Features of the origin of Russian statehood. Theories of the origin of the Russian state

5.1. Russian civilization after the collapse of the Old Russian state

A sad sight was the land on which the Slavs lived, once united in the Old Russian state.

The defeated but not conquered principalities fell into vassal, dynastic dependence on the Golden Horde, whose power was headed by a nomadic aristocracy. Batu’s campaigns, which turned out to be disastrous for the Vladimir-Suzdal, Ryazan, Galicia-Volyn principalities, did not, however, have such a tragic impact on the Novgorod land and Western Rus', only slightly affecting them. But it was not only the power of the Mongol conquerors that forced the Novgorod prince Alexander Nevsky to become the “adopted son” of Batu Khan and receive from his hands the “great reign”, as well as the “capital city” of Kyiv, destroyed by the Mongols. In addition, danger was approaching from the west.

In the 13th century German knights invaded the Baltic states. The spiritual-knightly Livonian Order established itself in the occupied lands. From here, from the Baltic states, German knightly aggression began to spread to Russian lands. Swedish feudal lords began to threaten Novgorod's possessions from the north. A series of military battles stopped the invasions from the north. But the danger emanating from the southeast, from the Tatar-Mongols, has not been removed. Fighting on two fronts is disastrous. To prevent this, Alexander Nevsky makes a decision, which later had cardinal significance for Russia, to “bow” to Batu. Religious factors also influenced this decision. Alexander Nevsky unjustifiably rejected the help of the Pope and did not want to make Rus' a suburb of Europe. He sacrificed political freedom for religious freedom. Russian civilization, which arose in the middle of the Eurasian continent and previously turned towards Europe, turned towards Asia. It was at this price that relative military calm was achieved.

The submission and obedience of the Russian princes clearly played into the hands of the Mongol khans. The very relations of the Russian princes with the Mongol khans developed differently. Disobedient princes were humiliatingly punished. However, those princes who willingly submitted to the Mongols, as a rule, were not only on good terms with them, but also became related. Gradually, the northeastern princes turned into “servants” of the Mongol khans. The question of who would be the Grand Duke was also simply resolved. This was the prince who brought the most gifts (tribute) to the Mongols.

The Mongol invasion also affected the composition of the population. Since ancient times, Rus' has developed in comparison with European countries slowly. This is evidenced by at least a small number of cities that existed in Rus'. As a rule, the ruling elite, artisans, and merchants were concentrated in cities. Since villages hidden in forests were inaccessible to the Mongol cavalry, its attacks fell mainly on cities. Firstly, the main wealth that was attractive to the conquerors accumulated there, and, secondly, those who could organize and resist the Mongols lived there - princes and warriors, a kind of “humus”, i.e. fertile layer of the people. Of course, the blows fell primarily on their heads. The people seemed to be bleeding out and losing the ability to resist. Historian scientists, based on data from archaeologists, have calculated that out of seventy-four Russian cities of the 12th-13th centuries, known from excavations, forty-nine were devastated by Batu. Moreover, fourteen cities did not rise from the ashes at all, and fifteen gradually turned into villages. Ruling class in Rus' it was almost completely knocked out. Rus' was drained of blood.

During the period when active military operations were not carried out, the Russian people gradually began to accumulate strength, although the Russian land still remained divided into separate principalities. The unification of the principalities and the creation of a centralized state on the ruins of the Rurik Empire really began in the 14th century, when the forces of the Russian lands increased for more active resistance Russian princes of the Golden Horde. At the center of these processes were the Moscow princes. Among them, Ivan Kalita and Dmitry Donskoy, grandfather and grandson, played a particularly prominent role.

The first, Ivan Kalita, is given credit for the fact that with his arrival “silence” reigned and the Mongols stopped devastating the Russian lands. The conquest of Tver by Ivan Kalita and the annexation of Tver to the Moscow Principality is assessed in history differently. Some scientists believe that it was on the chest (accumulation) of Ivan Kalita that the Russian state was created. Others call it the phenomenon of unscrupulousness, for which all means are good in achieving the goal. However, all historians are unanimous that the purposeful accumulation, which was inherent in Ivan Kalita, formed the foundation on which a powerful structure arose - the Russian state. It was under him that the foundation of Moscow's power was laid.

The second prince, Dmitry Donskoy, went down in history by being the first to speak out against the Mongols, so to speak, with an open visor: he led the battle on the Kulikovo field (1380), which, although it did not allow the Mongols to be completely defeated, inspired the Russian people, poured into He had such powerful vital forces that later led to complete liberation from the Tatar-Mongol invaders.

The Moscow principality in the era of Dmitry Donskoy no longer had equals. The struggle continued, there were rivals and enemies, but the historical process was already firmly defined: a new state was being created around Moscow, and Moscow would become its capital 1 .

It is interesting to explore what factors caused the appearance Russian state and what is the difference between seemingly similar processes: the emergence of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Russian state.

1 Only in 1480, under Ivan III, did the Moscow Principality stop paying tribute to the Golden Horde khans. At the beginning of the 16th century, the Moscow Principality annexed all the principalities previously dependent on the Golden Horde, as well as the Novgorod and Pskov lands. The last to be annexed was the Ryazan Principality in 1521. Thus, the Russian state was completely formed at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries.

5.2. The factor of violence in the formation of the Russian state

One of his lectures by S.M. Solovyov begins like this: “Long before the beginning of our chronology, the Greek, who is called the father of history, visited present-day Southern Russia: he looked with a faithful look at our country, at the tribes living in it, and wrote in his immortal book that the tribes lead a way of life what the nature of the country showed them" 1 . The same idea also ran like a refrain throughout the entire work of V.O. Klyuchevsky. IN Soviet time it was completely forgotten, or rather deliberately ignored, believing in the omnipotence of man, who, as Soviet ideologists claimed, could turn back rivers and plant gardens on permafrost. Life constantly “grounds” our dreams, and the climate in which we live cools our impulses.

It was the climatic conditions that determined that the factor of violence played a role in the formation of the Russian state. Only at this stage we do not see massive aggressive operations on the part of the Russian people. The violence on his part was not so widespread and did not invade other nations (XIV-XV centuries). If violence as a factor that had a significant impact on the formation of the Old Russian state was addressed mainly outside and was applied in relation to other tribes and peoples, then at this stage of development of Russian civilization the factor of violence becomes different: it is mostly addressedinside and applies to its own Russian people, united in separate scattered principalities. The meaning of the struggle between individual principalities comes down to possessing the status of a grand duchy. And now about this in a little more detail.

The northwestern region of the East European Plain, the centers of which were Novgorod and Pskov, was located in a climate zone unfavorable for agriculture. The craft was also not developed. The basis of Novgorod exports were furs and wax. Modern historical research shows that the cities of the North-West were administrative and economic centers on river routes, while the population of this region was mainly engaged in beekeeping and hunting. Part of the population switched to trade. They traded mainly with the population of the coasts of the Baltic and North Seas, since the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” was gradually disrupted. There were trade relations with the Rostov-Suzdal principality, where agriculture was better developed. Without exchanging their furs for agricultural products of this principality, it was difficult for the Novgorodians to feed themselves.

Since trade and agriculture are seasonal occupations, and besides, occupations that did not provide sufficient and sustainable food in the harsh climate, residents of northern Russian cities were forced to engage in robbery. Chronicle sources show that Novgorodians were “professionally” engaged in robbery until the 15th century. This phenomenon in Novgorod was called ushkuinichestvo. The Ushkuinik detachments were so significant that they attacked not only trade caravans, but also individual cities. Here are some statistical data (quoted from the article by B. Zemtsov 1 ). So, in 1366, according to one chronicle, 150 Ushkuinik boats left Novgorod on a campaign, and according to another - 200. Each boat carried 10-12 people. They plundered the pugas to Volga Bulgaria Nizhny Novgorod. In the same year, another detachment went to the Volga. The chronicles preserved information about the plunder of Vyatka by the Ushkuiniki in 1374, Kostroma in 1375, and Kazan in 1391. Apparently, for a whole segment of the population of Novgorod this was a common activity. The Novgorod authorities knew about these campaigns; some campaigns were led by boyars. Thus, Novgorod grew rich, which later also claimed the role of the “capital city” of all Rus'.

However, this method of strengthening the principality was clearly unreliable and risky. But this is not the only reason why North-Western Rus' never became the center of the Russian state. This region was not geographically isolated, but was open to conquest both from the sea (north) and from the land (west). It was surrounded by strong state formations, capable of not only providing worthy competition, but also suppressing it at the right opportunity.

The North-West also lacked scale, i.e. territorial space, which later, during the transition to feudal land ownership, began to form the basis of statehood.

The factor of violence manifested itself in other forms. First of all, in the form of continuous struggle between individual principalities. It is difficult to say whether it was a positive factor or a negative one. The fact is that the first necessity in Rus' was the replacement of the old order with a new one, the transition from patrimonial princely relations to state ones. The strength and power of Rus' and its ability to resist the Mongols depended on this.

Gradually, in the northern principalities, a final weakening of the tribal ties between the princes is revealed. The struggle of the strongest princes against the weakest, the violation of all family rights and accounts, their efforts to acquire in this struggle the means to further strengthen their principality at the expense of others, becomes the rule and is not even particularly condemned. In this struggle, the Mongols are also used as weapons. Ultimately, this violent struggle to strengthen the influence of one of the principalities, namely Moscow, ended with the creation of a strong state, which made it possible to free itself from the Tatar-Mongols and begin a new struggle with the Kingdom of Poland for the expansion of territory and the annexation of the southern part of Russian civilization. Having become powerful, the Russian state entered the family of European states.

I would like to confirm this idea with just two characteristic historical facts: the conquest of Tver by the Moscow principality and the annexation of Novgorod.

Since 1304, when, after the death of the Grand Duke of Vladimir, the “table” went to the Tver prince Mikhail, an essentially civil war began between the Moscow principality, which claimed to be the main one, and the Tver principality, recognized as such. Used in wrestling various means, including those that can rightfully be called immoral. First, the Tver prince, together with Russian and Mongol troops, moved towards Novgorod in order to conquer and annex it, thereby strengthening the position of Tver as a great principality. But Moscow Prince Yuri Danilovich (grandson of Alexander Nevsky) himself laid claim to the great reign and could not allow the strengthening of Tver. He married the sister of Khan Uzbek and received a label for a great reign. Now he's with with good reason gave battle to the Tver prince, but... was defeated. However, Tver's victory turned into its defeat when both princes appeared before the khan's court. The Tver prince was executed.

A few years later (1339), the struggle between the principalities resumed again. Now Ivan Kalita was not seeking a great reign, he already had it, but the removal of the Tver prince Alexander Mikhailovich from life altogether. Having fraudulently obtained Alexander Mikhailovich's trip to the Mongol Khan, he achieved his goal: the Tver prince was killed there. The Principality of Tver was annexed to the Principality of Moscow. With his victory, Ivan Kalita managed to “kill three birds with one stone”: he earned himself the khan’s label, destroyed his political opponent in the person of Prince of Tver and dealt with the Tver residents who loved to gather at the veche and oppose the veche power to the princely power. Thus, under Ivan Kalita, the foundation of the power of Moscow and the creation of the Russian state was laid.

It was the turn of the Principality of Novgorod, which had always stood apart. In the XIV century. The Novgorodians considered it advantageous for themselves to recognize as their prince one of the Russian princes who received a great reign from the Tatar “tsar”. Starting with Ivan Kalita, these were the princes of Moscow. From time to time, there were clashes near Novgorod with the Moscow princes, but the matter, as a rule, ended in reconciliation and payment by the Novgorodians of the next part of the tribute to the Mongols. However, there were also armed conflicts (in 1441 and 1456). Subsequently, the Novgorod Republic fell into decay. But the Moscow people were just waiting for this moment. Grand Duke Ivan III to include Novgorod Republic into the Moscow state. In a moment of danger, the Novgorodians turned to the Lithuanians for help. This extremely angered the Moscow prince (they say, “they are retreating from Christianity to Latinism”), who immediately gathered an army and defeated the disorderly Novgorod militia (1471). Novgorod was forced to conclude an agreement with Ivan III, in which the “free men” of Novgorod, the “fatherland” of the great princes of Moscow, pledged to the King of Poland “not to give in to any cunning, but to be unrelenting from you from the great princes to anyone.” Later (in 1478), Ivan III demanded in Novgorod the establishment of his own “state” (i.e., power), “as we are the sovereign in Moscow,” without failing to advance an army. The Novgorodians surrendered without a fight.

So Novgorod ended its independent existence and became part of the Moscow state.

Thus, the factor of violence was present not only in the process of formation of the Old Russian state, but also during the creation of the Russian state, but was used only in a different form. There is no need to mourn over this, nor should we condemn our ancestors for their cruel morals. This must be accepted as a given, and characteristic of almost all peoples at the dawn of civilization, and not just the Russian people. The fact is that the intelligence of humanity increases gradually, and much later, when civilization is at a significant height, an understanding comes that any issues, no matter how complex they may seem at first glance, can be resolved on the basis of a compromise. Unfortunately, even today such a “compromise” worldview is not dominant on earth. There is therefore no reason to reproach our ancestors for behaving so warlike.

1 Soloviev S.M. Readings and stories on the history of Russia. M., 1989. P. 159.

1 Zemtsov B. “Where did Russian civilization come from?” // Social Sciences and Modernity. 1994. No. 4. P. 55.

5.3. Diffusion as an indispensable attribute of Russian statehood

The Russian principalities, remaining on the ruins of the Old Russian state, fell into decay. The constant raids of the restless southern neighbors, willy-nilly, forced the Slavic peoples to move to places where there was no such mortal danger of plunder and their physical destruction.

Where did the Slavs move and how did the settlement of the East European Plain proceed? This issue was studied with particular care by V.O. Klyuchevsky, who loved to repeat that the history of the Russian state is, first of all, the history of its colonization.

Of course, first of all, the northeast was open to the Russians. This is a vast and sparsely populated forest region of the Oka-Volga basin. Russian settlers in the Oka-Volga interfluve met Finno-Ugric tribes. Here the settlers found, although less fertile soil and a harsher climate, an incomparably calmer and safer life. Sparsely scattered Finnish villages, small old Russian cities that arose back in the ancient period of Russian colonization, which are so few in number that they can be counted on the fingers of one hand (Rostov, Suzdal, Murom) - such is the surrounding social “landscape”.

The ethnographic consequence of the Russian resettlement was the formation of the Great Russian people from a mixture of Russian settlers and Russified Finns. The resettlement of Russians took place along rivers and therefore looked like the “spreading” of the Russian people across the East European Plain in different directions. Long strips of villages stretched along the rivers, the distance between which, as a rule, was within walking distance of a person for one day. Places convenient for settlement and agricultural cultivation were relatively rare islands among the “sea” of forests and swamps, and therefore small villages were the predominant type of settlements.

How did these two peoples meet: Russians and Finns, consisting of several tribes, which in the Russian vocabulary were united by one term “chud”? IN. Klyuchevsky believes that this meeting was peaceful 1 . And the reason for this, in his opinion, was the peaceful nature of the Finns. IN. Klyuchevsky does not make further generalizations, but it seems that if he had gone further in his reasoning, he would have come to the conclusion that all northern peoples living in extremely harsh climates are distinguished by precisely this, since their very limited physical energy is only sufficient only to survive in such conditions. Wars immediately upset such a fragile balance, and not in favor of humans. And the colonists themselves did not challenge the natives to fight. They belonged for the most part to the rural population, which, caring about the preservation of crops, was more inclined to decide controversial issues non-military ways. And it’s worth remembering what the colonists were fleeing from. They were leaving southwestern Rus' from military adversity, which was caused in abundance by the steppe nomads, who swept away everything in their path.

There was one more factor that ensured the painless adaptation of Russians to new lands. This is that the Finns were inferior in social development to the settlers. And this again cannot be reproached to the Finnish tribe. This is just a statement of a pattern that has worldwide significance: in a harsh climate (both too cold and too hot), the development of humanity slows down, since all its forces are forced to be spent on survival, i.e. to combat natural conditions that are so unkind to people. IN. Klyuchevsky notes that the Russians, having met the Finnish inhabitants of the East European Plain, seemed to immediately feel superior to them. It is with this that he associates the use of such a name for Finnish tribes as “chud” (from the Russian cognate words chudit, chudno, eccentric, etc.).

The harsh climate did not allow huge masses of people to invade the Finnish region. Russian settlers seemed to seep in in rushing streams, occupying more or less vast spaces between the endless forests and swamps. About what in this case we are talking specifically about the diffusion of statehood, and not about the conquest of the northern peoples by the Russians, also says that the types of religion professed by the meeting peoples “got used to” each other relatively peacefully. The Russians had already firmly accepted Christianity, but the Finns were pagans. Of course, the Russians sought to spread their religion as widely as possible. But Christianity did not uproot the Chud pagan beliefs: folk Christian beliefs, without displacing pagan ones, built on top of them, forming the upper layer of religious ideas that lay on a pagan basis. Ultimately, everything worked out in such a way that with the official religious worldview - Orthodoxy - paganism was firmly rooted in our people. We see its echoes today, for example, the celebration of Maslenitsa. Mutual recognition of other people's beliefs contributed to everyday assimilation and business rapprochement of both peoples.

The diffusion of the Russian people and their social life skills did not end between the Oka and Volga rivers. The strong Rostov-Suzdal principality that was formed here made it possible to accumulate forces for the further diffusion of the beginnings of Russian statehood. But first, the Russian people had to go through difficult trials (the fragmentation of Suzdal Rus', as well as other Russian lands, the Tatar-Mongol invasion, etc.).

Only two centuries later did the Russian people manage to overcome difficulties and be able to organize themselves. At the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. a strong centralized Russian state was created.

But this, oddly enough, only stimulated the further development of the diffusion process. It would seem that the Russian people, who had suffered so much from the most difficult trials and simply longed for a peaceful life, should have stopped and looked at themselves, and then started organizing their newly created state. But it was not there. The passion for expanding his territory and imposing his orders on other peoples took possession of him irrevocably.

Ivan the Terrible is already firmly on the warpath. He annexes the Kazan and Astrakhan kingdoms, and then begins to “deal” with the Balts. As a result of Ermak's campaigns (1581-1585), the Russian state expanded into Siberia. Further campaigns of Russian explorers (V. Poyarkova, F. Popov, S. Dezhnev, E. Khabarov, etc.) made the Russian state extend to Pacific Ocean. Finally, it came up against natural boundaries - seas and oceans.

However, natural borders did not stop the diffusion of Russian statehood and did not become an obstacle to its path. It even crossed over to the American continent: Alaska was also annexed.

It is unknown how things would have progressed with the irrepressible passion for expanding its territory if Russia had not met on the path of its expansion with peoples who were at a higher stage of development and if they had not competed with it in the future.

In addition, at the beginning of the 20th century. for the Russian state, disasters have come again better times. The October events of 1917 completely brought her to her knees. Things got to the point where Russia shrank almost to the size of the era of the formation of the Russian state (early 16th century). Having survived the crisis period and strengthened, Russia, which already existed in the person of the Soviet state, raised its much-loved diffusion process of spreading statehood in its own type and likeness to a new unattainable height: it gave it a worldwide scale. The so-called world socialist system, which included all Central European and some Asian states, is just part of its zone of influence. The diffusion process even affected many African countries (Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, etc.).

Let's think about where the Russian people have such a passion for spreading their statehood and the acquired state-legal experience of development (by the way, not always and not the best in everything)?

First reason. Nature of the area, on which, by the will of fate, the Russian people were destined to live. Eastern Europe is a flat area with no natural insurmountable obstacles.

The second reason. Severe natural conditions , which give such hardening to people that, having reached natural obstacles, for example the Ural Mountains, the Bering Strait, they do not stop and successfully overcome them.

Third reason. Meeting peoples along the way for whom a barbaric or semi-barbaric way of life was still accepted(for example, in Siberia, on Far East), as well as peoples who were at a lower stage of civilized development.

Fourth reason. Russian people when getting used to foreign areas did not show themselves as cruel people, breaking everything and destroying everyone in its path. Realizing that strength can also lead to strength, and also that not everything can be achieved by force (it is possible to conquer, but it is always difficult to hold on with the help of force), the Russians tried adapt to the natives and take their interests into account when resolving social issues.

Fifth reason. Over the many years of the existence of the Russian people, he I have my own mentality. Mentality is a psychological phenomenon that can be characterized as lying on the border between conscious and unconscious. Briefly, the mentality of the Russian people can be characterized as follows: they are more interested in global problems existence than mundane tasks Everyday life. He tends to pay attention, spend energy and money on what is outside his home, putting things in order there. What’s going on inside one’s own is a secondary matter. But energy is not limitless, and if it goes outside, there is little left for solving internal affairs. That is why Russia is constantly shaken by storms. That is why it is constantly not equipped.

But not only Russian statehood is characterized by a desire for diffusion. England, for example, carried out the diffusion of its statehood with great success and on an equally wide scale. But if England did this prudently, putting its sovereign interests first in this process, then Russia was distinguished by its selflessness that amazed the whole world (especially in the 20th century). There is, of course, an explanation for this, but it is beyond the scope of this study.

1 Klyuchevsky V.O. Historical portraits. M., 1990. P. 42.

5.4. The patrimonial factor in the creation of the Russian state

Property relations form the basis of any civilized, i.e. transitioned to statehood, society. And in the Old Russian state, land ownership constituted the main wealth. It belonged to the Grand Duke, but was subsequently fragmented and transferred to members of the Rurik dynasty. Many historians associate the collapse with this Ancient Rus'. It seems that this is not the reason (see 4.10).

Land relations in the process of formation of the Russian state acquired a different character and, of course, had an important influence on the course of this process, ultimately determining the character of the state as a whole.

Let us clarify this idea with a detailed examination of the property relations that existed in the 13th-14th centuries.

At this time, specific land ownership emerged and developed in Rus'. If Andrei Bogolyubsky was still dividing the land between his sons, then later the fragmentation of land ownership, in particular the Suzdal land, expanded and accelerated as the princely family grew. For example, the Principality of Suzdal alone is divided into 12 appanages. The same thing happens in other principalities. But this is not the limit. Subsequently, each of these destinies is divided into even smaller ones. In the XIV-XV centuries. this process is intensifying. Geographically, fragmentation occurs, as a rule, along small river areas. Other methods are also used to determine the boundaries of land ownership.

Each prince considered himself an independent owner and full owner of his principality. Who were the ancient Russian princes - land managers or owners? Probably both. The process of fragmentation of land ownership, as we see, in many respects was similar to a similar process that took place in Western Europe somewhat earlier. If he had gone further in this direction, then perhaps Russia would not have differed much from the countries Western Europe and would belong entirely to the Western world. After all, it was there that landowners limited royal power. She depended on them financially. This did not allow the royals to behave shamelessly towards their subjects, and also to consider them as slaves. Against this background, democratic traditions gradually began to develop in Western European countries, which to a large extent provided them with social progress unprecedented in comparison with other countries.

But the image of Russia was changed beyond recognition by the Mongols. Europeans, discovering in the 16th century. distant Muscovy, they were surprised at how much power the tsar in Russia had over his subjects. They believed that he was far superior to all the monarchs of the whole world. Everyone in Muscovy calls themselves serfs, i.e. slaves of the sovereign, they noted. This view of Russia abroad later became traditional.

Which European monarch was capable of executing high-ranking dignitaries and saying: “We are free to pay our slaves, but we are also free to execute them?” Ivan the Terrible said this because real relations in society actually made it possible to consider the boyar as the sovereign's slave, who could be hunted to death by dogs without trial, roasted over low heat, impaled, or simply executed. For this, only one thing is necessary - the desire of the monarch. And the reason was that princely-proprietorship relations in Rus' were replaced by princely-subject relations.

How did this happen?

At first, a system of vassalage developed in Rus', but it was limited by the framework of relations between princely dynasties. Appanage princes addressed the overlord as “eldest brother.” Just below them on the hierarchical ladder stood the so-called service princes, and for the sovereign - “servants”. They appeared as a result of the annexation of Western Russian lands at the end of the 15th century. “Servants” differed from appanage princes in that they owned hereditary estates (and not appanages) and did not have the slightest right to the throne. However, then most of the service princes deliberately switched to the position of boyars, thereby lowering their social status. It turned out that it was more profitable for them to be in the Boyar Duma (where serving princes were not included due to their high status), to rule the country and receive a salary for this. The state in Russia began to develop according to the Asian type ("state - power"), and not according to the European one ("state - property").

There were still appanage princes in Rus' who had relative independence from the central government, but this is precisely what aroused the constant suspicion of the government. The natural course historical development Russia led to the fact that a little Later, the appanage property system was completely eliminated and the “sovereign-serf” relationship reigned supreme..

Of course, the slave psychology inherent even in the Russian ruling class, not to mention other strata of society, was not the result of national character, as many foreigners thought. Proof of this is the fact that the entire southwest of the collapsed Ancient Rus', which came under Lithuanian influence, did not follow the despotic Russian path at that time. It took military measures on the part of Russia to annex the southwestern lands and then many years, during which the “European” version of property relations in the southwestern part of Ancient Rus' was nevertheless changed in the manner of the order established in Russia.

The establishment of the Asian method of government and the formation of property relations corresponding to it in Russia began with the Principality of Moscow.

The formation of the Moscow principality was based on the colonization of desert spaces and the construction of cities in the north-east direction from ancient Kyiv. The settlement of the desert region of the northeast, the desert region of the Upper Volga, mainly began under Yuri Dolgoruky. It was he who brought the population here from different places, from different tribes. This newly populated region, these new cities owed their political existence to the prince, they were his property. Here, in politically there was no uncertainty: the prince was the sovereign master.

On this basis, the son of Yuri Dolgoruky, the famous Andrei Bogolyubsky, grew up and matured. Having lived thirty years in the north, he had absorbed these attitudes, which were significantly different from those that existed in the southwest. In addition, the fact that he was brought up at a distance from the rest of the lines of the princely family left a mark on him. That is why he was able to break ties with members of his princely family. Having come to the south in adulthood, Andrei Bogolyubsky found himself a stranger there, and he saw the south as a hostile region. It is no coincidence that he hastened to retire to his native north. And when he received seniority in the whole clan, when all the princes recognized him as the Grand Duke, Andrei Bogolyubsky made an attempt to change the existing order of things. He is used to acting too independently in relation to his northern population. This freedom gave him material strength, and it was precisely this that provided Andrei with the opportunity to achieve his aspirations. He tried to establish this type of relationship with the younger princes - relatives. They were terribly amazed and, realizing the danger for themselves of such “new” relationships, rebelled against such novelty. “We recognized you as elder,” they said to Andrey, “and you treat us not as relatives, but as assistants".

Following the example of Andrei Bogolyubsky, his successors establish exactly the same relationships with the “younger” princes, using his means, they also act in line with the new order. They do not pay attention to ancestral relationships and ancestral accounts. The younger princes resist this order as best they can, but when one of the younger princes reaches seniority, he acts in exactly the same way as his predecessor, against whom he rebelled in the recent past. The great princes only care about how to strengthen their principality and ensure its primacy at the expense of others. Now the great princes, again following the example of Andrei Bogolyubsky, do not move from one volost to another, but live in their own permanently. It is clear that such an order did not triumph immediately; moreover, its establishment was accompanied by a constant and bloody struggle. It is unknown which principality would have won this fight if the Moscow principality had not turned to the Mongols for help and support in solving its problems of “primacy” (this was discussed in previous paragraphs in relation to Ivan Kalita). True, an example of asking for such help was set earlier, by Alexander Nevsky.

Muscovy was the first among other principalities and, to a greater extent, was first inoculated with Mongol despotism, and then with “surgery” Mongol yoke. Following the example of the Mongols, the Moscow princes relied on force. The strength of the prince was the warriors. The squad was not homogeneous. Senior warriors (boyars) became vassals, the younger ones formed the princely court. So they become a support junior warriors, and from among them the mayors acquire special power. Who are these mayors, and next to them are the tiuns, children, and swordsmen? All of them had a low social status. Posadnikov were appointed rulers of regions and cities. Swordsmen They were both squires and guards. Tiuny but they were simply slaves, but they carried out the orders of the prince. All together they made up the administrative apparatus and were the servants of their master, his subjects. Subsequently, citizenship relations expanded. The destruction of appanage princes completely made the system of citizenship universal.

And yet, what does the Mongols have to do with it?

Let's start with the princes. The yoke turned them into vassals of the Mongol khans. This happened for the first time with Yaroslav, whom Batu “appointed” great in 1243. It was to him that the rights of the Grand Duke were first granted granted khan. Soon in Golden Horde Other princes also went, and Batu “granted” them... The Mongols carried out the “grant” according to their pagan rituals (for example, passing through fire), and if any of the princes refused to perform them, they were humiliatingly punished and even executed. So gradually the northeastern princes turned into “officers” of the Mongol khans. A generation of obedient princes was created, for whom the law was the will of the khan. Dynastic problems were easily solved by bribing the khans with expensive gifts and with the help of Horde punitive detachments.

Naturally, the princes extended the relationship of subjects to their squad, and then to all other members of society. And how could it be otherwise if the princes themselves were the “servants” of the Mongol khans? Mongolian society was permeated with relations of strict and even cruel subordination. The power of the leader there was absolute, unrestricted by anyone or anything. Becoming “officers” of the khans, the Russian princes absorbed this spirit of the empire: the unquestioning obedience of their subjects and the unlimited power of their rulers.

The Mongol-Tatar invasion and the devastation of the Russian land also led to the destruction of a significant part of the ruling class. New nobility arose when princely court. The nobles, although they gradually became owners, receiving land grants from the prince, were not free (this is evident from the name). The distribution of estates began in the second half of the 14th century. and was carried out mainly through princely grants (and not by seizing land), which made the ruling class connected not so much with the land as with the prince. That is why these princes looked at their lands not as owners, but as patrimonial owners. The centralization of the Russian state (collection of inheritances in each principality) was therefore simple: the entire active layer of the population (be it boyars, service people or artisans) was “removed” and taken to the capital of the principality. This no longer resembled the gathering of lands, but the gathering of power, the subjugation of society (it is curious that this process is still being reproduced in a modified form).

More than two centuries will pass after Batu’s invasion, and profound changes in the internal structure of property relations will be “made public” under Ivan III in the standard appeals of feudal lords to their overlord: “I am your slave.”

Thus, the victory and the establishment in Russia of patrimonial relations of the “power-property” type determined the character of the nascent Russian state.

5.5. Economic factor as the basis of the strength of the state

While exploring the question of the formation of the Russian state, we have already discovered quite a few very significant differences between the process of the emergence of the Old Russian state and the Russian state. So, in particular, the difference was that if the ancient Russian princes irresistibly sought to expand their state at any cost and, carrying out external violence, i.e. the seizure of foreign territories did not take into account the numerous human and material losses, then, unlike them, Andrei Bogolyubsky, who became the great owner of the land, “sat” on it and did not pursue the further annexation of territories located “beyond the forests, beyond the seas” . The confrontation took place only between the Russian princes themselves for the title of their principality first or great. And here, as they say, any means were good.

But let us ask ourselves: what did the princes do with their land? Briefly you can answer it like this: they were primarily engaged in land ownership rather than agriculture. This should be clarified by asking V.O. for help. Klyuchevsky.

IN. Klyuchevsky notes that in the northeast the land was very different from the southern lands. If in the south the lack of water in the steppe forced the population to settle in large masses, crowding into huge villages of thousands, then in the north, on the contrary, the settler, in the midst of forests and swamps, had difficulty finding a dry place on which it would be possible, with some safety and convenience, to put his foot down and build a hut On such an island it was possible to build one, two, three peasant households. That is why a village of one or two peasant households was the dominant form of settlement in northern Russia almost until the end of the 17th century. Around such small scattered villages it was difficult to find a significant continuous space that could be conveniently plowed. Such convenient places around the villages were found in small areas. These areas were cleared by the inhabitants of the small village. It was extraordinary hard work: it was necessary, having chosen a convenient dry place for arable land, to burn out the forest that covered it, uproot the stumps, and raise virgin soil. It was hard work! That is why arable farming satisfied only the basic needs of the cultivators themselves. Moreover, the methods of cultivating the land at that time imparted a mobile, restless character to this arable farming. By burning the forest in the novi, the peasant imparted increased fertility to the loam and for several years in a row reaped a high harvest from it, because the ash served as an excellent fertilizer. However, after six or seven years the soil was completely depleted, and the peasant was forced to give it rest and let it fallow. Then he moved his court to another, often distant place, and raised another new one.

In a word, the northeastern region was not very convenient for agriculture. It is no coincidence that although there was already social stratification among the local Finno-Ugric tribes, they were even at a lower level of development than the newcomer Slavs. The fertile lands of the black earth were inaccessible to the Slavs. They were under the control of the Cumans and then the Tatar-Mongols.

The reason for the low level of socio-economic development of northeastern Rus' lay not only in the scarcity of nature, but also in the remoteness from world trade routes. Although... was there anything to sell? After all, the product produced was only enough for their own needs. There was simply not enough physical strength to plow more land (with such an abundance of land!). So it turned out that the earth owned more, how enjoyed.

The craft also did not develop. This is also evidenced by the fact that there were a small number of cities here. In general, in Western Europe, cities were places of concentration of crafts and trade. In Russia it’s different: cities are administrative centers rather, a place of concentration of power. The level of agricultural production in northeastern Rus' was sufficient to feed oneself, but too low for crafts to be separated from agriculture. And the subject of trade transactions were mainly agricultural products (surplus), and not handicrafts, initially intended for sale.

The great and appanage princes were interested in increasing the townspeople's population of cities only because handicrafts were the most important source of tribute to the Golden Horde. They tried in every possible way to attract craftsmen to their cities, luring them away from each other by providing various kinds of benefits or capturing them as a result of civil strife. Due to such an interest in artisans, the princes allowed them to locate workshops on the territory of their estates. Now let’s ask ourselves the question: was the artisan, therefore, a free person? The answer is clear - of course not. Therefore, if European cities, in which artisans mainly lived, limited the power of the monarch, then Russian artisans and merchants could not limit the power of the tsar and become the basis of civil society, just like the princes and nobles in Rus'.

This is precisely what affected the peculiarities of the formation of the Russian state. Since the economic prerequisites for the unification of Russian lands did not exist (or if they did exist, then to the most minimal and clearly insufficient extent) and economic ties could not naturally unite Russian lands(otherwise, the Russian princes had no economic needs for unification), then the factor of internal violence should have acted as a “brace”, a connection of the Russian land.

In a word, The Russian state began to be created not “from below”, but “from above”. The initiator and driving force behind this unification was the Principality of Moscow. It was he who was destined to lead in the middle of the 13th century. the struggle of the Russian lands against the Golden Horde, overcome feudal fragmentation and become the dominant political force in Eastern Europe. The rise of Moscow and its transformation over time into the center national association Russian lands cannot be explained by reference to its favorable geographical position. Moscow owes its rise to not an economic factor, in the early stages of the development of human society, being in direct proportion to the geographical factor, and political factor. Already the first Moscow rulers managed not only to “break through” to the grand-ducal throne (other princes also succeeded), but also to retain it despite all the vicissitudes of princely feuds and intrigues at the khan’s headquarters. The creation of a unified Russian state was not sufficiently prepared economically, as was the case with the formation of centralized states in Western Europe. Prosperous cities and trade connections in Russia, unlike Western Europe, were not the cementing force on which the construction of a unified state was carried out. And the less spontaneous economic ties manifested themselves in the unification process, the greater the role military force played in it.

Naturally, this left its mark on the character of the emerging Russian state. Since it was not the economy that was the driving factor in the unification of the Russian lands and violence assumed the role of “brace,” then it was possible to maintain the state created “from above” only with the help despotic rule(which is also based on violence). Otherwise, the existence of the state itself is called into question. Despotic rule is not the result of the cruelty and uncivilization of the Russian tsars, starting from the first and ending, perhaps, with Alexander I (subsequent tsars gradually moved to totalitarian rule). Despotic rule is the result of insufficient economic development. In this condition, it becomes a vital necessity. Even Catherine II, who at the beginning of her reign sincerely wanted to make Russia a civilized, enlightened monarchy in the manner of Western European monarchies, at the end of her life indifferently gave up on her idea, probably realizing that her plan was utopian and not yet feasible. The economy develops primarily under the influence of objective rather than subjective factors, and no one can ever change its character overnight.

1665.6. The theory of specialization as a concept explaining the formation of the Russian state

The process of origin of the Russian state is in many ways similar to how a similar process took place in many other states. The reason for this is that both in Russia and in other countries the origin of the state is based, in principle, on the same laws. Application of the theory of specialization put forward by the author of this book to the Russian state will allow us to fully prove this. This will also provide an opportunity to once again demonstrate, and not just declare, that this theory is universal.

The first premise of the theory of specialization is the thesis that specialization - This is a universal pattern. Varieties of social specialization are economic, political, ideological specialization(scientific specialization appears much later).

Of course, this process did not bypass Russia either.

1. Economic specialization. Before the formation of the Russian state, the Russian lands, although they were in a state of fragmentation, but their population mainly switched to a producing economy. True, in such a harsh area as the northeast of the East European Plain, productive labor was not efficient and the producing economy had to be supplemented by an appropriating economy (hunting, beekeeping, picking berries, mushrooms, etc.). Cities arose, although they were small in size. Often a settlement was called a city, differing only in an external feature: the presence of a fortress wall, i.e. a fortified settlement, even if inside the fortress there was exactly the same landscape as next to it. Crafts stood out as a type of productive activity, which so far served only the needs of the elite of society. Craftsmen, of whom there were only a small number, concentrated, along with managers, in cities. Trade, although it stood out as a type of labor activity, did not receive much development for the reasons mentioned above. The product of exchange was agricultural surpluses. The exchange took place not by weight, but by eye. This once again proves that, rather and to a greater extent, it was an exchange, and not trade, which is carried out by professionals (merchants).

So, the process of economic specialization in Rus' began, but progress along this path was not very large.

2. Political specialization. In principle, it appears on the basis of economic specialization and is the result of the needs that have arisen in society to create special structures for managing public affairs. The collapse of the Old Russian state led to the destruction of statehood, but in its place remained separate principalities, which were essentially proto-state formations. The prince and his retinue were the ones who headed the principalities. Principalities governed in this way could be called chiefdoms.

Principalities could exist, each on its own, for quite a long time. Since economic specialization was characterized by a small degree of development and economic ties between the principalities practically did not exist, there was no need for further specialization and, in particular, for the emergence of political (managerial) specialization in the Russian principalities. Perhaps, for this reason, the Russian state would have been created much later, if not for the factor of external danger: the Mongol-Tatar yoke, which placed a heavy burden on almost all Russian lands. The tribute that had to be paid annually to the Mongol khans sucked the last juice out of the Russian people, who had worked so hard to earn food for themselves in a harsh climate. The princes felt this too. But the understanding that we can only get free from the aliens by uniting and acting together did not come. And the Mongol khans themselves skillfully quarreled the Russian princes, pitting them against each other. The Moscow princes, who ultimately won the confrontation between the Russian princes, did not have such an understanding. They were only concerned with acquiring wealth and securing preferential or more favorable conditions for government. K. Marx wrote that under Ivan Kalita “the foundation of Moscow’s power was laid.” This is true. But in strengthening his principality, he proceeded from narrowly selfish goals. For the increased power of the Moscow prince, the country had to pay dearly - with the gradual establishment of relations of cruel domination (in the Mongolian manner) within Russian society.

Perhaps the first sprouts of a unifying worldview appeared at Dmitry Donskoy. After his conquest of Tver, a historical turn was outlined in the transformation of the once independent princes into appanages, and their lands into appanages of Moscow Rus'. Dmitry Ivanovich becomes the supreme defender of Russian lands and the main arbiter in princely disputes. In “The Tale of the Life and Presentation of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich” the concepts of “fatherland” and “the entire Russian land” merge. Probably only after 1375 it became possible to equate these concepts, meaning primarily the political responsibility for the principalities of the northeast, which now fell on the shoulders of the Moscow princes. Already in 1373, Dmitry Ivanovich showed himself to be a sovereign, faithful to his allied obligations. Having learned about the threat of Mamai’s attack on the Ryazan principality, he gathered “all the strength of the great reign” and settled on the left bank of the Oka. The Moscow prince did not dare to openly go to the aid of Oleg Ryazansky, and Mamai did not dare to repeat his raid.

As further evidence that patriotic consciousness has finally appeared in Rus', I will cite the text of the charter of 1375. It was drawn up as a result of the conquest of the Tver principality and, of course, if not personally by Dmitry Ivanovich himself, then under his dictation. It says that if suddenly Mikhail Tverskoy begins to “offend” other princes, then the Grand Duke will have to come to their defense, and vice versa. A new philosophy of the era was born: “to help and fight for everyone from one place.” Dmitry Ivanovich proposed to follow these ideas: “And we, brother, should live according to this letter.” The text of the document also says: “And the Tatars will come against us or you, we and you will fight against them all together. Or we will go against them, and you and us will go against them alone.” Unity - and in the fight against the Tatars - is the most important result of changes in the geopolitical ideas of the Russian princes and Dmitry Ivanovich in particular.

Thus, political specialization in Russia, or otherwise the emergence of a centralized state, was pushed by external (geopolitical) reasons, but by no means economic factors.

3. Ideological specialization. The first type of ideological specialization is religious specialization. In this context (i.e. in connection with the study of political specialization in Rus': the formation of the Russian state), it should be mentioned because ideological specialization, as a rule, goes along with political specialization and, moreover, the emergence of a single ideology among the people is one from the unmistakable indicators of the beginning of the process of the birth of the state.

Religious ideology in the northeast of the East European Plain was clearly mixed. Yes, this is not surprising. After all, two peoples met: the Slavs and the Chud (Finnish tribes). The Slavs brought with them Christian ideology, and the Finnish tribes professed pagan ideology. Finnish tribes worshiped the forces and objects of nature. The cults of water and forest were especially revered. Some features of this pagan religion were also adopted by the Slavs (V.O. Klyuchevsky called them Great Russians). A kind of reversal process took place, since the Slavs, having previously been pagans, had already generally abandoned the pagan religion (the adoption of Christianity occurred in 988). However, the process of taking root of the Christian religion was not yet deep. That is why the Slavs who “arrived” to the lands of the Finnish tribes behaved very tolerantly towards the beliefs that had become alien to them. The gods of both tribes shared amicably among themselves. Then the Finnish gods became Russified, were elevated to the Christian title and, under the auspices of this title, received a place in the Russian-Christian cult. They seemed to have lost their foreign Finnish character.

Christianity brought by the colonists was gradually accepted by the Finnish tribes. But Christian beliefs, without displacing pagan ones, were built above them, forming the upper layer of religious ideas, which lay on a pagan basis. This happened, in particular, in the following way: pagan holidays were timed to coincide with church festivities. At the same time, pagan symbols were replaced by Christian ones - instead of a birch broom hung with scarves and towels, they placed an icon with a wax candle lit in front of it in the front corner and said prayers on their knees. When Russians were present at such ceremonies, they did not understand whose customs and rituals were being observed in this case, Russian or Chud.

Mutual recognition of other people's beliefs, of course, contributed to the rapprochement of both peoples and the gradual spread of Christian ideology everywhere. With such recognition, Chud imperceptibly crossed the dividing line between Christianity and paganism, without betraying its old native gods, and Rus', adopting Chud beliefs and customs, conscientiously continued to consider itself Christian. A kind of dual faith arose. Perhaps this was also reflected in later phenomena, incomprehensible at first glance: in Russia, unlike the countries of Western Europe, only the outer shell of the Christian religion was taken and the emphasis in preaching activity was placed on scrupulous adherence to form, i.e. religious rituals, and not on mastering the content of the Christian religion. The veneration of icons, rather than adherence to the principles of the Christian religion, also explains why the Soviet government so easily made all citizens atheists and instilled faith in communist ideology.

Be that as it may, a single religious ideology emerged, acted and played a unifying role in the process of the emergence of the Russian state.

Now let us take for analysis the second thesis of the theory of specialization: the higher the competition in society, the higher the degree of political specialization and the level of development of society as a whole. However, the opposite thesis is also true.

The small degree of specialization in all areas of social life in Rus' was, of course, due to little competition between people. And where should she be? Let us remember that competition depends on: a) population density and b) social volume, i.e. interconnection and cooperation between people. In other words, if people are not in close contact, do not depend on each other, but live on their own, then the mere size of the population, its density does not mean that social life is tense.

In Russia, both of these conditions in combination were not sufficiently expressed.

Low population density was due to the spacious territory on which the Great Russians settled. The absence of natural boundaries at the slightest need and even slight tension in social life made it possible, without the slightest hesitation and great difficulty, not to enter into the struggle for survival and to move to a place where no one would “tread on their toes.” Subsequently, local diffusion turned into global diffusion, when the Great Russians, having crossed the Ural Mountains, began to occupy Siberian spaces and even penetrated into Alaska and North America. The barbarian peoples who inhabited the Eurasian spaces were weak and unorganized and, naturally, did not compete with the Russians.

The social volume was also small. Let us think about what issues villages and principalities could contact each other on if the level of economic life was such that it could barely satisfy their basic needs. After all, the economic factor is a powerful connecting factor. But what could be exchanged if there were not enough products to satisfy one’s own needs?

The main function of any specialization of labor is connecting society. Political specialization has the same goal: to help people communicate with each other without violating each other's interests. The formation of a state, and I would like to emphasize this once again, is precisely in this direction - it is formed to solve common interests. Civil servants are professionals in solving problems common to all people. But here there are the following patterns.

If the unification of people is based on economic interests, then the connection between them is organic, i.e. durable and voluntary nature.

If some other interests act as a unifying factor, then the unification of people is mechanical in nature and in its strength is far inferior to their organic unification. It is quite clear that the mechanical solidarity of people is based on other principles, and therefore requires the additional use of other means; and above all physical or mental coercion. It is necessary at least until economic ties between people develop and they themselves feel the need to interact with each other.

Of course, the formation of the Russian state fits into the second pattern. Insufficient specialization of labor due to low competition environment led to the fact that the ties between the Russian principalities were not of an organic nature, and they could have been absent altogether. The only unifying problem was liberation from the Mongol-Tatars, and even then this liberation consciousness did not arise immediately, not among all appanage princes, and some of them had to impose it by force. The unification of the principalities into the Russian state was mechanical, forceful, carried out from above. This is what primarily determined his harsh, despotic character.

5.7. The first Russian sovereign

The world learned about the formation of the Russian state as an accomplished fact in the second half of the 15th century. At that time, the Principality of Moscow was headed by Ivan III. Amazed Europe, which at the beginning of the reign of Ivan III barely noticed the existence of Muscovy, squeezed between the Tatars and Lithuanians, was amazed by the sudden appearance of a huge state on its eastern borders.

Ivan III (1462-1505) is an important historical figure in Russian civilization. Having received only 400 thousand km 2 of territory at the beginning of his reign, Ivan III left his son already 2 million km 2 of land. Initially, his principality was quite small and dependent on the Golden Horde: Tver was only 80 km from Moscow, Lithuania was 100 km away, and the Golden Horde supported it in the south. Ivan III begins to gather Rus': in 1463 he annexed the Yaroslavl principality, in 1471 he defeated the Novgorodians on the Sheloni River, in 1474 he annexed the Rostov principality, in 1478 the Novgorod land was included in the Moscow principality, in 1485 - Tver annexed principality and finally in the same year the Vyatka land was the last to be included in the possessions of Ivan III.

This is followed by the oath of the majority of the princes who previously headed separate principalities. It was during this period that the term “Russia” appeared in use, used to designate the lands united around Moscow.

The title of Grand Duke, which meant only primacy, seniority over other princes, now did not correspond to the high position of the head of a powerful state. Ivan III persistently strives to acquire the highest title of sovereign and even tsar.

Moreover, in order to emphasize his supremacy over the Russian lands, he demands that the words “of all Rus'” be added to his title of Grand Duke and Sovereign. Attempts to be called the Grand Duke of “All Rus'” were made before Ivan III. So, for example, Ivan Kalita was called, but neither Kalita nor his successors before Ivan III had real power over all Russian lands. And only Ivan III really became the head of the Russian lands. The church, interested in extending strong power throughout the country, strongly supported and glorified him as the sovereign of “all Rus'”.

Ivan III emphasized the new title when communicating with representatives of other states. Addressing, for example, the Master of Livonia, Ivan III in the letter was called the Tsar of “All Rus'”. He was also called by the same name when addressing German trading cities. Individuals and rulers of small countries themselves called him king. Serving people from the Greeks once wrote to him as “the most brilliant and highest Lord, Ivan Vasilyevich, Tsar of All Rus' and Grand Duke,” further listing all the lands that he owned. And in the charter of the King of Denmark, Ivan III was even called Emperor.

This exaltation of the head of the Russian state was not accidental. In the eyes of all of Europe, the country that threw off the yoke of the conquerors appeared powerful and great. After all, Europe itself, saved by Russia from the invasion of countless hordes, feared that they might break through the Russian barrier. And now such a threat has ceased to exist altogether, and this happened thanks to the Russian victory over the Golden Horde.

Small European states tried to establish friendly relations with Russia, while larger ones saw it as a rival and sought to increase their pressure on their eastern neighbor.

Ivan III formally remained the Grand Duke. However, he thought to secure the title of tsar and autocrat for his heirs, and for this purpose, in 1498, for the first time, he organized the solemn coronation of his grandson Dmitry with the placing on him, as was customary during the crowning of the Byzantine emperors, “the barm of Monomakh and the cap,” i.e. e. mantles in the form of a wide folding collar and a golden cap decorated with precious stones, which, according to legend, was allegedly given by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh to Vladimir Monomakh and was considered a symbol of the transfer of power from Byzantium to Rus'.

It was the ceremony of coronation and its solemnity that had the meaning, but the crowned one was still called the Grand Duke of All Rus'. Nevertheless, this was already a rehearsal for the crowning of the kingdom, which the grandson of Ivan III, Ivan IV, would perform 50 years later. The grandfather, thus, erected a royal pedestal for his grandson. From him, called Grozny, through his son Vasily III, also Grozny, this nickname passed to his grandson Ivan and only to him, as a result of the bloody oprichnina, was assigned forever.

Under Ivan III, a new court environment was created. At first called in letters simply Ivan, the Grand Duke, Ivan III then began to be called “John, by the grace of God the sovereign of all Rus'.” Under him, a solemn court ceremony came into practice. He began to go out to receptions with a stately, sedate and imperious gait. The concept of an appanage prince as a servant of the sovereign began to be established. An expression of allegiance to the Sovereign of All Rus' was the form of official address to him by servicemen, introduced under Ivan III: “To the Sovereign Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Rus', your servant (so-and-so) beats his forehead...”.

But not only external attributes testified to the formation of the Russian state. More important was the state building matter.

The first and strongest support of the sovereign of all Rus' was Boyar Duma. Although Ivan III did not tolerate “meetings,” that is, expressions of disobedience, he nevertheless could not help but take her opinion into account and consulted with her on many issues. Thus, the Boyar Duma became an advisory body under the Grand Duke.

Until the middle of the 16th century. There were two national departments - the palace and the treasury. Castle was headed by a butler in charge of the personal (palace) lands of the Grand Duke. After the annexation of new territories to Moscow, local palaces appeared. Coffers, headed by treasurers, was the main state repository. It contained not only money and jewelry, but also the state archive and the state seal. It was a state office, who also led foreign policy. Knowing at the end of the 15th century. different sectors of the country's life, these institutions became the source of the emergence of a special part of the state apparatus, executive bodies, later called orders.

The functions of government officials were gradually delineated. Deacons, originally called scribes, played a major role in the emerging state apparatus; they were in charge of office work.

Governors and volosts were appointed to administer cities and lands locally. Viceroys- rulers of the districts into which it was divided a country. Hairers- rulers of camps and volosts into which counties were divided.

This management system was completed by the adoption of the Code of Law in 1497. It created new legal proceedings and determined the amount of court fees throughout the state (with the exception of appanages).

As a result, at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. An absolute monarchy was established in Russia, in which the Grand Duke of Moscow had full political power.

The goal that people united by laws set for themselves is the formation of public power to prevent and suppress violence and injustice of individuals.

Chronology of events

• 9th century Formation of the Old Russian State
• 862 Mention in the chronicle of Rurik’s calling to reign in Novgorod
• 882 Unification of Novgorod and Kyiv under the rule of Prince Oleg
• 980 - 1015 Reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich

The emergence of statehood among the Slavs

The formation of the Old Russian state is a long process. Most historians date the beginning of the formation of the state to the 9th century. In the VI - VII centuries. East Slavs populated most of the Russian (East European) Plain. The borders of their habitat in the west were the Carpathian Mountains, in the east - the upper reaches of the Don, in the north - the Neva and Ladoga lake, south - Middle Dnieper.

The literary and documentary chronicle, “The Tale of Bygone Years,” which historians date back to the mid-12th century, describes in detail the settlement of the East Slavic tribes. According to her on west bank Middle Dnieper (Kyiv) located clearing, to the north-west of them, along the southern tributaries of the Pripyat, - Drevlyans, to the west of them, along the Western Bug, - Volynians, or dulebs; lived on the eastern bank of the Dnieper northerners; along the Dnieper tributary Sozha - Radimichi, and to the east of them, along the Upper Oka, - Vyatichi; on the upper reaches of three rivers - the Dnieper, the Western Dvina and the Volga - they lived Krivichi, southwest of them - Dregovichi; to the north of them, along the Western Dvina, a branch of the Krivichi settled Polotsk residents, and to the north of the Krivichi, near Lake Ilmen and further along the Volkhva River lived Ilmensky Slavs.

Having settled across the East European Plain, the Slavs lived tribal communities. “Everyone lives with his family and in his own places, owning each of his family,” writes the chronicle. In the VI century. family relationships gradually disintegrate. With the advent of metal tools and the transition to arable farming, the clan community was replaced by a neighboring (territorial) one, which was called “mir” (in the south) and “rope” (in the north). In the neighboring community, communal ownership of forest and hay lands, pastures, reservoirs, and arable land is retained, but the family is already allocated plots for use.

In the 7th - 8th centuries. the Slavs actively The process of decomposition of the primitive system is underway.

The number of cities increases, power is gradually concentrated in the hands of the tribal and military nobility, private property appears, and the division of society begins on social and property principles. By the 9th - 10th centuries. the main ethnic territory of the Old Russian nationality was formed, the process of maturation of feudal relations.

In Russian historiography for a long time there was a struggle between Normanists and their opponents on the issue of the origin of the Russian state. The founder of the Norman theory in the 18th century. was a member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences A.L. Schlözer. He and his supporters G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller adhered to the point of view that before the advent of the Varangians, “the vast expanse of our plain was wild, people lived without government.”

A refutation of the Varangian theory was made by, who considered one of the main tasks historical science fight against this theory. M.V. Lomonosov in “Ancient Russian history” wrote that “the Slavic people were within the current Russian borders even before the Nativity of Christ, this can be undoubtedly proven.”

Russian historian of the 19th century. I.E. Zabelin wrote that the Eastern Slavs lived on the Russian plain even BC. and went through a complex process from tribal unions to tribal political unions and created their own statehood.

The Soviet historical school actively supported and developed this point of view. The largest domestic specialist of the 20th century. on Slavic-Russian archeology B.A. Rybakov connected the formation of the state of Rus' with the founding of the city of Kyiv in the land of glades and the unification of 15 large regions inhabited by the Eastern Slavs.

Modern Russian historians have no doubt that the unification of the East Slavic lands into the ancient Russian state was prepared by internal socio-economic reasons, but this happened in 882 with the active participation of the Varangian squad led by Prince Oleg. According to the famous Russian historian of the 19th century. V. O. Klyuchevsky, it turned out to be a “not bad combined legal structure of the beginning of the Russian state,” when principalities with Varangian rule (Novgorod, Kyiv) and principalities with Slavic rule (Chernigov, Polotsk, Pereslavl) united.

1. first - 9th century - mid-10th century - the formation of an early feudal state, the establishment of the Rurik dynasty on the throne and the reign of the first Kyiv princes in Kyiv: Oleg, Igor (912 - 945), Olga (945 - 964), Svyatoslav (964 - 972);
2. second - second half of the X - first half of the XI centuries. - the heyday of Kievan Rus (the time of Vladimir I (980 - 1015) and Yaroslav the Wise (1036 - 1054);
3. third - second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries. - gradual transition to feudal fragmentation.

Socio-political and economic system of Kievan Rus

Old Russian state ( Kievan Rus) was early feudal monarchy. Supreme power belonged to to the Grand Duke of Kyiv, who was the formal owner of all the land and the military leader of the state.

Upper class of society consisted of a princely squad, which was divided into higher and lower. The first consisted of princely husbands or boyars, the second - of children or youths. The oldest collective name for the junior squad is grid (Scandinavian courtyard servant), which was later replaced by the word “yard”.

Government was built on the principle military organization in the lands and cities subject to the Grand Duke. It was carried out by princely governors - posadniks and their closest assistants - tysyatskys, who led the people's militia during military operations in the 11th - 12th centuries. - through the princely court and numerous administration, which was in charge of collecting tribute and taxes, court cases, and collection of fines.

Taxes — the main objective princely administration. Both Oleg and Olga traveled around their subject lands. Tribute was collected in kind - “fast” (with bellows). It could be a cart, when subject tribes brought tribute to Kyiv, or polyudye, when the princes themselves traveled around the tribes. It is well known from the “Tale of Bygone Years” how Princess Olga took revenge on the Drevlyans not only for the death of her husband, Prince Igor, who was killed in 945, but also for disobedience and refusal to pay taxes. Princess Olga went down in Russian history as the “organizer of the Russian land,” who established graveyards (strong points) and tributes everywhere.

The entire free population of Kievan Rus was called “people”. Hence the term meaning collection of tribute - "polyudye". The bulk of the rural population, dependent on the prince, was called stinkers. They could live both in peasant communities, which bore duties in favor of the feudal lord, and in estates.

A closed social system designed to organize all types of human activity - labor, cultural ritual. Free community members had a subsistence economy, paid tribute to the princes and boyars, and at the same time were a source for the feudal lords to replenish the category of dependent people.

In the early feudal society of Kievan Rus there were two main classes - peasants (smerds) and feudal lords. Both classes were not homogeneous in their composition. Smerdas were divided into free community members and dependents. Free stinkers had a subsistence economy, paid tribute to the princes and boyars, and at the same time served as a source for the feudal lords to replenish the category of dependent people. Dependent the population consisted of purchases, ordinary people, outcasts, free spirits and slaves. Those who became dependent by taking on a kupa (debt) were called purchasers. Those who became dependent after concluding a series (agreement) became ordinary people. Outcasts are impoverished people from the communities, and freedmen are freed slaves. The slaves were completely powerless and were actually in the position of slaves.

The class of feudal lords consisted of representatives of the grand ducal house with the Grand Duke at its head, princes of tribes and lands, boyars, as well as senior warriors.

An important element of feudal society was the city, which was a fortified center of craft production and trade. At the same time, the cities were important administrative centers in which wealth and large volumes of large food supplies were concentrated, which were imported by the feudal lords. According to ancient chronicles, in the 13th century. There were about 225 cities of different sizes in Rus'. The largest were Kyiv, Novgorod, Smolensk, Chernigov and others. Kievan Rus was famous for its carpentry, pottery, blacksmithing, and jewelry. At that time, there were up to 60 types of crafts in Rus'.

History [Crib] Fortunatov Vladimir Valentinovich

6. The birth of Russian statehood

In the entry about 862 the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years” (XII century) records the birth of Russian statehood, linking this event with the calling (choice) of the Varangian Rurik direction. In the 9th–11th centuries. East Slavic tribes (Polyans, Slovenes, Drevlyans, Krivichi and others), united in early feudal state, occupied the entire modern European part of Russia. The state of Ancient Rus' was recognized by Byzantium and other neighboring states (Poland, Hungary, etc.). IN 988Vladimir I adopted Christianity from Byzantium. At Yaroslav the Wise in the 11th century has taken shape Russian Truth, a set of norms of ancient Russian law.

In Ancient Rus', the head of the early feudal monarchy was the Grand Duke of Kiev from the family Rurikovich. He relied on boyars And squad, but took into account the position evening, people's assemblies operating in most Russian cities. Along with the princely squad, during major military conflicts the people's militia gathered.

Earth, water resources, forests and other wealth in Ancient Rus' were considered property of the state. The land, as the main value, was transferred into private ownership by the great princes for their service. Princes and boyars became patrimonial owners, transferring the land (your fief) as private property from father to son. Both free community members and dependent people worked on the land (purchases, rank and file, slaves).

Princes, boyars, warriors (senior and junior) formed the support of the Grand Duke, the ruling layer of society, exercised control on behalf of the Grand Duke or independently, performed administrative, military, judicial, diplomatic and other functions and, together with the Grand Duke, controlled a significant part of foreign trade. People lived in rural areas communities. Things like this "vervi" led elders, elders, general gathering. Communists (rural residents) and townspeople jointly (collectively) used arable land and other lands.

Merchants, traders, artisans played an important role in the lives of numerous Russians cities: Novgorod, Pskov, Kyiv, Vladimir, Suzdal, Smolensk, Polotsk and others.

The cultural and spiritual life of Russian society was strongly influenced by Byzantium, its western (Poland, Hungary, Holy Roman Empire, Sweden, Norway) and eastern neighbors. With the adoption of Christianity, writing, education, chronicle writing, the construction of stone churches with icons, frescoes, mosaics, church singing and much more began to spread. By the 12th century. A distinctive Russian artistic culture emerged. From the pre-Mongol period, St. Sophia Cathedrals in Novgorod, Kyiv and Polotsk, churches in Vladimir and Suzdal, works of Russian literature - “The Tale of Law and Grace”, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, etc. have been preserved.

Old Russian lands even during the period feudal fragmentation(from the end of the 11th century) maintained broad international connections, mainly with European countries.