Formation of authorities Russian state. Under Ivan III, a centralized administrative apparatus began to take shape. Boyars the Moscow sovereign are the princes of the annexed lands. Counties- these are principalities that were ruled by governors from Moscow. Feeders- these are governors who received for the management of counties feed- part of the tax, the amount of which was determined by the previous payment for military service. Localism- this is the right to occupy a particular position in the state, depending on the nobility and official position of the ancestors, their services to the Moscow Grand Duke.
Boyar Duma.
Boyar Duma It consisted of 5-12 boyars and no more 12 roundabouts(boyars and okolnichy are the two highest ranks in the state). The Boyar Duma had advisory functions on the “affairs of the land.” From the middle of the 15th century. Local princes from the annexed lands also sat in the Duma, recognizing the seniority of Moscow.
Future order system grew out of two national departments: the Palace and the Treasury. The palace ruled the lands of the Grand Duke. The treasury was in charge of finances, state seal, archive.
At the Moscow court, during the reign of Ivan III, a magnificent and solemn ceremonial. Contemporaries associated its appearance with the marriage in 1472 of Ivan III to a Byzantine princess Zoe(Sophia) Paleologus - daughter of the brother of the last emperor of Byzantium Konstantin Paleologus.
Code of law of Ivan Sh.
IN 1497 a new set of laws of the Russian state was adopted - Code of Law of Ivan III. 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.
Reasons for creating a law book . The era of Ivan III was marked by the overcoming of feudal fragmentation and the creation of a Moscow centralized state. The strengthening of the power of the Grand Duke, the growing influence of the boyars, and the emergence of a centralized state administration apparatus necessitated the adoption of a new legal act.
For example, Article 57 limited the right of a peasant transition from one feudal lord to another to a certain period for the entire country: a week before and a week after the autumn St. George's Day(November 26). The peasant had to pay for care " elderly " - payment for the years lived in the old place. Limiting the peasant transition was the first step towards establishing serfdom in the country. However, until the end of the 16th century. peasants retained the right to move from one landowner to another.
Russian Church under Ivan III
After the election of Bishop Jonah of Ryazan as metropolitan in 1448, the Russian Church became independent (autocephalous). While in the western lands of Rus'. included in Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, Kyiv had its own metropolitan installed. The Russian Orthodox Church split into two independent metropolitanates - Moscow and Kyiv. Their unification will occur after the reunification of Ukraine with Russia.
The intra-church struggle was associated with the emergence heresies . In the XIV century. heresy arose in Novgorod Strigolnikov . On the head of the person being accepted as a monk, the hair was cut into a cross. The Strigolniki believed that faith would become stronger if it relied on reason.
At the end of the 15th century. in Novgorod, and then in Moscow heresy spread Judaizers (a Jewish merchant was considered its founder). Heretics denied the power of priests and demanded the equality of all people. This meant that monasteries did not have the right to own land and peasants.
There was also no unity among the churchmen. Militant churchmen led by the founder of the Assumption Monastery (now Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery near Moscow) Joseph Volotsky sharply opposed the heretics. Joseph and his followers ( Josephites ) defended the right of the church to own land and peasants. Opponents of the Josephites also did not support the heretics, but objected to the accumulation of wealth and land holdings of the church. The followers of this point of view were called non-acquisitive or Sorians .
Ivan III at the church council of 1502 supported the Josephites. Heretics were executed. The Russian Church became both state and national. Church hierarchs proclaimed the autocrat the king of the earth, with his power similar to God. Church and monastic land ownership was preserved.
Lesson summary on the History of Russia “Boyar Duma. Code of Laws of 1497.”
