The most important result of the socio-political development of Russia by the beginning of the 16th century. was the completion of the creation of a single state, which became one of the most powerful European powers of that time. At the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. along with the unification of the main Russian lands around Moscow, the construction of an all-Russian state apparatus took place. This process, based on underlying socio-economic processes, proceeded slowly but steadily. After the annexation of Tver (1485), part of Ryazan (1503) and the Seversk lands (1494-1503), in North-Eastern Russia, in addition to the single Russian state, there were only two independent state entities - the Grand Duchy of Ryazan and the Pskov feudal republic. But they were also in semi-vassal dependence on Moscow. Ryazan Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich was married to the sister of the Russian sovereign - Anna. After the death of Vasily (1483), his eldest son Ivan in the same year recognized himself as the "young brother" of Ivan III. What can we say about his younger brother - Fedor, who received Perevitesk? After the death of the childless Fyodor (1503), Ivan III* received his lands. Upon the death of Ivan Vasilievich Ryazansky (1500), his grandmother Anna (until her death in 1501), then the mother of Agrafena, became the guardian of the young prince Ivan.

* (DDG, No. 76, p. 283-290; No. 89, p. 357-358.)

Pskov has long maintained friendly relations with Moscow. The Russian sovereign sent the prince-governor there. With Ivan III, Pskov also coordinated its foreign policy. Part of the Russian lands (primarily Smolensk) was still part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The completion of the unification of the Russian lands into a single state remained the most important task, which was soon successfully completed by the government of Vasily III.

A single state, created in North-Eastern Russia, was multinational. Along with the Russian, it included some peoples of the Middle Volga region (Mordovians), and after the annexation of Novgorod, Karelians, Komi and other peoples of the North. This fact was of great importance, despite the fact that initially the non-Russian peoples did not quantitatively constitute any significant part of the country's population. The traditions of the joint life of different peoples within the framework of one statehood had a noticeable impact on the further development of Russia, and in particular on its relations with the peoples of the Volga region. A strong grouping of the feudal nobility, oriented towards Moscow, was formed in the Kazan Khanate. The temporary annexation of Kazan in 1487 was a harbinger of the coming entry of the entire Middle and Lower Volga region into the Russian state.

A special place in the system of feudal formations in Russia at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. occupied the vassal Kasimov principality. The government provided Tatar princes in the Russian service with direct financial support ("yasak"). In turn, the princes with their cavalry were obliged to carry out military service to the Russian sovereign. Connected by family ties with the Crimean and Kazan khans, they were an important trump card for the Russian government both in a complex diplomatic game and sometimes in direct armed clashes with Kazan, Crimea and the Great Horde. The position of the Tatar princes on the estate-hierarchical ladder of the feudal nobility in Russia was so high that even in the middle of the 17th century. they were considered "an honor ... the boyars are higher, but they don’t go to any duma and don’t sit." In the Sovereign genealogy of the middle of the XVI century. Tatar princes are placed directly behind the descendants of the specific princes of the Moscow house *.

* (Kotoshihin G. About Russia in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. 4th ed. SPb., 1906, p. 27; Genealogical book of princes and nobles of Russia and travelers ..., part I, p. 24-27.)

The formation of the Kasimov principality is associated with the name of the son of Ulu-Muhammed Kasim, who left for Russia in 1446. For the support provided to the Grand Duke of Moscow in the fight against Dmitry Shemyaka around 1452, he received the town of Meshchersky (Kasimov) and became the founder of this principality, which played important role in the preparation of the annexation of Kazan. After the death of Qasim (circa 1469), his son Danyar inherited the principality. According to the endings of 1473, Ivan III with his brothers Boris Volotsky and Andrey Uglitsky, they had to keep Danyar "from one", that is, together. The same formula was repeated in the end of 1481. In favor of Danyar, a certain part of the income was deducted both from the possessions of the specific princes and from Ryazan. A. Contarini, who visited Russia in 1476, wrote: Ivan III annually visited "one Tatar, who kept five hundred horsemen on a princely salary. They said that they stand on the borders with the possessions of the Tatars for protection, so that they do not harm the country (the Russian prince )". It was obviously about Danyar. Around 1483-1486 Danyar left the historical stage and was replaced by Nur-Doulat, the eldest son of the first Crimean Khan Hadji Giray. In February 1480, he went to Russia and brought "wool" for loyalty to the sovereign. In the end of Ivan III with Boris Volotsky and Andrey Uglitsky in 1486, the old order was confirmed - to keep the Kasimov prince from "one", in this case - Nur-Doulat. Since his son Sytylgan participated in the 1491 campaign against the Horde, it must be assumed that Nur-Doulat himself had already died by that time. Sytylgan was paid "exit" to Kasimov ("Tsarevich's town"), and according to the will of Ivan III (November 1503) * .

* (Velyaminov-Zernov V. V. Research on the Kasimov tsars and princes, part I. St. Petersburg, 1863, p. 28, 90; PSRL, vol. 28, p. 133, 134; DDG, No. 69, p. 226; No. 70, p. 238; No. 72, p. 254; No. 73, p. 270; No. 76, p. 284; No. 81, p. 318; No. 82, p. 325; No. 89, p. 362; cf. No. 90, p. 365; Barbaro and Contarini on Russia, p. 226, 243.)

At the end of the XV century. other cities occasionally fell into the feeding of the princes. Gak, after Abdul-Letif expelled Magmed-Amin from Kazan in the spring of 1497, he received Kashira, Serpukhov and Khotun to feed. In 1502, the roles changed, and Magmed-Amin went to Kazan, and Abdul-Letif was imprisoned on Beloozero. Feeding towns for Tatar princes occupied an intermediate position between the estates of service princes and ordinary feeding * . Unlike Kasimov, the rulers changed quite often in them, and the composition of these cities was not strictly defined.

* (IL, p. 132, 143. The convergence of the possessions of the princes with the estates and the assertion that they were for life (Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichnina and the last specific reigns in Russia. - IZ, 1965, vol. 76, p. 170) seem to be incorrect.)

As part of the Russian state, there were several more semi-independent formations. Vasily the Dark around 1461-1462 created the Dmitrov inheritance of his son Yuri, Uglich - Andrei the Great, Volokolamsk - Boris, Vologda - Andrei the Less *. There was the Rostov inheritance of his widow Maria and the Belozersk-Vereisk principality of his cousin Mikhail Andreevich. By the time under study, the composition of the specific principalities had changed a lot. In 1472, after the death of Prince. Yuri, Ivan III took over his inheritance. In 1481, the childless Andrei Menshoi died, in 1485, Princess Marya. Ivan III also inherited their lands. After the death of Mikhail Andreevich, Ivan III, according to the will of the prince, received his possession (Michael's son, Vasily, fled to Lithuania in 1483). In 1491, Prince was "caught". Andrei Bolshoy, who died in prison in 1493. His sons, Ivan and Dmitry, were also imprisoned for many years. After the death of Boris Vasilyevich (1494), his inheritance was divided between his sons - Ivan (Ruza) and Fedor (Volokolamsk). Childless Ivan (died in 1503) left an inheritance to Ivan III.

* (DDG, No. 61, p. 193-199.)

So, the destinies were actually liquidated by Ivan III (with the exception of Volokolamsky). But this spoke more about the general trend in the development of the unification process than about its results. Specific traditions were still strong, and the socio-economic conditions for the development of individual lands retained clear features of feudal fragmentation. In 1503, Ivan III restored inheritances for his sons in his will (Yuri received Dmitrovsky, Dmitry - Uglitsky, Semyon - Kaluga, Andrey-Staritsky) *. In terms of the composition of the territory and political significance, these appanages were inferior to their predecessors, and their liquidation was only a matter of time.

* (Zimin A. A. Dmitrovsky appanage and appanage court in the second half of the 15th - first third of the 16th century. - VIEW, no. V. L., 1973, p. 182-195; his own. Appanage princes and their courts in the second half of the 15th and first half of the 16th century. - History and genealogy, p. 161-188; his own. Novgorod and Volokolamsk in the XI-XV centuries. - NIS, vol. 10. Novgorod, 1961, p. 97-116; his own. From the history of feudal land tenure in the Volotsk specific principality. - KDR, p. 71-78; DDG, No. 89, p. 353-364.)

The unification of the Russian lands into a single state did not mean their complete merger either economically or politically, although it contributed to this process. The grand princely power waged a stubborn struggle for the complete subjugation of independent and semi-independent lands. One of the means of this struggle, as A. V. Cherepnin showed, was the drawing up of final endings for the Grand Duke and his specific relatives, according to which they recognized the political sovereignty of the Moscow sovereigns. During the period under study, Ivan III's endings with princes Andrei Bolshoi Uglitsky (1481, 1486), Boris Volotsky (1481, 1486), Mikhail Andreevich Vereisky (1482 and 1483), Ivan Ryazansky (1483) and Mikhail Borisovich Tverskoy (1481-1485) *. In fact, the princes of Tver and Ryazan were placed in the rank of specific.

* (Cherepnin. Archives, part 1, p. 162-175, 189-191; DDG, No. 70, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82, p. 232-249, 277-290, 293-301, 322-328.)

According to the conclusions, the complete subordination of the specific princes to the sovereign in foreign affairs was established. The specific prince recognized himself as a "younger brother" in relation to the overlord. He was supposed to "want good" to the Grand Duke in everything, and in particular, all the "enemies" of the Grand Duke were to become his "enemies". The appanage princes were obliged not to conclude any final settlements on their own and not even to conduct negotiations (“exile”) with anyone without the knowledge of the Grand Duke, especially with Lithuania, the Pskovians and Novgorodians, Mikhail of Tver, the Horde. They were obliged either to participate in the military actions of the Grand Duke themselves, or to send their governors. So, Andrei Uglitsky and Boris Volotsky went on a campaign against Tver in 1485. Boris Volotsky sent troops in 1491 against the Horde. During the war with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, regiments of Ivan Ruzsky and Fyodor Volotsky were sent to Dorogobuzh. In the unsuccessful campaign of the son of Ivan III - Dmitry Zhilka to Smolensk (1502), the Volotsk and Ruz princes also took part. When in 1491 Prince Andrei refused to send his troops on a campaign against the Horde, this became the reason for his "catchment". Paintings (ranks) of specific troops participating in all-Russian campaigns were kept in the Sovereign Archive *. In order to more strongly bind the specific princes to the grand ducal court, dynastic marriages were concluded. So, the son of Belozersky Prince Mikhail Andreevich - Vasily was married to the niece of Sophia Paleolog.

* (IL, p. 125; PSRL, vol. 6, p. 48; v. 28, p. 155, 321; RK, p. 21, 37; GAR, vol. 1, p. 72.)

In domestic political affairs, the specific princes were less constrained. They only pledged not to accept serving princes and not to own lands on the territory of the great reign. At the same time, Ivan III attracted them to participate in national affairs. Gak, his children Vasily, Yuri and Dmitry were present at the cathedral in 1503 *. But the participation of specific princes in domestic political affairs of the state was very limited. The Grand Duke was distrustful of their activities. In the destinies, his relatives disposed of with full power, with the exception of perhaps “local” (joint) cases, which were judged by judges of both sides. The appanage princes paid to the grand ducal treasury and exit "(Horde). They were in charge of the court for land and" robbery "cases. They issued fed, tarkhan and untried letters to their feudal lords. They also had palaces with a clerk's apparatus and palace villages. Their "tributors" and "customs officers" collected customs duties, tributes and other fees into the specific treasury. Cities and volosts were ruled by governors and volosts with tiuns. There were also specific boyar dumas.

* (Runners Yu. K. "The word is different" ..., p. 351.)

The fragility of this system is to a certain extent explained by the weakness of the social base on which the specific princes relied. Their courts, and especially dumas and palaces, consisted mainly not of the local nobility, but of representatives of the old Moscow princely and boyar families, as a rule, "seedy" branches. This must have caused dissatisfaction with the local landowners, who were unable to break into the immediate environment of the appanage lords. The specific princes and boyars turned out to be connected by family and other relations with the grand ducal nobility. Therefore, they were not a reliable support for their overlords. In the struggle against the grand ducal power, the specific princes, therefore, could not count on the active support of either the nobility or ordinary feudal lords.

The position of Tver after its annexation to Moscow was peculiar. It constituted, as it were, an inheritance that was in the control of the heir to the throne, Ivan Ivanovich. After the death of Ivan the Young (1490), Prince Vasily owned Tver for some time, then his power over Tver was limited, and he completely lost it in 1497. Tver had its own boyars.

The features of the feudal isolation of Novgorod and its lands were preserved. The agrarian reform carried out there (the abolition of boyar and sovereign land ownership and the creation of a local system) did not eliminate many of the specific features of the former statehood.

The feudal church also remained a state within a state. Possessing huge lands and taxable privileges, the church was one of the largest socio-political forces in the country. She claimed not only ideological supremacy, but also active participation in the political life of the country. At the end of the XV century. the ideology of the militant clergy was taking shape. V. I. Lenin characterized the constituent parts of the ideology of "pure clericalism", rooted in the ideas of militant churchmen: dominant position" * . The leadership of the church succeeded in thwarting the secularization plans of the government. The task of subordinating the church to the grand duke's power had not yet been solved.

* (Lenin V. I. PSS, vol. 17, p. 431.)

Semi-private possessions were held by the so-called service princes. The descendants of the Rostov and Yaroslavl princes gradually lost the remnants of their sovereign rights. In 1473/74, Ivan III acquired the second half of Rostov from princes Vladimir Andreevich and Ivan Ivanovich. The princes Penkovs in Yaroslavl and the princes Yukhotskys in Yukhot (Yaroslavl) continued to enjoy elements of sovereign rights. But gradually they lost them, and by the beginning of the XVI century. the most prominent of the Rostov and Yaroslavl princes became part of the Boyar Duma. The transition to the side of Ivan III of the most prominent representatives of the nobility of South-Western Russia led to the fact that the Vorotynsky, Belevsky and Odoevsky, who retained the remnants of their ancient possessions in Vorotynsk, Odoev and Novosil, ended up in the position of serving princes. Received small lands in North-Eastern Russia Velsky and Mstislavsky. They left for Russia in 1499-1500. princes Trubetskoy, Mosalsky, Semyon Ivanovich Starodubsky and Vasily Ivanovich Shemyachich Novgorod-Seversky *.

* (PSRL, v. 24; With. 192; Veselovsky S. B. The Last Destinies in North-Eastern Russia. - IZ, 1947, v. 22, p. 101-131; Tikhomirov M.N. Russia in the 16th century, p. 46-52; Zimin A. A. Suzdal and Rostov princes in the second half of the 15th - first third of the 16th century - VIEW, vol. VII. L., 1976, p. 56-69; his own. Serving princes in the Russian state at the end of the 15th - the first third of the 16th centuries. - DSKR, p. 28-56.)

