If for Nevolin and his followers the origin of Chetvertey was explained by the need to give greater control to the newly annexed regions due to the reasons of their isolation, then, on the contrary, Lokhvitsy does not establish any conditions of regional “isolation” in the Moscow state. “Sorry,” he said, “there’s no place to look here.” On the one hand, the principalities of North-Eastern Russia, having annexed them to Moscow, were not included in the territory! and no inclinations of independent life; Their territories were divided on the basis of private law between the princely family; they did not have any institutions around which life could arise. On the other hand, their unification under the rule of Moscow consisted precisely in the abolition of political independence, in the exclusion of the highest nobility and the upper class of merchants from the udfls, and in the introduction of a common tax system. And if, despite this, he is ready to admit, “that the great princes of Moscow left untouched at first the properties in which the sovereign principality was located during the annexation to Moscow, they even left the ranks that existed there (administration of the nobility) and palaces (financial management),” he now stipulates that The regional palaces little by little merged with the Moscow Great Palace, and the kingdom of the ancient princesses was soon destroyed by the estates, the nobles, but especially the financial policies of the Moscow princes.
“The Moscow Grand Dukes, he said, were then at all thinking about developing a system of territory!
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
explain strange and the population (more mechanical), just as they did not leave behind the forces of history, i.e., the old-regional... The main concern of the Moscow sovereigns was taxes, and from a financial point of view, it was beneficial for the Moscow Grand Dukes to place the communities, the original tax-paying units, in direct relation to themselves... This led to fragmentation of territotli; of his high-. It is unlikely to reach its development under Grozny, when the goblin, with excellent food, are highlighted and placed in direct relation to Moscow not only volosts, but also ‘fishing settlements, a bunch of’ Samo-OKA Yurt, a tax-farmer company, separate landowners.. In order to ‘as much as suruited’ this infinite number of units, related petosredstveino 15 Moscow, was formed by njvolko y ri az0v5 69 haralter in territorial mitsistest55. “So the Quarters originated.” But the Quarter was not a regular territorial division (i.e., it did not have an external semblance of province), to which each of the Quarters was assigned cities, borders in different parts of the Moscow state!’, Known number of borders of the group =: Yulko. zreya, without any territorial and historical kenyr” composition of the Quarters, frequent. change schen. cities from one Quarter to another, uniting several Quarters into one administration, their very original names, etc.°'. Thus ‘thus,’ the reason for the formation of the Quarters. Lokhvitsky “lie” in the desire of the Moscow government to give at least some structure to the masses of tax-paying units that were drawn directly to Moscow. Quarters are irregular territorial
5-00 TIM is only POSSIBLE.
generally taxable districts 1). Lokhvitsky's shooting gallery, as P. Milyukov rightly noted, was a big step forward for understanding the origin of our financial system. He completely undermined the hypothesis of the regional origin of the Quarters and correctly pointed out their financial role. The quarters, as can be seen from Lokhvitskato’s entire discussion, should have appeared later after the annexation of the regions, they are the result. their extreme fragmentation reached ‘its’ ‘apogee’ under Grozny. It turned out that Lokhvitsy had to carry them. is happening
"A. Mokhvitsmi. and Publ. 1964, pp. 20-21, 22, 35.
waiting for this ‘time, but. he did not do this and remained faithful to Nevolinsky’s view, ‘that the Quarters appeared under Toanna PT). |
ohm Miliukov. The honors are issued from the B. Parish house.
Lokhvitsky's theory about the Chetyas as tax-paying financial districts received its further development and substantiation in the works of Mr. Milyukov.