Orderly house. Order huts. On the production of cases subject to direct consideration by the king

Prikatka hut

or moving out- see Voivode. Subsequently, I.'s moving-out house, or simply moving-out house, was the name given to police reprisals in every part of the city, with firemen attached to it.

encyclopedic Dictionary F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - S.-Pb.: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .

See what a “cabinet hut” is in other dictionaries:

hut- IZBA, dial. in general meaning – A small wooden peasant house with a Russian stove (STsG 2. 143; for other meanings, see SRNG 12. 85 89). Sl.RYA XI XVII 6. 92 93: hut, only with definition. A room intended for various works(in 2nd value);… … Dictionary of the trilogy “The Sovereign's Estate”

I 1. A log heated peasant house (usually four walls). 2. Internal living space of such a house. II Administrative Police Office; clerk's hut (in Rus' in the 16th-17th centuries). Ephraim's explanatory dictionary. T. F. Efremova ... Modern Dictionary Russian language Efremova

J. obsolete Public office, administrative police office, administrative hut. Ephraim's explanatory dictionary. T. F. Efremova. 2000... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

- (order), in Russia XVII V. the governor's office, where the serving people of the district gathered for reviews and before campaigns. The term “moving out” was used in the 18th–19th centuries. to city police authorities. * * * LEAVING IZBA LEAVING IZBA (prikaznaya), in Russia... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine, Kyiv (TsGIAK of Ukraine)

Prikazny huts 1639-1728.

Educated in the territory Sloboda Ukraine in the 17th century as offices of voivodes who governed cities and counties. They were in charge of administrative, military, judicial, financial, and local affairs. Abolished as a result of the establishment of provinces in 1719.

Cases on the enslavement of Cossacks, reiters, peasants, etc. by landowners (1665-1675); about the beatings and robbery of the residents of Kharkov by the governor (f. 1791, 1707); about the flight of peasants from landowners (1640-1717); about the flight of working people from the Tor Lakes (f. 1791, 1641); about the search for Stepan Razin (f. 1791, 1670); on the refusal of the residents of Mayak to pay taxes (forms 1791, 1720); on the lease of saltpeter and sheepfold factories (f. 1791, 1720); on increasing wool production; about the discovered ore in Chuguevsky district (f. 1791, 1720) and lands suitable for saltpeter production in Chuguevsky, Kharkov and Zmievsky districts (f. 1791, 1678).
Cases about sending working people to dig a canal between Vrokhov and the Neva (1720); about the sale of English tobacco at customs and at the circle yard in the city of Chuguev (1702); on the expulsion of working people from Kharkov and Chuguev to Azov, Valuiki, Voronezh, Kamenny Zaton and Taganrog for construction work(1699-1706); on the relocation of some residents from Chuguev to Mayak; about sending carpenters, potters and other artisans from Chuguev to Belgorod (f. 1791, 1663-1670).
Cases about the departure of residents of the city of Chuguev to Tor for cooking salt (f. 1791, 1647-1665); about the vacation of residents of the city of Chuguev to the Don for fishing (f. 1791, 1698); about sending the boyars' children to build a fortress on the river. Northern Donets (f. 1791, 1681); on the ban on the import of sugar into Russia (1720); about growing grapes in the city of Chuguev; about sending a gardener from Chuguev to Moscow to plant grapes (1668); about sending winegrowers and grapevines from Kyiv to Chuguev; about sending grape wine and dry fruit to Moscow; on the development of beekeeping; about sending specialists to breed watermelons to Belgorod and Tambov (1666).
Cases regarding the collection of customs, drinking and other duties; on the collection of grain tax from the population; on the issuance of grain wages to Kalmyks, Cossacks, winegrowers, etc.; on the selection of customs heads and kissers; on the procurement of provisions and fodder; on the establishment of punitive outposts from Zaporozhye to Chuguev (f. 1791, 1674); about the construction of the city of Belopolya (1707) and the settlement of Volchya Vody (1674).
The case of Bohdan Khmelnitsky’s appeal to the Tsar about a joint action against the Tatars (1648); on strengthening cities and fortresses; on the protection of the Belgorod line; about the construction of underground passages in Chuguev (f. 1791, 1655); about the betrayal of hetmans Vygovsky and Yuri Khmelnytsky; about the threat of attack by the Tatars and taking precautions; about the defeat of the Tatars near Chuguev and Kharkov by Colonel Donets (f. 1791, 1679).
Cases on relations with Turkey and the Crimean Tatars (1672-1703). Census of the population of Chuguev (1710-1725). Lists of Chuguev servicemen. Estimate books with a description of the Chuguev fortress. Books recording the collection of duties, surety and loan records. Description of the city of Chuguev (no dates).
Name paintings of Chuguev archers and Cossacks (1642-1643). Interrogation speeches. Book of collecting taxes for canal work (1720). In memory of the settlement of Chuguev; about catching wild animals in Chuguevsky district. Instructions on the departure of the police officer to the village. Vasishchevo for the eviction of the same-lords who settled on the prince’s land without permission. Menshikov (f. 1791, 1717).

