"Conciliar act" on the destruction of parochialism on January 12, 1682

The abolition of parochialism was an important step towards the reform of public administration, the need for which was dictated by the formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia. Service-tribal localism had deep roots. It took shape during the period of centralization of the Russian state, when the princes of the principalities annexed to Moscow, together with their boyars and nobles, went to the service of the Moscow Grand Duke. In this regard, at the Moscow court there was a procedure in which, when appointing to the service, giving instructions, the nobility of the family was taken into account. By the end of the XVII century. significant changes are taking place in the Russian state, and there are serious reasons for the abolition of parochialism, which becomes a brake on the socio-political development of the country. The decree of Fyodor Alekseevich "On the abolition of localism" predetermined the development of the bureaucratic system in the 18th century. The next significant step will be the "Table of Ranks" of Peter I.

And the great sovereign, the tsar and the grand duke Feodor Alekseevich, autocrat of all the Great and Small, and White Russia, deigned to say to his holy patriarch and authorities, and to his sovereign boyars: “Now it is clear to us, the great sovereign, that in this good deed to fulfill our good intentions are facilitated by God’s very consideration, which has given and wants to lead to a successful completion, by the fact that our entire royal chamber, that is, boyars, devious and thoughtful people, as well as stewards and solicitors, nobles and boyar children, for the sake of the general state good of advice, resolution and approval elected by a prudent and consensual council of all, knowing that those deeds of paternal parochialism are nothing else, only pride and love are cut off, and they bring damage to our sovereign deeds, all joyful hearts to us. to the great sovereign, they informed that you, her great sovereign, should point out that deed guilty of all malice and fraternal hatred that ruins love, that is, set aside local localism and eradicate it forever, ... and so that all ranks in all cases, according to our sovereign decree, be without places.

And for complete eradication and eternal oblivion, we express all those petitions about cases and places of the note to the fire, so that that anger and dislike completely perish and be forgotten from now on, and no one would have any temptation and piercing. And what else is there in the Rank of cases and about the places of the note, and whoever has the same books and notes would send them to the Rank. And we, great sovereign, for this reason will order those books to be put on fire, so that it will be in eternal oblivion.

And from now on, we command our boyars and devious, and duma, and neighbors, and all sorts of ranks to people in Moscow in orders from reprisals and in regiments from military, and from ambassadors, and everywhere in all matters to be all among themselves without places, and henceforth do not reckon with anyone with any previous cases, and do not reproach anyone, and do not exalt anyone over anyone who has passed by, do not reproach or reproach anyone in any way, and in the reproach of previous deeds, where someone was, by the will of the sovereign in the lower ranks, or for poverty, or for some other case, and in the lower ranks it was, that he should not be denounced and by no means dishonor anyone who passed across anything.

Also, in the future, someone from poverty, or whatever the case, will appear where and in what lower ranks, and that he should not be reproached, and thus he will not be dishonored. And which births are now for small years in captains and lieutenants are not written, and those births will continue to be written for the same reason as captains and lieutenants.

Published according to: Russian legislation X - XX centuries. T.4. M., 1986.

print version

In the Russian state, the main advisory body under the prince and tsar was the Boyar Duma, which existed from the end of the 14th century until the end of the 17th century, when it was transformed into the Senate. The so-called localism was widespread in it. What it is? Why, over time, the kings began to limit it first, and then canceled it altogether? Let's look into this.

What is locality?

The definition of the term is associated with the word place. It was the place at the princely table that the boyars considered their position. And the closer the boyar was to the prince or tsar, the more influential he was in the Duma. Thus, parochialism- this is the position of the boyars in the Boyar Duma, which was determined by the nobility of the family and was inherited. This is a kind of system of distribution of posts between members of the Duma, which has existed in the Russian state since the 14th century.

From the history

Localism originates from antiquity, when the princes surrounded themselves with a princely council with an advisory voice. In the 14th century, the Boyar Duma became the official supreme body of power with advisory functions. The last word, of course, always remained with the prince, later the king. In the duma, positions were distributed according to the nobility of the family.

Ivan the Terrible fiercely fought against the recalcitrant boyars (and he introduced the oprichnina for this purpose). He was the first to restrict localism, which led to the opportunity to get into the duma of people from less noble families, but gifted and talented. It happened in 1550.

Localism was finally abolished at the Zemsky Sobor in 1682, during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich Romanov.

Reasons for the abolition of parochialism

Localism turned the Boyar Duma into a kind of closed group, because only representatives of certain noble families could enter it.

Often in the Duma there were disputes between the boyars, who sought to prove the nobility of their kind. Disputes were resolved by the prince, and later by the tsar with members of the Discharge Order. Although it should be noted that localism protected the country from these boyar disputes, which sometimes even reached serious clashes.

Not always the nobility of the family was at the same time a sign of the mind, the abilities of a person. This led to the fact that in the Boyar Duma there were limited people, incapable of governing the state.

Localism hindered the attraction of talented, intelligent, good organizers and administrators to government bodies, which hindered the development of the country as a whole.

The figurative meaning of the word "locality"

Berkh V. The reign of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich and the history of the first streltsy revolt. Part 1. - St. Petersburg, 1834. - 162 p.

Decree against localism

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, waging a war with the Poles and Swedes for 13 years, ordered not to reckon with localism. This example was followed by Tsar Fedor Alekseevich, during the second Chigirinsky campaign. The personal decree ordered: for the time being, the Tours war will pass by, and no one will be considered with the current rank, now and henceforth in the fatherland, and the current rank in paternal affairs should not be assigned to anyone in case, and no one should be reproached with anyone, and in the rank of fatherly counting affairs now no one to take on anyone. And who, it is said further, will not obey this decree, to be: in punishment, ruin and exile without any mercy and mercy. (p. 48)

Tsar's speech

These persons, on January 12th, gathered in the Tsar's palaces and Prince Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn read to them, by the will of the Sovereign, the petition of elected persons. After listening to this, Tsar Fedor Alekseevich delivered a speech in which, outlining both the future from localism, which took place during military and embassy affairs, and the actions of his Grandfather and Parent to deviate pernicious localism, and the misfortune from it that happened near Konotop and Chudnov asked: to all ranks and ranks to be without places, or still to be with places?

Decisive position to destroy localism

The authorities answered this with a drawn-out speech, in which, extolling the wise clairvoyance of the Tsar, they concluded it with the following words: “let us pray that the Lord God deigns to bring such a royal intention to completion, so that from this love is preserved, rooted in hearts and Your kingdom was peacefully built."
Boyar, Okolnichie and close people added to this, so that the Sovereign indicated: to set aside discharge cases and completely eradicate them, so that in the future those cases would never be remembered. And whoever reproaches someone, deprive him of honor, and take his patrimony to the Sovereign without remorse.
As a result of this general approval, the Sovereign ordered Prince M.Yu. Dolgorukov and Dumny Dyak Semyonov bring to them the Class Books, and having selected notes on cases of discharge, give all this to the fire. Everyone should perform services without places, do not reproach each other, and do not exalt anyone above anyone.

Burning Bit Books

Destruction of localism
// History of Russia in pictures. Issue VI. / comp. V. Zolotov. - SPb., 1865. - S. 64

The same, on January 19, all the mentioned books were burnt in the entrance hall of the front of the State Chamber. The Patriarch, all the spiritual authorities and outsiders who were in the assembly did not move from their seats until the mentioned books were completely burned down.
With defensive Act, this is approved by the Tsar's own signature: in the affirmation of this conciliar act and in the perfect pride and cursed places in the eternal eradication by my hand signed. Further signed: Patriarch, 6 Metropolitans, 2 Archbishops, 3 Archimandrites, 42 Boyars, 28 Okolnichikh, 19 Duma Nobles, 10 Duma Dyakov, 46 Stolnikov, 2 Generals, Colonels, 3 Solicitors, 4 Nobles and 1 Tenant.
The annihilation of parochialism was, of course, necessary in the Kingdom, which became part of the formed European States, but it was no longer so difficult for Tsar Fedor Alekseevich to accomplish this feat; for in the 13 years of the war waged by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with Poland and Sweden, localism was destroyed. (S. 88-90)

Abolition of parochialism (Reforms of Alexei Mikhailovich)

Abolition of parochialism (Reforms of Alexei Mikhailovich)

The abolition of localism falls in Russian history for a period that became a prerequisite for the improvement of the Russian army and its democratization. At the same time, the entire administrative management system in general was rebuilt.

In addition, this measure becomes a harbinger of the well-known Peter's reforms, the main essence of which was reduced to the elimination of the so-called principle of nobility of the family and the promotion of personal skills and talents to the fore. Thus, many modern historians consider the abolition of parochialism one of the most important reforms of the seventeenth century!

The resolution in question was adopted during the reign of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, which was marked by a number of innovative transformations that were aimed at strengthening the autocracy of the sovereign's power. It was during the reign of this monarch that an actual attempt was made to completely change the system of administrative-church government. But due to the early death of the ruler, this remained in the plans.

The abolition of localism was, perhaps, the most important event of that time, since it was able to lead to a radical and rather significant transformation of Russian society itself. In addition, localism significantly complicated the work of the military forces and the state apparatus. After all, the very essence of this principle was not reduced to the abilities of the applicant, but only to the degree of his generosity and nobility in the eyes of the boyars. Here it is necessary to note the very composition of the boyars in the Moscow principality.

So, the Russian boyars included only representatives of the metropolitan aristocracy, nobles of the principalities attached to the principality of Moscow, as well as alien Tatar and Lithuanian princes. At the same time, they were all members of the Sovereign Duma, daily engaged in military and civil administration. But regular disputes about which of them should stand above the other could interfere with the work of the rapidly expanding state apparatus, which just needed more than anything in a flexible system of parochialism.

At a meeting of the clergy in 1682, the issue of the abolition of parochialism arose, which later became his most important administrative decision. At the same time, it must be remembered that, in general, the meeting was devoted to church affairs and various religious issues. But the need to change the existing system was so acute that it was this meeting that decided to burn all the digit books.

In the 15th century, the concept of localism appeared as the assignment of a place of service to representatives of noble families, which arose during the period of feudalism. The system that made it possible to distribute appointments to a position, taking into account the nobility of the family and the promotion of relatives in the service, began to be called localism.

The term became widespread due to the emergence of a tradition to be considered ranks and a place at the table of the sovereign. It existed from the end of the 15th century until January 1682. It was canceled by decision. The Polish-Lithuanian legislation played a significant role in the emergence of the mechanism for distributing ranks.

It was in it that the concept of the transfer of hereditary power, as well as the assignment of a position in accordance with the nobility of the family, was actively developed. Wikipedia emphasizes that the hierarchical elements of the distribution of space were spelled out so intricately that they were often the cause of contention between relatives. Only the tsar, with the participation of an official from the discharge order, could extinguish the scandal.

After the loss of specific principalities, they went to Moscow to occupy a significant position at court. Following the gentlemen, boyars from various places arrived in the capital.

The circumstances did not suit the Moscow aristocracy, which always occupied an exceptional position near the Grand Duke. They did not want to give up their warm places. The system shielded them from the claims of the lower class.

With the advent of ancestral accounts, it was possible to establish parity among the nobility.

Solovyov (Russian historian) noted that an important reason for the emergence of localism was the weak attachment of the Russian nobility to a certain territory, in contrast to Western European aristocrats.

Localism principles

At the end of the 15th century, the principles of the formation of the state apparatus were formed. Localism gained great influence in the country. The choice of a person depended only on marital status. Birth, nobility were taken into account. Ability and talent didn't matter. Over time, the level of management and control over the state has lost effectiveness.

However, there were benefits to this approach. He allowed to reconcile the nobility. Each was strictly prescribed what rank he could receive, and what position he should not even dream of, if "it is not written in the family." During this period, civil strife and conflicts reigned between the representatives of the elite.

To understand what localism is, one should pay attention to the fact that the aristocrats were able to enter into a protracted internal war at any moment.

To obtain a high position, the following criteria were taken into account:

1. Age. Priority in the appointment was given to the elder brother or sister.
2. Ability to perform in the service. If in the army one of the relatives showed himself from the best side, then he had more opportunities to get a high position, all other things being equal.
3. The leading role in the appointment was for the surname. The high position of one of the relatives made it possible to distribute the best places among the rest of the family.

The appointment system was specific. Getting a place depended on the prescribed bit book. The nobility of the family made it possible to hold a high position, in contrast to the local nobility, which became the basis for the formation of centralized government.

In Russia, this complex, intricate system led to protracted strife. Litigation was dealt with by the tsar together with the Boyar Duma. There was no unity for the implementation of a common cause. An example was when the Moscow boyar elite took the path of betrayal. The system gradually penetrated the merchant environment and city officials. Subsequently, the reasons for the abolition of parochialism were justified by the presence in the state apparatus of a significant number of stupid personalities.

Note! An obvious shortcoming of the system was the appointment of people who were incapable and unsuitable for military and government positions. The choice was made in favor of the nobility and position of the father and grandfather.

The appointment mechanism allowed the boyars to hold public office, depending on the importance of their surname. This approach to appointments flourished in the 15th and 16th centuries. The higher the position of the ancestor, the more opportunities opened up for the representative of the clan. The order of appointments finally took shape under the Prince of Moscow in the 16th century after the appanage system had exhausted itself. Places in the hierarchical ladder of ranks were claimed by the boyars, taking into account the track record of their ancestors.

Useful video: what is localism?

System evaluation in history

The established system of parochialism is ambiguously interpreted in the historical process. It is believed that the rules of appointments, depending on the generosity, weakened the king. At the same time, adherents of a different view of the historical process are convinced that it was a weapon in the hands of the king to disunite the aristocracy. In the period of 15-17 centuries, aristocrats were represented by:

• Russian princes;
• Tatar princes;
• Lithuanian runaway boyars.

Disputes over profitable positions, especially when appointing governors, affected the combat effectiveness of the troops. One of the first to appreciate the danger of local litigation was Ivan the Terrible. At his command, the army was informed of the ban on contesting the rank of governor during military campaigns.

Localism

Among the positive aspects of localism, historians distinguish:

1. Opportunity to reconcile representatives of the aristocracy of different states. The position occupied by each of them was inherited.
2. Disputes and conflicts on a national basis, character and mentality were excluded.

Most of the historians give a negative assessment of parochial processes in development. The principle of distribution of posts depending on the nobility of the family name led to the fact that people without abilities occupied controlling positions. Often their stupidity created insoluble problems.

Note! The guarantee of a high position, regardless of one's talents, did not stimulate learning and a diligent attitude towards government.

Cancellation of localism

The middle of the 16th century was the period when Ivan the Terrible relied on the development of troops and squads. Having reached the age of 18, the king announced the beginning of reforms. The changes that were planned in the army concerned every nobleman.

Now the young nobles served where it was expedient, without taking into account the place assigned to his family. The result was the modernization of the army.

This made it possible to put the entire army under arms faster than in the previous period. The army more effectively defended the borders, the territory was expanded. It took more than 100 years to complete the reform of Ivan the Terrible. The second half of the 17th century brought an understanding that the system of parochialism hinders the development of the state, modernizing with new realities. However, it was difficult to completely eliminate the manifestations of the system - adherence to traditions interfered.

When Tsar Feodor III ruled, there was a successful attempt to abolish parochialism. He ascended the throne at the age of 15 in 1676 after the death of his brother. Memories remained of him as a sickly, but possessing deep knowledge, intelligent person. He studied Western history, was interested in culture and politics. He spoke languages, including Latin, Polish.

A serious illness did not prevent Fedor III from completely holding power in his own hands. His reign was marked by the abolition of parochialism in the army. In short, the need to abolish the existing rules arose after the end of the Crimean campaign, which ended with the signing of the Treaty of Bakhchisaray (1681). The young king noted the significant progress of the enemy. Having convened the state apparatus and the military council, he announced that the system of appointments to the post was outdated and it was necessary to modernize it.

It is interesting! After the destruction of the category books, the codification of noble families was carried out, which was reflected in the genealogical books.

The support of Prince Golitsyn played a key role in the reform. The council was held in January 1682. When the will of the tsar was proclaimed to eliminate the system of appointments to positions based on generosity, it was declared "blameless." They immediately burned the discharge books and consigned them to oblivion. However, clashes between nobles and boyars continued under. He constantly reminded the nobility of the termination of the discharge lists and threatened the court, as well as executions. There was no rapid rallying of the elite. Everything is explained by age-old foundations, which are extremely difficult to overcome.

Useful video: What is "localism" and why is it so sticky

Conclusion

Localism in Wikipedia is defined as a system created to form the apparatus of government. This period is characterized by historians in different ways. But everyone is unanimous in the fact that the study of parochialism in Russia is the key to understanding the need to introduce new, progressive forms of government, the reforms of Peter I.