absolute;

Lack of legislation on the delimitation of powers of Zemsky Sobors and the sovereign;

Organs local government formed on the basis of election and representation from the local population;

- simultaneously with the system of class representation, the oprichnina of Ivan IV was present to suppress resistance and undermine the economic basis of the princely-boyar nobility.

Formation of an estate-representative monarchy

estate-representative monarchy, feud. monarchy with class representation is a form of feud. state, with a swarm of relatively strong queens. power was combined with the presence of class-representative assemblies (central and local), which had deliberative, financial. (authorization of taxes), sometimes legislator. functions. S. m. was a common form of feud. states in Europe during the period of developed feudalism, when common states emerged. estates on the scale of entire countries (in England and the states of the Iberian Peninsula in the 13-15 centuries, in France in the 14-15 centuries, in Germany in the 13-17 centuries, in the Czech Republic and Hungary in the 14-17 centuries ., in the Scandinavian countries and in Poland in the 15-17th centuries, in the Russian state in the 16-17th centuries, etc.). The formation of S. m., a more centralized form of feud. state compared to the state of the feudal period. fragmentation was a progressive phenomenon. The need for government centralization was dictated by the needs of internal development. market (on the scale of entire countries or individual regions) due to the growth of cities, commodity production and exchange, changes in forms of exploitation (state taxation), as well as a significant aggravation on this basis of class. struggle in the countryside, struggle for rent and power within the feudal class, the latter’s contradictions with the emerging mountains. class. The formation of class assemblies was preceded by changes in the structure of local government: the strengthening of the influence of queens. administration by limiting the power of individual feudal lords and the emergence or strengthening of local self-government, built along class lines (city self-government, self-government of free rural communes - in France, Spain, class-territorial assemblies of hundreds and counties - in England, etc.). The main support of the social movement during the period of its formation and heyday was usually the lower and middle strata of the feudal class, who needed a strong state. apparatus for the most efficient exploitation of peasants in the new economies. conditions. S. was also actively supported by the townspeople, who sought to eliminate the feud. fragmentation, ensuring the security of trade. ways and curbing the large separatist feudal lords, as well as the top of the free peasantry - where it was preserved (England, Sweden, Castile). Relying on these segments of the population, queens. power usually in the course of politics. struggle against large feudal lords and, to the detriment of their independence, gradually concentrated the judiciary and military in its hands. and finance. power created a relatively strong court. and adm. the apparatus in the center and locally, replenished by people from humble feudal lords, clergy, and townspeople, contributed to the emergence of a general state. legislation and taxation. In the conditions of the feudal-class system, the center. the government could not yet do without the consent of the estates to collect taxes necessary to maintain the army and the state. apparatus, as well as on the most important domestic and foreign policy. Events. Therefore, the centralization of government. apparatus during the creation of the Socialist Movement was accompanied by the creation of class-representative assemblies, which were the most characteristic feature of this state. forms (parliament in England from 1265, States General in France from 1302, Cortes in Spain from the late 12th - early 14th centuries, Riksdag in Sweden from 1435, Rigsdag in Denmark from 1468, diets in Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic - from 14 -15th centuries, zemstvo cathedrals in the Russian state from the mid-16th century, etc.). Estate-representative institutions existed not only on a national, but also on a regional scale (for example, the Provincial States in France). In Germany, S. m. was distinguished by significant features. Due to the fact that the centralization of power there occurred in the 13-17 centuries. not on the scale of the entire country, but within the borders of individual territorial principalities, the all-imperial class assembly - the Reichstag had no real political power. meaning in the absence of a general imperial court, law, administration, finance. Estate assemblies of individual principalities - Landtags, on the contrary, played. role not as local assemblies, but as the highest class bodies on the scale of these principalities. What was common to estate-representative institutions was the absence of representatives of the general people. mass; the subordinate (especially at the beginning) role of the mountains. class, represented by members of municipalities; decisive influence of the feud. elements. In each country, class assemblies had their own specifics, which reflected the characteristics of its economic system. and socio-political. development and at the same time determined the type of socialism that had developed there. The nobility acted in these assemblies either as a single estate with one chamber (France), or as two groups of large and small feudal lords who sat separately (the Iberian states, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, as well as England, where the lower nobility sat together with the cities). The clergy could be represented as the estate as a whole (France, the Iberian states) or participated in meetings as the largest feudal lords - vassals of the king (England, the Czech Republic). As an exception, deputies of the free peasantry (in England, Castile, Sweden) participated in class meetings. Gor. representation depended on general development and the meanings of the mountains. classes in the country. Where it was strong enough, its representatives, who, as a rule, formed a special chamber in estate assemblies, influenced general policy S. m. (in France, Castile, and also in England, where it acted in alliance with knighthood). Where cities were weak, they did not participate in class assemblies (Poland), or were very poorly represented in them (Hungary, Sweden). Where representatives of different classes (especially small feudal lords and townspeople) acted unitedly, class assemblies achieved a certain political independence and imposed certain restrictions on queens. power in matters of taxation, less often - legislation. However, these restrictions did not go beyond the protection of the interests of the feudal lords. estates (against certain abuses of royal power). In other respects, class assemblies, on the contrary, supported the queens with their authority. politics, especially the government's anti-peasant activities. More often, class assemblies had only councils. functions. In general, they did not weaken, but strengthened the state. centralization and queens. power. Feudal form. The state that replaced S. m. was an absolute monarchy (see Absolutism). The term "S. m." Burzh was introduced into use. historians 19 - beginning 20th centuries Not recognizing class. nature of the state, they all saw in S. m. one of the forms of the “legal” state. According to some, it supposedly carried out “an alliance between the king and the people” in the form of cooperation between strong queens. authorities with “popular representation” (as they interpreted class assemblies). According to others, the Socialist Republic was a “union of independent three estates under the leadership of the king,” between which political power was supposedly divided on equal terms. power. Both of them saw in S. m. the direct predecessor of the bourgeoisie. constitutional monarchies of the 19th-20th centuries. and were interested in the continuity between them. The continuation of these disputes in modern times. bourgeois historiography serves the concept of the so-called. "corporatists" and "parliamentists". According to the first (more traditional), S. m. arose in the process of the formation of the general state. classes, their struggle among themselves and with the king. Proponents of this concept attach a certain importance to economics. and social prerequisites in the formation of social movements and emphasize the important independent role of class assemblies (E. Luce, I. de la Gare, X. Cam, B. Wilkinson, R. Favtier, etc.). Representatives of the “parliamentary” point of view (C. McIlvaine, M. Powick, G. A. Hankins, G. Richardson, G. Sales, O. Brunner, and others) deny the active role of classes and social struggle in the process of formation of socialism. and queens are considered its main creator. The government of the region allegedly itself organized class meetings in order to further strengthen its political forces. positions. These gatherings are therefore regarded as obedient tools of the queens. power deprived of k.-l. self-sufficient meanings. "Parliamentists" consider the emergence of S. m. preem. in terms of development of legal and political. institutions. Both see in the S.M. a supra-class organ of peace and order. Marxist historiography (which comes from the fundamental principles of the teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin about the state in the study of s.m.) studies s.m. primarily. in the social aspect, studying specific manifestations of feudalism. nature S. m., impact class. contradictions, class. and class struggle on the emergence and evolution of S. m. Instead of the traditional term “S. m.” the term “feudal monarchy with class representation” was proposed as more accurately expressing the essence of this form of state (for more details, see the book: E.V. Gutnova, The Emergence of the English Parliament, M., 1960). Problems of S. m. occupy great place in the work of the International Commission on the History of Representatives and Parliaments. institutions (under the International Committee of Historical Sciences). In Russia, S. m. developed in the middle. 16th century with the formation of the Russian centralized state. The highest estate-representative body was the Zemsky Sobor (the first indisputable one in 1549), which had a legislative council. character. It consisted of the Consecrated Cathedral and the Boyar Duma, representatives of the Moscow and district nobility, merchants and townspeople. The councils of 1611-13 were attended by representatives of service people according to the instrument and the state. peasants The procedure for its constitution was uncertain: either local elections of participants (the norms of representation were not fixed), or an invitation from representatives of various classes who were in Moscow (with an urgent convocation). Councils were convened on the initiative of the government. Fundamental issues of foreign affairs were brought up for consideration at the councils. and internal politics (issues of war and peace, election of a new king - in the absence of direct heirs, discussion of legislative codes, taking measures against major class actions, introducing extraordinary taxes, etc.). The heyday of cathedral activity occurred in the 10s, 30s and 40s. 17th century, time of exacerbation of class. and intraclass. struggle and relates. weakness center state authorities. In 1611-12 the councils were of government. body that opposed the Polish. and Swedish interventionists. For the period of the formation of cathedrals and their early history, as well as the gradual curtailment of their activities in the 2nd half. 17th century (the last complete council in 1653) typical meetings of representatives from the department. estates, as well as joint meetings of the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral. Local government bodies, formed according to the class principle, appeared earlier than the Zemsky Sobors: in the end. 15th century the participation of the “best men” of Posad and Chernososhnoye villages was introduced. population in court before the governors, in the end. 30s 16th century the labial reform began (completed in the mid-50s), which transferred the investigation and trial of the most important criminal cases into the hands of representatives of the local nobility (or townspeople and state peasants in districts where there was no secular feudal land ownership), in ser. 16th century The zemstvo reform of Ivan IV was carried out (the bodies of zemstvo self-government were subsequently established in certain regions, in particular in the North and in the Volga cities). In 1610-12, regional class representative institutions operated in certain districts. Specific A feature of the socialist movement in Russia (in comparison with Western Europe) was the predominance of the center. state the power of the autocracy, which relied on the rapidly developing central (system of orders - from the middle. 16th century) and local bureaucrat. apparatus. In bureaucratic device with 2nd half. 16th century The governors are replaced by governors, who were concentrated in the 1st half. 17th century the entire court, adm. and local executive power and completely subordinate to orders. In this regard, the importance of mountain organs drops sharply. self-government (some of their revival occurred in the 50s - early 70s of the 17th century), provincial self-government is gradually disappearing. From the 2nd half. 17th century the process of state formation begins. building Russian absolutism. Lit.: Kareev N.I., Estate - state and class monarchy cf. centuries, St. Petersburg, 1913; Kovalevsky M. M., From direct democracy to representative rule and from patriarchal monarchy to parliamentarism, vol. 1-3, M., 1906; McIlwain Ch. N., Constitutionalism ancient and modern, Ithaca (N.Y.), 1940; Cam N. M., Marondiu A., St?kl G., Recent work and present views on the origins and development of representative assemblies, in the book: Relazioni del X Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Storiche, v. 1, Firenzc, 1955 (bib.). See also lit. in articles about individual countries and in articles about estate-representative institutions of the department. countries (English Parliament, Estates General, Zemsky Sobors, etc.). E. V. Gutuova, V. D. Nazarov (S. m. in Russia). Moscow.

