In Rus' there were no sufficient socio-economic prerequisites for the formation single state.

The leading role in its formation was played by the foreign policy factor - the need to confront the Horde and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This “advanced” (in relation to socio-economic development) nature of the process determined the features of the development that took shape towards the end of the 15th - 16th centuries. state: strong monarchical power, strict dependence of the ruling class on it, a high degree of exploitation of direct producers.

Decisive steps in creating a unified Russian state were taken by the son of Vasily the Dark, Ivan III. Ivan remained on the throne for 43 years. By the mid-70s, the Yaroslavl and Rostov principalities were finally annexed to Moscow. After 7 years of diplomatic and military struggle in 1478 Ivan III managed to subjugate the vast Novgorod Republic. At this time, the veche was liquidated, the symbol of Novgorod freedom - the veche bell - was taken to Moscow. The confiscation of Novgorod lands, unprecedented in its scale, began. They were handed over to the servants of Ivan III. Finally, in 1485, as a result of a military campaign, the Tver Principality was annexed to Moscow. From now on, the overwhelming part of the northeastern Russian lands was part of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Ivan III began to be called the Sovereign of All Rus'. In general, a single state was created and finally asserted its independence.

The name “Russia” is the Greek, Byzantine name of Rus'. It came into use in Muscovite Rus' in the second half of the 15th century, when, after the fall of Constantinople and the liquidation of the Horde yoke, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, being the only independent Orthodox state, was considered by its rulers as the ideological and political heir of the Byzantine Empire.

During the reign of the son of Ivan III - Vasily III The Russian state continued to grow rapidly. In 1510, the Pskov land became part of it, and in 1521, the Ryazan principality. As a result of wars with Lithuania at the end of the 15th - first quarter of the 16th centuries. Smolensk and partially Chernigov lands were annexed. Thus, in the first third of the 16th century, Russian lands that were not part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were annexed to Moscow.

Byzantium had a significant influence on the emergence of autocracy and the formation of Russian political ideology. In 1472, Ivan III married the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Paleologus. The double-headed eagle, a symbol common in Byzantium, becomes the state emblem of Russia. Even the appearance of the sovereign changed: he had a scepter and an orb in his hands, and a “Monomakh’s hat” on his head. The fall of Byzantium under the blows of the Ottoman Turks made Russia the last stronghold of Orthodoxy and contributed to a certain ideologization of the supreme state power. From the 16th century The idea of ​​Moscow as the “third Rome” is spreading, in which religious and political motives are especially closely intertwined. The formation of the state apparatus and its centralization was facilitated by the Code of Laws of Ivan III; it was adopted in 1497 and was the first set of Russian laws.

The system of administrative-territorial division was gradually streamlined. Ivan III limited the rights of appanage princes, and Vasily III reduced the number of appanages. By the end of the first third of the 16th century, there were only two of them left. Instead of the former independent principalities, counties appeared, governed by the governors of the Grand Duke. Then the counties began to be divided into camps and volosts, which were headed by volostels. The governors and volosts received the territory for “feeding”, i.e. took for themselves court fees and part of the taxes collected in this territory. Feeding was a reward not for administrative activities, but for previous service in the army. Therefore, the governors had no incentive to engage in active administrative activities. Since they had no experience in administrative work, they often delegated their powers to tiuns - assistants from the slaves.

It should be emphasized that from the very beginning of its existence, the Russian state demonstrated an expansion of borders unprecedented in scale and speed. With the accession of Ivan III to the throne and until the death of his son Vasily III, i.e. from 1462 to 1533, the territory of the state grew six and a half times - from 430,000 square meters. kilometers up to 2,800,000 sq. kilometers.

15. Stages of the formation of Russian centralized state, their characteristics.

The rise of Moscow (late XIII - early XIV centuries). By the end of the 13th century. the old cities of Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir are losing their former importance. The new cities of Moscow and Tver are rising.

The rise of Tver began after the death of Alexander Nevsky (1263), when his brother, Prince Yaroslav of Tver, received from the Tatars a label for the Great Reign of Vladimir. During the last decades of the 13th century. Tver acts as a political center and organizer of the struggle against Lithuania and the Tatars. In 1304, Mikhail Yaroslavovich became the Grand Duke of Vladimir, who was the first to accept the title of Grand Duke of “All Rus'” and tried to subjugate the most important political centers: Novgorod, Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, Nizhny Novgorod. But this desire encountered strong resistance from other principalities, and above all from Moscow.

The beginning of the rise of Moscow is associated with the name of the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky - Daniil (1276 - 1303). Alexander Nevsky distributed honorary inheritances to his eldest sons, and Daniil, as the youngest, inherited the small village of Moscow and its surrounding area on the far border of the Vladimir-Suzdal land. Daniel had no prospects of taking the grand-ducal throne, so he took up farming - he rebuilt Moscow, started crafts, and developed agriculture. It so happened that in three years the territory of Daniel’s possession increased three times: in 1300 he took Kolomna from the Ryazan prince, in 1302 the childless Pereyaslavl prince bequeathed his inheritance to him. Moscow became a principality. During the reign of Daniel, the Moscow principality became the strongest, and Daniel, thanks to his creative policy, the most authoritative prince in the entire Northeast. Daniil of Moscow also became the founder of the Moscow princely dynasty. After Daniel, his son Yuri (1303 - 1325) began to rule in Moscow. The Grand Duke of Vladimir at this time was Mikhail Yaroslavich Tverskoy. He owned the Vladimir throne “in truth” - the ancient right of inheritance established by Yaroslav the Wise in the 11th century. Mikhail Tverskoy was like an epic hero: strong, brave, true to his word, noble. He enjoyed the full favor of the khan. Real power in Rus' left the hands of the descendants of A. Nevsky.

By this time, the Moscow princes had already been vassals of the Mongol khans for half a century. The khans strictly controlled the activities of the Russian princes, using cunning, bribery, and betrayal. Over time, the Russian princes began to adopt behavioral stereotypes from the Mongol khans. And the Moscow princes turned out to be the more “capable” students of the Mongols.

And in Moscow, after the death of Yuri, his brother Ivan Danilovich, nicknamed Kalita, Ivan I (1325 - 1340), began to rule. In 1327, an uprising took place in Tver against the Tatar detachment, during which Cholkan was killed. Ivan Kalita went against the people of Tver with an army and suppressed the uprising. In gratitude, in 1327 the Tatars gave him a label for the Great Reign.

The Moscow princes will no longer let go of the label for a great reign.

Kalita achieved the collection of tribute in Rus' instead of the Mongols. He had the opportunity to hide part of the tribute and use it to strengthen the Moscow principality. Collecting tribute, Kalita began to regularly travel around Russian lands and gradually form an alliance of Russian princes. Cunning, wise, cautious Kalita tried to maintain the closest ties with the Horde: he regularly paid tribute, regularly traveled to the Horde with generous gifts to the khans, their wives, and children. With generous gifts, Kalita endeared himself to everyone in the Horde. The Hanshi were looking forward to his arrival: Kalita always brought silver. In the Horde. Kalita constantly asked for something: labels for individual cities, entire reigns, the heads of his opponents. And Kalita invariably got what he wanted in the Horde.

Thanks to the prudent policy of Ivan Kalita, the Moscow principality constantly expanded, grew stronger and did not know Tatar raids for 40 years.

Moscow is the center of the fight against the Mongol-Tatars (second half of the 14th - first half of the 15th centuries). The strengthening of Moscow continued under the children of Ivan Kalita - Simeon Gordom (1340-1353) and Ivan II the Red (1353-1359). This would inevitably lead to a clash with the Tatars.

The clash occurred during the reign of Ivan Kalita’s grandson Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1359-1389). Dmitry Ivanovich received the throne at the age of 9 after the death of his father Ivan II the Red. In the middle of the 14th century. The Horde entered a period of feudal fragmentation. Independent hordes began to emerge from the Golden Horde. They waged a fierce struggle for power among themselves. All khans demanded tribute and obedience from Rus'. Tensions arose in relations between Russia and the Horde.

In 1380, the Horde ruler Mamai with a huge army moved towards Moscow.

Moscow began to organize resistance to the Tatars. In a short time, regiments and squads from all Russian lands, except those hostile to Moscow, came under the banner of Dmitry Ivanovich.

And yet, it was not easy for Dmitry Ivanovich to decide on an open armed uprising against the Tatars.

Dmitry Ivanovich went for advice to the rector of the Trinity Monastery near Moscow, Father Sergius of Radonezh. Father Sergius was the most authoritative person both in the Church and in Rus'. During his lifetime, he was called a saint; it was believed that he had the gift of foresight. Sergius of Radonezh predicted victory for the Moscow prince. This instilled confidence in both Dmitry Ivanovich and the entire Russian army.

On September 8, 1380, the Battle of Kulikovo took place at the confluence of the Nepryadva River and the Don. Dmitry Ivanovich and the governors showed military talent, the Russian army - unbending courage. The Tatar army was defeated.

The Mongol-Tatar yoke was not thrown off, but the significance of the Battle of Kulikovo in Russian history is enormous:

On the Kulikovo field, the Horde suffered its first major defeat from the Russians;

After the Battle of Kulikovo, the size of the tribute was significantly reduced;

The Horde finally recognized the primacy of Moscow among all Russian cities;

The inhabitants of Russian lands began to feel a sense of common historical destiny; according to historian L.N. Gumilyov, “residents of different lands walked to the Kulikovo field - they returned from the battle as the Russian people.”

Contemporaries called the Battle of Kulikovo "Mamaev's Massacre", and Dmitry Ivanovich during the time of Ivan the Terrible received the honorary nickname "Donskoy".

Completion of the formation of the Russian centralized state (end of the 10th - beginning of the 16th centuries). The unification of Russian lands was completed under the great-grandson of Dmitry Donskoy, Ivan III (1462 - 1505) and Vasily III (1505 - 1533). Ivan III annexed the entire North-East of Rus' to Moscow: in 1463 - the Yaroslavl principality, in 1474 - the Rostov principality. After several campaigns in 1478, the independence of Novgorod was finally eliminated.

Under Ivan III, one of the major events Russian history - the Mongol-Tatar yoke was thrown off. In 1476, Rus' refused to pay tribute. Then Khan Akhmat decided to punish Rus'. He entered into an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir and set out on a campaign against Moscow with a large army.

In 1480, the troops of Ivan III and Khan Akhmat met along the banks of the Ugra River (a tributary of the Oka). Akhmat did not dare to cross to the other side. Ivan III took a wait-and-see attitude. Help for the Tatars did not come from Casimir. Both sides understood that the battle was pointless. The power of the Tatars dried up, and Rus' was already different. And Khan Akhmat led his troops back to the steppe.

After the overthrow of the Mongol- Tatar yoke The unification of Russian lands continued at an accelerated pace. In 1485, the independence of the Tver principality was eliminated. During the reign of Vasily III, Pskov (1510) and the Ryazan principality (1521) were annexed. The unification of Russian lands was basically completed.

Features of the formation of the Russian centralized state:

The state arose in the northeastern and northwestern lands of the former Kievan Rus; its southern and southwestern lands were part of Poland, Lithuania, and Hungary. Ivan III immediately put forward the task of returning all Russian lands that were previously part of Kievan Rus;

The formation of the state took place in a very short time, which was due to the presence of an external threat in the form of the Golden Horde; the internal structure of the state was “raw”; the state could at any moment disintegrate into separate principalities;

The creation of the state took place on a feudal basis; a feudal society began to form in Russia: serfdom, estates, etc.; in Western Europe, the formation of states took place on a capitalist basis, and bourgeois society began to form there.

The specifics of the formation of a unified Russian state in the 15th - early years. XVI centuries The unification of Russian lands and the final liberation from the Tatar yoke and general socio-economic changes occurring in the country led to the establishment of autocracy and created the preconditions for the transformation of the great Moscow reign into an estate-representative monarchy.

State structure and administrative-territorial division of the period of formation of the Russian centralized state.

Administrative-territorial division of the period of formation of the Russian centralized state.

The Russian centralized state was formed around Moscow, due primarily to its economic and geographical position.

Only from the end of the 13th century. Moscow becomes the capital city of an independent principality with a permanent prince. The first such prince was the son of the famous hero of the Russian land Alexander Nevsky - Daniel. Under him at the end of the XIII - beginning of the XIV centuries. The unification of Russian lands began, successfully continued by his successors.

The foundation of Moscow's power was laid under Daniel's second son, Ivan Kalita (1325 - 1340). Under him, the collection of Russian lands continued. Moscow also became the center of the Orthodox Church. Expanding the territory of the Moscow state, the great princes turned their fiefs into simple fiefdoms. Appanage princes became subjects of the Grand Duke of Moscow. They could no longer conduct independent domestic and foreign policies.

By the end of the 14th century. The Moscow principality became so strong that it was able to begin the struggle for liberation from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Under Ivan III, the unification of Russian lands entered its final phase. The most important lands were annexed to Moscow - Novgorod the Great, Tver, part of the Ryazan principality, Russian lands along the Desna. In 1480, after the famous “stand on the Ugra”, Rus' was finally freed from the Tatar yoke. The process of unification of Russian lands was completed at the beginning of the 16th century. Prince Vasily III annexed the second half of the Ryazan principality, Pskov, to Moscow, and liberated Smolensk from Lithuanian rule.

The division into appanages was replaced by division into administrative-territorial units headed by governors and volostels.

Together with the Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Perm and other lands, the Moscow state also included small non-Russian peoples who inhabited them: Meshchera, Karelians, Sami, Nenets, Udmurts, etc. Some of them assimilated, dissolved into the composition of the Great Russian people, but the majority retained their originality. The Russian state, like the Kyiv state, became multinational.

State structure.

Urban population. Cities were usually divided into two parts: the city itself, that is, a walled area, a fortress, and a trade and craft settlement surrounding the city walls. Accordingly, the population was divided. In peacetime, mainly representatives of the princely authorities, a garrison and servants of local feudal lords lived in the fortress - Detinets. Craftsmen and traders settled in the settlement.

Free from city taxes and bore duties only in favor of their master.

Form of state unity. The Moscow state still remained an early feudal monarchy. Relations between the center and the localities were initially built on the basis of suzerainty-vassalage.

The legal nature of the relationship between the great and appanage princes gradually changed. at the beginning of the 15th century. an order was established according to which the appanage princes were obliged to obey the great simply by virtue of his position.

Grand Duke. The head of the Russian state was Grand Duke who had a wide range of rights. He issued laws, exercised government leadership, and had judicial powers.

With the fall of the power of the appanage princes, the Grand Duke became the true ruler of the entire territory of the state. Ivan III and Vasily III did not hesitate to throw into prison their closest relatives - appanage princes who tried to contradict their will.

Thus, the centralization of the state was an internal source of strengthening the grand ducal power. The external source of its strengthening was the fall of the power of the Golden Horde. Starting from Ivan III, the Moscow Grand Dukes called themselves “sovereigns of all Rus'.”

In order to strengthen international prestige, Ivan III married the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Paleologus, the only heir to the no longer existing throne of Constantinople.

Boyar Duma. An important body of the state was the Boyar Duma. It grew out of the council under the prince, which existed in the Old Russian state. The design of the Duma should be dated back to the 15th century. The Boyar Duma differed from the previous council in being more legal and organizational. It was a permanent body and had a relatively stable composition. The Duma included the so-called Duma ranks - introduced boyars and okolnichy. The competence of the Duma coincided with the powers of the Grand Duke, although this was not formally recorded anywhere. The Grand Duke was not legally obliged to take into account the opinion of the Duma, but in fact he could not act arbitrarily, because any of his decisions was not implemented if it was not approved by the boyars. Through the Duma, the boyars carried out policies that were pleasing and beneficial to them.

Feudal Congresses gradually died off.

Palace-patrimonial management system. Continuing to remain an early feudal monarchy, the Moscow state inherited from the previous period the organs of central government, built according to the palace-patrimonial system.

Following the complication of the system of palace-patrimonial bodies, their competence and functions increased. From bodies that primarily served the personal needs of the prince, they increasingly turned into national institutions that performed important tasks in managing the entire state. So, a butler from the 15th century. began to be, to a certain extent, in charge of issues related to land ownership of church and secular feudal lords, and to exercise general control over the local administration. The increasing complexity of the functions of palace bodies required the creation of a large and ramified apparatus. The officials of the palace - clerks - specialized in a certain range of matters.

The term “order” was established. At the beginning of the 16th century. A Rank (Rank Order) was formed, which was in charge of accounting for service people, their ranks and positions. The development of the palace-patrimonial system into the order system was one of the indicators of the centralization of the Russian state, Local authorities. The Russian state was divided into counties - the largest administrative-territorial units. Counties were divided into camps, camps into volosts. Along with the counties, some lands were still preserved. There were also categories - military districts, lips - judicial districts.

At the head of individual administrative units were officials - representatives of the center. The districts were headed by governors, the volosts - by volostels. These officials were supported at the expense of the local population - they received “feed” from them, that is, they carried out in-kind and monetary exactions, collected judicial and other fees in their favor (“horse spot”, “flat”, “rotary”, etc.) . Feeding was thus both a state service and a form of reward for princely vassals for their military and other services.

The princes and boyars, as before, retained immunity rights in their estates. They were not just landowners, but also administrators and judges in their villages and villages

City government bodies. City government in the Moscow state has changed somewhat compared to Kiev times. With the annexation of appanage principalities to Moscow, the great princes, retaining all appanage lands usually with their former owners, always removed cities from the jurisdiction of the former appanage princes and extended their power directly to them.

Later, some special city government bodies appeared. Their emergence is associated with the development of cities, primarily as fortresses. In the middle of the 15th century. the position of town dweller appeared - a kind of military commandant of the city. He was obliged to monitor the condition of the city fortifications and the fulfillment of defense-related duties by the local population. First temporarily, and then permanently, they were assigned broad powers in land, financial and other branches of management, not only within the city, but also within the adjacent county. In accordance with the expansion of functions, the names of these officials also changed. They are beginning to be called city clerks.

Church In exchange for maintaining the integrity of its land properties, the Church recognized the supremacy of secular power. The attitude of the church towards the centralization of the Russian state was also contradictory. There were forces that hindered this process, but there were also ardent supporters of strengthening the unity of Rus'.

Organizationally, the church was complex system. It was headed by the Metropolitan. In 1448, the Russian Church voluntarily became independent in relation to the ecumenical patriarch, who sat in Byzantium.* The entire territory was divided into dioceses headed by bishops. Until the 15th century Russian metropolitans were appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Now they began to be elected by a council of Russian bishops, first in agreement with the secular authorities, and then on the direct orders of the Moscow Grand Dukes.

The emergence of a separate Moscow principality in the 13th century and the expansion of its territories in the 14th-15th centuries became the main step towards the formation of a Russian centralized state, the stages and features of the creation of which are presented in our article.

Conditions for education

Let's talk briefly about the prerequisites for the formation of the Russian centralized state:

• Development Agriculture, handicrafts, trade (especially in newly formed cities) :
  improvement in farming has led to the emergence of products and products not only for personal use, but also for sale;
• Increased need for centralization of power to curb anti-feudal protests by peasants:
  the increase in forced labor and payments forced the peasants to offer serious resistance to the landowners (robberies, arson);
• The emergence of a strong center (Moscow), uniting around itself more and more previously fragmented principalities (not always in an honest way):
  its advantageous territorial location allowed Moscow to become a large principality controlling the interconnections of other Russian lands;
• The need for joint action against Principality of Lithuania and Mongol-Tatars to reconquer the original Russian territories:
  the majority of representatives of all classes were interested in this;
• The existence of a single faith and language in Rus'.

We must pay tribute to the Mongol-Tatars: they did not impose their faith on the occupied lands, allowing the common people to profess Orthodoxy and the church to develop. Therefore, having freed itself from the invaders, by the 16th century Russia became the only independent Orthodox state, which allowed it to consider itself the successor not only of Kievan Rus, but also of the Byzantine Empire.

Rice. 1. Russian church of the 16th century.

Formation periods

It is believed that a centralized state was formed already in the 15th century during the reign of Prince Ivan ΙΙΙ Vasilyevich (1462-1505). Later, Russian territories expanded significantly due to the policies of Vasily ΙΙΙ (1505-1533) and the conquests of Ivan ΙV the Terrible (formally from 1533; 1545-1584).

The latter took the title of king in 1547. Grozny was able to annex lands that had not previously been Russian to his possessions.

The process of creating a unified state can be divided into the following main stages:

• 13th-14th centuries:
  The formation of the Moscow Principality takes place. From 1263 it was a small appanage within the Principality of Vladimir, ruled by Daniil Alexandrovich ( younger son Nevsky). Earlier attempts at isolation turned out to be temporary. Gradually the holdings expanded. Of particular importance was the victory over the Tver Principality for the rights to the grand-ducal throne in Vladimir. Since 1363, “great” was added to the name. In 1389 the Vladimir principality was absorbed;
• 14th-15th centuries:
  The Principality of Moscow led the fight against the Mongol-Tatars. Moscow's relations with the Golden Horde were controversial. Ivan Ι Kalita (Prince of Moscow from 1325) collected tribute from all the conquered Russian principalities for the Mongol-Tatars. The Moscow princes often entered into an alliance with the invaders, concluded dynastic marriages, bought a “label” (permission) to reign. Dmitry Ι Donskoy (Prince of Moscow from 1359) in 1373 offered serious resistance to the Mongol-Tatars who attacked Ryazan. Then Russian troops won the battle on the Vozha River (1378) and on the Kulikovo Field (1380);
• 15th-early 16th century:
  the final formation of a centralized state. Its founder is considered to be Ivan ΙΙΙ, who completed the annexation of the northeastern lands to the Moscow Principality (by 1500) and overthrew the Mongol-Tatar government (from 1480).

Rice. 2. Moscow Prince Daniil Alexandrovich.

The strengthening of statehood also occurred through the adoption of legislative acts aimed at centralizing power. The basis for this was the formation of the feudal system: prince-landowner. The latter received lands for management during the period of their princely service, becoming dependent on a representative of a higher class. At the same time, the landowners themselves sought to enslave the peasants. Hence the creation of the Code of Laws (code of laws of 1497).

The Russian centralized state developed in XIV–XVI centuries

1. Economic background: by the beginning of the 14th century. In Rus', after the Tatar-Mongol invasion, economic life was gradually revived and developed, which became the economic basis for the struggle for unification and independence. Cities were also restored, residents returned to their homes, cultivated the land, engaged in crafts, and established trade relations. Novgorod contributed a lot to this.

2. Social prerequisites: by the end of the 14th century. The economic situation in Rus' has already completely stabilized. Against this background, late feudal characteristics develop, and the dependence of peasants on large landowners increases. At the same time, peasant resistance also increases, which reveals the need for a strong centralized government.

3. Political background, which in turn are divided into internal and foreign policy:

internal: in the XIV–XVI centuries. The power of the Moscow Principality increases and expands significantly. Its princes build a state apparatus to strengthen their power;

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

One of the political prerequisites for the formation of a unified Russian state was union of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Western Church, signed by the Byzantine-Constantinople patriarch. Russia became the only Orthodox state that simultaneously united all the principalities of Rus'.

The unification of Rus' took place around Moscow.

The reasons for the rise of Moscow are:

favorable geographical and economic position;

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

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

Moscow is the center of Orthodoxy in Rus';

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

Features of the association:

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

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

Rus' united initially for political reasons, and then for economic ones, while European states– primarily on economic ones.

The unification of Russian lands took place under the leadership of the Prince of Moscow. He was the first to become Tsar of All Rus'. IN 1478 After the unification of Novgorod and Moscow, Rus' was finally freed from the yoke. In 1485, Tver, Ryazan, etc. joined the Moscow state.

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

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

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

In the second half of the 14th century. in northeastern Rus', the tendency towards land unification intensified. The principality of Moscow became the center of unification.

Already in the 12th century, an ideology of grand-ducal power began to take shape in Rus', which could overcome the collapse and fragmentation of Rus'. The prince must have Duma members close to him and rely on their Council. He needs a large and strong army. Only this can ensure the prince’s autocracy and protect the country from external and internal enemies.

From the 13th century Moscow princes and the Church begin to carry out widespread colonization of the Trans-Volga territories, new monasteries, fortresses and cities appear, the local population is conquered and assimilated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was also an order that resembled the Western European medieval “homage”: the owner of the estate, the appanage prince, abandoned it in favor of the Grand Duke and immediately received it back in the form of a grant.

By the end of the 15th century. Moscow manages to cope with its most powerful competitors.

The territorial expansion of the Moscow state was accompanied by the awareness of the fact that a new nation, united in spirit and blood, was emerging on the territory of Rus' - the Great Russian nation. This realization made it easier to collect lands and transform the Moscow principality into a national Great Russian state.

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

The great princes found themselves at the head of an entire hierarchy, consisting of military princes and boyars. Relations with them were determined by a complex system of contracts and letters of grant, which established different degrees of feudal dependence for different subjects.

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

The meaning of the very concept of “boyar” has changed. Instead of a service man, a recent warrior, he is now understood as a member of the boyar council (Duma), who has the right to occupy senior positions in the state apparatus and the army. The boyars became a rank, a title, the bearers of which formed the new ruling aristocratic layer of the Moscow state.

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

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

Boyars and service people were placed on the career ladder depending on the position occupied by the courts under which they served.

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

Under the auspices of Moscow, an aristocratic class of rulers was formed, each of whom linked their rights to the ancient tradition, when Russia was ruled by the entire Rurik dynasty; each Moscow boyar assessed his noble origin as the most compelling argument in local disputes about positions, ranks and privileges.

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

The boyars were the upper layer of the emerging ruling elite of the Moscow state.

Feeding. Local government was based on a feeding system: the manager “fed” at the expense of the governed, the position of the manager was considered primarily as his source of income. Feeding included feed and duties, feed was contributed by local by the population within the established time limits, duties were paid for the commission of certain legally significant actions by officials. Feeds (entry, Christmas, holiday, etc.) were determined by statutory charters issued by the prince to the territorial district, and by charters issued to the feeders themselves. Feed was distributed according to tax units (“plows”), each of which included a certain number of tax yards, the size of arable land, etc. Part of the feed went to the treasury, the prince or the introduced boyars (central government officials). Feeding was a form of remuneration for service, due to the existence of a subsistence farming system (as well as local distributions); it was a way of providing and maintaining the state for a serving person. The service itself was not directly linked to feeding. Over time, this method of providing material support for service people begins to give way to other forms of organizing local government. First of all, Sudebniks and statutory charters of the 15th century. The rights of feeders began to be more strictly regulated: the governor or volost received a punishment or income list, which determined the amount of feed and duties. Feeders were forbidden to collect feed from the population themselves; this was entrusted to elected officials - sotskys and elders. In the 16th century The timing of feedings becomes more specific and shorter, they are reduced to one or two years. Gradually, the feeders themselves begin to acquire the features of local

rulers, their state functions are outlined more and more clearly. More and more strict control was established over their activities. Local managers (governors and volostels), when considering court cases and making decisions on them, were obliged to transfer the most important of them to higher authorities for a new consideration (“according to the report”). Cases were transferred to central government institutions - orders or the Boyar Duma. From the end of the 15th century. Most land disputes are also transferred in some places to the center. Representatives of local societies began to supervise the judicial activities of feeders. Sotskys, elders and elective salaries were carried out already in the 15th century. layout of government taxes and duties, as well as feed for feeders. From the second half of the 15th century. elected representatives from the population begin to introduce governors and volosts into the court (this is stated in the Code of Law of 1497) as assessors, witnesses to the correctness of the consideration of the case. When considering a case in a higher authority (order, Duma), these elected judicial representatives were obliged to attest to the correctness of the actions of the governor or volostel in legal proceedings. In the 16th century these representatives become a permanent judicial panel. According to the Code of Law of 1550, in the court of the governor and the volost, zemstvo elders with jurors (tselovalniks) were to be present, observing the correct conduct of the court, observance of the law and legal customs (especially local ones). Thus, the judicial rights of local representatives (“the best people”) are significantly expanded

The chosen one is glad. In his activities, Ivan IV relied on the Boyar Duma in 1549, within which the “Elected Duma” (“Elected Rada”) of trusted representatives was established. The preparation of materials for the Duma was carried out by a staff of professional officials associated with the orders.

In the 16th century The Duma began to include okolnichi and Duma nobles, as well as Duma clerks who conducted office work. The Boyar Duma decided on the most important state affairs and had legislative powers. The Duma approved the final editions of the Code of Laws of 1497 and 1550. Using the formula “the king indicated and the boyars sentenced,” the Boyar Duma approved the decrees of 1597 on indentured servitude and runaway peasants. Together with the Tsar, the Duma approved various legislative acts:

charters, lessons, decrees. The Duma supervised 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 managed central departments (orders), commanded regiments and armies, and led regions as governors and governors. The Duma itself conducted embassy, ​​discharge and local affairs, for which the Duma chancellery was created. The Duma's judicial proceedings also passed through this structure. Legislative initiative most often came from the sovereign or from below from orders that faced specific problems.

Labial organs. Even before the beginning of the 16th century. The institution of “wild vira” operated, according to which the feeder could receive criminal payments from entire communities (mutual responsibility). At the same time, there were no special institutions locally that would wage an organized fight against “dashing people.” Special investigators and punitive expeditions sent from Moscow from time to time could not solve the problem. Therefore, it was decided to transfer police functions to combat robbers to local communities. Urban and rural societies in the late 40s. XVI century Letters of perjury began to be issued, granting the right to persecute and punish “dashing people.” The fight against robbers was organized and carried out by elected jurors (from the feeding court), sotskie and elders, led by city clerks. In a number of places, this task was carried out by specially selected boards from local residents. The district within which all these elected officials acted was called the lip; its boundaries initially coincided with the boundaries of the volost. The labial organs were headed by elected heads from the children of the boyars (nobles) of a given volost. Representatives of regional organizations held their congresses, at which the most important matters were decided. At these congresses, all district provincial governors (heads) were elected, heading the provincial organizations of all volosts and camps that were part of the district. There was a gradual centralization of provincial administration on state, church and proprietary lands. The provincial elders in their activities relied on the numerous staff of lip tselovanov (elected in volost, state, rural, township districts), sotsky, fifty, ten - police ranks of small districts. In the competence of the labial organs in the middle of the 16th century. (Code of 1550) included robbery and theft, and in the 17th century. - already murder, arson, insult to parents, etc. The process was either investigative in nature, when the case was initiated without a statement from the victim (when catching a thief red-handed, a general search, slander, etc.), or adversarial in nature (private lawsuit, witness testimony , "field", recognition of responsibility.

Zemstvo bodies. Another local reform of the mid-16th century followed the path of further restricting and eliminating feeding altogether. - zemstvo. Its goal was to replace governors and volosts with elected public authorities. One of the reasons for the elimination of feedings was their harmful impact on the organization of the country's military and defense services. In 1550, the king ordered the feeders to resolve all disputes with representatives of the local population through the world order. Since 1551, in a number of regions, the local population was offered to pay dues to the treasury instead of feeding governors and volosts, and to resolve legal disputes on their own, with the mediation of elders and kissers. In 1552, an official decision was made to eliminate feedings. The zemstvo was to become an all-Russian institution. Local societies, on their own initiative, one after another began to establish zemstvos, abandoning feeders. In 1555, the government adopted a law proclaiming the zemstvo a general and mandatory form of local government. The voluntary refusal of local worlds from feeders was accompanied by the payment of a farm-out - an amount previously paid in the form of feed and duties, and now - in the form of quitrents that went directly to the treasury. The competence of zemstvo bodies included the trial of judicial (civil) cases and those criminal cases that were considered in adversarial proceedings (beatings, robbery, etc.). Sometimes more serious cases (arson, murder, robbery, etc.) were considered by zemstvo elders and kissers together with provincial elders. Their clients were Black Hundred peasants and townspeople. The zemstvo electors collected the tax dues, as well as other salary taxes. Zemstvo institutions of the 16th century. were not local governments, they were links of local government. The activities of these bodies were guaranteed and bound by mutual guarantee. In areas where the peasant population was not free, instead of zemstvo huts, management was carried out by city clerks and provincial elders, who performed administrative, police and financial functions. Some of the financial functions were taken over by other local authorities - customs and tavern elected heads and tselovniks, who were in charge of collecting indirect taxes.

Military. In the 17th century A reorganization of local government took place: zemstvo, provincial huts and city clerks began to submit to governors appointed from the center, who assumed administrative, police and military functions. The governors relied on a specially created apparatus (the official hut) of clerks, bailiffs and clerks. Candidates for the position of governor turned to the tsar with a petition in which they asked to be appointed to the position of “feeding”. The Voivode was appointed by the Discharge Order and approved by the Tsar and the Boyar Duma. The term of service of a voivode was calculated at one to three years; for his service he received a fiefdom and a local salary. The voivode headed the administrative, or meeting, hut, in which matters related to the management of the city or county entrusted to him were decided. The office work in the hut was carried out by a clerk; its staff consisted of bailiffs, allottees, etc. Control over the activities of the governor was carried out by the order in charge of the given territory. The order prepared an order to the governor, which defined the latter’s terms of reference. Voivodes exercised control over the work of elected officials (elders, tselovalniks, heads), who collected direct and indirect taxes from the population, police supervision over the population, supervision over the court of governors and zemstvo elders, and recruited service people (nobles and boyar children) into the service. Military reform was associated with the idea of ​​compulsory noble service. Service people received payment in the form of local allotments. The nobility was

the backbone of the armed forces. They included “combat serfs”, who were brought into service by the same nobles, militias from peasants and townspeople, Cossacks, archers and other professional military servants for hire. From the beginning of the 17th century. Regular units of the “new system” appear: reiters, gunners, dragoons. Foreigners enlist in the Russian army

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

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

new legislative materials (Article 98), etc. In comparison with the first Code of Laws, there are more than 30 new articles in the Code of Laws of 1550, a third of the entire Code of Laws. The most important innovations included: a ban on the issuance of charters and instructions for the revocation of already issued charters (Article 43); the proclamation of the principle of law does not have retroactive effect, expressed in the order from now on to judge all cases according to the new Code of Law (Article 97); procedure for supplementing the Code of Laws with new materials (Article 98).

New provisions, clearly related to the state policy of Ivan IV, were also: the establishment of strict criminal penalties for judges for abuse of power and unjust sentences (the first Code of Law spoke about this vaguely); detailed regulation of the activities of elected elders and kissers in the court of governors, “judgment men” in the process (Articles 62, 68-70). The Code of Law of 1550 specifies the types of punishments (the Code of Law of 1497 was characterized by uncertainty in this regard), introducing, among other things, a new one - prison punishment. The new Code of Laws also introduces new crimes (for example, forgery of judicial acts, fraud, etc.) and new civil law institutions (the issue of the right to redeem patrimony has been elaborated, the procedure has been clarified

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

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

In the Code of Laws of 1550 (the “royal code”), the range of issues regulated by the central government expanded, a clearly expressed social orientation of punishment was carried out, and the features of the search process were strengthened. The regulation covered the areas of criminal law and property relations. The class principle of punishment was fixed and at the same time the circle of subjects of crime was expanded - it included slaves: the legislator much more definitely established the subjective characteristics of the crime in the law and developed forms of guilt. By crime, legal experts understood not only the infliction of material or moral damage, but also “offense.” The defense of the existing social and legal order came to the fore. A crime is, first of all, a violation of established norms, regulations, as well as the will of the sovereign, which is inextricably linked with

interests of the state.

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

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

Trial. The trial distinguished between two forms. The adversarial process was used in civil and less serious criminal cases. Witness testimony, oaths, and ordeals (in the form of a judicial duel) were widely used here. In an adversarial trial there was a wide range of procedural documents: a summons to court was carried out through a “petition”, “attached” or “urgent” letter. At the court hearing, the parties filed “petitions”, declaring their presence. In a decided case, the court issued a “letter of law”, and thus terminated the lawsuit. The second procedural form - the search process - was used in the most serious criminal cases (state crimes, murder, robbery, etc.), and their circle gradually expanded. The essence of the search (“inquisitorial”) process was as follows: the case began on the initiative of a state body or official, during the proceedings, a special role was played by evidence such as being caught red-handed or one’s own confession, to obtain which torture was used. Another new procedural measure used was a “massive search” - a massive interrogation of the local population in order to identify eyewitnesses of the crime and carry out the “covering” procedure. In the search process, the case began with the issuance of a “call letter” or “running letter”, which contained an order to the authorities to detain and bring the accused to court. The legal proceedings here were curtailed; interrogations, confrontations, and torture became the main forms of search. According to a court verdict, a criminal who was convicted but did not admit his guilt could be imprisoned for an indefinite period. A decided case could not be tried again in the same court. The case was transferred to a higher authority “on the basis of a report” or “on the basis of a complaint”; only an appellate review procedure was allowed (i.e., the case was considered anew).

Judicial system and court organization. In a centralized state system, the judicial apparatus was not separated from the administrative apparatus. The state judicial bodies were the Tsar, the Boyar Duma, good boyars, officials in charge of sectoral departments, and orders. Locally, judicial power belonged to governors and volosts, and later to provincial and zemstvo bodies, as well as governors.

The judicial system consisted of several instances: 1) the court of governors (volosts, governors), 2) the writ court, 3) the court of the Boyar Duma or the Grand Duke. Church and patrimonial courts operated in parallel, and the practice of “mixed” courts was maintained. Until the 16th century judicial power was exercised by the princely court, whose jurisdiction in the first instance extended to the territory of the princely domain and persons who possessed tarhan charters (i.e., having the privilege of the prince's court). The circle of such persons gradually narrowed, from the middle of the 17th century. Even criminal penalties are introduced for directly appealing to the king with a request for a trial. The king considered cases only in cases of abuse of judges, refusal to consider the case in an order or on appeal (retrial). The tsar could delegate the consideration of cases to respectable boyars and other officials of the palace administration. Since the 15th century The Boyar Duma became an independent judicial body, combining these functions with administrative ones. As a court of first instance, the Duma considered the cases of its members, officials, local judges, and resolved disputes about localism. Cases received from the viceroyal and administrative courts were processed “according to the report.” In this case, the Duma acted as a court of second instance. The Duma itself could go to the sovereign with a “report”, asking for clarification and final resolution of the matter. The sentences considered by the Duma, which came from orders, were summarized in a memorandum, which became a legislative act and was called a “new decree article.” With the increasing role of written legal proceedings, the role of clerks who stood at the head of the orders increased (from the 16th century, Duma clerks were introduced into the Duma, heading the Razryadny, Ambassadorial, Local orders and the Order of the Kazan Palace). Since the 17th century a special judicial department (Execution Chamber) is formed as part of the Boyar Duma. Orders emerged as a judicial authority at the end of the 15th century, and from the middle of the 16th century. they became the main form of central court. Judges were assigned to certain orders. Court cases had to be decided unanimously, and in the absence of such, they were reported to the sovereign. Punishment was provided for both judges who refused to accept a complaint and for complainants who filed an illegal complaint or in violation of the established procedure.

Proof. The legislative design of the investigative form of the process is first found in the text of the Code of Law of 1497. The same cases could be considered both by the “court” and by the “search”. The choice of the form of the process depended on the personality of the accused. Therefore, both in the adversarial and in the investigative process, the same types of evidence were used: the accused’s own confession, testimony, searches or inquiries through devious people, red-handed evidence, judicial duels, oaths and written acts. But the “search”, as the main procedural action aimed at clarifying the circumstances of the case, used torture. The “court” resorted to an oath for the same purposes.

This type of judicial evidence, such as the defendant’s own confession, is given very little attention in legislative acts. In the Code of Laws of 1550, he is mentioned in only one article. 25, and even then in passing. From the text of the legal documents it is clear that a confession given in court, in the presence of judges, had full force of judicial evidence. Only in this case did the confession become the basis for a court decision. Sometimes the confession was made in the presence of clergy who swore the accused and witnesses, as it was often made before the kiss of the cross. Another means of obtaining a confession was simple interrogation - “questioning”, which always preceded torture. Let us note that torture was used even when the accused had already admitted to committing the crime.

Sources distinguish between a complete confession, when the defendant admitted all the charges brought against him, and an incomplete confession, when he admitted only part of them. In the same article. 25 of the Code of Law we read: “And to whom the seeker demands battle and robbery, and the defendant will say that he beat, and did not rob: and the defendant will be accused of battle... but in robbery there is justice and justice, but you cannot accuse him of everything.”

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

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

As can be seen from the sources, the testimony of some witnesses had undeniable evidentiary value. These are the testimonies of boyars, clerks and clerks, testimonies of witnesses of “general exile”, i.e. testimony of one or more persons referred to by both parties, as well as testimony of “search people” obtained during a general search. Moreover, the legislator gave clear preference to “general exile”. Only eyewitnesses were recognized as witnesses, and not those who knew the case “by hearsay.” This rule is found in both Codes of Law and the Council Code. Freedom was not a prerequisite for testimony. Serfs could be brought in as witnesses. However, the slaves who were released could not testify against their former masters. Even relatives of the parties could be witnesses. It was only prohibited to involve the wives of opposing parties to testify.

Persons who had previously been convicted of perjury were not allowed to testify. The wife could not testify against her husband, and the children could not testify against their parents. Persons who were on friendly or, conversely, hostile terms with the party could not testify. Consequently, it was also possible to challenge witnesses, for example, “due to unfriendliness.” The challenge of witnesses was allowed only if the judges were completely confident in its fairness. The Code contains a whole list of persons who could not be removed.

In the complete absence of witnesses, contradictory testimony, as well as in the impossibility of conducting a search (for example, if the defendant was a foreigner), an oath could be used as judicial evidence. However, in the legislative acts of the Moscow period one can clearly see the desire to limit its use. Thus, no one was allowed to take the oath more than three times in his life. Persons convicted of perjury could not swear. When administering the oath, the age of the person taking the oath was also taken into account. True, there are discrepancies in the sources on this matter. Thus, according to one charter, persons under 12 years of age could not swear an oath. If caught red-handed, guilt was considered proven and no other evidence was required. “Whole search” was actively used in criminal proceedings - interrogation of all or most residents of a certain area about a crime committed or criminals. Moreover, the data from a general search could replace both red-handed evidence and confession as evidence. In adversarial proceedings in property and serfdom cases, written evidence was of particular importance

25The class system in Russia in the 15th-17th centuries: feudal aristocracy, service classes, legal categories of the peasantry. The ruling class was clearly divided into the feudal aristocracy - the boyars and the service class - the nobles. In the middle of the 16th century. The first attempt is made to legally equalize patrimony with estate: a unified procedure for state (military) service is established. For a certain size of land (regardless of its type - patrimony or estate), its owners were obliged to provide the same number of equipped and armed people. At the same time, the rights of estate owners are expanded: permission is given to exchange an estate for a votchina, to transfer an estate as a dowry, to inherit estates, from the 17th century. estates can be transformed into estates by royal decree. The consolidation of the feudal class was accompanied by the consolidation of its privileges: the monopoly right to own land, exemption from duties, advantages in the judicial process and the right to hold official positions.

Grand Duke - the largest feudal lord who owned palace and black-plow lands. The peasants of the palace lands paid dues or corvée. The peasants of the black-plowed lands bore taxes and duties. Boyars - large landowners, patrimonial owners. They became the main category of the ruling class of feudal lords. They had great rights to the land and the peasants who lived on it: they passed the land on by inheritance, alienated it, exchanged it. The collection of taxes was in their hands. They had the right to change the overlord-master. They were part of the feudal council under the prince, occupied the most important positions in the government system, and had privileges in court. Service people - owned land under local law, i.e. for service and for the duration of service. They could not alienate lands, pass them on by inheritance, were not members of the Boyar Duma, and did not receive higher ranks. Peasants were divided into: black-sown (sovereign), palace (prince and his family) and privately owned. The black-nosed people paid taxes and carried out duties in kind. They were transferred along with the land and complained to the feudal lords. Private owners had a land allotment from their feudal lords, for which the land owners received rent or quitrent. The first legal act in the enslavement of peasants was Art. 57 of the Code of Law of 1497, which established the “St. George’s Day” rule (A certain and very limited period of transition, payment of “elderly”). This provision was developed in the Code of Laws of 1550. From 1581, “reserved years” were introduced, during which even the established transition of peasants was prohibited. Compiled in 50 - 90 years. XVI century scribe books became a documentary basis in the process of attaching peasants from the end of the 16th century. decrees began to be issued on “pre-scheduled years”, which established the time frame for the search and return of fugitive peasants (5 - 15 years). The final act of the enslavement process was the Council Code of 1649, which abolished the “lesson summers” and established the indefiniteness of the investigation. The law determined punishments for harborers of runaway peasants and extended the rule of attachment to all categories of peasants. Attachment developed in two ways: non-economic and economic (enslaved). In the 15th century There were two main categories of peasants: old-timers and newcomers. The first ones ran their own farms and carried out their duties in full, forming the basis of the feudal economy. The feudal lord sought to secure them for himself, to prevent the transfer to another owner. The latter, as newcomers, could not fully bear the burden of duties and enjoyed certain benefits, received loans and credits. Their dependence on the owner was debt-like and enslaving. According to the form of dependence, a peasant could be a ladle (work for half the harvest) or a silversmith (work for interest). Non-economic dependence was manifested in its purest form in the institution of servitude. The latter has changed significantly since the time of the Russian Truth: the sources of servitude are being limited (servitude based on city housekeeping is abolished, it is forbidden to servile “children of boyars”), and cases of slaves being released into freedom are becoming more frequent. The law delimited entry into servitude (self-sale, key-holding) from entry into bondage. The development of servitude (unlike full servitude, a servile slave could not be transferred by will, his children did not become slaves) led to the equalization of the status of slaves with serfs.

26 Estate-representative monarchy in Russia. The creation of a centralized Russian state contributed to strengthening the positions of the ruling class of feudal lords. In the XVI-XVII centuries. The feudal lords gradually united into a single estate, and the general enslavement of the peasants was completed. In the middle of the 16th century. the ongoing socio-economic and political processes led to a change in the form of government of the Russian state in estate-representative monarchy, which was expressed, first of all, in the convening of estate-representative bodies - zemsky cathedrals. The estate-representative monarchy existed in Russia until the second half of the 17th century, when it was replaced by a new form of government - absolute monarchy. Since 1547 (Ivan IV) the head of state began to be called king The change in title pursued the following political goals: strengthening the power of the monarch and eliminating the basis for claims to the throne on the part of the former appanage princes, since the title of king was inherited. At the end of the 16th century. the procedure for electing (confirming) the tsar at the Zemsky Sobor was established. The Tsar, as head of state, had great powers in the administrative, legislative and judicial spheres. In his activities he relied on the Boyar Duma and zemstvo councils. In the middle of the 16th century. Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible held judicial, zemstvo and military reforms, aimed at weakening the power of the Boyar Duma and strengthening the state. In 1549 was established The chosen one is glad, whose members were proxies appointed by the king. The centralization of the state was also facilitated by oprichnina. Its social support was the small serving nobility, who tried to seize the lands of the princely-boyar aristocracy and strengthen their political influence. ^ Boyar Duma formally retained its previous position. It was a permanent body, endowed with legislative powers and deciding, together with the tsar, all the most important issues. The Boyar Duma included boyars, former appanage princes, okolnichi, Duma nobles, Duma clerks and representatives of the urban population. Although the social composition of the Duma changed towards increasing the representation of the nobility, it continued to remain an organ of the boyar aristocracy. A special place in the system of government bodies was occupied by Zemsky cathedrals. 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 Boyar Duma. Consecrated Cathedral(the highest collegial body of the Orthodox Church) and elected representatives from the nobility and urban population. The contradictions that existed between them contributed to the strengthening of the king's power. Zemstvo Sobors decided on 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, issues of foreign and domestic policy, etc. Issues were discussed by estate, but decisions had to be made by the entire composition of the Council.

Chronology

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

The Rise of Moscow

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

Since the late 60s. XIV century A long struggle began between the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich (1359 - 1389) and the creative prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, who entered into an alliance with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Olgerd.

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

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

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

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

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

Completion of the unification of Russian lands

At the end of the 14th century. In the Moscow principality, several appanage estates were formed that belonged to the sons of Dmitry Donskoy. After the death of Vasily I in 1425, the struggle for the grand-ducal throne began with his son Vasily II and Yuri (the youngest son of Dmitry Donskoy), and after the death of Yuri, his sons Vasily Kosoy and Dmitry Shemyaka began. It was a real medieval struggle for the throne, when blinding, poisoning, conspiracies and deceptions were used (blinded by his opponents, Vasily II was nicknamed the Dark). In fact, this was the largest clash between supporters and opponents of centralization. As a result, according to the figurative expression of V.O. Klyuchevsky “under the noise of appanage princely quarrels and Tatar pogroms, society supported Vasily the Dark.” The completion of the process of unifying the Russian lands around Moscow into a centralized state occurred during the reign of

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

For 150 years before Ivan III, the collection of Russian lands and the concentration of power in the hands of the Moscow princes took place. Under Ivan III, the Grand Duke rises above the other princes not only in the amount of strength and possessions, but also in the amount of power. It is no coincidence that the new title “sovereign” appears. The double-headed eagle becomes a symbol of the state when, in 1472, Ivan III marries the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Paleologus. After the annexation of Tver, Ivan III received the honorary title “By the grace of God, the Sovereign of All Rus', Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov, and Tver, and Yugra, and Perm, and Bulgaria, and other lands.”

The princes in the annexed lands became boyars of the Moscow sovereign. These principalities were now called districts and were governed by governors from Moscow. Localism is the right to occupy a particular position in the state, depending on the nobility and official position of the ancestors, their services to the Moscow Grand Duke.

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

It was finally overthrown in 1480. This happened after a clash between Moscow and Mongol-Tatar troops on the Ugra River.

At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. Chernigov-Seversky lands became part of the Russian state. In 1510, the Pskov land was also included in the state. In 1514, the ancient Russian city of Smolensk became part of the Moscow Grand Duchy. And finally, in 1521, the Ryazan principality also ceased to exist. It was during this period that the unification of the Russian lands was largely completed. A huge power was formed - one of the largest states in Europe. Within the framework of this state, the Russian people were united. This natural process historical development. From the end of the 15th century. The term “Russia” began to be used.

Socio-economic development in the XIV - XVI centuries.

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

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

In the 16th century The feudal-serf system is being strengthened. The economic basis of serfdom is feudal ownership of land in its three types: local, patrimonial and state. A new term “peasants” appears, which has become the name of the oppressed class of Russian society. In my own way social status the peasants were divided into three groups: the landed peasants belonged to various secular and ecclesiastical feudal lords; palace peasants who were in the possession of the palace department of the Moscow Grand Dukes (Tsars); Black-sown (later state) peasants lived in volost communities on lands that did not belong to any owner, but were obliged to perform certain duties in favor of the state.

The defeat of old, large cities, such as Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov, etc., the change in the nature of economic and trade relations and routes led to the fact that in the XIII - XV centuries. New centers received significant development: Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow, Kolomna, Kostroma, etc. In these cities, the population increased, stone construction was revived, and the number of artisans and merchants grew. Such branches of craft as blacksmithing, foundry, metalworking, and coining have achieved great success.

With the revival and further development of the economy, the political strengthening of Russian lands since the 14th century. tendencies towards their unification around Moscow began to appear (see Russian lands in the second half of the 13th-14th centuries). The core of the future vast and powerful state was the Moscow Grand Duchy, which was able, thanks to a number of objective and subjective reasons (successful geographical location at the crossroads of water and land communications, remoteness from the Horde, the far-sighted policy of the princes, the influx of population from the south, etc.) to come to the fore among other major political centers North-Eastern Rus'. His rise was also facilitated by the transfer, even under Ivan Kalita, of the Metropolitan's residence to Moscow (see Moscow - the capital of Russia), the victory on the Kulikovo Field, won in 1380 under the leadership of the Moscow Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich (see The Horde Yoke and its Overthrow) .

And yet, by the 15th and even 16th centuries. The economic prerequisites for the creation of a unified state in Rus' have not yet been formed. Foreign trade of Novgorod and Pskov was oriented mainly to the west, and Moscow - to the south. Internal trade ties between the Russian principalities and lands were not sufficiently strong and regular. Yes and in politically the veche system (see Veche) of the same Novgorod and Pskov clearly did not correspond to the Moscow despotic order. The Novgorod and Pskov boyars, along with the rich merchants, did not at all strive to find themselves under the rule of Moscow, as did the ruling elite of other centers, for example Tver or Vyatka.

Why did the unification of Russian lands still occur in the last third of the 15th - first quarter of the 16th century, i.e. much earlier than in Germany or Italy? Political circumstances played a decisive role in accelerating this process, and above all the factor of external danger from the other two major state entities of Eastern Europe- Golden Horde and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The first tried in every possible way to prevent the excessive strengthening of the Moscow principality and to keep Rus' in subjection, and the second, along with Moscow, laid claim to the role of a unifier of all Russian lands, and not just the territory of Western Rus'.

The unification around Moscow took place in difficult foreign policy conditions. Its final stage was preceded by a long feudal war within the Moscow principality itself. It was carried out in the second quarter of the 15th century. between the Moscow Grand Duke Vasily II the Dark (1425-1462), on the one hand, and his opponents, appanage princes Yuri Galitsky, Vasily Kosy and Dmitry Shemyaka, on the other. Blinded and expelled from Moscow more than once, Vasily II managed to win this fierce struggle for power and continue moving along the path to centralization. His name is also associated with the defeat of the Novgorod army in the battle of Staraya Russa in the winter of 1456. But after the Yazhelbitsky Peace Treaty signed with Moscow at that time, Novgorod retained the inviolability of its internal system, and part of the influential boyars adhered to the Lithuanian orientation, considering an alliance with Lithuania more acceptable than joining composition of Muscovy.

The last stage of the unification process occurred during the reign of the Moscow Grand Dukes Ivan III (1462-1505) and his son Vasily III (1505-1533). The first inherited an area of ​​430 square meters. km, which the second increased 6 times. The crushing defeat of the Novgorodians on the river. Sheloni in 1471 led to the liquidation of the Novgorod feudal republic in 1478. Several thousand of the most influential townspeople (boyars and wealthy merchants) were resettled from Novgorod to remote areas of Rus', and power in the city passed to the Grand Duke's governor and Moscow clerks. In approximately the same way, the annexation of Tver (1485) and Vyatka (1489) took place. In 1510, Pskov was finished, in 1514, as a result of the war with Lithuania, Smolensk went to Moscow, and in 1521, the Ryazan principality completely lost its independence. All segments of the population (local aristocracy, service people, merchants, artisans, peasants) became subjects of the Moscow Grand Duke.

The positive political, economic and cultural consequences of the creation of the Russian centralized state are undeniable. The united Rus' managed in 1480 to throw off the Horde yoke and strengthen its security. The international authority of Muscovy increased, its ruler Ivan III began to call himself “Sovereign of All Rus'.” Under him, a new coat of arms appeared - a double-headed eagle (see State Coat of Arms), a system of central bodies and localism arose, a local system of land ownership was formed, the privileges of the church were gradually limited, the first code of laws of a united Rus' was adopted - the Sudebnik of 1497 (see Legislation of feudal Russia ). Ivan III showed himself to be talented statesman, diplomat and commander, although, like other medieval rulers, he showed cruelty and treachery.

But unlike a number of countries Western Europe(England, the Netherlands, Italy), where at that time the sprouts of bourgeois relations were already emerging, and the peasants were freed from feudal dependence, in Rus' the unification coincided with the beginning of the legislative registration of serfdom, the restriction of peasant movements on St. George's Day. And within the framework of the already united Russian state in the 16th century. many remnants of the previous period remained, traces of the former autonomy: appanage principalities, privileges of the aristocracy and monasteries, the absence of a single monetary, judicial, tax systems, strong economic ties, a branched structure of central and local administrative bodies, disordered relations between the authorities and the emerging classes of feudal society in Russia (as our state began to be called more and more often from the 16th century). Political unification far outpaced economic unification. There was a long and thorny path strengthening and expanding state centralization, the gradual eradication of remnants of the past, the consequences of which continued to affect the development of the country for a long time.