The convening of zemstvo councils occurs during the period. Zemsky Sobors
They were one of the most significant phenomena in the political life of Moscow States XVI- XVII century, representing a form of participation of popular representation in governing the country developed in old Moscow - a form in many respects similar to the representative assemblies of the West. Europe, but at the same time differing from them in very significant features. The activities of this representative office did not cover a particularly long period of time - only a century and a half - but were rich in important results. Zemsky Sobors still cannot be considered fully studied and explained: the scientific literature on their history gives much more summary characteristics and fortune-telling constructions than detailed studies, which is largely explained by the scarcity of sources that have reached us. In any case, some aspects of the phenomenon have already received sufficient coverage, thanks to which it seems possible both to explain the emergence of the institution and to mark the most important eras of its historical life. The beginning of representation in Muscovite Rus', as in the West, coincided with the final unification of the state; but the source of this representation was not the same here and there. In the West, representative assemblies grew out of the political struggle of various classes and served, in their further development, as an arena for this struggle; Zemsky councils of the Moscow state, when they emerged, served not so much political as administrative tasks. From the time the northern Russian principalities gathered under the rule of the Grand Duke of Moscow, who was transformed into a tsar, a need arose for greater state unity, for a closer acquaintance of the government with the population, its needs and means, which determined the tasks state power. The system of fractional local administration that had previously been developed in Moscow not only did not satisfy this need, drawing the population too little towards one center, but, being in its origin based on the principles of private law, required a radical reorganization. The latter began to take place in the sense of implementing a strictly state principle in governance, and the government, having too few forces, had the means to carry out new system chose to entrust government activities to local communities and their elected representatives. The completion of this system and, at the same time, the body connecting all its individual parts were the Zemsky Sobors. They were not the successors of the veche meetings ancient Rus', as is sometimes stated; these latter are already from the 14th century. ceased to exist in the Moscow principality, and the foundations of the veche and the cathedral were completely different: the veche was composed of the entire population of the region, the cathedral was a representative institution; the veche had full state power; cathedrals, during the period of their inception, acted only in an advisory role; finally, participation in the veche was a right for the population; participation in the council was considered a duty. Zemsky Sobors were a new institution that grew out of new needs and conditions of state life. The name of this institution, and perhaps the very idea of it, was borrowed from the practice of the clergy who gathered around the metropolitan as they were called. “sanctified councils”, which resolved issues affecting the entire Russian church, and sometimes took part in the government activities of the prince and his Duma. But the essence of the Zemsky Sobor could hardly have been borrowed from church life, especially since this institution itself did not appear immediately with a completely definite and unchanged physiognomy, but survived several eras, during which not only its meaning changed, but also its organization and even its principle , which lay at its base.
The beginning of the councils dates back to the era when the inconveniences of the old system of government, during the childhood of Ivan the Terrible, had just appeared with particular sharpness. Having reached adulthood and taking up the work of government, the young tsar, perhaps under the influence of the “elected council” surrounding him at that time - priest Sylvester and other advisers - convened the first Zemsky Sobor in 1550. Unfortunately, we know nothing about its composition and activities, except for the detail that it was decided to stop peacefully the claims that arose as a result of the violence of the feeders in the previous time. One can only guess that the reforms that followed did not take place without the participation of the council. 16 years later, during the war with Poland, a new council was convened to decide whether to accept the peace terms proposed by the Poles or, rejecting them, to continue the war. A detailed analysis by Prof. Klyuchevsky over the composition of this cathedral, revealed the following interesting facts. The cathedral consisted of two halves: the first contained the sovereign's Duma, the highest clergy or consecrated cathedral and the heads of the Moscow orders - in other words, the highest administration was called upon to participate in the cathedral; the second half consisted of members of the service and merchant classes, namely members of the capital's nobility and merchants. It remains unknown whether these council participants were elected representatives, or whether they were also called by the government: the latter is more likely, but, in any case, they were closely connected with the groups of the population they represented, not only by belonging to certain social classes, but also by their official position: the capital's nobles were city governors or leaders of district noble militias, the capital's merchants occupied the highest positions in financial management; both were in close and continuous connection with provincial societies, which constantly allocated their best members to their number. The representation that arose in this way was not representation by choice, but by position; government at the council, in the words of prof. Klyuchevsky, conferred with its own bodies, and, however, these latter were at the same time the most prominent members of local societies, who at the general council not only developed this or that decision, but also served as guarantors in the implementation of the adopted one. The cathedral was, therefore, the result of an administrative restructuring undertaken by the government, and not a political revolution, not a social struggle, contrary to the opinion of historians who associated the appearance of cathedrals under Grozny with the anti-boyar tendencies of this tsar, who supposedly found support against the boyars in the voice of the entire people. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, according to the testimony of some Russian chronicles and two foreigners, Petrei and Horsey, a new council was convened in 1584, electing Fyodor Ioannovich to the throne; There is no exact information about its composition and activities. Following the death of Tsar Fedor, in 1598, the task of electing a new sovereign to the empty throne was again carried out by the Zemsky Sobor, which, this time, was convened by the patriarch and the boyar duma. The council elected Boris Godunov as tsar. The composition of this cathedral already had a new feature: next to the consecrated cathedral, the sovereign's Duma, representatives of the clerk and palace administration, the capital's nobles and elected leaders of merchant hundreds, noble elected representatives from the cities, numbering 34 people, also sat here. This appearance of elected officials alongside those called up by the government indicates a change in the internalized system of representation. This change occurred under the influence of changes taking place in the structure of society and breaking the previous connection between its individual parts, in this case, between the capital and provincial nobility. It received an even more accelerated pace as a result of the events in the political life of the Moscow state that were unfolding in the meantime.
Already in the middle of the 16th century, during the era of the appearance of the first Zemsky Sobor, under the influence of either this fact itself, or, in general, the revival and growth of Zemsky traditions that was taking place at that time, theories were created that expanded the significance of the Zemsky Sobor in the sense of its representation of the entire people and sought to strengthen for his position as a necessary component of government. The unknown author of a postscript written to the “Conversation of the Valaam Wonderworkers” (a political pamphlet of the 16th century) advises the tsar to “raise those cities from all his cities and from the districts and constantly always keep all kinds of people with him, weather by any means.” . The end of the old dynasty was supposed to increase the importance of the cathedral to the size of an organ of the entire earth, giving the sanction of the highest power itself, which was clearly expressed in the deposition of Tsar Vasily Shuisky by Lyapunov and his comrades, who reproached Vasily that he was put on the throne unjustly, only by the boyars and Moscow people , without elected representatives from cities and counties. A new impetus in this direction was given by the circumstances of the Time of Troubles, when the state, tormented by civil strife and attacks by external enemies, was deprived of a ruler. During this era, an attempt was even made to limit the power of the tsar through the Zemsky Sobor and consolidate the significance of the latter with a legal act. Mikhail Saltykov, in an agreement concluded on behalf of the Russian people who were in Tushino with the impostor, with the Polish king Sigismund, undertook to recognize the prince Vladislav as the Moscow king, but among the conditions limiting the power of Vladislav, he also set such that the latter could not establish new laws and change the old without the advice of the whole earth, i.e. the Zemsky Sobor. This article of the agreement was adopted by the boyar duma when Zholkiewski appeared near Moscow. Vladislav did not, however, have to sit on the Moscow throne, and the agreement concluded with him did not receive real significance. When the boyar government revealed its inability to pacify and protect the country, the people themselves took up this matter, turning to the already developed form of participation of the population in government. affairs. The leaders of the one who rose from Nizhny Novgorod militia, book. Pozharsky and Kozma Minin sent letters to the cities, inviting them to come out in defense of the fatherland, expel the militia and the treasury, and together send “two or three people” elected to form the Zemstvo government. The cities, apparently, accepted the invitation, and with the militia, a Zemsky Sobor was formed in 1612, which governed internal affairs and foreign relations until the capture of Moscow. Then this council was dissolved and at the same time letters were sent out inviting the population to send elected people to a new council, which should deal with the election of a king and the organization of the state. In January 1613, representatives of the land gathered in Moscow and on February 7 elected Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov as Tsar; but even after that the council did not disperse, but continued its meetings for about two more years, working together with the tsar to restore order in the state shocked by the turmoil and having a very great value in government. This meaning was not established by any legal act, but stemmed from the very state of affairs in the state. Shaken, weakened in its authority, deprived of its former material resources, forced to reckon with a number of serious difficulties, the supreme power, for the success of its actions, needed the constant support of the entire earth and could not do without the assistance of its representatives. In view of this, the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich was especially favorable for the Zemsky Sobors; it was their “golden age,” in the words of Prof. Zagoskina. The wounds inflicted on the state during the Time of Troubles could not be immediately healed; their very treatment required intense efforts on the part of the population, and this tension could easily be reflected in new unrest, thanks to which the government could not refuse the opportunity to share responsibility with representatives of the people. At the beginning of the reign, the idea expressed in the 16th century seemed to be realized: near the tsar there was a permanent Zemsky Sobor, which was renewed in its composition at certain intervals. Following the dissolution of the first council, in 1615, a new one was convened, which was in force until 1618; in 1619 we again meet a meeting of the council, regarding which it is difficult to say, for lack of data, whether it was old or newly convened; from 1620 there is no information about the cathedral, which does not yet prove its absence, but in 1621-1622 the cathedral again met in Moscow, after which there was a ten-year break in cathedral activities. The scope of activity of all these councils seems to be very wide and varied (foreign relations, establishing taxes and duties, maintaining order within the state, even military orders in the event of an enemy invasion). Addressing the population of the regions, the tsarist government of this era reinforces its orders with reference to conciliar authority, especially when it comes to imposing new taxes, necessary for the state, but heavily burdening national economy. Thanks to the efforts of the land, the state strengthened, and for 10 years the government found it possible to do without cathedrals. Without a conciliar verdict, the second war with Poland was started in 1632, but its unsuccessful course forced them to again resort to the help of the council, which was supposed to impose emergency taxes. The conciliar session covered this time 1632-1634. Two more councils were convened after that under Mikhail Fedorovich, in 1637 and 1642, both times regarding the external affairs of the state: the first - in view of the deterioration of relations with Turkey, the second - to discuss the question of whether to accept from the Don Cossacks what they had taken from the Turks and Azov proposed to Moscow. Thus, having acquired the significance of the highest government power in the era of interregnum, the Zemsky Sobor, even under the tsarist government that it restored, remains necessary for its integral part during the first half of the 