It was called the Council of Reconciliation. Zemsky Sobor

They were one of the largest phenomena in the political life of the Moscow state of the 16th - 17th centuries, representing a form of participation of popular representation in governing the country developed in old Moscow - a form in many respects similar to the representative assemblies of the West. Europe, but at the same time differing from them in very significant features. The activities of this representative office did not cover a particularly long period of time - only a century and a half - but were rich in important results. The Zemsky Sobors still cannot be considered fully studied and explained: the scientific literature on their history gives much more summary characteristics and fortune-telling constructions than detailed studies, which is largely explained by the paucity of sources that have reached us. In any case, some aspects of the phenomenon have already received sufficient coverage, thanks to which it seems possible both to explain the emergence of the institution and to mark the most important eras of its historical life. The beginning of representation in Muscovite Rus', as in the West, coincided with the final unification of the state; but the source of this representation was not the same here and there. In the West, representative assemblies grew out of the political struggle of various classes and served, in their further development, as an arena for this struggle; Zemsky councils of the Moscow state, when they emerged, served not so much political as administrative tasks. From the time the northern Russian principalities came under the rule of the Grand Duke of Moscow, who was transformed into a tsar, a need arose for greater state unity, for a closer acquaintance of the government with the population, its needs and means, which determined the tasks of state power. The system of fractional local administration that had previously been developed in Moscow not only did not satisfy this need, drawing the population too little towards one center, but, being in its origin based on the principles of private law, required a radical reorganization. The latter began to be carried out in the sense of implementing a strictly state principle in management, and the government, having too few forces, chose to delegate state activities to local communities and their elected representatives as a means of implementing the new system. The completion of this system and, at the same time, the body connecting all its individual parts were the Zemsky Sobors. They were not the successors of the veche meetings of ancient Rus', as is sometimes claimed; these latter are already from the 14th century. ceased to exist in the Moscow principality, and the foundations of the veche and the cathedral were completely different: the veche was composed of the entire population of the region, the cathedral was a representative institution; the veche had full state power; cathedrals, during the period of their inception, acted only in an advisory role; finally, participation in the veche was a right for the population; participation in the council was considered a duty. Zemsky Sobors were a new institution that grew out of new needs and conditions of state life. The name of this institution, and perhaps the very idea of ​​it, was borrowed from the practice of the clergy who gathered around the so-called metropolitan. “sanctified councils”, which resolved issues affecting the entire Russian church, and sometimes took part in the government activities of the prince and his Duma. But the essence of the Zemsky Sobor could hardly have been borrowed from church life, especially since this institution itself did not appear immediately with a completely definite and unchanged physiognomy, but survived several eras, during which not only its meaning changed, but also its organization and even its principle , which lay at its base.

The beginning of the councils dates back to the era when the inconveniences of the old system of government, during the childhood of Ivan the Terrible, had just appeared with particular sharpness. Having reached adulthood and taking up the business of government, the young tsar, perhaps under the influence of the “elected council” surrounding him at that time - priest Sylvester and other advisers - convened the first Zemsky Sobor in 1550. Unfortunately, we know nothing about its composition and activities, except for the detail that it was decided to stop peacefully the claims that arose as a result of the violence of the feeders in the previous time. One can only guess that the reforms that followed did not take place without the participation of the council. 16 years later, during the war with Poland, a new council was convened to decide whether to accept the peace terms proposed by the Poles or, rejecting them, to continue the war. A detailed analysis by Prof. Klyuchevsky over the composition of this cathedral, revealed the following interesting facts. The cathedral consisted of two halves: the first contained the sovereign's Duma, the highest clergy or consecrated cathedral and the heads of the Moscow orders - in other words, the highest administration was called upon to participate in the cathedral; the second half consisted of members of the service and merchant classes, namely members of the capital's nobility and merchants. It remains unknown whether these council participants were elected representatives, or whether they were also called by the government: the latter is more likely, but, in any case, they were closely connected with the groups of the population they represented, not only by belonging to certain social classes, but also by their official position: the capital's nobles were city governors or leaders of county noble militias, the capital's merchants occupied the highest positions in financial management; both were in close and continuous connection with provincial societies, which constantly allocated their best members to their number. The representation that arose in this way was not representation by choice, but by position; government at the council, in the words of prof. Klyuchevsky, conferred with its own bodies, and, however, these latter were at the same time the most prominent members of local societies, who at the general council not only worked out this or that decision, but also served as guarantors in the implementation of the adopted one. The cathedral was, therefore, the result of an administrative restructuring undertaken by the government, and not a political revolution, not a social struggle, contrary to the opinion of historians who associated the appearance of cathedrals under Grozny with the anti-boyar tendencies of this tsar, who supposedly found support against the boyars in the voice of the entire people. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, according to the testimony of some Russian chronicles and two foreigners, Petrei and Horsey, a new council was convened in 1584, electing Fyodor Ioannovich to the throne; There is no exact information about its composition and activities. Following the death of Tsar Fedor, in 1598, the task of electing a new sovereign to the empty throne was again carried out by the Zemsky Sobor, which, this time, was convened by the patriarch and the boyar duma. The council elected Boris Godunov as tsar. The composition of this cathedral already had a new feature: next to the consecrated cathedral, the sovereign's Duma, representatives of the clerk and palace administration, the capital's nobles and elected leaders of merchant hundreds, noble elected representatives from the cities, numbering 34 people, also sat here. This appearance of elected officials alongside those called up by the government indicates a change in the internalized system of representation. This change occurred under the influence of changes taking place in the structure of society and breaking the previous connection between its individual parts, in this case, between the capital and provincial nobility. It received an even more accelerated pace as a result of the events in the political life of the Moscow state that were unfolding in the meantime.

Already in the middle of the 16th century, during the era of the appearance of the first Zemsky Sobor, under the influence of either this fact itself, or, in general, the revival and growth of Zemsky traditions that was taking place at that time, theories were created that expanded the significance of the Zemsky Sobor in the sense of its representation of the entire people and sought to strengthen for his position as a necessary component of government. The unknown author of a postscript written to the “Conversation of the Valaam Wonderworkers” (a political pamphlet of the 16th century) advises the tsar to “erect those cities from all his cities and from the districts and constantly keep all kinds of people with him, weather by any means.” . The end of the old dynasty was supposed to increase the importance of the council to the size of an organ of the entire earth, giving the sanction of the supreme power itself, which was clearly expressed in the deposition of Tsar Vasily Shuisky by Lyapunov and his comrades, who reproached Vasily that he had been put on the throne unjustly, only by the boyars and Moscow people , without elected representatives from cities and counties. A new impetus in this direction was given by the circumstances of the Time of Troubles, when the state, tormented by civil strife and attacks by external enemies, was deprived of a ruler. During this era, an attempt was even made to limit the power of the tsar through the Zemsky Sobor and consolidate the significance of the latter with a legal act. Mikhail Saltykov, in an agreement concluded on behalf of the Russian people who were in Tushino with the impostor, with the Polish king Sigismund, undertook to recognize the prince Vladislav as the Moscow king, but among the conditions limiting the power of Vladislav, he also set such that the latter could not establish new laws and change the old without the advice of the whole earth, i.e. the Zemsky Sobor. This article of the treaty was adopted by the boyar duma when Zholkiewski appeared near Moscow. Vladislav did not, however, have to sit on the Moscow throne, and the agreement concluded with him did not receive real significance. When the boyar government revealed its inability to pacify and protect the country, the people themselves took up this matter, turning to the already developed form of participation of the population in government. affairs. Leaders of the militia that rose from Nizhny Novgorod, Prince. Pozharsky and Kozma Minin sent letters to the cities, inviting them to come out in defense of the fatherland, expel the militia and the treasury, and together send “two or three people” elected to form the Zemstvo government. The cities, apparently, accepted the invitation, and with the militia, a Zemsky Sobor was formed in 1612, which managed internal affairs and foreign relations until the capture of Moscow. Then this council was dissolved and at the same time letters were sent out inviting the population to send elected people to a new council, which should deal with the election of a king and the organization of the state. In January 1613, representatives of the land gathered in Moscow and on February 7 elected Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov as Tsar; but even after that the council did not disperse, but continued its meetings for about two more years, working together with the tsar to restore order in the state shaken by turmoil and having a very great importance in the government. This meaning was not established by any legal act, but stemmed from the very state of affairs in the state. Shaken, weakened in its authority, deprived of its former material resources, forced to reckon with a number of serious difficulties, the supreme power, for the success of its actions, needed the constant support of the entire earth and could not do without the assistance of its representatives. In view of this, the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich was especially favorable for the Zemsky Sobors; it was their “golden age,” in the words of Prof. Zagoskina. The wounds inflicted on the state during the Time of Troubles could not be immediately healed; their very treatment required intense efforts on the part of the population, and this tension could easily be reflected in new unrest, thanks to which the government could not refuse the opportunity to share responsibility with representatives of the people. At the beginning of the reign, the idea expressed in the 16th century seemed to be realized: near the tsar there was a permanent Zemsky Sobor, which was renewed in its composition at certain intervals. Following the dissolution of the first council, in 1615, a new one was convened, which was in force until 1618; in 1619 we again meet a meeting of the council, regarding which it is difficult to say, for lack of data, whether it was old or newly convened; from 1620 there is no information about the cathedral, which does not yet prove, however, its absence, but in 1621-1622 the cathedral again met in Moscow, after which there was a ten-year break in cathedral activities. The scope of activity of all these councils seems to be very wide and varied (foreign relations, establishing taxes and duties, maintaining order within the state, even military orders in the event of an enemy invasion). Addressing the population of the regions, the tsarist government of this era reinforces its orders with reference to the council’s authority, especially when it comes to imposing new taxes that are necessary for the state, but weigh heavily on the national economy. Thanks to the efforts of the land, the state strengthened, and for 10 years the government found it possible to do without cathedrals. Without a conciliar verdict, the second war with Poland was started in 1632, but its unsuccessful progress forced them to again resort to the help of the council, which was supposed to impose emergency taxes. The conciliar session covered this time 1632-1634. Two more councils were convened after that under Mikhail Fedorovich, in 1637 and 1642, both times regarding the external affairs of the state: the first - in view of the deterioration of relations with Turkey, the second - to discuss the question of whether to accept from the Don Cossacks what they had taken from the Turks and Azov proposed to Moscow. Thus, having acquired the significance of the highest government power during the interregnum, the Zemsky Sobor, even under the tsarist government that it restored, remained a necessary component of it during the first half of the 17th century, first as a permanent institution, then convened in the most important cases. At the same time, the character of a representative institution was established for it: the old system of convening by the government of persons who played the role of its lower executive bodies in local government, despite all the close connections of these persons with local society, could not be maintained in an era when the authority of government power and society had decreased I had to restore it by exerting my own strength. During the Time of Troubles, this old system finally gave way to the elected representation of the people, although traces of its former existence, sometimes quite obvious, were now reflected in the details of the organization of representation. The very organization of the Zemsky Sobor had this appearance in this era. The cathedral continued to consist of two parts: one, coming to the cathedral without exception, included the leaders of the highest administration, spiritual (consecrated cathedral), civil (boyar duma and heads of orders) and palace; the other was made up of elected representatives of all classes of the population - servicemen, townspeople and peasants. The latter, however, were only at the council of 1613; according to Prof. Sergeevich, at other councils they were represented as elected representatives of the cities. The council was convened by means of letters sent throughout the cities to the governors or provincial elders and containing an invitation to send elected representatives to Moscow for council. Each city with its own district was considered an electoral district, and the number of required representatives depended on its size, which, however, did not have a constant character, but was subject to strong fluctuations; the largest, comparatively, number of representatives fell to Moscow, which can be seen not only as a consequence of the population of the capital, but also as traces of the old system based on the importance of the Moscow service and merchant society. Elections were held according to estates; Each “rank” or class chose its representatives: nobles and boyar children - especially, guests and merchants - especially, townspeople - especially. Voters could send a larger number of representatives against what was required by the government; Only sending a smaller number was considered a violation of order. Most researchers assume that elected representatives received written instructions from their constituents; such orders have not survived, however, to our time, and the sources cited to prove their existence are not so convincing and clear as to exclude any doubt on this score. The costs of traveling the elected officials and keeping them in Moscow seemed to fall on the voters, although the nobles, at least the elected ones, were sometimes paid a salary by the government. One might think that, in view of precisely these costs, the population sometimes sent less than the appointed number of elected officials or did not send them at all. To prevent such evasion in the selection of representatives, the central government assigned the responsibility to the local administration to monitor the conduct of elections and take measures to replenish the number of elected representatives; Often individual governors overstepped the boundaries of their power, interfering in the elections themselves or directly appointing representatives of local society; sometimes governors gathered voters for elections with the help of gunners and archers. After the congress of representatives to Moscow, the cathedral opened with a general meeting, which usually took place in the royal chambers and in the presence of the tsar; At this meeting, the throne speech was read by the tsar himself or, on his behalf, by the Duma clerk, which stated the purpose of convening the council and outlined the issues submitted for its discussion. After that, the members of the council were divided into “articles”, according to the classes and ranks of the persons composing it, and the classes, richly represented, were also divided into several articles, and each article, having received a written copy of the speech from the throne, had to discuss the proposals contained in it and submit in writing your opinion; each member of the council who spoke with a dissenting opinion could submit it separately. There was no specific time limit for the duration of the conciliar session; the council sat until it decided the matter that served as the purpose of its convening. At the councils convened by the tsar, the final summary of the opinions of the council officials was carried out by the Duma with the sovereign; the latter's sanction was necessary to approve the conciliar verdict. The government was not obliged to follow this verdict, but only took note of it, although in practice, of course, in most cases both coincided. Fletcher, describing the activities of the Zemsky Sobors, as he knew them from the stories of other people, says that the members of the council did not have legislative initiative. At least by the 17th century. this statement is not entirely applicable. At this time, members of the councils themselves often raised certain issues relating to legislative reform or the activities of government agencies, exposing them only in appearance, when discussing other matters, or directly turning to the government with petitions about this or that order. The cathedral of 1642 is especially remarkable in this regard. , at which service people, guests and elders of the Black Hundreds sharply condemned the order of service and management, pointing out desirable changes. Of course, there is still a very significant difference between such petitions and the introduction of bills, but in practice it was often erased, and the council in many cases took the legislative initiative, since in order to achieve its financial and state goals the government had to take into account the popular voice expressed at the councils . Without having a strictly restrictive meaning in relation to the royal power, retaining, in form, an exclusively advisory character, the councils of this time, however, occupied an important place in government activities, not only providing material resources for it, but also directing it, indicating certain goals and objectives for it. ways to achieve them, participating in solving all the most important matters of foreign and domestic policy, raising new issues in the legislative field, and finally giving sanction to the supreme power itself. Their role in this latter sense, as one might think based on the evidence of Kotoshikhin and Olearius, did not end with the election of Mikhail Fedorovich; These sources report that Alexei Mikhailovich was elected to the throne after the death of his father. The importance acquired by the Zemsky Sobor began to noticeably decline in the second half of the 17th century, as the power of the tsarist government strengthened, regaining its previous position and embarking on a new reform of the administration, in the sense of greater centralization and the replacement of elected governing bodies with governors. During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, councils still decided on important matters, but they met rarely, compared to the previous time. After the supposed council of 1645, which elected Alexei Mikhailovich to the throne, the Zemsky Sobor was convened on September 1, 1648, to draw up the Code. Codification work began in July of this year, and with the arrival of the elected officials, they also took an active part in this matter, participating in the compilation of old decrees, putting forward new issues and drawing the attention of the government to them by filing petitions; only about 80 articles were included in the Code from such petitions. Work on drawing up the Code continued until January 1649, that is, about six months. In 1650, a new council was convened to discuss the case of the Pskov rebellion, which, however, died down before the council had time to take any action on this matter. Finally, two more councils during this reign were devoted to affairs with Poland. The first was convened in February 1651, regarding the insults inflicted by the Polish government on the honor of the Moscow sovereign and Khmelnitsky’s proposal to annex Little Russia to Moscow. From the activities of this cathedral, only the response of the clergy has reached us, proposing to start a war and accept Khmelnitsky’s proposal if the Polish king did not give satisfaction to the king. The second council was convened in 1653 and, having opened its activities on May 25, continued until October 1; Before convening this council, the tsar sent ambassadors to Poland to demand decisive satisfaction. One must think that with the knowledge of the council in September 1653, envoys were sent to Khmelnitsky to reassure him that he would be accepted under the royal hand (this resolves the dispute between Solovyov and Aksakov, whether the council of 1653 was one form or had a real meaning: both disputing parties considered the first meeting of the council on October 1). In mid-September, the embassy from Poland returned with an unfavorable response, and then on October 1 a solemn meeting was held at which a decision was made, probably prepared in advance, of war with Poland and the adoption of Little Russia, in pursuance of which the boyar V.V. Buturlin was sent from the cathedral bring the Cossacks into citizenship. The cathedral of 1653 was the last Zemsky Sobor in the real sense of the word. After him, under Alexei Mikhailovich, representatives of the entire people were no longer convened, although in order to resolve this or that matter, the government resorted to calling on elected representatives of the class to which the matter concerned, making up of them a kind of commission of experts. Under Fyodor Alekseevich there also existed similar commissions or, as they are sometimes called, incomplete councils. The most remarkable of them were two commissions of 1682, of which at one the government consulted with representatives of the service class about changing the military regulations, and these meetings led to the destruction of localism, and at the other representatives of the tax class, not excluding peasants, were called to discuss the issue of equalizing services and taxes. Members of the second of these commissions could, it is believed, participate in the election of Peter Alekseevich as king, on April 27, 1682, and Ivan Alekseevich, on May 26 of the same year - two acts that were actually carried out by the patriarch with the clergy, the boyar duma and the population of Moscow, but to which they tried to give the sanction of the council. Finally, some also count among the councils the trial of Sophia, convened by Peter, according to Korb, in 1698 and consisting of deputies of all classes. But in all these cases we are obviously dealing with only the form of the cathedral, which has outlived its content. After 1698 the form also disappeared. The reasons for the fall of the cathedrals are interpreted differently by historians. Some see these reasons in the internal insignificance and powerlessness of the institution itself, resulting from the weakening of public initiative after the passing of a serious danger to the state; others - in the opposition met by popular representation from the boyar class. The first view was expressed by B. N. Chicherin, and S. M. Soloviev adheres to it to a certain extent; the second view is shared by V.I. Sergeevich and prof. Zagoskin, joined by Prof. Latkin. Both of them, however, do not fit well with the facts of the history of cathedrals. The cathedrals of Alexei Mikhailovich’s time show no signs of decline in their activities; on the other hand, it is difficult to see the political struggle between the councils and the boyars. Or rather, it seems, the view of Prof. Vladimirsky-Budanov, who sees the reason for the cessation of the councils in the reform activities of the government, for which it did not hope to find sympathy and support from the population. To this we can also add the disunity of interests of individual classes of the population and the change of the entire state system from zemstvo to police-bureaucratic, in which there was no longer any place for popular representation. The latter fell without a fight, since it grew out of government activity, having, in general, the character of the population assisting the supreme power, and not defending their rights before it.

Literature: K. S. Aksakov, “Complete Works”, vol. I (articles: “On the VI volume of the History of Russia by Mr. Solovyov”; “Comments on the article by Mr. Solovyov: Schletser and the anti-historical direction”; “A brief historical sketch of the Zemsky Sobors and etc."); S. M. Soloviev. "History of Russia", vol. VI - X, and the article "Schletser and the anti-historical direction" ("Russian Vestn.", 1857, vol. VIII); P. Pavlov, “On some Zemsky Sobors of the 16th and 17th centuries.” ("Otech. Zap.", 1859, vol. CXXII and CXXIII); A. P. Shchapov, "Zemsky Sobor 1648-9 and the meeting of deputies of 1767." (“Otech. Zap., 1862, No. 11) and “Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century. Cathedral of 1642" ("Century". 1862, No. 11); B. N. Chicherin, "On People's Representation" (M., 1866, book III, chapter 5, "Zemstvo Sobors in Russia); I. D. Belyaev, “Zemsky Sobors in Rus'” (Speeches and report of the Moscow University for 1867); V. I. Sergeevich, “Zemsky Sobors in the Moscow State” (Collected State Knowledge, ed. by V. P. Bezobrazov, vol. II, St. Petersburg, 1875); N.P. Zagoskin, “History of Law of the Moscow State” (vol. I, Kazan, 1877) and “The Code of the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich and the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-9.” (speech at the annual meeting of Kazan University, November 5, 1879); I. I. Dityatin, "The role of petitions and Zemsky Sobors in the history of law of the Moscow State." ("Russian Thought", 1880, No. 5) and "On the issue of Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century." ("Russian Thought", 1883, No. 12); S. F. Platonov, “Notes on the history of Moscow Zemsky Sobors” (J. M. N. Pr., 1883, No. 3 and separately St. Petersburg, 1883); V. N. Latkin, "Materials for the history of Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century." (St. Petersburg, 1884) and “Zemsky Sobors of Ancient Rus'” (St. Petersburg, 1885); M. F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, “Review of the history of Russian law” (Kyiv, 1888); V. O. Klyuchevsky, “Composition of representation at Zemsky Sobors” (Russian Thought, 1890, No. 1, 1891, No. 1 and 1892, No. 1).

The concept of Zemsky Sobors

Zemsky Sobors were the central estate-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 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 voivodes received instructions on elections, which were read out to city residents and peasants. After this, class elective lists were compiled, although the number of representatives was not fixed. Voters gave instructions to their elected representatives. 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 in order to provide funds for state needs, primarily defense and military, depended on their participation in this state body. Thus, in the Zemsky Sobors a policy of compromise between various layers of the ruling class was manifested.

The regularity and duration of meetings of Zemsky Sobors were not regulated in advance and depended on the circumstances and the importance and content of the issues discussed. In some cases, 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 Cathedral of Reconciliation. The reason for its convening 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 and the third estate, thanks to which the dissatisfied were somewhat calmed.

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

The most complex and representative structure was the Stoglavy Council of 1551 and the Council of 1566.

At the beginning of the 17th century, during the years of mass popular movements and 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 power 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 intensification 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 concerned 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 zemstvo 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 Cathedral 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. It formed five curium, 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.

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.

The Council Code, expressing the interests of the class of feudal serfs, first of all satisfied the requirements of the main support of tsarism - the masses of the service nobility, assigning to 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 Sobors

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.

It is characteristic of the third period that zemstvo councils under the 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 measures (collecting five-year 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 decline of the cathedrals (a slight rise marked the eve of their fall - the beginning of the 80s of the 18th century).

Classification of Zemsky Sobors

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.

Most of the cathedrals belong to the first group. The second group should include the council of 1648, which gathered, as the source directly states, in response to petitions to the king by people of “high ranks,” as well as, probably, a number of councils during the time of Mikhail Fedorovich. The third group includes the council of 1565, at which the question 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 highlight 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's reforms. For example, 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 “stateless times” (these are also acts of general historical significance) were devoted to the fate of the country’s political structure.

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 the 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, exhorting them to submit. 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 the decisions of the councils into account are not very convincing.

Periodization of Zemsky Sobors
The periodization of Zemsky Sobors can be divided into 6 periods:
1. The history of zemstvo councils begins during the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible. The first council took place in 1549. Councils convened by the royal authorities - this period lasts until 1565.
2. Starting from the death of Ivan the Terrible and until the fall of Shuisky (1584-1610). This was the time when the preconditions for civil war and foreign intervention were taking shape, and the crisis of autocracy began. The councils performed the function of electing the kingdom and often became an instrument of forces hostile to Russia.
3. 1610-1613 The Zemsky Sobor under the militias turns into the supreme body of power (both legislative and executive), deciding issues of domestic and foreign policy. It was during this period of time that the Zemsky Sobor played the most important and significant role in the public life of Russia.
4. 1613-1622 The Council operates almost continuously, but as an advisory body under the royal authority. Resolves current administrative and financial issues. The tsarist government seeks to rely on zemstvo councils when carrying out financial activities: collecting five-dollar money, restoring the damaged economy, eliminating the consequences of the intervention and preventing new aggression from Poland. From 1622, the activity of the cathedrals ceased until 1632.
5. 1632-1653 Councils meet relatively rarely, but to resolve important issues of both domestic policy: the drafting of the Code, the uprising in Pskov, and foreign policy: Russian-Polish and Russian-Crimean relations, the annexation of Ukraine, the question of Azov. During this period, the speeches of class groups intensifying, presenting demands to the government, not so much through zemstvo councils, but through submitted petitions.
6. 1653-1684. The importance of zemstvo cathedrals is declining (a slight rise was observed in the 80s). The last full council met in 1653 on the issue of admitting Ukraine to the Russian state.
The first is considered to be the Zemsky Sobor of 1549, which lasted two days and 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.

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 one.

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 districts 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, Alexey 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 the 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.”

History of Zemsky Sobors

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 question was the continuation or termination of the bloody Livonian War.

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 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 okolnichy, the clergy, and service people, that is, each group separately expressed its opinion on this issue.

Periodization of Zemsky Sobors

The periodization of Zemsky Sobors can be divided into 6 periods:

1. The history of zemstvo councils begins during the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible. The first council took place in the city. Councils convened by the royal authorities - this period continues until the city.

6. 1653-1684. The importance of zemstvo cathedrals is declining (a slight rise was observed in the 80s). The last council in its entirety met in 1653 on the issue of accepting the Zaporozhye Army into the Moscow state.

In 1684, the last Zemsky Council in Russian history took place. He resolved the issue of eternal peace with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After this, zemstvo councils no longer met, which was the inevitable result of the reforms of the entire social structure of Russia carried out by Peter I and the strengthening of absolutism.

Proposals for convening in later eras

Priamursky Zemsky Sobor

The cathedral opened on July 23, 1922 in Vladivostok; his goal was to restore the monarchy and establish a new body of Supreme Power in the Amur region - the last stronghold of the White Army. The initiator of the convening of the council was Lieutenant General Dieterichs and the Amur Provisional Government. The Council included representatives of the clergy and parishioners, the army and navy, civil departments and city government, zemstvo and public organizations, city homeowners, rural residents, merchants and entrepreneurs, Cossacks (both local and newcomers), higher educational institutions, the Russian population right-of-way of the CER.

The Council adopted decisions recognizing the power of the House of Romanov, asking the Romanovs to nominate a Supreme Ruler, and electing General Dieterichs as a temporary ruler. The final meeting of the Council took place on August 10, 1922, and already in October, attacks by Red Army soldiers and partisans led to the defeat of the White Army.

see also

Literature

• Klyuchevsky V. O. Composition of representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Rus'
• Zertsalov A. N. “On the history of Zemsky Sobors.” Moscow ,
• Zertsalov A. N. “New data on zemstvo councils in Russia 1648-1649.” Moscow, 1887.

Notes

see also

• Election of the Tsar

Links

• On the history of Moscow Zemstvo cathedrals Article by prof. S. F. Platonova
• Ivanov D. Zemsky Sobors

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Zemsky Sobor” is in other dictionaries:

Zemsky Sobor- (English: Zemsky Sobor) in the Russian state in the 16th - 17th centuries. a national meeting of representatives of the elite classes, convened for collegial discussion and resolution of issues usually within the competence of the monarch. Story … Encyclopedia of Law

S. Ivanov Zemsky Sobor The Zemsky Sobor in Rus' from the middle of the 16th to the end of the 17th century was a meeting of representatives of various segments of the population of the Moscow state to resolve political, economic and administrative issues. Zemsky Sobor... ... Wikipedia

Zemsky Sobor- (English: Zemsky Sobor) in the Russian state in the 16th - 17th centuries. a national meeting of representatives of the elite classes, convened for collegial discussion and resolution of issues usually within the competence of the monarch. History of the state and... Large legal dictionary

Zemsky Sobor- Zemsky Cathedral (source) ... Russian spelling dictionary

Zemsky Sobor- (source) ... Spelling dictionary of the Russian language

ZEMSKY CATHEDRAL- - the central body of class representation in the Russian state since the mid-16th century. until the mid-17th century, which was an instrument of influence primarily of the local nobility. Appearance 3. p. was caused by changes in the economy and social system... ... Soviet legal dictionary