In 1613, at the most representative and numerous Zemsky Sobor in Moscow, the question arose of choosing a new Russian Tsar. The applicants were Prince Vladislav, the son of the Swedish king Karl-Philip, the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek Ivan, as well as representatives of the most noble boyar families. The Zemsky Sobor elected to the kingdom a representative of the venerable old Moscow boyar family, 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov, son of Fyodor Nikitich Romanov. The rights of the Romanovs to the throne were substantiated in one of the last chronicle works - "The New Chronicler", created in the 30s. 17th century

Father of Mikhail F.N. Romanov, the nephew of Ivan the Terrible's first wife, Anastasia Romanova (his father, Nikita Romanov, Anastasia's brother), was forcibly tonsured a monk in 1601 under the name Filaret, and in 1619 he was elected patriarch. A powerful and resolute man, in fact, until his death in 1633, he held the government of the country in his hands. A three-hundred-year history of the reign of a new Russian dynasty began.

The election of Mikhail Romanov as tsar did not stop the Poles' claims to establish themselves on the Russian throne, and they were looking for opportunities to arrange for the young king. The feat of the Kostroma peasant Ivan Susanin is widely known, at the cost of his own life he saved Mikhail, who went on a pilgrimage, from the Polish massacre. M.I. Glinka immortalized his feat in the opera A Life for the Tsar. Decembrist poet K.F. Ryleev dedicated sublime lines to him:

“A traitor, they thought, you found in me:

They are not and will not be on the Russian land!

In it, everyone loves their homeland from infancy

And he will not destroy his soul by betrayal.

"The villain! - shouted the enemies, boiling over, - You will die under the swords! “Your anger is not terrible! Who is Russian by heart, he cheerfully and boldly, And joyfully perishes for a just cause! Neither execution nor death, and I am not afraid: Without flinching, I will die for the tsar and for Russia!

... The snow is pure, the purest blood stained: She saved Mikhail for Russia!

The government of Mikhail Romanov was faced with the task of ending the intervention and restoring internal order. According to the Stolbovsky peace with Sweden in 1617, Russia regained Novgorod, but left the coast of the Gulf of Finland and Korela to Sweden; in 1618

According to the Deulinsky truce with Poland, Russia left the Smolensk, Seversk and Chernigov lands behind it. But in general, the territorial unity of Russia was restored. Only in 1634, according to the Polyanovsky Treaty after the Smolensk War (1632-1634), the Commonwealth recognized Mikhail Fedorovich as king.

The Troubles strengthened the idea of ​​autocracy, and the Romanov monarchy was perceived as a symbol of inner peace and stability. The moderation and traditionalism of the first Romanov served to consolidate society. With the consolidation of tsarist power, the government less and less resorted to Zemsky Sobors. Domestic policy took the path of further strengthening the feudal-serf order and the estate system. In order to streamline taxation in the 20s. 17th century new scribe books began to be compiled, attaching the population to the place of residence. The practice of "lesson years" was revived.

During the reign of Mikhail's son Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), the state system of Russia evolved from a class-representative monarchy to absolutism, i.e. unlimited and uncontrolled power of the monarch. The threat from the more developed countries of the West and systematic raids from the south forced this process and forced the state to keep in constant readiness significant armed forces, the costs of maintaining which exceeded the material resources of the population. Other factors were also important, such as the vast territory of the country with the further development of new lands, the rivalry between the boyars and the nobility, which allowed the monarch to maneuver between them, peasant and urban uprisings.

Alexei Mikhailovich, nicknamed "The Quietest" for his ability to trust the decision of state issues to suitable executors from among his close associates, had to take important steps on Russia's path to absolutism. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky, he created a “transformative mood” around him, surrounding himself with thinking people. It was under Alexei Mikhailovich that the most dramatic events of the century took place and the most significant victories were won - over Sweden and Poland.

A necessary step in overcoming the consequences of the Time of Troubles and strengthening statehood was the adoption in 1649 of the Council Code. A hundred years have passed since the Sudebnik of 1550, and it did not take into account the new needs of society. The Council Code of 1649 is a universal code of feudal law, which had no analogues in previous legislation. It established norms in all spheres of society: social, economic, administrative, family, spiritual, military, etc., and remained in force until 1832. The first chapters of the Code provided for severe punishments for crimes against the church and royal power. The power and personality of the king was increasingly identified with the state.

The most important section was the "Court on the Peasants", which introduced an indefinite search for runaway peasants, and finally canceled the transfer of peasants to new owners on St. George's Day. The government took over the search for runaway peasants. This meant the legal registration of a nationwide system of serfdom, in which the feudal lord had the right to dispose of the person, labor and property of his peasants. This allowed the maximum concentration of forces on solving the problems of domestic and foreign policy on a feudal basis.

All classes of society were obliged to serve the state and differed from one another only in the nature of the duties assigned to them: service people carried out military service, and taxable people carried the "tax" in favor of the state and service people. Owning peasants were not exempted from state taxes and paid them on an equal footing with the black-haired peasants, which means they pulled a double "tax" - state and landowner. The state not only provided the landowner with judicial and administrative power over the peasants, but also made him a responsible collector of state taxes from his peasants. Thus, the feudal lords became responsible for the payment of "taxes" by the serfs and received power over the economic life of their serfs.

The state also attached chernososhnye (state) peasants and townspeople to the land. They were forbidden to change their place of residence under pain of cruel punishment and were assigned to bear the state "tax". And yet, in the position of the owner (belonging to secular and spiritual owners) and black-haired (state) peasants, there remained some differences. The feudal lord received the right to actually completely dispose of the property and personality of the peasant. The state transferred to him a significant part of the administrative-fiscal and judicial-police functions. Black-skinned peasants, living on state land, had the right to alienate it: sale, mortgage, inheritance. They had personal freedom. The life of the community was led by a secular gathering and elected elders, who arranged the duties, were responsible for their timely payment, repaired the court and protected the rights of the community.

The Code of 1649 liquidated the "white settlements", which belonged in the cities to large secular and spiritual feudal lords, whose population had previously been free from duties. The state, having limited the immunity of the feudal lords in its own favor, subjugated the urban population and became its feudal owner in the city. The townspeople were obliged to engage in trade and crafts, since both served as a source of financial income to the treasury. The development of cities, crafts, trade was carried out within the framework of the serf system, which undermined the development of capitalism. The monopoly of the townspeople on trade in the cities and the permission of the peasants to trade only “from carts” hampered the development of commodity-money relations in the countryside and put internal trade under the control of the state in order to make a profit in favor of the state (and not to rid the townspeople of competition) .

The enslavement policy of the 16th-17th centuries, culminating in the adoption of the Council Code, was aimed at the entire taxable population, since the owner's and state lands were only varieties of feudal property. In Russia, a system of so-called "state feudalism" developed, when the state acted as a feudal owner in relation to the entire population, while in the leading countries of Western Europe there was a weakening of serfdom. In Russia, serfdom, in the absence of an incentive for the direct producer to develop production, led to an increase in economic backwardness, which was especially striking against the background of progress in Western Europe, which had embarked on the path of capitalism.

The cathedral code reflected the process of erasing the differences between the hereditary patrimony and lifelong possession - the estate, providing for their exchange. The government already at the beginning of the 17th century. began to sell estates into estates. Among the nobility, the direct connection between the service and its land remuneration began to be lost: the estates remained with the clan even if its representatives stopped serving. Thus, the rights to dispose of estates expanded, and they approached the patrimony. There was a blurring of the boundaries between the individual categories of the ruling class of feudal lords. By the end of the century, only formal differences remained between them, and the share of noble land ownership increased significantly.

The state sought to control church land ownership. The Council Code limited the growth of church land ownership by a ban on the purchase of land and the transfer of estates to the church under a spiritual testament.

Foreign trade during this period was almost entirely in the hands of privileged foreign merchants. Russian merchants, poorly organized and less wealthy, could not compete with them. The state monopoly on the export of a number of goods that were in demand abroad significantly limited the possibilities for Russian merchants to accumulate capital. The dominance of foreign commercial capital in the domestic market of Russia caused acute discontent. The trade charter of 1653, instead of a multitude of trade duties, established a single duty and increased the amount of duty from foreign merchants. Thus, the charter was of a patronizing nature and met the requirements of the Russian merchant class.

In the spirit of the policy of protectionism, the Novotrade Charter of 1667 was drawn up, which sharply limited the trade of foreigners on the domestic market and freed Russian merchants and manufacturers from competition by raising customs duties on the import of foreign products. Its compiler Afanasy Lavrentievich Ordin-Nashchokin, who came from an ignorant noble family, became a prominent statesman of the 17th century. Relying mainly on his own experience and knowledge, he was actively involved in foreign policy, and largely thanks to his efforts, agreements beneficial to Russia were concluded with Sweden and Poland. Ordin-Nashchokin was a supporter of the use of economic and cultural Western experience, but at the same time he knew well the reasonable measure of borrowing. Many of his ideas regarding the reforms of public administration and city self-government were implemented in the era of Peter I.

Boyars B.I. Morozov, F.M. Rtishchev, A.S. Matveev, V.V. Golitsyn also sought to resolve problems in the economic life of the country, understood the importance of developing trade and industry and the need to support the merchants to strengthen the state. The evolution of government policy towards mercantilism - the maintenance by the state of an active balance of foreign trade - contributed to the interests of the emerging absolutism.

17th century ends the Middle Ages and marks the beginning of the New Age. The accumulation of secular knowledge is gradually destroying the medieval worldview, in which religious ideas played a dominant role. A feature of the culture of this period is its "secularization", i.e. the liberation of public consciousness from the influence of religion and the church, the fall of their authority in the spiritual life of society. Attention to the person, his role in ongoing events and determining his own destiny is growing.

Growing ties with foreign countries gave rise to a state need to get acquainted with the achievements of secular sciences. Although the authorities settled foreigners away from the center of Moscow, in the German Sloboda (modern Lefortovo district), and sought to isolate them from communication with Russians, new knowledge about the outside world inevitably penetrated the minds of Russians. In 1654, the Left-bank Ukraine, which experienced the cultural influence of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, became part of Russia, contributed to the deepening of these ties. The greatest interest in comprehending the new cultural situation was shown by the urban trade and craft strata, whose occupation inevitably oriented them to the study of everything modern, advanced, but interest in secular culture was manifested in the most diverse groups of society. The Church's monopoly on education and literacy was beginning to fade.

Serious changes are beginning to take place in the field of education. The country needed educated, qualified specialists in all areas of exact, natural science, humanitarian knowledge, which met the internal and external needs of the emerging absolutism.

