The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

The theory of the patrimonial state in a domestic historical thought of XIX - the beginnings of the 21st century



UDK 930.1 (09)

The THEORY of the PATRIMONIAL STATE IN the DOMESTIC HISTORICAL THOUGHT of XIX - the BEGINNINGS of the 21st CENTURY

© 2010 of L.V. Mininkov

Pedagogical Institute of Southern Federal University, Pedagogical Institute of Southern Federal University,

B. Sadovaya St., 33, Rostov-on-Don, 344082, B. Sadovaya St., 33, Rostov-on-Don, 344082,

rspu@pi. sfedu. ru rspu@pi. sfedu. ru

Views of the Russian historians of the theory of the patrimonial state in the Russian historiography of the XIX-XXI centuries and its value for understanding of features of history of Russia in the Middle Ages and during modern times are considered. Emergence of the theory of the patrimonial state - result of discontent of the Russian historical thought of the 19th century with the concept of revival of the state and monarchy in Russia which broke up as a result of civil strifes of princes. It is for the first time proved by K.D. Kavelin, further developed in I.E. Zabelin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, G.V. Plekhanov's works. Provisions found it the place and in works of modern Russian historians.

It is considered the views of Russian historians to the theory of the patrimonial state in Russian historiography XIX - XXI centuries and its significance for understanding the history of Russia in the Middle Ages and in modern times. The emergence of the theory of the patrimonial state - the result of dissatisfaction with the Russian historical thought of the XIX century concept revival of the state and the monarchy in Russia, disintegrated as a result of infighting princes. This theory for the first time elaborated by K.D. Kavelin and developed in the works of I.E. Zabelin, W.O. Kluchevskiy, G.V. Plekhanov. The thesis&s of this theory develops in the works of the modern Russian historians.

Essential feature of a domestic historiography from 19th century and up to the present is considerable interest in the concept of the Russian history which became known in quality teo-

riya of the patrimonial state. Such interest is not accidental. This theory ideally fits into a framework of a fundamental problem of the domestic historiosophy connected with definition of the historical place of Dews -

these and its people in the world around, features of their past and future. A conclusion about existence on the Russian soil during the concrete period of history of the country of the patrimonial state, as well as about considerable and long-term influence of its traditions on character and features of development of the country, allowed to prove the provision on a special historical way of Russia, on its originality and exclusiveness on big actual material. However the theory of the patrimonial state confirmed and absolutely a different view according to which the patrimonial stage in development of the medieval states made the all-European phenomenon, and characteristic features of the patrimonial relations and influence them on political processes took place not only in Russia, but also in the countries of the Western European Middle Ages. Besides, from positions of this theory there was an opportunity to prove with a support on methods of a komparativistika of line of the general and special in development of Russia and the countries of the East where there was a system of despotic monarchy, to explain existence or absence in Russia of autocratic despotism. Therefore interest in this theory in a historical thought of Russia is represented natural.

Existence of the patrimonial beginning in the Russian life, according to N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky, to the first was allocated by the outstanding historian and the lawyer K.D. Kavelin for whom "the family and the ancestral lands (private possession)" [1, page 9] represented a special stage of development of Russia. It went after a patrimonial stage and preceded the state. Pavlov-Silvansky did not specify that Kavelin saw any communication between the ancestral lands and the state. I.E. Zabelin writing in 1671 was other historian paying attention to a role of the patrimonial beginning in formation and development of the Moscow state, according to Pavlov-Silvansky: "& #34; Political корень" The Moscow state was exclusively patrimonial, it was brought up and grew on patrimonial development of the people" [1, page 35].

In the same vein estimated process of genesis of the state in Russia of V.O. Klyuchevsky. Arguing on it, Pavlov-Silvansky noted: "The western principalities, as we know, grew from large privately owned manors and therefore in the new, gradually developing lines of their senyorialny management long time hereditary lines of private enterprise of the large landowner remained". As Pavlov-Silvansky emphasized, "Klyuchevsky finds out the same in a system of management of our specific principality, quasi-state" [1, page 34].

For Pavlov-Silvansky the analysis of the patrimonial theory in the Russian historical thought was not the independent research purpose. He was subordinated to other purpose consisting in identification of the relation in a domestic historiography to a problem of the general and special in the Russian and Western European Middle Ages and, in particular, to a question of existence of the Russian feudalism. Such analysis in which the patrimonial theory in the Russian historical thought is not an independent object of a research is submitted insufficient in view of the fact that in it

underestimation of special value of this theory in formation of the general concept of the Russian history is put. Besides, after Pavlov-Silvansky there were some new researches in which the patrimonial theory is considered and from its positions estimates of the processes happening in the country in social, political and cultural spheres of life of the Russian society are given.

In public administration of Russia pointed M.V. Nechkin to V.O. Klyuchevsky's thought of maintaining patrimonial tradition 16th century. This state, "for Klyuchevsky, is & #34; absolute monarchy, but with aristocratic management, i.e. governmental персоналом". But by traditions of a specific watchinnik the tsar looked at the & #34; governmental персонал" as on palace servants, monarchic lackeys" [2, page 487]. In this short remark it is indicated recognition by Klyuchevsky and theories of the patrimonial state in Russia, and connections of this theory with idea of the outstanding historian of the servile nature of public service in the Moscow Russia.

One of the main questions relating to the theory of the patrimonial state is the question of the reasons of its emergence. Apparently, it is connected with deep dissatisfaction of a domestic historical thought of the middle of the 19th century with the theory of revival by grand dukes Moscow the Russian state created still by the Kiev princes and which broke up because of princes as a result of civil strifes. Such theory seemed satisfactory for a historiography of XVIII - the beginning of the 19th century, however in it features of the Moscow state of the end of the XV-XVI century in comparison with Kievan Rus' were not fully considered. Therefore already in the second quarter of the 19th century it began to seem unmodern and primitive. As P.N. Milyukov noticed, still N.A. Poleva denied the representation extended to him "about Russia as about & #34; государстве" from the very beginning of its history". He considered that until the end of the 15th century "there were in Russia several states", and set a task of studying history not of the state of the Russian, but the Russian people [3, page 349]. Milyukov noted that, according to Field, in Russia two historical periods took place. There was a change "Norman & #34; феодализма" i.e. managements by means of the combatants more or less independent of the alien prince", a system "destinies, obladayemy members of one family". It made a stage on the way of development of Russia which had to come to the end with "an autocracy celebration" [3, page 350].

Thus, for a domestic historiography there was relevant a problem of an explanation of process of transition from a specific system to the Moscow state which was considered as organic, with deduction within the new phenomenon of traditions of old times. Especially as the idea of "organic, gradual and necessary development" in Russia which was based on Hegel's dialectics was shared not only Field [3, page 351], but also historians of later

time, in particular K.D. Kavelin and S.M. Solovyov [4, page 65; 5, page 32]. Undoubtedly, distribution of the ideas of hegelianism and positivism was a prerequisite of philosophical justification of the theory of the patrimonial state in a domestic historiography of the middle of the 19th century. It pushed historians on search of such explanatory model of national history of the Moscow Russia which proceeded from existence of deep historical regularities of process of formation of statehood and dialectics of transition to it from the family and personal beginning as which expression the princely ancestral lands acted. Therefore it is possible to draw a conclusion that the theory of the patrimonial state was result of such direction of a domestic historical thought which quite corresponded to both the level reached by it, and intellectual inquiries of the Russian historians of that time. Its emergence also corresponded to the general direction of development of historical science in Europe in the 19th century on the ways of search of logical justification of regularities of historical process.

Emergence of the theory of the patrimonial state in the Russian historiography was noticeable in works of K.D. Kavelin who departed from a periodization of history of the country, traditional for earlier historiography, when the Kiev period separated from the period specific. It replaced this periodization another in which the state in the Moscow Russia replaced the ancestral lands. Briefly he stated this idea at Ivan Kalita's characteristic whose, according to him, "the small princely ancestral lands in century grew to the Moscow state". This prince was "in full sense the prince-watchinnik and looked at the possession as on property", and in such look "this new type of the power which replaced former quite expressed" [6, page 45].

Thus, Kavelin in the characteristic of the prince Ivan Danilovich expressed the most important sign of the patrimonial state consisting in connection of land property it as the possessor concerning the ancestral lands and the government in his hands. At the same time Kavelin showed the mechanism of a statement of the state beginning in the Russian life that was result of policy of the Moscow princes. Overcoming a contradiction between the interests of family which demanded from the Moscow princes to carry out the partition of the principality ancestral lands, and the state arising with interests from the ancestral lands which demanded maintaining unity was a burning issue of this policy. Princes stood, Kavelin, before the choice between the interests of family and the state noted, and eventually they went to that "to offer family to the state", and "this step was taken, but not suddenly". Eventually "the power, its indivisibility were put by the Moscow princes above family" [6, page 47].

At the same time the patrimonial beginning which receded before statehood left the mark and rendered, according to Kavelin, deep impact on the nature of the government in Russia. "Type here -

a chinnovladelets, full mister over the manors, lies in foundation of the power of the Moscow sovereign", - he emphasized. From here and the service in such state meant acquisition of the status of "servant" which was considered in the Moscow state not as what to other as "an honourable title" [6, page 48], and "the beginning of servility" [6, page 49] lay in its basis. As the historian who deeply acquired fundamentals of dialectics of Hegel in the Russian history Kavelin saw natural and deeply progressive process, and in change in the Russian life of the patrimonial beginning state - quantum leap, and lines of new life organically grew from its old forms. "From under the grand-ducal ancestral lands looks through the state" [6, page 48], - he emphasized. Kavelin did not avoid idealization of the state in the Moscow Russia. According to him, "The Moscow state... paved the way for new life". He showed in what this preparation consisted: "Improvements of internal management, legal proceedings, restraint of an arbitrariness of kormlenshchik, the legislation", - such measures, according to Kavelin, allowed to give to the state on the Russian soil the most positive assessment.

From here also positive assessment of monarchs at whom the transition era from the ancestral lands to the state came to the end followed. It "two greatest figures in the Russian history, John IV and Pietro il Grande: the first begins it, the second ends and opens another" [6, page 49]. Recognition of a positive role of the state in society in general is characteristic of the thinker of the liberal direction to which Kavelin admits. At the same time it is not quite clear how Ivan il Terribile and Peter I's apologetics who, according to the historian, "vividly understood the idea of the state and were the most noble, her most worthy representatives will be coordinated with his liberalism" [6, page 49]. "The personality is the only, fruitful soil of any moral development" [6, page 51], - it legally indicated that it will quite be coordinated with liberalism bases. Hardly at the same time clearly, as activity of Ivan the Terrible who was directly speaking the full and unlimited authority to favor and execute the lackeys, contributed to formation and personal development. Apparently, the most disputable party of reasonings of Kavelin who drew a conclusion of great theoretical value on a significant role of the patrimonial beginning on the way of formation of the Moscow state consisted in Ivan il Terribile and Peter I's apologetics.

The theory of the patrimonial state was accepted by the historian of the Russian life I.E. Zabelin. In emergence of a concept about the watchinnike-sovereign he saw the process of organic development connected with development of the relations indoors and families. According to him, the name Novgorodians of the grand duke Moscow "Sovereign" was not accidental as it was "the simple ordinary usual name of each householder, lord of the house or the earth". As Zabelin emphasized, to this name there corresponded position of the large landowner -

a watchinnik, such as grand duke Moscow which "became already the householder and the lord not of one Moscow, but all Local Russian land lying in a river corner of Volga and Oka" [7, page 132].

The view of the sovereign-monarch as on the sovereign-house owner and a watchinnik was not only is clear to the people of the Moscow state who got used to bear different "services to a watchinnik, services to the person, but not an abstract concept of the fatherland or state". The historian, thus, offered such explanation to ideas of the sovereign as about a watchinnik and about the patrimonial state which went back to bases of mass consciousness of society of that time. In any case, further researches in this direction are represented perspective. According to Zabelin, accounting of position of the sovereign as watchinnik, first of all "the terrible tsar Ivan Vasilyevich", will allow to make "character" it "even more clear". He at the same time pointed to that, as "during much later era", at least in the 17th century, the tsar remained "watchinnikom-gospodary" [8, page 59]. This observation also deserves the most close attention. Zabelin at the same time did not point to negative consequences of such view of the government and to the state.

Further development of the theory of the patrimonial state belonged to V.O. Klyuchevsky who noted that "in the Moscow prince of the XIV-XV centuries, even the grand duke, was... it is a lot of private owner closing himself the sovereign" [9, and 32]. At the same time he put in essence a new problem of interaction within uniform process of association of Russian lands around Moscow of two beginnings - patrimonial and state. "Having absorbed all Velikorossiya in structure of the specific ancestral lands and forced to work for the sake of national interest, the Moscow sovereign began to say requirements that all parts of the Russian land have to be a part of this ancestral lands" [8, page 110], - the historian specified, talking Ivan III unifying politics. Therefore, Ivan III's interests as watchinnik and as Moscow sovereign not only coincided, but also stimulated activity of the unifying policy which was carried out at a boundary of the XV-XVI centuries in Russia.

The patrimonial interests of this grand duke, drew at the same time Klyuchevsky's attention, were the cause of active policy for Lithuania. So, during negotiations with the grand duke Lithuanian Alexander in 1503 Ivan III as if said: "To me... unless it is not a pity for the ancestral lands, the Russian land which beyond Lithuania, Kiev, Smolensk and other cities?" [9, page 111]. The historian provided the statement of the Russian diplomats during negotiations with the Pope's ambassador: "The Russian land - from our ancestors from old times our ancestral lands". Thus, in consciousness of people of that time, carried out Klyuchevsky's thought, the concept about the fiefdom of the grand duke approached a concept about nationality, and "dynastic interest with the national benefit" [9, page 110].

Idea of the patrimonial beginning promoted association of the Russian nationality in structure Mos -

the kovsky state that was noted by Klyuchevsky. At the same time it interfered with distribution in the society of that time of a concept about the state as a new form of public unity. In any case, according to Klyuchevsky, "it is not visible from anything that Ivan III understood an otchina somehow differently, not as his specific ancestors", and "new duties which laid down on him as on the observer of the benefits of the people put from above" understood this form, "he understood, though is vague" [9, page 120]. In Ivan III's consciousness, and then Vasily III and Ivan IV Klyuchevsky noted "fluctuation between two beginnings or orders", each of them did not define the situation. In them "the watchinnik and the sovereign, the autocratic owner and the carrier of the Supreme government begin to fight". It led "the state to deep shocks, and a dynasty of collectors - to death" [9, page 121].

Thus, estimated domination of the patrimonial beginning in consciousness of the Moscow sovereigns of the end of the XV-XVI century and society of that time in the whole V.O. Klyuchevsky as one of the important factors defining the course of the Russian history. It promoted as association of Russian lands as a part of the Moscow state, and to shocks of the Time of Troubles of the beginning of the 17th century and suppression of a dynasty. Klyuchevsky at the same time unlike a number of the previous Russian historians did not feed any piety before ventsenosets, did not see behind them outstanding merits in the state construction as they did not reach assimilation of fundamental differences between the ancestral lands and destiny and the new state status of the Moscow Russia. However, not only grand dukes, but also "the Moscow people of that time" imagined that "The Moscow state. there is a state of the Moscow sovereign, but not Moscow or Russian people" [10, page 48]. Therefore, the view of the Moscow state as on the fiefdom of the grand duke and tsar dominated in mass consciousness of that time, as Klyuchevsky noted. The people therefore could not accept as lawful tsars of the elite on a throne Boris Godunov or Vasily Shuysky, "whereas one ghost of the natural tsar acting through the rascal of unknown origin calmed dynastic - legitimate conscience and disposed to trust" [10, page 50].

The view of position of the people in such state was the back of similar representation. "In relation to the tsar all his citizens were considered as lackeys, his domestic people, or the orphans, of humble origin and homeless people living on his earth" [10, page 64], - V.O. Klyuchevsky fairly emphasized. From here, he noticed, features of resistance of the people of the power proceeded. One form of a protest is used by citizens who "rise" against the power, but do not leave the state, "because do not consider him the stranger for themselves". In the Moscow state was differently: "the national discontent never reached a revolt against the power". The people "developed a special form on -

a lytic protest" when people did not rise against the state, but "left it, & #34; went розно" fled the state" [10, page 49]. Observation of the historian is of considerable interest. In the 70th of the 16th century when in the country the strongest economic crisis broke out, it was caused by leaving of the population on the southern outskirts. It was a people protest form against requisitions from the state in the conditions of long Livonian war. Such leaving was resulted by desolation of the Northwest and the Center of the country. In any case till 17th century Russia really did not know some considerable national performances, like those which took place in "a buntashny century".

Nevertheless as V.O. Klyuchevsky emphasized, the Distemper undermined idea of a former order when saw "in the sovereign in consciousness of the Moscow people. owner of the Moscow state territory". The distemper showed that without sovereign "the state did not break up, and collected the strength and elected to himself the new tsar" [10, page 63], and as specified Klyuchevsky, convinced that "society, the people not political accident" whereas "the political accident is most likely a dynasty" [10, page 64].

Thus, the theory of the patrimonial state developing V.O. Klyuchevsky represented a metatheory on the basis of which concepts of history of the country of more private character could be built. She in any case allowed to explain features of a political system of Russia of the end of the XV-XVI century, its proximity to east despotism, some lines of political consciousness of the Russian society and a national protest of this time. Apparently, he exaggerated impact of the Distemper on eradication from mass consciousness of the traditions based on idea of the patrimonial state underestimated degree of stability of these traditions in the period of the Russian history a little after the Time of Troubles.

Negative attitude to the patrimonial state in the Moscow Russia is even stronger, than at V.O. Klyuchevsky, was expressed by G.V. Plekhanov. The outstanding Marxist mentioned the Russian tsar as "the patrimonial monarch" [11, page 167] and it was specified communication of this theory with the doctrine of the French thinker of the 16th century Zh. Boden about the monarchy. Lines of the state at the head of which there was such monarch fully corresponded to a system of east despotism, and Ivan IV "completed transformation of the Moscow state. to the monarchy of east type". Specifying it, it noted that at this tsar there was "an elimination of all that, anyway, delayed final transformation of residents of the Moscow state into slaves in the face of the sovereign, absolutely powerless both in personal, and in the property relation" [11, page 193]. As the thinker Marxist, Plekhanov paid attention to a violence role in establishment of the mode of the patrimonial state and its elements. In particular, it belonged to an explanation for them of idea in country consciousness that "the God's earth yes monarchic, plowing and a rye ours".

"There is unexplored only a question of that how many batog were broken on the peasant's back by grand-ducal servants to lift it on height of it & #34; ясного" differences" [11, page 69], - not without bitter irony were noticed about it by Plekhanov. Features of the Moscow Russia as patrimonial state in comparison with the countries of Europe and with despotic monarchy of the East were marked out to them. Russia as the patrimonial state differed from the Western world, according to Plekhanov, those that "enslaved to himself not only the lowest, agricultural, but also top, sluzhily class". From the countries of the East with their despotic system - what imposed "much heavier yoke on the enslaved population" [11, page 88]. He explained the last with the fact that it was forced to be in a condition of opposition with the Western European countries which were considerably more developed economically.

In the development of the theory of the patrimonial state G.V. Plekhanov departed from uzkoklassovy and flat opposition of feudal lords and the peasantry which will take quite often place in works of a number of historians of Soviet period. He thereby showed the amplest opportunities of the Marxist social analysis with its ability not to be limited to a research of class contradictions. As Plekhanov showed, the Marxist interpretation of the theory of the patrimonial state quite could have Marxist character and be guided by the class analysis of society, but at the same time assume comprehensive accounting of value of political factor in the history of the country. It was presented by the instruction for a role of features of the political power defining common feature in position of different population groups of such state. It came down to community in pettiness before the patrimonial monarch as the despot and the tyrant, regardless of position of each individual, not recognized behind the population of the state ancestral lands any rights and the seeing any of the citizens only in situation, slavish in relation to himself. In it consisted as he repeatedly emphasized, basic similarity of the patrimonial state of the Moscow Russia to East despotisms.

However at the same time Plekhanov's conclusion is of special interest that position of the population of the Moscow Russia at the patrimonial state existing in the 16th century was even worse and heavier, than in East despotisms. He explained it with an external factor, participation in fight against the countries of Western Europe which were more developed economically whereas the countries of the East as if had not to conduct such fight. It forced the authorities to concentrate extremely resources on such fight and "to impose much heavier yoke on the enslaved population" [11, page 88], than in east despotisms. So occurred in Russia during the Livonian war. Apparently, this situation stated by Plekhanov is of considerable interest, however it needs one, at least, amendment. Such east despotism as the Ottoman Empire, was in a state mno-

govekovy opposition with the Western European world, but its situation in light of this fight demands special study. The theory of the patrimonial state in the Moscow Russia in Plekhanov's interpretation meant the instruction on depth and durability on the Russian soil of historical tradition of political unfreedom and universal, or general servility.

The theory of the patrimonial state which gained interesting continuation and development in V.O. Klyuchevsky and G.V. Plekhanov's works was not demanded in the Soviet historiography because in this theory the political component had not smaller, and it is possible, and bigger value, than social or economic whereas at characteristic of the Russian feudalism in the Soviet historiography the main attention was paid to the social and economic party. Possibly and the fact that this theory paid considerably bigger attention to historical features of Russia, than was specified in the Soviet historiography. At last, the Soviet historians much doing for a research of history of the serfdom in Russia were not ready to bring the social analysis to recognition of the theory of enslaving, close to the theory of the patrimonial state, and liberation of estates which still B.N. Chicherin made. At recognition of the fact of universal servility in any case the provision, essentially important for the Soviet historiography, on existence of a ruling class was washed away. There was in this regard a question whether there could be a ruling class which was in a condition of servility or in slave situation in the relation of the carrier of supreme authority? The satisfactory answer to these questions was not.

Meanwhile depth and validity of this theory and also ample opportunities of methodological character for use of this theory in the course of formation on its basis as metatheories of more private concepts of national history drew to it attention of the Russian historians of late Soviet and Post-Soviet period. Taking into account provisions of the theory of the patrimonial state asked about the price paid by the Russian society for association of Russian lands, V.B. Kobrin and A.L. Yurganov [12].

Famous modern historian I.P. Yermolaev turned the most close attention on the theory of the patrimonial state. He emphasized that during completion of association of Russian lands around Moscow there was "a patrimonial state". As well as G.V. Plekhanov, Yermolaev considered that in the conditions of such state, at all known lines of similarity, "& #34; русский" the despotism differs from traditional so-called & #34; восточного" (& #34; азиатского") despotism". At the same time the modern researcher more accurately, than the outstanding Marxist, pointed to a basis of specifics of the patrimonial state in comparison with east despotisms. According to Yermolaev, "the despotic governor, as a rule, violates the property rights of the citizens (but to some extent recognizes him or at least pretends that

recognizes)". Differently was in the Moscow state where "the patrimonial governor simply does not recognize for citizens of this right and considers them not subjects, not citizens of society, and quite dependent on the state (i.e. actually from it) units, & #34; винтиками" state organism". More accurately also also the general conclusion is visually made by it: "In the patrimonial state there are no official restrictions of the political power, a zakonopraviya, personal liberty, i.e., figuratively speaking, it more & #34; despotic государство" than & #34; деспотия"". The concluding remark of I.P. Yermolaev according to which a concept "& #34 is of special interest; patrimonial режим" best of all defines that political system which developed in Russia by the end of the 15th century and defined its development in XVI, XVII and next centuries" [13, page 11].

The characteristic of the patrimonial state given by I.P. Yermolaev fuller and consecutive, than in the previous Russian historiography. She allows to get an idea of the importance of this theory for understanding of features of political system and the relation between the power and society in Russia not only in the Moscow state of an era of the late Middle Ages, but also in modern Russian history, about the reasons of historical tragedies in Russia in the latest time, about basic impossibility at a support on the political traditions of the country which developed on the basis of the patrimonial state, to fit into realities of the modern world.

Literature

1. N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky. Feudalism in ancient Russia//Feudalism in Russia. M, 1988. Page 3 - 149.
2. Nechkina M.V. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. Story of life and creativity. M, 1974.
3. P.N. Milyukov. Main currents of the Russian historical thought. M, 1898. T.1.
4. See: Illeritsky V.E. Sergey Mikhaylovich Solovyov. M, 1980.
5. See: N.A. Trapsh. Teoretiko-metodologichesky concept of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky: experience of evolutionary reconstruction. Rostov N / D, 2006.
6. K.D. Kavelin. View of legal life of ancient Russia//our intellectual system: articles on philosophy of the Russian history and culture. M, 1989. Page 11 - 67.
7. I.E. Zabelin. The history of the city of Moscow from Yury Dolgorukiy to Peter I. M, 2006.
8. I.E. Zabelin. A family life of the Russian tsars in XVI and XVII centuries: in 3 books by M., 1990. Prince 1.
9. V.O. Klyuchevsky Kurs Russian history. Part 2//Soch.: in the 9th TM, 1988. T. 2.
10. V.O. Klyuchevsky Kurs Russian history. Part 3//In the same place. T. 3.
11. G.V. Plekhanov. History of the Russian social thought. M.; L., 1925. Prince 1.
12. V.B. Kobrin, A.L. Yurganov. Formation of despotic autocracy in medieval Russia: To statement of a problem//History the USSR. 1991. No. 4. Page 54 - 56.
13. I.P. Yermolaev. Formation of the Russian autocracy. Sources and conditions of its formation: View of a problem. Kazan, 2004.

Came to edition

On November 13, 2009

Phyllis Nguyen
Other scientific works: