Social structure society in the 9th century is weakly expressed. The process of formation of social groups stretched over the period of the 9th - 12th centuries.
Society is divided into the following population groups:
Free (feudal nobility - princes; boyars; clergy: high hierarchs, parish monasticism; townspeople: merchants, artisans; free community members)
Feudally dependent (smerds, purchases).
The Russian Pravda contains a number of norms defining legal status certain population groups. It is difficult to distinguish from its text legal status the ruling layer and the rest of the population. There are only two legal criteria: rules on increased (2nd) criminal liability for the murder of a representative of a privileged layer and rules on a special procedure for inheriting real estate (land) for representatives of this layer. These legal privileges extended to princes, boyars, princely husbands, princely tiuns and ognishchans (not all of them were feudal lords).
The structure of the feudal ruling class of the ancient Russian state:
1. Princes - former princes unions of tribes or individual tribes (soon this title belonged only to the Rurikovichs). The income of the princes is polyudye. During this period, the grand ducal domain arose. R.P. mentions the prince’s people who live under the prince:
a) firemen (managers)
c) grooms
d) stinkers
d) slaves
All of them belonged to the prince's court
2. Boyars are descendants of great princes. Their ancestors are the elders of the tribe. Wealth is associated with land. They ruled cities, volosts, and were part of the prince's squad (princely men). Until the 11th century they lived at court. In the XI-XII centuries - the settlement of the squad on the ground (the prince granted land). The squad was divided into senior and junior. The fine for the murder of a princely husband is 80 hryvnia. In XI, the firemen also receive land and rank.
Boyar land ownership arises as a result of the seizure of lands and grants from the prince.
3. Clergy - in 988
a) higher (black, monasticism) - lived in monasteries.
b) parish spirit
Since the 11th century, monasteries have turned into large households. land. Introduction when making deposits.
4. Urban (townsman) population: - 40 hryvnia for killing mountains. citizens. The merchants were divided into guests (foreign or out-of-town) and locals. There were also artisans and day laborers.
5. Communal smerds are legally and economically independent, fulfilled duties and paid taxes only in favor of the state. They had certain property and could bequeath it to their children (land - only to their sons). In the absence of heirs, his property passed to the community. The law protected the person and property of the smerda. For committed acts and crimes, as well as for obligations and contracts, he bore personal and property liability. Served as a full participant in trial. There were, in addition, non-free smerds.
Community names:
1. Economic - all community members held the land with the right of ownership and use.
2. Administrative and legal organization.
3. Police-judicial organization.
If a murder was committed on community territory, the community itself investigated it. The culprit and his family went on a rampage and plundered (conf. property). The outcasts turned to the princes, and by their decision they were transferred to monasteries.
6. Procurement - in Brief ed. R.P. not mentioned, in P.P. - a person who works in the household of a feudal lord for a “kupa”, i.e. loan. This debt had to be worked off, and there were no established equivalents or standards. The scope of work is determined by the lender. For the first time, the relationship between the procurement and the creditor was regulated in the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh after the uprising of the procurement in 1113. The law protected the person and property of the procurement. The purchaser was responsible for the safety of the tools and accompanied the gentleman on campaigns. The purchase is not subject to punishment if it goes to work in the city. The purchase could file a complaint against his master in court and, in rare cases, act as a witness. If the purchaser ran away or committed theft, he turned into a slave.
In R.P. “role” (arable, rural) procurement, which worked on someone else’s land, did not differ in its legal status from “non-role” procurement. They received payment for their work in advance.
7. Serfs (“robes”) are the most powerless subjects of law. The source of slavery is birth from a slave, self-sale into bondage, marriage to a slave without concluding an agreement with the master, becoming a housekeeper without an agreement with the master, committing a crime (“flow and robbery”), fleeing the purchase from the master, malicious bankruptcy. The most common source of servitude is captivity (it is not mentioned in the R.P.).