The accession of the Volga region and Siberia opened up space for geographical research, organizing expeditions to previously unexplored lands. Journeys to distant lands were previously made by Russian pioneers. 30 years before the opening of the route to India by the Portuguese Vasco da Gama, the Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin made his journey (1466-1472) and left fascinating memories of "Journey Beyond the Three Seas". In 1648, the expedition of Semyon Dezhnev, 80 years before V. Bering, reached the strait between Asia and North America. The easternmost point of Russia is named after Dezhnev. E.P. Khabarov in 1649 compiled a map and studied the lands along the Amur, the Siberian Cossack V.V. Atlasov explored Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands. The Siberian Order summarized all the information and materials received, on which Western European scientists then relied for a long time.

An important event was the appearance of the first printed textbooks: the Primer by Vasily Burtsov and the illustrated Primer by Karion Istomin, the Grammar by M. Smotrytsky, and at the beginning of the 18th century. - "Arithmetic" by L. Magnitsky, named by M.V. Lomonosov "gates of learning". Typography was concentrated in the sovereign's Printing House.

The paradox of the situation lay in the fact that from the time of the Stoglavy Cathedral (1551), only lower theological schools existed in Russia. There was no secular education. The solution of the question of the essence and tasks of education was reflected in the disputes between the “Latins” and the “Greekophiles”. For Russian Westernizers - "Latins" - Poland for a long time remained a model, an intermediary from which Russia could borrow Western experience. Supporters of the Greek orientation "Grecophiles" sought to preserve the traditions of Russian spiritual life, fearing, not without reason, the invasion of secular European knowledge.

The Reformation and Protestant ethics in Europe changed the value orientations of society. This complex and controversial time of the collapse of the usual living space in the culture of Europe is conveyed by the Baroque style. Western European baroque became the form through which enlightenment features and a bright personality began to penetrate into Russian culture. The conductors of the "Latin" culture, Western influence were immigrants from Poland, Belarus and Ukraine. Under Alexei Mikhailovich, a rather influential circle of lovers of Western European scholarship, education, literature, household items and comforts was formed. This court environment became a bridge to the New Age and brought forward many reformers. Among them was the teacher of the royal children, a Belarusian by origin Samuil Emelyanovich Petrovsky-Sitnianovich from Polotsk, or Simeon Polotsky.

In the 17th century two higher educational institutions for the clergy appeared: in 1632, the Kiev-Mohyla Academy in Ukraine, named after its founder Peter Mohyla, and in 1687, the Greek scientists Sofrony and Ioanniky Likhudy from Padua (Italy) headed the first higher educational an institution in Moscow - the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, where Lomonosov later studied. Simeon Polotsky took an active part in the preparation of the draft charter of the academy. The building of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was located on Nikolskaya Street near the Kremlin. She marked the beginning of the future higher education in Russia; Academy graduates could enter the civil service. However, during its creation, supporters of the Greek orientation won. Even earlier, Simeon of Polotsk founded a school in the Zaikonospassky Monastery at the Printing House (1665), which trained clerks.

In the field of spiritual education, the boyar F.M. Rtishchev is an influential person from Alexei Mikhailovich's entourage. The Ukrainian and Belarusian schools at the monasteries served as a model for him. In 1649, Rtishchev opened a school in Moscow at the Andreevsky Monastery, where he invited learned monks from Kiev. The penetration of secular principles into literature was expressed in the emergence of new genres of literature - the poem and the novel. The creator of Russian poetry of the 17th century. was Simeon Polotsky, an encyclopedically educated person, a supporter of enlightenment and rapprochement with the West. S. Polotsky introduced almost all the then known poetic genres into literary use - from the epigram to the solemn ode. He wrote two poetry collections "Multicolored Vertograd" and "Rhymologion".

A bright innovator in literature was the ideological head of the schism, Archpriest Avvakum (Petrov). "The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, written by himself" opens the genre of autobiography and tells about his own sins and exploits with lyricism and irony, combined with angry pathos. The first Russian novel was "The Tale of Savva Grudtsy-ne" - a story about a young merchant's son and his adventures. Satire also sounded in a new way, denouncing human weaknesses and vices (“Service to a tavern”, “The Tale of Woe-Misfortune”). The first historical work published in print was the "Synopsis" of the Kiev monk Innocent Gizel, which told about the joint history of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples since the time of Kievan Rus.

In Russian painting of the 17th century. The "secularization" of art is especially vividly represented by the work of Simon Ushakov. In his icon "The Savior Not Made by Hands", new realistic features of painting are clearly visible: three-dimensionality in the depiction of the face, elements of direct perspective. The trend towards a realistic depiction of a person, characteristic of the Ushakov school, was embodied in the “parsun” (from “persona” - a person) - a portrait made according to the laws of iconographic art. The most famous of them are images of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, Prince M.V. Skopin-Shuisky, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

In architecture, a decorative principle declared itself, which found expression in two new styles. Moscow, or "Naryshkin" (named after the customers of the boyars Naryshkins), baroque was distinguished by the brightness of the facade, the contrasting combination of red and white colors in it, the abundance of shells, columns and capitals that adorned the walls, the visible "number of storeys" of buildings, borrowed from secular architecture. Examples of the Moscow baroque are the Church of the Intercession of the Virgin in Fili and the refectory and bell tower of the Novodevichy Convent. The style of “stone patterning” was widely used, replete with multi-colored reliefs, platbands, tiles made of stone and brick. Its typical examples are the churches of St. Nicholas in Khamovniki and the Trinity in Nikitniki in Moscow.

. The "secularization" of consciousness turned out to be in clear contradiction with traditional thinking. Among the clergy, there was open talk about the "impoverishment of the faith." Western European countries by the 17th century. survived the Reformation and the victory of the secular worldview over the religious, while Russia was fenced off from the West for more than two centuries as a result of the Horde yoke. Muscovite Russia needed new knowledge that would meet the urgent tasks of the development of education. The gap with the West in cultural and spiritual development became more and more obvious, the overcoming of which required liberation from the direct participation of the church in this process. Interest in secular knowledge is growing in Russian society, the need to think freely is increasingly felt, and the insufficiency of the old sources and methods of enlightenment is becoming more and more clear.

The ecclesiastical worldview itself was in crisis. The loss of the church's spiritual monopoly dictated the need for change, and this was perfectly realized by the intelligent and infinitely ambitious associate of Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Nikon (in the world Nikita Minov). The son of a Mordovian peasant and a Cheremiska (Mariyka), he went through all the steps of the church hierarchy from a village priest to the all-powerful head of the Russian church.

The desire to deepen church influence throughout the Slavic and Orthodox world gave rise to different points of view on the question of how this could be achieved. In the 40s. 17th century in Moscow, a circle of zealots of ancient piety was formed, whose members were future irreconcilable opponents - Nikon and Archpriest Avvakum. The leaders of the Circle made an attempt to raise the authority of the church by streamlining worship, in no way shaking the very foundations of the church and trying to protect the spiritual life of society from the penetration of secular principles into it. Alexei Mikhailovich supported their program, since it corresponded to the interests of the autocracy, which was advancing towards absolutism.

The unity of views in the Circle was broken when deciding on the choice of samples for correcting liturgical texts. Archpriest Avvakum and his supporters took as a basis Old Russian handwritten texts translated from Greek before the fall of Byzantium (Old Greek). It turned out, however, that they are full of discrepancies, since before the advent of printing, church books were copied by hand, and errors crept into them. The Greek monks who came to Russia drew the attention of the Russian higher hierarchy to these discrepancies.

Having become patriarch in 1652, Nikon decided to overcome the crisis of the church through church reform, strengthen its role as the world center of Orthodoxy and strengthen ties with the South Slavic countries. The reform was supposed to unify church life in view of the planned reunification of Ukraine with Russia and the unification of the Russian and Ukrainian churches, between which there were differences in church rituals. The content of the reform outwardly coincided with the desire of the "zealots of ancient piety" to restore the unity of the content of liturgical books, lost over the long centuries after the adoption of Christianity.

But Nikon needed not just the unification of church life, but bringing it into line with the modern norms of the Greek (modern Greek) and other Orthodox churches. He was supported by learned monks who came from Ukraine, among whom was Epiphany Slavinetsky, who received a serious theological education in his homeland. Nikon entrusted the correction of church books to visiting Kiev learned monks and Greeks. They began to be guided in the correction of texts by modern printed publications, Greek and South Russian. However, one should not think that the introduction of rituals on the model of Ukraine and Belarus meant the convergence of the official ideology with Western Europe.

During the preparation of the reform, the weakness of the theological layer of religion, the absence of a system of spiritual education and the educated personnel themselves were clearly felt. Therefore, it was natural to turn to the experience of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which did not have the support of the state and, in the ideological struggle against Uniatism and Catholicism, adopted the main method of the enemy - scholasticism. In contrast to the Catholic schools in Ukraine, the already mentioned Kiev-Mohyla Theological Academy (1632), within the walls of which a rich polemical literature was created, and Orthodox "brotherhoods" arose. Recognition of the authority of Ukrainian and Greek theologians in matters of dogma was painfully perceived by church conservatives as a retreat to "Latinism".

As a result, the new missal was corrected not according to the old Greek books, but according to the Greek original published in 1602 in Venice. In addition, the church reform touched upon service ceremonies: the two-fingered sign of the cross was replaced with a three-fingered one, “hallelujah” began to be announced not twice, but three times, they began to move around the lectern not in the direction of the sun (“salting”), but against it. In the liturgical texts, some words were replaced with equivalent ones (the name of the Savior “Jesus” to “Jesus”), and the word “true” was removed from the “Creed” in the line “And in the Holy Spirit, the true and life-giving Lord.” Instead of polyphony, when they read and sang at the same time to shorten the service, they introduced unanimity, which made it easier for the parishioners to understand what was happening, bowing to the ground at the service was replaced by half bows. Changes also affected the clothes of priests.

Thus, the reform affected only the outer side of worship, leaving without attention the ideas of enlightenment and education coming from the West, their secular content. Neither Nikon nor the top clergy accepted these elements of Western European culture and education that penetrated into Russia. However, the reform opened the way to the unification of all Orthodox churches, confirming the leadership of Russia, and opened the way for cultural dialogue with all of Europe.

In his activities, Nikon not only defended the independence of the church from the state and opposed government interference in its affairs. His claims went even further: he put forward an essentially Catholic thesis - "the priesthood of the kingdom is more than there" and demanded that the secular authorities be subordinated to it. The position of Nikon before his break with the tsar was close to the position of the head of the church, not subject to the tsar - the bearer of complete and sole power. The solemn atmosphere of his patriarchal “exit” was in no way inferior to the royal one: his head was decorated with a miter, similar to a royal crown, under his feet a carpet with an embroidered double-headed eagle was laid. At the same time, Nikon emphasized that he sees his support not in royal mercy, but in the rights of his dignity. Such an interpretation of the patriarchal power was not slow to be reflected in Nikon's relationship with the tsar.

The conflict between the "quietest" tsar and the imperious patriarch ended in Nikon's defeat. The church council of 1666 deprived him of his patriarchal rank, but recognized the church corrections he had made. The church became one of the most important obstacles on the path of the impending transformations, the successful implementation of which required its complete subordination to the state, which happened in the 18th century.

The supporters of the irreconcilable Habakkuk did not accept the innovations and were excommunicated from the church. They were persecuted by both ecclesiastical and state authorities. This led to a split in the Russian church and the emergence of the Old Believer movement. The defenders of the "old faith" received support from the most diverse strata of Russian society. All of them were united by the struggle for an idealized national antiquity. The split was one of the forms of social protest, but it cannot be attributed to the number of progressive movements, because the ideal of the organization of life was turned into the past. His ideology hindered the development of a secular, rationalistic, anti-feudal worldview. Upholding national isolation, hostility to everything new, foreign, the schism movement looked not forward, but backward.

However, the role of the Old Believers in Russian history is not as straightforward as it might seem at first glance. The persecution of their faith, economic oppression (they had to pay a double poll tax) did not prevent them from maximizing their creative and intellectual potential. Their connection with Russian entrepreneurship is obvious: the Old Believers Guchkovs, Morozovs, Ryazanovs, Zotovs, Ryabushinskys founded the first merchant and industrial dynasties in the country. The Old Believers have a special merit in the creation of a leather and bacon manufactory, gold mining, they succeeded in creating a credit system in the Urals and Siberia. The creation of the Ural manufactories under Peter I and the highest quality of iron in Europe and the level of casting were largely the results of their activities. At Demidov's metallurgy factories, most of the workers were Old Believers, and the factories themselves were densely surrounded by hermitages.

The strengthening of autocracy during the reign of the first Romanovs manifested itself in various spheres of the country's political life. The class-representative Zemsky Sobors, which finally ceased to be convened in the 1980s, lost their significance. In the 17th century, the composition and size of the Boyar Duma changed due to the involvement of nobles, the order system was centralized and the role of order officials in government increased, the secular authorities won in rivalry with the authorities of the church. Changes in local government also reflected a trend towards centralization and a decline in electiveness. Power in the united uyezds was concentrated in the hands of the governors, who replaced all officials of the zemstvo elected bodies.

The title of the Moscow tsar changed: from the “sovereign of all Russia” in 1654, he turns into “by the grace of God ... the autocrat of all Great and Small and White Russia.” The articles of the Council Code raised the prestige of the tsarist government to an unattainable height and determined harsh penalties for damage to the "sovereign's honor." In everyday life, the greatness of the autocracy was emphasized by the magnificent and solemn ritual of honoring the king, the luxury of the court. The pomposity of the rituals took on the character of sacred rites. All external means were used to instill the idea of ​​the divine origin of royal power. By the end of the XVII century. the evolution of state administration, courts, and military affairs reflected the transition from a class-representative monarchy to absolutism.

After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, his son Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682), who did not take an active part in state affairs, ascended the Russian throne. The leading place at the court was occupied by relatives of his mother, Miloslavsky.

During the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich, the political role of the nobility increased. An important milestone in its consolidation was the abolition in 1682 of the most important boyar institution - parochialism, since the parochial custom became a serious obstacle in solving the problems of domestic and foreign policy. The ancient aristocratic families had less and less opportunity to compete with the layers of less noble service people who were rising to power. In 1679-1681. instead of the field tax, household taxation was introduced. The unit of taxation was the peasant or township household.

After the death of the childless tsar, the young sons of Alexei Mikhailovich Ivan (from marriage to M.I. Miloslavskaya) and Peter (from marriage to N.K. Naryshkina) came to power, and with the support of the archers, the regents until they came of age were appointed Princess Sophia, daughter of Alexei Mikhailovich from his first marriage. The actual ruler under Sophia (1682-1689) was her favorite, Prince Vasily Golitsyn. He combined the features of a "statesman" and an intellectual. Many administrative and economic reforms are associated with his name, including the educational reform project, up to the creation of the first university in Russia, but by nature Golitsyn was more of a philosopher than an energetic practitioner.

In 1689, Peter, having reached the age of majority, married Evdokia Lopukhina and formally received all rights to the throne. A clash with Sophia became inevitable and ended with the victory of Peter with the support of the Moscow Patriarch. Sophia was imprisoned in the Novodevichy Convent in Moscow, Golitsyn was sent into exile, and with the death of Tsar Ivan (1696), Peter's autocracy was established.

6.1. Economic and social development of Russia under the first Romanovs

The turmoil led Russia to a complete economic collapse. Political stability was not immediately established either, the system of government in the center and in the regions was destroyed. The main tasks of Mikhail Romanov were to achieve reconciliation in the country, overcome the economic ruin and streamline the management system. For the first six years of his reign, Mikhail ruled, relying on the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobors. In 1619, the tsar's father Fyodor Nikitich (in monasticism Philaret) Romanov returned from Polish captivity. Filaret, who took the patriarchal rank, began to actually govern the country until his death in 1633. In 1645, Mikhail Romanov also died. His son Alexei Mikhailovich (1645–1676) became the Russian Tsar.

By the middle of the century, the economic devastation brought by the Time of Troubles had been overcome. Economic development of Russia in the XVII century. characterized by a number of new phenomena in economic life. The craft gradually developed into small-scale production. More and more products were produced not to order, but for the market, there was an economic specialization of individual regions. In Tula and Kashira, for example, metal products were produced. The Volga region specialized in leather processing, Novgorod and Pskov were centers of flax production. The best jewelry was produced in Novgorod, Tikhvin and Moscow. Centers of artistic production began to emerge (Khokhloma, Palekh, and others).

The development of commodity production led to the emergence of manufactories. They were divided into state-owned, i.e. belonging to the state, and privately owned.

The growth of productive forces contributed to the development of trade and the emergence of an all-Russian market. There were two major all-Russian fairs - Makarievskaya on the Volga and Irbitskaya on the Urals.

The Zemsky Sobor in 1649 adopted the Cathedral Code - a code of domestic feudal law that regulated relations in the main spheres of society. The Council Code prescribed cruel punishments not only for rebellion against the king or insulting the head of state, but even for fights and outrages in the royal court. Thus, there was a legislative consolidation of the process of becoming an absolute monarchy.

In the Cathedral Code, the social structure of society was framed, since it regulated the rights and obligations of all classes.

Cardinal changes took place in the life of the peasantry. The Council Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich finally formalized serfdom - an indefinite search for fugitive peasants was established.

According to the Council Code, urban residents were attached to the place of residence and "tax", that is, the performance of state duties. A significant part of the Code is devoted to the order of legal proceedings and criminal law. Laws of the 17th century look too harsh. For many crimes, the Council Code provided for the death penalty. The Code also regulated the procedure for military service, travel to other states, customs policy, etc.

Political development of Russia in the XVII century. characterized by the evolution of the state system: from a class-representative monarchy to absolutism. Zemsky Sobors occupied a special place in the system of estate-representative monarchy. The Zemsky Sobor included the higher clergy, the Boyar Duma and the elective part: Moscow nobles, the administration of orders, the district nobility, the tops of the "draft" settlements of the Moscow suburb, as well as Cossacks and archers ("service people on the device").

In the early years of Mikhail Romanov's reign, the Zemsky Sobors worked almost continuously and helped him in governing the state. Under Filaret Romanov, the activity of the Councils becomes less active. The last Zemsky Sobor, which worked in 1653, resolved the issue of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. Subsequently, zemstvo activity fades away. In the 1660s-1680s. Numerous estate commissions met. All of them were predominantly boyar. The end of the work of Zemsky Sobors actually meant the completion of the transition from a class-representative monarchy to absolutism. The significant role of the Boyar Duma remained in the system of state authorities and administration. However, in the second half of the XVII century. its value is declining.

High development in the XVII century. reaches the command control system. Orders were engaged in certain branches of public administration within the country or were in charge of certain territories. The most important among them were the order of Secret Affairs, personally led by Alexei Mikhailovich and supervising the activities of higher state institutions and officials. The local order formalized land allotments and conducted judicial investigations on land cases. The embassy order carried out the foreign policy of the state. The order of the Great Treasury controlled the finances.

The main administrative-territorial unit of the state was the county. The system of local government was built in the XVII century. not on the basis of elected bodies, but on the authorities appointed from the center of the governors. Zemsky and labial elders obeyed them. In the hands of the governor concentrated administrative, judicial and military power, supervision over the collection of taxes and taxes.

The social structure of Russian society in the 17th century. was deeply social. The term "estate" means a social group that has rights and obligations enshrined in custom or law and inherited. The privileged class were secular and spiritual feudal lords (clergy). Secular feudal lords were divided into ranks. In the 17th century this concept reflected not so much an official position as belonging to a certain group of the feudal estate. Its top was made up of duma ranks: boyars, roundabouts, clerks and duma nobles. The next in their position in society were the ranks of Moscow - officials, solicitors, Moscow nobles. They were followed by the lower categories of the privileged class - the ranks of the city. These included provincial nobles, who were called "children of the boyars."

Most of the dependent population were peasants. Personally free members of the community were called black-haired peasants. The rest of the peasants were either privately owned, that is, belonging to the landowners, or palace, or appanage, belonging to the royal family. Slaves were in the position of slaves. Attached to their duties were the inhabitants of the cities - artisans and merchants. The richest merchants were called "guests". Among the dependent estates were "service people on the instrument": archers, gunners and Cossacks.

Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov became the Russian Tsar at a difficult time (Fig. 6.1). The turmoil led Russia to complete economic ruin. Political stability was not immediately established either, the system of government in the center and in the regions was destroyed. The main tasks of the young king were to achieve reconciliation in the country, overcome economic ruin and streamline the management system.

Rice. 6.1

For the first six years of his reign, Mikhail ruled, relying on the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobors. The latter did not actually stop their work from 1613 to 1619. In 1619, the tsar's father Fyodor Nikitich (in monasticism Filaret) Romanov returned from Polish captivity. Filaret, who took the patriarchal rank, became the de facto ruler of the country until his death in 1633. In 1645, Mikhail Romanov also died. His son Alexei Mikhailovich became the Russian Tsar (Fig. 6.2).

Rice. 6.2

By the middle of the century, the economic devastation brought by the Time of Troubles had been overcome. The economic development of Russia in the XVII century. characterized by a number of new phenomena in economic life (Fig. 6.3). The craft gradually developed into small-scale production. More and more products were made not to order, but to the market. The economic specialization of individual regions is developing. In Tula and Kashira, for example, metal products were produced. The Volga region specialized in leather processing. Novgorod and Pskov were centers of flax production. The best jewelry was produced in Novgorod, Tikhvin and Moscow. In the same era, centers of artistic production arose (Khokhloma, Palekh, etc.).

The development of commodity production made possible the emergence of manufactories, which were divided into state-owned, i.e. owned by the state (for example, the Armory), and privately owned. Latest

originated mainly in metallurgy. Such enterprises were located in Tula, Kashira and the Urals.

Rice. 6.3

The growth of productive forces contributed to the development of trade and the beginning of the formation of the all-Russian market. There are two major all-Russian fairs Makarievskaya on the Volga and Irbigskaya in the Urals.

In the 17th century final legal registration took place in Russia serfdom. By this term, historians understand the most severe form of dependence of the peasants on the landowner, whose power extended to the person, labor and property of the peasants belonging to him. The forcible attachment of peasants to the land was practiced in a number of European countries in the Middle Ages. However, in Western Europe, serfdom was relatively short-lived and did not exist everywhere. In Russia, it was finally established at the turn of the New Age, existed in the most rigid form, and was abolished only in 1861. How can we explain such a phenomenon in Russian history? In the historical literature, one of the reasons for the enslavement of peasants is the low productivity of peasant farms. Other reasons for the formation of serfdom, historians consider the harsh natural and climatic conditions and the economic dependence of the peasants on the feudal lords. The position of the Russian peasantry was influenced by the peculiarities of the political development of Russian statehood. The basis of the armed forces of Russia in the XVII century. constituted the service class of landowners. The ever-increasing costs of maintaining the country's defense capability required the strengthening of this estate and the provision of its free labor force (Fig. 6.4).

Rice. 6.4

In the historical literature, two main concepts of the enslavement of the Russian peasantry have developed. The concept of "decree" enslavement suggests that serfdom was introduced at the initiative of the government, based on the needs of the country's defense capability and to ensure the service class. This point of view was held by historians N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solovyov, N. I. Kostomarov, S. B. Veselovsky and B. D. Grekov, modern historian R. G. Skrynnikov. In the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, M. II. Pogodin and M. L. Dyakonov defended the “irrestrictive” concept, according to which serfdom was a consequence of the real living conditions of the country, formalized by the state only legally (Fig. 6.5).

Rice. 6.5

It is not difficult to trace the stages of the legal registration of serfdom. In 1581, Ivan the Terrible introduced "Reserved Years", until the abolition of which the peasants were forbidden to leave their owners, i.e. the peasants were deprived of the ancient right to cross on St. George's Day. In continuation of the policy of enslaving the peasants, Godunov's government adopted in 1597 a decree on a five-year search for fugitive peasants. Decrees of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich of 1637 and 1641. the state investigation was increased accordingly to nine and then to 15 years. The date of the final registration of serfdom is considered to be 1649. The Council Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich established an indefinite search for fugitive peasants.

The Council Code, adopted in 1649, is a code of domestic feudal law that regulated relations in the main areas of society (Fig. 6.6).

In July 1648, the Zemsky Sobor considered the petition of servicemen and merchants for the adoption of a new code of laws. For its development, a special commission was created, headed by the boyar Odoevsky. Already in the autumn of the same year, the draft Code was presented to the king. At the beginning of 1649, the Code was approved by the Zemsky Sobor. Soon it was published with a circulation of 1200 copies.

The code is divided into chapters, and the chapters are divided into articles. In total, the Cathedral Code has 25 chapters and 967 articles. The code of laws begins with the chapter "On blasphemers and church rebels," which prescribes that any blasphemy, heresy, or speech against church authorities be punished by burning at the stake. The next two chapters regulate the status of the king. The very name of one of them is indicative: "On the sovereign's honor and how to protect his sovereign's health." The Council Code prescribes cruel punishment not only for rebellion against the tsar or insulting the head of state, but even for fights and outrages in the royal court. So there was a legislative consolidation of the process of becoming an absolute monarchy.

Rice. 6.6

The Cathedral Code formalized the social structure of society, regulating the rights and obligations of all classes. Chapter 11 "The Court of the Peasants" was of the greatest importance. It was she who introduced the indefinite search for fugitive peasants, finally formalizing serfdom. The Cathedral Code attached urban residents to the place of residence and "tax", i.e. carrying out government duties. A significant part of the Code is devoted to the order of legal proceedings and criminal law. Laws of the 17th century look harsh. Historians of law have counted 60 crimes for which the Council Code provides for the death penalty. The Code also regulates the procedure for military service, travel to other states, customs policy, and much more.

Political development of Russia in the XVII century. characterized by the evolution of the state system from a class-representative monarchy to absolutism. A special place in the system of estate-representative monarchy was occupied by Zemsky Sobors (Fig. 6.7). They included the "consecrated cathedral" (higher clergy), the Boyar Duma and the elective part (curia). The elected delegates of the Zemsky Sobor represented the Moscow nobles, the administration of orders, the district nobility, the tops of the draft settlements of the Moscow Posad, as well as service people "according to the instrument" - Cossacks and archers. State peasants were represented only once: at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613.

Rice. 6.7

As already mentioned, the first Zemsky Sobor (Sobor of Reconciliation) in the history of Russia was convened by Ivan IV in 1549 (Fig. 6.8). Cathedrals of the 16th century resolved questions about the continuation of the Livonian War and the election of a new king to the kingdom. A special role in Russian history was played by the cathedral of 1613, which elected Mikhail Romanov as king. In the first years of the reign of the young tsar, the Zemsky Sobors worked almost continuously and helped Mikhail in governing the state. After the return of Father Mikhail Fyodorovich Filaret from Polish captivity, the activity of the cathedrals became less active. Councils decided mainly questions of war and peace. In 1649, the Zemsky Sobor adopted the Cathedral Code. The last Zemsky Sobor, which worked in 1653, resolved the issue of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. After that, zemstvo activity fades away. In the 1660-1680s. Numerous estate commissions met. All of them were predominantly boyar. The end of the work of Zemsky Sobors actually meant the completion of the transition from a class-representative monarchy to absolutism.

The high place of the Boyar Duma remained in the system of state authorities and administration. However, in the second half of the XVII century. its value is declining. From the composition of the Duma, the so-called Near Duma, consisting of persons especially devoted to the tsar, stands out.

Rice. 6.8

High development in the XVII century. reaches the command control system (Fig. 6.9). Permanent orders were engaged in separate branches of government within the country or were in charge of individual territories. All the orders that were in charge of the country's defense and affairs can be attributed to the sectoral ones.

service class. This function was carried out by one of the most important government bodies - the Discharge Order. The local order formalized land allotments and carried out the court in land cases. The embassy order was in charge of the foreign policy of the state. Along with the permanent ones, temporary orders were also created. One of them was the order of Secret Affairs, personally led by Alexei Mikhailovich. The order was engaged in the supervision of the activities of higher state institutions and officials.

Rice. 6.9

The main administrative-territorial unit of the state was the county. The system of local government was built in the XVII century. not on elected bodies, but on the authorities appointed from the center of the voivods, to whom the zemstvo and labial elders were subordinate.

The social structure of Russian society in the 17th century. was deeply estate (Fig. 6.10). The term "estate" means a social group with

enshrined in custom or law and inherited rights and obligations. The privileged class were secular and spiritual feudal lords. Secular feudal lords were divided into ranks, under which in the XVII century. was understood not so much as an official position, but as belonging to a certain group of the feudal estate. The top of the latter was made up of duma ranks - boyars, okolnichy, duma clerks and duma nobles. The next in their position in society were the Moscow ranks - the capital's nobles. They were followed by the lower categories of the privileged class - the ranks of the city, which included the provincial nobles, who were called the children of the boyars.

Most of the dependent population were peasants. Non-serfs, personally free members of the community were called black-tailed peasants, and the rest - privately owned, i.e. belonging to the landlords, or palace, or appanage, belonging to the royal family. Slaves were in the position of slaves. Residents of cities - artisans and merchants - were attached to their duties, among whom the richest were called "guests". Among the dependent estates were service people "according to the instrument": archers, gunners and Cossacks.

Zemsky Sobor in 1613

In 1613, a Zemsky Sobor was held, at which a tsar was to be elected. The contenders for the throne were the Polish prince Vladislav, the son of the Swedish king Karl-Philip, the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II Ivan, representatives of noble Moscow families. elected king Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov . The new tsar was the son of Metropolitan Filaret. Representatives of the opposing factions were also satisfied with Mikhail's youth. Finally, the Romanovs were indirectly linked to the old dynasty through the first wife of Ivan the Terrible. At the same time, Mikhail was very young and the boyars hoped that they would be able to control the inexperienced tsar.

The new ruler had important tasks to overcome the Time of Troubles. An important role is the curbing of the strong Cossacks, which, by the way, was joined by Marina Mnishek with her son from the second False Dmitry. One of the most important tasks is the liberation of the starny from the invaders

In 1617 between Russia and Sweden was concluded Stolbovsky world. The Swedes returned the Novgorod land to Russia, but left behind the Baltic coast, the cities of Yam, Oreshek, Koporye and Korela. Russia paid Sweden large monetary compensation.

Prince Vladislav did not leave his plans to take the Russian throne. He made a trip to Moscow, but could not take it. The siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery also ended in failure. The Poles were forced to agree to a truce, which was signed in the village Deulino in 1618 (Deulinsok truce). Russia gave Poland the Smolensk, Chernigov and Seversk lands, and an exchange of prisoners was envisaged. Russia defended its independence, but suffered serious territorial losses. The economy of the country was ruined.*

* The Time of Troubles has always caused controversy among historians. A number of researchers believe that some episodes of the Time of Troubles concealed the possibility of an alternative development for Russia (for example, the beginnings of contractual relations between the tsar and his subjects when Vasily Shuisky and Prince Vladislav were called to the throne). Many historians point out that the national consolidation that made it possible to repel foreign invasions was achieved on a conservative basis, which for a long time postponed the much-needed modernization of the country.

Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. On July 11, 1613, the first Russian tsar from the Romanov dynasty was crowned king. The young and inexperienced king needed support in the conditions of the ruin of the country. Zemsky Sobors sat almost continuously for the first ten years of government, until the end of the 1920s they played a significant role in governance. At first, the tsar's mother and his relatives on the maternal side of the boyars Saltykovs, who were respected by their contemporaries, began to play a decisive role in the administration of the state. In 1619, Mikhail's father returned from Polish captivity after the Deulino truce. In Moscow, Filaret was proclaimed Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and a great sovereign. Until his death in 1633, he, a smart and powerful politician, ruled the country together with his son.

The Zemsky Sobor, as a body of a class representative, did not have a fixed status and authority. Rejection of the project for the transformation of Zemsky Sobors into a constantly convening body with the right to put proposals for discussion. The meetings took place in different rooms of the royal palace in the Kremlin and sometimes in the Assumption Cathedral.

1. Consecrated Cathedral

The main task facing Russia was to restore the country's ruined economy, internal order and stability. Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645) took the path of assigning peasants to their owners. In 1619, a five-year search was again announced, and in 1637, a nine-year search for fugitives. In 1642, a decree was again issued on a ten-year term for the search for fugitives and a fifteen-year search for forcibly taken peasants. In 1645, Michael dies, leaving the throne to his son.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) was nicknamed "The Quietest". At various times, the tutor of the tsar, boyar B.I., was among his close associates. Morozov, Prince N.I. Odoevsky, Patriarch Nikon, A.F. Ordyn-Nashchokin and A.S. Matveev, in recent years, the father of the first wife of Tsar I.D. Miloslavsky.

The new king was a well-read man, distinguished by good health and cheerful disposition, piety, was an exemplary family man, loved luxury and rituals. However, he was quick-tempered and "mobile to anger", but quickly retreated. He liked magnificent trips, hunting. * He even wrote an essay on the rules of falconry "The officer of the falconer's way", highly appreciated by experts both as a practical guide and as a literary work.

During his reign, the ruin of the economy and agriculture was overcome. The main reserve for the growth of agriculture was the involvement in agricultural turnover of new lands, little developed before the Time of Troubles. An extensive way of development, but increased the amount of grain and thereby began to overcome hunger. Further strengthening of feudal serfdom. In the nobility, there was a gradual ↓ connection between the service and the allotment of land - the estates remained with the family even if the service was terminated. At the same time - an increase in the serf population and an increase in secular land ownership.

State machine. In addition to the high role of Zemsky Sobors, other authorities also developed. In the 17th century, the Boyar Duma remained the co-governing body. (The term - from the 2nd half of the 19th century. before that - the boyars, the boyar chamber, duma people).

The Duma was not so much an institution as a social institution that united the entire top elite. Through the boyar commissions, the Duma ranks also had power. The highest ranks are boyars and okolnichy. They are appointed as governors, become chiefs of orders. The Duma participated in the legislative process, + the status and powers of the Duma were enshrined in law. Numerical superiority belongs to the boyars and okolnichy, descendants of princely and old Moscow families (from 70 to 90% of all people in the Duma). They absolutely prevailed until the very end of the thought. The first half of the 17th century - no more than 40 people in the Duma, and at the end of the century - 150 people. This speaks of the transformation of the functions of the Duma. Only representatives of very noble families could reach the Duma rank, but much depended on the will of the king. Once such a rank was received by the Pskov nobleman Ordin-Nashchokin. The Duma could include both talented people (Odoevsky, Pozharsky, Golitsyn, Ordin-Nashchokin, Rtishchev), but also unimportant and untalented people. The tsar usually attended a meeting of the Duma in

Management was carried out through a system of orders. There is no clear demarcation, multifunctionality, a combination of departmental management principles, the absence of a hierarchical status enshrined in law, no permanent staff and stability, column office work. A column is a narrow sheet of paper, which, as it is filled, sticks together along the bottom edge and folds into a scroll several meters long. Orders - regional principle and local principle. Financial, military, regional, palace, patriarchal and with national competence. Formation of office work and the internal structure of the order, the principles of the internal functioning of the order. All were subordinate to the Duma and local administrative buildings (?).

The voivodship system of government appears everywhere. Was the leading system of local control. The governor was appointed by a discharge order, and received a salary from quarter orders in the territory. Usually, ordinary people of the capital Moscow level of service were sent to the voivodship ranks. The frequent change of governors must have interrupted the possibility of establishing strong contacts. The preservation of views on the service as a source of subsistence was preserved, tk. poor opportunity to feed from the ground. In addition to the noble cavalry, there was a regular equestrian structure, non-Russian peoples were used.

Infantry is a permanent army. In the second half of the 17th century, the archery army basically turned into the protection of the state. By the beginning of the 30s, the number = 100,000, then by the 80s - 165,000 different people. Gradually changes the relationship between cavalry and transitions. A symbol of the creation of new structures as part of a new army in the form of a foreign or new system. In the 30s - the formation of regiments of the new system. "Equestrian, crowded and armed" - before that. The regiments were divided into companies, new officer ranks appeared, a completely different system of rank production. The prototype of the regular army. Ideally, the regiments of the new system should have been state-supported. They had to pay salaries. But this was only a partial transition. Lifelong service, in peacetime some were sent home. Despite the obvious advantage, the transition to a regular army took decades, it depended on the limited resources of the country after the turmoil. In the context of a gradual transition to reg. army ceased to work the system of parochialism. So a gradual departure from mestnichestvo.

The gradual acquisition of an autocratic character by the Russian monarchy, the beginning of the transition to absolutism: the decline in the role of Zemsky Sobors, a change in title, the evolution of the order system, magnificent ceremonial. The strengthening of the personal power of the sovereign was enshrined in the Council Code of 1649.

Cathedral Code of 1649“Fear for the sake of civil strife from all black people,” as Patriarch Nikon later wrote, the Zemsky Sobor was convened. Its meetings were held in \ 1648-1649. and ended with the adoption of the "Council Code" of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. It was the largest Zemsky Cathedral in the history of Russia. It was attended by 340 people, most of whom (70%) belonged to the nobility and the top tenants.

The "Cathedral Code" consisted of 25 chapters and contained about a thousand articles. Printed in an edition of two thousand copies, it was the first Russian legislative monument published in a typographical way, and remained valid until 1832. It was translated into almost all European languages.

The first three chapters of the "Code" dealt with crimes against the church and royal power. Any criticism of the church and blasphemy was punishable by burning at the stake. Persons accused of treason and insulting the honor of the sovereign, as well as boyars, governors, were executed. Those who "will come en masse and in conspiracy, and learn whom to rob or beat" were ordered to "execute to death without any mercy." A person who unsheathed a weapon in the presence of the king was punished by cutting off his hand.

The "Cathedral Code" regulated the performance of various services, the ransom of prisoners, customs policy, the position of various categories of the population in the state. It provided for the exchange of estates, including the exchange of estates for patrimonies. Such a transaction was required to be registered in the Local Order. The "Council Code" limited the growth of church land ownership, which reflected the tendency for the church to be subordinate to the state.

The most important section of the "Cathedral Code" was Chapter XI "Court on the Peasants": an indefinite search for fugitive and taken away peasants was introduced, peasant transitions from one owner to another were prohibited. This meant the legal registration of the system of serfdom. Simultaneously with the privately owned peasants, serfdom extended to the black-haired and palace peasants, who were forbidden to leave their communities. In the event of flight, they were also subject to an indefinite investigation.

Chapter XIX of the "Cathedral Code" "On the townspeople" made changes in the life of the city. The "white" settlements were liquidated, their population was included in the settlement. The entire urban population had to bear the tax on the sovereign. Under pain of death, it was forbidden to move from one settlement to another and even marry women from another settlement, i.e. the population of the settlement was assigned to a certain city. Citizens received a monopoly on trade in cities. The peasants did not have the right to keep shops in the cities, but could only trade from carts and in the market stalls.

The "Cathedral Code" of 1649, allowing the exchange of estates for estates and vice versa, marked the beginning of the merging of boyars and nobles into one closed class-estate. In 1674, the black-tailed peasants were forbidden to enroll in the nobility. In 1679-1681. housekeeping was introduced. The unit of taxation was the peasant or township household. Thus, the processes that took place in the socio-political development of Russia in the second half of the 17th century testify that attempts at reforms took place before the reforms of Peter the Great.

Tsar Fedor Alekseevich. After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, 14-year-old Fedor (1676-1682) was elevated to the Russian throne. The leading place at the court was occupied by the Miloslavskys (relatives of the first wife of Alexei Mikhailovich). Fyodor, a sickly boy from childhood (had scurvy), did not take an active part in public affairs. A student of Simenon of Polotsk, he knew Latin, Polish, loved reading, composing music, devoting his time to these studies.

Under Fyodor Alekseevich in 1682 localism was abolished, access to the government of the country was opened for people from the nobility and clerks. The biggest event in the six-year reign of Fedor was the war with Turkey in 1677-1681, but this is already in foreign policy.

In general, the following trends can be noted for the political life of Russia in the 17th century:

1. Transition from estate-representative monarchy to absolutism

2. Further enslavement of the peasants (Sob Ul)

3. Overcoming the consequences of the Troubles

4. Development is becoming more vivid: land development, expansion of trade and cultural ties, the management system is improving and growing, a new army. Some historians consider this a prerequisite for Peter's reforms.

In the 17th century as a result of constant advance to the East, the Muscovite state turned into a huge Eurasian power, the territory of which doubled. Its borders extended from the Arctic Ocean to the Caspian Sea, from the Dnieper to the shores of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. The population increased from 6 to 13 million people, who lived mainly on the marginal lands of Northern and Central Russia. The rich black earth lands of the Northern Black Sea region and Central Russia were then outside the Russian state, the Middle and Lower Volga regions were just being developed. During the colonization process, Muscovite Russia lost its original homogeneity, turned into a multinational state, which included not only Russians, but also Ukrainians, Belarusians, Tatars, Bashkirs, peoples of the Urals, Siberia, and by religion - Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans. It was in the 17th century. the concept of "Russia" was established as broader and more capacious than "Rus" proper in territorial, ethnic and religious terms.

According to the social composition, the population was divided into service, draft and serfs. The first category included boyars, boyar children and nobles. The second category included townspeople and peasants who carried taxes (duties) in favor of the state and owners. The third included the dependent population of the country. All categories of the population were subjects of the king, were attached either to the place of service, or to the place of residence, or to the land and landowners. Thus, in the XVII century. a special type of service state was formed with a nationwide system of serfdom.

State system of Russia in the 17th century. was a monarchy. There is no consensus among researchers about whether the monarchy was limited or unlimited under the first Romanov. So V. Tatishchev believed that the power of the king was limited, and this was reflected in the special "Restrictive Record". S. Platonov argued that "Tsar Michael was not limited in power, and no restrictive documents from his time have come down to us." Some historians, recognizing the absence of a written document, speak of the existence of an oral promise of Michael not to rule without society.

In modern literature, the characteristic of the state-political system of Russia in the first half of the 17th century has been established. as a class-representative monarchy, when the king shared his power with representatives of various classes. This was prompted by a number of circumstances. First, Michael could not ignore the people, thanks to whom the Troubles were stopped. Secondly, the restoration of the devastated country, the restoration of order in it, the protection of external borders were possible only with the support of broad sections of society. Thirdly, the first Romanov was still influenced by traditions that obligated sovereigns to consult with the best people, especially with the boyar aristocracy. Fourthly, his youth, inexperience, desire to earn authority and establish a new dynasty on the throne, as well as to show himself as a democratic ruler in the eyes of the world community, encouraged him to rely on the estates of Michael. Therefore, during the years of his reign, Mikhail Fedorovich relied on the entire system of class bodies in Russia.

During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the Zemsky Sobor became the most important link in state administration. Unlike the era of Ivan IV, Zemsky Sobors worked continuously under this monarch - from 1613 to 1621. they generally met annually. Their composition has become more democratic, their role and competence have increased. The Zemsky Sobors of the times of the first Romanov were characterized by the predominance of the elective element over the official element, the broad representation of the lower classes. This was facilitated by the absence of a property qualification when nominated to the Zemsky Sobor. The main thing was a moral indicator, the election of "strong, reasonable, kind" people. The Zemsky Sobors were in charge of a wide range of issues, including: the election of a king, changes in legislation, taxation, and the annexation of new territories. Based on the decisions of the Soborov, Mikhail Fedorovich drew up his decrees. Thanks to the vigorous activity of these governing bodies, by the middle of the 17th century. managed to overcome the negative consequences of the Time of Troubles, to restore the country.

At the same time, Zemsky Sobors in Russia differed from the Western European parliaments of that time. In the West, passions boiled in permanent parliaments, heated discussions unfolded, class interests were defended, and the highest power was harshly criticized. Zemsky Sobors in Russia were considered by the tsar and his entourage as temporary governing bodies necessary to solve specific problems that had become urgent after the Time of Troubles. The ratio in the Cathedral of elected representatives from various estates was not regulated and was constantly changing. The deputies only expressed their opinion, and the final decision was the prerogative of the supreme power. As a rule, Zemsky Sobors agreed with the proposals of the royal entourage. Moreover, they were allies of the monarch, the Boyar Duma and the Church. Given that the Zemsky Sobors did not have independent political significance, many historians believe that in the first half of the 17th century. there were only elements of a class-representative monarchy. Other scholars believe that this was a manifestation of the civilizational peculiarity of the Orthodox Russian estate monarchy, when the representative body, having real power, did not act as a counterbalance, but, on the contrary, was a condition for strengthening tsarism, helping to legitimize the new dynasty. However, already in those days, advanced Russian people were thinking about improving the Russian parliament. In 1634, the attorney I. Buturlin drew up a project for the transformation of the Zemsky Sobor, proposing to extend the principle of election to all participants in this meeting, limit the terms of office for senior officials, and turn the Zemsky Sobor into a permanent governing body. But the tsar and the Boyar Duma did not agree to the implementation of the ideas of this figure. In addition, Mikhail Romanov relied in his reign on the traditional authority of the Boyar Duma, where the feudal class nominated its representatives. She served as the highest aristocratic council under the king. Her competence included issues of the court, administration, etc. The status of the Boyar Duma has remained unchanged for many centuries, but its role in government has changed. In particular, Ivan IV, having established a despotic regime, repressed most of the members of the Boyar Duma and did not involve it in governance. Mikhail Romanov returned the lost role to the Duma, he considered its opinion. The decisions issued by the monarch contained the note “The tsar indicated that the boyars were sentenced,” which meant that the issue was discussed at a meeting of the Duma.

In the first half of the XVII century. the Church had a great influence on the monarch. Relations between church and state were then based on the Byzantine-Orthodox theory of the "symphony of power", which proposed the dual unity of independently existing secular and spiritual authorities, but jointly upholding Orthodox values. The Orthodox Church, without encroaching on secular government, acted as a moral counterbalance to the Russian autocracy, at the same time helping it to manage society. The Illuminated Cathedral, as an organ of church administration, took part in the work of Zemsky Sobors. Patriarch Filaret, the father of Mikhail Romanov, was co-ruler of the tsar for 14 years and, in fact, ruled Russia. During the absence of the monarch in Moscow, he led meetings of the Boyar Duma, received ambassadors, issued decrees and instructions. In 1620-1626. the patriarch carried out a reform of the management of church property and personnel. A system of church orders was created, which were in charge of various areas of church life, were engaged in the construction of temples, judged the clergy, replenished the patriarchal treasury. Philaret's activities strengthened the autocracy and the new dynasty, on the one hand, and the role of the church, on the other.

Relatively limited was the power of the monarch and in the field. Full self-government was preserved in the black lands, mainly in the northern communities. In 1627, the government restored, lost during the Time of Troubles, the institution of elected labial elders from the nobility, who concentrated administrative and judicial power in the cities and regions in their hands. Public participation in the affairs of the state allowed the tsarist government to resolve many complex issues, restore statehood, eliminate the economic crisis, achieve social and political stability, and strengthen the Romanov dynasty on the Russian throne.

However, in the future, there was a tendency to curtail the cooperation of the highest power with society, and the movement of the political system towards absolutism began. Absolutism is a form of government from the time of late feudalism. It is characterized by the absence of representative bodies of power, the establishment of a limited monarchy, the highest degree of centralization, the increasing role of the bureaucratic apparatus, the presence of a strong regular army and law enforcement agencies, the subordination of the church to the state, and developed legislation and diplomacy.

As a historical phenomenon, absolutism also took place in Western Europe. However, Russian absolutism differed from European and socio-economic basis and content. The absolute monarchies in Western Europe relied on the support of the middle class with a certain balance between the nobility and the bourgeoisie, cared about economic progress, and adopted the idea of ​​the material well-being of each member of society. They were formed in parallel with the creation of civil society, the assertion of broad rights and freedoms for its members. The social support of absolutism in Russia was the nobility and communal organization. Russian monarchs hindered the development of capitalism and prevented the establishment of civil society. The consequence of this was the stability and duration of the existence of absolutism in Russia. Up to a certain point, the monarchy played a positive role. In the context of the slow development of civil society, the weakness of the third estate, she initiated reforms, mobilized material and human resources for the development of the economy, strengthened the country's defense capability, and took care of the rise of culture. But over time, the possibilities of absolutism exhausted themselves and, unable to adapt to the new requirements of the time, it turned into a brake on social progress, became a reactionary force and was liquidated by the revolutionary wave of 1917.

The birth of absolutism in Russia took place during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, the final design - during the years of the reign of Peter I. Under Alexei Mikhailovich, Zemsky Sobors ceased to be convened, which was explained by a number of factors. By the middle of the XVII century. the mechanism of state administration was restored, autocracy was strengthened. The Romanov dynasty, entrenched on the throne, no longer felt the need for Zemsky Sobors. New Cathedral Code of 1649 stabilized the legal space of the country, allowed the tsarist administration, without consulting with representatives of different classes, to pursue an independent policy based on laws. The curtailment of the activities of Zemsky Sobors proceeded gradually. With the legalization of serfdom, the number of people from the lower classes decreased in them, and the popular base of parliamentarism was undermined. Sobors began to be convened only by the king and not to discuss promising issues, as was the case before, but only to approve specific projects prepared by him and his administration. Over time, they gather less and less often and are eventually replaced by periodic meetings with representatives of certain classes.

In the second half of the XVII century. the significance of the boyars and the Boyar Duma steadily declined. The king stopped consulting with her. Of the 618 decrees of Alexei Mikhailovich, 588 were drawn up without the participation of the Boyar Duma. In the Duma itself, the unborn duma nobles and duma clerks were gaining more and more power. An attempt was made to change the prerogatives of the Duma, to turn it from an aristocratic Council into a bureaucratic body, forcing its members to perform the duties of chiefs of orders. From the composition of the “big” Boyar Duma, the “small” Duma (“near”, “secret”, “room”) stood out, consisting of the most trusted persons of the tsar, with whom he previously discussed and made decisions on issues of state administration. Refusal to cooperate with the boyars testified to the movement of the political system towards an unlimited monarchy.

About the birth of absolutism in the second half of the XVII century. the sharp increase in the importance of orders also spoke. The order system was reformed in the direction of reducing the number, consolidation and centralization of orders. From 100, their number has stabilized at the level of 37-38. Orders have become large institutions with a large staff of officials and a complex structure. A special role was played by the newly created Order of Secret Affairs, which was personally subordinate to the tsar, carried out his instructions, controlled the activities of all state institutions, was engaged in the palace economy, considered state crimes.

At the local level, the same process of centralization, bureaucratization and unification was going on in the administration, the principle of election was replaced by appointment. Back in the 16th century. in a number of border counties and cities where strong power was required, voevodas appeared, primarily as military commanders, but also as chief administrators, judges in civil and criminal cases. From the beginning of the 17th century The voivodship system penetrated deep into the country. Under Alexei Mikhailovich and his successors, the prikaz-voivodship administration spread throughout the state, became the main system, pushed local government into the background, and received the right to control the work of zemstvo and gubernia huts. The growth of centralization and the complication of management functions contributed to the formation of a new stratum of the population of the bureaucracy for Russia, the number and importance of which were constantly growing. From 1640 to 1690 the number of clerks increased by 3.3 times, amounting to 1690 people, and together with provincial officials 4650.

The development of absolutism was facilitated by the reorganization of military service. At the beginning of the XVII century. the basis of the Russian army remained the noble militia, existing at the expense of the service class itself. The state did not have enough money to create a professional army. But by the middle of the century, the need for a regular army intensified. The noble militia finally demonstrated its backwardness and inconsistency in clashes with the southern and western neighbors. To solve these foreign policy tasks, a different army was needed. A strong military organization was also needed to strengthen the positions of absolutism and maintain order in the country. Therefore, the authorities began to form regular soldier and reytar regiments according to the European model. They were recruited from free people and trained by hired foreign officers. In a number of cases, the government also resorted to forced recruitment of "private people." The appearance of regular units in the army became the most important factor in strengthening the unlimited power of the tsar.

