The ratio of the power of the prince boyars veche. Veche and princely power in Kievan Rus. Prince and princely administration in Kievan Rus
The authorities in the Galicia-Volyn principality were the prince, the boyar council and the veche, but their role in the life of the state was somewhat different than in Kievan Rus.
The prince, who stood at the head of the state, formally belonged to the supreme power. He had the right to pass legislative acts, had the right of a high court, and exercised central government. The prince issued letters on the transfer of inheritance, on the allotment of land to his vassals, cross-kissing letters, letters on awarding posts, etc. But this legislative creativity was not all-encompassing, and besides, the legislative power of the princes was often not recognized by the boyars. The prince possessed the supreme judicial power, although he could not always exercise it. If the prince sought an appropriate agreement with the boyars, the judicial power was completely concentrated in his hands. In the event of disagreement, the judiciary actually passed to the boyar aristocracy.
The vassals of the prince, along with the position, received the right of court within the limits of their possession. In the boyar estates, all judicial powers were in the hands of the boyars. And although princely judicial bodies were established on the ground, where the prince sent his tiuns, they could not resist the judicial power of the boyars.
The prince headed military organization, through the persons authorized by him, taxes were collected, coins were minted, and foreign policy relations with other countries were managed.
Relying on military force, the prince strove to maintain his supremacy in the region government controlled... He appointed officials (thousand, governor, mayor) in the cities and volosts of his domain, endowing them with land holdings under the condition of service. He also strove to streamline the financial and administrative system, since at that time there was still no distinction between state and princely income.
The main form of government in the Galicia-Volyn land was the early feudal monarchy, but there was also such a form of government as the duumvirate. So, from 1245 until the death of Daniel Galitsky, he ruled together with his brother Vasilko, who owned most of Volyn. At the end of the XIII century, it became possible to establish a duumvirate of Leo (Galitsky) and Vladimir (Volynsky), but the discord between them did not allow this to be realized. The sons of Prince Yuri - Andrey and Lev - jointly acted in foreign policy issues. In the letter of 1316, they call themselves "the princes of all Russia, Galicia and Volodymyr." The authority of the Grand Dukes was supported by royal titles, which were called by the Pope and the rulers of European states.
However, the grand dukes did not succeed in concentrating all state power in their hands. In this matter, they were set up obstacles by the wealthy boyars, especially the Galician ones. The Grand Duke was forced to allow the boyars to rule the state. And although the Grand Duke in certain periods was an unlimited ruler, in fact he depended on the boyar aristocracy, which in every way tried to limit his power.
Some princes waged a decisive struggle against seditious boyars. So, Daniil Galitsky even used punitive actions against such boyars: he executed many, confiscated lands from many, which he handed out to the new, serving boyars.
However, the boyar aristocracy supported the power of the Grand Duke, since he was the spokesman for her social interests, the defender of her land holdings. In certain periods of Galicia-Volyn Rus, the importance of the princely power was so lowered that the princes could not take a step without the consent of the boyars. All this makes it possible to conclude that in the Galicia-Volyn land there was such a form of government as a monarchy, limited by the influence of the aristocratic boyars.
Boyar Council as a permanent state institution operated in the Galicia-Volyn principality in the first half of the XIV century. It consisted of wealthy landowning boyars, mainly representatives of the boyar aristocracy, the Galician bishop, a judge of the princely court, some governors and governors. The Boyar Council met at the initiative of the boyars themselves, but sometimes at the request of the prince. But the prince had no right to convene the Boyar Council against the will of the boyars. The council was headed by the most influential boyars who tried to regulate the activities of the Grand Duke. And during the period of the principality of Yuri-Boleslav, the boyar oligarchy became so strong that the most important state documents were signed by the Grand Duke only together with the boyars. In certain periods, all power in the principality belonged to the boyars. So, in Galicia, during the reign of the young Daniil Galitsky, the boyar Vladislav Kormilchich "reigned". And from 1340 to 1349, the state was ruled by Dmitry Detko, also a representative of the boyar aristocracy.
Not being formally the highest authority, the boyar council actually ruled the principality until the 14th century. Since the XIV century, it has become an official authority, without the consent of which the prince could not issue a single state act. The Boyar Council, recognizing the prince's power, actually limited it. It was this body that the Galician boyars used in the struggle against the strengthening of the princely power, for the preservation of their privileges. In fact, administrative, military and judicial power was concentrated in the hands of the boyars. The chronicler says about this: "I call myself princes, but I keep the whole land."
Veche. As in other lands of Russia, a veche operated in the Galicia-Volyn principality, but it did not exert much influence on political life here, did not have a clearly defined competence and work schedule. Most often, the prince gathered the veche. So, during the struggle for Galicia, Daniil Galitsky convened a veche in Galich and asked if he could count on the help of the population. Sometimes the veche gathered spontaneously. This was in those cases when the Galicia-Volyn land was threatened by external enemies.
Developed central and local government in the Galicia-Volyn land developed earlier than in other lands of Russia. It was a system of palace and patrimonial administration. The process of formation of the palace ranks proceeds faster here. The chronicles have preserved the news about the ranks of the court chancellor and steward.
The central figure among these ranks was the courtyard. He managed the princely court and stood at the head of the administrative apparatus, first of all, the economy of the prince's domain. On behalf of the prince, the court often carried out legal proceedings, was a "judge of the prince's court" and in this capacity was a member of the Boyar Council. His duties also included accompanying the prince on his trips outside the principality.
Among other ranks, the chronicles mention the chancellor (printer). He was responsible for the princely press, compiled the texts of the letters or supervised the work on their compilation, certified the princely documents. He also kept the princely letters and other state documents of important importance, was responsible for their delivery to the places. Some sources indicate that the chancellor was in charge of the prince's office.
Among the ranks of the Galicia-Volyn principality, the chronicles call the steward, who was responsible for the timely receipt of income from the prince's land holdings. The chronicles also remember the armorer who was in charge of the princely army, the youths who accompanied the prince on military campaigns, and some other ranks.
