The final liquidation of the Kyiv principality. Elimination of appanage principalities and introduction of new institutions of power

After Mongol invasion economic recovery gradually began in the country, which urgently required strengthening trends towards the consolidation of lands into a single centralized state. Prerequisites for the centralization process in Rus' can be divided into four groups: 1) uh economic(increasing agricultural productivity, strengthening the commercial nature of crafts, increasing the number of cities, developing economic ties between individual lands); 2) social(the need of the feudal class for a strong state power, the need of peasants for centralized power to protect themselves from many feudal lords, intensification of social struggle); 3) political(the need to overthrow Mongol rule, the feasibility of centralized protection of Russian lands from external enemies, the desire Orthodox Church to centralized power in order to strengthen itself); 4) spiritual(commonality of the Christian religion of the Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian peoples, commonality of culture, customs, traditions).

In the XIV century. in North-Eastern Rus' a number of large feudal centers emerged - Tver, Moscow, Gorodets, Starodub, Suzdal, etc. The struggle of their rulers for the great reign of Vladimir subjectively did not yet go beyond the framework of feudal strife, but objectively it became the beginning of the unification process, since in it a political center emerged that was to lead this process. The main rivals in this struggle were Tver and Moscow. Of all the diverse appanage rulers of Rus', only the Moscow princes slowly but purposefully gathered Russian lands under their rule. They began successfully collecting lands during the heyday of the Golden Horde and ended after its collapse. The rise of the Moscow Principality was facilitated by a number of factors. Benefits geographical location made Moscow, during the years of foreign rule, the center of grain trade in Rus'. This provided its princes with an influx of funds, with which they bought labels for the great reign of Vladimir, expanded their own territories, attracted settlers, and gathered boyars under their control. The strong economic position of the Moscow princes allowed them to become leaders of the all-Russian struggle against the conquerors. The most important role was played by a personal factor - the political talent of the descendants of Alexander Nevsky.

In its formation, the Moscow Principality went through four stages. First stage (last third XIII - early XIV centuries) was marked by the actual birth of the principality and its first experiments in expanding the territory. Initially, the Moscow princes relied exclusively on Tatar support, later - on growing military force and prestige. First of all, the population came and settled in Moscow in search of a quiet life. From the west it was covered by the Smolensk principality, from the north-west by Tver, from the east by Nizhny Novgorod, and from the southeast by Ryazan. In parallel with territorial expansion and economic growth, power was concentrated in the hands of the Moscow princes.

Second period(XIV century) was characterized by the struggle for primacy and Tver and was distinguished by the names of two outstanding political figures - Ivan I Danilovich (nicknamed Kalita) (1325–1340) and his grandson Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1363–1389). Ivan Kalita was able to achieve a stable championship in the fight against Tver. As a reward for suppressing the Tver anti-Horde rebellion, Ivan Kalita received from the khan a label for the great reign of Vladimir, which he and his sons held without interruption. Ivan Kalita also secured the right to collect tribute, which the Mongols entrusted to the Vladimir princes. This became one of the sources of enrichment for the Moscow Principality. By the end of the reign of Ivan I, it became the strongest, and Moscow from a small secondary city turned into an all-Russian political center. Moscow-Tver internecine war 1375, which ultimately ended with the victory of Dmitry, forced the Tver residents to finally recognize the Vladimir table as the “fatherland” of the Moscow princes. From that time on, Moscow began to represent all-Russian interests in relations with the Horde and Lithuania.

On third stage(late XIV - mid-XV centuries), under Vasily I Dmitrievich (1389–1425), the process of transforming the great Vladimir-Moscow principality into a single Russian state began. Gradually, the former appanage principalities turned into counties governed by grand-ducal governors. The leadership of the united armed forces of the Russian lands was concentrated in the hands of Vasily I. However, the centralization process has become significantly more complicated feudal war 1430–1450s The victory of Vasily II the Dark (1425–1462) over his political opponents - the Galician princes - became the triumph of a new political order with strong elements of centralization. Now the struggle was not for political primacy between several contenders, but for the possession of Moscow. During the feudal war, the Tver princes adhered to neutral positions and did not seek to use the situation within the Moscow principality to their advantage. By the end of the reign of Vasily II, the possessions of the Moscow state increased 30 times compared to beginning of the XIV V.

Fourth stage(mid-15th – second quarter of the 16th centuries) became the final stage in the process of unification of Rus' and the formation of the state of Muscovy under the rule of Ivan III (1462–1505) and his son Vasily III (1505–1533). They, unlike their predecessors, no longer waged wars in order to increase the territory of their principality. Already by the 1480s. The independence of a number of the most important Russian principalities and feudal republics was liquidated. The unification of Rus' meant the formation of a single territory, the restructuring of the entire political system, the formation of a centralized type of monarchy. The process of eliminating the “specific orders” took a long time, stretching over the second half of the 14th century, but the 1480s became a turning point. This period was characterized by reorganization administrative system, development of feudal law (drafting Sudebnik ), improvement armed forces states, folding new form feudal land ownership local system, the formation of the ranks of the service nobility, the final liberation of Rus' from Horde rule.

The unification of Russian lands within a single state did not lead to the immediate disappearance of numerous remnants of feudal fragmentation. However, the needs of centralization dictated the need to transform outdated institutions. The strengthened power of the Moscow sovereigns turned into autocratic, but did not become unlimited. When passing laws or resolving issues important to the state, the political formula played a huge role: “the prince indicated, the boyars sentenced.” Through the Boyar Duma, the nobility managed affairs not only in the center, but also locally (the boyars received "feeding" Largest cities and county of the country).

Ivan III began to bear the pompous title of “Sovereign of All Rus'”, and in relations with other countries - “Tsar of All Rus'”. Under him, the Greek word “Russia”, the Byzantine name for Rus', came into wide use. From the end of the 15th century. in Russian state seals the Byzantine coat of arms appeared - double headed eagle in combination with the old Moscow coat of arms with the image of St. George the Victorious.

Under Ivan III, the state apparatus began to take shape, which later became the basis for the formation estate-representative monarchy (→ 3.1). Its highest level was the Boyar Duma - an advisory body under the prince, as well as two national departments that performed many functions at once - Coffers And Castle. The local government system remained largely outdated. The country was divided into counties, whose borders ran along the boundaries of former appanages, and therefore their territories were unequal in size. Counties were divided into camps and volosts. They were led by governors(counties) and Volosteli(countries, volosts), which received the right to collect court fees in their favor ( award) and part of taxes ( feeding income). Since feeding was not a reward for administrative service, but for former military service ( localism ), feeders often entrusted their duties to their slaves - tiuns.

Thus, the specifics of the political centralization of the Russian lands determined the features of the Moscow state: strong grand-ducal power, strict dependence of the ruling class on it, high degree exploitation of the peasantry, which over time transformed into serfdom. Due to these features, the ideology of Russian monarchism gradually emerged, the main tenets of which were the idea of ​​Moscow as the third Rome, as well as the idea of ​​the absolute unity of the autocracy and the Orthodox Church.