In the second half of the XVII century. the relationship between church and state changed. The previously existing "symphony of power" was destroyed, the church was placed under the control of the monarchy. Some believe that this happened because of the exorbitant ambitions of Patriarch Nikon, others because of the increased influence of Protestant ideas in the country, and others believe that under the conditions of the establishment of absolutism, the subordination of the church to the state was inevitable. Apparently, it is more appropriate to talk about a whole set of circumstances in the relationship between secular and spiritual authorities. There is no doubt that the economic power of the church, the great wealth accumulated by hierarchs, church organizations and monasteries, led to the growth of the political claims of the church, which did not suit the growing Russian autocracy. It sought to limit the influence of the church and bring it under its control. Alexei Mikhailovich established the Monastic Order, which kept the activities of the clergy in sight, limited the scale of church land ownership, forbade churches, monasteries, and the clergy to buy land from the population and take them for the memory of the soul. A partial expropriation of a number of urban settlements that previously belonged to the patriarch, bishops and monasteries was carried out. In addition, the jurisdiction of the clergy to the civil court in criminal cases was introduced. Thus, the autonomy of the church was significantly limited. In 1652 Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod was elected to the patriarchal throne, whose policy objectively contributed to the further subordination of the church to the state. In 1653-1654, under his leadership, Nikon carried out a church reform, which met with fierce resistance from the adherents of "ancient piety", led to a split in the population into Old Believers and supporters of the official religion, weakened the Russian church, which allowed the secular authorities to further subordinate it to their influence . At the same time, the split coincided with the conflict between Nikon and the tsar. The patriarch demonstrated exorbitant lust for power. Having become co-ruler of the tsar, he actively interfered in the affairs of civil administration, tried to push into the background not only the Boyar Duma, but also Alexei Mikhailovich himself. In the words of S. Platonov, "a temporary worker and a hierarch at the same time, Nikon not only shepherded the church, but was also in charge of the entire state." Nikon's ambitions, his desire to achieve political primacy caused the growing discontent of the monarch. Alexei Mikhailovich stopped attending the services led by the patriarch, inviting him to receptions at the palace. Offended, Nikon refused the patriarchate and left Moscow, hoping that the tsar would persuade him to return. But instead, Alexei Mikhailovich initiated the convocation in 1666. Church Council, which deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank and forced him to take the veil as a monk. The council decreed: "The king has the power to rule above the patriarchs and all the hierarchs." The removal of a strong Orthodox leader from power made it easier to subjugate the church to the state. By the end of the XVII century. the autonomy of the church was completely lost. Church councils rarely made independent decisions. They turned into advisory institutions under the tsar, into bodies of tsarist legislation on church affairs, and the patriarch and bishops became, in essence, simple tsarist officials. The patriarchs of the cathedral were proposed by the monarch. Bishops were elected in the same "order" at the councils, abbots and even archpriests were appointed. Things got to the point that the tsar issued orders on the observance of fasts, on the obligatory fasting, on the service of prayers, on order in the churches. As a result, the church became directly dependent on the state, which was one of the indicators of the evolution of autocracy towards absolute monarchy.

In the second half of the XVII century. Russia has made significant progress along the path of the rule of law. This was evidenced by the adoption in 1649. "Cathedral Code", which became an important event in the development of domestic legislation. It included 25 chapters and 967 articles reflecting the wishes of the middle classes of society - servicemen and townspeople. The Council Code was also a step forward because it sought to place the court and government in the state on a solid and “immovable” foundation of law. But on the whole, it stood for the protection of the interests of the autocratic monarchy, the ruling class of feudal lords, legitimizing the final formalization of serfdom and the trend towards absolutism in the state-political life of Russia. The increased role of the monarch in society was reflected in the inclusion in the "Council Code" of a chapter on the criminal protection of the honor and health of the king, and the system of denunciations "The sovereign's word and deed" was introduced. Intention against the person of the sovereign belonged to the category of state crimes, for which they severely punished. Even the exposure of weapons in the presence of the king was punishable by cutting off the hand.

By the end of his reign, Alexei Mikhailovich began to sign on his decrees: “By the grace of God, the sovereign, tsar and Grand Duke of all Great and Little and White Russia, autocrat,” which emphasized the absolute nature of his power, bestowed by God.

The 17th century is the time of the evolution of not only the political, but also the economic system. In this century, advanced countries such as England, the Netherlands, France entered the era of the New Age, began the transition from a traditional, feudal, agrarian society to an industrial, bourgeois one, and began to modernize. Impulses from this region gradually spread to other states that embarked on the path of catching up development, or, if we take into account the regional aspect, on the path of Europeanization and modernization.

There is no consensus in the literature when bourgeois relations were born in Russia. Strumilin believed that this happened in the 17th century, Tugan-Baranovsky - at the end of the 18th century, Lyashchenko - from the middle of the 19th century. More convincing is the point of view of those researchers who believe that in the 17th century the sprouts of new bourgeois relations were born, in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. they slowly but steadily grew, and after the reforms of Alexander II, Russia confidently embarked on the road of capitalism.

In the 17th century the first steps were taken to modernize the country. Reformers appeared, supporters of borrowing the best achievements of the West. According to their projects, localism was abolished, trade charters were introduced, the position of serfs was eased, executions for "outrageous" words were abolished, the army began to rebuild, and legislation was improved. Foreign engineers were invited to the country to build factories and the first ship, foreign officers were recruited into the armed forces, and foreign teachers were recruited into schools. Western literature was translated and Western architecture was spread.

However, modernization in Russia proceeded in a peculiar, contradictory way, in the words of S. Solovyov, it was superimposed on the features of “strong” Russian absolutism, property relations, and the Russian national character, formed under the influence of Orthodoxy. The reforms were carried out in harsh forms with the growing despotism of power and serfdom. Some historians explain such a tough nature of reformism by the desire of the government to catch up with the developed countries, primarily in military-technical terms, to strengthen the country's defense capability. Others derive transformations of the 17th century. from the internal needs of development, due to the emerging bourgeois relations.

The inconsistency of modernization can be seen in the development of all spheres of the economy. The leading industry was agriculture, and in it agriculture. Until the middle of the XVII century. in agriculture there was a recovery period, and then its gradual growth began. A characteristic feature of this century was the colonization of the eastern lands by the Russian population and its advancement south to the very steppes. This led to such a form of progress in agriculture as the growth of sown areas. A new phenomenon was the strengthening of the link between agriculture and the market. The main regions of marketable grain were the Middle Volga, Upper Dnieper, commercial production of flax and hemp - the regions of Novgorod and Pskov. In the main, small-scale peasant production developed. At the same time, monasteries, the royal court, boyars and nobles were actively involved in trading in bread. In addition to agriculture, other branches of agriculture were restored, the products of which were also partially sent to the market. Cattle breeding developed in the Yaroslavl region, Pomorie, and the southern counties. Fishing - in the northern regions, in the White and Barents Seas, where they caught cod, halibut, herring, salmon, etc. On the Volga and Yaik, the production of red fish was valued. The growth of the social division of labor and the economic specialization of individual regions of the country contributed to an increase in commodity circulation.

However, commodity-money relations in the countryside have not yet become dominant. Moreover, the leading trend was the strengthening of feudal-serf relations. The main owners of the land became the feudal lords represented by the nobility, which owned over 50% of the land fund. The social status of the nobility grew, the process of rapprochement in the rights of the estate and patrimony began. After the Time of Troubles, the government widely practiced the distribution of state lands to ensure service. The lands were distributed not into estates, which would have been payment for service, but into estates, into hereditary property. Only in the Moscow district by the end of the 70s of the XVII century. 5/6 of the owner's lands were patrimonial. The estate remained with the nobleman and his family even if he stopped serving. Moreover, the estates were now allowed to be changed, given away as a dowry, etc. In other words, the conditional nature of the estate land ownership was lost, and it came close to the estate. A new step towards the rapprochement of the nobility and the boyars was the abolition by Tsar Fedor Alekseevich in 1682. localism. Thus, in the XVII century. the merger of estates with estates was prepared, completed in the first half of the 18th century. In the interests of the nobility in the XVII century. the legal enslavement of the peasants ended, the owner's peasants forever entrenched in the owners, became their property. They were subject to the jurisdiction of their masters in a wide range of cases, including property liability for the debts of their masters. Serfdom was declared hereditary for the descendants of serfs. An indefinite search for fugitives was introduced and the size of the fine for harboring them was doubled. The basis of relations between feudal lords and peasants was recognized as a corvée system with high exploitation of serfs up to 6-7 days a week on a master's plow. The economy was mostly subsistence. The peasants owned primitive tools of labor, used outdated methods of cultivating the land. The feudal lords, in order to increase productivity, did not resort to the introduction of technical innovations, but used extensive methods of management, expanding their own arable land and intensifying the exploitation of their peasants. Exploitation intensified even more with the development of commodity-money relations and the desire of the landowners to increase the production of marketable grain. In addition to privately owned peasants, there was a layer of black-skinned peasants living on state lands. They were located in the North, in the basins of the Pechora and Northern Dvina rivers, where there were almost no feudal estates. The category of black-sown peasants was in more favorable conditions. They carried out only one tax - in favor of the state. They retained local self-government and some personal civil rights. They could sell, mortgage, exchange, donate their plots, engage not only in agriculture, but also in crafts. Among the northern peasants, unions of co-owners of "storekeepers" were widespread, where each owned a certain share of the common land and could dispose of it. At the same time, the state peasant householders, who were members of peasant societies and recorded in the tax lists, could not leave the village without finding a replacement for their place, that is, they were also attached to the land, although not in the same way as serfs. Close in their position to the sovereign's peasants were the palace, directly serving the needs of the royal court. After the establishment of serfdom, the traditional peasant community continued to exist on the lands of the state, the palace and the feudal lords. The community carried out the redistribution of land allotments, distributed taxes and duties, controlled contractual relations. Peasant plots were inherited by sons, but their disposal was limited by the land rights of the community. In the south, along the Don, Terek, Yaik in the 17th century. finally took shape the estate of the Cossacks. They made up a special army for the protection of the borders, but at the same time they were engaged in agriculture and crafts. The Cossacks considered themselves free people and painfully perceived measures to restrict their rights by the government in the 17th century. Evidence of this was the active participation of the Cossacks in the Bolotnikov movement, the war led by S. Razin.

Agrarian relations developed somewhat differently in Western countries. They were dominated by the seigneurial system with its characteristic practical absence of the owner's arable land, and hence corvee. The peasant limited himself to paying tribute to the lord-landowner, usually in cash, and was often personally free, which ensured the autonomy of the peasant economy. Being drawn into market relations, the peasant not only ensured the coverage of feudal monetary rent, but also satisfied his needs. Interest in the results of their work has become a powerful incentive for the agricultural producer. This determined the progressive rise of Western European agriculture. At the same time, the agrarian system, established in the 17th century. in Russia doomed agriculture to a long stagnation. If initially the grain yield in Russia and in Western Europe was approximately the same, amounting to sam-2, sam-3, then in the 17th century in the West it increased to sam-6, sam-10, and in Russia they remained at the same level in non-chernozem regions. , and only slightly grown in the black soil.

In the 17th century new phenomena were especially noticeable in the field of industrial activity. The original form of industry was urban and rural craft (peasant crafts). In the West, due to the growth of cities, the organization of handicraft workshops, urban craft immediately prevailed. In Russia, during foreign invasions, many cities were destroyed, captured or destroyed in the settlements of a master of handicraft art. During the period of the decline of the urban craft, in contrast to it, peasant crafts began to develop intensively and took its place. In the 17th century after the Time of Troubles, as people's lives improved, the demand for industrial products increased. Therefore, the specialization of peasant crafts, which began back in the 16th century, intensified, they were reoriented to the market from work to order. At the same time, in the process of restoration and development of cities, urban craft is gradually being revived. In the 17th century as well as in rural areas, specialization of handicraft production in cities was observed, the number of handicraft specialties increased, the level of qualification of workers increased, work was carried out not to order, but to the market. And yet the level of development of cities in the XVII century. remained still low, many of them were still the centers of feudal and princely estates, and the townspeople were heavily dependent on the feudal nobility. Most of the southern and southeastern cities did not have a commercial and industrial population, but consisted of military garrisons. The most valuable artisans from all over the country concentrated in the palace economy and did not work for the market, but carried out orders from the treasury. The northeastern cities were mainly associated with crafts and trade. The policy of the government prevented the transformation of handicrafts into commodity production. The townspeople, like the peasantry, were attached to their place of residence and were obliged to bear heavy state duties - tax. The specificity of handicraft production in Russia was its seasonal nature, when part of the time was devoted to the production of products, and part to agriculture. Crafts and urban handicrafts were small-scale family production and were not able to fully satisfy the demand of the state and the population for industrial products. Therefore, in the XVII century. there is a new form of production - manufactory. It was a larger enterprise than a handicraft workshop with a staff of 100 to 500 people. The manufactories used manual craft techniques, but there was a division of labor. The latter circumstance made it possible to increase labor productivity and increase production volumes. The development of small-scale crafts and the growth of commodity specialization paved the way for the emergence of manufactories. They were created by the state, the royal court, feudal lords, merchants. An important feature of the economic development of Russia was the state character of the first manufactories. In the absence of an entrepreneurial layer in the country, the state itself was forced to establish manufactories in order to meet the needs for weapons, metal, linen, and cloth. The first privately owned manufactory is considered to be the Nitsa copper smelter in the Urals, built in 1631. In the 17th century, foreign capital was also attracted to the construction of manufactories. In 1637 Dutch merchant A. Vinius founded three ironworks near Tula. In total in the XVII century. there were approximately 30 manufactories in metallurgy, weapons, leather, linen business.

It should be noted that the 16th-17th centuries was a time of rapid development of manufactory production in the West as well. However, Western European manufactories differed from Russian ones. They were predominantly private, developed in conditions of competition, free enterprise and pricing, were not controlled, but supported by the state, relied on free labor. Therefore, Western European manufactory gave high labor productivity and became an important stage in the development of capitalist production. In Russia, the share of manufactories in the 17th century. was still small. They mainly satisfied the needs of the army. The main customer was not the market, but the state. It established tight control over private and state-owned enterprises, did not allow competition between them, determined production volumes, prices for manufactured products. Since there were no free hands in the country, the state began to assign, and later (1721) allowed to buy peasants for factories, i.e. Russian manufactories used the forced labor of serfs. Such serf manufactory was less efficient than the capitalist one. Due to the cheapness of serf labor, the guaranteed state order, and the lack of competition, manufacturers showed no interest in improving production, which hindered its constant growth.

About the origin in the XVII century. in Russia, early bourgeois relations were evidenced by the formation of the All-Russian national market. Until that time, as an echo of fragmentation, local markets closed in on themselves remained, between which there were no permanent trade relations. In the 17th century with the restoration and further development of the economy, the beginning of the specialization of crafts, urban crafts, and agriculture, an opportunity arose and a need arose to establish a more stable exchange between regions. The process of expanding economic ties began, which gradually led to the merging of local markets into one, all-Russian. New forms of selling goods have emerged. If in the 16th century internal trade was carried out in small markets - torzhki, then in the 17th century. the leading role was played by periodically organized auctions in a fixed place - fairs. They varied in profile, duration, and significance. Makarievskaya near Nizhny Novgorod, Irbitskaya in Siberia, Svenskaya near Bryansk, Solvychegodskaya, Tikhvinskaya were famous. Goods were brought to auction from all over the country: from Siberia - fur, from Orel - bread, from the Volga - fish, from the North - salt, etc. Moscow was a large trading center, where 120 specialized trading stalls functioned, including fish, meat, shoe, wine, a number of white and rouge, etc. Lively trade was carried out in Ustyug the Great, Yaroslavl, Vologda, Kostroma, Astrakhan, Arkhangelsk, Kazan, etc. . At the same time, the number of local rows and fairs in other cities grew. It is no coincidence that foreigners visiting Russia were amazed at the scale of trade, the abundance of goods, and their cheapness. The eminent economist of that era, Kielburger, noted that Russians “display to such an extent love for trading that there are many more shops in Moscow than in Amsterdam.” In the process of trade, the first Russian bourgeoisie, the merchant class, was born, and merchant capital appeared. The nature of the activity of merchants in itself assumed the manifestation of entrepreneurial initiative, allowed them to determine the price of the goods themselves, to work for the market. In the 17th century in Russia, favorable conditions developed for the development of a trade initiative, for the growth of the fortunes of merchants. The links between the districts were still weak, the difference in prices across the territories was huge. Merchants, buying goods in places with low prices, sold them in other areas for much more, receiving up to 100% profit. One of the sources for the accumulation of merchant capital was the system of farming, when the government granted wealthy merchants the right to sell salt, wine and other goods important for the treasury, to collect tavern and customs duties. It is no coincidence that the process of primitive accumulation of capital in Russia began precisely in the sphere of trade. Making capital, the merchants invested it in crafts, in the mining and manufacturing industries, and founded merchant manufactories. At the same time, at the enterprises owned by merchants, to a greater extent than at others, the labor of free citizens, quitrent peasants, and also foreign craftsmen was used.

In the 17th century there was a process of development of foreign trade. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, on the initiative of the statesman Ordin-Nashchokin, the government began to implement a policy of mercantilism, i.e. all-round enrichment of the state at the expense of foreign trade. Foreign trade was carried out mainly through Astrakhan, where there was a foreign trade turnover with Asian countries and through Arkhangelsk - with European ones. Foreign trade operations were also carried out through Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Putivl, Tobolsk, Tyumen, Moscow. Foreign merchants came to the points of trade, sold their goods and bought Russian ones on favorable terms for themselves. Thus, foreign capital sought to capture Russian markets, colliding with the interests of Russian merchants. Russia did not have access to ice-free, trade-friendly seas, did not own a fleet, and Russian merchants could not yet compete in the market with strong foreign companies. Therefore, the government, seeking to protect Russian merchants from competition with foreign merchant capital, took a number of protectionist measures. In 1646 duty-free trade with England was abolished in 1653. according to the trade charter, higher trade duties were established on foreign goods, in 1667. According to the "New Trade Charter" foreign merchants were forbidden to conduct retail trade, and only wholesale operations were allowed in certain border towns. The "Novotragovy charter" encouraged export operations, gave great benefits to Russian merchants, customs duties for which became four times lower than for foreign ones. The structure of foreign trade turnover reflected the nature of the Russian economy. Raw materials prevailed in exports, leather, grain, lard, potash, hemp, furs, meat, caviar, linen, bristle, resin, tar, wax, matting were exported. Imports were mainly industrial products and luxury goods. They imported metals, gunpowder, weapons, precious stones, spices, incense, wines, paints, fabrics, lace, etc. At the same time, there were many obstacles to the development of trade in Russia. The Russian merchants, due to the undeveloped network of cities, were still not numerous. It was under the strict control of the state, which imposed high taxes on the profits of merchants and was engaged in petty regulation of merchant activities. A monopoly was established on many goods that were profitable for trade. The state forcibly united merchants into corporations to make it easier to manage merchants and provide for state needs. Russian merchants were also hampered by the competition of large secular feudal lords and the church, which conducted large-scale trade. As a result, the Russian merchant class was less wealthy and wealthy than the Western one. It should also be noted that Russian merchants, as a rule, came from wealthy peasants and artisans. Therefore, they were despised by the tops of society. In order to improve their social status, merchants entered into marriages with people from noble families, bought a noble title. As a result, the Russian merchant class, like the Western one, did not become the force of the opposing monarchy, the vanguard of capitalist progress.

In the XVII century. an important element in the movement of the economy towards market relations was the creation of a unified monetary system. Until the end of the XV century. almost all the principalities were engaged in minting coins independently. As the Moscow centralized state strengthened, the government sought to streamline the monetary and financial system. This was due to the fact that the costs of maintaining the administrative apparatus, the growing army, and the huge royal court were constantly growing. In countries where capitalism developed, these costs were covered by taxes on entrepreneurs. In Russia, under the predominance of subsistence farming, there were no such monetary resources. The Russian government resorted to special ways to cover government spending. In 1680 The first state budget was adopted, which listed in detail the sources of income and expenditure items. The main part of income was made by direct taxes from the population. Another source of replenishment of the treasury was the state monopoly on the trade in vodka, bread, potash, hemp, and caviar. Indirect taxes, as well as customs duties, were widely practiced. However, these sources of income still did not cover the expenditure side, and the state budget remained largely in deficit. The government also failed to fully establish a stable monetary circulation.

Thus, in the Russian economy of the XVII century. conditions appeared for the development of bourgeois relations based on a commodity-money economy. However, the early bourgeois elements in Russia had their own specifics, they were strongly influenced by the feudal system, which stretched out the development of capitalism in the country for centuries.

Questions for self-control

1. Pre-revolutionary and Soviet historiography about the causes of the Time of Troubles.

2. The Years of Troubles - a time of missed opportunities for the democratic development of Russia.

3. Consequences of the Time of Troubles.

4. Reasons for the evolution of the political system of Russia from a class-representative to an absolute monarchy in the 17th century.

5. Distinctive features of Russian and European absolutism.

6. New phenomena in the economic development of Russia in the 17th century.

Chapter IV. Russian Empire in the 18th century