Zemsky Sobor what decisions. Zemsky Sobor is... What are Zemsky Sobors

KEK) which means Zemsky Sobor - highest estate-representative institution Russian kingdom from the middle of the 16th to the end of the 17th century, a meeting of representatives of all segments of the population (except for serfs) to discuss political, economic and administrative issues.... Further History In 1549, Ivan IV convened a Council of Reconciliation (considered the problem of abolishing feeding and abuse of officials locally); Subsequently, such cathedrals began to be called Zemsky cathedrals (as opposed to church cathedrals - “consecrated”). The word “zemsky” could mean “nationwide” (that is, the matter of “the whole earth”). [source not specified 972 days](The visible logical connection between the Novgorod class of natives and the Zemsky Sobor in a single centralized Russian state has not yet been confirmed.) The Council of 1549 lasted two days, it was convened to resolve issues about the new royal Code of Law and the reforms of the “Elected Rada”. During the council, the tsar and the boyars spoke, and later a meeting of the Boyar Duma took place, which adopted a provision on the non-jurisdiction (except in major criminal cases) of boyar children to the governors. According to I.D. Belyaev, elected representatives from all classes participated in the first Zemsky Sobor. The Tsar asked the saints who were at the cathedral for a blessing to correct the Code of Law “in the old way”; then he announced to representatives of the communities that throughout the state, in all cities, suburbs, volosts and churchyards, and even in the private estates of boyars and other landowners, elders and kissers, sotskys and courtiers, should be elected by the residents themselves; Charter charters will be written for all regions, with the help of which the regions could govern themselves without sovereign governors and volosts.

The earliest council, the activity of which is evidenced by the sentencing letter that has reached us (with signatures and a list of participants in the Duma Council) and news in the chronicle, took place in 1566, at which the main issue was the continuation or termination of the bloody Livonian War.

V. O. Klyuchevsky defined zemstvo councils as “a special type of popular representation, different from Western representative assemblies.” In turn, S. F. Platonov believed that the Zemsky Sobor is a “council of the whole earth”, consisting “of three necessary parts”: 1) “the consecrated cathedral of the Russian church with the metropolitan, later with the patriarch at its head”; 2) boyar duma; 3) “zemstvo people, representing different groups of the population and different areas of the state.”

Such meetings were convened to discuss the most important issues of the domestic and foreign policy of the Russian state, as well as on urgent matters, for example, issues of war and peace (the continuation of the Livonian War), taxes and fees, mainly for military needs. The zemstvo councils of 1565, when Ivan the Terrible left for the Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, were devoted to the fate of the country's political structure; the verdict passed by the zemstvo assembly on June 30, 1611 in the “stateless time” is of particular importance.

The history of zemstvo councils is the history of the internal development of society, the evolution of the state apparatus, the formation of social relations, and changes in the class system. In the 16th century, the process of forming this social institution was just beginning; initially it was not clearly structured, and its competence was not strictly defined. The practice of convening, the procedure for forming, and the composition of zemstvo councils were also not regulated for a long time.

As for the composition of zemstvo councils, even during the reign of Mikhail Romanov, when the activity of zemstvo councils was most intense, the composition varied depending on the urgency of the issues being resolved and the very nature of the issues. The clergy occupied an important place in the composition of the zemstvo councils, in particular, the zemstvo councils of February - March 1549 and the spring of 1551 were simultaneously church councils in full, and only the metropolitan and the highest clergy participated in the remaining Moscow councils. The participation of the clergy in the councils was intended to emphasize the legitimacy of the decisions made by the monarch. B. A. Romanov believes that the Zemsky Sobor consisted of two “chambers”: the first consisted of boyars, okolnichy, butlers, treasurers, the second - governors, princes, boyar children, great nobles. Nothing is said about who the second “chamber” consisted of: those who happened to be in Moscow at that time, or those who were specially summoned to Moscow. The data on the participation of the townspeople in zemstvo councils is very doubtful, although the decisions made there were often very beneficial to the top of the town. Often the discussion took place separately among the boyars and clergy, the clergy, and service people, that is, each group separately expressed its opinion on this issue.

REASONS FOR THE CONVENING OF THE FIRST Zemsky Sobor

According to some, this council was convened by the tsar to fight the boyars, against whom Ivan the Terrible was looking for support among the people8. This view is not supported by historical evidence. On the contrary, it was in 1550 that the tsar could least of all think about the fight against the boyars. By that time, through the mediation of Metropolitans Macarius and Sylvester, he became close to the best people from the boyars and formed a circle of advisers and employees who helped him in his bold external and internal enterprises. Sensing this difficulty, other researchers correct the guess, adding that the first Zemsky Sobor gave the tsar solid ground for the future struggle against the boyars9. But when this expected struggle came, the tsar did not look for support in the solid ground of the Zemsky Sobor, but created for this a new institution of a completely anti-Zemstvo character. Everything that is known about the goals of the first Zemsky Sobor from the supreme culprit and its leader also does not support speculation about the militant democratic motives that supposedly caused it. […]

Other researchers indicate other reasons for the convening of the first Zemsky Sobor; These reasons are sometimes repeated by supporters of the anti-boyar origin of this cathedral as reinforcement of their guess. Those were: the need that arose with the unification of Rus' by Moscow for a common body for the entire Russian land, with the help of which it could declare its needs and desires before the resulting common supreme power, the need to give a general direction to the interests and aspirations of individual zemshchinas of the Moscow state, so that it could develop the consciousness of an integral all-Russian zemshchina, the need for the tsar to enter into an alliance with the land, removing the boyars from the path that led to the unity of the tsar and the land, the tsar’s clearly understood need for direct communication with the people in order to have firm support in them in government activities, etc. paragraph 10 It is impossible not to recognize the convenience of these considerations, that they relate to the origin of conciliar representation in general, and not just the first council; It is difficult to explain the origin of the first council separately from subsequent ones, especially when there is so little data for judgments about the first council.

INTERNAL REFORM OF THE STATE

Simultaneously with the Kazan campaigns of Grozny, his internal reform was underway. Its beginning is associated with the solemn “council” that met in Moscow in 1550-1551. This was not a Zemsky Sobor in the usual sense of the term. The legend that in 1550 Grozny convened in Moscow a representative meeting of “every rank” from the cities is now recognized as unreliable. As I. N. Zhdanov first showed, a council of clergy and boyars on church affairs and “zemskie” was then meeting in Moscow. At this council or with its approval in 1550, the Code of Law of 1497 was “corrected”, and in 1551 “Stoglav”, a collection of decrees of a canonical nature, was compiled. Reading these monuments and, in general, the documents of government activities of those years, we come to the conclusion that at that time a whole plan for the restructuring of local government was created in Moscow. […] Since the primitive feeding system could not meet the requirements of the time, the growth of the state and the complication of the social order, it was decided to replace it with other forms of management. Before the abolition of feeding in this place, feeders were placed under the control of public elected representatives, and then they were completely replaced by self-government bodies. At the same time, self-government received two types: 1) The jurisdiction of elected people was transferred to the court and police in the district (“guba”). This usually happened in those places where the population had a mixed class character. Service people were usually chosen as provincial elders, and to help them were given elected kissers (i.e., jurors) and clerks, who formed a special presence, the “gubal hut.” All classes of the population were elected together. 2) Not only the court and police, but also financial management were transferred to the authority of elected people: collecting taxes and running the community economy. This usually happened in districts and volosts with a solid tax population, where zemstvo elders had long existed for tax-paying self-government. When these elders were given the functions of the provincial institution (or, what is the same, vicegerent), the most complete form of self-government was obtained, covering all aspects of zemstvo life. Representatives of such self-government were called differently: favorite elders, favorite heads, zemstvo judges. The abolition of feedings was decided in principle around 1555, and all volosts and cities were allowed to move to a new order of self-government. The “feeders” had to continue to be left without “feed,” and the government needed funds to replace the feed with something. To receive such funds, it was established that cities and volosts must, for the right of self-government, pay a special quitrent to the sovereign treasury, called the “kormlenago okupa.” It went to special cash desks, “treasuries,” which were called “quarters” or “chetets,” and former feeders received the right to annual “lessons” or a salary “from the cheti” and began to be called “chetvertiki.”

WHAT ARE ZEMSKY SOBRAS

Zemsky Sobors are the central class-representative institution of Russia in the mid-16th and 17th centuries. The appearance of zemstvo councils is an indicator of the unification of Russian lands into a single state, the weakening of the princely-boyar aristocracy, the growth of the political importance of the nobility and, in part, the upper classes of the town. The first Zemsky Sobors were convened in the mid-16th century, during the years of intensified class struggle, especially in cities. Popular uprisings forced the feudal lords to rally to pursue policies that strengthened state power and the economic and political position of the ruling class. Not all zemstvo councils were properly organized class-representative assemblies. Many of them were convened so urgently that there could be no question of choosing local representatives to participate in them. In such cases, in addition to the “consecrated cathedral” (the highest clergy), the Boyar Duma, the capital’s servicemen and commercial and industrial people, persons who happened to be in Moscow on official and other business spoke on behalf of the district servicemen. There were no legislative acts defining the procedure for selecting representatives to the councils, although the idea of ​​them arose.

The Zemsky Sobor included the Tsar, the Boyar Duma, the entire Consecrated Cathedral, representatives of the nobility, the upper classes of the townspeople (merchants, large merchants), i.e. candidates of the three classes. The Zemsky Sobor as a representative body was bicameral. The upper chamber included the Tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Council, who were not elected, but participated in it in accordance with their position. Members of the lower house were elected. The procedure for elections to the Council was as follows. From the Discharge Order, the governors received instructions on elections, which were read to the residents of the cities and peasants. After this, class elective lists were compiled, although the number of representatives was not fixed. Voters gave instructions to their elected officials. However, elections were not always held. There were cases when, during an urgent convocation of a council, representatives were invited by the king or local officials. In the Zemsky Sobor, a significant role was played by the nobles (the main service class, the basis of the royal army), and especially merchants, since the solution of monetary problems to provide funds for state needs, especially defense, depended on their participation in this state body and military. Thus, in the Zemsky Sobors a policy of compromise between different layers of the ruling class was manifested.

The regularity and duration of meetings of the Zemsky Sobors were not regulated in advance and depended on the circumstances and the importance and content of the issues discussed. In some cases, the Zemsky Sobors functioned continuously. They resolved the main issues of foreign and domestic policy, legislation, finance, and state building. Issues were discussed by estate (in chambers), each estate submitted its written opinion, and then, as a result of their generalization, a conciliar verdict was drawn up, accepted by the entire composition of the Council. Thus, government authorities had the opportunity to identify the opinions of individual classes and groups of the population. But in general, the Council acted in close connection with the tsarist government and the Duma. Councils met on Red Square, in the Patriarchal Chambers or the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, and later in the Golden Chamber or the Dining Hut.

It must be said that the zemstvo councils, as feudal institutions, did not include the bulk of the population - the enslaved peasantry. Historians suggest that only a single time, at the council of 1613, was apparently attended by a small number of representatives of the Black Sowing peasants.

In addition to the name “Zemsky Sobor”, this representative institution in the Moscow state had other names: “Council of the Whole Earth”, “Cathedral”, “General Council”, “Great Zemstvo Duma”.

The idea of ​​conciliarity began to develop in the middle of the 16th century. The first Zemsky Sobor was convened in Russia in 1549 and went down in history as the Council of Reconciliation. The reason for its convocation was the uprising of the townspeople in Moscow in 1547. Frightened by this event, the tsar and feudal lords attracted not only boyars and nobles to participate in this Council, but also representatives of other segments of the population, which created the appearance of involving not only gentlemen, but also the third estate, thanks to which the dissatisfied were somewhat calmed down.

Based on available documents, historians believe that about 50 Zemsky Councils took place.

The Hundred-Capital Council of 1551 and the Council of 1566 had the most complex and representative structure.

At the beginning of the 17th century, during the years of mass popular movements and the Polish-Swedish intervention, the “Council of the Whole Earth” was convened, a continuation of which was essentially the Zemsky Sobor of 1613, which elected the first Romanov, Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-45), to the throne. During his reign, zemstvo councils operated almost continuously, which did a lot to strengthen the state and royal power. After Patriarch Filaret returned from captivity, they began to gather less often. Councils were convened at this time mainly in cases where the state was in danger of war, and the question of raising funds arose or other issues of internal politics arose. Thus, the cathedral in 1642 decided the issue of surrendering Azov, captured by the Don Cossacks, to the Turks in 1648-1649. After the uprising in Moscow, a council was convened to draw up the Code; the council in 1650 was devoted to the issue of the uprising in Pskov.

At meetings of zemstvo councils, the most important state issues were discussed. Zemstvo councils were convened to confirm the throne or elect a king - councils of 1584, 1598, 1613, 1645, 1676, 1682.

The reforms during the reign of the Elected Rada are associated with the Zemstvo Councils of 1549, 1550, with the Zemstvo Councils of 1648-1649 (at this Council there was the largest number of local representatives in history), the conciliar decision of 1682 approved the abolition of localism.

With the help of Z. s. the government introduced new taxes and modified old ones. Z.s. discussed the most important issues of foreign policy, especially in connection with the danger of war, the need to gather troops, and the means of waging it. These issues were discussed constantly, starting with Z. s. 1566, convened in connection with the Livonian War, and ending with the councils of 1683-84 on “eternal peace” with Poland. Sometimes on W. s. Issues that were not planned in advance were also raised: at the council of 1566, its participants raised the question of abolishing the oprichnina, on Z. s. 1642, convened to discuss issues about Azov, - about the situation of Moscow and city nobles.

Zemsky Sobors played an important role in the political life of the country. The tsarist government relied on them in the fight against the remnants of feudal fragmentation; with their help, the ruling class of feudal lords tried to weaken the class struggle.

Since the middle of the 17th century, the activities of Z. s. gradually freezes. This is explained by the affirmation of absolutism, and is also due to the fact that the nobles and partly the townspeople achieved satisfaction of their demands with the publication of the Council Code of 1649, and the danger of mass urban uprisings weakened.

The Zemsky Sobor of 1653, which discussed the issue of reunification of Ukraine with Russia, can be considered the last. The practice of convening zemstvo councils ceased because they played a role in strengthening and developing the centralized feudal state. In 1648--1649. the nobility achieved satisfaction of its basic demands. The aggravation of the class struggle encouraged the nobility to rally around the autocratic government, which ensured its interests.

In the second half of the 17th century. the government sometimes convened commissions of representatives of individual classes to discuss matters that directly affected them. In 1660 and 1662--1663. guests and elected officials from the Moscow tax authorities were gathered for a meeting with the boyars on the issue of the monetary and economic crisis. In 1681 - 1682 one commission of service people considered the issue of organizing troops, another commission of trade people considered the issue of taxation. In 1683, a council was convened to discuss the issue of “eternal peace” with Poland. This cathedral consisted of representatives of only one service class, which clearly indicated the dying of class-representative institutions.

THE LARGEST ZEMSKY Cathedrals

In the 16th century, a fundamentally new government body arose in Russia - the Zemsky Sobor. Klyuchevsky V.O. wrote about the cathedrals: “a political body that arose in close connection with local institutions of the 16th century. and in which the central government met with representatives of local societies.”

Zemsky Sobor 1549

This cathedral went down in history as the “Cathedral of Reconciliation.” This is a meeting convened by Ivan the Terrible in February 1549. His goal was to find a compromise between the nobility, who supported the state, and the most conscious part of the boyars. The Council was of great importance for politics, but its role also lies in the fact that it opened a “new page” in the system of government. The Tsar’s adviser on the most important issues is not the Boyar Duma, but the all-class Zemsky Sobor.

Direct information about this cathedral has been preserved in the Continuation of the Chronograph of the 1512 edition.

It can be assumed that the council of 1549 did not deal with specific disputes about lands and serfs between the boyars and the boyars’ children or the facts of violence inflicted by the boyars on petty employees. Apparently, the discussion was about the general political course in Grozny’s early childhood. Favoring the dominance of the landowning nobility, this course undermined the integrity of the ruling class and exacerbated class contradictions.

The record of the cathedral is protocol and schematic. It is impossible to discern from it whether there were debates and in what directions they went.

The procedure of the council of 1549 can to some extent be judged by the charter of the Zemsky Sobor of 1566, which is close in form to the document underlying the chronicle text of 1549.

Stoglavy Cathedral 1551.

Klyuchevsky writes about this council: “In the next 1551, for the organization of church administration and the religious and moral life of the people, a large church council was convened, usually called Stoglav, after the number of chapters in which its deeds were summarized in a special book, in Stoglav. At this council, by the way, the king’s own “scripture” was read and a speech was also made by him.”

The Stoglavy Council of 1551 is a council of the Russian Church, convened on the initiative of the Tsar and the Metropolitan. The Consecrated Cathedral, the Boyar Duma and the Elected Rada participated in it in full. It received this name because its decisions were formulated in one hundred chapters, reflecting the changes associated with the centralization of the state. Based on local saints revered in individual Russian lands, an all-Russian list of saints was compiled. Rituals were unified throughout the country. The Council approved the adoption of the Code of Law of 1550 and the reforms of Ivan IV.

The Council of 1551 acts as a “council” of church and royal authorities. This “council” was based on a community of interests aimed at protecting the feudal system, social and ideological domination over the people, and suppressing all forms of their resistance. But the advice often cracked, because the interests of the church and the state, the spiritual and secular feudal lords did not always coincide in everything.

Stoglav is a collection of decisions of the Stoglav Council, a kind of code of legal norms of the internal life of the Russian clergy and its reciprocity with society and the state. In addition, Stoglav contained a number of family law norms, for example, it consolidated the power of the husband over his wife and the father over children, and determined the age of marriage (15 years for men, 12 for women). It is characteristic that the Stoglav mentions three legal codes according to which court cases were decided between church people and laity: Sudebnik, the royal charter and Stoglav.

Zemsky Sobor of 1566 on the continuation of the war with the Polish-Lithuanian state.

In June 1566, a Zemstvo Sobor was convened in Moscow on war and peace with the Polish-Lithuanian state. This is the first Zemstvo Sobor from which an authentic document (“charter”) has reached us.

Klyuchevsky writes about this council: “... was convened during the war with Poland for Livonia, when the government wanted to know the opinion of the officials on the question of whether to reconcile on the terms proposed by the Polish king.”

The Council of 1566 was the most representative from a social point of view. Five curiae were formed on it, uniting different segments of the population (clergy, boyars, clerks, nobility and merchants).

Electoral council and council on the abolition of Tarkhanov in 1584

This council decided to abolish church and monastic tarkhanov (tax benefits). The charter of 1584 draws attention to the dire consequences of the Tarkhans' policy for the economic situation of service people.

The council decided: “for the sake of military rank and impoverishment, the Tarkhans should be dismissed.” This measure was temporary in nature: until the sovereign’s decree - “for now, the land will be settled and the tsar’s inspection will help in everything.”

The goals of the new code were defined as the desire to combine the interests of the treasury and service people.

The Council of 1613 opens a new period in the activities of zemstvo councils, into which they enter as established bodies of class representation, playing a role in public life, actively participating in resolving issues of domestic and foreign policy.

Zemsky Sobors 1613-1615.

During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich. It is clear from known materials that in a situation of unabated open class struggle and unfinished Polish and Swedish intervention, the supreme power needed the constant assistance of the estates in carrying out measures to suppress the anti-feudal movement, restore the country's economy, which was severely undermined during the Time of Troubles, replenish the state treasury, and strengthen the military forces , solving foreign policy problems.

Council of 1642 on the issue of Azov.

It was convened in connection with an appeal to the government of the Don Cossacks, with a request to take Azov, which they had captured, under their protection. The Council was supposed to discuss the question: whether to agree to this proposal and, if agreed, with what forces and with what means to wage war with Turkey.

It is difficult to say how this council ended, whether there was a conciliar verdict. But the cathedral of 1642 played a role in further measures to protect the borders of the Russian state from Turkish aggression, and in the development of the class system in Russia.

Since the middle of the 17th century, the activities of Z. s. gradually fades away, because the cathedral of 1648-1649. and the adoption of the “Conciliar Code” resolved a number of issues.

The last of the cathedrals can be considered the Zemsky Sobor on peace with Poland in 1683-1684. (although a number of studies talk about the cathedral of 1698). The task of the council was to approve the “resolution” on “eternal peace” and “union” (when it is worked out). However, it turned out to be fruitless and did not bring anything positive to the Russian state. This is not an accident or simple bad luck. A new era had arrived, requiring other, more efficient and flexible methods for solving foreign policy (as well as other) issues.