17th century, first as a permanent institution, then convened in the most important cases. At the same time, the character of a representative institution was established for it: the old system of convening by the government of persons who played the role of its lower executive bodies in local government, despite all the close connections of these persons with local society, could not be maintained in an era when the authority of government power and society had decreased I had to restore it by exerting my own strength. This old system in the Time of Troubles finally gave way to the elected representation of the people, although traces of its former existence, sometimes quite obvious, were now reflected in the details of the organization of representation. The very organization of the Zemsky Sobor had this appearance in this era. The cathedral continued to consist of two parts: one, coming to the cathedral without exception, included the leaders of the highest administration, spiritual (consecrated cathedral), civil (boyar duma and heads of orders) and palace; the other was made up of elected representatives of all classes of the population - servicemen, townspeople and peasants. The latter, however, were only at the council of 1613; according to Prof. Sergeevich, at other councils they were represented as elected representatives of the cities. The council was convened by means of letters sent throughout the cities to the governors or provincial elders and containing an invitation to send elected representatives to Moscow for council. Each city with its own district was considered an electoral district, and the number of required representatives depended on its size, which, however, did not have a constant character, but was subject to strong fluctuations; the largest, comparatively, number of representatives fell to Moscow, which can be seen not only as a consequence of the population of the capital, but also as traces of the old system, based on the importance of the Moscow service and merchant society. Elections were held according to estates; Each “rank” or class chose its representatives: nobles and boyar children - especially, guests and merchants - especially, townspeople - especially. Voters could send a larger number of representatives against what was required by the government; Only sending a smaller number was considered a violation of order. Most researchers assume that elected representatives received written instructions from their constituents; such orders have not survived, however, to our time, and the sources cited to prove their existence are not so convincing and clear as to exclude any doubt on this score. The costs of traveling the elected officials and keeping them in Moscow seemed to fall on the voters, although the nobles, at least the elected ones, were sometimes paid a salary by the government. One might think that, in view of precisely these costs, the population sometimes sent less than the appointed number of elected officials or did not send them at all. To prevent such evasion in the selection of representatives, the central government assigned the responsibility to the local administration to monitor the conduct of elections and take measures to replenish the number of elected representatives; Often individual governors overstepped the boundaries of their power, interfering in the elections themselves or directly appointing representatives of local society; sometimes governors gathered voters for elections with the help of gunners and archers. After the congress of representatives to Moscow, the cathedral opened with a general meeting, which usually took place in the royal chambers and in the presence of the tsar; At this meeting, the throne speech was read by the tsar himself or, on his behalf, by the Duma clerk, which stated the purpose of convening the council and outlined the issues submitted for its discussion. After that, the members of the council were divided into “articles”, according to the classes and ranks of the persons composing it, and the classes, richly represented, were also divided into several articles, and each article, having received a written copy of the speech from the throne, had to discuss the proposals contained in it and submit in writing your opinion; every member of the cathedral who spoke with dissenting opinion, could have submitted it separately. There was no specific time limit for the duration of the conciliar session; the council sat until it decided the matter that served as the purpose of its convening. At the councils convened by the tsar, the final summary of the opinions of the council officials was carried out by the Duma with the sovereign; the latter's sanction was necessary to approve the conciliar verdict. The government was not obliged to follow this verdict, but only took note of it, although in practice, of course, in most cases both coincided. Fletcher, describing the activities of the Zemsky Sobors, as he knew them from the stories of other people, says that the members of the council did not have legislative initiative. At least by the 17th century. this statement is not entirely applicable. At this time, members of the councils themselves often raised certain issues relating to legislative reform or the activities of government agencies, exposing them only in appearance, when discussing other matters, or directly turning to the government with petitions about this or that order. Particularly remarkable in this regard is the council of 1642, at which servicemen, guests and elders of the Black Hundreds sharply condemned the order of service and administration, pointing out desirable changes. Of course, there is still a very significant difference between such petitions and the introduction of bills, but in practice it was often erased, and the council in many cases took the legislative initiative, since in order to achieve its financial and state goals the government had to take into account the popular voice expressed at the councils . Without having a strictly restrictive meaning in relation to the royal power, retaining, in form, an exclusively advisory character, the councils of this time, however, occupied an important place in government activities, not only providing material resources for it, but also directing it, indicating certain goals and objectives for it. ways to achieve them, participating in solving all the most important matters of foreign and domestic policy , raising new questions in the legislative field, finally giving sanction to the supreme power itself. Their role in this latter sense, as one might think based on the evidence of Kotoshikhin and Olearius, did not end with the election of Mikhail Fedorovich; These sources report that Alexei Mikhailovich was elected to the throne after the death of his father. The importance acquired by the Zemsky Sobor began to noticeably decline in the second half of the 17th century, as the power of the tsarist government strengthened, regaining its previous position and embarking on a new reform of the administration, in the sense of greater centralization and the replacement of elected governing bodies with governors. During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, councils still decided on important matters, but they met rarely, compared to the previous time. After the supposed council of 1645, which elected Alexei Mikhailovich to the throne, the Zemsky Sobor was convened on September 1, 1648, to draw up the Code. Codification work began in July of this year, and with the arrival of the elected officials, they also took an active part in this matter, participating in the compilation of old decrees, putting forward new issues and drawing the attention of the government to them by filing petitions; only about 80 articles were included in the Code from such petitions. Work on drawing up the Code continued until January 1649, that is, about six months. In 1650, a new council was convened to discuss the case of the Pskov rebellion, which, however, died down before the council had time to take any action on this matter. Finally, two more councils during this reign were devoted to affairs with Poland. The first was convened in February 1651, regarding the insults inflicted by the Polish government on the honor of the Moscow sovereign and Khmelnitsky’s proposal to annex Little Russia to Moscow. From the activities of this cathedral, only the response of the clergy has reached us, proposing to start a war and accept Khmelnitsky’s proposal if the Polish king did not give satisfaction to the king. The second council was convened in 1653 and, having opened its activities on May 25, continued until October 1; Before convening this council, the tsar sent ambassadors to Poland to demand decisive satisfaction. One must think that with the knowledge of the council in September 1653, envoys were sent to Khmelnitsky to reassure him that he would be accepted under the royal hand (this resolves the dispute between Solovyov and Aksakov, whether the council of 1653 was one form or had a real meaning: both disputing parties considered the first meeting of the council on October 1). In mid-September, the embassy from Poland returned with an unfavorable response, and then on October 1 a solemn meeting was held at which a decision was made, probably prepared in advance, of war with Poland and the adoption of Little Russia, in execution of which boyar V. V. Buturlin was sent from the cathedral to bring the Cossacks into citizenship. The cathedral of 1653 was the last Zemsky Sobor in the real sense of the word. After him, under Alexei Mikhailovich, representatives of the entire people were no longer convened, although in order to resolve this or that matter, the government resorted to calling on the elected representatives of the class to which the matter concerned, making up of them a kind of commission of experts. Under Fyodor Alekseevich there also existed similar commissions or, as they are sometimes called, incomplete councils. The most remarkable of them were two commissions of 1682, of which at one the government consulted with representatives of the service class about changing the military regulations, and these meetings led to the destruction of localism, and at the other representatives of the tax class, not excluding peasants, were called to discuss the issue of equalizing services and taxes. Members of the second of these commissions could, it is believed, participate in the election of Peter Alekseevich as king, on April 27, 1682, and Ivan Alekseevich, on May 26 of the same year - two acts that were actually carried out by the patriarch with the clergy, the boyar duma and the population of Moscow, but to which they tried to give the sanction of the council. Finally, some also count among the councils the trial of Sophia, convened by Peter, according to Korb, in 1698 and consisting of deputies of all classes. But in all these cases we are obviously dealing with only the form of the cathedral, which has outlived its content. After 1698 the form also disappeared. The reasons for the fall of the cathedrals are interpreted differently by historians. Some see these reasons in the internal insignificance and powerlessness of the institution itself, resulting from the weakening of public initiative after the passing of a serious danger to the state; others - in the opposition met by popular representation from the boyar class. The first view was expressed by B. N. Chicherin, and to a certain extent S. M. Soloviev adheres to it; the second view is shared by V.I. Sergeevich and prof. Zagoskin, joined by Prof. Latkin. Both of them, however, do not fit well with the facts of the history of cathedrals. The cathedrals of the time of Alexei Mikhailovich show no signs of decline in their activities; on the other hand, it is difficult to see the political struggle between the councils and the boyars. Or rather, it seems, the view of Prof. Vladimirsky-Budanov, who sees the reason for the cessation of the councils in the reform activities of the government, for which it did not hope to find sympathy and support from the population. To this we can also add the disunity of interests of individual classes of the population and the change of the entire state system from zemstvo to police-bureaucratic, in which there was no longer any place for popular representation. The latter fell without a fight, since it grew out of government activity, having, in general, the character of the population assisting the supreme power, and not defending their rights before it.
Literature: K. S. Aksakov, “Complete Works”, vol. I (articles: “On the VI volume of the History of Russia by Mr. Solovyov”; “Comments on the article by Mr. Solovyov: Schletser and the anti-historical direction”; “A brief historical sketch of the Zemsky Sobors etc."); S. M. Soloviev. "History of Russia", vol. VI - X, and the article "Schletser and the anti-historical direction" ("Russian Vestn.", 1857, vol. VIII); P. Pavlov, “On some Zemsky Sobors of the 16th and 17th centuries.” ("Otech. Zap.", 1859, vol. CXXII and CXXIII); A. P. Shchapov, "Zemsky Sobor 1648-9 and the meeting of deputies of 1767." (“Otech. Zap., 1862, No. 11) and “Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century. Cathedral of 1642" ("Century". 1862, No. 11); B. N. Chicherin, "On People's Representation" (M., 1866, book III, chapter 5, "Zemstvo Sobors in Russia); I. D. Belyaev, “Zemsky Sobors in Rus'” (Speeches and report of the Moscow University for 1867); V. I. Sergeevich, “Zemsky Sobors in the Moscow State” (Collected State Knowledge, ed. by V. P. Bezobrazov, vol. II, St. Petersburg, 1875); N.P. Zagoskin, “History of Law of the Moscow State” (vol. I, Kazan, 1877) and “The Code of the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich and the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-9.” (speech at the annual meeting of Kazan University, November 5, 1879); I. I. Dityatin, "The role of petitions and Zemsky Sobors in the history of law of the Moscow State." ("Russian Thought", 1880, No. 5) and "On the issue of Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century." ("Russian Thought", 1883, No. 12); S. F. Platonov, “Notes on the history of Moscow Zemsky Sobors” (J. M. N. Pr., 1883, No. 3 and separately St. Petersburg, 1883); V. N. Latkin, "Materials for the history of Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century." (St. Petersburg, 1884) and “Zemsky Sobors of Ancient Rus'” (St. Petersburg, 1885); M. F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, “Review of the history of Russian law” (Kyiv, 1888); V. O. Klyuchevsky, “Composition of representation at Zemsky Sobors” (Russian Thought, 1890, No. 1, 1891, No. 1 and 1892, No. 1).
The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 marked the end of the Time of Troubles and was supposed to bring order to the government of Russia. Let me remind you that after the death of Ivan 4 (the Terrible), the place on the throne was free, since the tsar did not leave behind heirs. That is why the Troubles occurred, when both internal forces and external representatives carried out endless attempts to seize power.
Reasons for convening the Zemsky Sobor
After the foreign invaders were expelled not only from Moscow, but also from Russia, Minin, Pozharsky and Trubetskoy sent invitation letters to all parts of the country, calling on all representatives of the nobility to appear at the Council, where a new tsar would be elected.
The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 opened in January, and the following took part in it:
- Clergy
- Boyars
- Nobles
- City elders
- Peasant representatives
- Cossacks
In total, 700 people took part in the Zemsky Sobor.
Progress of the Council and its decisions
The first decision approved by the Zemsky Sobor was that the Tsar must be Russian. He should not relate to the Nostrians in any way.
Marina Mnishek intended to crown her son Ivan (whom historians often call “the little crow”), but after the Council’s decision that the tsar should not be a foreigner, she fled to Ryazan.
Historical background
The events of those days must be considered from the point of view of the fact that there were those who wanted to take a place on the throne huge amount. Therefore, groups began to form that united, promoting their representative. There were several such groups:
- Noble boyars. This included representatives of the boyar family. One part of them believed that Fyodor Mstislavsky or Vasily Golitsyn would be the ideal tsar for Russia. Others leaned towards the young Mikhail Romanov. The number of boyars was divided approximately equally by interests.
- Nobles. These were also noble people with great authority. They promoted their “tsar” - Dmitry Trubetskoy. The difficulty was that Trubetskoy had the rank of “boyar,” which he had recently received in the Tushensky courtyard.
- Cossacks. According to tradition, the Cossacks sided with the one who had the money. In particular, they actively served the Tushensky court, and after the latter was dispersed, they began to support the king, who was related to Tushin.
Mikhail Romanov's father, Filaret, was a patriarch in the Tushensky courtyard and was highly respected there. Largely due to this fact, Mikhail was supported by the Cossacks and the clergy.
Karamzin
Romanov did not have many rights to the throne. Moreover, the greater claim against him was that his father was on friendly terms with both False Dmitrys. The first False Dmitry made Philaret a metropolitan and his protege, and the second False Dmitry appointed him patriarch and his protege. That is, Mikhail’s father had very friendly relations with foreigners, whom they had just gotten rid of by decision of the Council of 1613 and decided not to call him to power again.
Results
The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 ended on February 21 - Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar. Now it is difficult to talk reliably about all the subtleties of the events of those days, since not many documents have survived. Nevertheless, it is known for certain that the Council was surrounded by complex intrigues. This is not surprising - the stakes were too high. The fate of the country and entire ruling dynasties was being decided.
The result of the Council was that Mikhail Romanov, who at that time was only 16 years old, was elected to the throne. A clear answer: “Why exactly?” no one will give it. Historians say that this was the figure most convenient for all dynasties. Allegedly, young Mikhail was an extremely suggestible person and could be “controlled as needed by the majority.” In fact, all power (especially in the first years of Romanov’s reign) was not with the tsar himself, but with his father, Patriarch Filaret. It was he who actually ruled Russia on behalf of his son.
Feature and contradiction
The main feature of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was its mass character. Representatives of all classes and estates took part in deciding the future of the country, with the exception of slaves and rootless peasants. In fact, we are talking about an all-class Council, which has no analogues in the history of Russia.
The second feature is the importance of the decision and its complexity. There is no clear answer why Romanov was chosen. After all, this was not the most obvious candidate. The entire Council was marked by a large number of intrigues, attempts at bribery and other manipulations of people.
To summarize, we can say that the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was important for the history of Russia. He concentrated power in the hands of the Russian Tsar, laid the foundation of a new dynasty (the Romanovs) and saved the country from constant problems and claims to the throne from the Germans, Poles, Swedes and others.
According to dry encyclopedic language, The Zemsky Sobor is the central estate-representative institution of Russia in the mid-16th-17th centuries. Many historians believe that zemstvo councils and estate-representative institutions of other countries are phenomena of the same order, subordinate general patterns historical development, although each country had its own specific features. Parallels are visible in the activities of the English Parliament, the States General in France and the Netherlands, the Reichstag and Landtags of Germany, Scandinavian Rikstags, and Diets in Poland and the Czech Republic. Foreign contemporaries noted the similarities in the activities of the councils and their parliaments.
It should be noted that the term “Zemsky Sobor” itself is a later invention of historians. Contemporaries called them “cathedral” (along with other types of meetings), “council”, “zemsky council”. The word “zemsky” in this case means state, public.
The first council was convened in 1549. It adopted the Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible, approved in 1551 by the Stoglavy Council. The Code of Law contains 100 articles and has a general pro-state orientation, eliminates the judicial privileges of appanage princes and strengthens the role of central state judicial bodies.
What was the composition of the cathedrals? This issue is examined in detail by the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky in his work “The Composition of Representation at the Zemstvo Councils of Ancient Rus'”, where he analyzes the composition of the councils based on the representation of 1566 and 1598. From the council of 1566 dedicated to the Livonian War (the cathedral advocated its continuation), a verdict letter and a full protocol have been preserved with a list of names of all ranks of the cathedral, a total of 374 people. The members of the cathedral can be divided into 4 groups:
1. Clergy - 32 people.
It included the archbishop, bishops, archimandrites, abbots and monastery elders.
2. Boyars and sovereign people - 62 people.
It consisted of boyars, okolnichi, sovereign clerks and other senior officials with a total of 29 people. The same group included 33 simple clerks and clerks. representatives - they were invited to the council by virtue of their official position.
3. Military service people - 205 people.
It included 97 nobles of the first article, 99 nobles and children
boyars of the second article, 3 Toropets and 6 Lutsk landowners.
4. Merchants and industrialists - 75 people.
This group consisted of 12 merchants of the highest rank, 41 ordinary Moscow merchants - “Trading people of Muscovites”, as they are called in the “conciliar charter”, and 22 representatives of the commercial and industrial class. From them the government expected advice on improving the tax collection system, in conducting commercial and industrial affairs, which required trade experience, some technical knowledge that the clerks and indigenous governing bodies did not possess.
In the 16th century, Zemsky Sobors were not elective. “Choice as a special power for an individual case was not recognized then a necessary condition representation,” wrote Klyuchevsky. - A metropolitan nobleman from the Pereyaslavl or Yuryevsky landowners appeared at the council as a representative of the Pereyaslavl or Yuryevsky nobles because he was the head of the Pereyaslavl or Yuryevsky hundred, and he became the head because he was a metropolitan nobleman; He became a metropolitan nobleman because he was one of the best Pereyaslavl or Yuryev servicemen ‘for the fatherland and for the service’.”
WITH early XVII V. the situation has changed. When dynasties changed, new monarchs (Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Mikhail Romanov) needed recognition of their royal title by the population, which made class representation more necessary. This circumstance contributed to some expansion of the social composition of the “elected”. In the same century, the principle of forming the “Sovereign Court” changed, and nobles began to be elected from the counties. Russian society, left to his own devices during the Time of Troubles, “involuntarily learned to act independently and consciously, and the idea began to arise in him that this society, this people, was not a political accident, as Moscow people were used to feeling, not aliens, not temporary inhabitants in someone’s world.” then the state... Next to the sovereign’s will, and sometimes in its place, another political force now more than once appeared - the will of the people, expressed in the verdicts of the Zemsky Sobor,” wrote Klyuchevsky.
What was the election procedure?
The convening of the council was carried out by a letter of conscription, issued by the tsar to well-known persons and localities. The letter contained the agenda items and the number of elected officials. If the number was not determined, it was decided by the population itself. The draft letters clearly stipulated that those subject to election were “ best people”, “kind and intelligent people”, to whom “the Sovereign’s and zemstvo’s deeds are for custom”, “with whom one could talk”, “who would be able to tell of insults and violence and ruin and with which the Moscow state would be filled” and “would arrange the Moscow state, so that everyone comes to dignity,” etc.
It is worth noting that there were no requirements for the property status of candidates. In this aspect, the only limitation was that only those who paid taxes to the treasury, as well as people who served, could participate in the elections held by estate.
As noted above, sometimes the number of elected people to be sent to the council was determined by the population itself. As noted by A.A. Rozhnov in the article “Zemsky Sobors of Moscow Rus': legal characteristics and significance”, similar indifferent attitude government to the quantitative indicators of popular representation was not accidental. On the contrary, it obviously flowed from the latter’s very task, which was to convey the position of the population to the Supreme Power, to give them the opportunity to be heard by it. Therefore, the determining factor was not the number of persons included in the Council, but the degree to which they reflected the interests of the people.
Cities, together with their counties, formed electoral districts. At the end of the elections, minutes of the meeting were drawn up and certified by all those participating in the elections. At the end of the elections, a “choice in hand” was drawn up - an election protocol, sealed with the signatures of voters and confirming the suitability of the elected representatives for the “Sovereign and Zemstvo Cause”. After this, the elected officials with the voivode’s “unsubscribe” and the “election list in hand” went to Moscow to the Discharge Order, where the clerks verified that the elections were being held correctly.
Deputies received instructions from voters, mostly verbal, and upon returning from the capital they had to report on the work done. There are known cases when attorneys, who were unable to achieve satisfaction of all the requests of local residents, asked the government to issue them special “protected” letters that would guarantee them protection from “all bad things” from disgruntled voters:
“The governors in the cities were ordered to protect them, the elected people, from the city people from all sorts of bad things, so that your sovereign’s cathedral Code, according to the petition of the zemstvo people, is not against all articles of your sovereign’s decree.”
The work of the delegates at the Zemsky Sobor was carried out mainly free of charge, on a “social basis”. Voters provided the elected officials only with “reserves”, that is, they paid for their travel and accommodation in Moscow. The state only occasionally, at the request of the people’s representatives themselves, “complained” them for performing parliamentary duties.
Issues resolved by the Councils.
1. Election of the king.
Council of 1584. Election of Fyodor Ioannovich.
According to the spiritual year of 1572, Tsar Ivan the Terrible appointed his eldest son Ivan as his successor. But the death of the heir at the hands of his father in 1581 abolished this testamentary disposition, and the tsar did not have time to draw up a new will. So his second son Fedor, having become the eldest, was left without a legal title, without an act that would give him the right to the throne. This missing act was created by the Zemsky Sobor.
Council of 1589. Election of Boris Godunov.
Tsar Fedor died on January 6, 1598. The ancient crown - the Monomakh cap - was put on by Boris Godunov, who won the struggle for power. Among his contemporaries and descendants, many considered him a usurper. But this view was thoroughly shaken thanks to the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky. A well-known Russian historian argued that Boris was elected by the correct Zemsky Sobor, that is, which included representatives of the nobility, clergy and the upper classes of the townspeople. Klyuchevsky’s opinion was supported by S. F. Platonov. The accession of Godunov, he wrote, was not the result of intrigue, for the Zemsky Sobor chose him quite deliberately and knew better than us why he chose him.
Council of 1610. Election of the Polish king Vladislav.
The commander of the Polish troops advancing from the west to Moscow, Hetman Zholkiewski, demanded that the “Seven Boyars” confirm the agreement between the Tushino Boyar Duma and Sigismund III and recognize Prince Vladislav as the Moscow Tsar. “Seven Boyars” did not enjoy authority and accepted Zolkiewski’s ultimatum. She announced that Vladislav would convert to Orthodoxy after receiving the Russian crown. In order to give the election of Vladislav to the kingdom the appearance of legality, a semblance of the Zemsky Sobor was quickly assembled. That is, the Council of 1610 cannot be called a full-fledged legitimate Zemsky Sobor. In this case, it is interesting that the Council in the eyes of the then boyars was necessary tool to legitimize Vladislav on the Russian throne.
Council of 1613. Election of Mikhail Romanov.
After the expulsion of the Poles from Moscow, the question arose about electing a new tsar. Letters were sent from Moscow to many cities in Russia on behalf of the liberators of Moscow - Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. Information has been received about documents sent to Sol Vychegodskaya, Pskov, Novgorod, Uglich. These letters, dated mid-November 1612, ordered representatives of each city to arrive in Moscow before December 6, 1612. As a result of the fact that some of the candidates were delayed in arriving, the cathedral began its work a month later - on January 6, 1613. The number of participants in the cathedral is estimated from 700 to 1500 people. Among the candidates for the throne were representatives of such noble families as the Golitsyns, Mstislavskys, Kurakins, and others. Pozharsky and Trubetskoy themselves put forward their candidacies. As a result of the elections, Mikhail Romanov won. It should be noted that for the first time in their history, black-growing peasants took part in the Council of 1613.
Council of 1645. Approval of Alexei Mikhailovich on the throne
For several decades, the new royal dynasty could not be sure of the firmness of its positions and at first needed the formal consent of the estates. As a consequence of this, in 1645, after the death of Mikhail Romanov, another “electoral” council was convened, which confirmed his son Alexei on the throne.
Council of 1682. Approval of Peter Alekseevich.
In the spring of 1682, the last two “electoral” zemstvo councils in Russian history were held. At the first of them, on April 27, Peter Alekseevich was elected tsar. On the second, May 26, both of Alexei Mikhailovich’s youngest sons, Ivan and Peter, became kings.
2. Issues of war and peace
In 1566, Ivan the Terrible gathered the estates to find out the opinion of the “land” on the continuation of the Livonian War. The significance of this meeting is highlighted by the fact that the council worked in parallel with the Russian-Lithuanian negotiations. The estates (both nobles and townspeople) supported the king in his intention to continue military operations.
In 1621, a Council was convened regarding the violation by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the Deulin Truce of 1618. In 1637, 1639, 1642. estate representatives gathered in connection with the complications of Russia's relations with the Crimean Khanate and Turkey, after the capture of the Turkish fortress of Azov by the Don Cossacks.
In February 1651, a Zemsky Sobor was held, the participants of which unanimously spoke out in favor of supporting the uprising of the Ukrainian people against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but no concrete assistance was provided then. On October 1, 1653, the Zemsky Sobor made a historic decision on the reunification of Ukraine with Russia.
3. Financial issues
In 1614, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1632 and later zemstvo councils determined the amount of additional fees from the population and decided on the fundamental possibility of such fees. Councils 1614-1618 made decisions on “pyatina” (collection of a fifth of income) for the maintenance of service people. After this, the “Pyatiners”—officials who collected taxes, using the text of the conciliar “verdict” (decision) as a document—went around the country.
4. Domestic policy issues
The very first Zemsky Sobor, which we have already written about, was dedicated precisely to internal issues - the adoption of the code of law of Ivan the Terrible. The Zemsky Sobor of 1619 resolved issues related to the restoration of the country after the Time of Troubles and determining the direction of domestic policy in the new situation. The Council of 1648 - 1649, caused by massive urban uprisings, resolved issues of relations between landowners and peasants, determined the legal status of estates and estates, strengthened the position of the autocracy and the new dynasty in Russia, and influenced the solution of a number of other issues.
The next year after the adoption of the Council Code, the cathedral was once again convened to stop the uprisings in Novgorod and Pskov, which were not possible to suppress by force, especially since the rebels retained their fundamental loyalty to the monarch, that is, they did not refuse to recognize his power. The last “Zemstvo Council”, which dealt with issues of domestic policy, was convened in 1681-1682. It was dedicated to carrying out the next reforms in Russia. The most important of the results was the “conciliar act” on the abolition of localism, which provided a fundamental opportunity to increase the efficiency of the administrative apparatus in Russia.
Duration of the cathedral
Meetings of the council members lasted for different periods of time: some elected groups deliberated (for example, at the council of 1642) for several days, others for several weeks. The duration of the activities of the gatherings themselves, as institutions, was also uneven: issues were resolved either in a few hours (for example, the council of 1645, which swore allegiance to the new Tsar Alexei), or over the course of several months (councils of 1648 - 1649, 1653). In 1610-1613. The Zemsky Sobor under the militias turns into the supreme body of power (both legislative and executive), resolving issues of internal and foreign policy and operates almost continuously.
Completing the history of cathedrals
In 1684, the last Zemsky Sobor in Russian history was convened and dissolved.
He resolved the issue eternal peace with Poland. After this, Zemsky Sobors no longer met, which was the inevitable result of the reforms carried out by Peter I of the entire social structure of Russia and the strengthening absolute monarchy.
The meaning of cathedrals
From a legal point of view, the tsar's power was always absolute, and he was not obliged to obey zemstvo councils. The councils served the government as an excellent way to find out the mood of the country, to obtain information about the state of the state, whether it could incur new taxes, wage war, what abuses existed, and how to eradicate them. But the councils were most important for the government in that it used their authority to carry out measures that under other circumstances would have caused displeasure, and even resistance. Without the moral support of the councils, it would have been impossible to collect for many years those numerous new taxes that were imposed on the population under Michael to cover urgent government expenses. If the council, or the whole earth, has decided, then there is nothing left to do: willy-nilly, you have to fork out beyond measure, or even give away your last savings. It is necessary to note the qualitative difference between zemstvo councils and European parliaments - at the councils there was no parliamentary war of factions. Unlike similar Western European institutions, the Russian Councils, possessing real political power, did not oppose themselves to the Supreme Power and did not weaken it, extorting rights and benefits for themselves, but, on the contrary, served to strengthen and strengthen the Russian kingdom.
There were 57 cathedrals in total. One must think that in reality there were more of them, and not only because many sources have not reached us or are still unknown, but also because in the proposed list the activities of some cathedrals (during the first and second militias) had to be indicated in general, in while there were probably more than one meeting convened, and it would be important to note each of them.
Partner News
Introduction
2 The significance of zemstvo councils in the history of the Russian state
Conclusion
List of sources and literature used
Introduction
The centralized monarchy in the 16th-17th centuries needed an instrument that would support the policy of power, through which the government would learn about public demands and address society. Zemsky councils were such an instrument.
Zemsky Sobors are the highest class representative institutions with legislative functions, meetings of representatives of the city, regional, trade and service class, which appeared at the call of the Moscow government. This definition is given to us by anyone historical dictionary.
In the process of studying the topic, the goal was to find out why zemstvo councils appeared, what economic and political circumstances and processes were in the Moscow state by the middle of the 16th century. brought to life this form of government support for the feudal class and the urban elite of society in the form of zemstvo cathedrals, to determine the place and role of zemstvo cathedrals in solving the political and socio-economic problems of the Russian state in the 16th-17th centuries.
An important task of this work was to show what the political voice of the councils was, what significance zemstvo councils had in the formation and functioning of the life of the Moscow state in the second half of the 16th century. - XVII century, how they influenced internal political relations.
In our modern turbulent political life, in the media, in the keynote speeches of numerous election campaigns, the question invariably arises: do Russians have a sense of parliamentary tradition, does this element exist in the political consciousness of the main active part of the population. Most observers give a decisively negative answer - no, there is a tsarist tradition.
But some newspapers and some politicians say the opposite. They, on the basis of the feeling of conciliarity of the Russian people, on the basis of the experience of electing zemstvo bodies under the reform of 1864, elections to the State Duma after the revolution of 1905, elections to the Soviets, argue that the Russian people are not dominated by tsarist feelings, but by traditions of relying on elected government.
Without going into the details of this issue in full, it is still advisable in the work to try to comprehend not only the history and origin of zemstvo councils, but also the experience of ancient Russian zemstvo councils in developing among the population that feeling that is now commonly called parliamentary tradition.
This is the range of questions that are the purpose of studying and writing a work on the topic “History of Zemsky Councils.”
Chapter 1. Zemsky councils of the Russian state in the 16th-17th centuries.
1 Prerequisites for the emergence of zemstvo councils
Zemsky Sobor Russian state
So significant social phenomenon, like zemstvo cathedrals, could not appear simply out of nowhere. For this there must be certain prerequisites. Two circumstances must be taken into account as conditions for the emergence of zemstvo councils:
a) the historical tradition of veche, councils;
b) a sharp aggravation of the class struggle and the difficult international situation of Rus', which required the government to have support in the estates, but not like a veche with its right to approve and establish, but an advisory body.
Let us briefly consider the first circumstance - historical tradition. In the Middle Ages, Rus' represented a federation, a union of princes, formalized by contractual relations on the basis of vassalage rights. Already at this time, the prototype of a representative body was emerging in the form of a council of boyars, bishops, merchants, nobles and “all the people.” Apparently, this was a form of class representation as opposed to the veche tradition. Chronicles of the 14th century. they talk about princely congresses that met as needed.
With education single state, grand-ducal congresses are dying out. The boyar duma becomes the form of inter-princely relations and their influence on the Moscow Grand Duke. The emerging centralized monarchy no longer required either a veche or princely congresses, but it had a need to strengthen itself by relying on leading social forces. What was needed was an instrument that would support the government’s policies, through which the government would learn about public demands and address the public. Zemsky councils were such an instrument.
Reliance on zemstvo councils was determined not only by historical tradition. The tsar and the government turned to zemstvo councils due to the fact that by the middle of the 16th century. The country was rocked by serious social unrest and uprisings. Historians directly connect the first council with the Moscow uprising; several councils were convened directly out of the need to find ways to pacify the Pskov uprising (in the middle of the 17th century). The difficult situation forced significant masses of peasants to flee to the east (beyond the Urals) and south (to the steppe). There were massive unauthorized plowings of the lands of feudal lords, unauthorized cutting of forests, and seizure of documents assigning peasants to feudal landowners. The struggle of the townspeople against feudal robberies and violence, the lawless exactions of the feeding governors, who viewed the city as an object of unscrupulous extortion, intensified.
The class struggle reached its greatest tension during the Moscow uprising of 1547. The immediate reason for it was the fire on June 21, 1547, which destroyed part of the Moscow settlement. The peak of the uprising was directed against the government of the Glinskys, who were accused of many oppressions and the burning of Moscow. The uprising spread to many other parts of the country.
In the context of a wide wave of popular movements that swept across the country in the middle of the 16th century, the tsar, church hierarchs, and the boyar duma were forced to look for measures to end the strife between boyar groups and form a government capable of ensuring national interests. The beginning of 1549 dates back to the emergence of the “elected Rada,” which included the favorite of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, Alexei Adashev. Adashev's government was looking for a compromise between individual layers of feudal lords, at which time the idea of convening a cathedral of reconciliation in 1549 arose. So, the emergence of zemstvo councils was due to the nature of the socio-historical development of the Moscow state.
1.2 Classification and functions of zemstvo councils
The formation of an estate-representative monarchy represents the formation of both estates and the corresponding state structure. Zemsky councils were an integral part of this process.
IN various sources, dedicated to zemstvo councils, the content of this concept is ambiguously presented in terms of the composition of its representation.
Cherepnin interprets this concept very broadly, including church councils, military councils, council councils. Zimin, Mordovina, Pavlenko practically do not argue with him on this issue, although in most cases the representation of the boyars is attributed not only to the Boyar Duma, but representatives of the third estate are found in the assault.
The authors of textbooks on the question of what a “Zemsky Sobor” is from the point of view of representation are united with the opinion expressed by S.V. Yushkov in the textbook “History of State and Law”. Yushkov writes: “Zemstvo cathedrals consist of three parts - the boyar duma, which was usually present in full force, a gathering of the highest clergy (“the consecrated cathedral”) and a meeting of representatives from people of all ranks, that is, the local nobility and merchants.
Tikhomirov and some others believe that a sign of a cathedral is necessarily the presence of a “zemsky element,” that is, in addition to the boyar duma, representatives of the local nobility and townspeople. At some councils listed chronologically by Tcherepnin, the “zemsky element” was absent for various reasons.
What does the concept of “Zemsky Sobor” include?
The term “Zemsky Sobor” is not found in monuments of the 16th century; it is also rarely found in documents of the 17th century. The word “zemsky” in the 16th century meant “state”. Hence, “zemstvo affairs” mean in the understanding of the 16th - 17th centuries. national affairs. Sometimes the term “zemstvo affairs” is used to distinguish it from “military affairs” - military affairs.
Thus, in documents about zemstvo councils of the 17th century. we read: elected officials come “for our (that is, the royal) great and zemstvo cause,” in order to “correct and arrange the land.”
Thus, for contemporaries, zemstvo councils are a meeting of representatives of the “Earth”, dedicated to state building, this is a council “on the structure of the zemstvo,” on ranks, “courts and councils of the zemstvo.”
As for the term “cathedral”, in the 16th century. it was usually used to designate a corporation of the highest spiritual hierarchs (“the consecrated cathedral”) or a meeting of the clergy in which the king and his entourage could take part. Meetings of a secular nature in sources of the 16th century. usually called "council". However, a tradition has developed to call secular national meetings of the 16th-17th centuries. secular and clergy not by a zemstvo council, but by a zemstvo council.
Zemsky councils of a national character, with the participation of representatives of the ruling class of the entire earth, to some extent inherited the functions and political role of the previous forms of communication between the prince and the leading elite of society. At the same time, zemstvo councils are a body that replaced the veche; it adopted from the veche the tradition of the participation of all social groups in resolving general issues, but replaced the elements of democracy inherent in the veche with the principles of class representation.
Before the Zemstvo Sobors, there were church councils; from them the name “cathedral” and some organizational and procedural forms were transferred to the Zemstvo Sobors.
Some councils (councils of reconciliation) were directly intended to paralyze class and intra-class contradictions.
To understand the role of zemstvo councils, it is of great importance to study the composition of their representatives, the study of those sections of society that were represented at the councils. In the XVI - XVII centuries. representatives were called to the councils from the nobles and children of the boyars of each district and from the tax-paying townspeople of each county town. This, according to modern concepts, means that each county, and each county town was constituency. Usually, the nobles of each district sent two deputies (some or more - up to six deputies), and the district city sent one deputy. A royal letter was sent about the convening of the Zemsky Sobor, which indicated the date for calling the cathedral, the number of representatives of different classes from each administrative unit specifically.
For example, for the Zemstvo Council of 1651 there is a royal letter dated January 31, 1651 in Krapivna to the governor Vasily Astafiev about the selection “for our royal, great, zemstvo and Lithuanian cause” and sending to Moscow on Cathedral Sunday two “best nobles” and two "the best townspeople." As we see from the text of this royal charter, for some reason the royal officials considered it necessary for Krapivna to have the same number of feudal lords and the commercial and industrial class.
The representation of classes at the councils can be traced based on the research of V. O. Klyuchevsky in his work “The Composition of Representation at the Zemstvo Councils of Ancient Rus'.” Klyuchevsky examines in detail the composition of the cathedrals based on the representation of 1566 and 1598.
In 1566, the second zemstvo council in history took place. This was during the war with Latvia over Livonia. The Tsar wanted to know the opinion of the officials whether to reconcile with Lithuania on the terms proposed by the Lithuanian king. From this cathedral, the verdict letter and the full protocol with the names of all the ranks of the cathedral have been preserved. It names 374 members of the cathedral. According to social status they were divided into four groups. The first group - 32 clergy - the archbishop, bishops, archimandrites, abbots and monastic elders. There were hardly any elected people in this group; these were all persons represented at the council according to their rank, as its indispensable members and invited competent people, respected by society and able to submit useful advice, strengthen the moral authority of the Zemsky Sobor.
The second group consisted of 29 boyars, okolnichy, sovereign clerks, that is, secretaries of state and other senior officials. The same group included 33 simple clerks and clerks. In the second group there were no elected representatives: these were all dignitaries and businessmen of the highest central administration, members of the boyar duma, chiefs and secretaries of Moscow orders, invited to the council by virtue of their official position.
The third group consisted of 97 nobles of the first article, 99 nobles and children of boyars of the second article, 3 Toropets and 6 Lutsk landowners. This is a group of military service people.
The fourth group included 12 guests, that is, merchants of the highest rank, 41 people of ordinary Moscow merchants - “Muscovite trading people”, as they are called in the “conciliar charter”, and 22 people - people of the industrial trading class.
The nobles and boyar children of both articles designated in the cathedral list were practically representatives noble societies, whom they led on campaigns.
Representatives of the urban commercial and industrial class were the spokesmen for the opinions of the county commercial and industrial worlds. From them the government expected advice on improving the tax collection system, in conducting commercial and industrial affairs, which required trade experience, some technical knowledge that the clerks and indigenous governing bodies did not possess.
Klyuchevsky persistently pursues the idea that the conciliar representatives from the estates were not so much authorized by their estate or from their corporation, but rather called by the government from such a corporation. According to Klyuchevsky, the elected representative “appeared at the council not in order to declare to the authorities about the needs and desires of his voters and demand their satisfaction, but in order to answer the requests that the authorities would make to him, to give advice on what matter they demand it, and then return home as a responsible conductor of the decision made by the authorities on the basis of inquiries made and advice listened to.”
This point of view, which belittles the role of participants in zemstvo councils, has been reasonably corrected by Cherepnin, Pavlenko, Tikhomirov and other modern researchers, who have shown that elected representatives of zemstvo councils played a much more independent role.
For a more detailed study of the nature of representation, let us also consider the composition of the council of 1598. It was an electoral council that elevated the boyar Boris Godunov to the royal throne. The full act of this council with a list of its members has been preserved. Historians have disagreements regarding the number of its participants - they estimate from 456 to 512 people. This slight difference can be explained by technical reasons for the dissimilarity of the list of zemstvo councils with the list of assault on the verdict on the election of Boris Godunov as tsar - the “approved charter”.
For this topic, the main interest is the social composition of the cathedral participants. The classification of representation at this council is much more complex than that of the Zemstvo Council of 1566.
And at this council the highest clergy were invited; all the clergy at the council of 1598 were 109 people. The cathedral, of course, included the Boyar Duma. Together the boyars, okolnichi, Duma nobles and stuffy clerks there were 52 people. The clerks from the Moscow orders, consisting of 30 people, were called up, from the palace administration 2 rams and 16 palace key keepers were called to the cathedral. There were 268 military servicemen drafted to the cathedral; in the cathedral they represented a slightly smaller percentage than in 1566, namely 52% instead of the previous 55%. But at this council they represented a more detailed hierarchy. The cathedral act of 1598 divides them into stewards, nobles, solicitors, heads of streltsy, residents and elected representatives of the cities.
Representatives of the commercial and industrial class at the cathedral were 21 guests, 15 elders and hundreds of Moscow living rooms, cloth and blacks. These elders appeared at the Zemstvo Council of 1598 instead of representatives of the capital's merchants, which earlier, at the Council of 1566, were designated by the title of merchants of Moscow and Smolensk.
Thus, the council of 1598 practically contains the same four groups that were present at the council of 1566:
church administration
higher public administration
military service class representing feudal nobles
commercial and industrial class.
This is a typical composition of a full Zemstvo Sobor; peasants, the urban poor, and urban artisans were never represented at it.
At incomplete councils, which historians sometimes call not councils, but meetings, the first and second groups were necessarily present, but the third and fourth groups could be presented in a weakened, truncated form.
The composition of the councils reveals with whom the tsar and the government had advice, to whom they addressed pressing pressing state issues, whose opinion they listened to, and who they needed to rely on.
How many zemstvo cathedrals were there in the 16th - 17th centuries? All scientists call the cathedral of reconciliation in 1549 the first zemstvo council. However, there is no consensus on the cessation of the influence of zemstvo councils. Some historians consider practically the last zemstvo council to be the council of 1653 on the war with Poland and the annexation of Ukraine to Russia, others consider the convening and dissolution of the council on eternal peace with Poland in 1683 to be the last council.
It is interesting to note that in the complete list of Cherepnin’s cathedrals there is also a cathedral that, by its decision, sanctified the dual reign of Ivan and Peter Alekseevich and the elevation to the rank of ruler Sophia. However, when describing these events in history textbooks, the word “cathedral” or reference to the decision of the Zemsky Sobor is nowhere found. The position on this issue of the authoritative modern historian N. I. Pavlenko is interesting. It has already been said above that he seriously dealt with the problems of zemstvo councils. But he, on the one hand, did not refute Tcherepnin’s opinion about the last councils, and on the other hand, in all his books about Peter I, he never mentions the councils that sanctified the dual kingdom. At best, we are talking about the fact that the name of the kings was shouted from the crowd in the square.
Obviously, the most justified is the opinion of L.V. Cherepnin, on which we will mainly rely. Cherepnin in his book “Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State of the XVI - XVII centuries.” transferred to chronological order 57 cathedrals, including 11 cathedrals in the 16th century and 46 cathedrals in the 17th century.
However, Cherepnin, Tikhomirov, Pavlenko, Schmidt and other historians believe that there could have been more cathedrals; information about some may not have reached us; discoveries by historians are still possible when studying archival sources. Among the listed 57 cathedrals, Cherepnin also includes three church and zemstvo cathedrals, including the Stoglavy Cathedral. An analysis of representation and the issues being resolved makes the inclusion of the Stoglavy Cathedral in the total number of zemstvo councils completely justified and logical.
To understand the role of zemstvo councils, their essence, their influence on the history of this period - the period of the estate-representative monarchy and the formation of an absolute monarchy, we will classify them according to several criteria. Klyuchevsky classifies cathedrals according to the following criteria:
Electoral. They elected the king, made a final decision, confirmed by the corresponding document and signatures of the participants of the cathedral (assault).
advisory, all councils that gave advice at the request of the king, the government, the highest spiritual hierarchy.
complete, when zemstvo councils had full representation, similar to that which was considered in the examples of the councils of 1566 and 1598.
incomplete, when at the zemstvo councils the Boyar Duma, the “consecrated cathedral” and only partially the nobility and the third estate were represented, and at some council meetings the last two groups, due to the circumstances corresponding to that time, could be represented symbolically.
From the point of view of social and political significance, cathedrals can be divided into four groups:
summoned by the king;
convened by the king on the initiative of the estates;
convened by estates or on the initiative of estates in the absence of the king;
Elections for the kingdom.
Most of the cathedrals belong to the first group. The second group includes the council of 1648, which gathered, as the source directly states, in response to petitions to the tsar from people of “various ranks,” as well as a number of councils from the time of Mikhail Fedorovich. The third group includes the council of 1565, which resolved the issue of the oprichnina, and the councils of 1611-1613. about the “council of the whole earth”, about the state structure and political order. Electoral councils (the fourth group) met to select and confirm on the throne Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Mikhail Romanov, Peter and Ivan Alekseevich, as well as presumably Fyodor Ivanovich and Alexei Mikhailovich.
Military councils were convened, often they were an emergency gathering, the representation at them was incomplete, they invited those who were interested in the territory that was the cause of the war and those who could be called up in a short time in the hope of supporting the tsar’s policies.
Church councils are also included in the number of councils due to the following circumstances:
at these councils there was still a zemstvo element present;
resolved religious issues in those historical times and shallows and secular “zemstvo meaning”.
Of course, this classification is arbitrary, but it helps to understand the content of the activities of the cathedrals.
For a deeper understanding of the role of cathedrals, it is advisable to carry out another classification:
Councils that decided on reform issues;
Councils that decided the foreign policy affairs of Rus', issues of war and peace;
Councils that decided matters of the internal “structure of the state,” including ways to pacify uprisings;
Cathedrals of the Time of Troubles;
Electoral councils (election of kings).
Chapter 2. Activities of Zemsky Sobors
1 Current issues, decided at zemstvo councils
In the textbook "History" public administration in Russia”, edited by A. N. Markova, zemstvo councils of the 16th - 17th centuries. called a fundamentally new government body. The Council acted in close connection with the tsarist government and the Duma. The Council, as a representative body, was bicameral. The upper chamber included the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the consecrated council, who were not elected, but participated in accordance with their position. Members of the lower house were elected. Issues were discussed by estate (by chamber). Each estate submitted a written opinion to the owl, and then, as a result of their generalization, a conciliar verdict was drawn up, accepted by the entire composition of the cathedral.
Councils met on Red Square, in the Patriarchal Chambers or in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, and later in the Golden Chamber or the Dining Hut.
Zemsky councils were headed by the tsar and the metropolitan. The role of the tsar at the council was active; he raised questions before the council, accepted petitions, listened to the petitioners, and practically carried out all the leadership of the council’s actions.
Sources of that time contain information that at some councils the tsar also addressed petitioners outside the chambers in which the meeting on estates was held, that is, not to the members of the council. There is also information that at some councils the king, during very acute situations, addressed the opinions of people in the square adjacent to the palace chambers.
The cathedral opened with a traditional prayer service, perhaps in some cases with a procession of the cross. It was a traditional church celebration that accompanied the most important political events. Meetings of the council lasted from one day to several months, depending on the circumstances. So. The Stoglavy Council was held from February 23 to May 11, 1551, the Council of Reconciliation was held on February 27-28, 1549, the Zemsky Council on the campaign to Serpukhov to repel the troops of the Crimean Khan Kazy-Girey was held on April 20, 1598 for one day.
There was no law and no tradition regarding the frequency of convening councils. They were convened depending on the circumstances within the state and foreign policy conditions. According to sources, in some periods the councils met annually, and sometimes there were breaks of several years.
Let us give as an example the issues of internal affairs considered at the councils:
1580 - On church and monastic land ownership;
1607 - On the release of the population from the oath to False Dmitry 1, on the forgiveness of perjuries against Boris Godunov;
1611 - The verdict (constituent act) of “the whole earth” on the state structure and political order;
1613 - About sending collectors of money and supplies to cities;
1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618 etc. - On the collection of five-dollar money, that is, on the collection of funds for the maintenance of troops and national expenses.
An example of how the tsar and the government had to resort to the help of the Zemsky Sobor as a result of severe internal unrest is the period 1648 - 1650, when uprisings broke out in Moscow and Pskov. These facts shed light on the influence of unrest in the convening of zemstvo councils.
The Moscow popular uprising began on June 1, 1648 with attempts to submit a petition to the tsar, who was returning on pilgrimage from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The essence of the complaints was to expose “the untruth and violence that is being perpetrated against them (the petitioners”). But hopes for a peaceful analysis and satisfaction of complaints did not materialize. On June 2, after new fruitless attempts to present the petition to the Tsar during a religious procession, the people broke into the Kremlin and destroyed the palaces of the boyars. For this topic, the content of one of the petitions, dated June 2, 1648, to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, which has come down to us in a Swedish translation, is interesting. The petition was compiled “from all ranks of people and all the common people.” The text contains an appeal to the tsar “to listen to our and the Moscow simple nobility, city service people, high and low ranks in Moscow complaint.” This list of ranks reproduces the usual composition of the Zemsky Sobor. In terms of content, this is a petition, mainly of service people speaking on behalf of the entire population of the Moscow state, imbued with ideas of indignation in 1648. In it, the subjects appeal for the last time to the sense of honor and fear of the young king, threatening him with divine punishment and the punishment of popular indignation for the violence and robberies allowed in the country.
For this topic, the positive proposals of the petition regarding the reorganization are of interest state apparatus. The petition pays special attention to the justification of judicial reform. The following words are addressed to the king: “You must... command to eradicate all unrighteous judges, remove the unreasonable ones, and in their place choose fair people who could answer for their judgment and for their service before God and before your royal majesty.” If the king does not fulfill this order, then he “must instruct all people to appoint all officials and judges at their own expense, and for this purpose choose people who, in the old days and in truth, can protect them from strong (people) violence.”
To understand the nature of the activities of cathedrals, we can cite brief description military council in January 1550, Ivan the Terrible gathered an army in Vladimir, heading for a campaign near Kazan.
According to a document called the Chronograph, Ivan IV, having listened to a prayer service and mass in the Assumption Cathedral, addressed in the presence of Metropolitan Macarius a speech to the boyars, governors, princes, boyar children, courtyards and policemen of the Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod lands with an appeal to abandon parochial accounts in the royal service during the hike. The speech was a success and the soldiers said, “Your royal punishment and command to serve are acceptable; as you command, sir, so we do.”
Metropolitan Macarius also gave a speech. This cathedral consecrated the readiness of the land to go to Kazan.
Of great historical interest is the council of 1653, which discussed the issue of accepting Ukraine into Russian citizenship at the request of Ukrainian representatives. Sources indicate that the discussion of this issue was long, and people of “all ranks” were interviewed. They also took into account the opinion of the “square people” (obviously, not the participants of the cathedral, but those who were in the square while the cathedral meetings were going on).
As a result, a unanimous positive opinion was expressed regarding the accession of Ukraine to Russia. The Charter of Accession expresses satisfaction with the voluntary nature of this accession on the part of the Ukrainians.
Some historians council of 1653 on the admission of Ukraine into Russian state considered to be practically the last cathedral, then the conciliar activity was no longer so relevant and experienced a process of withering away.
For full characteristics the content of the activities of the cathedrals and their influence on the socio-political life of the country, on the history of Russia, let us consider, for example, the activities of three cathedrals: the Stoglavy Cathedral, the Cathedral that made the decision on the oprichnina, and the Laid Down Cathedral.
Most experts believe that the Stoglavy Cathedral cannot be excluded from the cathedral system of the 16th - 17th centuries, although they emphasize that it was a church council. However, it should be included in the general conciliar system for three reasons:
1) it was convened on the initiative of the king;
) it was attended by secular representatives from the Boyar Duma;
3) the collection of decisions adopted at the council to a certain extent also concerned the laity.
The cathedral met in Moscow in January-February 1551, the final completion of the work dates back to May 1551. It received its name from the collection of council decisions, divided into one hundred chapters - “Stoglav”. The government's initiative in convening the council was determined by the desire to support the church in the fight against anti-feudal heretical movements and at the same time subordinate the church to secular power.
The Council of the Hundred Heads proclaimed the inviolability of church property and the exclusive jurisdiction of clergy to the church court. At the request of the church hierarchs, the government abolished the jurisdiction of clergy over the tsar. In exchange for this, members of the Stoglavy Council made concessions to the government on a number of other issues. In particular, monasteries were prohibited from establishing new settlements in cities.
The decisions of the council unified church ceremonies and duties throughout Russia, the norms of intra-church life are regulated in order to increase the moral and educational level of the clergy and the correct performance of their duties. The creation of schools for the training of priests was envisaged. Control was established by church authorities over the activities of book scribes and icon painters, etc. During the second half of the 16th and 17th centuries. right up to the Council Code “Stoglav was not only a code of legal norms for the internal life of the clergy, but also its relationship with society and the state.
The council of 1565 played a significant role in strengthening the absolute monarchy. In the early 60s of the 16th century. Ivan IV sought to actively continue the Livonian War, but encountered opposition from some people from his circle. Break with the Elected Rada and disgrace with the princes and boyars 1560-1564. caused discontent among the feudal nobility, leaders of orders and the highest feudal nobility, leaders of orders and the highest clergy. Some feudal lords, not agreeing with the tsar’s policy, betrayed him and fled abroad (A. M. Kurbsky and others). In December 1564, Ivan IV left for the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda near Moscow and on January 3, 1565, announced his abdication due to “anger” at the clergy, boyars, children of boyars and clerks. On the initiative of the estates, under these conditions, the Zemsky Sobor met in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. the classes were concerned about the fate of the throne. Representatives of the cathedral declared their commitment to the monarchy. As for the guests, merchants and “all citizens of Moscow,” they, in addition to statements of a monarchical nature, showed anti-boyar sentiments. They beat them with their foreheads so that the king “would not give them to the wolves for plunder, but most of all, he would deliver them from the hands of the strong; and who will be the sovereign’s villains and traitors, and they do not stand for them and consume them themselves.”
The Zemsky Sobor agreed to grant the tsar emergency powers and approved the oprichnina.
The laid cathedral is a cathedral that adopted the Council Code of 1649 - the code of laws of the Russian state. It took place under the direct influence of the Moscow uprising of 1648. It sat for a long time.
A special commission headed by the boyar Prince N.I. Odoevsky was involved in drawing up the project. The draft Code was discussed in its entirety and in parts by members of the Zemsky Sobor, class by class (“in chambers”). The printed text was sent to orders and localities.
The sources of the Council Code were:
Code of Law 1550 (Stoglav)
Decree books of Local, Zemsky, Robber and other orders
Collective petitions of Moscow and provincial nobles, townspeople
The helmsman's book (Byzantine law)
Lithuanian status 1588, etc.
An attempt was made for the first time to create a set of all existing legal norms, including legal codes and the Newly Indicated Articles. The material was compiled into 25 chapters and 967 articles. The Code outlines the division of norms by industry and institution. After 1649, the body of legal norms of the Code included the newly specified articles on “robbery and murder” (1669), on estates and estates (1677), and on trade (1653 and 1677).
The Council Code determined the status of the head of state - the tsar, autocratic and hereditary monarch. His approval (election) at the Zemsky Sobor did not shake the established principles; on the contrary, it justified and legitimized them. Even criminal intent (not to mention actions) directed against the person of the monarch was severely punished.
Crime system Council Code looked like this:
Crimes against the church: blasphemy, seducing an Orthodox Christian into another faith, interrupting the liturgy in the church.
State crimes: any actions (and even intent) directed against the personality of the sovereign, his family, rebellion, conspiracy, treason. For these crimes, responsibility was borne not only by the persons who committed them, but also by their relatives and friends.
Crimes against the order of administration: malicious failure of the defendant to appear in court and resistance to the bailiff, production of false letters, acts and seals, unauthorized travel abroad, counterfeiting, maintaining drinking establishments without permission and moonshine, taking a false oath in court, giving false testimony, “sneaking.” ” or a false accusation.
Crimes against the deanery: maintaining brothels, harboring fugitives, illegal sale of property (stolen, someone else's), unauthorized entry into a mortgage (to a boyar, to a monastery, to a landowner), imposition of duties on persons exempt from them.
Official crimes: extortion (bribery), unlawful exactions, injustice (deliberately unfair decision of a case out of self-interest or hostility), forgery in service, military crimes (damage to private individuals, looting, escape from a unit).
Crimes against the person: murder, divided into simple and qualified, mutilation, beatings, insult to honor. Killing a traitor or thief at the scene of a crime was not punished at all.
Property crimes: simple and qualified theft (church, in the service, horse theft, theft of vegetables from the garden, fish from cages), robbery and robbery, fraud, arson, forcible seizure of someone else's property, damage to someone else's property.
Crimes against morality: children’s disrespect for their parents, refusal to support elderly parents, pimping, sexual relations between a master and a slave.
The chapter of the Code “Court on Peasants” contains articles that finally formalized serfdom- the eternal hereditary dependence of the peasants was established, the “Scheduled summers” for finding runaway peasants were abolished, and a high fine was established for harboring runaways.
The adoption of the Council Code of 1649 was an important milestone in the development of the absolute monarchy and the serf system. The Council Code of 1649 is a code of feudal law.
For the first time in secular codification, the Council Code provides for liability for ecclesiastical crimes. The assumption by the state of affairs that were previously under ecclesiastical jurisdiction meant a limitation of the power of the church.
The comprehensive nature and compliance with historical conditions ensured the durability of the Council Code; it retained its significance as the law of Russia until the first half of the 19th century V.
Thus, the history of Zemsky Sobors can be divided into 6 periods:
- The time of Ivan the Terrible (since 1549). The councils convened by the tsarist authorities had already taken shape. The cathedral, assembled on the initiative of the estates (1565), is also known.
- From the death of Ivan the Terrible to the fall of Shuisky (from 1584 to 1610). This was the time when the preconditions for civil war and foreign intervention were taking shape, and the crisis of autocracy began. The councils performed the function of electing the kingdom, and sometimes became an instrument of forces hostile to Russia.
- 1610 - 1613 The Zemsky Sobor under the militias turns into the supreme body of power (both legislative and executive), deciding issues of domestic and foreign policy. This is the time when the Zemsky Sobor played the largest and most progressive role in public life.
- 1613 - 1622 The Council acts almost continuously, but already as an advisory body under the royal power. Questions of current reality pass through them. The government seeks to rely on them when carrying out financial activities (collecting five-year money), restoring the damaged economy, eliminating the consequences of the intervention and preventing new aggression from Poland.
From 1622, the activity of the cathedrals ceased until 1632.
- 1632 - 1653 Councils meet relatively rarely, but on major policy issues - internal (drawing up the Code, the uprising in Pskov) and external (Russian-Polish and Russian-Crimean relations, the annexation of Ukraine, the question of Azov). During this period, speeches by class groups intensified, presenting demands to the government, in addition to cathedrals, also through petitions.
- After 1653 to 1684 The time of decline of cathedrals (there was a slight rise in the 80s).
Thus, the activity of zemstvo councils was an important component of the functioning of state power, the support of power on the dominant social forces during the formation of the absolute monarchy.
2 The significance of Zemsky Sobors in the history of the state
Studying zemstvo councils, we see that the council was not a permanent institution, had neither authority obligatory for the authorities, nor competence defined by law, and therefore did not ensure the rights and interests of either the entire people or its individual classes, and even the elective element was invisible or barely noticeable in its composition. The Zemsky Sobor, of course, did not satisfy the abstract demands of either class or popular representation.
The Zemsky Sobor is a form of public participation in government that does not fit the usual types of popular representation. However, zemstvo cathedrals of the 16th century. find their political meaning, their historical justification.
During the period of our history being studied, we observe something similar to what happened before and was repeated after. The well-known government order, caused by the timely needs of the country, lasted for a long time and, after they had passed, like an anachronism, and the social class that led and used this obsolete order placed an unnecessary burden on the country, its public leadership became an abuse. From the half of the 15th century. The Moscow sovereigns continued to rule the united Great Russia through the system of feeding passed down from the appanage centuries, to which, with the formation of the Moscow orders, the rapidly multiplying dyacry was added.
In contrast to this administrative administration, whose feeding habits did not at all correspond to the tasks of the state, an elective principle was installed in the regional administration, and a government recruitment in the central administration: both means opened up a constant influx of local people into the administration. social forces, which could be entrusted with free and responsible administrative and judicial services. In the society of the times of Ivan the Terrible, the idea was circulating about the need to make the Zemsky Sobor the leader in this matter of correcting and updating the administrative administration. In fact, the Zemsky Sobor. did not emerge either as an all-zem, or as a permanent, annually convened meeting, and did not take control of management into his own hands. However, it did not pass without a trace either for legislation and administration, or even for the political self-awareness of Russian society. The revision of the Code of Law and the plan for zemstvo reform are things that, as we have seen, were carried out not without the participation of the first council. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, the Zemsky Sobor even filled the gap in the basic law, more precisely, in the usual order of succession to the throne, i.e., it received constituent significance. Supreme power in the Moscow state, as is known, was transferred by specific patrimonial order, by will. According to the spiritual year of 1572, Tsar Ivan appointed his eldest son Ivan as his successor. But the death of the heir at the hands of his father in 1581 abolished this testamentary disposition, and the tsar did not have time to draw up a new will. So his second son Fedor, having become the eldest, was left without a legal title, without an act that would give him the right to the throne. This missing act was created by the Zemsky Sobor. Russian news says that in 1584, after the death of Tsar Ivan, they came to Moscow from all cities famous people the entire state and prayed to the prince, to be king . To the Englishman Horsey, who then lived in Moscow, this congress of eminent people seemed similar to a parliament composed of the highest clergy and all the nobility that ever existed . These expressions indicate that the council of 1584 was similar in composition to the council of 1566, consisting of the government and people of the two highest metropolitan classes. Thus, at the council of 1584, the place of the personal will of the patrimonial testator was for the first time replaced by a state act of election, covered by the usual form of zemstvo petition: the appanage order of succession to the throne was not abolished, but confirmed, but under a different legal title, and therefore lost its appanage character. The council of 1598 with the election of Boris Godunov had the same founding significance. Rare, random convenings of the council in the 16th century. could not help but leave behind an important national psychological impression.
Only here did the boyar-prikaz government stand next to people from the governed society, as with its political equal, in order to express its thoughts to the sovereign; only here did it wean itself from thinking of itself as an all-powerful caste, and only here did the nobles, guests and merchants gathered in the capital from Novgorod, Smolensk, Yaroslavl and many other cities, bound by a common obligation wish well to your sovereign and his lands , learned for the first time to feel like a single people in the political sense of the word: only at the council could Great Russia recognize itself as an integral state.
Conclusion
I believe that basically the tasks set in course work, managed to complete.
In the process of preparing the work, the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, L. V. Cherepnin, M. N. Tikhomirov, S. P. Mordovina, N. I. Pavlenko and others, indicated in the list of references, were studied. The corresponding sections of several modern history textbooks were also studied in order to find out what place is given to zemstvo cathedrals in them. Unfortunately, in textbooks for both schoolchildren and university students, zemstvo cathedrals are mentioned literally in passing, at best in 2-3 sentences.
The study of the problem of zemstvo councils of ancient Rus' leads to the conclusion that in our historical science the role of this socio-political institution is underestimated.
An analysis of the history of zemstvo councils shows that they cannot be considered only as an auxiliary instrument of the tsarist administration. From the material studied, we can conclude that it was an active body, an independent engine of political life, influencing public administration and legislation.
On the other hand, the composition of the representation, the analysis of the procedure for convening councils and the procedure for discussing issues leads to the conclusion that the councils cannot be considered a body of popular opposition, as is presented by the author of some studies. There is no reason to consider zemstvo councils as a body of opposition from the estates to the boyar duma and the spiritual hierarchy, although zemstvo councils at some critical moments in the history of Russia were a counterweight to the boyars (the zemstvo sobor, which approved the oprichnina).
The nature and content of the activities of zemstvo councils does not allow us to regard them as representative institutions of the model medieval Europe. The difference here lies in the socio-economic conditions of the emergence and purpose of cathedrals and various class-representative institutions in Europe.
It is necessary to say this because often a significant part of us politicians there is a desire to compare this or that Russian phenomenon with a European one, and if there is no European analogue, to reject or forget the historical native Russian phenomenon. As for zemstvo elections, some historians believed that since they did not play the same role as Western European medieval representative institutions, their role was small, which cannot be agreed with.
The work shows that zemstvo councils were an important, but advisory and class body under the tsar and the government. The tsar could not do without relying on this body during the period of formation of a centralized state and an absolute monarchy.
The work sought to show, based on the sources studied, that those elected at the councils were active, proactive and persistent people. Petitions were not dictated by the government, but independently developed documents on behalf of certain sections of society. The significant role of councils is evidenced by the fact that some of them were convened and made state decisions in extreme social conditions (cathedrals of the Time of Troubles, councils during popular uprisings).
Assessing the significant historical role of zemstvo councils, it is right to pay attention to the fact that the estates convened councils in the absence of the tsar or resolutely insisted on convening councils in the presence of the tsar in conditions of acute socio-political confrontation.
There are differences in the sources regarding the procedure for electing the conciliar representation of the estates. In particular, for Klyuchevsky this is not an election, but rather a selection of people loyal to the government. For Cherepnin, this is, of course, the election of people from the localities to express classes.
This work supports Tcherepnin’s point of view as more justified. Elected people were indeed present at the councils. When you get acquainted with the description of the details of the course of the councils, you feel the intensity of passions, the expression of the independent interests of classes and certain localities. The external verbal expression of “unquestioning” obedience is practically in a number of cases only a tribute to the established forms of communication between the king and his subjects.
The course work contains agendas for many councils, as this best reveals the essence and role of this public institution. The direction and nature of the activities of cathedrals can be most clearly judged using the typification of the classification of cathedrals, therefore quite a lot of space is devoted to this topic in the work.
The classification of cathedrals made it possible to show how significant were the internal and foreign political problems that required the support of the Moscow Tsar and his government on the authority of elected class representatives, such as the cathedrals.
In the course work, three cathedrals are analyzed in more detail, because it was necessary to show: a) the secular and ecclesiastical cathedral; b) councils that adopted fundamental laws (the Hundred-Glavy Cathedral and the Laid-Out Cathedral); c) an example of a council that took direct part in government reform- introduction of oprichnina. Of course, other councils also resolved very pressing issues that determined the fate of the state.
Is it possible to derive a Russian folk quality - conciliarity - based on the history of zemstvo councils? It seems not. The fact that politicians understand and present this as the conciliarity of the Russian people is present in any other people, as an expression of a community of interests, especially manifested at critical moments in history.
Literature
1.Great Soviet Encyclopedia / vol. 24, M. - 1986, 400 p.
2.World history in 10 volumes / M. - Enlightenment, 1999
.Reforms of Ivan the Terrible: essays on the socio-economic and political history of Russia in the mid-16th century/A. A. Zimin, M. - Science, 1960
.History of state and law / I. A. Isaev, M. -2003, 230 p.
.Klyuchevsky V. O. Works in 9 volumes / vol. 3 and vol. 8, M. - 1990
6.Zemsky Sobor 1598 / S. P. Mordovina, Questions of History, No. 2, 1971, 514 p.
7.The formation of estate-representative institutions in Russia / N.E. Nosov, L. -1969, 117 p.
.On the history of zemsky councils of the 16th century / N. I. Pavlenko, Questions of History, No. 5, 1968.156 p.
.Readings and stories on the history of Russia / S.M. Soloviev, M -1999
10.Estate-representative institutions (zemsky councils) in Russia in the 16th century / Questions of history, No. 5, 1958, 148 p.
.Zemsky councils of the Russian state of the 16th - 17th centuries / L. V. Cherepnin, M. -1968, 400 p.
12.Cathedrals of the mid-16th century / S. O. Schmidt, History of the USSR, No. 4, 1960
.History of public administration in Russia / M. 2003, 540 p.
Zemsky Sobor* October 1 (11), 1653 was assembled to make a decision on the inclusion of Ukraine into the Moscow state.
In the 17th century most Ukraine was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a united Polish-Lithuanian state. Official language On the territory of Ukraine there was Polish, the state religion was Catholicism. The increase in feudal duties and religious oppression of Orthodox Ukrainians caused discontent with Polish rule, which in the middle of the 17th century. developed into a war of liberation of the Ukrainian people.
The war began with an uprising in the Zaporozhye Sich in January 1648. The uprising was led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Having won a number of victories over Polish troops, the rebels took Kyiv. Having concluded a truce with Poland, Khmelnitsky at the beginning of 1649 sent his representative to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with a request to accept Ukraine under Russian rule. Having rejected this request due to the difficult internal situation in the country and unpreparedness for a war with Poland, the government at the same time began to provide diplomatic assistance and allowed the import of food and weapons into Ukraine.
In the spring of 1649, Poland resumed military operations against the rebels, which continued until 1653. In February 1651, the Russian government, in order to put pressure on Poland, for the first time announced at the Zemsky Sobor its readiness to accept Ukraine as its citizenship.
After a long exchange of embassies and letters between the Russian government and Khmelnitsky, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in June 1653 announced his consent to the transition of Ukraine to Russian citizenship. On October 1 (11), 1653, the Zemsky Sobor decided to reunite Left Bank Ukraine with Russia.
On January 8 (18), 1654, in Pereyaslavl the Great, the Rada unanimously supported the entry of Ukraine into Russia and entered the war with Poland for Ukraine. Following the results of the Russian-Polish war of 1654-1667. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth recognized the reunification of Left-Bank Ukraine with Russia (Andrusovo Truce).
The Zemsky Sobor of 1653 became the last Zemsky Sobor assembled in full.
* Zemsky Sobors- the central estate-representative institution of Russia in the mid-16th-17th centuries. The Zemsky Sobor included the Tsar, the Boyar Duma, the entire Consecrated Cathedral, representatives of the nobility, the upper classes of the townspeople (merchants, large merchants), i.e. candidates of the three classes. The regularity and duration of meetings of Zemsky Sobors were not regulated in advance and depended on the circumstances and the importance and content of the issues discussed
Literature:
- Zertsalov A. N. On the history of Zemsky Sobors. M., 1887
- Pushkareva N. Zemsky Sobors // Around the World. 2001-2009
- “Council of the whole earth” // Russian idea. 2006
- Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State. M., 1978
- Turkey stewed in a slow cooker: spicy, with vegetables, in sour cream, cream and walnuts
- Types of speech: description, narration and reasoning
- Martyrs Tatiana. Moscow Church of St. Martyrs Tatiana Temple of the Martyr Tatiana at Moscow State University schedule
- Milotici: return of the Russian village Moravov Alexander Viktorovich
- Why you shouldn't cry in front of the mirror
- Recommendations: what to grease the pies to make them rosy and appetizing
- Actors Spiderman Aunt May Aunt May in Spiderman
- Making sounds for children Lessons on making sounds for children
- Criteria for preparing an act on write-off of motor vehicles
- Pink salmon in the oven - delicious and easy recipes for baked fish Pink salmon fillet baked with vegetables
- What does a lizard tattoo mean?
- Deciphering the natal chart of the house
- What does mulberry help with?
- Photo report “Birthday of Samuil Yakovlevich Marshak in the group”
- Breathing at high pressure Breathing correctly at high pressure
- Bryansk State University named after
- Tasks to test spelling and punctuation literacy
- Macroeconomic calendar
- Interesting signs about spiders
- Why do you dream of wedding shoes? Why do you dream of wedding shoes with heels?