"Great Russian reign" (1430-1435). Restoration of the appanage structure and its final liquidation (1440-1471).

The death of Vytautas in 1430 awakened hope among the Orthodox forces of the Lithuanian and Russian population for changes for the better. They are connected primarily with the election of a new Prince of Lithuania. Contrary to the provisions of the Gorodel Union, Lithuanian and Russian feudal lords, without the consent of the Polish king, elected Svidrigailo (1430-1432) as the Grand Duke of Lithuania. The new prince immediately set a course for state independence of Lithuania, and with it the Russian lands within it. His apparatus ceased to obey the orders of the Polish king, and the replacement of Polish garrisons with Lithuanian ones began. Poland responded to these goals of the Lithuanian administration and Svidrigailo’s demand to return Podolia captured by the Poles to Lithuania with military action. In November 1430, her troops captured several Podolsk castles. In response, Svidrigailo’s supporters and the local nobility captured Zbarazh, Kremenets and other cities. The protests of the Podolsk and Volyn population against the Polish authorities were gaining wider scope. To suppress them, in the summer of 1431 Jagiello led a strong Polish army to Russian lands. Breaking resistance local residents, the army advanced deep into Volyn. The defense of Ukrainian lands was led by Prince Fyodor Nesvizhsky, Bogdan Rohatynsky and other feudal lords. The townspeople of Lutsk, under the leadership of the courageous governor Yursha, defended the castle and harmed the Poles in its vicinity. Headman Ivan Presluzhych turned Olesko Castle into an impregnable outpost of the liberation forces in Volyn. Here the offensive power of the Polish army was defeated. The rebels also had success in Galicia. The main guarantee of the success of the liberation struggle on Russian lands in the summer of 1431 was the unity of action of patriotic circles of Russian and Lithuanian societies. A real prospect of gaining independence for the two states opened before them.

However, Svidrigailo’s orientation primarily towards the Russian nobility caused concern and protest among the Lithuanian feudal lords. Not wanting to put up with the real prospect of losing Russian lands, the Lithuanian princes and boyars organized a conspiracy, overthrew Svidrigailo and proclaimed Sigismund Keistutovich (1432-1440) the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Sigismund restored the union between Lithuania and Poland in 1401, returned Western Podolia and the border towns of Olesko, Semyonovka, Lopatin and others to Poland. Lithuania recognized the superiority of Poland. The Russian lands separated from both Poland and Lithuania and followed an independent path of development. This period was called in history the “Great Russian Reign.”

The Smolensk region, Vitebsk region and Polotsk land joined the Eastern Podolia, Volyn, Kiev and Severshchina. The restructuring of the state began. Locally, proteges of the Polish king and supporters of the Grand Duke of Lithuania were expelled, power was increasingly taken over by the Russian aristocracy. The Krakow bishop wrote to the cardinal on this occasion that Svidrigailo obeyed the “Russian schismatics” in everything and gave them the most important castles and governments. The Russian nobility had significant successes in Podolia and Volyn, where the Bratslav governor Neviskiy and Lutsk Nos became the head of the liberation forces. Svidrigailo, together with the German knights, began military operations against Lithuania. The “Great Russian Reign” gradually gained the upper hand over the metropolis.

In order to spare Svidrigailo the support of the national nobility, “Jagiello in 1432 issued a privilege, which compared in property and personal rights those “Russian” boyars who went over to Sigismund’s side with the Lithuanian Catholic boyars. Another advantage gave the Lutsk feudal lords equal rights with the Polish gentry If these privileges suited the Russian boyars to some extent, then the princes did not, and they continued the fight to the bitter end. In May 1434, Sigismund promulgated a new document that significantly expanded the rights and privileges of the Lithuanian and Russian feudal lords. The privileges of 1432 also extended to the princes. Grand Duke pledged not to punish any of the feudal lords without trial, that is, he introduced elements of the rule of law. After the introduction of this privilege, Russian feudal lords began to go over to Sigismund’s side, first alone, and then in groups. Such transitions intensified Svidrigailo’s brutal reprisals against the dissatisfied, as well as his attempts to conclude a church union and an alliance with the German knights.

The weakening of patriotic forces soon took its toll. In September 1435, near Vilkomir, a decisive battle took place between the Russian troops of Prince Svidrigailo in alliance with the knights of the Livonian Order and the Polish-Lithuanian troops of Sigismund. The Russian troops were led by the hero of the Hussite wars, Prince Sigismund Korybutovich, close to Jan Žižka. In a brutal battle, the Russian army and its allies suffered a crushing defeat. Only 13 princes died in it, including their leader, 42 were captured, and Svidrigailo himself with a detachment “to the ZO husband” escaped. Soon after this, Smolensk broke away from the Russian Principality, and the following year Polotsk and Vitebsk. The weakened Russian lands were left alone with two powerful, hostile states. Svidrigailo abandoned further struggle, renounced the title of Grand Duke of the “Grand Duchy of Russia” and left for Volyn. Most Bratslav, Kyiv and Seversk officials followed his example.

The patriotic minority of Russian princes did not give in to the national idea and continued the struggle for the independence of Ukraine. The Volyn princes Ivan and Alexander Czartoryski organized a conspiracy of Russian patriots and in 1440 killed Sigismund. Immediately, uprisings against Lithuania broke out in Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian lands. They became so threatening that the newly elected Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir IV (1440-1492) was forced to recognize the restoration of the Kyiv and Volyn principalities. The son of Vladimir Olgerdovich Olelko (Alexander, 1440-1455), who was displaced by Vytautas, became the Kyiv prince; Svidrigailo (1440-1452) became the Volyn prince. The ten-year liberation struggle of Russian princes and boyars ended in victory. The Russian lands have once again renewed their national autonomous statehood.

In the existence of the appanage principality, opposing trends were clearly defined. The first is the desire of the Russian princes to gain complete state independence. And the second is the attempt of the Lithuanian rulers to eliminate the Russian autonomous education. Everything depended on the strength and unity of both the Russian community and the Polish-Lithuanian union, which gradually began to revive. After the death of the Polish king Vladislav III in the battle with the Turks, the Polish gentry in 1445 elected the Lithuanian prince Casimir IV as their king. The tireless struggle of the Russian princes forced the king in 1447 to issue a new privilege, which extended noble liberties and privileges to the gentry of all lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Volyn and Eastern Podolia were assigned to Lithuania. The power of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania over the Ukrainian lands increased.

