The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Studying the Monarchic yard of the Russian state XVI of century in a domestic historiography

UDK 94 (47).043

St.Petersburg State University Bulletin. It is gray. 2. 2013. Issue 4

A. L. Korzinin


the Monarchic yard in the medieval history of Russia represented association of sluzhily people "on the fatherland", being directly involved in the management of the country. Structure, features of formation of the Yard of the middle of the 16th century became the objects of study in a pre-revolutionary historiography. In works

B. N. Tatishcheva, M.M. Shcherbatova, N.M. Karamzina this subject did not receive due lighting yet. Historians looked at evolution of the Russian statehood through a prism of the relations of the sovereign with the aristocracy. In N.M. Karamzin's work "The history of the state Russian" meets attempt in general to characterize structure and position of sluzhily estate in Russia at Ivan III. Karamzin considered that in Ivan Vasilyevich's government "everything became a rank or favor monarchic and "princes of the tribe of Ryurikova and St. Vladimir" on an equal basis with other citizens began to serve great and through service to get titles of boyars, butlers, okolnichy". It promoted unification of the highest estate [1, page 564].


— the second half of the 19th century in the Russian historiography is noted by time of education and development of "public school" which outstanding representatives were S.M. Solovyov and K.D. Kavelin. Historians of "public school" put forward the theory of the Russian historical process as gradual transition from the patrimonial relations to state. In Solovyov and Kavelin's representations, the nobility, and carriers of the state beginning — the autocracy relying on the nobility [2, page 704-707 was carriers of the patrimonial beginning; 3, page 49-54]. The nobility was opposed to autocracy and the nobility, and fight between them turned into the main core of political history of Russia of the end of the 15-16th centuries. Solovyov considered that formation of the state relations in Russia happened during Ivan the Terrible's era, but transition from the patrimonial relations to state began during government of his grandfather Ivan III. The scientist distinguished various groups of the nobility in the Monarchic yard by the beginning of the 16th century. The scientist focused attention on the list of the being present persons on territorial cathedral of 1566. Having noted that the knyazhat on it was not selected in special group, and are written down together with representatives of the untitled nobility, Solovyov considered it sign that "owing to the eminence of value of the grand duke, now the tsar, the value of service to it close, services at court of it towers, and before this value niknt value of origin, value of the prince and son seigniorial; the last name changes the place with the name of the nobleman

Alexander Leonidovich Korzinin there is a candidate of historical sciences, the associate professor, St. Petersburg State University; e-mail:

* Article is prepared by

within performance of work under the Agreement concluded with the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation on application No. 2012-1.2.2-12-000-3001-047 "Medieval Russia: the state, society, church in the 13-16th century", actions of 1.2.2 FTP "Scientific and research and educational personnel of innovative Russia" for 2009-2013 © A.L. Korzinin, 2013

also means already the lowest category of sluzhily people" [4, page 9-10]. From the point of view of Kavelin referring to the statements of the tsar Ivan IV about involvement of people of not notable origin by him the oprichnina "was the first attempt to create the office nobility and to replace with it a patrimonial velmozhestvo — to the place of a sort, the blood beginning, to put the beginning of personal advantage in public administration" [3, page 49-54, 52].

the Public school influenced emergence in the 1860-1870th years of a large number of the researches devoted to studying various public institutions in Russia and a role in them sluzhily estate. In the second half of the 19th century work on the Seigniorial thought of N.P. Zagoskin was published [5, page 39]. Zagoskin specially was not engaged in studying the Monarchic yard as power institution, nevertheless its feather possesses a research where various groups of feudal lords which entered the Yard of grand dukes Moscow since Ivan III's era [6] are carefully studied.

D.I. Ilovaysky considered the hierarchical device of the Monarchic yard in the 16th century. According to the historian, on the top floor, members of the Monarchic thought (boyars, okolnichy, dumny noblemen and dumny clerks) settled down. Behind them there were court ranks (butlers, key keepers, treasurers, oruzhnichy, shaternichy, equerries, yaselnichy, lovchy, falconers, printers, kravchy, stewards, chashnik, Gentlemen of the Bedchamber, sleeping bags, solicitors, rands and residents). Ilovaisk emphasized military sluzhily functions of court ranks of the Yard. Concerning the purposes of Thousand reform of 1550, Dmitry Ivanovich believed that chiliarches represented "the most perfect royal team" [7, page 417-420].


to Studying a role of the aristocracy in the history of Russia during the ancient period and at the time of the Middle Ages and also a role of the Seigniorial thought in formation of autocracy in Russia devoted a basic research of the outstanding Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky "A seigniorial thought of ancient Russia" [8]. Besides, Klyuchevsky in article "The Structure of Representation on Territorial Cathedrals in Ancient Russia" published in the Russkaya Mysl magazine in 1890-1892 concerned hierarchy of ranks of the nobility in the second half of the 16th century, dividing them into stewards, solicitors, residents, noblemen Moscow and elective [9, page 295, 304]. The significant role in registration of nobility, according to the scientist, was played by thousand reform of 1550. The historian compared representatives of territorial cathedral of 1566 to chiliarches and came to a conclusion about a certain compliance of itemized division of sluzhily land owners of the Thousand book of 1550 to headings of noblemen of territorial cathedral [9, page 299-301].

Bright representatives of the historical and legal direction in studying Old Russian history which was issued in the second half of the 19th century are V.I. Sergeevich, M.A. Dyakonov and M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov. Historians-jurists offered the general concept of formation and development of sluzhily estate in Russia. In it was shown how gradually in process of association of lands around Moscow the boyars and servants manumissions lost the traditional right of departure, lost sovereignty, passed to service to the Moscow princes, receiving the ancestral lands and estates. In Ivan the Terrible's government the rapprochement of nobility and nobility in property land rights in connection with adoption of the Code of 1556 about obligation of service from estates and fiefdoms occurs [10, page 130].

V.I. Sergeevich presented to

the short history of the princely, and then royal yard. The historian noted the use in the second half of the 15th century in chronicles of terms "domestic" and "policemen children seigniorial" from which the last did not enter the Yard.

Sergeyevich made by

the curious observations concerning the term "noblemen", having noticed that sources of the second half of the 16th century often meant by noblemen not only landowners, but also children seigniorial and also members of a monarchic thought. The scientist mixed structure and the organization of the nobility in the 16th century and in the 17th centuries, though distinguished among it policemen and domestic children seigniorial, noblemen of elective and Moscow (big). The researcher considered that the Moscow noblemen following on hierarchy at once court ranks, and their service according to the special "Moscow list" are closely connected with Moscow region chiliarches [11, page 357, 431-433, 451-456].

M.A. Dyakonov tracked features of court service of boyars and children seigniorial to grand and specific dukes from 13th century. Concerning the period of association of Russian lands around Moscow at conducted. prince Ivan III, Dyakonov noted that sources carry out strict difference between children seigniorial of the cities and counties and children seigniorial, making the yard of the prince. Under the first the scientist meant free servants, "which serve from the ancestral lands and live in them", and under the second — domestic children seigniorial, serving at court of and from grand-ducal lands. The scientist ennobled over all sluzhily people the "Moscow noblemen" who were serving according to the special "Moscow list" in the capital in the face of the sovereign and carrying out the major court positions. Thousand reform just also created this category of court sluzhily people or "high-ranking people of court staff" [12, page 265, 275].

M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov after M.A. Dyakonov offered

classification of sluzhily people on categories. According to the historian, in the second half of the 16th century members of the Seigniorial thought (boyars, okolnichy, dumny noblemen), court ranks (stewards, solicitors, sleeping bags), "military people" (residents, noblemen Moscow and policemen, children seigniorial), persons of civil service (clerks and scribes) entered into sluzhily estate [10, page 130-131].

N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky made the detailed list of that childbirth which entered the Moscow grand-ducal Yard, since time of government of Ivan III. Sluzhily people or children seigniorial at Ivan the Terrible "become the same as former noblemen, dependent people, the tsar's lackeys; they begin to appreciate the name of the nobleman indicating their proximity to the royal yard". Pavlov-Silvansky, as well as Sergeyevich considered that the Moscow noblemen left chiliarches [13, page 95-101, 103-107].

M.V. Dovnar-Zapolsky in an essay "Time of the tsar Ivan the Terrible" from the history of the Monarchic yard considered the decree on an ispomeshcheniye of the chosen one thousand the best servants near Moscow. The scientist noticed numerical coincidence of chiliarches and guardsmen and saw repressive character in Thousand reform. For the purpose of undermining economic power of the patrimonial aristocracy and its transformation it is exclusive in court servants representatives of the nobility as if were deprived of their ancient ancestral lands and an ispomeshchena on estates situated near Moscow under a specious excuse of monarchic palace service [14, page 219-220]. Dovnar-Zapolsky's opinion on chiliarches as about predecessors of the oprichnik yard relied on similar observation of S.F. Platonov [15, page 134-135].

the Big role in studying ruling estate of the Russian state of the 16th century were played by N.P. Likhachev and N.V. Myatlev. In the fundamental monograph "Digit Clerks in the 16th Century." which incorporated a huge number of archival digit, genealogical, parochial, assembly sources, Likhachev lit various parties

of life of representatives of the Yard of the Moscow princes, first of all clerks of the Digit order. Likhachev assumed, referring to the single and deaf indication of the inventory of 1626 about "the book domestic to the 85th year" that the Domestic notebook of the 1550th years, the major source on studying the Russian nobility of the 16th century, was made in 1577 by "data of several seigniorial lists and tithes" [16, page 444-446]. Obviously, Likhachev confused the Domestic notebook with the seigniorial list of 1577

N.V. Myatlev in the work "Chiliarches and the Moscow nobility of the XVI century" based on preliminary thorough study of origin and service of chiliarches [17] made deep observations over evolution of sluzhily estate [18]. According to Myatlev, "the local salary situated near Moscow on the insignificance could not have independent value and was given to the sluzhily person... only as help for this Moscow service also was only addition to its main local salary". Therefore chiliarches did not break off communications with the counties from where they were called on capital service and continued to own estates and fiefdoms. Myatlev noted that the faces which are written down in the Thousand book "do not exhaust all cash in half of XVI list of domestic children of the seigniorial "best servants" who were in the constant service in Moscow at all". Comparing the structure of the written-down land owners in the Thousand book to the Domestic notebook, Myatlev came to a conclusion that the best got to the first only "service and the fatherland elective children seigniorial the domestic list". Considering members of chiliarches and elective noblemen, the researcher came to a conclusion about identity of chiliarches with elective and Moscow noblemen [18, page 41, 43, 37, 66-68, 82]. At last, Myatlev possesses curious observations over the organization, structure and evolution of a monarchic regiment in the second half of the 16th century


V.I. Novitsky believed that at the beginning of the 16th century in the cities there was no division of children seigniorial on policemen and domestic yet [19, page 2]. The institute of the choice was created for the purpose of attraction to capital service of the children who settled on the cities seigniorial, earlier serving in the Monarchic yard. Thousand reform of 1550 promoted an appeal to Moscow domestic and policemen of children seigniorial and to their inclusion in structure of the royal yard. Unlike Myatlev Novitsky believed that transfer in chiliarches led to a break with local sluzhily corporations and a main goal had replenishment of "a capital sluzhilost". The elective nobility, according to Novitsky, was originally only in Moscow, but at the end of the 16th century as it is visible from tithes, the elective group of noblemen appeared on places, having towered over domestic and policemen children seigniorial and having turned into the main reserve for an appeal on capital service. Elective noblemen in the second half of the 16th century were completed generally from domestic children seigniorial, is more rare — from policemen [19, page 117, 80-98].


about a pre-revolutionary historiography, it should be noted that problems of evolution, structure and the principles of completing of the Monarchic yard of the 16th century in it did not become objects of special researches. Scientists considered in general the structure of sluzhily estate, local providing children seigniorial, features of "enslaving" of the nobility from the grand-ducal power. Important observations over structure and the organization domestic and policemen of children seigniorial, the elective and Moscow nobility were made. However historians were most often limited only to the general reasons, except for Likhachev and Myatlev's works, without subjecting to study members of representatives of the Yard.

the subject of history of the Monarchic yard was

In the Soviet historiography first unpopular because of a political environment. The nobility was called as a class of the exploiters using in the needs of feudal and dependent peasants and lackeys. Studying a class of sluzhily land owners got under the secret ban, and historians were engaged in studying this important story imperceptibly and kind of covertly, wrote "to a table", but not for publications. In an official historiography of historians began to interest most of all questions of a periodization of medieval history of Russia and forms of government.

Along with general-theoretical questions in the Soviet historiography, however, only in post-war years, studying structure of the aristocracy continued. One of the first this subject was brought up by S.B. Veselovsky. He carefully studied land tenure of princes Vorotynsky, Odoevsky, Belsky and Mstislavsky in the 16th century, but considered sluzhily and specific princes as one group, without seeing differences in their status and situation [20]. In consideration of features of development of feudal land tenure in Northeast Russia the fundamental monograph by Veselovsky written on the richest archive material of archive of Troitse-Sergiyev of the monastery [21] had huge value.

In 1963 posthumously the monograph by S.B. Veselovsky of "A research on oprichnina history" appeared. The certain head "Reform of 1550 and the so-called Thousand book" is devoted to the history of the Monarchic yard of the middle of the 16th century. Having in details explained the ispomeshcheniye reasons near Moscow "thousands of the best servants", Veselovsky assumed that lands situated near Moscow about 600 people, the one fifth part of the yard owned. The scientist did not doubt an ispomeshcheniye of chiliarches in the Moscow County and also in the neighboring Dmitrovsky, Ruza, Zvenigorod, Vereysky, Kolomna Counties, emphasizing that "this action of very large social and economic value". Veselov-sky, as well as Myatlev considered that institute of the choice, elective noblemen appeared thanks to thousand reform and that chiliarches entered the Monarchic yard [22, page 78-79, 81, 83].

the Important milestone in the course of studying the nobility. fundamental monograph by S.B. Veselovsky of "Research on history of a class of sluzhily land owners". Studying history of a sort was carried out by Veselovsky by means of the analysis of biographies of his certain representatives in interrelation with biographies of relatives. The scientist made important observations over structure and numerical structure of the Monarchic yard in the middle of the 16th century. According to him, "all class of privileged sluzhily land owners, landowners and watchinnik, was divided into two very unequal parts": The monarchic yard (in it there were about 2600 people) and children of the seigniorial, serving "with the city" or pouyezdny policemen of children seigniorial (about 35 thousand in regimental service and 10 thousand in obsidional service). Ivan the Terrible's oprichnina became a separate subject for study for Veselovsky. Having counted about 150 people serving in oprichnina and having defined their social origin from princely and seigniorial childbirth, the researcher came to a conclusion that "Ivan recruited to himself guardsmen or directly from the old Monarchic yard, or from that childbirth which long before oprichnina served according to the domestic list" [23, page 90]. Thereby the myth about guardsmen as natives of bottoms of society, started at the time by Ivan the Terrible and supported by Kavelin was dispelled.

In the 60th years of the 20th century in communication by political changes in Sovetsk the state, Khruschev's "thaw" important works on a policy research

are published

of oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible [22; 24; 25; 26]. Interest in oprichnina spoke not only the changed socio-political conditions, but also discussions about time of folding of absolute monarchy in Russia. Researchers subjected to the scrupulous analysis the oprichnik yard of Ivan the Terrible. V.B. Kobrin who devoted to this subject the master's thesis provided data on land tenure, services, family relations of 277 guardsmen [27]. A.A. Zimin considered this list not full and added to it some more dozen guardsmen on the basis of indirect data [28, page 214-216, 378-380]. Kobrin and Zimin noted that in the oprichnik yard the well-born people, representatives of the Monarchic yard of the middle of the 16th century mentioned in the Thousand book and the Domestic notebook prevailed. Nevertheless historians did not come to a consensus concerning members of oprichnina. The points of view about members of the oprichnik Yard of S.B. Veselovsky, P.A. Sadikov, G.N. Bibikov, L.M. Sukhotin, D.N. Alshits are contradictory.

A.L. Stanislavsky and S.P. Mordovina devoted a research to clarification of structure of the Yard of Ivan IV in the period of Simeon Bekbulatovich's government in 1575-1576, having proved more hudorodny structure of the Yard of this period in comparison with the oprichnik Yard [29]. Stanislavsky for the 60-70th years of the 20th century very fruitfully was engaged in the Monarchic yard of the last quarter of XV — the beginnings of the 17th century. The number of the Monarchic yard, according to the scientist, at the end of XVI — the beginning of the 17th century increased from 1100 (1589) to 1500 (1603-1604) the person. Stanislavsky made very important observations of rather various ranks of the Monarchic yard: solicitors, stewards, residents. Comparing ranks of elective and Moscow noblemen, the scientist believed that differences between them should be looked for not in the nature of land tenure (both that and others had the right to estates situated near Moscow), and in the nature of their service (the Moscow noblemen bore capital service, and elective — service mainly "with the city"). Without identifying chiliarches and elective noblemen (among chiliarches there were boyars and okolnichy which could not enter into the elective nobility), the scientist nevertheless emphasized communication between Thousand reform and the new high-ranking organization of the Monarchic yard of the second half of the 16th century [30, page 130-134].

the Significant contribution to studying structure of the Monarchic yard and various groups of feudal lords of the end of the 15-16th centuries was brought by A.A. Zimin. The scientist continued Veselovsky's work on genealogical researches and reconstruction of history of seigniorial childbirth. To scientists it was established that three "elements" entered the Monarchic yard since the end of the 15th century: princes who were on the Moscow service from 14th century. (Gediminovich, Obolensky, Ryapolov-sky), then boyars, as a rule, also long since connected with Moscow (Cat's, Morozov, Chelyadnina, Lame and others), at last, domestic children seigniorial or noblemen [31, page 20-21]. Zimin did very important work on a research of lists and the publication of the Thousand book of 1550 and the Domestic notebook. Zimin after Veselovsky considered that the Domestic notebook is the complete list of the Monarchic yard of the middle of the 16th century [32, page 371]. The researcher managed to specify significantly dating of a monument on the basis of the analysis of lists of boyars and okolnichy, having assumed the beginning of drawing up a source in 1551/1552 and end in 1560 [33, page 17, 18; 32, page 371-372].

N.E. Nosov in the monograph devoted to formation of territorial institutions in the Russian state in the period of Ivan the Terrible's government devoted the head to the analysis of the Seigniorial book of 1556. The scientist saw in the faces of members of the Yard which are written down in sources and carefully studied their origin and biographies. Nosov considered that "the institute

of the choice was not created by an ispomeshcheniye of the chosen one thousand, and its structure in the fifties not necessarily was identical to the chosen one thousand though many representatives of the last in any given time were its part" [34, page 403].


Important observations over structure of the Monarchic yard made B.N. Flor in article about the Domestic notebook as a historical source. Flor noted existence in headings where sluzhily children seigniorial are written down, it is a lot of perezhitochny phenomena connected with use of earlier documentation. As well as Zimin, he considers that the Domestic notebook gives the list of the persons which were a part of the Yard for the 1550th years, however this list is not full, in it are absent domestic on the Northwest (To Novgorod, Pskov, Velikiye Luki, Toroptsu, etc.) [35, page 44-46, 52-57].

released M.E. Bychkov's

the important monograph devoted to structure of a class of feudal lords in the 16th century. Besides the detailed review of literature on genealogical studying the Russian nobility the book included important sources on stories of ruling estate: unpublished genealogical paintings of some childbirth, categories of weddings, the necrology on murdered in abuse [36].

V.D. Nazarov devoted a number of works to various groups as a part of the Monarchic yard. Its separate work is devoted to stewards and solicitors, based on the fragments of seigniorial lists found and published by the scientist. Sorting the list of stewards from the seigniorial list of 1546-1547, their office appointments and genealogical structure, Nazarov came to a conclusion that all stewards were the young people who were just starting the career. In solicitors people with a long standing of military and administration service, the natives of the old Moscow seigniorial childbirth standing a step below stewards on a scale of ranks are written down generally. According to Nazarov, in the middle of the 16th century the transition from territorial to high-ranking structure of the Monarchic yard is gradually carried out, but at that moment there was still no complete separation with former, territorial structure of the yard" as all stewards and solicitors were written down in the corresponding territorial headings of the Domestic notebook [37, page 49-51].

Valuable observations over structure and the organization of the lowest layer of the Monarchic yard — domestic children seigniorial, were made by M.G. Krotov. Having noted specifics of tithes as source (brought in them not only domestic, but also policemen of children seigniorial), the scientist on the basis of data of the tithes of 1556 reconstructed by it across Novgorod and Pskov drew a conclusion on entry of the nobility of northwest counties into structure of the Yard in the 1550th years. Krotov believes that "the purpose of thousand reform is an attempt to create the corporation similar to the future & #34; выбору"" [38, page 97-98].

Summing up the results of studying a subject of the Monarchic yard in the Russian state of the 16th century in the Soviet historiography, it is necessary to emphasize that only since the end of the 40th — the beginning of the 50th years of the 20th century historians gradually begin to study various groups of feudal lords and the Monarchic yard of the 16th century in general. The research of this plot studied in parallel with the edition of the major sources in the history of the Yard. Thanks to S.B. Veselovsky, A.A. Zimin, A.L. Stanislavsky, V.D. Nazarov's works the strong base for further genealogical researches for the purpose of reconstruction of genealogical sluzhily land owners, the analysis of their office activity, land tenure evolution consideration was created. However the interest of the Soviet experts was chained to the single questions concerning the critical moments of the Russian history, first of all by Ivan the Terrible's oprichnina, to structure of the oprichnik, and then special Yard of Ivan Vasilyevich.

In the latest historiography the serious interest of scientists in about-soprografichesky approach, studying separate biographies of representatives of the nobility for the solution of general historical problems of evolution of nobility is evident. Interest in history of the individual, reconstruction of a collective portrait of the Russian nobility was connected with change of the state ideology, avoiding banality and ideas of a key role of a people at large and class fight in historical process. Subjects on stories of a class of feudal lords of Russia 16th century, were open for reconstruction of genealogical noble childbirth for historical investigations and scientific discussions. In the latest historiography the deep development of the plots concerning structure and evolution of the Monarchic yard in Russia in the middle — the second half of the 16th century, belongs to A.P. Pavlov and V.D. Nazarov.

A. P. Pavlov defines the Monarchic yard as special ruling and privileged group of sluzhily people as the socio-political institute towering over other mass of children seigniorial, serving "with the city" and not having an opportunity directly to participate in work of the highest management personnel. According to Pavlov, chiliarches made most of members of the Monarchic yard of the middle of the 16th century [39, page 4, 89-90]. Pavlov assumes that in the 1550th years "already during the doo-prichny period domestic children seigniorial cease to be considered as members of the yard and make only one of ranks & #34; sluzhily города"". Instead of domestic children of the seigniorial 50th years of the 16th century in the second half, elective noblemen appear. Pavlov after Myatlev considers that the structure of the elective nobility corresponded to the list of chiliarches. To the beginning of reforms of the Yard, according to the scientist, Thousand reform put. From here — proximity on the list of chiliarches and the elective nobility. In Boris Godunov's government the transformations of the Monarchic yard consisted, according to Pavlov, "in reduction of its structure in strict compliance with eminence and breed of the sluzhily person, in decrease in ranks of the hudorodny representatives of the district nobility entering the special yard of Ivan the Terrible". "Among boyars, okolnichy, stewards, solicitors and noblemen Moscow the resolute prevalence was received by representatives of princely and seigniorial childbirth" — Pavlov notes [39, page 98, 251].

B. D. Nazarov on the basis of the analysis of structure of seigniorial lists and other sources offered the following picture of division of the Monarchic yard in the middle of the 16th century on a number of class and high-ranking groups: dumny and palace ranks (boyars, okolnichy, butlers, treasurers, lovchy, oruzhnichy, Gentlemen of the Bedchamber, printers, falconers), stewards, solicitors, princes and domestic children seigniorial, clerks and residents [37, page 47; 40, page 12-13]. Nazarov doubts the number of people, domestic in 3 thousand, for the middle of the 16th century (by the number of the faces which are written down in the Domestic notebook) as at the end of the 16th century domestic there were a little more than 1 thousand people. Comparing stewards to solicitors, Nazarov noted that the aristocratic layer among solicitors is small, representatives of the old Moscow seigniorial childbirth which is pushed aside on the second plan meet. Studying residents, the scientist came to a conclusion about their emergence on pages of narrative sources for the first time in June, 1552. The most widespread service of residents was as poddatny (i.e. assistants) royal watch bells [40, page 13]. Nazarov devoted special article to features of the use of the term "nobleman" in the Russian diplomatic documents and reconstruction of genealogical structure and a social origin of the Russian ambassadors and envoys to Lithuania at the end of XV — the first third of the 16th century [41].

S.N. Bogatyrev subjected to a fixed research group of the persons which are brought most closer to the tsar Ivan the Terrible which are most entrusted and powerful advisers which the scientist called the term "Near or Secret Thought" contrary to the Seigniorial thought. Bogatyrev made careful selection of the sources fixing staff of the Near thought and gave detailed characteristic of all her representatives for 1550 — the 1570th years [42-44].

presented to M.E. Bychkov's

detailed hierarchy of childbirth in ruling class which in general coincides with Zimin's researches in the monograph devoted to comparison of public institutions and class institutes of the Russian state and Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the end of the 15-16th centuries. The researcher noted that if the seigniorial aristocracy entering the Monarchic yard is studied rather well, then lower the Yard are considered insufficiently [45, page 90-93].

S.Z. Chernov presented to

formation of sluzhily corporation Voloka Lamskogo to XIV — the first half of the 16th century. The scientist tracked the fate of representatives military sluzhiloy Voloka corporations to the Domestic notebook of the 1550th years, having noted the process of crushing of the ancestral lands gaining strength at local sluzhily land owners which forced many of them "to serve on lying closer to border Rzhev, Béla, to Vyazma, the Seversk cities" [46, page 318-320].

M.M. Bentsianov in the master's thesis about the Monarchic yard and territorial corporations of sluzhily people of the end XV — the middle of the 16th century considers by

the end

XV century time of formation of the Monarchic yard in connection with creation of the uniform Russian state [47, page 5]. Bentsianov means the special military-political and military and administrative association of sluzhily people playing an important role in life of the Russian state in the 15-17th centuries by the Monarchic yard [47, page 3]. The researcher in detail considered such sluzhily corporations as children seigniorial the Novgorod earth, the titled nobility on the Moscow service and territorial corporations of sluzhily land owners from Vyazma, the Small Resident of Yaroslavl, Mozhaisk at the end of XV — the middle of the 16th century

in XIV — the first half of the 16th century devoted to Sluzhily people of Northeast Russia the book by I.B. Mikhaylov. In the center of study there were noblemen and children seigniorial and also house and trade servants of the prince. Concerning the Monarchic yard, Mikhaylova agreed with Bentsianov's opinion on the beginning of its functioning since 1433 during feudal (dynastic) war. In the 70-80th years of the 15th century. The monarchic yard acquired accurately registered structure that "it is necessary to consider as result of purposeful policy of Ivan III" [48, page 362, 380, 530-531].

Interest in the history of the Monarchic yard in Russia in the 15-16th centuries was shown by

in holding in 2003 the international conference in Alexandrov. Reports on various aspects of studying the Yard were made by leading experts across medieval Russia: V.D. Nazarov, A.P. Pavlov, M. Agoshton, A.I. Alekseev and others. K.V. Baranov suggested about drawing up the Domestic notebook not in 1551/1552, and much earlier — in 1536/1537, referring to late certificates of the 17th century on existence of the seigniorial book of 7045 g [49].

In the collective monograph "Ruling Elite of the Russian State IX — the Beginning of the 18th Century." (2006). L.I. Ivina and A.P. Pavlov in appropriate sections on stories of ruling elite of the first half of the 16th century and the Monarchic yard of the second half


XVI summed up the results of studying the matter century [50, page 151-272].


At last, O.A. Kurbatov considered history of the Monarchic regiment — combat unit of the Monarchic yard in the 15-16th centuries. Kurbatov connects establishment of the Monarchic regiment as fighting connection of the Yard and institute of the elective nobility with Thousand reform of 1550. The undoubted advantage of work is that the scientist focused attention on military matters, tactical division of the Monarchic regiment into various divisions (ertaul, a dress, regiments and hundreds) for performance of purely military tasks. Besides, Kurbatov conducted a comparative-historical research of the Moscow military organization with the military organization of the Mongolian and Byzantine empires, having found the greatest number of coincidence to the last [51].

it is noticeable that interest to historical and genealogical and also to complex historical and archaeological and historical and geographical researches was outlined in the latest historiography. However, despite emergence of a significant amount of works on the history of the Monarchic yard of the XVI century in general and representatives of the Yard in particular, the separate periods of functioning of the Yard as socio-political institute were not considered. Researchers disregarded the Monarchic yard of the grand duke Vasily III (1505-1533). Despite frequent and permanent links in works till the 15-17th centuries on the Domestic notebook of the 1550th years, this monument still did not become object of independent study.

Sources and literature

1. N.M. Karamzin of Istoriya of the state Russian. T. VI. Tula: Prioksky book publishing house, 1990. 622 pages
2. S.M. Solovyov Istoriya Russia since the most ancient times. Book III. M.: Sotsekgiz, 1960. 815 pages
3. K.D. Kavelin of SOBR. soch. T. I. SPb.: Tipogr. M.M. Stasyulevich, 1897. 1052 pages
4. Solovyov S.M. Soch. Istoriya of Russia since the most ancient times. Book IV, t. VII. M.: Thought, 1989. 751 pages
5. N.P. Zagoskin of Istoriya of the right of the Moscow state. T. I. Kazan: University tipogr., 1877. 344 pages
6. N.P. Zagoskin. Essays of the organization and origin of sluzhily estate in pre-Pertine Russia. T. I. Kazan: University tipogr., 1875. 860 pages
7. Ilovaisk D.I. Istoriya of Russia. T. III. M.: Tipogr. M.G. Volchaninova, 1890. 717 pages
8. V.O. Klyuchevsky. Seigniorial thought of Ancient Russia. M.: Tipogr. A. Ivanova, 1882. 554 pages
9. V.O. Klyuchevsky. The structure of representation on Territorial cathedrals of Ancient Russia//Klyuchevsky V.O. Soch. In 9 t. T. VIII. M.: Thought, 1990. 446 pages
10. M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov. Review of history of the Russian right. Kiev: Tipogr. I.N. Kushnereva, 1900. 667 pages
11. Sergeyevich of V.I. Russkiye legal antiquities. T. I. SPb.: Tipogr. N.A. Lebedeva, 1890. 517 pages
12. M.A. Dyakonov. Essays of the social and political system of Ancient Russia. SPb.: Tipogr. I.G. Rosen, 1908. 509 pages
13. N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky. Monarchic sluzhily people. Origin of the Russian nobility. SPb.: State tipogr., 1898. 330 pages
14. The Russian history in essays and articles / under the editorship of M.V. Dovnar-Zapolsky. T. 2. M.: Mosk. studies. knigo-publishing house, 1910. 439 pages
15. S.F. Platonov. Essays on the Distemper stories in the Moscow state in the 16-17th centuries of SPb.: Tipogr. M.A. Alexandrova, 1910. 624 pages
16. N.P. Likhachev. Digit clerks of the 16th century of SPb.: Tipogr. V.S. Balasheva, 1888. 738 pages
17. N.P. Likhachev, N.V. Myatlev. Thousand book 7059-1550 Oryol: Historical and genealogical society, 1911. 263 pages
18. N.V. Myatlev. Chiliarches and Moscow nobility of the 16th century Oryol: Tipogr. Provincial board, 1912.
19. V.I. Novitsky. Elective and big nobility of the 16-17th centuries. Kiev: Tipogr. The first Kiev artel of printing, 1915. 178 pages
20. S.B. Veselovsky. The last destinies in Northeast Russia//Historical notes. T. 22. M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1947. Page 101-131.
21. S.B. Veselovsky. Feudal land tenure in Northeast Russia. T. I. M.; L.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1947. 494 pages
22. S.B. Veselovsky. Researches on oprichnina history. M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1963. 539 pages
23. S.B. Veselovsky. Researches on history of a class of sluzhily land owners. M.: Science, 1969. 583 pages
24. Zimin of A.A. Oprichnin Ivan il Terribile. M.: Thought, 1964. 535 pages
25. R.G. Skrynnikov. Beginning of oprichnina. L.: LIE publishing house, 1966. 418 pages
26. R.G. Skrynnikov. Oprichnik terror. L.: LIE publishing house, 1969. 343 pages
27. V.B. Kobrin. Structure of the Oprichnik yard of Ivan the Terrible//Arkheografichesky the year-book for 1959 M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1960. Page 16-91.
28. A.A. Zimin. Oprichnina. M.: Territory, 2001. 448 pages
29. S.P. Mordovina, A.L. Stanislavsky. Structure of the special yard of Ivan IV during "great reigning" of Simeon Bekbulatovich//Arkheografichesky the year-book for 1976. M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1977. Page 153-193.
30. A.L. Stanislavsky. Works on the history of the monarchic yard in Russia of the 16-17th centuries. M.: Prod. RGGU center, 2004. 505 pages
31. A.A. Zimin. Formation of the seigniorial aristocracy in Russia in the second half of XV — the first third of the 16th century M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1988. 348 pages
32. A.A. Zimin. Ivan the Terrible's reforms. M.: Publishing house of social and economic literature, 1960. 511 pages
33. Thousand book of 1550 and Domestic notebook of the 50th years of the 16th century / podg. for printing A.A. Zimin. M.; L.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1950. 455 pages
34. N.E. noses. Formation of class representative institutions in Russia. Researches about Territorial reform of Ivan the Terrible. L.: Science, 1969. 602 pages
35. B.N. Flor. Several remarks on the Domestic notebook as a historical source//the Arkheografichesky year-book for 1973 M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1974. Page 41-57.
36. M.E. Bychkova. Structure of a class of feudal lords in Russia in the 16th century. Historical and genealogical research. M.: Science, 1986. 220 pages

37. V.D. Nazarov. About structure of the Monarchic yard in the middle of the 16th century//Society and the state the feudal lord?

ivan iv terrible oprichnina monarchic yard aristocracy social policy ivan iv the terrible oprichnina tsar court aristocracy social policy
Louis Black
Other scientific works: