The question of the nature of representation at the Zemsky Sobor of 1598 is one of those on which our understanding of the evolution of the estate-representative institutions of the Russian state in the sixteenth century largely depends. The main source of the council's history gave rise to lengthy disputes about its composition - the approved charter on the election of Boris Fyodorovich Godunov to the tsarship, in which among other participants of the council nobles were named "from the cities of choice"¹ .

Historians for quite a long time identified the term "choice "with electivity and saw in the elected nobles delegates elected to the council from their seats . ² V. O. Klyuchevsky was the first to draw attention to the fact that the term" choice "in Russia also meant"the highest rank of the serving provincial hierarchy". Comparing the list of those elected at the Council of 1598 with the boyar list of 1577, he found that 10 people out of 34 members of the electoral council who were included in the list for selection from cities, even 20 years before this council belonged to the capital's nobility. Based on this observation, V. O. Klyuchevsky came to the conclusion: in 1598, " the council list grouped members of the council not only by their official ranks, but by placing people of different ranks in the group of city selection, giving this title the meaning not of an official rank, but of elective representation."³ . According to V. O. Klyuchevsky, the metropolitan service people designated by their ranks in the Approved Charter were not elected representatives of the provincial nobility at the council.

V. O. Klyuchevsky's work on Zemstvo councils was an important milestone in the study of these institutions, but his conclusions about the nature of representation at the Council of 1598 were met with caution by some historians. ⁴ S. F. Platonov wrote, for example: "You can doubt it

¹ " Acts collected in the libraries and archives of the Russian Empire by the Archeographic Expedition of the Imperial Academy of Sciences "(hereinafter - AAE). Vol. II. SPB. 1836, pp. 44, 52.

² N. M. Karamzin. Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiiskogo [History of the Russian State], Vol. X. SPB. 1824, p. 233, note 396; S. M. Solov'ev. The history of Russia since ancient times. Book IV. Moscow, 1960, p. 348; P. V. Pavlov. About some Zemsky sobors of the XVI and XVII centuries. Otechestvennye Zapiski, 1859, No. 3, p. 166; V. I. Sergeevich. Zemsky sobors in the Moscow state. "Collection of State knowledge", Vol. II. St. Petersburg, 1875, pp. 56-57; "Kiev University News", 1875, N 10, pp. 261-276; M. F. Vladimirsky-Budanov. Review of the history of Russian law. Issue 1. Kiev, 1886, p. 147; N. P. Zagoskin. Istoriya prava Moskovskogo gosudarstva [History of the Law of the Moscow State]. 1877, pp. 228-320; V. N. Latkin. Zemsky sobors of ancient Russia, their history and organization in comparison with Western European representative institutions. St. Petersburg, 1885, pp. 93-96; D. I. Ilovaisky. Istoriya Rossii [History of Russia], Vol. 3, Moscow, 1890, p. 358.

³ V. O. Klyuchevsky, Soch. Vol. 8, Moscow, 1959, pp. 59-60.

⁴ A. E. Mertsalov, I. A. Stratonov and later N. A. Rozhkov agreed with the main conclusions of V. O. Klyuchevsky (A. E. Mertsalov. Boris Godunov. 1584-1605 "Historical Bulletin", 1893, NN 11 and 12; I. Stratonov. Notes on

page 55

the fact that in Moscow in 1598, forming a council of 500 people according to the old principle of official representation, they granted a new right to be elected representatives to only three dozen provincial nobles. " ⁵ V. O. Klyuchevsky was criticized by A. I. Zaozersky, who, although he did not provide convincing arguments, nevertheless saw no obstacles to considering "electives" as a special rank, and all cathedrals of the XVI century as institutions more bureaucratic than representative ^.6 Finally, S. A. Avaliani called all nobles elected at the council, but not by their place of land ownership, but by their place of service ^.7

The thesis about the elective nature of representation at the Zemsky Sobor of 1598 was also included in Soviet historiography. Academician M. N. Tikhomirov argued with V. O. Klyuchevsky about representation at the councils of the XVI century. "because of his official position, and not because of public trust" and claimed that "the council practice already at the end of the XVI century knew the convocation of elected representatives from different parts of Russia" ⁸ . G. B. Galperin, like M. N. Tikhomirov, based on the testimony of a New Chronicler, also wrote about the election to the council of 1598 of representatives "from the most remote regions of the country" ⁹ . N. I. Pavlenko, considering the evolution of zemstvo councils, noted as one of the stages in their development the presence of a choice of cities at the Council of 1598, "while the participants in the council of 1566 were persons appointed by the government" ¹⁰ .

