Approximately from the half of the 16th century, for more than a century, we have seen an institution in the Muscovite state, which in the historical monuments of that time is called the “council of all the earth”, “all the earth”, “the common council of all Rus' cities”, “the whole earth by people” or simply "cathedral". In science, this institution is usually called the “Zemsky Sobor”.

Approximately from the half of the 16th century, for more than a century, we have seen an institution in the Muscovite state, which in the historical monuments of that time is called the “council of all the earth”, “all the earth”, “the common council of all Rus' cities”, “the whole earth by people” or simply "cathedral". In science, this institution is usually called the “Zemsky Sobor”.

Origin of cathedrals

Some scholars are inclined to see the beginning of zemstvo sobors in veches, others in princely congresses, in meetings between the prince and the duma, with spiritual authorities and "city people", in church cathedrals or in city worlds. Indeed, the emergence of zemstvo sobors was associated with the listed phenomena of Russian life, but only in theory, and it is hardly possible to speak of an organic connection with one of these phenomena. Some phenomenon in Russian history, perhaps the congresses of servicemen in Moscow, could have led to the immediate appearance of zemstvo sobors. In any case, the Zemsky Sobors were worked out by life itself, and did not appear unexpectedly, at the will of one person, because in such a case, the monuments of their time would not be slow to note this innovation, which, in fact, we do not see. The formation of zemstvo sobors was obviously most influenced by church sobors, which had long been established and operated in Russia.

Cathedral ideas.

The views of contemporaries could not but render strong influence on the education and history of Zemsky Sobors. "Conversation of Rev. Series and Herman, the Valaam wonderworkers", dating back to the time after the middle of the 16th century, insists that the tsar should govern the state "with the princes and with the boyars and with other laity", and "befits with the world in all things to know the tsar himself, with by their own authorities, and not from the monks. "According to the "Other Tale", compiled after the "Conversations ...", probably during the oprichina, the clergy should bless the kings to convene a "unanimous ecumenical council ... from all their cities and counties of those cities,” the tsar should “keep this advice unceasingly weather-wise with him, and himself from all sorts of people and every day of their goodness, ask the tsar himself about the whole year’s fast and about the repentance of this world and about every business of this world.” Kurbsky, corresponding with Grozny , argued that the king needed to have with him “the advice of people of all people". Unfortunately, these testimonies have been preserved from a rather late time, from the middle of the 16th century, but there is no doubt that such views existed in the minds of people even earlier than the 16th century. These ideas is nothing more than a modification of those views of the warriors of ancient Russia, according to which the prince was obliged to confer with his soldiers. The unification of Moscow, the increase in troops and the change in their organization and in the administration of the state - all this naturally led to the development of these views of ancient Rus' into those forms that we have been meeting with since the middle of the 16th century.

Cathedrals in the 16th century

Thus, both the actual content of Russian life and the ideological views of our ancestors served as quite fertile soil for the institution that emerges quite clearly before our eyes after the middle of the sixteenth century. It will hardly be a mistake if we consider the meeting of 1471 as one of the precedents of the zemstvo sobors, when Ivan III sent "over all the bishops of his land and over the princes and over his boyars and over the governors, and over all his howls", and when they gathered, then all of them, "thinking ... not a little" about the campaign against Novgorod, decided to go to war with him. This kind of meeting of the boyars (Boyar Duma), the clergy (the "consecrated cathedral"), and wars, or, in other words, servicemen, we see in the 16th century. In 1550 a "council of reconciliation" was held, as academician Zhdanov called it; most likely, it was not a cathedral in the real sense, but only a meeting of the clergy, servants, petitioners who arrived at that time in the capital, and residents of Moscow. In 1551, the Stoglavy church council was convened, which was attended by "princes and boyars and warriors" next to the clergy, so this cathedral was acad. Zhdanov rightly considered "church-zemstvo", especially since the council dealt not only with church issues, but also with purely zemstvo ones. In 1566, on the issue of a truce with Poland and Lithuania, a council met, mainly consisting of secular officials. This is the first zemsky sobor, about which accurate information about its composition and conciliar act have come down to us. In 1598, a Zemsky Sobor was held to elect Godunov.

Cathedrals in the 17th century

Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. the thought stirred up, "and the great Russian kingdom was shaken like a sea." Time of Troubles contributed to the development of independence in the Russian people and informed the electoral beginning great importance. The most important cathedrals of the XVII century. were: the council of 1613, which elected Michael, 1642, which met on the issue of Azov, and in 1649, convened to draw up the Code. The Council of 1653, which discussed the issue of accepting Little Russia, was the last complete Zemstvo Council. After it, we can note the council of 1682, which elected Peter, and then John, as well as the council of 1698, which judged Sophia, and which only one foreigner reports - Korb.

number of cathedrals.

It is impossible to establish the exact number of cathedrals, because the monuments do not always allow us to fully establish whether we are dealing in this case with a Zemstvo sobor or simply with a conference or a random meeting of certain groups of people. Prof. Sergeevich believed that all cathedrals from the middle of the 16th century. by 1653 there were 16, and distributed them between individual reigns as follows: under Ivan the Terrible - 2, under Vasily Shuisky - 1, under Mikhail Fedorovich -9, under Alexei Mikhailovich - 4; under Fyodor Alekseevich, 2 were convened, but not nationwide; in addition, there were 3 more electoral councils and 1, which deposed Shuisky. Other scholars give a different list of cathedrals; for example, Latkin believes that relatively complete cathedrals for the entire 16th and 17th centuries. there were 20, and all councils (relatively complete, incomplete and fictitious) - 32. Only one thing is certain that the largest number cathedrals falls on the reign of Michael. Thus, the time of the first Romanov was the golden age of Zemstvo sobors.

composition of cathedrals.

An essential issue in the history of zemstvo sobors is the question of their composition. The “Council of All the Earth,” that is, the Zemsky Sobor, was composed of three elements: the boyar duma, that is, from the permanent council of the sovereign, the “consecrated cathedral,” that is, from the highest clergy headed by the metropolitan, and later patriarch, and, finally, from zemstvo people, which included military servicemen or other service people and elected from taxpayers. From similar cathedrals one should distinguish cathedrals that were formed by chance, where the Muscovite people participated in resolving the issue, for example, the cathedral of 1606, when the boyars elected Shuisky and offered him to the people; such cathedrals are reminiscent of the vecha of ancient Rus'; on the other hand, one should also distinguish those councils that consisted of only one estate, for example, the council of 1682, at which service people were present and decided on the destruction of localism.

As part of the cathedrals of the XVI century. one can hardly see the elective element in the sense in which it is now understood. These councils were made up of service people whom the government convened to resolve certain issues; in other words, these councils were composed of government agents. The official position of the boyar duma and the "consecrated cathedral", which were part of the zemstvo sobors, is self-evident; the nobles who were at the cathedrals of the 16th century carried out some kind of military or administrative service, that is, they were also officials; the participation of merchants in the cathedrals was also of an official nature, because the guests served in the financial part, and the elders and sotsk merchant hundreds, by the nature of their activities, were part of the state administration. Thus, the cathedrals of the 16th century consisted of officials, or officials. If in the 16th century there was no elective element, or it is difficult to notice it there, then in the 17th century. it is an undoubted belonging of the cathedrals. The elaboration and development of the elective principle was mainly facilitated by the Time of Troubles, when the communities showed increased activity, when the cities were mutually sent by letters and their representatives, and when issues were resolved "by referring to the cities." On this basis, an elected “council of all the earth” arose, which was vividly expressed at the council of 1613, where, along with persons who appeared by virtue of their official position (boyars, clerks, etc.), we see deputies elected by the population itself. However, in the XVII century. the elective principle does not triumph over the official, or official, but exists next to it, moreover, while at some councils the elective principle is strongly expressed (the council of 1649), at others we see an official element next to the elective.

In terms of the number of their members, the most important cathedrals were distinguished by their large number of people. At the cathedral in 1566 there were 374 people (clergy - 8.5%; boyars and other higher ranks - 7.7%; nobles, children of boyars with Toropetsk and Lutsk landlords - 55%; clerks - 8.8%; commercial and industrial people - 20%); at the cathedral in 1598 - 512 participants (clergy - 21.2%; boyars and senior officials - 10.3%; military servants - 52%; clerks and from the palace administration - 9.5%; commercial and industrial people - 7 %); at the cathedral in 1613, there were probably more than 700 people, according to prof. Platonov, although there are 277 signatures on the conciliar act (clergy - 57 signatures; boyars and servicemen - 136 signatures and "city elected secular officials" - 84 signatures); no less than 50 cities were represented at this council; at the Council on the Code of 1648 - 1649 the number of cities represented reached 120, if not more; there were up to 340 members at this council, but only 315 signed the Code (at this council there were: clergy - 14 people, boyars and other higher ranks and clerks - 34, nobles, children of boyars and archers - 174, commercial and industrial people - 94 , and the rest of unknown rank). From the above figures it is clear which ranks were present at the councils; we do not see peasants; some scholars are ready to acknowledge their presence at the council of 1613; but others refute this opinion, although there is no doubt that the peasantry, if they themselves did not attend councils, could instead send clergy or merchants instead of themselves, as the most suitable for council activities.

Cause to convene a council.

There were various reasons for the convocation of the Council. Questions about war or peace, financial difficulties, a desire to know the opinion of a well-known group of people on this issue, the need to "arrange a state", to choose a new king or to sanction his election - all this served as an immediate reason for convening a council.

Who convened councils?

Councils were convened by the sovereign, and in the interregnum by the patriarch, as was the case with the election of Michael.

Calling letters.

If the government wanted to hastily convene a council and only from officials, then it simply ordered the officials who were in Moscow to appear at the council, and in this way a council was formed in a few days (for example, in 1642). But if the government had in mind a very important matter, for example, the election of a sovereign or the drafting of a Code, and, moreover, not requiring special haste, then it prepared in advance for the convocation of a council and sent draft letters in the province to the governor or other highest administrative person of the area. Having liberated Moscow from the Poles, in 1612 the provisional government summoned letters “from all ranks”, “from all cities”, “ten people from cities” “for state and zemstvo affairs” and the election of a tsar, which resulted in the cathedral of 1613. draft letters indicate on what business electives are convened in Moscow, and how many deputies from a given constituency need to be elected; an electoral district was usually recognized as a city with a county, and curias were distinguished in it either by estates: clergy, nobles, children of boyars, townspeople, or by separate articles, ranks, or simply by economic and local groups: city and courtyard nobles, Belozersk, Mozhaisk landowners, Galician landowners, foreigners, etc. The government indicated in letters how the election campaign should be carried out, by what date to send the elected and by what worlds to encourage the population to speed up the elections. When the government wanted to have officials at the council, their official position alone was a qualification for them, but when the government offered the population to choose members from among its members for the council, then it presented a certain qualification to them. Conscription letters require that the chosen persons be “kind and reasonable and persistent people”, “intelligent”, “with whom one could talk”, “experienced”, “who would be able to tell grievances, and violence, and ruin, and than to Moscow the state is full of military people and welcome and arrange the Moscow state so that everything comes to dignity”, “so that we are aware of all their needs, and tightness, and ruin, and all sorts of shortcomings.”

The attitude of the governor.