If cathedrals at one time played a positive role in state centralization, now they had to give way to the class institutions of emerging absolutism.

CATHEDRAL CODE OF 1649

In 1648-1649, the Lay Council was convened, during which the Cathedral Code was created.

The publication of the Council Code of 1649 dates back to the reign of the feudal-serf system.

Numerous studies by pre-revolutionary authors (Shmelev, Latkin, Zabelin, etc.) provide mainly formal reasons for explaining the reasons for drawing up the Code of 1649, such as, for example, the need to create unified legislation in the Russian state, etc.

However, the true reasons that caused the convening of the Zemsky Sobor and the creation of the Code were the historical events of that period, namely the strengthening of the class struggle of the exploited people against the serf owners and merchants.

The question of the role of class representatives in the creation of the Code of 1649 has long been the subject of research. A number of works quite convincingly show the active nature of the activities of the “elected people” at the council, who presented petitions and sought their satisfaction.

The preface to the Code provides official sources that were used in the preparation of the Code:

1. “Rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers,” i.e., church decrees of ecumenical and local councils;

2. “City laws of the Greek kings”, i.e. Byzantine law;

3. Decrees of former “great sovereigns, tsars and great princes of Russia” and boyar sentences, collated with old codes of law.

satisfied the requirements of the main support of tsarism - the masses of the serving nobility, securing for them the right to own land and serfs. That is why tsarist legislation not only allocates a special chapter 11, “The Court of Peasants,” but also in a number of other chapters repeatedly returns to the issue of the legal status of the peasantry. Long before the approval of the Code by tsarist legislation, although the right of peasant transition or “exit” was abolished, in practice this right could not always be applied, since there were “timetables” or “decree years” for bringing a claim for fugitives; tracking down the fugitives was mainly the job of the owners themselves. Therefore, the question of abolishing school years was one of the fundamental issues, the resolution of which would create for the serf owners all the conditions for the complete enslavement of broad sections of the peasantry. Finally, the question of the serfdom of the peasant family: children, brothers and nephews was unresolved.

Large landowners sheltered the fugitives on their estates, and while the landowners sued for the return of the peasants, the period of “lesson years” expired. That is why the nobility, in their petitions to the tsar, demanded the abolition of “lesson years,” which was done in the code of 1649. Issues related to the final enslavement of all layers of the peasantry, the complete deprivation of their rights in socio-political and property status are mainly concentrated in Chapter 11 of the Code.

The Council Code consists of 25 chapters, divided into 967 articles, without any specific system. The construction of the chapters and articles of each of them was determined by the socio-political tasks facing legislation during the period of further development of serfdom in Russia.

For example, the first chapter is devoted to the fight against crimes against the fundamentals of the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, which was the bearer of the ideology of the serfdom. The articles of the chapter protect and secure the integrity of the church and its religious practices.

Chapters 2 (22 articles) and 3 (9 articles) describe crimes directed against the personality of the king, his honor and health, as well as crimes committed on the territory of the royal court.

Chapters 4 (4 articles) and 5 (2 articles) include in a special section such crimes as forgery of documents, seals, and counterfeiting.

Chapters 6, 7 and 8 characterize new elements of state crimes related to treason, criminal acts of persons in military service, and the established procedure for the ransom of prisoners.

Chapter 9 covers financial issues relating to both the state and private individuals - feudal lords.

Chapter 10 deals primarily with legal issues. It covers in detail the norms of procedural law, which generalize not only previous legislation, but also the broad practice of the feudal judicial system of Russia in the 16th - mid-17th centuries.

Chapter 11 characterizes the legal status of serfs and black-footed peasants, etc.

PERIODIZATION OF THE HISTORY OF ZEMSKY SOBRAH

History of Z. s. can be divided into 6 periods (according to L.V. Cherepnin).

The first period is the time of Ivan the Terrible (from 1549). Councils convened by royal power. 1566 - council convened on the initiative of the estates.

The second period can begin with the death of Ivan the Terrible (1584). This was the time when the preconditions for civil war and foreign intervention were taking shape, and a crisis of autocracy was emerging. The councils mainly performed the function of electing the kingdom, and sometimes became an instrument of forces hostile to Russia.

The third period is characterized by the fact that zemstvo councils under militias turn into the supreme body of power (both legislative and executive), resolving issues of domestic and foreign policy. This is the time when Z. s. played the largest and most progressive role in public life.

The chronological framework of the fourth period is 1613-1622. The councils act almost continuously, but already as an advisory body under the royal power. Many questions of current reality pass through them. The government seeks to rely on them when carrying out financial activities (collecting five-day money), restoring the damaged economy, eliminating the consequences of the intervention and preventing new aggression from Poland.

Fifth period - 1632 - 1653. Councils meet relatively rarely, but on major issues of internal politics (drawing up a code, the uprising in Pskov (1650)) and external (Russian-Polish, Russian-Crimean relations, annexation of Ukraine, the question of Azov). During this period, speeches by class groups intensified, presenting demands to the government, in addition to cathedrals, also through petitions.

The last period (after 1653 and before 1683-1684) is the time of fading of cathedrals (a slight rise marked the eve of their fall - the beginning of the 80s of the 18th century).

CLASSIFICATION OF ZEMSKY SOBRAS

Moving on to the problems of classification, Cherepnin divides all cathedrals, primarily from the point of view of their socio-political significance, into four groups:

1) Councils convened by the king;

2) Councils convened by the king on the initiative of the estates;

3) Councils convened by estates or on the initiative of estates in the absence of the king;

4) Councils electing the kingdom.

The majority of cathedrals belong to the first group. The second group should include the cathedral of 1648, which gathered, as the source directly states, in response to petitions to the tsar from people of “high rank,” as well as, probably, a number of cathedrals during the time of Mikhail Fedorovich. The third group includes the council of 1565, at which the issue of the oprichnina was raised, the “sentence” of June 30, 1611, the “council of the whole earth” of 1611 and 1611-1613. Electoral councils (the fourth group) met for the election and approval of the kingdom of Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Mikhail Romanov, Peter and Ivan Alekseevich, and also, probably, Fyodor Ivanovich, Alexei Mikhailovich.

Of course, there are conditional points in the proposed classification. The cathedrals of the third and fourth groups, for example, are close in purpose. However, establishing who and why the council was convened is a fundamentally important basis for classification, helping to understand the relationship between the autocracy and the estates in an estate-representative monarchy.

If we now take a closer look at the issues dealt with by the councils convened by the tsarist authorities, then, first of all, we must single out four of them, which approved the implementation of major government reforms: judicial, administrative, financial and military. These are the cathedrals of 1549, 1619, 1648, 1681-1682. Thus, the history of zemstvo councils is closely connected with the general political history of the country. The given dates fall on the key moments in her life: the reforms of Grozny, the restoration of the state apparatus after the civil war of the early 17th century, the creation of the Council Code, the preparation of Peter the Great's reforms. The fate of the political structure of the country was devoted, for example, to the meetings of the estates in 1565, when Ivan the Terrible left for Alexandrov Sloboda, and the verdict passed by the Zemsky Sobor on June 30, 1611, in the “stateless time” (these are also acts of general historical significance ).

Electoral councils are a kind of political chronicle, depicting not only the change of persons on the throne, but also the social and state changes caused by this.

The content of the activities of some zemstvo councils was the fight against popular movements. The government directed councils to fight, which was carried out using means of ideological influence, which were sometimes combined with military and administrative measures used by the state. In 1614, on behalf of the Zemsky Sobor, letters were sent to the Cossacks who had abandoned the government with an exhortation to come into submission. In 1650, the representative of the Zemsky Sobor itself went to rebellious Pskov with persuasion.

The most frequently discussed issues at the councils were foreign policy and the tax system (mainly in connection with military needs). Thus, the biggest problems facing the Russian state were discussed at the meetings of the councils, and somehow the statements that this happened purely formally and the government could not take into account the decisions of the councils are not very convincing.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no special archival fund where the documents of the zemstvo councils were deposited. They are extracted, first of all, from the funds of those institutions of the 18th century that were in charge of organizing the convening and holding of councils: the Ambassadorial Prikaz (which included the Tsar's archive of the 16th century), the Discharge, and the Quarters. All documents can be divided into two groups: monuments depicting the activities of the cathedrals, and materials for the election of delegates.

Zemsky Sobors of the 16th-17th centuries, of course, played a significant role in the history of the development of the Russian state (in political and social life), since they were one of the first representative institutions in Russia. Many of them left a number of legal monuments (such as the Council Code of 1649, “Stoglav” and a number of others), which are of great interest to historians.

Thus, the role of the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649. in the evolution of autocracy is as significant as the council of 1549. The latter stands at its initial stage, the first marks the final forms of centralization. Depending on the participation of zemstvo councils in the election of the tsar, an assessment of the legality of their occupation of the throne is given. During popular uprisings, the Zemstvo Sobor was one of the supreme state bodies (it had both legislative and executive prerogatives).

Tsars were elected at the councils: in 1584 - Fyodor Ioannovich, in 1598 - Boris Godunov, in 1613 - Mikhail Romanov, etc.

Many historians have participated and are participating in the work on the history of the development of zemstvo cathedrals in the 16th and 17th centuries; this is a rather interesting topic. There are many articles and monographs on this topic; in the works of such famous historians as V. O. Klyuchevsky, S. M. Solovyov, cathedrals of the 16-17 centuries also receive significant attention.

ZEMSKY Cathedrals- the highest class-representative institutions with legislative functions, meetings of representatives of the city, regional, commercial and service classes, which appeared at the call of the Moscow government to resolve the most important administrative and political matters in the mid-16th–17th centuries. They included members of the Consecrated Council (archbishops, bishops and others headed by the metropolitan, and from 1589 - by the patriarch, that is, the high-ranking clergy), the Boyar Duma and Duma clerks, the “sovereign court”, elected from the provincial nobility and the top citizens. During the 135 years of its existence (1549–1684), 57 councils were convened. Until 1598, all councils were advisory; after the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, electoral councils began to be convened. According to the method of convening, zemstvo councils were divided into those convened by the tsar; convened by the tsar on the initiative of the “people” (we could only talk about its elite, since there were no representatives from the largest class - the peasants - at most councils, except 1613 and 1682); convened by estates or on the initiative of estates in the absence of the king; electoral for the kingdom.

The emergence of zemstvo councils was the result of the unification of the Russian lands into a single state at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, the weakening of the influence of the princely-boyar aristocracy on the central government, and the growth of the political importance of the nobility and upper towns. The convening of the first Zemsky Sobor in 1549 coincides with the beginning of the reform period in the reign of Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible and the sharp aggravation of the social confrontation between the “lower classes” and the “higher classes” of society, especially in the capital, with which it was accompanied. Social conflicts forced the privileged elite of society to unite to pursue policies that strengthened their economic and political position and state power. The Zemsky Sobor arose as a nationwide analogue of the city councils that existed in large county towns earlier. The first meeting of the Zemsky Sobor lasted two days, there were three speeches by the tsar, speeches by the boyars, and finally, a meeting of the boyar duma took place, which decided that the governors would not have jurisdiction over boyar children. The history of Zemsky Sobors began with this event. Starting from this first meeting, discussions began to be held in two “chambers”: the first was made up of boyars, okolnichy, butlers, and treasurers, the second was made up of governors, princes, boyar children, and great nobles.

In the further history of zemstvo cathedrals, six periods are distinguished: 1549–1584 (during the reign of Ivan the Terrible), 1584–1610 (the period of the so-called “interregnum”), 1610–1613 (the period of transformation of cathedrals into the most important part of the state administrative system, since the convening of the council in 1613 , who elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne, was a logical consequence of the creation of the Council of the Whole Land in Yaroslavl during the years of the struggle against the Polish and Swedish interventionists; at the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 there were representatives even from the Black Sosh peasantry), 1613–1622 (the period of the formation of cathedrals only as advisory bodies). No councils met in 1622–1632. The period 1632–1653 is marked by rare references to councils, which were now convened only to resolve the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy: adoption Cathedral Code in 1649, reunification of Ukraine with Russia in 1653, etc. The last period, 1653–1684, was a period of declining importance of convening zemstvo councils, strengthening the features of absolutism in the system of Russian autocratic government.

The convening of the council was carried out by a letter of conscription, issued by the tsar to well-known persons and localities. The letter contained the agenda items and the number of elected officials. If the number was not determined, it was decided by the population itself.

Elections of representatives to zemstvo councils (the number of members was not determined and ranged from 200 to 500 people) took place in district towns and provincial towns in the form of meetings of certain ranks. The electors were convened by sending letters to the cities, which - with their counties - constituted electoral districts. Only those who paid taxes to the treasury, as well as people who served, could participate in the elections held by estate. At the end of the elections, minutes of the meeting were drawn up and certified by all those participating in the elections. The protocol was sent to the Ambassadorial or Discharge Order.

The electors took with them the necessary supply of provisions or money, which the electors supplied them with. Salaries were not paid to elected officials, but petitions for payment of salaries were met. Meetings of councils could last for years, so it was extremely important to stock up on everything necessary for the election. Only wealthy people could afford to be elected (a kind of obstacle for the poor).

Each Zemsky Sobor opened with a solemn service in the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral, sometimes religious processions took place, after which a solemn meeting of the cathedral took place in its entirety. The king gave a speech. Afterwards, deliberative sessions of the elected officials were held among themselves. Each class sat separately. Voting on main issues took place in special “chambers” (rooms). Often, at the end of the Zemsky Assembly, a joint meeting of the entire cathedral was held. Decisions were usually made unanimously. At the closing of the cathedral, the tsar gave a gala dinner for the elect.

The competence of Zemsky Sobors was very extensive. They resolved the issues of electing a new tsar to the kingdom (in 1584, the Zemsky Sobor elected Fyodor Ioanovich, in 1682, at the last council, Peter I was elected). The role of zemstvo councils in matters of codification of law is known (the Code of Law of 1550, the Council Code of 1649 were adopted by the Councils). The councils were also in charge of issues of war and peace, internal and tax administration. "Church dispensation" during the years of the schism. The councils also had the formal right of legislative initiative. The variety of functions of zemstvo councils gives grounds for modern researchers to see in them not so much representative institutions as bureaucratic ones (S.O. Schmidt).

Zemsky councils disappeared (no longer convened) as a result of the strengthening of autocracy and the strengthening of tsarist power during the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

Natalia Pushkareva

Ticket number 20 – Zemsky Sobors of the Moscow State

Zemsky Councils are representative institutions, bodies of general government, personifying the entire Russian state. It is worth noting that they were of a different nature than representative bodies in the West. The Legislature has an ideological (participation of the people in power) and factual connection with the veche (they were a replacement), but is not a historical continuation, and are also opposite in composition. Spiritual councils became the progenitors of the Legislature.

compound:

The king is present and presides or replaces himself with an authorized person (1682).

Boyar Duma. The BD is, as it were, the upper house, and not a representative of the interests of its class.

- the clergy (Metropolitan, then Patriarch - Consecrated Cathedral), represents not their class, but the interests of the church in the state and the national interests.

Boyar children,

Posad people,

Black-footed peasants (present only at the Councils of 1613 and 1682)

Heads and centurions of archers, elders and sotskys from black hundreds and settlements,

Atamans from the Cossacks, Tatar Murzas, guests and trading people;

As for the territorial principle, almost all counties were represented at the Councils (in 1613 Siberia was also represented).

Zemsky Sobors simultaneously represented unique legislative and executive bodies, because their members, as a rule, confirmed by oath their obligation to carry out the decisions taken at the Councils.