Since a fundamentally new feature of the Zemsky Sobor of 1598 is usually considered to be the presence of elected representatives of the provincial nobility in its composition, we will focus on the main argument of V. O. Klyuchevsky in favor of this point of view.

The question of electability at the Council of 1598 is reduced in this case to the analysis of the list of elected nobles in the list of Approved charters ¹¹, in which, according to V. O. Klyuchevsky, the" choice " unexpectedly includes nine nobles and one tenant on the list of 1577, which prevented V. O. Klyuchevsky from considering the choice in the list of charters in the meaning of rank ¹² . However, as A. L. Stanislavsky established, almost

history of the Zemsky Sobors of Moscow Russia. "Scientific Notes" of Kazan University, 1906, No. 3; N. A. Rozhkov. V. O. Klyuchevsky, 15 years after the publication of the study on cathedrals in the course of lectures on Russian history, softened his conclusion about the elective element at the Cathedral of 1598: "But next to them (the metropolitan nobles. - p M. ) we meet a rather small number of nobles... who can with some probability be considered elected cathedral deputies of the uyezd noble societies from their own environment." In the course of his lectures, V. O. Klyuchevsky thus emphasized the random nature of this element, which did not violate the basic principle of official conciliar representation (see V. O. Klyuchevsky, Soch. Vol. 2, Moscow, 1957, p. 379).

⁵ S. F. Platonov. To the history of the Moscow Zemsky Sobors. "Zhurnal dlya vsego", 1905, No. 2, p. 99.

⁶ A. I. Zaozersky. On the question of the composition and significance of Zemstvo councils. "Journal of the Ministry of National Education", 1909, No. 6, pp. 299-314.

⁷ S. A. Avaliani. Zemsky sobors. Odessa. 1910, pp. 44-65.

⁸ M. N. Tikhomirov. Estate-representative institutions (zemsky sobors) in Russia of the XVI century. Voprosy Istorii, 1958, No. 5, p. 17.

⁹ G. B. Halperin even believes that the Council of 1566 already had an elective beginning (see G. B. Halperin. The form of government of the Russian centralized state of the XV-XVI centuries. l. 1964, pp. 59-62).

¹⁰ N. I. Pavlenko. K istorii zemskikh soborov XVI v. "Voprosy istorii", 1968, N 5, p. 85.

¹¹ When studying the composition of the Council of 1598, it should be borne in mind that the list of its participants included in the Approved Charter appeared after the summer Serpukhov campaign of 1598 and that, consequently, information about the original composition of the council has not been preserved (S. P. Mordovina. To the history of the Approved Charter of 1598 "Archeographic yearbook for 1968", Moscow, 1970). In the following discussion, all calculations about the composition of the Zemsky Sobor of 1598 are made according to the list of Approved documents, since the use of signatures belonging to a slightly later time does not give an idea of the one-time composition of the council.

¹² For more information about the nobles elected from the cities, see V. I. Novitsky. Elective and large nobility of the XVI-XVII centuries. Kyiv. 1915.

page 56

the entire list of Moscow nobles published in the "Acts of the Moscow State" as part of the boyar list of 1577 refers in reality not to 1577, but to the boyar list of 1606-1607. ¹³ and , consequently, the ranks of the capital's nobles "elected" at the Cathedral of 1598 were not 20 years before the council, as they were before the Council of 1598. believed V. O. Klyuchevsky, and nine years after him. Comparing the boyar lists with the list of elected nobles in the Approved Charter, V. O. Klyuchevsky went the right way, and only the mistake of the publishers of the boyar list of 1577 prevented him from identifying the "elected" of the Approved charter and the elected nobles of the boyar lists and tithes. The removal of this error will probably bring some clarity to the long-running dispute over the nature of representation at the last council of the sixteenth century. Boyar lists make it possible to establish that 9 out of 10 people, on the example of which V. O. Klyuchevsky based his conclusions [¹⁴], served in the late XVI-early XVII centuries not as metropolitan, but as elected nobles:

In addition to these nine people, other "electives" at the cathedral of 1598 were recorded as elected nobles in the boyar lists. Some of them later rose to metropolitan and even duma ranks (A. I. Zyuzin and A. V. Izmailov), but all of them, by the time of the Zemsky Sobor of 1598, were undoubtedly in the rank of elected nobles. Thus, there is no longer any reason to believe that the heading "from cities to choose" of the Approved charter of 1598 includes service people of different ranks with the meaning of elected representatives of the provincial nobility.

The most important source for studying the composition of the Zemsky Sobor of 1598, along with other boyar lists of the late XVI-early XVII centuries, is the boyar list, almost contemporary to the cathedral, which records the ranks of the sovereign's court, which were located in 1598-1599 in the Moscow region.-

¹³ "Acts of the Moscow State" (hereinafter - AMG). Vol. 1. SPB. 1890, pp. 39-47.

¹⁴ V. O. Klyuchevsky did not mention the names of these persons, but according to our calculations, only nine elected representatives of 1598 are listed in the list of nobles and tenants in the AMG. Apparently, V. O. Klyuchevsky also meant M. S. Dmitriev: in the list of Approved letters, he was written among the Moscow nobles, but his signature is erroneously given in the preserved list of letters together with the signatures of elected people from cities; in the boyar list of the time of the council, he is a Moscow nobleman (AAE. Vol. II, p. 44, 51; TSGADA, f. 210, Columns of the Moscow table, N 1092, stolpik 6, l. 8).

¹⁵ In the boyar list of 1577, A. M. Akinfov is listed as a tenant, and eight other electives are not mentioned in it, but are listed as nobles of Moscow in the boyar list of 1606-1607 (AMG. Vol. 1, p. 40; TSGADA, f. 210, Columns of the Moscow table, N 1, stolpik 3, ll. 115-117.

¹⁶ TSGADA, f. 210, Columns of the Moscow table, N 751, stolpik 3, ll. 9a, 29, 36, 40, 45, 49, 53.

¹⁷ Ibid., N 1092, stolpik 6, ll. 10-11, 13-15.

¹⁸ Ibid. N 1132. stolpik 1, ll. 6, 9, 16, 38, 46.

page 57

skovskaya service ¹⁹ . This list helps to clarify the principles of conscription to the Zemsky Sobor of service people who formed the majority in relation to other classes at it. A comparative analysis of the boyar list of 1598-1599 and the list of Approved Documents of 1598 shows, first of all, that the source of the list was the boyar list compiled shortly before the Council.

The structure and composition of the list of participants of the council in the Approved charter of 1598 and the boyar list of 1598-1599 show great similarity. In both documents, we find similar headings, some of them are not found in well-known sources of that time: "at the Empress Tsarina and Grand Duchess Mary Diyaki", "at the tenants". In comparison with the charter, the boyar list of 87 nobles has only 15 new faces, and 32 people are missing in comparison with it (in the charter of 104 nobles). Lists of stewards, solicitors and clerks are even closer in composition in the charter and in the boyar list.

From 38 members of the Boyar Duma of the beginning of 1598 in the Approved charter (including signatures) for various reasons, only four are not mentioned: the boyars Princes F. D. Shestunov and I. V. Sitsky, the okolnichy Prince I. V. Veliky-Gagin and the Duma nobleman E. L. Rzhevsky. In full force, the highest palace ranks were included in the Approved certificate - the nursery, bed-keeper and others.

¹⁹ Ibid., N 1092, stolpik 6, ll. 1-19.

²⁰ The first pasts of the list, including the beginning of the list of solicitors, are lost.

²¹ AAE. Vol. II, pp. 43-44.

²² TSGADA, f. 210, Columns of the Moscow table, N 1092, stolpik 6, ll. 1, 4.

page 58

V. O. Klyuchevsky believed that the metropolitan nobles and stewards at the Council of 1598 were "too numerous to be seen as elected representatives of their official corporations, and too few to assume that all stewards and nobles of the capital were called to the council without exception, just as the ranks of the Boyar Duma were called to the council"²³ . V. O. Klyuchevsky justified his conclusion by comparing the Approved charter of 1598 with the boyar list of 1577 (more precisely, with the compilation published under this date from several sources at different times) and with the boyar book of 1616, without adjusting for the rapid growth of the sovereign's court at the end of the XVI - beginning of the XVII century. Unknown to V. O. Klyuchevsky, the boyar lists allow us to more accurately determine the proportion of service people participating in the council relative to the sovereign's court as a whole ^.24

In the list of Approved letters, 104 Moscow nobles are named, in the boyar book of 1616 there are 295 of them; in relation to 1616, the nobles at the council of 1598 made up about a third. But V. O. Klyuchevsky was wrong in assuming that by the time of the council there could also have been about 300 Moscow nobles, for in 1610-1611 this rank was held by 215, and in 1588-1589 even fewer - 164 people ^.25 So, at the Zemsky Sobor of 1598, there were at least half, and perhaps most, of all the Moscow nobles.

It is necessary to take into account that of all the metropolitan ranks, it was the nobles who suffered the main burdens of voivodeship, and many voivodes could not attend the council: known according to other sources as nobles Yefim Varfolomeyevich Buturlin, Prince Vladimir Ivanovich Bakhteyarov-Rostovsky, Andrey Petrovich Velyaminov, Prince Semyon Mikhailovich Lobanov, Vasily Timofeyevich Pleshcheyev and Prince Danila Andreevich Nogolev in 1598 were respectively in the voivodeships of Tobolsk, Tyumen, Novgorod-Seversky, Surgut, Berezov and Veliky Novgorod and were not present at the Zemsky Sobor ^.26 The absence at the Council of 1598 of some service people, including nobles, can probably be explained by illnesses; this applies, in particular, to the Duma nobleman E. L. Rzhevsky, who died at the very beginning of 1599 and was not mentioned either in the list or in the signatures of the Approved charter. At the Zemsky sobor of 1598, apparently, almost all the Moscow nobles who were free from other services were supposed to appear, and in this sense their presence at the sobor can be compared with participation in the great (tsarist) campaign, before which almost universal mobilization was carried out: only illness, disgrace or service in another place freed the serving person from military service. In the boyar list of 1588-1589, above the heading "Nobles" there is a litter related to the Swedish campaign of 1589-1590: "Everyone is a sovereign, save those who can be talked about or on long - distance services." Meanwhile, out of the 164 nobles mentioned in this list, only 76 people were included in the list of participants in the Swedish campaign ^.27 Consequently, a larger number of Moscow nobles took part in the Zemsky Sobor of 1598 than in the largest campaign of the late XVI century.

Apparently, reluctantly, only foreigners who were in the Russian service were allowed to attend the Council of 1598.

²³ V. O. Klyuchevsky, Soch. Vol. 8, p. 57.

²⁴ Under the sovereign's court is meant the totality of persons recorded in the boyar lists and who received official appointments directly from the Discharge Order.

²⁵ " Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities "(hereinafter referred to as "Readings of the OIDR"), 1909, book 3, ed. 1; TSGADA, f. 210, Columns of the Moscow table, N 751, stolpik 3.

²⁶ "Bit book of 1475-1598", Moscow, 1966, pp. 514, 534, 541.

²⁷ TSGADA, f. 210, Columns of the Moscow table, N 1167, stolpik 1, ll. 1-5, 10-12.

page 59

The list of 1598-1599 not included in the Approved Charter includes eight foreigners: Prince A. Sheydyakov-Nagaisky, Prince V. A. Tyumensky, Voivodich P. Mutyansky, D. Selunsky, his sons Avram, Ivan and Palaiologos Selunsky, and D. A. Krabov28 .

The principle of universal mobilization for the council, even more than for the nobles, extended to stewards, solicitors and clerks of orders, who usually served in Moscow. Thus, out of 30 clerks of orders and 19 stewards of the boyar typo of 1598-1599, ²⁹. 25 deacons and all stewards are mentioned in the list of Approved letters, and out of five deacons who are absent from the list, three left their signatures at the end of the letter. In the list of the cathedral verdict of 1598, we also find almost all the lawyers from the boyar list of 1598-1599. There are five Streltsy heads in the list of the cathedral charter - according to the number of Moscow Streltsy orders with 500 Streltsy in each, that is, the heads of all Streltsy orders were present at the cathedral. The Council of 1598 was also attended by both royal tabernacles (barash), listed in 1598-1599.

The Boyar Duma, Moscow nobles, stewards, solicitors, barashas, Sagittarius heads and clerks (according to the list - 248 people), called up to elect a new tsar, in fact, without exception, decisively prevailed among the mass of employees (according to the list - 337) at the Zemsky Sobor of 1598.

V. O. Klyuchevsky's statement that "stolniki and other ranks of the metropolitan nobility who were present at the cathedral of 1598 were far from making up the majority of their official ranks" is true in relation to the tenants who occupied the last place among the Moscow ranks. At the end of the 16th century, the number of Moscow residents grew especially rapidly. In 1588-1589, judging by the boyar list and the testimony of J. P. Blavatsky. Fletcher, there were about 200 tenants, in 1604 there were already more than 200, and in the list of Approved letters - only 42 people. The cathedral of 1598 was attended by the most prominent representatives of the residents: in the painting of the campaign against the first impostor in 1604. most of them are registered with the highest local salaries for their rank from 300 to 400 quarters ³⁰ .

The two housekeepers who were present at the Cathedral of 1598 (more on this later) also did not constitute the majority of the palace keepers at the end of the 16th century: the Order of the Grand Palace included the Fodder, Bread and Sytny Palaces, and each of them had several housekeepers. Smaller palace servants - carpenters, solicitors of the Grand Palace, sytniki, khlebniki, etc. - they are not mentioned in the Approved certificate.

The presence of elected nobles at the council as a special rank is established above. This class of service people was the lowest and most numerous in the composition of the sovereign's court. It is known that four years after the Council of 1598, more than 800 people were elected in 51 cities. V. O. Klyuchevsky believed that ³⁴ elected noblemen and 16 palace keepers were present at the council of 159831 . Indeed, in the list of Approved certificates in two groups of service people, placed under the headings "from cities to choose" and "from cities to choose", there are 34 people. However, in addition to the two groups of elected nobles included in the count of V. O. Klyuchevsky, the list of Approved Letters of Commendation includes:

²⁸ Ibid., N 1092, stolpik 6, ll. 4-6.

²⁹ In the boyar list of 1588-1589 - 36 Duma and clerk clerks and 28 stewards. In the boyar list of 1598-1599, the list of stewards was not fully preserved, in the Approved charter - 45 stewards.

³⁰ TSGADA, f. 210, Columns of the Moscow table, N 1074, stolpik 12, ll. 22-32.

³¹ V. O. Klyuchevsky, Soch. Vol. 8, p. 56.

page 60

there is also a third one, which is placed after the palace keepers, but without a special title:

"Klyuchniki dvortsovye

 Cellar key keeper Ivan Omelyanskoy. Kormovovo Palace Kuzma Urpenev. 
[From cities to choose from]



Panteleev Moustache.
Prince Ivan 

³²

 Prince Yuriev is the son of Mezets-
koi.
Jamming Ondreev son Bezstuzhev.
Yurya Yakovlev son of Stromilov ... " 

³³

I. Omelyansky and K. Urpenev, who were first recorded under the heading "palace key keepers", were repeatedly named in the list as key keepers of specific palace departments. Other sources also report on their palace service: K. Urpenev in 1573-sytnik private with a salary of 6 rubles, in 1581 - granary key keeper, since 1586 - key keeper of the Feed Palace ³⁴; I. V. Omelyansky in 1595-step key keeper ³⁵ . Both keepers are not found in any boyar list. At the same time, there is no news about the palace service of the persons listed below, and all of them, with only one exception (K. F. Shishmarev, son of an elected nobleman in Rzhev F. Ya. Shishmarev), are mentioned in the boyar lists by elected noblemen: P. Usov - in Mozhaisk, Z. A. Bestuzhev - in Vladimir Stromilov-according to Yuriev-Polsky, etc. Many of them are mentioned by elected nobles repeatedly both before and after the council: T. M. Zmeev - in the selection of Kaluga in 1589, 1598-1599 and 1602-1603, Yu. Ya. Stromilov - in the selection of Yuriev-Polsky and D. Yu. Pushechnikov-in the selection of Vereya in 1588-1589, 1591 - 1593 and 1602-1603 ³⁶, etc. All in all, according to our calculation, there are certificates in the list (in three groups)^{37-45 elected nobles, which is approximately 5}% of the total number of electors of this time.

In the Approved charter of 1598, there is no indication of the cities for which the elected nobles mentioned in it served. Having determined their territorial affiliation according to the boyar lists, it was found that the elected nobles are grouped in the list of letters by city, this brings the list even closer to the boyar list.:

³² In the manuscript and in the edition it is erroneously called "Vasilei".

³³ AAE. Vol. II, p. 45.

³⁴ D. N. Alshits. A new document about the people and orders of the oprichnoi court of Ivan the Terrible after 1572. "Historical archive". Book IV. Moscow-L. 1949, p. 52; Contribution book of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in 1673, copy of S. B. Veselovsky. Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences, f. 620, op. 1, N 18, l. 1110; I. E. Zabelin. Materials for the History, Archeology and Statistics of the City of Moscow, Part 1, Moscow, 1884, stb. 1212.

³⁵ TSGADA, f. 1209, kn. 619, l. 179 vol.

³⁶ TSGADA, f. 210, Columns of the Moscow table, N 751, stolpik 3, ll. 29, 57, 74; N 1092, stolpik 6, ll. 15, 32, 40; N 1132, stolpik 1, ll. 6, 53, 72.

³⁷ The interlaced arrangement in the Approved charter of both elected nobles and clerks of orders can be explained presumably by damage to the text during editing or correspondence.

page 61

The elected nobles who took part in the Council of 1598 served in 21 of ³⁹ cities , which means that less than half of the cities where the institute of "choice"existed at the end of the XVI - beginning of the XVII century were represented at the Zemsky Sobor. Such large groups of electors as Aleksinskaya, Yaroslavskaya, and Dorogobuzhskaya, which by 1602-1603 consisted of 21, 22, and 29 elected nobles, respectively, were completely absent from the council. The number of elected nobles from the city at the cathedral did not depend on the total number of electives for a given city. As A. A. Zimin showed, at the Zemsky Sobor of 1566, not all cities "whose feudal nobility was part of the sovereign's court" were also represented, and "representation from individual cities (as administrative centers of counties) was not determined by the general composition of the boyar household children in these districts"⁴⁰ . In 1598, most representatives to the Zemsky Sobor were given by Yuriev-Polsky and Suzdal, where in 1602-1603 22 and 35 elected nobles served, while Kolomna and Kashira (42 and 34 elected nobles) gave only one person to the sobor. Three elected nobles were at the cathedral from Rzhev (69 people in the choice) and the same number from Dmitrov (16 in the choice).

The apparent discrepancy between the groups of local elected nobles and their representation at the council essentially precludes the possibility of any regulated election (or summoning) of "delegates" from local noble societies to ^the Zemsky sobor in 159841 . However, it is more understandable if we take into account that the elected nobles of all cities served in Moscow at the same time, and not in full force. According to J. Margeret, elected nobles from several cities "stay in the city of Moscow for three years: then others are elected, and these are dismissed" ⁴² . Shortly after the council in 1598-1599, 111 elected nobles from 35 cities served in Moscow, and the choice for each city ranged from one to nine people. A comparison of groups of elected nobles at the Zemsky Sobor, in Moscow, and locally shows that at the Zemsky Sobor of 1598, with one exception, groups of elected nobles were present or absent.-

³⁸ AAE. Vol. II, p. 44.

³⁹ Bezhetsky Verkhu - three people, Vereya-two, Vladimir-two, Vyazma-two, Galich-one, Dmitrov-three, Kaluga-three, Kashin-three, Kashira-one, Kolomna-one, Kostroma-two, Medyn-two, Meshchevsk-one, Mozhaisk-one, Przemysl-one, Rzhev-three (including four signatures), Ruza-one, Ryazan-three, Suzdal-four, Tula-two, and Yuryev-Polsky-four (including five signatures).

⁴⁰ A. A. Zimin. Oprichnina Ivan the Terrible, Moscow, 1964, pp. 174-175.

⁴¹ According to A. A. Zimin, "the elections for the Zemsky Sobor of 1566, most likely, did not take place" (A. A. Zimin. Op. ed., p. 175). The same idea was expressed more sharply by R. G. Skrynnikov (R. G. Skrynnikov. The beginning of the Oprichnina. L. 1966, p. 314).

⁴² V. I. Novitsky. Op. ed., p. 30.

page 62

but those cities that respectively appear or do not appear in the Moscow list of 1598-1599, namely: at the cathedral there were no elected nobles from 19 cities out of 20 that were not included in the boyar list, and, on the contrary, there were representatives of 20 cities out of 35 named in the list; at the same time, out of 20 cities that were not included in the only one city with a "choice" that was not included in the Moscow list of 1598-1599, as mentioned above, was represented at the council. Thus, in 1598, only the "Moscow" choice ⁴³ was present at the Zemsky Sobor .

Despite the fact that the composition of the service in Moscow was constantly changing, the majority of the elected nobles - participants of the council (27 out of 45 people) it is still listed in the list of Moscow ranks of 1598-1599, and it is usually at the beginning of the selection for each city: for example, out of five Ryazan residents in the list, three first got to the cathedral, out of nine Vyazmichs and four bezhechans - two first, out of two Galicians - the first, and so on. At the end of the XVI - beginning of the XVII century, the average local salary of an elected nobleman was about 400 quarters, the monetary one-19 rubles; the average local salary of an elected nobleman at the cathedral of 1598 was about 500 quarters, the monetary one-about 26 rubles ^.44 Thus, if the Zemsky Sobor was attended not necessarily only by the highest salaries of the elected nobles (they might not have served in Moscow in 1598), the participants of the sobor still tended to the top of the selection, making up the best part of the elected nobles who were in service in the capital during the council period.

The total number of nobles and children of boyars at the end of the XVI century in Russia was 20-25 thousand people, ⁴⁵ of which only a little more than a thousand - about 5% - were part of the sovereign's court. To these 5%, to the very top of the feudal class, belonged the service people who dominated the council of 1598, representing at it not even the entire sovereign's court evenly, but mainly the most privileged part of the capital's nobility.

The fact that the servants were apparently not "chosen" for the Council of 1598 does not change the idea of it as a class institution, in which secular and spiritual feudal lords, as well as the top of the third estate, took part. Like the Council of 1566, the Zemsky Sobor of 1598 was not "rigged", as some historians believed before V. O. Klyuchevsky, but accurately reflected the composition and structure of the sovereign's court. Nevertheless, the composition of the Zemsky Sobor of 1598 in the form in which it has come down to us in the Approved charter does not give sufficient grounds to consider it the most developed estate-representative institution of the XVI century.

⁴³ R. G. Skrynnikov believes that the Zemsky Sobor of 1566 was also attended by" elected"nobles who served in the capital." (Op. ed., p. 314).

⁴⁴ The local salary of 700 quarters was paid by four elected nobles at the council, 600 quarters - ten, 550 quarters-four, 500 quarters-eight (including signatures - ten), 450 quarters-six, 400 quarters - five, 350 quarters - five and 300 quarters - two; the salary of one elected nobleman is unknown. With the usual fluctuation of monetary salaries in the early 17th century, from 5 to 50 rubles. the salaries of participants in the council were distributed as follows: 50 rubles. had three people, 40 rubles. - one, 25 rubles. - two, 20 rubles. - two, 15 rubles. - two, 13 rubles. - one, 12 rubles. - three. (L. M. Sukhotin. Quarters of the Time of Troubles. 1604-1617 "Readings of the OIDR", 1912, book 2, ed. 1, pp. 1-41). Information about the monetary salaries of other elected nobles who received salaries, apparently, not in the Galician quarter, but in other quarters, has not been preserved.

⁴⁵ S. M. Seredonin. News of foreigners about the armed forces of the Moscow state at the end of the XVI century St. Petersburg, 1891, p. 13; N. V. Chernov. Armed Forces of the Russian State in the XV-XVII centuries. Moscow, 1954, p. 81.

page 63

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: