Stairs. Entry group. Materials. Doors. Locks. Design

Volostel is a representative of the grand-ducal (royal) power locally (as a rule, in volosts and camps).

Volostels, along with governors, formed the core structure of local government of the Russian state late XV-XVI centuries The process of appearance of governors and volostels (as rulers of certain territories) on the historical arena most likely proceeded in parallel or with a slight time difference. At the beginning of the formation of the local government system, volost administrators, as well as city ones, acted on the principle of “transit courts”. However, over time, gravity becomes more and more clearly felt local authorities to one center and exercising control over the subordinate territory with the help of its apparatus. A study of the biographies of service people who held volost positions throughout their careers shows that they are found in sources as scribes, clerks, nurseries, mayors, provincial elders, and city clerks. That is, the “level” of their official appointments was generally lower than that of the governors. The dynamics of the social composition of the volostel corps was also different: here there is a steady predominance of representatives of untitled families, and these are mainly “ordinary” boyar children who occupied a very modest position at the grand ducal court. The governors and volostels sat on feedings, that is, they received income not from the treasury, but directly from the population they governed. Being paid by a city or volost was very significant for a service person. In practice, the range of his food and income, due to the receipt of such a position, was quite wide and went far beyond the limits of official regulations recorded, for example, in special feeding letters. Apparently, there was no fundamental difference in the profitability of governorates and volosts. The amount of feed per unit of taxation for both awards was the same, and their final sizes depended on the size of the subordinate territory, and not on whether it was a city or a parish; in the same way, the rights to other income (taxes, duties, fines, etc.) were equal. In the economic and administrative sphere of activity (control over various forms mobilization of land ownership, the state of agricultural land and empty lands, organization of trade, maintaining order, etc.) the competence of volosts and governors generally coincided. However, the volosts, apparently, did not participate in the procedures for registering servile dependence. In addition, the activities of the volost authorities were directed mainly “inside” the territory under their jurisdiction; in any case, it never rose to the interstate level. In the military-political and diplomatic sphere, there was a very significant divide between the volosts and the governors. Despite the equality of status and powers, reflected in almost all legislative provisions, volostels were never considered as independent political figures. Obviously, receiving a city as a salary was more prestigious and honorable than a volost, since this very appointment placed its owner at a higher level of the service hierarchy. One of the central places in the activities of the volostels was occupied by judicial functions, duties from the administration of which were also a significant source of their income. The competence of feeders extended to a wide range of cases, both civil and criminal. The powers of the volosts and governors here also generally coincided; the difference was, rather, in the size of the territory under their jurisdiction. The governors and volostels kept their tiuns, closers and righteous men for the trial, who were their slaves. Volostels gradually disappeared by the beginning of the 17th century, thanks to the reforms of Ivan the Terrible and the spread of voivodeship administration from the beginning of the 17th century.

At the head of the Moscow Grand Duchy was Ivan III Vasilyevich, who in 1492 was first called “Sovereign and Autocrat of All Rus'.”

From the time of Kievan Rus the word “sovereign” meant a powerful person, but it applied to all levels of society, including the head of the family, a strong owner, a ruler, a landowner. From the middle of the 14th century, the word “sovereign” began to be used to title holders of supreme power. Grand dukes have always been large landowners and zealous owners, and therefore sovereigns. This title was gradually combined with the idea of ​​the unlimited power of the Grand Duke - the Sovereign. Since the time of Ivan III, the great Moscow princes began to consider themselves autocratic rulers, rulers by God's permission. Russian tsars also called themselves sovereigns, and since 1724 “sovereign” became a short title for the emperor of Russia.

Under Ivan III Vasilievich The nobles began to play one of the leading roles in the state, quickly turning into a large class.

"People of the Court" were mentioned in historical sources With beginning of XIII century. This word denoted people who were supported by princes in the princely, Sovereign's court and who were obligated to serve the master. A little later, the servants of large patrimonial boyars also began to be called nobles.

“Otchiny” arose in the 10th century as the hereditary family property of princes, boyars, and churches. Patrimonies were divided into ancestral, served and purchased, and were increased due to the development or annexation of new territories, grants, exchange, and purchase. The owners of the estate had tarkhan, “non-judgmental” charters, by which they judged, collected taxes, and ensured order without the right to interfere with the princely power.

For their service to the prince or patrimonial boyars, the nobles received estates - land for lifelong use. As state property, estates could not be sold, but were usually left to the relatives of the deceased or deceased landowner - subject to continued service “on horseback, with people and in arms.” Soon there were three estates per estate. The differences between estates and fiefdoms were gradually erased. Estates were bought, estates were given as estates. The decree of Peter the Great of March 23, 1714 legally formalized the merger of votchina and estate into an estate, as “immovable estate - votchina.”

Since the 15th century, the manor house had a special watchtower - a wooden three-story log house. The bottom of the tower was used as residential and utility rooms. The upper floors, connected to the lower ones through trap hatches, were adapted for combat. There was no legal procedure for granting nobility with documentary evidence.

The army of Ivan III consisted of irregular noble cavalry, detachments of serving princes and boyars, serving Cossacks, gunners and pishchalniks, called “outfit” and “pososhny rati” - a militia of peasants and townspeople. The main part The troops became a local militia of nobles and boyar children. The army was divided into five regiments - large, right hand, left hand, forward and guard. Three regiments went on small campaigns - large, advanced and guard.

Local government in the Moscow Principality was carried out by governors appointed by the Grand Duke. The governors ruled, judged, collected taxes, had their own administration and garrisons. Viceroyal service was usually a reward, a pension for military service to the prince. The main responsibility of the governors was to collect tributes and taxes, and carry out various princely assignments. The governors kept order and investigated crimes - “murders, robberies and theft.” The court was one of the main sources of income for the prince and governor, his subordinate tiuns, greeters, and closers.

There were numerous complaints about the abuses of the governors. In 1497, the Code of Law of Ivan III limited the judicial powers of the governors, transferring some of their powers to representatives of the local population. Specific fees were established for all types of judicial activities. From the middle of the 16th century, governors began to be replaced by governors.