The governor, having received a draft letter, announces it to the entire population. So, for example, he "sovereign decree in Pereyaslavl Ryazan on trading days about elected people ... said for many days ... and clicked on auctions ... sent." In addition, the governor had to “namely” “say”, i.e., notify voters about the elections. To do this, the voivode sent a notice to the townspeople around the city, and to notify the nobles, he sent his usual messengers to the county on their estates and estates with an order that the nobles should come to the city to conduct elections. After such a publication, the governor had to personally explain to the assembled local nobles and townspeople their duties and conditions for elections, and when necessary, then shame them for their slowness. The governors had to try to fulfill all the orders of the government authorities regarding the elections and send a certain number of elected representatives to Moscow by the specified date. But the governors, with all their good intentions, did not always manage to be executive. More than once it happened that the voivode received a letter of conscription late, so that there was almost no time left for elections, otherwise the letter came even after the indicated date for convening the council; or the elections were delayed for a long time, either due to the evasion of the population from their production, or because of the negligence of the voivode himself to his service. It often happened that the government was ill-informed whether there were townspeople in a given area, and demanded the sending of townspeople elected from cities where "there is not a single person" of townspeople; sometimes the number of townspeople in the cities was small, and even they were busy public service. The election campaign was conducted by the Razryad, and since the Razryad cared more about military service people and carefully kept their registration, it is understandable that Moscow government was much better informed about the military service class than about the townspeople. But even when demanding the nobility’s elected representatives, the government did not always know exactly the true state of the military servicemen in a given area and, for example, once demanded 8 noble deputies from Ryazan, which was beyond the means of the city and county. But it happened that the voivode abused his power, rigged the elections, and sent his proteges instead of the real elected ones, and one of these cases was marked by a clerk: “it’s much to condemn him (the voivode) for this.”

The attitude of the population.

If during the Time of Troubles the population looked at the cathedrals as the only way to eliminate state disorder, and willingly sent elected representatives to the councils, then later this ideological idea of ​​​​the cathedrals weakened, and the population began to look at the elections to the cathedral as one of the duties that he had to bear, and therefore tried to avoid the "sovereign and zemstvo affairs", that is, to be elected to the council. Sometimes the nobles did not come to the cities at all to elect a deputy, or they came in such small numbers that no one could be chosen; sometimes they simply submitted to the voivode a list of those who were to go “by choice” to Moscow this year, but in most cases they made a choice, and it happened that already elected deputies hid from appearing in the city, and the voivode had to send only those he could get into the city. It happened that the governor himself had to choose nobles and townspeople and send them as deputies to the cathedral. Obviously, the same deviations were also among commercial and industrial people, who especially valued time and the continuous conduct of their commercial affairs. However, we do not always see such an attitude towards elections, and such a council as 1649 caused a great revival in the population, and although, on the one hand, some cities did not send their elected representatives to this council, but more deputies were sent from other cities than required by the government. We have vivid examples of how the population took seriously the choice of deputies and persistently defended their rights. So, during the elections to the cathedral in 1648 - 1649. the villagers complained to the tsar that the voivode personally chose two boyar children and forcibly forced the county priests to sign this choice, “and not at our behest”, and that these voivode candidates are “ears”, and “we are being sold for one from the voivode and unbelievable words on we, your lackeys, are being slandered by the governors. During the elections to the cathedral in 1651 in Krapivna, the governor arbitrarily replaced two townspeople with his henchmen, among other things, the boyar son Fedos Bogdanov; but the voters energetically undertook to defend their just cause and filed a petition to the tsar that “instead of the townspeople, that Fedoska came to you, sovereign, to Moscow on a formal reply (voivode) to your sovereign, the great royal, and zemstvo, and Lithuanian cause, as if in elected, and we, your serfs, nobles and children of boyars and city officials of all ranks, are such a thief, and a compiler, and a sexton for your sovereign great cause, we didn’t choose and we didn’t give such a thief Fedoska a choice. .. it’s impossible to be in your sovereign’s royal business.” As a result of this complaint, the sovereign "ordered him (Fedoska Bogdanov) to be dismissed", that is, to be excluded from the number of conciliar members; the governor was then removed.

In such cases, the people valued their right to vote because they could achieve the fulfillment of their desires through their representatives. During the convening of the council of 1612, the electors had to “council their own .... sign off for their own hands”, what needs to be done. Also, at the council of 1613, the deputies had to come, "agreeing firmly in the city and taking full contracts from all people about the state election." Kursk service people handed over to their elected for the cathedral in 1648 - 1649. Malyshev received a petition (in other words, an order) outlining his desires, but Malyshev did not carry them out at the cathedral, and therefore the Kurians “noised” at Malyshev because “at the Sovereign at the Cathedral Code, according to the petition of the zemstvo people, not against all articles of the sovereign decree was issued ", that "he did not fulfill their various whims in the Code in Moscow" or, in the words of the Kuryans themselves, for the fact that "against the Seversk and Polish Ukrainian cities, not all of our needs were petitioned by your sovereign decree." Expecting retribution from his voters for this, the ill-fated elector asked the sovereign "to issue him a cherished letter." Of course, it cannot be categorically stated that the voters gave their elected orders precisely in the modern sense, but there is no doubt that they sent their petitions to the tsar through them, because this was the most convenient and surest way to achieve the goal, and on the other hand, they verbally indicated to the electives what they should strive for at the council.

Departure of the elected and arrival at the cathedral.

When the voters chose the elect, then a “choice by hand” was drawn up, that is, a protocol of this choice, signed by the voters. The voivode sent this "choice by hand" to Moscow along with his "reply", in which he informed the sovereign of the receipt of the tsar's decree on the elections, the result of them, and listed by name who was chosen, and indicated where he ordered them to appear in Moscow for of your application. As a rule, the elected ones themselves took the “choice at hand” and the voivodship “reply” as supporting documents for their election, and went to Moscow, where they appeared in Ambassadorial Order or The category in which the clerks kept their lists, indicating when the elected arrived, and whether the voivodes received replies about their election.

Order of council meetings

All members of the cathedral, both elected and officials, gathered either in the Palace of the Facets, or in the Stoglav Izba, or in the Reply Chamber, in the Assumption Cathedral, or in emergency cases even on Red Square or even in the open air. The meeting was usually opened with a speech, which was either given by the tsar himself or read by the clerk. In this speech, the reason for convening the council was set out, and it was proposed to the members of the council to resolve these issues. Sometimes the council members were distributed “for real knowledge”, “separately”, “letter”, that is, a written message about the tasks of the council, as was the case at the council of 1642. The participants in the council gave an answer either according to estates, or according to articles, or according to groups formed at the council, or each member gave a separate answer. The answers were stated by the members themselves in the form of fairy tales, or they were written down by the clerks. The participants of the cathedral listened to the opening speech together, and then deliberated separately on ranks and estates. But at some councils (1649 and 1682) we see two chambers that listen to speech separately: the upper one with the higher ranks, and the lower one with the lower ranks. Usually the council came to a unanimous decision, but sometimes evasive answers were received from different groups Council, or even individual opinions that disagree with the opinion of the majority. Everything that happened at the council was recorded by the clerks in the council act, that is, the protocol, which was sealed with the seals of the tsar, the patriarch and the higher ranks, and the lower ranks sealed it with a kiss of the cross; in addition, the conciliar act was signed by those who participated in the council, and, due to the large number of illiterate people, others signed it, or one person signed for the whole group. A conciliar verdict, or an act approved by the sovereign, was put into effect by the executive branch, for which letters were written in the provinces with orders to carry out, on the basis of the “conciliar code”, those or other measures that were decided by the cathedral. After the cathedral, the tsar sometimes invited “nobles and children of the boyars’ representatives of all cities” and elected townspeople to his table (sobors of 1648-1649, 1651, 1653). With such a ceremonial dinner, the activities of the Zemsky Sobor ended.

Council Office.

The subjects to be administered by councils were determined by the authority that convened them. Councils convened during the interregnum elected the king (1598, 1613); other councils were in charge of foreign affairs, issues of war and peace (1566, 1642, 1653), domestic legislation (1584, 1648 - 1649, 1682), resolved economic issues, for example, on privileges for the British (1618, 1648 - 1649 gg.), on a collection of money to replenish the depleted treasury for military and state needs. According to draft letters of 1619, elected officials were convened “to arrange the Muscovite state”, which had not yet recovered from the Time of Troubles; the council of 1648-1649 was convened “to approve the sovereign and zemstvo affairs and put them on a measure so that the Muscovite state of all ranks to people, from a large to a lesser rank, the court and reprisal would be equal to everyone in all matters”; the council of 1653 discussed the issue of accepting Little Russia, and the council of 1682 discussed the better organization of military affairs and localities were destroyed. But at the councils, its members sometimes, by filing petitions, themselves submitted the initiative to resolve certain issues. So, at the council of 1621, convened on the occasion of the war with Poland, the servicemen asked the tsar to check the service people (“disassemble the service”) so that the severity of the services was more correctly distributed among them; in 1642, the members of the cathedral complained about the abuses of the administration, and in 1648-1649. petitions were submitted to resolve various issues, for example, about the separate existence of the Monastic order, which was fulfilled.

As a result, cathedrals different time had a variety of functions, being either a constituent, or a legislative, or an advisory institution.

duration of the cathedral.

Meetings of members of the cathedral lasted unequal times: some groups of elected conferred (for example, at the council of 1642) for several days, others for several weeks. The duration of the activities of the collections themselves, as institutions, was also not the same: issues were resolved either in a few hours (for example, the council of 1645, which swore allegiance to the new Tsar Alexei), then within several months (the cathedrals of 1648 - 1649, 1653). Some scholars say that at the beginning of the reign of Michael, the zemstvo councils lasted several years for 10 years, namely three years, so that they acquired the character of a permanent public institution. However, it is hardly possible to find enough data for such an opinion, and to speak about the existence of each Zemsky Sobor during the three years: 1613 to 1615, from the end of 1615 to 1619 and from the middle of 1619 to 1622. , it is necessary with great caution and it is better not to insist on this and agree that the Zemstvo Sobors were convened by the government as needed and, after the solution of the issue raised, were dismissed each time, and when new issues arose, they were convened again, moreover, if an issue of paramount importance was raised and not requiring an urgent answer, then the convocation was carried out on a large scale, and for issues of secondary importance or requiring an immediate decision, the council was convened from the elements available in Moscow that were necessary for the council.

Remuneration and departure of elected.

At the end of the discussion of the issue, the council dispersed, and the deputies went home. When the elect went to Moscow for the cathedral, they had, as with any other service, to equip themselves for the journey and have their own "reserves" in order to live in Moscow during the cathedral; the serviceman had to prepare these "reserves" for himself, and we have no instructions that these "reserves" be collected by the voters. The government recognized the service of 1648 - 1649. “for that de their service of the sovereign’s salary to elected people, a local salary of one hundred honors was added, money of 5 rubles each”; townspeople, on the other hand, received a number of privileges: the right to duty-free smoking, exemption from standing, etc. Thus, the members of this cathedral returned home with a certain material benefit, a hundred distinguished them from the rest of the population. Those elected officials who received instructions from their voters on what measures should be taken at the council, but could not fulfill this, returned home with great apprehension, expecting a physical reprimand from the voters for the unfulfilled order; this can be concluded from one place of the already mentioned petition: “they, elected people, in the cities were ordered to protect the voivodes from city people from all sorts of bad things, so that your sovereign at the council Code, according to the petition of the zemstvo people, is not against all articles, your sovereign’s decree was taught ". As you can see, the cathedral service was not without thorns and thorns! The elected representatives, leaving Moscow, also asked that they be given a “decree from the Council Code on our needs from memory”, obviously so that, having these supporting documents in their hands, they could prove to their voters that they had fulfilled certain or their other desires and carried them into legislation. This is exactly what Malyshev, already known to us, did.

