Define locality. Big Law Dictionary

Dictionary Ushakov

Localism

localism[sn], localities, pl. No, cf. (ist.). In Muscovite Russia 15 - 17 centuries- the procedure for filling state positions by boyars, depending on the nobility of the family and the degree of importance of the positions held by the ancestors.

Political Science: Dictionary-Reference

Localism

1) the system of distribution of official places in the Russian state from the 14th-15th centuries. upon appointment to military, administrative and court service, taking into account the origin, official position of the person's ancestors and his personal merits. Abolished in 1682. In the modern sense, localism is the promotion of narrow local interests to the fore, damaging the common cause;

2) activities aimed at ensuring wholly or primarily local, local interests to the detriment of broader (regional, national, civil).

Dictionary of forgotten and difficult words of the 18th-19th centuries

Localism

, a , cf.

In the Muscovite state, the order of filling positions by boyars, depending on the nobility of the family and the positions of their ancestors.

* Everyone knows how much blessed memory Tsar Fedor Alekseevich offended the Russian nobility by destroying localism. // Radishchev. Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow // *

PAROCHIAL.

Gasparov. Entries and extracts

Localism

♦ Bagritsky was considered the voivode of the left regiment in the campaign where Aseev was considered the voivode of the big one, and sat in the wagon train in the campaign where Isakovsky was listed as the voivode of the big one. Registration is needed, certification of traditions: the mark "b / t" is a sign of unreliability. See TRADITIONS do not tear, etc.

Thesaurus of Russian business vocabulary

Localism

Syn: departmental

encyclopedic Dictionary

Localism

the system of distribution of official places in the Russian state from the 14th-15th centuries. upon appointment to military, administrative and court service, taking into account the origin, official position of the person's ancestors and his personal merits. Abolished in 1682. In the modern sense, localism is the promotion of narrow local interests to the fore, damaging the common cause.

Ozhegov's dictionary

M E STNICHESTVO, a, cf.

1. In Russia in 1417 centuries: the order of filling positions depending on the nobility of the family and on what positions the ancestors held.

2. Compliance with their narrow interests to the detriment of the common cause. Show m.

| adj. parochial, oh, oh. Local interests, claims.

Dictionary of Efremova

Localism

1. cf. obsolete
   1. The procedure for filling higher positions depending on the nobility of the family and the importance of the positions held by the ancestors (in Russia, XIV-XV centuries).
   2. :
      1. A special order of placement at the table (at feasts, dinner parties), taking into account the nobility of the family and the position held.
      2. trans. Desire, desire to occupy a certain place, position on the basis of rights, advantages, real or imaginary.
2. cf. Compliance with only narrowly local interests, detrimental to the common cause.

Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron

Localism

This term was used in Muscovite Russia for the conditional distribution of services between individuals, depending on the degree of their generosity, and the right associated with it to refuse the proposed rank or position. Localism originates, in all likelihood, from the time when the main military and administrative appointments at the court of the Moscow prince began to be distributed among the specific princes and their boyars, who gathered in Moscow and differed from each other in terms of their degree of birth. "Through a combination of a specific origin with government appointments in the Moscow service, through an agreement on a specific genealogy with Moscow discharge and there was Moscow M., the military-aristocratic routine of Moscow society, "says Professor Klyuchevsky ("Boyarskaya Duma", 507). On the other hand, historians of the school of tribal life put M. in connection with family feasting customs. Disputes that arose between individual persons of the service class in the distribution of seats, were called parochial disputes.The generosity, which played the main role here, was determined by the fatherland, that is, the relation inherited from the ancestors in the service of a given person both to relatives and to members of other families. In the first case ( in a dispute between relatives), the fatherland was determined on the basis of the "pedigree" (generation list), and it was required that the genealogical distance between two persons strictly correspond to the hierarchical distance between the positions offered to him.If the younger relative was offered a relatively higher place than that which he could occupy according to its genealogical position, then the eldest, appointed simultaneously with him, "suffered his honor"; when a senior was appointed to a position further than the junior one should have been, this latter "carried a loss." More confused were the accounts between persons of different genera; in such cases, they resorted, in addition to the genealogy, to category books and chose such a precedent when representatives of the same clans also served together. If the genealogical distance of the arguing from the data of their ancestors was the same, then they could occupy positions that were as many steps apart from each other as they defended the positions of their ancestors, without fear of incurring damage or losses. The one who endured damage or bore the rubble beat the Grand Duke (or sovereign) with his forehead "about dishonor" and "parochial" with his future colleague. So, the places had a relative importance: he who refused a given place under other circumstances could accept it without fear of dishonor. The right to parochialism had some restrictions: for example, the disgrace of the sovereign made it impossible to parochialize, as a result of which in disputes about places it was impossible to refer to those precedents when the enemy, being in disgrace, held a position lower than that which befitted him according to his generosity. Upon removal of the disgrace, it was possible to beat with a brow about violations of tribal honor. By means of localism, the Moscow boyars defended themselves both from the arbitrariness of power and from the intrigues of individuals. M., however, greatly hindered the proper functioning of the government machine, which is why often in some cases (mainly when the governor was sent to the theater of operations) the boyars were ordered to "be out of place", or their altercations were sorted out after the end of their official duties; sometimes even governors themselves started controversy over places after return from a hike; in extreme cases, the locals were replaced, and other persons were appointed in their places. The first traces of parochial relations date back to the middle of the 15th century. Under Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, in 1681, elected from the service class, convened "for the organization and management of military affairs," spoke in favor of the destruction of parochialism, and in the following 1682, a conciliar act on the destruction of Moscow took place; books in which parochial affairs were recorded were burned, and it was ordered "from now on, everyone will be without a place"; only for the memory of posterity, noble families were included in special genealogical books. Penetration into the ranks of the old boyar families of the new unborn nobility is the main reason why localism was so easily abolished. The conciliar act on the destruction of localism is close in spirit to the Peter's table of ranks of 1722. It destroyed the difference between individual noble families and thus compared them in the administration of the official tax, just as the table of ranks, linking the receipt of noble dignity with the receipt of the rank, opened up a wider access to the nobility for other classes and thus weakened, to a certain extent, its isolation. In connection with the destruction of M., some researchers (Prof. Klyuchevsky) put forward a project on "noble eternal governors", which established eternal governorships in the state (Novgorod, Vladimir, etc.) in compliance with the strict seniority of one governor over another and established a separation between military and civilian power; this project, however, was not brought to fruition.

The formation of the national Great Russian state was reflected in the boyar consciousness of a kind the theory of aristocratic government. The main position of this theory can be expressed as follows: the Muscovite sovereign, in order to manage the Russian land united under his authority, calls on well-born employees, whose ancestors once owned parts of this land. The unification of Great Russia, having informed the Grand Duke of Moscow of the importance of an all-zemstvo, national sovereign, and the local rulers assembled under his hand, inspired the idea of ​​an all-zemstvo governmental class. Such a view of the boyars on their significance did not remain only a political claim, but clothed in a whole system of service relations, known in our history under the name localism.

Boyars in Muscovy

In the expansive meaning "boyars" can be called the top layer of the numerous military service class in the Muscovite state. To determine the composition of this layer, one can take as a basis the official genealogical book, which contained the name lists of the most important service families in the order of generations. This served as the basis of localism Sovereign genealogist, as it was called, was compiled under Ivan the Terrible, and they relied on it in the analysis of genealogical disputes of Moscow service people. The surnames placed in this genealogy were called genealogies. We call this genealogy the Moscow boyars. Two conditions or signs of belonging to this nobility can be noticed. The surname was included in the genealogical circle, if approximately until the beginning of the 16th century, when this circle took shape, in its generational ranks it had persons who served in Moscow as boyars, okolnichy and in other higher ranks. Then, in order for the surname not to fall out of this boyar circle, its members had to stay in the service of the capital, occupying the highest positions in the central, regional and military administration.

local fatherland

The word "local" should be used to refer to the order of service relations that developed between family tree surnames in the Muscovite state of the 15th and 16th centuries.

In order to understand such a complex and confusing phenomenon as the ancient Moscow localism, one must renounce some modern concepts of public service, or, better, compare the then and present conditions for appointment to government posts. Now, when appointing persons to serve in one department, they are placed in a relationship of equality or subordination of one to another according to their comparative serviceability, and this fitness is determined by abilities, the degree of school and service training, merit, i.e., the duration and success of the previous service, and in general personal qualities; at least other considerations are recognized as secondary and unspoken. In any case, the service relationship between the appointed persons is established upon their very appointment to positions, and is established on the basis of a comparative assessment of the personal qualities necessary for the service, made by the authorities. in Moscow in the 16th century. when replacing higher positions with service people, they considered not the personal qualities of those appointed, but the relative official significance of the surnames to which they belonged, and the genealogical position of each of them in his surname. The princes Odoevsky in the service of one department were generally placed above the Buturlins: such was the mutual hierarchical relationship of these two surnames. But the older Buturlins could approach the younger princes Odoevsky, even equal them, and their official relationship changed accordingly. This means that each family tree of the surname and each individual person of such a surname occupied a certain and permanent position among other families and individuals, with which their official appointments had to be consistent and which, therefore, did not depend on these appointments. The hierarchical relationship between colleagues was not established when they were appointed to positions at the discretion of the authority that appointed them, but was indicated in advance, in addition to it, by the family position of those appointed. This family meaning of a person in relation to other persons, both his own and other people's surnames, was called his fatherland. This meaning was acquired by the ancestors and became the hereditary property of all members of the family.

Local account simple

So, the parochial fatherland is the relation of the service person and the whole service family to other service persons and surnames inherited from the ancestors. A special way was developed to determine the fatherland with mathematical precision. The fatherland of each was calculated. The rules of this calculation are a whole system that can be called parochial arithmetic. According to the dual purpose of the fatherland, which indicated the relationship of a person to his relatives and strangers, the local account was twofold: simple - according to the genealogy, or ladder, and double - according to the genealogy and categories together. We are already familiar with the pedigree. The ranks were called lists of appointments to the highest positions of the court, in the central and regional administration, heads of orders, i.e. ministries, governors and governors of cities, as well as regimental marching governors, etc. These records were kept in the Rank Order corresponding to the current Military Ministry or , more precisely, to the General Staff, and were reduced to weather bit books. In 1556, as Mr. Milyukov found out, the Sovereign's category was compiled - the official category book for 80 years ago, starting from 1475. The genealogy account determined the genealogical relationship of a person to his relatives; this account was removed from relations between members of an old Russian house, that is, a family consisting of a father with married sons or of siblings living together with families. The members of such a complex family strictly observed the relationship of seniority, expressed, among other things, in their seating at the dinner table. Take a family of siblings with children. The first place belonged to the elder brother, the householder, the highway, the next two - to his two younger brothers, the fourth place - to his eldest son. If the Bolshak had a third brother, he could not sit either higher or lower than his older nephew, he was his equal (the same age). This equality was probably indicated by the usual birth order: the fourth brother was usually born around the time of the birth of the first son of the elder brother and therefore was deducted already by the second generation - children, while the three older brothers made up the first generation - fathers. This arrangement of places explains the basic rules of local arithmetic. According to this arithmetic, the eldest son from his father is the fourth place, that is, between the one and the other there should be two free places for the second and third paternal brother. Each next brother is a place lower than the previous elder, which means that siblings sit side by side in order of seniority. From these two rules a third followed: the fourth of the brothers or the third uncle is equal to the eldest nephew. This rule was expressed by the formula: "the first brother's son to the fourth (including father) uncle is a mile away," that is, a peer, peer, peer (verst - measure, equation). This means that they did not sit side by side, but had to sit apart or opposite. The general basis of these rules: the fatherland of each of the relatives was determined by its comparative distance from a common ancestor.

This distance was measured by special local units - places. Hence the very name of the locality. According to the parochial connection of genealogy with the service, the place had a double meaning: genealogical and official. In the genealogical sense, this is the step occupied by each member of the surname on the family ladder of seniority according to its distance from the ancestor, measured by the number of births preceding it in the direct ascending line. The initial concept of a place in the sense of service, obviously, developed among the boyars at the princely table, where they were seated in the order of service and genealogical seniority; but then this concept was transferred to all service relations, to government positions. Hence the expression we use to look for places. The genealogical distance between persons of the same or different surnames appointed to well-known positions in the same department had to correspond to the hierarchical distance between these positions. To this end, each sphere of service relations, each government department, seats in the sovereign's Duma, administrative positions, city governorships, as well as the positions of regimental governors, were also located in a certain order of precedence, constituted a hierarchical ladder. For example, here is the order in which the positions of regimental governors followed one after another. The Moscow army, large or small, usually went on a campaign in five regiments or detachments. These were a large regiment, the right hand, the advanced and sentry regiments, that is, the vanguard and rearguard, and the left hand. Each regiment had one or more commanders, depending on the strength of the regiment, according to the number of hundreds of companies in it. These voivodes were called large or first, other or second, third, etc. The positions of these voivodes followed in order of seniority: the first place belonged to the first voivode of a large regiment, the second to the first voivode of the right hand, the third to the first voivodes of the advanced and sentry regiments who were equals, the fourth - to the first governor of the left hand, the fifth - to the second governor of a large regiment, the sixth - to the second governor of the right hand, etc. in some places above the younger, then when appointing the senior as the first governor of a large regiment, the younger one should have been appointed the first governor of the sentry or advanced regiment, not higher and not lower. If he was appointed a place higher, a great voivode of the right hand, the elder kinsman beat him with his forehead that such an increase in the younger kinsman threatens him, the petitioner, with the "loss" of honor, the fatherland, that everyone, his own and others, who were considered his equals, will begin to "drag" him, lower, consider yourself one place above him, since he was standing next to him, one place above a person who is two places below them. If the younger one was appointed lower, as a large governor of the left hand, he slammed his brow about dishonor, saying that it was "not right" for him to serve with his kinsman, that he would "lose", and the kinsman would "find" in front of him, win one place. I give this schematic example to show how, in the ladder count, the genealogy of persons had to correspond to the hierarchy of places.

Local account is complicated

More difficult was the account that determined local relations between aliens. If members of two different families were appointed to the service, where they had to act together with the subordination of one to the other, they calculated the distance between them in the official fatherland to verify the appointment, taking as a basis usually the service of their "parents", i.e. relatives in ascending line, both direct and lateral. To do this, they took ranks and looked for an opportunity, a precedent, such an appointment from previous years, where their ancestors would also be appointed to serve together. Having met such a case, they calculated the rank distance that lay between the posts inherited by their parents. This distance was taken as the basis for taking into account the official relationship of both surnames, their comparative fatherland, family honor. Having determined this ratio of surnames by ranks, both appointed "joint partners" took their genealogies and calculated their genealogical distance from each of them from that ancestor who met in the service in the case found with the ancestor of another joint partner. If this distance was the same for both partners, then they could be appointed to the same positions, that is, with the same hierarchical distance as was between the positions of their ancestors. But if one of the co-workers was farther away from his ancestor than his rival was from his, he had to descend below the rival by the corresponding number of places. If in the case found, the ancestors of the co-workers, Prince Odoevsky and Buturlin, served as the first great governor of a large regiment, and the other great governor of the left hand, then Prince Odoevsky, by family honor, treated Buturlin as a father to his son, "was like a father to him," i.e. e. separated from him in two places, because the great governor of the left hand is the fourth place, like the eldest son from his father. Having established the general service relationship of surnames by ranks, it was still necessary to determine the private genealogical position of individuals, each in his own surname, by pedigree. If a descendant of Prince Odoevsky defended six places from his ancestor, and a descendant of Buturlin from his - five places, then Buturlin's descendant could not serve as the first voivode of the left hand when the descendant of Prince Odoevsky was appointed the first voivode of a large regiment: Buturlin had to rise one place higher. A variable coefficient of generations was introduced into the constant parochial relationship of surnames by rank, which determined the genealogical position of each individual in his surname. So, the pedigree determined the mutual service relationship of persons of the same surname, the ranks - the relationship of different surnames, the pedigree and ranks together - the relationship of persons of different surnames.

Legislative restrictions on localism

The outlined scheme of the local account, I think, is enough to understand how localism complicated official appointments. Especially in the order of places of regimental governors, it was difficult for the clerks of the Discharge Order to draw up a selection of persons that would provide for all the various genealogical and discharge relations, reconcile all possible family claims. A rare regimental painting did without disputes, petitions about the number of places, without greed for "spoil in the fatherland." The confusion was further increased by the fact that noble young nobles were locals with regimental commanders, to whom they were seconded to headquarters or for special assignments. These difficulties caused legislative restrictions on parochialism. So, by the verdict of the sovereign and the boyar duma in 1550, with the participation of even the metropolitan, some positions of regimental governors were withdrawn from the local account, declared "without places." For example, it was decided that the great voivode of the right hand, who was three places higher than the second voivode of the large regiment, had no business and account before that, and the first voivode of the forward and guard regiments were no less than the voivode of the right hand. Also, the service of noble nobles under the command of a less noble governor was not put on their account for further appointments, when they themselves became governors. Sometimes all appointments of regimental commanders or at any court celebration were announced without seats.

The idea of ​​localism

The idea of ​​localism, strictly conservative and aristocratic, opens up from the same parochial account. The later generations of bloodline people were to be placed in the service and at the table of the sovereign, as were the first generations. The relations between the surnames, once established, were not to be changed. As fathers and grandfathers once stood in the service, so should children and all future descendants stand. So, localism did not establish family heredity of official positions, as was the case in the feudal order, but the heredity of official relations between surnames. This explains the importance of government positions in localism. The position in itself meant nothing here: it was the same in relation to the fatherland, what an arithmetic number serves in relation to an algebraic expression, that is, a concrete accident. Prince Odoevsky was ready to take any position, if only Buturlin together with him stood in positions even lower, and there were cases when the same person in campaigns consistently occupied regimental voivodeship positions, all in descending order - this was not a demotion of a person in the service , but depended on his parochial attitude towards comrades, governors of other regiments. The whole point was not in the position, but in the mutual relation of persons according to their positions. Consequently, positions in localism had a meaning completely opposite to what they have now. Now the government significance of a person is determined by his position, i.e. the degree of power and responsibility associated with it; in localism, the genealogical position of a person indicated the position that he received. Now, according to a well-known saying, a place colors a person; then it was thought that a man should paint his place.

When did localism develop?

The princes Odoevsky became higher than the Buturlins and many other ancient families of the Moscow boyars due to one of the rules of the Moscow genealogical order that I indicated, because at the end of the 15th century. these princes came to Moscow directly from their lot. Moscow localism was a practical application of these rules to the service relations of Moscow service people. Therefore, it is possible to approximately determine the time when it took shape. We will meet elements of parochialism back in specific centuries at Moscow, as well as at other princely courts, we will notice the presence of the thought of official seniority, we will find indications of the table and official placement of the boyars according to this seniority, their demand that they be seated at the princely table, as they sat Fathers, on the recognition of cases as binding precedents. But with the specific vagrancy of free service people, their official routine was deprived of stability. Their position at the princely courts was determined by temporary personal agreements with the prince. As soon as the boyars sit down, settle down in places and service, a new noble newcomer will arrange with the prince "in a row and take a fortress", "will call in", sit down above many old servicemen and confuse the established order of places. In 1408, the grandson of Gediminas of Lithuania, Prince Patrikey, came to Moscow to serve. His son Yuri, who became the ancestor of the princes Golitsyn and Kurakin in Moscow, "drove", was planted higher than many Moscow boyars, because the Grand Duke of Moscow, passing off his sister for him, "begged him for a place" from his boyars. Yuri had an older brother, Prince Fyodor Khovansky. At St. George's wedding, he was "settled", sat higher, by the old Moscow boyar Fyodor Sabur, whose great-great-grandfather entered the Moscow service under Kalita. Prince Khovansky at the same time said to Sabur: "Sit down higher than my brother, the lesser prince Yuri." “Your brother has a god in a kick (happiness is in a kichka, in a wife), but you don’t have a god in a kick,” Sabur objected and sat higher than Khovansky. The opportunity to win high places with the wife’s kichka, this arrogance, ceased in Moscow, when, with the mass influx of the service prince here, which replaced the previous single races, the prince’s personal agreement with the new visiting servant had to be replaced by a “code”, a general way of assessing the service dignity of service people. Only in Moscow did the elements of localism manage to form into a whole system, and its composition must be attributed to the era when this influx was going on, that is, to the reign of Ivan III and his son Vasily III. By this time, two foundations of parochialism had become ready: a personal agreement was replaced by a code; a set of surnames was fulfilled, between which local relations operated. Since then, the boyar families gathered in Moscow have become in orderly ranks. Therefore, the lines of ancestors, on the service relations of which the descendants in the parochial disputes of the 16th and 17th centuries. cited to justify their genealogical and discharge claims, usually did not ascend before the reign of Ivan III. Most of the most noble Moscow families, which served as the main links in the local chain, were not yet included in the Moscow genealogy before Ivan III.

The political significance of localism

Now we can understand the political significance of parochialism for the Moscow boyars. It made the service relations of the boyars dependent on the service of their ancestors, i.e., made the political significance of a person or surname independent of either the personal discretion of the sovereign, or the personal merits or successes of service people. As the ancestors stood, so the descendants must stand forever, and neither the sovereign's mercy, nor state merits, nor even personal talents should change this fatal hereditary arrangement. Official rivalry became impossible: the official position of each was predetermined, not won, not deserved, but inherited. The official career of a person was not his personal affair, his private interest. The whole clan followed his official movement, because each of his official gains, each local find raised all his relatives, as any official loss lowered them. Each clan acted as a single entity in service clashes; clan ties established between relatives and official solidarity, mutual responsibility, mutual guarantee of tribal honor, under the yoke of which personal relationships were subordinated to family ones, moral motives were sacrificed to the interests of the clan. In 1598, Prince Repnin-Obolensky, according to the painting, occupied a place in the campaign below Prince Iv. Sitsky, which he should not have done due to the official position of his family, and did not bash the tsar about being offended by Sitsky, because he and Sitsky were "in-laws and great friends." Then all his relatives were offended, and Prince Nogotkov-Obolensky “in all the Obolensky princes there is a place” beat the tsar with his brow, which Prince Repnin did, being friends with Prince Ivan, so that with his thieves’ non-petition, he would cause damage and reproach to all their family of Obolensky princes from all strangers childbirth. The tsar examined the matter and decided that Prince Repnin was in the service of Prince Iv. Sitsky out of friendship, and therefore one is "guilty" to Prince Ivan, that is, he alone lowered himself before Sitsky and his relatives, and his family - all the Obolensky princes - there is no one in the fatherland in that ruin. Thus, localism had a defensive character. The nobility serving them was protected both from arbitrariness from above, on the part of the sovereign, and from accidents and intrigues from below, on the part of individual ambitious individuals who sought to rise above their fatherland - a hereditary position. That is why the boyars valued localism so much: for the places, they said in the 17th century, our fathers died. A boyar could be beaten, expelled from service, deprived of property, but he could not be forced to take a position in government or sit at the sovereign's table below his fatherland. This means that localism, limiting the scope of its action to pedigree people, singled out a class from the military service mass, from which the supreme power, willy-nilly, had to mainly select persons to occupy government posts, and thus it created a political right or, more precisely, a privilege for this class. to participate in management, i.e., in the activities of the supreme power. By this localism communicated to the boyars the nature of the ruling class or estate aristocracy. The government itself supported such a view of localism, which means that it recognized the boyars as such an aristocracy. Here is one of the many cases where the view was expressed of localism as a support or guarantee of the political position of the boyars. In 1616, Prince Volkonsky, an unborn man, but who served a lot, beat the brow of the sovereign that he was out of place in his service less than the boyar Golovin. Golovin answered the petitioner with a counter-complaint that Prince Volkonsky had dishonored and disgraced him and his relatives, and asked the sovereign "to give him defense." By decree of the sovereign, the boyars in the Duma sorted out the case and sentenced to send the prince to prison, telling him that he was a man of no pedigree, and according to the sovereign's decree, non-pedigree people with pedigrees of the court and account do not exist in the fatherland; As for the service of Volkonsky, then "for the service the sovereign favors the estate and money, and not the fatherland." So, the sovereign can make his servant rich, but he cannot make him well-born, because the well-born comes from the ancestors, and the deceased ancestors can no longer be made either more or less well-born than they were during their lifetime. So, when the Moscow boyars began to take shape from motley, rabble elements into an integral government class, its warehouse turned out to be peculiarly aristocratic.

Disadvantages of localism

A peculiar imprint was placed on the aristocratic significance of the boyars by two shortcomings that localism suffered from. Introducing the breed qualification into the public service, it limited the supreme power in its most delicate prerogative, in the right to select suitable guides and executors of its will: it was looking for capable and obedient servants, and localism substituted for it thoroughbred and often stupid silly people. To evaluate serviceability by the origin or service of ancestors meant to subordinate the public service to a custom that was rooted in the customs and concepts of private life, and in the sphere of public law became essentially anti-state. Localism was such a custom, and the state power could tolerate it until either it itself understood its real tasks, or it did not find suitable people for service in non-pedigree classes. Peter the Great looked at localism with a strictly state gaze, calling it "a very cruel and harmful custom, which was revered like a law." Thus, localism supported the every minute silent annoyance of the Moscow sovereign at his boyars. But in preparing for enmity, it did not increase, but rather weakened, the strength of the class for which it served as the main, if not the only, political support. By rallying relatives into responsible family corporations, it separated the families themselves, by petty litigation for places introduced rivalry, envy and hostility into their midst, with a sense of narrowly understood tribal honor dulled the instinct of public, even estate interest and thus destroyed the estate morally and politically. This means that localism was harmful both to the state and to the boyars themselves, who cherished it so much.

Localism - the system of the feudal hierarchy in the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. The term came from the custom to be considered "places" in the service and at the sovereign's table.
Localism developed at the court of the Grand Duke of Moscow at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, as a result of the centralization of the state and the elimination of the appanage system. The place of the boyar in the service-hierarchical ladder of ranks was determined taking into account the service of the ancestors at the court of the Grand Duke.
There were historical prerequisites for the emergence of localism. With the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow, the Rurik princes, who had lost their destinies, rushed to the capital in large numbers - to occupy as many significant places as possible here. The situation was aggravated by the fact that, together with their masters, Ryazan, Rostov and other boyars also came to the Mother See. Naturally, this state of affairs could not suit the local aristocracy, accustomed to its exclusive position around the Grand Duke of Moscow.

Muscovites tried in every possible way to push the service princes and their boyars away from important services. And although they did not fully succeed in doing this, over time, a system of tribal accounts arose, thanks to which a relative balance was established among the families that were part of the nobility. At the same time, this system protected them from the claims of those who remained outside the upper class.

Russian historian S.M. Solovyov notes that another reason for the emergence of parochialism in Russia is that the Russian aristocracy was much less tied to a specific territory than the Western European aristocracy. Here is what he writes in his book "History of Russia from ancient times" (vol. 6, chapter 7):

With the names of the nobles of Western Europe, we are accustomed to meeting particles of background, de with proper names of land plots, castles. If all the news about the origin of the Western European upper class disappeared, then from family names alone we would conclude “that we are dealing with landowners, that land ownership is the basis of estate significance. But let us turn to our boyars, to their names: what shall we meet? "Danilo Romanovich Yurievich Zakharyin, Ivan Petrovich Fedorovich". Both among the ancient princes and among the boyars there is no trace of an attitude towards land ownership, and one phenomenon explains another: if the princes did not have permanent volosts, they changed them according to family accounts, then their squad also changed volosts along with them, could not sit on in some places, to take root deeply in the ground, to acquire independent zemstvo significance through land ownership, depended, received means of subsistence and significance from the prince or from a whole family of princes, for the combatants passed from one prince to another. What was the main interest of the Russian boyar, this is expressed in his name: to the name received at birth or at baptism, he adds the name of the father of his grandfather and great-grandfather, carries his genealogy with him and firmly stands for the fact that the family should not be ruined, humiliated; hence the phenomenon of parochialism becomes clear to us - tribal interest dominates.

The obvious and major drawback of parochialism immediately becomes clear - appointments to military and government positions were determined not by the suitability or ability of a person, but by his “patronymic” (nobility) and the position of relatives (father, grandfather).

To illustrate the complexity of parochial relations, I will cite a wonderful passage from M.K. Lyubavsky Lectures on ancient Russian history until the end of the 16th century.

Thus, for example, the descendants of the great princes sat higher and were appointed to higher and more honorable positions than the descendants of the specific princes, and even more simple, even though noble Moscow boyars. The descendants of the specific princes sat down and were appointed above the boyars, but not always: those of them whose ancestors were servants of other specific princes, sat down and were appointed lower than the boyars who served the grand dukes, etc. In addition to these general rules, there were also precedents. It was taken into account how these or those princes or boyars and their ancestors were previously seated and appointed to the service, who was a mile away to whom, who was higher or lower, etc. These precedents were consulted in official or private discharge books containing records of all official celebrations and official appointments. In those cases where there were no precedents for the joint appointment to the service of certain persons or their ancestors, they tried to find precedents for their joint appointment with third parties or their ancestors and in this way establish the correct relationship between them. But since different persons of a certain family were not equal among themselves, some were considered older, others younger, then in local appointments and accounts, not only the “fatherland”, the general position of the clan, but also genealogical degrees were taken into account. Therefore, for example, the son or grandson of a famous person was not considered equal in honor to the person who was equal to the father or grandfather, but was lower than him by several places. Therefore, during official appointments, inquiries were made not only in ranks, as to who had sat under whom before or was appointed to a position, but also in genealogies, who was brought to whom and by whom. According to these two coefficients, subtle and complex calculations were made, often confused and deliberately confused and therefore aroused bickering, disputes and quarrels.

As you can see, an extremely intricate and complex system, which inevitably led to frequent disputes and strife, which the tsar and the Boyar Duma were forced to sort out. Localism made the boyars incapable of a common cause, of friendly activity in any direction. It is no coincidence that during the Time of Troubles, the Moscow boyar elite actually betrayed Russia, and salvation came from Nizhny Novgorod.

In the 1st half of the 16th century. localism was observed only among the boyars and former specific princes. From the middle of the 16th century it penetrates the environment of the nobility, and in the 17th century. even among merchants and city officials.
Often, the person appointed to the position beat the Sovereign with his brow that it was unsuitable for him to serve below such and such a boyar, because such a "loss of honor" could create a precedent for lowering the status of posterity.

It should be noted that there are two diametrically opposed views on locality. According to the first, localism was unprofitable for the kings, since it limited them in personnel appointments and allowed the nobility to control this process, according to the second, localism helped the kings to weaken and divide the aristocracy.
The truth, apparently, is somewhere in the middle.

Local disputes were especially dangerous during hostilities, when the appointment of governors was delayed due to such disputes and this interfered with the combat effectiveness of the troops.
Ivan the Terrible realized this danger, and in 1549, during a campaign against Kazan, he banned parochial litigation during the campaign. At his request, Metropolitan Macarius turned to the army with the words: “And the sovereign wants to pay you for your service, and take care of your fatherland, and you would serve ... but there would be no strife and places between you ...”
This practice was enshrined in the "Sentence on the places and governors in the regiments" of 1550.

In the summer of 7058, July, the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia sentenced with his father Macarius the Metropolitan, and with his brother with Prince Yury Vasilyevich, and with Prince Volodimer Andreevich, and with his boyars, and in the outfit of the service he ordered to write where to be on Tsarev and the Grand Duke, the service of the boyars and governors according to the regiment: in the big regiment, the life of the big governor, and the advanced regiment, and the right hands, and the left hands of the governors and the guard regiment, the first governors, the life of the menshi of the big regiment of the first governor. And who will be the other [second] in the big regiment of the voivode, and before that big regiment of the other voivode, the right hands of the big voivode are not counted, their life without a place.
And which governors will be in the right hand, and the vanguard regiment and the guard regiment of the governors of the first to be right hands are not less. And the left hands of the governors were not less than the advanced regiment and the guard regiment of the first governors. And be the left hands of the governors menshi the right hands of the first governor. And the other voivode in the left hand should be the menshi of the other voivode's right hands.
And as a prince and a nobleman, and a boyar’s child in the tsar’s and grand duke’s service for the boyars and with the governor or with the easy governors of the tsar and the grand duke for the cause of being without places. And in the service attire, the tsar and the grand duke ordered to write down that the boyars’ children and the nobleman’s great luchitsa on Tsarev and the grand duke should be with the governors not in their fatherland, and there is no damage to their fatherland.
And which great nobles will now be with smaller governors where in Tsarev and the Grand Duke the service is not in their own country, but ahead of them the radiant to whom of those great nobles themselves will be in the governors and with the same governors together with whom they were, or the radiant where be on a premise, and with those governors with whom they were, then give an account, and then be them in governors in their own country; and in advance of that, even though they were with some governors with lesser ones in the service, and that nobleman with those governors in the account in his fatherland is not guilty according to the sovereign tsar and the grand duke's sentence.

In July 1577, the royal governors moved to the city of Kes (now Cesis - a city in Latvia) and took over. Prince M. Tyufyakin twice annoyed the tsar with petitions. To him it was "written from the king with fear that he is fooling." But other governors did not want to accept the paintings either: “But the governors of the sovereign again hesitated, but did not go to Kesi. And the sovereign sent the clerk of the embassy Andrei Shchelkalov to them with a twist from Moscow, the sovereign sent the nobleman Daniil Borisovich Saltykov from Sloboda, and ordered them to go to Kesya and ply their business past the governor, and the governors with them. So the governors who began to "fool" were reassigned to the much less noble guardsman Daniil Saltykov.

Of great importance, limiting localism, was the decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645–1676) that, in the service in the regiments, the stolniks and colonels of the Moscow archery regiments should obey only the first boyars and governors, in connection with which it was prescribed to determine these archery chiefs only " to the great boyars and voevodas.
The lesson of the Time of Troubles did not go to the benefit of our nobility in terms of attitudes towards localism.
Here is what Sergey Stepanov writes in his training course "Political History of Russia":

So, on July 11, 1613, on the day of the wedding of Mikhail Romanov, the boyars were "said" to Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, and the next day, on the royal name day, Kozma Minin was granted to the Duma nobles. However, the personal merits of the leaders of the second militia meant nothing to the nobility. At the ceremony of telling the boyars “at the fairy tale”, Pozharsky was appointed to stand by the Duma nobleman Gavrila Pushkin, who beat with his forehead that he should stand at the fairy tale and be less out of place than Prince Dmitry, because his relatives were nowhere less than Pozharsky. And this episode was not the only one. V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about D. M. Pozharsky: “For nothing, that he cleared the Muscovite state from Cossack thieves and Pole enemies, from the poor stolniks he was granted to the boyars, received “great patrimonies”: they found fault with him at every opportunity case, repeating one thing, that the Pozharskys are not rank people, they did not occupy large positions, except for the mayor and the labial elders, they had never been anywhere before. Once, as a result of a parochial dispute, the savior of the fatherland was "sent off head" to the boyar B. Saltykov and, in disgrace, under escort, was escorted from the royal palace to the porch of an insignificant but well-born rival. For their seats in the Boyar Duma and at solemn ceremonies, the boyars were ready to be disgraced and imprisoned. In 1624, at the wedding of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, the royal decree announced to everyone “to be without a place,” but the boyar Prince I.V. Golitsyn refused to come to the wedding, saying: “Although they ordered the sovereign to be executed, I can’t be less than Shuisky and Trubetskoy ". For disobedience, I.V. Golitsyn's estates were confiscated, and he himself, together with his wife, was exiled to Perm. However, his relatives obviously considered such persistence to be commendable and imitated the boyar in defending family honor. In 1642, the nephew of this boyar, Prince I.A. Golitsyn, at the reception of foreign ambassadors, entered into a parochial dispute with Prince D. M. Cherkassky, but it was announced to him through the Duma clerk: “There was a sovereign with foreigners in the golden chamber, and you, Prince Ivan, at that time wanted to sit higher than the boyar Prince Dmitry Mamstryukovych Cherkassky and called him his brother and thereby dishonored him: the boyar Prince Dmitry Mamstryukovych is a great man and their honor is old, under Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich his uncle, Prince Mikhail Temryukovich, was in great honor. As a result, instead of the Boyar Duma, Prince I. A. Golitsyn was imprisoned.

Legally, localism was finally abolished at the end of the reign of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. On November 24, 1681, after the end of the war with Turkey, the tsar instructed Prince V.V. Golitsyn and his comrades "to manage military affairs" to bring the Russian army in line with modern requirements. In turn, Vasily Golitsyn, “having told the elected people the decree of his great sovereign,” immediately demanded “that they, the elected people, declare in what military dispensation it is more appropriate to be stewards, and solicitors, and nobles, and tenants.”
Due to the fact that representatives of the most seedy Moscow clans did not want to get into command ranks in which aristocrats do not serve, the elected ones asked: firstly, that the sovereign indicate that from now on to enroll in captains and lieutenants young men of all clans of the Court, now not included in the lists , “how they will be in time for service and will be ordered to the ranks”; secondly, the great sovereign would have indicated to the representatives of the Moscow nobility in all services to be “among themselves without places, where the great sovereign will indicate to whom, and no one will henceforth be considered with anyone by category and places, and set aside and eradicate discharge cases and places.”
On January 12, 1682, the tsar gathered the patriarch with the clergy and the staff of the Duma, announced to them the petition of the elected and supported him with a very eloquent speech. With a general agreement, Fedor Alekseevich ordered the boyar, Prince M.Yu. Dolgorukov with the Duma deacon V.G. Semyonov to bring all available rank parochial books and suggested that the clergy immediately destroy them, announcing that from now on everyone will serve without places, the old services should not be considered under pain of punishment. Instead of category books, genealogical books were created, which were intended not as a tool for appointment, but for the codification of all noble families.
(For more information about the abolition of localism, read a special article on our website.)

But even after 1682, clashes on the basis of tribal honor did not stop. This evil had to be fought by Peter I, who was forced to repeatedly remind about the "resignation of those former places and fatherly discharge disputes", threatening the disobedient with torture and executions "according to the real court."

Localism. This word has firmly entered our spoken language. To parochial means to oppose private interests to state ones. Localism regulated service relations between members of service families at court, in military and administrative service, and was a feature of the political organization of Russian society.

The name itself came from the custom to be considered “places” in the service and at the table, and the “place” depended on the “fatherland”, “fatherly honor”, ​​which was composed of two elements - pedigree (that is, origin) and the service career of the service person himself and his ancestors and relatives.

Localism developed at the court of the Grand Duke of Moscow at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, as a result of the centralization of the state and the elimination of the appanage system. The place of the boyar in the service-hierarchical ladder of ranks was determined taking into account the service of the ancestors at the court of the Grand Duke. In accordance with this procedure, appointments to military and government positions were determined not by the suitability or ability of a person, but by his “patronymic” (nobility) and the position of relatives (father, grandfather). It turned out that if the fathers of two service people were in the joint service so that one of them was subordinate to the other, then their children and grandchildren should have been in the same relationship. A person could not accept an “inappropriate” (insufficiently honorable) appointment, as this would cause damage to his entire family. Localism was especially beneficial to the untitled old Moscow boyars, who were proud of not just nobility, but merit in the service of the Moscow princes. However, localism prevented the advancement of capable, but ignorant people. Particularly dangerous were local disputes during military campaigns. Localism reflected the power of aristocratic families. However, the appointment to the service became a complex and confusing procedure, accompanied by the so-called. "parochial disputes", lengthy litigation, litigation, which was a significant inconvenience already in the middle of the 16th century.

Localism, on the one hand, divided the nobility into rival clans, and on the other hand, it consolidated, securing the exclusive right to occupy the highest posts for a narrow circle of noble families.

Localism was one of those institutions of the feudal state that ensured the monopoly right to representatives of the feudal nobility for a leading role in the most important state organs. The essence of parochialism was that the possibility of one or another person occupying any post in administrative bodies or in the army was predetermined by parochial accounts, that is, by mutual relations between individual feudal - princely or boyar - surnames, and within these surnames - by mutual relations between individual members of these families. At the same time, the possibility of changing these ratios was excluded, since this would mean a change in the order of places in the service, court or military hierarchy. This led to the fact that in order for a person to occupy a particular post, it was necessary that the position of this person in the parochial hierarchy corresponded to the position that the position occupied in this hierarchy, and the occupation of which the given person claimed.

By the first half of the 16th century, the relationship of noble families was strictly established, and the Moscow government, with all its official appointments, carefully observes the rules of the local order. The official genealogy book - "The Sovereign Genealogy", which contained the names of the most important service families in the order of generations, was compiled at the beginning of Grozny's reign. Surnames placed in the sovereign genealogy were called genealogies. According to the pedigree, the seniority of persons of the same surname was determined when they had to serve in one order.

In order to determine the seniority of persons of different surnames, in 1556 a book was compiled - "The Sovereign's Rank", where the lists of appointments of noble persons to the highest positions of the court, in the central and regional government, heads of orders, governors and governors of cities, regimental field commanders, etc. .P. The sovereign's category was made up of ordinary weather records of services for 80 years ago, i.e. since 1475.

The service attitude of a noble person to his relatives, determined by the sovereign's genealogy, and his attitude towards strangers, established by the sovereign's rank, was called his "parochial fatherland"; the position of his family among other noble families, approved by the entry in the category, constituted a “family honor”, ​​which clarified the official dignity of a noble person.

Localism, therefore, established not the heredity of official positions, but the heredity of official relations between individual noble families. "Fatherland" was acquired by birth, origin, belonging to a noble family. But this inherited paternal honor was supported by a service corresponding to the ancestral homeland. Voluntary or involuntary evasion of a noble person from service led to the "stagnation" of his entire family. It was difficult for a person who had grown up in stasis to advance to a high place.

The main authorities at the national level at that time were the tsar and the Boyar Duma, which consisted of secular and spiritual feudal lords, acting constantly on the basis of the principle of parochialism and relying on a professional (noble) bureaucracy. It was an aristocratic deliberative body. The king combined in one person the legislative, executive and judicial powers at the same time.

Branch bodies of central government became orders (Ambassadorial, Local, Robber, Treasury, etc.), combining administrative and judicial functions and consisting of a boyar (head of the order), ordering clerks and scribes. Under Ivan III, the organs of the administrative apparatus were born.

Special commissioners were on the ground. Later, along with branch orders, territorial ones began to appear, in charge of the affairs of individual regions.

The foundations of local government are being laid. The basis of local government was the feeding system. The country was divided into counties, counties into volosts. Instead of the evicted princes, Ivan III begins to send governors. These were close associates of Ivan III, who were given land for management for their merits. Governors and volostels (in counties and volosts) appointed by the Grand Duke and in their activities relied on the staff of officials (righteous, closers, etc.). They were in charge of administrative, financial and judicial bodies, did not receive salaries from the treasury, but "fed" at the expense of the population of the territory entrusted to them, deducting part of the fees from the local population to themselves. Two or three times a year, the population was obliged to supply the main "fodder" in the form of various products. An additional source of income for the governor was the court and a certain part of the duties from auctions and shops. Feed taken from the population was not regulated. The term of office was not limited.

The activities of the governors and the staff of officials were only an addition to the main thing - the right to receive "feeding", i.e. collect in their favor part of the taxes and court fees - "award".

Feeding was given as a reward for previous service. Initially, the feeding system contributed to the unification of the Russian state. Moscow service people were interested in expanding the possessions of Moscow, as this increased the number of feedings. But the feeding system had major drawbacks. Management turned out to be only a burdensome appendage to the receipt of "feed" for the feeders. Therefore, they performed their duties poorly, often entrusting them to tiuns. In addition, there was no order in receiving feedings. Such a system of local government did not correspond to the tasks of centralization. In the distribution of posts, a new principle arises, which is called localism.

The Moscow grand dukes (and then the tsars) waged a stubborn struggle against localism, since localism bound them and placed their actions under the control of the feudal nobility. The feudal nobility, in turn, stubbornly fought for the preservation of parochial privileges.

The first steps in the field of limiting the viceroy's administration were made by Ivan III by introducing into the practice of issuing special statutory letters to the localities that regulated the rights and duties of governors and volosts. The earliest known charter of this time is the Belozersky statutory charter of 1488. The main attention is paid to the regulation of the activities of the administrative authorities, the correlation of the functions of local authorities and the grand-ducal governors, as well as the division of jurisdiction between the local governor's court and the central grand-ducal one. The Belozersky statutory charter is considered the predecessor of the Sudebnik of 1497.

According to the Sudebnik of 1497, the terms of activity of the governors were reduced (from one to three years), the “revenue items” of feeding were reduced, which are now usually transferred to money.

The feed consisted of "entry feed" (at the entrance of the governor for feeding), periodic extortions two or three times a year (in kind or cash), trade duties (from non-resident merchants), judicial, marriage ("brood marten"). For exceeding the feed fee, the governor is threatened with punishment. The composition of the subordinate bodies of the viceroyal administration also has a private-state character; the court sends through slaves-tiuns (2 assistants) and suave ones (summoning about ten people to court), between whom it divides the camps and villages of the county, but the responsibility for their deeds falls on him.

In November 1549, a verdict on localism was issued. In the “Questions” of Ivan IV to the Stoglav Cathedral, the circumstances and motives for issuing a verdict on localism are stated as follows: “My father, Metropolitan Macarius, and archbishops, and bishops, and princes, and boyars. Esmi x Kazan was cut with all the christ-loving army and put his advice with his boyars in the most pure and cathedral before you, your father, about places in governors and in all sorts of messages in any category, do not take place, whom they send wherever they go, so that military affairs in that there was no damage; and to all the boyars that was a sentence of love. Thus, the purpose of issuing the verdict "On the places" was to create conditions that would prevent "spoils" of "military affairs" during the campaign, resulting from localism in "parcels" and in "discharge".

The verdict on parochialism of November 1549 consists of two parts. The first part of the verdict is dedicated to the governors of the main five regiments into which the army was divided: the Big, the Right Hand, the Left Hand, the Advanced and the Guard. In the second part, we are talking about the rest of the service people - non-voivods.

In terms of its content, the sentence of 1549 is formally an act that defines parochial relationships between individual voivodeship positions. Within the framework of recognizing the legitimacy of parochialism, there is another group of norms formulated by the verdict: on the procedure for regulating those cases when service relations between certain servicemen do not correspond to local accounts between them. However, the essence of the sentence of 1549 on parochialism was not a simple regulation of parochial accounts in the regiments, but in the fight against localism.

To understand the political orientation of the verdict on localism, the interpretation that was given to this verdict during the campaign of 1549-1550 gives a lot. after the arrival of Metropolitan Macarius in Vladimir, when the issue of localism was the subject of discussion of the tsar, the metropolitan and the boyars, and the just adopted verdict on localism was again confirmed. Based on this confirmation, Macarius, in his appeal to the service people, formulated the following order by which the service of all categories of service people during the campaign was to be determined: although it will not be suitable for someone with someone to be his own for the fatherland, and the boyars, and the governors, and the princes, and the children of the boyars for the zemstvo business all went without places. And who will care about the account, and how, God willing, will come from his own and from the zemstvo, and the sovereign will then give them an account.

Macarius's speech, included in the text of the official Digit Book, can be regarded as a kind of official commentary on the text of the verdict on localism. The essence of the verdict of 1549 is described in exactly the same way in the “Royal Questions” to the Stoglav Cathedral, where the verdict on localism is characterized as a law establishing the principle: “Do not localize about places in governors and in all sorts of parcels in any category, who will be sent with whom wherever they go” .

Thus, both according to the testimony of Macarius, and according to the statement of Ivan IV himself, the meaning of the verdict on localism was to establish service in the regiments “without places” and to prohibit “parochial” during the campaign.

Being one of the earliest political reforms in the 40-50s, the verdict on parochialism reflected the general nature of the government's policy and demonstrated the forms and ways of implementing this policy.

In 1556, the system of feeding and governorship was reformed. In uyezds with a greater share of private feudal landownership, power passed into the hands of labial elders, elected from the nobility of the given uyezd. And in areas with a black-haired population, zemstvo elders were elected.

The former requisitions in favor of the feeder were replaced by a special fixed tax - “farmed farming”, which went to the treasury. From these incomes, monetary “help” began to be paid to service people to enter the military service.

In historiography, there is a generally accepted opinion that the feeding system was eliminated during the reforms of Ivan IV in 1555-1556, and that this was an important step towards building a state. Such an opinion suggests that the "sentence" of the king was carried out strictly, and that the authorities ceased to fulfill their feeding function. However, this is not the case. The performance of an ancient function is easily discernible in the new forms it has assumed.

First, by giving estates to his servants, the king increased the number of feeders. Secondly, paying for the service mainly in kind, the king asserted himself as a breadwinner. The higher ranks received palace food (meat, fish, wine, hops, hay, malt), the lower ranks received other products (grain, flour, salt, oats). Service people were still paid in money, although partially and irregularly. However, the expression "cash feed", used to denote this type of payment, betrayed the feeding function of power.

Since monetary salaries were unreliable, and payments in kind were insufficient, clerks and servicemen resorted to the practice of "feeding from deeds." Honors and commemorations (in money or in kind) brought to them in order to expedite the resolution of the case were considered a legitimate item of their income. The government threatened punishment only for promises, but in practice it was difficult to distinguish them from honors and commemorations.

The first restrictions on the use of power were established by custom, statutory rules, the norms of Russian Truth and represented the determination of the size and procedure for collecting taxes from the population. Abuses were expressed mainly in excessive requisitions. In the statutory charters of the vicegerent administration, in the veche charters, a boundary was also drawn between what was permitted and what was not permitted, allowed and “secret” promises were distinguished, and violation of the limits of the department was prohibited.

The destruction of the solidarity of private interests with state interests begins in the 14th century, when the concept of princely service first appears in contracts between princely families and families. The public law element penetrates into official relations with the strengthening of the state system, which was directly related to increased attention to the proper performance of their functions by officials. A very negative role in the development of service relations was played by the existence of feeding - official abuses in that period were of the nature of a domestic phenomenon.

In the Sudebnik of the Grand Duke (1497), the concept of bribery as a prohibited act appeared. In general, the prohibition of violating certain forms of official discipline was associated with the activities of the court. The Sudebnik of 1550 knows the punishable acceptance of promises, unintentional and intentional injustice, expressed in making the wrong decision in a case under the influence of the reward received, and embezzlement.

In the Code of Laws of 1550, the legislator made a distinction between two forms of manifestation of corruption: extortion and bribery. In accordance with Art. 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Laws, bribery meant the performance of actions in the service by an official, a participant in a trial, when considering a case or complaint in court, which he performed contrary to the interests of justice for a fee. Covetousness was understood as the receipt by an official of the judiciary of duties permitted by law in excess of the norm established by law.

By 1556, the system of maintenance of the administrative apparatus at the expense of in-kind and monetary fees was abolished in Russia and replaced by zemstvo administration with the establishment of wages.

In 1561, Tsar Ivan the Terrible introduced the Charter of Judgment, which established sanctions for taking bribes by judicial officials of the local zemstvo administration.

The Council Code of 1649 already presents groupings of such crimes; general and special, committed by officials. The administration of justice was the task of almost every administrative body, which opened up wide opportunities for abuse, so the first place was occupied by injustice: intentional, caused by selfish or personal motives, and unintentional.

On August 16, 1760, Empress Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great, issued a decree prohibiting public positions from being considered as "feeding" for officials. According to the decree, the official did not “become fed”, as was the case since ancient times, but first of all he was obliged to “diligently correct the service” - otherwise he could be demoted or even retired. In today's language, Elizabeth forbade "going to power for money", that is, she opened the fight against corruption.

But even at the end of the 17th century, 150 years after the abolition, the feeding system remained quite effective. If it was, as it were, disguised as new types of practice, then the presentation that came into use at the same time, on the contrary, kept in sight and even emphasized the feeding function of the supreme royal and patriarchal power. Submission became a means of establishing and maintaining parochialism, that is, the hierarchy of the nobility. Presentation, this sign of closeness to the tsar, or rather, a magical connection with him or the patriarch, undoubtedly, should be considered as an element of the charisma of Russian rulers.