Estate-representative monarchy (XVI-XVII centuries)

In the 15th century, under conditions of autocracy, an estate-representative monarchy arose. The beginning, conditionally, of this period is considered to be the convening of the first Russian council in 1549 (during this period, the progressive reforms of Ivan-4 and much more took place, which prepared a new era in the development of the state apparatus and law). During the same period, two major legislative acts were adopted:

code of law of 1550

collection of church legislation of 1551

The end of the estate-representative monarchy is considered to be the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, when he ceased to assemble the Zemsky Sobor (second half of the 17th century). The last council was convened in 1653 regarding changes in the borders (?) of Russia. Other authors place the end of this period in the 70s of the 17th century.

The peculiarity of the period of class-representative monarchy is the combination of class representation itself with a bright despotism of the Asian type, characteristic of Ivan-4. Oprichnina is a special period of his reign - terror against the boyars and the majority of the common population, that is, a period when all institutions that interfered with the monarch were either dissolved or destroyed (for example: the elected Rada). Despotism is characteristic no less than the bodies of class representation.

The king retained the functions of the highest authority.

The Boyar Duma was very thoroughly strangled and could not limit the tsar. Even during the period of the “Seven Boyars,” when the boyars, relying on the Polish state, concentrated power in their hands, the balance of power did not change. And during the Romanov dynasty, this body remained with the tsar, and not above the tsar. This body had a constant tendency to increase its quantitative composition.

Zemsky Sobor - in different years carried out different functions. In the period from 1549 to the 80s one, until 1613 a little different (the opportunity to elect a king appeared) and the last period (until 1622) is characterized as the most active in the activities of the cathedral. Then, until the 50s, their activity fades.

Zemsky Sobors throughout the entire period were characterized by:

consisted of various classes: boyars, clergy, nobles, urban population(represented by the townsfolk elite - merchants and wealthy artisans)

there were no regulations; the number of those summoned to the council depended on the decree of the tsar, which was written before each convocation

participation in it was not considered an honorable duty, but rather a necessity that weighed heavily on many, since there were no material incentives

Functions of the Zemsky Sobor:

foreign policy (war, its continuation or signing of peace, ...)

taxes (but they did not have the final say in this matter)

after the 80s of the 15th century, a tsar was elected (Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Mikhail Romanov elected in 1613)

adoption of laws, as well as their discussion. For example, the Council Code of 1649 was actually adopted at the council. But the Zemsky Sobor was not a legislative body.

The relationship between the kings and the council was differentiated. In 1566, many of them from the Zemsky Sobor who spoke out against the oprichnina were executed by Ivan 4. In the 17th century, during the period of unrest, the role of cathedrals grew greatly, since it was necessary to strengthen the state, but later with the revival of the monarchy, they ceased to exist.

Orders are integral systems of centralized government. They were most actively created in the 40s - 60s of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Several dozen orders appeared, divided not only by industry (pharmacy, pushkar), but also by territory (Kazan Palace). Their creation was not enshrined in legislation, so they appeared as needed. By the middle of the 17th century there were already about 50 of them and the trend towards increasing numbers continued. Orders have always been both judicial and administrative bodies (zemsky order). It was believed that the activities of orders should not be limited by any legislative framework. The orders were headed by a boyar, who was a member of the Duma, and the main employees were clerks. The orders had many shortcomings: bureaucracy, lack of laws regulating their activities, etc., but still it was a step forward.

Estate self-government bodies:

labial or “labial huts” (guba is an administrative-territorial unit). They began to be created in the 30s of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. They arose as a counterbalance to the merging of the state apparatus with the robbers, that is, the functions of the fight against robbers were transferred to the population itself

zemstvo huts - initially collected taxes, and later began to solve judicial problems

Code of Laws of 1550 - the royal code of laws, which was published by Ivan-4. It largely repeats the code of law of 1497, but is more expanded and accurate. This is the first collection of laws divided into articles (about 100 in number).

After the adoption of the Code of Law, the law continued to develop. Certain codification work began to be carried out, which consisted in the fact that order books began to be kept. In these books, each order recorded all the instructions and orders of the king related to the scope of their activities.

Code of 1649. In 1648 - a city uprising in Moscow, which created a threat to the life of the Tsar. Then much depended on the nobility, which supported the uprising. They put forward their claims to the king, which stated that the reason for the uprising was the lack of normal legislation. As a result, a commission was created, which created the code. Then it was discussed at the Zemsky Sobor, where it was unanimously adopted in January 1649. This was the first code published in printing and it went on sale for the first time. The Code was divided into 25 chapters and already contained about 1000 articles. This code will remain in force until the second quarter of the 19th century (as amended).

Estate-representative monarchy is a form of government that provides for the participation of estate representatives in governing the state and drawing up laws. It develops under conditions of political centralization. Different classes were unevenly represented in government. Some of these legislative bodies evolved into modern parliaments.

The limitation of the monarch's power is associated with the development of commodity-money relations, which undermined the foundations of a closed, natural economy. Political centralization arose, an estate-representative monarchy was organized - a form in which the power of the head of state is limited by estate-representative bodies (Council, Parliament, Estates General, Sejm, etc.)

Estate-representative monarchy in Russia and its features

The creation of a centralized Russian state contributed to strengthening the positions of the ruling class of feudal lords. In the XVI-XVII centuries. The feudal lords gradually united into a single estate, and the general enslavement of the peasants was completed.

The creation of a unified state provided the necessary resources for an active foreign policy. In the middle of the 16th century. Russia conquered the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, and the Nogai Horde (Ural region) recognized vassal dependence on Russia. Further, Bashkiria, the Middle and Lower Volga regions and part of the Urals became part of Russia. In 1582, the conquest of Siberia began, and by the end of the 17th century. all of Siberia was annexed to Russia. In 1654, Ukraine reunited with Russia. Thus, the multinational composition of the Russian state was formed. By the 17th century Russia has become the largest state in the world in terms of its territory and population.

In the middle of the 16th century. The ongoing socio-economic and political processes led to a change in the form of government of the Russian state to an estate-representative monarchy, which was expressed, first of all, in the convening of estate-representative bodies - zemstvo councils. An estate-representative monarchy existed in Russia until the second half of the 17th century, when it was replaced by a new form of government - an absolute monarchy.

Beginning in 1547, the head of state began to be called the king. The change in title pursued the following political goals: strengthening the power of the monarch and eliminating the basis for claims to the throne on the part of the former appanage princes, since the title of king was inherited. At the end of the 16th century. the procedure for electing (confirming) the tsar at the Zemsky Sobor was established.

The Tsar, as head of state, had great powers in the administrative, legislative and judicial spheres. In his activities he relied on the Boyar Duma and zemstvo councils.

In the middle of the 16th century. Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible carried out judicial, zemstvo and military reforms aimed at weakening the power of the Boyar Duma and strengthening the state. In 1549, the Elected Rada was established, the members of which were proxies appointed by the tsar.

The oprichnina also contributed to the centralization of the state. Its social support was the small serving nobility, who tried to seize the lands of the princely-boyar aristocracy and strengthen their political influence.

The Boyar Duma formally retained its previous position. It was a permanent body, endowed with legislative powers and deciding everything together with the king. critical issues. The Boyar Duma included boyars, former appanage princes, okolnichi, Duma nobles, Duma clerks and representatives of the urban population. Although the social composition of the Duma changed towards increasing the representation of the nobility, it continued to remain an organ of the boyar aristocracy.

Zemstvo councils occupied a special place in the system of government bodies. They were convened from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. Their convocation was announced by a special royal charter. Zemsky Sobors included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral (the highest collegial body Orthodox Church) and elected representatives from the nobles and urban population. The contradictions that existed between them contributed to the strengthening of the king's power.

Zemstvo Sobors decided on the main issues of state life: the election or confirmation of the Tsar, the adoption of legislative acts, the introduction of new taxes, the declaration of war, issues of foreign and domestic policy, etc. Issues were discussed by estate, but decisions had to be made by the entire composition of the Council.

The system of orders as governing bodies continued to develop, and by the middle of the 17th century. the total number of orders reached 90.

The work of orders is characterized by a rigid bureaucratic style: strict submission (vertical) and adherence to instructions and regulations (horizontal).

The order was headed by a chief appointed from among the boyars, okolnichy, Duma nobles and clerks. Depending on the activity of the order, the bosses could be: a judge, a treasurer, a printer, a butler, etc. Record keeping was entrusted to the clerks. Technical and clerical work was carried out by clerks.

The issues of organizing the civil service and financing the state apparatus were dealt with by the order of the Great Parish, the Rank, Local and Yamsk orders.

The structural unit of the order was the table, which specialized in its activities on a sectoral or territorial basis. The tables, in turn, were divided into sections.

The rank order was in charge of the civil service, managed the abattoir, guard and stanitsa services, provided service people with land and cash salaries, appointed governors and their assistants, etc. The local order resolved issues related to local and patrimonial land ownership, and also carried out the court on land matters. The Yamsk order performed the functions of organizing the Yamsk chase and police and supervisory functions over the movement of persons and goods. The competence of the order of the Grand Parish included the collection of national taxes and duties. Territorial orders for the collection of taxes and the Zemsky order were in charge of collections in the capital and its suburbs. The minting of coins was carried out by the Monetary Court, subordinate to the order of the Great Treasury.

There were other orders: the Robbery Order, the Order for the Collection of Five Pieces and Request Money, the Apothecary Order, the Printed Order, etc.

In the second half of the 16th century. zemstvo and provincial huts become the main local government bodies. Zemstvo huts were elected by the tax population of towns and volosts for 1-2 years, consisting of a zemstvo elder, sexton and kissers. Zemstvo bodies were maintained at the expense of the local population. These bodies carried out financial, judicial and police functions.

Lip huts became the main governing bodies in the counties. They performed police and judicial functions. The hut was headed by a headman elected by the population; legal proceedings were also entrusted to the kissers, clerks and clerks. The lip huts were directly subordinate to the Robbery Order.

At the beginning of the 17th century. local government was reorganized. Administrative, police and military functions were assigned to voivodes appointed by the central government. Zemstvo and provincial huts and city clerks began to obey them. In their activities, governors relied on a specially created apparatus - administrative huts, which included clerks, bailiffs, clerks, messengers and other officials. The Voivode was appointed by the Discharge Order and approved by the Tsar and the Boyar Duma. The service life of a governor was 1-3 years.

During the period under review, a reform of the armed forces was carried out:

• - the streamlining of the organization of the noble militia continued;
• - a permanent Streltsy army was created.

From the beginning of the 17th century. Permanent regiments appear: Reitar, Pushkar, Dragoon, etc. These regiments were the prototype of a permanent and regular army, which was formed in Russia only in the 18th century.