Economy, structure of feudal land tenure, forms of ownership, categories of peasantry (IX-XV centuries).

Basic concepts: the path “from the Varangians to the Greeks”, “lessons”, “pogosts”, polyudye, feudalism, patrimony, smerds, boyars, tithes, types of feudal-dependent peasants, community, subsistence farming, nobles, feudal immunity, colonization, “ Horde exit", feudal fragmentation, appanage principality, Yuryev's day, enslavement of the peasantry, oprichnina, zemshchina, zaseka, landowners, seasonal summers, reserved years, yasak, tax, manufacture, protectionism, "Table of Ranks", "manifesto on noble freedom" , month, extensive and intensive development, mercantilism, free trade.

PLAN:

3.1. Economy, structure of feudal land tenure, forms of ownership, categories of peasantry (IX-XV centuries).

3.2. Economy, structure of feudal land tenure, forms of ownership, categories of peasantry (XVI-XVIII centuries).

3.3. The main stages of the enslavement of peasants.

3.4. The evolution of industrial production in Russia.

3.5 Manufacture, its organizational forms and types.

3.6. The concept of mercantilism and its implementation in Russia.

Economy, structure of feudal land tenure, forms of ownership, categories of peasantry (IX-XV centuries).

Farming. The basis of the economy of Ancient Rus' was arable farming of various types. In the black soil south, lands were plowed mainly with a rawl or a plow with a pair of oxen, and in the north and in wooded areas - with a plow harnessed to one horse. They sowed rye, barley, wheat, oats, millet, flax, hemp, and planted turnips.

The importance of agriculture is evidenced by the fact that the sown lands were called “life”, and the main grain for each area was called “zhitom” (from the verb “to live”). By the 9th – 10th centuries. a large amount of land appeared, cleared for forest. A fallow system was used; two-field and three-field systems with spring and winter crops were known. In forest areas, shifting agriculture (slash-cutting) was maintained.

Peasant farms had horses, cows, sheep, pigs, and poultry. Fishing, hunting, and beekeeping (honey production) developed. The demand for fur arose with the development of trade, which strengthened the role of hunting in the economy.

Peasant community. It was called the “world” or “rope” and consisted of one large village or several scattered settlements, as well as large families and small peasant farms that independently cultivated the land. All members of the chain were bound by mutual responsibility (mutual responsibility for paying tribute, for crimes). In addition to farmers, artisans also lived in the community: blacksmiths, potters, etc. In the early period of the Old Russian state, peasant communities existed everywhere and were the object of claims from some feudal lords.

In the XII – XIII centuries. The basis of the economy in the Russian lands continued to be arable farming, which was associated with cattle breeding, rural crafts and auxiliary household crafts. All this determined the natural nature of peasant and patrimonial farming.

The fallow system of crop rotation (two- and three-field) became widespread, increasing, in comparison with cutting and fallowing, the area of ​​plowing and reducing the threat of complete crop failure. In gardening and arable land, fertilization of the soil with manure begins. The area of ​​cultivated land is also growing, especially as a result of increased colonization of new lands due to the fact that peasants sought to break out of feudal dependence by moving to “free lands.”

The invasion of the Mongol-Tatars led to a long decline in the economic development of Russian lands and marked the beginning of their development lagging behind advanced Western countries. Huge damage was caused to agriculture. The old agricultural centers of Rus' (the central regions of North-Eastern Rus', the Kievan land) fell into decay, the inhabitants of which fled to the forest areas of the Upper Volga region and in the Trans-Volga region, which were not very accessible to the conquerors. Economic ties between the northeastern and northwestern Russian lands, which were later captured by the Poles and Lithuanians, weakened.

It took almost a whole century to restore the pre-Mongol level of economy and ensure its further rise. In the XIV-XV centuries. The restoration of eastern Rus' began, relatively closed from the attacks of conquerors by dense forests, rivers and lakes. Abandoned arable lands were restored faster and new lands were developed (especially to the north and northeast of the Volga), and new rural settlements arose - settlements, hamlets, villages.

The main thing in the development of agriculture and in increasing its productivity was the increase in the area of ​​arable land and the improvement of land cultivation techniques.

Arable farming was associated with livestock breeding, gardening and various crafts: fishing, hunting. Beekeeping, the extraction of salt and bog ores, and apiary beekeeping were also practiced. Subsistence peasant and feudal economies were inseparable from domestic peasant and patrimonial craft. Market contacts between peasant and feudal economies remained weak. They were more durable in the Novgorod land, where in a number of regions peasants were engaged in commercial mining of salt and iron ore, and feudal lords supplied fur and sea products to the foreign market.

Agriculture. The land with the population working on it was of great value. The economic basis of Ancient Rus' was large feudal land ownership of princes, boyars, warriors, and after the adoption of Christianity - the church.

A type of land ownership was “black”, state lands. The rights of the princes, as the supreme owners of these lands, were expressed in the free disposal of these lands (donation, sale, exchange) together with the “black” peasants who lived on them. The “black” lands were characterized by communal land ownership of peasants with individual ownership, personal plots and arable land, the presence of elected peasant volost self-government under the control of representatives of the princely administration - governors and volosts.

By the middle of the 11th century, land increasingly fell into private hands. Using their power, the owners appropriated vast lands for themselves, on which prisoners worked, turning into permanent workers. In personal estates, household yards were built, mansions and hunting houses were erected. In these places, the owners planted their stewards and created their own farms here. The possessions of ordinary free community members were surrounded by princely lands, into which the best plots of land, forests, and water areas passed. Gradually, many community members came under the influence of the prince and turned into workers dependent on him.

As in other European countries, a princely domain was created in Rus', which was a complex of lands inhabited by people belonging to the head of state. Similar possessions appeared among the brothers of the Grand Duke, his wife and relatives.

Land holdings of princely boyars and warriors. Archaeological materials that were discovered in burial mounds of the 9th-10th centuries. with the burials of boyars and warriors, confirm the presence of boyar estates around large cities (from the word “fatherland” - the legacy of the father, the so-called later estates that could be inherited and alienated), where the boyars and warriors lived. The patrimony consisted of a princely or boyar estate and the peasant worlds dependent on it, but the supreme ownership of this estate belonged to the Grand Duke. In the early period of Russian statehood, the grand dukes granted local princes and boyars the right to collect tribute from certain lands that were given as feeding (a system of maintaining officials at the expense of the local population), and the vassals of the grand duke transferred part of these “feedings” to their vassals from the number of their own vigilantes. This is how the system of feudal hierarchy developed.

Late XIII – early XIV centuries. - This is a time of growth of feudal land ownership, when princes owned numerous villages. There are more and more estates, both large and small. The main way of development of the estate at this time was the granting of land by the prince to the peasants.

The feudal lords were divided into the upper strata - the boyars and the so-called free servants, who had broad immunity rights. But from the end of the 14th century. these rights are curtailed by the strengthening princely power. Along with the boyars and free servants, there were also small feudal landowners - the so-called servants under the court (courts - managers of the princely household in individual volosts, to whom small princely servants were subordinate), who received small plots of land from the prince for their service. From these landholdings the manorial system subsequently developed.

In the 15th century in Moscow, in connection with the beginning of the centralization of power and its strengthening, the authorities directly took control of all transactions with land property.

Church land holdings. In the 11th century Church land holdings appeared, which the great princes provided to the highest hierarchies of the church - the metropolitan, bishops, monasteries, churches. Church land ownership, in the form of cathedral and monastery, grew especially rapidly in the 14th-15th centuries. The princes endowed church owners with extensive immune rights and benefits. Unlike boyar and princely estates, monastic estates were not divided, which placed church land ownership in a more advantageous position and contributed to the transformation of monasteries into economically rich farms. The largest landowners were Trinity-Sergiev, Kirillov near Beloozero, Solovetsky on the islands in the White Sea. The Novgorod monasteries also had great land wealth. A significant part of the monasteries founded in the XIV-XV centuries. and became large landowners, was located in areas where peasant colonization was directed.

The main form of feudal land tenure in the XIV-XV centuries. there remained a large princely, boyar and church estate. In an effort to increase the profitability of their holdings, large landowners (princes, boyars, monasteries) provided part of the undeveloped lands to their palace and military servants for conditional holding. Moreover, the last of them were obliged to populate these lands with peasants called “from outside” and start a farm. With the completion of the formation of the Russian state, this form of feudal land ownership became the basis for the material support of the nobles.

Thus, the restoration of the economy undermined by the invasion of the conquerors and a new economic recovery in the Russian lands took place in the direction of further development and strengthening of feudal land tenure, serfdom and feudal relations in breadth and depth. This nature of the economic development of Russian lands predetermined a number of features of the unification process in Rus'.

Rural population. The feudal lord's economy was based on the use of numerous categories of direct producers: smerds. Smerds were the largest group of the population of the Old Russian state. He was a communal peasant who had his own farm. Smerdas were divided into two groups: free and dependent. Other groups of the dependent population emerged from among the ruined smerds. With the assistance of the grand ducal authorities and the church, the process of enslaving the communal smerds and seizing communal lands took place.

Ryadovichi. Dependent people were ordinary people who entered into an agreement with the master, a “row,” and performed various works in the estate according to this “row.”

Purchases. A common name for a temporarily dependent peasant was procurement, i.e. smerd, who turned to the boyar for help and received from him a plot of land and a “kupa” - a loan in money or in the form of equipment, seeds, draft power.

Outcasts. There were several terms to designate different categories of the disenfranchised population: an outcast, a person who had broken ties with the community, a free spirit, a forgiven who had their debts or crimes forgiven, or those whom the church ransomed from the state (for example, thieves for whom fines were paid).

Slaves and serfs. A significant role in feudal households was played by serfs, people without full rights, both in the city and in the countryside. In the XI-XII centuries. they began to be attracted to agricultural work and forced to work for their master. The sources of servitude were captivity and marriage to a servant. The rank and file who stole and violated contracts and purchases became slaves. Serfs in ancient Rus' differed significantly from slaves in the ancient world: their murder was punishable by law, and in the absence of other witnesses, slaves could give testimony. By the end of the XI-XII centuries. The church managed to soften the position of the slaves.

