Orders issued by central authorities relate to history. What are orders in Rus'? Establishment of orders

State educational institution of higher education

Vocational education

"Russian Customs Academy"

St. Petersburg branch named after V.B. Bobkov

Russian Customs Academy

Department of Theory and History of State and Law

in the discipline “History of the Russian State and Law”

on the topic: “Order system in Rus'”

Completed by a 2nd year student

Full-time education

Faculty of Law

Fedorova Yu. S.

Saint Petersburg

Introduction

Chapter 1. History of orders and their classification

Chapter 2. Order structure

Chapter 3. Basic orders and their functions

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

At the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, some respectable boyars, who carried out constant assignments - orders for managing the state economy, began to form an auxiliary apparatus in the form of clerks and clerks. They formed offices (“yards” and “huts”) where office work was carried out. This process dragged on for several decades (until the middle of the 16th century). Essentially, each “hut” was the embryo of an order - a permanent central government institution.

The word “order” as an institution was first found in documents of 1512, but orders as a system of institutions took shape under Ivan the Terrible.

By creating a centralized order system, in which the main role was played by the serving nobility, the state limited the role of the feudal elite and nullified the system of patrimonial administration. The emergence of the command system of central government, which existed until the time of Peter the Great, can be called one of the most important facts of Russian history of the mid-16th century.

Chapter 1. History of orders and their classification

The origin of the command system of management dates back to the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. The central and local authorities were archaic and could not provide the necessary measure of centralization of the state. The emergence of orders is associated with the process of restructuring the grand ducal administration into a state system. This happened by giving the palace-patrimonial type bodies a number of important national functions.

During the period of fragmentation, the Grand Duke “ordered” (entrusted) the resolution of affairs to his boyars as necessary. To be “in command” meant to be in charge of the assigned work. Therefore, in its development, the system of orders went through a number of stages: from temporary orders of “orders” (in the literal sense of the word) as one-time orders to individuals to orders as a permanent order, which was accompanied by the corresponding registration of the position - treasurer, ambassador, local, yamsky and other clerks. Then officials began to be given assistants and allocated special premises. From the middle of the 16th century, clerical-type institutions developed into state bodies of central and local government. The final formation of the order system occurred in the second half of the 16th century. The design of the order system made it possible to centralize the management of the country.

Orders as new central government bodies arose without a legislative basis, spontaneously, as needed. Some, having arisen, disappeared when there was no longer a need, others were split into parts, which turned into independent orders. As the tasks of public administration became more complex, the number of orders grew. In the middle of the 16th century, there were already two dozen orders. During the 17th century, up to 80 orders were recorded, and up to 40 were constantly operating. There was no strict delineation of functions between orders.

The first order was the Treasury, which was in charge of the prince’s treasury and his archives. Next, the Palace Order (or the order of the large palace) was formed.

The orders can be divided according to the type of business they dealt with, according to the classes of persons and according to the territories they governed, into six groups.

The first group consisted of the palace and financial management bodies: the already mentioned Palace (or order of the Grand Palace) - the department of the former butler, who managed the people and territories that served the palace; Order of the Great Treasury, which collected direct taxes and was in charge of the mint, Konyushenny; Lovchiy, etc. Soon two more important orders were added to them: the Order of the Great Parish, which collected indirect taxes (trade duties, bridges and other money), and the Order of Accounting Affairs - a kind of control department.

The second group consisted of military command bodies: the Rank Order, which was in charge of the service population, which was soon divided into: Streletsky, Cossack, Inozemny, Pushkarsky, Reitarsky, Oruzheyny, Bronny, etc.

The third group includes judicial-administrative bodies for which the judicial function was the main one: Local order (distribution and redistribution of estates and estates, litigation in property matters); Kholopy: Robbery (since 1682 Detective) criminal police cases, prisons; Zemsky exercised police and judicial leadership over the population of Moscow.

The fourth group includes regional government bodies that were created as new territories were annexed to Moscow: in the 16th century. Moscow, Vladimirovskaya, Dmitrovskaya. Ryazan quarters (quarter orders), in the 17th century their number increased to six or more, and the Siberian quarter (Siberian order) and Little Russian order were added to them, along with others.

The fifth group can include the bodies of special branches of government: Posolsky, Yamsky (postal pursuit), Kamenny (stone construction and stone structures), Book Printing (from the time of Ivan the Terrible), Aptekarsky, Pechatny (state press), etc.

The sixth group consisted of departments of state-church administration: the Patriarchal Court, the Order of Church Affairs, and the Monastic Order.

A characteristic feature of the administrative administration was the extreme fragmentation of departments and the lack of a clear delineation of functions between them. Along with the central sectoral departments, there were regional orders that governed the territories of individual lands, abolished appanage principalities and newly conquered lands. There were also various small departments (Zemsky Dvor, Moscow Tiunstvo, etc.). Not only regional, but also central orders had specially designated territories under their jurisdiction. Within its territory, the order collected taxes, carried out justice and reprisals. For example, the ambassadorial order administered the Karelian land. The century was the heyday of the order system of management in Russia. The main shortcomings of the order management system as a whole emerged - the lack of a clear distribution of responsibilities between individual institutions, the confusion of administrative, financial and judicial issues, the clash of activities of different orders in the same territory. The bureaucratic apparatus expanded, the number of orders increased. As a result, in the last quarter of a century, such a powerful and cumbersome management system developed that it made office work difficult. To get a sense of the scale and dynamics of processes in this area, one should take into account such a significant indicator as the number of employees of Moscow orders. The total number of employees of central administrative institutions in the mid-1620s was only 623 people, and by the end of the century their number increased to 2,739 people.

The orders existed until the 18th century, until the presence of a large number of orders with intertwined functions, their insufficient specialization, the confusing situation with the staff of the orders and other factors made it inevitable for the reform of the central administration and the elimination of the order system.

Chapter 2. Order structure

An important feature of almost all innovations of the mid-16th century was the extreme practicality of government measures, the weakness of their ideological justification and the imperfection or absence of their legislative basis. The orders did not have regulations that would determine the structure of the new institutions and regulate their activities.

The work of orders is characterized by a rigid bureaucratic style: strict submission (vertical) and adherence to instructions and regulations (horizontal). Those serving in the orders and princely administration formed the backbone of the emerging nobility.

The entire order system was based on the assumption of the tsar's personal participation in administration. Order judges and clerks are only the king's clerks. Over time, as the state grows and affairs multiply and become more complicated, the tsar’s personal participation in affairs becomes more and more difficult until it becomes, in many respects, a fiction.

The Moscow tsars did not have permanent control institutions; they usually relied on private information, complaints from victims and offended people, rather than on detective and accounting orders. Audits were rarely carried out. Internal control in the orders was not provided for by specific rules and depended entirely on the foresight and official diligence of judges and clerks.

Petitions from the population were an important means of control over the orders. No one was limited in the right to submit a petition to the tsar personally, asking for some kind of mercy, with a complaint against any court verdict or against any action of the magistrates, against offenders in general.

The personnel of the orders was very diverse. The order was headed by a chief appointed from among the boyars, okolnichy, Duma nobles and clerks. Depending on the activity of the order, the bosses could be: a judge, a treasurer, a printer, a butler, etc. The clerks were entrusted with office work. Technical and clerical work was carried out by clerks.

The clerks, the first clerks, having originated within the sovereign's court and for the purposes of palace administration, little by little penetrate into all the most important branches of the court and administration. In total, in 38 orders located in the city of Moscow, in the middle of the 17th century there were up to 70 clerks. The clerks were the main givers of orders. In contrast to the nobles, who sat down to manage orders between the military and palace services, the clerks were specialists in the matter. Most of the clerks came from clerks who had earned their positions after several decades of official work.

For their merits, the tsar granted clerks to the Duma, and usually they continued to govern under the same order. In the 17th century such clerks were called Duma clerks. The leaders of the State Prikaz were the first to join the Duma. In the 1560s, the discharge, local and ambassadorial clerks became Duma clerks. They were constantly present at Duma meetings and reported on matters. Essentially, the orders became an extensive office of the Duma. Thus, the Boyar Duma was finally constituted into the highest body of state power only with the formation of the order system.

The clerks of that time were often major statesmen. For example, the clerks of the Ambassadorial Prikaz are Ivan Mikhailovich Viskovaty and the Shchelkalov brothers.

Menial work in the orders was performed by clerks, most often recruited from the children of the clergy and townspeople. Clerks were divided into old and young. The young were used for writing, and the old, as they had been in the position of clerk for a long time and therefore experienced and knowledgeable, for more important assignments.

The orders also had bailiffs and watchmen, and in some orders (the Ambassadorial and Kazan Palace) there were translators and interpreters.

The structural unit of the order was the table, which specialized in its activities on a sectoral or territorial basis. The tables, in turn, were divided into sections.

The division of orders into tables and the number of tables varied. For example, the money and judgment tables are found in most orders.

This structure was quite stable. Thus, throughout the 17th century, the Local Prikaz had 4 territorial tables: Moscow, Pskov, Ryazan, Yaroslavl (Vladimir), although the composition of the cities subordinate to them changed over time. By the end of the century, purely functional tables appeared in this order: Patrimonial Affairs, etc. The structure of the Rank Order was less stable. Over the years, there were territorial tables: Belgorod, Kazan, Moscow, Novgorod, Smolensk and functional tables: Money, Prikaznoy, Khlebny. The Siberian order was divided only into territorial tables: Lensky, Tobolsk and Tomsk. In many orders, even large ones, there was no division into tables.

The districts were mainly created on a territorial basis. They received names from the locality in which they were engaged, or were named after the surnames of the clerks who headed them. For example, in the Moscow table of the Discharge Order there were 8 subdivisions, each of which was responsible for from 4 to 26 cities.

Usually the order was located in a spacious hut, its furnishings were simple wooden tables and benches. Nationwide orders were most often placed in the Kremlin. During the reign of Boris Godunov, a long two-story building was built between the Archangel Cathedral and the Spassky Gate, and each order occupied two or three rooms in it. Clerks worked in one of them, clerks worked in the other, and the third was intended for storing money and documents. The petitioners waited for the issue to be resolved in the hallway or on the street. The working day in the orders lasted 12 hours or more. Unclear distribution of functions between orders, slowness in resolving cases due to illness, for example, of a judge, loss of documents due to continued work on them in the houses of judges and clerks, misunderstanding by many employees of the orders of the new tasks facing the central government bodies led to refusal from the order control system.

Chapter 3. Basic orders and their functions

Before the management of state affairs became more complicated, the management of the palace economy of the Moscow Principality as the estate of the Moscow princes became more complicated. Initially, the princes managed the economy personally, entrusting certain branches of it to their servants. Gradually, entire palace institutions formed around these servants: these were either separate orders or units subordinate to them, called “courts.” So the order of the Grand Palace was formed around the butler, around the treasurer - the State Order, the falconer - the Falconer Order, the hunter - the Huntsman Order, the bedkeeper - the Bed Order, the stablemaster - the Stable Order.

The oldest palace order is the order of the Grand Palace, which initially was in charge only of Moscow lands, since newly acquired lands were in charge of other orders. The order of the Great Palace was divided into several subordinate bodies - courtyards (namely: the state courtyard, the well-fed courtyard, the feeding yard, the grain yard, and the living yard). For the court of palace servants and peasants, there was a Palace Judgment Order. The order of the Grand Palace governed the monasteries until 1649, when a special order was established for them - the Monastic Order.

From the department of the Grand Duke's Treasurer, the Treasury Prikaz (Order of the Great Treasury) was formed, which was in charge of the treasury in the broad sense of the word: money, goods, “hard junk” (metals, icons in valuable frames, gold and silver utensils, household items, precious fabrics), “ soft junk" (furs), etc.

Among the Moscow palace orders, the Stable Order should also be noted, which was in charge of cattle breeding in general and horse breeding, as well as the collection of duties on the purchase and sale of livestock throughout Muscovite Rus'. In addition, the Konyushenny Prikaz was in charge of all meadows, “reapings” on Moscow land and income from them, both in kind and from the sale of hay; he was also in charge of the stable treasury (harness, etc.), all kinds of vehicles: carriages, carriages, sleighs, etc.

Various small needs of the royal household were satisfied by a number of small independent orders: Apothecary, gold and silver, Bed, etc.

During the formation of the order system, the leading role belonged to military administrative orders. At this time, a reorganization of the army took place. It was based on noble cavalry and archers, which appeared as a result of the reform carried out by Ivan IV. The need for a rifle army arose in connection with the further development and improvement of firearms. A special order was created to control the archers. The Streletsky Order was in charge of issuing salaries to the archers, allotting them lands and households, judging them, etc.

The formation of a new organization of the Russian state was resisted by large landowner boyars, who were accustomed to appear on campaigns with their regiments and took places in battles of their choice. Tsarist legislation extended the principle of compulsory military service to all ranks of feudal lords. All landowners and patrimonial owners were ordered to appear on the campaign with weapons and with their people. Unlike Western Europe, where military forces were formed from recruited or hired troops, the Russian army consisted of its own subjects. Persons obliged to serve included “serving people for the fatherland” (princes, boyars, nobles, boyar children) and “serving people according to the device” (streltsy, city Cossacks, gunners, etc.).

One of the first to emerge was the Discharge Order. He was in charge of the personnel of the boyar and noble cavalry, recorded all cases of appointment to service, transfers in positions. Appointments to positions were made in accordance with the principle of localism - according to birth, nobility. The order regularly held inspections of nobles and boyar children, determining their readiness for military service.

The manufacture, purchase and storage of weapons were carried out by the Armory (in charge of the Armory Chamber) and Pushkarsky (created with the advent of artillery during the Livonian War) orders. The latter was also in charge of the construction and maintenance of city fortifications on a significant part of the territory of the Moscow State, and was in charge of gunners and state blacksmiths.

The local order dealt with local and patrimonial affairs, distributed and took away estates, monitored the transitions of them and patrimonies from one person to another, and judged plaintiffs in land matters. The order produced land descriptions and population censuses, and considered disputes regarding land affairs of service people. At the end of the first third of the 17th century, the Local Prikaz concentrated the scribe work of all local and patrimonial lands, which it had previously shared with the Grand Parish Prikaz and quarters.

In the 17th century, there were six orders called quarters or fours. The question of the origin of the Chetey is not completely clear. We can say with confidence that at the beginning of the second half of the 16th century, due to the abolition of feeding, part of the state was divided between 4 institutions, which were called quarters. Cheti had to collect income from their cities, which was intended for the salaries of service people, the so-called. quarters instead of canceled feedings.

The order of the Great Parish in the 17th century was in charge of customs and shops in most cities of all countries, as well as Moscow. This order was responsible for the collection of direct and indirect taxes in most of the state. There are indications that in his hands was the matter of patrols and descriptions, giving away the wasteland left over from the local distribution. Its cash desk received an important tax in the 16th century - small yam money, which lost its significance in the 17th century.

In 1624, the Inozemsky Prikaz was created, which was in charge of the military, mainly officers hired for Russian service abroad. He gave them salaries, distributed them among regiments, resolved issues related to their residence in Russia, and matters of a judicial nature.

Since 1649, the responsibilities for recruiting regiments of the new system (reitar, dragoon, soldier) were assigned to the Reitar order.

A Cossack Order also arose, which was in charge of the Cossack troops. The order tried them for crimes and misdemeanors in the service, etc.

At this time, special territorial orders appeared that were in charge of the affairs of those territories that were annexed to Russia or were being developed. These included the Kazan and Siberian orders. Subsequently, the Little Russian Order, which was in charge of the affairs of Ukraine, began to function.

During the period of class-representative monarchy, a semblance of a central police body arises. At first, the Boyar Duma Commission on Robbery Affairs acted, then the Robbery Order was created. He developed orders for local authorities on issues of combating ordinary crimes and appointed relevant officials locally. In 1682 it was transformed into the Detective Order. The Zemsky Prikaz was in charge of ensuring order in Moscow.

Nobles and boyar children under Ivan IV received certain privileges - they could appeal to the court of the Tsar himself. In connection with this, a special Petition Order was formed. This order had a dual purpose. Firstly, it had jurisdiction over all the claims of private individuals against clerks. Secondly, it was like an office for petitions submitted to the king.

At the end of the 17th century. a system of court orders was created (Moscow, Vladimir, Dmitrov, Kazan, etc.), which performed the functions of the highest judicial bodies. Subsequently, these orders, as well as the Petition, merged into a single Judicial order.

The Ambassadorial Order, which was in charge of various foreign policy issues, was of great importance in the activities of the Russian state. Before its emergence, many bodies dealt with issues of foreign policy of the Russian state. The absence of a single center for embassy affairs created inconvenience. The direct participation of the Boyar Duma in all foreign policy issues was inappropriate. A limited number of persons had to take part in these cases in order to avoid disclosure of state secrets. The Tsar believed that all major foreign policy issues (especially operational ones) should be decided by him personally. The head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz and a small number of clerks were called upon to help with this.

The main responsibilities of the Ambassadorial Prikaz were to negotiate with representatives of foreign states. This function was directly performed by the head of the order himself. The order produced the most important documents that substantiated the position of the Russian state on various foreign policy issues. In addition, he resolved border conflicts, was involved in the exchange of prisoners, etc. The appearance of the Ambassadorial Order had an impact on reducing the role of the Boyar Duma in resolving foreign policy issues. The Tsar rarely consulted with her on these issues, relying mainly on the opinion of the Ambassadorial Prikaz. The ambassadorial order dealt with matters of foreign trade and judged foreigners in trade and other matters. The matter of ransoming prisoners was in his hands.

In the second half of the 16th century. a special central institution was created that was in charge of affairs regarding slaves. Until now, this was done by local governments and the State Prikaz, which simultaneously performed many other functions. Now, in connection with the development of indentured servitude, the need for a special body arises. The main responsibility of the Serf Order was to register servitude records in special books. In addition, he considered claims in cases of fugitive slaves, for which the registration of slave letters in the order was essential.

The Stone Order controlled masons in many cities and was involved in the construction of fortresses, churches, palaces, etc.

An important place in the system of orders was occupied by the Printed Office, which kept the sovereign's seals and collected stamp duties on all documents that came from all orders, with the exception of the order of the Grand Palace, which had independence and itself collected duties from its charters.

State communications with cities were supported by one of the most ancient orders - the Yamskaya. He built Yam settlements, supervised them, judged coachmen, and in the 17th century he began to collect one of the heaviest direct taxes - large Yam money. The latter gave it the significance of an important financial order.

Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the Secret Order was created, which can be considered as a symptom of the decline of the order system. The Order of Secret Affairs is the personal office of the king. He had the right to require an accounting of any order or representation to verify individual cases and documents.

Another control body under Alexei Mikhailovich was the Accounting Order. By special decrees of the tsar, clerks and clerks of other orders were obliged to provide him with receipts and expenditure books to verify the legality and correctness of financial transactions.

Conclusion

administrative department of the Moscow principality

The system of orders of the 16th - 17th centuries is a unique and original phenomenon in the history of Russian statehood. The orders, with the help of which the Moscow sovereigns governed their fiefdom for more than two centuries, constitute an essential aspect of the Moscow state. They arose under the Moscow Grand Dukes, developed with the power of the Tsars and were replaced by other institutions when the Moscow State became the Russian Empire.

The design of the order system made it possible to centralize the management of the country.

The peculiarity of many orders was that, in addition to the main function of central government, they governed certain territories and were simultaneously administrative, police, financial and judicial bodies for their population.

The orders had their own internal structure and a clear division of positions.

The unification of Russian lands took place in an atmosphere of constant struggle against external threats. Therefore, it is no coincidence that many of the first orders are, to one degree or another, related to military affairs.

Over time, the number of orders grew. Along with the practicality of the order system, its shortcomings also begin to appear, for example, the inconsistency and complexity of the system. In the 17th century, the relationship between orders was not regulated by any specific law.

It is safe to say that for its time the order system was very effective. The successes that the Moscow state made from the end of the 15th century until the destruction of the orders were very significant, and there is no reason to say that they were achieved despite the order system, and not with its help. Be that as it may, the order system lasted for more than two centuries, i.e. longer than the system of Peter the Great's collegiums, which replaced it.

Bibliography:

Belkovets L.P., Belkovets V.V. History of state and law in Russia. Novosibirsk 2000

Veselovsky S. B. Moscow State: XV - XVII centuries. From scientific heritage. M. 2008

History of the Russian state and law / Under. ed. O. I. Chistyakova. Part 1., M. 2003

History of Russian statehood / Comp. L. A. Kokhanova, T. S. Alekseeva. M. 2007

Rogozhin N. M. Ambassadorial order: The cradle of Russian diplomacy. M. 2003

Senin A. S. History of Russian statehood. M. 2003

Skrynnikov R. G. Russian History. IX - XVII centuries M. 1997

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Prikazy - bodies of centralized management of the Russian state in the 17th century, which were subordinate to the Tsar and the Boyar Duma.

Orders, as sectoral management bodies of the central government of the Russian state, took shape in 1550, with the beginning of the reforms of Ivan IV and the Elected Rada. Almost a century later, in the 17th century, the system of orders reached its perfection.

At the beginning of statehood in Rus', the functions of the central government were performed by the squad. Later, powers passed to the Boyar Duma, which, in turn, transferred executive functions to the “orders”. The great princes, and then the tsars, simply ordered some boyar or other “sovereign person” to be in charge of certain sectoral affairs in the state. Those, submitting to the will of the sovereign, created the appropriate administrative apparatus, which, without further ado, was simply called an “order.”

The first orders were introduced into the system of state power back in 1512 by Ivan III. Then there appeared: zhitny, state, stable, bed, discharge, serfs and the Great Court orders. Vasily III added to the existing ones: hunting, hunting and gunsmith orders. The Code of Law of 1550 consolidated and expanded the system of orders, giving them the official functions of the executive branch (a kind of government of the country).

Structural features of the order system of the 17th century

The orders carried out the central administration of the Russian state.

Area of ​​activity	Name of the order	General Features
National	Posolsky, order of Secret Affairs, Petition	Activities with the direct participation of the king.
Administrative and judicial police	Detective cases, Vladimir and Moscow court cases, Yamskaya, the order that the “strong” are beaten with their foreheads, etc.	They regulated the legal system and special branches of government.
Military affairs	Bronny, Reitarsky, Stolny, City Affairs, Stone Affairs, Armory Chamber, etc.	They were in charge of all issues relating to troops, weapons and supplies.
Financial affairs	Big treasury, Monetary collections, Collection of Streltsy money, Collection of request and five-point money, Collection of milking money, etc.	Filling the state treasury and distributing necessary expenses.
Palace affairs	Palace Court, Konyushenny, Lovchiy Bedside, Sokolnichiy, Panikhidny, etc.	He was in charge of the affairs of the royal court, palace lands and estates.
Territorial (regional) administration	Great Russia, Little Russia, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Smolensk, Liflyansky, etc.	In charge of the affairs of certain territories

By the end of the 17th century, the number of orders increased to 55; in addition to their own name “orders”, similar management services also had other names: chambers, huts, courtyards, thirds and quarters. In the 17th century, it was already a cumbersome, bureaucratic, clumsy system of public administration.

Composition, structure and functioning of orders

Every order was divided into two parts: one directly solved problems (judges), the other carried out office work (clerks and clerks). The appointment and dismissal of judges, clerks and clerks was the prerogative of the supreme power. The staff of orders was formed in accordance with the direction of activity. However, the jurisdiction of the orders did not have strict boundaries, sometimes to such an extent that sometimes the name of the institution did not quite fit the type of its activity.

The working hours of judges, clerks and other clerks were daily, with the exception of Sundays and holidays. In many orders, the office was divided into a “table” under the leadership of a clerk and a “room” under the leadership of a clerk in charge of a certain type of affairs, or branch of administration. The relationship between the decrees took place through the writing of “memories” and, in some cases, “decrees”. Petitions and decisions of institutions were formalized in the form of “petitions” and “orders” in a special form.

The clerical office work that emerged in the 17th century was transformed into a new clerical order by the reforms of Peter I at the beginning of the 18th century. And the tsar-reformer replaced the orders themselves with collegiums. But not all of them, for example, the Little Russian Prikaz functioned under Peter I under its own name, but Yamskaya was only renamed into an office. In 1730 (until 1775) the Siberian order was restored. The order system of government was finally abolished by Catherine II in 1775.

Orders are administrative documents issued by the head of the company within the framework of his powers and mandatory for execution by subordinates. In joint-stock companies, the official authorized to issue them is the general director, in medical institutions - the chief physician, in enterprises - the director, etc. Only correctly executed administrative documents containing all the necessary details and certified in the proper manner have legal force.

The most important changes this spring!

• 
  There have been important changes in the work of HR officers that must be taken into account in 2019. Check in the game format whether you have taken into account all the innovations. Solve all the problems and receive a useful gift from the editors of the “Personnel Business” magazine.
• 
  Read in the article: Why does a HR manager need to check accounting, whether new reports need to be submitted in January, and what code to approve for the timesheet in 2019
• 
  The editors of the magazine "Personnel Business" found out which habits of personnel officers take a lot of time, but are almost useless. And some of them may even cause bewilderment to the GIT inspector.
• 
  Inspectors from GIT and Roskomnadzor told us what documents should now under no circumstances be required of newcomers when applying for employment. Surely you have some papers from this list. We have compiled a complete list and selected a safe replacement for each prohibited document.
• 
  If you pay vacation pay a day late, the company will be fined 50,000 rubles. Reduce the notice period for layoffs by at least a day - the court will reinstate the employee at work. We have studied judicial practice and prepared safe recommendations for you.

An order is the most common type of administrative documentation. They are regularly published even in a relatively small company, whose staff is limited to a couple of dozen employees; with their help, management solves current or strategically significant problems - production, administrative, economic or personnel.

Even if the order does not have a prescribed form, indicate in it all the required details. It can be difficult to come up with the right title, appropriate preamble, and other elements of the document. The editors of the practical magazine “Personnel Affairs” have collected tips that will allow you.

Types of orders

Any order issued in an organization, from the point of view of the function performed, can be classified into one of two broad categories - by personnel and by main activity. are published to document personnel processes - hiring, transfer and dismissal, rewarding employees and applying disciplinary sanctions to them, business trips and other procedures without which labor relations cannot exist.

Orders on core activities can be issued both on the initiative of the manager (that’s why such documents are called initiative documents), and for the purpose of executing orders received from higher management bodies. They allow for the operational management of key production processes, with their help the approval of a vacation schedule or staffing table, changes in the operating mode of the enterprise, amendments to local regulations, the creation of various commissions and working groups, certification and training of employees.

Orders for personnel usually immediately begin with the administrative part (although in some cases they may also contain a statement) and are drawn up both in free form and using standardized Goskomstat forms or their analogues developed by the employer - it all depends on the type, functional purpose and other features of the document. For example, to formalize hiring or sending an employee on a business trip, there are unified forms approved by the State Statistics Committee, but orders on the establishment of bonuses, duty or involvement in overtime work are drawn up in any form.

A standard sample order for the main activity consists of two parts - introductory, or stating, and administrative. As can be seen from the names, the first part states the purpose of the management decision, and the second sets out the direct order of the manager. Therefore, the administrative part usually begins with the word “I order.”

Unified forms in personnel records management

Unified “Goskomstat” forms are widely used in personnel records management. Until recently, there was no alternative to the usual unified forms, but after Federal Law No. 402-FZ of December 6, 2011 came into force. (“On Accounting”), each employer received the legal right to develop their own forms based on existing standards. However, many companies decided not to reinvent the wheel and continued to use ready-made forms to complete basic personnel procedures, including:

• and (about hiring);
• and (about transfer to another job);
• and (on granting leave);
• and (on termination of the employment contract);
• and (about sending on a business trip).

If we are talking about one employee, fill out form T-1, T-5, T-6, T-8 or T-9, but if the document is drawn up for several employees (for example, when a group of specialists is sent on a business trip at the same time), use the form marked "a".

How to fill out and approve an order?

The entire process of working with administrative documentation comes down to a standard scheme:

• draft preparation (a preliminary, “draft” version of the document is compiled, discussed, submitted for approval and, if necessary, edited);
• approval of the final version;
• registration and replication;
• transfer of copies to interested officials or structural units;
• placing a control copy on file, and then transferring it for storage.

Preparatory work is considered one of the most critical stages in this chain of sequential procedures. Often, responsibility for drawing up a draft version of the text rests with the secretary, clerk, HR department employee (if we are talking about formalizing a decision on personnel), etc. The finished document, checked for flaws and errors, is handed over to the manager for approval, and then to registration.

Some types of administrative documents are endorsed not only by the general director, but also by other officials. Orders regarding the sending of employees to, or calls from vacation can be submitted for signature to the chief accountant, and those related to dismissal or imposition of a disciplinary sanction - to the company's lawyer. This must be done before the document is sent to the director for signature. The total approval period should not exceed five working days, unless a different period is specified by the contractor.

The structure of the text can be simple (when it concerns one issue or person) or complex, containing several different administrative points.

Orders must be drawn up in accordance with the norms of the labor legislation of the Russian Federation:

• when dismissing an employee, the reason for the employer’s decision must be indicated with reference to a specific article, paragraph or subparagraph of the Labor Code;
• encouragement or imposition of disciplinary action must be succinctly but clearly justified, indicating the reason and the specific type of impact applied (issuing a bonus, reprimanding, awarding a valuable gift, etc.);
• when providing leave, you must indicate its type, duration, as well as the exact start and end dates;
• its reason and type (temporary or permanent), the full name of the employee’s new position and the structural unit to which he is transferred, information about changes in wages are reflected;
• when filling out the application, you need to indicate the basic conditions of employment (term, availability and duration of the test, amount of remuneration);
• When sending on a business trip, its purpose, duration, destination, start and end dates are written down.

The execution of the document should not contradict the requirements of GOST R6.30-2003 (“Unified documentation systems. Unified system of organizational and administrative documentation. Requirements for document execution”). Make sure that every order issued in the organization contains the required details:

• name of the organization or institution;
• name of the document type;
• date and place of publication;
• title to the text;
• registration number;
• manager's signature;
• visa approval.

If the administrative part contains a specific task, you must indicate the name and position of the person responsible for its implementation, as well as the deadlines allotted by management. The procedure for completing a standing assignment is determined not by specific deadlines, but by the specified frequency of implementation of activities: for example, you can oblige an employee to provide a weekly summary or a monthly report on the completion of work. The number of performers can be any. Details of the order (diagrams, graphs, instructions, tables) are usually drawn up in the form of an appendix. Orders come into force from the date of publication (except for documents that contain other instructions).

Registration procedure

Each administrative document is necessarily assigned a registration index in accordance with the nomenclature approved by the employer, within the calendar year. In most cases, such an index is a serial number with a short letter designation (for example, “112-L”, where the first part is the serial number, and the second indicates that the document belongs to the group of orders for personnel). During registration, the details of each document are transferred to a special form - a card, a book, a magazine, an electronic database.

Question from practice

How to issue an order to impose a disciplinary sanction

The answer was prepared jointly with the editors

Ivan Shklovets answers:
Deputy Head of the Federal Service for Labor and Employment

When all evidence of the employee’s guilt has been collected: , , issue an order to impose a disciplinary sanction.

If the penalty is a reprimand or reprimand, then issue the order in .

And if, as a penalty, the organization decides to dismiss an employee, then issue an order to terminate the employment contract according to the unified , approved or by . In this case, it is not necessary to issue an additional order to apply a disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal. At the same time, the issuance of two orders is not considered a violation of labor legislation. Similar explanations are given by Rostrud specialists in .

Ask your question to the experts

Information is entered into the journal in chronological order, so that from the last entry you can immediately determine the total number of documents of a certain type registered by the employer. An additional advantage of this form of registration is the inability to remove information about a registered order or enter it “retroactively.” From this point of view, even the most modern electronic systems for automated registration and storage of data are considered less secure, since they allow information about a document to be deleted without a trace.

If the volume of personnel document flow is constantly growing, there is a need for more detailed systematization of registration data. For such cases, it is recommended to keep several additional journals - for example, separate journals for recording orders for leave, termination of employment, etc. On the cover of each journal, you must indicate the date from which it was kept and the name of the organization. The magazine is kept until it is completely filled, and when there are no more free columns left in it, the end date is put on the cover and a new copy is started. If the company’s details (for example, its legal form) have changed during the registration period, it is not at all necessary to start a new journal: it is enough to update the data on the cover.

Order log. Title page

Order log.

Systematization and storage of orders for personnel

Storage of personnel documentation is carried out in accordance with the “List of standard management archival documents generated in the process of activities of state bodies, local governments and organizations, indicating storage periods” (approved by a decision of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation in 2010).

According to the requirements of the legislator, orders formalizing labor relations and reflecting important facts of the employee’s labor biography must be stored for 75 years. But there is another group of administrative documents intended for the operational regulation of an employee’s performance of a labor function and subject to storage for a much shorter period of time (5 years). Therefore, before sending documents to the archive, they must be divided into two groups - by .

The long-term storage group includes orders:

• about hiring;
• about transfer to another job;
• on encouragement, gifts and bonuses;
• on termination of an employment contract;
• on provision of parental leave;
• on the establishment of additional payments and allowances to the official salary (for length of service, part-time work, special working conditions or nature of work), as well as any other change in the amount of salary as one of the essential conditions of the employment contract;
• on granting leave without pay;
• about sending on a foreign business trip or a long (more than one month) business trip within the country.

In the future, the originals may be needed to satisfy the social and legal requests of citizens about work experience, awards received, wages and other important aspects of work activity. Therefore, it is necessary to strictly observe the terms and conditions of their storage. The second group includes orders:

Documents of this type are compiled into files with a five-year retention period, after which they are destroyed and a corresponding act is drawn up. Remember that for organizations related to certain areas of activity, departmental lists of documents indicating storage periods have been approved. Applications are stored together with orders, in contrast to supporting documents (official and memos, statements, copies of personal documents of company employees), which are archived separately.

Mistakes often made when placing orders

Despite the existence of fairly clear standards for the preparation of administrative documents, clerks often make annoying mistakes - procedural or legal. Procedural errors are caused by deliberate or accidental deviations from the generally accepted scheme of work and usually come down to non-compliance with the requirements put forward by the legislator and the local standards of the organization itself for the content and form of the order.

Most often, there are inaccuracies in the information provided (passport data, names of structural divisions and positions, company details), mandatory items provided by the developer of the form are not filled in (“Date of compilation”, “Personnel number”, “Place of compilation”, “Document number” and etc.) It is also considered a mistake to refuse to use the form established by the employer or to use illogical, vague wording. The text must be extremely clear and concise. The use of phrases that are characteristic of the narrative style or that can be interpreted in two ways is unacceptable.

Endorsement by an official who is not vested with the appropriate authority, or a reference to an improperly executed supporting document are less common, but still mistakes made in personnel practice. For example, in general cases, an order for the employment of an employee is issued with reference to the employment contract. If an agreement is declared invalid for some reason, the administrative document issued on its basis is considered invalid, and the management decision contained in it is considered unenforceable. Any other orders, when drawing up which the employer refers to agreements, acts and other documents drawn up in violation of current legal norms, similarly lose legal force.

Orders to terminate an employment contract are characterized by a discrepancy between the grounds for dismissal indicated in them and the wording contained in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, and the absence of references to specific articles, paragraphs and subparagraphs. When providing an employee with leave, employers often forget to indicate its type (reason) or duration.

Practical situation

How to issue personnel orders in difficult situations

The answer was prepared jointly with the editors of the magazine " »

Veronica SHATROVA answers,
labor law expert, director and editor-in-chief of System Personnel

The employee suffered a stroke and is paralyzed. Relatives brought documents confirming their disability. We terminate the employment relationship due to total incapacity for work. Who has the right to sign instead of an employee if he cannot do so?

Alexander Vinogradov, head of HR department (Murmansk)

Leave the fields for the employee’s signature in the order and personal card blank. Indicate “impossible to familiarize with signature due to medical reasons” and enter the details of the disability document. Certify the explanatory note with your signature along with the transcript and put the date ( )…

The full answer is available after free

Cancellation and correction of orders

What to do if the production situation has changed, and suddenly there is a need to cancel or change a personnel decision that has already come into force? In this case, a new order will have to be issued, canceling the previous order or changing its individual points. It must indicate:

• number, date and name of the document to be canceled or amended;
• grounds for canceling (changing) the decision with a brief statement of the circumstances that served as the reason for its revision;
• the procedure for actions to be taken by performers in connection with new circumstances;
• Full name and position of the person authorized to control the execution of the order.

The title may look like this: “On declaring the order on personnel (main activities) invalid.” As soon as the new directive comes into force, the validity of the previous document (or its individual paragraphs, if we are talking about partial changes) will cease.

Test yourself

1. What type of orders is not provided for by current regulations:

• a. by personnel;
• b. on economic and administrative activities;
• c. by main activity.

2. Which of the documents is drawn up in free form in the absence of an approved unified form:

• a. order to engage in overtime work;
• b. The order of acceptance to work;
• c. order to send an employee on a business trip.

3. What is necessarily assigned to each administrative document:

• a. registration index in accordance with the nomenclature approved by the employer, within the calendar year;
• b. serial number in the united journal of orders in the organization;
• c. registration index in accordance with the legally approved index register.

4. What orders must be kept for 75 years:

• a. on granting study leave;
• b. on the application of disciplinary sanctions;
• c. on provision of parental leave.

5. Which order must be brought to the attention of employees, indicating the date of familiarization:

• a. on sending on annual basic paid leave;
• b. on provision of parental leave;
• c. on the application of disciplinary sanctions.

(info from Orlov’s textbook)

In January 1547, Ivan IV, having reached adulthood, was officially crowned king. The ceremony of accepting the royal title took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. From the hands of the Moscow Metropolitan Macarius, who developed the royal crowning ritual, Ivan IV accepted the Monomakh cap and other signs of royal power.

From now on, the Grand Duke of Moscow began to be called king During the period when a centralized state was taking shape, as well as during interregnums and internal strife, the Boyar Duma played the role of a legislative and advisory body under the Grand Duke, and later under the Tsar.

During the reign of Ivan IV, the composition of the Boyar Duma was expanded almost three times in order to weaken the role of the old boyar aristocracy in it. The rise in the authority of the tsarist government, the strengthening of the clergy and the formation of powerful local land ownership led to the emergence of a new state body - Zemsky Cathedral. Zemsky Sobors met irregularly and dealt with the most important state affairs, primarily issues of foreign policy and finance.

During the interregnum, new kings were elected at Zemsky Sobors. According to experts, more than 50 Zemsky Sobors took place. The last Zemsky Sobors met in Russia in the 80s of the 17th century. They included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral - representatives of the highest clergy.

Representatives of the nobility and the top of the settlement were also present at the meetings of the Zemsky Sobors. The first Zemsky Sobor was convened in 1549. It decided to draw up a new Code of Law (approved in 1550) and drew up a program of reforms in the mid-16th century. Even before the reforms in the mid-16th century. certain branches of government, as well as the management of certain territories, began to be entrusted (“ordered,” as they said then) to the boyars. This is how the first orders appeared - institutions, in charge of branches of public administration or individual regions of the country.

In the middle of the 16th century. There were already two dozen orders. Military affairs were supervised by the Razryadny Prikaz (in charge of the local army), Pushkarsky (in charge of artillery), Streletsky (in charge of the archers), and the Armory Chamber (Arsenal).

Foreign affairs were managed by the Ambassadorial Prikaz, finances by the Grand Parish Prikaz, state lands distributed to nobles by the Local Prikaz, and serfs by the Serf Prikaz. There were orders that were in charge of certain territories, for example, the order of the Siberian Palace ruled Siberia, the order of the Kazan Palace - the annexed Kazan Khanate. The order was headed by a boyar or clerk - a major government official.

The orders were in charge of administration, tax collection and the courts. As the tasks of public administration became more complex, the number of orders grew. By the time of Peter the Great's reforms at the beginning of the 18th century. there were about 50 of them. The design of the order system made it possible to centralize the management of the country. A unified local management system began to take shape. Previously, the collection of taxes there was entrusted to the feeding boyars; they were the actual rulers of individual lands.

Orders as authorities in Rus'

All funds collected in excess of the required taxes to the treasury were at their personal disposal, i.e. they "fed" by managing the lands. In 1556, feedings were abolished. Local administration (investigation and court in particularly important state affairs) was transferred to the hands of provincial elders (guba - district), elected from local nobles, zemstvo elders - from among the wealthy strata of the Chernososh population where there was no noble land ownership, and city clerks or favorite heads - in cities.

Thus, in the middle of the 16th century. the apparatus of state power emerged in the form estate-representative monarchy.Law code 1550 The general trend towards centralization of the country and the state apparatus necessitated the publication of a new set of laws - the Code of Laws. Taking the Code of Law of Ivan III as a basis, the compilers of the new Code of Law made changes to it related to the strengthening of central power.

It confirmed the right of peasants to move on St. George’s Day and increased the payment for the “elderly”. The feudal lord was now responsible for the crimes of the peasants, which increased their personal dependence on the master. For the first time, penalties were introduced for bribery of government officials. Even under Elena Glinskaya, a monetary reform was launched, according to which the Moscow ruble became the main monetary unit of the country. The right to collect trade duties passed into the hands of the state. The population of the country was obliged to bear tax - a complex of natural and monetary duties.

In the middle of the 16th century. a single tax collection unit was established for the entire state - big plow. Depending on the fertility of the soil, as well as the social status of the owner of the land, the plow amounted to 400-600 hectares of land. Military reform 1549-1552 Much was done to strengthen the country's armed forces. The core of the army was the noble militia.

Near Moscow she was put on the ground "the chosen thousand"- 1070 provincial nobles, who, according to the king’s plan, were to become his support. Was first compiled "Code of Service". A votchinnik or landowner could begin service at the age of 15 and pass it on by inheritance.

From 150 dessiatines of land, both the boyar and the nobleman had to present one warrior and appear at the reviews “on horseback, in crowds and armed.” A big step forward in the organization of Russian military forces was the creation in 1550 of a permanent Streltsy army. At first there were three thousand archers. In addition, foreigners began to be recruited into the army, the number of whom was insignificant.

Artillery was reinforced. The Cossacks were recruited to perform border service. The boyars and nobles who made up the militia were called “serving people for the fatherland,” i.e.

by origin. The other group consisted of “service people according to the instrument” (i.e., according to recruitment). In addition to the archers, there were gunners (artillerymen), city guards, and the Cossacks were close to them. Rear work (cart trains, construction of fortifications) was carried out by the "staff" - a militia from among the black soshns, monastery peasants and townspeople. During military campaigns, localism was limited.

In the middle of the 16th century. An official reference book was compiled - "The Sovereign's Genealogist", which streamlined local disputes. Stoglavy Cathedral. In 1551, on the initiative of the parish and the metropolitan, a Council of the Russian Church was convened, which received the name Stoglavy, since its decisions were formulated in one hundred chapters. The decisions of church hierarchs reflected the changes associated with the centralization of the state. The Council approved the adoption of the Law Code of 1550.

and reforms of Ivan IV. An all-Russian list was compiled from the number of local saints revered in individual Russian lands. Rituals were streamlined and unified throughout the country. Even art was subject to regulation: it was prescribed to create new works following approved models.

It was decided to leave in the hands of the church all the lands acquired by it before the Council of the Hundred Heads. In the future, clergy could buy land and receive it as a gift only with royal permission. Thus, on the issue of monastic land ownership, the line to limit it and control it on the part of the tsar won. Reforms of the 50s of the 16th century. contributed to the strengthening of the Russian centralized multinational state.

They strengthened the power of the tsar, led to the reorganization of local and central government, strengthened the military power of the country, but were accompanied by new pressure on the Russian peasantry and led to its further enslavement. At the same time, the reforms of the mid-16th century. created the prerequisites for solving the foreign policy problems facing Russia.

ELECTED RADA: Around 1549, a council of people close to him, called the Chosen Rada, formed around the young Ivan IV.

This is what Kurbsky called it in the Polish manner in one of his works. The composition of the Chosen Rada is completely clear. It was headed by A.F. Adashev, who came from a rich, but not very noble family. Representatives of various strata of the ruling class participated in the work of the Chosen Rada. Princes D. Kurlyatev, A Kurbsky, M. Vorotynsky, Moscow Metropolitan Macarius and priest of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Kremlin (the home church of the Moscow kings), confessor of the Tsar Sylvester, clerk of the Ambassadorial Prikaz I.

Viscous. The composition of the Chosen Rada seemed to reflect a compromise between various layers of the ruling class. The elected council existed until 1560; it carried out reforms called reforms of the mid-16th century. The elected Rada was not an official government institution, but governed for 13 years on behalf of the Tsar, seeking to carry out thorough structural reforms aimed at creating an estate-representative monarchy.

Socio-economic and political crisis of Moscow society in the second half of the 18th century. (Oprichnina and its consequences)

Oprichnina (foreign policy) is a period in the history of Russia (from 1565 to 1572), marked by state terror and a system of emergency measures. Also called “oprichnina” was a part of the state, with special administration, allocated for the maintenance of the royal court and oprichniki (“Gosudareva oprichnina”). Oprichniks were the people who made up the secret police of Ivan the Terrible and directly carried out repression.

The word "oprichnina" comes from the Old Russian "oprich", which means "special", "except"

(from Orlov’s textbook, page 83)

Oprichnina. Ivan IV, fighting against the rebellions and betrayals of the boyar nobility, saw them as the main reason for the failures of his policies. He firmly stood on the position of the need for strong autocratic power, the main obstacle to the establishment of which, in his opinion, was the boyar-princely opposition and boyar privileges.

The question was what methods would be used to fight. The urgency of the moment and the general underdevelopment of the forms of the state apparatus, as well as the character traits of the tsar, who was, apparently, an extremely unbalanced person, led to the establishment of the oprichnina. Ivan IV dealt with the remnants of fragmentation using purely medieval means. In January 1565, from the royal residence of the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow, through the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the tsar left for Alexandrovskaya Sloboda (now the city of Alexandrov, Vladimir region).

From there he addressed the stolipa with two messages. In the first, sent to the clergy and the Boyar Duma, Ivan IV reported on the renunciation of power due to the betrayal of the boyars and asked to be allocated a special inheritance - oprichnina (from the word "oprich" - except.

This is what they used to call the inheritance allocated to a widow when dividing her husband’s property). In the second message, addressed to the townspeople of Stolip, the tsar reported on the decision made and added that he had no complaints about the townspeople.

It was a well-calculated political maneuver. Using the people's faith in the tsar, Ivan the Terrible expected that he would be called to return to the throne. When this happened, the tsar dictated his conditions: the right to unlimited autocratic power and the establishment of the oprichnina.

The country was divided into two parts: the oprichnina and the zemshchina. Ivan IV included the most important lands in oprichnina 92. It included Pomeranian cities, cities with large settlements and strategically important ones, as well as the most economically developed areas of the country. The nobles who were part of the oprichnina army settled on these lands. Its composition was initially determined to be one thousand people. The population of the zemshchina had to support this army.

The oprichnina, in parallel with the zemshchina, developed its own system of governing bodies. The guardsmen wore black clothes. Dog heads and brooms were attached to their saddles, symbolizing the canine devotion of the guardsmen to the tsar and their readiness to sweep treason out of the country. In an effort to destroy the separatism of the feudal nobility, Ivan IV did not stop at any cruelty.

Oprichnina terror, executions, exiles began. In Tver, Malyuta Skuratov strangled Moscow Metropolitan Philip (Fedor Kolychev), who condemned the oprichnina lawlessness. In Moscow, Prince Vladimir Staripky, the Tsar's cousin who claimed the throne, his wife and daughter, who was summoned there, were poisoned. His mother, Princess Evdokia Staripkaya, was also killed in the Goritsky Monastery on White Lake.

The center and north-west of the Russian lands, where the boyars were especially strong, were subjected to the most severe defeat. In December 1569, Ivan undertook a campaign against Novgorod, whose inhabitants allegedly wanted to come under the rule of Lithuania. On the way, Klin, Tver, and Torzhok were destroyed. Particularly cruel executions (about 200 people) took place in Moscow on June 25, 1570. In Novgorod itself, the pogrom lasted six weeks. Thousands of its inhabitants died a cruel death, houses and churches were plundered.

However, an attempt to resolve contradictions in the country with brute force (executions and repression) could only give a temporary effect. It did not completely destroy boyar-princely land ownership, although it greatly weakened its power; the political role of the boyar aristocracy was undermined.

The wild tyranny and death of many innocent people who became victims of oprichnina terror still evoke horror and shudder. The oprichnina led to an even greater aggravation of contradictions within the country, worsened the situation of the peasantry and largely contributed to its enslavement. In 1571, the oprichnina army was unable to repel a raid on Moscow by the Crimean Tatars, who burned the Moscow settlement - this revealed the inability of the oprichnina army to successfully fight with external enemies.

True, the following year, 1572, not far from Podolsk (the village of Molodi), 50 km from Moscow, the Crimeans suffered a crushing defeat from the 93rd Russian army, led by the experienced commander M.I. Vorotynsky. However, the tsar abolished the oprichnina, which in 1572

was transformed into the "Sovereign's Dvor". A number of historians believe that an alternative to the oprichnina could be structural transformations similar to the reforms of the Chosen Rada. This would allow, according to experts who share this point of view, instead of the unlimited autocracy of Ivan IV, to have an estate-representative monarchy with a “human face.” The reign of Ivan the Terrible largely predetermined the course of the further history of our country - the “rust” of the 70-80s of the 16th century, the establishment of serfdom on a state scale and that complex knot of contradictions at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries, which contemporaries called “troubles”.

Results of the oprichnina:

Destruction of members of the boyar duma:

34 boyars - execution =>15 - become a monk =>3

9 okolnichy - execution => 4

2) The class of owners has been destroyed

3) P.S. undermined

Empty peasant yards: => in Mosk. county - 75%; => in the Novgorod region - 92%; => in Russia -40%

4) Craft and trade centers were destroyed (posadas in Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov)

5) Strengthening serfdom. 1565 — 1,500 estates and estates were distributed

6) Central regions (arable land) from 15 des. up to 4 dec.

7) Establishment of citizenship relations. Breakdown of the mechanism of moral and legal regulation of social relations

8) The recruitment and organization of the troops is disrupted.

5-6 thousand guardsmen<= выселить 7,5 — 9 тыс дворян =>= 1/3 troops

9) According to the synod of Ivan IV, there are approximately 22 thousand victims

10) Coarsening of morals and increasing cruelty of legislation

Consequences of the Oprichnina:

Political: Strengthening the regime of personal power, establishing relations of citizenship, eliminating the remnants of the appanage system, disrupting the system of recruiting troops

Socio-economic: decrease in the level of economic development, continuation of the process of state enslavement of peasants, decrease in the number of the working population

The severe economic crisis was called “the ruin of the 70-80s of the 16th century.”

The most economically developed center (Moscow) and north-west (Novgorod and Pskov) of the country have become desolate. Part of the population fled, the other died during the years of the oprichnina and the Livonian War. More than 50% of the arable land remained uncultivated.

The tax burden increased sharply, prices increased 4 times. In 1570-1571 A plague epidemic swept across the country. The peasant economy lost stability, famine began in the country. The central government took the path of attaching the main producer - the peasant - to the land of the feudal landowners.

At the end of the 16th century. In Russia, a system of serfdom was actually established on a state scale. The oprichnina had dire consequences for the country, weakening it politically and economically, however, the power of the boyars was also undermined. The peasants fled to the outskirts. To stop them, “reserved summers” were introduced in 1581.

lektsii.net - Lectures.Net - 2014-2018.

(0.01 sec.) All materials presented on the site are solely for the purpose of information for readers and do not pursue commercial purposes or copyright infringement

Orders- central government bodies in the 16th - early 18th centuries. The name comes from the term “order” - meaning “special order”. The creation of orders and the formation of the order system, which began at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, marked the further centralization of a single Russian state, which needed permanent governing bodies in various spheres of life.

As a rule, orders combined administrative, financial and judicial functions, with the latter often prevailing. During the 16th century. orders were created: the Big Palace (in charge of palace management, etc.), Zemsky (in charge of the administration of Moscow), Kazenny (in charge of the royal clothing treasury; connected with the order of the Big Palace), Razryadny, Streletsky and Local (in charge of organizing the army and its supply), Rozboyny (in charge of control over the conduct of criminal cases), Posolsky (in charge of international affairs), etc.

orders. Often similar functions were split between different orders. So, in the 17th century. orders were created: Cossack, Inozemsky, Reitarsky, City Affairs, which dealt with military affairs. Along with national orders, there were orders with regional competence (order of the Kazan Palace, Siberian order, Novgorod quarter, Little Russian order, etc.)

With the complication and expansion of the functions of the autocratic state, more and more new orders were established.

In the middle of the 17th century. Special orders were created - Secret Affairs and Accounting, which were entrusted with the task of monitoring the activities of all orders. The persons at the head of the orders in the 17th century. were called judges.

The largest orders were headed by judges who had the rank of boyar or okolnichy.

Order system in Rus'

A major role in the activities of the orders was played by clerks who carried out direct office work. At the beginning of the 18th century. orders were replaced by collegiums. In addition to the central institutions, some local bodies of palace administration were also called orders - the Novgorod and Pskov palace orders, which were subordinate to the order of the Great Treasury.

In the XVI - XVII centuries. Streltsy regiments were also called orders.

Order (command), the procedure for its issuance and execution

39. Order - an order from the commander (chief), addressed to subordinates and requiring the mandatory performance of certain actions, compliance with certain rules, or establishing any order or regulation.

An order can be given in writing, orally or via technical means of communication to one or a group of military personnel. An order given in writing is the main administrative official document (normative act) of military command, issued on the basis of unity of command by the commander of a military unit.

All commanders (chiefs) have the right to give verbal orders to their subordinates.

Discussion (criticism) of an order is unacceptable, and failure to comply with an order from a commander (superior) given in the prescribed manner is a crime against military service.

An order is a form of communication by the commander (chief) of tasks to subordinates on private issues. The order is given in writing or orally. An order given in writing is an administrative official document issued by the chief of staff (deputy commander of a military unit) on behalf of the commander of the military unit, by the assistant chief of the garrison for the organization of garrison service (military commandant of the garrison) on behalf of the chief of the garrison.

Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 25, 2015 N 161, dated May 16, 2017 N 210)

(see text in previous)

41. The order (order) must comply with federal laws, general military regulations and orders of higher commanders (chiefs). When giving an order (order), the commander (chief) must not allow the abuse of official powers or their excess.

Commanders (superiors) are prohibited from giving orders (orders) that are not related to the performance of military service duties or aimed at violating the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Establishment of orders in Rus'

Commanders (chiefs) who gave such orders (orders) are held accountable in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.

The order is formulated clearly, concisely and clearly without the use of language that is subject to different interpretations.

42. Before issuing an order, the commander (chief) is obliged to comprehensively assess the situation and provide measures to ensure its implementation.

Orders are given in order of command.

If absolutely necessary, a senior superior can give an order to a subordinate, bypassing his immediate superior. In this case, he reports this to the immediate superior of the subordinate, or the subordinate himself reports receipt of the order to his immediate superior.

The order of the commander (chief) must be carried out unquestioningly, accurately and on time. A soldier, having received an order, answers: “Yes,” and then carries it out.

If it is necessary to ensure the correct understanding of the order given by him, the commander (superior) may demand that it be repeated, and the serviceman who received the order may contact the commander (superior) with a request to repeat it.

Having carried out the order, a serviceman who disagrees with the order can appeal it.

The serviceman is obliged to report the execution of the received order to the superior who gave the order and to his immediate superior.

A subordinate who fails to comply with the order of the commander (superior), given in the prescribed manner, is brought to criminal liability on the grounds provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

The commander (chief) is responsible for the given order (order) and its consequences, for the compliance of the contents of the order (order) with the requirements of Article 41 of this Charter and for failure to take measures to ensure its implementation.

Only the commander (chief) who issued it, or a superior direct superior, has the right to cancel an order (command).

If a serviceman executing an order receives a new order from a senior commander (chief) that would prevent him from carrying out the first one, he reports this to the commander who gave the new order, and if the new order is confirmed, he carries it out.

The boss who gave the new order informs the boss who gave the first order.

In order to successfully complete the task assigned to him, a serviceman is obliged to show reasonable initiative.

Orders as state institutions presumably arose involuntarily: a person or several persons are entrusted with the conduct of certain affairs, "ordered" manage these matters - and it arises order, which is sometimes even called by the name of the person to whom the order was given, for example, “Order (honor) of clerk Bartholomew.”

Name huts And order At first it was used mixed, but then the name of orders was established for certain administrative bodies, and for others - huts.

Name ward was more honorable than hut.

Yards And palaces the management bodies that were in charge primarily of the economic part were named; sometimes, however, those administrative bodies that were in charge of individual areas of the state were also called by this name.

Titles ward, yard, castle borrowed from the premises.

Origin of names thirds And quarters stands in connection with the division of the state under John III into three parts, under John IV into four. Subsequently, the name of the quarter began to be assigned to other orders.

Appearance and brief history

Word order In terms of institutions appears for the first time in 1512, in the charter of Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich to the Vladimir Assumption Monastery.

Orders under Ivan III

Ivan IV

Time of Troubles

After the death of Boris Godunov until the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the throne, no new orders were established; due to the general devastation, some ceased their activities. Thus, with the loss of Smolensk for Russia, the Smolensk discharge order was destroyed, and the Dmitrov and Ryazan court orders are also no longer found.

Mikhail Fedorovich

Alexey Mikhailovich

Fedor Alekseevich

After the reign of Princess Sophia until the establishment of the collegiums

Location of orders

Composition of orders, their department and structure

Each order consisted of two parts: some were involved in solving cases, others - the written part. The first were called judges, the second - clerks and clerks.

There were one judges in the orders, and two or more in more important ones. One of the judges was in charge. The chief judge was usually appointed one of the members of the boyar duma, sometimes a steward or a nobleman. The rest of the judges were mostly Duma councilors or simple clerks. An exception to the general rule was the order of secret affairs, which consisted only of clerks and clerks. This is explained by the special nature of this order, which was, as it were, the king’s own office.

Judges, clerks and clerks in the orders were appointed and dismissed by the supreme authority. To carry out various orders and orders, there were interpreters in the embassy order, in the palace there were trumpeters, in other orders there were boyar children, week workers, money men, and gunners. Their duty was to call litigants to court and give the accused on bail, keep them under their supervision until the trial, collect from debtors, carry out punishments, and deliver correspondence of orders as appropriate.

The departments of orders were not strictly demarcated; sometimes the order concentrated so many different cases that it almost did not live up to its name. The judicial part was not separated from the administrative part in the orders; one can almost take it as a rule that the order was a judicial place for those persons whom, by the nature of their affairs, they had in their administration. The orders acted in the name of the sovereign and were the highest governmental and judicial seats; complaints about their decisions were brought to the sovereign and considered in the royal duma.

Judges, clerks and clerks gathered in orders every day, except Sundays and holidays, and had to study for a certain number of hours. In urgent cases, they had to meet on Sundays. Professor V.I.Sergeevich believed that the cases in the orders were decided, in all likelihood, unanimously; Nevolin and Professor M. F. Vladimirsky-Budanov thought differently. “Although according to the law,” says the first, “in those orders where there were several judges, cases should have been decided by all the judges together, but in fact the leading judge had such power that he did what he wanted” (“Oc.”, VI, 141). “Even in the case of a plurality of members,” noted Vladimirsky-Budanov, “the presence did not constitute a collegium and matters were not decided by a majority vote.” This opinion is based on the decree of Peter I of December 22, 1718 (Poln. Sobr. Zak., 3261), which, regarding the establishment of collegiums, says that in them cases will not be decided in the same way as in the old orders, where what the boyar ordered, then his comrades performed it. In the hands of the clerks, according to Vladimirsky-Budanov, “virtually the entire administration of the state was located; they extremely abused their position due to the lack of higher and secondary education and the insufficient definition in law of the conditions of public service.”

Office work

The offices of some orders were divided into howls And tables, who were in charge of a certain type of affairs or a certain branch of government. Cases in the orders were carried out on columns of plain paper. Before the publication of the Code, it was not visible that cases were entered into any register as they were received. They were reported in full or in a special note with the necessary certificates and legalizations attached. Judges' decisions were written on original papers, or on notes, or entered in special books. The “Code” prescribed in each order to have a special book signed by the clerk, where the clerks had to write down court cases and court government duties immediately after the end of the trial. In 1680, it was decided that in decrees and in general in matters of order, only the chief judge should be identified by name. The deeds were sealed and marked by clerks and clerks; The boyars and judges in general did not put their hands to the order anywhere; only ambassadors signed agreements in international relations.

Communication between orders took place through memories. The exception was one Discharge: until 1677, in the order where the Duma people sat, the Discharge wrote in memory, and in other orders - in decrees. In 1677, it was ordered that all orders without exception be written by the Discharge only by decrees. Memories and decrees were written in the name of the judges, and subsequently in the name of the chief judge and his comrades; the name of the order itself was indicated only on the envelope.

The decrees that were sent from orders to the cities to the boyars, governors and clerks about various matters, according to Kotoshikhin, were written in the following form: “from the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, autocrat of all Great and Little and White Russia, to our boyar such- That". In the same way they wrote to the middle governors: first they indicated the rank, if the person to whom they wrote was a prince, steward or solicitor, then the name; when addressing a simple nobleman, they wrote only his name, patronymic and nickname. If a boyar, governor, clerks, ambassadors, envoys, messengers, etc. wrote formal replies on various matters that they were in charge of to the Tsar as an order, then for this there was the following form: “to the Tsar and the Grand Duke,” then followed by the title, and after the title: “your servant Yanka Cherkaskaya (Ivashko Vorotynskaya) and his comrades (if there were any) beat him with his forehead (beats him with his forehead).” In the replies these persons did not indicate their title or rank. The replies were addressed not to the order, but to such and such persons (judges) or to such and such a person (chief judge) with his comrades, in such and such an order.

The same form was observed in petitions to orders. A simple person was written in a petition with the same half name as the prince; townspeople and peasants were written not as serfs, but as “slaves and orphans.” In the same way, wives and daughters of various ranks wrote themselves by half name and “slaves and orphans,” although their fathers and husbands were called by their full names in petitions, meaning their nickname and rank (Kotoshikhin, Chapter VIII, paragraph 5).

The interaction of orders with cities before the establishment of post in 1666 was carried out through messengers. In 1649, in order to avoid sending several messengers in the same direction, as often happened, it was decreed that orders should be communicated with each other before sending a messenger anywhere. The answer to the papers sent from the voivodes and which did not require a quick decision was sent not by express messenger, but on occasion. In the same way, governors with officials should not have sent unimportant papers to Moscow with express messengers, but waited for messengers from Moscow and passed the papers through them. Cases in orders were sometimes, by special order of the sovereign, subject to revision, but this happened rarely and only in special cases.

Legal proceedings in orders

Separate orders were administered by the court to those persons who were subordinate to them. If the defendant found that the judge was not his friend or had some business with him, then he turned to the tsar with a petition and the latter assigned his case for consideration in another order. The defendant should have done this before trial; otherwise, his petition remained without result and the trial was recognized as correct. The claim was filed by the plaintiff submitting to the judges an addendum, so called because it led to the sending of a bailiff to summon the defendant to court. The clerks consolidated this memory, wrote it down in books, and then sent bailiffs to the defendant so that he, his wife, son, or attorney (“the person who takes care of business,” as Kotoshikhin puts it) would answer in the order. When the defendant or his attorney was found, they took guaranty notes from him and the plaintiff that they would appear on time for the hearing of the case. This period was appointed by the judges or by the plaintiff and defendant by mutual agreement. If the appointed date had turned out to be inconvenient for them for some reason, then, according to their petition, it could have been postponed further. While the plaintiff did not represent the guarantors in the debt case, it was not dealt with; if they were not represented by the defendant, then he was placed under the supervision of the bailiffs or kept chained in the order until the presentation of guarantors to them or until the end of the court case. If the plaintiff did not appear within the time appointed for the consideration of the case, his claim would be denied; if the defendant did not appear, then he was considered guilty without trial and the case was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Sometimes guarantor notes were taken from the plaintiff and defendant so that they would not leave Moscow until the end of the case. In case of violation of this record on the part of the plaintiff, he was deprived of the claim, and royal court fees were taken on his guarantors; If the defendant left Moscow, the claim and fees without trial were collected from his guarantors, even if the defendant was not guilty. When the deadline set for the trial of the case arrived, the plaintiff and defendant appeared in court. The plaintiff submitted a petition to the judge; the judge, having read it, asked the defendant if he was ready to answer? If he was not ready, then he was given a certain period of time for this, but in this case the plaintiff’s petition was not read to him and was not given to him. If the plaintiff declared that he was ready to answer the plaintiff’s petition, then the latter was read to him and he had to object to it. He could make objections personally or through attorneys. During the trial, the clerks wrote down the speeches of the parties, and at the end of the trial, they read what they had written, and the parties put their hands to the court case; The person he trusted signed for the illiterate. After this, the plaintiff and defendant were again given bail, and the clerks wrote out briefly what everyone said, as well as the laws on the basis of which this case could be resolved, and the judges decided it; if the matter could not be resolved in the order where the court settlement took place, then it was sent to the tsar and the boyars, who made the decision. Matters were ordered to be resolved according to the Code and royal decrees, and in case of any difficulties, seek clarification from the Duma or from the Tsar himself. The evidence in the lawsuits included the kiss of the cross, witness statements and written documents. In matters of money, borrowing, commodity, etc., in which written evidence, bondage and records could be used, the latter were of decisive importance (Code X, 169; XIV Art. 16), and if anyone had bondage or records in any way were destroyed, then at least he represented, says Kotoshikhin, and 20 people as witnesses, the testimony of the latter was considered nothing. The limitation period for bondages and recordings was considered to be 15 years. If the claim was found to be correct, the money was recovered in favor of the plaintiff from the defendant; In addition, he was charged a royal duty, 10 per ruble, and legal costs (“food, red tape and losses”) in favor of the plaintiff. If the defendant did not pay the debt, he was forced to do so by legal means; then, in the event of the insolvency of the defendant and the impossibility on his part of satisfying the amount of the claim, he was “given over” to the plaintiff, that is, he was given over for some time under certain conditions determined by the Code to serve the plaintiff; royal duties in this case were collected from the plaintiff. After the expiration of the time specified for repaying the debt, the plaintiff was obliged to bring the person in his service to the very order that gave him this person “with his head,” and the order set him free. No one could keep persons handed over by the head for more than a certain period of time. In cases of dishonor, money was recovered from the guilty person in the amount in which the offended person received a salary from the king; for the dishonor of a wife, the penalty was double, for a daughter - four times, for a son who was not in the service - half against the father. In case of failure, the culprit was beaten with a whip. The orders ordered matters to be resolved without delay, but this was never carried out, and the orders were known for the slowness of their decisions, which became proverbial under the name of “Moscow red tape.” If, during the examination of the case, the defendant had filed a claim against his plaintiff, his case should have been examined immediately, without leaving the court, even if there were two or three claims based on different petitions. Each of these claims constituted an independent case, and the clerks could not combine them into one. This procedure for examining the defendant’s claims was established to reduce red tape. In criminal cases handled in the Razboin and Zemsky orders, the orders carried out the investigative process - the search.

List and system of division of orders

The total number of orders is not yet known with accuracy and is determined differently. Kotoshikhin in the 1660s indicates 42 orders, Professor Vladimirsky-Budanov counts only 39 of them, other researchers - 40, 47 and more than 60. The difference in the count comes mainly from the fact that scientists did not agree, firstly, regarding the time for which they want to establish the total number of orders; secondly, some consider such orders as independent, for example, order of gold and silver work, royal And Tsaritsyn workshop chambers, etc., while others (Vladimirsky-Budanov) see in them only economic and industrial institutions; in the same way, some include temporary orders into the total number, which were soon destroyed when the need passed, while others do not include them.

Since the departments of orders were not strictly delimited, in the system of dividing orders three bases are generally mixed: by type of business, by class of population and by territory. Often the same type of business was handled by many orders (for example, a court); often one order was in charge of a famous city in one respect, others were in charge of it in other respects; one order was in charge of one category of the population, other orders were in charge of another, etc. This presented a lot of difficulties; Often subjects did not know at all which order they were subordinate to in this or that matter. Despite the diversity and uncertainty of the department of individual orders, the newest scientists are trying, for ease of review, to reduce the orders to several specific groups, taking into account the most important subjects of their department. Due to the artificiality of such a division, each scientist usually creates his own system of orders. This division is simpler in M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov (“Review”, pp. 177 et seq.), more precisely, in Nevolin. The latter distinguishes between two types of orders: some were in charge of a certain range of affairs throughout the entire state, or at least in a significant part of it; others were in charge of only a certain part of the state, moreover, either in different branches of government, or only in the judicial part (“Works” vol. VI, p. 143). In what follows, we adhere to the list of orders compiled by Nevolin as more complete.

Prefacing the list of orders, we note as the main and most important institution that crowned the entire administrative system Moscow kingdom:

On the production of cases subject to direct consideration by the king

Palace

• Palace court order (1664-1709). He was in charge of court affairs of the palace people.
• Palace stone order

For the management of military affairs

• Order of German feed - mentioned in notebooks of 1636-1638. (according to other sources in 1632-1640) Nothing is known about his department: it was probably his responsibility to support foreigners who were in Russian service. Some researchers believe that the order was created only during the Smolensk War and was in charge of collecting grain reserves for mercenary troops. In 1626-38. The judge of the order of German feed was Ivan Ogarev, the son of Foma-Nelyub Vasilyevich Ogarev, the Samara governor. Actually, the collection of German feed was carried out earlier, so in March 1612, Grigory Muravyov complained in a petition addressed to Yakov Delagardie and Prince I.N. Bolshoi Odoevsky about the peasants from the village of Tesova who turned out to give money for German feed.
• Collection order
• The order for cash distribution is an order that was repeatedly established under Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexei Mikhailovich, temporarily - for the distribution of salaries to military men.
• Military naval order (since 1698)

On the management of state property, income and expenses

Control and audit functions

For the management of public improvement affairs

• The order for the construction of almshouses appears in the notebooks from 1680 to 1680. His tasks were purely charitable.

Industry

• Order of administrative affairs - “Order that the strong are beaten with the brow and order of administrative affairs” (1622-1660s). Several times he was separated from the detective order and united with it. Served as an appellate authority for court cases of the Local and Serf orders.

Territorial

Quarters see also: Zemsky orders. Initially, quarters were the name given to large territorial units of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, which were in charge of four districts: Vladimir, Novgorod, Ryazan and Kazan. Later, with the growth of the state’s territory, the number of institutions increased, but the usual name was retained - a quarter.

• Novgorod order
• Nizhny Novgorod quarter
• Ustyug quarter

see also:

• quarter of clerk Shchelkalov
• quarter of clerk Vakhrameev
• quarter of clerk Petelin

Orders

• Grand Duchy of Lithuania

This may also include court territorial orders:

• Vladimirsky
• Dmitrovsky
• Ryazansky

History and scope of the department of individual orders

Master's order

Mentioned in 1620. Nevolin thinks that “its origin is hidden in Russia’s relations with Lithuania and Poland, which developed from the events that preceded the accession to the throne of Mikhail Feodorovich”(“Works”, VI, 173). It was probably closed after the conclusion of peace with Poland and Sweden.

Zemsky orders or courtyards

See resp. article.

Novgorod quarter

bears this name since 1618; During the reign of John IV, it existed under the name of the Novgorod order of Novgorod-Nizhny. From 1657 it was under the jurisdiction of the Ambassadorial Prikaz; the ambassadorial Duma clerk and the simple clerk were sitting in it. She was in charge of the cities of Veliky Novgorod, Pskov, Nizhny Novgorod, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Pomeranian cities and cities bordering Sweden. Income from these cities was collected up to 100 thousand rubles. In 1670, the Novgorod quarter was renamed the Novgorod Prikaz, which under Peter the Great came under the control of the Ambassadorial Prikaz.

Ustyug quarter

appeared instead of those that existed at the end of the 16th century. quarters of clerk Petelin, and a little later - clerk Vakhromeev. First found in 1611; appears in the notebooks continuously from 1627 to 1680. A boyar and 2-3 clerks sat in it; she was in charge of the cities of Bezhetsky Verkh, Venev, Vyazma, Zvenigorod, Klin, Mozhaisk, Poshekhonye, ​​Rzhevaya Volodimerova, Ruza, Solya Vychegodskaya, Staritsa, Totma, Ustyug Veliky, Ustyuzhnaya Zheleznopolskaya and others. Income from these cities collected up to 20 thousand rubles. In 1680, the Ustyug quarter was renamed into an order and subordinated to the Ambassadorial order.

Kostroma quarter

See resp. article.

Galician quarter

See resp. article.

Vladimir quarter

existed since 1629, although it appears in the notebooks since 1642. It was in charge of the cities of Vereya, Vladimir, Volokolumsk, Zaraysk, Kaluga, Krapivna, Likhvin, Mikhailov, Orel, Pereyaslav Ryazansky, Putivl, Ryazhsk, Rzheva Pustaya, Sapozhok, Tarusa, Tver, Torzhok, Tula, etc. In 1681, the Vladimir quarter was placed under the jurisdiction of the embassy order.

Smolensky order

or order of the Smolensk Principality. The Smolensk category has been mentioned since 1514, but then it was destroyed with the loss of Smolensk. The Smolensk order must have arisen under Alexei Mikhailovich, along with the return of Smolensk to Russian rule; in the affairs of the Ambassadorial Prikaz he has been listed since 1657. In 1680, the Smolensk Prikaz was subordinated to the Ambassadorial Prikaz.

Order of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

was established in 1656 to manage the cities conquered from Poland - Vilna, Polotsk, Mogilev, etc. Since most of these cities were again returned to Poland under the Treaty of Andrusov, the order itself was destroyed already in 1667, although according to the notebooks of the case it was listed back in 1669. In 1670, the affairs of the Lithuanian order were ordered. send to the Novgorod order, under whose jurisdiction all the cities that had not been returned to Poland and which until then had been administered by the Lithuanian order came under their jurisdiction.

Order of Livonian Affairs (or Policeman)

listed in notebooks from 1660 to 1666. and was established, in all likelihood, to manage the cities conquered in Livonia. After Sweden returned the conquered cities, the order was destroyed.

Little Russian order

or the order of Little Russia. The exact time of its establishment is unknown. He has been listed in the files of the Ambassadorial Prikaz since 1649; according to Vivliofika, it was established during the union of Little Russia with Russia, that is, in 1654; has been listed in the notebooks since 1663. In this order sat the same boyar as in the Galician quarter, and with him a clerk. He was in charge of the order of the Zaporozhye army, the cities of Kyiv, Chernigov, Nezhin, Pereyaslav, Novobogoroditsk in Samara, as well as affairs upon the arrival of spiritual and secular people from Little Russia and correspondence with the hetmans on border affairs of Polish, Turkish and Tatar. No income was received from this order. At the end of the 17th century. The Little Russian Prikaz was placed under the control of the Ambassadorial Prikaz. With the establishment of the collegiums, it was subordinated to the collegium of foreign affairs, and in 1722 - to the Senate.

Great Russian Order

He was part of the Ambassadorial Prikaz as a branch. The Great Russian Order, from 1688, governed Cossack settlements that were not part of the left bank of Little Russia and constituted special suburban regiments; all regiments together made up Sloboda Ukraine.

Siberian order

After the conquest of Siberia, its management was entrusted to the Ambassadorial Prikaz; then for this from 1596 to 1599. there was a special quarter of the clerk Bartholomew Ivanov, named after the clerk who was in charge of it. Since 1599, Siberia was ruled by the Kazan Palace, and since 1637, the Siberian Order appears in the notebooks. It was in charge of the same boyar as the Kazan palace; there were 2 clerks with him. The order was in charge of Siberia in the same way as the Kazan palace was in charge of the Kazan and Astrakhan kingdoms; through him, exile to Siberia for settlement took place; furs came here, which came from Siberian foreigners in the form of tribute; From here, certificates were issued for travel to Siberia, and later to China and generally to the states bordering China. Under the Siberian Prikaz, there was a special Sable treasury, in which furs received from Siberia were stored. To manage it, evaluate and sell furs, there was a special department of heads and kissers. The first was chosen from among the guests, the last from the living room and the cloth hundreds. The Siberian order existed throughout the reign of Peter the Great, but the circle of its department was significantly limited. After the death of Peter the Great it was destroyed, restored in 1730 and finally closed until 1755.

Moscow court order

The names court order, court hut, court are found under John IV, but the Moscow court order has been known in the discharge books since 1598. A boyar, a steward and 1 or 2 clerks sat in it. His department was in charge of the claims of residents of Moscow, the Moscow district and, perhaps, some other cities, with the exception of cases of murder, robbery and red-handed theft. In 1681, it was combined into one order with the petition, serf and Vladimir court order, but then again began to exist separately, along with the Vladimir court order, and when the latter was destroyed in 1699, the objects of its department were transferred to the Moscow court order. In 1714, this order was transferred from St. Petersburg to Moscow and has not been found in acts since then.

Vladimir court order

first mentioned in 1593; must have been in charge of the city of Vladimir and the district on the same basis as the Moscow court order was in charge of Moscow. Its composition was the same as the last one; Its history at the end of the 17th century is also closely connected with it.

Dmitrovsky court order

mentioned since 1595

Ryazan court order

Known since 1591. The authority of these orders can only be concluded by analogy with other court orders. Kotoshikhin and the decrees of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich do not mention them; They were probably destroyed in the first half of the 17th century.

Other orders

This list, to which we can add the orders for food, fodder, grain and livestock, subordinate to the Order of the Great Palace, the order of the monetary yard, which was under the jurisdiction of the order of the Great Treasury, and the short-lived order of the upper printing house - cannot be considered a complete list of orders, ever existing in Moscow Rus'. This does not include, for example, patriarchal orders (see), which, however, had a special meaning and a special circle of the department. Solovyov also names the order of the policeman, stone granaries, and merchant affairs. The latter was established in the late 1660s. according to Ordyn-Nashchokin’s project, to manage the merchants and was supposed to serve “merchant people in all border cities from other states with defense, and in all cities from voivodeship taxes with protection and administration.” This order is also listed in the list of clerks according to the orders of 1675, placed in the appendix to the XIII volume of Solovyov’s “History of Russia”. In this list there are also orders that are not shown in Nevolin’s list: an order for the collection of Streltsy grain, the Moscow large customs house, a measuring hut, a distribution yard; wash house. In general, the number of orders that ever existed in Russia has not been established with accuracy, and the circle of departments of individual orders is little known.

", 1844, No. 1, 2 and 3, and in the "Collected Works" (vol. VI);. - 1870.

G. Uspensky, “The Experience of Narrating Russian Antiquities” (Kharkov, 1818);

Metropolitan Evgeniy, “Historical review of Russian legal provisions” (St. Petersburg, 182 6);

Panov, “Moscow orders” (“Moskovskie Vedomosti”, 1855, No. 36, 79-82);

A. Lokhvitsky, “Pansky order”, in the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education” (1857, vol. 94);

Gorchakov, “Monastic order” (St. Petersburg, 1898);

N. Kalachov, “Cases of the detective order about schismatics”;

A. Golubev, “Ponizovaya freemen” (from the files of the detective order, “Historical Library”, 1878, No. 1);

N. Zagoskin, “Desks of the discharge order” (Kazan, 1879);

N. Ogloblin, “The Kiev table of the discharge order” in “Kyiv Antiquity” (1886, No. 11);

N. I. Likhachev, “Rank clerks of the 16th century.” (SPb., 1888);

N. A. Popov, “The question of the order of merchant affairs” (“Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”, 1889, No. 1);

Ardashev N. H. On the issue of collegiality of the order // Proceedings of the VIII Archaeological Congress (1890).

Golembiovsky A. A. Tables of the Discharge Order in 1668-70. // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, 1890, No. 7.

“Anthology on the history of Russian law” by prof. M. F. Vladimirsky-Budanov (issues 2 and 3).

Baklanova N. A. The situation of Moscow orders in the 17th century // Proceedings of the State Historical Museum. Vol. 3. M., 1926. P. 53-100.

Ustinova I. A. Books of Patriarchal orders 1625-1649: Paleographic description // Bulletin of Church History. 2008. No. 3 (11). pp. 5-64.

Lushina I. A. Books for loan bondages of the Patriarchal State Prikaz of the 1st half of the 17th century. as a historical source // Bulletin of Church History. 2007. No. 2(6). pp. 129-138.

Liseytsev D. V. The order system of the Moscow state during the Time of Troubles. Tula, 2009.

Novokhatko O. V. Notebooks of the Moscow table of the Discharge Order. M., 2001.

Stashevsky E. D. To the question of when and why the “chets” arose?: (Essay from the history of Moscow orders). - Kyiv, 1908. - 40 p.

Demidova N. F. Service bureaucracy in Russia in the 17th century. and its role in the formation of absolutism. - M.: Nauka, 1987.