In the Galicia-Volyn land, there was a fairly developed system of local government. The cities were ruled by thousands and mayors appointed by the prince. Administrative, military and judicial power was concentrated in their hands. They had the right to collect tribute and various taxes from the population, which constituted an important part of the prince's income.
The territory of the Galicia-Volyn principality was subdivided into voivodeships with voivods at the head, and those, in turn, into volosts, which were governed by volostels. Both the governor and the volostels were appointed by the prince. Within the limits of their competence, they had administrative, military and judicial powers.
Tysyatskys, mayors, voivods and volostels had at their disposal auxiliary administrative personnel, on whom they relied in carrying out the duties of managing the subject territory. Local government was built according to the "feeding" system. In rural communities, management was carried out by elected elders, who were completely subordinate to the local princely administration.
Consequently, in the Galicia-Volyn principality there was a developed system of central and local government, which reliably performed its functions.
The attitude of the boyars in its new composition to their sovereign. - The attitude of the Moscow boyars to the Grand Duke in specific centuries. - A change in this relationship with Ivan III. - Collisions. - Unclear reasons for the disorder. - Conversations between Bersen and Maxim the Greek. - Boyar rule. - Correspondence between Tsar Ivan and Prince Kurbsky. The judgments of Prince Kurbsky. - Objections of the king. - The nature of the correspondence. - The dynastic origin of the discord.
We saw how the composition and mood of the Moscow boyars changed as a result of the political unification of Great Russia. This change inevitably had to change the good relations that existed between the Moscow sovereign and his boyars in specific centuries.
THE BOYAR'S ATTITUDE TO THE GREAT DUKE IN SPECIFIC CENTURIES... This change in attitudes was an inevitable consequence of the same process that created the power of the Moscow sovereign and his new boyars. In specific centuries, the boyar went to serve in Moscow, looking for service benefits here. These benefits grew for the serviceman along with the success of his master. This established a unity of interest between both parties. That is why the Moscow boyars throughout the XIV century. together they helped their sovereign in his external affairs and zealously delighted him in internal management... A close connection, sincerity of relations between both sides is a striking feature of the Moscow monuments of that century. Grand Duke Semyon the Proud writes, addressing his younger brothers in the spiritual with his dying instructions: "You should have listened in everything to our Vladyka Alexei's father and the old boyars who wanted good for our father and for us." These relations are even more sincere in the biography of Grand Duke Dimitri Donskoy, written by a contemporary, who owed his boyars the grand-ducal table. Addressing his children, the Grand Duke said: "Love your boyars, give them worthy honor in their service, do nothing without their will." Turning then to the boyars themselves, the Grand Duke reminded them in sympathetic words how he worked with them in internal and external affairs, how they strengthened the reign, how they became terrible to the enemies of the Russian land. By the way, Demetrius told his employees: "I loved you all and held you in honor, I had fun with you, with you and grieved, and you were called by me not boyars, but princes of my land."
CHANGE IN RELATIONS... These good relations began to be upset from the end of the 15th century. New, titled boyars went to Moscow not for new service benefits, but mostly with a bitter feeling of regret for the lost benefits of specific independence. Now only need and bondage tied the new Moscow boyars to Moscow, and they could not love this new place of their service. Having parted in interests, both sides diverged even more in political feelings, although these feelings came from the same source. The same circumstances, on the one hand, put the Grand Duke of Moscow at the height of a national sovereign with broad power, on the other, they imposed on him a government class with pretentious political tastes and aspirations and with an estate organization that was embarrassing for the supreme power. Feeling like gathering around Moscow Kremlin, titled boyars began to look at themselves, just as the Moscow boyars of specific time did not dare to look. Feeling himself the sovereign of the united Great Russia, the Grand Duke of Moscow could hardly endure his former relations with the boyars as free servants under the contract and could not at all get along with their new claims to the division of power. One and the same reason - the unification of Great Russia - made the Moscow supreme power less patient and compliant, and the Moscow boyars more pretentious and arrogant. Thus, the same historical circumstances destroyed the unity of interests between both political forces, and the separation of interests upset the harmony of their mutual relations. From here came a series of clashes between the Moscow sovereign and his boyars. These clashes bring dramatic animation to the monotonous and ceremonial life of the Moscow court of that time and give the impression of a political struggle between the Moscow sovereign and his rebellious boyars. However, it was a rather peculiar struggle both according to the techniques of the wrestlers and according to the motives that guided it. Defending their claims, the boyars did not openly rise up against their sovereign, did not take up arms, and did not even lead a friendly political opposition against him. Clashes were usually resolved by court intrigues and disgraces, disfavors, the origin of which is sometimes difficult to discern. It is more of a court enmity, sometimes rather taciturn than an open political struggle, more a pantomime than a drama.
COLLISION ... These clashes were revealed with particular force twice, and each time for the same reason - on the issue of succession to the throne. Ivan III, as we know, first appointed his grandson Demetrius as his heir and crowned him to the great reign, and then dethroned him, appointing his son from his second wife Vasily as his successor. In this family clash, the boyars became for their grandson and opposed their son out of dislike for his mother and for the Byzantine concepts and suggestions she brought, while all the small, thin service people turned out to be on the side of Vasily. The clash reached strong irritation on both sides, caused noisy quarrels at court, harsh antics on the part of the boyars, it seems even something similar to sedition. At least Basil's son, Tsar Ivan, complained afterwards that the boyars, along with the latter's nephew Dimitri, "had planned many fatal deaths," even to the sovereign-grandfather himself, "they spoke many abhorrent and reproachful words." But how things went, what exactly the boyars were trying to achieve, in detail it remains not entirely clear; Only a year after the wedding of Demetrius (1499), the most notable Moscow boyars suffered for their opposition to Vasily: Prince Semyon Ryapolovsky-Starodubsky was beheaded, and his supporters, Prince I. Yu. ... The same dull court enmity, accompanied by disgrace, went into the reign of Vasily. This great prince treated the boyars with understandable distrust, like a sovereign whom they did not want to see on the throne and with difficulty endured on it. By the way, for some reason they put in prison the paramount boyar, Prince V.D. mother. But especially strongly enmity flared up at Grozny, and again on the same occasion, on the issue of succession to the throne. Soon after the conquest of the kingdom of Kazan, at the end of 1552 or at the beginning of 1553, Tsar Ivan became dangerously ill and ordered the boyars to swear allegiance to their newborn son, Tsarevich Dimitri. Many of the foremost boyars refused the oath or took it reluctantly, saying that they did not want to serve "the little one past the old", that is, they want to serve the cousin of the tsar, the appanage prince Vladimir Andreevich staritsky, whom they had in mind to put on the throne in case of death king. The tsar's anger against the boyars, aroused by this clash, after a few years led to a complete rupture between both sides, accompanied by cruel disgrace and executions to which the boyars were subjected.
