Characteristics of the estate representative monarchy. What is estate monarchy? Concept, characteristics and examples

Features of the estate-representative monarchy.
The creation of a centralized Russian state helped to strengthen the positions of the ruling class of feudal lords. In the XVI-XVII centuries. the feudal lords gradually united into a single estate, the general enslavement of the peasants was completed.
The creation of a unified state provided the necessary resources for active foreign policy... In the middle of the XVI century. Russia conquered the Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates, and the Nogai Horde (Urals) recognized its vassal dependence on Russia. Further, Bashkiria, the Middle and Lower Volga regions and part of the Urals entered the structure of Russia. In 1582, the conquest of Siberia began, and by the end of the 17th century. all of Siberia was annexed to Russia. In 1654 Ukraine was reunited with Russia. Thus, the multinational composition of the Russian state was formed. By the 17th century. By its territory and population, Russia has become the largest state in the world.
In the middle of the XVI century. the ongoing socio-economic and political processes led to a change in the form of government of the Russian state to an estate-representative monarchy, which was expressed, first of all, in the convocation of estate-representative bodies - zemstvo councils. An estate-representative monarchy existed in Russia until the second half of the 17th century, when it was replaced by a new form of government - an absolute monarchy. The end of the estate-representative monarchy is considered the time of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, when he ceases to collect the Zemsky Sobor (second half of the 17th century). The last council was convened in 1653 on the occasion of changing the borders (?) Of Russia. Other authors attribute the end of this period to the 70s of the 17th century.
In the 15th century, under the conditions of autocracy, a class-representative monarchy arose. Estates-representative monarchy is a form of government that provides for the participation of estate representatives in the administration of the state and in the drafting of laws. It is taking shape under conditions of political centralization. The various estates were unevenly represented in the government. The beginning, conditionally, of this period is considered to be the convocation of the first Russian council in 1549 (during this period, the progressive reforms of Ivan-4 and much more took place, which prepared a new era in the development of the state apparatus and law). The same period saw the adoption of 2 most important legislative acts:
judicial code of 1550
collection of church legislation 1551

The peculiarity of the period of the estate-representative monarchy is the combination of the very estate representation with the bright despotism of the Asiatic type, characteristic of Ivan-4. Oprichnina - a special period of his reign - the terror against the boyars and the majority of the common population, that is, the period when all institutions that interfered with the monarch were either dissolved or destroyed (for example: the elected council). Despotism is characteristic no less than the organs of estate representation.
Beginning in 1547, the head of state began to be called the king. The change in title pursued the following political goals: strengthening the power of the monarch and eliminating the foundations for claims to the throne by the former appanage princes, since the title of the king was inherited. At the end of the XVI century. there was a procedure for the election (approval) of the tsar at the Zemsky Sobor.
Tsar - retained the functions of the highest authority. The king, as the head of state, had great powers in the administrative, legislative and judicial spheres. In his activities, he relied on the Boyar Duma and Zemsky Sobors
The Boyar Duma formally retained its former position. It was a permanently operating body, endowed with legislative powers and deciding, together with the king, all the most important issues. The Boyar Duma included boyars, former appanage princes, okolnichy, Duma noblemen, Duma clerks and representatives of the urban population. Although the social composition of the Duma changed towards an increase in the representation of the nobility, it continued to be the organ of the boyar aristocracy.
The Boyar Duma was very thoroughly strangled and could not restrict the tsar. Even during the “seven-boyars” period, when the boyars, relying on the Polish state, concentrated power in their hands, did not change the balance of forces. And during the Romanov dynasty, this organ remained with the tsar, and not over the tsar. This body had a constant tendency to increase in quantitative composition.
Zemstvo councils occupied a special place in the system of government bodies. They were convened from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. Their convocation was announced by a special royal charter. Zemsky sobors included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral (the highest collegial body of the Orthodox Church), and elected representatives from the nobility and the urban population. The contradictions that existed between them contributed to the strengthening of the power of the king. Zemsky Cathedral - in different years performed different functions. In the period from 1549 to the 80s, one, until 1613, was slightly different (it became possible to elect a tsar) and the last period (until 1622) is characterized as the most active in the activities of the cathedral. Then, until the 50s, their activity decays.
Zemsky sobors decided the main issues of state life: the election or confirmation of the tsar, the adoption of legislative acts, the introduction of new taxes, the declaration of war, questions of foreign and domestic policy, etc. Issues were discussed by estates, but decisions had to be made by the entire composition of the Council.

Zemsky sobors throughout the period were characterized by:
consisted of various estates: boyars, clergy, noblemen, urban population (represented by the posad elite - merchants and wealthy artisans)
regulations did not exist, the number of those summoned to the council depended on the decree of the king, which was written before each convocation
participation in it was not considered an honorable duty, but rather a necessity that weighed down on many, since there were no material incentives
Functions of the Zemsky Sobor:
foreign policy (war, its continuation or the signing of a peace, ...)
taxes (but they did not have a final word in this matter)
after the 80s of the 15th century, the tsar was elected (this is how Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Mikhail Romanov elected in 1613 were elected)
adoption of laws, also their discussion. For example, the Cathedral Code of 1649 was actually adopted at the Cathedral. But the Zemsky Sobor was not a legislative body.
The relationship between the kings and the cathedral was distinguished. In 1566, Ivan-4 executed many of the Zemsky Sobor who opposed the oprichnina. In the 17th century, during the time of troubles, the role of cathedrals greatly increased, since it was necessary to strengthen the state, but later, with the revival of the monarchy, they did not disappear.
Orders are integral systems of centralized government. Most actively created in the 40s - 60s of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Several dozen orders appeared, divided not only by industry (pharmacy, pushkar), but also by territory (Kazan palace). their creation was not enshrined in legislation, so they appeared as needed. By the middle of the 17th century, there were already about 50 of them, and the tendency towards an increase in their number continued. Orders have always been both judicial and administrative bodies (zemstvo order). It was believed that the activities of orders should not be limited by any legislative framework. The orders were headed by a boyar, who was a member of the Duma, and the main employees were clerks. The orders had many shortcomings: bureaucracy, lack of laws regulating their activities, etc., but still it was a step forward. Zemsky Sobor - in different years performed different functions. In the period from 1549 to the 80s, one, until 1613, was slightly different (it became possible to elect a tsar) and the last period (until 1622) is characterized as the most active in the activities of the cathedral. Then, until the 50s, their activity decays. The system of orders as governing bodies continued to develop, and by the middle of the 17th century. the total number of orders has reached 90.
The work of orders is characterized by a tough bureaucratic style: strict obedience (vertically) and following instructions and prescriptions (horizontally).
The order was headed by a chief appointed from among the boyars, okolnichy, Duma nobles and clerks. Depending on the activity of the order, the chiefs could be: judge, treasurer, printer, butler, etc. Records management was entrusted to clerks. Technical and clerical work was carried out by a clerk.
The organization of the civil service and the financing of the state apparatus were dealt with by the order of the Big Parish, Discharge, Local and Yamskaya orders.
The structural unit of the order was a table that specialized in its activities on a sectoral or territorial basis. The tables, in turn, were divided into povyts.
The discharge order was in charge of the state service, managed the zasechny, guard and village service, provided servicemen with land and monetary salaries, appointed the governor and their assistants, etc. The local order resolved issues related to local and patrimonial land tenure, and also carried out the court on land affairs. The Yamskaya order performed the functions of organizing the Yamskaya chase and police-supervising functions over the movement of persons and goods. The competence of the order of the Big Parish included the collection of national taxes and duties. Territorial orders for the collection of taxes and the Zemsky order were in charge of collections in the capital and its suburbs. The coin was minted by the Money House, subordinate to the order of the Great Treasury.
There were also other orders: the Rogue Order, the Order for the collection of five-and-a-kind and interrogation money, the Pharmaceutical Order, the Printed Order, etc.

Estates self-government bodies:
In the second half of the XVI century. Zemstvo and labial huts become the main local government bodies. Zemstvo huts were elected by the taxable population of the townships and volosts for 1-2 years, as part of the zemstvo headman, the sexton and the kisselovalnikov. Zemstvo bodies were supported by the local population. These bodies carried out financial, judicial and police functions.
Lip huts become the main governing bodies in the counties. They performed police and judicial functions. The head of the hut was elected by the population of the headman, and the court proceedings were also assigned to the kissers, clerks and clerks. The lip huts were directly subordinate to the Rogue Order.
At the beginning of the 17th century. reorganization of local government was carried out. Administrative, police and military functions were assigned to the governors appointed by the central government. Zemstvo and lip huts, city clerks began to obey them. The governors in their activities relied on a specially created apparatus - clerks' huts, which included clerks, bailiffs, clerks, mailers and other officials. The voivode was appointed by a discharge order, approved by the tsar and the Boyar Duma. The voivode's service life was 1-3 years.

In the middle of the XVI century. Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible carried out judicial, zemstvo and military reforms aimed at weakening the power of the Boyar Duma and strengthening the state. In 1549, the Chosen Rada was established, the members of which were confidants appointed by the king.
During the period under review, the reform of the armed forces was carried out:
- continued streamlining of the organization of the noble militia;
- a permanent rifle army was created.
Since the beginning of the 17th century. permanent regiments appear: Reitarsky, Pushkarsky, Dragoon regiments, etc. These regiments were the prototype of the standing and regular army that was formed in Russia only in the 18th century.

Code of Law of 1550 - Tsar's Code of Law, which was published by Ivan-4. It largely repeats the 1497 code of law, but is more expanded and accurate. This is the first collection of laws divided into articles (about 100 in number).
After the adoption of the judicial code, the law continued to develop. A certain codification work began to be carried out, which consisted in the fact that the order books began to be kept. In these books, each order recorded all the orders and orders of the king related to their field of activity.
Code of 1649. In 1648 - a city uprising in Moscow, which threatened the life of the tsar. Then much depended on the nobility, which supported the uprising. They put forward their claims to the tsar, which said that the reason for the uprising was the absence of normal legislation. As a result, a commission was created, which created a code. Then it was discussed at the Zemsky Sobor, where it was unanimously adopted in January 1649. This was the first typographic code and the first time it went on sale. The Code was divided into 25 chapters and already contained about 1000 articles. This code will remain in effect until the second quarter of the 19th century (as amended).
output.

The estate-representative monarchy that existed in Russia with Boyarskaya
duma, orders and governors by the end of the 17th century did not correspond to the social
the economic system of the country.
Foreign policy objectives, development of the manufacturing industry,
domestic and foreign trade, the fight against crime demanded
unlimited autocratic power, a more harmonious and flexible system
the bureaucratic apparatus of the state in the center and at the local level.
In the first quarter of the 18th century, the estate-representative monarchy
turned into absolute, orders and governors were replaced by the led
By the Senate, a system of bureaucratic institutions - collegia, and in the localities -
governors and other officials. Russian state
turned into the Russian Empire.

The genesis of autocracy
1. So, what are the historical roots and conditions that gave rise to the Russian autocracy? What factors contributed to its preservation and reproduction in different historical periods of Russian history?

1.Factor natural-geographical. “The immense spaces of Russia created the conditions for the continuous“ wandering ”of the Russian people over the course of many centuries of its history. Therefore, the history of Russia is "the history of a country that is being colonized." Colonization, on the other hand, led to the disintegration of internal ties, which made it necessary for the emergence of a strong autocratic power capable of preventing the weakening of the state, an inevitable consequence of the "liquid state" in which the masses of the people were. “Centralization makes up for the lack of“ internal communication, ”wrote Soloviev1.
2. Russian autocracy has deep historical roots, and its genealogy comes from Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174) and Vsevolod the Big Nest (1174-1212), who can conditionally be called the founders of the state-autocratic idea in Russia. Andrei Bogolyubsky for the first time put an equal sign between the grand duke and the sovereign, in relation to whom all other princes, if not yet subjects, then at least vassals of the lowest rank, "assistants", as they said then. In other words, he tried to bring the position of the Grand Duke in line with his title. Hence his conflict with the southern Russian princes in the early 1170s, in which he was defeated for a variety of reasons. In fact, these ideas took root in the northeast of Russia under Vsevolod the Big Nest.
3. However, the most important factor in the establishment of autocracy in the form of eastern despotism was the Mongol invasion of Russia and the establishment of the Horde yoke after that. After that, the foreign policy factor became dominant in the question of the essence and nature of power, first in northeastern Russia, and then in the Russian state. In contrast to Western Europe, where the main role in the formation of centralized states was played by internal factors, primarily socio-economic and, first of all, cities, where the "third estate" was formed and the foundations of market, capitalist relations were laid. Here, of course, one cannot agree with the famous historian L.N. Gumilev, who argued that there was no invasion, but “a great cavalry raid to the west; a campaign against Russia - a raid, 3 and “an alliance with the Tatars turned out to be a blessing for Russia from the point of view of establishing order within the country 4. In fact, the facts show otherwise. “The great and terrible invasion for a quarter of a millennium cut off Russia from European ties, European development ... Mongol yoke it was terrible; that, first of all and most of all, it hit the ancient Russian cities, magnificent centers of crafts, culture (a number of arts and crafts were completely lost after that, and even the secret of production was forgotten). But it was the cities that were the bearers of the trade principle, marketability, and future bourgeoisness. The result of Batu's arrival is simple and terrible: the population decreases several times; ruin, oppression; the decline of both princely power and the sprouts of freedom ...; burned villages find it easier to raise their heads - their "technology" is relatively simple, cities such as Kiev, Vladimir were dealt a crushing blow, ... finally, simple statistics: 10-12 large Russian principalities before 1237, by the end of the 13th century their number was several times more - fragmentation, decline. The Mongols broke one Russian historical destiny and stimulated another ”5

4. It is the weak role of cities and the "third" estate, "the relative non-bourgeois nature and, secondly, and partly a consequence of the first, the enormous role of the state, over-centralization, and before, starting with Ivan III, the large role of the autocratic apparatus in comparison with Europe was obvious »6
5. Over-centralization and strong power based on the army principle of one-man command was in many ways a forced and necessary measure. “Autocracy was the optimal form of government for Russia in the XIV-XVI centuries, for all this time the country was constantly besieged from three sides by hostile peoples, whose onslaught was at times so strong that it questioned the existence of not only the state, but also the Russian nation itself, Moscow the state was simply doomed to become, as V.O.Klyuchevsky aptly put it, a military camp ”7. And it is no coincidence that military centralization was achieved much earlier than political or economic - already under Ivan III.
6. Influence of the Mongol-Tatar political tradition based on the principles of oriental despotism.
\
2. The history of the Russian autocracy, inextricably linked with the history of the Russian state itself, dates back to the end of the 15th century. and is already more than five centuries old. In the history of the Russian autocracy, we tried to single out separate stages.

The initial stage - the stage of the establishment of autocratic power refers to the end of the XV beginning of the XVI century. The period was very fruitful, when the “Russian Bismarck” Ivan III and his successor Vasily III completed, in the main, the process of collecting Russian lands and a centralized Russian state was formed, in which an autocratic form of power was established in the form of a military dictatorship.

The second stage in the development of autocracy is tyrannical, characterized by massive repression and terror, elevated to the rank of state policy. The goal, which was to establish a personal dictatorship of the ruler. In fact, the struggle was over whether Russia should remain an estate-representative monarchy, or turn into a despotism of the eastern type.

Stage III - "Time of Troubles" in Russia (1598-1613). The most difficult from the point of view of the political organization of society. Here we see attempts to establish legitimate power by establishing a new dynasty on the throne in the already traditional form of autocratic-authoritarian rule: Boris Godunov (1598 - 1605), Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610), Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (1613-1645). It was possible to do this only on the third attempt after the liberation of the country from the Polish interventionists by the second militia led by Minin and Pozharsky. 1610-1611 - the period of the boyar oligarchy (seven-boyars). In general, this period of chaos and actual anarchy can be characterized as a period of ochlocracy.

Stage IV. The period of the estate-representative monarchy with the preservation of autocratic power (from 1613 to 1653)

Stage V. Absolute monarchy (1721-1917) within which several periods can be distinguished, usually associated with the rule of specific individuals.

Stage VI. The Great Russian Revolution (1917-1921) - the second unrest in Russia. A struggle for power that grew into a civil war. It ended with the victory of the “red”. It is associated with the transition to the NEP and the establishment of the proletarian-Jacobin dictatorship represented by the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the formation of the USSR.

Stage VII. The period of the Stalinist dictatorship (late 1920s - 1953)

Stage IX. (1985-1993) - the period of perestroika. The transition to ochlocracy.

X stage. Modern (1994-2007). Authoritarian-bureaucratic with possible options for the restoration of autocracy or the transition to democracy.

3. So, what was the essence and nature of the Russian autocracy?

First, it is a dictatorial authoritarian regime that exists in the form of eastern despotism - a legacy of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. This is a regime in which all strata of society, which subsequently formed into estates, differed not in rights, but in duties. Before the tsar-despot, everyone is equal - boyars, peasants, nobles, and townspeople - in their lack of rights. It is no coincidence that in his correspondence with A. Kurbsky, Ivan IV, in response to accusations of cruelty and executions, replies, absolutely convinced that he is right, that I am a tsar, and, therefore, I myself decide: whom I will execute, whom I will have mercy on. The consequence of this rule is arbitrariness and lawlessness on the part of the supreme power and the complete lack of rights of all subjects.

Secondly, it is a militarized state, forced even in peacetime to maintain a huge army to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, to protect its borders, the maintenance of which was a heavy burden on the shoulders of the people. The Russian state was a state, constantly defending and fighting nation on the one hand, and conducting an active foreign policy expansion with the aim of expanding the territory of its state, providing access to the sea, expanding spheres of influence in different regions(Balkans, China, etc.) on the other hand.

Thirdly, it is a police state, the most important function of which is the fight against political opposition and the preservation of the autocratic political system (regime) by any means. A state characterized by a repressive and punitive policy to suppress any opposition and sometimes taking the form of state terror (the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible and the Great Terror during the Stalinist dictatorship).

Fourthly, this is a bureaucratic state that was formed during the reign of Peter I and reached its "perfection" during the reign of Nicholas I. The bureaucratic bureaucratic apparatus exists in any state as a necessary element of its normal functioning, but not every state by its nature and the essence is bureaucratic. Peter I managed to combine into one contradictory whole the eastern despotism of the Moscow kingdom and the western bureaucracy, to create a new type of society, where everything was subordinated to the interests of the dynamically developing imperial state.

The Russian bureaucracy is also a kind of phenomenon, which is similar and not similar to the bureaucracy of the Western type. The bureaucratic system represented and, to a certain extent, still does not represent a class, not an estate, or a social stratum. This closed in itself, divorced from society and standing above it, a closed corporate caste, living according to its own laws and principles, built on the principle of a rigid hierarchy and acting, first of all, in its own interests, which sometimes not only do not coincide with the interests of society, but also are directly opposite to them. It is characterized by such features as soulless formalism, the principle of mutual responsibility and collective irresponsibility, love of secrecy. Describing the Russian bureaucratic state, B. Tarasov notes: “The structure of departments became more complicated, the number of officials increased, the number of documents increased. And the task of the clerk was that "the papers sent from the ministry do not lie unanswered for a long time" 8. Finally, the bureaucracy is characterized by such disgusting features as corruption, embezzlement, bribery. Unfortunately, these phenomena have not been spared by the modern "brotherhood" of officials.

Very accurately, the French writer and traveler Astolphe de Custine, who visited Nicholas Russia in 1839, revealed the essence of autocracy: “Here the life of every person, fate, strength, will of a whole people belong only to the monarch and are contained in one head. ... In Russia, despotism as such always operates with mathematical rigor, and such an extraordinary consistency leads to extreme oppression. ”9

4. How did unrestricted autocracy and powerless people relate to each other?

Most of the population obediently obeyed (and obeys) the power of autocratic power, obediently carrying out all the instructions "from above", no matter how ridiculous they were. We all know that transformations, or rather socio-economic experiments coming from the top, are a huge challenge for the majority. If a powerful stream comes from below - a different matter; then the masses, along the way, win back various rights themselves. Huge sacrifices and taxes are just an incomplete list of people's suffering. Popular concepts and ideology are also subjected to the strongest shock. So it was under Peter I, and so it was in modern Russia in the 90s of the XX century.

The question arises: Where are the limits of the pressure of the autocratic-despotic state on the masses? How are the relations between the people and the authorities regulated in such a state? Under the conditions of a despotic regime with the complete lack of rights of the people and their complete removal from power and control over power, these relations can be regulated only in one way - popular resistance, acts of protest as a reaction to the actions of the government. “Peter tore from the people threefold taxes,“ three skins, ”but if it had not been for the uprisings and escapes, he could have ripped off ten or fifteen skins. In the heat of transformations, in the fever of the Northern War, he did not think about emptying provinces, overgrown fields; and a moment could come ... and the country could decay ... and, as Herzen put it, began to belong not so much to history as to geography, that is, to exist more and more in space, but not in time .... Popular resistance partly compensated for popular obedience and patience. As a result of the struggle, a certain balance of forces was established, in which the empire continued to strengthen, and the peasants, suffering and ruin, could still exist. " “The Russian people are ascribed as one of their inherent features unquestioning obedience to the state, there is some truth in this, because in Russia there were no established traditional forms for expressing popular opinion. Veche, Zemsky Cathedrals, rural gatherings? This was clearly not enough. Therefore, independence, love of freedom were expressed mainly in resistances that took on a massive and stubborn character ”- wrote DS. Likhachev. "Listing some forms of such resistance, Dmitry Sergeevich also names peasant migrations, going beyond the reach of the authorities, into the Cossacks, and many, many riots." On a par with them (and this is fundamentally important), he puts the "typically Russian" uprising of the Decembrists. Another peculiar form of protest has appeared in modern Russia - hunger strikes, rallies, picketing of state institutions.

5. What are the consequences of autocratic rule for our country and people?

1) One of the consequences of the centuries-old autocracy was the formation of the deformed consciousness of the people, their mentality. Since the Russian society for a long time did not have representative bodies of power, there were, therefore, no democratic traditions, no experience of life in a democracy. He did not know any form of power other than an authoritarian-despotic one. This led to the fact that people have developed a habit of blind obedience to authority, obedience and unwillingness to show public initiative.
etc.................

Stages of development:

1) Before the accession of the Rurik dynasty

2) Matches troubled times

3) Complete cessation of conciliar activity

27. The social system of the period of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia (mid-16th - mid-17th century).

1. The ruling class is quite clearly divided

On the feudal aristocracy (boyars), the economic base - patrimonial land tenure

For the service class (noblemen), the economic base is landed property.

The consolidation of the feudal estate was accompanied by the strengthening of its privileges: the monopoly right to own land, exemption from duties, advantages in litigation and the right to hold official positions.

2. Urban population

Receives the stable name "townspeople".

A certain hierarchy has developed:

a) guests and the living room of a hundred (merchants who trade outside the borders of the state) - were endowed with significant privileges, exempted from a number of taxes and duties.

b) cloth hundred - were endowed with significant privileges, exempted from a number of taxes and duties.

c) black hundreds (medium, small and retail traders)

d) settlements (craft quarters and workshops)

A significant part of the courtyards in the city belonged to spiritual and secular feudal lords, freed from the state "tax" (direct sovereign tax, streltsy tax, Yam money, etc.) and were called "white settlements". They represented serious competition for the posad, luring qualified labor from the "black settlements". Therefore, the townspeople have repeatedly raised the question of returning to the posad of the departed people and those laid by the "white-leaved" (people who bought the communal land, but did not join the community) of city property.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 basically solved this problem by securing the monopoly right of the settlement on handicrafts and trade, including "white settlements" in the state "tax", and returning the departed taxpayers to the settlement.

At the same time, the entire population was assigned to the posad, and the passage from posad to posad was prohibited.

Peasants

The attachment of peasants to the land began much earlier.

a) The first legal act in this direction was Art. 57 of the Code of Law of 1497, which established the rule of "St. George's Day" (a certain and very limited transition period, payment of the "elderly").

b) This provision was developed in the Code of Laws of 1550. From I581, "reserved summers" were introduced, during which even the established transition of peasants was prohibited.

c) Compiled in the 50-90 years. XVI century the scribal books became the documentary basis in the process of attaching the peasants. Since the end of the XVI century. began to issue decrees on "class years", setting the time frame for the search and return of fugitive peasants (5 - 15 years).

d) The final act of the enslavement process was the Cathedral Code of 1649, which abolished the "regular summer" and established the indefinite duration of the investigation. The law determined the punishments for harboring fugitive peasants and extended the attachment rule to all categories of peasants.

The attachment developed in two ways:

Non-economic

Economic (bonded).

In the XV century. there were two main categories of peasants:

Old-timers, kept their own economy and bore their duties in full, constituting the basis of the feudal economy. The feudal lord strove to secure them for himself, to prevent the transition to another master.

Newcomers, as newcomers, could not fully bear the burden of duties and enjoyed certain benefits, received loans and credits. Their dependence on the owner was indebted, enslaving.

According to the form of dependence, the peasant could be:

Ladle (work for half the harvest)

Serebryanik (work for interest).

Extra-economic dependence manifested itself in its purest form in the institution of servitude. The latter has changed significantly since the time of Russkaya Pravda:

Sources of servitude are limited (servitude in urban housekeeping is abolished, it is forbidden to lack serfdom "boyars' children")

There are more and more cases of slaves' leave at will.

The law delimited admission to servitude (self-sale, housekeeping) from admission to bondage.

The development of bonded servitude (unlike a complete bonded slave could not be passed on by will, his children did not become slaves) led to the equalization of the status of slaves to serfs.

28. The state system of the period of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia (mid-16th - mid-17th century).

Estates-representative monarchy is an important stage in the history of the feudal state and law, corresponding to the era of mature feudalism. This political form takes shape as a result of the struggle of monarchs (grand dukes and kings) for the further strengthening of the centralized state.

The power of the monarch during this period is still not strong enough to become absolute. Within the ruling class, monarchs and their supporters fought against the elite of the feudal aristocracy (former appanage princes, large boyars), which opposed the further centralization of the state. The monarchs in this struggle relied on the nobility and the elite of the townspeople, who had to be more widely attracted to power.

Unlike the early feudal state, only one form of government was now possible - monarchy. But the status of the monarch is changing somewhat. Ivan IV proclaims himself tsar, and this title takes root. This was not a mere formality, but reflected the actual increase in the power of the monarch.

1. Boyar Duma

At the same time, the tsar cannot do without the old, traditional organ - the Boyar Duma. True, the significance of the Boyar Duma changes during the period. However, the Boyar Duma limits the monarch. The introduction of the oprichnina could not change anything in principle. The tsar was forced to abandon it only after a few years, since he realized that he could lose all social support, because all layers of the ruling class were already dissatisfied with terror. The oprichnina did not destroy the significance of the Boyar Duma as the highest organ of state power.

2. Zemsky Cathedrals

Zemstvo councils became a fundamentally new supreme body of the state. Through them, the tsar attracted certain circles of the nobility and the townspeople to governing the state. Zemsky sobors were necessary for the monarch:

To support major events - waging war, finding new income, etc.

The tsars, relying on the zemstvo councils, could pursue the appropriate policy through them even against the will of the Boyar Duma.

Structure:

1. Upper chamber

The Tsar entered the Zemsky Cathedrals. Boyar Duma, the top of the clergy - the Consecrated Cathedral in full force. They constituted the upper chamber, whose members were not elected, but participated in it in accordance with their position.

2. Lower chamber

It was represented by elected representatives of the nobility, the upper ranks of the townspeople (merchants, large merchants). Elections to the lower house were not always held. Sometimes, at an urgent convocation of a council, representatives were invited by the tsar or local officials.

A significant role in zemstvo councils was played by the nobles, and especially the merchants, whose participation was especially important for solving various monetary problems (to provide funds for organizing the militia, etc.).

The last councils were convened in the second half of the 17th century.

In the middle of the XVI century. the transition from the palace and patrimony to the command system of management was completed. A ramified system of orders was gradually formed.

During the formation of the order system, the leading role was played by military-administrative orders. At this time, the army was reorganized. It was based on the noble cavalry and archers, which appeared as a result of the reform carried out by Ivan IV.

The personnel of the boyar and noble cavalry was in charge of the discharge order, which recorded all cases of appointment to service, movement in positions. Appointments to positions were carried out in accordance with the principle of parochialism - by birth, nobility.

During the period of the estate-representative monarchy, the embryo of a central police body arises. At first, a commission of the Boyar Duma on robbery acted, then a robbery order was created. He developed instructions for local authorities on the fight against common crimes, appointed the relevant officials at the local level.

V late XVII v. a system of court orders is being created (Moscow, Vladimir, Dmitrov, Kazansky, etc.), which performed the functions of the highest judicial bodies. Later, these orders, as well as Chelobitny, merged into a single Judgment Order.

The transition to the estate-representative monarchy also led to a significant change in local government. The feeding system was replaced by a new one based on the principle of self-management. In the middle of the XVI century. instead of viceroy-feeders, labial organs were introduced everywhere. They were chosen from among certain segments of the population. Noblemen and boyar children elected the head of the labial organ - the laborer, whom he approved in office. Rogue order. the laborer consisted of kissers. The Kisses are elected officials who were so named because they kissed the cross with an oath to serve faithfully in that position.

The jurisdiction of the zemstvo bodies was primarily the collection of taxes and the court in civil and minor criminal cases. Larger cases were dealt with by the labial organs. Zemstvo headmen and other officials carried out their duties in considering civil and criminal cases without collecting duties from the population. Thus, the previous order was canceled, in which the governors-nurses collected numerous duties into their own pockets.

29. Development of law in the middle of the XVI - the middle of the XVII century. Types of legislative documents.

In the estate-representative monarchy, the lawmaking activity of the state became much more active. The reign of Ivan4 was marked by the application of a new code of law in 1550. Compared to Ivan's Code of Law3, he had more articles. Much attention was paid to the regulation of estates, and local land tenure. In the 50s of the 16th century, various spheres of public life were subject to legal regulation. So at an illuminated gathering in Moscow in 1551, Ivan 4 made a speech where he formulated 67 questions of the church and asked for answers to them, according to the rule of the holy apostles and holy fathers. As a result, a collection of legal rights appeared under the name Stoglav, at the same time, a collection of everyday and moral and moral rules was compiled in the tsar's environment, it contained rather serious punishments. With the help of which the state intended to fight the violation of morality. During the time of troubles, a consolidated law code of 1606-1607 appeared, substituting Ivan's version4. At the end of the Time of Troubles, there was an acute shortage of a fair law in Russia. This demand was one of the slogans of the 1641 uprising, and the Soborno Code of 1649 appeared.

30) Cathedral Code of 1649: general characteristics, significance in the history of Russian law. The Council Code is a set of laws of the Russian state, a monument of Russian law of the 17th century, the first normative legal act in Russian history that covered all existing legal norms, including the so-called "new-order" articles. At the end of the Time of Troubles, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich from the new dynasty - the Romanovs, begins active legislative activity. An intensive increase in the number of decrees for the period from the Code of Laws of 1550 to the Code of 1649 is evident from the following data: 1550-1600. - 80 decrees; 1601-1610 −17; 1611-1620 - 97; 1621-1630 - 90; 1631-1640 - 98; 1641-1648 - 63 decrees. As a result, by 1649, the Russian state had a huge number of legislative acts that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other. This chaos was "promoted" by the scattering of regulations across departments (traditionally, new laws were issued at the request of one or another branch order, and after approval they were "assigned" to the specified book of this order). There was also a lack of coordination in law enforcement: often about new entry only officials of a specific order knew in the specified book. In addition, the casual nature of the legal norms of the previous period became ineffective. The legislator now sought to regulate the legal framework, that is, to move to a normative interpretation of legal norms. The adoption of the Code was also prompted by the Salt Riot that broke out in Moscow in 1648; one of the demands of the rebels was the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor and the development of a new code. The revolt gradually subsided, but as one of the concessions to the rebels, the tsar went to the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor, which continued its work until the adoption of the Sobor Code in 1649. To develop the draft Code, a special commission was created, headed by Prince N.I. Odoevsky. It included prince S.V. Prozorov, prince FF Volkonsky and two clerks - Gavrila Leontyev and Fyodor Griboyedov. Then it was decided to start practical work Zemsky Cathedral on September 1. He was supposed to consider the draft Code. The council was held in a wide format, with the participation of representatives of the posad communities. The hearing of the draft Code was held at the cathedral in two chambers: one was the Tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral; in the other - elected people of different ranks. The deputies of the nobility and posadov had a great influence on the adoption of many norms of the Code. On January 29, 1649, the compilation and editing of the Code was completed. Outwardly, it was a scroll of 959 narrow paper columns. At the end there were the signatures of the participants in the Zemsky Sobor (total - 315), and on the gluing of the columns - the signatures of the clerks. From this original scroll (for the storage of which more than a century later, under Catherine II, a silver reliquary was made) a copy was made in the form of a book, from which, twice during the 1649 Code, 1200 copies were printed in each print run. Cathedral Code of 1649 was a new stage in the development of domestic legal technology. All the delegates of the Council signed the list of the Code, which in 1649 was sent to all Moscow orders to guide them in action. The electives made their amendments and additions to the Duma in the form of zemstvo petitions. Some decisions were made by the joint efforts of the elected officials, the Duma and the Tsar. Significance of the Cathedral Code 1) The Cathedral Code summarized and summed up the main trends in the development of Russian law in the XV-XVII centuries. 2) It consolidated new features and institutions characteristic of the new era, the era of the upcoming Russian absolutism. 3) In the Code, the systematization of domestic legislation was carried out for the first time; an attempt was made to differentiate the norms of law by industry. The Cathedral Code became the first printed monument of Russian law. Prior to him, the publication of laws was limited to their promulgation in retail space and in churches, which was usually specifically indicated in the documents themselves. The appearance of the printed law largely ruled out the possibility of abuses by voivods and clerks in charge of legal proceedings. The Cathedral Code has no precedents in the history of Russian legislation. In terms of volume, it can only be compared with Stoglav, but in terms of the richness of legal material it surpasses it many times.

31) The legal status of peasants, townspeople and serfs in the 17th century. (according to the Cathedral Code of 1649 According to the Cathedral Code of 1649, the peasant was finally turned into the property of the owner, who could dispose of labor, property, the very person of the peasant and even his family. feudal lords with peasants, leaves full scope for the arbitrariness of patrimonials and landowners. So, for example, in the Code there are no norms regulating the amount of peasant obligations. For the murder of a peasant, the feudal lord was imprisoned, and as compensation for the losses to the feudal lord who suffered from the loss of the peasant, he gave from his farm the best peasant with his wife and children. are obliged not only to return them, but also to pay a certain amount to the rightful owner of the peasants. At the same time, a judicial procedure is established ("by court and investigation") for resolving disputes about the return of peasants. All slaves, except for the enslaved ones, were "strong" to their masters. Throughout their lives and with their family, they passed on to the relatives of the deceased slave owner. The main source of replenishment of enslaved slaves was the unrestrained elements of society. The purchased Tatars also replenished slaves. At the same time, the Code strictly regulated the sources of replenishment of bonded servitude. So, bondage was formalized only from the age of 15. It was forbidden to enslave the imprinted and unreasonable children of the boyars. The enslaved slaves were dependent on their masters during the period established by the enslaving charter. The children of the enslaved servant were not inherited. The Code of 1649 comprehensively regulated the process of registration of dependence on service bondage. The serf order was obliged to strictly check the place of birth, origin and occupation of serfs. A person who became an enslaved slave was paid a "salary." In the process of the formation and development of the Russian centralized state, an estate of townspeople was formed who lived on the sovereign's land and bore obligations in favor of the state. Posad was a special area of ​​application of feudal law. For the first time in the history of Russian feudal legislation, the Cathedral Code of 1649 dedicated a special to the posad and posad people. They paid in favor of the sovereign a quitrent from households, shops that they owned, and bore a number of other duties, expressed in the construction of city fortifications in the provision of horses for chasing, etc. these settlements were called white settlements, or white places. They were exempted from the tsarist tax, that is, they were in a privileged position in comparison with the settlement's draft population. Sobornoye Ulozhenie settled the legal status of the posad population and, first of all, attached it to this posad.

FEDERAL EDUCATION AGENCY

STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

MOSCOW STATE ACADEMY

BRANCH IN VOLOGDA

DEPARTMENT OF STATE HISTORY AND LAW

COURSE WORK

Topic: Features of the estate-representative form of government in Russia

Vologda, 2011

INTRODUCTION

1. The concept of estate-representative monarchy

2. Prerequisites for the formation of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia

2.1 Socio-economic changes

2.2 Political system

3. Bodies of power and administration of the estate-representative monarchy

3.1 King

3.2 Boyar Duma

3.3 Zemsky sobors

3.4 Orders

4. Local government bodies

4.1 Warlords

4.2 Zemsky and lip huts

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Introduction

The main purpose of writing term paper is the study of the topic: Estates-representative monarchy in Russia.

The estate-representative monarchy is the most important stage in the history of the feudal state and law in the corresponding era of mature feudalism.

The main tasks are:

1.Reveal the socio-economic and political prerequisites for the formation of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia, its social base and features;

.To tell about the highest authorities and government of this period, namely: to characterize the power of the king; the competence and composition of the boyar duma, its role in the system of government bodies of the estate-representative monarchy; give a description of the zemstvo councils; to show the reasons for the transition from the palace and patrimony to the command and control system of governors; consider orders, their competence;

.Consider the system of local government, the composition and activities of the zemstvo and regional bodies of local self-government.

I believe that the topic of the term paper is relevant. In my work, I used publications of such authors as: L.V. Cherepnin; Isaev I.A.; Gavrilov B.I. and others.

The relevance of the topic is that one of the important issues the history of the Russian people is the question of Ivan the Terrible. Ivan the Terrible already seemed to his contemporaries a mysterious and terrible person. Ivan IV entered the historical science with the same riddle. For most historians, this was a psychological problem; interested in the very personality of Ivan the Terrible and the conditions in which it was created.

I believe that the study of the topic of the course work in the literature is high.

The activities of the bodies of the estate-representative monarchy attracted particular attention.

The history of Zemsky Sobors attracted the attention of pre-revolutionary scholars. The activities of the cathedrals were studied by V. Latkin, S. Avaliani, who dedicated special works to them. Much attention is paid to the Zemsky Cathedrals in the works of V. Sergeevich, N. Zagoskin, A. Shchapov, V. Klyuchevsky and others.

The degree of study is quite large, even Pavlov-Silvansky N.P. saw in the era of Grozny a transitional moment from feudalism to estate monarchy, and his conclusions formed the basis of N.A. Rozhkova and M.N. Pokrovsky about the era of Ivan IV.

estate representative monarchy

1.The concept of estate-representative monarchy

Estates-representative monarchy is a form of feudal state in which the power of the monarch is combined with the functioning of estate-representative assemblies, central and local. The specificity of Russia was the predominance in the Russian type of the estate-representative monarchy of the central autocratic power, which was based in the 17th century. on the system of orders and local governors. The estate monarchy is a form of government during the period of developed feudalism, when centralized states are taking shape. The emergence of the estate-representative monarchy was preceded by a significant weakening of the power of large feudal lords and the emergence of local self-government bodies. In Russia, these events are associated with the victory of the grand ducal power in feudal war in the first half of the 15th century, the oprichnina of Ivan IV, the strengthening of the nobility, the creation of lip self-government. The estate monarchy relies on the lower and middle strata of the feudal lords (noblemen and "boyar children") and townspeople, who need the protection of the state in opposition to large feudal lords. Relying on the nobles and townspeople, the monarchy, to the detriment of the large feudal lords, concentrates in its hands through the nobility all the levers of government. But since it still cannot completely dispense with the consent of the estates to carry out important state events, with the formation of centralized states, estates-representative assemblies arise. Estates are hereditary, relatively closed socio-legal groups with a certain legal status, rights and social obligations. In Russia, it arose during the formation of feudalism in the 10th - 11th centuries, consolidated during the formation of a centralized state and finally took shape during the period of absolutism, from the second quarter of the 18th century.

2.Prerequisites for the formation of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia

2.1 Socio-economic changes

By the middle of the 16th century, the Russian state had become noticeably stronger. A country that stretches its borders from the White and Barents Seas to Chernigov and Ryazan limits, from the Gulf of Finland and Smolensk to the Northern Urals and Nizhny Novgorod lands. By the size of the territory, Russia reached 2.8 million square meters by 1547. km and became largest state Europe after the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. It included the lands inhabited by the Russian people, inhabitants of the European North and partly Siberia (Karelians, Komi, Khanty, Mansi, etc.), as well as the Volga region. The bulk of the population lived in villages and villages. The villages were small, 3-4 yards. The urban population in the Novgorod lands was only about 3-4%. But the cities grew rapidly, the population growth in them exceeded 60%. The population of the country by this time increased from 5-6 million people. at the beginning of the century up to 9 million. Its density also increased. Population growth in the central regions accompanied its ebb tide into the sparsely populated parts of the Russian state. The population began to move south to the Oka, to the Kama region, to the Urals. In the second half of the century, the lands of the Tula Territory were settled. The development of the Southeast played a significant role in preparing the annexation of Kazan to the Russian state. In the first half of the 16th century, the local land tenure system developed rapidly. It already covered more than a third of the lands in the central counties. Areas of local land tenure were limited to Novgorod and Pskov lands, partly to Yaroslavl, Tver and Ryazan. Later it spread to the Volga region and the south of the country. However, the dominant form of feudal land ownership remained patrimonial land tenure. By the middle of the 16th century, as a result of the acquisitive activity of the clergy, the monastic land tenure increased sharply, and the corvee was expanding. The ever-growing need of the feudal lords for money forced them to increase the profitability of estates and estates by increasing the quitrent, introducing their own plowing, transferring the peasants to corvee. Medium and small landowners, whose ability to increase the rent was limited by the very burdensomeness of the peasant economy, took the path of further expanding the corvee. The growth of corvee and quitrent demanded the strengthening of the power of the landlords. In Russia, as in other countries east of the Elbe, the 16th century was the time of the development of serfdom. In the middle of the 16th century, landowners more and more willingly resorted to transferring their peasants to corvee. Since the 60s. extortions in kind and money from proprietor peasants are growing, and their land holdings are decreasing (by the 70s - by half, to 3-4 dessiatines). According to one of his contemporaries, the publicist Yermolai-Erasmus, "the peasants constantly bear various burdens: when they give dues in silver, when yamsky taxes, when others." Against the background of the domination of the natural economy in Russia, by the middle of the 16th century, new phenomena were revealed that testified to the growth of commodity production. Under the conditions of a single state, the nature of local commodity circulation changed: individual regions began to specialize in the production of a leading group of goods (which was determined by geographical and economic conditions these areas). Novgorod, supplied with iron ore from the Vyatka and Izhora lands, as well as the Serpukhovsko-Tula region and Ustyuzhna-Zhelezopolskaya, became major centers of iron-making production. Sol-Galitskaya and Nenoksa (on the shores of the White Sea), Solvychegodsk were famous for their salt exploration. Many residents of Yaroslavl and almost a quarter of all the townspeople of Serpukhov were engaged in the manufacture of leather. Fur came from the North, where bread came from the center. The largest market in the country was Moscow. The growth of commodity production made it possible to increase the amount of exported goods and expand their range. Strengthening the international prestige of Russia also contributed to the development of its foreign trade relations with the West and East. At the same time, trade with eastern countries in the first half of the 16th century was of greater importance for economic development Russia than trade with European countries... Leading place among eastern states in trade with Russia, it still belonged to Turkey. Trade with Iran, Central Asia and the Caucasus, carried out mainly along the Volga route, was hindered by the Kazan Khanate. The need to strengthen economic ties with the peoples of the Caucasus and Central Asia were one of the reasons forcing the Russian government to raise the question of liquidating the Kazan Khanate. Trade with Western countries went through the Crimea (mainly through Kafa) and Lithuania. As a result of the intermediary trade of the Turks, Italian goods, primarily fabrics and clothing, penetrated into Russia. From Western Europe through Lithuania, and in years Livonian War- cloth, weapons, lead, wine were going through Narva. The rulers of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania interfered with trade with the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands, but they could not liquidate it. The trade ties of the Russian state with the Baltic states were strengthened. Flax and bacon were exported from Russia to Narva, Revel and other cities; Sulfur, lead, tin, copper were brought from the Baltic states.

Old cities are growing in the country, new cities or settlements of a commercial and industrial type are emerging - rows, settlements, which sometimes turned into cities. The same thing happened with fortresses, near which settlements appeared. In the middle of the century, Russia had up to 160 cities. The largest of them - Moscow - had up to 100 thousand inhabitants. Richard Chancellor, an Englishman who then visited the Russian capital, considered that it was "larger than London with its suburbs." Traces can be found in the Russian city shop organization artisans and merchants. In Pskov, for example, they united around shopping malls. Members of these corporations (ryadovichi), upon joining them, made a certain monetary contribution and possessed privileged rights trade. Under the conditions of expanding commodity production, property inequality in the townships grew. Along with the "middle" townspeople, the top ("best" people) and the poor ("young" people) stood out. The top of the trade and craft part of the cities, the city patrician, endowed with special privileges, still included hundreds of guests and merchants of cloth and living room. From the end of the 15th century, dynasties of Russian merchants (Tarakanovs, Khoznikovs, etc.) were formed, which conducted large trade operations within the country and abroad. The guests were also the grand ducal agents for trade affairs. In Russia in the first half of the 16th century, there was an intensive process of initial capital accumulation. A characteristic feature of the commodity production of this time was the ever-increasing use of wage labor in industry. A number of industries (including salt mining) did not do without hired labor. "Cossacks" (impoverished residents of the townships and peasants) took part in transport operations. The advantage of hired labor was becoming more and more recognized by energetic entrepreneurs. Hiring labor force testified to the gradual formation of a special stratum of the urban population, deprived of the means of production and forced to sell their labor. Thus, in various areas of the economic life of Russia already in the first half of the 16th century, the prerequisites for the formation of a single market were outlined. However, even under the conditions of a centralized state, the country was still breaking up into separate economic regions. Overcoming the remnants of feudal fragmentation became vital for the country.

2.2 Political system

In the first half of the 16th century, the branches of state administration had not yet become isolated, a certain state for each of them had not yet been created. Consequently, the task of strengthening the central apparatus of power was not fully resolved.

The features of the feudal isolation of individual lands were most clearly manifested in local government. The princes and boyars were usually appointed governors in charge of the court and administration in the cities with districts stretching to them. In the volosts (semi-independent administrative units within the counties), less noble service people were sent. Receiving "food" (income) from the local population, all these rulers often became sovereign masters in the territory they controlled. The feeding system gradually eroded itself, becoming a serious obstacle to the further unification of the country.

In addition, in the conditions of increasing feudal exploitation and the exacerbation of the class struggle, the feudal lords, especially the service nobility, were unable to suppress the resistance of the exploited majority on their own. This required the strengthening of the court and the police, the creation and strengthening of the corresponding punitive institutions in the center and at the local level.

Based on the foregoing, we see the following prerequisites for the formation of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia:

.The increase in the country's territory, the increased population and an increase in its density required the reorganization of local government.

2.To eliminate, or at least limit the monastic land tenure, it was necessary to strengthen the grand ducal power.

.The growth of corvee and quitrent demanded the strengthening of the power of the landlords.

.The development of Russia's foreign trade relations with the West and East required the liquidation of the Kazan Khanate and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

.In connection with the prerequisites for the formation of a single market, it became vital for the country to overcome the remnants of feudal fragmentation.

.The palace-patrimonial system of organization of the state apparatus did not provide the required level of government.

.The feeding system became a serious obstacle to the further unification of the country.

.The boyar rule showed the need to strengthen the grand ducal power.

3.Bodies of power and administration of the estate-representative monarchy

It is rather difficult to characterize the power of the tsar during the entire existence of the estate-representative monarchy, because it depended on the will and character of each particular ruler, as well as on various internal political situations. In 1547, Ivan the Terrible was crowned king in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Acceptance of the tsarist title strengthened the authority of the central government, placed the Russian tsar on a par with the powerful sovereigns of Western Europe and the East. During his reign, measures were taken in the country aimed at strengthening the autocratic power and weakening political power boyars.At the first Zemsky Sobor (meeting of estate representatives - boyars, nobility of the capital, clergy) - in 1549 ("Cathedral of Reconciliation"), the tsar accused the boyars of abuse during his childhood and announced the preparation of reforms in public administration. The summons of the Councils testified to the formation in Russia of an estate-representative monarchy, which relied on the noble and commercial strata of the population and opposed the Boyar Duma with a broader estate body.

In 1550, a new "Code of Laws" was published, which limited the judicial functions of the governors. Representatives of the well-to-do part of the local townspeople and black-haired peasants were involved in the administration of justice. The affairs of the nobles were withdrawn from the courts of the governors. The death penalty was introduced for robbery, which included anti-feudal demonstrations. The Code of Law was supplemented with articles providing for liability for judicial abuse and bribery.

In 1550-1556, reforms were carried out in the army, aimed at organizing a unified combat-ready armed forces and weakening the command positions of the boyars by strengthening the role of the nobility in the army. The reforms of the state administration of the fifties significantly undermined the political power of the boyars and contributed to the strengthening of the tsarist power and the central apparatus.

However, the boyars, having huge estates, retained their economic independence. The boyars viewed the undermining of the political power as an infringement of their legal rights, but in the rise of the nobility they saw a threat to their privileged position. All this caused anger of the high-born feudal nobility against the royal power.

Ivan the Terrible consistently pursued a policy of suppressing boyar resistance. He put forward the task of undermining the economic power of the feudal aristocracy by eliminating its vast patrimonial land tenure and allotting land to the nobility at this expense. This goal was pursued by the introduction of the oprichnina (1565).

The study of the circumstances of the creation of the oprichnina in the Russian state leads to a very complex issue of the contradictory nature of the political development of Russia in the 16th century. In the 50s and 60s, caste-representative institutions were established in the country, and immediately it took a step towards a despotic regime. However, the fact that the system of the oprichnina military dictatorship was adopted by the body of estate representation did not at all mean a transition from one form of state to another, from the estate-representative monarchy to autocracy.

A year and a half later, in 1566, in a difficult war time, Grozny again turned to the Zemsky Sobor for assistance. Obviously, the introduction of the oprichnina was an experience of putting into practice one of the possible variants of statehood. The middle of the 16th century is the time of the appearance of a number of state projects. Ivan Peresvetov, Andrei Kurbsky, the tsar himself come up with proposals of a political nature, use the experience of Byzantium, Turkey, Poland, etc., and above all observation of Russian reality. And in life, there was a contradictory interaction of two lines of evolution of the state system, one of which led to an estate-representative monarchy of a pan-European type, the other to absolutism with distinct features of Eastern despotism.

The establishment of the oprichnina was for Grozny a step towards strengthening the autocracy. Having legalized the beginning of the estate-representative monarchy in the Zemshchina, he thereby achieved recognition for himself by the representatives of the estates of unlimited power in the oprichnina. In other words, the estate-representative monarchy cleared the way for absolutism.

But in the future, Grozny could not do without the help of the estate institutions. In the 60s of the 16th century, in the context of a complex foreign policy pursued by the Russian state and the tense Livonian War, the government appeals to the Zemsky Sobor on issues related to international relations. In June 1566, a Zemsky Sobor on war and peace with the Polish-Lithuanian state was convened in Moscow.

After the death of Grozny, a certain weakening of the autocracy sets in, an intensification of the struggle among the ruling elites, and palace turmoil. The ruling estates seek to raise the role of the Zemsky Sobor as a body that should help strengthen the central government in the country, in particular, participate in resolving the issue of succession to the throne. Russian clerk, emigrant of the 17th century G.K. Kotoshikhin singles out a special period in the history of the Russian state, starting with the election ("robbery") to the kingdom of Fyodor Ivanovich (1584) and up to the accession of Alexei Mikhailovich, considering this period a time of limited monarchy.

The cathedral code of 1649, which consolidated the socio-economic shifts of the Russian state, also reflected the increased power of the autocratic monarch. 2 and 3 chapters of the Code established a harsh punishment for crimes against the personality of the king, his honor, health, for crimes committed on the territory royal palace... All these crimes were identified with the concept of a state crime, introduced for the first time in the law of the Russian state. The death penalty was established for direct intent ("malicious intent") against the life and health of the tsar, as well as for detecting intent against the tsar and the state (uprising, treason, conspiracy, etc.).

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

In the practice of the legislative activity of the Russian state from the second half of the 17th century, the concept of "personal decree" appeared, i.e. legislative act, given only by the tsar, without the participation of the boyar duma. Of the 618 decrees given to the board of Alexei Mikhailovich since the publication of "Cathedral Multiplication", 588 decrees were nominal, and only 49 boyar sentences were adopted. An analysis of these acts shows that all nominal decrees were secondary acts of the supreme administration and the court: official appointments, decrees to voivods, approving punishments or canceling them, etc. Boyar sentences were the most important legislative acts related to feudal land tenure, serfdom, financial policy and other major aspects of the state's activities. Thus, the main legislative acts of that time passed through the Boyar Duma.

The number of boyar sentences especially increased after various social upheavals. During the reign of the weak-willed Fyodor Alekseevich (1676 - 1682), the importance of the Boyar Duma even temporarily increased: out of 284 decrees of his reign, 114 were issued with a boyar sentence.

So, despite the external stability of the position of the Boyar Duma, in the system of the apparatus of the Russian state in the second half of the 17th century, there is a process of increasing the personal power of the autocratic monarch, especially in the field of supreme government.

The nature of the meetings of the Boyar Duma changed dramatically. Its members did not risk now showing any "high intelligence".

Since the 50-60s, the practice of reports to the tsar by the chiefs of the most important orders has been established. So, in 1669 on Mondays the chiefs of the Discharge and Ambassadorial orders reported to the tsar, on Tuesdays - the Great Treasury and the Great Parish, on Wednesdays - Kazan and Local, etc.

The creation of the Order of Secret Affairs was evidence of the growing power of the tsar by the middle of the 17th century.

Even in the first years of his reign, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich had several clerks with him from the order of the Grand Palace for personal correspondence. At the end of 1654 or at the beginning of 1655, this state received a certain organization of the Order of Secret Affairs - the personal office of the tsar, a body that allows the tsar to do without the Boyar Duma in resolving the most important state issues.

Another important measure of the government on the way to further strengthen the autocracy was the creation of a central body for financial control.

Large-scale embezzlement of public funds by order officials prompted the government to establish the Accounts Order in 1655. Irregularly, each time, by special decree, the clerks and clerks of all orders had to appear in the Accounts Order with receipts and expense books to check the correctness and legality of financial transactions. This financial control caused dissatisfaction with the order bureaucracy, and the Order had to be abolished in 1678.

Based on the foregoing, we see that from the middle of the 16th to the end of the 17th century, there was an increase in the power and authority of the tsar, a significant decrease in the political power of the boyars, which made it possible for Peter I to make the transition from one form of state to another, from the estate-representative monarchy to autocracy. ...

3.2 Boyar Duma

In his activities, Ivan IV relied on the Boyar Duma, which was constantly operating under the tsar. In 1549, the “Chosen Duma” (“The Chosen Council”) was established in its structure from among the proxies. The preparation of materials for the Duma was carried out by a staff of professional officials associated with orders.

The system of palace and patrimonial administration, which had developed back in the specific period, continued to operate in the Muscovy state of the 15th-16th centuries. The princely palace was the center of appanage administration, a fiefdom for the prince-ruler.

Various parts of the palace administration and economy were entrusted to individual boyars, free servants and even slaves. The palace lands and the palace servants were under the jurisdiction of the butler, the palace meadows, horses and grooms were under the jurisdiction of the equestrian, etc. At the specific palace, a system of administrative departments was formed. The central management of the system was entrusted to the imposed boyars, the most important administrative and economic problems of the principality were decided by the council of boyars.

In the Muscovite state, this body grows into a special advisory body, which began to include representatives from different groups of the service class - boyars, children of boyars, okolnichy, etc. This body received the name Boyar Duma, and all members of the council who were part of it acquired a rank that gave them the opportunity and the right to participate in this body. Some of the Duma people received this rank by inheritance (representatives of aristocratic families), some - by appointment of the sovereign (Duma noblemen, Duma clerks).

The Boyar Duma included the boyars of the Moscow Grand Duke, former appanage princes and their boyars.

In the XVI century. the Duma began to include okolnichy and Duma nobles, as well as Duma clerks who were in charge of office work.

The Boyar Duma shared the functions of government with the Grand Duke; as an institution, it occupied an intermediate position between the monarch and the entire system of administrative institutions: orders and local government bodies. The competence of the Boyar Duma included the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy, control over the administrative and judicial apparatus. Historians are inclined to define the Boyar Duma as an advisory body under the sovereign, but in essence, the Duma was the highest advisory and legislative body of the Moscow state, the center of the tsarist administration and court.

The Boyar Duma decided the most important state affairs and had legislative powers. The Duma approved the final editions of the Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550. According to the formula “the tsar indicated and the boyars were sentenced”, the Boyar Duma approved the decrees of 1597 on enslaving servitude and fugitive peasants.

Together with the tsar, the Duma approved various legislative acts: statutes, lessons, decrees.

The Duma managed the system of orders, exercised control over local government, and resolved land disputes.

In addition to participating in the work of the State Council (Boyar Duma), Duma people controlled central departments (orders), commanded regiments and armies, and led the regions as governors and governors.

The Duma itself was in charge of ambassadorial, discharge and local affairs, for which an office was created. Through this structure, the judicial office work of the Duma also passed.

Legislative initiative came most often from the sovereign or from below from orders that faced specific problems. Duma decisions on the most important issues required the approval of the sovereign, some issues were finally decided by the Duma itself. Most often, the legislative procedure carried out by the Boyar Duma included a preliminary instruction (order) of the sovereign and the subsequent "sentence" of the Duma boyars.

General state-church affairs of great importance could be considered at joint meetings of the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated (Church) Council, such meetings were called councils.

In the XVI century. the tsars seek to weaken the political significance of the Duma, an aristocratic body that limits their power. From the composition of the Boyar Duma, a narrower organ is distinguished, consisting of people loyal to the tsar ("room", "Near Duma").

With the help of a specially formed of reliable persons " The chosen one is glad»Ivan IV carried out a number of important reforms (judicial, zemstvo, military) aimed at weakening the power of the boyar aristocracy. The administrative and legislative rights of the Duma were narrowed.

The role of the Boyar Duma increased again during the Time of Troubles. During the reign of the boyar Tsar Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610), along with the Moscow Duma, the Boyar Duma acted in the Tushino camp of False Dmitry II.

The board of the "Semboyarshchyna" (1610) was headed by the most prominent members of the Boyar Duma (Mstislavsky, Vorotynsky, etc.).

At the end of the 17th century. under the Boyar Duma, the Disciplinary Chamber was established, in which the most important court cases were considered.

A characteristic feature of the 17th century was the closer connection of the personnel of the Boyar Duma with the order system. Many members of the Duma performed the duties of chiefs (judges) of orders, voivods, and were in the diplomatic service concurrently.

At meetings of the Boyar Duma, decisions of orders (article lists) were approved. The Duma was the highest official authority of the state.

The Boyar Duma lasted the entire 17th century, although its importance in the last decade of the century has fallen sharply.

3.3 Zemsky sobors

Various historians give different definitions of the Zemsky Councils.

S.F. Platonov: the Zemsky Sobor is a "council of the whole earth", consisting "of three necessary parts": 1) "the consecrated cathedral of the Russian church with

metropolitan, later headed by the patriarch, "2) the boyar duma, 3)" zemstvo people, representing different groups of the population and different localities of the state. "

S.O. Schmidt: "... Councils of the 16th century are not representative institutions in the usual sense, but rather bureaucratic." Cathedrals of the time of Ivan the Terrible - "bodies of territorial centralization, a sign of the unification of lands under the rule of one sovereign." Councils were needed "by the strengthening autocracy as an instrument of resistance to the still remaining feudal fragmentation."

R.G. Skrynnikov believes that the Russian state of the 16th century, before the Zemsky Sobor in 1566, was an autocratic monarchy with an aristocratic boyar duma, and from that time on it took the path of becoming a class-representative monarchy.

A special place in the system of state bodies was occupied by Zemsky Sobors, which were held from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th centuries. Their convocation was announced by the royal charter. The Council included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral (church hierarchs) and elected from the nobility and posadov.

The spiritual and secular aristocracy represented the elite of society. In solving the most important issues, the tsar could not do without her participation. The nobility was the main service class, the basis of the tsarist army and bureaucratic apparatus. The top of the posad population - main source cash income for the treasury. These basic functions explain the presence of representatives of all three social groups in the Cathedral. The contradictions that existed between them allowed the monarchical power to balance and strengthen.

Zemsky sobors decided the main issues of foreign and domestic policy, legislation, finance, state building. The questions were discussed by estates ("by chambers"), but were accepted by the entire composition of the Council.

In addition to the name "Zemsky Sobor", representative institutions in the Moscow State bore other names: "Council of All Land", "Cathedral", "General Council", "Great Zemstvo Duma". The Zemsky Sobor borrowed its organizational forms from both church councils and veche meetings. Through the system of councils, the authorities sought to reveal the opinions of the most influential classes and groups of the population. The functions of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 and subsequent ones (until 1615) included: generalizing the reports of the governors and sending them instructions, negotiating with Poland, fighting robberies, leading the military forces of the state, introducing new taxes ("fifth money").

Cathedrals 1616-1619 established new taxes, organized defense against Polish aggression, held (in 1619) elections for the patriarch.

In 1620 - 1622 cathedrals organized a census of the solvent population, the maintenance of "scribes", the development of measures to control the draft population.

At the Cathedral of 1632-1634. questions about the war with Poland were discussed, at the Council of 1637 - about repelling the attack of the Crimean Khan.

In 1642, at the Zemsky Sobor, the issue of a war with Turkey and an attack on Azov was decided.

In 1645 the Cathedral approved the accession to the throne of Alexei Mikhailovich, in 1648 - 1649. - draws up the Code and pacifies the riots in Pskov, in 1651 clarifies the relationship with Poland on the issue of Little Russia, and in 1653 decides to annex Little Russia to Russia (this was the last Zemsky Sobor in Russian history).

Later estate commissions (mostly boyars) were convened in the 60-80s. XVII century: the commission in 1660 found out the reasons for the high cost of food in Moscow, the commission in 1672 discussed an agreement with Armenian merchants, and in 1676 - on trade with Persia. In 1681, a commission of elected service people insisted on revising the military regulations, in 1682 - on equalizing service and taxes (at the same time, the issues of abolishing parochialism and the election of Peter were resolved).

The transformation of zemstvo councils into class conferences was due to a number of reasons: the loss of personal freedom by the population, the attachment of peasants, the replacement of local self-government with bureaucratic (orders, governors).

The structure of the cathedrals is quite complex: the Stoglava Cathedral (1551) in its entirety included the Consecrated Cathedral, the Boyar Duma and the "Chosen Rada". The most representative from the social point of view was the Council of 1566, which decided the question of the war with Poland. Five curiae were formed on it, representing different strata of the population (clergy, boyars, clerks, nobility and merchants).

Some councils served as an electoral body during the interregnum, others as a deliberative body (like the Duma). However, the powers of the Zemsky Sobor were indefinite and unlimited, so the reasons for their convocation were different. The Council acted in close connection with the tsarist government and the Duma.

At the Cathedral of the XVI century. the delegate could get by virtue of his official rank, position or position, he represented his society, to the leadership of which he was elected or appointed. When electing to the Council, the delegate was required not so much to represent local needs and requirements as his ability to discuss, give advice on national issues and the ability to carry out the decisions made at the Council, to implement them. From this point of view, the most active and suitable layer of council deputies were representatives of the capital's nobility and the capital's merchants. In general, the metropolitan faction was the most representative and active.

Cathedrals of the late 16th - early 17th centuries are already of a different nature: they clashed with the opinions and demands presented by delegates from different social groups and territories, and one very important function appeared in their activities - they began to elect a tsar at the Councils.

According to V.O. Klyuchevsky, the Zemsky Cathedral of the 16th century. was not a popular representation, but only an extension of the central government. The work of its delegates, as it were, supplemented the activities of the Boyar Duma, a permanent state council, supplementing it with representatives from local societies. Unlike Western European representative bodies born in political struggle of the already established estates, the Russian Councils arose as joint conferences of the Boyar Duma (central government) with the capital's aristocratic elite, who carried out government decisions. Zemsky sobors were born from the administrative and managerial needs of the state. Although the dream of an all-earth cathedral, reflecting public needs, arose as early as the 16th century, but as a representative institution, the cathedral was formed only in the 17th century.

The elections to the Council and the adoption of decisions took place in a certain order. From the discharge order, the voivode received a prescription for elections, which was read out to residents of cities and peasants. Then the estate electoral lists were drawn up, the number of representatives in which was not fixed. The electors received instructions from the voters. They elected the heads of families and monastics, "strong in mind, kind and constant." Cathedrals met in Red Square, in the Patriarch's Chambers or the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, and later in the Golden Chamber or the Dining Hall. Each estate sat separately and submitted its own written opinion. As a result, a conciliar verdict was drawn up from editorial processing.

3.4 Orders

The formation of a system of orders was one of the phenomena of the general process of the formation of a centralized state. It originated in the late 15th - early 16th centuries. There were state and palace orders, departmental and territorial orders. By the end of the XVI century. their number reached 22. By the middle of the XVII century. there were about 90 permanent and temporary orders, and their functions were often intertwined. The reorganization of the order system, the sequential downsizing or merging of orders took place quite often. In the work of these bodies, a real bureaucratic style was developed: strict obedience (vertically) and strict adherence to instructions and regulations (horizontally).

At the head of each order was a chief (judge, treasurer, printer, butler, etc.), who was appointed from the Boyar Duma, from the Duma officials (boyars, okolnichy, Duma noblemen, Duma clerks). Some judges ran multiple orders at the same time.

To help the judges, clerks from the ranks of the petty nobility, clergy and merchants were appointed in orders for the conduct of office work. The clerks, together with the judges, considered cases and made decisions. Technical and clerical work was done by the clerk, preparing the texts, drawing up certificates, keeping the archive of the order.

Orders were divided into tables, and tables were divided into povys. The tables were headed by clerks. Researchers (N.P. Eroshkin) note that the ordering system went through a number of stages in its development: an order (in the literal sense of the word) as a one-time assignment, an order as a permanent assignment (like a "path"), an order - "izba" (office) and, finally, the order as a state body with independent structural divisions. By the middle of the 15th century, the real sectoral governing bodies - orders - "huts" (chancellery) had already become.

The documents that were used in the office work of orders were subdivided into columns (scrolls) and books. The books were scribes (tax description land and payers of taxes), census (registration of the taxable population), seasoning (certificates to census and census books), sentinels, receipts and expenditures.

The documents issued by orders are diverse: letters of gratitude (containing various awards); decrees on behalf of the tsar in the form of a decision on a specific case, set out in an official's formal reply (memo), memory (a document coming from another order) or petition. Orders were issued - instructions to officials, reports - draft decisions on the case, inquiry and torture letters. The systematization of letters was carried out through the publication of consolidated documents - charter letters.

The organization of the civil service and the financing of the state apparatus were dealt with by the Order of the Big Parish, the Discharge, Local and Yamskaya orders.

The discharge order, which arose as an office under the Boyar Duma, became the most important body for organizing state administration. The local order, along with the allocation and registration of land allotments, was also carried out by the court on land affairs. The Yamskaya order, in addition to performing the functions of organizing the Yamskaya chase, carried out police supervision functions for the movement of persons and goods. The order of the Big Parish was involved in organizing the collection of national taxes and duties. The same activities were carried out by territorial orders for the collection of taxes and the Zemsky Prikaz, which concentrated its activities in the capital and its suburbs. Extraordinary taxes were collected by the Order of Collecting Five and Inquiry Money. The minting of coins was in charge of the Monetary Yard, subordinate to the Order of the Great Treasury.

The robbery order headed the system of police detective agencies already in the middle of the 16th century. In it, labial wardens, kissing clerks and clerks, verdicts of labial organs were approved for positions, and robbery and grave cases were considered in the second instance. In Moscow, police functions were carried out by the Zemsky order. From the end of the 15th century. on the ground, a system of police officers began to form - privet, prison guards, executioners, etc. In 1649, the first police law was adopted - the Order of the Gradsky Deanery.

Printing issues were in charge of the Printed Order, which supervised the copyists and publishers of books; supervisors were established at the printing houses.

Medical management since the end of the 16th century. concentrated in the Pharmaceutical order.

4.Local government bodies

4.1 Warlords

In the XVI century. a reorganization of local government took place: zemstvo, labyrinth huts and city clerks began to obey the governors appointed from the center, who assumed administrative, police and military functions. The governors relied on a specially created apparatus (clerk hut) of clerks, bailiffs and clerks.

Applicants for the place of the governor turned to the tsar with a petition, in which they asked to appoint them to the position of "feeding." The voivode was appointed by a discharge order, approved by the tsar and the Boyar Duma. The term of service of the voivode was calculated in one to three years, for the service he received a patrimony and a local monetary salary.

The voivode headed the clerk, or congress, hut, in which matters were decided on the management of the city or district entrusted to him. The office work in the hut was conducted by the clerk, her staff consisted of bailiffs, allotments, etc. Control over the activities of the voivode was carried out by the order that was in charge of this territory. In the order, a mandate was prepared for the voivode, which determined the terms of reference of the latter.

The governors exercised control over the work of elected officials (elders, kisellers, heads) who collected direct and indirect taxes from the population, police supervision over the population, supervision over the court of laborers and zemstvo elders, recruited service people (noblemen and boyar children).

4.2 Zemsky and lip huts

In the XVII century. at the local level, zemstvo and labial huts continued to function. Legal proceedings in labial matters were conducted by the clerk and clerk, the laborer was in charge of the hut. They were in charge of prisons, executioners, and sotsky and ten’s elected from the population. The lip ward was chosen by the population from the nobility and the children of the boyars, the kissers - from the black-haired peasants and townspeople. In fact, all criminal cases were under the jurisdiction of the labial huts. The activity of the labial huts was supervised by the governor.

Zemsky bodies were elected by black-sowed peasants and townspeople at gatherings in cities, camps, volosts and churchyards. These bodies were in charge of the distribution of taxes among the population and carried out some police functions.

Other elected bodies operated in the localities: customs heads, kissing clerks, customs huts, kruzhechnye yards, stall elders, household and mill tselovalniki. Control over them was also entrusted to the governor.

State centralization required reforms in the administrative, financial and military fields. The formation of an order-provincial system of administration meant the centralization of all administration and the elimination of the remnants of the palace-patrimony system.

Conclusion

In this course work, 3 main questions were considered:

Preconditions for the formation of a caste-representative monarchy in Russia, its social base and features; Higher bodies power and control; Local government system. On their basis, the following conclusions can be drawn.

Estates-representative monarchy is a form of feudal state in which the power of the monarch is combined with the functioning of estate-representative assemblies, central and local. By the middle of the XVI century. as a result of various preconditions, the main institutions of the estate-representative monarchy were formed. Under Ivan IV, the head of state began to bear the official title of Tsar, Tsar and Grand Duke of Moscow, which was inherited. In his activities, Ivan IV relied on the Boyar Duma, which was of a consultative nature, but in essence, the Duma was the highest consultative and legislative body of the Moscow state. The main contradiction of the political system was the struggle between the boyar aristocracy and autocracy. This line is reflected in the social composition of the Chosen Rada, political groupings in the Duma, boyar conspiracies, and oprichnina. The specificity of the Zemsky Sobors in Russia was the complete dependence of the elected representatives on the state and the insignificant role of the "third estate" (urban bourgeois elements). As a result, zemstvo councils, due to the lack of real estate consciousness among the elected representatives, were an instrument for strengthening, and not limiting the autocracy. In the XVI century. a reorganization of local government took place: zemstvo, labyrinth huts and city clerks began to obey the governors appointed from the center, who assumed administrative, police and military functions. The governors relied on a specially created apparatus (clerk hut) of clerks, bailiffs and clerks.

Thus, we can conclude that the goal of the course work has been achieved.

Bibliography

1.Isaev I.A .: History of State and Law of Russia: Textbook. - 3rd ed., Rev. and add. - M .: Jurist, 2006 .-- 797 p.

.Sakharov A.N., Buganov V.I .: History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century: Textbook. - M .: Education, 1995 .-- 304 p.

.Gavrilov B.I .: History of Russia from ancient times to the present day: A guide for university entrants and students. - M .: "New Wave Publishing House", 2003. - 560 p.

.Bablenkova I.I .: History of Russia: the entire course for graduates and applicants: a textbook. - M .: Eksmo, 2007 .-- 256 p.

5.L.V. Cherepnin "Zemsky Cathedrals of the Russian State in the 16th - 17th centuries." - M., 1978.

6.Lectures on the history of Russia (IX - XX centuries): Course of lectures. - 2nd ed. - Vologda, 2004 .-- 146 p.

Tutoring

Need help exploring a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Send a request with the indication of the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The estate-representative monarchy operates in estate-based societies, it is the principle of the organization of representative power, where closed social groups operate - estates, from which deputies are directly elected. In Western Europe, the first estate-representative monarchies appeared in the 12th century. In many European states, this monarchy existed until the beginning of the twentieth century, when it finally gave way to national representation.

The prerequisites for the emergence of the estate monarchy as a relatively centralized form of the state (in comparison with the states of the period of feudal fragmentation) were created by the development of cities, which began with the formation of the internal market, the exacerbation of the class struggle in connection with the intensification of feudal exploitation of the peasantry. The main support of the estate monarchy was made up of the lower and middle strata of the feudal class, who needed a strong centralized apparatus to strengthen their power over the peasantry. The estate monarchy was supported by the townspeople, who sought to eliminate feudal fragmentation and to ensure the safety of trade routes - the conditions necessary for the development of the internal market. The process of state centralization during this period was progressive, since it facilitated the most ancient economic development of feudal society. The centralization of the feudal state under the estate monarchy was expressed in the concentration in the hands of the king of his apparatus of judicial and military power to the detriment of the political independence of large feudal lords, in the development of national legislation and taxation, in the growth and complication of the state apparatus. The centralized state required significant funds, the obligatory prerequisite for obtaining which (in the form of state taxes) was the distribution monetary form feudal rent. However, the central government was not able to directly, bypassing the consent of the feudal lords and state councils, to receive these funds from the bulk of the taxpayers - the peasantry and townspeople. This was connected with the emergence in most European countries of estate-representative assemblies of a nationwide scale, which completed the process of the formation of an estate monarchy in each country: the States General - in France; Parliament - in England; imperial Diet - in Germany.

In most European countries, the period of the formation of feudal property.Feudal states are formed in the form of early feudal monarchies, and the period of feudal fragmentation of the feudal state practically everywhere acts as a senior monarchy (X-XIII centuries).

The development of commodity-money relations, the growth of cities entailed the elimination of estates, contributed to the centralization of the state and the rise of royal power. This period was characterized by the emergence of estate-representative monarchies.

During the disintegration of feudalism, the royal power, as if towering over the whole of society, made an attempt to extremely centralize and strengthen the feudal state, which takes the form of an absolute monarchy (XYI-XYIII centuries).

As an independent state Germany arose as a result of the collapse of the Frankish state. For the eastern part of the empire, which included Swabria, Bavaria, Frankania, Saxony, and then Lorraine, the name of the Teutonic state was fixed.

Unlike France and England, where centralized states arose, Germany remained fragmented from the entire feudal era. Political fragmentation Germany, which remained until 1871, was the result of the economic, social and political development of its individual parts.

The history of the feudal state of Germany can be divided into 3 main stages:

1. Formation of an early feudal monarchy, in which a multi-structured economy remained and closed subsistence economies arose, resulting in feudal fragmentation. (X-XIII centuries).

2. Strengthening and formation of estate-representative monarchies in the principalities of Germany and the establishment of monarchies of the Electors (XIV-XVI centuries).

3. The assertion of princely absolutism in the German states (17th - early 19th centuries).

Estates differentiation took place under the influence of the development of feudal personal-dependent relations, as well as the growth of feudal-local and ecclesiastical land tenure with the subsequent enslavement (attachment to the land) of communal farmers and the growth of cities. According to the classification of estates and ranks (the so-called shields), recorded in the collection of laws of the Duchy of Saxony under the name "Saxon Mirror" (20-ies of the XIII century), there were only seven ranks adapted to carry military and other duties: the king, spiritual princes in the rank of bishops and abbots, secular princes, their vassals. A special rank was made by the sheffens - free citizens who participated in the sessions of the community courts. Their positions were elective. The peasants were divided into free and not free. Free were tenants (temporary landholders) or Chinsheviks(they used the land for a fee - "chinsh").

Over time, the townspeople, through inclusion in the fief structure, turned into partially free people, experiencing greater dependence on local feudal lords or on imperial power and bureaucracy.

The courts were estates and operated on the principle of "court of equals" (court of peers). Such were the courts of princely, county, Sheffen, city, etc. With the emergence of a vast empire, estates and bureaucratic hierarchy began to be divided into two large categories: imperial estates and zemstvo estates(the latter within the principalities and kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire). The former included the imperial princes, imperial knights and citizens of the imperial cities, the latter - the nobles and clergy of the principalities and the townspeople of the princely cities. Military forces were also divided into two categories - imperial and princely.

The highest dignitaries of the Carolingian times (the chancellor, the marshal - the chief of the cavalry, the margraves - the heads of the border districts and counts) gradually turned into hereditary holders of the position, sometimes these positions were included in the privileges of other dignitaries - dukes (governors), archbishops. Since the XI century. feudal secular and spiritual magnates began to sit in the royal council - Hoftag, however, the emperor and his advisers were forced to submit many important decisions to the congress of feudal lords, at which the decisive majority of votes were on the side of the princes.

Imperial cities in the XIV-XV centuries became the collective vassal communities of the emperor, and as his power became isolated and elevated, they achieved many privileges: a separate city jurisdiction, minting coins, maintaining their military militia. Their duties towards the emperor himself gradually came down to fulfilling the oath of allegiance, paying the imperial tax, supplying a military contingent and receiving the emperor himself with his retinue. Imperial cities eventually became known as free cities due to their obvious privileged position. These cities - Lubeck, Hamburg, Bremen, Augsburg, Nuremberg - from the 15th century. received a permanent representation in the Reichstag along with secular and spiritual magnates.

In the XIV century. The Reichstag - the estate assembly of the empire - began to consist of three colleges: college of electors(territorial governors-governors), college of princes, counts and free people and collegiums of representatives of imperial cities. Separate corporations within the cities acquired special privileges - handicrafts, merchants, as well as city unions, in particular the association of North German cities called the Hansa (XIV-XV centuries) and military-religious associations such as the Teutonic Order (XII-XVI centuries). ).

In 1356, the German Emperor Charles IV issued a decree known as the Golden Bull (a letter with a gold seal and in a special package). At this moment, the emperor performed mainly representative functions, that is, he reigned, but did not rule. Charles IV (1347-1378) was also the sovereign king of Bohemia: the ruling house of the Luxemburgs became related in the period under review with the Bohemian kings.

According to the Golden Bull, the form of government she recorded can be called simultaneously monarchical(elective monarchy) and oligarchic(the actual reign of seven electors - territorial princes). The emperor henceforth began to be elected by a collegium of seven electors: the Margrave of Brandenburg, the King of Bohemia, the Duke of Saxon, the Count Palatine of the Rhine and three archbishops - Mainz, Cologne and Trier. Karl Marx called the Golden Bull "the fundamental law of German plural power."

This document raised the election of the Roman king (emperor) by the college of electors to the rank of legal order. The elections were held in Frankfurt by the named college in the person of the rulers themselves or their ambassadors after taking the oath. The term of the electoral procedure - the procedure for choosing a "temporary head of the world" (he is also the head of the Christian people, he is also the Roman king who is to become an emperor) - was strictly limited to 30 days. The elections were held without pauses. After 30 days, the electors had to switch to food "only with bread and water and in no way leave the city" until a new ruler of the Christian people was elected.

There were seven electors in total, so a group of four (votes) constituted the majority. The first step of the newly elected Roman imperial ruler, the elector, was to confirm to all the electorate princes (spiritual and secular) “all their privileges, certificates and rights, liberties, awards, ancient customs, as well as honorary dignities and everything that they received from the empire and what possessed until election day. " All this the new ruler was obliged to repeat again after he was crowned with the imperial crown.

One of the seven members of the electoral college could become the chosen one. In the event of the vacancy of the throne, the right to convene the princes-electors belonged to the Archbishop of Mainz, who also had the right during the gathering of voters to interrogate them in the following order: first, the Archbishop of Trier (he voted first), followed by the Archbishop of Cologne (he placed the crown on the chosen one), the third - King of Bohemia (Bohemia), then Count of the Palatine of Rhine, Duke of Saxon, Margrave of Brandenburg. In the event of the death of the prince-voter, his "right, vote and power in elections" passed unhindered to his "legitimate firstborn son of an unspiritual title."

The persons who entered the electoral college had other, more special official and power privileges, since they were considered the highest court officials and advisers to the emperor. From the side of the supreme ruler, they were ceded all the supreme rights in their possessions. Thus, all subjects of the dioceses of Cologne, Mainz and Trier (including counts, barons, castle owners and townspeople) could not be summoned - "forevermore" - in any court, except for the court of the Archbishop of Cologne, Mainz and Trier and their judges. Thus, their immunities in the judicial sphere were fixed. The electoral princes of the Rhine and Saxon also had special judicial privileges to apply the Saxon or Frankish consolidated legislation, as well as to provide benefits for the church, the right to collect taxes and revenues, and the distribution of ordinary fiefs (i.e., they had immunity privileges in the most complete form). They were given the right to take the oath of allegiance on behalf of the "Holy Roman Empire" when the emperor was absent.

Other official powers of general imperial and court appointment were also divided between them. The Archbishop of Mainz was Chancellor of Germany, Cologne was Chancellor of Italy, and Trier was Chancellor of the Kingdom of Arles. The King of Bohemia, in turn, was a great cup-holder, the Count Palatine of the Rhine was a steward, the Duke of Saxon was a marshal, and the Margrave of Brandenburg was a bed-man.

The decisions of the electors were adopted by a majority vote. Bulla forbade vassals to take up arms against the overlord. A war was considered legal only if it was solemnly declared three days before its start. Bulla also forbade cities to enter into alliances with each other, but they did not accept this ban. The Swabian cities first formed a union of 89 cities, then it was transformed into the Union of Rhine cities.

This is how a legislative act was put into effect during the reign of Charles IV, who was at that time also the ruler of Bohemia. Charles IV remained for a long time known not only for the adoption of Bulla, but also as the founder (1348) of the University in Prague, which bears his name today. One of the first rectors of the university was the famous religious reformer Jan Hus.

The Luxembourg dynasty held out with some interruption until the first third of the 15th century, when Emperor Sigismund married a Hungarian princess and annexed Hungary to the empire. Czechia (Bohemia) by that time was struggling with the dominance of everything German and the dictatorship of the Catholic Church. After the death of Sigismund, the Czech Republic remained independent for half a century. In 1439, in an anonymous pamphlet "The Reformation of Emperor Sigismund", views and proposals characteristic of radical supporters of the political unity of the empire were expressed. It proposed to subordinate all local authorities to uniform imperial laws, to end internal wars, to abolish feudal privileges, to introduce a single judicial structure and a single coin, to create conditions for the free development of crafts and trade, to eliminate the serfdom of farmers, etc. The main support and driving force of reforms could be would become, according to the authors of the pamphlet, a city.

but further developments and tendencies of change - militant princely separatism, the peasant war of 1525, and the movement for reform of the Catholic Church - complicated the matter of uniting the empire. Nevertheless, attempts to reform power and government did not stop. During the reign of Emperor Maximilian I (1493-1519), in 1495, the Reichstag decided to introduce a common "zemstvo peace" ( special treatment maintenance of law and order) and the creation of an imperial administration and a court to settle conflicts between "imperial ranks" and subjects of individual principalities.

Members of the Imperial Supreme Court were appointed by electors and princes (14 people in total) and cities (2 people), and its chairman was appointed by the emperor himself. The empire was divided into 10 districts, headed by the enforcers of order from among the princes, who were entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the judgments of the court. Special military units were placed at their disposal. A special tax was introduced for the administration of the empire - the so-called imperial pfennig. However, the implementation of these innovations met with many difficulties.

Participants in the peasant war of 1525 spoke on behalf of the rebellious peasantry with a program of demands called "12 Articles." Among the demands put forward were the following: abolish serfdom, reduce feudal fees and duties, allow each peasant community to choose its own priest and precisely determine the punishment for crimes.

Formation of an independent state during France was a direct consequence of the formation of feudal relations in the Frankish Empire. Accordingly, the history of the feudal state of France includes the following periods:

1. Senior monarchy (IX-XIII centuries).

2. Estates-representative monarchy (XIV-XVI centuries).

3. Absolute monarchy (XVI-XVIII centuries). The bourgeois revolution of 1789 led to the collapse of absolutism and feudal statehood.

At the end of the IX century. the West Frankish state included: Neustria, Aquitaine, Brittany, Gascony, Sentimania, Spain, Mark. On this territory, one of the leading powers of the world, France, arose later.

Feudalism became the dominant social and economic order. The organization of power and administration was built as a palace-patrimonial system. The personal servants of the king, however, were the officials of the kingdom.

The power of the king in France was limited by the council of the nobility, which was elected by the king. During the period of feudal fragmentation, the king's council included experts in state law - the legists (since the time of Philip II). The post of mayordom was abolished, and the royal court was ruled by the palace count. The former chief groom became known as the head of the royal cavalry. At the head of local authorities, the position of provost was established instead of counts.

The profound changes in state building in France are associated with the name of Louis IX (1226-1270), who declared: "There is only one king in France."

The beginning of the formation of the estate-representative monarchy can be considered 1302, when Philip IV the Beautiful convened an expanded Council of secular and spiritual feudal lords. For the first time, representatives of the so-called 3rd estate, which consisted of townspeople, were admitted to the Council.

Bodies of estate representation were named the States General.

From the moment of the emergence of the bodies of estate representation, the feudal monarchy in France became the estate-representative one. The states-general were convened by the king when he was in need of money, introduced new taxes. The states-general did not become a permanent medieval parliament, mainly because the peasant class was weak.

The States-General were last convened in 1614, and in their place the king called a council of notables. In this council there were representatives of the richest estates. Formally, the decision of the notables was not obligatory, but on many issues the king reckoned with the opinion of the nobility who sat in this body. Institutions of this kind have sprung up in large provinces.

The first estate was the clergy. The French clergy were supposed to live according to the laws of the kingdom and were considered an integral part of the French nation. It had the right to receive tithes, various donations, and retained its tax and judicial immunity. It was exempted from public service and duties.

The nobility is the servants of the king (a closed and hereditary estate). The tribal nobility achieved that the purchase of estates by persons of ignoble origin ceased to give them titles of nobility. The most important privilege is the ownership of land with the inheritance of all real estate and rental rights. They had the right to badges of nobility, to special judicial privileges. They were exempted from paying state taxes. The nobility was heterogeneous: dukes, earls, marquises, viscounts held the highest posts, and the bulk - a modest position.

The urban population and the peasant censors are ignoble, they have no special political and property rights. The organization of this estate was of a feudal-corporate nature.

Each estate met and sat in the States General separately. Voting went on baliages and seneschalties. If there was a contradiction, then they voted by class.

In the IX-XI centuries. the final formation of the feudal-dependent peasants took place. The overwhelming majority are called serfs, whose legal status as personally dependent people was borrowed from slavery.

Serves were seen as a simple property of the land. They paid the feudal lord a total tax, an annual quitrent, and performed corvee work.

Serv had no marital status, he could not marry without the consent of the master, enter the clergy, be a witness in the trial.

Villans constituted another group of feudal-dependent peasants. They were considered personally free holders of land belonging to the feudal lord. The Willians paid the lord a quitrent (talya), the amount of which was fixed by custom, but was lighter than that of the servos. The Willians were limited in the right to marriage, they had to ask the lord's permission to marry.

The entire peasant population of France was obliged to observe banalities: to bake bread in the seigneur's bakery, to harvest grapes in a winery, there was a seigneur's right to the wedding night.

The 12th century is the century of the emergence and development of a new social group - the urban population, whose legal status was universal.

The legal status of the peasants was limited by the framework of feudalism, the remnants of the slave system.

As the royal power grows stronger centralized system local government acquired the following form: large districts in the North were called balyazh (headed by balyaz), in the south - governorate districts headed by seneschals.

Since 410 the Germanic tribes of Angles, Saxons, Goths, who lived between the Rhine and the Elbe, began to conquer the lands Britain and inhabit them. The process of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain dragged on for more than a century and a half (the name England appeared in the II century, when the kingdom of Wessex subjugated all other kingdoms).

Anglo-Saxon society lagged behind many of the continent's societies by about two centuries. The Anglo-Saxons were dominated by public ownership of land and the corresponding nature of social relations.

The main stages in the development of the English feudal state are:

1. the period of the Anglo-Saxon early feudal monarchy in the IX-XI centuries;

2. the period of the centralized seignorial monarchy (XI-XII centuries) and civil wars for the limitation of royal power (XII century);

3. the period of the estate-representative monarchy (second half of the XIII-XV centuries);

4. period of absolute monarchy (late 15th-mid-17th century).

The estate-representative monarchy in England was formed during the XIII century. The immunity rights of large feudal lords were significantly limited. As direct vassals of the king, the barons bore numerous financial and personal obligations to the overlord, in case of malicious failure to fulfill which, the confiscation of their lands could follow.

The stratification of the peasantry is growing, and the number of personally free peasant elite is growing. The wealthy freehold peasants often acquire the knighthood, drawing closer to the lower strata of the feudal lords.

Serf peasantry - villans - in the 13th century. remained disenfranchised. The owner of all property belonging to the villan was recognized by his lord.

However, the royal power, which had strengthened its position, did not show readiness to involve representatives of the ruling classes in solving issues of state life. The movement to curb the abuse of central power was led by barons, who were periodically joined by chivalry and a mass of freeholders.

The main milestones of this struggle were the conflict of 1215, which ended with the adoption of the Magna Carta, and Civil War 1258-1267, which led to the emergence of parliament.

By the end of the XIII century. the royal power finally realized the need for a compromise. The result of this agreement was the completion of the formation of the body of estate representation. In 1295, a "model" parliament was convened, the composition of which served as a model for subsequent parliamentary and spiritual feudal lords, it included two representatives from 37 counties (knights) and two representatives from cities.

Gradually, the parliament of medieval England acquired three most important powers: the right to participate in the issuance of laws, the right to decide questions about extortions from the population in favor of the royal treasury, and the right to exercise control over senior officials and in some cases act as a special judicial body.

During the XIV century. the competence of the parliament in financial matters was gradually consolidated. Eager to bring your control public administration, parliament from the end of the XIV century. gradually introduced impeachment proceedings. It consisted in the initiation by the House of Commons before the House of Lords as the country's highest court of charges against one or another royal official of abuse of power. In addition, in the XV century. the right of the parliament to explicitly declare this or that abuse as criminal was established. At the same time, a special act was issued, approved by the king and called the "bill of disgrace."

Throughout the XIII century. there is also the development of a new executive body - the Royal Council. He began to represent a narrow group of the king's closest advisers, in whose hands the highest executive and judicial powers were concentrated. This group usually consisted of the chancellor, treasurer, judges, ministerials closest to the king, mostly from the knightly strata. The Grand Council of the largest vassals of the crown lost its functions, which were transferred to parliament.

In the XIII century. the practice of appointing so-called peacekeepers, or justices of the peace, from local landowners in the counties is finally approved. Initially, they had police and judicial powers, but over time they began to fulfill the most important functions of local government instead of sheriffs.

The judicial competence of justices of the peace included the examination of criminal cases, except for murders and especially grave crimes. The proceedings were held in sessions of justices of the peace, convened four times a year. These meetings are called "quarter sessions" courts.

In the XIII-XIV centuries. the number of royal ships of various ranks is growing, their specialization is increasing. However, the judicial and administrative functions of many institutions have not yet been separated. The highest courts of "common law" in England during this period were the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of General Claims and the Court of the Treasury.

The Treasury court, which was the first to record its hearings, was mainly specialized in financial disputes, and, above all, disputes related to treasury and crown debt.

The Court of General Claims dealt with most of the private civil claims and became the main court of common law. He also supervised local and manorial courts.

From the personal Court of the king, the Court of the King's Bench was gradually formed, which sat until the end of the XIV century. only in the presence of the king and his closest advisers. It became the highest court of appeal and review for all other courts, including “general litigation,” but over time specialized in criminal appeals.

With the development of civil circulation from common system the highest royal courts stood out the Court of the Lord Chancellor, which decided issues "justly".

In the XIV century. general detours lost their significance and gave way to more specialized traveling commissions, among which are the Assize Courts (for considering disputes over pre-emptive ownership of flax), the Rebellion Commission and the General Prison Inspection Commission.

Summing up, we can conclude that France, Germany, England are world powers with a huge centuries-old history of development. In the legal systems of these countries, the importance of Roman law was great.

The feudal path of development of England, France, Germany was different, due to the traditions and characteristics of each state separately. The social-class structure of states was in many ways similar to one another. A state in which the main place was occupied by the ruling classes with greater legal capacity than the have-nots.

The process of formation, the process of feudalization, in general, is similar for these countries, the differences are only in the time frame for the completion of these processes. However, it can be concluded that the parliament arose in England as the most important part government organization, with certain powers and rules of activity. In France, on the other hand, states-general took shape slowly, as the need for royal power arose. The states-general, in contrast to the English parliament, have not received any regulations, rules, or order of convocation. The decisions of the states general were not binding on the royal power. While in England only parliament had the right to vote new taxes, the States General did not even have the right to register royal decrees. Subsequently, this right in France was acquired by a special judicial body - the Parisian parliament.

Unlike the countries of Western Europe, in Germany the process of forming a single, centralized state was not completed. Therefore, the estate-representative bodies did not receive much development. The German Reichstag, convened regularly, was in fact a source of civil strife and did nothing to help the central government.

In Ancient Babylon, Ellil, appearing in court as a witness on the accusation of Humbaba in the murder of a person, could not confirm his testimony. What punishment can he be subjected to for perjury under the Laws of Hammurabi? Compare this punishment for perjury according to the "Laws of the XII Tables" in Ancient Rome.

Paragraph three of the Laws of Hammurabi reads: (§ 3) If a person appeared in court to testify about a crime and the word he said did not prove, and this case is a matter of life, then this person must be killed.

Thus, Ellil can be killed because Humbaba's accusation of murdering a person is undoubtedly a matter of life.

According to the "Laws of the XII Tables" in Ancient Rome, perjury was also punishable by death (the convicted person was thrown from the Tarpeian rock). (VIII.23. Aulus Gellius, Attic nights, XX. 1. 53).

Literature

1. Reader on the history of the state and law of foreign countries. Vol. 1. History Of the Ancient World... Resp. ed. ON. Krasheninnikov. - M., 2003.

2. Grafsky V.G. General history of law and state. - M., 2005.

3. David R., Geoffrey-Spinozi K. Basic legal systems of our time. - M., 2006.

4. History of the state and law of foreign countries. / Resp. ed. - Doctor of Law, prof. S.A. Chibiryaev. - M., 2002.

Lecture plan

Social structure.

State structure.

Sources and main features of law.

In the XVI - XVII centuries. in Russia, the process of further development of feudal land tenure took place, the local system was strengthened, the process of enslavement of the peasants was coming to an end. There was a process of strengthening the state, expanding its territory; in the second half of the 16th century. the Kazan and Astrakhan principalities were annexed to Russia. In 1654 Russia was reunited with Ukraine. In the XVII century. all of Siberia is part of the Russian state. Already at the end of the 17th century. Russia was the world's largest multinational state.

The economic development of the country was characterized by the further development of handicrafts associated with the market, the consolidation of handicraft production, the development of manufactories and factories. The development of the economy contributed to the emergence of trade ties, the creation of a single all-Russian market.

The folding of the estate-representative monarchy. Changes in the socio-economic sphere determined the change in the form of government of the Russian state: in the middle of the 16th century, a class-representative monarchy began to take shape. A feature of the development of the monarchy in Russia was the attraction by the tsarist power to solve important issues of representatives not only of the ruling classes, but also of the "top of the urban population. Estates-representative monarchy is a natural stage in the development of the feudal state. It took place in France, Spain, Germany. In Russia. the power of the monarch was limited to the Zemsky Sobor.The beginning of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia conventionally dates from the convocation of the first Zemsky Sobor in 1550. There is a dispute around this date.The last Zemsky Sobor took place in 1653. The Zemsky Sobor included representatives of the new feudal nobility (middle and small feudal lords The Boyar Duma was part of the Zemsky Sobor.

The tsarist government could not carry out its functions of power without the support of the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor as a whole, since the boyar nobility had strong economic and political positions. But due to the gradual consolidation of all groups of the ruling class of feudal lords into a single estate with the same interests and class goals, the role of all groups of feudal lords increased. After the Council of 1653, the Conferences continue to be convened. From the second half of the 17th century, the estate - a representative monarchy began to degenerate into an absolute monarchy. The main factor contributing to this was the formation of an all-Russian market and further growth commodity-money relations. It should also be noted that the formation of an absolute monarchy is also due to the complexities of the country's foreign policy position.

The legal status of representatives of the elite of society. The king owned, as before, the palace and black-wooded lands. The cathedral code quite clearly defined the difference in these forms of ownership. The palace lands - the own lands of the tsar and his family, state lands - also belong to the tsar, but as the head of state. The top of the ruling class was made up of the boyar aristocracy. During this period of time, court ranks did not mean an official position, but belonging to a certain layer of feudal lords. Duma (higher), Moscow, and police ranks were distinguished among the court ranks. All of them were serving people in their homeland, whose privileged position was inherited.

The first Duma and, in general, the court rank was the rank of the boyar. During this period, the boyars showed themselves, i.e. was announced only to some noble boyar families, while representatives of other families could, according to general rule, to receive the rank of boyar only for great services and long-term service.

The second rank was the rank of devious. Through deviousness, less noble people sought boyars.

The third rank of the Duma was the Duma noblemen. They originated from the children of the boyars.

The fourth rank of the Duma is the Duma clerk. In the Duma sat not only boyars, okolnichy, Duma noblemen and clerks, but also some other court officials.

The less important court ranks belonged to the unwise ranks. The Moscow court ranks included nobles, whose estates under Ivan IV were located in the Moscow district (a chosen thousand). They were entrusted mainly with the protection of the state choir and chambers. The police officers consisted of noblemen who were charged with the service in the city. Another group of service people (according to the device - by conscription, and not by inheritance) consisted of clerks, archers, pushers, dragoons, collars, raiters, and soldiers. These officials occupied a middle position between servicemen "in the homeland" and taxing people. The bulk of the service people was determined by the "layout", ie. enrollment in regimental lists and assignment to salaries, monetary and local. Usually, the sons of the nobility and the children of the boyars were typeset for the service, as the state grew and the need for an increase in the number of servicemen, sometimes the Cossacks were also made up. The practice of making up service people shows that only children of service people in the 17th century. began to receive regulation. By decrees of 1639 and 1652 it was forbidden to enter the service of children of non-serving people. In 1657 and 1678. it was already ordered to enroll in the service people only the sons of the boyars' children.

The rights of service people. Service people had a number of privilege rights. They were "white", i.e. exempt from payment of taxes. They owned:

The right to own estates and estates;

The right (now exclusive) to enter the public service.

The right to enhanced protection of honor.

A number of privileges in criminal law.

Privileges in the collection of obligations.

Localism. In connection with the development of these privileges, the institution of parochialism acquired particular importance. Establishment of the right of seniority was carried out through complex proceedings. Local disputes brought about many complications in the appointment to the post, they were especially harmful in the appointment to military posts. The complete abolition of parochialism took place in 1682.

Oprichnina. Among the measures of the middle of the 16th century aimed at restricting the old feudal nobility, it is necessary to name the oprichnina. On the issues of the meaning of the oprichnina as; in domestic and foreign literature there are very contradictory approaches. The authors proceed from the concept that the oprichnina is not. was an accidental phenomenon, a short-term episode, but on the contrary a necessary stage in the formation of autocracy, the initial form of its power. The authors share the idea of ​​D.N. Alshits that the emergence of the oprichnina did not depend on the will of one person, since the oprichnina was "a concrete historical form of the objective process." In 1565 Ivan the Terrible divided the state lands into zemstvo (ordinary) and oprichnina (special), including in oprichnina - the lands of the opposition princely boyar aristocracy. As a result of the distribution, the confiscated land was transferred to the service people. The oprichnina turned the estate into the main and dominant form of feudal agriculture. Very significant changes took place with the very concepts of "patrimony", "estate". Patrimonial land tenure became more and more conventional. In 1556, a special "Code of Service" was adopted, according to which equal responsibilities were determined both for patrimonials and for landowners to exhibit a certain number of armed people (corresponding to the size and quality of land maintenance). The decree of 1551 forbade the sale of ancient estates to the monastery (as a reminder of the soul) without the knowledge of the king. And later it was forbidden to exchange them, give them as dowry. The right to inherit these estates was also limited (only direct male descendants could be heirs). A new concept of "paid" or "earned" patrimony appears, i.e. given directly for service or subject to service. The rights of local owners are gradually expanding, and the transfer of land by inheritance is becoming a common phenomenon. Service people were given the opportunity to buy estates. Boyars, as well as nobles, were endowed with local land. There was a process of convergence of estates and estates, the consolidation of the feudal lords into a single estate. This process is fairly fully reflected in the Cathedral Code of 1649. The most important forms of land tenure remained ecclesiastical and monastic.

As for the legal status of the clergy, the Cathedral Code restricts the growth of church property, categorically forbidding the secular feudal lords to bequeath, sell and mortgage the ancestral, favored and redeemed patrimony of monasteries and clergy. Thus, a serious blow was dealt to ecclesiastical land tenure.

Role of the city, urban population. In the XVI - XVII centuries. there is a further growth of cities, trade, crafts, blacksmithing, copper, arms, cannon business are developing. The number of factories and workshops is expanding, the number of the urban population is growing, and its differentiation is increasing. The urban population in the Russian state bore the name of the townspeople. They included the following categories:

The guests are prominent merchants. This title was complained to them for the service and on the terms of service, the financial service (customs and tavern fees). They were exempted from the usual taxes and duties, from the payment of trade duties, had the right to own estates and estates and were subject to the direct court of the king himself.

The living room people are hundreds.

People of the cloth hundreds.

Merchants belonged to the hundreds of the drawing-room and the cloth, who possessed small capital in comparison with its guests. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky, there were never many guests and merchants of both upper hundreds. So, for example, in 1649 there were only 18 guests, in the living room there were a hundred - 153, in the cloth - 116. Posad people from other cities and black hundreds were divided into the best, middle and young.

At this time, there is an acute differentiation and stratification of the urban population. Among the townspeople, the tops of the wholesale merchants, guests and merchants of the first hundred, who acquired enormous wealth, stand out. In 1649, the government took a number of real measures to streamline the tax relations of the townspeople. According to the Cathedral Code of 1649, it was decided to return to the posadskys the lands, courtyards, and shops that had been torn away by the "Beliestians".

The city nobility had a number of privileges. She was given the right to lay out and collect all taxes from the townspeople. She received the right to participate in the meeting of the Zemsky Sobor. The largest merchants-guests could buy land with a special royal permission. They received the title of Duma clerks and, in exceptional cases, Duma nobles. Thus, we can conclude that the political significance of the urban nobility grew. All this clearly manifested itself in legal terms. So, according to the Code of Law of 1550, under Article 26, for dishonor a guest, a fine was 10 times greater than for dishonor of the "boyar kind person". This line is continued and fixed in the Cathedral Code of 1649.

Changes in the legal status of the peasantry. Strengthening of serfdom .. In the second half of the XVI - the first half of the XVII century there was a process of further enslavement of the peasants. Naturally, this process was facilitated by the strengthening of the state apparatus and the creation of special bodies to combat fugitive peasants. The Code of Laws of 1550 repeated the articles of the Code of Laws of 1497 about "St. George's Day", but at the same time increased the exit fee charged to the peasants. In 1581, reserved summers were introduced, which canceled the provision on "St. George's Day". Since 1597, a decree on "class years" began to operate, according to which a five-year prescription for the search for fugitives was established. In 1607, the "regular summer" was increased to 15 years. The cathedral code of 1649 recorded the completion of the process of complete and final enslavement of the peasants and canceled the "regular summer". Fugitive peasants were returned regardless of the period that passed after their departure from the owner, along with the whole family and all property. Article I, chap. XI Cathedral Code gives a complete list of all categories of the peasant population. During this period of time, the final consolidation of the owner and black-grained peasants took place. After the publication of the Decree on reserved summers, a census was taken. In the Code of 1649, Articles 9 and 10 of Chapter XI prohibited the adoption from the moment of the publication of the Code of "runaway peasants, brothels and their children and brothers and nephews." The Code of 1649 established the enslavement of all peasants (old-timers and non-residents) and members of their families, while canceling the so-called "class years".

Serfdom for the peasants was finally sanctioned by law. The landowners acquired the right to unlimited sale, their exchange, exploitation, the right to dispose of the marital fate of the peasants. Already by the Decree of 1623, in cases of non-payment by landowners and patrimonials of claims on claims, it was allowed to collect them from slaves and peasants.

There have been changes in the position of the black-grained peasants. Their number decreased due to the distribution of rural municipality lands to estates and estates. For admission to the draft community, the conclusion of special contract records was required. By 1678, the correspondence of the courtyards was completed, which served as the basis for replacing the local taxation with the courtyards.

Let's analyze the situation of slaves. During this period of time, there were two categories of slaves: full and bonded. Full or full slaves were at the unlimited disposal of the master. There were other slaves: reports, dowries, spiritual ones, depending on the source of the servitude.

There was a decrease in the sources of servitude. Only the following sources of servitude remained: the birth of slaves from parents and marriage with slaves. Serfs had no personal and property rights. But in fact, slaves began to acquire a certain degree of law and legal capacity. Civil deals made with slaves by their own masters became possible. There was a tendency for the transformation of slaves into serfs. The cathedral code legalized the cruel forms of dependence of slaves on their masters, establishing full ownership of slaves. The Code includes marriage, birth, bondage work for a period exceeding three months to the sources of servitude.

Centralization of the state. Let's move on to consideration next question... There is a process of formation of a centralized state. Under Ivan IV, the last inheritances were destroyed. As the Russian state turned into a multinational state, many states became vassals to it. The vassals were: Siberian khans, Circassian princes, shakhmal (rulers of the Kumyks), Kalmyk tayshes, Nogai murzas. Vassal relations of some states were nominal. At the end of the 16th century, a tendency towards the complete inclusion (incorporation) of vassal states into the Russian kingdom developed. The king was at the head of the state. The change in the title of head of state in 1547 was an important political reform. In the XVII century. all state affairs were carried out on behalf of the king.

The role of royal power. The Cathedral Code included a chapter:

"On the state honor, and how to protect its state health." This chapter proclaimed:

confirmation of the king's role in political life country;

the principle of primogeniture and one inheritance.

The recognition of the tsar by the Zemsky Sobor was considered one of the conditions for the recognition of the legality of the royal power. One of the most important acts was the royal wedding. A special rite, the so-called chrismation, would have been added to the royal wedding ceremony in the 17th century.

The royal throne was usually inherited. At the end of the 15th century, the procedure for electing the tsar at the Zemsky Sobor was established, which was supposed to strengthen the authority of the monarch's power.

The tsar had great rights in the field of legislation, administration, and court. But he did not rule alone, but together with Boyar Duma, Zemsky Sobors.

The Boyar Duma was a permanent body under the tsar; together with him, it solved the main issues of management and foreign policy. The real significance of the Duma was ambiguous. So, for example, during the years of the oprichnina, her role was small. There were changes in the social composition of the Duma in the direction of strengthening the representation of the nobility. It also did not include representatives of the top of the urban population. Special commissions were formed to prepare the cases submitted to the Duma. Under the Duma, a bureaucratic and bureaucratic apparatus was created.

Zemsky Sobors. Zemsky Sobors played an important role in governing the state during the period under study. They were an estate-representative institution that was not permanently operating, but was assembled as needed. Only in the first decade of the reign of Mikhail Romanov, the Zemsky Sobor acquired the significance of a permanent representative institution. The strengthening of the tsarist power was manifested in the onset of a long break in his activities. Zemsky Sobors consisted of three main parts: Boyar Duma, Cathedral higher clergy(Consecrated Cathedral) and. meetings of representatives from people of all ranks, i.e. local nobility and merchants. At the beginning, for example, when the Council of 1566 was convened, the representation was organized not by election, but by trust in the representatives of the "government". The right to convene the Zemsky Sobor belonged to the tsar or the authority replacing him, i.e. Boyar Duma, patriarch, provisional government. Sometimes the initiative to convene a Council came from the Council itself. The meeting of the Council usually began with its solemn opening, where the tsar himself or on behalf of the tsar read his speech, which explained the reason for convening the Council and formulated the issues that were to be resolved. After the opening of the Zemsky Sobor, it began to discuss issues, for which it was divided into its component parts: the Boyar Duma, the Sacred Cathedral, Moscow noblemen, archers. City nobles and townspeople were still divided into "articles". Each part of the Council decided the issue separately and formulated the decision in writing. These decisions were reduced on the second general meeting... Usually, however, these decisions were the material from which the tsar or the Boyar Duma drew conclusions. They (Councils) were convened to resolve the most important issues: to elect kings, to resolve issues of war and peace, to establish new taxes and taxes, to adopt especially important laws. When discussing these issues, representatives of officials petitioned the government. Zemsky Sobors were the organ of influence of the local nobility and the top of the merchant class.

Features of elections to Zemsky Sobors. The organization of elections to the Zemsky Sobors, the norms of representation from various estates, their number and composition were uncertain. As a rule, the nobles made up the majority of the cathedral. For the nobles of the capital there were special privileges, they sent two people from all ranks and ranks to the Zemsky Sobor, while the nobles of other cities sent the same amount from the city as a whole. So, for example, out of 192 elected members of the Zemsky Sobor in 1642, 44 were delegated by Moscow nobles. The number of citizens' deputies in the Zemsky Sobor sometimes reached 20. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that in fact Zemsky Sobor to a certain extent limited the power of the tsar, but also strengthened it in every possible way. This is the dialectic of the interaction between the power of the tsar and the Zemsky Sobor.

Order system. Competence. The system of orders as central government bodies continued to develop and strengthen. The final development of the order system takes place in the second half of the 16th century. They arise as needed. Some of the orders are split into a number of departments, which, developing gradually, turn into independent orders. The lack of planning in the organization of orders led to ambiguity in the distribution of competence between them. In the 17th century, the number of orders was constantly changing, reaching 50. The main feature of the order system was the combination of administrative and judicial functions.

There was the following division of orders: palace-patrimonial, military, judicial-administrative, regional (central-regional), in charge of special branches of government.

Palace financial orders: hunter, falconer (in charge of the royal hunt), equestrian, order large palace, an order of the big treasury (in charge of direct taxes), an order of a large parish (in charge of indirect taxes, a new quarter (in charge of drinking income).

Military orders: category (in charge of the entire military administration, and the appointment of service people to the post), streltsy, Cossack, foreign, weapons, armor, pushkarsky.

Judicial-administrative group: local order (in charge of the distribution of estates and estates, and which was a judicial place for land affairs), lackeys (in charge of securing and releasing slaves, accusing them of robbery), zemstvo order (court and management of the draft population of Moscow).

Regional orders: central government bodies in charge of the so-called quarters or chets: Nizhegorodskaya (Nizhniy uyezd, Novgorod, Perm, Pskov), Ustyuzhskaya, Kosgromskaya, Galitskaya, Vladimirskaya.

The regional ones include 4 court orders: Moscow, Volodimir, Dmitrov, Ryazan. And then: Smolensk, Order of the Kazan hut, Siberian, Malorosky.

Orders in charge of special branches of management: ambassadorial (foreign affairs, non-service foreigners, post office), stone order of book printing), pharmacy order, printed, (certifying government acts by attaching a seal to them), monastery order (organized for the trial of church authorities), order of gold and silver business.

Orders were created as needed, often without a precise definition of their competence, the order of their organization and activities. All this led to red tape and duplication, bureaucracy. The orders included embezzlement and bribery.

It is known that the changes that have taken place in the development of the state have affected the local government. The main administrative unit was the county. It was notable for its unevenness. The county was divided into camps, and camps into parishes. Within the limits of the county, judicial districts were organized - lips; rank - military district.

Lip self-government. In 1556, the feeding system was abolished and replaced with a system of lip and zemstvo self-government. Lip self-government began to be created over time in each district. - landlords: lip elders were necessarily chosen from the nobility or children of the boyars. Peasants were also assistants to the elders (kissing people). Lip self-government was introduced in those counties where landlordism was highly developed, and in areas where trade and craft economy was highly developed, land tenure was introduced Zemstvo institutions developed later than labial ones. They were introduced in uyezds, in groups of volosts, in individual volosts. The competence of zemstvo institutions extended to all branches of administration and courts. In some uyezds, zemstvo institutions operated simultaneously with labial institutions.

At the same time, the voivodship-order administration was introduced (the competence of the voivode grew). The dispatch of voivods to border areas took place at the beginning of the 17th century; the introduction of a voivodship-order administration meant the further development of the bureaucratic system. The governors were appointed by the tsar and the Boyar Duma for a year or two. Several governors were sent to large districts, one of whom was in charge, others were considered his comrades. Clerks or clerks with an "assignment" were appointed as his closest assistants. The office of the voivode was located in the clerk hut, the functions of the voivode, determined by special instructions or orders, were varied. The governors were in charge of the police, military affairs, had the right to court, sometimes they were instructed (in the border districts) to even be in charge of relations with foreign states. At first, the governors did not interfere with the lip self-government. But over time, the power of the voivods increased, and their interference in the province and zemstvo self-government became significant. The governors subjugated the labial institutions and made labial wardens and kissers their assistants. The governors received a salary. They were forbidden to take feed from the inhabitants. And it was also forbidden to force residents to do anything for themselves. According to the Cathedral Code, the voivods were forbidden to enter into obligatory relations with local people. At the end of the 17th century, in some outskirts, the largest military-administrative districts, the so-called ranks, were created, which concentrated all the management of the industry.

Fiscal policy. During the period under study, the reform of the financial system continued. To determine the size of taxes, the government carried out a widespread description of the land. Scribe books were compiled, which determined the number of salary units (the so-called sokh). The "plow" included different amount land - depending on its quality. In the 17th century, additional direct and indirect taxes were introduced: customs, salt, tavern (or drinking), the so-called "pyatina" - the collection of one fifth of the value of movable property.

These are the general features of the state and social structure of the country at a given time. The period under study was characterized by a very intensive development of law, an increase in the role of tsarist legislation.

Sources of law. Codification. Among the monuments of law are labeled and zemstvo statutory charters, in which the principles of labial and zemstvo self-government, customs charters are established. Codification during this period began with the publication of the Code of Laws of 1550 (Tsarist or Second). In the 1550 Code of Laws, the range of issues regulated by the central government was expanded, and the features of the search process were strengthened. Regulation permeates the areas of criminal law and property relations... There is a strengthening of the class principle and the circle of subjects of crime is expanding. The main source of this code of law was the Code of Law of Vasily III, which has not come down to us. During the codification, a new decree material was involved, as well as labial and zemstvo charter letters. The Code of Law was divided into 100 articles, arranged according to some (rather elementary) system. All legislative material of the Code of Law can be divided into four parts:

The first contains decisions related to the central court;

the second - to the regional court;

the third - to civil law and procedure;

The fourth one contains additional articles.
Code of Law is a collection of judicial law, and. in general, reflected the interests of the local nobility and merchants.

Almost simultaneously with the Code of Laws, Stoglav was published (in 1551), which was the result of the legislative activity of the church (hundred-headed) cathedral. Stoglav - 100 chapters (articles), contains, along with important decrees on the church, a number of norms of criminal and civil law that provide enhanced protection of the interests of the clergy. When drawing up the Code of Laws, it was envisaged to replenish it with new legislative material, which could appear in the form of separate decrees and boyar sentences. Therefore, Article 98 of the Code of Law establishes the procedure for attaching "new cases" to its decisions - additional decrees. These postscripts were made with each order. Over time, the so-called Ordinary Books of Orders were drawn up. Among them, the Decree books of court cases, Zemsky Prikaz, and Rogue Prikaz are of great importance in the history of law. In them with more more the interests of the local nobility were defended. Both the Tsar's Law Code and individual decrees issued after it largely regulate the relations that are characteristic of the process of enslaving the peasants.

The most important monument of this time is the Cathedral Code of 1649, a code that to a large extent determined the legal system of the Russian state for many years. To draw up the code, the government created a special commission chaired by Prince Odoevsky. The draft developed by this commission was submitted for consideration to the Zemsky Sobor and discussed at joint meetings of the commission with the elected members of the Zemsky Sobor for over 5 months. The members of the commission submitted petitions to the tsar with a request to issue new laws on various issues. After the discussion of the Project ended, it was approved in 1649. Zemsky Sobor... The codified laws were named the Cathedral Code.

The sources of the code were: judicial codes, decrees and boyar sentences, the city laws of the Greek kings, i.e. Byzantine law, Lithuanian status, new articles, both included by the drafters themselves, and introduced at the insistence of the elected members of the Council - according to their petition. Among these articles, it is necessary to point out Eye XI - "The Court of the Peasants", in which the "fixed summers" were canceled and in which the full right of the landowner to work and the personality of the peasant was affirmed. The cathedral code was a code in which the principles of Russian law were developed, expressed in the "Russian Pravda" "and in judicial codes. The cathedral code was in the interests of the nobility. It was a code of serfdom. It should be noted that from a technical and legal point of view, was a step forward compared to the Code of Law.

Further development of legislation was carried out through the issuance of decrees. Decrees canceling, supplementing or amending the decisions of the Cathedral Code were named after the said articles. The characteristics of the sources allows us to draw a conclusion about the intensive development of law in the period under study. Let us turn to the analysis of the branches of law.

Features of land use. The Cathedral Code defined in detail the existing forms of feudal land tenure. Special Chapter 16 summarized all the major changes in the legal status of local land tenure. The Cathedral Code stipulated that both boyars and nobles could be the owners of estates; the estate was passed on to the sons by inheritance in a certain order; part of the land after the death of the owner is received by his wife and daughters; the estate could be given to the daughter as a dowry, and, in addition, the exchange of the estate for the estate and patrimony was allowed. But the landowners did not receive the right to freely sell land (only by tsarist decree), they did not have the right to mortgage the land. But at the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that article 3 of the chapter of the Cathedral Code allowed the exchange of a large estate for a smaller one and, thus, under the cover of exchange, sell the estate. The patrimony, in accordance with the Cathedral Code, still provided privileged land tenure. The patrimony could be sold (with obligatory registration in the local order), mortgaged and inherited. The Cathedral Code contains a provision on the right of patrimonial redemption - a period of 40 years for the redemption of a sold, exchanged, mortgaged patrimony. The circle of relatives who had the right to ransom was also determined. The right of generic redemption did not extend to the ransomed estates. By law, it was only possible to sell estates to feudal lords who lived in the same district. Purchased estates were called land holdings acquired by someone from members of a kind, the possession of them also entailed the duty of service. Refusal to serve was the result of the removal of the estates from their owners and their inclusion in the tsarist domain. The estates granted were called estates that were granted by the king. They were characterized by a great limited rights by the owners, they were selected if they did not please the king, sometimes it was a limited lifetime possession. At the end of the 17th century, estates became the dominant type of property. Only service people could own the estates: boyars, nobles, boyar children, clerks, etc. The size of the estate depended on the quality of the land. The estates were given to the children of residential people upon reaching the age of 15. As a rule, the estates included lands inhabited by peasants, but in addition to this, vacant lands, hunting and fishing grounds were allocated. Peasants, when assigning land to landowners, received a so-called obedient letter, according to which they were instructed to obey the owner. In addition, courtyards and vegetable gardens were allocated to the landowners in the cities. The main duty of the landowners was to carry out service.

Land inheritance. Gradually, the nobility acquired the right to inherit estates. In the first quarter of the 17th century, the inheritance of estates was already mentioned in special decrees. In 1611, the principle was established that the estates could remain with widows and children. From the father's estates, allotments were allocated to sons according to their official position, and to daughters and widows for subsistence. The rest of the estate was passed on to side relatives. In 1684, a law was passed, according to which the children received the entire estate of their father. From the end of the 16th century, donation of estates to the benefit of monasteries was allowed. Church domains were recognized as inalienable.

The pledge law also developed. The following forms of collateral were used: the mortgaged land was transferred to the mortgagee, as well as when the creditor received the right to temporarily use the mortgaged land, and this use replaced the payment of taxes. The Cathedral Code defined the rights to someone else's property, i.e. easements: the right to leave dams on the river within the limits of their possession, the right to mow, fish, hunt in forests, on lands belonging to another owner. In the cities, it was forbidden to build stoves, cooks close to neighboring buildings, it was not allowed to pour water, sweep away dirt on neighboring yards. The Code provided for the right of passers-by, as well as those driving the cattle, to stop in the meadows that adjoined the road.

The law of obligations also received its further development. Obligations arising from contracts are secured not by the person of the defendant, but by his property. Moreover, the responsibility was not individual, but collective: spouses, parents, children were responsible for each other. Debts on obligations were inherited. Much attention was paid to the forms of concluding contracts. The written form of the contract became more and more important. And when registering merchants for land or courtyards, registration of the document at the institution was required. A deed of sale (a deed of sale) is an act of acquiring property into ownership. The procedure for recognizing the contract as invalid was determined if it was concluded in a state of intoxication, with the use of violence or by deception. There are also known contracts of purchase and sale, exchange, donation, storage, luggage, rental of property.

Inheritance law has also evolved. Distinguishes between inheritance by law and will. Particular attention was paid to the order of inheritance of land. The will was drawn up in writing and signed by the testator, and in case of his illiteracy - by witnesses and confirmed by the church authorities. The possibilities of the will were limited by the class principles: it was impossible to bequeath the land to churches and monasteries; ancestral and granted estates, as well as estates were not subject to testamentary disposition. The patrimonial and granted estates were subject to inheritance only to members of the same clan to which the testator belonged. Daughters inherited in the absence of sons. Widows received part of the fiefdom they had served "for their living", that is, in life possession, in the event that there were no estates left after the death of the spouse. The estates were inherited by sons. The widow and daughters received part of the estate for subsistence.

Family law. Only a marriage contracted in a church was recognized as law. It was concluded with the consent of the parents. And for the marriages of serfs, the consent of the landlords was necessary. The marriageable age for husbands is set at 15 years, and for women - 12 years. There was paternal authority in the family, as well as the authority of the husband over his wife.

Crimes. Under the crime was understood the violation of the royal will, the law. Representatives of the estates were recognized as the subjects of crimes. Crimes were differentiated into intentional and reckless. No punishment was imposed for accidental acts. But the law does not always distinguish between an accidental, unpunished action and a careless form of guilt. The Code speaks about the institute of necessary defense, but the limits of necessary defense (excessive defense and degree of danger) have not been established.

Cover-ups, relapse. The Cathedral Code regulates in more detail complicity, incitement, aiding, harboring. Relapse was punished more severely. In the Cathedral Code, the types of crimes are set out according to a certain system. It highlighted a crime against faith, then state crimes (crimes against the foundations of faith, royal power and personally against the king: insulting the monarch, causing harm to his health). Responsibility was established even for naked intent and negligence. The law said a lot about such crimes as treason, conspiracy, riot. The characteristics of crimes against the order of government, military crimes, crimes against the judiciary are given. The Cathedral Code regulates crimes against the person. These include: murder, bodily harm, insult in word and deed. Among property crimes stood out: theft, robbery, robbery. Crimes against morality were distinguished: pandering, violation of family charters. It should be noted that in the Code, the corpus delicti were formulated more clearly than before.

Punishments. The Code further strengthens the frightening nature of punishments. The following were applied: the death penalty - simple and qualified; corporal punishment - whipping, flogging, branding, imprisonment, exile to the outskirts of the country, hard labor; deprivation of rank, resignation from office, church repentance. The use of the death penalty and corporal punishment was carried out in public. The Cathedral Code was characterized by a plurality of punishments and a difference in punishments depending on social affiliation.

The Cathedral Code provided for two forms of the process and the court. The inquisition process became more widespread. It was practically used in all criminal cases. The most cruel process was in cases involving crimes against the king and the state. The Cathedral Code also speaks in detail about the accusatory adversarial process. It was carried out in the consideration of property disputes and small criminal cases. Chapter 10 of the Cathedral Code speaks about the system of testimony. The so-called "general search" and "general search" were used as evidence. The difference between these two types was that in a "general search" - a survey of the entire population on the facts of a crime, and "general" - a survey of a specific person suspected of committing a crime. These are some of the main features of the development of law.

The history of the period under study was interesting, multifaceted, tragic. In Russia, the remnants of feudal fragmentation were finally eliminated, and the country's economic and political unity was formed. A class-representative monarchy emerged. It should be noted that the strengthening of state power led to a decrease in the importance of estate-representative institutions.