The importance of cathedrals.

The significance of zemstvo sobors is different, judging by the time of their convocation, composition, by the issues they discuss, and by the conditions under which they had to act, but the overall significance of the activity of zemstvo sobors is undoubtedly great and, indeed, one can say that they played a great role. role in the organization of the Russian state. Their activity was especially great in the Time of Troubles and after it, when it was necessary to "arrange a state." The activities of the council of 1613 freed Russia from further upheavals, and subsequent councils enabled the country to find ways and means to strengthen itself. Cathedral 1648-1649 with extraordinary brightness looms in its significance among other cathedrals. It was, one might say, the greatest council in terms of the importance of its results, it gave the state a code of laws, which for a long time served as a guide in governing the country. The members of this council took an ardent part in the development of laws, and up to 60 articles were included in the Code only at the request of the elected. Councils were an excellent means for the government to find out the mood of the country, to get information about the state of the state, whether it could bear new taxes, wage war, what abuses existed, and how to eradicate them. But the councils were most important to the government in that they used their authority to carry out such measures as under other circumstances would have aroused displeasure, and even resistance. Without the moral support of the councils, it would not have been possible to collect for many years those numerous new taxes that were imposed under Michael on the population to cover urgent state expenses. If the cathedral, or the whole earth, has decided, then there is nothing to do: willy-nilly, one has to fork out beyond measure, and even give away the last savings.

The decree of the councils operating under the kings was considered binding on the country, but it was not binding on the government. Of course, the government, convening a council of its own accord, or under the influence of unfavorable circumstances, convened it with the aim of obeying its advice, enlisting its authority, and therefore the decisions of the council were almost always carried out by the government. But, for example, the council of 1642 generally decided not to give Azov to the Turks, although the members of the council were aware of the difficult economic situation of the population, and the government abandoned the war with Turkey, ordering the Cossacks to clear Azov. This cathedral shows how high the cathedrals carried their banner, and how seriously they took state issues, putting the tasks of the state in the foreground. It was not for nothing that the government demanded that persons experienced in zemstvo and state affairs be elected to the councils. Most of the members of this council frankly told how it was burdened with taxes and services, but nevertheless recognized it as necessary to protect Azov for the benefit of the state, and everyone agreed to help each according to his own strength. Thus, Peter's desire for Azov was recognized by "the whole earth" long before him, but the government of 1642 prudently refrained from occupying this city, weighing the difficult situation of the country. The council understood its tasks just as highly in 1566, when the question was being decided whether to fight with Poland because of the expansion of land towards the Baltic Sea; the cathedral declared that if you do not fight, then the state will be "crowded" from Poland, and the Terrible Tsar waged war, but it was unsuccessful. Thus, the Council of 1566 was imbued with the same idea that Peter the Great was guided by, recapturing the Baltic shores from the Swedes. Of course, one cannot say that all cathedrals stood at the height of their calling, and such councils as the electoral ones of 1605, 1610, 1682. random and incomplete composition, in which people were guided not by state thought, but by a momentary mood, feeling and personal benefits, cannot be compared with the councils of 1566, 1613, 1642, 1648 - 1649. and etc.

The fall of the cathedrals.

The cathedrals did not disappear immediately, but gradually, just as they were born. If the cathedral of 1566 is the first completely reliable and valid Zemstvo council, then the council of 1653 must be considered the last full council, because after this year the government, when it was necessary to turn to the opinion of knowledgeable people, no longer convened “all the ranks of elected people” , and representatives only of the class that was most interested in this issue. So, in 1660, 1662 - 1663. the boyars conferred with the guests and hard-working people of Moscow about the monetary crisis, in 1672 and 1676. the Moscow merchants discussed the issue of the Armenian campaign; in 1681 - 1682 service people conferred on military affairs, and separately from them taxable people - on taxes, and only then service people, but not taxable, united with the "consecrated cathedral" and the boyar duma for the solemn abolition of parochialism. However, the population understood the significance of zemstvo sobors and pointed out the need to convene them. So, in 1662, during a severe financial crisis, called guests and other commercial and industrial people answered the question of how to stop economic crisis that “that is the business of the whole state, all cities and all ranks, and we ask the great sovereign to grant great sovereign, indicated for that case to take from all ranks in Moscow and from cities the best people 5 people each, and without them it is impossible for us to put that great deed on the measure alone.

Some scholars see the reason for the fall of the cathedrals in the strengthening of the upper class, close to the palace and to the government, while others see it as an increase royal power, absolutism; the third connect, on the one hand, the emergence of cathedrals with the introduction of zemstvo self-government under Grozny, and on the other hand, they see the decline of cathedrals in strengthening in the 17th century. voivodeship authority. But there is no doubt that not one cause led to the decline of the cathedrals, but a whole set of phenomena contributed to their fall. Among these phenomena, one should note such as the change and development of the economic and estate structure of the state, the personal inclinations of the rulers, and in general new conditions and events that were very different from the previous time. State to the eighteenth century. economically strengthened, grew and strengthened the government class, which was unpleasant to the activities of Zemstvo sobors, whose members more and more insistently pointed out the abuses of the administration; the power of the tsar became more independent (a circumstance noted by Kotoshikhin), and less in need of conciliar authority to carry out their events; persons appeared who were hostile to the cathedrals, for example, Nikon, a temporary worker of his era; also the Moscow revolt of 1648, Novgorod, Pskov and others, brought the beginning of fears to the government environment, which, according to one foreigner (Rodes), was constantly afraid of new manifestations of popular anger, and this could force the government to avoid calling to Moscow a large number of servicemen and elected , which, moreover, he had to support, as well as reward for conciliar activities, which placed a heavy burden on the poor treasury of the Moscow state. Certainly, Great king during his reforming activities, he could not hope for the support of the cathedrals, which completely died out under him.

Thus, in the 16th century, Zemstvo cathedrals were born, by the middle of the 17th century they flourished, and by the end of this century they had already irrevocably faded.

The most important Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century

Zemsky cathedrals. Estate-representative monarchy in the 17th century.

Zemsky Sobors were class-representative institutions that existed from the middle of the 16th to the end of the 17th centuries. Institutions of this kind were characteristic of many European states that had passed the stage of a class-representative monarchy. They first arose in 1188 in Leon and Castile, in 1218 in Catalonia, in 1254 in Portugal, in 1265 in England, in 1274 in Aragon. In Spain, these representations were called cortes, in England - parliament, in France and the Netherlands - provincial and States General, in the German principalities - landtags, in Poland and the Czech Republic - diets. In Rus', such institutions were called Zemsky Sobors. It is characteristic that foreign ambassadors, informing their government about the convocation of this or that council in Moscow, called them in their own way: the British - parliament, the Poles - the Sejm.

It was believed that Zemsky Sobors personified "the whole earth." In fact, far from the entire population of Russia was represented at the Zemsky Sobors (the same was observed in Western European representative institutions). The following took part in the Zemsky Sobors:

The first council of 1549 ᴦ., obviously, was convened on Red Square, at least on the square, young Ivan the Terrible addressed the people with his speech. Subsequent councils met in the Kremlin in the Dining Room or the Faceted Chamber. And only the most populous cathedral 1613 ᴦ. gathered in the Assumption Cathedral. At some councils, the Boyar Duma and the higher clergy sat separately from the elected people. The cathedral was opened either by the tsar himself or by the clerk, who read out a "letter", that is, a list of questions posed by the tsar's appeal to the elected. Answers were given on separate articles by each estate. At some councils, elected representatives from various classes submitted "fairy tales", that is, notes and projects that reflected class interests. From 1549 to 1680s. about 50 councils took place. In the 17th century The most significant cathedrals were the following:

Zemsky Sobor 1613 ᴦ. began his work in January 1613 ᴦ. and elected Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov tsar. Upon arrival in Moscow, the new tsar did not dismiss the elected zemstvo people. Οʜᴎ were replaced by other electives only in 1615 ᴦ. One composition of the cathedral was replaced by another until 1622 ᴦ. More details about the Zemsky Sobor 1613 ᴦ. Here.

Zemsky Sobor 1632-1634. was convened on the occasion of the war with Poland, which resumed immediately after the end of the 14-year term of the Deulino truce. The cathedral introduced an additional fee for military needs - "five" money.

Cathedral 1642 ᴦ. was convened to discuss the issue of Azov, a strong Turkish fortress captured by the Don Cossacks. The fate of the fortress was never decided (subsequently, the Cossacks, who did not receive help, had to leave Azov to the Turks). This council is remembered for the fact that the immediate reason for its convocation faded into the background, and representatives of various classes saw in the cathedral a way to express their needs and complaints. For more details about the "fairy tales" filed by the members of the cathedral, Here.

Cathedral 1648-49 ᴦ. was convened after the Salt Riot in Moscow. He sat for almost six months. The main act of this council was the article-by-article discussion and approval of the Council Code. More details about the discussion and adoption of the Council Code here.

Cathedral 1650 ᴦ. dealt with the issue of appeasing Pskov, where serious popular unrest continued. Cathedrals 1651 ᴦ. and 1653 ᴦ. were devoted to Ukrainian affairs. Cathedral 1653 ᴦ. decided to accept the Cossack army and Little Russia into Russian citizenship. The last meeting of the council took place on October 1, 1653 ᴦ. After that, councils in full force were not convened. More details about the Council of 1653 ᴦ. Here.

The most important Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "The most important Zemsky cathedrals of the 17th century." 2017, 2018.

Introduction

zemstvo right cathedral

The object of my study will be the class-representative body, called in historical science Zemsky Cathedral. I set myself the task of describing the essence of Zemsky Sobors. The tasks that formed the basis of this work will be the definition of functions, meanings, structures and the procedure for the formation of Zemsky Sobors.

Composition of Zemsky Sobors

Elective element

An essential issue in the history of zemstvo sobors is the question of their composition. "Council of all the earth", i.e. Zemsky Sobor, was composed of three elements: the boyar duma, i.e. from the permanent council of the sovereign, the "consecrated cathedral", i.e. from the highest clergy headed by the metropolitan, and later the patriarch, and, finally, from the zemstvo people, which included military servicemen or other servicemen and elected from taxpayers. From similar cathedrals one should distinguish cathedrals that were formed by chance, where the Muscovite people participated in resolving the issue, for example, the cathedral of 1606, when the boyars elected Shuisky and offered him to the people; such cathedrals are reminiscent of the vecha of ancient Rus'; on the other hand, one should also distinguish those councils that consisted of only one estate, for example, the council of 1682, at which service people were present and decided on the destruction of localism.

As part of the cathedrals of the XVI century. one can hardly see the elective element in the sense in which it is now understood. These councils were made up of service people whom the government convened to resolve certain issues; in other words, these councils were composed of government agents. The official position of the boyar duma and the "consecrated cathedral", which were part of the zemstvo sobors, is self-evident; the nobles who were at the cathedrals of the 16th century carried out some kind of military or administrative service, i.e. were also officials; the participation of merchants in the cathedrals was also of an official nature, because the guests served in the financial part, and the elders and sotsk merchant hundreds, by the nature of their activities, were part of the state administration. Thus, the cathedrals of the 16th century consisted of officials, or officials. If in the 16th century there was no elective element, or it is difficult to notice it there, then in the 17th century. it is an undoubted belonging of the cathedrals. The elaboration and development of the elective principle was mainly facilitated by the Time of Troubles, when the communities showed increased activity, when the cities were mutually sent by letters and their representatives, and when issues were resolved "by referring to the cities." On this basis, an elected “council of all the earth” arose, which was vividly expressed at the council of 1613, where, along with persons who appeared by virtue of their official position (boyars, clerks, etc.), we see deputies elected by the people themselves. However, in the XVII century. the elective principle does not triumph over the official, or official, but exists next to it, moreover, while at some councils the elective principle is strongly expressed (the council of 1649), at others we see an official element next to the elective.

In terms of the number of their members, the most important cathedrals were distinguished by their large number of people. At the cathedral in 1566 there were 374 people (clergy - 8.5%; boyars and other higher ranks - 7.7%; nobles, children of boyars with Toropetsk and Lutsk landowners - 55%; clerks - 8.8%; commercial and industrial people - 20%); at the cathedral in 1598 - 512 participants (clergy - 21.2%; boyars and senior officials - 10.3%; military servants - 52%; clerks and from the palace administration - 9.5%; commercial and industrial people - 7 %); at the cathedral in 1613, there were probably more than 700 people, according to prof. Platonov, although there are 277 signatures on the conciliar act (clergy - 57 signatures; boyars and servicemen - 136 signatures and "city elected secular officials" - 84 signatures); no less than 50 cities were represented at this council; at the Council on the Code of 1648-1649. the number of cities represented reached 120, if not more; there were up to 340 members at this council, but only 315 signed the Code (at this council there were: clergy - 14 people, boyars and other higher ranks and clerks - 34, nobles, children of boyars and archers - 174, commercial and industrial people - 94 , and the rest of unknown rank). From the above figures it is clear which ranks were present at the councils; we do not see peasants; some scholars are ready to acknowledge their presence at the council of 1613; but others refute this opinion, although there is no doubt that the peasantry, if they themselves did not attend councils, could instead send clergy or merchants instead of themselves, as the most suitable for council activities.

Russian state: essence, main views and assessments

Introduction. 3

1. Zemsky Sobors and the history of their appearance. 4

2. Classification and composition of cathedrals. 7

3. The role and functions of Zemsky Sobors in public administration. 10

Conclusion. 13

List of used literature.. 15

Introduction

The question of zemstvo sobors. was one of the most popular problems of historiography. Interest in this problem, in addition to its purely scientific value, was due to a large extent to the fact that historians often looked for prototypes of representative institutions in Zemsky Sobors, the introduction of which, as they thought, should have become a condition for the further development of the state system in Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The purpose of the work is to find out what place the Zemsky Sobors occupied in the system of state administration, how large or small they were.
meaning. Achieving this goal implies setting and solving the following tasks:

Define Zemsky Sobors;

Determine the composition of the Councils;

Determine the functions and significance of Zemsky Sobors.

In Soviet literature, the theme of zemstvo sobors did not immediately take its rightful place. In the 1920s and 1940s, articles appeared introducing scientific turnover new materials on individual cathedrals: 1613, 1616, 1639, . Concerning general concepts development of this political body, they basically adjoined the ideas that had developed in pre-revolutionary historiography.

Relevance. Studying state institutions contributes to a deeper understanding of the historical path traversed by our society and state. And, as you know, the past shapes the present. At present, the history of Zemsky Sobors is still of interest to researchers.

The cathedrals left many legal monuments (codes, judicial codes, etc.), which are of great historical interest.

1. Zemsky Sobors and the history of their appearance

Various historians define Zemsky Sobors in different ways. Let's pay attention to the most interesting of them.

: Zemsky Sobors are "a special type of popular representation, different from Western representative assemblies."

: The Zemsky Sobor is a “council of the whole earth”, consisting of “three necessary parts”: 1) “the consecrated Council of the Russian Church with the metropolitan, later with the patriarch at the head”, 2) the boyar duma, 3) “Zemsky people, representing various population groups and various localities of the state.

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

Zemsky Sobors are the central class-representative institution of the Russian state in the middle of the 16-17th century. The appearance of such cathedrals 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 significance of the nobility and, to some extent, the upper tenants.

As conditions for the emergence of Zemsky Sobors, two main circumstances can be distinguished:

a) the historical tradition of veche, councils;

b) a sharp aggravation of the class struggle and a complex international position Rus', which demanded support for the government in the estates, but not like a veche with its right to approve, establish, but an advisory body.

Rus' represented a federation, a union of princes, formalized by contractual relations on the rights of vassalage. Already at this time, the prototype of a representative body was formed in the form of a council of boyars, a bishop, and merchants. In the annals of the XIV century, princely congresses are mentioned, assembled when necessary. But after the formation of a centralized state, princely congresses die off, and new form between princely relations and their influence on the Grand Duke of Moscow becomes the boyar duma.

The emerging centralized monarchy no longer needed either veche or princely congresses, but it had the need to rely on leading social forces for its strengthening. What was needed was an instrument that would support the policy of power (saying modern language, would make power legitimate), through which the authorities would learn about public requests and turn to society. Zemsky Sobors were such an instrument.

Revealing the second circumstance, it is worth saying that in the middle of the 16th century a wide wave swept across the country. popular movements and uprisings. There were massive unauthorized plowing of feudal lands, unauthorized felling of forests, and seizure of documents assigning peasants to feudal landowners. The struggle of the townspeople against feudal robberies and violence, the unlawful extortion of governors-feeders, who considered the city as an object of shameless extortion, intensified. In these very difficult conditions, the tsar, church hierarchs, and the boyar duma were forced to look for measures to end the strife between boyar groups and form a government capable of ensuring national interests. By the beginning of 1549, the emergence of the “chosen council”, which included the favorite of Tsar Ivan, belongs. The Adashev government was looking for a compromise between the individual strata of the feudal lords, at that time the idea arose of convening a reconciliation council in 1549.

The adoption of the royal title by Ivan IV and a new understanding of the essence of monarchical power can also be called a direct impetus for the establishment of the Zemsky Sobor. The sacrament of anointing to the kingdom had a colossal psychological impact on the young Sovereign, revealing to him the full depth of the mystical connection between the Tsar and the people entrusted to him by God. Realizing his highest responsibility for the fate of the country, and feeling a lack of his own strength to carry out the providential task assigned to him, Ivan Vasilyevich considered it necessary to involve representatives of some social groups so that they give him all the assistance he needs. The idea put forward by the Tsar of the mutual arrangement of the state met with a lively response in the hearts of the people and rather soon became firmly rooted in the public consciousness.

This was facilitated to no small extent by the fact that the idea of ​​"arranging the earth" fell together on already prepared soil. In the middle of the XVI century. individual works appeared in Russian political literature, in which, in addition to general issues, state structure, the problems of popular representation under the Monarch were also raised. The authors of the works were convinced that the Sovereign should not rule “autocratically”, but together with the persons forming the “royal council”. The views of publicists on its composition, the order of formation, the frequency and duration of meetings, etc., often diverged, but they were all unanimous that the Tsar's reliance on "peace" would only lead to the strengthening of the Russian state.

All cathedrals are divided, first of all, in terms 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 that elect the king.

The majority of cathedrals belong to the first group. The second group should include the cathedral of 1648, which gathered, as the source directly says, at the request of the king of people of "different ranks", and also, probably, a number of cathedrals of the time of Mikhail Fedorovich.

The third group can include the cathedral of 1565, which raised the question of the oprichnina, the "sentence" 30 June 1611, "council of all the earth" 1611 and 1

The electoral councils (the fourth group) gathered for the election and approval of the kingdom of Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Mikhail Romanov, Peter and John Alekseevich, and also, probably, Fyodor Ivanovich, Alexei Mikhailovich.

Of course, there are conditional moments in such a classification. Cathedrals of the third and fourth groups, for example, are close in their purpose. However, establishing by whom and why the cathedral was assembled is a fundamentally important basis for classification, helping to understand relationships autocracy and estates in a class-representative monarchy.

The Zemsky Sobor included the tsar, the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral in full force, representatives of the nobility, the upper classes of the townspeople (trading people, large merchants), that is, candidates of the three estates. Zemsky Sobor as a representative body was bicameral.

The upper chamber included the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral, who were not elected, but participated in it in accordance with their position. Members of the lower house were elected. The order of elections for the Council was as follows.

Such conciliar petitions, which had the meaning of "the unquestioned voice of the whole earth", as a rule, did not go unheeded and entailed changes in the government's course.

Conclusion

The very first Zemsky Sobors were convened in the middle of the 16th century, during the intensification of the class struggle, especially in the cities.

Popular uprisings forced the feudal lords to rally to implement a policy that strengthened state power, the economic and political position of the ruling class.

Legislative acts that determined the procedure for choosing representatives to councils did not exist, although the thought of them arose.

Zemsky Sobors of the 16th-17th centuries certainly played a significant role in the history of development Russian state, because they were one of the first representative institutions in Russia.

Many of them left a number of legal monuments that are of great interest to historians.

Zemsky Sobors met and participated in all the most important state acts.

Among their considered issues: the election of the king, changes in legislation, taxation, questions foreign policy and the annexation of new territories, etc. Zemsky Sobors did not have a clear regulation, number and composition.

They were of a functional nature, and representatives of estates and territories necessary to resolve a specific issue were convened at the council.

The meetings of the council were necessarily attended by the tsar or his representative, the boyar Duma and the church council.

The most frequently discussed issues at the councils were foreign policy and tax system(mainly in connection with military needs).

The largest problems facing the Russian state passed through discussions at the meetings of the councils, and somehow the statements that this happened purely formally and the government could not reckon with the decisions of the councils are somehow not convincing.

The activities of the Zemsky Sobors were important integral part the functioning of state power, the reliance of power on the dominant social forces during the period of absolute monarchy.

Bibliography

1. The World History State and Law: Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. . - M.: INFRA - M, 200

2. Public administration in Russia: Textbook for universities / ed. . - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITY-DANA, 20s.

3. Zimin Ivan the Terrible: essays on socio-economic and political Russian history mid-XVI century /, M. - Nauka, 1960, pp. 64-73, 98-101.

4. Zimin N Ivan the Terrible. M. 2004, p. 210.

5. Lukutin 9 and 11. - M .: "AST-PRESS SCHOOL", 2003. S.

6. Karamzin of the Russian State.- M.: "EKSMO". 2002.- T. 8. S. 477-480.

7. Klyuchevsky representation at Zemsky Sobors Ancient Rus'. - op. v. 8. M., 1990

9. Nosov of class-representative institutions in Russia /, L. -1969, S. 324-331.

10. Sugars of Russia from ancient times to the end of XVII.- M.: "AST". 1999, pp. 500-502.

11. Torque called zemstvo cathedrals in Russia. \Voprosy istorii.: No. 11.2001, p. 3-10.

13. Cherepnin Cathedrals of the Russian State. - M., 1968, p. 217.

14. Cherepnin "Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the 16-17th centuries." 2. See History of Russia since ancient times. Book. 5. M.: 2008, p. 703.