UNCLOSURE OF THE CAUSE OF DISORDER... In all these clashes, which broke through over the course of three generations, one can discern the reasons that caused them, but the motives that guided the quarreling parties, nourished mutual hostility, are not expressed clearly enough by either side. Ivan III dully complained about the intransigence and obstinacy of his boyars. Sending ambassadors to Poland shortly after the case of the heir, Ivan, by the way, gave them the following instruction: "See that everything is smooth between you, they would drink carefully, not drunk, and take care of themselves in everything, and would not act like that. how Prince Semyon Ryapolovsky was highly intelligent with Prince Vasily, the son of Ivan Yuryevich (Patrikeev). " The feelings and aspirations of the opposition boyar nobility in the reign of Vasily. A monument that reveals the political mood of the boyar side has come down to us from that time - this is an excerpt from the investigation case about the now-mentioned Duma man Ivan Nikitich Bersen-Beklemishev (1525). Bersen, far from belonging to the primary nobility, was a stubborn, uncompromising person. At that time, the learned monk Maxim the Greek, who was an experienced, educated person, familiar with the Catholic West and its science, who had studied in Paris, Florence and Venice, who had been summoned from Athos to translate the Explanatory Psalter from Greek, was living in Moscow at that time. He attracted inquisitive people from the Moscow nobility, who came to him to talk and argue "about books and Tsaregrad customs", so that Maxim's cell in the Simonov monastery near Moscow became like a learned club. It is curious that the most common guests of Maxim were all people from the opposition nobility: between them we meet Prince Andr. Kholmsky, the cousin of the aforementioned disgraced boyar, and V.M. Tuchkov, the son of the boyar Tuchkov, who was the most rude to Ivan III, according to the testimony of Grozny. But the closest guest and interlocutor of Maxim was Ivan Nikitich Bersen, with whom he often sat face to face for a long time. Bersen was at this time in disfavor and removed from the yard, justifying his prickly nickname (bersen - gooseberry). Ivan Nikitich once in the Duma sharply objected to the sovereign when discussing the question of Smolensk. The Grand Duke got angry and kicked him out of the council, saying: "Come on, smerd, get out, I don't need you." In conversations with Maxim, Bersen poured out his grieved feelings, in which one can see the reflection of the political thoughts of the then boyars. I will pass on their conversations as they were recorded during interrogations. This is a very rare case when we can overhear an intimate political conversation in Moscow in the 16th century.
TALKS BEERS WITH MAXIM GREC... The disgraced counselor is, of course, very annoyed. He is not satisfied with anything in the Moscow state: neither people nor order. "About the local people, I said that nowadays there is no truth in people." He is most dissatisfied with his sovereign and does not want to hide his dissatisfaction in front of a foreigner.
"Here," Bersen said to elder Maxim, "you have now Basurman kings in Constantinople, persecutors; evil times have come for you, and somehow you interrupt with them?"
"True," answered Maxim, "our kings are wicked, but they do not intervene in church affairs with us."
"Well," objected Bersen, "even though your kings are wicked, if they do so, then you still have a god."
And as if to justify the swallowed thought that there was no longer God in Moscow, the disgraced counselor complained to Maxim about the Moscow metropolitan, who, for the sake of the sovereign, did not intercede for the disgraced, and suddenly, giving free rein to his excited pessimism, Bersen fell upon his interlocutor :
"Yes, here you are, Mr. Maxim, we took from the Holy Mountain, and what benefit did we get from you?"
"I am an orphan," Maxim answered offensively, "what is the use of me and being?"
"No," objected Bersen, "you are a reasonable man and could be of use to us, and it was appropriate for us to ask you how to arrange our land for the sovereign, how to reward people and how to behave for the metropolitan."
"You have books and rules, - said Maxim, - you can get settled yourself."
Bersen wanted to say that the sovereign did not ask and did not listen to reasonable advice in organizing his land, and therefore built it unsatisfactorily. This "lack of advice", "high-mindedness", it seems, most of all upset Bersen in the manner of actions of the Grand Duke Vasily. He was still condescending to Vasiliev's father: Ivan III, according to him, was kind and affectionate to people, and therefore God helped him in everything; he loved "meeting," an objection to himself. "But the present sovereign," complained Bersen, "is not like that: he favors few people, is stubborn, does not like meetings against himself and gets annoyed at those who tell him to meet him."
So Bersen is very dissatisfied with the sovereign; but this dissatisfaction is of a completely conservative nature; more recently, the old Moscow order began to shake, and the sovereign himself began to shake them - this is what Bersen especially complained about. At the same time, he expounded the whole philosophy of political conservatism.
“You yourself know,” he said to Maxim, “and we have heard from reasonable people that which land is changing its customs, that land does not last long, but here we have the old customs of the current Grand Duke changed: so what kind of good is to expect from us ? "
Maxim objected that God punishes the peoples for violating his commandments, but that the customs of the tsarist and zemstvo are changed by the sovereigns for reasons of circumstances and state interests.
"That's how it is," objected Bersen, "but it's still better than the old customs to stick around, to favor people and honor the elderly; but now our sovereign, shutting himself up to the third by the bed, does all sorts of things."
By this change in customs, Bersen explains the external difficulties and internal troubles that the Russian land was going through at that time. Bersen considers the mother of the Grand Duke to be the first culprit of this apostasy from the old customs, the sower of this betrayal of his native antiquity.
“As the Greeks came here,” he said to Maxim, “so our land got mixed up, and until then our Russian land lived in peace and silence. As the mother of the Grand Duke, the Grand Duchess Sophia, came here with your Greeks, so we went into turmoil great, like you in Constantinople under your kings. "
Maxim the Greek considered it his duty to intercede for his countrywoman and objected:
"The Grand Duchess Sophia on both sides was a great family - on the father of the tsarist family of the Tsaregorodsky, and on the mother of the great Duxus of the Ferrarian Italian country."
“Sir, whatever it may be, but it has come to our disorder,” Bersen concluded his conversation.
So, if Bersen accurately expressed the views of the opposition boyars of his day, they were dissatisfied with the violation of the government orders established by custom, the sovereign's distrust of his boyars and the fact that next to the boyar duma he opened a special intimate office of the few confidants with whom he had previously discussed and even predetermined state issues that were subject to ascent to the boyar duma. Bersen does not demand any new rights for the boyars, but only defends the old customs violated by the sovereign; he is an opposition conservative, an enemy of the sovereign, because he is against the changes introduced by the sovereign.
BOYARS BOARD... After Vasily's death, in the early childhood of his son, which required long-term care, power fell into the hands of the boyars for a long time. Now they could dispose of the state in their own way, realize their political ideals and rebuild the state order in accordance with them. But they did not try to build any new state order. Divided into the parties of the princes Shuisky and Belsky, the boyars led fierce strife with each other out of personal or family accounts, and not for any state order. For ten years since the death of the ruler Elena (1538), they waged these strife, and this decade passed not only fruitlessly for the political position of the boyars, but also dropped his political authority in the eyes of Russian society. Everyone saw what anarchic strength this boyars are if they are not restrained by a strong hand; but the reason for his disagreement with the sovereign was not found out this time either.
CORRESPONDENCE OF THE KING WITH KURBSK... During the reign of Terrible, when the clash resumed, both quarreling parties had the opportunity to express their political views more clearly and explain the reasons for mutual dislike. In 1564, the boyar prince A.M. Kurbsky, a peer and favorite of Tsar Ivan, a hero of the Kazan and Livonian wars, commanding the Moscow regiments in Livonia, lost one battle there and, fearing the tsar's wrath for this failure or for communication with the fallen Sylvester and Adashev, fled to the Polish king, leaving his wife with a young son in Dorpat, where he was a voivode. He took an active part in the Polish war against his tsar and fatherland. But the fugitive boyar did not want to silently part with his abandoned sovereign: from a foreign land, from Lithuania, he wrote a sharp, reproachful, "annoying" message to Ivan, reproaching him for his cruel treatment of the boyars. Tsar Ivan, himself a "verbal wisdom rhetorician", as his contemporaries called him, did not want to remain in debt to the fugitive and answered him with a long exculpatory message, "broadcast and noisy," as Prince Kurbsky called him, to which the latter objected. Correspondence with long interruptions went on in 1564-1579. Prince Kurbsky wrote only four letters, Tsar Ivan - two; but his first letter is more than half of all correspondence in volume (62 out of 100 pages according to Ustryalov's edition). In addition, Kurbsky wrote in Lithuania the accusatory History of the Great Prince of Moscow, that is, Tsar Ivan, where he also expressed the political views of his boyar brethren. So both sides, as it were, confessed to each other, and one would expect that they fully and frankly expressed their political views, that is, revealed the reasons for mutual hostility. But even in this polemic, waged by both sides with great fervor and talent, we do not find a direct and clear answer to the question of these reasons, and it does not lead the reader out of bewilderment. The letters of Prince Kurbsky are predominantly filled with personal or class reproaches and political complaints; in History, he also expresses several general political and historical judgments.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE KURBAN... He begins his Story of Tsar Ivan with mournful meditation: "Many times they bothered me with the question: how did all this happen from such a good and wonderful tsar, who neglected his health for the fatherland, who suffered hard work and troubles in the fight against the enemies of the cross of Christ and from everyone who used good And many times with a sigh and tears I was silent to this question - I did not want to answer; at last I had to say at least something about these incidents, and so answered the frequent questions: if I had told you first and in order, I would have had to to write about how the devil sowed evil morals in the kindred Russian princes, especially by their evil wives-sorceresses, as was the case with the Israeli tsars, most of all by those who were taken from foreigners. " This means that in looking at the nearest Moscow past, Prince Kurbsky takes the point of view of Bersen, sees the root of evil in Princess Sophia, followed by the same foreigner Elena Glinskaya, the mother of the tsar. However, the already kind once Russian princes had degenerated into a Moscow clan, "this blood-sucking clan of yours," as Kurbsky put it in a letter to the tsar. "It has long been a custom among the Moscow princes," he writes in History, "to desire their brothers for their blood and to destroy their wretched for the sake of and accursed patrimonies, their unfulfillment for their own sake." Kurbsky also comes across political judgments similar to principles, to theory. He considers normal only such a state order, which is based not on the personal discretion of autocracy, but on the participation of the "synclite", the boyar council, in management; in order to conduct state affairs successfully and decently, the sovereign must consult with the boyars. It is fitting for the tsar to be the head, and to love his wise advisers, "like his own ouds," - this is how Kurbsky expresses the tsar's correct, deanery attitude to the boyars. His whole history is built on one thought - about the beneficial action of the boyar council: the tsar ruled wisely and gloriously, while he was surrounded by kind and truthful advisers. However, the sovereign should share his tsarist thoughts with not only noble and truthful advisers - Prince Kurbsky also allows popular participation in government, stands for the benefit and necessity of the Zemsky Sobor. In his History, he expresses such a political thesis: "If a king is honored by the kingdom, but has not received any gifts from God, he must seek good and useful advice not only from his advisers, but also from people of the whole people, because the gift of the spirit is given not according to external wealth and not according to the power of power, but according to the righteousness of the soul. " , from all over the world: private conferences with individuals were hardly desirable for him. That is almost all the political views of Kurbsky. The prince stands for the governmental significance of the boyar council and for the participation of the zemstvo council in the administration. But he dreams of yesterday, he is late with his dreams. Neither the governmental significance of the Boyar Council, nor the participation of the Zemsky Sobor in management were already at that time ideals, could not be political dreams.The Boyar Council and the Zemsky Sobor were already political facts at that time, the first was a very old fact, and the second was a phenomenon still recent, and both - facts well familiar to our publicist. legislated with their boyars. In 1550, the first Zemsky Sobor was convened, and Prince Kurbsky should have well remembered this event, when the Tsar turned for advice to the "people of the whole people", to ordinary zemstvo people. So, Prince Kurbsky stands for the existing facts; his political program does not go beyond the limits of the current state order: he does not demand either new rights for the boyars, or new guarantees for their old rights, does not require the restructuring of the existing state at all. In this respect, he only goes a little further than his predecessor I. N. Bersen-Beklemishev and, sharply condemning the Moscow past, he cannot think of anything better than this past.
OBJECTIONS OF THE KING ... Now let's listen to the other side. Tsar Ivan writes less calmly and smoothly. Irritation crowds his thought with a multitude of feelings, images and thoughts, which he does not know how to fit into the framework of a consistent and calm presentation. A new phrase, which came by the way, makes him turn his speech in the other direction, forgetting the main idea, not finishing what he started. Therefore, it is not easy to grasp his main thoughts and tendencies in this foam of nervous dialectics. Flaring up, his speech becomes burning. “Your letter has been accepted,” the king writes, “and read carefully. The poison of an asp is under your tongue, and your letter is filled with the honey of words, but it contains the bitterness of wormwood. understood the one who is acquired contrary to Orthodoxy and has a leper conscience. Like demons, from my youth you have shaken piety and have stolen the sovereign power given to me by God. " This objection is the main motive in the letters of the king. The idea of the kidnapping of the royal power by the boyars most of all and outrages Ivan. He objects not to the individual expressions of Prince Kurbsky, but to the entire political way of thinking of the boyars, which was defended by Kurbsky. "After all," the tsar writes to him, "you repeat all the same in your incomparable letter, turning over" different words, "and so, and so, your dear thought, so that slaves besides masters have power," - although in Kurbsky's letter none of this has been written. “Is it,” the king continues, “a leper's conscience, so that you can hold your kingdom in your hand, and not let your slaves rule? All slaves and slaves, and no one else but slaves. Kurbsky talks to the tsar about wise advisers, about synclite, but the tsar does not recognize any wise advisers, for him there is no synclite, but there are only people serving at his court, courtyard slaves. He knows one thing, that "the earth is ruled by God's mercy and our parents' blessing, and then by us, our sovereigns, and not judges and governors, not Ipat and stratigs." All political thoughts of the tsar are reduced to one idea - to the idea of autocratic power. Autocracy for Ivan is not only a normal state order established from above, but also a primordial fact of our history, coming from the depths of centuries. "Our autocracy began with Saint Vladimir; we were born and grew up in a kingdom, we possess our own, and not someone else's stolen; Russian autocrats from the beginning own their own kingdoms, and not boyars and nobles." Tsar Ivan was the first to express in Russia such a view of autocracy: Ancient Russia did not know such a view, did not combine internal and political relations with the idea of autocracy, considering only a ruler independent of external forces to be an autocrat. Tsar Ivan drew first attention to this inner side of the supreme power and was deeply imbued with his new look: through all his long, very long first message, he carries this idea, wrapping one word, by his own admission, "semo and ovamo", then there, then here. All his political ideas are reduced to this one ideal, to the image of an autocratic tsar, not ruled by either "priests" or "slaves." "What kind of autocrat will be called, if he does not build himself?" Plurality is madness. Ivan gives this autocratic power a divine origin and indicates to it not only a political, but also a high religious and moral purpose: "I vain with the zeal of people to teach the truth and to light, so that they may know the one true God, glorified in the Trinity, and from the God given to them by the sovereign and let them be left behind from internecine strife and obstinate life, by which the kingdoms are destroyed; for if the king does not obey the subjects, then the internecine strife will never stop. " To such a lofty purpose, the authorities must correspond to the many different properties required of the autocrat. He must be circumspect, have neither brutal rage, nor wordless humility, must punish tates and robbers, be both merciful and cruel, merciful to the good and cruel to the wicked: otherwise he is not a king. "The king is a thunderstorm not for good, but for evil deeds; if you want not to be afraid of power, do good, and if you do evil, be afraid, for the king does not carry a sword in vain, but for the punishment of the evil and for the encouragement of the good." Never before in our country, before Peter the Great, did the supreme power in abstract self-consciousness rise to such a distinct, at least to such an energetic expression of its tasks. But when it came to practical self-determination, this flight of political thought ended in disaster. Tsar Ivan's entire philosophy of autocracy boiled down to one simple conclusion: "We are free to grant our servants and we are free to execute them." Such a formula did not require such a strain of thought. The specific princes came to the same conclusion without the help of lofty theories of autocracy and even expressed themselves in almost the same words: "I, prince such and such, am free, whom I favor, whom I will execute." Here and in Tsar Ivan, as once in his grandfather, the patrimonial man triumphed over the sovereign.
CHARACTER OF THE CORRESPONDENCE ... This is the political program of Tsar Ivan. Such a sharply and peculiarly expressed idea of autocratic power, however, does not develop in him into a certain elaborated political order; no practical consequences are derived from it. The tsar does not say anywhere whether his political ideal agrees with the existing state structure or requires a new one, whether, for example, his autocratic power can act in hand with the present boyars, only changing his political mores and habits, or must create completely different instruments of government. One can only feel that the tsar is burdened by his boyars. But against the autocracy, as it was then understood in Moscow, the autocracy coming from St. Vladimir, the boyars did not rebel directly. The boyars recognized the autocratic power of the Moscow sovereign, as history had created it. They only insisted on the necessity and benefits of participation in the management of another political force created by the same history - the boyars, and even called for help to both these forces a third - the zemstvo representation. It was unfair for the tsar to accuse the boyars of the self-will of the "ignorant priest" Sylvester and the "dog" Adashev: Ivan could only blame himself for this, because he himself gave inappropriate power to these people, to the boyars and did not belong, made them temporary. What was the reason for the dispute? Both sides defended the existing one. It is felt that they did not seem to fully understand each other, that some kind of misunderstanding separated both disputants. This misunderstanding consisted in the fact that in their correspondence, not two political ways of thinking, but two political moods clashed; they do not so much polemicize with each other as confess to one another. Kurbsky so bluntly called the tsar's epistle a confession, mockingly remarking that, not being a presbyter, he did not consider himself worthy to listen to the tsar's confession out of the blue. Each of them repeats his own and does not listen well to the enemy. "Why are you beating us, your faithful servants?" - asks Prince Kurbsky. "No," Tsar Ivan replies to him, "the Russian autocrats, from the outset, own their own kingdoms, and not boyars or nobles." In this simplest form, you can express the essence of the famous correspondence. But, poorly understanding each other and their present position, both opponents argued to foresee the future, to prophecy and - predicted each other's mutual doom. In the message of 1579, reminding the king of the death of Saul with his royal house, Kurbsky continues: “... do not destroy yourself and your house. ... those drenched in Christian blood will soon disappear with the whole house. "Kurbsky imagined his noble brethren as some chosen tribe, on which he would have a special blessing, and pricked the king's eyes with the difficulty he created for himself, having interrupted and dispersed the" strong in Israel ", God-given governors of his, and staying with the artless "governors" who are frightened not only by the appearance of the enemy, but also by the rustle of leaves shaken by the wind. but God may even raise up a child of Abraham from stones. ”These words were written in 1564, at the very time when the tsar was planning a bold task - the preparation of a new ruling class, which was to replace the hated boyars.
DYNASTIC ORIGIN OF DISORDER... So, both disputing parties were dissatisfied with each other and the state order in which they acted, which they even led. But neither side could come up with another order that would correspond to their wishes, because everything that they wanted had already been practiced or had been tried. If, however, they argued and feuded with each other, it was because the real cause of the discord was not the question of state order. Political judgments and reproaches were expressed only to justify mutual discontent that came from another source. We already know that discord with particular force was revealed twice and on the same occasion - on the issue of the heir to the throne: the sovereign appointed one, the boyars wanted another. So the discord on both sides had actually not a political, but a dynastic source. It was not a question of how to rule the state, but who would rule it. And here, on both sides, the habits of specific time, refracted by the course of affairs, manifested themselves. Then the boyar chose a prince for himself, moving from one princely court to another. Now, when there was nowhere to leave Moscow or it was inconvenient, the boyars wanted to choose between the heirs to the throne when the opportunity presented itself. They could justify their claim by the absence of a law on succession to the throne. Here the Moscow sovereign himself helped them. Conscious of himself as the national sovereign of all Russia, half of his self-awareness remained a specific patrimony and did not want to give up to anyone his right to dispose of the patrimony before his death, nor to limit his personal will by law: "To whom I want, to that I will give the principality." External interference in this personal will of the sovereign touched him more painfully than any general question of state order could touch. Hence the mutual mistrust and irritation. But when it was necessary to express these feelings orally or in writing, general issues were also touched upon, and then it was discovered that the existing state order suffered from contradictions, partially responded to opposite interests, completely satisfying no one. These contradictions were revealed in the oprichnina, in which Tsar Ivan was looking for a way out of an unpleasant situation.
Causes and consequences of feudal fragmentation.
I. Periods of development of the feudal state:
1. Early feudal state.
2. Feudal fragmentation.
II. Feudal fragmentation- a natural stage in the development of the feudal state, the process of fragmentation of the state into small parts with the weak power of the Grand Duke.
III. The reasons for F.R.
1097 1132
1. Remains of tribal isolation. 1. Development of feudal relations:
2. The struggle of the princes for the best principalities, the formation of the princely-boyar
and territory. land tenure - the seizure of communal lands,
3. The domination of the natural economy, the organization of the apparatus of coercion
isolation, self-sufficiency, independence from the center
weakness of economic ties. 2. Strengthening the economic and
political power of cities as
centers of independent principalities.
3. The weakening of Kiev (non-payment of tribute by cities,
raids of nomads, the decline of trade along the Dnieper).
4. Elimination of external danger (?)
IV. F.R.'s consequences:
| Positive consequences | Negative consequences |
| 1. Cessation of the displacement of princes in search of a richer and more honorable throne, appanage princes ceased to perceive their cities as temporary destinies to strengthen individual principalities; growth and strengthening of cities. 2. Economic and cultural upsurge: * development of agriculture, handicrafts, development of internal trade * construction, laying of roads * local chronicle ... 3. Preservation of ethnic unity: * single language, * Orthodox religion, * legislation - Russian Truth, * popular consciousness of unity. | 1. Weak central government. 2. Weakening of the defense capability of Russia - vulnerability to external enemies. 3. Continuation of strife and strife between the princes. 4. Splitting of separate principalities into smaller parts between the heirs. 5. Conflicts between princes and boyars. |
V. Struggle for power between princes and boyars.
Boyars Prince Veche
Descendants of the tribal nobility, Formerly - the supreme organ of the city
senior vigilantes, ruler of state, self-government,
large landowners. now - the ruler of the national assembly.
Boyar Duma- Council of the boyars of the principality.
under the prince.
4. Support - service people (for service - land, nobility).Preconditions for political fragmentation in Russia:
1.Social:
a) The social structure of Russian society has become more complex, its strata in certain lands and cities have become more definite: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans, the lower parts of the city, including slaves... Dependence on the landowners of the villagers developed. All this new Russia no longer needed the previous early medieval centralization. For the new structure of the economy, a different scale of the state was needed than before. Huge Russia, with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary primarily for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-range campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their ramified feudal hierarchy, developed trade-craft layers, needs votchinnikov seeking to have power close to their interests - and not in Kiev, and not even in the form of a Kiev governor, but their own close, here, on the spot, which could fully and decisively defend their interests.
b) The transition to arable farming contributed to a sedentary lifestyle of the rural population and increased the desire vigilantes to owning land. Therefore, the transformation of vigilantes into landowners began (based on princely awards). The squad has become less mobile. The druzhinniki were now interested in permanent stay near their estates and strove for political independence.
In this regard, in the 12-13th centuries. the immune system is widespread - a system that releases boyars- landowners from princely administration and court and giving them the right to independent action in their domain.
That is, the main reason for fragmentation was the natural process of the emergence of private land ownership and subsidence squads to the ground.
2. Economic:
Gradually, individual estates become stronger and begin to produce all products only for their own consumption, and not for the market ( natural economy). The exchange of goods between individual economic units practically ceases. Those. folding system subsistence farming contributes to the isolation of individual economic units.
3. Political:
The main role in the disintegration of the state was played by the local boyars; local princes did not want to share their income with Great The prince of Kiev, and in this they were actively supported by the local boyars, who needed a strong princely power on the ground.
4. Foreign policy:
Weakening Byzantium due to attacks Normans and the Seljuks reduced trade on the "way from the Varangians to the Greeks." The crusaders' campaigns opened up a more direct route of communication between Asia and Europe across the eastern Mediterranean coast. Trade routes moved to central Europe. Russia has lost its status as a world trade intermediary and a factor that unites slavic tribes. This completed the collapse of the unified state and contributed to the shift of the political center from the southwest to the northeast during Vladimir-Suzdal the ground.
Kiev finds itself on the sidelines of the main trade routes. The most actively start to trade: Novgorod with Europe and German cities; Galicia (it is safer here) - with northern Italian cities; Kiev is turning into an outpost of the fight against Cumans... The population is leaving for safer places: northeast ( Vladimir-Suzdal principality and southwest ( Galicia-Volyn principality)
Consequences of political fragmentation.
1.In the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political formations, there was a steady development peasant farms, new arable lands were mastered, there was an expansion and quantitative multiplication of estates, which for their time became the most progressive form of farming, although this was due to the labor of the dependent peasant population.
2. Within the framework of the principalities-states, it was gaining strength Russian church, which had a strong influence on the culture.
3. The political disintegration of Russia has never been complete:
a) The power of the great Kiev princes, albeit sometimes ghostly, but existed. The Kiev principality, albeit formally, but cemented the whole of Russia
b) The all-Russian church retained its influence. Kiev metropolitans led the entire church organization. The church opposed civil strife, and the oath on the cross was one of the forms of peace agreements between the warring princes.
c) A counterbalance to the final disintegration was the constantly existing external danger for the Russian lands from the side Polovtsy, respectively, the Kiev prince acted as the defender of Russia.
4. However, fragmentation contributed to the decline of the military power of the Russian lands. This was most painful in the 13th century, during the period Mongol-Tatar invasion.
As a result of the collapse of the Old Russian state by the second half of the XII century. 13 separate feudal principalities and republics arose on the territory of Kievan Rus: the Novgorod and Pskov lands and the princedoms of Kiev, Pereyaslavskoe, Chernigovskoe, Galicia-Volynskoe, Turovo-Pinskoe, Polotsko-Minsk, Smolenskoe, Vladimir-Suz-Dalskoe, Muromskoe, Ryazarakanskoe. For some time the great princes of Kiev continued to be considered the supreme head of the fragmented Russian land. However, this supremacy was purely nominal. In the system of political entities, the Kiev principality was far from the strongest. The power of the Kiev princes was steadily falling, and Kiev itself turned into an object of struggle between the strongest Russian princes. Andrey Bogolyubsky's campaign to Kiev in 1169 further undermined the significance of this city, and the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols in 1240 turned it into a heap of ruins.
At the head of the Russian lands, into which the ancient Russian state fell apart, were princes. The most powerful of them soon began to appropriate the title of Grand Dukes and claimed to unite other Russian lands under their rule.
In all lands, the princes had to wage a stubborn struggle with the boyars, who did not want to strengthen the princely power. The results of this struggle in different Russian lands were not the same, for the level of development of feudalism in them was not the same, and hence the correspondence of class forces. In Novgorod, for example, the strong Novgorod boyars won the victory, and a feudal aristocratic republic was formed here. Novgorod princes were elected and had very limited rights. Their power was limited mainly by the framework of the military leadership.
In the Vladimir-Suzdal land, on the contrary, the princely power received exclusively great importance... The fact is that northeastern Russia in the Kiev period had a relatively low level of development of feudalism. Therefore, a close-knit group of local feudal lords did not manage to form here, capable of resisting the princely power. The Vladimir-Suzdal princes quickly defeated their opponents, created an extensive princely domain, which had no equal in other Russian lands, distributed lands to their warriors and thus strengthened their supreme, in fact, monarchical power.
In the Galicia-Volyn land, a third type of political system was formed, characteristic feature which was that the struggle of the princes with the boyars here took place with varying degrees of success. In this part of Kievan Rus, the princely power settled rather late, when a large layer of local feudal lords had already grown up there on the basis of the intensive decomposition of the rural community. Relying on their vast estates, the local boyars played an important role in the political life of the Galicia-Volyn land. They often replaced princes at their own discretion, widely attracted Poles and Hungarians to the fight against the prince. Even such strong princes as Roman and his son Daniel could not break the power of the boyars to the end. The political system of the Galicia-Volyn land occupied, as it were, a middle position between the political system of Novgorod and the Vladimir-Suzdal land.
The political system of other Russian lands was little reflected in the sources, but, apparently, one of the described options was repeated to one degree or another in them.
Common to all lands was a hierarchical order of power and subordination. The dominant class was organized into a system of feudal hierarchy, where each member, with the exception of the highest and the lowest, was both a suzerain and a vassal at the same time. True, this order received its completed forms only in the 14th century, but it can also be said in relation to the 12th - 13th centuries. At the top of the feudal hierarchical ladder stood the prince, below - his vassals-boyars. The boyars had their vassals, less powerful feudal owners, the latter, in turn, had people dependent on them. The boyars were free servants of the princes. They could choose their lord, move from one prince to another, without losing their estates. Princely fees and duties from boyar estates were made at their location.