The dependence of the rural population increased due to the development of property. New features can be traced in the position of the classes. Many old terms that denoted various categories of the population (smerds, outcasts, purchases, etc.) disappeared and appeared by the end of the 14th century. a new term is peasants (this is how the entire rural population began to be called). This testified to the acquisition by various categories of the rural population of common features characteristic of the peasantry as a class of feudal society.

The peasantry is already clearly divided into two main categories:

- communal peasants, who lived on state black lands and were dependent on the state, and also known as black soshns;

- proprietary peasants, who ran their farm on allotment land in the system of feudal estates (princely, boyar, monastic, local) and personally dependent on the feudal lords.

1. Community peasants paid state rent, performed various duties, but were not personally dependent on the feudal lord. The rights of the princes, as the supreme owners of the “black” lands, were expressed in the free disposal of these lands in the form of donations, sales, and exchanges together with the “black” peasants who lived on them.

2. Owner-owned peasants. For the middle of the 15th century. Indentured servitude was widespread, which was a temporary loss of freedom for receiving a loan from a landowner or other rich person before paying off the debt with interest. Entering into a servile state, associated with the loss of personal freedom, was a means of avoiding the ruinous state tax (a complex of natural and monetary duties). Until the debt was paid, an indentured slave could be bought and sold like any other slave. In practice, it was possible to leave servitude only by moving to another owner, who could pay the debt to the previous owner with interest.

Peasant resistance. Chroniclers report very sparingly about the protest of the masses in ancient Rus'. A common form of resistance among dependent people was running away from their masters. Mass movements caused the Kyiv princes to impose tribute on the population of new lands and increase the size of the tribute. An example is the uprising in the Drevlyansky land against Prince Igor and his squad in the 10th century. Under Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, according to the chronicle of 996, “robberies increased.” The action of peasants against their masters was called robbery. Under Prince Yaroslav the Wise and his sons, several major uprisings of the Smerds took place in the Rostov-Suzdal land and on Beloozero (1024, 1071, 1091). Some uprisings were led by pagan priests - the Magi. The struggle for the pagan faith was associated in the minds of the Smerds with the defense of the former communal freedom. Russkaya Pravda also contains evidence of social protests, which talks about the violation of the boundaries of land holdings, the murder of patrimonial administration, and the mass theft of property of masters.

In subsequent centuries, the struggle of peasants against the attack on their lands and freedom took various forms: weeding and mowing of the master's fields and meadows, their plowing, arson of the master's estates, flights, murders of individual gentlemen and government agents, armed uprisings that developed into popular uprisings. The peasants fought against the seizure of communal lands by the monasteries. The “robbers” killed many of the founders of monasteries. Sources’ reports of “robberies” and “robbers” often concealed facts of armed struggle of peasants against feudal lords.

In the 15th century the escape of peasants and slaves from their masters intensified. The authorities and feudal lords looked at the transitions of peasants during field work as escapes. The peasants protested against the seizure of their lands, the transfer to boyars and monasteries, and against the increase in the norms of corvée labor and quitrent taxes. The cause of peasant unrest was frequent crop failures and famine. Participants in the protests destroyed the villages of the boyars, their courtyards and storerooms in the cities.

The socio-economic prerequisites for the development of feudal fragmentation in Rus' were based on the process of feudalization - the growth of feudal land ownership and the formation of classes of feudal lords and dependent peasants. Formation of large land ownership in Rus' in the 9th-12th centuries. went the hard way. In the 9th-10th centuries. it took place through the “princeship” of previously nationwide communal lands, which made the free community members living there - “people” - dependent on the prince, “smerds” who paid him taxes (i.e., subjected to state exploitation). Then the great princes began to distribute the “ruled” lands to local princes, boyars, and monasteries who depended on them, first in the form of a kind of tables - “feedings” (the right to collect taxes from a certain territory), and then in the form of land grants. Of those and others in the 11th century. Feudal estates were already being formed - the hereditary land holdings of feudal lords, cultivated by the labor of dependent peasants. There were other groups of the peasant population: “servants”, “slaves”, i.e. slaves; “outcasts” who were cut off from their own communities and lived in others; “purchases” - people who fell into debt bondage and worked on the farm as farmers until the loan was repaid. The appearance of “outcasts” and “purchases” indicates the presence of stratification in the old free community and the creation of categories of peasants forced to enter into land dependence not on the state, but on private masters.

In parallel, the forms of the ancient Russian feudal hierarchy, characteristic of all countries during periods of feudal fragmentation, also took shape. These forms differed in many ways from the “classical” Western European ones: the basis of vassalage here was not so much a conditional land holding, but rather the subordination of the “younger” princes to the “elder” in strength and power, and the boyars to the grand duke and princes in each principality. In the 12th century. in some principalities, part of the squad and servants of the princely “court” are planted on the land, who formed the basis of the future layer of nobles and “children of the boyars”, i.e. the lowest level of the feudal hierarchy. At this higher level of feudalization, the political fragmentation of the Old Russian state was natural and led to the strengthening of its functions in the interests of individual lands, local boyars, cities, and nobles. At the same time, it made Rus' more vulnerable to external enemies. The boyars were formed from the top of the princely squad, and to a lesser extent the local nobility, and were divided into “metropolitan” (grand-ducal) and “provincial” (regional). The role of the boyars was different in different ancient Russian lands. It was most significant in Novgorod, Galicia-Volyn Rus'.

The feudal nobility locally created its own state apparatus to maintain dominance over the dependent population and in order to protect the principalities from external enemies. Kyiv now not only did not contribute to the growth of local economic and political centers of individual principalities, but, on the contrary, delayed this growth, demanding tribute and people. This situation caused a struggle against the center, which naturally weakened it. Thus, fragmentation was a direct consequence of the establishment of the feudal system in Rus'.

In the XII-XIII centuries. productive forces are developing. Thus, arable farming and three-field farming are spreading, especially in the center of the country, colonization of uninhabited lands is underway, and new agricultural crops are appearing. The craft is developing. The growth of labor productivity in agriculture and handicraft production had a huge impact on the expansion of trade and the strengthening of cities. This was accompanied by the strengthening of feudal ownership of the means of production (primarily land) and the further attack of the feudal lords on the rights of the peasants and urban lower classes.

The Grand Duke was considered the bearer of supreme power and the supreme owner of the land of the principality. He “granted” fiefdoms and letters of immunity to his vassals and had to protect them. Vassals were obliged to serve in favor of the Grand Duke, mainly military. Boyars and “free servants” enjoyed the right of “departure,” that is, they could move from one prince to another. Small feudal lords - nobles did not use this right. This entire hierarchy was an “association” directed against the enslaved producing class, that is, against the dependent peasantry.

In Kievan Rus, cities played an important role, which by the middle of the 13th century. there were about 150. The most significant ancient Russian cities of the 11th-12th centuries. were not inferior to Western European ones, and the capital Kyiv surpassed most of them in number of inhabitants and size. Crafts flourished in the cities, the merchants conducted active trade with many countries of Western Europe and the East, with Byzantium. Kyiv and Novgorod especially stood out. Through Kyiv, as well as Chernigov, overland trade was carried out with the German cities of the Rhineland and Bavaria, the Czech Republic and Poland. Novgorod had extensive maritime trade connections with Northern Europe.

Categories of free and dependent population. if we consider the structure of the early feudal society of Kievan Rus, then it must be said that all groups of feudal lords were in a relationship of suzerainty-vassalage: Grand Duke of Kiev-Druzhina (Senior squad: boyars, men. Junior squad: gridi, youths, children)-Local (specific ) princes, mayors, volosts - Local squad - churchyards, encampments, volosts.
The entire free population of Rus' was called people, hence the term “polyudye”. A significant part of the population was personally free, but paid tribute to the state. The rural population was called smerds. Smerdas could live both in free rural communities and in the estates of feudal lords and princes, while being personally dependent. According to "Russian Truth" there are several more categories of personally dependent peasants - purchasers, serfs, and rank and file.

Specifics of the community system. Primitive communal system, Also communal-tribal , primitive communist- historically the first in a series of socio-economic formations identified in the Marxist philosophy of history. Primitive society is characterized by a minimal (but constantly increasing over time) level of development of the productive forces, which corresponds to the production relations of so-called primitive communism and classless society.

In the modern theory of state and law, the primitive communal system is considered as a form of non-state organization of society; a stage through which all the peoples of the world have passed.

The primitive era is the earliest and longest segment of human history, extending “from the separation of man from the animal world to the emergence of class society.” According to archaeological periodization, this roughly corresponds to the Paleolithic. Depending on local conditions, the primitive communal system is replaced by one of the class formations - the Asian mode of production, slaveholding, feudal, etc., up to the pre-socialist system. Some researchers also distinguish early class society.

Old Russian cities, crafts, trade. Early feudalism was played by foreign and transit trade. The trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which passed through the territory of Ancient Rus', was of pan-European significance. From about the 9th century. the importance of Kyiv as a center of intermediary trade between East and West increased. Transit trade through Kyiv became even more active after the Normans and Hungarians blocked the route through the Mediterranean and Southern Europe. The campaigns of the Kyiv princes contributed to the development of trade exchanges in the Black Sea region, the North Caucasus, and the Volga region. The importance of Novgorod, Polotsk, Smolensk, Chernigov, Rostov, and Murom has increased. From the middle of the 11th century. The nature of trade has changed markedly. The Cumans and Seljuk Turks captured trade routes to the south and east. Trade ties between Western Europe and the Middle East moved to the Mediterranean.

The first place among export goods was occupied by furs, slaves, wax, honey, flax, linens, silver products, leather, ceramic products, etc. Export influenced the development of urban crafts, stimulating a number of branches of handicraft production. Ancient Rus' imported luxury goods, precious stones, spices, paints, fabrics, precious and non-ferrous metals.

Trade caravans headed east along the Volga, Dnieper, through the Black and Azov Seas to the Caspian Sea. They traveled to Byzantium by sea and land. Traders from Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Kyiv went to Western Europe through the Czech Republic, Poland, Southern Germany or along the Baltic Sea through Novgorod and Polotsk. The Kyiv princes protected trade routes. The system of agreements ensured the interests of Russian merchants abroad.

The development of trade caused the emergence of money. The first money in Rus' was cattle (the second most important in the pantheon of pagan gods - Veles - the god of cattle, including money; the princely treasury was called “cowwoman”) and expensive furs (hence the name of the first monetary unit “kuna”, i.e. marten ). Byzantine and Arab gold coins and silver Western European coins were also used. From the end of the 10th century. In Rus', the hryvnia came into circulation - a silver ingot weighing 200 g. The hryvnia was divided into 20 nogat, 25 kun, 50 rezan.

The Mongol invasion caused severe damage to the handicraft production and trade of Rus'. Dozens of cities were turned into ruins, and their population died or were taken into slavery. Craftsmen were forcibly relocated from Russian cities to Mongolian uluses. The process of transition of crafts into small-scale commodity production has slowed down.

XIV–XV centuries – a period of revival and gradual development of handicraft production. The result was the growth of both old and new cities, which turned into large centers of handicraft production. The range of professions has expanded significantly due to the restoration of lost ones and the emergence of new types of craft. Foundry, metal, wood, leather processing, blacksmithing and jewelry were revived. New craft specialties arose, the craft was gradually improved, and its differentiation deepened. Thus, in the production of iron, there was a separation of ore mining and metal smelting from its subsequent processing. Blacksmithing became increasingly specialized. From it, masters emerged in the manufacture of certain types of products - nail makers, archers, and beakers.

Yaroslav the Wise. son of the baptist of Rus', Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich (from the Rurik family) and the Polotsk princess Rogneda Rogvolodovna, father, grandfather and uncle of many rulers of Europe. At baptism he was named George. In the Russian Orthodox Church he is revered as a noble prince; Memorial Day is February 20 according to the Julian calendar.

Under Yaroslav Vladimirovich, the first known set of laws of Russian law was compiled, which went down in history as “Russian Truth”.

The struggle for the Kyiv throne

On July 15, 1015, Vladimir Svyatoslavich died in Berestovo, having not managed to extinguish his son’s rebellion. And Yaroslav began the fight for the Kiev throne with his brother Svyatopolk, who was released from prison and declared their prince by the rebellious Kyivians. In this struggle, which lasted four years, Yaroslav relied on the Novgorodians and the hired Varangian squad led by King Eymund.

In 1016, Yaroslav defeated the army of Svyatopolk near Lyubech and occupied Kyiv in late autumn. He generously rewarded the Novgorod squad, giving each warrior ten hryvnia. From the chronicles:

The victory at Lyubech did not end the fight with Svyatopolk: he soon approached Kyiv with the Pechenegs, and in 1018, the Polish king Boleslav the Brave, invited by Svyatopolk, defeated Yaroslav’s troops on the banks of the Bug, captured his sisters, his wife Anna and Yaroslav’s stepmother in Kiev and, instead of transfer the city (“table”) to his daughter’s husband Svyatopolk, and he himself made an attempt to establish himself in it. But the people of Kiev, outraged by the furies of his squad, began to kill the Poles, and Boleslav had to hastily leave Kyiv, depriving Svyatopolk of military assistance. And Yaroslav, having returned to Novgorod after the defeat, prepared to flee “overseas.” But the Novgorodians, led by mayor Konstantin Dobrynich, having chopped up his ships, told the prince that they wanted to fight for him with Boleslav and Svyatopolk. They collected money, concluded a new treaty with the Varangians of King Eymund and armed themselves. In the spring of 1019, this army, led by Yaroslav, carried out a new campaign against Svyatopolk. In the battle on the Alta River, Svyatopolk was defeated, his banner was captured, he himself was wounded, but escaped. King Eymund asked Yaroslav: “Will you order him to be killed or not?” , - to which Yaroslav gave his consent:

In 1019, Yaroslav married the daughter of the Swedish king Olaf Skötkonung - Ingigerda, for whom the king of Norway Olaf Haraldson had previously wooed her, who dedicated his wife to her and subsequently married her younger sister Astrid. Ingigerda in Rus' is baptized with a consonant name - Irina. As a gift from her husband, Ingigerda received the city of Aldeigaborg (Ladoga) with adjacent lands, which have since received the name Ingermanlandia (Ingigerda's land).

In 1020, Yaroslav's nephew Bryachislav attacked Novgorod, but on the way back he was overtaken by Yaroslav on the Sudoma River, defeated here by his troops and fled, leaving behind prisoners and loot. Yaroslav pursued him and forced him to agree to peace terms in 1021, assigning to him the two cities of Usvyat and Vitebsk as his inheritance.

In 1023, Yaroslav's brother - the Tmutarakan prince Mstislav - attacked with his allies the Khazars and Kasogs and captured Chernigov and the entire Left Bank of the Dnieper, and in 1024 Mstislav defeated Yaroslav's troops under the leadership of the Varangian Yakun near Listven (near Chernigov). Mstislav moved his capital to Chernigov and, sending ambassadors to Yaroslav, who had fled to Novgorod, offered to divide the lands along the Dnieper with him and stop the wars:

In 1025, Bolesław the Brave's son Mieszko II became king of Poland, and his two brothers, Bezprym and Otto, were expelled from the country and took refuge with Jarosław.

In 1026, Yaroslav, having gathered a large army, returned to Kyiv and made peace at Gorodets with his brother Mstislav, agreeing with his peace proposals. The brothers divided the lands along the Dnieper. The left bank was retained by Mstislav, and the right bank by Yaroslav. Yaroslav, being the Grand Duke of Kyiv, preferred to stay in Novgorod until 1036 (the year of Mstislav's death).

In 1028, the Norwegian king Olaf (later called the Saint) was forced to flee to Novgorod. He arrived there with his five-year-old son Magnus, leaving his mother Astrid in Sweden. In Novgorod, Ingigerda, the half-sister of Magnus's mother, Yaroslav's wife and Olaf's former fiancée, insisted that Magnus remain with Yaroslav after the king returned to Norway in 1030, where he died in the battle for the Norwegian throne.

In 1029, helping his brother Mstislav, he made a campaign against the Yases, expelling them from Tmutarakan. The following year, 1030, Yaroslav defeated Chud and founded the city of Yuryev (now Tartu, Estonia). In the same year he took Belz in Galicia. At this time, an uprising arose against King Mieszko II in the Polish land, the people killed bishops, priests and boyars. In 1031, Yaroslav and Mstislav, supporting Bezprym’s claims to the Polish throne, gathered a large army and marched against the Poles, recaptured the cities of Przemysl and Cherven, conquered Polish lands, and, taking many Poles prisoner, divided them. Yaroslav settled his prisoners along the Ros River, and Mstislav on the right bank of the Dnieper. Shortly before this, in the same 1031, Harald III the Severe, king of Norway, half-brother of Olaf the Saint, fled to Yaroslav the Wise and served in his squad. As is commonly believed, he took part in Yaroslav's campaign against the Poles and was a co-leader of the army. Subsequently, Harald became Yaroslav's son-in-law, taking Elizabeth as his wife.

In 1034, Yaroslav installed his son Vladimir as prince of Novgorod. In 1036, Mstislav suddenly died while hunting, and Yaroslav, apparently fearing any claims to the reign of Kiev, imprisoned his last brother, the youngest of the Vladimirovichs - the Pskov prince Sudislav - in a dungeon (cut). Only after these events did Yaroslav decide to move with his court from Novgorod to Kyiv.

In 1036, he defeated the Pechenegs and thereby freed the Old Russian state from their raids. In memory of the victory over the Pechenegs, the prince founded the famous Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv; artists from Constantinople were called to paint the temple.

In the same year, after the death of his brother Mstislav Vladimirovich, Yaroslav became the sole ruler of most of the Old Russian state, with the exception of the Principality of Polotsk, where his nephew Bryachislav reigned, and after the death of the latter in 1044 - Vseslav Bryachislavich.

In 1038, Yaroslav's troops made a campaign against the Yatvingians, in 1040 against Lithuania, and in 1041 a water expedition on boats to Mazovia. In 1042, his son Vladimir defeated the Yams, and during this campaign there was a large loss of horses. Around this time (1038-1043), the English prince Edward the Exile fled from Canute the Great to Yaroslav. In addition, in 1042, Prince Yaroslav the Wise provided great assistance in the struggle for the Polish royal throne to the grandson of Boleslav the Brave - Casimir I. Casimir married Yaroslav's sister - Maria, who became the Polish Queen Dobronega. This marriage was concluded in parallel with the marriage of Yaroslav's son Izyaslav to Casimir's sister, Gertrude, as a sign of alliance with Poland.

In 1043, Yaroslav, for the murder of “one famous Russian” in Constantinople, sent his son Vladimir, together with Harald Surov and governor Vyshata, on a campaign against Emperor Constantine Monomakh, in which hostilities unfolded on sea and land with varying success and which ended in peace , concluded in 1046. In 1044, Yaroslav organized a campaign against Lithuania.

In 1045, Grand Duke Yaroslav the Wise and Princess Irina (Ingegerda) went to Novgorod from Kyiv to visit their son Vladimir to lay the foundation stone for the St. Sophia Cathedral, instead of the burnt wooden one.

In 1047, Yaroslav the Wise broke the alliance with Poland.

In 1048, ambassadors of Henry I of France arrived in Kyiv to ask for the hand of Yaroslav's daughter Anna.

The reign of Yaroslav the Wise lasted 37 years. Yaroslav spent the last years of his life in Vyshgorod.

Yaroslav the Wise died on February 20, 1054 in Vyshgorod, exactly on the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, in the arms of his son Vsevolod, having outlived his wife Ingigerda by four years and his eldest son Vladimir by two years.

The inscription (graffiti) on the central nave of the St. Sophia Cathedral under the clergy fresco of Yaroslav the Wise himself, dated 1054, speaks of the death of “our king”: “ On February 20, 6562, our ts(a)rya was successful in (Sunday) in (n)e(lu) (mu)h Theodora" In different chronicles, the exact date of Yaroslav’s death was determined differently: either February 19, or February 20. Academician B. Rybakov explains these disagreements by the fact that Yaroslav died on the night from Saturday to Sunday. In Ancient Rus', there were two principles for determining the beginning of the day: in church reckoning - from midnight, in everyday life - from dawn. That is why the date of Yaroslav’s death is called differently: according to one account it was still Saturday, but according to another, church account, it was already Sunday. Historian A. Karpov believes that the prince could have died on the 19th (according to the chronicle), but he was buried on the 20th.

However, the date of death is not accepted by all researchers. V.K. Ziborov dates this event to February 17, 1054.

Yaroslav was buried in St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv. The six-ton ​​marble sarcophagus of Yaroslav still stands in the Cathedral of St. Sofia. It was discovered in 1936, 1939 and 1964 and not always qualified research was carried out. Based on the results of the autopsy in January 1939, anthropologist Mikhail Gerasimov created a sculptural portrait of the prince in 1940. The prince's height was 175 cm. He had a Slavic type face, a medium-height forehead, a narrow bridge of the nose, a strongly protruding nose, large eyes, a sharply defined mouth (with almost all teeth, which was extremely rare in old age), and a sharply protruding chin. . It is also known that he was lame (which caused him to walk poorly): according to one version, from birth, according to another, as a result of being wounded in battle. Prince Yaroslav's right leg was longer than his left due to damage to the hip and knee joints. This may have been a consequence of hereditary Perthes disease.

According to Newsweek magazine, when the box with the remains of Yaroslav the Wise was opened on September 10, 2009, it was found that it contained, presumably, only the skeleton of Yaroslav’s wife, Princess Ingegerda. During the investigation conducted by journalists, a version was put forward that the prince’s remains were taken from Kyiv in 1943 during the retreat of German troops and are currently possibly at the disposal of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA (the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople).

"Russian Truth". (Old Russian. Roussian truth, or true russian, here “truth” in the Latin meaning. iustitia, Greek δικαίωμα) - a collection of legal norms of the Old Russian state, dated to various years, starting from 1016 (see below). It is the main written source of Russian law. Associated with Yaroslav the Wise.

The discoverer of Russian Truth for historical science is V.N. Tatishchev, who discovered its Brief Edition.

Russian Truth contains norms of criminal, inheritance, trade and procedural legislation; is the main source of legal, social and economic relations of the Old Russian state.

Ordinary free residents[edit | edit wiki text]

· The main character of Russian Truth is the husband - a free man;

According to Art. 1 of the Brief Pravda (close to the content of Article 1 of the Long Pravda) if no one takes revenge for the murdered person, a fine of 40 hryvnia is paid, “ if there is a Rusin, any Gridin, any merchant, any Yabetnik, any swordsman, if there is an outcast, any Slovenian».

· Rusin - junior princely warrior: Gridin - representative of the military squad;

· Kupchina - a warrior engaged in trade;

· Yabetnik - a vigilante associated with the trial;

· Swordsman - collector of fines;

· Outcast - a person who has lost touch with the community;

· Slovenin is a resident of the Slovenian, that is, Novgorod land (Yaroslav bestowed the Most Ancient Truth on Novgorod residents), in this context - an ordinary resident.

Princely strife. Dying, Yaroslav divided the territory of his state between his sons according to the principle of seniority. Each of the brothers received a separate principality, but all the lands of Rus' were under the supreme authority of the eldest of the brothers - the Grand Duke of Kyiv. After the death of the Grand Duke, not his son, but his eldest brother established himself in Kyiv. The inheritance left by him passed into the hands of the next senior brother and then, along the chain of seniority, all members of the grand-ducal family moved around the principalities. With this order of inheritance, the Russian land became, as it were, a joint possession of the Rurikovichs.

The order founded by Yaroslav seemed understandable and clear, but with each new generation the number of members of the princely family increased, and clan relations became more and more confusing. Each prince sought to prove that he was the eldest in the family, and thereby gain the right to take the throne in a more significant and rich principality. The princes' dissatisfaction with the results of the next redistribution led to internecine wars.

At the same time, the threat from the steppe inhabitants intensified. In 1097, a congress of Russian princes took place in the city of Lyubech with the goal of agreeing to end the strife and rallying against the Polovtsians. At the congress, the principle of princes inheriting the lands of their fathers was proclaimed.

Thus, the Russian land was no longer considered a single possession of the entire princely house, but was a collection of separate hereditary possessions. The establishment of this principle created the basis for consolidating the fragmentation of Rus' that had already begun.

Vladimir Monomakh. , Grand Duke of Kiev (1113-1125), statesman, military leader, writer, thinker. Son of Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich. Nicknamed Monomakh after the nickname of his mother's family, who was supposedly the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX Monomakh. The reign of Vladimir Monomakh was the period of the last strengthening of Kievan Rus. Vladimir Monomakh, through his sons, ruled 3/4 of its territory. Monomakh received Turov after the death of Svyatopolk as a Kyiv volost. In 1117, Monomakh recalled his eldest son Mstislav from Novgorod to Belgorod, which became the probable reason for the speech of the son of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich Yaroslav, who ruled in Volyn and feared for his hereditary rights to Kyiv. In 1118, Monomakh summoned the Novgorod boyars to Kyiv and swore them in. In 1118, Yaroslav was expelled from Volyn, after which he tried to return the principality with the help of the Hungarians, Poles and the Rostislavichs, who broke the alliance with Monomakh, but to no avail. In 1119, Monomakh also took possession of the Principality of Minsk by force of arms. Under Vladimir Monomakh, dynastic marriages between the Rurikovichs began to take place. Yaroslav Svyatopolchich (killed in 1123 while trying to return Vladimir-Volynsky) and Vsevolod Olgovich (prince of Chernigov from 1127) were married to the daughters of Mstislav Vladimirovich (granddaughters of Monomakh), Vsevolodko Gorodensky was married to Monomakh’s daughter Agafya, Roman Vladimirovich was married to the daughter of Volodar Rostislavich Peremyshlsky. Stability in the state rested on the authority of Monomakh, which he earned in the fight against the Polovtsians, as well as the concentration of most of the lands of the Old Russian state in the hands of the Kyiv prince.

After the second campaign of the Russian squads to the upper reaches of the Seversky Donets with the defeat of the cities under the rule of the Polovtsians (1116), the Polovtsians migrated from the Russian borders (partially went to serve in Georgia), and the army sent at the end of the reign of Monomakh for the Don did not find the Polovtsians there.

In 1116-1117, on the instructions of Vladimir Monomakh, the 2nd edition of “The Tale of Bygone Years” was created by Sylvester, a monk of the Vydubitsky Monastery, then in 1118, on the instructions of Mstislav Vladimirovich, who was transferred to the south by his father, the 3rd. It is this edition of the chronicle that has survived to this day.

War with Byzantium[edit | edit wiki text]

Around 1114, the Byzantine impostor False Diogenes II appeared in Rus', posing as the long-murdered son of Emperor Roman IV, Leo Diogenes. Vladimir II Monomakh, for political reasons, “recognized” the applicant and even gave his daughter Maria to him. The Grand Duke managed to gather significant forces, and in 1116, under the pretext of returning the throne to the “rightful prince,” he went to war against Byzantium - the last in the history of the two states. With the support of Monomakh and the Polovtsians, False Diogenes managed to capture many Danube cities, but in one of them, Dorostol, the impostor was overtaken by two hired assassins sent by the Byzantine Emperor Alexei I. This, however, did not stop Monomakh. He continued to act - now in the “interests” of the son of False Diogenes II - Vasily and organized a new campaign, trying to hold the cities on the Danube. At the head of the army was the governor Ivan Voitishich, who managed to “plant the mayors along the Danube.”

Byzantium was soon able to regain the Danube lands, since Monomakh soon sent another army to the Danube, led by his son Vyacheslav and governor Foma Ratiborovich, which unsuccessfully besieged Dorostol and returned back.

Only in 1123 did Russian-Byzantine negotiations culminate in a dynastic marriage: the granddaughter of Monomakh became the wife of the Byzantine emperor

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

Introduction

1. Feudal land tenure

1.1 Patrimony

1.2 Local land tenure

1.3 Disposition of estates

1.3.1 Disposition of estates. Inheritance

1.3.2 Renting of estates

2. Other types of land tenure

Conclusion

List of sources used

land ownership russian patrimony estate

Introduction

In the life of any society, land plays an extremely important role. It performs many functions, not only as a natural resource, spatial basis, means and object of labor, means of production, real estate, but also many others. This also determines the complexity of land relations - the system of socio-economic ties related to the ownership, use and disposal of land.

The most vivid and complete description of land holdings in Russia during the period of the elimination of feudal fragmentation and the emergence of a centralized state. The descriptions provided information about the amount of land in the possessions, and assessed these lands by reducing them to certain conventional units. The main unit of taxation was the plow. In this regard, the land census system was called the soshny letter. In addition to tax purposes, the description of lands according to the soshny letter was of great importance for determining the number of warriors, horses and food needed for defense. The distribution of lands for service and the need to bring patrimonial and estate lands in accordance with the service being sent became one of the main reasons for frequent land censuses in the 15th - 16th centuries.

Under Ivan the Terrible, by decree of September 20, 1556, the first scribal order was approved, which ordered all estates to be developed by “land survey”, and the surplus to be divided among the poor, which was the beginning of scribal descriptions. The work was carried out on the basis of “scribal orders” - special documents on the procedure for carrying out descriptions. The patrolmen were engaged in checking, correcting and supplementing the descriptions already made earlier, and the surveyors were engaged in measuring the land.

Under Tsar Ivan IV, almost all the lands of Russia were described, and some of them even several times.

To describe the lands in the 16th century. A special institution was created - the Local Prikaz, which became a national leadership center that united all land surveying, cadastral and serf work. Descriptions of lands were carried out by persons called scribes, watchmen and measurers. The scribal mandate of 1622 entrusted the scribes with measuring arable land, fallow lands, hayfields, forests and other lands. The amount of land was estimated approximately. Information about the land was reflected in scribe books. They were compiled in two copies: one was sent to Moscow to the Local Prikaz, and the second was intended for governors, governors and clerks.

Monitoring the progress of land descriptions and surveys was entrusted to the Local Izba, established by Ivan IV to conduct all matters relating to estates and estates. Essentially, this was the first body in the history of the Russian state in charge of land cadastral work. Subsequently it was transformed into the Local Order. Through an order, service people were provided with lands for local ownership. The order was the highest authority for resolving land disputes.

In Rus' in the 16th century. The following forms of land ownership and land use were formed: feudal (patrimonial and local) land ownership; peasant land ownership and land use; monastic and church land ownership; palace and state land ownership.

The purpose of this work is to consider these forms of land ownership and land use and to identify land relations between classes in the 16th-17th centuries.

1. Feudal land tenure

1.1 Patrimony

The dominant form of land ownership in the 16th-17th centuries became the estate (derived from the word<отчина>, i.e. paternal property), which could be inherited, exchanged, or sold. The estates are owned by princes, boyars, members of squads, monasteries, and the highest clergy.

Patrimonial land ownership arose during the period of appanage principalities. Patrimony is a piece of land that the owner could dispose of with the right of full ownership (sell, donate, bequeath). The owners of the estates were obliged to provide armed soldiers to the state army. Based on the Council Code of 1649, three types of estates were distinguished: hereditary (ancestral); meritorious - received from the prince for certain merits; purchased - purchased for money from other feudal lords.

Analysis of Art. 3 of “Russian Pravda”, in which “lyudin” was contrasted with “prince husband”, shows that in Ancient Rus' there was a differentiation of society into feudal lords and non-feudal lords, since by the term “people” “Pravda” meant all free persons, mainly communal peasants, who made up the bulk of the population.

The feudal system of Russia grew out of the primitive communal system, as well as from elements of patriarchal slavery - the initial form of slavery, in which slaves entered the family that owned them as its powerless members who performed the most difficult work. This circumstance left its mark on the process of formation of the feudal system and its further development.

Initially, all private landholdings were subject to enhanced protection. For example, in Art. 34 of the “Russian Pravda” Brief edition established a high fine for damaging a boundary sign, which indicated the concern of the Old Russian state to ensure the sustainability of land relations.

Then the “best men” are identified - the owners of feudal estates. Since large landownership, which made it possible to use more efficient land tenure, becomes leading, the ruined and impoverished peasants come under its protection. They became dependent on large landowners.

The Old Russian state ensured the legal status of representatives of the feudal class, since they were a more reliable support than community members and free people. So, in Art. 19-28, 33 of the “Russian Pravda” Brief edition determined a special procedure for the protection of both feudal landholdings and the servants who worked for them (elders, firemen, etc.).

At the same time, relations between the feudal part of the population and the non-feudal part of the population developed and improved with the strengthening of feudal domination. For example, persons who fell into debt bondage to a feudal lord became purchasers, i.e. obligated by their work on the feudal lord’s farm to return the “kupa” (debt) received from him, for which they were provided with land and means of production. If the purchaser escaped, then he turned into a complete (“whitewashed”) serf (Articles 56-64, 66 of the “Russian Truth”, Long Edition).

The establishment of feudal dependence of the rural population was a long process, but even after its formation, feudalism underwent certain changes characteristic of Russia.

Analysis of this historical material gives reason to believe about the following features of the legal regulation of land relations in Ancient and Medieval Rus'.

In Kievan Rus, feudal relations developed unevenly. For example, in the Kyiv, Galician, and Chernigov lands this process was faster than among the Vyatichi and Dregovichi.

In the Novgorod feudal republic, the development of large feudal land ownership occurred faster than in the rest of Rus', and the growth of the power of the Novgorod feudal lords was facilitated by the brutal exploitation of the conquered population living in the vast Novgorod colonial possessions.

Feudal land ownership gave rise in the Middle Ages to the interconnection of feudal lords through a system of vassal relations such as vassalage-suzerainty. There was a personal dependence of some vassals on others, and the Grand Duke relied on lesser princes and boyars; they sought his protection during frequent military skirmishes.

The high authority of religion in the ancient and middle ages gave rise to the land domination of the church, which received significant land from the state and feudal lords. For example, it was traditional for feudal lords to donate part of the land to the church and monasteries, pledged for the eternal remembrance of the soul; donating lands to them for the construction of temples, monasteries and other needs. There were also cases of land occupation in violation of the land rights of other persons. Thus, in 1678, the monks of the Trifonov Monastery (now the city of Vyatka) received a complaint from the peasants, whose hayfields and fishing ponds were forcibly taken away. Tinsky A. Repository of history // Kirovskaya Pravda. 1984.

The development of feudal relations was facilitated by such circumstances as the almost two-century domination of the Old Russian state by the Golden Horde. Systematic payment of tribute was required, but in the routine state of feudal technology, the efficiency of agriculture could only be achieved through open violence against the personality of the peasant. These two circumstances, with the strengthening of feudal tendencies, contributed to the long and lasting dominance of peasant law in Russia, until 1861.

The emergence, formation and strengthening of feudal relations in the Old Russian state had a progressive significance at a certain stage of its development, since it helped to form and strengthen regional (princely) formations, the centralized unification of which made it possible to create a powerful Russian state.

At the same time, feudal fragmentation was a brake on the economic development of the regions, since it restrained the exchange between them (commodity, information, etc.). This had a negative impact on the development of agriculture, agriculture, crafts, culture and other spheres of public life.

Since the upper strata of the feudal lords represented the main opposition to the power of the sovereign, by the end of the 15th century. There was a pronounced tendency towards limiting their privileges and the formation of a new class - landowners-nobles.

Landowners-nobles were given land under the condition of serving the sovereign, and the first large-scale mass transfer of land to Moscow service people occurred at the end of the 15th century. after the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow (1478) - Ivan III granted them confiscated Novgorod lands, and in the 16th century. Landownership became an important form of economic management.

The distribution of land to the noble army intensified the exploitation of the peasantry, which encouraged the peasants to go in search of places where feudal oppression was not so severe. The rise of the migration wave has created a need to limit such movements. Restrictive measures were carried out first through the conclusion of inter-princely agreements, and then legal intervention was applied: a ban was established on the transfer of peasants from princely lands to private lands; the right of a peasant to move only once a year - on St. George’s Day (November 26) and for a week after it; the obligation to pay a high fee for leaving the feudal lord, etc.

The distribution of lands to the noble army preserved the feudal system, but it could not be stopped, since there were no other sources of strengthening the army.

In 1565, Ivan the Terrible divided the lands of the state into zemstvo (ordinary) and oprichnina (special), including in the latter the lands of the opposition princely-boyar aristocracy. Some of the small princes and boyars died during the oprichnina years, others received new lands in the neo-oprichnina districts from the hands of the tsar as a grant under the condition of fidelity and service. As a result, not only was a blow dealt to the old feudal nobility, but its economic basis was also undermined, since the distributed lands went to the serving people.

At the beginning of the 16th century. an attempt was made to limit the growth of church-monastic land ownership, which occupied up to 1/3 of all feudal estates in the country. In some areas (for example, Vladimir, Tver) the clergy owned more than half of all lands.

Since this attempt was initially unsuccessful, in 1580 the Church Council made a decision prohibiting the metropolitan, bishops and monasteries from buying estates from service people, accepting lands as a mortgage and for the funeral of the soul, or increasing their land holdings in any other way.

In the second half of the 16th century. a widespread inventory of patrimonial lands was carried out, information about which was entered into the scribe books, which contributed to the streamlining of the financial and tax systems, as well as the official duties of the feudal lords. Subsequently, the government carried out a widespread description of the lands, dividing them into salary units (“plows”) depending on the quality of the land.

At the same time, the information received and documented was a circumstance that contributed to the creation of a system of serfdom in Russian agriculture; fortunately, the state found a way to get rid of St. George’s Day. Thus, from 1581, “reserved summers” began to be introduced, i.e. years when St. George's Day did not operate, and in 1649 the peasants were finally assigned to the feudal lords - serfdom was introduced.

Now let's look at local land ownership.

1.2 Local land tenure

Local land ownership arose under Ivan III and became widespread along with patrimonial ownership, but in the 17th century. almost completely replaced it and began to occupy about 80% of all lands. The estate was a temporary land holding and was provided to government service people (together with the peasants living on it) under certain conditions for the duration of their service. If a serving person left the service for some reason, the land plot was transferred to another person. The estate could not be divided, and if it was inherited, then only to the eldest son.

Legislation shows that the most common form of dispossession was the grant of land to an estate, or even to a fiefdom. The act of granting itself was an expression of the will and mercy of the monarch, but at the same time his public legal obligation in the conditions of almost the only possible form of material support and remuneration for the service class. This explains that the form of expression of the award was primarily a legal act. With this understanding of the phenomenon of grants, it becomes clear why they were almost the only form of allotment of land to the ruling class. Cases of initial allotment of estates to people who first came to the attention of the government were insignificant. They concerned mainly the placement of boyar children and minors fit for service, military ranks of regiments of the new system - captains, unplaced and without patrimonial tenants. The predominant form of payment was an increase to the existing dacha or salary.

During the war with Poland (1654-1667), personal decrees on granting estates in the form of an increase to existing salaries followed one after another. Moreover, the decrees came in the early years of the war and often had the character of broadcast promises of reward for exemplary performance of military duty, original manifestos for propaganda purposes. Nobles in the army of the new service (reitars) for participation in hostilities were rewarded with an increase in local and monetary salaries in the amount of what city nobles and boyar children had.

The differentiation in the amounts of salaries and increases to previous salaries was enormous. In relation to the next category of complainants - captains and colonels - we are talking about land.

The basis for the grants as an expression of the royal will could be very different circumstances. The form of grant secured land rights in the newly annexed areas.

The legislator was concerned with the development and cultivation of empty lands, desolate for one reason or another, but covered by a description, which excluded them from the scope of taxation. In April 1650, a decree was adopted with a boyar verdict on the return of the empty wastelands according to the scribe books to the first petitioners.

Encouraging the initiative of landowners in finding empty lands and developing them, the tsarist government sought to protect the wastelands from the palace lands or adjacent to them from such encroachments. The decree of 1676 legalized the return, based on petitions, of “removed” empty estates, which were taken into the treasury at the request of their owners.

When such lands were sold as patrimonies, they were valued three times higher than ordinary empty lands.

In accordance with the articles of January 28, 1681, ancestral and established estates, confiscated from those who bought them or took them as mortgages, were distributed under local law. Relatives of the former owners of these estates lost the right of ancestral redemption. This norm clearly demonstrates the blurring of the lines between fiefdoms and estates. The source of accommodation was confiscated estates. Land confiscation was widely practiced for political reasons. In the interests of providing land to the lower strata of the military, the government went to the extent of fragmenting large holdings. Voronin A.V. History of Russian Statehood. Tutorial. M.: “Prospekt”, 2000. - P. 281.

The source of distribution was escheated lands, however, on the condition that they had no heirs. Petitioners who received such lands, but concealed the presence of heirs (wives, children, relatives), were subject to a fine in the form of possession in favor of the heirs: for peasants and hay cuttings - according to the Code, and for arable land with bread - 2 rubles. from tithes and without bread - from tithes to a ruble. Food and red tape were charged on top. In order to streamline paperwork in cases of escheated estates, the legislator obliged the heirs to submit petitions no later than within a year. The law exempted from such a term only those who were in the service, in captivity and minors. However, as a result of the demands of the nobles, the terms were lengthened and subsequently changed several times.

The struggle for land forced the government to legislatively regulate the size of dachas by adding approximate and bypass lands. The law allowed the addition of approximate lands, but within the limits of specified articles and salary. At the same time, it was prescribed that in the case of a petition about the presence of extra land someone should carry out an investigation - give a confrontation. If it is established that the refuseniks have tried on extra land, such land should be taken away and given to the petitioners.

Later, a clarification was made to the distribution of approximate lands. The decree of 1683, referring to retired nobles, children of boyars, teenagers, widows and single girls, ordered that exemplary lands be given to those in whom they were found, and petitioners from outside be denied. The concealment of old estates while receiving new ones was strictly prosecuted by law and was usually accompanied by the confiscation of new lands and their giving to landless people. Illegally acquired lands were usually called “dispossessed”. The seizure of someone else's land was especially strictly punished by law.

The decree of 1684, in contrast to past regulations, when the seizure of someone else's land and the settlement of their peasants on it entailed the removal of the peasants from the land and its return to the owner, ordered the return of the land to the rightful owners with the peasants, with all buildings and grain. This was already a criminal punishment. In 1682, petitions for the seizure of land were required to be submitted not to the Local Order, but to the Court Order.

As for the loose lands, in addition to distribution on account of salaries, they were distributed on the terms of payment of quitrents not only to landowners, but also to townspeople.

During the description and land surveying, the distribution of empty and bypass lands was legally stopped until the description was completed. Typically, such decrees provoked petitions from captains and other service ranks that their newly cleared lands, which “they had owned since ancient times, were called by other names” and were taken away from them. By prohibiting the distribution of land during the period of description, the government meant that land surveying would reveal arbitrary seizures of empty land. One of these decrees dates back to 1684.

For the second half of the 18th century. The largest source of distribution and allotment of estates were lands in Ukrainian cities and the so-called “wild fields”.

Moscow officials were allowed to exchange Ukrainian lands among themselves for those outside Moscow, but such an exchange between Moscow landowners and “Ukrainians” was categorically prohibited, as was the seizure of land from local landowners.

The forbidden zone for the penetration of private feudal land ownership was the Urals and Siberia Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980. - P. 385.. Decree of 1676, given on the petition of the Siberian elected regiment of soldiers and prohibiting giving Siberian nobles and boyar children lands on the estate.

Also, you need to pay attention and consider the possibility of disposing of estates.

1.3 Disposition of estates

1.3.1 Disposition of estates. Inheritance

The first inalienable right to dispose of estates was the right to transfer them by inheritance and the right of inheritance. It did not happen suddenly. Contrary to the opinion of historians who argued that the inheritance of estates arose initially, from the moment the very type of feudal land tenure appeared and in any case in the 16th century, it is more correct to believe that in the first century of the existence of the manorial system among landowners, inheritance of service by sons suitable for it took place , and the estates were transferred to them as security for service. The estate itself was not yet a subject of inheritance.

In the Council Code of 1649, taking into account the legislation of the first half of the 17th century. The following rules of inheritance of estates were established:

estates are inherited by sons, part of them is transferred to widows and daughters for subsistence;

in the absence of sons and brothers, widows, daughters and sisters inherit the living, the rest is transferred to relatives, and in the absence of such, to the state;

The estate is transferred to the family even in the absence of direct heirs, and in the absence of relatives - to the state.

The Code thus consolidated the patrimonial status of the estate, which had already largely developed in the first half of the century and signified a noticeable step towards the rapprochement of local and patrimonial land ownership. In the Code and in subsequent legislation, the dominant principle becomes not the old principle - according to the service of the estate, but a new one - service according to the estate. Legally, the starting point in the development of this principle was the Service Code of 1556. Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980. - P. 411.

The decree of February 20, 1654 obligated the children of nobles, dismissed from service due to old age, to serve from the estates and estates of their fathers, but with a significant difference. If in 1556 the basis for the supply of military contingent was the size of land holdings, then a hundred years later, the number of peasant households became such a basis. With one son, if there were more than ten of them, dat money was also collected from households. If there were two or more sons, no money was collected.

For the legislation of the second half of the 17th century. characterized by an expansion of the circle of heirs. Already shortly after the Code of 1649, the February decree of the same year included among the heirs of estates children born after the death of their fathers.

The legislator's attitude towards the fourth marriage and the rights of wives and children associated with it changed, but not for long. The Code of 1649 deprived such wives of subsistence and children of the right of inheritance. The decree of October 29, 1669 limited the effect of this norm, preserving the right to subsistence for the wives of the fourth marriage concluded before the Code. Subsequently, children from the fourth marriage were assigned the right to family estates, if the relatives of the deceased father did not reject such children. But the Articles on Estates and Patrimonies on August 10, 1677 abolished fourth marriages in the future, thereby depriving the rights to inheritance of wives and children from such marriages, but leaving in force the previous decisions of these incidents. There is no doubt that in this case pressure from the clergy took its toll, since the law contains reference to the prohibition of fourth marriages by the apostles and church fathers. And this is connected with the church council of 1677.

On the issue of division between heirs, sons and grandsons, father's and grandfather's estates, the legislator took the position of the Code, prescribing to mix and divide equally both the father's and the estates of the eldest sons, who received them “as an allotment” during the life of their fathers. The only new thing was that dowries and rental estates as personal acquisitions were excluded from the sections. The norm was confirmed by the decree of 1679. Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980. - P. 402.

The gradual development of the right of inheritance of estates, which took place not only in the legislative sphere, but also in practice as a result of the recognition in a number of cases and registration of the fact of inheritance by the Local Order, ultimately led to the adoption of a personal decree with a boyar verdict on March 21, 1684, which legalized the registration of inheritance estates for the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of deceased owners. Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980. - P. 404

One of the forms of inheritance of an estate was subsistence, i.e., part of the estate allocated after the death of the owner for the maintenance of a widow, daughters, elderly parents, and minor children. And although the germ of such a phenomenon dates back to the 16th century, subsistence as an institution of law did not exist then. Its design is associated with the Council Code of 1649, which paid great attention to subsistence and legitimized the main provisions that formed the basis of the legislation of the second half of the century. They boil down to the following: the right to receive subsistence was primarily given to widows, both with young children and the childless, and daughters deprived of their parents. Widows received subsistence until their third marriage. Widows and children of a man's fourth marriage were deprived of subsistence and inheritance. Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980. - P. 422.

The amount of living depended on the salary and the circumstances of the death of the head of the family. If killed in battle, then from 100 quarters of salary, 20 quarters were due to wives, 10 to daughters; if he died in the regiment, then wives - 15, daughters - 7. In case of death at home - wives 10, daughters - 5 quarters. The rest went to relatives, but only to those without space and those with little space. If there were no such people in the family, then the estate, by decree of the king, was to be transferred to another family. The estate became family property, but only conditionally - within the framework of the local salary.

Widows and girls (daughters, sisters, nieces) had certain rights to dispose of their subsistence: they could rent it out to relatives and any persons, provided they supported the owner of the subsistence, and gave the girls in marriage. A written registration of the transfer of subsistence with registration in the Local Order was required. Violation of the terms of delivery of the living permit entailed its return to the owner. The subsistence could be a dowry when a widow or wench got married. Upon the death of her husband, the widow received a living allowance, but its size could vary depending on the size of her husband's estate. The Code thus comprehensively developed the status of a subsistence estate.

The legislation of the second half of the century, based on the provisions on subsistence in the Code, expanded the boundaries of their application. The wives and daughters of nobles released from regiments early due to illness, in the event of their death on the road or upon arrival home, were given the same living allowance as in the case of the death of nobles in battles. The norm was repeated in the decree of 1656 with a slight reduction in the amount of subsistence. When determining the amount of subsistence, it is prescribed to take into account the increase in salary approved by the Rank.

At the same time, the government began to control the process of transferring subsistence funds by widows and their further movement. By the decree of 1666, widows were not allowed to register subsistence estates received after their husbands died in the Battle of Konotop upon entering into a second marriage without a certificate from the Discharge of the death of their previous husbands. The essence of the norm is clear from another part of the decree, which determines the return of estates to those released from captivity. There is no doubt that the decree adopted in relation to a particular case had a general significance. There were also local restrictions. Widows who received subsistence allowances in Pskov could only rent them out to Pskov landowners. This is where the protection of the land resources of border counties comes into play. The transfer of subsistence with transferable quarters was prohibited. But, since this happened in practice, the legislator left all cases committed before the decree of 1676 in force, and extended the ban to the future. Subsistence laws also applied to widows of new army ranks, including generals.

The right to receive subsistence allowance for widows and daughters was based on the Code of 1649. Such confirmation is contained in the Articles on Estates of 1676. The same articles prescribed that widows and daughters be given a subsistence estate from the estates of their father-in-law and grandfather, if the deceased husband and father “served from their father’s estates” , without having their own. The norm was confirmed by the Articles of August 10, 1677 and the decree of October II, 1686.

In response to the petition of widows and daughters, whose deceased husbands and fathers had lands in the “wild fields,” a decree was adopted in 1676 with a boyar verdict on the allocation of subsistence to widows and daughters in accordance with the salary from the estates in the “wild fields” only in in the event that these plots are demarcated and denied to husbands and fathers, that is, officially assigned to them.

The law on providing subsistence allowance to wives and daughters also affected privileged estates near Moscow, but only in a conditional form. If the deceased landowner did not have any other estates anywhere other than those near Moscow, then the latter in full were provided for subsistence to mothers, widows and daughters, but without the right to surrender, exchange, etc. In the event of the death of the owner of the estate, her marriage or - tonsured as a nun, estates near Moscow were subject to transfer to relatives. The owners of such living expenses were deprived of the usual rights to dispose of them. And yet, this law violated the inviolability of estates near Moscow, since some of them could leave service for some time. But at the same time, estates near Moscow were protected from encroachment on them by the landowners of Novgorod and Pskov.

A prominent place in the legislation was occupied by the issue of the return of subsistence to widows with whom they married after the death of their husbands. A number of specific life situations are provided.

When widowed in a second marriage, the widow received what she gave as a dowry. If the husband exchanged her subsistence estate for another, then the new estate was to be returned to the widow. The shortage, taking into account the salary, was made up according to the Code from other estates of the husband and even from estates without the right to alienate them. If a wife died childless before her husband, then her estate remained with the husband, and after his death passed to his children from his first marriage. The first husband's relatives were excluded from inheritance.

A widow who remarried with a large subsistence estate, upon the death of her husband, could receive a subsistence allowance in a smaller amount in accordance with her husband’s salary, and the surplus went to the husband’s relatives, and in their absence, to strangers. The same rule applied to the estates of grandfathers and fathers-in-law.

If the husband received or bought his wife's subsistence estate as a votchina, then upon his death the widow received half of this votchina with the right of alienation, and the second half until her death or before getting married, but without the right to dispose of it.

Widows who received subsistence from their ancestral and established estates (in the absence of estates) are required to take sureties that they will not alienate these estates and ruin the peasants. In the latter case, an incident consisting of a clash of opposing requests to the government received legislative resolution. Widows who had subsistence from their ancestral and serviceable estates asked that bail not be issued for them. The husbands' relatives, on the contrary, fought about the formalization of bail. In the spirit of the legal status of estates, the government decided the issue in favor of the latter.

1.3.2 Renting of estates

Confirmation of the law contained in the Code of 1649 on the right to surrender estates by persons retired due to old age, with the condition of their maintenance with the mandatory execution of the act of surrender in the order, is contained in the decree of 1650, but with a certain innovation. If the Code (XVI, 9) obliged elderly service people to rent out their estates only to relatives, then the decree of 1650 did not contain such restrictions. And the Articles on Estates of March 10, 1676 allowed for the surrender of estates on the same conditions “to another family, past children and relatives,” which was confirmed by the Articles on Estates of August 10, 1677. However, there were restrictions associated with violation of the procedure for surrendering the estate. In addition to drawing up the act of surrender, it was necessary to interrogate the parties in the order or from the governor. If those who surrendered the estates died without interrogation, then, according to the Articles of 1676, the cases before the decree of 1667 remained in force without interrogation, and after 1667, estates and estates surrendered without interrogation were subject to return to the clan of the deceased. The norm was confirmed by a decree on September 3, 1681. The legislator gradually expanded the circle of persons to whom estates could be handed over. According to the Articles of 1676, this number included widows and girls not only of their own, but also of someone else’s family, with the condition that they did not have a living allowance or it was less than the salary of their deceased husband or father. On the other hand, the right to surrender estates was assigned to the same category of persons. Moreover, the law refused to return such estates to relatives of the husband or father. However, the Articles on Patrimonies and Estates on August 10, 1677, abolished this law. The above cases are one of many in the zigzags of legislation in the second half of the 17th century.

The articles of March 10, 1677 confirmed the right of service people to rent estates to other persons, but denied them the possibility of receiving new estates. The right to rent out estates was also reserved for landowners who were not in the service due to visual impairments, hearing defects, or mental disabilities. Protests from relatives of such persons were not taken into account. Articles on estates and estates on August 10, 1677, in relation to persons in the service, limited their right to rent out estates to half the size, they reserved the other half for themselves. From among persons with physical and mental defects, the same Articles singled out the mentally abnormal, who, upon confirmation of their condition, were denied the right to rent out estates. In such a norm one cannot help but see the legislator’s awareness of the principle of legal capacity.

The widespread practice of renting estates to other persons under certain conditions included the option of renting for money under the same conditions. If the conditions were not met, the estate was returned. But if, in the case of money, the person submitting did not indicate it in the petition or did not declare it during interrogation, then, despite the fact that the person who accepted the estate presented a record of the money, upon the demand of the deliverer, the estate had to be returned to him. In this part, we examined the possibility of inheritance and surrender of estates, but in addition to the types of land ownership discussed above, there are others, now let’s move on to them.

1.3.3 Other types of land tenure

Acquaintance with the sources that have come down to us shows that every external success of Christianity in the Russian lands was marked by a new increase in church property. Since the monastery was considered a kind of mediator between God and the laity, a new source of monastic land ownership arose - contributions from private individuals.

Thus, the sources of increase in monastic and church lands were different: the provision of land by princes; contributions of boyars and other landowners under wills; deposits “for the soul’s remembrance”; purchase and mortgage of land; seizure and annexation of free state lands and lands of black-growing peasants. In the latter case, the peasants became serfs dependent on the church.

In the 16th century Monastic land ownership expanded so much that it began to undermine the local system, so the state is taking measures to limit it. In particular, the transfer of local lands to monasteries was limited. According to the Gross Order of 1622, the government’s main goal in relation to monastic land ownership was to limit their growth “... so that the land of the service people does not decrease.” The cathedral code of 1649 completely prohibited the transfer of local lands to monasteries.

Palace land ownership arose during the period of appanage principalities. Appanage princes had significant estates, which were inherited and constantly expanded to include the lands of small appanage princes, estates belonging to boyars and service people, as well as peasant lands. With the development of statehood, palace and state lands were divided. The palace property was the property of the prince, the income from them went to the maintenance of his family and the palace. State lands were considered the property of the state as such; income from them went to the treasury. Since the 14th century and until the beginning of the 18th century. they were also called black lands. The fund of public lands was replenished mainly through conquest. Thus, during the reign of Ivan IV, after the annexation of the Kazan Khanate, more than one fifth of its lands were included in the state lands. At the same time, from state lands, estates were allocated to service people and estates were granted.

From state lands, estates were allocated to service people or estates were granted. Subsequently, special lands of departments, for example Yamsky (postal), were allocated from state lands.

Depending on the owner of the land, serfs were divided into local, monastic, palace, state, etc. The conditions for transferring land for use to communities varied. Peasants could work in the field, on the estate, and also in various crafts. Some landowners, giving peasants passports, sent them to work, receiving a certain quitrent for this.

Mid-17th century marked the completion of the enslavement of peasants. The Council Code of 1649 introduced the principle of serf inheritance, thereby finally securing the dependence of the peasant on the feudal lord. The peasant could be disposed of at his own discretion, in particular, sold, exchanged, punished, etc. By the end of the 17th century. Almost 90% of the peasants were in serfdom.

In the XV-XVI centuries. The quitrent form of farming was the most common. The quitrent was paid by the peasants to the landowner in kind (products, services) or cash for the use of the land plot. In the 18th century The quitrent form of farming is being replaced by corvée, which is the work of peasants on the landowner's land 3-6 days a week.

In 1680, a Scribe order was issued, ordering the carrying out of gross land surveying. Already in April 1684, the government issued a new Scribe order to conduct a general gross land survey of all the lands of the state. The newly issued decree was based on verification of the rights of each land owner.

Conclusion

So, we examined the existing types of land tenure, as well as land relations between classes, and we can conclude that it was a difficult time - the second stage of developed feudalism in Russia covers the period of the beginning of the 16th - to the middle of the 17th century. It was a time of complex and contradictory processes in the development of feudal property, in the evolution of rent, in the growth of industry and trade, and finally in the change in the economic situation and legal status of the peasantry. The inconsistency of social evolution is clearly visible from a simple indication of the extreme poles: on the one hand, the Council Code of 1649 largely summed up the legal formalization of the enslavement of the peasantry; on the other hand, in the middle of the 17th century, the first sprouts of capitalist relations in industry appeared, and the 17th century as a whole marks the initial stage in the formation of the all-Russian market.

List of sources used

Varlamov A.A. History of land relations and land management. - 2000.

Voronin A.V. History of Russian Statehood. Tutorial. M.: “Prospekt”, 2000.

Omelchenko O.A. General history of state and law: Textbook in 2 volumes. T. 2. - M.: TON-PRIOR, 1999;

Galchenko S.A. Development of land relations in Russia

Russian history. The growth of local land ownership in Rus' - XVI century.

Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980.

Comparative constitutional law / Ed. count A.I. Kovler, V.E. Chirkin, Yu.A. Yudin. M.: Manuscript, 1996.