On November 12, 1472, Ivan III married for the second time. The twenty-five-year-old woman became the wife of the Grand Duke of Moscow Byzantine princess Sophia Paleologus, niece of the last emperor of Byzantium, Constantine, who died in 1453 during the capture of Constantinople by the Turks.

Sophia Paleologus has never been to Constantinople. She lived her entire life under the patronage of the pope in Rome. Marriage to a relative of the Palaiologos significantly strengthened the position of Ivan III both within the country and abroad. The thirty-year-old Grand Duke and Sovereign of All Rus', which was still under the rule of the Golden Horde, became the successor of the Byzantine emperors and the only remaining Orthodox ruler. Byzantine map in political game The Moscow state for sovereignty became one of the main trump cards of the brilliant Ivan III, who for the first time created a huge centralized state in North-Eastern Rus'. From Rome, through Lubeck, Ravel, Pskov and Novgorod, the Byzantine princess arrived in Moscow.

The opinion of many researchers that it was with Sophia Paleologus that Byzantine deceit, intrigue, and sophisticated two-faced politics came to Rus' is incorrect. The policy of the princes of the Moscow House was never simple and primitive. The most terrible khan of the Golden Horde, Uzbek, told Ivan Kalita that a very cunning and intelligent prince was creating a powerful state in order to gain independence from the Mongol supreme power. The fate of Moscow and Rus' often hung by a thread - the life of its great princes. If the Tver principality had won in the dispute for power in the Russian lands, it would have brought Rus' to the Kulikovo field much ahead of time. Not yet born Russian state would have been immediately destroyed by the merciless blow of the then powerful Golden Horde. Moscow waited, gathered all its strength and struck to death. If Ivan Kalita had been sitting behind the walls of Constantinople in 1453, it would have been simply useless for the Turkish Sultan to besiege them. From the middle of the 14th century, many sovereigns tried to study the methods and forms of power in the Moscow principality - in order to adopt new talented ideas and then the usual stab in the back. It didn't work out very well. Outstanding Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky once rashly called the Moscow princes gray mediocrities, indistinguishable from each other, however, immediately refuting himself. The princes of the Moscow House, who went down in history with the sonorous names Proud, Red, Brave, worked desperately to create Russian statehood, often from overwork before reaching the age of forty. It was their works that allowed Russia to survive Ivan the Terrible, who broke the Russian national character, and Time of Troubles beginning of the 17th century. It was on the basis of their achievements that Peter the Great, the brilliant successor and heir to the works of Alexander Nevsky, Ivan Kalita and Ivan the Third, created a great state.

Ivan III knew very well the mechanism of power of the two disappeared empires - Byzantium and the Golden Horde. In 1474 he bought the second half of the Rostov principality. It was the turn of Veliky Novgorod.

The Yazhelbitsky Treaty of 1456 almost established new legal norms in the relations between Moscow and Novgorod, whose boyars could no longer simply pay off the Muscovites. A princely court had been operating in Novgorod for several years, accepting complaints from offended Novgorodians. The veche was deprived of the status of the highest court. The grand ducal seal was already often affixed to city documents.

Ivan III spent several years preparing for the decisive battle with the boyar republic. The reason for its defeat was the Novgorod-Lithuanian Treaty of 1471, which became an attempt by Novgorod to come under the rule of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The war lasted less than two months. After the defeat of the Novgorod troops in the Battle of Shelon, it became finally clear that the Novgorod colossus rests on feet of clay. The people long ago stopped supporting the presumptuous Novgorod oligarchy. Ivan III executed the leaders of the “Lithuanian party” and Novgorod was almost annexed to Moscow by the Treaty of Korostyn in 1471. At the same time, Great Perm was also annexed to the state of Ivan III.

Media reports are being replaced by new headlines about the arrest or trial of yet another corrupt official. Some civil servants get away with multimillion-dollar fines, others are expected to be sent to a penal colony, while a number of officials receive suspended sentences, and sometimes the case is closed due to lack of evidence. However, the question always arises: is the “servant of the sovereign” himself really to blame for taking bribes? Either the system that has developed over the years is to blame centuries-old history Russia.

It is generally accepted that “corruption” began its march across Rus' from the moment when the apparatus began to take shape state power and an order management system. The local representatives of the Grand Duke were governors and governors. They were the complete masters of the subject territories.

Viceroyalty and voivodeship rested on feedings– a system of maintenance and material incentives for the state bureaucracy employed in local government bodies during the formation of the Russian state. The boyar governors, sent by the central government to serve in the districts of the country, did not receive a salary from the state, but had the right to take money from the local population subject to them, i.e. feed at his expense.

When the governor took office, people paid him "entering food"(to put it in modern language, lifting), and were forced to support the feeder during the entire period of his service. In addition, the boyars could demand appropriate “food” for their servants, entourage, and horses. Usually “food” was offered 3 times a year: on Christmas, Easter and the Day of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

Extensive "Russian Truth"(known in the lists of the 13th - 15th centuries) establishes the following natural content for the virnik (executor of the decisions of the princely court): 2 chickens per day, and on Wednesday and Friday cheese, 7 loaves per week, 7 harvests of millet and peas, 7 salt and 7 buckets of malt.

In other cases, the same monument defines: “and bread and millet as they can eat”, or " what's in the womb", or in even more general terms: " and feed them enough for themselves and the horse will have enough" Since ancient times, such food has been paid by the population as a duty, regardless of whether the judge is hungry or not.

American historian D. Blum explains this phenomenon by the economic difficulties that Rus' experienced in the 13th-15th centuries. Due to the population decline, there was a lot of abandoned land that did not provide any income. But even those lands that were cultivated were used mainly as part of subsistence farming, producing food for domestic consumption rather than for the purpose of selling it. Under these conditions, the collection of monetary taxes was either impossible or played a limited role. The main thing was the collection natural products feeder, and it was completely natural that he kept part of these products for himself for his work in managing the territory entrusted to him.

This system was created in order to create a centralized state, however, everything led to the fact that feeders began to consider themselves “kings” in their small territory.

Subsequently, “natural” feeding gradually began to be replaced by “welfare” in monetary terms. Often, feeders took advantage of their position and tried to “earn” as much as possible. As the Austrian ambassador Herberstein, who was in Moscow for a long time (the first third of the 16th century), wrote, the feeder’s source of income was also “extortions that are extorted from the poor if they are guilty of something.” As can be seen from this characteristic, even despite the fixed rates of basic taxes paid by the population in the 15th-16th centuries, the feeding system was a frequent source of arbitrariness of the governors.

The local population did not skimp on gifts - there was no other way out. Having collected the bribe, the governors returned to the capital, where the surplus of accumulated wealth was taken away from them in favor of the treasury. This is how the mutual responsibility of the capital and provincial bribe takers was formed.

However, the Moscow state began to come into force, which led to an increase in the number of service people, boyars and boyar children. But although there are more feeders, the proportions are not at all the same.

Since the end of the 15th century, the great princes sought to limit the power and income of the “companies”. First of all, the feeding period is set - 1-3 years. Moreover, two governors began to be appointed to one city, and two volostels to a volost. Feeders had to share income, as well as the territory under their jurisdiction.

Feeders also began to have their functions limited. The fact is that the feeder, as a representative of the state, was also a judge: under his command there was an entire judicial-police apparatus. And very often, or almost always, court decisions were made by him taking into account how many “promises” (bribes) each litigant paid. The law, adopted the day after the speech of Ivan the Terrible, on February 27, 1549, said: “in all cities of the Moscow land, governors should not judge the children of boyars for anything, except for murder and theft and red-handed robbery.”

The vices of Russian bureaucracy have already become proverbs; ironic literary characters and critical statements about civil servants are common in literature. All this was inherited by modern officials from civil servants of the Russian Empire, who, in turn, have direct succession from the “servants of the sovereign” of Rus'. Although feeding was officially abolished in 1556, the tradition of living and getting rich at the expense of our subjects has been preserved in our mentality, unfortunately, to this day.

Olga Ilyina

The historical role of reconstruction single state and Muscovite Rus' took upon itself liberation from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. With extraordinary persistence, the Moscow princes fought for the concentration of power in their hands, sometimes taking the most extreme measures against opponents of centralization. First mentioned in the chronicle in 1147, small wooden Moscow was wiped off the face of the earth during the invasion of Batu's hordes into Rus'. But the city was rebuilt again. Moscow became an independent reign in the 1270s, during the reign of Prince Daniil Alexandrovich, youngest son Alexander Nevsky. He became the founder of the dynasty of Moscow princes.

In the XIV century. Moscow Prince Ivan Kalita (1325-1340) laid the foundation for the unification of Russian lands. From that time on, the Moscow princes bore the title of Grand Dukes of Vladimir, and Moscow became the residence of the Russian Metropolitan and the spiritual center of Rus'. Under Ivan Kalita's grandson Dmitry Ivanovich (1359-1389), Tver, which had long been competing with Moscow for hegemony in northeastern Rus', was finally defeated. And after the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, Moscow became obvious to everyone the center of national unification.

The process of consolidation of Russian lands was completed in the second half of the 15th century. the formation of a unified Moscow state. Its creator and first “sovereign of all Rus'” was the great-grandson of Dmitry Donskoy, Ivan III Vasilyevich (1462-1505). Ivan III is one of the key figures in our history. During his reign, an end was put to the Mongol-Tatar yoke, which had weighed on Russia for two and a half centuries. Ivan III was the first to take the title “Sovereign of All Rus'”. Under him, the term “Russia” began to be used in relation to our state. Ivan III was married to the Byzantine princess Sophia Paleologus, the daughter of the brother of the last emperor of Byzantium, Constantine Paleologus. Rus' began to consider itself the successor of the Byzantine Empire.

Development of the Russian economy in the 15th – 16th centuries. associated primarily with the gradual enslavement of peasants who lived on princely, boyar, and church lands. According to an agreement with landowners, they occupied certain plots of land and paid for them an agreed cash or in-kind dues, and also performed some duties (corvée). In accordance with the laws and old customs, peasants had the right to transfer from one owner to another. Over the years, it became increasingly difficult for peasants to move to new places, as their debt to landowners constantly grew. Archival data indicate that the borrowed interest was approximately 20% per annum, so it was not easy for the peasants to pay off their debts. Gradually, the feudal lords and the church began to demand from the peasants an increase in quitrents, from the 15th century. the number of various duties and labor in favor of the feudal lord increased noticeably.

Under Ivan III 1497 g. The famous Code of Laws was published, the first set of laws of the Russian state, according to which uniform legal norms were distributed throughout Russia. The Code of Law included 68 articles and reflected the strengthening role of the central government in the state structure and legal proceedings of the country. Article 57 limited the right of peasant transition from one feudal lord to another to a certain period for the entire country: one week before the autumn St. George's Day (November 26), and one week after. For care, the peasant had to pay “elderly” - payment for living and use of the land. The “elderly” amount was 1 rub. from one person (with this money you could buy a working horse, or 100 pounds of rye). The introduction of such a condition was the first legislative step towards the enslavement of the peasants. However, until the end of the 16th century. peasants retained the right to move from one landowner to another.

During the formation of the Moscow state in the XIV-XV centuries, the main financial “institution” and the only financial legislator was Grand Duke. State revenues and expenses were not separated from the income and expenses of the Grand Duke. The state received income in cash and in kind. Bread, wax, horses, furs, etc. were received in kind. Highest value had furs - yasak.

From the end of the 15th century. a unified system of central and local government institutions was gradually formed, performing administrative, military, judicial, financial and other functions. These institutions were named orders. The order was first mentioned in documents in the Code of Laws of 1497. The centralization of power in the hands of the Moscow prince necessitated the emergence of special financial departments.

Apparently coffers became the first state institution that emerged even before the formation of a centralized state. Already in the middle of the 15th century. The positions of state clerk and clerk - officials in charge of treasury records - are mentioned for the first time. The treasury was the main state repository and was not limited to financial matters. Not only money and jewelry were kept here, but also the state archive and state seal. Thus, the Treasury was, in essence, a state chancellery. From the beginning of the 15th century. The role of the treasury in the system of government bodies is strengthening. It becomes the central financial department.