Accession at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. vast territories of South-Western Russia led to the creation of a special system of relations between these lands and the grand duke's power. It did not imitate the fading appanage system, but left significant sovereign rights to local rulers, the so-called servants. The stratum of service princes occupied, as it were, an intermediate position between the specific princes and the princes of North-Eastern Russia, who had lost their sovereign rights to the old lands. The possession of service princes was considered by the government not as an independent reign, but as a fiefdom (regardless of whether the servant received it from the Grand Duke or whether it passed to him from his ancestors). The serving prince was not a close relative of the Grand Duke and did not have any rights (unlike appanage) to occupy the Grand Duke's throne. The rights and duties of a servant prince are well drawn by the end of 1459, Prince Ivan Yuryevich of Novosilsk and Odoevsky and his brothers Fyodor and Vasily Mikhailovich with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir. The princes pledged to faithfully serve Casimir, his children, and in general those who would later be the Grand Duke of Lithuania; promised to be "in the will" of the Lithuanian prince, and in particular to be allies in his struggle against enemies. From now on, without his permission, the princes could not enter into contractual relations with anyone. Kazimir himself pledged not to enter the Novosilsk and Odoev lands. The court on controversial issues should be joint - the Lithuanian prince and the prince-servants. In the conditions of the end of 1459, there were many features close to the agreements of the Russian sovereign with specific relatives. Ivan III spoke on behalf of the servicemen in the most important international treaties (in particular, in the treaty with the Principality of Lithuania in 1494) *. Serving princes, like appanage princes, participated with their troops in the military operations of Ivan III (including the Russo-Lithuanian war of the early 16th century). The lands of the prince-servants were not supposed to go beyond the grand duke's sovereignty (even if the princes would not have a "child", i.e., with the escheat of possessions).

* (DDG, No. 60, p. 192-193; No. 83, p. 330; Sat. RIO, vol. 35, p. 299-300.)

It is not known whether there were such finishes of the Russian sovereign with his servants. But the essence of their relationship with the grand duke's power was reminiscent of those that were outlined at the end of 1459. The fact that the service princes were considered a rank lower than specific ones is evidenced by the completion of Ivan III with specific brothers, which contained their obligation not to accept "service princes" with estates. The service princes did not form a single cohesive corporation. Semyon Mozhaisky and Vasily Shemyachich stood out among them, occupying a semi-specific position. It was these princes, formally listed as servants, who were considered, as it were, the patrons of the Seversk princes, who were often under their command during the wars in the south-west of Russia *.

* (DDG, No. 81, p. 315-322; RK, p. 34.)

The grand duke's power had various means of influencing the policy of the service princes. One was the replacement of their lands, which caused the servants to lose ties with the local corporations of the Southwest's landowners. Opal was another remedy. Having retained on the outskirts of the Russian state for servants part of their ancient rights and privileges on their patrimonial lands * , the government formally placed them above the old Moscow princes and boyars. They could not deal with the servant princes. And at the same time, the service princes were removed from the real government of the country. They were not included in the Boyar Duma, did not participate in negotiations with ambassadors, were not sent by governors. Gradually, as the state apparatus was formed and strengthened, their political role decreased.

* (Preservation of the layer of service princes on the outskirts of the state was well understood by the compiler of the VVL. He noticed that the Fyodor was brought together with Vym in 1502 because "Vymskoye is not a frontier place" (VVL, p. 264).)

Such are the features in the management of individual lands at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, which were noted by V. I. Lenin, emphasizing the presence of strong features of the feudal isolation of individual lands * .

* (See Lenin V.I. PSS, vol. 1, p. 153-154.)

The central power in the country was exercised by the Grand Duke, the Boyar Duma, palace institutions and the clerical apparatus. The Grand Duke issued legislative orders (Sudebnik, statutory and decree letters, etc.). He had the right to be appointed to the highest government positions. The Grand Duke's Court was the highest court. The most significant military enterprises were headed by the Grand Duke. In the period under study, he only acted as a military leader twice: in the campaign against Tver in 1485 and in 1495/96, when he went to Novgorod at the head of his court. The last "campaign" was a military inspection trip, only outwardly repeating the Novgorod campaigns of the 70s of the 15th century. Relations with foreign powers were also within the competence of the sovereign.

And yet, despite such a wide range of political prerogatives, the Grand Duke of All Russia cannot be imagined on the model of an absolutist sovereign or an oriental despot. The power of the Grand Duke was limited by strong traditions rooted in patriarchal ideas about the nature of power, which also had a religious sanction. The new made its way with difficulty and was covered by the desire to live like fathers and grandfathers. So, when appointing to Duma positions, the Grand Duke had to reckon with the traditional circle of boyar families and the order of appointment. With the greatest difficulty, the family principle made its way, replacing the family principle. The Grand Duke could not yet break the tradition of allocating appanages to his children - one of the foundations of the structure of the state of that time, although he fought decisively against the autocracy of the appanage brothers.

The sources make it possible to quite clearly imagine the state activity of Ivan III, but on their basis it is not easy to recreate his appearance and character. The Italian Contarini, who visited Moscow in 1476, wrote: "... he was tall, but thin, in general he is a very handsome person." The Kholmogory chronicler mentions the nickname of Ivan Vasilyevich - Humpbacked. Obviously, Ivan III stooped. Here, perhaps, is all that is known about the appearance of the Grand Duke. The Lithuanian chronicler wrote that he was "a man of a bold heart and a ritzer of a roll." Unwilling to make hasty decisions, he listened to the opinion of his entourage. According to Ivan Bersen Beklemishev, who knew him, "he loved to strike (disagreement. - A. Z.) against himself." According to A. M. Kurbsky, he achieved success "for his many advice for the sake of his wise and courageous siglites; more, they say, he is lovingly advising to be, and nothing can be done without the deepest and most advice." Ivan IV honored his grandfather, who had the nickname the Great, as "collector of Russian land and owner of many lands" *.

* (Barbaro and Contarini on Russia, p. 229; PSRL, vol. 33, p. 134; vol. 32, p. 92; AAE, Vol. I, No. 172, p. 141-142; PL, no. II, p. 224; Likhachev N.P. Nicknames of Grand Duke Ivan III. SPb., 1897; RIB, vol. XXXI, st. 216; Messages from Ivan the Terrible. M. -L., 1951, p. 202.)

Ivan III was one of the prominent statesmen of feudal Russia. Possessing an extraordinary mind and breadth of political ideas, he was able to understand the urgent need to unite the Russian lands into a single state and lead the forces that led to the triumph of this process. For more than 40 years of his reign, on the site of numerous independent and semi-independent principalities, a state was created that was six times larger than the legacy of his father in terms of territory. The Grand Duchy of Moscow was replaced by the State of All Russia. It was over with dependence on the once formidable Horde. From an ordinary feudal principality, Russia grew into a powerful state, the existence of which had to be considered not only by its closest neighbors, but also by the largest countries in Europe and the Middle East. The successes of the unification policy and victories on the battlefield were carefully prepared at the diplomatic negotiating table thanks to Ivan III's ability to establish good neighborly and friendly relations with those countries that showed goodwill and peaceful aspirations.

All these successes would have been impossible without Ivan III's deep understanding of the tasks and ways of establishing autocracy in Russia. A characteristic feature of his policy was caution and consistency in the implementation of plans. The Grand Duke, realizing the enormous power of traditions rooted in the conditions of life at that time, carried out the unification of the lands around Moscow without any desire to anticipate events, through a series of intermediate stages that ultimately led to the triumph of the cause of centralization. Therefore, the final incorporation of the annexed territories into a single state dragged on for several decades. So it was with Novgorod, Tver and Ryazan.

To achieve far-reaching political goals, reliable means were needed. They could only be provided by a new state apparatus, which was supposed to become an instrument for subordinating the peasants and townspeople, the direct creators of material values. Ivan III understood the importance of a strong army, which he created and provided with land, the Treasury and the court as authorities. The new clerical administration became a reliable tool for the daily implementation of the grand ducal plans.

Relying on the centuries-old tradition of his predecessors on the Grand Duke's throne, Ivan III - this, according to K. Marx, "the great Machiavellian" - did not shy away from either new people or new ideas. He willingly used the advanced experience of Western European science and technology, invited prominent architects, doctors, cultural figures, craftsmen to the court, attracted Greek connoisseurs to organize the diplomatic service. Possessing an excellent knowledge of people, he also nominated talented commanders, smart diplomats, business administrators from his environment, sometimes ignoring the ups and downs of palace intrigues.

Ivan III was one of the most significant European monarchs who lived at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries. He remained the son of his time, a cruel and sometimes treacherous ruler. But when it came to state interests, he knew how to rise above many prejudices, including clerical ones. All this determines its place in the national history of the period of the creation of a single state.

An important role in the government of the country was played by the entourage of Ivan III, in which there was a struggle between various political groups. In all state events, the Grand Duke coordinated his orders with the opinion of the members of the Boyar Duma - the council of the feudal nobility under the Grand Duke. The Boyar Duma in the time under study consisted of two ranks - the boyars and the roundabouts. Its membership was small. At the same time, it included 10-12 boyars and five or six rounders. The boyars were formed from the old Moscow untitled boyar families (Kobylins, Morozovs, Ratshichis, etc.) and princes who had long lost their sovereign rights (Gediminovichi, Obolensky, Starodubsky). The influence of individuals and boyar families on the course of the political struggle changed at different times. So, at the end of the XV century. the influence of the Patrikeyevs' group increased sharply (their supporters made up almost half of the members of the Duma). The dominance in the Duma of the princes from the environment of the Patrikeyevs contributed to their disgrace in 1499.

A certain increase in the number of roundabouts testified to the tendency of the grand ducal power to weaken the aristocratic character of the Duma. Not being able to break the old traditions of the formation of the composition of the Boyar Duma, the grand duke's power used other means to ensure the subordination of the feudal aristocracy to the government. Some of the influential princes Yeichali became grand duchesses (in 1500, V.D. Kholmsky married the daughter of Ivan III). From those representatives of the nobility who inspired fear, they took letters of the cross, sworn letters of allegiance (in 1474, a similar letter was taken from Prince D. D. Kholmsky). In case of open disobedience to the Grand Duke's will, the courts of the nobility were dismissed. So it was around 1483 with the courts of I. M. and V. M. Tuchko-Morozov, I. V. Oshchera and Dr. Often the boyars fell into disgrace (for example, the Tuchkovs in 1485), and some were executed (in 1499 - Prince S. I. Ryapolovsky).

When appointed to the Boyar Duma, the Grand Duke had to reckon with the tradition, according to which the noblest families should be represented in the Duma according to the principle of seniority. But since the order of "candidates" for the Duma was not established, the Grand Duke could appoint a representative of one or another family name earlier than another. Formed in the XV century. parochial relations concerned primarily the old Moscow boyars, they did not parochialize with the princes, because they were higher on the hierarchical ladder. The parochial account was determined by the services of the ancestors, and not by generosity, for it was simply impossible to establish a greater or lesser generosity of one untitled boyar family compared to another *.

* (Zimin A. A. Sources on the history of locality in the XV -o first third of the XVI century - AE. 1968. M., 1970, p. 109-118.)

The boyars occupied command positions in the armed forces of the country and in the administrative apparatus. The boyars led regiments on campaigns, judged land disputes, and some acted as judges of the highest instance. They served as boyars and governors in major cities. They also headed the commissions that conducted the most important diplomatic negotiations (primarily with the Principality of Lithuania). Members of the Boyar Duma were also sent to the most responsible diplomatic missions. The term "boyars" had a narrow and broad meaning. In a broad sense, boyars were often called those representatives of the nobility who performed boyar functions: judicial ("with a boyar court"), diplomatic, and others. Butlers, treasurers, and even clerks were sometimes called boyars. The boyars were the highest stratum of the sovereign's court and played a major role in the political life of the country. The court consisted of two parts: "princes" and "children of the boyars" - and gave cadres of military leaders and administrators of a lower rank than the boyar administrators. The court was the main support of the grand duke's power *.

* (The composition of the Sovereign's court can be represented by the bit record of 1495/6 (RK, pp. 25-26).)

After 1485 and before the beginning of the 16th century. along with Moscow, there was a Tver court with its boyar nobility (princes Telyatevsky, Mikulinsky, Dorogobuzhsky, boyars Borisov, Karpov, Zhitov). It was, as it were, the courtyard of the heir to the throne (first Ivan Ivanovich, then his son Dmitry). According to B.N. Flory, the end of the political and administrative isolation of Tver should be dated to 1504. The rank of the Tver "boyars" was destroyed shortly after 1509. *

* (Florya B. N. On the ways of political centralization of the Russian state (on the example of the Tver land). - Society and the state of feudal Russia, p. 283-288.)

During the period of feudal fragmentation, there were no significant differences between the management of the princely (domain) lands proper and the state lands. Until the 60s of the XV century. the palace lands did not reach a significant size and their management did not stand out as a separate industry. With the creation of a single state and the annexation of new lands, the volume of the grand ducal economy and the size of the grand ducal lands expanded so much that it was necessary to create a centralized apparatus for managing these lands in Moscow. It was also necessary because in the second half of the 15th century. there was a gradual demarcation between the "black" (state) lands and the "palace", serving the specific needs of the grand ducal court. The management of the former was carried out by the governors and volostels under the control of the Boyar Duma, the butlers were entrusted with the management of the latter. The butlers were in charge of the court in the palace territories, exchange and land surveying of the grand ducal lands, gave land for quitrent. At the same time, butlers actively participated in solving the most important national affairs. At their disposal was a staff of clerks, who gradually specialized in the performance of various public services. Along with the treasurers, the butlers exercised control over the activities of the feeders *. The butlers also signed letters of commendation with their signature. Their court was often the highest instance, accepting the "report" of judges in various cases in controversial cases. The Grand Duke's butlers in the majority came from among the untitled boyars, who had long been associated with Moscow. Of course, when appointed to this position, other important circumstances also played a big role (service at the grand ducal court, family ties with the court environment, etc.).

* (ASEI, vol. I, No. 541; Shumakov S. A. Review of the diplomas of the College of Economics. - CHOIDR, 1917, book. III, p. 498; Sadikov P. A. Essays on the history of the oprichnina. M. -L., 1950, p. 215-216.)

The first butler known from reliable sources was Ivan Borisovich Tuchko-Morozov (1467-1475). Around 1475, he left his post, and in the early 80s he fell into disgrace. Probably, immediately after him, Prince became the butler. Pyotr Vasilievich Veliky Shestunov (direct data about him as a butler date back to 1489/90-1506). The groom (perhaps back in the 70s) was Morozov's brother, Vasily Borisovich Guchko. There is little information about the functions of the equestrians. Later, the butler was considered "the first under the stable boy", and whoever "is the stable boy, and that first boyar has rank and honor," he wrote in the 17th century. G. K. Kotoshikhin. N. E. Nosov believes that "through the office of the equerry, the grand ducal authorities initially exercised general control over the formation and material support of the noble local militia" * . It is not yet possible to support this conjecture with sufficient arguments, but the participation of the equerry in the noble cavalry is very likely. Palace posts were not in the hands of the princely-boyar nobility, which was part of the Boyar Duma, but, as a rule, in the untitled representatives of the old Moscow families, who had long been associated with the grand ducal power.

* (ASEI, Vol. I, No. 541 (1489/90); Kashtanov S. M. Essays on Russian diplomacy, p. 437; Kotoshikhin G. Decree. op., p. 88, 81; Kopanev A.I., Mankov A.G., Nosov N.E. Essays on the history of the USSR. Late XV - early XVII century. L., 1957, p. 69.)

New tasks for the Grand Duke's office (Treasury) arose as the territory of the state expanded, and gradually the functions of the treasurer began to be allocated to a special position. Treasurers were appointed those close to the Grand Duke, who knew both financial and foreign policy affairs well. It was they who carried out the practical leadership of diplomacy. The first treasurers were the Khovrins, the descendants of the Greeks who left Surozh, and the Trakhaniots, the Greeks who arrived in the retinue of Sophia Paleolog. So, from the autumn of 1491 to the end of 1509, Dmitry Vladimirovich Khovrin was the treasurer. Assistant treasurer already in the XV century. becomes a printer in charge of the state press. He applied the seal to the right letters, attachments and others (Articles 22, 23 of the Sudebnik of 1497). The first specific information about printers dates back to the beginning of the 16th century. At the end of 1503 the printer was Yuri Maly Dmitrievich Trakhaniot*.

