All works and ankylosing spondylitis. V.M contribution

The Russian centralized state took shape in XIV-XVI centuries

1. Economic background: to the beginning of the XIV century. in Russia, after the Tatar-Mongol invasion, economic life gradually revived and developed, which was the economic basis for the struggle for unification and independence. Cities were also restored, residents returned to their native places, cultivated the land, were engaged in crafts, and trade relations were established. Novgorod contributed a lot to this.

2. Social background: by the end of the XIV century. the economic situation in Russia has already completely stabilized. Against this background, later feudal features are developing, and the dependence of the peasants on large landowners is growing more and more. At the same time, the resistance of the peasants also increases, which reveals the need for a strong centralized government.

3. Political background, which in turn are subdivided into internal and external ones:

domestic: in the XIV-XVI centuries. significantly increases and expands the power of the Moscow principality. His princes are building a state apparatus to strengthen their power;

foreign policy: the main foreign policy task of Russia was the need to overthrow the Tatar-Mongol yoke, which hampered the development of the Russian state. The restoration of the independence of Russia required a general unification against a single enemy: the Mongols - from the south, Lithuania and the Swedes - from the west.

One of the political prerequisites for the formation of a unified Russian state was Union of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Western Church, signed by the Byzantine-Constantinople Patriarch. Russia became the only Orthodox state uniting all the principalities of Russia at the same time.

The unification of Russia took place around Moscow.

The reasons for the rise of Moscow are:

good geographical and economic position;

Moscow was independent in foreign policy, it did not gravitate towards either Lithuania or the Horde, therefore it became the center of the national liberation struggle;

support for Moscow from the largest Russian cities (Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, etc.);

Moscow is the center of Orthodoxy in Russia;

the absence of internal enmity among the princes of the Moscow house.

Merging Features:

the unification of the Russian lands took place not in the conditions of late feudalism, as in Europe, but in the conditions of its heyday;

the basis for unification in Russia was the union of Moscow princes, and in Europe - the urban bourgeoisie;

Russia united initially for political reasons, and then for economic ones, while the European states - first of all for economic ones.

The unification of Russian lands took place under the leadership of the prince of Moscow. He was the first to become the king of all Russia. AT 1478 after the unification of Novgorod and Moscow, Russia finally freed itself from the yoke. In 1485, Tver, Ryazan, etc., joined the Muscovite state.

Now the specific princes were controlled by proteges from Moscow. The Moscow prince becomes the supreme judge, he considers especially important cases.

The Moscow principality creates a new class for the first time nobles(service people), they were soldiers of the Grand Duke, who were awarded land on the terms of service.

MOSCOW PRINCIPALITY (XIII-XV centuries) AND THE FORMATION OF THE GREAT RUSSIAN STATE

In the second half of the XIV century. in northeastern Russia, the tendency to unite the lands intensified. The Moscow principality became the center of the association.

As early as the 12th century, an ideology of grand-princely power began to take shape in Russia, which could overcome the disintegration and fragmentation of Russia. The prince must have Duma members near him and rely on their Council. He needs a large and strong army. Only this can ensure the autocracy of the prince and protect the country from external and internal enemies.

From the 13th century Moscow princes and the Church begin to carry out a wide colonization of the territories beyond the Volga, new monasteries, fortresses and cities appear, the local population is subjugated and assimilated.

Moscow princes Yuri and Ivan Daniilovich waged a fierce struggle with competitors - the princes of Tver, who claimed a leading role among the Russian principalities. In 1325, the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita received the title of Grand Duke of all Russia and the khan's label for a great reign. The metropolitan moves from Vladimir to Moscow and Moscow becomes not only an important political, but also an ecclesiastical center.

In general, the entire Russian land during this period was divided into two large regions, each of which included many specific principalities: its southwestern part was under the rule of Lithuania and Poland, and the northeastern part still paid tribute to the Golden Horde.

When the principality of Moscow emerged as part of the great Vladimir principality (XII century), it, like other principalities, was considered the patrimony of the princes who ruled it. Gradually, this order is changing: the Moscow principality began to be considered not the possession of one senior prince, but a family, dynastic possession, in which each prince had his share. Thus, the Moscow principality acquired a special status among other Russian lands of the northeast.

Under Ivan Kalita, the Vladimir region becomes the common property of the dynasty, the same status then passes to Moscow (which in the 14th century was a specific principality).

There were no political and legal prerequisites in the 14th century that could ensure the political unity of the Russian lands (inter-princely treaties on an alliance often remained only good wishes). Only the actual real strength and flexible policy of any of the political centers could solve the problem of unity. Moscow became such a center.

The ways of annexing Russian lands to Moscow were varied. The appanage princes were subordinate to the Grand Duke by agreement, remaining masters in their appanages and, as vassals, pledging to serve Moscow.

There were numerous cases of the purchase of appanages by the Grand Duke, while the appanage prince became the user of his former estate and performed various official functions in favor of Moscow.

There was also a procedure reminiscent of the Western European medieval “homage”: the owner of the patrimony, the specific prince, refused it in favor of the Grand Duke and immediately received it back in the form of an award.

By the end of the XV century. Moscow manages to cope with its strongest competitors.

The territorial expansion of the Muscovite state was accompanied by the realization of the fact that on the territory of Russia a new nationality, united in spirit and blood, was emerging - the Great Russian nationality. This realization facilitated the task of collecting lands and the transformation of the Moscow principality into a national Great Russian state.

Speaking of centralization, two processes should be kept in mind: the unification of Russian lands around a new center - Moscow and the creation of a centralized state apparatus, a new power structure in the Muscovite state.

The Grand Dukes were at the head of a whole hierarchy, consisting of artisanal princes and boyars. Relations with them were determined by a complex system of contracts and letters of commendation, which established various degrees of feudal dependence for different subjects.

With the entry of the specific principalities into the Muscovite state, the specific princes were forced to either enter the service of the Moscow Grand Duke, or leave for Lithuania. The old principle of free boyar service has now lost its meaning - in Russia there was now only one Grand Duke, there was now no one to go to the service.

The meaning of the very concept of "boyar" has changed. Instead of a serviceman, a recent combatant, they now understand him as a member of the boyar council (duma), who has the right to occupy the highest positions in the state apparatus and the army. The boyars became a rank, a title, the bearers of which made up the new ruling aristocratic stratum of the Muscovite state.

Localism. According to the new hierarchical ladder, the Moscow boyars were no longer placed “by agreement”, but in accordance with their official dignity.

The position in the Moscow service of the former possessory (great, appanage, etc.) princes was determined by the meaning of the “tables” on which they sat, i.e. the status of their principality, capital city, and so on.

The boyars and service people were placed on the service ladder depending on the position occupied by the courts in which they served.

The old specific order with its institutions and relations continued to exist under the auspices of the new state order established by Moscow.

Under the auspices of Moscow, an aristocratic class of rulers was formed, each of which linked their rights with the ancient tradition, when Russia was ruled by a whole dynasty of Rurikovich, each Moscow boyar estimated his noble origin as the most weighty argument in local disputes about positions, ranks and privileges.

In addition to the nobility of origin, belonging to the boyar estate required the possession of the rank of a boyar, it could only be granted to a specific person by the Grand Duke of Moscow himself.

The boyars were the top layer of the emerging ruling elite of the Muscovite state.

Feeding. Local government was based on a system of feeding: the manager "fed" at the expense of the governed, the position of the manager was considered primarily as his source of income. Feeding included fodder and duties, fodder was brought in by local by the population within the established time limits, duties were paid for the commission by officials of certain legally significant actions. Feeds (entry, Christmas, festive, etc.) were determined by charter letters issued by the prince to the territorial district, and by letters of commendation issued by the feeders themselves. Feeds were deployed according to taxable units (“ploughs”), each of which included a certain number of tax yards, the size of arable land, etc. Part of the feed went to the treasury, to the prince or boyars introduced (officials of the central administration). Feeding was a form of remuneration for service, due to the existence of a system of subsistence farming (as well as local distributions), it was a way of providing, maintaining a service person by the state. The service itself was not directly related to feeding. Over time, this method of material support for service people begins to give way to other forms of organizing local government. First of all, Code of Laws and statutory letters of the XV century. the rights of feeders began to be more strictly regulated: the governor or volost received a mandate or revenue list, which determined the amount of feed and duties. Feeders were forbidden to collect fodder from the population themselves, this was entrusted to elected officials - sotskys and elders. In the XVI century. feeding periods become more definite and shorter, they are reduced to one or two years. Gradually, the feeders themselves begin to acquire the features of local

rulers, their state functions are outlined more and more clearly. More and more strict control was established over their activities. Local governors (governors and volostels), considering court cases and making decisions on them, were obliged to transfer the most important of them to higher authorities for a new consideration (“according to the report”). Cases were transferred to the central state institutions - orders or the Boyar Duma. From the end of the XV century. most of the land disputes are also transferred locally to the center. Representatives of local societies began to oversee the judicial activities of the feeders. Sotsky, elders and elected payers carried out already in the 15th century. the layout of state taxes and duties, as well as feed for feeders. From the second half of the XV century. electives from the population begin to introduce governors and volostels into the court (the Sudebnik of 1497 speaks about this) as assessors, witnesses of the correctness of the consideration of the case. When considering a case in the highest instance (order, Duma), these elected judicial representatives were obliged to testify to the correctness of the actions of the governor or volost in legal proceedings. In the XVI century. these representatives are transformed into a permanent judicial collegium. According to the Sudebnik of 1550, Zemstvo elders with jurors (tsolovalniks) were to be present in the court of the governor and volost, who oversaw the correct conduct of the court, compliance with the law and legal customs (especially local ones). Thus, the judicial rights of local representatives (“the best people”) are significantly expanded

Chosen council. In his activities, Ivan IV relied on the Boyar Duma in 1549, which included the establishment of the "Chosen Duma" ("Chosen Rada") from authorized persons. The preparation of materials for the Duma was carried out by a staff of professional officials associated with orders.

In the XVI century. the Duma began to include okolnichi and duma nobles, as well as duma clerks who conducted office work. The Boyar Duma decided the most important state affairs and had legislative powers. The Duma approved the final editions of the Code of Laws of 1497 and 1550. According to the formula “the tsar pointed out and the boyars were sentenced,” the Boyar Duma approved decrees of 1597 on bonded servitude and fugitive peasants. Together with the tsar, the Duma approved various legislative acts:

statutes, lessons, decrees. The Duma led the system of orders, exercised control over local government, and resolved land disputes. In addition to participating in the work of the State Council (Boyar Duma), Duma people controlled the central departments (orders), commanded regiments and armies, and led the regions as governors and governors. The Duma itself conducted embassy, discharge and local affairs, for which the Duma Chancellery was created. The Duma's legal proceedings also passed through this structure. Legislative initiative came most often from the sovereign or from below from orders that faced specific problems.

Lip organs. Even before the beginning of the XVI century. There was an institution of "wild vira", according to which the feeder could receive criminal payments from entire communities (mutual responsibility). At the same time, there were no special institutions on the ground that would wage an organized struggle against the "dashing people." Special investigators and punitive expeditions sent from Moscow from time to time could not solve the problems. Therefore, it was decided to transfer police functions to combat robbers to local communities. Urban and rural societies in the late 40s. 16th century Lip letters began to be issued, granting the right to persecute and punish "dashing people." The fight against the robbers was organized and carried out by elected jurors (from the feeders' court), sots and elders, who were led by city clerks. In a number of places, this task was carried out by boards specially elected from local residents. The district within which all these elected officials acted was called the lip, its borders at first coincided with the borders of the volost. The lip organs were headed by elected heads from the children of the boyars (nobles) of the given volost. Representatives of the lipoan organizations held their congresses, at which the most important matters were decided. At these congresses, all uyezd labial elders (heads) were elected, who headed the labial organizations of all volosts and camps that were part of the uyezd. There was a gradual centralization of provincial administration on state, church and owner's lands. The labial elders in their activities relied on numerous staffs of labial kissers (elected in volost, stanovoye, rural, township districts), sotsky, fifty, tenth - police ranks of small districts. In the competence of the labial organs in the middle of the XVI century. (Sudebnik 1550) included robbery and tatba, and in the 17th century. - already murders, arson, insulting parents, etc. The process was either of a search character, when the case was initiated without a statement from the victim (when a thief was caught red-handed, a general search, a slander, etc.), or an adversarial character (a private lawsuit, testimonies , "field", recognition of responsibility.

Land authorities. Another local reform of the middle of the 16th century took the path of further restriction and elimination of feeding altogether. - zemstvo. Its goal was to replace governors and volostels with elected public authorities. One of the reasons for the elimination of feeding was their harmful effect on the organization of the military and defense service of the country. In 1550, the tsar ordered the feeders to resolve all disputes with representatives of the local population in a world order. Since 1551, in a number of regions, the local population was offered to pay quitrent to the treasury instead of fodder, and to resolve litigation on their own, through the mediation of elders and kissers. In 1552, an official decision was made to eliminate feeding. Zemstvo was to become an all-Russian institution. Local societies, on their own initiative, one after another, began to establish zemstvos, refusing feeders. In 1555, the government passed a law proclaiming the zemstvo as a general and obligatory form of local self-government. The voluntary refusal of the local worlds from the feeders was accompanied by the payment of a ransom - an amount previously paid in the form of feed and duties, and now in the form of quitrent, which went directly to the treasury. The competence of the zemstvo authorities included the trial of court (civil) cases and those criminal cases that were considered in the adversarial process (beatings, robbery, etc.). Sometimes more serious cases (arson, murder, robbery, etc.) were considered by zemstvo elders and kissers together with the labial elders. Their clients were Black Hundred peasants and townspeople. The zemstvo elected officials collected the rent, as well as other salary taxes. Zemstvo institutions of the XVI century. were not local governments, they were units of local government. The activities of these bodies were guaranteed and bound by mutual responsibility. In areas where the peasant population was not free, instead of zemstvo huts, management was carried out by city clerks and labial elders, who performed administrative, police and financial functions. Some of the financial functions were taken over by other local governments - customs and tavern elected heads and tselovalniks, who were in charge of collecting indirect taxes.

Military. In the 17th century local government was reorganized: zemstvo, labial huts and city clerks began to obey the governors appointed from the center, who assumed administrative, police and military functions. The governors relied on a specially created apparatus (prikazba) of clerks, bailiffs and clerks. Applicants for the position of governor turned to the tsar with a petition in which they asked to be appointed to the position of “feed”. The voivode was appointed by the Discharge Order, approved by the tsar and the Boyar Duma. The service life of the governor was calculated in one to three years, for the service he received a fiefdom and a local cash salary. The voivode headed the prikazhny, or moving out, hut, in which matters were decided on the management of the city or county entrusted to him. Office work in the hut was conducted by a clerk, its staff consisted of bailiffs, allotment workers, etc. Control over the activities of the voivode was carried out by an order that was in charge of this territory. The order prepared an order to the governor, which determined the terms of reference of the latter. The governors exercised control over the work of elected officials (starosts, kissers, heads), who collected direct and indirect taxes from the population, police supervision of the population, supervision of the court of labial and zemstvo elders, recruited service people (nobles and boyar children). The military reform was associated with the idea of compulsory noble service. The servants were paid in the form of local allotments. The nobility was

backbone of the armed forces. They included "combat serfs", who were brought to the service by the same nobles, militias from peasants and townspeople, Cossacks, archers and other professional military employees for hire. From the beginning of the 17th century regular units of the "new system" appear: reiters, gunners, dragoons. Foreigners join the Russian army

Financial. An important place was occupied by financial reform: already in the 30s. 16th century the entire monetary system was concentrated in the hands of the state. The state tax policy followed the path of unification of the financial system (the introduction of a "per-per-per-horse" system of taxation, i.e. the establishment of uniform criteria for taxing land, the number of livestock, etc.). At the end of the XVI century. an inventory of land was made and the number of salary units (“sokh”) was determined. Direct (“farmed farming”, “pyatina” from movable property, pit, food money) and indirect (customs, salt, tavern) taxes and fees were introduced. A single trade duty was established - 5% of the price of the goods.

The need for systematization and codification of numerous legal acts that had accumulated by the end of the 15th century resulted in the work of compiling the first all-Russian legal codes - the Sudebnik of 1497 (grand princely) and the Sudebnik of 1550 (royal). In our opinion, it is more expedient to consider both of these sources in comparison, since one of them only develops the principles and ideas of the other, supplements and corrects it, but at the same time makes it its basis. Already in the structure of the first Code of Laws, a certain systematization of the material is noted, however, the norms of substantive (civil and criminal) law have not yet been distinguished from the mass of articles related to procedural law, and there were a majority of them in the Code of Laws. The content of the Sudebnik of 1497 is divided into four parts: the first was made up of articles that regulated the activities of the central court (Art. 1-36). The same section also includes the norms of criminal law (Art. 9-14). The second part consisted of articles related to the organization and activities of local, regional courts (Articles 37-45), the third - articles on civil law and procedure (Articles 46-66) and the last (Articles 67-68) - additional articles, by judicial process. The most important sources of the Sudebnik of 1497 were charters, letters of commendation and judicial letters, and it was on their basis that a generalization of legal practice was made. Such charters continued to be issued by the supreme authority even after the publication of the Sudebnik and more than 50 years later, the newly accumulated legal material formed the basis of the new “royal” Sudebnik of 1550, which developed the provisions contained in the Sudebnik of 1497. The appearance of the second Sudebnik is associated with the activities of the Zemsky Sobor of 1549 -1550s (however, a number of scientists doubted that the Zemsky Sobor really took place at that time). In any case, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral took part in its discussion. The Sudebnik of 1497 and numerous letters formed the basis of the new Sudebnik; Ultimately, the latter contained more than a third of the new articles that were not included in the first Sudebnik. Some researchers (Vladimirsky-Budanov) believed that the Sudebnik of 1550 also included articles from a certain lost Sudebnik book. Vasily Ivanovich, father of the Terrible. The structure of the second Sudebnik almost completely repeats the structure of the first. In contrast, the Sudebnik of 1550 divides its material into articles or chapters (about 100) and does not use headings (which in the first Sudebnik often did not correspond to the content). The Second Code of Laws subjects the material to a more rigorous systematization: articles on civil law are concentrated in one section (Art. 76-97), the codifier specifically provides for the procedure for replenishing the Sudebnik

new legislative materials (Article 98), etc. There are more than 30 new articles in the Sudebnik of 1550 compared to the first Sudebnik, a third of the entire Sudebnik. The most important innovations included: a ban on the issuance of tarkhan letters and an indication of the withdrawal of letters already issued (Article 43); the proclamation of the principle of the law does not have retroactive effect, expressed in the prescription from now on to judge all cases according to the new Code of Laws (Article 97); the procedure for supplementing the Sudebnik with new materials (Article 98).

New provisions, clearly related to the state policy of Ivan IV, were also: the establishment of severe criminal penalties for judges for abuse of power and unjust sentences (the first Sudebnik spoke about this indistinctly); detailed regulation of the activities of elected elders and kissers in the court of governors, "courtmen" in the process (Art. 62, 68-70). The Sudebnik of 1550 specifies the types of punishments (the Sudebnik of 1497 was characterized by uncertainty in this respect) introducing, among other things, a new one - prison punishment. The new Sudebnik also introduces new elements of crime (for example, forgery of judicial acts, fraud, etc.) and new civil law institutions (the issue of the right to redeem patrimony has been elaborated in detail, the procedure for

conversion to servitude - art. 85, 76). At the same time, like the Sudebnik that preceded it, the Sudebnik of 1550 did not fully reflect the level reached by Russian law in the 16th century. Noting the trends towards state centralization and focusing on the development of the judicial process, Sudebnik paid little attention to the development of civil law, which was largely based on customary law and legal practice.

Sources. In the first all-Russian (“grand-princely”) Sudebnik of 1497, the norms of Russian Truth, customary law, judicial practice and Lithuanian legislation were applied. The main goals of the Sudebnik were: to extend the jurisdiction of the Grand Duke to the entire territory of a centralized state, to eliminate the legal sovereignties of individual lands, appanages and regions. By the time the Code of Laws was adopted, not all relations were regulated centrally. Establishing its own courts, the Moscow authorities for some time had to make compromises: along with the central judicial institutions and traveling courts, mixed (mixed) courts were created, consisting of representatives of the center and localities. If Russkaya Pravda was a set of customary norms and judicial precedents and a kind of manual for the search for moral and legal truth (“truth”), then the Code of Laws became, first of all, an “instruction” for organizing a trial (“court”).

In the Sudebnik of 1550 (“royal”), the range of issues regulated by the central government expanded, a clearly expressed social orientation of punishment was carried out, and the features of the search process were intensified. The regulation covered the spheres of criminal law and property relations. The estate principle of punishments was fixed and at the same time the circle of subjects of the crime was expanded - it included serfs: the legislator established the subjective signs of a crime in the law much more clearly and developed forms of guilt. Under the crime, the judges understood not only the infliction of material or moral damage, "insult". The protection of the existing social and legal order came to the fore. A crime is, first of all, a violation of established norms, regulations, as well as the will of the sovereign, which is inextricably linked with

the interests of the state.

Crime system. Thus, we can state the appearance in the law of the concept of a state crime, which was unknown to Russkaya Pravda. A group of malfeasance and crimes against the order of administration and court adjoins this type: a bribe (“promise”), making a deliberately unfair decision, embezzlement. The development of the monetary system gave rise to such a crime as counterfeiting (minting, forgery, falsification of money). These compositions, new for the legislator, were associated with the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus. In the group of crimes against a person, qualified types of murder (“state murderer”, robbery murderer), insults by action and word were distinguished. In the group of property crimes, much attention was paid to tatba, in which qualified types were also distinguished: church, “head” (kidnapping) tatba, robbery and robbery (open theft of property) that are not legally separated from each other.

Punishments. The system of punishments according to the lawsuit became more complicated, new goals of punishment were formed - intimidation and isolation of the criminal. The purpose of the authorities was to demonstrate their omnipotence over the accused, his soul and body. The highest measure of punishment is the death penalty, which could be abolished with a sovereign pardon. The execution procedure turned into a kind of performance, new types of executions and punishments appeared. Punishments became characterized by the uncertainty of their formulation, as well as cruelty (which served the purpose of intimidation). Corporal punishment was used as the main or additional form. The most common type was the "commercial execution", i.e. whipping in the marketplace. In the period of the judges, self-damaging punishments (cutting off the ears, tongue, branding) were just beginning to be introduced. In addition to intimidation, these types of punishments performed an important symbolic function - to single out the criminal from the general mass, to "designate" him. Fines and monetary penalties were often used as additional punishments. As an independent type, property sanction was applied in cases of insult and dishonor (Article 26 of the Code of Laws of 1550), as an additional one - in cases of malfeasance, violation of the rights of the owner, land disputes, etc. The amount of the fine varied depending on the severity of the act and the status of the victim.

Trial. There were two forms of litigation. The adversarial process was used in civil and less serious criminal cases. Witness testimony, an oath, ordeals (in the form of a duel) were widely used here. A wide range of procedural documents was present in the adversarial trial: the subpoena was carried out by means of a “petition”, “attached” or “urgent” letter. At the court session, the parties filed "petition petitions", declaring their presence. According to the resolved case, the court issued a “letter of law”, and thus terminated the claim. The second procedural form - the search process - was used in the most serious criminal cases (state crimes, murders, robbery, etc.), and their circle gradually expanded. The essence of the search ("inquisitorial") process was as follows: the case was initiated at the initiative of a state body or official, during the proceedings such evidence as being caught red-handed or one's own confession, for which torture was used, played a special role. As another new procedural measure, a "massive search" was used - a massive interrogation of the local population in order to identify eyewitnesses of the crime and carry out the procedure of "faking". In the search process, the case began with the issuance of a “letter of summons” or “letter of passage”, which contained an order to the authorities to detain and bring the accused to court. Judgment here was curtailed, interrogations, confrontations, and torture became the main forms of search. According to the verdict of the court, the “covered”, but not pleading guilty, criminal could be imprisoned for an indefinite period. The resolved case could not be retried in the same court. The case was transferred to the highest instance “on a report” or “on a complaint”, only an appellate review procedure was allowed (that is, the case was considered anew).

The judiciary and the organization of the court. In the centralized state system, the judiciary was not separated from the administrative apparatus. The state judicial bodies were the tsar, the Boyar Duma, worthy boyars, officials in charge of branch administrations, and orders. In the localities, judicial power belonged to governors and volostels, later - to the labial and zemstvo bodies, as well as governors.

The judicial system consisted of several instances: 1) the court of governors (volosts, governor), 2) the court of orders, 3) the court of the Boyar Duma or the Grand Duke. In parallel, church and patrimonial courts operated, and the practice of “mixed” courts was preserved. Until the 16th century judicial power was exercised by the princely court, whose jurisdiction at first instance extended to the territory of the princely domain and persons who had tarkhan letters (i.e., those who had the privilege of courting the prince). The circle of such persons gradually narrowed, from the middle of the 17th century. even criminal punishment is introduced for direct appeal to the king with a request for a trial. The tsar considered cases only in cases of abuse of judges, refusal to consider the case in an order or on appeal (gossiping). The tsar could entrust the consideration of cases to worthy boyars and other officials of the palace administration. From the 15th century The Boyar Duma became an independent judicial body, combining these functions with managerial ones. As a court of first instance, the Duma considered the cases of its members, clerks, local judges, and resolved disputes about localism. "According to the report" there were cases coming from the vicegerent and command courts. In this case, the Duma acted as a court of second instance. The Duma itself could go to the sovereign with a "report", asking for clarification and a final resolution of the matter. The sentences considered by the Duma, coming from the orders, were summarized in a memorandum, which became a legislative act and was called the “new decree article”. With the increasing role of written legal proceedings, the role of clerks who headed the orders increased (since the 16th century, duma clerks were introduced into the Duma, who headed the Discharge, Posolsky, Local orders and the Order of the Kazan Palace). Since the 17th century As part of the Boyar Duma, a special judicial department (the Punishment Chamber) is formed. As a judicial instance, orders stood out already at the end of the 15th century, and from the middle of the 16th century. they became the main form of the central court. Judges were assigned to certain orders. Court cases were to be decided unanimously, and in the absence of such, they were reported to the sovereign. Punishment was envisaged both for judges who refused to accept a complaint, and for complainants who filed an illegal complaint or in violation of the established procedure.

Proof of. The legislative registration of the search form of the process, for the first time we find in the text of the Sudebnik of 1497. The same cases could be considered both by the “court” and the “search”. The choice of the form of the process depended on the personality of the accused. Therefore, both in the adversarial and in the search process, the same types of evidence were used: the accused’s own confession, testimonies, searches or inquiry through roundabout people, red-handed, judicial duel, oath and written acts. But the “search”, as the main procedural action aimed at clarifying the circumstances of the case, used torture. The "court" resorted to an oath for the same purposes.

This type of forensic evidence, such as the defendant's own confession, is given very little attention in legislative acts. In the Sudebnik of 1550, only one article mentions him. 25, and even then in passing. It can be seen from the text of the letters of right that the confession given in court, in the presence of judges, had the full force of forensic evidence. Only in this case did the confession become the basis for a judgment. Sometimes the confession was made in the presence of clerics who took the accused and witnesses to the oath, as it was often done before the kissing of the cross. Another means of obtaining a confession was a simple interrogation - "questioning", which always preceded torture. Note that torture was used even when the accused had already confessed to the crime.

Sources distinguish between a full confession, when the defendant admitted all the charges brought against him, and incomplete confession, when he admitted only a part of them. In the same article 25 of the Sudebnik we read: “And which the seeker will seek battle and robbery, and the defendant will say that he beat, and not robbed: and accuse the defendant of the battle ... and the court and the truth are in robbery, but do not blame everything.”

If recognition could not be achieved, then in the competitive form of the process, as a rule, they resorted to the court of God - a duel or an oath.

Testimony was one of the most reliable means of establishing the truth. However, the former strength of this type of evidence in the period under review has somewhat lost its significance. Now the law was allowed to bring some witnesses against others. The person against whom the testimony was made could call the witness to the field or demand an oath.

As can be seen from the sources, the testimony of some witnesses had undeniable probative value. These are the testimonies of the boyars, clerks and clerks, the testimonies of witnesses of the "general exile", i.e. the testimony of one or more persons referred to by both parties, as well as the testimony of "search people" obtained during the general search. Moreover, the legislator gave a clear preference to the “common link”. Only eyewitnesses were recognized as witnesses, and not those who know the case “by ear”. This rule is found in both Code of Laws and the Cathedral Code. A free position was not a mandatory condition for witness testimony. Slaves could be used as witnesses. However, freed serfs could not testify against their former masters. Witnesses could even be relatives of the parties. It was only forbidden to involve the wives of opposite sides to testify.

Persons who had previously been convicted of perjury were not allowed to testify. A wife could not testify against her husband, and children against their parents. Persons who were in friendly or, conversely, in hostile relations with the party could not give evidence. Consequently, the withdrawal of witnesses was also allowed, for example, "out of unfriendliness." Disqualification of witnesses was allowed only if the judges were completely sure of its fairness. The Code contains a whole list of persons who could not be removed.

In the absence of witnesses, contradictory testimonies, and also when it was impossible to conduct a search (for example, if the defendant was a foreigner), an oath could be used as judicial evidence. However, in the legislative acts of the Moscow period, the desire to limit its application is quite clearly traced. Thus, no one was allowed to take the oath more than three times in his life. Persons convicted of perjury could not swear an oath. When appointing an oath, the age of the swearer was also taken into account. True, there are discrepancies in the sources on this matter. So, according to one letter, persons under the age of 12 could not swear. When caught red-handed, the guilt was considered proven and no other evidence was required. Actively used in criminal proceedings was a "gross search" - the interrogation of all or most of the inhabitants of a certain area about a crime or criminals. Moreover, the data of the general search could replace both red-handed and confession as evidence. In the adversarial process on property and serf affairs, written evidence was of particular importance.

25 Estate system in Russia in the 15th-17th centuries: feudal aristocracy, service estates, legal categories of the peasantry. The ruling class was clearly divided into the feudal aristocracy - the boyars and the service class - the nobles. In the middle of the XVI century. the first attempt to legally equate the patrimony with the estate takes place: a single order of state (military) service is established. From a certain size of land (regardless of their type - estates or estates), their owners were obliged to put up the same number of equipped and armed people. At the same time, the rights of estate owners are expanding: permission is given to exchange an estate for a fiefdom, to transfer an estate as a dowry, to inherit estates, from the 17th century. estates can be transformed into estates by royal decree. The consolidation of the feudal class was accompanied by the consolidation of its privileges: the monopoly right to own land, exemption from duties, advantages in the judicial process and the right to hold bureaucratic positions.

Grand Duke - the largest feudal lord, who owned the palace and black-moss lands. The peasants of the palace lands carried dues or corvee. The peasants of the black-mossed lands bore a tax, duties. Boyars - large landowners, votchinniki. They became the main category of the ruling class of feudal lords. They had great rights to the land and the peasants who lived on it: they transferred the land by inheritance, alienated it, changed it. In their hands was the collection of taxes. They had the right to change the overlord-lord. They were members of the feudal council under the prince, occupied the most important positions in the system of government, and had privileges in court. Service people - owned land on a local right, i.e. for service and for the duration of service. They could not alienate lands, pass them on by inheritance, they were not included in the Boyar Duma, they did not receive the highest ranks. Peasants were subdivided into: chernososhnye (sovereign), palace (prince and his family) and privately owned. Chernososhnye paid taxes, carried natural duties. Together with the land they were transferred, complained to the feudal lords. Private owners had a land allotment from their feudal lords, for which land owners received rent or dues. The first legal act in the enslavement of the peasants was Art. 57 of the Sudebnik of 1497, which established the rule of St. George's Day (A definite and very limited transition period, payment of the "elderly"). This provision was developed in the Sudebnik of 1550. Since 1581, "reserved summers" were introduced, during which even the established transition of peasants was prohibited. Compiled in the 50s - 90s. 16th century scribe books became a documentary basis in the process of attaching peasants from the end of the 16th century. Decrees on "lesson years" began to be issued, setting the time limits for the investigation and return of fugitive peasants (5-15 years). The final act of the process of enslavement was the Council Code of 1649, which abolished the "lesson years" and established the perpetuity of the investigation. The law defined punishments for harborers of fugitive peasants and extended the rule of attachment to all categories of peasants. Attachment developed in two ways: non-economic and economic (bondage). In the XNUMXth century There were two main categories of peasants: old-timers and newcomers. The former ran their household and carried out their duties in full, forming the basis of the feudal economy. The feudal lord sought to secure them for himself, to prevent the transition to another owner. The latter, as new arrivals, could not fully bear the burden of duties and enjoyed certain benefits, received loans and credits. Their dependence on the owner was debt, bondage. According to the form of dependence, a peasant could be a ladle (work for half the harvest) or a silversmith (work for interest). Non-economic dependence was manifested most in its purest form in the institution of servility. The latter has changed significantly since the time of Russkaya Pravda: the sources of servitude are limited (serfdom in the city keykeeping is canceled, it is forbidden to enslave "boyar children"), cases of letting serfs into the wild become more frequent. The law delimited entry into servitude (self-sale, housekeeping) from entry into bondage. The development of bonded servitude (unlike full bonded serfs could not be passed on by will, their children did not become serfs) led to the equalization of the status of serfs with serfs.

26 Estate-representative monarchy in Russia. The creation of a centralized Russian state contributed to strengthening the position of the ruling class of feudal lords. In the XVI-XVII centuries. the feudal lords gradually united into a single estate, the general enslavement of the peasants was completed. In the middle of the XVI century. ongoing socio-economic and political processes led to a change in the form of government of the Russian state in estate-representative monarchy, which was expressed, first of all, in the convocation of class-representative bodies - zemstvo cathedrals. The estate-representative monarchy existed in Russia until the second half of the 17th century, when it was replaced by a new form of government - absolute monarchy. Since 1547. (Ivan IV) the head of state began to be called king. The title change pursued the following political goals: strengthening the power of the monarch and eliminating the basis for claims to the throne by the former appanage princes, since the title of king was inherited. At the end of the XVI century. there was a procedure for the election (approval) of the king at the Zemsky Sobor. The king, as the head of state, had great powers in the administrative, legislative and judicial spheres. In his activities, he relied on the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobors. In the middle of the XVI century. Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible judicial, zemstvo and military reforms, aimed at weakening the power of the Boyar Duma and strengthening the state. In 1549 was established Chosen Council, members of which were trustees appointed by the king. The centralization of the state contributed to oprichnina. Its social support was the petty service nobility, who tried to seize the lands of the princely-boyar aristocracy and strengthen their political influence. ^ Boyar Duma formally retained its former position. It was a permanent body endowed with legislative powers and deciding, together with the king, all the most important issues. The Boyar Duma included boyars, former appanage princes, okolnichy, duma nobles, duma clerks and representatives of the urban population. Although the social composition of the Duma changed in the direction of increasing the representation of the nobility, it continued to be an organ of the boyar aristocracy. A special place in the system of public administration was occupied by land cathedrals. They convened from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. Their convocation was announced by a special royal charter. Zemsky Sobors included Boyar Duma. consecrated cathedral(the highest collegiate body of the Orthodox Church) and elected representatives from the nobility and the urban population. The contradictions that existed between them contributed to the strengthening of the power of the king. Zemsky Sobors resolved the main issues of state life: the election or approval of the tsar, the adoption of legislative acts, the introduction of new taxes, the declaration of war, issues of foreign and domestic policy, etc. Issues were discussed by class, but decisions were to be made by the entire composition of the Council.

The Russian centralized state took shape in XIV-XVI centuries

Groups of prerequisites for the formation of a Russian centralized state.

3. Political background, which in turn are subdivided into internal and external ones:

1) domestic: in the XIV-XVI centuries. significantly increases and expands the power of the Moscow principality. His princes are building a state apparatus to strengthen their power;

2) foreign policy: the main foreign policy task of Russia was the need to overthrow the Tatar-Mongol yoke, which hampered the development of the Russian state. The restoration of the independence of Russia required a general unification against a single enemy: the Mongols - from the south, Lithuania and the Swedes - from the west.

The unification of Russia took place around Moscow.

The reasons for the rise of Moscow are:

1) good geographical and economic position;

2) Moscow was independent in foreign policy, it did not gravitate towards either Lithuania or the Horde, therefore it became the center of the national liberation struggle;

3) Moscow's support from the largest Russian cities (Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, etc.);

4) Moscow - the center of Orthodoxy in Russia;

5) the absence of internal enmity among the princes of the Moscow house.

Merging Features:

1) the unification of Russian lands took place not in the conditions of late feudalism, as in Europe, but in the conditions of its heyday;

2) the basis for unification in Russia was the union of Moscow princes, and in Europe - the urban bourgeoisie;

3) Russia united initially for political reasons, and then for economic ones, while the European states - primarily for economic ones.

Now the specific princes were controlled by proteges from Moscow. The Moscow prince becomes the supreme judge, he considers especially important cases.

The Moscow principality creates a new class for the first time nobles(service people), they were soldiers of the Grand Duke, who were awarded land on the terms of service.

Overcoming feudal fragmentation and the creation of centralized states is a natural process of the development of feudalism, which was based primarily on socio-economic factors:

the growth of feudal landownership and the inclusion of the feudal economy in trade relations;

the emergence of new and strengthening of old cities - centers of trade and crafts;

expansion of economic ties and commodity-money relations.

Changes in the socio-economic order inevitably led to more intensive exploitation of the peasants and their enslavement. The aggravation of the class struggle demanded that the ruling classes carry out political reforms that could help consolidate their power.

The strengthening of economic ties, as well as the aggravation of the class struggle, required the organization of administration, courts, and the collection of taxes; and new ones: the creation of roads, postal services, etc. A politically important moment in the process of centralization could be the need for protection from external enemies.

The process of creating the Russian neutralized state is largely identical to the general laws of the historical development of the feudal state, but it also had its own characteristics.

The prerequisites for the elimination of feudal fragmentation in Russia were outlined as early as the 13th century, especially in the northeast, in the Vladimir principality. However, the further development of the Russian lands was interrupted by the Mongol conquest, which caused great damage to the Russian people and significantly slowed down their progress. Only in the 14th century did the Russian principalities begin to gradually revive: agricultural production was restored, cities were rebuilt, new trade and craft centers arose, and economic ties were strengthened. Great importance was acquired by Moscow, the Moscow principality, the territory . which has been constantly (starting from the 111th century) expanded.

The process of formation of a unified Russian state was expressed, firstly, in unification of territories previously independent states-principalities into one - the Grand Duchy of Moscow; and secondly, in changing the very nature of statehood, in the transformation of the political organization of society.

The unification of the lands around Moscow and the Moscow principality begins at the end of the 13th century. and ends at the end of the 15th century. - the beginning of the XVI century. At this time, the Novgorod Republic and Pskov, the Ryazan Principality, Smolensk and others were annexed to Moscow. Ivan III and his son Vasily III - the Grand Dukes of Moscow - began to call themselves "sovereigns of all Russia."

As the unified state was formed, its character also changed. Determined in the second half of the XV century. - the beginning of the XVI century. the processes of changing the political system, however, were not completed simultaneously with the unification of the lands of the Russian state. The political apparatus of the centralized state was fully formed only in the second half of the 16th century. At the end of the XV century. The first Code of Laws was adopted in 1497.

Despite the regularities of the process of formation of centralized states common to a number of countries, this process in Russia had some significant features. The main feature was that Russia at that time not only had not yet entered that stage of late feudalism, in which signs of its future decomposition were already outlined, but the progressive development and strengthening of the feudal mode of production, its spread in breadth and depth, continued in it. The emergence of a centralized state in Russia was associated with the growth and strengthening of serfdom throughout the country. The leading social force in the process of forming a unified Russian state was the class of landowners (at an earlier stage, mainly the boyars, at a later stage, the nobility).

The second feature of the process of formation of a centralized state in Russia was the weaker development of cities in comparison with the countries of Western Europe. The country retained mainly agrarian appearance and the role of the city in its economy was less noticeable than in the West. The level of development of cities in Russia in the XV century. was lower than the cities of Western Europe. There are many reasons for this: the incompleteness of the process of feudalization throughout the country, and the slowdown in economic development under the conditions of the Tatar-Mongolian yoke, and isolation from sea trade routes, etc. And, nevertheless, without clarifying the participation of the city and townspeople in the process formation of the Russian centralized state, this process cannot be understood.

The third feature of the process of formation of the Russian centralized state was the active influence on this process by the political superstructure. This impact is in turn due to the following three reasons:

1) a relatively weak level of economic ties between different regions of a vast country;

2) the progressive development of serfdom, which required the intervention of a strong government in order to help the ruling class keep the enslaved and enslaved masses in subjection;

3) an external danger that threatened Russia from several sides (from the Golden Horde and from the Tatar khanates that arose as a result of its collapse, from the Lithuanian state, the Livonian Order and Sweden) and required the active development of the armed forces.

Prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized state in the field of agrarian relations

Feudal fragmentation was a huge brake on the development of agriculture. In chronicles there is information about crop failures, which led to an increase in the price of bread, and in some cases to a terrible famine. In them we see that the causes of famine lie not only in natural phenomena, on which agriculture depends, not only in the low level of agricultural technology, but also in the general conditions of the socio-economic and political development of Russia.

In an environment of economic isolation of individual Russian lands, aggravated by the presence of political partitions between them, in the event of a crop failure in any part of Russia, its population sometimes found itself on the verge of extinction. The arrival of grain from other parts of the country was hampered by a number of general reasons (the economic isolation of the agricultural regions, the absence of permanent ties between them, the presence of customs borders between the principalities, the policy of local princes, hostile to their neighbors) and the specific conditions of the moment (feudal wars, raids by Tatar-Mongolian military detachments, attacks by Lithuanian feudal lords and German knights, etc.).

The population had a particularly bad time when famine struck a significant territory of Russia. The prospect of starvation forced the population to leave their homes and flee to neighboring, and even remote areas in search of food. In addition, the wealthy part of the population (feudal lords, large merchants) began to buy up and resell grain at inflated prices. Masses of people perished. The chronicles paint an extremely revealing and memorable picture in this regard, describing the famine of 1422. It touched the entire Russian land and lasted three years: “for the multiplication of our sins, for God’s forgiveness, the whole Russian land was glad for 3 years” “Pskov Chronicles” , issue. 2. - M., 1955. p. 38-39..

Feudal wars were a huge obstacle to the normal development of agriculture, since during these wars crop areas were barbarously destroyed. In 1372, when Lithuanian troops attacked Russia in alliance with the Prince of Tver Mikhail Alexandrovich, the latter took the city of Dmitrov, the Lithuanian army approached Pereyaslavl, “the settlement near the city and the church and the village burned, and ... the zhita ravish ... » Electronic resource: http://krotov.info/acts/16/possevino/tipograf2.html Describing the campaign of the Moscow troops against Tver in 1375, the chronicler says that they “made all the volosts of Tver empty... but the zhita was ruined. ..” Electronic resource: http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/chrons/tipograf.htm

In 1465 there was a strife between Novgorod and Pskov. The Pskovians took possession of the lands of the Novgorod archdiocese (“taking away the land and water of the sovereign”). The Novgorod government entered into an alliance with the Livonian Order. Then an embassy was sent from Pskov to Novgorod, which stated that the Pskov government was returning the lands and water taken from the archbishop, but as for the collected bread, it would not be returned.

Agriculture was severely damaged by the invasions of the Tatar-Mongol feudal lords both by the fact that their hordes trampled and burned the fields with grain crops, and by the fact that they robbed the Russian peasants, taking all their grain from them, and by the fact that as a result of these invasions, normal trade was violated. connections between Russian lands. So, in the year of Edigei's invasion of Russia, there “there was a great price for every life”, “many Christians were emaciated from hunger”, and bread sellers (“grain sellers”) got rich PSRL, vol. XVIII. - M., 2007. p. 159..

Damage to agriculture in the Pskov and Novgorod lands was inflicted by the raids of the Livonian knights. In 1496, the German spy Chukhno, “closed” to Pskov, set fire to the Kremlin (“Krom”), “and a lot of crates burned down, and a lot of rust, and dresses.” After the fire was stopped, "and burnt rye was poured into small gates on the Pskov River" Electronic resource: http://www.nortfort.ru/pskov/foto_29.html.

It can be seen from chronicle monuments that even in good harvest years, the fruits of the harvest could not be sold because of the wars that began at that time. Moreover, in wartime, crops perished under the hooves of the horses of their own Russian soldiers. In 1403, a lot of bread was born in the Pskov land. Enough bread was collected in 1404. But military complications occurred near Pskov with the Livonian knights, and in 1403 the Pskovites set out on a campaign, grassing bread on the vine on their own territory: they went “to the New Town (German) and exterminated ( "guts") living on their own land" Electronic resource: http://www.pskovcity.ru/his_let2.htm.

So, in the XIV-XV centuries. in the agriculture of Russia, the inhibitory influence of political fragmentation on the development of productive forces was already clearly manifested. This influence had a particularly painful effect on the peasant economy, but it also strongly affected the feudal lords: both economically (their tendency to increase rent was objectively limited) and socially (class antagonisms became aggravated), but it can be considered a positive moment that all these negative phenomena contributed to a certain cohesion of the population in the struggle for survival in the most difficult historical situation - this was one of the first steps towards unification.

If overcoming political fragmentation on the basis of the feudal mode of production became a condition for a further rise in the productive forces in agriculture, then in order to bring Russia out of the state of fragmentation, a certain level of productive forces in agriculture was required in turn. This necessary level was achieved not so much due to changes in the field of agricultural implements, but as a result of the systematic development by the Russian peasantry for arable farming (using a three-field crop rotation system) of previously untouched or uncultivated lands for a long time.

In the villages, marketable bread was still produced to a very weak extent. The country lived in a subsistence economy. But the bread that came from scattered in different counties, belonging to large landowners (especially monasteries) sat in the centers of the owner's economy as quitrent, was the object of sometimes quite complex and lengthy transportation. Rent in products contributed to the establishment of links between different regions and the center of Russia, between villages within different regions. And at the same time, the expansion of these ties was hindered by the system of feudal fragmentation, permanent outposts and tombs. In the archives of various monasteries, princely charters were preserved, with which, at the request of the monastic authorities, the princes allowed duty-free transportation of dues bread from monastic villages.

From the letters of the Prince of Tver Mikhail Borisovich (1461-1485) it can be seen that from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, two pavozkas and two boats were annually sent for bread and butter to the monastery villages of Priluki and Priseki, Uglich district. From there, they brought all sorts of supplies to the monastery on wagons, drove cattle. By order of the prince of Tver, his collectors and other tax collectors were not supposed to collect myta and other duties from monastic ships, wagons, and peasants. Peasants from the villages and suburbs of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery “with live or animal” or with some other “goods” passed through the Kozlovsky myt in the Serebozhsky volost of the Dmitrovsky district. Letter of Ivan III 1467-1474 exempted them from paying myta and other duties.

According to the information available in the letter of Grand Duke Ivan III to the governor of Yuryev in 1493, it is clear that from the Suzdal village of Shukhobalova, which belonged to the same monastery, “zhito” was delivered to the monastery. The letter says that the Suzdal governor took for the transportation of the monastery "zhit" on 154 carts washed in the amount of one and a half rubles and nine money. The prince ordered that this amount be returned to the monastery and ordered that in the future, "if they bring their bread to them from their village from the monastery from Shukhobalov," the governor would not take "any duties" from the monastery's clerks. Judging by the letters of the Dmitrovsky Prince Yuri Ivanovich in 1504 and the Grand Duke Ivan III of Moscow in 1505, “zhito” from Dmitrov villages and villages was annually brought to the Simonov Monastery duty-free on one hundred carts.

So, even in the conditions of natural economy between the centers of feudal possessions and individual villages in different lands as agricultural centers there was constant communication, which prepared the conditions for political unification on the feudal basis of the Russian lands.

Of essential importance in the unification of Russian lands was the settlement by peasants of wastelands and forest areas cleared for arable land. It should be emphasized that this process involves the disaggregation of large residential settlements and the individualization of agricultural production. On empty lands and forest thickets, as a rule, one-yard - two-yard repairs and villages are created, a kind of farmstead, evicted from large villages (privately owned or black-mowed). But the emergence of such farms, inevitable in the course of the colonization process, does not mean a break in their economic, administrative, cultural and everyday ties with the villages that gave birth to them. On the contrary, it means the expansion of the sphere of influence of the "old" villages, as centers of economy and administration within the limits of private estates or state black land ownership. Despite the struggle (sometimes ruinous for the economy) for the newly settled lands between different feudal lords, between the feudal lords and black-mowed peasants, an increase in the total area of arable land exploited by peasant labor, and the fouling of individual villages with an increasing number of villages and repairs in continuously increasing circles, sometimes closing and entering each other, marked that process in the field of agriculture, without which the growth of material prerequisites for centralization was unthinkable.

Feudalism spread in breadth and depth. The role of land as a means of production increased, its value increased, and the struggle for it intensified. In conditions of fragmentation, it was convenient for strong landowners to increase their estates at the expense of weaker ones, and for both to strengthen their economic positions on the basis of peasant labor and economy. But for the class of feudal lords as a whole (for all the contradictory interests of its individual groups), the further strengthening of the feudal basis on the scale achieved by the development of land ownership was possible within the framework of a feudal feudal state.

On the rise in the XIV-XV centuries. The value of land in connection with the development of feudal ownership of it can also be judged by the fact that land at that time was an object of sale and large landowners (primarily monasteries) spent significant sums of money on it.

So, from the bills of sale that have come down to us from the archive of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, it can be seen that out of 49 land purchases made by the monastery authorities (as well as some secular patrimonial owners, whose lands subsequently fell into the monastery) at the end of the 14th and in the first half of the 15th century, one was made for 300 rubles, one for 90 rubles; four - for amounts from 30 to 40 rubles, 7 - for amounts from 20 to 30 rubles, 14 - for amounts from 10 to 20 rubles, 16 - for amounts from one to 10 rubles each; one - for an amount below the ruble. The cost of five land plots is calculated per “white” Electronic resource: http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/index.php?col=4&gotomanuscript=0. In almost every bill of sale there is an indication of "refills", or additions, to the amount of money (usually in the form of some kind of pet).

Many princely and boyar families in the XV-XVI centuries. suffered economic collapse, their representatives were forced to incur debts, mortgage and sell their estates to monasteries. Due to the collapse of the land holdings of individual boyar families, the land ownership of the monasteries grew. From this, conclusions were drawn about the greater viability, flexibility and adaptability to commodity-market relations of the monastic economy in comparison with the boyar economy. But this conclusion cannot be proved theoretically and cannot be substantiated by concrete facts. The point, obviously, is something else. For the time being, renouncing the policy of the grand ducal power in relation to the boyars of individual feudal centers (the defeat of the boyar opposition by the Moscow princes in a number of principalities, etc.) and remaining only in the sphere of objective processes of a socio-economic nature, it must be said that in the XIV-XV centuries. there were more favorable conditions for the development of church and monastic landownership than for the development of boyar landownership. This is extraterritoriality, the unconnectedness of the right to dispose of church and monastic estates on the part of their owners with those legal norms that bound the possibility of alienating boyar estates. Therefore, church institutions and monasteries had more flexible (than the boyars) means for rounding up their estates through the exchange of land and other transactions. While the needs of the boyars for money were increasing due to the new conditions in which they were placed with the formation of a centralized Russian state, and money could be obtained by selling or mortgaging the land, the church was just the owner of the money. The sources of monetary savings for spiritual feudal lords were deposits "to their liking", usury, and trade. The funds accumulated by the church went to a large extent to increase land wealth, and, fighting for better conditions for expanding these wealth, the church supported the practice that was aimed at eliminating state fragmentation.

One of the most important prerequisites for the formation of a centralized state in the sphere of agrarian relations was the development during the XIV-XV centuries. in North-Eastern Russia conditional land tenure. We have received information about the distribution of land by the Moscow princes to their servants under the condition that they perform military affairs or duties in the princely palace economy. The earliest news of this kind was preserved in the spiritual letter of Ivan Kalita around 1339, in which we read: not to have to serve as my child, to take away the village” Electronic resource: http://www.sedmitza.ru/text/443472.html. In all likelihood, this act of the Grand Duke of Moscow should be considered in terms of his measures aimed at strengthening the political influence of the Moscow principality within the Rostov land.

In the spiritual letter of Ivan III of 1504, there is the following paragraph: “And which villages and villages in Novgorod in Nizhny are for my princes, and for the boyars, and for the children of the boyars, for whomever you wake, and then all to my son Vasily” Electronic resource: http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/DG/ivan3.htm.

Based on a comparison of the above data, three conclusions can be drawn: 1) in the second half of the 15th century, during the period of the most intensive process of the formation of the Russian centralized state, the grand-ducal “grants” of lands for conditional holding by the boyars and boyar children acquire a wider character than before; 2) these "awards" are designed to strengthen the socio-economic base of the Moscow grand ducal power in those once fragmented feudal centers, on the basis of which a single state is being formed; 3) these "grants" to a large extent pursue the goal of economic development of the land area, the rise of vacant land, i.e., objectively, they were supposed to promote the growth of productive forces in agriculture on the basis of strengthening serfdom.

Conditional land holdings were also common in specific principalities. According to the spiritual charter of the Serpukhov and Borovsk prince Vladimir Andreevich around 1401-1402, the land ownership of his "servants under the court" was due to the performance of their service to the prince. If they stopped serving, they were also deprived of the land transferred to them by the prince: “And whoever comes out of the inheritance of my children and my princess is deprived of the land, and their land to my son, whose inheritance will be” Electronic resource: http://www.is -tok.ru/publ/4-1-0-128.

The further development of feudal landownership was associated with the spread in the third quarter of the 15th century. local system. Its socio-economic and political premises remain the same as those of earlier conditional holdings. This is the use of the largest possible land area (including deposits and virgin lands, as well as the confiscated "residential" possessions of the boyars and monasteries) to provide for the grand ducal servants, who are forming into a close-knit group of the ruling class - the nobility, the strengthening of serfdom. But the estate system arises at that stage in the process of folding a centralized state, when the unification of the main Russian principalities and regions ends (despite the resistance of some local feudal lords), the state apparatus is being restructured, and it becomes necessary to create a stronghold of grand ducal power in the person of the nobles in the once independent feudal centers. who receive land from it in conditional possession and on this basis are firmly connected with it.

Legally, the foundations of the local system were developed in the Sudebnik of 1497 (Articles 62-63). Sudebnik proceeds from the division of all the lands of the Russian state into two categories: 1) grand ducal (black and local); 2) not grand-ducal (monastic and boyar). Objectively, this meant the recognition of all lands in feudal ownership (either the state or individual estates and church corporations). This meant, further, the allocation of a special grand ducal land fund (from among the black lands, confiscated boyar and monastic lands, etc.) for the use of the nobles, while earlier the grand dukes resorted to the practice of endowing their servants with lands, the ownership of which was retained for church corporations. It is no coincidence that now, with the emergence of the local system, the state is making secularization attempts in order to increase the grand ducal land fund as a source of allocation, while earlier church property was such a source. Finally, it is indicative that the state legally equates the landed estates with the black lands, regarding both of them as grand-princely lands. What can this mean objectively, if not a trend towards legal formalization in the conditions of the emerging centralized state of serfdom, one of the ways of growth of which is the transfer of black lands to the landowners?

The 15th century is characterized by the intensive development of various forms of conditional land tenure, which prepared the emergence of the estate system at the end of the century. Here are some examples.

The term "old-timers" stood out in the process of developing feudal ownership of land and the enslavement of the peasants at a time when the bulk of the feudally dependent population was already made up of peasants, economically firmly connected with the land received from the feudal lords, and labor in their own economy and the landowner's economy ensured that he received surplus product. “People” called up from other principalities, “repaid”, serfs gradually joined and merged with the number of peasants-old-timers. In a number of princely letters of commendation of the beginning of the 16th century. there is no longer this distinction of old-timers, newcomers, “repaid people”, it is simply about “Christians”. This characterizes the general line of historical development in the direction of the merging of certain categories of the rural population into a single serf mass.

When studying the question of the formation of a Russian centralized state, it would be very important to pay attention to the ideology of the Russian peasantry, as such a social force that played a paramount role in the social development of that time. For example, the black land is considered by the peasants as the land of the grand princes. Four terms are used by black peasants to denote the legal foundations on which this type of land ownership is based: 1) the land of the Grand Duke, 2) black (i.e., non-privately owned), 3) taxable (i.e., taxed by the sovereign tax), 4) volost or stanovaya (i.e., administratively subordinate to representatives of the princely administration, standing above the elected peasant authorities, and not to patrimonial clerks).

During the XIV-XV centuries. as a result of the development by labor of the Russian peasantry for plowed agriculture of wastelands and forests, significant successes were achieved in agriculture. A significant complex of old arable lands with a stable composition of the population was formed. A large number of villages and villages appeared, overgrown from different sides with newly emerging repairs around them. Through these villages, as centers of agricultural culture, new communication routes began to be laid, roads connecting individual regions with each other. With the growth of productive forces, the object of feudal ownership of land became more and more not wastelands, but inhabited lands. The feudal lords, rounding their possessions, sought to create compact land masses. The value of land increased. All this speaks of the spread in breadth and depth of feudal relations. The development of feudal land ownership destroyed the existing system of political fragmentation. Feudal landownership, spreading, did not take into account the boundaries of individual principalities. The monastic and church estates grew especially rapidly, absorbing the black lands. Conditional landownership became widespread, on the basis of which a new form of feudal ownership of land developed - the estate system. Significant changes have taken place in the field of patrimonial land tenure. A number of estate owners lost the right to dispose of their lands. Serving landlords and estates from among the boyars, the children of the boyars, the nobles, became the backbone of the emerging centralized state.

During the XV century. the boundaries between the individual ranks of the feudally dependent peasantry were blurred. At the same time, the feudal lords attacked the peasants. The right of the peasant transition was embarrassed. Prerequisites were created for the development of serfdom throughout the state. There was a rapprochement between peasants and serfs, which was one of the conditions for the growth of serf relations. The aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside forced the feudal lords to strengthen the apparatus of coercion. State centralization was supposed to contribute to this.

Russian centralized state

Chronology

1276 - 1303 Reign of Daniil Alexandrovich. Formation of the Moscow principality.
1325 - 1340 Reign of Ivan Danilovich Kalita.
1462 - 1505 Reign of Ivan III Vasilyevich.
1480 “Standing” on the Ugra River, liberation of Russian lands from the Golden Horde yoke.

Rise of Moscow

The rulers of the principalities that entered into rivalry with Moscow, not possessing sufficient forces of their own, were forced to seek support in the Horde or Lithuania. Therefore, the struggle of the Moscow princes against them acquired the character of an integral part of the national liberation struggle and received the support of both the influential church and the population interested in the state unification of the country.

From the end of the 60s. 14th century a long struggle began between the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich (1359 - 1389) and the creative prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, who entered into an alliance with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Olgerd.

By the time of the reign of Dmitry Ivanovich, the Golden Horde entered a period of weakening and protracted strife between the feudal nobility. Relations between the Horde and the Russian principalities became more and more tense. At the end of the 70s. Mamai came to power in the Horde, who, having stopped the disintegration of the Horde, began preparations for a campaign against Russia. The struggle to overthrow the yoke and ensure security from external aggression became the most important condition for the completion of the state-political unification of Russia begun by Moscow.

In the summer of 1380, having gathered almost all the forces of the Horde, which also included detachments of mercenaries from the Genoese colonies in the Crimea and the vassal Horde peoples of the North Caucasus and the Volga region, Mamai went to the southern borders of the Ryazan principality, where he began to expect the approach of the troops of the Lithuanian prince Jagiello and Oleg Ryazansky. The terrible threat looming over Russia raised the entire Russian people to fight against the invaders. In a short time, regiments and militias from peasants and artisans from almost all Russian lands and principalities gathered in Moscow.

On September 8, 1380, the Battle of Kulikovo took place- one of the largest battles of the Middle Ages, which decided the fate of states and peoples

Battle of Kulikovo

This battle showed the power and strength of Moscow as a political and economic center - the organizer of the struggle to overthrow the Golden Horde yoke and unite the Russian lands. Thanks to the Battle of Kulikovo, the amount of tribute was reduced. In the Horde, the political supremacy of Moscow among the rest of the Russian lands was finally recognized. For personal bravery in battle and military merits, Dmitry received the nickname Donskoy.

Before his death, Dmitry Donskoy transferred the great reign of Vladimir to his son Vasily I (1389 - 1425), no longer asking for the right to a label in the Horde.

Completion of the unification of Russian lands

At the end of the fourteenth century in the Moscow principality, several specific possessions were formed that belonged to the sons of Dmitry Donskoy. After the death of Vasily I in 1425, his sons Vasily II and Yuri (the youngest son of Dmitry Donskoy) began the struggle for the grand ducal throne, and after the death of Yuri, his sons Vasily Kosoy and Dmitry Shemyaka. It was a real medieval struggle for the throne, when blinding, poisoning, conspiracies and deceptions were used (blinded by opponents, Vasily II was nicknamed the Dark One). In fact, it was the largest clash between supporters and opponents of centralization. As a result, according to the figurative expression of V.O. Klyuchevsky "under the noise of specific princely quarrels and Tatar pogroms, the society supported Vasily the Dark". The completion of the process of unification of Russian lands around Moscow into a centralized state falls on the years of government

Ivan III (1462 - 1505) and Vasily III (1505 - 1533).

For 150 years before Ivan III, there was a gathering of Russian lands and the concentration of power in the hands of the Moscow princes. Under Ivan III, the Grand Duke rises above the rest of the princes not only in the amount of power and possessions, but also in the amount of power. It is no coincidence that a new title “sovereign” appears. The double-headed eagle becomes a symbol of the state when, in 1472, Ivan III marries the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Paleolog. Ivan III, after the annexation of Tver, received the honorary title "by the grace of God the sovereign of All Russia, the Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov, and Tver, and Yugra, and Perm, and Bulgarian, and other lands."

The princes in the annexed lands became the boyars of the Moscow sovereign. These principalities were now called uyezds and were ruled by governors from Moscow. Localism is the right to occupy one or another position in the state, depending on the nobility and official position of the ancestors, their merits to the Grand Duke of Moscow.

A centralized control apparatus began to take shape. The Boyar Duma consisted of 5-12 boyars and no more than 12 okolnichi (boyars and okolnichi - the two highest ranks in the state). In addition to the Moscow boyars from the middle of the 15th century. local princes from the annexed lands, who recognized the seniority of Moscow, also sat in the Duma. The Boyar Duma had advisory functions on “land affairs.” With the increase in the function of state administration, it became necessary to create special institutions that would manage military, judicial, and financial affairs. Therefore, “tables” were created, controlled by clerks, who later turned into orders. The prikaz system was a typical manifestation of the feudal organization of state administration. It was based on the principles of inseparability of judicial and administrative power. In order to centralize and unify the procedure for judicial and administrative activities throughout the entire state, under Ivan III in 1497, the Sudebnik was compiled.

In 1480 it was finally overthrown. This happened after the clash of Moscow and Mongol-Tatar troops on the Ugra River.

Formation of the Russian centralized state

At the end of the XV - beginning of the XVI centuries. Chernigov-Seversky lands became part of the Russian state. In 1510, the Pskov land was included in the state. In 1514, the ancient Russian city of Smolensk became part of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. And finally, in 1521, the Ryazan principality also ceased to exist. It was during this period that the unification of the Russian lands was basically completed. A huge power was formed - one of the largest states in Europe. Within the framework of this state, the Russian people were united. This is a natural process of historical development. From the end of the XV century. the term "Russia" began to be used.

Socio-economic development in the XIV - XVI centuries.

The general trend in the socio-economic development of the country during this period is intensive growth of feudal landownership. Its main, dominant form was the patrimony, the land that belonged to the feudal lord by right of hereditary use. This land could be changed, sold, but only to relatives and other owners of estates. The owner of the patrimony could be a prince, a boyar, a monastery.

nobles, those who left the court of a prince or boyar owned an estate, which they received on the condition of serving on the patrimony (from the word “estate” the nobles were also called landowners). The term of service was established by the contract.

In the XVI century. there is a strengthening of feudal-serfdom orders. The economic basis of serfdom is feudal ownership of land in its three forms: local, patrimonial and state. A new term “peasants” appears, which has become the name of the oppressed class of Russian society. According to their social status, the peasants were divided into three groups: the possessive peasants belonged to various secular and ecclesiastical feudal lords; palace peasants who were in the possession of the palace department of the Moscow grand dukes (tsars); Black-mossed (later state) peasants lived in volost communities on lands that did not belong to any owner, but were obliged to perform certain duties in favor of the state.

The defeat of old, large cities, such as Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov, etc., a change in the nature of economic and trade ties and routes led to the fact that in the XIII - XV centuries. New centers developed significantly: Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow, Kolomna, Kostroma, and others. In these cities, the population increased, stone construction was revived, and the number of artisans and merchants grew. Great success was achieved by such branches of craft as blacksmithing, foundry, metalworking, and coinage.

The formation of the Russian centralized state took place in several stages:

The rise of Moscow - the end of the 13th - the beginning of the 11th centuries;
Moscow - the center of the struggle against the Mongols-Tatars (second half of the 11th-first half of the 10th centuries);
The completion of the unification of Russian lands around Moscow under Ivan III and Vasily III - the end of the 15th - the beginning of the 16th centuries.

Stage 1. Rise of Moscow. By the end of the 13th century, the old cities of Rostov, Suzdal, and Vladimir were losing their significance. The new cities of Moscow and Tver are rising. The rise of Tver began after the death of Alexander Nevsky (1263), when his brother, Prince Yaroslav of Tver, received a label from the Tatars for the Great Vladimir reign.

The beginning of the rise of Moscow is associated with the name of the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky - Daniel (1276-1303). Alexander Nevsky distributed honorary inheritances to his eldest sons, and Daniil, as the youngest, got a small village of Moscow with a district on the far border of the Vladimir-Suzdal land. Daniel rebuilt Moscow, developed agriculture and started crafts. The territory has tripled and Moscow has become a principality, and Daniel is the most authoritative prince in the entire Northeast.

Stage 2. Moscow is the center of the fight against the Mongols-Tatars. The strengthening of Moscow continued under the children of Ivan Kalita - Simeon Proud (1340-1353) and Ivan 2 the Red (1353-1359). This inevitably had to lead to a clash with the Tatars. The clash occurred under the grandson of Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359-1389). Dmitry Donskoy received the throne at the age of 9 after the death of his father Ivan 2 the Red. Under the young prince, the position of Moscow was shaken, but he was supported by the powerful Moscow boyars and the head of the Russian church, Metropolitan Alexei. The metropolitan was able to achieve from the khans that the great reign would henceforth be transferred only to the princes of the Moscow princely house.

This increased the authority of Moscow, and after Dmitry Donskoy built the Kremlin of white stone in Moscow at the age of 17, the authority of the Moscow principality became even higher. The Moscow Kremlin became the only stone fortress in the entire Russian Northeast. He became unapproachable.

In the middle of the 14th century, the Horde entered a period of feudal fragmentation. From its composition, independent hordes began to stand out, which waged a fierce struggle for power among themselves. All khans demanded tribute and obedience from Russia. Tension arose in relations between Russia and the Horde.

Stage 3. Completion of the formation of the Russian centralized state. The unification of the Russian lands was completed under the great-grandson of Dmitry Donskoy Ivan 3 (1462-1505) and Vasily 3 (1505-1533).

Under Ivan 3:

1) Accession of the entire North - East of Russia

2) In 1463 - Yaroslavl principality

3) In 1474 - Rostov Principality

4) After several campaigns in 1478 - the final liquidation of the independence of Novgorod

5) The Mongol-Tatar yoke has been dropped. In 1476 - Russia refused to pay tribute. Then Khan Akhmat decided to punish Russia and made an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir and set out on a campaign against Moscow with a large army. In 1480, the troops of Ivan 3 and Khan Akhmat met along the banks of the Ugra River (a tributary of the Oka). Akhmat did not dare to cross to the other side. Ivan 3 took a wait-and-see attitude. Help for the Tatars did not come from Casimir, and both sides understood that the battle was pointless. The power of the Tatars dried up, and Russia was already different. And Khan Akhmat led his troops back to the steppe. This ended the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

6) After the overthrow of the yoke, the unification of the Russian lands continued at an accelerated pace. In 1485, the independence of the Tver Principality was liquidated.

Under Vasily 3, Pskov (1510) and the Ryazan principality (1521) were annexed

Portal for the student. Self-training

Prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized state in the field of agrarian relations

Rise of Moscow

Completion of the unification of Russian lands

Ivan III (1462 - 1505) and Vasily III (1505 - 1533).

Socio-economic development in the XIV - XVI centuries.

RELATED ARTICLES