【作者】 王芸；

【导师】 罗爱林；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 世界史， 2022， 硕士

【摘要】 波雅尔杜马是彼得大帝前俄国政治制度中的重要一环,是俄国等级代表君主制的表现形式。到彼得大帝时俄国实现了从等级代表君主制向专制君主制的转变,本文将以波雅尔杜马为例窥探俄国政治制度的演变。全文将从横纵两个方向来研究波雅尔杜马的历史,纵向上以时间为序阐述各个历史阶段波雅尔杜马的特征及成员组成;横向上着重强调等级代表君主制下与波雅尔杜马竞争的其他机构。正文主要分为五个部分:第一部分讨论波雅尔杜马的起源。波雅尔起源于基辅王公亲兵队中的高级亲兵,由这些亲兵组成的协商会议一—亲兵会议是波雅尔杜马的前身。关于波雅尔杜马的名称及产生时间学界仍有争议,它的产生背景有以下几点:(1)波雅尔杜马继承了东斯拉夫人部落联盟时期的军事民主制传统,(2)当时的王公与随从达成了封建附庸关系,波雅尔杜马是随从履行协商义务的机构,(3)宗教文献和拜占庭传统赋予协商行为以必要性和神圣性,波雅尔杜马是这种意志的体现。第二部分着重探讨伊凡四世前波雅尔杜马的运行机制。波雅尔杜马最初是大公与波雅尔等级分享权力的机构,它标志着俄国等级代表君主制的最初形式。直到封邑时期,各大公国都依靠波雅尔杜马协商国家事务,杜马因此具有立法、司法、外交和宗教等职能。随后杜马组织得到扩充,形成了波雅尔和廷臣两大固定等级。当时各大公国的国家机构中除波雅尔杜马外,还出现了与之相似的机构——维彻。维彻是由城市民众组成的集会,与代表世袭贵族的波雅尔杜马相比,体现了一定的民主性质,其中最具代表性的是诺夫哥罗德的维彻。第三部分主要论述波雅尔杜马的政治变革。由于波雅尔杜马对王权产生掣肘,伊凡四世扶植了近臣杜马和缙绅会议与波雅尔杜马展开竞争,以此削弱波雅尔杜马的权威,等级代表君主制出现一个新高峰。缙绅会议是沙皇与中小服役贵族分享权力的场所,他们极大地动摇了世袭贵族的地位。衙门的出现标志着国家常设机构的建立,强化了中央集权并完善了国家的政治结构。但伊凡四世推行的特辖制很快走向失败,也标志着他对专制君主制的尝试最终失败。第四部分重点分析波雅尔杜马的终结。16世纪末的俄国社会动荡不安,在长久的动荡中波雅尔杜马重新回到权力中心,但它的权威已受到缙绅会议的压制,衰落趋势非常明显。大动乱后掌权的罗曼诺夫王朝更加激进地追求专制,杜马成为沙皇权力的工具。在前几任沙皇的增长政策下,中小服役者大量涌入杜马并在其中占据越来越高的比例,波雅尔贵族权力进一步被侵蚀。17世纪末缙绅会议寿终正寝,彼得大帝则正式停止对波雅尔杜马的任命,杜马被参政院所取代,至此所有的等级代表机构均被废止,俄国正式建立了东方式的专制君主制。第五部分以现代的视角总结波雅尔杜马发展中呈现的特点及对它的一些认识。波雅尔杜马的特点之一就是君臣合作带来的政治稳定性和阶级斗争引发的政治动荡并存;第二大特点是杜马任命的标准由世袭继承和服役晋升相辅相成。波雅尔杜马虽不复存在,但它对俄国的国家管理和政治制度的发展发挥过至关重要的作用。但为何波雅尔杜马没能走上西方的道路,很大程度上是波雅尔贵族只关注经济利益,忽视了对其政治权利的维护,导致其落后于世界潮流,无法与彼得的改革趋势相抗衡,最终走向消亡。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Boyar Duma was an important part of the political system in pre-Peter the Great Russia,a manifestation of the Russian hierarchical representative monarchy.By the time of Peter the Great,Russia had made the transition from a hierarchical representative monarchy to an autocratic monarchy,and this article will look at the evolution of the Russian political system using the Boyar Duma as an example.The history of the Boyar Duma will be examined both horizontally and vertically,with a chronological account of the characteristics and composition of the Boyar Duma at each stage of its history,and horizontally,with an emphasis on the other institutions that competed with the Boyar Duma under the hierarchical representative monarchy.The main text is divided into five main parts.The first part discusses the origins of the Boyar Duma.The Boyar had its origins in the superior druzhina of the Kievan princes’ own druzhina,and a consultative council of these druzhina,the Druzhina’ Conference,became the predecessor of the Boyar Duma.The name of the Boyar Duma and the date of its creation are still disputed in academic circles.The background to its creation is the following:(1)the Boyar Duma inherited the tradition of military democracy from the period of the Eastern Slavic Tribal Union,(2)the princes of the time entered into a feudal vassal relationship with their attendants and the Boyar Duma was the body through which the attendants fulfilled their duty to consult,and(3)religious texts and Byzantine tradition conferred necessity and sanctity on the act of consultation and the Boyar Duma was the expression of this will.The second part focuses on the mechanisms of the functioning of the pre-Ivan ⅣBoyar Duma.The Boyar Duma was originally a power-sharing body between the Grand Prince and the Boyar hierarchy,and it marked the first form of hierarchical representative monarchy in Russia.Until the Feudal period,the Grand Duchies relied on the Boyar Duma for consultation on state affairs,and the Duma thus had legislative,judicial,diplomatic and religious functions.The Duma was then expanded to form two fixed classes,the Boyar and the Okolnichy.In addition to the Boyar Duma,a similar institution,the Veche,emerged in the state institutions of the major duchies at the time.The Veche was assembly of the people of the city and were somewhat more democratic than the Boyar Duma,which represented the hereditary nobility,the most representative of which was the Veche of Novgorod.The third section focuses on the political changes in the Boyar Duma.As the Boyar Duma were a constraint on tsar’s authority,Ivan Ⅳ installed Blizhnaia Duma and Zemskie Sobory to compete with the Boyar Duma,thus weakening the authority of the Boyar Duma,and a new peak in the hierarchical representation of the monarchy emerged.Zemskie Sobory was the place where the Tsar shared power with the small and medium servitors,and they greatly undermined the position of the hereditary nobility.The emergence of Prikaz marked the establishment of permanent state institutions,which strengthened centralisation and improved the political structure of the state.But Ivan Ⅳ’s introduction of the Oprichnina soon failed,marking the ultimate failure of his attempt at an autocratic monarchy.The fourth section focuses on the end of the Boyar Duma.The Boyar Duma returned to the centre of power during the long period of social unrest in late 16th-century Russia,but its authority was suppressed by Zemskie Sobory and its decline was evident.The Romanov dynasty,which came to power after Time of Troubles,pursued autocracy more radically and the Duma became an instrument of tsarist power.At the end of the 17th century,when Zemskie Sobory came to an end,Peter the Great formally ceased to appoint the Boyar Duma,which was replaced by the Senate,thus abolishing all hierarchical representation and establishing an Eastern-style autocratic monarchy in Russia.The fifth section summarises the characteristics that emerged from the development of the Boyar Duma and some insights into it from a modern perspective.One of the characteristics of the Boyar Duma is the political stability brought about by the cooperation of the monarchs and ministers and the political turmoil caused by class struggle;the second characteristic was that the criteria for appointment to the Duma were complemented by hereditary succession and promotion through service.Although the Boyar Duma has died,it played a crucial role in the development of Russia’s state administration and political system.But why the Boyar Duma did not follow the path of the West was largely due to the fact that the Boyar aristocracy focused only on economic interests and neglected the maintenance of its political rights,causing it to lag behind the world trend and unable to compete with Peter’s reforming tendencies,which eventually led to its demise.更多还原