As the tsarist power strengthened, the importance of the Boyar Duma decreased. During the 16th century. There was a sharp struggle between the Boyar Duma and the grand ducal government for priority, for the right to participate in government, and to limit the autocracy of the autocratic monarch. Vasily III tried to rule autocratically, without the Duma. Members of the Boyar Duma and the noble boyars in general experienced particularly severe disgraces and executions under Ivan the Terrible. It is no coincidence that later, during the Time of Troubles, the Boyar Duma, which had gained strength, took cross-kissing notes (“letters”) from the elected kings, “so that they would not be cruel and not disgraceful and think about all sorts of matters with the boyars and with the people of the Duma together, and without their knowledge secretly and openly doing nothing.” Such a “letter of the cross” was signed, for example, by Vasily Shuisky. In 1549, the " Elected Rada» (« Near Duma") from particularly close persons. It was the king's advisory body on all issues of government, i.e. performed the functions of the Boyar Duma. Nevertheless, the oprichnina did not destroy the Boyar Duma as the highest body state power, did not shake the localism that secured the privileges of the nobility.
After the death of Boris Godunov, the role of the Boyar Duma temporarily increased. In 1610, as a result of the struggle between various factions of the boyars, Tsar Vasily Shuisky was overthrown from the throne. All power was temporarily transferred to the Boyar Duma; the state was actually ruled by seven influential boyars (“seven boyars”).
Under the first Romanovs, the rule of a tsar without a Duma and a Duma without a tsar was considered an abnormal phenomenon. Government decisions were determined by the formula “the king indicated, the boyars sentenced.” The Boyar Duma became an important part of the estate-representative monarchy as a permanently functioning highest state body and as the upper house of the Zemsky Sobor. Membership in it was given for special services to the state and was for life. The Boyar Duma included introduced boyars, okolnichy, Duma nobles and Duma clerks. Obtaining a Duma rank depended on the will of the sovereign. High-born princes could immediately receive the highest rank - boyar, less noble ones began with okolnichy, others, from the “high-born” service people, received the rank of Duma nobleman, introduced for them under Vasily III. Initially in the 15th century. The number of the Duma was about 20 people, by the end of the 17th century. it grew, reaching 167 people under Fyodor Alekseevich.
The rights of the Boyar Duma were determined by common law. The competence of the Boyar Duma included the most important issues of internal and foreign policy, control of the administrative and judicial apparatus. The Duma occupied an intermediate position between the monarch and the entire system of administrative institutions - orders and local government bodies. As a body of supreme power, it had the right to appoint central and local bosses(governor, judges, officials, etc.). The Boyar Duma supervised the orders and other governing bodies, resolved cases of particular difficulty that for one reason or another could not be resolved in the orders, and actively participated in resolving foreign policy issues. The participation of the Duma in matters of this kind was expressed in the establishment of a permanent “Response Chamber” under the Duma. The officials of the embassy order could not themselves negotiate with foreign ambassadors; with the ambassadors, “there are boyars in charge” - two, one or two okolnichy and the Duma ambassadorial clerk. Court cases (on the Report and on appeal) were concentrated in the Boyar Duma. To conduct current court cases at the Duma of its members, it was established in the 17th century. execution chamber. The Duma sometimes acted as a court of first instance in relation to its members, and sometimes it was entrusted with the most important cases of political crimes. She had legislative initiative and had the right to adopt and approve laws. Article 98 of the Code of Laws of 1550 states: “And if there are new cases, but are not written in this Code of Laws, and as those cases are carried out with the sovereign’s report and with the verdict of all the boyars, those cases should be attributed to this Code of Laws.” The Code of 1649 recognized sovereign decrees and boyar sentences as its legislative sources.
Boyar Duma
Boyar Duma- the highest council, consisting of representatives of the feudal aristocracy. Was a continuation of the princely Duma [ source?] in the new historical conditions of the existence of the Russian state at the end of the 14th century. Not a single sovereign could do without thought, not excluding Ivan the Terrible.
Independent role Boyar Duma did not play, she always acted together with the king, constituting, together with the sovereign, a single supreme power. This unity was especially evident in matters of legislation and international relations. In all cases, a decision was made in the following form: “The sovereign indicated and the boyars sentenced” or “By the sovereign’s decree the boyars sentenced.”
In view of the widespread ideas about the boyar duma as an institution, it should be recalled that the nobles whom the tsar “allowed”, or favored, to join his duma, that is, to the “council people”, had neither an office, nor a staff, nor their own office work and archive of resolved cases. The Tsar, at his discretion, appointed some Duma members to voivodeships in the largest cities of the state - on the Dvina, Arkhangelsk, Veliky Novgorod, Belgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan, etc., sent others as ambassadors to foreign states, instructed others, “ordered” some or a business or an entire branch of management, and finally, he kept some with him as permanent advisers on current issues of public administration. Thus, we can say that the Duma rank of a service person testified not to his actual service merits, but to the level at which he was among the ruling elite of the state.
The Boyar Duma existed until the end of the 17th century and was later transformed into the Senate.
Compound
The Boyar Duma was a political institution that created and led the Moscow state and social order. It was an aristocratic institution. This character was revealed in the fact that most of its members almost until the end of the 17th century. came from a well-known circle of noble families and was appointed to the Duma by the sovereign according to a well-known line of parochial seniority. The only constant support for the structure and significance of the boyar duma was the custom, by virtue of which the sovereign called people of the boyar class into administration in a certain hierarchical order. The strength of this custom was created by the history of the Moscow state itself.
The Duma of the Moscow State included only boyars V ancient meaning of this word, that is, free landowners. Then, with their transformation into service people, a division arose into boyars in general and service boyars in the precise sense. The highest class of servants is called “introduced boyars,” that is, introduced into the palace to constantly assist the Grand Duke in administrative matters. Another lower category of the same courtyard servants are called good boyars, or travelers who received a “way” - income to management. Only the first, that is, the introduced boyars, sometimes called “big ones,” could be advisers to the prince, members of the boyar duma. This was the transition to the formation of a rank from the boyars (which later gave the right to a meeting in the Duma).
The second element that became part of the boyar duma as the destinies were destroyed is - princes, who became advisers to the Grand Duke according to their rank of princes, without first needing special purpose to the rank of boyar, since they considered their rank higher than that of the boyar. This element prevailed in the Duma until the end of the 16th century, and from that time not every prince got into the Duma; The large number of serving princes forced a choice between them and promoted only a few to the Duma through the rank of boyar. In addition to these two elements, the Duma also included some officials; so, I could be present in the Duma okolnichy, a title that was later converted to rank. Under John III, the right of court and administration belonged to the boyars and okolnichy (“Judge the court of the boyars and okolnichy”, Sud. g., art. I).
Notes
Literature
- Klyuchevsky V. O. Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'. - M.: Synodal Printing House, 1902. - 555 p. (on the Runiverse website)
Wikimedia Foundation.
2010.
See what “Boyar Duma” is in other dictionaries: The Supreme Council of representatives of the aristocracy under the Russian sovereign in the 10th and early 18th centuries. The activities of the Boyar Duma were of a legislative nature. She discussed issues of legislation, foreign policy, government, and religion. IN …
Political science. Dictionary.
Boyar Duma BOYAR DUMA, 1) in the Old Russian state, a council under the prince of members of the senior squad, close relatives, etc. 2) During the period of fragmentation of the princely domains, a council of noble vassals under the prince. 3) In the Russian state of the late 15th and early 18th centuries... ... Russian history - in the Russian state in X early XVII I century the highest council under the Grand Duke, and from 1547 under the Tsar. Consisted of representatives of the aristocracy (the largest feudal lords), its activities were of a legislative nature. During the period of feudal fragmentation...
Boyar Duma Encyclopedia of Law
- the highest council, consisting of representatives of the feudal aristocracy. It was a continuation of the princely Duma in the new historical conditions of the existence of the Russian state at the end of the 14th century. Not a single sovereign could do without thought, not excluding Ivan the Terrible.
The boyar duma did not play an independent role; it always acted together with the tsar, constituting, together with the sovereign, a single supreme power. This unity was especially evident in matters of legislation and international relations. In all cases, a decision was made in the following form: “The sovereign indicated and the boyars sentenced” or “By the sovereign’s decree, the boyars sentenced.”
|
In view of the widespread ideas about the boyar duma as an institution, it should be recalled that the nobles whom the tsar “allowed”, or favored, to join his duma, that is, to the “council people”, had neither an office, nor a staff, nor their own office work and archive of resolved cases. The Tsar, at his discretion, appointed some Duma members to voivodeships in the largest cities of the state - on the Dvina, Arkhangelsk, Veliky Novgorod, Belgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan, etc., sent others as ambassadors to foreign states, instructed others, “ordered” some or a business or an entire branch of management, and finally, he kept some with him as permanent advisers on current issues of public administration. Thus, we can say that the Duma rank of a service person testified not to his actual service merits, but to the level at which he was among the ruling elite of the state. |
The Boyar Duma existed until the end of the 17th century and was later transformed into the Senate.
Compound
The Boyar Duma was a political institution that created and led the Moscow state and social order. It was an aristocratic institution. This character was revealed in the fact that most of its members almost until the end of the 17th century. came from a well-known circle of noble families and was appointed to the Duma by the sovereign according to a well-known line of parochial seniority. The only constant support for the structure and significance of the boyar duma was the custom, by virtue of which the sovereign called people of the boyar class into administration in a certain hierarchical order. The strength of this custom was created by the history of the Moscow state itself.
The Duma of the Moscow State included only boyars in the ancient meaning of the word, that is, free landowners. Then, with their transformation into service people, a division arose into boyars in general and service boyars in the precise sense. The highest class of servants is called “introduced boyars,” that is, introduced into the palace to constantly assist the Grand Duke in governing matters. Another lower category of the same courtyard servants are called worthwhile boyars, or travelers who received a “way” - income to management. Only the first, that is, the introduced boyars, sometimes called “big ones,” could be advisers to the prince, members of the boyar duma. This was the transition to the formation of a rank from the boyars (which later gave the right to a meeting in the Duma).
The second element that became part of the boyar duma as the destinies were destroyed is - princes, who became advisers to the Grand Duke according to their rank of princes, without initially needing a special appointment to the rank of boyar, since they considered their rank higher than that of the boyar. This element prevailed in the Duma until the end of the 16th century, and from that time not every prince got into the Duma; The large number of serving princes forced a choice between them and promoted only a few to the Duma through the rank of boyar. In addition to these two elements, the Duma also included some officials; so, I could be present in the Duma okolnichy, a title that was later converted to rank. Under John III, the right of court and administration belonged to the boyars and okolnichy (“Judge the court of the boyars and okolnichy”, Court. 1497, art. I).
At the beginning of the 16th century. the Grand Duke began to introduce noble people, ordinary nobles, into the Duma, who received the title Duma nobles, which again turned into a rank. This element especially intensified during Ivan’s struggle against the noble boyars. The appearance in the Duma and Duma clerks. With the intensification of written records, the office of the Duma also appeared. Those affairs that the Duma could not conduct in full were entrusted to the Duma clerks, namely: ambassadorial, discharge, local and former. Kazan kingdom. These branches are entrusted to the clerks, but as delegates of the Duma. Therefore, Duma clerks in the 16th century. there were usually four. This position removed them from the category of secretaries; they became ministers and, each in their own department, had the right to vote in Duma meetings, although they were not considered members of the Duma. Under Alexei Mikhailovich, the number of Duma clerks increased; under Feodor Alekseevich there were 14 of them. This historical composition of the Duma remained unchanged in the 17th century.
The number of Duma members only from the 16th century. becomes more defined; since the time of the leader. book Vasily Ioannovich, lists of Duma members are already being kept; from John III to his son passed 3 (So in the 1891 edition - Ed.) boyars, 6 okolnichy, 1 butler and 1 treasurer. Under Grozny, the number of boyars decreased by half, but the unborn part of the Duma increased: he left 10 boyars, 1 okolnichy, 1 kraich, 1 treasurer and 8 Duma boyars. After Theodore Ioannovich, the number of Duma people increases with each reign (with the exception of Mikhail Feodorovich). So, under Boris Godunov there were 30 of them, in the time of troubles 47; under Mich. Theodore. - 19, with Alec. Mich. - 59, under Fed. Alec. - 167. Not always all members of the Duma met in meetings. Perhaps full sessions of the Duma took place in particularly important cases, in particular when convening Zemstvo Councils (of which the Duma was an indispensable part). The meetings of the Duma took place in royal palace- “At the Top” and in the Golden Chamber. According to Margeret, the time of the Duma meetings was from 1 o'clock to 6 o'clock in the afternoon (4-9 o'clock in the morning). The boyars shared all everyday acts of life with the tsar: they went to church, had dinner, etc. According to Fletcher, Monday, Wednesday and Friday were actually set for discussing business, but if necessary, the boyars also met on other days.
The chairmanship of the Duma belonged to the tsar, but he was not always present; The boyars decided matters without him, definitively, or their decisions were approved by the sovereign. Members were distributed in the Duma according to the order of ranks, and each rank was distributed according to the local ladder of breed. The Council Code instructs the Duma to “do all sorts of things together.” This indirectly confirms the beginning of unanimity in decisions. At the end of the 17th century. a special branch of the Duma for judicial matters arises: the “execution chamber”, consisting of Duma delegates (several members from each rank - see Palace section). When the boyars and the tsar leave Moscow on a campaign, several members are left in place “to be in charge of Moscow.” All reports from orders went to this commission of the Duma, but only matters of lesser importance were finally decided by it; the rest were sent to the tsar and the boyars who were with him.
Authority
The rights of the Duma were not determined by law, but were based, as an everyday fact, on common law. The Boyar Duma was an institution that was not separated from the royal power. In area legislative the meaning of the Duma was indicated in the tsar’s code of law: “And if there are new cases, but are not written in this code of law, and as those cases from the sovereign’s report and from all the boyars are sentenced, those cases should be attributed to this code of law” (Article 98 of the Council Code). Sovereign decrees and boyar sentences were recognized as legislative sources. The general legislative formula was as follows: “The sovereign indicated, and the boyars sentenced.” This concept of law, as the result of the inseparable activity of the tsar and the Duma, is proven by the entire history of legislation in the Moscow state. But there were exceptions to this general rule. Thus, royal decrees without boyar sentences are mentioned as laws; on the other hand, there are a number of laws given in the form of a boyar sentence without a royal decree: “All the boyars at the Top have been sentenced.” Tsar's decrees without boyar sentences are explained either by the accident of the struggle against the boyars (under Grozny), or by the insignificance of the issues being resolved that did not require a collegial decision, or by the haste of the matter. Boyar sentences without royal decrees are explained either by the authority given to the boyars in this case, or by the absence of the king and the interregnum. Thus, from these cases it is by no means possible to conclude that the legislative rights of the tsar and the Duma are separate.
For questions external politicians the same one is noticed Team work tsar and the Duma from the end of the 16th century, which was supplemented by the participation of zemstvo councils. The participation of the Duma in foreign policy affairs was expressed in the permanent establishment of the so-called. “response chamber” under the Duma; the businessmen of the embassy order could not negotiate with foreign ambassadors themselves; with the ambassador “there are boyars in charge (says Kotoshikhin)” - two, one or two okolnichy, and the Duma ambassadorial clerk; in 1586, the war with the Swedes was decided by the tsar “with all the boyars.” Only during the interregnum and at the very beginning of the reign of Micah. Fedorovich's Duma communicates with foreign states on its own behalf. Regarding the court and administration, the Duma is not one of the instances, but a body of supreme power, indicating the law to subordinate bodies. Court cases were referred to the Duma by report and by appeal (decree 1694 in the II Collection of Laws, No. 1491). The Duma was actually a judicial body only when it judged as a first instance, namely, its own members based on their actions as judges and rulers in orders, and on local accounts. In the sphere of administration, the Duma (together with the Tsar) had the right to appoint central and local rulers. The conduct of the current affairs of the military and local administration was under the constant control of the Duma, as well as the orders themselves.
Story
The most important moments in the history of the boyar duma of the Moscow state are determined by its relationship to the supreme power. In the XIV and XV centuries. one notices the everyday coincidence of the activities of the Duma with the actions of the princely authorities, based on the unity of interests. The rise of the Moscow principality was at the same time an increase in the power and wealth of the Moscow boyars. Hence the successes of the Moscow autocracy, in addition to the support of the clergy, most importantly explained by the assistance of the boyars.
Prince Dimitri, dying, gave the following testament to the children: “Love your boyars, give them the honor they deserve against their services, do not do anything without their will” (Resurrection years, 1389). Under John III, all the most important acts government activities were carried out by agreement with the boyars: Palaeologus John III undertook his marriage to Sophia as follows: “Having thought about this with the metropolitan, his mother, and the boyars ... sent to the pope” (Resurrection years, under 1469). In the XV I century. There is a struggle between the autocratic power and the boyars, started by the Grand Duke and continued by the boyars.
The established autocracy gathered local boyar forces from all the principalities into one Moscow; in addition, the local boyars were strengthened by a huge mass of serving princes, deprived of their inheritance, who wanted to compensate for the lost first role in the village with a second in Rome. On the other hand, having destroyed the appanages, deprived the boyars of the right of transition and turned them into service people, the Grand Duke no longer needed their assistance to strengthen his power.
During Grozny's early childhood (1533-1546), circumstances tipped the scales in favor of the boyars, and the result was extreme abuse of power by the boyars. Since the accession of John (1547), this tsar opened a conscious struggle against the boyar party, first with reasonable measures, bringing noble people closer to himself, turning to the council of the whole earth (Zemsky Sobor) and taking several sound legislative measures limiting the importance of appanage princes and boyars; later he resorted to cruel executions and persecutions (1560-1584), caused by B. including not the imaginary betrayal of the boyars, but the conscious goal “not to keep advisers smarter than yourself.” One of the measures of struggle was the division of the state into oprichnina And zemshchina. Zemstvo affairs were left in the hands of the boyars; even military matters had to be decided “by the sovereign, after talking with the boyars.” In the oprichnina, John hoped to fully realize his new ideal. But it was here that the impracticability and impracticality of his ideas were revealed; in the establishment of the zemshchina, he himself admitted defeat, separated the supreme power from the state and left the latter to the boyars. In the polemic between Grozny and Prince. Kurbsky was influenced by the views of two contending forces. Kurbsky, without encroaching on the supreme power, stands for the old days and only proves the need for the tsar to have a “Sigklitsky council,” that is, meetings with the boyar duma. The ideal of Ivan the Terrible: “We are free to reward our own slaves, and we are also free to execute them.” Nothing prevented Grozny from doing without the boyar Duma, without resorting to executions; but he himself found this impracticable.
The activities of Ivan the Terrible, without achieving their goal, brought only the result that they separated the interests of the boyars from the royal power and forced them, in turn, to consciously secure power for themselves at the expense of the monarchical power. End of the 16th century (from 1584) and the beginning. XVII century (1612) - the time of such attempts by the boyars and the boyar duma. After the death of Theodore Ioannovich, the boyars demanded an oath to the boyar duma.
In the 17th century the normal attitude of the boyar duma to the power of the tsar prevails, that is, the inseparability of the actions of both, without mutual encroachments on the supreme importance of the latter and the auxiliary role of the former; a sovereign without a thought and a thought without a sovereign were equally abnormal phenomena.
Around 1700, Peter I destroyed the boyar duma as an institution; but meetings with the boyars continued in the so-called. Near office(mentioned from 1704), which in itself was nothing more than the personal office of the tsar and a permanent institution; but congresses of boyars in the chancellery are no longer a permanent institution. In subsequent years, before the establishment of the Senate, Peter, during his departures from the capital, entrusted the management of affairs to several persons, but did not trust them and did not rely on them. In 1711, February 22, declaring war with Turkey and preparing to leave for the theater of war, he also entrusted the management of affairs to several persons, calling their totality the senate, which by no means had the former significance of the boyar duma and was not a political institution.
Boyar Duma - “collective, class, general land”, ancient customary power (V.O. Klyuchevsky): former appanage princes, boyars. In the political system of the Moscow state, it was the Duma that was the main institution that reflected the dynamics of the process of centralization of power and control.
Composition of the Boyar Duma.