Fund 2170 Voronezh orderly hut, Voronezh, Azov province
Number of inventories 1 Number of files 7 1626-1702
Fund 1787 Mezhiritsky clerk's hut, Mezhirichi, Lebedinsky district, Kharkov governorship, since 1796. Sloboda-Ukrainian province.
Number of inventories 1 Number of files 30 1781-1798
Fund 1790 Stratilatovskaya clerk's hut, sl. Stratilatovka of Kharkov governorship, since 1796. Sloboda-Ukrainian province.
Number of inventories 1 Number of files 68 1782-1797.
Fund 2171 Torzh orderly hut, Torzh, Azov province
Number of inventories 1 Number of cases 2 1715
Fund 2172 Trinity Prikaznaya Izba, sl. Troitskaya Sloboda-Ukrainian province.
Number of inventories 1 Number of cases 2 1706
Fund 1791 Chuguev orderly hut, Chuguev, Azov region, since 1719. Belgorod province, Kyiv province
Number of inventories 2 Number of files 450 1638-1723.
Fund 1783 Volnovskaya clerk's hut
Fund 1786 Karpovskaya zakaznaya hut
Fund 58 Kyiv Prikaznaya Izba
Fund 1788 Nezhegolskaya pokaznaya hut
Fund 1789 Ostrog Prikaznaya Izba
Fund 1718 Sumy clerk's hut

Fund 1719 Belgorod Prikaznaya Izba
Number of inventories 1 Number of files 29 1663-1710

Fund 2111 Zmievskaya Prikaznaya Izba
1689, 1702, 1765 Number of cases 4

Fund 2111 Inventory 1 Case 1
Petition from elders, constables and ordinary Cossacks for permission to engage in trades without payment for military service. 1689 3 p.

Fund 2111 Inventory 1 Case 2
A copy of the letter to the Zmievsky governor Tits about the non-tire trades of the Cossacks of the Kharkov regiment. 1765 6 p.

Fund 2111 Inventory 1 Case 3
About the giving of a fortress on a field to Ivan Vysochin, who plowed up unoccupied land. 1702 1 l.

Fund 2111 Inventory 1 Case 4
Old inventory of documentary materials from Fund No. 859. 1689-1765

Fund 1785 Izyumskaya official hut
1700-1704 Number of cases 4

Fund 1785 Inventory 1 Case 1
The case is about a dispute over land between Cossacks from Olkhovatka. 1700 20 l.

Fund 1785 Inventory 1 Case 2
Census of Cossacks ss. Kamenki and Olkhovatki. 1704 31 l.

Fund 1785 Inventory 1 Case 3
The case for approval real estate for Prince Koltsov. 1704 7 p.

Fund 1785 Inventory 1 Case 4
Inventory of documentary materials of fund No. 346. 2 l.

Voivodeship Office- administrative building. Also known as the official hut, the first stone building in.

Irkutsk Voivodeship Office: encyclopedic reference

It was built in 1703–1704 under the leadership and with the direct participation of a Moscow masonry apprentice. Dimensions – 10 × 20 × 10 m.

Initially it had defensive significance, so the northern wall was made without windows. On the ground floor there were storerooms that had separate entrances with iron doors and internal locks. On the second floor, reached by a staircase on the western facade, there was a vestibule and two separate chambers for the governor and clerks. On the wall of one of the chambers, contemporaries recorded the following inscription: “The city of the great king, we know God in heaviness", which previously decorated the entrance to the official hut. Above the entrance to the voivodeship office there was an inscription: “ By the grace of God, in the year of salvation in 1704, by decree of the Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich, autocrat of all Great, Lesser and White Russia, this chamber was built under the steward and governor Yuri Fedorovich Shishkin and his comrades».

According to the description, the building had paintings on the outside; inside the chambers, the ceilings were covered with canvas, primed with gesso and painted with oil paint. The interior decoration is typical for administrative institutions in Russia from the late 17th century to the early 18th century. The Voivodeship Office has been significantly rebuilt. Instead of an external wooden one, an internal stone staircase was built, part of the doorways were blocked, and windows were cut through on the western and northern facades of the second floor.

TO early XIX ceased to be the residence of the governors of the province and the city and was used to house the treasury. There is a drawing of the facade and floor plans of the building, drawn up in 1800 by a provincial architect.

In the first quarter of the 19th century, the building fell into disrepair. Demolished in 1823 due to the construction of a wooden frame to strengthen the river bank. . A stone slab with a message about the date of construction was transferred to, but was lost over time.

Irkutsk Historical and local history dictionary. - Irkutsk: Sib. book, 2011

Application. Prikaznaya Izba - the first brick building in Irkutsk

First brick building- the voivode's official hut, built in 1704 on the territory. The building was adjacent to the fortress wall with north side, had 2 floors.

The wooden cities of old Rus' were often devastated by fires. After another devastating fire, Metropolitan Pavel I of Tobolsk turned to the Tsar with a request to build a stone cathedral. The year 1680 turned out to be especially fiery: in addition to the Siberian city of Tobolsk, Orel burned that year, the Volga Balakhna burned, and in the Kremlin itself the Church of the Twelve Apostles, part of the Patriarchal Palace, burned. This is probably why the sovereign heeded the metropolitan’s request and in the same 1680 signed a royal decree, which ordered the Siberian governors to build government buildings - official huts, churches, customs houses, gunpowder and grain barns, guest courtyards - from brick.

But issuing a decree is one thing, but executing it is a completely different matter. If wooden architecture was familiar to Siberians, and building material There was an abundance of materials around, then stone construction required not only trained specialists, but also the creation of workshops for the production of bricks, a kind of first enterprises in the construction industry. Tobolsk was the first to master the brick business, followed by Tyumen - and only in 1701, the third of the Siberian cities, did Irkutsk begin the construction of brick buildings.

The first mention of the fact that there are specialist brickmakers can be found in the Irkutsk account book for 1700: “Given from the treasury of the great sovereign to the stove maker, Irkutsk townsman Ivan Kirpishnik, for 1468 bricks, for 20 samples and from the laying of stoves for the sovereign's court, where the governors live. The money was spent 5 rubles. 19 altyn.” As historian Nadezhda Polunina explains in her book “At the Origins of the Stone City,” Ivan Kirpishnik made not a simple stove, but a ceremonial one, and decorated it with multi-colored ceramic tiles - tiles (“samples”) self-made, which means there was experienced craftsman. He was not a newcomer, but one of his own, a townsman, and, judging by the lists, he lived in his own courtyard, with his two-year-old son Afonka, and paid rent to the treasury of 10 altyns. Later you can find mention of another master - Ivan Ilyin, to whom “The great sovereign was given from the treasury from the beer sale money for the work of the brickmaker Ivan Ilyin, so that he would again line the large cauldron with his own brick. Money was given 2 rubles.”

Brick production was located in four barns per . From the inventories we know all the “factory supplies”: a tub for water, two tubs, four water-bearing buckets, thirty benches, nine stretchers and thirty brick benches. The technology was simple: in one of the barns there was a kiln; in the other three, raw materials were dried and sorted. ready brick. A pit was dug near the sheds where clay was kneaded, and sheds were placed for firewood. Under the supervision of master brick makers, apprentices from the townspeople worked here - order workers, dryers, kilns. The orderlies prepared the clay, crushed it, and put it into the mold. The molds were large, the clay in them was crushed with bare heels, which is why the brick was called heel. The form was removed from the compacted workpiece, and the raw brick itself was placed in rows on benches (hence the name of the apprentice - “orderman.” The dryers monitored how the raw brick was dried. It should not warp, wrinkle, or crumble. In order for the raw material to dry evenly, it was kept in a draft. When the brick cooled down, became dark gray and durable, it was laid “herringbone” on the grates in the oven and a light “steam” fire was lit, which evaporated the water in three or four days. The heat was increased, the brick became red-hot. , and after another two days the fire was extinguished. Scarlet and red bricks were considered the best - they were used for laying walls and vaults, and worse, “steamed white”, was suitable for stoves.

By mid-1701, the first batch of fifty thousand bricks was ready. From Verkhoturye, by order of the Duma clerk Andrei Vinius - an outstanding statesman, talented administrator, military engineer, diplomat and politician, who headed the Siberian order in 1694 - 1703, "two stone craftsmen" arrived and "the construction of a stone office on the shore began" . By the way, Andrei Andreevich Vinius, a descendant of the Dutch by origin, did a lot for the establishment of industrial construction in the Urals and beyond the Urals. Later, he would become one of the close associates of Peter the Great and, already as the head of the Artillery Order, would actually re-create Russian artillery after the defeat at Narva, thereby preparing the brilliant victory of Russian weapons at Poltava.

Unfortunately, the first stone building has not survived to this day. We can restore the appearance and interior decoration of the office, or the clerk's hut - and in essence, the premises for the regional administration, according to the 1704 inventory made by clerk Aleksashka Kurdyukov when transferring the affairs of Yuri Shishkin to his successor Larion Senyavin:

“In the city wall of the great sovereign, there is a stone hut with three dwellings: the first is where the governors sit, the second is the middle one with clerk’s tables, the third is, instead of a vestibule, a front one with planked, even ceilings and lined with canvases and upholstered sheets, and on them there are rolled ceilings on matitsa. At the front chamber there is an iron door porch, and above those doors there is a carved chronicle on the stone and a transom and gzymzas are written in different paints, and above that chronicle there is an image of the wonderworker Nicholas... the doors are painted with different paints... from the outbuildings there are iron shutters... the windows have mica endings , and from the inside there are inset ... three chambers of storerooms with brick vaults and with openings and iron corners, and in those three chambers there are iron doors and interior locks, and in the windows there are iron bars and shutters. And those storerooms were made and on them the above-described stone order hut by decree of the great sovereign and according to letters from the steward and governor Yury Fedorovich Shishkin and his comrades in the past in 1703 and in the current year 1704 and covered with plank flaps ".

The official hut was placed in a section (part of the fortress wall between two towers) of the northern wall, that is, between the passing Spasskaya Tower and the corner northeastern one. The building was apparently built on the model of wooden buildings, and the first floor, like a basement in a hut, was used for economic purposes. The treasury, goods of the Chinese caravan trade, as well as other valuables, from weapons to scarce iron items, were kept here. It is not surprising that the storerooms were equipped with a variety of iron doors, bolts and bars on the windows.

On the second floor there was an office with rooms for the governor and clerks. The description of the ceiling is interesting: as in an ordinary hut, the ceiling was made in the form of a solid log flooring on matitsa, but in the Irkutsk official hut the ceiling was upholstered with canvas and coated with gesso, a special primer traditional for Russian icons, made from powdered chalk mixed with fish glue .

The windows in the executive chamber were made of mica plates with lead bindings (in Russia, glass would not be widely used until a century later). The mica plates at the top of the windows were painted and created a semblance of stained glass.

Of course, icons always hung in the voivodeship chambers. In the governor's room there was an image of Vladimirskaya Mother of God in a chased silver frame with gilded fields, and the clerks have an image of the Archangel Michael. One must think that the interior of the official hut, with a smooth white ceiling, with floors covered with crimson carpets, with icons in expensive frames flickering mysteriously in the twilight, favorably emphasized the significance and solemnity of this public place, and was very different from the Spartan decoration of other city huts.

A memorial inscription was carved above the wooden porch of the chamber:

“By the grace of God, in the year of salvation in 1704, by decree of the Great Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich, the Autocrat of all great and small and white Russia, this chamber was built under the steward and governor Yury Fedorovich Shishkin and his comrades.”

It is interesting that at the same time as the Irkutsk official hut, an official hut was erected in Tobolsk. Both buildings were made according to the same plan, prescribed by the Siberian order. The design of the facade of the Tobolsk official hut, built according to the design of a Russian architect, had features inspired by Italian architecture. The design of the Irkutsk official hut was simpler and more practical, but it became a kind of standard for the stone architecture of Siberia. According to its model, a stone official hut was erected in Yakutsk, similar in interior decoration And external design facade, right down to the presence of a memorial inscription above the front door.

The stone clerk's hut survived Irkutsk prison- in 1790, after another flood, the fort was dismantled by order of the Irkutsk military governor. By that time, it had completely lost its military-administrative significance and represented “a dilapidated wooden fortification structure, which was subject to complete rottenness and from time to time fell apart and disgraced the entire surrounding area”. The hut stood until about 1823, when, during the capital strengthening of the bank, all the houses adjacent to the water were demolished, and a public garden was laid out on the resulting wasteland.

Lyustritsky D. The beginning of stone work //: newspaper. - September 2, 2006.

Notes

1. Polunina N.M. At the origins of the stone city. - Irkutsk, 1979. - P.14.
2. Manasein V.S. Irkutsk fort / Historical and archaeological essay // News of the Society for the Study of the East Siberian Territory. - 1936. - T.1. - P.19.

Literature

1. Polunina N. M. At the origins of the stone city. - Irkutsk, 1979.
2. Polunina N. M. Living antiquity of the Angara region. - M., 1990.

Appears Smolensk discharge order.

Ivan IV

Time of Troubles

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

Mikhail Fedorovich

Alexey Mikhailovich

Fedor Alekseevich

Regency of Princess Sophia

During the reign of Sofia Alekseevna (-), the Memorial Order was closed and the Great Russian Order was re-established.

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

Location of orders

Composition of orders, their department and structure

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

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

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

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

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

Office work

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

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

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

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

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

Legal proceedings in orders

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

List and system of division of orders

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

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

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

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

Palace

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

For the management of military affairs

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

On the management of state property, income and expenses

Control and audit functions

For the management of public improvement affairs

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

Industry

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

Territorial

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

see also:

Orders

This may also include court territorial orders:

History and scope of the department of individual orders

Pansky order

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

Zemstvo orders or courtyards

See resp. article.

Novgorod quarter

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

Ustyug quarter

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

Kostroma quarter

See resp. article.

Galician quarter

See resp. article.

Vladimir quarter

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

Smolensk order

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

Order of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

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

Little Russian order

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

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

Moscow court order

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

Vladimir court order

It was first mentioned in 1582/83 as the “Vladimir Court Chamber”. Under its jurisdiction were initially the cities outside Moscow (including Vladimir; hence the name of the order) and Novgorod, and later some other territories. The Vladimir court order was considered the “senior” among court orders (it was followed in the hierarchy by the Moscow, Ryazan, Dmitrovsky court orders), it was the court of appeal for other court orders, service in it was the most honorable

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

Other orders

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

See also “On ancient ranks in Russia and on Moscow and other ancient orders” (“Ancient Russian Vivliofika”, XX part); - 1870.

st. Spasskaya, 4 b

The “drinking house with a basement,” now also known as the “Pikaznaya Izba,” is one of the few monuments of civil architecture in Vyatka-Khlynov that has survived from the time of its pre-regular construction. Exact date The buildings and the name of the architect have not yet been established. This building most likely appeared after one of the big fires of the first half of the XVIII V. It was first mentioned in the list of “public buildings” compiled by the mayor Yakov Mashkovtsev in 1771.

The “Peteynyiy Dom” is a one-story building on a high basement, inscribed into the complex topography of the slope of the Zasorny Ravine. The characteristic three-part layout of the house dates back to the traditions of the 17th century, which passed into stone architecture from wooden architecture. The simple decoration of the monument is made in the provincial baroque style. The modest decoration of the facades are window casings in the form of frames, pilasters on pedestals and a row of crackers at the base of the cornice. The building is covered with a steep plank pitched roof.

"Drinking House" in 2014

The stone house with a basement belonged to the treasury until the abolition of the tax-paying drinking system in 1864. That year, the building was ceded by the city authorities for 300 rubles, and from 1865 the house began to be rented out. In 1877, one of the taverns of the merchant Pyotr Savintsev was located here, since 1889 - of Pyotr Shvetsov, since 1895 - of the merchants Alexandrovs. In 1890, the above-mentioned Shvetsov asked the city government to allow him to break through 2 windows on the north side of the house, and in the rooms “install several windows on the ceiling”. A special commission headed by council member Bronnikov and city architect Kurapov allowed this to be done.

In 1901–1907 the building housed a rooming house, which was maintained by a charitable society at its own expense. In 1909, the drinking establishment returned to the house again, this time owned by the merchant Zagoskin. In 1918 stone house with a basement was occupied by a military guardhouse. In 1924 it was municipalized and transferred as communal property No. 432 to the Leningrad Consumer Society. In 1932, the building housed the Record artel's molasses plant.

"Pakaznaya hut" in 1957

According to established tradition, since Soviet times the building has retained the name “Pikaznaya Izba”, although throughout its history the house was used as a drinking establishment. Architect and local historian A. G. Tinsky believed that “the source of the error is one phrase from a description made in 1895 by a member of the city government N. Bronnikov: “There is a legend that there was an official hut in this house”. Perhaps that is why the house received the name “Pikaznaya Izba” for many years. However, today both names are used to refer to it.

The building was restored and handed over local history museum for the celebration of the 600th anniversary of the city of Kirov in 1974, the restoration was preceded by a note about the house by the authors of the publication “On the Roads of the Vyatka Land” (B.V. Gnedovsky and E.D. Dobrovolskaya), who described the unsatisfactory physical condition of the ancient monument of Vyatka history. In particular, the architects stated: “Behind a high plank fence, in the depths of the farm yard of the kvass production plant, there stands a neglected, extended one-story brick building... The earliest surviving stone civil structure not only in Kirov, but, perhaps, in the entire Kirov region, deserves a better fate...”. Restoration of the monument was carried out in 1973–1975. according to the project of Moscow architects B.V. Gnedovsky and L.D. Lapkina by the Kirov Special Scientific and Restoration Production Workshop.

"Pakaznaya hut" in 1983

Today, the building of the “Peteyny Dom” houses the department of folk art crafts of the Kirov Regional Museum of Local Lore.

Photo: GAKO, pastvu.com, L. Kalinina