Sovereign's yard. The Sovereign's Court The reasons for the emergence of the Sovereign's Court

STATE Dvor, an institution of social organization under the monarch of the highest and privileged strata of society in the Russian principalities and lands, the Russian state and Russia in the mid-12th - early 18th centuries. The origin of the sovereign's court is connected with the princely squad - in historical sources both terms (close in essence to the phenomena they describe) coexisted for about a century and a half. The sovereign's court replaced the squad during the fragmentation of the Old Russian state in the 12th - 1st third of the 13th century into independent principalities (the latter into appanage principalities) led by representatives of various branches of the Rurik dynasty. The spread of sovereign (princely) courts occurred as the functions of princely power became more complex, in the process of integration of warriors and local elites into the class group of boyars in the principalities.

The sovereign court of the sovereign prince consisted of members of the council under him (the Boyar Duma), persons who headed branches of the princely economy (paths) and individual princely possessions, all the service boyars of the principality (united into territorial corporations according to the “urban settlement” and retained an autonomous Institute of Thousands), as well as nobles (princely servants of the ministerial type with certain privileges, who constituted the lowest stratum of the sovereign’s court and evolved during the course of annoblization into princely “free servants”). Directly with the monarch (in the capital city, on trips) only a part of the members of the sovereign's court were constantly present, ensuring the safety of the prince and his family, the exercise by the monarch of power prerogatives and representative functions, and the work of other government bodies. Military campaigns mobilized all members of the sovereign's court.

During the era of the formation of the Russian state in the 15th - mid-16th centuries, important changes took place in the number and genealogical composition, structure and forms of accounting of the sovereign's court, and the nature of the services of its members. No later than the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, the status division of all princes, boyars, and boyars’ children into courtyard servants and “policemen” took place. At the same time, the genealogical composition of the sovereign court of the Grand Dukes of Moscow (since 1547 Tsars) numbered more than 100 princely and Old Boyar (Moscow, Tver, Ryazan) families, representing titled and untitled aristocracy, as well as minor nobility. They numerically predominated in various strata of the sovereign's court. Representatives of 8 princely houses of Rurikovich and 4 genera of Gediminovich (previously independent or sovereign princes in family domains) by the end of the 15th century became serving princes of the Moscow monarch as part of the sovereign's court according to the lists of territorial clan groups (only individual princes had individual service status). Among the orderly people who served in the orders and palace departments (see Palaces, Treasury) and were part of the sovereign's court, the majority were relatively humble persons. The structure of the sovereign's court at the end of the 15th - mid-16th centuries was mixed - status-official and administrative-territorial. The documentation always highlighted the “Duma rank” - boyars, okolnichy, “big clerks” from the 2nd quarter of the 16th century, later - Duma clerks, persons who headed palace departments and services, as well as clerks. The remaining members of the sovereign's court (stewards, solicitors, bed-keepers) were assigned to status and official groups only during periodic stays at court and performing various court services (at the residences of the monarch or on sovereign trips and campaigns). At the same time, the main principle of their structuring within the sovereign’s court remained administrative-territorial, while maintaining certain service and land ties with “city” corporations. Special (“autonomous”) parts of the sovereign’s court were also preserved: separately and according to an abbreviated scheme, the courtyard children of the boyars of Novgorod Pyatina, the Pskov district (until the 1st quarter of the 17th century), the Smolensk district, the Middle Volga region, as well as the Tver Grand Duchy (1485- 1542; initially in full ranks and strata of the sovereign's court, from the 1510s - according to an abbreviated scheme). During the liquidation of the Moscow appanages, a special account was maintained for the appanage princes from the Moscow Rurikovichs - members of the sovereign's court. The leading trend was towards the consolidation of “autonomous” courtyards within the framework of the sovereign’s court of the Moscow monarchs, with an increasing demarcation of all members of the sovereign’s court from the provincial boyar children, with an increase in the number of status and official groups within the sovereign’s court and a reduction in the role of its administrative-territorial structuring. In the mid-16th century, numerous boyar courtyard children were actually excluded from the number of real members of the sovereign's court. The design of the sovereign's court of the Moscow monarchs (about 1.1-1.2 thousand people in the mid-16th century) changed the system of political life: within the framework of the sovereign's court, ruling circles under the monarch and palace "parties" were formed, government programs were formed, members of the sovereign's court made up the overwhelming majority most of the secular participants in the first zemstvo councils of the mid-16th century. Members of the sovereign's court (mainly from its upper and middle strata) occupied all the highest and middle command positions in the army, central and local authorities and the court (locally until the abolition of the feeding system in the 1550s), in the diplomatic sphere.

Under the Grand Dukes of Moscow Ivan III Vasilyevich and Vasily III Ivanovich, the Moscow Kremlin was rebuilt as the capital residence of Moscow monarchs and the seat of central authorities, as well as palace departments; Near (the village of Vorobyove, etc.) and distant (Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, etc.) grand-ducal residences were formed in accordance with the annual rhythm of court life. The lifestyle of members of the sovereign's court changed significantly. Permanent or periodic stay at the court was associated with the presence of a courtyard-estate in Moscow and estates near Moscow to provide for one’s own needs, a change in family “prayers” (monasteries), the expansion of marriage and family ties, etc.

The introduction of the oprichnina in January 1565 led to the division of the sovereign's court into the oprichnina and the zemstvo, and after its abolition in 1572, until the death of Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible in 1584, the zemstvo sovereign's court and the special court of the king functioned. In general, the total number of all courtyards increased, in the 1560-70s the appearance of Duma nobles and Duma clerks was recorded, and the status rank of Moscow nobles and elected nobles was finally formed. The genealogical composition of the oprichnina and special courtyards did not differ fundamentally from the zemstvo courtyards. Mass executions and repressions during the oprichnina and later led to the death of many aristocratic families, to the loss of consolidation in the political elite of the Russian state and within the sovereign's court as a whole.

During the reign of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the institutional unity of the sovereign's court was restored and its status and bureaucratic structure was finally formed: it was divided into the “Duma rank,” including the highest court and palace ranks (boyars, okolnichy, Duma nobles and clerks; butler, treasurer, clerk, bedkeeper, nurseryman, hunter, falconer, etc.), Moscow officials (stewards, solicitors, great nobles, clerks, as well as tenants) and elected nobles. Representatives of the titled and untitled aristocracy almost completely predominated among the boyars and okolnichy, as well as among the stolniks (these were young aristocrats who then carried out almost exclusively court service) and large nobles. From these ranks usually came an award to the Boyar Duma. In 1588-89, the sovereign's court numbered about 1.2 thousand courtyard servants (more than 60% were elected nobles from 47 cities), and by 1605 - about 1.6 thousand people (with an increased share of elected nobles from 56 cities). In 1586-87, the norms of suburban estates for members of the sovereign's court were unified and reduced (minus the boyars and okolnichi) in comparison with the “displacement” of thousanders (members of the sovereign’s court) according to the decree of 1550, and more than half of the courtyards received estates at the end of the 16th century. The practice of increased monetary and local salaries for members of the sovereign's court (primarily for Duma and Moscow officials, with the exception of residents) became established. Cash salaries were paid to members of the sovereign's court from orders - quarters, in fact, annually. Members of the sovereign's court numerically prevailed at the elective zemstvo council of 1598 and other zemstvo councils of the early 17th century.

IN Time of Troubles the socio-political unity of the sovereign's court was destroyed. At the same time, two, and at times three, sovereign courts coexisted under different holders or contenders for supreme power. The restoration of the sovereign's court under Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich in the 1610-20s was accompanied by a sharp increase in its total number(up to 4 thousand people in 1630) with uneven growth rates of various status and bureaucratic strata. Compared to 1605, the Duma stratum decreased slightly, the number of clerks and elected nobles increased slightly, the number of stolniks (more than 4 times), solicitors (more than 3 times), Moscow nobles (more than 5 times, in most cases) increased sharply at the expense of elected nobles, and partly - district nobles) and residents (more than 3 times). In parallel, changes took place in the status and bureaucratic structure of the sovereign's court: after 1630, elected nobles stopped even periodically serving on the list of the sovereign's court, finally turning into the highest stratum of the county corporations of the provincial children of the boyars. From the mid-1620s until 1633, there was a special status rank - the “patriarchal” stolnik (about 490 people in 1630). These changes were caused by powerful changes in the genealogical composition of the sovereign's court during the Time of Troubles, the promotion to the forefront of political and military confrontation of new faces and surnames (including from old families, but those that were "inert"), the widespread use of awards to the courtyard rank as effective measure in political struggle and domestic policy. The characteristics of a number of strata also changed: stewards and solicitors were almost on par with Moscow nobles in terms of age, and most importantly, in the nature and level of service appointments (voivodeship positions and heads of orders). Even during the reign of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, room clerks were actually separated into a special stratum; in the mid-17th century, room lawyers were also separated.

During the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the growth of the sovereign's court was generally insignificant: its number ranged from 4 thousand to 4.5 thousand people. After the exclusion of 1630 elected nobles from the sovereign's court, the number of other high-status ranks increased noticeably. Particularly significant was the growth of Duma and senior court ranks (almost 2.5 times by 1675 compared to 1630), as well as solicitors (almost 5 times by 1667), the number of stolniks, clerks (by orders and policemen) and tenants increased moderately , the number of Moscow nobles either increased or decreased (due to the relative decline in the prestige of the group). In general, the ruling “boyar” environment was consolidated, controlling in various ways the replenishment and renewal of the composition of the Duma and higher strata of the sovereign’s court (in the 1610-1620s, various status ranks were updated by 30-35% and up to 77%, in the 1640s - by no more than 20-25%), and, accordingly, the development and implementation of the country’s domestic and foreign policy. Within the boundaries of this layer of the sovereign’s court (which included not only the Duma ranks, but wider circles of a number of its strata), “palace” parties were formed, and from the victorious one, ruling circles (“government”) were formed. After the Time of Troubles, the proportion of administrative and judicial appointments of members of the sovereign's court to central departments, special commissions (including those for preparing and carrying out reforms), and to the positions of city governors increased noticeably. Military service, due to the increase in the number of regiments of the new system in the 1650-70s, lost its primary importance for members of the sovereign's court.

In material terms, members of the sovereign’s court from among the “boyar class” belonged to richest people of their time (princes Vorotynsky, Golitsyn, Khovansky, Cherkasy; boyars Miloslavsky, Morozov, Streshnev, etc.), who owned populated estates and estates in several counties and had significant monetary income (including from trade), including high salaries. In the 1640s-80s, new cultural trends in icon painting, stone architecture, literature, domestic life and interpersonal communication; a court theater was created; education developed (education of royal children and sons of the nobility; the emergence of schools and the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy), historical science and other branches of knowledge. Through changes in fashion in the royal environment, “Western influence” also manifested itself among authoritative and wealthy members of the sovereign’s court.

A sharp intensification of the political struggle in the late 1670s-80s and generally unsuccessful attempts at reform led to a new sharp increase in the number of the sovereign's court; in 1681 it consisted of more than 7.1 thousand people; all his status ranks (with the exception of clerks) increased by 1.8-2.2 times (compared to 1650). About 1/3 of the children of boyar district corporations (“hundred service”) were members of the sovereign’s court, which was a sign of a crisis in the class organization of the ruling strata of Russian society and, above all, the court itself. The number of the Tsar's court fluctuated (in 1701 there were about 6.5 thousand people in the Tsar's court), and at the beginning of the 18th century it began to fall sharply. The sovereign's court ceased to exist after 1713, during the reforms of Tsar Peter I. Later, in accordance with the regulation of ranks and services by the Table of Ranks of 1722, the imperial court was formed.

The number and personnel of the sovereign's court were recorded at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 18th century in various documents. At first these were boyar lists and books, in the 1st half - mid-16th century, perhaps of the “Yard Notebook” type. The surviving fragment of the earliest boyar list dates back to 1546; one almost complete and several fragments of boyar lists have been preserved from the late 16th - early 17th centuries. Since 1626, two lists were formed annually in the Rank Order - “genuine” (indicating the entire composition of the sovereign’s court, including those on distant services or on vacation) and “cash” (members of the sovereign’s court who were in Moscow). Depending on the specific goals, special lists of members of the Sovereign's court were also compiled. The boyar books, compiled in the Rank Order, have been known since 1615 (there are references to earlier ones), were prepared once every few years and contained lists of members of the Sovereign's court by rank, indicating monetary and local salaries; 14 books from 1615-1691 have survived. Since the late 1610s, lists of residents have been recorded in special “tenant lists.”

Lit.: Nazarov V.D. On the structure of the “Sovereign’s Court” in the middle of the 16th century. // Society and state of feudal Russia. M., 1975; aka. “Court” and “nobles” according to Novgorod and northeastern chronicles (XII-XIV centuries) // Eastern Europe in antiquity and the Middle Ages. M., 1978; aka. Untitled nobility according to the marching list of the court of Ivan III in 1495 // Russian state in the XIV-XVII centuries. St. Petersburg, 2002; Crummey R. O. Aristocrats and servitors: the boyar elite in Russia 1613-1689. Princeton, 1983; Zimin A. A. Formation of the boyar aristocracy in Russia in the second half of the 15th - first third of the 16th centuries. M., 1988; Pavlov A.P. Sovereign's court and political struggle under Boris Godunov (1584-1605). St. Petersburg, 1992; Lukichev M.P. Boyar books of the 17th century M., 2004; Russian elite in the 17th century. Hels., 2004. T. 1; Stanislavsky A.L. Works on the history of the Sovereign's court in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries. M., 2004; The Sovereign's Court in the history of Russia in the XV-XVII centuries. Vladimir, 2006; The ruling elite of the Russian state of the 9th - early 18th centuries: Essays on history. St. Petersburg, 2006; Sedov P.V. Decline of the Moscow Kingdom. St. Petersburg, 2006.

Current page: 6 (book has 28 pages total) [available reading passage: 6 pages]

2.2. Paths - palace executive authorities on the territory of the Grand Duke

The further development of the principalities led to some changes in the system of government of the principalities. To solve numerous problems and manage the population and lands of the Grand Duke, trusted persons were needed - managers. The princely lands were called paths in the sense of profitable, profitable items. Word path meant good, benefit, income. The prince owned personal lands, and management and direction of activity constituted a special “path”. Path in the Russian state, in the 14th - first half of the 16th centuries - the name of the department of palace management, a special direction for solving economic and other management tasks that were set by the prince or for providing the princely court with everything necessary. Strengthening of princely power from the second half of the 14th century. led to the emergence of assistants to the prince - good boyars who managed the branches of the palace economy. Positions usually complained “with the way”. Hence, all boyars - feeders were usually called "good boyars." Good boyars, upon appointment (for “correction”) to positions, received the right to inherit the estate and during the entire period of service (and sometimes for life), they were allocated one or another feeding. Officials (good boyars) were given the right to turn into their favor part of the trade, judicial duties and other princely incomes they collected.

“Paths” as the beginnings of individual palace departments in the form of assignments – “feedings” – appeared quite early. Already in the contractual document of the sons of Ivan Kalita (50s of the 14th century), Sokolnichiy, Konyushiy and Lovchy “paths” were mentioned. Subsequently, Stolnichy and Chashnichy “paths” meet. The “good” boyars who led these “paths” had corresponding names: falconer, equestrian, hunter, stolnik, chashnichiy. Good boyars occupied separate economic and administrative positions at the princely court. The good boyars were subordinated to their servants who lived in settlements, villages and hamlets; they had the ranks of stable clerks, sleepers, okolniki, falconers, beavers, gardeners, gardeners, etc.

Good boyars are a special class of feudal lords, boyars who served directly under the princes and formed the basis of the princely courts. They, as a rule, carried out tasks related to the family or property and economic life of their overlords, delivered mail, and collected taxes. This class sometimes played a very noticeable role in organizing the dynastic succession of princely power, carried out viceroyal and representative functions of the princes, actively participated in the organization of governance and influenced foreign and domestic policy.

Management through the routes constituted a special administrative system of the princely palace and was superior to the management of governors and volosts. Throughout the cities and countryside there were settlements, villages and hamlets assigned to one or another ways, who were in a very weak administrative connection with general management or even completely separate from it.

With the centralization of the state and the increase in territory, the competence of the palace-patrimonial system began to expand, going beyond the boundaries of the princely domain itself. The complication of functions led to the fact that numerous states of clerks, clerks, key keepers, etc. appeared under the subordination of the “good boyars”. Some subordination of the palace and palace departments was determined: the palace (Grand Palace) became the central institution to which the “good” departments were subordinated and, in addition In addition, they were entrusted with many issues related to local government (appointment of governors, volostels, development of texts of statutory charters - documents defining the rights of local government bodies), with church and secular land ownership (for example, the so-called “displacement” of service people) and some others .

The department of each “way” included lands, villages and hamlets. Each “good” boyar was subordinate to lower officials (housekeepers, village officials). The person who headed the “path” received the right to govern and judge the population of the territory under the jurisdiction of this “path”; part of the income from fees from this population was received in his favor. When appointed, good boyars were given specific tasks and the range of responsibilities was determined.

In the system of “paths” at the end of the 15th–17th centuries. the equerry (palace rank) occupied the highest position in the management system. According to the Sheremetev list, the first award with the rank of “horse boyar” dates back to 1495–1496. The rank was introduced by Tsar Ivan III. The equestrian was one of the most important persons in the state apparatus, therefore the most prominent of the boyars, representatives of the Old Moscow aristocracy, was appointed to this position on the principle of personal devotion to the Grand Duke. The equerry, as a rule, combined the palace and Duma ranks. For a long time they were representatives of the ancient boyar family of the Chelyadnins. The means of providing for the Equerry was feeding, collected from the path, that is, from the administrative-territorial unit, the population of which was subordinate to the palace administration. The equestrian path controlled the maintenance of horses and princely stables, the palace lands assigned to it, and all the princely meadows. From the beginning of the 15th century. The Equestrian Boyar was in charge of a special treasury, which received income from villages assigned to the equerry’s department, and kept the archives of the Equestrian Order, which was formed at the end of the 15th century. The high position of the Equestrian is explained by the special significance of the equestrian path, later

The stable order, in the palace economy system, which was associated with the development of equestrian local noble militia. In addition, the special closeness of the Equestrian to the Grand Duke is partly explained by the fact that the Equestrian in the 15th–16th centuries. was in charge of the grand ducal hunt.

One of the ancient ranks of the princely court, known since 1550 - the falconer - was in charge of falconry, and sometimes all the institutions of military-princely hunting. Usually, people of no name were appointed to falconers. The last falconer of the Moscow tsars was Gavrila Pushkin. TO falconer's path belonged to falconers and other servants of the princely bird hunt.

The sovereign's beavers and hounds belonged to the hunting path. The most important item in the palace economy was the exploitation of the country's natural resources. Wax and honey, fish and furs constituted the main wealth of ancient Russia. The princes owned many villages of beaver growers, beekeepers (beekeepers), and fishermen. On the then deserted rivers of what is now Moskovskaya and its neighboring territories, beavers lived in large numbers; in places rich in beavers, somewhere along the river. Klyazma or along the river. Vozhe, dozens of villages of Bobrovnikov settled down, distributing beaver ruts among themselves. The beekeepers' settlements were divided among themselves into "borti" (hollow trees with honey) into "bort huts." Along the entire course of the river. The Volga and its large tributaries there were a number of “fish settlements” inhabited by fishermen. A significant part of these beaver ruts, boarding grounds, fish esov (gates) belonged to the princes and was divided into management between the palace routes: the hunter, the chashnich, and the stolnichi.

In Russia at the end of the 15th–17th centuries. - bed-keeper - an official of the Grand Duke's and then the royal court, in charge of the "sovereign bed", a bed workshop in which the sovereigns' clothes and linen were sewn, management of settlements that produced canvases and linens for the sovereign's use. The postelnichy kept the seal “for urgent and secret royal affairs” and was often in charge of the personal office of the sovereign. He was usually one of the especially close advisers and influenced the activities of the Grand Duke and Sovereign. Subordinate to the bed guard were the sleeping bags, who were on duty in the sovereign’s room, undressed him, and accompanied him during his trips. Usually the sleeping men were young men of noble birth.

It was first mentioned in 1284 as a court rank - okolnichy - and a position in the Russian state of the 13th–18th centuries. The initial functions of the okolnichy were: arrangement and support of the prince’s travels and participation in receptions and negotiations with foreign ambassadors. In the XIV–XV centuries. Okolnichy was a member of the Grand Duke's Boyar Duma. Okolnichy were appointed heads of orders, regimental commanders, and participated in the organization of court ceremonies. Grant of okolnichy in the 16th–17th centuries. often was the first step in the rise of the royal favorites.

In the acts of the 16th century. at the courts of the great and appanage princes, court officials are introduced into the staff: the stolnik and the chashnik. The Stolnichy and the Chashnichiy became exclusively courtiers; but at certain times they belonged to the palace staff, managed special palace departments, ways; Later in the tsarist period they had no administrative significance. Chashnichiy is a court position and rank in the household of Russian princes and tsars in the 13th – early 18th centuries. Until the 15th century inclusive, the chashnich not only served the prince at festive dinners, but also performed some administrative functions. Chashnichi path was the department of palace beekeeping and sovereign drinks; The villages and villages of the palace beekeepers - beekeepers, along with the palace beekeepers, were subordinate to him.

At the beginning of the 16th century. Stolnik (capital route) in the Moscow principality was still a judicial - administrative authority for the people, lands and waters of this route. The palace's territory for fishing and also the palace gardens and vegetable gardens with gardeners and vegetable gardeners belonged to the capital's route. When it was necessary to help a private owner settle his empty lands, on which the duties of this department could fall or which were located within his administrative district, the authorities gave the landowner a letter of grant, according to which neither the governor of that district, nor the steward, nor the village with their tiuns they could neither take their exactions from the settlers of those lands, nor judge them for anything other than murder and red-handed robbery.

The villages of each path were united into volosts, which were ruled by volostels, representatives of the Stolniche, Chashnich or another path. These “good” rulers acted through elected elders of good villages and settlements. In the second half of the 16th century. these departments still bore the old specific names of the routes, the area of ​​each of them was divided into parts, named after the names of cities or counties in which there were lands and villages that belonged to one or another route: this was the capital route of Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, etc.

All these departments were delimited among themselves and isolated from other institutions. The settlements, villages and villages scattered throughout the cities and volosts of the principality, assigned to these routes, were either completely isolated from the general regional administration of governors and volosts, or were in very weak administrative dependence on it.

The boyar, who was in charge of the economic management of certain palace lands, was the boss for all persons inhabiting the lands given to his management. The economy, administration and court were united in the hands of one person. The ancient administration, in complete contrast to the later, concentrated in one department all matters relating to the subject population.

The treasurer, who was in charge of the princely treasury: money, all valuable property, gold vessels, chains, crosses, precious stones, furs, etc., should have belonged to the ranks of the managers of these routes, the equerry, the falconer, the hunter, the steward, etc. Treasurers were not They only kept the prince’s treasury, but also managed some of the sovereign’s revenues, mainly customs. But they by no means concentrated in their hands the management of all the incomes of the princes; the butler and the steward, and other officials in charge of certain revenue items of the palace economy had a special treasury. Subordinate to the boyar - treasurer were minor officials - treasurers and tiuns; they were in charge of the princely property stored in provincial cities. To prevent abuse, these positions were usually entrusted to unfree people who were completely dependent on the prince. These slave treasurers, like the tiuns and other minor officials, also not free, were usually released according to the wills of the princes.

Above all these palace positions stood at one time the position of thousand. The indicated ranks of this time were preserved, although with a changed meaning, until the tsarist period, while the position of the thousand was destroyed at the end of the fourteenth century. Tysyatsky, just as in the previous Kiev era, was the leader of the zemstvo regiments, city and rural militia. Due to his connections with the regional population, Tysyatsky was a powerful and influential person. This position was often inherited from father to son and, remaining in one family, greatly enhanced the importance of this family.

So, the “paths” were palace departments, between which the management of economic lands belonging to the princely palace was divided. But these departments did not concern palace lands. The paths could be called fishing grounds if the right to exploit the fishing grounds in the principality belonged exclusively to the princely palace. But the acts of the appanage and Moscow times do not indicate such exclusivity: fishing grounds are a simple accessory to land ownership, and the appanage or great prince, transferring his land into the hands of a private owner, along with it transferred the right to use the fishing grounds located on it.

The appointment of boyars to positions of good leaders in the palace management system was a preparatory step to the creation of a broader management structure - the Sovereign's Court. If at the beginning the good boyars worked in parallel with representatives of the Sovereign's Court, and their positions were the same in name, then later the Boyar Duma and the Sovereign's Court came to the fore. The good boyars fulfilled their historical mission and opened a new page in the system of governing the principality (state) in the form of the Sovereign's Court.

2.3. The Sovereign's Court and its role in the formation of executive power in Russia, in government (XII–XVI centuries)

The term “yard” in the pre-Mongol period of Russian history was used in different meanings. In the second half of XI and before mid-XII V. this was the name for the residence of the prince, the place where his judicial and administrative functions were carried out, the center for the receipt (and then redistribution) of state taxes, court fines, i.e. the place where the prince decided on state matters - financial questions. In the second half of the 12th century. the core of the princely squad, consisting of its younger members, was transformed into the Court. The prince was surrounded by two types of courtiers - “free servants” and “servants under the court.” Both free and dependent people were subordinate to Dvorsky, the manager. All of them specialized in different fields of activity, both as military men and as serving in the princely household (for example, artisans, managers, hunters, youths, children's, swordsmen). The younger warriors were now called the general term “nobles,” that is, employees at the princely court.

During the period of feudal fragmentation on the territory of most principalities at the end of the 15th century. Independent executive authorities are created in the form of princely courts. At the end of the 15th century. There was also the Court of Ivan III's wife Sophia Paleolog. The princely courts were not such a complex management structure as in the Novgorod Republic, but they were the prototypes of the beginning of the Sovereign's court. History has preserved to this day the description of other Courts as territorial governance structures. First of all, the Court of the Heirs to the Grand Duke's Throne enjoyed a special status. It is known, for example, about the existence of the Court of Prince Ivan the Young. Its own Court existed under Prince Vasily Ivanovich, the future Vasily III. Later, in 1500, Prince Vasily Ivanovich received the “principality of Novgorod and Pskov.” Obviously, it was from this time that the special Novgorod court began. The assumption of the existence of a special Novgorod court is supported by the mention in the Novgorod scribe books of some positions typical of the Sovereign's court. In addition to the butlers appointed from Moscow, stablekeepers, nurseries and hunters were also known in Novgorod. Novgorod stablekeepers, nurseries and hunters initially most likely served at the Novgorod court. Obviously, at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. Novgorod also had its own boyars, or rather Moscow boyar children, who acted at diplomatic negotiations as the legal successors of the Novgorod boyars. It is no coincidence that the Yard Notebook described only the yard service people of the “Moscow Lands”. It is likely that in the Novgorod land until the middle of the 16th century. nominally a special Novgorod court was preserved. Special children of the boyars were later also in the service of Tsarina Anastasia Romanova. In particular, notes in the Yard Notebook indicate that about three dozen boyar children were in her service.

There were special Courts of the Tver land (until the mid-1540s). The activities of the Tver chancellery were connected with the existence of the Tver Palace. The Tverskoy Palace continued to function in the middle of the 16th century. In connection with the dissolution of the Tver Boyar Duma, the “Tver Court” was included in the Sovereign’s Court between 1513 and 1518. By the middle of the 16th century. there were at least 44 separate territorial courts, not counting the ancestral princely courts, in which they served according to separate lists. After the thousandth reform, this number increased even more due to the involvement of landowners from the North-West of the country in the yard service.

The evolution of princely administration and the creation of the Sovereign's Court reflected the process of centralization of the Russian state and developed as new principalities and lands were annexed to the territory of the Moscow Principality proper. The structure of the Sovereign's Court also expanded due to the creation of new local government structures, which included service people resettled from other counties.

The Sovereign's Court in the medieval history of Russia represented an administrative association of service people “in the fatherland” who took a direct part in the leadership of the country, in executing the decisions of the prince and sovereign. Members of the Sovereign's Court were key figures in central and local government, participated in campaigns, ambassadorial missions, legal proceedings, palace and court services, i.e. representatives of the Sovereign's Court actually performed the functions of executive power in the modern sense. There were no more advanced management structures at that time. During the formation of the unified Moscow state, the “princely court” began to be called: in a broad sense, an organization of different ranks of service feudal lords, delegated to the “county - territorial organization", in the narrow sense of the term - the prince’s inner circle. Further, the structure of the territorial division of the court was transformed towards the “class-official structure”.

In the history of the evolution of the Sovereign's court, the following stages can be distinguished.

The first stage – 9th – end of 11th centuries. - formation of the foundations of the princely court, i.e., the appointment of service personnel from among the boyars to senior positions and from among the court servants to lower positions to perform management functions on the lands of the Grand Duke, the entire Old Russian state and vassals, as well as to serve the princely family. During this period, these employees could satisfy the needs of the prince and his family and solve management problems. However, this was a far from perfect mechanism of executive power.

The second stage – XII – first half of the XV centuries. - the emergence of the institution of the Sovereign's Court (princely court), the creation of the Grand Palace - the merger of the princely courts with the grand ducal one takes place. In the last decade of the reign of Ivan III, the importance of the Court as an administrative social institution increased. At this time, the traditional triple structure of the Grand Duke's court was formed, which included princes, boyars and boyars' children.

The third stage is the second half of the 15th – mid-16th centuries. In the second half of the 15th century. the sharp quantitative growth of the service population led to the separation and registration of the Sovereign's court itself, a change in its class structure, and the lifestyle of the servants. During this period, management tasks become more complicated, and the development of the structure of the Sovereign's court occurs due to the allocation of new court positions, related by the nature of their activities to the Boyar Duma, the Palace and the clerical environment. The sovereign's court becomes one of the key links in the system of general government, the executive power of the prince and tsar. The Sovereign's court turned into a closed organization, to which access of new persons almost ceased. The Sovereign's Court begins to act as a special force, as a nationwide executive structure that inherited its status from the former court of the Moscow princes. The Sovereign of All Rus' appointed nobles as military leaders, diplomats, and administrators in the center and locally. The courtier's successful career was determined not only by his official zeal, but also by family connections and the patronage of influential friends. This system management was based on the territorial principle of service organization.

From the end of the 15th century. The sovereign's court took an active part in all significant events of the Moscow prince. All governors, volostels, ambassadors and military leaders at various levels were appointed to their positions exclusively from among the persons who were part of the Sovereign's court. Most often, they also produced land descriptions of individual counties and conducted legal proceedings. The category of the Novgorod campaign “by peace” of 1495 distinguished the following categories within the Sovereign’s court: boyars, okolnichy, butler, nursery, bed-keeper, clerks, princes and boyar’s children. The development of the grand ducal chancellery led to the separation in the second half of the 15th century. positions of treasurer and printer. In fact, treasurers and printers were occasionally mentioned in sources of earlier times, however, from the end of the 15th century. these positions became permanent. In addition to them, at the end of the 15th century. Equers, treasurers, printers, falconers and hunters also acquired the character of special court positions. The position of equerry was first encountered in the category of the Novgorod trip of Vasily III in 1510. However, it is likely that this position existed in the Russian state during the reign of Ivan III in the 60s. XV century Falconers and hunters had fairly similar functions and, most likely, their duties were performed by the same persons. All these positions were presented in the categories of the Grand Duke's trips in 1510, 1513 and 1522. The further development of the structure of the Sovereign's court is recorded in the records of the Courtyard Notebook. In the second half of the 16th century. in the Yard Notebook were written: boyars, okolnichi, butlers, treasurers, bed servants, printer, big clerks, courtyard clerks, falconer (and hunter), armorers (squires, rynds - bodyguards as part of the tsar’s court guard), nurseries, serving princes, family princely corporations of the princes of Obolensky, Rostov, Suzdal, Yaroslavl, Starodub and Mosalsky, as well as boyar courtyard children from various cities of the Russian state. The allocation of the positions of equerry, butler, treasurer, printer, gunsmith, manger, bedkeeper, hunter and falconer within the Sovereign's Court was an indicator of the process of including the Grand Duke's Sovereign's Court in the system of general government and a certain unification of the previous putt system.

By the middle of the 16th century. The main principles of identifying and the main signs of the class status of such groups as stolniks, solicitors and (apparently no later than the 50s) nobles were formed. This, however, did not yet mean a complete break with the previous territorial structure of the court. The growth of crisis phenomena within the Sovereign's Court stimulated a series of reforms of the Court at the end of this period.

The fourth stage is the second half of the 16th – early 17th centuries. - characterizes the final design of the structure of the Sovereign's court as a result of the reforms of Ivan IV and Boris Godunov. The essence of the revision of the composition of the court was to bring its bureaucratic composition into line with the existing service-parochial relations and the “breed” of a service person on the terms of his faithful service to the monarch.

Fifth stage – second half of the 17th century. – reforms are being carried out civil service, aimed at turning the service people of the Sovereign's Court into employees. The gradual merging of Moscow ranks into a separate elite of the Sovereign's court, called courtiers, led in the second half of the 17th century. to the emergence of administration in the modern sense. The formation of the bureaucratic - hierarchical structure of the Sovereign's court was due to its new functions. One of the tasks of the grand ducal government was the creation of a unified all-Russian apparatus of power. The dominance of traditional forms of management and the general underdevelopment of office work led to an increase in the importance of the Sovereign's Court as a special administrative executive structure.

Attention! This is an introductory fragment of the book.

If you liked the beginning of the book, then full version can be purchased from our partner - distributor of legal content, LLC liters.

At the end of the 12th century, the Sovereign's Court was formed in Tsarist Russia. This definition in Europe initially defined the circle of people who served royal family at a personal residence. But in Russia, the list of people included not only servants. To receive a position in the Sovereign's court was a privilege. Since over time the entire political system of government was concentrated in it.

Life before the Sovereign's court

Since the 11th century, the Russian state became increasingly isolated, but developed steadily. The positive side of isolation was the economic and cultural development of the regions. The population increased, the economy became stronger, the cities became richer.

The Russian lands were united by only a few factors:

• princes and boyars recognized the power of the Kyiv prince;
• the regions maintained a single religion and language;
• the obedience to the norms described in the adopted code of laws "Russian Truth" was controlled.

Reasons for fragmentation

Vladimir Monomakh, who reigned from 1113-1125, tried to stop the process, but died. His son Mstislav took the throne after the death of his father, but did not rule for long, only 7 years.

A prerequisite for the fragmentation of the state was the resettlement of people from those lands that were periodically raided by the Polovtsians. The eastern and southwestern cities of Vladimir, Suzdal, Galich and Volyn received the main flow of refugees.

The princes and boyars who owned the lands were not satisfied with subordination to Kyiv. After all, in order to maintain order in their lands, they had sufficient power and were strong. In addition, local boyars and the princely squad provided each prince with the necessary protection and assistance, supporting the idea of ​​​​not depending on the capital.

Fragmentation of the Old Russian state

Due to princely civil strife, the state's defense capability weakened. In the XII - I half. XIII centuries Old Russian state turned out to be completely fragmented.

TO end of XII century, 15 lands became independent, independent of the capital. The largest of them were the Galicia-Volyn and Vladimir-Suzdal principalities, and Novgorod Republic. In 1132, the fragmentation of Russia reached its apogee.

The centralization of the state has become conditional. Each prince ruled his land independently, taking into account the boyars and squad close to him - those forces on which his power depended.

A historically significant person in that period was Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. He ruled in the Vladimir-Suzdal lands and was active foreign policy to give himself the title of king. But in 1174 he was killed and power passed to his brother, Vsevolod the Big Nest. It was the Vladimir-Suzdal principality that became the center that subsequently united the state.

Reasons for the emergence of the Sovereign's court

Let's look at the historical definition of what the Sovereign's courtyard is. Historians date its origins to the second half of the 12th century. It included representatives of the princely squad. But at that time, subordination took place according to the principle “your vassal’s vassal is not my vassal.” Then the Sovereign's court appeared. This is a structure that, over time, on the basis of voluntary subordination, included boyars, “free servants” and servants who were subordinate to the “court majordomo”. Over time, the number of voluntary vassals grew.

In the XIII-XIV centuries. Each prince had his own "Sovereign Court". These are all vassals who are part of the structure: the squad, the boyars and their descendants, hired workers, slaves. They were all called nobles.

Sovereign's yard

At the end of the 16th century, during the reign of the Rurikovichs, the Moscow Sovereign's Court was fully formed in Russia. It was a manorial system, which included people from three classes: the highest and middle constituted the residence of the king, the lowest - his servants.

The upper class included people with large land holdings. The top of this class also had ranks in the Boyar Duma. The rest occupied various positions at court: printer, equerry, sleeping man, armorer, and so on. The middle class included cavalrymen who were called up for service in the capital: district landowners (nobles and children of boyars). The total number of people eventually reached 1200. The role of the royal court in governing the country was great. The people included in the structure influenced foreign and domestic policy.

Palace officials

The ranks of the Moscow Sovereign's Court are palace and Moscow positions. The list included:

1. Equerry - after the death of the king, if he had no heirs, was the first contender for the throne. He was in charge of herds and cavalry, participated in military and diplomatic activities.

2. Butler - served at the table, managed the exchange between palace servants, carried out distribution, land surveying, and judged.

3. The treasurer of the royal court kept valuables and archives.

4. Gunsmith - was in charge of the gunsmith's room.

5. The bedmaster was in charge of the sovereign’s bedroom, personal treasury and jewelry, office, and formal clothing.

In addition to these positions, there were the ranks of hunter, falconer, picker, housekeeper, and stoker.

The royal court also consisted of Moscow officials. They were assigned to nobles whose activities were connected with the army. These were stewards and solicitors.

The prerequisite for the emergence of the royal court was the fragmentation of the Russian state. The role of the Sovereign's court in governing the country was great. People close to the king who held ranks in this structure could influence the political and economic spheres. What is the Sovereign's Court (definition from history), this article told you.

Page 27

When was the unification of the northeastern and northwestern Russian lands around Moscow completed? What task faced the great princes after the completion of the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow?

Under Vasily III (by 1533), with the annexation of Pskov, Smolensk, and Ryazan, the unification of the lands of North-Eastern and North-Western Rus' around Moscow was completed. The main task of the sovereign was the transformation of independent lands into a single Russian state. The first national institutions were created, a unified army and a communications system appeared. The country was divided into districts, headed by Moscow governors.

Page 28

What is inheritance? Who was given the inheritance?

UDEL - an appanage principality in Rus', that is, a territory formed after the partition major principalities during the period from the 12th to the 16th centuries. The estate was under the control of an appanage prince, and formally - in the possession of the Grand Duke. Often, appanages were formed as a result of inheritance, donation, land redistribution and even violent seizures. In connection with the formation of the Russian state, the formation of appanage principalities ceased in the 16th century: the last one, Uglich, was abolished in 1591. The share of a representative of the princely family in the family domain was also called appanage.

Page 33. questions and tasks for working with the text of the paragraph

1. Explain the economic and political meaning of assigning the exclusive right to mint coins to the Grand Duke.

Economic meaning: filling the treasury, forming a single internal market for the development of trade, crafts, and the economy as a whole

Political meaning: strengthening the state, autocratic power.

2. Was the unification of Rus' inevitable?

The unification of Rus' was inevitable as there was liberation from the Horde, strengthening of central power, and economic growth.

3. Describe the role of the sovereign’s court in governing the country.

The role of the sovereign's court in governing the country was great. This is the ruling elite of Moscow society, associates and like-minded people of the Grand Duke, who were appointed governors, governors, butlers, ambassadors, i.e. were the conductors of his policies.

4. What was the source of income for the sovereign's governors? Why was this form of receiving funds called “feeding”?

The source of income for the sovereign's governors was the support of the local population in money and products of this governor and his court.

This form of receiving funds was called “feeding” because the charter of the Grand Duke determined the amount of the governor’s salary - “feed”.

5. Who formed a single army in the first third of the 16th century? Explain the origin of the names of these classes.

In the first third of the 16th century, a single army was formed from local nobles. The origin of the name “local” is from the word “to place”; an estate is a plot of government land with peasants, given to a specific person on the condition that he bears military service. These persons were palace servants, and even serfs, junior members of noble families.

Page 33. Working with the map

Show on the map the territorial acquisitions of Vasily III listed in the paragraph.

Territorial acquisitions of Vasily III: Pskov land, Chernigov-Seversky lands, Smolensk, Ryazan principality, Belgorod.

Page 33. Studying documents

What character qualities of Vasily III can be judged from this fragment of the letter?

This fragment of the letter allows us to judge such qualities of the character of Vasily III as caring, loyalty, responsibility.

Page 34. Studying documents

2. Why was the veche bell removed from the city?

The Veche bell was removed from the city because it convened the residents of Pskov for the Veche and symbolized the independence of the Pskov people.

Page 34. We think, compare, reflect

2. Explain the meaning of the phrase: “At the church council, Ivan III proposed “to take villages from the metropolitan, and from all the rulers, and from all the monasteries,” and in return to provide them “from his treasury with money... and bread.”

The meaning of the phrase is that in this way the sovereign limited the influence and power of the church, subordinating it to his authority, while simultaneously replenishing the treasury.

4. Give examples showing the significance of the unification of Russian lands around Moscow.

Examples showing the significance of the unification of Russian lands around Moscow: strengthening of central power, economic development, ending internecine wars, safety of residents of the state, development of lands included in the Russian state.

M.A. Tsvetkova, 2005

WAYS FOR FORMING THE GOVERN'S COURT

M.A. Tsvetkova

The Boyar Duma and the Sovereign's Court were the most important institutions of Moscow Rus' in the 15th-17th centuries. Extensive research has been devoted to their study. scientific literature, but the Boyar Duma was primarily the subject of research. Much less attention was paid to the Sovereign's court2.

The sovereign's court was a special military-political and military-administrative association of service people, which played a vital role in the life of the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. Its origins began during the period of fragmentation and was associated with the peculiarities of boyar service in North-Eastern Rus'. The court carried out the functions of the state apparatus of power. The central governing body of the Russian state, the Boyar Duma, was the upper chamber of the Sovereign's court.

The boyars were the highest stratum of the Sovereign's court and played a huge role in the political life of the country. Reconstructing the composition of the Duma people is a difficult task, since the sources have been preserved incompletely and often contradict each other3.

The main set of sources on the history of the Sovereign's court consists of rank and genealogy materials of official origin. Early courtyard documents have not survived. But their loss can be compensated with the help of the Yard Notebook, where almost all the people who were part of the 50-60s were represented. XVI century part of the Sovereign's Court and the Boyar Duma. The difficulty lies in the fact that the princely lists from the Yard Notebook have reached us in a faulty form. The Thousand Book of 1550 and court documents help to reconstruct the original text.

Among the records that have come down to us, the Discharge of 1495 deserves special attention. The researchers who worked with him did not pay attention to the fact that this Class included, along with other records, lists of princes. Comparison of these lists with courtyard documents of the 16th century. reveals the identity of surnames and, no less important, a stable order of their location. This observation gives

This suggests that the 1495 Discharge is an early court document, and allows us to get an idea of initial stage formation of the Sovereign's court. By reconstructing the Class of 1495, it is possible to establish which princely families were represented there.

[Princes of Starodub)

Book Ivan Likhach and Yuri and Boris Ramoda-noeski,

Ivan Sample and Andrey Pestrukha, Prince Fedorov, children of Pestroy,

Alyoshka and Fedor and Semyon Priimysh Krivoborsky,

Book Ivan Starodubsky Black,

Vasily Kover Starodubsky.

\Klyazya Rostov]

Book Andrei Ivanovich Rostovsky Khokholek, his children Yushko and Alexander,

Book Alexander Volodimerovich Rostovsky, Prince. Vasily and Prince Semyon Prince Ivanov children of Yanov-Rostov.

[Princes of Yaroslavl] Konstantin, Prince Semenov, son of Ramanovitch,

Book Konstantin Ushatoy,

Book Andrey Prince Dmitreev son of Kurbsky, Prince. Semyon Prince Fedorov son of Kurbsky, Prince. Mikhail Prince Lvov son of Ramanovich,

Book Dmitry Prince Fedorov son of Yukhott, Prince. Andrey Prozorovsky,

Book Fedor Sitsky,

Book Dmitry Solntse and Davyd Zasekin,

Book Ivan Kargodomsky,

Book Ivan Shelespansky,

Grigory and Pyotr Fedorov, children of Davydovich,

Book Ivan Sholukha Kubensky.

[Princes of Suzdal]

Book Mikhailo Shuisky,

Book Boris Prince Ivanov son of Gorbaty, Prince. Vasily Andreevich Nokhtev, and his son Ivan,

Book Ivan Alexandrovich Barbasha.

Princely lists indicate that the nobility of Vladimir-Suzdal origin retained its political power. This is explained by the fact that their principalities came under the influence of Moscow already in the 14th century, and the annexation took place without a bloody struggle, as was the case in Novgorod.

When comparing the Class of 1495 with the Yard Notebook, it is clear that there are much fewer surnames in the Class, that is, only the most notable were entered there. The Yard Notebook reveals a wider range of surnames that are not included in the Class. Using the rank books, it is possible to establish the names of princes who successfully served in 1552-1564, but were not included in the city lists of the Yard Notebook. Consequently, they served according to the lost princely list. Such, for example, are S.D., V.D. and F.D. Paletskys.

It may be noted that the list of princes of Rostov is incomplete. In the Thousand Book of 1550, under the heading “Rostov” it is indicated that princes I.B. and N.B. The Lobanovs-Rostovskys served on the princely lists of Rostov, which means that within the former Rostov principality they retained ancestral lands. In this regard, it is difficult to agree with V.B. Kobrin, who believes that the lands were taken away from all the Rostov princes. In fact, the richest managed to preserve them, judging by the fact that their names were included in the princely lists.

The Rostov and Suzdal princes formed the most influential layer of the Sovereign's court, but this did not happen immediately. The Yaroslavl princes, unlike the Rostov and Suzdal princes, retained their sovereign rights over the old possessions. The connections of those princes who did not have these rights were also strong. None of the Yaroslavl princes became boyars, but some rose to the rank of okolnichy under Vasily III. Thus, it is clear why the owners of family estates from among the Suzdal princes served in the Sovereign's court on separate princely lists. Persons who lost their ancestral estates were recorded with other nobles on the lists of those cities where they had estates.

Only partially the list of the Starodub princes has been preserved. The Thousand Book of 1550 also helps to carry out its reconstruction. A.A. Zimin published it using a faulty list, and therefore in the Yard Notebook the list of the Starodubsky princes is not highlighted at all. In the courtyard documents there were approximately 60 of them, of whom 35 served on the princely lists.

The Suzdal princes were not as numerous as the princes of Yaroslavl, Staro-Dub, and Rostov. But in the Boyar Duma they had the greatest representation. At

A. Adashev, five of them bore the boyar rank and three served according to princely lists4.

Let us note that in the Yard Notebook, in the heading “boyars”, Prince Ivan Dmitrievich Belsky is in first place. However, he received the rank of boyar only in 1560. Consequently, it was added there later, that is, it is a postscript. In first place is Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Shuisky. Opposite his name in the text of the Yard Notebook it is written that he was truly blackened. Apparently he was already of advanced age.

It should be noted that serving on the princely lists gave great privileges: first of all, it opened the way to the Boyar Duma and appointment to senior positions.

At the end of the 15th century. Russian troops captured a number of cities, as a result of which their former ruling princes were included in the princely lists. In the Yard Notebook in the middle of the 16th century. New princely lists appear that are not in the Class of 1495. For example, for the first time we discover the princes of Mosalsky. The Belozersky princes, on the contrary, are dropping out. Thus, the circle of princely families changes, but only slightly.

[Princes of Mosal]

Book Vasily Ring, and Andrey and Pstrok, Prince Semyonov, children of Old Mossad. Peter will die.

Book Vasily Usatoi, and Fyodor, and Ivan, and Mikhailo, Prince Semyonov, children of Mosalsky. Book Vasily, yes Ivan, and Mikhailo are completely dead.

Book Vasily, and Prince. Ivan and Mikhailo, Prince Vasilyev, children of Litvin Mosalsky. Book Alsksandro, yes Osif, yes Ivan Mens-koy prince Dmitriev children of Mosalsky prince Alexandrov children prince. Danilo - die - yes Semyon.

Book Danilo and Lev Prince Ivanov Klubu-kova-Mosalsky. Novik '67.

In a memory dated August 11, 1500, to Ivan Mamonov, sent as ambassador to the Crimea, Ivan III names among those who came to him the princes Trubetskoy with the city of Trubetskoy and volosts and Mosalsky with the city of Mosalsky and volosts 5. This message is confirmed by the chronicle entry: “The same Summer (7000), August, the prince of the Great Vorotyn princes, Prince Dmitrov and Prince Semyon, sent to the Lithuanian land to the city of Mosayask; They marched and took the city and burned it and fought the land.”6 Unfortunately, it is unknown whether these princes switched to the side of Ivan III before the battle on the river. Bucket or after it.

After the oprichnina, the lists of princes from the Boyar Lists disappeared, only to reappear briefly in the first years of the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich in the Boyar List of 1588/9. and the List of nobles scheduled to participate in the campaign of 1589-15901. Then, after the election of Boris Godunov to the kingdom, the princely lists disappeared, since their main feature was kinship with the dynasty, and under Boris Godunov a new zemstvo dynasty appeared, and the princely families mentioned above were no longer the closest relatives of the monarch.

Since the 14th century Duma officials were persons representing about a dozen noble families. These clans sought to secure the right to possess Duma ranks8. During the reign of Ivan III, the Sovereign's court retained the status of his personal court. Promotion along the ladder of ranks of individuals and families depended on their service merits and was determined by the Grand Duke himself. At the end of the 15th century. There was a tendency to consolidate individual surnames in the positions they occupied. This trend affected all layers of the Sovereign's court and was strengthened by the developing parochial system. By the middle of the 16th century. The sovereign's court turned into a closed corporation. The consequence of this was an increase in the number of the Sovereign's court, which led to the separation of most of its members from court service. Ivan the Terrible, having introduced oprichnina, divided the courtyard, which weakened state power in general9.

The development of the Sovereign's court, apparently, should be associated with the formation of the local system. The main difference between the State Court is

roar of the courtyard of the 16th century. from the court of the era of fragmentation is that all adenas of the Sovereign's court were for the first time provided with estates. The establishment of the local system and the dominance of state land ownership on this basis formed the Sovereign's court, which became the main political support of the autocratic monarchy. This relationship has not yet been explored in the literature.

NOTES

"Klyuchevsky V.O. History of estates in Russia: Works: In 9 vols. M., 1989. P. 321-323, 382; Pavlov-Silvansky N.P. Sovereign's service people. St. Petersburg, 1998. P. 163 -164.

2 Pavlov A.P. The sovereign's court and political struggle under Boris Godunov (1584-1605). St. Petersburg, 1992; Bentsianov M.M. Sovereign's court and territorial corporations of service people of the Russian state at the end of the 15th - mid-16th centuries: Author's abstract. dis.... cand. history Sci. Ekaterinburg, 2000.

3 Bochkareva Z.N., Bychkova M.E. Rare sources on the history of Russia. M., 1977. P. 2.

4 Zimin A.A. Composition of the boyar duma in the XV-XVI centuries. //Archaeographic Yearbook, 1957. M., 1958.

5 Collection of the Russian Historical Society. M., 1885. T. 41. P. 318.

6 Resurrection Chronicle // Complete collection Russian Chronicles (PSRL). T. 8. SPb.. 1859. P. 255.

7 Stanislavsky A.L. Works on the history of the Sovereign's court in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries. M., 2004. S. 194-202,212-216,321-322.

8 Marshall T. Poe. Russian elite in the 17th century. T. 1: Duma and ceremonial ranks of the Sovereign's court. 1613-1713 gt. M., 2004.

5 Bentsianov M. M. Decree. op.

M. A. Tsvetkova. Ways to form the Sovereign's court