The Boyar Duma developed from a council under the prince, which included the largest feudal lords. The Duma included the descendants of former appanage princes and the most noble and influential boyars (20-30 people). Representatives of less noble families held the rank of okolnichy in the Duma. In the 16th century, the Boyar Duma from a feudal curia under the prince turned into a state body of an estate-representative monarchy. The composition of this body expanded significantly in the 17th century due to the elevation to boyar dignity of unborn royal favorites and relatives. Representatives of the nobility and the service bureaucracy (secretaries) are also included in the Duma. Hence, composition of the Duma in the first half of the 17th century there was fourfold: boyars, okolnichy, Duma nobles and Duma clerks. Low-born boyars, nobles and clerks, who expressed the interests of the serving nobility, significantly displaced the old feudal aristocracy. The importance of these noble elements was great, since Duma nobles and clerks in most cases entered the Duma after 20-30 years of service, had extensive experience and knowledge, and formulated the decisions of the Duma. Boyars until the end of the 17th century they occupied one of the leading positions in the state. In the 17th century service people for the fatherland(boyars and nobles) are finally formalized into a complex and clear hierarchy of ranks, obliged to serve the state in the military, civil and court departments in exchange for the right to own land and peasants.
Functions of the Boyar Duma.
The Boyar Duma had a legislative character, and its authority and influence varied under different monarchs. In some periods, decisions were made by a narrow circle of those close to the throne. “Sovereign of All Rus'” Ivan III discussed all issues with the boyars and did not punish for “meeting”, that is, for objections and disagreements with his opinion. But his son Vasily III was reproached for the fact that instead of consulting with the Boyar Duma, he “locked himself up at his bedside and did all the work.” Prince Andrei Kursky also accused Ivan the Terrible of trying to rule without advice from " the best husbands" During the minority of the tsar and during the period of civil strife, the Boyar Duma turned into a center that actually governed the state.
The Duma met every day, meeting in the Kremlin early in the morning, in the summer at sunrise, in the winter before dawn; meetings lasted five to six hours, and often resumed in the evening. The meetings took place both in the presence and absence of the king. Current affairs were introduced for discussion by the heads of the orders; most often, the legislative initiative belonged to the tsar, who, in the expression of that time, “sat with the boyars about matters.” Sometimes the boyars decided the matter on their own, and the boyar’s verdict could acquire the force of law without subsequent approval by the tsar. Nevertheless, the Boyar Duma did not go beyond the scope of a legislative advisory body. The decrees of that time were enshrined in the traditional formula: “The Tsar indicated, and the boyars sentenced.” The struggle of the boyar groups sometimes resulted in “great abuse, great shouting and noise, and many swear words.” However, there was no organized opposition in the Boyar Duma. On special occasions, the Boyar Duma met together with the Consecrated Council - the highest church hierarchs. Such meetings were called cathedrals, which should be distinguished from Zemsky Sobors.
The role of the Boyar Duma in political life.
The Duma played the role of a conciliation body. Given the chaos in the area of the order system at that time, this was the main responsibility of the government. There were several general rules regarding the determination of decisions of the Boyar Duma. Historiography and legal history have developed two general rules, which can be formulated as follows: form: “and the great sovereign, having listened to the report extract, indicated and the boyars sentenced.” There is simply a designation of the fact of the tsar’s participation in the meeting of the Boyar Duma. But this order of legislation was not formally binding on the tsar. He could decide cases himself and issue orders that had the nature of legislative decrees, single-handedly. Sometimes the tsar resolved issues with a small circle of advisers - the so-called chamber duma of the sovereign.
The form “by decree of the great sovereign, the boyars, having listened to that report, sentenced” is simply a designation of the fact of the absence of the tsar at the meeting of the Boyar Duma.
The Duma published two general types acts: “fixed” and “litter”. “Zakrep” - decisions of the Duma on general issues of governance, under it was the signature of all Duma clerks. “Litter” - the consolidation of a private decree - the act was signed by one Duma clerk.
At the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century. The role of the Duma and the nobility close to the court in governing the state not only does not decrease, but also increases, which was expressed, first of all, in the strengthening of the participation of boyars in the direct management of orders as judges. The increasing role of the nobility in the management of orders occurred throughout the 17th century. This had important political significance and contributed to the gradual bureaucratization of the boyars. From the body of the originally patrimonial land aristocracy, the Duma is gradually transformed into a body of the service aristocracy, into a kind of council “from the heads of orders.”