A coalition of Lithuanian magnates led by Casimir IV was formed, which advocated the immediate elimination of the autonomy of the Russian principalities. Taking advantage of the death of Svidrigailo, the Grand Duke of Lithuania occupied the Volyn cities and liquidated them in 1462 Volyn Principality. The Lithuanian governor began to govern the region. The princes and boyars of Zvyagel, parts of the Mozir region and Bratslav region refused to submit to the authority of the ruler and came under the protection of the Kyiv prince. The Russian nobility did the same in other Volyn and Podolian lands bordering the Kyiv principality. The Principality of Kiev was once again turning into a consolidation center of the Russian people. Prince Olelko Vladimirovich continued his parents' course towards rapprochement with the local boyars and full satisfaction of their interests. He widely assigned estates to the boyars, removed them from the jurisdiction of the grand ducal officials, and gave a number of privileges to the Kyiv petty bourgeoisie. His son Semyon Olelkovich (Alexandrovich, 1466-1470) actively supported the magnate group opposed to the Polish king and was considered a real contender for the grand ducal throne. In his actions, the Kiev prince used the autonomist aspirations of the southwestern uluses of the Golden Horde and the creation in 1449 of an independent, friendly Crimean Khanate. The power of the Kyiv prince extended to the southern and southwestern Russian lands. In the 50s XV century The Principality of Kiev occupied a vast territory from the mouth of the Dniester and into the Northern Kiev region. Its southern border extended north of Ochakov to the mouth of the Dnieper, the Dnieper fortress of Taman and further along the rivers Ovechya Voda, Samara, Tikhaya Sosna and to the Seversky Donets.

A close union of the Crimean Khanate and Russian lands was maturing, which was clearly undesirable for both Lithuania and Poland. The Principality of Kiev was turning into an all-Russian state with a tendency towards independence. Lithuania and Poland could not put up with this. Therefore, after the death of Semyon Olelkovich in 1470, the Lithuanian rulers refused to satisfy the request of the people of Kiev to recognize Mikhail, the brother of the deceased, as prince, and sent the governor Martin Gashtovt to Kyiv. This meant the complete liquidation of the Kyiv principality and its reduction to the state of an ordinary Lithuanian province, which the Kiev nobility was not going to put up with; twice they did not allow Gashtovt to enter Kyiv, and only the third time the governor seized the city by force in 1471. The Russian public regarded the liquidation of the Kyiv principality as a humiliation of national dignity, the removal of the local nobility from power, and complained for a long time at the time when Lithuania paid tribute to Kyiv with birch brooms for its poverty.

Kyiv is the center of the voivodeship. After the death of Vytautas, a liberation movement unfolded against the dominance of Lithuanian feudal lords in Ukraine, including Kyiv, with the people of Kiev at the center. In order to suppress this movement, the government of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was forced to take serious political measures. Trying to calm public opinion, the government legislatively restored appanage principalities in Ukraine. At the end of 1440, the Kiev land received the status of an appanage principality with its center in Kyiv. Olelko (Alexander) Vladimirovich, the son of Vladimir Olgerdovich, became the prince here. once “withdrawn” from Kyiv by Vitovt.

In order to enlist the support of the ruling classes in pursuing their policies, the grand ducal administration soon made further concessions to the local elite. The Grand Duke's Privilege of 1447 expanded the class rights and freedoms of feudal lords, regardless of their religion. Grand Duke Casimir pledged not to distribute lands and administrative positions in the principality to “foreigners,” that is, to Polish feudal lords. The Privilege of 1447 granted some economic privileges to the burghers. They were exempt from a number of state duties: stations, supply of carts, transportation of materials for the construction of castles (except for participation in their construction and repair). Having satisfied the most important class claims of the Orthodox feudal lords and granted benefits to the townspeople, the grand ducal government took an important step towards strengthening its influence on the Ukrainian lands, in particular in one of the centers liberation movement- Kyiv.

The revival of the Principality of Kyiv was a temporary concession, sole purpose which was the establishment of complete domination of Lithuanian and Polish feudal lords on Ukrainian lands. Having strengthened its internal political positions, the grand ducal government took further measures to centralize government controlled. This was also prompted by the growth of the economic and political importance of Kyiv, which was undesirable for her. The Kyiv princes sought to achieve the political consolidation of the principality and restore its sovereignty. Their policy also reflected the sentiments of a significant layer of Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian feudal lords, who were oriented towards unity with the Grand Duchy of Moscow. In 1451, an active supporter of the unification of Russian lands around Moscow, Metropolitan Jonah, with the consent of the Kyiv prince, became the only metropolitan of Kyiv and “all Rus'” with residence in Moscow. This single metropolitanate existed, however, not for long - only until 1458, when, on the initiative of the grand ducal authorities, a separate metropolitanate was again restored in Kyiv. The Kiev prince Olelko Vladimirovich also opposed the new Uniate encroachments of the Catholic Church, invariably encouraged by the Lithuanian and Polish ruling elite.

The Polish-Lithuanian authorities were especially afraid of losing their privileges in public administration. During the reign of Casimir, the Grand Duke of Lithuania and Poland, who was absorbed in Polish affairs and was almost constantly in Krakow, the question of the need to elect a separate Grand Duke repeatedly arose in Lithuania. One of the main candidates for grand duke was considered to be the Kiev prince Semyon Olelkovich, who inherited the Principality of Kiev after the death of his father Olelko Vladimirovich (1455). Meanwhile, the memories of the great reign of Svidrigail (1430-1432), who surrounded himself with “schismatic Ruthenians” and practically excluded Catholic Lithuanians from the Grand Duchy’s Rada, were still fresh in the memory of the magnates who were in power in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Concerned about the prospect of Semyon Olelkovich being elected Grand Duke, the Lithuanian government tried to reduce him to the position of Grand Duke's governor in Kyiv. However, this political maneuver was not successful and the solution to the issue of eliminating the last large appanage principality on Ukrainian lands - Kyiv - was postponed. In 1470, after the death of Semyon Olelkovich, the appanage princely power in Kyiv ceased to exist forever.

After the liquidation of the Principality of Kyiv, local feudal lords received grand ducal charters, confirming their social, class rights and privileges, fixing the norms of local life in accordance with the “old times,” that is, local traditions. Despite the invariably declared intention of the grand ducal government to preserve the “old times,” the position of Lithuanian power in Kyiv was steadily strengthened. Since the liquidation of the principality, Kyiv became the center of the Kyiv voivodeship of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the residence of the Kyiv voivode. The voivode, who was the grand ducal governor in Kyiv, often received his position from the grand duke as a service reward, which had the character of an ordinary feudal feeding. This is confirmed, for example, by the fact that royal letters were usually addressed to “the governor of Kyiv... and our other governors who will then hold Kyiv from us.”

Mostly large feudal lords - magnates, often Lithuanian Catholic gentlemen, often of princely origin - were appointed governors in Kyiv. Thus, the first Kiev governor, Martin Gashtovt, came from among the largest Lithuanian lords. For “faithful service,” the Grand Duke of Lithuania rewarded the Kyiv governors with lands far from the Kiev region, often in Lithuanian lands proper, in order to more firmly connect them with the Lithuanian state center and prevent the emergence of separatist aspirations among them. Thus, the Kiev voivode Prince Dmitry Putyatich in 1499 received an estate near Novgorod-Litovsk for lifelong ownership with the right to transfer it to his son.

The Grand Duke's government attached importance to the activities of the Kyiv governor great importance. He was supposed to help strengthen Lithuanian power on the territory of the former principality, which in the past was repeatedly ready to secede from the Grand Duchy and in which, even after the establishment of the voivodships, the fire of the liberation movement continued to smolder. The voivodeship service also had foreign policy significance: the voivode supervised the protection of the southern borders of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was especially important in the conditions of increased military activity at the end of the 15th century. threats of attacks by Crimean feudal lords. He also played the role of a link in diplomatic relations between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Crimean Khanate. The Kiev voivode led the city army, which consisted of a hired “company”, which was directly commanded by the captain, the militia of the Kyiv boyars, as well as the city and voivode militia, where the people of Kiev also gathered. “Whenever our zemstvo service happens, ... with the lord voivode ... on horses in the wild.”

The church in Kyiv was proclaimed independent of secular power by the Grand Duke's charters, "in the honor of the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'." However, in connection with the system adopted at that time of granting church positions and lands and confirming rights to them with a grant from the Grand Duke or Voivode, she found herself completely dependent on them, in their “donations.” Thus, in Kyiv, under the authority of the governor, in addition to many churches, the Florovsky, Mezhigorsky and Mikhailovsky Golden-Domed monasteries actually remained.

The governors constantly “intervened” even in the life of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. As evidenced by the charter of 1550 from King Sigismund Augustus, “the governors of Kyiv took and held that monastery with their own hands.”

From the specific time, the voivodeship power largely inherited autonomy from the grand ducal power in the sphere of local government. For the people of Kiev, this often turned into unbridled arbitrariness on the part of not only the governors, but also their subordinate civil servants and military leaders - cornets, marshals, castellans, captains, etc.

Vytautas went even further in his church policy, intending to move the center of Orthodoxy in the East Slavic lands to the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: in 1407, he sought in Constantinople the consecration of his protégé of Polotsk, Bishop Theodosius, as metropolitan of All Russia. However, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in agreement with the Moscow Prince Vasily Dmitrievich, appointed the Greek Photius as Metropolitan of All Russia, who began to actively collaborate with Prince Vasily.

After the Union of Gorodel, Lithuanian feudal lords again tried to create an autonomous Orthodox Church in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. A hierarch of Bulgarian origin, Gregory Tsamblak, was nominated to occupy the Kyiv metropolis. However, Metropolitan Photius opposed this. The Patriarch of Constantinople did not give his blessing either, since behind Tsamblak stood Vytautas, who was inclined towards church union, and the zealous Catholic Jagiello. Nevertheless, in the fall of 1415, at a church council in Novgorod-Litovsk (Novogrudok), at the request of Vytautas, the Orthodox bishops of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland proclaimed Tsamblak metropolitan of Kiev. It was assumed that the sphere of influence of the new metropolis would not be limited to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Vitovt hoped to bring Muscovites, Novgorodians, Pskovites, in a word, the population of all Russian lands, to obedience to the new metropolitan, and the Polish king directly called Tsamblak “Metropolitan of All Russia.”

The state authorities also intended to use the newly created metropolis to formalize the union of the Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church with the goal, as Jagiello put it, of “ending the schism.” In 1418, Tsamblak was sent to the Church Council of Constance to negotiate a union. The negotiations ended without result. This is explained by the exceptional unpopularity of the idea of ​​concluding a church union in Southwestern Russia. The Uniate mission of Tsamblak finally compromised the Kiev metropolis in the eyes of the Orthodox population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The separate Kiev metropolitanate ceased to exist in 1420.

The reign of Vytautas marked the beginning of the open expansion of the Catholic Church into Ukrainian lands. It was considered by the grand ducal authorities as an effective means of subjugating the Ukrainian lands. Catholic episcopal sees were opened in Kyiv, Kamenets-Podolsk and Lutsk.

The attack of Lithuanian feudal lords on Ukrainian lands during the reign of Vytautas became the main reason for the liberation movement that unfolded here after his death. This movement coincided with the feudal war for the grand-ducal table, which was claimed by the famous opponent of the Polish-Lithuanian union, the South Russian prince Svidrigailo Olgerdovich. Having become the Grand Duke in 1430, Svidrigailo relied in his activities mainly on the Ukrainian princes and boyars, who were hostile to both the Polish and Lithuanian ruling classes. The large Lithuanian boyars organized a conspiracy against Svidrigail, and in 1432 Vitovt's brother Sigismund Keistutovich became the Grand Duke. However, the Belarusian and also Ukrainian lands (Kiev, Seversk, Volyn and Eastern Podolia) remained under the rule of Svid-rigail. The Lithuanian-Russian chronicle writes about these events: “The Rus princes and boyars put Prince Shvitrigail on the great reign of Rus.” The Grand Duchy of Lithuania actually split into two parts: a separate Russian principality was formed on its Ukrainian and Belarusian lands.

In order to weaken the liberation movement in the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands and return them to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the ruling circles of Lithuania and Poland made some concessions to the Russian feudal lords. Upon Sigismund's accession to the grand-ducal throne on October 15, 1432, a privilege was issued, which dealt with the rights of Russian feudal lords. He seemed to interpret the old acts that granted the princes, gentry and boyars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania rights and privileges similar to those enjoyed by the Polish feudal lords, in the sense that they should apply to Russian princes and boyars.

The same political goals were pursued by the royal privileging of the Lutsk land on October 30, 1432. The Lutsk land was to be part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was confirmed by the last act of the Polish-Lithuanian union of 1432. However, the Polish government had long laid claim to this land and, participating in the struggle for the grand-ducal table that broke out in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the death of Vytautas, he sought to capture it. With this privilege, local princes, boyars, clergy, foreign colonists, regardless of their religion, were equal in rights and liberties with the corresponding categories of the population of the Polish kingdom. Priviley also contained a promise not to force the Orthodox population of the Lutsk land to convert to Catholicism, and not to destroy Orthodox churches.

On May 6, 1434, Grand Duke Sigismund confirmed the rights and privileges of the Orthodox feudal lords, which were discussed in the privilege of October 15, 1432. Their property rights were confirmed, and for their peasants they received exemption from a number of state duties and taxes. The Grand Duke promised not to punish any of the feudal lords for denunciation without trial. They could be punished only after a preliminary investigation.

The privileges of 1432 and 1434, unlike the previous ones, applied not only to the gentry, but also to the princes. After the liquidation of the appanage principalities and especially after the Gorodel Privilege, which deprived Orthodox feudal lords of the right to occupy government positions, large Ukrainian princes began to be increasingly pushed into secondary economic and political positions, not only on a national scale, but often also in their own domains. The leading role in the life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was seized by the Lithuanian-Catholic boyar nobility, and the rich Ukrainian princes actively opposed it, trying to restore their former position. Priviley 1432 and 1434 They were met with dissatisfaction - after all, about the main thing that worried them - the right to hold public office - these privileges were silent. However, most of the small and medium-sized princes had their rights and liberties expanded during the Vileias of 1432 and 1434. satisfied. Therefore, just like ordinary boyars and gentry, they began to gradually move away from the liberation movement. In 1438, the Kiev region, Chernigovo-Severshchina, Bratslav region and Volyn again recognized the power of the Grand Duke of Lithuania.

Restoration of Ukrainian appanage principalities and their final liquidation. In March 1440, the Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund Keistutovich fell victim to a conspiracy. Sigismund's reign caused widespread discontent. He was not pleasing to the large feudal lords of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who sought to strengthen dominance over the Ukrainian lands, since he agreed to transform Western Podolia into a Polish province. But the Ukrainian princes and boyars were especially active against Sigismund: during his reign in 1439, a new attempt was made to union the Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church. The union did not take place due to the opposition of the Moscow government, as well as the resistance of the Ukrainian and Belarusian feudal lords of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

For Orthodox feudal lords, a union would bring a new infringement of their rights in comparison with Catholics or Uniates. For the Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples, it meant a further advance of Catholicism and increased social and national oppression.

Svidrigailo was again nominated as a candidate for grand duke by the Ukrainian and Belarusian feudal lords. However, under pressure from large Lithuanian feudal lords, contrary to the terms of the union of 1432, without the consent of the Polish side, Jogaila's thirteen-year-old son Casimir was elected Grand Duke of Lithuania. King Vladislav III did not recognize Casimir as a Grand Duke, but saw in him only the governor of royal power in the Grand Duchy. The Polish-Lithuanian union was actually broken. Ukrainian lands continued to remain part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

At the beginning of Casimir's reign, his power was fragile. Even in the Lithuanian lands proper, it had to be asserted, overcoming significant resistance from the feudal lords who were dissatisfied with his reign. In Ukraine, feudal fragmentation resumed. A part of the Kyiv land was separated from Lithuania. Power here for a short time, however, was seized by one of the contenders for the grand ducal throne - Mikhail, the son of the murdered Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund. Svidrigailo appeared again in Volyn, establishing relations with the Galician ruling elite. The aggressive aspirations of the Polish feudal lords in relation to the Ukrainian lands intensified. The Lesser Poland panate sought to divide the Ukrainian lands and incorporate them into Poland in parts, and not to incorporate them into Poland as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

During this tense time, the integrity of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which at first was generally ephemeral, was preserved by the grand ducal power only thanks to significant concessions to the separatist-minded Ukrainian feudal lords.

At the end of 1440, the Kiev land received the status of an appanage principality. Olelko (Alexander) Vladimirovich, the son of Vladimir Olgerdovich, “brought out” from Kiev by Grand Duke Vitovt, became the prince here. The Principality of Kyiv also included Pereyaslavshchina and the southern volosts of Chernigovo-Severshchina - Osterskaya and Putivlskaya.

Volyn, together with the Bratslav region, was recognized for life as Svid-rigail with the rights of an appanage principality. Gomel and Turov were also annexed to the revived Volyn principality. As a result, at the end of 1445 - beginning of 1446, Svidrigailo recognized Casimir as the Grand Duke of Lithuania, although continuing to title himself that way.

Thus, the revival of the Kiev and Volyn principalities and the recognition of Olelko and Svidrigail as appanage princes was supposed to restore the shaken state foundations of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and ensure the dominance of Lithuanian feudal lords in the Ukrainian lands.

After the Polish king Vladislav went missing in the battle with the Turks near Varna in 1444, the Polish feudal lords, who sought to restore the Polish-Lithuanian union, offered the crown to Casimir. Lengthy negotiations followed regarding the nature of the Polish-Lithuanian union. The Polish ambassadors at the negotiations insisted on restoring the legal force of the Krevo Act, which provided for the incorporation of all lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by Poland. The Lithuanian feudal lords, who needed the support of Poland to strengthen their dominant position in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in particular on the Ukrainian lands, and therefore also interested in the union, proposed to understand it as a free union of equal states. The Lithuanian feudal lords also demanded from Casimir an oath guaranteeing the presence of Volhynia and Podolia within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

In 1447, Casimir became the King of Poland, while simultaneously remaining the Grand Duke of Lithuania. The issue of union was not resolved, but in fact the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland found themselves bound by a personal union. In an effort to retain the Grand Duchy of Lithuania after such a difficult establishment of his power there, having won over the feudal lords of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, including the Ukrainian lands, before leaving Lithuania for the coronation, Casimir granted the feudal lords of all lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania privileges, expanding their class rights and freedom. The privilege also extended to the Orthodox feudal lords of the Ukrainian lands and played a well-known role in strengthening Lithuanian power here.

Priviley freed the subjects of the feudal lords and townspeople from a number of state duties. The Grand Duke undertook not to accept peasants belonging to the feudal lords into his estates and demanded the same from them regarding the grand-ducal peasants. The feudal lords were assigned the right of patrimonial court. The Grand Duke also undertook not to distribute lands and administrative positions in the Grand Duchy to “foreigners,” that is, to Polish feudal lords. Finally, Casimir pledged not to allow the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to decrease. Volhynia and Eastern Podolia, which was claimed by the Polish feudal lords, thus had to remain part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The Privilege of 1447 played a significant role in the socio-political history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. He contributed to the enslavement of the peasant masses and laid the foundation for the legislative consolidation of this process; Having significantly expanded the rights and privileges of the feudal lords, he thereby weakened the grand ducal power. Having freed the noble subjects and townspeople from the supply of carts, from the supply of materials for the construction of castles and, most importantly, from the payment of a constant monetary tax - serebshchina - to the treasury, the privileges significantly reduced the income of the Grand Duke and increased the income of feudal lords, especially large ones. This led to the revival of the political role of the feudal nobility and its influence on the grand ducal power. The expansion of the rights and privileges of the feudal lords of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania contributed to smoothing out the differences in the social structure of the principality and the Kingdom of Poland and brought them closer politically much more than the signing of any acts of union.

In the interests of the feudal lords, a new code of law was published in 1468. It paid special attention to the protection of feudal private property.

The support by the grand-ducal authorities of the desire of the Ukrainian feudal lords to strengthen their class rule over the working masses, the expansion of their rights and privileges led to the withdrawal of the Ukrainian feudal lords from the liberation movement, contributed to the strengthening of the grand-ducal power in Ukraine, and prepared the political conditions for the final liquidation of the appanage principalities on Ukrainian soil.

When news of Svidrigail's serious illness spread in September 1451, the Polish Senate demanded from Casimir that he take measures to include Volhynia and Eastern Podolia into Poland. Otherwise, the senators threatened to create a confederation of Polish gentry to seize these territories.

The long-standing claims of the Polish feudal lords to Volhynia and Eastern Podolia especially intensified with the accession of Casimir to the Polish throne. It was at this time that they captured part of Eastern Podolia with Medzhybizh and Khmilnik. Throughout Casimir's great reign, they persistently sought the capture of Volyn and Eastern Podolia, as well as the incorporation into Poland of all the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They hoped that, being at the same time the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Casimir would help them implement these plans. However, fearing a break with Lithuania, Casimir avoided supporting the aggressive aspirations of the Polish feudal lords.

The Lithuanian government, headed by the former regent under Casimir on the grand-ducal throne, Jan Gashtovt, expressing the interests of the Lithuanian feudal lords, who sought undivided domination of the Ukrainian lands they had seized, not only protected them from encroachments by Poland, but also demanded the return of the Ukrainian lands previously conquered by Poland , primarily Podolia, as well as the border Volyn territories and even the land of Belz. At the end of 1451, while Svidrigail was still alive, Lithuanian troops led by Pan Radziwill, Prince Yuri of Pinsk and Governor Yursha entered Volyn. By the time of Svidrigail’s death in February 1452, Volyn was completely occupied by them. This caused outrage among the Polish feudal lords. The issue was discussed at several diets. It was decided to create a gentry confederation to capture Volyn. However, the conflict between Poland and Lithuania was resolved through mutual concessions. The Lithuanian side stopped insisting on the return of Western Podolia; Volhynia remained part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and was turned into its province, ruled by the Grand Duchy's governor. Eastern Podolia was annexed to the Principality of Kiev.

After the death of Olelko Vladimirovich, his son Semyon Olelkovich sat on the Kiev table from 1455. During the reign of Casimir, who was absorbed in Polish affairs and was almost constantly in Krakow, the Lithuanian lords repeatedly raised the question of electing a separate Grand Duke for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Semyon Olelkovich was nominated by them as one of the candidates. However, the solution to this issue was constantly postponed by the royal authorities, who were not interested in violating the personal state Polish-Lithuanian union and in prolonging the Lithuanian-Russian princely tradition.

Semyon Olelkovich died in 1470. His reign became the last page in the history of the large Ukrainian appanage principalities. The Kiev land was turned into a province of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Lithuanian lord Martin Gashtovt was appointed governor of Kiev, who forced the people of Kiev to recognize their power by force of arms. “And from then on, the princes ceased to be in Kyiv, and instead of the princes, the governors came.”

Eastern Podolia was separated from the Kiev region and came under the control of grand ducal governors, appointed mainly from among the Volyn princes - Ostrozhsky, Czartorysky, Zbarazhsky and others.

After the liquidation of the Volyn and Kyiv principalities, local feudal lords received grand-ducal privileges, confirming their rights and privileges. This measure was supposed to be a means of strengthening the position of the central government of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Ukrainian lands. However, she only partially achieved her goal. The Ukrainian princes, who were losing their inheritance as a result of the centralizing measures of the grand ducal power, showed discontent. The dominance of the Lithuanian lords also infringed on the class interests of the Ukrainian boyars.

In connection with the state fusion of Lithuania and Poland, the Ukrainian people turned into an object of increasingly intense Polishization and Catholicization. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. The Lithuanian government resumed attempts to implement the union of the Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church. The Kyiv metropolitanate at this time finally separated from the Moscow one. Dissatisfaction with the strengthened dominance of the Lithuanian feudal lords and the advance of Catholicism covered ever wider sections of the Ukrainian people.

Administrative device. Changes in the structure of feudal society. The liquidation of appanage principalities entailed the introduction of a new administrative system - territorial division and the creation of a new administration. These events were supposed to serve to strengthen the central grand ducal power - the power of the Lithuanian feudal lords.

After the liquidation of the appanage principalities, the main administrative-territorial units in Ukraine became lands (voivodships). Due to the insufficient development of intrastate relations, each of them retained largely feudal autonomy and received zemstvo privileges from the grand dukes, which confirmed the customs of its internal life.

The lands were divided into povets with centers in cities. This division, however, was not constant: over time, the number of povets decreased or increased, and their boundaries also changed.

The Kiev region was divided into Kiev, Chernobyl, Zhitomir, Ovruch, Cherkasy, Kanev and other povets. It also included Pereyaslavshchina.

Chernigov-Severshchina was divided into Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversky, Ostersky, Starodubsky and other povets. A significant number of small appanage principalities also remained here. Kyiv remained the center of the entire Dnieper region - the residence of appanage princes, grand-ducal governors and Kyiv governors.

Volyn, with its center in Lutsk, was divided into Lutsk, Vladimir and Kremenets districts.

Eastern Podolia (Bratslavshchyna), which was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was divided into Bratslav and Vinnitsa povets.

Administrative, judicial and military power on the lands of Ukraine, which were formerly appanage principalities, and in the povets belonged to the grand ducal governors - governors and elders. These positions were often given as a reward for service and had the character of ordinary feedings. Quite often, the same person received several administrative positions in different povets and even different lands. According to their legal status, governors and elders were not so much state administrative officials as vassals of the Grand Duke. Just as in the past, sworn letters of allegiance to the Grand Duke were taken from them from appanage princes. From the old appanage time, the viceroyal government largely inherited independence from the central government.

Subordinate to the governors and elders were the cornets, marshals and castellans who led the gentry's troops, as well as mayors and bridgemen responsible for the construction and repair of defensive structures, fortresses, castles, and bridges. The deputy governors in court cases were the sub-elders.

The possessions of princes, which largely retained feudal immunity, were unique administrative-territorial units on Ukrainian lands. The povet system also did not include “powers” ​​that were distributed to feudal lords for temporary use from the grand ducal land fund. Holding on the so-called outpost right, received by feudal lords as collateral for a cash loan provided to the Grand Duke, was very common. At the same time, the ruler received almost unlimited rights in the mortgaged grand ducal volost to all income, which was believed to go towards repaying interest on the loan, and complete power over the population. He controlled the “power” up to the point of transferring it to another person.

Mainly large Lithuanian feudal lords were appointed to the positions of governors and elders in Ukraine. However, local nobility also played a significant role in the administrative management of Ukrainian lands. This corresponded to changes in the socio-political system of the Ukrainian lands that were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which occurred during the 15th and first half of the 16th centuries. The boyars and princes formed a single privileged feudal class - the gentry. The census carried out in 1528 recorded the current composition of the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. During the audit of castles and elders in Ukrainian lands in 1545 and 1552. affiliation with the nobility was also checked. The separation of the gentry class was also facilitated by the voluntary measure of 1557, which applied to all lands except those of the gentry. To prevent lands from being included in the measure, their owners had to document their rights to them, as well as their nobility.

At the same time, the legislative consolidation of the rights of the gentry took place. In 1529, the code of rights of the Lithuanian state was approved, the so-called first Lithuanian statute, which confirmed the old rights granted to the gentry by previous grand ducal privileges, and the new ones that they actually began to enjoy in Lately The top of the nobility consisted of all-powerful magnates (from the Latin magnus - great) - the largest land owners who seized key positions in the political life of the country. The inequality between the bulk of the gentry, on the one hand, and the top of the gentry - the magnates - on the other, was also legitimized by the statute: legislation in it was divided into two types - general gentry and “by estate”, i.e. separately for magnates and the rest of the gentry. The magnates increasingly concentrated the highest government positions in their hands. They often passed them on by inheritance. The magnates had their own armed forces, which they deployed not under the general banner of their district, but separately, under family banners, which is why they were called “princes and lords of banners.”

Under pressure from the Lithuanian magnates, the zemstvo privileges were confirmed in 1529, 1547 and 1551. was introduced, not abolished by the privileges of 1447, 1492, 1506. article of the Gorodel Act, which deprived feudal lords of the Orthodox religion of the right to occupy state administrative positions. However, the largest Ukrainian magnates, Orthodox by religion, not only ruled Ukrainian lands, but often became the most influential nobles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For example, the Volyn prince Konstantin Ivanovich Ostrozhsky, who emerged in the wars of the late 15th - early 16th centuries, especially in the fight against Crimean aggression, as a talented military leader, despite the protests of the Lithuanian lordship, occupied a number of responsible government posts. He was the headman of Bratslav, Zvenigorod and Lutsk, the marshal of the Volyn land, as well as the Lithuanian hetman, the Vilnius castellan and the Troki governor. Patronizing the Orthodox Church, K.I. Ostrozhsky sought to use it to strengthen his position as a counterweight to the Lithuanian magnates, who relied mainly on the Catholic Church.

The Grand Ducal Rada consisted primarily of magnates (lords). From the second half of the 15th century. there has been a tendency to transform it into the main political body of the state. The privileges of Grand Duke Alexander dated August 6, 1492 and Grand Duke Sigismund dated December 7, 1506 confirmed the class privileges of the nobility and directly stated that the Grand Duke has the right to make laws only after discussion with the lords - the Rada and their consent. Thus, the Rada was supposed to turn into an independent body of state power, limiting the power of the Grand Duke. This was also facilitated by the long absence of grand dukes in Lithuania, who, starting with Casimir, were also Polish kings. However, in the second half of the 15th century. and especially in the first half of the 16th century. The Rada revealed complete impotence as the highest administrative authority. Under these conditions, the political influence of local tycoons increased, particularly in Ukraine.

From the second half of the 15th century. The noble sejms (congresses) begin to gather. Their composition and competence in the 15th century. had not yet been clearly defined; they were not regularly operating bodies. Not only sejms of individual lands were convened with the participation of the local administration, magnates, clergy and gentry, but also general ones - “valny”, which were attended by princes, lords and major boyars of the entire principality.

Ordinary gentry in the 15th century. did not take part in the Sejms. At this time, the Sejms were convened primarily to elect the Grand Duke and conclude a union with Poland. Later they began to solve various issues of local and national life. Therefore, after 1512, gentry representation at the Sejm took shape: two gentry delegates were elected from each povet.

During the first half of the 16th century. The competence of the Sejm expanded more and more, and it turned into a permanent supreme body, relegating the Rada to the background. In particular, the Sejm had legislative functions and decided on the adoption of statutes.

Speaking at the diets, the Lithuanian and Ukrainian nobility tried to achieve equal rights with the magnates. One of its main demands was the establishment of elected zemstvo courts, the jurisdiction of which would be subject to all nobility, including magnates. Despite the resistance of the magnates and the grand ducal authorities, by the decision of the Belsky Sejm in 1564, elected zemstvo courts were established. The competence of these courts included civil cases of the entire gentry.

The castle (grodsky) court was in charge of criminal cases. It was headed by the judicial elder, who was the governor of the castle or the largest estate in the povet. Boundary and land matters were decided by the Subcomorian court.

The gentry of the Lithuanian lands also demanded the establishment of povet gentry sejmiks, following the Polish model, in which all feudal lords of the povet - magnates and gentry - would take part. These sejmiks were established by the Vilna Privilege in 1565. They elected zemstvo courts, preliminarily discussed issues submitted for consideration to the nearest sejms, and elected delegates (ambassadors) to the valny sejm.

In 1565, the Lithuanian-Russian gentry achieved administrative and military reforms, as a result of which they began to play a more significant role in administrative apparatus and was given equal military rights with the magnates. From that time on, each land represented a separate administrative and military district - a voivodeship. On the Ukrainian lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, three voivodeships were formed: Kiev, Volyn and Bratslav. Povet commanders were subordinate to the military leaders-voivodes: in the most important povets of the voivodeships there were castellans, in the rest - marshals. Under the command of the castellans and marshals, both the gentry and the princes and lords of the banner gathered with their troops. At the same time, the gentry gathered under the command of castellans and marshals, led by cornets (one per judicial council). New governors and castellans, who could also appoint the largest nobles, received places in the Grand Duke's Rada.

These reforms increased the political role of the gentry and contributed to the establishment of gentry “democracy” in the country, the body of which was the Sejm. The Second Lithuanian Statute of 1566 legitimized the political significance of the Val Sejm: it deprived the Grand Duke of the right to issue state laws without the participation of the Sejm. The Lithuanian state (and Ukraine within it), like Poland, was turning into a gentry republic. But, despite the equalization of rights with the magnates and the expansion of general gentry rights, the gentry was dissatisfied with its position, since real power in the state was concentrated in the hands of the magnate elite both in the state center - Lithuania, and in individual lands, including Ukraine.

The main feature The social and administrative life of the Ukrainian lands after the liquidation of the appanage principalities was the gradual assertion of the omnipotence of the largest feudal lords - magnates, who occupied the top of the social pyramid and sought to subjugate all social, economic, political and cultural life. The masses of the peasantry and urban lower strata of Ukraine, as well as the small gentry and middle strata of the philistinism, fell into unlimited dependence on them. Measures to centralize government administration, carried out by the grand ducal authorities, who were trying to strengthen their position in the Ukrainian lands, met with opposition from the magnate elite that was strengthening here. This was one of the contradictions of socio-political life in Ukraine in the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries. Political decentralization was also facilitated by the gentry democracy that developed in the Lithuanian-Russian state, in particular in the Ukrainian lands, by the middle of the 16th century.

Thus, for political history Ukrainian lands that were under the rule of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the second half of the 14th - first half of the 16th century. First of all, it is characterized by a significant strengthening of the power of the Lithuanian feudal lords. Even before the liquidation of the appanage principalities at the end of the 14th century. The grand-ducal government took measures to undermine the role and significance of the ancient Russian princely dynasty, expand Lithuanian feudal land ownership and create a military service class obedient to it - the boyars.

The desire of Polish and Lithuanian feudal lords to establish Ukrainian and Belarusian lands seized by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on the vast territory was one of the main reasons for the Polish-Lithuanian union of 1385, which marked the beginning of the Polish-Catholic expansion into Ukraine, aimed at the enslavement of the Ukrainian people by Polish feudal lords and their capture lands. This goal was also served by the liquidation of the Ukrainian appanage principalities that began immediately after the Union of Krevo, the results of which the grand ducal government was able to use for the political consolidation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and strengthening the dominance of Lithuanian feudal lords in Ukraine.

The penetration of Catholicism into Ukrainian lands, the unequal position of Orthodox Ukrainian feudal lords compared to Catholics, not only religiously, but also in class and legal terms, enshrined in the Gorodel Act of 1413, became the basis for the spread of dissatisfaction among Ukrainian feudal lords with the union and the grand ducal and royal power. Partial satisfaction of the class interests of local feudal lords weakened, but could not extinguish the liberation movement unfolding in the Ukrainian lands. The result was reunification at the beginning of the 16th century. Chernigovo-Severshchyna with Russia.

>>Restoration and final liquidation of the Kyiv and Volyn appanage principalities

The Russian princes did not accept defeat. They organized a conspiracy and killed Sigismund in 1440. Lithuanian magnates, led by the newly elected Grand Duke Casimir IV Jagiellovic (1440-1492), in order to restore inner world in the state, were forced to make concessions to local princes and boyars. The Kiev and Volyn appanage principalities were restored to their rights and granted autonomy. Thus, the descendants of Vladimir Olgerdovich returned to the Principality of Kiev, from where Vitovt had once expelled them. Alexander (Olelko) Vladimirovich (1440-1470) became the Prince of Kyiv. Svidrigailo received the lifelong title of Grand Duke with an appanage in Volyn, where, surrounded by his loyal Ruthenian allies, he reigned in Lutsk until his death.

However, the concessions to the Orthodox princes and boyars of Volyn and Kiev region were temporary. Relying on the support of Polish feudal lords, the Lithuanian government already in the early 50s of the 15th century. set a course for the final elimination of the remnants of autonomy of the Ukrainian lands. In 1452, after the death of Svidrigail, the Volyn principality ceased to exist.

In 1471, after the death of Prince Semyon Olelkovich, the Principality of Kiev was also liquidated. The Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland Casimir IV appointed a noble Catholic Lithuanian as governor of Kyiv
Gashtold. The people of Kiev were outraged that the heart of Rus' would be ruled by a Catholic, and even from a non-princely family, so they refused to let him into the city. Gashtold captured Kyiv only with the help of troops. “There are no longer princes in Kyiv,” the chronicler noted, “and instead of princes there are nastasha governors.”

After the abolition of local autonomy, Volyn and the Kiev region were transformed into voivodeships, headed by governor-voivodes, dependent directly on the power of the Grand Duke. The autonomy of the Ukrainian principalities was completely eliminated.

Prince Olelko Vladimirovich

Historical sources
Outstanding Ukrainian historian Mikhail Grushevsky (1866-1934) about the Olelkovich princes
The most famous work of Academician M. Grushevsky is the ten-volume “History of Ukraine-Rus”, which describes events in Ukraine from ancient times until 1658. “...Cazimir did not allow the installation of a Grand Duke on his own, but left all management to the Lithuanian rulers. The Lithuanian lords were satisfied with such relations that they themselves ruled the land according to their own will. Having no power over themselves, they now no longer even thought of reckoning with the Ukrainian and Belarusian rulers, leaving them nothing. In Volyn, sometimes Ukrainians, sometimes Litvins were given as governors, and after Semyon Olelkovich of Kiev died, they did not want to give the Principality of Kyiv to his family. It was in vain that Semyon, before his death, reminded him of his faithful service to Casimir, sent him as a gift his bow and his horse, on which he rode to war, asking him to be kind to his family for this service. It was in vain that the people of Kiev asked that Semyonov’s younger brother Mikhail, who was then the Lithuanian governor in Novgorod, be given the prince. Lithuanian princes at all costs they decided not to give Kyiv to the Olelkovichs, but to turn it into an ordinary province, so they sent a Litvin, Martyn Gashtovt, as governor there. Casimir fulfilled their will, gave the Semyonov family the principality of Slutsk in Belarus, and gave Kyiv to Gashtovta. The people of Kiev, having learned about this, sent to say that Gashtovt would not be accepted in any way, because he was not of a princely family, and he was also a Catholic. Twice they did not allow Gashtovt to visit them when he came to their voivodeship. They begged Casimir to give them a prince of the Orthodox faith, but if he didn’t want it, then at least a Catholic, but of a princely family. But the Lithuanian rulers did not retreat, and the people of Kiev eventually succumbed and accepted Gashtovt.

This event shocked everyone in Ukraine and White Rus'. They remembered with regret how Lithuania once gave tribute to the Kyiv princes with bast and brooms because of its poverty, because it had nothing worthwhile, but now it has to obey it in everything.”

1. What historical figures does M. Grushevsky remember?
2. What events are mentioned in the source?

1. What title did Vytautas receive in 1392?
2. When were the Kiev and Volyn appanage principalities restored?
3. Who was last prince of Kyiv in the 15th century?
4. Why were the people of Kiev outraged by the direction of the governor Gashtold to them?
5. Label on contour map the borders of the Lithuanian-Russian state from the time of Vytautas and the places where he built fortifications against external enemies.
6. Can the centralization policy of Prince Vitovt be called progressive, meeting the interests of the majority of the population? Discuss the answers in groups.
7. Describe Prince Svidrigail as a political and statesman.
8. How was the religious factor used in the struggle for power in Poland and the Principality of Lithuania?
9. Imagine that you are a journalist and you need to write an article on the topic: “The gradual elimination of the autonomy of the Ukrainian principalities in the XIV-XV centuries.” First of all, you should create an outline for the article. Do this in your notebooks.
10. Make a diagram in your notebook showing the appanage principalities ruled by the relatives of Prince Olgerd.

Svidersky Yu. Yu., Ladychenko T. V., Romanishin N. Yu. History of Ukraine: Textbook for 7th grade. - K.: Certificate, 2007. 272 ​​p.: ill.

Submitted by readers from the website

Lesson content lesson outline and supporting frame lesson presentation interactive technologies accelerator teaching methods Practice tests, testing online tasks and exercises homework workshops and trainings questions for class discussions Illustrations video and audio materials photographs, pictures, graphs, tables, diagrams, comics, parables, sayings, crosswords, anecdotes, jokes, quotes Add-ons abstracts cheat sheets tips for the curious articles (MAN) literature basic and additional dictionary of terms Improving textbooks and lessons correcting errors in the textbook, replacing outdated knowledge with new ones Only for teachers calendar plans learning programs guidelines