Everything that a slave owned was the property of the master. All consequences arising from contracts and obligations that the slave entered into with the knowledge of the master also fell on the master. The personality of a slave was not protected by law (for his murder there was a fine; slave=property). The slave who committed the crime had to be handed over to the victim. The master bore the penalty for the slave. In court, a slave could not be a plaintiff, defendant or witness. Referring to the testimony of a slave in court, a free person had to make a reservation that he was referring to the “words of a slave.”
There was no equality within the serfs (privileged and unprivileged serfs).
©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-02-16
So, the first Russian states, and then the Kiev one, arose as a result of the internal socio-economic development of the Eastern Slavs, and not under the influence of external circumstances!
The prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state were:
1. Ethnic community, one language.
2. The need to join forces to fight the nomads and Byzantium.
3. Establishing control along the entire path from the “Varangians to the Greeks”.
4. The similarity of pagan beliefs, and later a single Christian religion.
And one more important question requires an answer: why decomposition primitive communal system among the Eastern Slavs led to the creation of a feudal rather than a slave state?
This question has not yet been sufficiently studied. Apparently, in the harsh climate, the widespread use of slave labor was not advisable (the agricultural season was short, and the maintenance of slaves in the autumn-winter periods was expensive).
It is interesting to note that in Rus' slaves were often given land and farming, essentially turning them into serfs.
Slavery did not become the dominant form of exploitation in Rus'; the Eastern Slavs in their development bypassed the slave-owning formation.
By the 9th century, feudal ownership of land was established among the Eastern Slavs and classes were formed - feudal landowners and feudal-dependent peasants.
The ruling class of feudal lords included; Kyiv princes, local (tribal) princes, communal nobility, warriors, the top of the service people. The feudal class was formed gradually. As the class of feudal lords takes shape, they are given a name boyars. The boyars are formed in 2 ways. Firstly, the tribal nobility, which stood out in the process of decomposition, became boyars tribal system. The second category consisted of princely boyars, i.e., formed from princely squad. They were called princely men, boyars-ognishchans. Later, as power strengthened Kyiv princes these 2 groups of boyars (zemstvo and princely) merge, the differences between them disappear.
What they had in common was that they were all large landowners. They either received land from the prince for their service, or seized communal lands. The land was their ancestral property, such land holdings were called fiefdoms.
After the adoption of Christianity in the 10th century, a significant part of the land was concentrated in the hands of the church, monasteries, and clergy. The clergy becomes a privileged social group; it should also be classified as the ruling class. The adoption of Christianity became important factor strengthening national statehood initial stage its development.
The Christian religion, which replaced paganism, brought with it the doctrine of divine origin supreme power, humble attitude towards her. It is concentrated in the hands of metropolitans and bishops large number villages and cities, they had their own servants and even an army. The church received the right to collect tithe for your content. The territory of the country was divided into dioceses headed by bishops appointed by the metropolitan. The metropolitan was appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople.
All groups of feudal lords in the ancient Russian state were in relations suzerainty-vassalage. was the supreme overlord Grand Duke, his vassals were local princes. In turn, local princes were overlords of their boyars and servicemen.
Vassal relations between feudal lords arose even before the appearance of the state among the Slavs; they are rooted in the tribal organization.
The prince's warriors were also his vassals. He endowed them with land (either for life, or later they began to be endowed with land for the duration of their service). During the period under review, warriors could move from one prince to another, and this was not considered treason.
Many large boyars also had their own squads. These warriors were obliged to the boyar military service, they can be called vassals of the second stage.
With growth feudal land tenure and the increasing power of the feudal lords grew their political rights. The feudal lords received from their overlords the so-called immunities, which freed them from paying tribute to the prince, gave them the right to have their own squad, and gave them the right to judge the population under their control in their own court. Political power was becoming increasingly to a greater extent an attribute of large feudal property.
Class of feudal-dependent peasants was taking shape in various ways. The process of feudalization leads to the fact that there are gradually fewer and fewer free communal peasants. Direct violence non-economic coercion is the main way for free peasants and community members to fall into feudal dependence. By distributing lands for service, donating lands along with the peasants who inhabited them to churches and monasteries, the princes thereby forcibly turned the once free community members into dependent peasants.
The peasantry in the ancient Russian state made up the bulk of the population. They were called - stinks. Some researchers call all peasants smerds, others believe that smerds are only that part of the peasantry that has already been enslaved by the feudal lords. During the time of “Russian Truth”, apparently, stinkers divided into free and dependent. Free smerds paid taxes and performed duties only in favor of the state. Dependent smerds are those smerds who became dependent on the feudal lords. This dependence could be greater or lesser, but it was expressed in the fact that they were obliged to pay taxes, that is, to serve feudal duties. In the articles of Russkaya Pravda, the unequal position of the smerds, their dependence on the princes, constantly slips through.
Smerdy peasants lived in vervy communities. The rope community was neighborly, territorial, it was no longer consanguineous in nature.
Another category of dependent population was procurement. Purchases- these are the stinkers who got into heavy economic situation, have lost their economic independence. Having taken a kupa from the feudal lord (it could be land, livestock, grain, etc.), the purchase was obliged to work for the lord until the return of the “kupa,” i.e., the loan. IN in this case we are dealing with economic coercion, i.e. this is the second way to fall into feudal dependence (the first way is by force, non-economic coercion).
In Kievan Rus there were other categories of feudal-dependent population - outcasts.
Outcasts- these are people who have lost their previous status, that is, they left, left various reasons community or some other community.
The outcasts were the completely bankrupt smerdas who left the community, bankrupt merchants, children of the clergy who did not learn to read and write, etc.
Serfs(servants, slaves) - the most powerless part of the ancient Russian state. The identity of a slave was not protected by law.
For his murder, a fine was levied, as for the destruction of property. Penal liability for a slave was always borne by his master. The slave had no property, he himself was the property of the master. The sources of servitude were: captivity, marriage with a slave, birth from a slave, bankruptcy. People who committed serious crimes were turned into slaves; a runaway purchaser could become a slave. By the way, a purchaser, unlike a slave, had some rights and protection of the law.
Although there were many slaves in Kievan Rus, slavery did not become the basis social production. It remains only one of the ways. Feudal relations of production were of primary importance.
Urban population in the ancient Russian state there were freer peasants. There were then up to 300 cities in Rus'. They were centers of craft and trade, military strongholds. All urban population paid taxes. Old Russian cities didn't have their self-government bodies(unlike the West). The cities were under princely jurisdiction. Free city residents enjoyed the legal protection of Russian Pravda; they were covered by all its articles on the protection of honor, dignity and life. Special role The merchants played a role in the life of the cities, uniting into corporations (guilds) called hundreds. Usually the “merchant hundred” operated under some kind of church.
Summing up result on the question of the social structure of Kievan Rus, we note the following: all feudal societies (Old Russian as well) were strictly stratified,
that is, divided into classes, the rights and obligations of which were clearly defined by law as unequal in relation to each other and to the state. Each class had its own legal status. To consider feudal society as divided only into exploiters and exploited would be a simplification.
For feudal society characteristic division of the population into classes, i.e. into social groups that have rights and obligations defined by law. In Kievan Rus, the process of formation of estates had just begun. The entire population of Kievan Rus can be conditionally divided into three categories: free, semi-dependent and dependent people.
The top free people were prince and him squad . From among them, the prince chose the governor and other officials. At first, the legal status of the squad differed from the zemstvo elite - well-born, noble, of local origin. But in the 11th century these two groups merged into one - boyars . The boyars were a privileged part of society. They were exempt from paying taxes.
The free population also included clergy, which was separate group population and was divided into black and white. Played a leading role in the state black clergy - monastic. The best scientists (Nestor, Hilarion, Nikon), doctors (Agapit), artists (Alympius), who kept chronicles, copied books, and organized various schools, lived and worked in the monasteries. TO white clergy belonged to the clergy: priests, deacons, clerks, palamari.
Middle group cities gave free people. Residents of cities were legally free, even equal in rights with the boyars, but in fact they depended on the feudal elite.
The lowest group of the free population were peasants - stinkers . They owned land and livestock. Smerds made up the overwhelming majority of the population of Kievan Rus, paid established taxes and served military service with personal weapons and horses. Smerd could inherit his property to his sons.
Semi-dependent (semi-free) people. In Kievan Rus there was a fairly large group of semi-free people - procurement This was the name given to smerds who, for various reasons, temporarily lost their economic independence, but under certain conditions had the opportunity to regain it. Such a smerd borrowed a “kupa”, which could include money, grain, livestock, and until he returned this “kupa”, he remained a purchase. The purchase could have his own farm, yard, property, or he could live on the land of the one who gave him the “kupa” and work on this land.
Dependent (involuntary) people were called slaves .
TO outcasts included people who, by virtue various reasons dropped out of that social group, to which they previously belonged, but did not join another. All these people came under the protection of the church. The bulk of the outcasts in Kievan Rus came from serfs who received freedom.
6. Russian Truth: origins, lists, editions, pages, general information, knowledge in the development of Russian law.
Occurrences: RP has been in existence for a long time (in the 11th-11th centuries), but some of its articles go back to pagan antiquity. Its text was first discovered by V.N. Tatishchev in 1738. RP is the first set of laws of Rus', which incorporated common law, the law of Byzantine sources, and the legislative activity of Russian princes of the 11th-12th centuries. The RP has reached us in more than a hundred lists of the 14th-16th centuries, which differ greatly from each other in composition, volume, and structure. There is no consensus in the literature about the origin of this legislative monument, nor, in fact, about the interpretation of its content. Scientists have been arguing about this for more than 250 years, since the time when in 1738 V.N. Tatishchev discovered and prepared for publication the first list of Russian Pravda.
Sources of codification –
customary law and princely court. practice. Common law rules include- provisions on blood feud (Article 1) and mutual responsibility (Article 19 KP). The legislator treats these customs differently: he seeks to limit blood feud (by narrowing the circle of avengers) or completely abolish it, replacing it with a monetary fine (vira). Collective responsibility, on the contrary, is preserved by him as policy measure, binding all members of the community responsible for their member who committed a crime (“wild vira” was imposed on the entire community).
The norms developed by the princely judicial practice , are numerous in Russian Pravda and are sometimes associated with the names of the princes who received them (Yaroslav, sons of Yaroslav, Vladimir Monomakh).
Certain influence on Russian Truth Byzantine canon law provided.
Editorial: The traditionally preserved numerous versions of Russian Pravda are divided into two main editions, which differ in many respects, and are called "Brief"(6 lists) and "Spacious"(more than 100 lists). Stands out as a separate edition "Abridged"(2 lists), which is a shortened version of the “Long edition”.
1) “The Brief Truth” consists of the following legal texts:
- “The Truth of Yaroslav”, from 1016 or 1036 (art. 1-18);
- “The Truth of the Yaroslavichs” (Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod), from 1072 (vv. 18-41);
Pokon virny - determination of the order of feeding virniks (prince's servants, vira collectors), 1020s or 1030s. (v. 42);
Lesson for bridge workers (regulated the wages of bridge workers (pavement builders, or, according to some versions, bridge builders), 1020s or 1030s (Article 43).
++"The Brief Truth" consisted of 43 articles. Its first part, the most ancient, also spoke about the preservation of the custom of blood feud, about the absence of a sufficiently clear differentiation of the size of court fines depending on social status victim. The second part (Article 18 - Article 43) reflected the further development process feudal relations: blood feud was abolished, the life and property of feudal lords were protected by increased penalties.
2) Spacious- Lists of “PP” are found in lists of church laws, in chronicles, in articles from the Holy Scriptures of a judicial and legislative nature (“Righteous Standards”).
Composition of "PP": 2 parts - the court of Prince Yaroslav the Wise and the Charter of Vl. Monomakh, included in the “Brief Truth” with later changes and additions to the Charter adopted during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, after the suppression of the uprising in Kyiv in 1113. “PP” was compiled in the 12th century. It was used by ecclesiastical judges when considering secular cases or litigation. She was significantly different from " Brief Truth». Number of articles - 121. This code reflected further social differentiation, the privileges of feudal lords, the dependent position of smerds, purchases, and the lack of rights of serfs.
"PP" testified to the process further development feudal agriculture, paying much attention to the protection of property rights to land and other property. Due to the development commodity-money relations and their necessity legal regulation“The Extensive Truth” determined the procedure for concluding a number of contracts and transferring property by inheritance.
3) “Abridged Truth” belonged to a much later period. Historians believe that it developed in the 15th century. in the Moscow state after the annexation of the territory "Perm the Great" According to Tikhomirov, it was written there exactly, which was reflected in the monetary account.
General characteristics: RP - a unique monument Old Russian rights.
This is the first written set of laws; the RP quite fully covers a very wide area of relations. It represents the arch of developed feudal law, which reflects the norms of criminal and civil law and process.
The RP is an official act. Its text itself contains references to the princes who adopted or changed the law (Yar. the Wise, Yaroslavichs, Vl. Monomakh).
RP is a monument of feudal law. It comprehensively defends the interests of the ruling class and openly proclaims the lack of rights of unfree workers - serfs, servants.
The RP satisfied the needs of the princely courts so well that it was included in legal collections until the 15th century. Lists of PPs were actively distributed back in the 15th - 16th centuries. (only in 1497 was the Code of Law of Ivan III published, replacing the PP as the main source of law).
Influence code can be traced in subsequent legal monuments: the Novgorod Judicial Charter, the Pskov Judicial Charter of 1467, the Moscow Code of Laws of 1497, the Lithuanian Charter of Casimir IV - 1468, the Lithuanian Statute of 1588.
Russian Truth spread widely throughout all the lands of Ancient Rus' as the main source of law and became the basis of legal norms until 1497, when it was replaced by the Code of Laws, published in the Moscow centralized state.
The main branches of law are reflected in Russian Pravda.
Public relations, developed in Rus', new form property became an objective prerequisite for the emergence of a new set of laws - Russian Pravda. The truth consolidated the existing system class relations and property relations in the state.
In Russian Pravda there are no regulations defining methods of acquisition, volume and procedure for transferring land ownership rights, with the exception of an estate (yard), but there are punitive regulations on violating the boundaries of land ownership.
The sources do not indicate the existence of the institution of private land ownership. It did not exist in the era of Russian Truth. The land was the collective property of the community. Forests, hayfields and pastures were in common use. Everything related to the timing and methods of dividing arable land between members of the community, the use of forests, hayfields, water and pastures, the distribution of taxes and duties between householders, was decided by peace, i.e. a general meeting of householders under the leadership of the headman - the elected head of the community. This form of collective ownership is explained by climatic conditions, especially in northern regions. It was impossible for one farm to survive.
Law of obligations. Civil obligations were allowed only between free persons and arose either from a contract or from a tort (offence). Contractual obligations include purchase and sale, loan, hire and luggage. For a legal purchase, it was necessary to purchase the thing for money from its owner, and to complete the contract in the presence of two free witnesses. Loan regulations distinguish between loans with and without interest. In Russian Pravda, zakup is a free person who has received a loan and has undertaken to repay it with his work. It was forbidden for the gentleman to sell the purchase under the threat of releasing the latter from the loan and paying a fine by the gentleman. The deposit agreement was concluded without witnesses, but when a dispute arose during the return of an item given for storage, the custodian cleared himself with an oath.
The obligations arose as a result crimes committed, as well as civil offenses (careless and accidental).
Inheritance, called in Russian Pravda the back and the remainder, was opened at the time of the death of the father of the family and passed to the heirs either by will or by law. The father had the right to divide his estate among his children and allocate part of it to his wife at his own discretion. The mother could transfer her property to any of her sons whom she recognized as the most worthy.
Inheritance by law opened when the testator did not leave a will.
The general legal order of inheritance was determined in Russian Pravda the following rules. After the father, who did not leave a will and did not divide his house during his lifetime, the legitimate children of the deceased inherited, and part of the inheritance went to the church “in memory of the soul of the deceased” and part to the benefit of the surviving wife, if the husband did not assign her a share of his property during his lifetime . Children born from a robe did not inherit their father, but received freedom together with their mother. Smerds' daughters do not inherit, but feudal lords' daughters do.
Marriage was preceded by betrothal, which received religious consecration in a special rite. The betrothal was considered indissoluble. Marriage was concluded through a religious ceremony performed in a church (wedding). The marriage could be dissolved (terminate). Russian law of the pagan era allowed polygamy.
Everyone had to pay church tithes.
In terms of features legal status of the population and its individual layers, there are many disagreements regarding the place and role of various social groups in society and the system of relationships between them, but there are also fairly clear positions. Thus, there is an obvious distinction according to the degree of freedom: the entire population was divided into free (boyars, representatives of the clergy and merchants, communal farmers, artisans, etc.), dependent (slaves) and semi-dependent (purchases, ordinary people) people.
There is no doubt about the increasing stratification of society and the separation of the ruling stratum, which is grouped mainly within the framework of the princely squads. There are discrepancies regarding the evolution of its composition. If some emphasize the ethnically non-Slavic (usually Scandinavian) origins of the druzhina layer, which is only gradually replenished by representatives of the Slavic tribal elite (I.D. Belyaev), then others see the process of formation of the nobility as a result of the internal decomposition of Slavic groups, with an insignificant share of a foreign element (C V. Yushkov).
Analysis of the composition of this already fully formed layer of the elite is to some extent hampered by the insufficient completeness of the processes of disintegration and the certain complexity of distinguishing between the ruling layer and the rest of the population. First of all, this boyars And princely men- vigilantes. The privileged status of this group consisted in the right to participate in meetings with princes and receive various government positions, as a rule, with the transfer “to feed” of certain territories or part of the tribute received by the prince, presence at princely feasts, provision of weapons, etc. In legal terms, this was expressed in increased (usually double) criminal liability for the murder of representatives of this group (Article 1 of the Extensive Truth) and a special procedure for inheriting land (Article 91 of the Extensive Truth).
From the end of the 10th century. Another privileged group begins to form - clergy. The policy of state support for the Church and the gradual strengthening of its position in Rus' created the basis for the concentration in its hands of very significant wealth and the possibility of participation in political activity. This was especially clear in Novgorod land, where the archbishop (“lord”) actually managed the city treasury and often acted as a kind of arbitrator.
Also had significant privileges merchants. Initially, these were people from the druzhina circle, engaged in both war and trade, from the middle of the 11th century. The merchant class was gradually replenished with people from other strata - artisans, free community members and even serfs, finally turning into an independent professional and social group. Although its unity was very conditional. On the one hand, the most privileged part of it clearly stood out - the guests - merchants trading with foreign countries, on the other hand, there is a significant mass of small traders operating in the local market.
If in relation to the elite ancient Russian society If more or less clear ideas have developed, then the situation with the unprivileged sections of the population is completely different. Disagreements exist on literally all positions: sources of formation, degree of freedom and dependence, system of internal and external relations, place and role in the social structure, relations with the state, standard of living - all these issues are interpreted very ambiguously in historical literature.
Perhaps the most mysterious figure of Ancient Rus' is stinks. Some see the smerds as making up the majority rural population free community farmers, whose duties in relation to the prince (state) were limited only to paying taxes and performing duties in favor of the state (S. A. Pokrovsky), others, on the contrary, consider them as dependent, oppressed people (L. V. Cherepnin ). I. Ya. Froyanov generally considered them a relatively small group of former captives, state slaves, imprisoned on the ground. Along with these “internal” smerds, he also identifies a group of “external” ones: conquered tribes who paid tribute.
The reasons for the discrepancies are largely related to the obvious duality of the status of the smerd. In the event of the death of a childless smerd, his inheritance (“ass”, “statok”) passed to the prince. On the one hand, the smerd bore obligations under contracts and had the right to participate in the trial, on the other hand, there were signs of legal incompetence: the fine for his murder was equal to the fine for the murder of a slave (5 hryvnia). Apparently, the difficulty in identifying the status of the smerd is due to the fact that, while maintaining a single name for this social group for quite a long time, its position was constantly changing. Perhaps initially he was a communal farmer, then a state tributary.
The category is somewhat better defined in Russian Pravda procurement, to which a whole section is devoted in the Long Edition - the Procurement Charter. Zakup is a person who has taken out a loan (land, livestock, grain, money, etc.) and is obliged to work it off. Since interest on the loan increased, the duration of work could constantly increase. The lack of firm standards for working off caused constant conflicts, which required the settlement of relations between debtors and creditors, as a result of which maximum amounts of debt were established.
The person and property of the purchaser were protected by law; the master was prohibited from punishing him without reason and taking away his property. At the same time, in the event of an offense committed by the procurement itself, liability was joint and several: the victim received a fine from his master, but the procurement could be turned into a complete serf - a slave (“given away by the head”). In the same way, for leaving the master without paying, the purchaser became a slave. A purchaser could act as a witness in a trial only in special cases: in minor cases (“in small claims”) or in the absence of other witnesses (“according to need”).
Another not entirely clear figure of Russian Pravda is ryadovichi. Majority modern historians believes that the ryadovichi in Kievan Rus were people who were dependent on the master according to the “row” (agreement) and were close in their position to procurement. So, the fine for killing him was equal to the fine for killing a smerd. On the contrary, L.V. Cherepnin believed that in Rus' there was no special category of ordinary people, putting forward the hypothesis that this term in Russian Pravda was used to designate ordinary smerds and serfs.
Apparently, both purchases and ryadovichi differed not so much in their position as in the way they acquired their status and can be classified as semi-slaves - a kind of temporary slaves. Unlike full slaves, they retained the right to regain their freedom if their obligations were fulfilled.
But, perhaps, in the entire social structure of early medieval Rus' there is no more contradictory category of the population than serfs- people whose ownership rights were not limited by the masters. Secular law did not interfere at all in the relationship between the master and the slave; it only held the masters accountable for damage caused to their slaves by third parties. The life of servants was protected by law not as an independent value, but only as property belonging to some owner. The slaves were not personally responsible: “the prince will not execute them by selling them.” The slave did not have his own property and could be sold or given to any person at any time. The master was responsible for all the consequences arising from the contracts and obligations concluded with the consent of the master by the slave. The law practically did not protect the life of a slave. True, for his murder by third parties a fine of 5 hryvnia was imposed, but this is not so much a punishment as compensation for the loss of property (another form of compensation could be the transfer of another slave to the master). IN certain cases A slave can generally be killed without bearing any responsibility for it. The slave himself who committed the crime should have been handed over to the victim (more early period he could have simply been killed at the crime scene). Penalties in relation to the actions of the slave were also addressed to the master. The serf could not appear in court as any of the parties. The testimony of a slave as a witness was insignificant: in the absence of other evidence, a free person could refer to his testimony, but with the obligatory clause about the “words of a slave.” In other words, a serf, from a formal point of view, is a slave of a Russian medieval society.
However, a feature of the position of a slave was often the discrepancy between his legal status and practice (as, indeed, in Russian law in general). In reality, even if by the good will of their masters, slaves could own not only movable property, but even yards, have their own farms, transfer property by inheritance, etc.
But the main thing distinctive feature Old Russian servility was not so much its legal status as the practical use of this provision. The labor of slaves was used not so much in the production process as in everyday life, therefore more precise definition serf - servant. Although, undoubtedly, among the serfs we meet arable and courtyard people, the bulk were the servants of the prince or boyar, who were part of his personal servants and squad. It was from among them that the princely administration was formed (for example, tiuns, key keepers, firemen) and even prominent representatives of the elite emerged.
The law strictly regulated the sources of internal servitude: self-sale into slavery (of a person, family), birth from parents, one of whom is a slave, marriage to a rob, tiunship (keykeeping) - entering the service as a manager of a household for a master without a row (agreement on maintaining status free man). The source of servitude could also be the commission of a crime, the flight of a purchase from a master, or the loss or loss of someone else's property by a merchant. At the same time, a number of researchers believe that main source servility was external - war, captivity, although it is absent in the Russian Truth (the rationale for this is seen in the fact that the Russian Truth regulates only internal processes).
A relatively small group, but very significant in the structure of social relations, were artisans. IN socially they were very heterogeneous: firstly, free community artisans living in the village, secondly, free city craftsmen and, thirdly, slave artisans.
The former were focused on satisfying economic needs, the latter - on household and, possibly, military needs. A number of historians believe that already in the pre-Mongol period, craft associations arose, similar to the guild organizations of Western European cities (M. N. Tikhomirov), but there is no direct information about this in the sources, and indirect information is very scarce and contradictory.
Thus, the social structure of Ancient Rus' represents a complex interweaving of relations between the various levels– professional, social, family, etc., often amorphous, unclear, contradictory, characteristic of the transitional era.
- Thus, for the murder of the most noble people, a double penalty was established - 80 hryvnia, for the bulk of the free - 40. There were categories of people for whose murder a fine was paid in an even smaller amount - 12.5 hryvnia.
- Unlike ordinary community members, in the event of whose death, in the absence of sons, the inheritance passed to the prince, the daughters of the boyars had the right to inheritance. However, this right belonged to everyone free people, except for the stinkers.
- It was expressed, in particular, in the provision of judicial immunity (the right of monasteries to conduct investigations themselves and administer justice for certain crimes committed on its territory) with the corresponding receipt of court fees, exemption of monks from all types of national taxes, etc.
- According to A.E. Presnyakov, “the issue of ancient Russian smerds is apparently destined to remain extremely controversial - for a long time, perhaps forever.” (Presnyakov A. E. Princely law in ancient Rus': lectures on Russian history. Kievan Rus. M., 1993. P. 241).
- “Russian Pravda by smerd... means an unprivileged simple free... commoner... Smerd... as an ordinary citizen is everywhere presented by Russian Pravda as a free person, unlimited in his legal capacity, he forms the bulk of the free population of Ancient Rus'" (Pokrovsky S.A. Social order Old Russian state// Proceedings of the All-Union Legal correspondence institute. T. XIV. M., 1970. S. 61, 64).
- The term “smerd” (in the sense of a peasant exploited in state land) by the beginning of the 11th century. began to be used along with the term “man”, people (in the sense of free peasant community members)" ( Cherepnin L.V. From the history of the formation of the class of feudal-dependent peasantry in Rus' // Historical notes. T. 56. M., 1956. P. 248).
- The word “serf” is referred to by Russian Truth only as a man; an unfree woman is called a “robe”. The collective name for both is “servant” (child).
- The mitigation of the position of slaves was seriously influenced by the Church, whose representatives interfered in the personal relations of masters with slaves. The Church not only painted Christian ideal slave owner, but also established church punishment for the murder of their own slaves and for cruel treatment of them, protested against the sale of slaves into the hands of the filthy, against the trade in slaves in general ("pre-salty of souls"), and she herself contributed to the liberation of slaves, especially in the form of emancipation "by soul" . The liberated slaves ceased all relations with the old masters and, under the name of outcasts, together with others who had lost their means of livelihood, came under the protection of the church.