* (DDG, No. 89, p. 363.)

One of the persons closest to the sovereign was the bed-keeper, who disposed of his "bed" and, perhaps, his personal office *. G.K. Kotoshikhin wrote that "the bedding order is as follows: he is in charge of the king's bed. About the bed-keepers of the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. only fragmentary information has been preserved. According to genealogical data, Ivan More was the bed-keeper under Ivan III. In 1495/96 this rank was held by Ersh Otyaev and Vasily Ivanovich Satin. At the beginning of the XVI century. S. B. Bryukho-Morozov** was the bed-keeper for some time.

* (Compare: Schmidt S. O. Government activity of A. F. Adashev. - UZ MSU, 1954, no. 167, p. 38-39, 46.)

** (Kotoshikhin G. Decree. op., p. 29; Rare sources on the history of Russia, vol. 2. M., 1977, p. 69; RK, p. 25. From 1494/5 Ersh was the bed-keeper, he died in 1499/1500; from 1501/3 for six years - Semyon Ivanovich (?) Bryukho (Zimin A.A. On the composition of the palace institutions of the Russian state at the end of the 15th and 16th centuries - IZ, 1958, vol. 63, p. 204). According to the Sheremetev list, Bryukho was a falconer from 1501/2, and died in 1506/7.)

The next on the hierarchical ladder of the palace ranks were nursery and huntsmen. They were recruited from the small nobility, but depending on their personal qualities, they could occupy a prominent position at the grand ducal court. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century, in the years when bed-keepers were known, neither hunters nor falconers were mentioned. Perhaps the person who performed the functions of a bedkeeper combined them with the duties of a huntsman. In November 1474 Grigory Mikhailovich Perkhushkov was the huntsman. In the autumn of 1495 - in the spring of 1496, Fyodor Mikhailovich Vikentiev and Davyd Likharev were nurserymen. Vikentiev continued to fulfill this position and in June 1496 D. Likharev was a nursery officer in March 1502, when he was appointed to the embassy to the Great Horde. Vikentiev in 1501 carried out a tour of the lands. Among the falconers who were in charge of falconry, a major political figure was Mikhail Stepanovich Klyapik (mentioned as a falconer in 1503) - a person close to Prince Vasily. Falconers, hunters, nurseries and bed-keepers were all the time with the person of the Grand Duke and influenced the current policy. There are no data for the period under study about the kravchis who brought a cup of drinks to the Grand Duke during the festivities *.

* (PSRL, vol. 12, p. 156; ASEI, vol. 1, No. 487; vol. II, no. 330, 424; vol. III, No. 15; RK, p. 25; AFZKh, Part I, No. 40, p. 55; IL, p. 144; Sat. RIO, vol. 41, p. 418-419; Kotoshikhin G. Decree. op., p. 25; Lyubich-Romanovich V. Tales of foreigners about Russia in the 16th and 17th centuries. SPb., 1843, p. 30-31; Zimin A. A. On the composition of palace institutions ..., p. 205.)

Palace positions at that time were not only for life, but due to patriarchal traditions, they often remained within the same surname (among the Morozovs and the Sorokoumovs-Glebovs). The first mention of palace positions in the sources does not mean that it was then that they were created. Some of them (falconers, hunters, equestrians, etc.) and their "paths" are mentioned in the end of the children of Ivan Kalita (mid-14th century), and in the middle of the 15th century. (before 1462) the "cup way" is mentioned. There is also information about the "metropolitan path" *.

* (DDG, no. 2, p. fifteen; cf. a charter around 1356 (ibid., No. 4). "Sokolnich Way" see also in the charter of 1507 (ASEI, vol. III, No. 26). For the mention of the Talitskaya wasteland as a "way bowl", see: ASEI, vol. II, No. 496. For the "way bowl" in Kostroma, see the charter of 1505-1533. (Acts of Yushkov, No. 63). Judging by the statutory charter of 1506 (ASEI, vol. III, No. 25), Pereslavl fishermen were on the Stolnich Way. In 1486-1500. V. Oznobishin was granted "sanniki on the way" (ASEI, vol. III, No. 107).)

At the end of the XV century. in connection with the creation of a single state, the management of the grand-ducal economy became more and more isolated from the general state administration, occupying a less significant place in comparison with it. At the same time, if earlier palace households could be managed by persons from the palace servants of the Grand Duke, now it was headed by representatives of the old Moscow boyars, devoted to the interests of the grand duke's power, or people from the growing nobility. The Grand Dukes used the palace apparatus in the fight against the feudal nobility. The representatives of the ruling class, most devoted to the princely power, were appointed primarily to palace posts. Only death, disgrace or inclusion in the Boyar Duma could deprive the title of equerry, butler, etc. of a representative of the highest palace administration.

As the last independent and semi-independent principalities were annexed to the Russian state and the appanages were liquidated at the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries. there was a need for the organization of the central administration of these territories. Being part of a single state, appanages, as a rule, ceased to be a source for the creation of new principalities of the closest relatives of the sovereign and gradually became an integral part of the national territory. At the same time, the economic fragmentation of the country had not yet been eliminated, so there could be no question of a complete merger of the newly annexed territories with the main ones. This explains the fact that the management of specific lands in Moscow was concentrated in the hands of special butlers, whose department was organized on the model of a Moscow butler. By annexing the principalities to Moscow, the grand dukes took a significant part of the possessions of local feudal lords into the fund of palace and black-moss lands. The system of butlers ensured at first the management of these lands in the newly annexed territories.

The annexation of Novgorod and the emergence of a significant fund of grand princely lands there led to the creation of the department of the Novgorod butler. Already in November 1475, the Novgorod butler Roman Alekseev was mentioned. In May and December 1493 and in 1501 Ivan Mikhailovich Volynsky was the butler. Judging by the discharge books, in August 1495 Vasily Mikhailovich Volynsky was the butler. The Tver Palace was formed after the annexation of Tver to Moscow and the death of Ivan the Young, who inherited Tver. For some time, the Tver lands were under the jurisdiction of Prince Vasily. The will of Ivan III (end of 1503) mentions a Tver butler. Around 1497-1503 Ivan Ivanovich Oscherin was the Kaluga and staritsa butler. However, in connection with the creation of the Kaluga inheritance (in November 1503), the palace ceased to exist.

* (PSRL, vol. 25, p. 304; Sat. RIO, vol. 35, p. 94; IL, p. 59; RK, p. 24, 32; R, p. 48, 67; DDG, No. 89, p. 363; Florya B. N. Decree. op., p. 286-287; Likhachev N.P. "The Sovereign Genealogy" and the Adashev family. - LZAK, no. 11. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 57-58.)

The functions of the regional butlers were close to the competence of the butlers of the Sovereign's Palace. Supervision over the judicial and administrative power of governors, volostels and townsmen was concentrated in their hands. They carried out the highest judicial functions in relation to local feudal lords, the black-haired and palace population. Butlers controlled the issuance of immunity letters to local feudal lords.

At the end of the XV - beginning of the XVI century. The clerks of the grand-ducal office (Treasury) gradually take over all the most important branches of state administration. Under the direction of the treasurer, they are in charge of embassy affairs. Such clerks as Fyodor Kuritsyn, Tretyak Dolmatov, Andrey Maiko, Vasily Kuleshin, Danila Mamyrev became prominent political figures. The clerks of the Sovereign Treasury began to conduct office work on military operational matters. "Discharges" for the end of the 15th - the first half of the 16th century, preserved in the latest discharge books, with their accuracy testify to their modern recording by persons who had a direct relationship with the state "chancery *. The clerks begin to know and compiled the Grand Duke's chronicle, in the text of which information penetrates , borrowed from embassy and discharge books. The clerks were the real executors of the plans of the grand ducal power. They formed the apparatus of the Boyar Duma, the Treasury and the palace. In their midst, a new state apparatus was born, which received the name of the clerk in the second half of the 16th century. Specializing in the execution of certain orders ( financial, diplomatic, military and yama), clerks prepared the creation of government bodies with a new, functional, and not territorial distribution of affairs.

* (Belokurov S.A. On the Ambassadorial order. M., 1906, p. 15-16, 32; Savva V. On the Ambassadorial order. Kharkov, 1917; Buganov V.I. Bit books of the last quarter of the 15th - early 17th centuries. M., 1962, p. 99-131.)

The distribution of functions in the clergy environment at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. was just intended. Of the 70 clerks, 23 served in the Ryazan and specific principalities *. It is known about the rest that one was a stable, one - Zemstvo, two - palace and 10 - pit clerks. Specific clerks during the liquidation of appanages, as a rule, were not part of the grand ducal clerical apparatus. In the Chronograph under 1498, 14 grand ducal clerks are listed **. This figure roughly reflects the real number of court clerks (if you do not take into account the yam and city clerks).

* (Including 7 Ryazan clerks are known, 3 - Grand Duchess Maria, 3 - Prince. Andrey Uglitsky, 3 - book. Mikhail Belozersky, 2 - book. Andrei Vologda, 1 - Pskov, 2 - Volotsk, 2 - Dmitrovsky.)

** (PSRL, vol. 22, part I, p. 513.)

Since the 60s of the XV century. Yamskaya chase began to function as a nationwide service. Yamsky clerks were also in charge of compiling complete charters for serfs *. Natural yamskaya duty by the beginning of the 16th century. was gradually replaced by cash payments. A regular pit service was created. Pit yards were built, roads were laid, a staff of coachmen was formed. All this led to the appearance of the Yamsky clerks, who were in charge of such a complex and important matter. The establishment of a communication service was caused by the needs of the growth of economic communication between individual lands, the formation of a single state and military-strategic tasks. Around 1462-1480 mention is made of "Yamskoy" (clerk) Alexander Borisov Voronov ** . Around 1460-1490 the clerk Zakhar wrote the full one. Around 1470-1477 and in 1482 Alexander Khludenev, "yamskoy" (clerk), was known. The phrase "Yamskoy dyak" was first named in 1492 by T. S. Moklokov. In 1499, the name "palace clerk" was first mentioned (although, of course, the palace existed much earlier than this time) ***. In 1500, a "zemstvo clerk" was mentioned. What this term really meant at that time is not entirely clear. Most likely, it was about the grand ducal clerk, in contrast to the palace ****. In 1496, the only time a "stable clerk" was mentioned (in the department of the nursery) ***** . There were no special local clerks yet ******, although clerks at the end of the 15th century. they were in charge of land surveying and land acquisition, compiled scribe books, conducted court proceedings and attended a report to the highest authority on land disputes.

* (Gurlyand I. Ya. Yamskaya chase in the Muscovite state until the end of the 17th century. Yaroslavl, 1900, p. 44-50; Gorsky. Essays, p. 214-216; Alef G. The Origin and Early Development of the Muscovite Postal System. - JGO, 1967, Bd XV, No. 1, p. 1-15; ASEI, vol. III, p. 411-446; DDG, No. 89, p. 361; Kolycheva E. I. Full and memorandums of the XV - XVI centuries. - AE. 1961. M., 1962, p. 41-81.)

** (ASEI, vol. III, No. 397, 398. The grand duke's "state-owned Diak" was mentioned for the first time around 1445-1453. (ASEI, vol. II, No. 346, p. 343; Likhachev N.P. The oldest mention of a state clerk. - Sat. Archeology, in-ta, book VI. St. Petersburg, 1898, section III, p. 1- 2).)

*** (ASEI, vol. I, No. 624; vol. III, no. 401-403, 417; AFZH, part 1, No. 36.)

**** (Sat. RIO, vol. 41, p. 338. The opinion that from the functions of this clerk "the Zemsky order later grew as an administrative and police institution in Moscow" (Chernov A.V. On the emergence of order management in the process of formation of the Russian centralized state. - Proceedings of MGIAI, 1965, t 19, p. 289), is not confirmed by the sources.)

***** (AFZKh, part I, No. 40.)

****** (Among the "local clerks" named by S. A. Shumakov, two (V. Amirev and V. Nelyubov) are mentioned in forged acts, T. Ilyin was in charge of not only land, but also diplomatic and other affairs. The activities of the rest fall on a later period (Shumakov S. A. Excursions on the history of the Local Order. M., 1910, p. 48).)

Proving the existence of local clerks, A. V. Chernov refers to the petition of the Varnavinsky monastery of 1664. It allegedly states that under Vasily III the monastery received a charter from the Local Order. The petition only speaks of the founding of the monastery under Vasily III, and the words "and according to his sovereign's decree, and according to the charter and Pomesny order" mean a charter from the times of Mikhail Romanov. Mentioned in the same petition on June 26, 1530, signed by the clerk Vasily Amirev and on July 25, 1551, signed by the clerk Vasily Nelyubov (the latter was given "from the Pomesny order"), as established by S. M. Kashtanov, are unreliable * . Thus, there is no evidence of the existence of the Local Order in the first half of the 16th century. no.

* (Chernov A. V. Decree. op., p. 284; Shumakov S. A. Review of the diplomas of the College of Economics. - CHOIDR, 1917, book. II, p. 136; Kashtanov S. M. Nazarov V. D., Florya B. N. Chronological list of immunity letters of the 16th century, part 3. - AE. 1966. M., 1968, p. 210, 230.)

According to N. E. Nosov, the Sudebnik of 1497 "characterizes the moment of transformation of" orders "from personal assignments into government institutions." But in the words of the Sudebnik of 1497 that the complainant should be sent to the one "to whom people are ordered to be in charge", it is difficult to see the existence of "orders" as state institutions *. L. V. Cherepnin is right, considering that in the Sudebnik of 1497 there is no data pointing to the "registration of the order system." N.P. Likhachev saw "documentary evidence" of the existence of orders around 1512 in the letter of Vasily III to the Assumption Monastery: "... He ordered to give to the people with his deacon Ivan Semenov, yes Yermole Davydov, yes Ushak Ortemiev, and the palace deacon Theodore Khodyke and Stromil, or whoever in their place in those orders will be other deacons. According to P. A. Sadikov, in 1512 a temporary commission was created - an institution of a banking nature. A. K. Leontiev also joined his opinion. It seems that this point of view is closer to the truth. We also note that Ushak Artemiev was a palace clerk back in December 1502, and Yermola Davydov was a Novgorod palace clerk in the spring of 1501. those who will carry out their duties.

* (Kopanev A. I., Mankov A. G., Nosov I. E. Decree. op., p. 72. By "order" N. E. Nosov means "permanent offices (institutions)" (p. 68). The main thing fell out of this definition - the functional essence of orders. Without taking it into account, Nosov attributed to the "orders" both the regional and central palace departments of the treasurer and the groom, which for the first half of the 16th century. cannot be considered orders.)

** (Code of Laws of the XV-XVI centuries, p. 43; AAE, Vol. I, No. 155, p. 125; Likhachev N.P. Discharge clerks of the 16th century. SPb., 1888, p. 30, 33; Chernov A. V. Decree. op., p. 281; Sadikov P. A. Decree op., p. 260; Leontiev A. K. Formation of the order management system in the Russian state. M., 1961, p. 52-53; Sat. RIO, vol. 35, p. 340.)

A. M. Kurbsky wrote about the origin of Ivan IV's "clerks" (clerks): the tsar "elects them not from a gentry family, nor from nobility, but rather from priests or from simple nationwide" * . This characteristic is fully consistent with the composition of the clerks of the previous period. However, some of the "clerks" of the second half of the 15th - the first quarter of the 16th century. withdrew from the small landowners. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine with sufficient accuracy which social stratum produced the bulk of the clerks. The fact that clerks have lands does not yet speak of their noble origin, because clerks often acquired estates during their service.

* (RIB, vol. XXXI, st. 221.)

According to N. E. Nosov, orders, as certain government institutions, originated in the bowels of the prince's palace *. The question of the relation of the palace to the Treasury still cannot be considered resolved. But in the sources of the late XV - early XVI century. noticeable separation of the "palace" clerks from the rest, that is, the grand ducal ones, who were part of the Treasury. Nosov's wording not only erases the difference between the palace and the Treasury, but also does not take into account the role of the Boyar Duma in the formation of the order system, which was created by limiting, rather than expanding, the competence of the palace departments. If the Treasury and the palace provided the main personnel of the apparatus of the emerging order system, then the Boyar Duma was the environment from which the leading persons of the most important central departments emerged. Boyar commissions were formed as needed to conduct foreign policy negotiations, court on land and "robbery" cases, etc. The sources of the nascent order system were the Boyar Duma, the Treasury and the palace. At the same time, palace clerks, and even more so yamsky clerks, were considered a rank lower than the grand-ducal (state), although they often performed similar assignments. One and the same clerk, in turn, could perform all sorts of functions: participate in diplomatic receptions, seal letters with his signature, etc. The practical experience gained by the clerks gave the government the opportunity to use them mainly in one area. With the increase in the number of clerks, their specialization also gradually increased.

* (Kopanev A. I., Mankov A. G., Nosov N. E. Decree. op., p. 68.)

The significance of the first sprouts of the command system cannot be exaggerated. At the end of the XV - beginning of the XVI century. clerks were also part of the palace, separate branches of state administration had not yet separated from one another, and a specific staff for each of them had not yet developed. Boyar commissions were of a temporary nature and were not always combined with a certain staff of clerks. Functional distribution of duties only in the middle of the XVI century. led to the addition of a new (mandatory) management system.

Management and court in the field were carried out by governors and volosts with their staff of tiuns, closers and righteous people. The governors were not only the highest judicial and administrative officials in the city, but also the supreme commanders of the local troops. The governors and volostels were provided with a feeding system that gave them the right to collect various taxes from certain territories. The "natural" nature of remuneration for service corresponded to the weak development of commodity-money relations in the country. Feedings (i.e., territories from which requisitions were collected) were called "ways" in the palace department. In the literature, the term "path" is erroneously interpreted as a department * . In fact, in the time being studied, the "path" is a certain territorial-administrative unit, the population of which is sued and exacted in favor of the administrators of the palace department (falconer, etc.). Letters "on the way" according to the form coincide with letters transferring territories "for feeding". In the spiritual of Ivan III, the Bezhetsky top is mentioned "with the volosts and with the roads and from the villages and with all the duties." According to B.N. Flory, the term "way" occurs in fed charters until 1485, after which it is replaced by "feeding" ** .

* (See, for example, SIE, vol. 11. M., 1968, p. 714; Florya B. N. Feeding letters of the XV-XVII centuries. as a historical source. - AE. 1970. M., 1971, p. 111)

** (Wed Acts of Yushkov, No. 17, 18, 22, 24; DDG, No. 89, p. 360. Behind I. D. Bobrov, the bed-keeper of Vasily III, "along the bed path" was the volost Ukhra "from washed on the way" (Rare sources on the history of Russia, issue 2. M., 1977, p. 70). In 1555, F. V. Kryukov was granted the “nursery” for feeding, that is, essentially on the “way” (DAI, vol. I, No. 53). In the sentinel book of 1588/9, it is said about one property, which is "assigned to the stable path to the Domodedovo volost" (Speransky A.N. Essays on the history of the order of stone affairs of the Moscow State. M., 1930, p. 36). In the charter of 1547-1584. about the award "by the falconer's way" to "feeding" are called "ways or volosts" (Acts of Yushkov, No. 162). Wed a letter of 1556 on the stable route (DAI, vol. I, No. 108). "Ways" can be compared with the Tatar "darugs" ("roads").)

The feeders came from both the feudal aristocracy and the rank and file of service people. Representatives of the nobility received governorships in the largest cities (in Moscow - Gediminovichi, in Vladimir - Prince D. D. Kholmsky, in Vyazma - roundabout I. V. Shadra). The order of distribution of cities in feeding was generally reminiscent of distribution in destinies: more noble persons received larger cities. At the same time, traditions of specific pores were sometimes reflected in the order of receiving feedings. The timing of feedings was at first indefinite, possibly lifelong. In any case, they ruled in Moscow for life, and the Gediminoviches - from the 20s of the 15th century. to the 20s of the XVI century. In the XV century. the principle of feeding "according to the year" was taking shape, that is, feeding was given for a year and "bypassed" for another six months or a year. Basil III, according to S. Herberstein, distributed food "for the most part for use only for a year and a half; if he keeps someone in special favor or disposition, then he adds several months; after this period, all mercy ceases, and you six years in a row will have to serve as a gift. However, the nobility could stay in the governors for a relatively long time. So, it is known that the roundabout I. V. Shadra was governor in Vyazma from 1495 to 1505. *

* (Veselovsky S. B. Feudal landownership in North-Eastern Russia, p. 263-280; Herberstein, p. 20-21; Florya B, N. Feeding letters of the XV-XVI centuries. ..., With. 118; his own. On some sources on the history of local government in Russia in the 16th century. - AE. 1962. M., 1963, p. 92-97; Zimin A. A. Governorship in the Russian state in the second half of the 15th - the first third of the 16th century. - FROM 1974 v. 94 p. 273.)

The power of governors and volostels in the field was limited and regulated by the Sudebnik of 1497, charters issued to the local population, and income lists received by feeders. The list of requisitions (fodder) that went in their favor according to income lists was, as it were, corrected by statutory letters. According to the statutory Charter of Belozersk in 1488, the governor received traditional food from all sokhs "without omenka" (both secular and spiritual feudal lords, who had immunity privileges or not). When he took office, he went "entry". At Christmas, he received 2 altyns from a plow for weeding meat, 10 money for 10 loaves, 10 money for a barrel of oats, 2 altyns for a cart of hay. The tiunas of the governors received half the amount of food. The food also went to the closers. The governor had the right to keep with him two tiuns and 10 closers (eight in the city and two in the camps) *. The governor also received all kinds of duties: customs (including the appearance from guests - for money per person) and, in accordance with the Sudebnik of 1497, judicial.

* (ASEI, vol. III, No. 22, 114; Gorsky. Essays, p. 245-251.)

The limitation of the power of governors and volostels proceeded not only through the regulation of requisitions, but also through the removal of an increasing number of cases from their jurisdiction. Thus, the "city business" (the construction of city fortifications) was concentrated in the hands of the townspeople, who were replaced at the beginning of the 16th century. the city clerks came. Townsmen, customs officers, and tributaries collected all kinds of taxes for the Treasury. Numerous scribes and specially sent judges resolved land disputes, which were previously under the jurisdiction mainly of governors and volosts. Only the report of full (slave) charters was the prerogative of the vicegerent authorities.

* (Nosov N. E. Essays on the history of local government of the Russian state in the first half of the 16th century, p. 21-38, 42; ASEI, vol. II, No. 476.)

The army continued to be feudal. This meant that it was based on cavalry from the detachments of boyar children and princes, who led their armed serfs. V. I. Lenin emphasized that even during the period of the "Moscow kingdom" "local boyars went to war with their regiments." When recruiting regiments, the territorial principle was widely used. Detachments of "Tverians", "Dmitrovites", "Novgorodians", "Pskovians", etc. went on the campaign. Novgorodians and Pskovians were more often involved in military operations in Livonia, with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in the north. Ustyuzhans, Vologda residents, Permians participated in campaigns against Yugra.

The Seversk princes were busy defending the southwestern borders. Regiments from different lands of the country participated in large campaigns of an all-Russian character. The five-regiment system (a large regiment, an advanced regiment, regiments of the right and left hands and a sentry regiment) took shape throughout the 15th century. and became normal. Along with the cavalry, the auxiliary (foot) troops - "staff" - recruited from the coh * , also took part in the hostilities.

* (Chernov A. V. Armed forces of the Russian state in the XV-XVII centuries. M., 1954, p. 17-42; Lenin V. I. PSS, vol. 1, p. 153; RK, p. 23; PSRL, vol. 12, p. 252; ULS, p. 88; PL, no. I, p. 81. For the order of typing "with cox" see the information of 1480, 1485, 1500, 1501. (Nosov N. E. Essays ..., pp. 116-118; Gorsky. Essays, p. 222).)

The government of Ivan III attached great importance to the creation of powerful artillery, without which one could not count on the capture of large fortress cities. The outstanding architect and craftsman Aristotle Fioravanti played an important role in the development of artillery. The Sofia II and Lvov chronicles, dating back to the code of 1518, speak in most detail about his activities. * , the compiler of which, perhaps, was the Metropolitan clerk Rodion Kozhukh, known from the sources of 1461-1482. **

* (Lurie. Chronicles, p. 237, 238.)

** (See about him: Nasonov, p. 306-307; Lurie. Chronicles, p. 237.)

In the official annals, information about Aristotle, who left for Russia in 1475, is interrupted by the construction of the Assumption Cathedral. However, it also contains an enthusiastic description of his activity: “In that whole earth there was no such thing, not only for this stone work, but also for everything else, and bells, and cannons, and every dispensation, and imati cities and beat them” . In December 1477, Aristotle was assigned to repair the bridge over the Volkhov. In 1482 "Aristotle with cannons" took part in a campaign near Kazan. In 1483, after he was slaughtered "like a sheep", one of the doctors, Aristotle, "fearing that, began to ask the Grand Duke for his land." The answer was that the Grand Duke, "caught him and robbed him, plant him in the Onton yard." The disgrace was short-lived, and in 1485 "Aristotle with cannons, and with mattresses, and with squeakers" took part in the Tver campaign. This is the last mention of him in the sources. Probably, the creation of the Cannon Yard in Moscow is connected with the appearance of Aristotle. In any case, the first mention of him dates back to the time of the Moscow fire of 1488. Under the same year, the annals report that Paul Debossis merged "the great cannon." Obviously, Aristotle had already died by then. The versatile activity of Aristotle made such a deep impression on his contemporaries that they used the term "Aristotle" along with "architectons", "captains" and others, denoting by it "wise people", masters of foreign origin *.

* (PSRL, vol. 25, p. 324, cf. With. 303-304; cf. vol. 23, p. 161; v. 6, p. 234, 235, 237; vol. 20, part I, p. 328, 349, 352; v. 24, p. 237; IL, p. 118, 126 and others; PL, no. I, p. 99 (1518). See also: Snegirev V. Aristotle Fioravanti and the reconstruction of the Moscow Kremlin. M., 1935; Khoroshkevich A.L. Data from Russian chronicles about Aristotle Fioravanti. - VI, 1979, No. 2, p. 201-204.)

The oldest surviving cannon (master Yakov) was merged in 1485. The cannon of 1491 is also known, which was merged by "Yakovlev's disciples Vanya and Vasyuk" * . The creation of artillery that met the conditions of warfare at the beginning of the 16th century was a lengthy business. The failure at Smolensk in 1502 was to some extent explained by the lack of artillery support.

* (Brandenburg N. E. Historical catalog of the St. Petersburg Artillery Museum, part I. St. Petersburg, 1877, p. 57, 105.)

Vasily III sought to fulfill the task of further development of artillery.

The reliable defense of the Russian state was facilitated by large fortification works. The Kremlin has become an outstanding military defense structure. A stone citadel was built in Novgorod. In 1492, the Ivan-Gorod fortress was erected on the Livonian border, which opposed Narva.

The size of the army also increased sharply. Researchers believe that the total number of troops at that time reached about 200 thousand foot and horse soldiers. In the Battle of Vedrosha alone in 1500, according to Lithuanian data (perhaps somewhat exaggerated), a Russian cavalry army of 40 thousand people took part, not counting the foot. Livonian sources especially exaggerate the number of Russian troops, trying to embellish their military successes. So, in the summer of 1501, 40 thousand Russian soldiers allegedly went to the Baltic states from Pskov, and in the autumn even 90 thousand people *.

* (Chernov A.V. Armed forces ..., p. 33; PSRL, vol. 32, p. 167; Kazakova N. A. Russian-Livonian and Russian-Hanseatic relations ..., p. 225 227.)

Along with the construction of the armed forces, the government also paid attention to finding the funds necessary for their provision, as well as for the maintenance of the court and the administrative apparatus.

The unification of the monetary system, carried out by the grand ducal authorities, created an all-Russian monetary stack. The main monetary units were "Moskovka" of the Grand Duke's court and "Novgorodka", issued in Novgorod. The ruble now consisted of 100 Novgorod or 200 Moscow money. The issuance of their own gold coin ("Ugric") on behalf of Ivan III and his son Ivan reflected the increased financial power of Russia *.

* (ORC XIII-XV centuries, part I, p. 342-343; Orc of the 16th century, part I, p. 228-229.)

The income of the Grand Duke's treasury consisted of various receipts. There were spoils of war, and the proceeds from the export trade. The sovereign's domain (palace) provided material support to the grand ducal court. The appanage princes paid large sums for the "horde exit" (in 1486, Boris Volotsky had to give 60 rubles out of 1 thousand rubles *). The main population of the grand princely lands paid a direct tax - a tribute, to which was added yam (yam money) for organizing a communication service, "writing squirrel" - for scribes, myt (travel duty), tamga (trade duty), spot (for branding horses for money with horses from the ruble), and performed many other duties (city affairs, etc.). To collect taxes, it was necessary to maintain a large staff of administrators-tributaries, customs officers, townsmen, yamsky clerks, and scribes. Sometimes taxes were farmed out.

* (DDG, No. 81.)

"Special customs borders", about which V. I. Lenin wrote, characterizing the features of the economic and political fragmentation of the "Muscovite kingdom", were especially strong in the period under study. The existence of various taxes in different lands, and especially the variety of salary units, prevented the regular flow of income to the sovereign's treasury. To this we must add the extortion of administrators. Published customs letters for individual regions (for example, the Belozersky customs letter of 1497) regulated the collection of customs fees, but could not protect the Treasury from theft. In the 80s of the 15th century, as B. N. Florya showed, there was a gradual process of eliminating the tax privileges of secular feudal lords. They already now, as a rule, pay not only tribute to the Treasury, but also myt, tamga, pits and other taxes. In the 1990s, things came to the complete elimination of the tax immunity of secular feudal lords. The same thing happened with the immunities of church feudal lords. In any case, from 1490-1505. letters with tax benefits were not preserved *.

* (See Lenin V.I. PSS, vol. 1, p. 153; ASEI, vol. III, No. 23, p. 41-43; Florya B. N. Evolution of tax immunity of secular feudal lords of Russia in the second half of the 15th - first half of the 16th century, - ISSSR, 1972, No. 1, p. 56-59; Chestnuts. Socio-political history, p. 12-13.)

The creation of the Sudebnik of 1497 was the legal formalization of the process of the formation of a single state, although the features of the isolation of individual lands in legal terms continued to exist in the practice of legal proceedings for a long time.

The Russian state took shape in the form of a class monarchy*. It is from the end of the XV century. estates begin to take shape in Russia - the feudal aristocracy with its organ, the Boyar Duma, the nobility and clergy, the peasantry and townspeople. For representatives of the ruling class, a set of rights and privileges arises, reflected both in legislative monuments and in the practice of everyday life.

* (Galperin G. V. Forms of government of the Russian centralized state of the XV-XVI centuries, p. 39-55.)

Successes in the unification process at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. could only be achieved at the cost of enormous efforts and sacrifices of the peoples of Russia, primarily Russian peasants and townspeople. The answer to the strengthening of feudal oppression at that time was a sharp rise in the class struggle both in the city and in the countryside, where the peasants fought for land with the feudal lords with all the means at their disposal. A. D. Gorsky found that the total number of land conflicts in 1463-1500/01. (38-39 years old) increased by more than 9 times compared to 1426-1462, covering 73% of all counties of North-Eastern Russia. The leading role in this struggle was played by the black-eared peasantry (the actions of the possessing peasants "lagged behind" by about half in terms of the intensity of the growth of the struggle for land). At the same time, the peak of the intensification of the struggle falls on the 80s and especially the 90s of the 15th century. Some decline (half against the 90s) falls on 1501-1505. *

* (Gorsky A.D. The struggle of peasants for land in Russia in the 15th - early 16th centuries, p. 70, 73, 82, 89.)

Sovereign of All Russia Ivan III reigned for more than 40 years. The first period of his reign (1462-1480) was mainly the completion of the tasks set during the feudal war of the second quarter of the 15th century - the unification of the lands around Moscow and the elimination of the remnants of the Horde yoke. In the second period (1480-1505), new tasks arose before the grand ducal authorities - the struggle against the remnants of feudal decentralization and the creation of a united state apparatus. It was at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. in domestic and foreign policy, those knots were tied that had to be unraveled throughout the entire 16th century. The struggle against the remnants of feudal fragmentation proceeded in three directions. This is, first of all, the liquidation of the specific principalities (which ended with the fall of the Staritsky principality under Ivan the Terrible), the struggle against Novgorod separatism (ultimately leading to the defeat of Novgorod in 1570) and, finally, the desire to subordinate the church to the state and secularize church lands (the program of the council of 1503 . was continued by the councils of 1550 and 1584).

Vasily III and Ivan the Terrible inherited the main directions of foreign policy formulated by Ivan III. The struggle for the Baltic, begun by Ivan III, Ivan the Terrible continued in the Livonian War, but, however, did not achieve success. But the task of reunifying the Russian lands, and in particular the annexation of those that were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was carried out by the son and grandson of Ivan III. They continued the defensive strategy of their father and grandfather on the southern borders, realizing that only a strong, fortified rear could ensure the success of the eastern policy. The short-term annexation of Kazan in 1487 and the support of the Kasimov princes bore fruit in the middle of the 16th century, when Kazan and Astrakhan were included in the Russian state.

The development of the new state apparatus did not end soon. The inclusion of service princes in the Boyar Duma was only planned (it ended in the 30-50s of the 16th century). The power of the governors was limited by statutory charters and was abolished only in the middle of the 16th century. Sobor meetings appeared (such as the Zemstvo Council of 1503) - the prototype of Zemstvo councils in the middle of the 16th century. Estate monarchy of the end of the 15th century. will take the form of a class-representative in the middle of the next century. Following the first all-Russian Sudebnik (1497) in 1550, the second will follow. The restrictive immunity policy, under the sign of which all the most important financial and judicial measures of the 16th century were carried out, is also rooted in the activities of Ivan III at the end of the 15th century. From the episodic functional division of duties between the grand ducal clerks of the Treasury and the palace at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries. in the middle of the 16th century. new institutions will be formed - huts (orders), which will become the most important nationwide institutions of a new type.

Continuity is observed both in the development of the forms of the class struggle and in the directions of social thought. The traditions of the freethinkers of Novgorod and Moscow were adopted and developed by Theodosius Kosy and Matvey Bashkin. The emerging currents of militant churchmen (Josephites) and non-possessors will be continued both by Metropolitan Macarius, on the one hand, and by Archpriest Sylvester and Artemy, on the other. The ideas of The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir will become part of everyday diplomatic practice under Ivan IV, and scenes from it will be depicted on the royal seat (throne).

Thus, by the beginning of the XVI century. the revived Russia turned into a powerful multinational state, embarking on the path of centralization. Russia of that time was characterized by the rise of the economy and culture, the development of political, trade and cultural ties with many countries of Europe and Asia, hitherto unprecedented foreign policy successes.

Entering the 16th century, Russia, like other European countries, found itself on the threshold of a new era. It opened up broad prospects for a further rise, the paths for which were outlined in the last decades of the previous century.

TESTS

1. From the options below, select those forms of statehood that existed in ancient Russia (IX-XIII centuries):

1) constitutional monarchy;

2) early feudal monarchy;

3) autocratic monarchy;

4) estate-representative monarchy;

5) feudal republic.

Determine the numbers of the correct answers.

2. During the reign of which prince (princess) was the Old Russian law set forth in the Russkaya Pravda (XI century) created:

1) Prince Vladimir I (Red Sun);

2) Prince Vladimir II (Monomakh);

3) Princess Olga (Saint);

4) Prince Yaroslav (the Wise)?

3. Give the term that denoted the people's assembly in ancient and medieval Russia to discuss and resolve important common issues. VECHE

4. Give the name of the detachment of warriors who united around the prince and constituted the privileged layer of Russian feudal society in the 9th-11th centuries. DRUZHINA

5. Who carried out legislative functions in the Novgorod feudal republic in the XII-XIV centuries:

2) veche;

4) posadnik;

5) Council of gentlemen;

6) thousand?

Choose the numbers of correct answers.

6. From the options offered to you, select the actual head of the Council of Masters of the Novgorod Feudal Republic:

1) archbishop;

3) posadnik;

4) thousand.

7. Give the name of the position of the military leader of the city militia in Russia until the middle of the 15th century. VOIVOD

8. The governors in the grand ducal administration performed the following functions:

1) the heads of the entire princely administration;

2) a candidate for a position (for a "place");

3) a representative of the princely administration in other cities ;

4) manager of the princely court?

9. What changes occurred in the management of specific principalities with the beginning of Mongol rule:

1) there have been no changes;

2) new institutions of governance appeared, established by the conquerors, limiting the princely power;

3) the role of the Grand Duke increased sharply;

4) the role of specific princes increased ?

Choose the number of the correct answer.

10. Give the name of the method of keeping officials during the entire period of their service at the expense of the local population of Russia. FEEDING

11. Establish a correspondence between the social functions of the prince and his title in Russia from the 11th to the 15th centuries:

princely title

social function

A. Grand Duke

1. The owner of a land allotment on patrimonial, that is, inheritance law B

B. Prince-sovereign

3) commissariat;

4) ministries;

5) the Senate.

Determine the number of the correct answer.

49. Give the name of the bodies of urban estate administration in Russia that appeared under Peter I. CITY MAGISTRATS

50. In January 1722, the government of Peter I issued a law that determined the procedure for the service of officials. The publication of this law contributed to the bureaucratization of the state apparatus and was an important moment in the formation of absolutism in Russia. Give the name of this law. TABLE OF RANKS

51. From the titles of legislative acts proposed below, select a document developed with the active participation of Peter I, which, on the one hand, determined the procedure for serving officials in Imperial Russia, and on the other hand, contributed to the bureaucratization of the state apparatus:

1) spiritual regulations;

2) Cathedral code;

3) drill code;

4) table of ranks;

5) the charter on the civil service.

Determine the number of the correct answer.

52. The table of ranks was:

1) a hierarchical system of ranks, titles, ranks, which determined promotion through the ranks;

2) the system of punishments for civil servants;

3) the system of remuneration in the public service;

4) the feudal-hierarchical system that replaced localism?

Determine the number of the correct answer.

53. From the proposed options, select the government body of the Russian Empire that oversaw the service of officials in the time of Peter the Great:

1) Near Duma;

2) State Council;

3) Governing Senate;

4) Secret office.

Determine the number of the correct answer.

54. Give the name of the document developed with the active participation of Peter I, which established the order of service in all institutions of the Russian state and, in fact, was the charter of public service in the XVIII - early XIX centuries. NON-NERAL REGULATIONS

55. During the Northern War with Sweden at the mouth of the Neva, Peter I laid the foundation for the fortress of St. Petersburg. What is the name of the first governor of St. Petersburg. A. D. MENSHIKOV

56. From the options below, select a contender for the Russian imperial crown according to the Charter of Succession to the Throne of 1722:

1) the first-born of the emperor, regardless of whether it is a son or daughter;

2) the eldest son of the emperor;

3) brother of the emperor;

4) the one whom the emperor specifies in the will.

Determine the number of the correct answer.

57. Give the name of the highest government body in Russia in 1726-1730, to which the Senate and the College were subordinate. SUPREME PRIVATE COUNCIL

58. Name the highest state institution created by the decree of Anna Ioannovna in 1731 as a council under the empress. CABINET OF MINISTERS

59. What was the name of the temporary collegiate bodies in Russia in the 18th century, convened to codify laws? Give this title. STATED COMMISSIONS

60. From the options below, select the name of the temporary collegiate bodies during the reign of Catherine II, convened to codify laws:

1) State Duma;

2) State Council;

3) a noble assembly;

4) laid down commission;

5) constituent assembly.

61. From the options below, select the name of the administrative-territorial units into which the provinces were divided, starting from 1775: county

4) provinces;

6) counties.

Give the number of the correct answer.

62. Give the name of the administrative-territorial units into which the provinces have been divided since 1775. county

63. From the following names of the city executive authorities in the Russian Empire, select those that were formed in accordance with the Charter to the cities (1785):

1) burmister chamber (town hall);

2) city authorities;

3) ratgauz;

4) six-voice thought.

64. Give the official name since 1785 of the chairman of the city duma and at the same time the city council in Russian Empire . City head.

65. Establish a correspondence between the administrative-territorial units of the Russian Empire and the officials who headed them:

Names of administrative-territorial units

Their leaders

A. District

1. Governor - B.

B. Province

2. Mayor G.

3. Zemsky commissar - BUT.

G. county town

4. Police captain - AT.

66. From the following events of the government of Catherine II, select the transformation that bears the stamp of enlightened absolutism : 1

1) Manifesto on the convocation of deputies to the “Commission for drafting a new code »;

2) the abolition of the hetmanate in Little Russia (Ukraine);

3) decree forbidding peasants to complain about their landowners ;

4) a decree forbidding peasants to engage in trade;

5) a decree forbidding industrialists to buy serfs for their enterprises.

Give the number of the correct answer.

67. Establish a correspondence between the names of certain legislative acts of the XVIII century and their content:

Name of the legal document

A. Diploma on the rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility

1. Law regulating the existence of the Russian Imperial House G

B. Rules of Succession to the Throne

2. Legislative act that determined the procedure for civil service by officials AT

B. Table of Ranks

3. Legislative act that freed the nobles from compulsory state military and civil service BUT

D. Institution of the imperial family

4. A legislative act establishing the order of succession to the throne, according to which the question of choosing a successor was transferred to the discretion of the reigning emperor B

68. Give the name of the class associations of the merchants in the Russian Empire of the XVIII-XIX centuries. GUILDS

69. Give the name of the estate in the Russian Empire of the XVIII-XIX centuries, the male part of which was obliged from the age of 18 to carry out military service for 20 years. PEASANTS, BITCHERS

70. Give the name of the emperor, under which the law on succession to the throne was adopted, restoring the pre-Petrine order of the transfer of power of the monarch in a straight line from father to eldest son. PAVEL 1

71. From the documents offered to you, select the legislative act of the 18th century on the procedure for serving in the army and civil institutions:

1) spiritual regulations;

2) Cathedral code;

3) drill code;

4) table of ranks .

Determine the number of the correct answer.

72. Give the name of the central body of military administration in the Russian Empire in the 18th - early 19th centuries. MILITARY BOARD

73. Give the name of the supreme legislative body of the Russian Empire in the XIX century. STATE COUNCIL, PERMANENT COUNCIL

74. Under what Russian emperor was the “Charter on Civil Service” introduced:

1) under Peter I;

2) under Paul I;

3) under Alexander I;

4) under Nicholas I?

75. What is the name of one of the highest dignitaries of the Russian Empire during the reign of Alexander I, who became the author of a plan for state reforms aimed at giving the autocratic system the form of a constitutional monarchy. SPERANSKY MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH

76. In October 1809, the Secretary of State of Alexander I submitted to the Emperor a draft of reforms, called "Introduction to the Code of State Laws", which laid down the principle

separation of powers. From the following authorities proposed by Speransky, select the state body in which legislative functions were concentrated:

1) The State Duma ;

2) State Council;

3) ministries;

4) Senate.

Determine the number of the correct answer.

77. Establish a correspondence between the statesmen of the reign of Alexander I and those transformations that in the minds of contemporaries and descendants are associated with their names:

statesmen

Reforms associated with their names

1. Decree on granting the merchants, bourgeoisie and state peasants the right to buy uninhabited lands (1801 .) B

2. Publication of the decree "On free cultivators" (1803) AT

3. Organization of military settlements (1809) BUT

4. Introduction of the "General Establishment of Ministries" (1811) G

78. What principle was the basis for the activities of the central executive authorities according to the ministerial reform of Alexander I:

2) the principle of democratic centralism;

3) the principle of collegiality;

4) the principle of expediency?

Choose the correct one from the given options.

79. What is the name of the all-powerful temporary worker under Emperor Alexander I, who carried out the actual leadership of the state in 1815–1825. ARAKCHEEV ALEXEY ANDREEVICH

80. Establish a correspondence between those developed in the first quarter of the 19th century. projects for the liberation of peasants from serfdom and their authors, dignitaries of Emperor Alexander I:

A. The abolition of serfdom is a necessary condition for the renewal of Russia, but the solution of this problem must be postponed for the future

B. It is necessary to free the peasants by buying them out from the landowner and then allocating land at the expense of the treasury

B. Relations between peasants and landowners should be built on a contractual basis, and various forms of land ownership should be introduced gradually

3. lived in BUT

4. (No)

81. Give the name of a special organization of the armed forces of the Russian Empire from 1810 to 1857, in which military service was combined with agriculture. MILITARY SETTLEMENTS

82. In 1810, by the will of Emperor Alexander I, a special organization of troops was created in Russia, combining military service with agriculture. From the following alternatives, select the main reason for the formation of such military contingents:

1) variant of the development of Russia in the event of the abolition of serfdom;

2) settlement of the underdeveloped territories of Siberia by farmers;

3) the creation of military formations from the wronged soldiers;

4) creation of a reserve of trained troops without increasing the cost of the army. - THIS ANSWER

Determine the number of the correct answer.

83. From the alternatives proposed below, select the form reflected in the constitutional draft of the Decembrist: - 1_

1) constitutional monarchy;

2) republican system;

3) autocratic monarchy;

4) estate-representative monarchy.

Choose the number of the correct answer.

84. From the following names of the Decembrists, who were executed on the shaft of the crown-werk of the Peter and Paul Fortress, indicate the author of the program document, called "Russian Truth" or "Reserved state charter of the great Russian people, which serves as a covenant for the improvement of Russia and contains the right order both for the people and for the provisional Supreme Government”:

1) Bestuzhev-;

3) Ants-;

4) ;

Determine the number of the correct answer.

85. Which of the orders listed below was the highest in the system of awards for Russian officials in the 19th century:

1) St. Alexander Nevsky;

2) St. Andrew the First-Called ;

3) St. Anna;

4) White Eagle;

5) St. Vladimir;

6) St. Stanislaus?

Choose the number of the correct answer.

86. From the options below, select the name of the sovereign, in which the aristocratic model of public service was replaced by a bureaucratic one:

3) Catherine II;

4) Nicholas I;

5) Alexander II.

Determine the number of the correct answer

87. From the following names of the dignitaries of Emperor Nicholas I, select the author of the draft reform of the management of state peasants:

3) ;

Give the number of the correct answer.

88. The closest dignitary of Emperor Nicholas I, Count Yegor Frantsevich Kan-krin, carried out (1839–1843) one of the most successful reforms of this reign. From the following activities of the tsarist government, select and indicate the reform:

B. Hereditary honorary citizens

3. In the military and civil service from grade 11 G

D. Personal honorary citizens

4. Scientists or artists with a degree, as well as merchants, if they have been in the 1st guild for 10 years, in the 2nd guild - 20 years AT

Give the number of the correct answer.

149. What type of republic is the Russian Federation under the 1993 Constitution:

1) Parliamentary;

2) Presidential ;

3) Mixed type;

4) Soviet?

Choose the number of the correct answer.

GOVERNOR - in Russia:

1) in the 1st quarter of the 13th - the end of the 16th centuries, the proper person of the local administrative and military administration, as well as the court-yes, on- the right-lying-neck of the prince-earth-su-ve-re-nom or tsar-rem in the capacity of his not-mediocre representative in the do- me-ni-al-nye cities and lands.

Co-blu-yes-whether po-ly-tic and ma-te-ri-al-nye in-te-re-sy of his sen-o-ra. Su-shche-st-vo-va-li on-row-du with vo-lo-te-la-mi, in the XIV - middle of the XVI centuries here is the place of management. In the cities of North-Eastern Russia, for-me-no-whether in-garden-no-kov, and hourly, with time, and thousands of them in ka- che-st-ve heads of local authorities.

For the first time mentioned in Nov-go-ro-de (1216), Vla-di-mi-re (1225-1226), Smolensk (1283). Since the 14th century, the institute of the princely Viceroys has received all-the-general race-pro-country in North-Eastern and North-Western Russia. Su-sche-st-in-va-nie of the Viceroys do-ku-men-tal-but for-fic-si-ro-va-no in Yaroslavl (for the first time in the 1320s), Tver -skom (not later than 1362-1364), Rostov-skom (not later than the 2nd third of the 15th century), Ryazan-skom (Deputies in Ros-ti-slav-le not later -nee ru-be-zh XV and XVI centuries) prince-same-st-wakh; in the cities of Vla-di-mir-of-ve-li-ko-go prince-same-st-va Pe-re-yas-lav-le (Za-les-skom), Yury-e- ve (Polish), Ko-st-ro-me, etc. (not later than the 2nd third of the XIV century). In the Nov-go-rod-sky re-pub-li-ke in the XIV-XV centuries, the ve-li-ko-prince-same Governors of the os-sche-st-in-la-li court, together with the degree-pen- us-mi in a garden-no-ka-mi; con-tro-li-ro-va-li co-blue-de-nie in-te-re-owls of his sen-o-ra both in the inner life of the res-pub-li-ki, and in its me-zh-du-folk from-no-she-ni-yah (for example, at-day-st-in-wa-whether at the conclusion of the New-go-rod-sky-tor-go- out to-go-vo-ditch, to-go-vo-ditch with Li-von-sky or-de-nom, etc.). In the Pskov Republic-pub-li-ke from the West, the Viceroys, on-the-right-left-shie-serving-mi-prince-i-mi from among them you-sa-lovs in Pskov-sky pri-go-ro-dy-kre-po-sti, but at the same time pri-sya-gu res-pub-li-Kan-sky authorities.

From the 2nd half of the 1340s from-me-che-ny Governors in Mo-sk-ve, from the end of the 14th century su-sche-st-vo-va-li Governors of both Moscow Grand Dukes and oche-re-di - Moscow specific princes. In the 2nd half of the 14th - the middle of the 16th centuries, the deputies of the appanage princes went to the big-shin-st-ve of the cities of fak-ti-che-ski of all the destinies of the Great Moscow principalities. In the inter-princely wars and conflicts of the XIV - mid-XV centuries for the ve-li-ko-prince-same-sky table in Vla-di-mi-re in the 1320-1370s., Mo-s-kovskaya uso-bi-tse 1425-1453, etc.) The governors would be the main tool for the kre-p-le-niya of the power of the prince-zey-so-per-ni-kov over the on-se-le-ni-em of the cities and their ok-ru-gi on the disputed ter-ri-to-ri-yah, as well as on those lands where there were military actions. In the 2nd half of the XV - XVI centuries, from the West, for example, in 110 cities and lands of the Russian state. The governors played a significant role in the re-building of the land and service from the princes, boyar and de-tei bo -Yar-sky principalities and lands, including in the composition of the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Russian state, in the administrative-su-deb-noy and fi-nan -co-howl of the power of the Moscow monks over the heavy burden on-se-le-ni-em. An example is the activity of F.V. Bas-sen-ka in Suz-da-le (at the final stage of the acquisition of the N-same-rod-suz-dal-principality at the end of 1440- x - mid-1450s), Prince I.V. Stri-gi Obo-len-sko-go in Yaroslavl-le (with the presence of the Yaroslavl principality in 1463-1467), Prince I.V. Obo-len-sko-go Ly-ko in Velikiye Lu-kah and Za-volo-whose (1477/1478); Ya.Z. and Yu.Z. Za-har-i-nykh-Kosh-ki-nykh in Nov-go-ro-de (in 1485-1495, with re-ry-va-mi). After-whether-to-vi-di-ro-va-li zem-le-vla-de-nie new-go-rod-go-bo-yar-st-va and pro-ve-li lane -vuyu wave-well, mass-co-is-po-me-shche-ny in the Nov-go-rod-sky zem-le of walkers from the central counties.

The power of the Viceroy was dis-pro-country-mainly on the draft-lye tor-go-in-re-monthly layers of the city-ro-zhan and the draft on the village the ok-ru-gi of the cities (usually the so-called city-states), however, in a different degree, - and on the vi-le-gi-rovannye layers on-se-le-niya. From-to-initial-but (ve-ro-yat-no, before the ru-be-zha of the XIV and XV centuries) re-me-scha-essing along the ter-ri-to-rii entrusted to them along the op-re-de-lyon-no-mu route and in the op-re-de-lyon time -mya (the so-called passing court of the Namestnikov; according to new-g-rod-sky data - after Peter's day, that is, after June 29). Later, the Viceroys managed-la-li and su-di-li, being in the hundred-yan-nyh re-zi-den-qi-yah (courtyards of the Viceroys). The governor, his ap-para-rat (co-sto-yal of ho-lo-pov-in-service-residents) and re-zi-den-tion co-der-zha-li-me-st-thrust -lym on-se-le-ni-eat within the framework of sys-te-we feed-le-ny. Usually, one Viceroy was assigned to one city. One-on-one, for example, but in 25 cities, re-gu-lyar-but on-know-cha-cha-for two or more Viceroys, which op-re-de-la-elk according to -lytic, military or economic significance of cities (among them are hundreds of great, so-ny or appanage princes states, centers of foreign and transit trade, pro-we-word-cities), conditions for their inclusion in co- becoming the Russian state, tradition-mi (for example, the joint power of the great and specific princes in various princes or the same authorities de-niy of the Nov-go-rod-sky republic-pub-li-ki, the grand dukes of the vla-di-mir-sky and mo-s-kov-sky), etc. In Bol-shin-st-vo that -those cities (Vla-di-mir, Mo-sk-va, Ko-lom-na, Ko-st-ro-ma, Mu-rom, Nov-go-rod, Ve-li-kie Lu -ki, Pskov, Vyaz-ma, Smolensk, Pe-re-yas-lavl-Ryazan-sky, etc.) shei, ti-tu-lo-van-noy and not-ti-tu-lo-van-noy know, pre-im. from the duma chi-new. Until the last third of the 15th century, the deputies became-but-vi-lied almost-is-key-chi-tel-but members of the go-su-da-re-y courts as grand dukes zey (mo-s-kov-sky and Tver-sky), and specific (mo-s-kov-sky and, ve-ro-yat-but, tver-sky), you-walkers, for not-bol-shi-mi is-klyu-che-niya-mi, from the old-ro-mos-kov-sky and old-ro-tver-bo-yar-sky clans (Bu-tour-li- nyh, Che-lyad-n-nyh, Mo-ro-zo-vyh, Ple-shche-vyh, For-bo-lots-kih, Bo-ri-so-vyh, Zhy-to-vyh, Kar-po- out, Bo-kee-out, etc.). Pe-re-go prak-ti-che-ski of all the pre-hundred-vi-te-lei of the prince-same-houses of Ryu-ri-ko-vi-chey on status-nye-zi-tion of the servant princes of the grand princes of the mo-s-kov-skikhs for-met-but ras-shi-ril "kad-ro-vy re-reserve" Governors: from the 1460-1470s Governors of a hundred -whether re-gular-but to-sign before-hundred-vi-te-lei of the old-ro-dub-sky, Suz-dal-sky, Yaroslavl-sky, Ros-tov-sky and other Ryu- ri-ko-vi-chey. Long periods of pre-by-va-ing of the Viceroy in one city would be comparatively rare and you-would-were especially -stand-tel-st-va-mi, while not-one-time use of the obligations of the Viceroy by one person in various cities at different times it would have been dos-ta-toch-but ras-pro-country-not-but. The service of the Viceroys, especially for persons with dooms or statuses, was not the only one and their main for-nya-ty-em: she was combined with the state-administrative and court service-ba-mi in Mo-sk-ve, went-ka-mi in a hundred all Russian embassies to other countries, but the main thing - with re-gu-lyar-na and practically annual military service outside the cities, where they would-whether Viceroys. In the absence of the Viceroy, he was replaced (only in the capacity of judges of the lower instances) mainly ti-un, o re-she- ni-yah ko-to-ro-go was-lo not-about-ho-di-mo dock-la-dy-vat su-deb-nym ko-mis-si-yam bo-yar in Mo-sk-ve or to the grand duke himself.

In the XIV - the middle of the XV centuries, all-ma you-with-kim-lo-know-the military functions of the Viceroy in their cities (obo-ro-na, mo-bi-li -for-tion of service people, action-st-via according to pre-do-pre-zh-de-niyu not-expect-data on-pa-de-ny, etc.) , something swarm for-met-but decreased-zi-elk in the central and northern regions after the 1450s. However, it sharply increased in the western and southwestern cities of the Russian state in the period of almost hundred-yang Russian-li-tov wars (last quarter of the 15th - 2nd quarter of the 16th centuries); in the southeastern and middle Volga cities (1521-1552) in connection with the Kazan khans on-be-ha-mi, Kazan-sko- Russian-ski-mi howling-on-mi and during the time of Kazan-ski-ho-ho-dov; in the southern po-gra-no-one (since 1521) in connection with the Crimean khans on-be-ga-mi. In co-ot-vet-st-vii with tra-di-tions and in specific military-en-but-po-lytic ob-sta-nov-ke Deputies of a number of large cities (Nov-go-ro-da, Psko-va, Smo-len-ska, etc.) are they full of diplomatic duties. Deputies of times-re-sha-whether in-land conflicts, times-bi-ra-whether de la about loans, etc.

To the commission of the Viceroys from-no-si-same the same way: supervision of the people who came, kre-st-yan-ski-mi re-re-ho-yes- mi, for a public order, especially on the days of parish and communal feasts-brother-rank; control over the lands-of-the-we-in -sti-here dok-la-da Viceroys to the great or specific prince-zyu of acts for the purchase, ob-me-well, or once-de-lu of such vla-de-ny; sooner than anything, dock-la-dy pro-from-in-di-lis epi-zo-di-che-ski); you-yes-cha privileged ob-roch-ny charters for a period of time for launching lands, for exploiting pro-we-words; control over the use of princely forests, for fishing in rivers and lakes, etc .; supervision of the collection of pass-by-ta-mo-wife-duties, etc.

A special ka-te-go-riya of the Governors was composed of the Governors, who had the right to "bo-yar-sko-go court-yes." Are they you-yes-va-do-do-ku-men-you for issuing or confirming the ho-lop-st-va (full, reporting, so-called . run-ly and right-gra-mo-you), on whether-to-vi-da-tion ho-lop-sky for-vi-si-mo-sti (from-pu-sk-nye gra-mo -you); you-but-si-whether the final su-deb-solutions on criminal de-lamas of the highest juris-dictation (usually - on de-lamas about murder-st -ve, raz-fight, etc.) in relation to the draft-lo-go of urban and rural-go-to-se-le-niya (including in vla-de-ni- yah im-mu-ni-stov), ​​as well as in relation to separate groups of service children of boyar-skys; you-but-si-whether a verdict on the con-fi-ska-tion of the imu-shche-st-va and the death penalty from the well-known criminals.

At the court of the Governors (at least, from the end of the 15th century) there are other faces of the prince-same ad-mi-ni-st-ra- tions (dvor-sky, princely tiu-ny), pre-hundred-vi-te-li ("before-b-rye people") rural-on-se-le-niya. With no-ho-di-mo-sti, they should have confirmed before the judges of the highest institution or the prince-zem-su-ve -re-nom pra-vil-ness of the course of the process and the accuracy of its fix-sa-tion in the right graph-mo-te. Norm-we court-yes Namestnikov (on civil and criminal cases, on pro-sess-su-al-nym in-pro-sam), ba-zi-ro-vav-she-go-sya on the traditional law of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, fic-si-ro-va-lied in the corners-of-me-st-draw-their gra-mo-tah (not-rarely you-yes- w-prince-I-mi-su-ve-re-na-mi according to ini-tsia-ti-ve me-st-no-go on-se-le-niya or when not-about-ho-di- the ability to adapt-ti-ro-vat me-st-norms-we to the general-go-su-dar-st-ven-nym after the inclusion of the prince-same-st-va or zem-whether in the composition of the Russian state), in the sting-lo-van-nyh tar-khan-but-not-su-di-my gra-mo-tah (re-gu-li-ro-va-li from -but-she-of the Viceroy with secular or ecclesiastical im-mu-ni-st and heavy on-se-le-ni-em of his power), as well as in you-da-vae-my im do-ku-men-ta-tion. These norms would be co-di-fi-ci-ro-va-ny in Su-deb-ni-ke of 1497 (articles 18, 20, 37-45, 65) and Su-deb-ni -ke of 1550 (articles 22-24, 62-79) (see the article Su-deb-ni-ki of the XV-XVI centuries). Article 64 Su-deb-ni-ka of 1550 you-in-di-la of all the servants of the bo-yar-skys from under the jurisdiction of the Governors for any business.

According to the measure of the us-lie-non-niya tasks for managing the obliga- tion-no-sti tel-no) to new-me-st-nym or-ha-us: go-ro-to-ym order-kaz-chi-kam, lip-nym old-ros-there (see in the articles Gub-naya re-form-ma of the 1530-1550s, Lip-nye-re-zh-de-nia). In-degree-whether-to-vi-da-tion of the institute-tu-ta of the Viceroys would you-la-call-on the crisis-zi-som sys-te-we feed-le-niy, formalized le-ni-em of a single-but-about-different structure of the county cor-by-ra-tsy serving-lo-go nobility-ryan-st-va, a significant effort -ni-em ro-whether from-words-no-go before-sta-vi-tel-st-va drafts-lo-go city and rural-go (black-but-sosh-nye and yard-tso- vye-st-I-not) on-se-le-niya in the or-ga-nah of the me-st-noy of power, to-st-rym for-mi-ro-va-ni-em pri-ka -call. The Zemstvo re-form of 1555-1556 led to a sharp reduction in the number of Governors, some in the 2nd half of the 16th century continued -zh-whether dey-st-vo-vat in some-some-thing-ro-dakh-kre-po-ties on the western and especially ben-but southern border-draw. From the middle of the 16th century (in a mas-so-vom in a row in the Time of Troubles) in a degree-pen-but ras-pro-stra-ni-las practice-ti-ka on-know-che -tion instead of a hundred Viceroys of the city-ro-do-vo-vo-vods (see the article Voy-vo-yes). The last mention of the Viceroys dated from no-syat-sya to the end of the 16th century.

2) From the West also Governors from the del-churches of the ye-rar-hs (not later than the XIV-XVI centuries) - mi-tro-po-li-tov, new-city -skih ar-hi-episco-pov (including in Pskov), for-no-mav-shie-sya de-la-mi inside-ri-church-kov-no-go administration le-tion and entering into the composition of the courts, co-together with the Viceroys or other pre-hundred-vi-te-la-mi great, "so- nyh ”(sa-mo-sto-yat.) and specific princes. In the 21st century, the deceitfulness of the Viceroy was preserved in a number of male mo-on-stay-reys of the Russian Orthodox Church (before everything, becoming-ro-pi-gi-al-nyh ), where on-standing-te-lem mo-on-stay-rya is-la-et-sya pat-ri-arch or epar-hi-al-ny ar-hier-rey, while not-mediocre ru-ko-water-st-in osu-sche-st-in-la-et it on-me-st-nick.

3) In the 1580-1700s, an honorary title, sorry-lo-vav-shiy-sya to the heads of Russian de-le-ga-tsy, on-right-left-shih-sya on re-re-go-in -ry with foreign di-plo-ma-ta-mi. The most-bo-more-even-we-we were-la-li-ti-tu-ly, about-ra-zo-van-nye from the names of the ancient cities of Vla- the di-mir-th grand principality and the largest cities of the neighboring lands and principalities (in-the-me-st-nick Nov-go-rod-sky, Pskov -sky, Cher-ni-gov-sky, Smo-lensky, Vla-di-mir-sky, Suz-dal-sky, Tver-sky, Mu-rom-sky, Ryazan-sky, Kazan -sky, As-t-ra-khan-sky, etc.).

4) In co-ot-vet-st-vii with the same-lo-niya-mi Gu-Bern reform-we of 1775 si-no-nim ge-ne-ral-gu-ber-na-to -ra (until 1796).

5) In the 19th - early 20th centuries, the position of the head of the me-st-no-go administration of the Tsar-st-va of Poland (1815-1874), the Caucasian on-me-st-no-che-st-va (1844 / 1845-1881, 1905-1917), on-me-st-no-che-st-va Far-not-go Vos-to-ka ( 1903-1905). Na-zna-chal-sya them-pe-ra-to-rum. Under the Governors, there was-lo-to-me-st-no-che-right-le-ne, help-no-ki in the military and civil parts, as well as the council of the Viceroy ( at the beginning of the 20th century). The viceroy managed the re-gio-nal-noy ad-mi-ni-st-ra-qi-ey, in-li-qi-ey, os-sche-st-in-lyal general supervision of the an -pa-ra-tom management, court-house, with-words-us-mi uch-re-g-de-niya-mi; at the beginning of the 20th century, he gave civil and in-gra-nich-ny-mi de-la-mi of his land. All the government officials on the sub-house-st-ven-noy ter-ri-to-rii were subordinated to him, he appointed and fired any must-but-st-noe person, except for the chi-new su-deb-no-go-ve-dom-st-va, State Bank and State Control. He was the head-but-commander of the troops, on-ho-div-shih-sya on the under-ve-house-of-st-ven-noy to him ter-ri-to-rii, how-to-you -kaz-nym ata-ma-nom ras-kvar-ti-ro-van-nyh there ka-zach-their troops, os-sche-st-in-lyal administrative you-syl-ku, on-la-gal administrative claims against individuals or rural communities.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

1. The system of ranks and positions in the collegiate administration of Russia in accordance with the "Table of Ranks" (1722)

2. The highest bodies of the centralized state: the Boyar Duma, Zemstvo Sobors (XV - XVI centuries)

3. The feudal-hierarchical system and the grand-princely administration in the Russian state

3.1. Give the name of the detachment of warriors who united around the prince and constituted the privileged layer of Russian feudal society in the 9th - 11th centuries

3.2 The governors in the grand ducal administration performed the functions

3.3 Name the sovereign (grand duke, king), in whose reign the feeding system was eliminated

3.4 Give the name of the code of laws of the Russian state, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, who completed the legal

3.5 Give the name of the feudal-hierarchical system in the Russian state (XI-XVII centuries), which officially regulated service relations between members of service families in the military and administrative service, as well as at the court of the Grand Duke (Tsar)

Bibliography

1. The system of ranks and positions in the collegiate administration of Russia in accordance with the "Table of Ranks" (1722)

Approved on January 24 (February 4), 1722 by Emperor Peter I, it existed with numerous changes until the 1917 revolution.

All the ranks of the "Table of Ranks" were divided into three types: military, civil (civil) and courtiers and were divided into fourteen classes. A rank was assigned to each class, but the very concept of “rank” was not explained, which is why some historians considered it literally and only in the system of rank production, while others considered it as a particular position.

Petrovsky "Table of Ranks" numbered 262 positions, but gradually positions were excluded from the "Table" and disappeared altogether at the end of the 18th century. The names of a number of civil positions turned into civil ranks, regardless of the real duties of their bearer. Thus, the titles of the ranks "collegiate secretary", "collegiate assessor", "collegiate adviser" and "state councilor" originally meant the positions of the secretary of the collegium, a member of the collegium council with an advisory and decisive vote, and the president of the "civilian" collegium. "Court Counselor" meant the chairman of the court court; court courts were abolished already in 1726, and the name of the rank was retained until 1917.

Petrovsky "Table", determining a place in the hierarchy of the civil service, to some extent made it possible for talented people from the lower classes to advance. “In order to give them the desire to serve and honor them, and not to get impudent and parasites,” one of the descriptive articles of the law read.

The law of February 4 (January 24), 1722, consisted of a schedule of new ranks in 14 classes or ranks and of 19 explanatory points to this schedule. Each class was separately assigned the newly introduced military ranks (in turn subdivided into land, guards, artillery and naval), civilian and court ranks. The content of the explanatory paragraphs is as follows:

The princes of the imperial blood have, in all cases, the presidency over all the princes and "high servants of the Russian state." With this exception, the social status of employees is determined by rank and not by breed.

For demanding honors and places above the rank at public celebrations and official meetings, a fine equal to two months' salary of the person being fined is due; ? fine money goes to the whistleblower, the rest goes to the maintenance of hospitals. The same fine is due for giving up one's place to a person of lower rank.

Persons who were in a foreign service can receive the appropriate rank only on the basis of their approval of "the character that they received in foreign services." The sons of titled persons and, in general, the most noble nobles, although, unlike others, have free access to court assemblies, they do not receive any rank until “they show no services to the fatherland, and they will not receive character for them.” Civil ranks, like military ranks, are given according to length of service or according to special "noble" service merits.

Each must have a crew and livery appropriate to his rank. Public punishment in the square, as well as torture, entails the loss of the rank, which can be returned only for special merits, by personal decree, publicly announced. Married wives "walk in the ranks according to the ranks of their husbands" and are subject to the same penalties for offenses against their rank. Girls are considered several ranks below their fathers. All those who received the first 8 ranks in the civil or court departments are hereditarily ranked among the best senior nobility, “even if they were of low breed”; in military service, hereditary nobility is acquired by obtaining the first chief officer rank, and the noble rank extends only to children born after the father has received this rank; if, upon receiving the rank of children, he will not be born, he can ask for the grant of nobility to one of his preborn children.

The ranks were divided into chief officers (up to class IX, that is, captain / titular adviser inclusive), headquarters officers and generals; the ranks of the higher generals (the first two classes) stood out especially. They were supposed to be treated accordingly: "your honor" for the chief officers, "your honor" for the staff officers, "your excellency" for the generals and "your excellency" for the first two classes.

The ranks of the V class (brigadier / state councilor) stood apart, not being ranked either as officers or as generals, and they were supposed to be called “your honor”. It is curious that Peter, emphasizing in everything the preference for the military over the civilians, did not want to establish civilian ranks of the first class; however, having bowed to the persuasion of Osterman, for reasons of diplomatic prestige, he equated the rank of chancellor, as the head of the diplomatic department, with the first class.

Only later was the rank of real Privy Councilor of the 1st class established. This preference was also expressed in the fact that, if in the army the hereditary nobility was obtained directly with the rank of XIV class, then in the civil service - only with the rank of VIII class (college assessor), that is, with the achievement of the staff officer rank; and since 1856, this required reaching the rank of general, having received the rank of real state councilor.

In this regard, the relatively low (not even a general!) rank, which was supposed to be the president of the "state" collegium, that is, according to European concepts, the minister, is also indicative. Subsequently, the ministers had a rank not lower than that of a real privy councillor.

Table of ranks

	Civil ranks (civilian)	Military ranks	Ranks of the courtiers
	Chancellor (Secretary of State) Active Privy Councilor 1st Class	Generalisimo Field Marshal General Admiral General
	Active Privy Councilor Vice Chancellor	General of Infantry (until 1763, from 1796) General of the cavalry (until 1763, from 1796) Feldzeugmeister General in Artillery (until 1763) General-anshef (1763--1796) General of artillery (since 1796) General Engineer (since 1796) General-plenipotentiary-kriegs-commissar (1711--1720)	Chief Chamberlain Chief Marshal Master of the Horse Chief Jägermeister chief chamberlain ober-schenk Master of Ceremonies (since 1844) Ober-Vorschneider (since 1856)
	Privy Councilor (since 1724)	Lieutenant General (until 1741, after 1796) Lieutenant General (1741-1796) Vice Admiral General-Kriegskommissar for Supply (until 1868)	Knight Marshal Chamberlain Ringmaster Jägermeister Master of Ceremonies (since 1800) Ober-Vorschneider
	Privy Councilor (1722-1724) Active State Councilor (since 1724)	Major General lieutenant colonel of the guard (1748--1798) General of Fortification (1741--1796) Schautbenacht in the Navy (1722--1740) Rear Admiral in the Navy (since 1740) Ober-Shter-Kriegskommissar for Supply (until 1868)	Chamberlain (since 1737)
	State Councillor	Brigadier (1722--1796) Captain-commander (1707-1732, 1751-1764, 1798-1827) prime major of the guard (1748-1798) Sterkriegskommissar for supplies (until 1868)	Master of Ceremonies (since 1800) Chamber Juncker (since 1800)
	Collegiate Counselor military adviser	Colonel Captain 1st rank in the Navy Second Major of the Guard (1748--1798) colonel of the guard (since 1798) Ober-Kriegskommissar for Supply (until 1868)	Chamber Fourier (until 1884) Chamberlain (until 1737)
	Court Advisor	Lieutenant colonel Military foreman of the Cossacks (since 1884) Captain 2nd rank in the Navy Captain of the Guard in the Infantry captain of the guard in the cavalry Kriegskommissar for Supply (until 1868)
	Collegiate Assessor	Prime Major and Second Major (1731-1798) Major (1798--1884) Captain (since 1884) Captain in the cavalry (since 1884) Military foreman of the Cossacks (1796--1884) Yesaul at the Cossacks (since 1884) Captain of the 3rd rank in the Navy (1722--1764) Lieutenant Commander in the Navy (1907-1911) Senior Lieutenant in the Navy (1912-1917) staff captain of the guard (since 1798)	Titular Chamberlain
	Titular Advisor	Captain in the infantry (1722-1884) Staff captain in the infantry (since 1884) Lieutenant of the Guard (since 1730) Captain in the cavalry (1798--1884) Staff captain in the cavalry (since 1884) Yesaul at the Cossacks (1798--1884) Podesaul at the Cossacks (since 1884) Captain Lieutenant in the Navy (1764--1798) Lieutenant Commander in the Navy (1798-1885) Lieutenant in the Navy (1885--1906, since 1912) Senior Lieutenant in the Navy (1907--1911)	Chamber Juncker (before 1800) Gofcourier
	Collegiate Secretary	Captain-lieutenant in the infantry (1730--1797) Staff captain in the infantry (1797-1884) Second captain in the cavalry (until 1797) Staff captain in the cavalry (1797--1884) Zeichwarter in the artillery (until 1884) Lieutenant (since 1884) Lieutenant of the Guard (since 1730) Podesaul at the Cossacks (until 1884) Centurion of the Cossacks (since 1884) Lieutenant in the Navy (1722-1885) Midshipman in the Navy (since 1884)
	Ship Secretary (by 1834)	Ship secretary in the Navy (until 1764)
	Provincial Secretary	Lieutenant (1730--1884) Second lieutenant in the infantry (since 1884) Cornet in the cavalry (since 1884) Ensign of the Guard (1730--1884) Centurion of the Cossacks (until 1884) Cornet with the Cossacks (since 1884) Non-commissioned lieutenant in the navy (1722--1732) Midshipman in the Navy (1796--1884)	Valet Mundshank Tafeldeker Confectioner
	Cabinet registrar Provincial Secretary Senate Registrar (1764--1834) Synod registrar (since 1764)	Second lieutenant in the infantry (1730-1884) Ensign in the infantry (since 1884, only in wartime) Second lieutenant in artillery (1722--1796) Midshipman in the Navy (1860--1882)
	Collegiate Registrar	Fendrick in the infantry (1722--1730) Ensign in the infantry (1730--1884) Cornet in the cavalry (before 1884) Junker bayonet in artillery (1722--1796) Cornet with the Cossacks (until 1884) Midshipman in the Navy (1732--1796)

Military ranks above the table of ranks:

Generalissimo

Military ranks below the table of ranks

Lieutenant, lieutenant; harness-ensign (in the infantry), harness-junker (in artillery and light cavalry), fanen-junker (in dragoons), standard-junker (in heavy cavalry).

Feldwebel, Wahmister, Conductor.

Senior non-commissioned officer (until 1798 sergeant, boatswain).

Junior non-commissioned officer (until 1798 junior sergeant, corporal, boatswain).

2. The highest bodies of the centralized state: Boyar Duma, Zemsky Sobors (XV- XVI centuries.)

Significant changes in the system of public administration took place during the completion of the process of formation of the Russian state in the late XV - early XVI century. The interaction of class-estates and the class struggle also had an impact on the restructuring of the state system and the legislative activity of the state.

The relations of suzerainty-vassalage characteristic of the period of feudal fragmentation are replaced by the sovereign power of the prince. From the end of the 15th century, the head of the Russian centralized state was the Grand Duke, who had a wide range of rights and powers. He issued laws, led the state administration, had the powers of the highest judicial authority. Princely power with the passage of time is increasingly strengthened.

Initially, the Grand Duke could exercise his legislative, administrative, judicial functions within the boundaries of his principality. With the fall of the power of the specific princes, the Grand Duke became the true ruler of the entire territory of the state. But it is too early to talk about autocracy. The power of the monarch is still limited by other bodies of the early feudal state, primarily by the Boyar Duma.

Boyar Duma

The Boyar Duma constituted the circle of the closest advisers and employees of the tsar and for a long time stood at the head of the ancient Russian administration. The boyars in the 16th-17th centuries were the highest "rank", or rank, with which the sovereign "granted" his closest assistants. However, he never favored “thin-born” people in the boyar rank. There were several dozen noble families, mostly princely, whose members (usually senior members) "were in the boyars." The second rank in the duma was the "rounder" - also according to the "salary" of the king. These first two Duma "ranks" were replenished exclusively by representatives of the highest Moscow aristocracy, and only in the 17th century. there were isolated cases of awarding the boyars to people from the middle service layer (like Matveev or Ordin-Nashchokin under Tsar Alexei).

The fugitive Moscow clerk Kotoshikhin paints the following picture of the council meetings:

“And the tsar beams his thought about what to announce, and he announces them and orders them to the boyars and thoughtful people, thinking about that matter, give a way; and which of those boyars is bigger and more reasonable, or which of the smaller ones, and they declare their thought to the method; and other boyars, tired of their brothers, do not answer anything, because the tsar favors many in the boyars not according to their mind, but according to a great breed, and many of them are not educated and not educated; however, besides them, there is also someone to be able to answer the reasonable from the larger and from the smaller boyars. And on which case they will be sentenced, the tsar and the boyars are ordered to mark with a duma clerk, and write that sentence down.

The number of boyars and okolnichy was small, it rarely exceeded 50 people. In addition to the main, aristocratic, element, the Duma included several Duma nobles and three or four Duma clerks, secretaries and rapporteurs of the Duma.

The rights and powers of the Duma were not defined by special laws; the wide sphere of its competence was determined by the old custom or the will of the sovereign. “The Duma was in charge of a very wide range of judicial and administrative cases; but actually it was a legislative institution” (Klyuchevsky). The legislative significance of the Duma was even directly approved by the tsar's Sudebnik; Art. 98th Sudebnik read:

“And there will be new cases, but they are not written in this Code of Laws, and how those cases from the sovereign’s report and from all the boyars are sentenced, and those cases are attributed in this Code of Laws.”

The usual introductory formula of the new laws read: "the sovereign indicated and the boyars were sentenced." It must, however, be borne in mind that such an order of legislation was not formally binding on the sovereign. Sometimes he decided cases and issued orders that had the character of legislative decisions, alone; sometimes he discussed and resolved them with a small circle of advisers - the so-called near or room thought of the sovereign. In the general meeting of the Duma, cases were received either by decree of the sovereign or by reports from orders. According to the Code of 1649, the Duma is the highest judicial authority for those cases that are “not legal” to resolve in orders.

The tsar himself was sometimes present at the meetings of the Duma (such meetings were called “the seat of the tsar with the boyars on business”), sometimes the thought decided matters by decree and authority of the sovereign, in his absence. To resolve particularly important matters, a joint meeting of the Duma and the "consecrated cathedral", which consisted of representatives of the higher clergy, was going to.

As needed, special commissions were allocated from the general composition of the Duma - “reciprocal” (for negotiations with foreign ambassadors), “laid” (for drafting a new Code), judgment and reprisals. At the end of the XVII century. The "Rashnaya Chamber" has become a permanent institution.

The service of the boyars of the roundabout and duma people (the so-called duma nobles and clerks) was not limited to their “seat” in the duma. They were appointed ambassadors to foreign sovereigns, chiefs ("judges") of the most important orders, regimental governors and city governors in large and important cities.

In the second half of the 16th century, under Ivan IV, who fought against the boyar opposition, the convocation of Zemsky Sobors - class-representative bodies - began. At this time, the so-called "Chosen Rada" (Near Duma) is formed - a council under the king. The network of orders, mainly of a military nature, is expanding: archery, Pushkar. After the division of the country into oprichnina and zemstvo, their own oprichnina and zemstvo orders arise, independent of each other.

Zemsky Sobors

Zemstvo sobors, or "councils of the whole earth," as their contemporaries called them, arose simultaneously with the Muscovite kingdom. "Laid" cathedral 1648-49 adopted the foundations of state legislation. Councils of 1598 and 1613 had a constituent character and personified the supreme power in the state. During the Time of Troubles and immediately after it, the activities of Zemstvo Sobors played a very important role in restoring the “great Russian kingdom” destroyed by the Time of Troubles.

The first Moscow tsar, three years after taking the royal title, convened (in 1549) the first Zemsky Sobor, at which he wanted to reconcile the representatives of the population with the former regional rulers, the “feeders”, before canceling the “feedings”. However, our information about the first Zemsky Sobor is too brief and vague, and we know little about its composition and activities. But according to the documents, the composition of the second Zemsky Sobor, which Ivan IV convened in 1566 (during the Livonian War) is known to decide whether to put up with the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania on the terms proposed by him. The council spoke in favor of continuing the war, leaving the decision to the king: “and God knows everything and our sovereign ...; and we expressed our thoughts to our sovereign ... ".

After the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, with whom the Rurik dynasty on the Russian throne ended, the Zemsky Sobor was to acquire a constituent character: there was no longer a “natural” tsar in Moscow, and the cathedral was to elect a new tsar and found a new dynasty (in 1598). The cathedral, which was led by Patriarch Job, elected Boris Godunov as tsar; however, in order to substantiate and justify the act of electing the tsar by the subjects, the electoral letter contains a fantastic assertion that both last tsars of the old dynasty “ordered” or “handed over” their kingdom to Boris, and emphasizes Boris’s family connection with the “royal root”, but at the same time the charter states: “... and the whole earth will be condescending and set up worthy of the existence of the tsar and Grand Duke Boris Fedorovich, autocrat of all Russia, sovereign of the Russian land”; moreover: “the patriarch said: the voice of the people, the voice of God” ...

In the storms of the Time of Troubles that followed, the “voice of the people” turned from a rhetorical fiction into a real political force. When in 1606 the boyar Prince Vasily Shuisky came to the throne "without the will of all the earth", many refused to recognize him as their king and uprisings broke out against him everywhere; “All the land of Russia shook with hatred against him, for a hedgehog, without the will of all the cities, he reigned.”

In 1610, when the Moscow boyars and "service and tenant people", being "between two fires" (between the Poles and the Russian "thieves' people") agreed to accept the Polish prince Vladislav to the kingdom, they concluded an agreement with him, which formally limited him power and which provided for the council of the whole earth, as a normally functioning legislative body: ... "the court to be and be carried out according to the old custom and according to the judicial code of the Russian State; but they will want to replenish in something to strengthen the courts, and let the Sovereign do it, with the thought of the boyars and the whole earth, so that everything is righteous.

In the Lyapunov militia of 1611, “to build the land and to do all sorts of zemstvo and military affairs” were supposed to be three governors, “who were elected by the whole Earth according to this sentence of the whole Earth”; “But if the boyars, who have now been chosen by the whole earth for all zemstvo and military affairs in the government, will not teach the truth about zemstvo affairs and reprisals in everything, ... and we are free to change the boyars and the voivode all over the Earth, and choose others in that place speaking to all the earth."

In the second zemstvo militia of Prince Pozharsky, during his stay in Yaroslavl (in the spring of 1612), a permanent “council of all the land” was formed, which was a temporary government for the militia and for a significant part of the country. In the correspondence of cities among themselves and military leaders with cities in 1611-12. the idea is constantly expressed about the need to elect the sovereign by the “common council”, “the whole Earth”, “world council”, “on the advice of the whole state”, etc. Such a “world council” was convened in Moscow immediately after it was liberated from the Poles, "and all sorts of servicemen and townspeople and county people, for the state swindling, gathered in the reigning city of Moscow for a council." We know that after long disputes and disagreements, the elected people agreed on the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov, and the council "according to the whole peaceful allied general council" proclaimed Mikhail tsar (in 1613).

The new tsar stayed on the throne largely thanks to the support of the zemstvo sobors, which during the first 10 years of his reign sat almost continuously. Tsar's father Filaret, who returned from Polish captivity and became Patriarch of Moscow in 1619 and co-ruler of his son, also found it necessary to cooperate with the government and the elected body.

With the strengthening of state power in the second half of the 17th century, with the growth of bureaucratization of administration, and with the weakening of zemstvo self-government in the localities, zemstvo sobors fell into decay.

The composition of the zemstvo sobors included three elements: a "consecrated cathedral" of representatives of the higher clergy, the boyar duma and representatives of the service and posad classes of the Moscow state (usually about 300 - 400 people). In the 16th century, not specially elected deputies were invited as representatives of the population, but mainly officials who were at the head of local noble and township societies. When making this or that decision, the members of the council were obliged at the same time to be responsible executors of this decision. In the era of the Time of Troubles, the cathedral representation could, of course, be only elective, and under the new dynasty, the main element at the cathedral are those “kind, reasonable and stable people” whom the earth chooses.

“In general, the composition of the cathedral was very changeable, devoid of a solid, stable organization” (Klyuchevsky). Permanent elements of the cathedral representation were representatives of the service and townspeople (in different numbers and in different combinations). The free northern peasantry, which formed common “all-district worlds” with the townspeople, was also represented at the cathedrals, but the mass of serfs was not represented there.

3 . Feodal-hierarchicalwhich systemandgrand ducal administrationin the Russian state

3.1 Give the name of the detachment of warriors who united around the prince and constituted the privileged layer of the Russian feud flax society in the IX - XI centuries

Druzhimna - princely army. The squad is the same necessary element in ancient Russian society as the prince. The prince needed military force both to ensure internal order and defense against external enemies. The warriors were a real military force, always ready for battle, as well as advisers and servants of the prince.

As a military force, the squad helps the prince in obtaining a profitable table, raises the importance of the prince in the eyes of the people: the prince, who managed to group the largest number of skilled warriors around him, is the most reliable defender of his principality - and this was of great importance in the era of constant intense struggle with foreigners . Therefore, the princes value their squad, cherish it, generously endow it.

3.2 The governors in the grand duke's administration performed funshares

one). Heads of the entire princely administration;

2). Candidate for a position (to "place"

3). Representative of the princely administration in other cities;

four). Manager of the princely court

Answer 3). Representative of the princely administration in other cities

3. 3 Name the sovereign (Grand Duke, Tsar), in whose reign the feeding system was eliminated

Feeding - a type of grant from the great and specific princes to their officials, according to which the princely administration was maintained at the expense of the local population during the period of service.

It was liquidated under Ivan IV the Terrible by the zemstvo reform of 1555-1556. In 1555, a decree was issued on the abolition of feedings, which was applied, however, not immediately and not everywhere: sources continue to mention feedings during the second half of the 16th century. Fees for the maintenance of feeders have been transformed into a special tax in favor of the treasury (“fed payback”), set at a certain amount for various categories of land (noble, black, palace). Tax collection was carried out on black lands by zemstvo elders, and in areas of estate-patrimonial land ownership by special collectors or city clerks.

3. 4 Give the name of the code of laws of the Russian state, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, who completed the legal

Cathedral Code - a set of laws adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in 1648-1649. under Alexei Mikhailovich.

3. 5 Give the name of the feudal-hierarchical system in the Russian state (XI - XVII centuries), officially regulating service relations between members of service families in the military and administrative service, as well as at the court of the Grand Duke (king)

Tambel about ramngah (“Table of ranks of all ranks of military, civil and courtiers”) - the law on the order of public service in the Russian Empire (the ratio of ranks by seniority, the sequence of ranks).

Bibliography

1. Presnyakov A. E. "Russian autocrats" M., 1999.

2. Eroshkin N. P. "The history of state institutions in Russia before the Great October Socialist Revolution" M., 1995.

3. "The development of Russian law in the XV - the first half of the XVII centuries" M., 1996.

4. “Russian legislation of the X - XX centuries. Legislation of the period of formation and strengthening of the Russian centralized state "M., 1998., Volume 2.

5. Karamzin N. M. "Traditions of the Ages" M., 1988.

6. Titov Yu. P. "History of the state and law of Russia" M., 1996.

Similar Documents

The subject of science is the history of the domestic state and law. Formation of the Russian centralized state and its legal system. Creation of the Soviet state. Difficulties in the formation of Russian statehood. Formation of the legal system.

training manual, added 07/08/2009


Fundamentals of the rule of law. The system of separation of powers in the rule of law. The rule of law in the Russian Federation. Human rights and freedoms in the system of values. Mutual responsibility of the individual and the state. The practice of the formation of the rule of law in Russia.

abstract, added 03/09/2011


The mechanism of the state, the organization and activities of the state apparatus. The organs of the state as an element of the mechanism of the state. Principles of the theory of separation of powers and building a legal state. The system of the mechanism of the state of the Russian Federation.

term paper, added 11/18/2010


Voluntary entry of Bashkortostan into the Russian state. Legal status of the population of Bashkortostan. The policy of the tsarist government in the region. The system of the tsarist colonial administration and local Bashkir self-government. Law system.

test, added 02/20/2009


The process of formation of the Russian centralized state. Stages of political unification in Russia. Reasons for the formation of an unlimited monarchy, Mongolian and Byzantine influence. Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550: their general characteristics and sources.

term paper, added 10/28/2013


The place and significance of the history of state and law in the system of social sciences. Medieval literature on the state and law of Europe and the East. Political and legal thought about the evolution of the state and law in modern times, models of modern interpretation.

term paper, added 10/17/2009


The concept and features of the rule of law. The system of separation of powers in the rule of law. Law supremacy. Human rights and freedoms in the system of values ​​and the state.

thesis, added 05/28/2002


Place and role of the theory of state and law in the system of sciences, its subject and methodology. Causes of the emergence of the state and law. Signs and typology of the state, types of government and political regimes. representative authorities.

cheat sheet, added 01/09/2011


The development of the concept of the state in the course of history. Analysis of the main features of the state. The concept, foundations and system of state power, its subjects. The problem of correlation of state power, law and public administration. State functions.

abstract, added 01/25/2009


The history of the formation and development of public service in Russia; the formation of Russian estates since the time of Peter the Great, his attitude towards them. The system of military and naval ranks according to the Petrovsky Table of Ranks. The formation of the privileges of the nobility.

Give the name of the detachment of warriors who united around the prince and constituted the privileged layer of Russian feudal society in the 9th - 11th centuries

Druzhimna - princely army. The squad is the same necessary element in ancient Russian society as the prince. The prince needed military force both to ensure internal order and defense against external enemies. The warriors were a real military force, always ready for battle, as well as advisers and servants of the prince.

As a military force, the squad helps the prince in obtaining a profitable table, raises the importance of the prince in the eyes of the people: the prince, who managed to group the largest number of skilled warriors around him, is the most reliable defender of his principality - and this was of great importance in the era of constant intense struggle with foreigners . Therefore, the princes value their squad, cherish it, generously endow it.

The governors in the grand ducal administration performed the functions

• one). Heads of the entire princely administration;
• 2). A candidate for a position (for a "place);
• 3). Representative of the princely administration in other cities;
• four). Manager of the princely court

Answer 3). Representative of the princely administration in other cities

3.3 Name the sovereign (grand duke, king), in whose reign the feeding system was eliminated

Feeding - a type of grant from the great and specific princes to their officials, according to which the princely administration was maintained at the expense of the local population during the period of service.

It was liquidated under Ivan IV the Terrible by the zemstvo reform of 1555-1556. In 1555, a decree was issued on the abolition of feedings, which was applied, however, not immediately and not everywhere: sources continue to mention feedings during the second half of the 16th century. Fees for the maintenance of feeders have been transformed into a special tax in favor of the treasury (“fed payback”), set at a certain amount for various categories of land (noble, black, palace). Tax collection was carried out on black lands by zemstvo elders, and in areas of estate-patrimonial land ownership by special collectors or city clerks.

3.4 Give the name of the code of laws of the Russian state, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, who completed the legal

Cathedral Code - a set of laws adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in 1648-1649. under Alexei Mikhailovich.

3.5 Give the name of the feudal-hierarchical system in the Russian state (XI-XVII centuries), which officially regulated service relations between members of service families in the military and administrative service, as well as at the court of the Grand Duke (Tsar)

Tambel about ramngah (“Table of ranks of all ranks of military, civil and courtiers”) - the law on the order of public service in the Russian Empire (the ratio of ranks by seniority, the sequence of ranks).