Being vassals of princes, boyars at the same time acted as sovereign rulers in their estates. They exercised the right of court and administration on the territory of their estates. In addition, the largest patrimonial owners had immunities - privileges granted by the princes that exempted the estates of the owners from princely taxes and duties.
During the period of feudal fragmentation in all Russian Lands, the feudal state apparatus was further strengthened - the number of state (princely) and patrimonial officials increased. Their task was to ensure the power of the feudal lords over the peasants and the urban lower classes; collection from them of rent, taxes, fines, etc. and the suppression of anti-feudal protests of workers.
The interests of the feudal class were guarded by feudal legislation, punitive organs and the armed forces. “Russkaya Pravda”, permeated with the idea of protecting the property and power of the feudal lord, remained the judicial law in all Russian lands. Those who raised their hand against feudal property or the feudal order of the "Tatias" or "robbers" were shackled in iron and thrown into prisons - "camps" and "dungeons" - deep dark pits.
The most powerful political tool in the hands of the feudal lords were the armed forces, the composition and organization of which clearly reflected the socio-political system of the period of feudal fragmentation. The armed forces of the Russian feudal principalities consisted of princely squads, which were now called princely courts, boyar regiments and soldiers, and people's militias.
Constant military service carried only a part of the prince's court, she was a professional army. The rest of the prince's servants who made up his court lived in their estates and came to the prince when necessary. In case of war, the boyars who served him with their warriors and regiments also rushed to the prince's aid. However, the main armed force of the feudal principalities was not the princely squad and boyar troops, but the people's militias. They were present in every principality, but they were convened only in special, extreme cases.
The armed forces of the period of feudal fragmentation had, therefore, a motley composition and for the most part were irregular, which undoubtedly affected their fighting qualities.
The most common weapons were the spear and the ax; they were armed with the foot soldiers of the militia. A sword served as a weapon for the vigilante. During the siege of cities, vices, slings, and battering rams were used.
The main activity and subject of efforts of the first Kiev princes were: 1. the unification of all East Slavic tribes under the rule of the Grand Duke of Kiev, 2. the acquisition of overseas markets for Russian trade and the protection of trade routes that led to these markets, 3. the protection of the borders of the Russian land from the attacks of the steppe nomads.
The main goal and task of the princely administration was to collect tribute from the subordinate population. The ways of collecting tribute were "Polyudye" and "Carriage"."Polyudy" was called a detour by the prince (usually in winter) of his region and the collection of tribute, which was collected either in money, or more often in kind. Especially furs. During the "polyudya", the prince or his governor repaired the court and reprisals. In those areas to which the prince could not or did not want to go, the population had to lead a "cart", that is. carry tribute to Kiev.
In the spring, a large number of goods accumulated in the hands of the prince, his warriors, merchants, these were mainly traditional Russian goods: honey, furs, wax, slaves (captured during the war or resold), the goods were loaded on boats and moved down the Dnieper under the protection of the prince squads. The guards protected the caravan from the attack of the steppe nomads. In addition to military protection, the Kiev princes had to take care of the diplomatic protection of Russian trade. To this end, they entered into trade agreements with the Byzantine government, which should ensure the correct and unhindered course of Russian trade, as well as the interests and rights of Russian merchants.
The constant concern of the Kiev princes was the defense of the Russian borders from the attack of the steppe nomads. Kiev lay almost on the border of the steppe strip and was repeatedly attacked. The Kiev princes had to strengthen not only their capital, but also create a whole system of border fortifications.
Veche. Chronicler in the XII century. says that the population of the older cities "from the beginning" came together at the veche and made decisions, which were then subject to the younger cities (or suburbs). It should be noted that the people's assembly in Russia at this time, as an organ of primitive democracy, plays a very important, often decisive, role in the life of all Russian lands from Kiev to Novgorod and from Volyn to Rostov-Suzdal. Only on the western outskirts of Galicia, the aristocratic element (boyars) plays an important political role. In all cases when the population acted independently of the prince, there must be a preliminary council or conference, i.e. veche. When, after the death of Yaroslav (in 1054), the Russian land was divided into several principalities, the veche of the main volost cities often acts as the bearer of the supreme power in the state. When the prince was strong enough and popular (like Vladimir Monomakh), the veche was inactive and left the prince with government affairs. Only in Novgorod and Pskov did the veche become a permanent operating body of state administration, in other regions it usually did not interfere with the government's activities of the prince during normal times. In emergency situations, such as a change in the princely throne or the resolution of issues of war and peace, the voice of the popular assembly in these matters was decisive.
The power of the veche and its composition were not determined by any legal norms. The veche was an open meeting, a nationwide gathering, and all who were free could take part in it. In fact, the veche was a meeting of the townspeople of the main city. The decision of the older city was considered mandatory for the residents of the suburbs and for the entire parish. No law defined or limited the competence of the veche. Veche could discuss and resolve any issue that interested him. Sometimes even civil uprising... While on a campaign, he arranged a veche meeting and decided on the continuation of the campaign or on the upcoming hostilities. The most important and common subject of the veche meetings' competence was the vocation, or acceptance, of princes and the expulsion of princes who were not pleasing to the people. At the same time, both sides sometimes concluded additional conditions. The calling and the change of princes were not only political facts arising from the real balance of power, but were a generally recognized right of the population. This right was recognized both by the princes themselves and by their squads.
Another circle of questions to be resolved by the veche were questions about war and peace in general, as well as about the continuation or cessation of hostilities. Sometimes the people themselves took the initiative to declare war, sometimes they refused to participate in the war that the prince started or started, sometimes they demanded more energetic actions or, on the contrary, their cessation.
The decisions of the veche must be "unanimous" and unanimous. In reality, this "unity for all" meant the agreement of such an overwhelming majority, which silenced dissenting opinions.