Thus, in n. XVI century In Rus', a permanent institution is being formed, which has a certain staff, a certain area of ​​government affairs management. At the head of the order were the treasurer and the printer. The main content of the work of the government order was the collection of state taxes and management of the administration of state duties.

A new period of formation of the monetary system of the Moscow state dates back to the 15th-16th centuries. Until the end of the 15th century. Almost all the principalities of Rus' - Tver, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod, etc. - were engaged in minting coins independently. Prince Ivan III began to prohibit the minting of money for all princes who were part of a single state. He approved the Moscow money issue. The inscription “Sovereign of All Rus'” appeared on Moscow coins. The basic unit was the ruble (ruble coins did not exist, this was a counting unit). The main coin was money. The Moscow ruble was equal to 100 hryvnia or 200 Moscow money . But parallel money issue continued in Novgorod the Great until the time of Ivan IV. The Novgorod ruble included 216 Novgorod money. Thus, the Novgorod ruble was larger than the Moscow ruble. The Novgorod coin depicted a horseman with a spear (this money was called spear money).

From the end of the 15th century. a new layer of landowners was formed - the serving nobility, which grew mainly from the servants of the princely and boyar courts. In the second half of the 15th century. for their service they received small land holdings (estates) with peasants. The estate was given only for the duration of the military service as payment for this service. Initially, the nobles were not land owners. The land was the property of the state and was used by it to support the army. The nobility was in the service of the state, and through estates the state kept the nobles in economic subordination. The peasants gave the landowner part of the products of their labor (rents), performed various agricultural work (corvée), and carried out other duties.

The boyar aristocracy and the local service nobility began to play a leading role in the system of public administration of the Russian centralized state. The entire management system during this period wore the form localism, in which the receipt of any position for a representative of the princely-boyar nobility was necessarily linked to the origin and nobility of the family. It was not abstract nobility that was taken into account, but the services of ancestors and relatives. If once one service person was subordinate to another, then their children and grandchildren should always be in the same ratio.

The city and the suburban camp were ruled by the deputy of the Grand Duke from the boyars, the volosts were governed by the volosts from smaller feudal lords. The governors and volosts did not receive salaries from the Grand Duke, and for their administration they took “food” in kind from the local population. This system of local government was called "feeding". The population greeted the newly appointed governor with “incoming food.” On Christmas, Easter and St. Peter's Day, the population supplied him with basic food (food, fodder for horses). In addition, the governor received a certain portion of the various duties (regulatory duties, customs duties). The feeders kept part of the money income for themselves, and gave part to the prince. Special food was provided to the administrative staff of the governor: judges, tiuns, closers (carried out summons to court) and pravetchiks (bailiffs). The feeding system was initially not limited by anything. Payments from the population for the feeding system were made in addition to centralized payments. The “feeding” system did not allow the formation of a single centralized financial department.

The new state order, which began to take shape under Ivan III, finally took shape under his grandson Ivan IV Vasilyevich (1533-1584). After the death of Vasily III, his three-year-old son Ivan IV ascended the throne. In 1547, seventeen-year-old Ivan IV was crowned king and for the first time officially took the title of tsar.

In the 16th century, Rus', like all of Europe, experienced the cataclysms of the first financial crisis in the world associated with the “price revolution.” Cheap American gold, which poured into Europe, made many changes to the emerging credit and financial system. Inflation, the fall in the fixed rental incomes of the landed aristocracy and the real incomes of peasants and working people, the crisis of the fragile credit system - these are the consequences of this phenomenon for Russia. By the 30s of the 16th century, the purchasing power of the ruble had decreased by 25% compared to the end of the 15th century, and by 75% by the end of the 16th century.

Under Ivan IV, the government was forced to carry out 1534 monetary reform, essentially forming a unified monetary system for the entire Moscow state. This reform went down in history as a monetary reform of Elena Glinskaya, mother of Ivan IV, who was the de facto ruler of the state during this period. Under Elena Glinskaya, the Moscow ruble became the main monetary unit for the entire country. She introduced strict rules for minting coins according to standard samples (weight, design), and violation of these standards was strictly punished. Under Elena Glinskaya, small silver coins were issued, which depicted a horseman with a sword in his hands - sword money. On the money of larger weight, a horseman-warrior was depicted striking a serpent with a spear—spear money. Smaller coins were also issued - half coins, or ¼ kopeck (in 1563 a cow cost 1 ruble, and a pound of bread - 5 kopecks). Until the end of the 16th century. The year of issue was not indicated on the coins. Under Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, they began to knock out the date “from the creation of the world.” At the beginning of the 17th century. Tsar Vasily Shuisky managed to issue the first Russian gold coins - kopecks and nickels, but they did not last long in circulation, turning into treasures.

The Russian centralized state with a single supreme power, with laws common to the entire country, and with a professional state apparatus took shape in the 16th century. The role of the legislative and advisory body under the Grand Duke, and later under the Tsar, was played by the Boyar Duma, which had its own official apparatus - Duma clerks. Only those representatives of the nobility who complained to the “Duma officials” could enjoy the right to participate in the Boyar Duma. At the head of the Duma was the “horse boyar”, the highest rank was the title “boyar”, the second Duma rank was the title “okolnichy”, the third was “Duma nobleman”.

In the middle of the 16th century. Zemsky Sobors, the highest class representative institutions, began their activities (1549). Zemsky councils were occasionally convened by the tsar to discuss the most important issues of foreign policy and finance. The composition of the zemstvo cathedrals was basically stable: it included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral (representatives of the highest clergy), as well as representatives of the estates - the local service nobility and the posad (city) elite. With the development of new executive authorities - orders - their representatives were also part of Zemsky Sobors. In the middle of the 16th century. There were already two dozen orders. The orders were in charge of administration, tax collection and the courts. The design of the order system made it possible to centralize the management of the country.

The general trend towards centralization of the country necessitated the publication of a new set of laws - the Code of Laws of 1550. It confirmed the right of peasants to move on St. George’s Day and increased the payment for the “elderly”. The right to collect trade duties passed into the hands of the state. The population of the country was obliged to bear taxes - a complex of natural and monetary duties.

Implementation of the zemstvo reform of 1555-1556. led to the elimination of the feeding system, and the completion of the zemstvo reform changed the system of central financial departments. Previously, local tax collection was entrusted to feeding boyars; they were the actual rulers of individual lands. All funds collected in excess of the required taxes to the treasury were at their personal disposal. In 1556, feedings were abolished. Local administration was transferred to the hands of provincial elders (guba - administrative district), elected from local nobles.

In those districts where there was no private land ownership, as well as in cities, the population elected zemstvo elders, usually from the most prosperous strata of the Chernososh and Posad population. All judicial, tax and other local activities were transferred to the hands of elected zemstvo elders (“favorite heads”). They included elected kissers. The zemstvo elders, in turn, were subordinate to the provincial elders. The zemstvo authorities were entrusted with the allocation and collection of taxes with responsibility for their shortfall. They also managed the execution of duties in kind. The income of the former feeders, now clearly fixed for each region, under the name “fed okupa,” was transferred by the zemstvo authorities directly to the royal treasury. The provincial and zemstvo reforms were a step forward on the path to centralization.

In addition to these local governments, there were others. The collection of indirect taxes and customs duties was carried out by customs and tavern elected heads and tsesalniks. The zemstvo reform led to an increase in treasury revenues. The country has developed a certain taxation system in the form of direct and indirect taxes.

In the middle of the 16th century, a single unit for collecting taxes was established for the entire state - the plow, from which the state land tax - pososhnoe - was collected. Depending on the fertility of the soil, as well as the social status of the owner of the land, the plow amounted to 400 - 600 dessiatines of land (1 dessiatine = 1.09 hectares). The state, on the basis of scribe books, determined the total amount of tax in the country, which was then distributed among counties, volosts and villages. The determination of the amount of yard tax was determined according to the layout principle. The latter took into account the property status of individuals.

Indirect taxation originated in Russia at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries: state regalia (monopolies) emerged - the revenue prerogatives of the treasury, industries and activities that could only be carried out by government agencies. In order to increase treasury revenues, a monopoly on the sale of bread, hemp, honey, etc. is introduced.

In 1533, the first “tsar’s tavern” was opened in Moscow - trade in vodka was also concentrated in the hands of the tsar’s administration, and the emergence of distillation (vodka production) in Russia dates back to 1478. The Treasury bought a number of goods from the Russian domestic market at fixed prices for resale at higher prices abroad. At that time, the export of money, gold and silver items from the country was prohibited.

In the second half of the 16th century, new central financial institutions were created: the order of the Great Parish, which was in charge of collecting basic state revenues, the order of the New Quarter (“Cheti”), which was in charge of local finances, and the order of the Great Treasury, which had broad powers, because he was subordinate to state industry and trade, and the Monetary Court, which minted coins. At the end of the century, the work of new financial institutions made it possible to deprive the patrimonial owners of their financial immunity: now all cash flows were under the control of the Moscow government.

Posad people paid dues per person and according to trades (per land, if they were engaged in beekeeping, gardening, etc.). Landowners could pay taxes for their peasants. However, the law did not oblige them to do this.

Zemstvo reform, a general land census, the creation of specialized financial orders, and the transfer of a significant part of state duties to money completed the formation of state finances by the end of the 16th century. During this period, the composition of the tax-paying population was determined and its taxation was organized. A tax cadastre was created - “scribal books” (in 1581-1592 a census of lands and population was carried out, where the ownership of peasants to any owner was indicated).

The main branch of the Russian economy in the 17th century was agriculture. The bulk of landowners and peasant farms under the rule of serfdom were based on subsistence farming, providing themselves with everything they needed. The marketability of agriculture grew very slowly. Agriculture, as subsequently, followed an extensive path of development.

In the second half of the 17th century, settlement of the Urals and Trans-Urals occurred. Through the Urals, mainly from Pomerania, peasant migrants went to Siberia. If in 1613 Russian possessions in Siberia reached the Yenisei, then by the end of the century the pioneers reached the shores of the Pacific Ocean, Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands.

In general, the level of development of Russian agriculture remained low. Primitive tools and old farming systems were used. The 17th century did not bring fundamental changes to the structure of Russian agriculture.

New phenomena in the economic life of Russia in the 17th century also include the revival of urban crafts and its gradual development into small-scale industrial production . The state widely used the labor of artisans to produce weapons. However, small handicraft production could not satisfy the needs of the army either quantitatively or qualitatively. The interests of the country's defense accelerated the development in Russia of large manufacturing-type enterprises with a number of employees from 100 to 300 and a division of labor. The first manufactories in Russia were state-owned, since a centralized state arose before the development of capitalist entrepreneurship. The first industries to embrace manufacturing were metallurgy, military and construction. Most of the large enterprises were concentrated in the central, most developed region, where manufactories gradually appeared in various industries - textiles, glass, leather, and stationery. The first attempts are being made to industrially develop the natural resources of the Urals.

Another group of manufactories consisted of enterprises owned by foreigners, and less often by domestic merchants. The state used the experience of Western Europe in creating manufactories and in every possible way encouraged the initiative of foreigners. Three factories were founded by the Dutch merchant Andrei Vinius in the Tula-Kashira region, oldest center ironworks. In addition to Tula, Olonets became a newly emerging center of the metallurgical industry, where the Dane A. Butenant built several enterprises. The factories used advanced Western European technology - blast furnaces. Privately owned rope manufactories in Vologda, Kholmogory and Arkhangelsk, as well as salt pans in the northern and Volga regions of the country, became large-scale industries.

The scale of manufacturing production was insignificant. During the 17th century, about 60 manufactories of various profiles arose in Russia, but by the beginning of the 18th century only 30 survived. The incomes of industrialists were unstable, and the owners of factories often changed. Russian metallurgical factories produced only a tenth of the iron produced by Sweden. The emergence of new manufactories was hindered by the fact that the owner was not the full owner of the enterprise, even one built “with his own money.” Only with the permission of the king did he have the right to sell the enterprise and transfer ownership to other persons, even to the heir. Ownership of the plant was limited to limited years, after which the sovereign could do with it at his own discretion - transfer it to the treasury or transfer it to another owner. The size of production, the number of craftsmen and the sale of products were strictly regulated. Thus, the treasury, while providing support to industrialists, created many obstacles to normal work and expansion of production.

Russian manufactories of the 17th century worked almost exclusively on government orders, and in this sense, even the manufactories of foreigners were essentially state-owned. Russian manufacture of the 17th century was consumer in nature. The goods produced were used for the needs of the treasury and the sovereign's court, and not for free sale, while the nature of small-scale industrial production changed noticeably.

Commercial and handicraft production increasingly developed into production for sale, that is, for the market. This was a consequence of fishing and craft specialization, which increased significantly in the 17th century. Thus, Pomorie was famous for wood products and salt, the Volga region and Vologda for leather processing, Novgorod and Pskov for linen, Moscow and Yaroslavl for textile production, Tula, Kashira and Onega region for iron production. Specialization also began in agriculture. The main areas of commercial production of bread are the Middle Volga and Upper Dnieper regions, and the main areas of commercial production of flax and hemp are the region of Novgorod and Pskov.

Conditions were created for economic (commodity) interaction between regions, and this in turn contributed to the formation all-Russian market. However, connections between individual regions were still weak, which contributed to a wide range of prices for the same goods in different regions of the country and provided merchants with unprecedented profits - up to 100% on invested capital.

Large cities of Russia - Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Yaroslavl, Vologda, Ustyug, etc. - primarily became shopping centers. poor condition communication routes and the underdevelopment of commodity production, exchange between isolated local markets was seasonal and carried out through trade fairs- wholesale trade centers. The largest of them have acquired national significance. The Makaryevskaya (Nizhny Novgorod) fair, which traded mainly in furs and fabrics and attracted a lot of merchants both from the Center and from the Asian regions, enjoyed the privileges of the tsarist government. The Irbit Fair (in the Urals) flourished, through which goods reached Siberia. In the spring, the crowded northern Annunciation Fair (on the Vozha River) began to operate. The largest fair in the southwestern region was Svenskaya (near Bryansk), which played an important role in trade between Russia and Ukraine. Extensive trade was carried out at the Nezhin and Tikhvin fairs.

The scale of trade in Russia in the 17th century was astounding. The composition of the traders was exceptionally diverse. The largest merchant was the king himself. An exemplary economy was established in the royal estate, factories were operating, so they closely monitored market prices and exported a variety of products for sale. Large feudal lords also traded actively: Boyarin B.I. Morozov, princes L.K. Cherkassky, N.I. Odoevsky, Yu.I. Romadanovsky. Merchants, monasteries, archers, servicemen and townspeople, and peasants traded. The passion for trade in the Moscow state captured the entire population.

The development of trade contributed to the strengthening of ties between city and countryside. The stratum of the population engaged in production for sale and trade expanded. Retail trade was in the hands of small traders in shops and peddlers.

Along with the widespread participation in trade of various segments of the population in the 17th century, there was an intensive process of formation of the merchant class, which from the category of tax people stood out to a special group of urban or townspeople. Some merchants owned trades, took a payoff, were engaged in usury and, disposing of huge capital, acted as trading agents and even advisers to the tsar on financial and trade matters (the Stroganovs, Nikitnikovs, Shorins).

The merchants were divided into guests, living room and cloth hundreds and settlements. The highest and most honorable place belonged to the guests. The honorary title “sovereign guest” was given to merchants for services to the state in commercial matters. The group of guests was small and during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich did not exceed 30 people. The title of guest was given to the largest entrepreneurs with a trade turnover of 20 to 100 thousand rubles. They were given a special certificate and given great privileges. Thus, guests and family members not separated from them were subject only to the royal court, and were exempt from community services, duties and duties; had the right to own estates and receive estates; freely traveled abroad with goods; held senior financial positions.

Members of the living room and cloth hundreds (in the 17th century - up to 400 people) were rich merchants, voluntarily elected or transferred from the townspeople by order of the government. The received title was inherited along with capital and goods. Merchants of the living room and cloth hundreds also enjoyed great privileges, occupied a prominent place in the financial hierarchy, but were inferior to the guests in “honor.” The living room and the cloth hundreds had self-government: officials were elected from the members of the hundreds: heads, elders and foremen. Depending on the significance of trade turnover, living rooms and cloth hundreds were divided into three sections: large, medium and small. The living room hundred was more honorable than the cloth one.

The lowest rank of merchants were represented by residents of settlements and Black Hundreds. Self-governing communities of townspeople consisted of small traders, industrialists, artisans, who produced and sold their own goods. The Black Hundreds included suburban city residents, children of priests, deacons, clergymen, and peasants living on city land. This category of unprofessional traders competed with professional merchants of the highest ranks, since by trading their own products, they could sell them cheaper.

An important role in the economic life of the state was played not only by internal, but also foreign trade. On the foreign market, Russia was known as a supplier of agricultural products and raw materials, and to a lesser extent as an exporter of industrial goods. Furs, timber, resin, tar, flax, hemp, leather, potash, bristles, linen, lard, meat, caviar, and bread were exported from the country. Wines, spices, fine cloth, paper, metal, gold and silver products, and pharmaceutical goods were imported.

The only port through which direct trade relations with the countries of Western Europe were possible in the 17th century was Arkhangelsk, and the main trading partners were England and Holland. Already in the middle of the 16th century, Russian entrepreneurs received the right to trade duty-free with England, had several buildings in London, in the 17th century, the position of England was supplanted by Holland, which, having a large merchant fleet, imported into Russia not only its own goods, but also the goods of other countries (France , Spain, Italy).

Astrakhan remained the main center of trade with the countries of the East (Persia, the Khiva and Bukhara khanates, and India). Indian merchants even founded their own colony in Astrakhan.

Despite a noticeable step forward in solving economic problems, the process of establishing entrepreneurship in the 17th century was slow. 96% of the population lived in villages, there were up to 254 cities, major centers there was little. The merchant class had not yet emerged as a monolithic group and was not a clear category of the population or class. However, the tsarist government for the first time began to show concern for commercial and industrial entrepreneurship. According to the Council Code of 1649, townspeople received a monopoly right to engage in trade and crafts.

Russia's foreign trade was almost entirely in the hands of foreign merchants. From the very beginning, the Russian merchant class had a powerful competitor in the form of foreign capital. Weakly organized and lacking sufficient capital, the Russian merchant class repeatedly turned to the government with requests to protect their rights and interests and limit the benefits of foreign traders in Russia. Moreover, difficult conditions were imposed on Russian merchants abroad. The government met halfway business people and began to pursue policies protectionism in relation to Russian traders. In 1646, privileges for foreign merchants were abolished, their trade in inland cities was limited, and duty-free trade for English companies was abolished. In 1650, duties on foreign goods were increased, small trades, terms, and terms of trade were limited. The government of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich can be credited with creating a clear customs system instead of random customs duties and benefits.

The reforms of the 50-60s of the 17th century reflected the new government position in the field of trade and entrepreneurship. The Trade Charter (1653) and the Charter Customs Charter (1654) were adopted. For foreigners, on average, the customs duty was 12 - 13% of the value of the goods, for Russians who exported goods abroad, 4 - 5%. That is, the Trade Charter was clearly protectionist in nature. However, the difficult international situation and the turbulent situation within the country led to some hesitation on the part of the authorities in patronizing trade.

The most far-sighted representatives of the ruling class understood the need for more decisive measures. The initiator of innovations in trade policy was the Pskov governor A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin, who carried out a number of transformations in Pskov and its environs. Later, his reform activities were expanded to a national scale. In 1667, on the initiative and with the direct participation of A.L. Ordin-Nashchokina was accepted New Trade Charter, which strengthened the position of the Russian merchants. The government under the influence of A.L. Ordin-Nashchekina tried to carry out mercantilist policy. Foreigners were prohibited from retail trade, only wholesale trade was allowed, and even then mainly in outlying cities. Differential duties from foreigners were levied only on gold and silver and reached 22% of the value of goods (6% when imported into Russia, 10% when transported inside the country, 6% when sold). In this reasonable way, a regime of more favorable opportunities was created for Russian merchants and at the same time foreign exchange earnings to the state treasury increased.

Solving the most complex state and public problems required large expenses, which constantly increased during the 17th century. Large amounts of money were spent on the army, administration, trade, roads and industry. Money was needed to pay salaries to the noble militia, archers, foreign specialists, engineers and mercenary officers, to purchase weapons and various goods for the treasury abroad. The feudal basis of the Russian state and the dominance of subsistence farming did not provide sufficient financial resources. We had to constantly resort to finding different ways to cover government expenses.

Income from the king’s own lands went to the Prikaz big palace. The patriarch's court had its own financial order. The Russian financial system remained complex and confusing, so the tax and financial sphere was one of the first to be streamlined under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676). In 1655, an Accounting Order was created that regulated the expenses and revenues of the state.

Treasury revenues consisted of a variety of revenues. The sum of all direct taxes - taxes on society and individuals- was called tax, and people, lands, yards were called tax. Income increased by including more and more new categories of residents into the tax population. Additional income was provided to the state by loans from monasteries, church hierarchs and merchants. The rapid development of Siberia had mainly economic reasons. Only the sale abroad of furs mined in Siberia and collected in the form of yasak brought up to 1/3 of all treasury revenues; in addition, “fish tooth” (walrus tusks, which replaced ivory). The collection of yasak from the non-Russian peoples of the Volga region and Siberia was carried out by the Kazan and Siberian orders.

Government funds were made up of revenues salaries And unsalary. Salary income was made up of direct and indirect taxes. Direct taxes provided 44% of all government revenues. The Order of the Great Treasury was in charge of the collection of direct taxes from the urban population engaged in trade and crafts, and the coinage (Money House).

The collection of direct taxes in cities and black volosts was carried out by elected authorities of volosts, townships or special elected collectors and tselovalniks, and in boyars, landowners and other private estates - by clerks. All fees went to the zemstvo hut or to the governor's hut, from where they were transferred to the appropriate order.

The most important set of laws of the Russian state regulating tax relations was the Council Code 1649. It reflected the issues of regulation of financial (tax) relations, issues of property, courts, land turnover, and also serfdom was finally consolidated, with the abolition of fixed-term years.

The country's rural population was divided into two categories: landowners and black-growing peasants. The first included secular peasants (landowners, royal family) and spiritual (monasteries, patriarchs, churches) feudal lords. In total, they made up almost 90% of the country's draft population. The second category consisted of black-mown peasants. They lived on public lands and were personally free. By the end of the 17th century. black-plowed lands were preserved only in Pomerania and Siberia. If the owner was responsible for the performance of state duties of the landowner peasants and the state transferred to him a significant part of the administrative-fiscal and judicial-police functions, then among the black-sown peasants these functions were performed by the community with a lay gathering and elected officials: the headman and the sotsky. The secular authorities carried out the distribution of taxes and were responsible for their timely payment. Black-growing peasants paid the highest tax in the country. The unit of taxation until 1680 remained plow.

In 1678-1679, new census books were compiled and a fundamentally important tax and financial reform was carried out: the transition from a land taxation system to courtyard, in which the peasant household became the tax unit. This step made it possible to increase the number of taxpayers at the expense of slaves and other categories of the population from whom taxes were not previously taken. To reduce taxes, peasants decided to consolidate their households, allowing several families to live together in one household.

The salary taxes included special taxes (Yamsky, Polonyanichny, Streltsy) assigned to the special needs of the state. Yamsk money was collected for the maintenance of the Yamskaya chase for the transport of ambassadors, messengers, maintenance of postal stations (pits), purchase of horses and payment to coachmen. They arrived at the Yamskaya order. Polonian money - the tax assigned for the ransom of prisoners, previously collected from time to time, according to the Council Code of 1649, became permanent and was collected annually. The Streletsky tax, which was an insignificant grain tax in the 16th century, now became one of the direct taxes and was paid both in kind and in money. Direct taxes “from bellies and industries” increased by 20%. Exorbitant tax burdens forced the government of Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682) in 1679 to forgive all arrears, reduce salaries and simplify the tax system. Now, instead of numerous taxes that were paid to different officials and to different orders, one was collected - Streltsy money.

Since it was impossible to constantly increase direct taxes, the emphasis was placed on another type of salary taxes - indirect, of which the main ones were customs and tavern taxes. But the increase in indirect taxes did not always go well. In 1646, by analogy with Western countries The tax on salt was increased from 5 to 20 kopecks per pood. But Moscow financiers did not take into account the underdevelopment of market relations and monetary circulation in Russia, which prevented the expansion of the indirect taxation system. Not only the people, but also the minor nobles limited their salt consumption, which led to the decline of the salt trade in the country. In addition, it became unprofitable to salt the fish and it spoiled in huge quantities, creating a shortage of leading cheap food product. Tax revenues fell sharply, and a wave of mass unrest and salt riots swept across the country. The salt tax had to be abolished in 1648 and financial affairs began to be conducted on a more reasonable basis.

The second type of state revenue - non-salary fees - consisted of payments for various needs - duties on private transactions, requests to administrative institutions, from documents issued by them, trade transactions.

However, the government could not cover the growing state expenses with the transferred permanent income. Therefore, it resorted to emergency or “request” collections (for waging wars, after crop failures, etc.). Particularly heavy were the taxes, called the fifth or tenth money (the corresponding percentage of either working capital or gross income from turnover).

One of the sources of replenishment of the treasury were monopolies and farming.

Trade in many goods - vodka, hemp, potash - was a state monopoly. Merchants could trade these goods only by paying a ransom from the treasury, that is, by paying a certain amount of money, ten times the procurement price of the goods. This operation enriched not so much the treasury as the tax farmer, and was one of the sources of the initial accumulation of capital in Russia.

A significant part of state revenue was the purchase of foreign coins - jochimstalers ("efimks"), which, together with imported silver, were the main raw materials for Russian money. Russia, which did not mine its own silver, purchased thalers in huge quantities. This was the most important article of Russia's foreign trade with the West, serving as a source of increasing public finances. Foreign coins were re-minted into Russian coins with a higher nominal value, which provided 10% of all state revenues in the 17th century.

Sometimes the government embarked on outright financial adventures. In 1654, in order to cover military expenses, the treasury began issuing copper money, forcing its rate to be equal to the rate of silver money. This operation is provided for by a special direction in monetary theory called nominalism. The idea was that the purchasing power of money depends solely on the name (denomination) of the currency and is not related to the intrinsic value of money. A supporter of the nominalistic theory was the first Russian economist I. T. Pososhkov, who in 1724, in “The Book of Scarcity and Wealth,” suggested that Peter I issue copper coins at the face value of silver ones.

Over five years, 5 million copper rubles were issued . The appearance of a mass of depreciated money in circulation disorganized the domestic market. The exchange rate of money fell, prices rose, goods began to disappear. At the same time, salaries were paid in copper money, and taxes were collected in silver. The government received 19 million in profit from this operation. However, the success of the operation turned into failure. A catastrophic fall in the exchange rate of the copper ruble began (for one silver kopeck at first they gave 4, and later - 15 copper kopecks). Salaried people, artisans and small traders suffered from the depreciation of copper money. In the summer of 1662, an uprising broke out in Moscow (the “Copper Riot”), which ended in a bloody massacre in the village of Kolomenskoye and mass executions. 7 thousand people died. A wave of peasant uprisings swept through the countryside, to which even part of the troops under the command of Prince Kropotkin joined. But copper money was withdrawn from circulation.

The earliest prototype appears in the 17th century state budget Russia - “List of income and expenses” (1680) - financial report on 35 orders.

The history of finance shows that the budget is not an institution inherent in the state at all stages of its development. For a long time the state did not have a budget. However, in all European countries and in Russia, revenues were collected and expenses were made; there was a well-known system of income and expenses. The budget appears not when the state makes expenses and obtains the necessary funds for this, but when it introduces a planning principle into its financial activities - it draws up an estimate of income and expenses for a certain period.

Budget is a word of English origin that means bag. When the House of Commons in England in the 16th - 17th centuries. approved a subsidy to the king, then before the end of the meeting the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened a briefcase in which the paper with the corresponding bill was kept. This was called the opening of the budget; later the name of the portfolio was transferred to the document itself, which contained a plan for state revenues and expenditures approved by parliament.

The role of the state control body in Russia in the second half of the 17th century. carried out the Accounting order. It received receipts and expenditure books from other orders for revision. He also collected arrears and remnants of departmental budgets.

Credit transactions in Russia of the 17th century were carried out in a traditional usurious form. Moreover, they were combined with other types of economic activity, without being separated into a separate industry. Representatives of various social groups were engaged in usurious transactions - from large patrimonial lands to monasteries, but The merchants held the palm. Some foreign entrepreneurs received government loans, but these were not enough to meet industrial development. A.L . Ordin-Nashchokin developed a project to create the first bank in Russia, which, unfortunately, was not implemented.

Thus, as in Western Europe, and in Russia, the 17th century was a time of profound qualitative changes in the development of the state and society. Russia began to overcome its national isolation and closedness and strengthen interaction with the West. The royal court was the center of “transformational sentiments”, the concentration of the country’s intellectual, cultural and educational forces. The ground was being prepared for the spread of new advanced ideas and trends. In the Russian economy of the 17th century, capitalist elements arose: the first manufactories appeared, the process of initial accumulation of capital began, and an all-Russian market was formed. In the 17th century The financial system is being updated and strengthened, and new financial bodies are being created.

Along with general patterns development, Russia had specific features associated with the historical and national-psychological characteristics of the formation of a centralized state, constrained by autocratic power and serfdom, the legal formalization of which occurred precisely in the 17th century. The attachment of peasants to the land and their landowners restrained the development of the capitalist structure and the rationing of the hired labor market.

Questions for control:

When was the unified monetary system of the Russian centralized state formed?

What was the land tax called during the reign of Ivan the Terrible?

When did indirect taxation begin in Russia?

What are state regalia?

What is nominalism?

What were “scribal books”?

What was the policy of protectionism?

What are the characteristics of the door-to-door taxation system?

Is the budget as a financial institution inherent in the state at all stages of its development?