Royal power. At the head of the state system of Russia in the 17th century, as before, was the tsar. He had the right to legislate and all the fullness of the executive power; he was the supreme judge and commander in chief. The new dynasty, although it had the source of its status from the election of Mikhail Romanov by the Zemsky Sobor, was transferred to the old ideological justification for royal power: its divine origin and hereditary character. The decision of the Zemsky Sobor only confirmed the divine providence.

The way of life of the tsar, in rare cases appearing before the people, put him on an unattainable height. The magnificent title, adopted under Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), testified to the tsar's great claims to foreign policy influence. In the second half of the 17th century, a new trend in the development of the state system was clearly outlined - a gradual transition from a class-representative monarchy to an absolute one.

In Russia, an absolute monarchy was formed in the course of Peter the Great's reforms, but since the middle of the 17th century, measures aimed at strengthening the autocratic power of the sovereign have been clearly traced. Special chapters of the Council Code of 1649 were devoted to the protection of life and honor, as well as the health of the king. The concept of a state crime was introduced, and no distinction was made between a crime against the state and an action directed against the person of the king. The protection of order was established inside the royal court or near the residence of the sovereign.

In the second half of the 17th century, there was a process of increasing the personal power of the monarch in the field of supreme administration. Personal decrees appeared, that is, legal acts issued on behalf of the tsar and without the participation of the Boyar Duma. Of the 618 decrees of Alexei Mikhailovich, 588 were nominal. And although they, unlike the verdicts of the Boyar Duma, concerned secondary issues, the very fact of their presence testified to the strengthening of the autocratic principle in management. The practice of reports to the tsar by the chiefs of the most important orders was also established. Indicative is the creation in the middle of the 17th century of the Order of Secret Affairs - the personal office of the tsar, which allowed him to do without the Boyar Duma in solving the most important state issues. Performing at first the functions of the secret police and the class court, the order later became the body of the monarch's personal control over the administration.

Of particular relevance in the second half of the 17th century was the question of the relationship between the state and the church. Patriarch Nikon, striving to turn the Russian Church into the center of world Orthodoxy, in 1653 embarked on church reforms. Their goal is the unification of rites and the correction of liturgical books according to Greek models. Nikon's reforms were supported by the authorities, but the result was a split in the Russian Orthodox Church into the official and Old Believers.

Gradually, Nikon began to claim primacy, arguing that the priesthood is higher than the kingdom. The theocratic habits of the patriarch led to his conflict with the sovereign. In 1666, a church council, held with the participation of the eastern patriarchs, having approved Nikon's church innovations, decided to remove the reformer from the patriarchal throne. The fall of Nikon marked the beginning of the process of subordination of the church to the state.

Boyar Duma. The Duma still included representatives of the four Duma ranks: boyars, roundabouts, Duma nobles and clerks. Over the course of a century, the composition of the Duma has doubled, and the number of Duma nobles and clerks has especially increased. In the 17th century, representatives of 85 families of petty Russian nobility became duma nobles. In the 70s. In the 17th century, there were 97 people in the Duma: 42 boyars, 27 roundabouts, 19 duma nobles, 9 duma clerks. That is, the aristocratic character of the Duma still remained, although the proportion of nobles and clerks grew. The Boyar Duma remained the supreme body in matters of legislation, administration, and the courts. The beginning of the 17th century was a period of noticeable growth in the influence of the Duma, since the royal power was weakened during the Time of Troubles. According to G. Kotoshikhin, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich "although he was written as an autocrat, he could not do anything without boyar advice." In the 17th century, the role of the Boyar Duma gradually declined, which was one of the signs of the strengthening of absolute monarchy in Russia.

Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century. After the Time of Troubles, there were changes in the composition, work schedule and powers of Zemsky Sobors. At the electoral Council of 1613, along with representatives of the nobility, the boyars, the clergy, the townspeople (for the first and last time), deputies from the ordinary clergy and the black-haired palace peasantry were invited. Since that time, elected deputies began to numerically predominate over the official part of the cathedrals. Elections were held:

• - from the capital's nobility and merchants - by rank;
• - from service people "according to the instrument" - according to combat units;
• - from the nobility of the "city police" - by class corporations;
• - from "hard people" (capital and city) - by communities.

The deputies were elected at local gatherings, in county towns - at the call and under the supervision of the governor. The elected were sent to Moscow along with the minutes of the meeting, the discharge order checked the correctness of the elections. Deputies received orders from voters. From a government agent, a deputy of the cathedrals of the 17th century becomes a people's petitioner (V.O. Klyuchevsky).

The royal power, weakened after the Time of Troubles, needed the support of "the whole earth." Zemsky Sobors during this period turned into administrative authorities, where representatives of the nobility and townspeople played a decisive role.

Between 1613 and 1622 the cathedrals operated almost continuously and almost all of them are devoted to financial matters. The government, in order to fill the treasury, introduced emergency taxes and resorted to loans, often directly turning to the deputies with a request for gratuitous assistance. Collecting money by voluntary subscription has become a practice. The cathedral rescued the treasury, but did not ask for any rights in return.

The status of cathedrals in the 17th century remained uncertain: either legislative or legislative. The dates for the convocation of councils, their composition, competence, and attitude towards the highest state institutions were not documented. The electors themselves looked at the cathedral as an auxiliary tool of power and showed indifference to the zemstvo representation. The deputies were serving their service, and the voters were reluctant to attend the congresses, often on the secondary agenda of the governors. The minutes of the councils recorded the mood of class disunity and even hostility. All classes complained about the inequality "in hardships", each class looked into the pocket of another. Political alienation, according to Klyuchevsky, grew from cathedral to cathedral.

Such sentiments allowed the ruling dynasty to refuse to convene councils as soon as this was no longer needed. During the second decade of the reign of Mikhail Romanov - from 1622 to 1632 - they did not gather; in the period from 1632-1653. - were convened rarely and on very important issues: the adoption of the Council Code of 1649, the uprising in Pskov, Russian-Polish, Russian-Crimean relations, the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, the question of Azov. After 1683-1684 Cathedral activity is fading away. The monarchy ceases to need the support of the councils; its main support is the army and the bureaucracy.

Reasons for the collapse of cathedrals (according to V.O. Klyuchevsky):

• - lack of official status;
• - strengthening autocracy;
• - serfdom, which placed the vast majority of the population of Russia outside the scope of cathedrals;
• - class disunity, clearly manifested at the last councils;
• - the predominance of a servile political culture over a civil one: the deputies and the population who elected them perceived participation in councils as a duty imposed from above.

Command control system. The 17th century saw the heyday of the command system of government. The largest group was formed by national orders, subdivided, in turn, into administrative and judicial-police, regional (territorial), military and financial. They were directly under the jurisdiction of the Boyar Duma: many of its members headed orders, and their decisions were approved at its meetings. Another group of orders were palace orders, which were subordinate to the king and managed his property. The third group included patriarchal orders that managed patriarchal property, as well as adjudicating crimes against the faith.

A characteristic feature of the command system of administration was the diversity and uncertainty of the functions of orders. There was no clear delineation of competence between orders. During the existence of the order system, an act was never prepared and issued that regulated the organization and procedure for the operation of orders on a national scale.

Serious restructuring in order to simplify and further centralize the order system was undertaken in the 80s: an attempt to combine all financial issues in an enlarged order of the Great Treasury; measures to concentrate all patrimonial and local affairs in the Local Order, and cases of service - in the Bit with their withdrawal from the jurisdiction of territorial orders.

In total, by 1698 in Russia there were 26 orders of national competence (permanent), 1 temporary, 6 palace, 3 patriarchal and 19 other higher city and palace institutions.

At the head of the orders was the chief-judge, mainly from members of the Boyar Duma, some of them controlled several orders at once. The assistant judges were clerks. The clerks were recruited mainly from the ordinary nobility or from the clergy. They decided cases, pronounced sentences, receiving for their service a local salary of up to 600 quarters of land and a cash salary of up to 240 rubles a year. They were subordinated to clerks from the nobility and children of clerks - clerks, who served at first without a salary, then, as they gained experience, received a salary of 1-5 rubles a year; the senior clerk could count on an annual salary of 60-65 rubles.

In the second half of the XVII century. there was a significant increase in the number of clerks: in 1664, there were 882 people in orders, in 1698. - 2762 people. By this time, small orders with one or three clerks are absorbed by larger ones.

The average becomes an order with a staff of 20-40 people. Such orders as Local, Discharge, Great Treasury, Great Palace, numbered two to four hundred orders. In large orders, a branched internal structure developed. They were subdivided into tables, and tables - into povity. The table was headed by a deacon, howling - by a clerk. Most often, povyts were formed according to the territorial principle, had a serial number or were named after the clerk who headed them.

The command system, with its centralization, bureaucracy and lack of control, gave rise to red tape, abuse and bribery.

local government. In the 17th century, labial and zemstvo huts, elected by the population, continued to function on the ground. However, now they actually fell into submission to the governors. In 1625 governors were appointed to 146 cities with counties. The voivode obeyed the order that was in charge of the corresponding city with the county. Voivode service life - from 1 to 3 years; for it he received local and monetary salaries. In large cities there were several governors. The terms of reference of the governor: administrative and police functions, guarding the borders, searching for fugitives, recruiting service people, collecting taxes, supervising the condition of roads, the activities of labial and zemstvo elders. A number of officials were subordinate to the governor: siege, bypass, prison, security, Cossack, barn, pit, Pushkar, customs and tavern heads.

Rice. 5.

In the 20-30s of the XVII century. a type of local institutions is being formed, called prikazhny huts (voivodship, congress). The personnel of the command huts were divided into permanent and temporary parts. The temporary part consisted of governors, clerks, sometimes clerks with an inscription, sent to the city for 1 - 3 years by the appropriate order. The permanent part included local clerks who worked by choice or hired on a permanent basis.

Since the middle of the 17th century, with the expansion and strengthening of state borders, the number of clerk's huts has sharply increased. The reorganization of the armed forces led to the creation of military districts-ranks, territorially overlapping the boundaries of counties. In the discharges, an intermediate link of management is formed - discharge huts with extended military-administrative functions.

So, in the 17th century, features of bureaucratization appeared in the state apparatus of Russia, which consisted in the appearance of a whole chain of institutions and bodies subordinate to each other (Boyar Duma - order - governor), the creation of a hierarchical ladder of officials (the judge of the order - clerks - clerks). At the same time, it should be noted that there are non-bureaucratic institutions in Russia - Zemsky Sobors (until 1684) and Zemstvo governments at the lowest level. The cumbersomeness and irrationality of the order system, the lack of a personnel training system, reduced the efficiency of the state apparatus, did not meet the needs of the new time.

Control questions and tasks

• 1. Why did Moscow become the new center for the unification of Russian lands?
• 2. How did the role of the Boyar Duma in state administration change during the 15th-17th centuries?
• 3. What were the features of the command management system?
• 4. Reveal the tendencies of Russia's transition in the 17th century from a class-representative to an autocratic monarchy.
• 5. How did the Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century change and why did they stop working in the middle of the century?
• 6. How did the system of local government in Russia change as the centralized state took shape?
• 7. What was the manifestation of the bureaucratization of the state apparatus in the 17th century?

Government in the 17th century and the political system:

During the reign of the first Romanovs, the number of representatives from the lower classes increased in the Zemsky Sobor. Representatives of all estates received from voters " orders”(wishes) and defended them before the king. But with the gradual strengthening of royal power, the cathedrals began to be held less and less, since the ruler no longer needed their support. The Zemsky Sobor never became a parliament. The representation of the lower strata gradually decreased, with the growth of serfdom, and in 1653 the last council was held.

​​​​​​​Thought during the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, it increased 5 times, since he owed his accession to the throne, including the boyars. The work of the Duma was controlled by the tsar, but it was rather difficult to resolve issues with hundreds of boyars. Therefore, from the Duma was allocated " near» part, with a significantly smaller number of participants. The Near Duma eventually became the main one.

The number of orders(now in Russia they are called departments). There were about 100 of them. Here are some of them:

Posolsky Prikaz - responsible for foreign policy;

State order - the values ​​​​of the royal family;

Local order - land, taxes;

Petition order - considered petitions from subjects;

Order of secret affairs (founded under Alexei Mikhailovich) - a personal order of the tsar, who controlled the work of everyone, including the boyars, which made the tsar's power absolute over everyone;

And other orders.

The system of orders was not very convenient, since their duties were not clearly delineated between them. And there were too many between orders red tape(high difficulty in reaching agreements between the two orders).

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.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Test

Staterstvennoe management in Russia inXVIIcentury

Introduction

state power self-government

The turmoil of the beginning of the 17th century led to the complete collapse of the Russian statehood, undermining the authority of the boyar and palace nobility, mass terror from all rival groups had severe psychological consequences. The economy was destroyed and the country depopulated. The geopolitical situation remained extremely difficult.

The 17th century is the time of strengthening the mobilization character of Russia's development. The restoration of the national economy, constant wars, uprisings and riots as a response to enslavement, financial difficulties and abuses of the administration, the rapid expansion of the territory (annexation of Ukraine, Eastern Siberia and the Far East, advancement to the Caucasus, etc.), which resulted in the transformation of Russia into the largest continental empire of the world, demanded the concentration of national forces, led to the completion of the process of establishing serfdom. Along with this, small-scale production, manufactories are developing, an all-Russian national market is beginning to form, and European cultural and civilizational achievements are actively penetrating Russia.

The Romanov dynasty did not have its own real material, power means and mechanisms for asserting power, gaining legitimacy and strength. As already mentioned, the Time of Troubles was not just a threat to independence, the loss of territorial integrity, but also the loss of the Orthodox self-identification of the Russian people. Therefore, the revival of autocracy and the restoration of statehood took place and could only take place on foundations close to the canonical ideas about the state as a “symphony of authorities”, a dual unity of secular and spiritual power, autonomously existing, but equally ensuring the protection and triumph of Orthodoxy by their own means.

The first half of the 17th century was the most complete realization of these ideas. Ideally, the "symphony of authorities" opposed both the concepts of theocracy (papacesarism) and absolute tyranny and despotism.

The restoration of statehood on Orthodox spiritual and moral foundations was facilitated by the fact that Patriarch Filaret (1619-1633) - in the world Fyodor Nikitich Romanov - was the father of the tsar. F.N. Romanov, an outstanding and influential boyar during the time of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, even competed with Boris Godunov for power, which ended for him in defeat and monastic vows. With his return from Polish captivity after the Deulino truce and his election as patriarch, in fact, the process of the revival of Russia begins.

The wavering, unstable policy of the Boyar Duma is replaced by a firm government. The tsar and the patriarch equally enjoyed the title of "great sovereign". In fact, power was concentrated in the hands of Patriarch Filaret, who energetically used it to strengthen both state and spiritual power.

1. Insupreme authorities

Throughout the century after the accession of the Romanov dynasty, attempts were made to strengthen the state system. During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645) and Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), the autocratic power of the "sovereign of all Russia" was finally established.

The royal title, in which they tried to designate all subject possessions and tribes, assumed very large dimensions, characterizing, among other things, the “geography” of state administration. Here is the full title of Alexei Mikhailovich in the first half of his reign: “Great Sovereign, Tsar, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, Autocrat of all Great and Little Russia, Moscow, Kyiv, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Pskov and the Grand Duke of Tver, Yugorsk, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others, Sovereign and Grand Duke of Novgorod, Nizovskaya land, Chernigov, Ryazan, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozersky, Udorsky, Obdorsky, Kondi and the entire Northern side Sovereign and Sovereign, Iversky land, Kartalinsky and the Georgian kings and the Kabardian land, the Circassian and Mountain princes, and many other Eastern and Western and Northern possessions and lands Otchich and Dedich and heir, Sovereign and Possessor.

The state apparatus was strengthened and acquired a bureaucratic character.

Despite the strengthening of the power of the tsar, the Boyar Duma remained the most important body of the state, the organ of the boyar aristocracy and shared supreme power with the tsar.

Over the course of a century, the composition of the Duma doubled, and the number of courtiers, duma nobles and clerks especially increased. The Boyar Duma remained the supreme body in matters of legislation, administration and court, moreover, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, "although he was written as an autocrat, but without the boyar council he could not do anything." Aleksei Mikhailovich had a “close Duma” and a personal office (Secret Order), but he consulted with the Duma on major issues.

Members of the Duma headed orders, were governors, diplomats. The Duma approved the decisions of the orders and was the highest judicial instance.

By the end of the 17th century, the Duma turned into a kind of deliberative body of clerks. Its unborn part, namely the number of duma clerks, is increasing. At the beginning of the century there were 2 - 3 duma clerks, in the second half (in 1677) their number increased to 11 people.

In the first half of the 17th century, the role of zemstvo sobors increased, which sat almost continuously: in 1613-1615, 1616-1619, 1620-1622, 1632-1634, 1636-1637. The councils sought funds for waging wars with Poland, Turkey and others, made decisions on foreign policy issues (in 1642 - on the issue of Azov, taken by the Cossacks, in 1649 - the adoption of the Code - a set of laws, etc.).

The duration of zemstvo councils was different: from several hours (1645), days (1642), to several months (1648-1649) and years (1613-1615, 1616-1619, 1620-1622). The decision of the zemstvo sobors - conciliar acts - were signed by the tsar, the patriarch, higher ranks and lower ranks. Since the 1960s, zemstvo councils have ceased to be convened: the government has grown stronger and no longer needed the "moral" support of "the whole earth."

2. Headquarters

The first half of the 17th century is the time of the heyday of the order system and its gradual introduction into all branches of government. During the 10-20s of the XVII century, there was a restoration of all links of the state administration system, destroyed during the years of "distemper".

Most of the direct taxes were collected by the Order of the Grand Parish. At the same time, territorial orders were engaged in taxation of the population. First of all - Novgorod, Galich, Ustyug, Vladimir, Kostroma couples, who performed the functions of cash receipts; Kazan and Siberian orders, which collected "yasak" from the population of the Volga region and Siberia; An order from a large palace that taxed the royal lands; The order of the large treasury, where the fees from the city crafts were sent; A printed order, which charged a fee for affixing acts with the sovereign's seal; Treasury patriarchal order in charge of taxation of church and monastery lands. In addition to the taxes listed above, the Streletsky, Posolsky, Yamskaya orders collected. Because of this, the financial system of Russia in the XV-XVII centuries was extremely complex and confused.

In the early years of the Romanov dynasty, about 20 new central institutions began to function. The new government had to solve serious socio - economic and political problems. First of all, it was necessary to replenish the devastated state treasury, to establish the flow of state taxes. Therefore, in the first years of the reign of the new dynasty, the fiscal activity of orders intensifies. The quarter orders finally took shape, and a number of new permanent and temporary central institutions were created that were in charge of tax collection (the New quarter in 1619, the order of the Great Treasury - in 1621-1622).

In the first half of the 17th century, temporary orders were widespread, created knowingly as temporary by a special decree defining the functions, the head of the order, its entire staff and budget. For example, the war of 1632-1634 with Poland and the beginning of the construction of defensive lines in the south of the country brought to life a number of temporary orders.

In the second half of the 17th century, due to fundamental changes in the socio-economic life of Russia, in its domestic political development and international position, the state apparatus was changing. At this time, serfdom was finally strengthened and formalized, the all-Russian market was taking shape, manufacturing production was emerging, and the social settlement of the countryside was deepening. The inconsistency of these processes led to the aggravation of social relations in the city and countryside. In 1670-1671, a powerful peasant war swept Russia. At the same time, the development of Siberia continued during this period, defensive fortresses were being built in the south, southeast and southwest of the country.

The estate-representative monarchy by this time had outlived its usefulness. The Code of 1649 defined in a new way the rights of different strata of society, primarily the nobility and the top tenants. The nobility sought in practice to implement the legislative norms of the Code and to ensure the "fortress" of the peasants to the owners, to suppress their resistance. The old state apparatus could not fully ensure the fulfillment of these tasks. This required a change in the form of government by strengthening the absolutist principles and restructuring the organization of the army.

The command system has been preserved. Their main core remains the same. But new territorial orders were created to manage the liberated Russian lands. With the new conditions of the country, the creation of the Monastic order, which was in charge of the monastic lands and judicial affairs of the population of spiritual estates, the Reitar order, created to organize and control the troops of the new system, is connected. A special place was occupied by the Order of Secret Affairs, which functioned in 1654-1675. The main part of the affairs of this order was connected with the management of the palace economy. This time is characterized by the development of palace institutions. In 1664, for example, the Judgment Palace Order stood out.

Serious restructuring with the aim of simplifying and further centralization was undertaken in the 80s of the 17th century. The most important was an attempt to unite all issues of a financial nature in a strengthened order of the Great Treasury, to which a number of functions of quarters and some other orders were transferred. By this time, measures were taken to concentrate all patrimonial and local affairs in the Local Order, and cases on service - in the Discharge Order with their removal from the jurisdiction of territorial orders.

In the second half of the 17th century, temporary institutions became widespread - commissions that were formed in Moscow from clerks and Moscow clerks and were sent along with detectives, surveyors, sorters, etc. in search of runaway peasants. The commissions were created by a special decree, which determined their quantitative composition, direction of activity, and appointed leaders. The creation of such commissions since the 60s of the 17th century has become widespread.

In total, by 1698 in Russia there were 26 orders of national competence (permanent), 1 - temporary, 6 - palace, 3 - patriarchal and 19 other higher city and palace institutions.

At the head of the order was the chief - the judge, mainly from the members of the Boyar Duma. Some of them controlled several orders at once. So, the boyar B.I. Morozov, a favorite of Alexei Mikhailovich, headed 5 orders: Streletsky, Big Treasury, New Quarter, Inozemsky, Aptekarsky; A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin - Ambassadorial and Little Russian orders and three quarters - Novgorod, Vladimir and Galician.

The assistants to the chief-judge were clerks (their number in different orders is different). The clerks were recruited mainly from the ordinary nobility or from the clergy. They did things, passed sentences. For the service they received a local salary (up to 600 quarters of the land) and money (up to 240 rubles a year). They were subordinated to clerical employees from the nobility and children of clerks - clerks, who served at first without a salary, then as they gained experience, receiving a salary of 1 - 5 rubles a year.

The most important feature of the order system of the 17th century is the increase in the number of people employed in it.

The greatest increase in the number of clerks falls on the 70s of the XVII century. At the same time, an increase in clerkships was noticeable, which took place on the initiative of clerks and clerks and was dictated by the internal needs of the institution.

Since the 1960s, orders have been turning into large institutions with a large staff and an extensive structure. Orders with 1-3 clerks almost disappear. The average becomes an order with a staff of 20-40 people. Among the major orders, a prominent place was occupied by the Local with a staff in 1698 of 416 people. 404 people worked in the order of the Great Treasury, 278 people - in the Grand Palace, 242 people - in the Discharge.

The sharp increase in the group of Moscow clerks since the 70s of the 17th century served as the basis for the formation of the state apparatus of an absolute monarchy, the main features of which clearly appear in the last decade of the century.

The structure of the orders was determined by their competence and breadth of activity, which was also associated with the size of the orders. Large orders (Local, Discharge, Kazan Palace) were divided into tables. The division took place mainly on a territorial basis. For example, in the Pometny Prikaz during the 17th century there were four territorial tables, although the composition of the cities under their jurisdiction and their names changed. In the years 1627-1632, there were Moscow, Ryazan, Pskov and Yaroslavl tables, from the middle of the century the Yaroslavl table disappears, but the Vladimir table is formed. As a result of the restructuring of the work of orders in the 80s, three more tables appeared in it, but organized no longer according to the territorial, but according to the functional principle.

The structure of the order of the Kazan Palace developed differently. In 1629, it had three functional desks (Money, Discharge and Local) and one territorial (Siberian). In 1637, the latter was transformed into an independent Siberian order, in which, by the end of the century, the territorial Tobolsk, Tomsk, Lena tables appeared.

There were cases when the functions of another institution were transferred to one or another order, which led to the allocation of a special table in its composition. So, in 1667-1670, as part of the Ambassadorial Order, which had not previously been divided into tables, a special Smolensk table was created, which was in charge of the lands that became part of Russia according to the so-called Andrusovo truce concluded with the Poles in the village of Andrusovo. With the destruction in 1681 of the Kholopye order, the functions of which were transferred to the newly created Court, a special table was organized as part of the latter to carry out their work.

The tables were divided into povytya, created mainly according to the territorial principle. Povyts were not stable structural units and did not have a specific name. Sometimes they wore a serial number or a name by the name of the clerk who was at the head of them. In smaller orders, there was no division into tables.

The command system with its centralization and bureaucracy, paperwork and lack of control gave rise to red tape, abuse, bribery, which was especially clearly revealed by the end of the 17th century.

3. local government

In local government, there was a process of centralization, unification and bureaucratization, as in the center, but at a slower pace. Since the end of the 17th century, counties, which were divided into camps and volosts, have become the main administrative-territorial unit of Russia. From the beginning of the 17th century, the “zemstvo principle” characteristic of the 16th century was being replaced by the provincial administration. During the period of existence of governors-feeders, voivodes were appointed to border towns for military administration, and clerks for financial administration. In this capacity, they were preserved even during the heyday of provincial and zemstvo self-government. The turmoil, which almost led to the disintegration of the country, showed the need for the existence in the province not only of military power, but also of an organ connecting the entire (and not just draft) population of the province with the center. In addition, the growing financial needs of the state, the inability to ensure the unity and development of a gigantic territory without redistribution were the most important reasons for the centralization of management. During the Time of Troubles, the population itself at general meetings began to elect a voivode not only with military, but also with administrative, judicial functions. After the end of the Time of Troubles, the voivode began to be appointed (usually for 1-2 years) by the tsar and the Boyar Duma, sometimes taking into account the wishes of the local population, which sought "they still have one labial headman, and they would take the voivode to Moscow." The government listened to such petitions, but by the middle of the 17th century, the voivodship system had spread everywhere. The purpose of the appointment of governors was to exercise control in the interests of the king, and not for the sake of feeding, in connection with which it was indicated to the local population: "... do not give food to the governors, do not inflict losses on yourself." But, as noted by V.O. Klyuchevsky, “the governors of the 17th century were the sons or grandsons of the governors (feeders) of the 16th century. In the course of one or two generations, institutions could change, not mores and habits. The voivode did not collect fodder and duties in the amounts indicated by the charter, which he was not given: but voluntary offerings “in honor” were not forbidden, and the voivode took them without a statutory fee, as much as his hand could. In their petitions for the appointment, the applicants for voivodeship places so bluntly asked to be allowed to go to such and such a city in the voivodeship "to feed themselves." They wanted to turn the voivodeship into an administrative service without a salary, but in reality it turned out to be an unsalary salary under the pretext of an administrative service. The precisely indefinite breadth of power of the voivode encouraged abuses ... The uncertainty of rights and obligations, inevitable with such a combination of regulation and arbitrariness, disposed to abuse the former and neglect the latter, and in the voivodeship administration, excess of power alternated with its inaction.

On the other hand, the nature of the abuses should not be exaggerated, given that the governors were heavily dependent on the central government, among them persons who fell into royal disfavor predominated, and the terms of office were not long.

In large cities, several governors could be appointed at the same time, one of which was the main one. Under all governors, clerks or clerks with an inscription were assistants. Of these, a type of local ordering institution was formed - moving out, or ordering, a hut (in the 20-30s there are names - a clerk's, judgment hut). Most of the order huts had insignificant states - several people each, but in some (Novgorod, Pskov, Astrakhan, etc.) - 20 or more order people.

Voivodes get the right to control labial and zemstvo huts without the right to interfere in their sphere of activity, but in the second half of the 17th century this restriction for governors was lifted. However, the complete subordination of local self-government to the voivodship administration did not happen - in the financial and economic management, the zemstvo authorities were independent, the voivodes were forbidden by orders that determined their competence, “not to intervene in their money collections and worldly affairs and will have them in their secular salary and in other do not take away deeds ... (elected) do not change. Along with zemstvo self-government, there were self-governing volosts and communities, along with elected sotsky and elders, there were fraternal courts, where the “best people” gathered for a gathering for elections and solving economic, and sometimes court cases. Differences in self-government systems were determined mainly by the social composition of the population.

There were different systems of self-government in the cities - in Pskov there was a collegium of city elders, in Novgorod the Great - a meeting of "city people" and a permanent administration of 5 elders representing the ends of the city, in Moscow there was no city-wide self-government, but every hundred and settlement were self-governing units. During the reign in Pskov, governors A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin, an attempt was made to reform the city self-government in the spirit of Magdeburg law, but it turned out to be short-lived. In addition, in the counties there were elected customs huts, mug yards, which were led by the corresponding heads and kissers, etc. Gradually they come under the control of the clerks' huts.

The reorganization of the armed forces in favor of permanent troops on the ground required the creation of military districts (ranks), uniting several counties. As a result, an intermediate control link was formed - a discharge center. The command hut of such a city expanded its military-administrative functions and began to be called a discharge hut or command chamber. The allocation of discharge huts and command chambers created institutions of an intermediate type, anticipating the future provincial offices, was a prerequisite for the Peter the Great provincial reform.

4. Church and State

The religious theory "Moscow - the third Rome" substantiated the idea of ​​Russia as the last stronghold of the true faith - universal Orthodoxy, was emphatically eschatological, and not imperial in nature, as some researchers consider it. This required an increase in the status of the Russian Church, which coincided with the interests of the secular authorities. In 1589. under Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the actual ruler of Russia, the boyar Boris Godunov, managed to achieve the establishment of a patriarchate in Moscow, confirmed by the decision of the Council of Constantinople in May 1590. The Moscow Patriarch took fifth place in the diptych after the Eastern Patriarchs. Job (1589-1605) became the first Moscow Patriarch. The founding of the patriarchate was an important milestone in the history of the Russian Church, securing its autocephaly. (However, it must be borne in mind that autocephaly cannot be identified with state independence, sovereignty. The Ecumenical Orthodox Church is not a federation of local churches, they are not subordinate to each other, but they are not absolutely independent, but are mutually subordinate and constitute a catholic, catholic unity.)

During the Time of Troubles, the church as a whole, and especially the monasteries, became one of the main strongholds of the struggle for national revival. As already mentioned, Patriarch Filaret largely concentrated in his hands not only spiritual, but also secular power. He equally sought to strengthen both authorities, relied on the Byzantine epanagogic theory, well known in Russia, the theory of the “symphony of authorities”. If in the 16th century this model of relations was realized in a close to the late Byzantine version of the dominance of the state over the church, then in the first half of the 17th century Filaret managed to come closest to the ideal of the dual unity of church and state.

By the end of the 17th century (after the return of the Kyiv Metropolis to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate), there were 24 sees in Russia - one patriarchal, 14 metropolitan, 7 archiepiscopal and 2 episcopal.

The supreme administration of the Russian Orthodox Church was represented by the patriarch in unity with the council of the highest church hierarchs. Unlike the Eastern patriarchs, the Russian First Hierarch did not have a permanent council (synod) with him. Consecrated (church) councils under the patriarchs were convened less frequently than under the Moscow metropolitans, but the council of 1667 decided to convene councils twice a year, which corresponded to canonical rules. Tsars took part in the work of the councils, whether it was the election of a patriarch or the appointment of other church hierarchs, the canonization of saints, church courts, theological disputes, etc. obeyed the latter.

In 1620-1626. Patriarch Filaret carried out a reform of the management of the huge church property and staff. For the management of the patriarchal region, orders were created, which then extended their powers to the lands of the church throughout Russia. As a result, the two-part system (state and palace) was replaced by a triple division of clerical institutions. The Order of Spiritual Affairs, or the Patriarchal Rank, issued certificates to clergy who received ordination from the patriarch, as well as to the construction of churches, and judged clerics and laity for crimes against the faith. The treasury order was in charge of the fees to the patriarchal treasury. The palace order was in charge of the secular officials of the patriarch and the economy of his house. The personnel of orders were both secular and clergy. An autonomous service hierarchy has developed here: patriarchal boyars, roundabouts, clerks and clerks. This strengthened the position of the church, which retained high authority and possessed enormous material and military power, monasteries-fortresses in strategically important places. Nevertheless, the canonical Orthodox ideas about the charitable nature of power ruled out any consistent claims of the Russian Orthodox Church and its hierarchs for secular power, the creation of a theocratic state.

There was no complete uniformity in church administration and court at the diocesan level, but it was built in accordance with canonical requirements. In local self-government, a church parish played an important role, which in most cases coincided geographically with the volost. Parish priests were appointed by the respective bishop, but as a rule, candidates for a vacant seat were elected by the parishioners. Priests (priest, deacon) and clergymen (sextonaries, watchmen, choristers) were completely veiled from the world, which allotted land, other lands, and sometimes material rewards. The priests were often elected not clerics, but literate peasants or townspeople, as a result of which the functions of local civil and church authorities were closely intertwined and even united.

During the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, contradictions arose between the strengthened autocracy and the church. The desire of secular authorities to put under control the economic activities of the church (the creation of the Monastic order), to limit monastic land ownership, judicial, fiscal immunity of monasteries and the white clergy met with resistance from church hierarchs, Patriarch Nikon, who defended the "symphony of authorities." The conflict coincided with the split of the church as a result of the reform of Patriarch Nikon to bring liturgical books and rites in line with the Greek originals. The supporters of the "ancient piety" uncompromisingly opposed the uncompromising reform being carried out, one of the leaders of the Old Believers was Archpriest Avvakum. The spiritual schism weakened the position of the church. Nikon's attempt to put pressure on the tsar by renouncing the patriarchate ended with his deprivation of dignity and exile (decision of the Ecumenical Council of 1666). The Church begins to fall, despite the liquidation of the Monastyrsky Prikaz, into direct dependence on the state, which is one of the indicators of the evolution of autocracy towards absolute monarchy.

5. Especiallypublic administration

Election of the head of state by representatives of the estates. In 1598, the first election of the tsar took place at the Zemsky Sobor (Boris Godunov was elected). The elections were held without an alternative.

In 1613 a second election was held. To decide the future of the state, which did not have a supreme ruler at the end of the Time of Troubles, the Zemsky Sobor was convened in Moscow. The principle of the formation of the Zemsky Sobor: 10 people from 50 cities plus 200 people from Moscow. Only 700 people. Composition: clergy, townspeople, servicemen, archers, free peasants, Cossacks. Among the contenders for supreme power were prominent statesmen. The purpose of the election of the head of state in the Time of Troubles is to avoid bloodshed and a new tyranny. Therefore, the Council elected Mikhail Romanov as tsar, the most compromising figure. The main qualities of the new king: he had no enemies, he was not conceited, he did not strive for power himself, he had a good character.

In 1645, after the death of Mikhail Romanov, there were no more elections of the tsar as such, due to the fact that there was a legitimate heir. However, the new Tsar Alexei was presented to the Zemsky Sobor, which formally approved the new sovereign. In 1682, the Zemsky Sobor elected Ivan V and Peter I as co-rulers.

limiting the power of the king. Attempts to limit the power of the sovereign were still in the Time of Troubles, during the elections of Vasily IV and Prince Vladislav. There is an opinion that when elected to the kingdom, Mikhail Romanov signed a letter according to which he pledged: not to execute anyone, and if there is guilt, send him into exile; make a decision in consultation with the Boyar Duma. A written document confirming the restrictions was not found, however, in fact, the dictatorial powers of the sovereign, established by Ivan the Terrible, were eliminated.

Increasing role of representative power. Zemsky Sobors, convened on the initiative of the Tsar, the Duma, or the previous Sobor, resolved the following issues:

tax collection

Land distribution

On penalties, including the introduction of monetary fines

Investigation of complaints against officials, fight against corruption and abuses of regional authorities

Public spending

The adoption of civil laws.

In 1648-49. at the Zemsky Sobor, the Council Code was adopted, i.e. kind of civil and criminal codes. If earlier the main laws in Russia were called by the name of the rulers who prepared them, then the new law was prepared and published by representatives of all classes.

Problem management. The state administration - the system of orders - was not built clearly on a regional or sectoral basis, but on the basis of problems. If it was necessary to solve any issue, a separate order was created, which was responsible for all aspects of solving the problem.

Centralization of power. Orders (central government bodies) regulate any relations throughout the state. For example, the Discharge order, the order of the Great Treasury. The process of formation of a unified state ideology continues, a unified state symbolism is being approved. In Russia, a national flag appears - a white-blue-red tricolor.

Expansion of borders: annexation of Siberia, right-bank Ukraine. A new administration was being created in Siberia: governors were appointed from Moscow to large cities. The development of Siberia began at the end of the 16th century after Yermak defeated the troops of the Siberian Khanate in the Tyumen region. Detachments of private entrepreneurs engaged in trade with the peoples of Siberia and China advanced into the depths of Siberia along the waterways. Fortresses were built in large trading points, where government garrisons were sent. The territory was developed by the Cossacks, who served on the border in exchange for the right to cultivate the land. In addition to the Tatar Siberian Khanate, a fragment of the Golden Horde, the Siberian peoples did not have in the 16-17 centuries. their statehood, so they relatively easily became part of the Russian state, converted to Orthodoxy, and assimilated with the Russians. The descendants of the Tatar khans received the title of Siberian princes in Russia and entered the civil service.

Streamlining the budget system. In 1619, at the Zemsky Sobor, the first budget of the Russian state was adopted, which was called the "list of income and expenses." The budget system in the 17th century was still poorly developed, since there were a large number of in-kind duties that replaced taxes. The Council Code of 1649 regulated the methods and norms of tax collection. Each inhabitant of the Muscovite state had to bear a certain duty: either to be called up for service, or to pay taxes, or to cultivate the land. In addition, there were trade duties and paperwork fees. A special item of state revenue was the payment for the maintenance of taverns and the sale of wine in state shops. Independent production of alcoholic beverages was prohibited.

6. public service

Based on the materials of the Posolsky Prikaz - one of the most important in the system of government - it is possible to restore the hierarchy of official positions in the public service in the 17th century.

Duma ranks:

Boyars - the highest state rank, had the right to vote on all issues of national importance, could be an ambassador, lead an army, head a boyar commission. Usually the rank of boyar had five to ten people. Average age - 50-60 years. The boyars were paid 700 rubles. The boyars had the right not to take off their hats in the presence of the sovereign.

Duma clerk - secretary, clerk; did not have the right to vote, but only recorded the decisions of the Duma, drew up documents.

Duma nobles - appeared in the Duma in 1572, could be representatives of the untitled nobility, did not have the right to vote, but participated in government, fulfilling the instructions of the king. One of the duma nobles was the keeper of the state seal. Their salary was 250 rubles.

In addition to the Duma ranks, there were clerk ranks for officials who worked in prikaz.

Dyaks - the main employees of the orders, assistants to the boyars and roundabouts, performed auxiliary functions, but could also act independently, for example, manage orders.

Clerks - acted as secretaries, notaries, attorneys.

The structure of the sovereign's court included court ranks:

Steward. Initially served at the table of the sovereign. In the 17th century, it was an honorary title, the owner of which could be appointed governor, head of a secondary order, and conduct a search for a case.

Solicitor. They were in various services with the person of the sovereign. Solicitors could serve in small provinces, be secretaries in embassies and orders.

Resident - the lowest court rank. Residents guarded the sovereign's chambers, from which the royal guard was recruited. Residents were required to live in Moscow and be constantly ready for military service.

Until 1682, posts were distributed according to the principle of locality. Every year, all people in the civil service were entered into the state category, on the basis of this, duties and positions were distributed in subsequent generations. Localism is an impersonal system of personnel appointments, it allowed to single out a class of people who serve. Localism became the basis for the oligarchy, hindered the motivation of unborn employees who had no career prospects.

Conclusion

At the beginning of the 17th century, an unfavorable combination of internal and external factors led to the disintegration of Russian statehood. The restoration of the estate monarchy in the form of autocracy takes place on the basis of the principles of the theory of the "symphony of authorities" - the dual unity of spiritual and secular power. The restoration of statehood in the conditions of a mobilization type of development leads to the gradual destruction of the principles of sobornost and the "symphony of authorities" - the withering away of the Zemsky Sobors, changes in the functions and competence of the Boyar Duma, the church, and the restriction of local self-government. There is a bureaucratization of public administration, and on the basis of order work, the civil service begins to take shape as a branch of the state, previously mainly military service.

By the end of the 17th century, the state administration system of the estate monarchy entered a difficult stage of modernization of the entire political system of the country, its institutions and administrative apparatus, borrowing elements of European experience, rationalism, but in general on its own civilizational basis. The pace of this modernization with its contradictions did not keep pace with the increasing complexity of the tasks of state administration, the growth of territory, the process of class transformation of society and new geopolitical tasks. On the agenda was the problem of a radical reorganization of the entire system of central and local government, which would determine the final choice between the development of autocracy as a spokesman for class interests and the establishment of absolutism.

Bibliography

1. Chernyak V.Z. History of state and municipal management Ch498 of Russia. Textbook for high schools. - M.: RDL Publishing House, 2001.

2. History of public administration in Russia: Textbook / Ed. ed. V.G. Ignatov. Rostov n/a: Phoenix, 2005.

3. Demidova N.F. Service bureaucracy in Russia in the 17th century. and its role in the formation of absolutism. M., 1992.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Normative-legal regulation of relations between regional authorities and local authorities in Russia. Institute of a city manager as a way to strengthen the relationship between local governments and public authorities.

thesis, added 06/17/2017


The nature and essence of state power. Features of public administration. The concept of regulatory legal acts of government bodies. Principles, directions and forms of interconnection between state power and local self-government bodies.

term paper, added 10/12/2015


The problem of the effectiveness of public administration and the need for a new content of regional policy in modern Russia. Mechanisms, principles and specifics of interaction between public authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments.

term paper, added 02/22/2017


State authorities in the Russian Federation. Structure and principles of formation of executive authorities, their classification and activities. Local self-government bodies, their tasks and functions. The judicial system of the subject of the Federation.

term paper, added 01/11/2011


The essence of local self-government and its multidimensional constitutional significance. Analysis of the activities of local government in the Russian Federation. Delimitation of powers and interaction between public authorities and local governments.

term paper, added 06/24/2015


The concept, types and organizational systems of local self-government, its principles and functions. The powers of local self-government bodies in accordance with federal legislation, their relationship with regional and central government bodies.

term paper, added 12/14/2009


Constitutional and legal principles of the organization and activities of local self-government, its functions and powers. Relations between local governments and state authorities. Improving the reform of local self-government in the Russian Federation.

abstract, added 08/01/2010


The concept of local self-government, legal regulation of its activities in the Russian Federation. Interaction of public authorities and local self-government. State control over the exercise of state powers.

term paper, added 12/22/2017


Brief description of the main theories of local self-government. Constitutional principles of regulation of the foundations of local self-government in Russia. The structure and powers of municipal bodies. Development of the model of local self-government in Russia.

abstract, added 02/06/2011


Organizational and legal foundations of public administration in the socio-cultural sphere, the powers of federal government bodies, subjects of the Russian Federation and local self-government. Functions of the federal archival agency, protection of cultural heritage.

Introduction 3
1. Boyar Duma 4
2. Supreme authorities 8
3. Zemsky Sobor 11
Conclusion 15
References 16

Introduction

History has always aroused and continues to arouse great public interest, which is explained by the natural need of man. In recent years, history as a science has been quite politicized. Many of its pages were reflected in literature one-sidedly, which left a certain imprint on the formation of people's historical thinking. Today we have the opportunity to study the true history of our country. Studying the history of public administration in Russia, we can see how problems were solved and how effectively and by what methods the results were achieved. This undoubtedly testifies to the complexity of relationships that are no different from modern reality, which is also characterized by the presence of opposing groups of people pursuing their own interests, as well as the role of the sovereign in managing them.

1. Boyar Duma

The Boyar Duma is the supreme council under the prince (since 1547 under the tsar) in the Russian state of the 10th - early 18th centuries, similar to the state council under the kings in the countries of Western Europe, the council in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Boyar Duma consisted of representatives of the feudal aristocracy, its activities were of a legislative nature.
In the sources, the Boyar Duma was usually called the "Duma", less often - the "Duma of the Boyars". In Kievan Rus in the 9th - 11th centuries. The Boyar Duma was a meeting of princes with combatants (princes "husbands", "duma members") and "starets gradsky" (zemstvo boyars, descendants of the local tribal nobility); they were sometimes attended by representatives of the clergy (metropolitans, etc.). It did not have a permanent composition, it was convened as needed. From the 11th century as a result of the granting of land to princely husbands and their merger with the zemstvo boyars, the Boyar Duma consisted of boyars. She participated in discussions on:
- legislation;
- foreign policy;
- internal state structure;
- religions, etc.
The political role of the Boyar Duma grew significantly due to the increase in boyar land ownership, the growth of boyar privileges, the fragmentation of the ancient Russian state and the weakening of princely power in certain lands.
During the period of feudal fragmentation, the Boyar Duma was the feudal curia (council of feudal lords) of the lord - the Grand Duke, with his vassals, who had a certain political power. In North-Eastern Russia in the XIV - XV centuries. The Boyar Duma included the boyars, who were in charge of certain branches (“paths”) of the palace princely administration (“worthy boyars”), as well as the thousand, roundabout, butler and other persons of the prince’s administrative department. The composition, rights and competence of the Boyar Duma were not strictly defined by law; usually the meeting consisted of several people. When discussing the most important issues that went beyond the current palace affairs, there was a meeting of the Boyar Duma of an expanded composition of 10-15 or more people. From the beginning of the XV century. “Introduced boyars” (“big boyars”), representatives of the upper stratum of the boyars, permanent advisers to the prince, and executors of his most important assignments become members of the boyar duma.
With education at the end of the XV century. Russian centralized state Boyar Duma has become a permanent deliberative body under the supreme power. It included "duma" ranks - boyars, roundabouts, from the beginning of the 16th century. - "children of the boyars who live in the Duma" ("Duma nobles"), a little later - "Duma clerks". The predominant influence in the Boyar Duma belonged to the boyars from the titled nobility - representatives of the princely families. Sometimes the boyar duma became the body of the princely-boyar opposition to the autocratic power. The positions of the reactionary princely-boyar aristocracy were significantly weakened by the reforms of the 1550s. and especially the oprichnina, during which the Boyar Duma was put at the head of the “zemshchina” (it will be discussed in the third paragraph), and in the oprichnina territory of the ball, the oprichnina Boyar Duma may have been created. At the beginning of the XVII century. The Boyar Duma tried to limit the autocratic power of the tsar with the help of a “cross-kissing note” taken from V.I. Shuisky in 1606. It is possible that some kind of “restrictive” note was taken by the Boyar Duma from Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. In the second half of the XVI-XVII centuries. The Boyar Duma to a certain extent shared power with the tsar during the period of the estate-representative monarchy.
In the 16th and especially in the 17th centuries the composition of the Boyar Duma was replenished by the central government at the expense of less noble persons - relatives and close associates of the king; a large number of duma nobles, who advanced thanks to personal merits, joined its ranks; the number of Duma clerks increased. They represented the bureaucratic element, which was an obedient tool in the hands of the autocracy.
The Boyar Duma discussed all issues, usually in a place with the Grand Duke, then with the Tsar; the decision of the Boyar Duma in such cases began with the formula: “the tsar indicated and the boyars were sentenced”; the tsar decided some issues without the Boyar Duma, others - the Boyar Duma decided without the tsar, but on his behalf (“the boyars were sentenced”); these decisions were approved by the king. In a number of cases, the tsar conferred with a narrow circle of the closest figures, who make up the so-called Middle Duma. The Boyar Duma controlled the activities of orders, appointed governors, etc. . With the development of absolutist tendencies in the second half of the 17th century, the Boyar Duma, which was much cumbersome in composition, decreased, and the Middle Duma acquired even more importance.

2. Supreme authorities

Around 1549, around the young Ivan IV, a council of people close to him was formed, called the Chosen Rada. So called it in the Polish manner A. Kurbsky in one of his works.
The composition of the Chosen Rada is not entirely clear. It was headed by A.F. Adashev, who came from a rich but not very noble family.
Representatives of various strata of the ruling class participated in the work of the Chosen Council. Princes D. Kurlyatev, A. Kurbsky, M. Vorotynsky, Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow and priest of the Kremlin's Annunciation Cathedral (the home church of the Moscow tsars), confessor of the Tsar Sylvester, clerk of the Embassy Department I. Viskovaty. The composition of the Chosen Rada, as it were, reflected a compromise between the various strata of the ruling class. The elected council lasted until 1560. It carried out transformations, which were called the reforms of the middle of the 16th century. .
In January 1547, Ivan IV, having reached the age of majority, was officially married to the kingdom. The ceremony of taking the royal title took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. From the hands of the Moscow Metropolitan Macarius, who developed the ritual of crowning the king, Ivan IV received the Monomakh's hat and other signs of royal power. From now on, the Grand Duke of Moscow began to be called the king. In the second half of the XVI century. (Fig.1) at

Rice. 1. Bodies of power and administration in the second half of the 16th century.

Ivan IV, a new structure of the supreme governing body was formed.
During the period when a centralized state was taking shape, as well as during interregnums and internal strife, the Boyar Duma played the role of a legislative and advisory body under the Grand Duke, and later under the Tsar. During the reign of Ivan IV, the composition of the Boyar Duma was almost tripled in order to weaken the role of the old boyar aristocracy in it. A new body of power arose - the Zemsky Sobor.

Free download

the highest organs of the state. Having established a new ruling dynasty of the Romanovs in 1613, the estate-boyars and landowners-nobles under the reign of Tsars Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645) and Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) take measures to further strengthen the entire state system. In the 17th century, the autocratic power of the "sovereign of all Russia" was finally established. Simultaneously with the growth of the power of the tsar, the state apparatus strengthened, which took on the character of a bureaucratic system. This found expression in the existence of up to 50-60 central institutions - "orders" of various sizes and meanings: from nationwide departments with a complex structure and a large number of officials (Local, Grand Palace, Discharge) to dwarf institutions with modest functions and composition (Requiem Order ) - Local government has also become more complicated.

Despite the internal consolidation of the country, in the political system of the Russian state of the 17th century there were still remnants of feudal fragmentation. One of them was localism, expressed in the hereditary right of certain boyar families to one or another "place" in the hierarchy of service ranks in the civil and military service. Localism was a peculiar form of adaptation of the feudal hierarchy of times of political fragmentation to the conditions of a centralized state. Already from the middle of the 16th century, measures were taken to limit it. In the 17th century localism began to impede the strengthening of the autocratic monarchy. The increased importance of the nobility allowed the government in 1682 to abolish localism as a "hostile, fraternal" phenomenon. Isaev I. A. Lectures on the history of Moscow law and the state. M.: Norma, 2010. S. 57.

Although the importance of the nobility increased, the boyars retained their economic and political power. The Boyar Duma was still the most important body of the state, sharing with the tsar the prerogatives of supreme power, the body of the boyar aristocracy. The composition of the Duma has doubled over the century. The number of devious duma nobles and clerks increased especially noticeably. In 1681, there were only 15 duma clerks in it. The Boyar Duma was a collection of representatives of old boyar families and veteran businessmen.

The Boyar Duma remained the supreme body in charge of legislation, administration, and the courts. Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, "although he wrote himself as an autocrat, he could not do anything without boyar advice." Aleksey Mikhailovich, despite the presence of a narrower composition of the “near Duma” and a personal office (Secret Order), consulted with the Duma on all major issues: the Boyar Duma discussed smaller issues without the tsar.

The 17th century is characterized by a closer connection between the personnel of the Boyar Duma and the order system. Many members of the Duma performed the duties of chiefs (judges) of orders, governors, and were in the diplomatic service.

At the meetings of the Boyar Duma, decisions of orders (article lists) were approved. The Duma was the highest judicial instance of the state. Some of the court cases were considered in the Punishment Chamber created under the Duma (1681-1694). The significance of the Boyar Duma has fallen in the last decade of the century.

The first half of the 17th century was the heyday of the estate-representative monarchy, when the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy of the state were resolved with the help of zemstvo councils.

In the first years of the reign of Tsar Mikhail Romanov, the government especially needed to rely on the main groupings of the ruling class. Zemsky Sobors sat almost continuously: from 1613 to the end of 1615, at the beginning of 1616-1619, in 1620-1622. These councils were engaged in finding financial resources to replenish the state treasury and foreign policy affairs. From the 20s of the 17th century, state power became somewhat stronger, and zemstvo councils began to meet less frequently. Gerasimenko G.A. Zemstvo self-government in Russia. M.: Prospect. 2009. P.48. Councils of the 30s are also associated with foreign policy issues: in 1632-1634. in connection with the war in Poland, v.1636-1637. because of the war with Turkey. At these councils decisions were made on the additional taxes necessary for the conduct of the war.

At a crowded council in 1642, members of the Boyar Duma, the top clergy, as well as representatives of the provincial nobles, archery heads and merchants, were engaged in finding means to help the Cossacks, who had captured the fortress of the Crimean Khan - Azov at the mouth of the Don. After lengthy squabbles between the conciliar class groups, a decision was made to refuse help to the Cossacks. At the same council, representatives of the local nobility and cities filed petitions, expressing their class claims.

One of the most important zemstvo councils was the council, which met in the conditions of a fierce class struggle in the country (urban uprisings in the summer of 1648 in Moscow and other cities) in June 1648. Petitions were filed at the council from the nobles demanding that the feudal dependence of the peasants be strengthened (the investigation of their without class years); the townspeople in their petitions expressed their desire to destroy the white (that is, not taxed and taxed) settlements, complained about disorder in administration and court. A special commission of the Boyar Duma, headed by the boyar Prince N. I. Odoevsky, prepared a draft "Cathedral Code" - a code of laws of the autocratic monarchy of the 17th century, which took into account the wishes of the landowners and the townspeople. This project was discussed by the members of the council, convened in September 1648, and was finally approved on January 29, 1649.

The danger of new social upheavals rallied the ruling feudal class and the top tenants with the government; their elected representatives willingly supported the government's measures to strengthen the state apparatus. The government, in turn, took into account the wishes of the landowners and townspeople in the "Code"

After 1653, Zemsky Sobors were, in essence, meetings of the tsar with representatives of certain estates. Zemsky Sobors contributed to the strengthening of the autocratic power of the tsar and the state apparatus. By convening the Zemsky Sobor, the government counted on receiving information from its members on the state of affairs on the ground, as well as on their moral support for various foreign policy, financial and other events. Noble landlords and townspeople resolved their affairs through Zemsky Sobors, bypassing the red tape.

The Zemsky Sobor met in one of the Kremlin's chambers (the Faceted, Dining Room, etc.). The clerk or the tsar himself opened the cathedral. The clerk read out a "letter" (agenda) for the cathedral (for example, at the council in 1642). The answer to the questions of the agenda was given according to "separate articles" by each estate. At the Zemsky Sobor of 1649, the boyars and the clergy sat separately from the rest of the deputies.

Zemsky Sobors sometimes became the arena for the struggle of groupings of the ruling class, individual estates. At a number of zemstvo sobors, a kind of solidarity (“unity”) was established between the landowners and the upper ranks of the settlement on the basis of general dissatisfaction with the imperfection of legislation and the state apparatus, and the dominance of the boyars.

The duration of zemstvo sobors was different: from several hours (1645) and days (1642) to several months (1648-1649) and even years (1613-1615, 1615-1619, 1620-1622). The decisions of the Zemsky Sobor were formalized in a conciliar act - a protocol sealed by the tsar, the patriarch, higher ranks and the lower ranks were kissed with the cross.

The termination of the convocation of zemstvo councils is closely connected with the profound socio-economic changes that took place in the Russian state by the middle of the 17th century. The restoration of the country's economy and the further development of the feudal economy made it possible to strengthen the state system of the country with an autocratic monarchy, a bureaucratic apparatus of orders and governors. The government no longer needed the moral support of "the whole earth" for its domestic and foreign policy initiatives. Satisfied with the final enslavement of the peasants, the local nobility lost interest in the Zemsky Sobors. From the 60s of the 17th century, zemstvo sobors degenerated into class meetings narrow in composition. Kostomarov N.I. Zemsky Sobors. M.: VELBY. 1995. S. 89

The Council Code of 1649, which consolidated the socio-economic changes in the Russian state, also reflected the increased power of the autocratic monarch. Chapters II and III of the "Code" established severe punishment for crimes directed against the personality of the king, his honor, health, as well as for offenses committed on the territory of the royal court. All these faults were identified with the concept of a state crime, introduced for the first time into the law of the Russian state. The death penalty was established for direct intent ("evil intentionally") against the life and health of the king, as well as for the discovery of intent directed against the king and the state (rebellion, treason, conspiracy, etc.).

The process of bureaucratization of the state apparatus transformed the Boyar Duma from an organ of the boyar aristocracy into an organ of the prikaz bureaucracy (judges of orders, governors, clerks); all this could not but weaken the independence of the Boyar Duma.

In the legislative activity of the Russian state from the second half of the 17th century, the concept of "nominal decree" appeared, that is, a legislative act drawn up only by the tsar, without the participation of the Boyar Duma. Of the 618 decrees given to the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich since the publication of the "Cathedral Code", 588 decrees were nominal, and only 49 boyar sentences were adopted. or their abolition, etc. The Boyar sentences were the most important legislative acts related to feudal land ownership, serfdom, the foundations of financial policy and other important aspects of the state's activities. The main legislative acts of this time still passed through the Boyar Duma.

The number of boyar sentences especially increased after various social upheavals (urban uprising in Moscow in 1662, the Peasant War under the leadership of Stepan Razin). During the reign of the weak-willed Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682), the significance of the Boyar Duma also temporarily increased: out of 284 decrees of his reign, 114 were issued with a boyar sentence.

Despite the outward stability of the position of the Boyar Duma in the system of the apparatus of the Russian state, in the second half of the 17th century there was a process of increasing the personal power of the autocratic monarch, especially in the field of supreme administration.

From the 50-60s, the practice of reports to the tsar by the chiefs of the most important orders was established. So, in 1669, on Mondays, the heads of the Discharge and Posolsky orders reported to the tsar, on Tuesdays - the Big Treasury and the Big Parish, on Wednesdays - the Kazan and Local, etc. Evidence of the increased power of the king by the middle of the 17th century was the creation of the Order of secret affairs. Even in the first years of his reign, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich had with him several clerks from the Order of the Grand Palace for personal correspondence. This state at the end of 1654 or at the beginning of 1655 received a certain organization of the Order of Secret Affairs - the personal office of the tsar, an authority that allows the tsar to resolve the most important state issues without the Boyar Duma.

central institutions. The 17th century was the heyday of the command system of government, but by the last quarter of the century it began to experience a crisis.

An important role, as before, was played by military administrative orders, the number of which increased. During the 17th century, the basis of the armed forces of the Russian state was the noble cavalry and archery regiments. Detachments of Cossacks, Tatars and Bashkirs had auxiliary significance in the border guard and during wars. From the second half of the 17th century, regiments of the "new" ("foreign") system appeared with foreign officers and Russian rank and file: soldiers (infantry), reiters and hussars (cavalry and dragoons could operate both on horseback and on foot) regiments. The army had significant fortress, siege and field artillery with copper, iron and cast-iron cannons of domestic production.

As before, the discharge order was in charge of the staff of service people from the nobility.

The growing importance of landowners-nobles in the army and the civil state apparatus (orders and voivode), the increase in the size of local land ownership, the gradual convergence of local and patrimonial land ownership made the Local Order one of the most important orders of the state. All matters related to the service, maintenance, management and trial of the archers were carried out by the Streltsy order. The Reitarsky regiments (their recruitment, supply, training and court) were in charge of the Reitarsky order (1649-1701). In the last decades of the 17th century, the Reitarsky and Inozemsky orders had one chief and common clerks. Close to the military organization was the Pharmaceutical Order, founded at the end of the 16th century. Initially, it was a court institution that served the king, the royal family and people close to the palace. In the 17th century, the order turned into a state center for medical affairs.

The 17th century was the century of the heyday and fall of the command system of government. More than 90 central bureaucratic institutions - orders of different meanings, functions and sizes existed at that time. An important feature of the command control system was the diversity and uncertainty of the functions of orders. Almost every order performed not only control functions; it was also in charge of certain territories (volosts, cities, villages), taxes from which were received for the maintenance of the order and the implementation of its tasks. This difficulty in determining the exact functions of orders also explains the difficulties in classifying orders.

At the head of each order was the chief - the judge; sometimes the person in charge of the order had a special title (treasurer, printer, butler, gunsmith, etc.). The judges of orders were appointed from among the members of the Boyar Duma; boyars, okolnichy, duma nobles, duma clerks. There was a process of bureaucratization of the top of the feudal class - Duma officials. If in 1613 only 43 orders were headed by duma officials, then by the 80s of the 17th century there were already almost 45 orders. Some thoughtful people controlled several orders at once.

With the creation of orders, extensive paperwork appeared. In the process of practical activities of orders, forms of certain types of documents have developed, the procedure for their execution and movement within each order, and between them. Office work required well-known clerical skills and experience, which the head of the order sometimes did not have. Therefore, clerks were appointed as assistants to judges in orders. Judges of some orders (most often financial, where accounting documentation existed) were appointed from clerks. The clerks were recruited from ordinary nobility, sometimes from the clergy, and even from large merchants ("guests") The clerks did business in orders. Together with the judges, they discussed cases and pronounced sentences. If a “report” to the tsar was required, then it was developed under the guidance of a clerk who was present at the very “report”. According to the tsar, the clerk made a “mark” (resolution) on the “report”, which formed the basis of the royal decree.

The clerks in the orders were subordinated to the clerks - clerical servants from the nobility and children of clerks. The novice clerk served for several years "non-permanently", that is, without salary, for only the "offerings" of petitioners. Then he was "made up" with a small cash salary (from 1 to 5 rubles per year). There were more clerks in orders than clerks: from a few people (Aptekarsky, Printed, Kostroma Chet) to several dozen (Ambassadorial, Rogue) and up to several hundred (Local). Senior clerks, together with clerks, supervised the drafting of documents; medium - composed the texts of documents, made inquiries in the archive of the order; junior - carried out technical work on the correspondence ("rewriting") of documents. The staff of orders included messengers, watchmen and other persons.

Large orders were subdivided into tables, and tables - into povity. There was no unanimity among historians in determining the nature of management in orders: some (V.I. Sergeevich, N.P. Likhachev and others) considered it collegiate, others - sole. In fact, there was a special nature of management in the orders, which consisted in the fact that judges considered controversial cases together with clerks, and cases that were not controversial were considered separately. A feature of the office work was the extreme centralization of management: the orders allowed not only important, but also relatively minor cases.

The command system with its centralization and bureaucracy, paperwork and lack of control gave rise to red tape, abuse and bribery. By the end of the century, the prikaz system had fallen into disrepair; it was replaced by a more progressive management system - collegial.

Thus, summing up chapter 1, it is necessary to note the following.

The period from the 15th - 17th centuries. played a huge role in the history of public administration in Russia. It is transitional from feudalism to the birth of a noble empire. At the beginning of the 15th century, Moscow Russia urgently needed global reforms of the administrative mechanism in the country. A fundamentally new management system was created - the order. It was far from flawless, but still allowed not only to exist, but also to develop at a significant pace, although at its last stage it led to a crisis of governance in the state.

This period also contributed to the development of the institution of autocracy. He paved the way for the transition to absolutism, which was necessary for a new cardinal transformation in the country in the era of Peter I.