Zemsky Sobors were classified into :

advisory , which, in principle, were all the Councils until 1598 (suppression of the family of Ivan Kalita)

electoral - V.N. Latkin.

According to the method of convening they were divided into – L.V. Cherepnin:

Called by the king

Convened by the king on the initiative of the population

Convened by the population/on its initiative in the absence of the king.

Convocation and elections to the Zemsky Sobor:

The convening of the Council was carried out conscription letter, sent from the king to famous persons and localities. The charter contained a list of issues that would be discussed at the Council; The charter also indicated the number of electors required from a given group or locality. The terms of the convocation have not been determined.

The electoral district consisted of a city with a district, as well as a provincial state. Full tax payers and those in service took part in the elective meetings. At the end of the elections, a protocol was drawn up, certified by all those who took part in the elections, and sent to Moscow (to the Ambassadorial or Discharge Prikaz). Local authorities were strictly prohibited from interfering in the elections.

The electors were forbidden to leave Moscow during the meeting of the Council.

The procedure for holding the Zemsky Sobor:

The cathedral opened with a solemn service in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Next came a meeting of the Council in full, where the royal speech was delivered. The theme of the council was announced and a report was given on the implementation of the previous decision. Afterwards, deliberative meetings of the elected representatives took place - for each class separately.

Each part of the council deliberates separately and submits its (written) opinion when the discussion is finished. Each member of the council could submit a separate opinion.

The decisions were framed as a “fairy tale”. The decision could only be made unanimously! If not, then a joint meeting. The same is true at the level of the entire cathedral.

Competence of Zemsky Sobors:

election of a new tsar and a new dynasty: the first elected tsar Fyodor Ioannovich (1584), the last - Peter I (1682); the chosen dynasties are the Godunovs, Shuiskys, Romanovs-Yuryevs;

exercise of the Supreme legislative power (the Code of Laws was adopted at the Councils in 1550 and the Code in 1649);

issues of war and peace;

issues of church structure (competition with the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church)

tax management issues. An example is the introduction of 5th money in 1634;

issues of maintaining and developing the domestic national economy. During the Time of Troubles, the Zemsky Sobor generally assumed the fullness of the Supreme Power in Russia.

the right of petitions, which later developed into the formal right of legislative initiative, was highlighted by M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov.

It went through several stages of development along the way. The first Council was convened in 1549, and the last in 1684. (57 Councils were convened in just 135 years). Their beginning in the 16th century served as a measure to strengthen power, shaken by boyar infighting. Then councils were convened only on key issues of the state, which determined its fate. Then, as power strengthened, their importance fell. In the period from 1653-1676, Alexei Mikhailovich did not convene the Legislative Assembly, this is due to the fact that SUTSAM calmed legislative requests. The last one was convened under Peter, because Among the new institutions of the reformer and thanks to the establishment of absolutism, there was no place for zemstvo councils.

The idea of ​​convening the Legislative Assembly under conditions of absolutism did not die; they wanted to create a new Council Code: Legislative and Statutory Commissions. Subsequently - 1811 - attempts at reform by Speransky, who was accused of being a French spy. The last major attempt - 1880-1881 - Manifesto for the convening of business people. Finally, the idea of ​​the Zemsky Sobor, reworked in a Western rationalist manner, served as an impetus for the constitutional reform of 1906. Zemsky Sobors played an important role in bringing the government closer to the people, collectively resolving the issue, strengthening the weakened government, and gave impetus to the further development of the idea of ​​​​representation in Russia.

The difference between Zemsky Sobors and the representative bodies of Western Europe:

The very fact of the existence of the Zemsky Sobor served as proof for Soviet historiography that Russia was following the same path as the West. In the late Middle Ages (14-16 centuries), an estate-representative monarchy emerged, which in the 17th century in Europe turned into an absolutist monarchy, which, after going through a revolution, turned into a constitutional monarchy or a bourgeois state. This gave Soviet historians the opportunity to believe that the October Revolution was a pattern.

To what extent does the GS correspond to an estate-representative monarchy? If we compare the competencies of the Legislative Assembly and Western authorities, we will find a lot in common.

The first similarity is finance. The Legislative Assembly approves all taxes. The second is that the Legislative Assembly and Western authorities adopt laws common to the entire state. Finally, the general question of competence is the question of war and peace. This is where the similarity ends.

The composition of the AP is different from the composition of the class representation in Europe. The basis of representation is the estate, when in Rus' the estate is a phenomenon of too late a kind. Estates in Russia appeared in the 18th century, during the era of absolutism.

In Western Europe, a class is a closed group of people, the concept of closedness is reinforced by exogamous marriages. A general profession that is inherited within a class. It is impossible to bypass the class norm; a violator of these norms faces complete abstraction among his class, he is not recognized as his equal. Opposition of classes to the state and protection of rights before state power. In the West, the estate-representative monarchy is the result of the political struggle of estates.

Legally, the entire free population of the Moscow state is a service population; it serves the state. Any black-growing peasant is a government official. In Rus', the main distinctive feature of classes has not developed; the population is not opposed to the state, it is obliged to serve. In Russia, representation is not a privilege, but a type of service. Therefore, the Zemsky Sobor becomes a special institution in which the state sees itself as in a mirror. In our country, the appearance of the Zemsky Sobor is the result of “administrative need.”