Steshenko L.A., Shamba T.M. History of state and law of Russia: Academic course. In 2 volumes - T. 1. V - beginning of the 20th century. - M.: Publishing house NORMA, 2003. - 752 p.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Free and court servants and their right to acquire princely land plots. Development of local land ownership under appanage princes. The emergence of the legal idea of ​​an estate as a plot of land providing public service to a person.

abstract, added 01/05/2011


History of the origin, main features and forms of feudal land tenure in Western Europe. The difference between feudalism and the slave system, the stage of transition to capitalism. The role of the feudal type of state in the progressive development of mankind.

course work, added 12/07/2013


The peculiarity of the activities of the Local Order, which existed in the 16th-18th centuries, dealt with matters relating to land ownership and property rights and possession of land and peasants. Creation of an order, composition of documents and organization of office work.

abstract, added 01/05/2013


Disorder of foreign trade. Development of princely agriculture and land ownership. The origin of the boyar and church economy and land ownership. The emergence and strengthening of the idea of ​​private land ownership. Development of the institution of slavery. Purchases and outcasts.

abstract, added 10/29/2008


Tendencies towards the unification of Russian lands, prerequisites and features of the formation of a centralized state. Changes in the economic, political and social life of Russian society at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, the formation of local land ownership.

abstract, added 11/22/2010


Analysis of the situation of the Bulgarian people under the rule of the Ottoman Empire (XV-XVII centuries). Timar system as the basis of Ottoman land tenure. Social and political crisis in the Bulgarian lands. Enlightenment stage in the Bulgarian Renaissance. Balkan wars.

course work, added 01/13/2011


The position of Japan in the V-VII centuries. Forms of development of land ownership during the early Middle Ages. Social and political system of Japan. Features of the board of regents and chancellors. Creation of the Taihoryo code of laws. Characteristics of Japanese culture.

abstract, added 07/10/2010


Development of feudal land tenure and feudal relations in Kievan Rus. Legal status of feudal lords. Privileges of the nobility according to Russian Truth. Legal status of smerds and purchases according to Russian Pravda. Legal status of servants, slaves, forgiven people, outcasts.

course work, added 05/05/2015


Features of the local form of land tenure. The nobility during the oprichnina period, the consequences of this historical phenomenon for the lower layer of landowners. The order and specificity of reflecting the interests of the nobility in Russian legislation of the 80–90s. XVI century

test, added 06/18/2013


Features of the socio-economic development of Rus' in the 9th-12th centuries. Characteristics of family traditions. Historical background of the emergence of cities. Features of princely and church land ownership and economy. The patriarchal nature of slavery in Kievan Rus.

Forms of land ownership in Russia 9th-17th century, features of serfdom.

In the 9th-12th centuries, the economy of the Old Russian state can be characterized as early feudal. At this time, the foundations of a strong system of relationships between the state, feudal lords and the rural population regarding production and tax collection were just being laid.

After the adoption of Christianity in Rus', the church and monasteries also became large land owners. The Church accepted princely grants, it seized the lands of free community members, etc.

The question of the time of the emergence of feudal land tenure in Ancient Rus' is controversial. Some authors attribute its appearance to the 9th-10th centuries, but most believe that in the 10th century. There were only individual princely families, whose economy was more of a cattle-breeding (even horse-breeding) nature, and already in the second half of the 11th - first half of the 12th century, feudal estates were formed.

In the Old Russian state, a separate economic unit with collective ownership of land, tools and products of labor was the clan community. It was usually located in the form of a settlement, which was called a dvor (dvorishche, pechiche, fortified settlement). Production and consumption within the clan community were joint.

During the period of feudal fragmentation, the growth of boyar estates continued (their growth can be considered one of the reasons for feudal fragmentation). By the 12th century, the estates had become stronger and more independent, which allowed the boyars to continue their attack on communal lands.

In the middle of the 12th century, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was formed between the Oka and Volga rivers. The political and economic center of Ancient Rus' moved here.

In the new region, an active rural population was formed with a very small proportion of the urban population. People were engaged in crafts, fishing, and hunting. Trade, unlike Kievan Rus, did not have the same influence, so the economy remained subsistence for a long time.

From the 12th-13th centuries, a hierarchical structure of land ownership was established in the feudal property of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. At the head of the hierarchical ladder was the senior prince, who was the supreme ruler in relation to the feudal lords who occupied a lower vassal level and were directly dependent on the senior prince. These, in turn, could also have their own vassals. The heirs of the senior prince, who received full ownership of the land, became “appanage princes”, and their possessions were called “appanages” (by the way, these terms were completely unknown in Kievan and Novgorod Rus'). Such hereditary landowners became sovereign lords in their destinies in relation to the farmers living on their territory; they acquired legal powers to collect taxes and resolve legal disputes. Such a vassal system held power over the peasants quite firmly.

Under these conditions, the boyar estate, which was a large independent economic unit, remained the privileged form of land ownership. As a rule, the farms of the vassals dependent on the patrimonial lords were concentrated around it. The boyar almost unhindered dominated large territories and the farmers who lived there. The patrimonial farms remained almost entirely subsistence; all basic needs were satisfied from the products that were produced within the patrimonies.

Church landholdings were not inferior in size to boyar estates. Monasteries such as Trinity-Sergius, Solovetsky, Joseph-Volokolamsky and others had especially large land holdings. These possessions were assigned to the church forever.

During the period of dominance of the patrimonial economy, local, or conditional land ownership began to play an increasingly prominent role. Princes and boyars increasingly invited various people to their military service: younger princes and boyars' children, bankrupt feudal lords. For performing their service, landowners gave them plots of land - “estates” for conditional use for the period of service to the land owner. After the end of the service, the estate could be taken away. From these invitees, a new class of “service people” was formed, who acquired the same rights in relation to the peasantry as the feudal lords. Service people made up the so-called “court” of princes and boyars, so later they began to be called “nobles”.

Throughout the 16th century, feudal land tenure continued to strengthen and develop.

During this period, patrimonial owners still retained feudal immunity, supported by the Grand Duke, and therefore large feudal lords were interested in a strong state. But, on the other hand, the great princes (and later the kings), striving for autocracy, constantly limited the rights and privileges of the feudal patrimonial lords. Throughout the 16th century, the supreme power of Russia was forced to pursue a dual policy towards the feudal lords, supporting some and suppressing others. In this difficult struggle, the central government sought support in the serving nobles who supported the great princes and kings, because depended on them.

In the middle of the 16th century, manorial lands made up half of the feudal estates, at the end of the century - the overwhelming majority. First of all, the state distributes “black lands” to landowners, i.e. free, with “black-nosed” people sitting on them, i.e. free peasants. Then, for various reasons, the state takes away the lands from the patrimonial boyars and transfers them to the nobles. Land was redistributed especially intensively during the years of the “oprichnina,” when it was accompanied by mass executions.

The nobleman usually did not have a large number of peasants. On average, there were 24 peasants per Moscow nobleman.

After the Time of Troubles, the first king of the new dynasty, Mikhail Romanov, was elected to the throne. In the first years, in order to thank those who helped his election and to win the favor of others, the king distributed many lands. The lands were distributed not to estates, which would be payment for service, but to patrimonial, hereditary property. In order to attract nobles to their side, “distinguished” estates were assigned to them as hereditary property. An estate was considered “served” if several generations of its owners continued to serve. Thus, fiefdoms and estates became closer in their legal status. The difference between boyars and nobles was smoothed out. The number of feudal lords increased many times over.

Peter's reforms were directed against the old boyar aristocracy, which did not want changes and the strengthening of strong centralized power. Peter I relied on the local nobility. With the aim of economic support for the nobility, Peter issued a Decree on Single Inheritance in 1714, according to which the final merger of two forms of property (votchina and estate) took place into a single legal concept - “real estate”. Both types of farms were equalized in all respects, the estate also became hereditary, and not a conditional farm, they could not be divided between heirs. Estates were inherited only by one of the sons, usually the eldest. The rest received an inheritance in money and other property; they were obliged to enter military or civil service.

A characteristic feature of agrarian relations in the era of feudalism was non-economic coercion of peasants. This non-economic coercion appeared in a variety of forms, ranging from simple class inequality right up to serfdom. But serfdom could also be expressed both in the forcible attachment of peasants to the land, the prohibition to change their place of residence, and in the landowner’s ownership of the peasant’s personality, approaching slavery.

Until the end of the 11th century, the boyars received land without peasants. Firstly, the boyars imprisoned their slaves. Previously, slaves were employed only in the master's household, but now they began to be allocated plots of land so that they could live off their household and perform duties for the master. Secondly, the boyars enslaved the peasants. The peasant's economy was constantly under threat of ruin: crop failure, death of a horse, etc. The peasant was forced to turn to the feudal lord for a loan and thereby became dependent on him.

From the 13th century, the names of various types of peasants gradually disappeared from chronicles: zakup, izgoi, ryadovichi. The word “peasants” or “Christians” began to be used to describe Russian Orthodox people, in contrast to the Tatars, who were first pagans and then became Muslims. But since the overwhelming majority of the entire population of Rus' were farmers, the term “peasants” began to refer only to them.

During the period of feudal fragmentation, agriculture remained the main sector of the economy. The main labor force of both the patrimony and the estate were dependent peasants, who can be roughly divided into several groups. One of them consisted of “old residents” who had already lived on the lands of a given feudal lord for several generations. And although legally they were free, economically they became increasingly dependent on the feudal lord, turning into serfs. The next group consisted of “newcomers” who had recently moved from other fiefs or estates. Feudal lords, interested in new workers, gave them loans in the form of seeds, livestock, and timber to build a house. After some time, the newcomers became debtors, since they could not pay the feudal lord in full and on time, which led to their enslavement.

However, estates, not to mention estates, were only islands in a sea of ​​peasant communities. Even in the 2nd half of the 15th century, the lands of black peasants still prevailed in North-Eastern Rus'. The level of exploitation of the peasantry in the 14th - first half of the 15th centuries was still low./With the weak development of commodity-money relations, the feudal lord was limited to receiving only those agricultural products that he could consume. Therefore, quitrent in kind was the main type of feudal rent. Labor rent existed in the form of separate duties and did not play a noticeable role anywhere except in monastic farms. Cash rent occupied a very small place, and since there was not yet a strong centralized government, there were no uniform legal norms in the country for the enslavement of peasants.

The development of the Russian economy in the 15th-16th centuries was associated primarily with the gradual enslavement of the peasants. In accordance with the laws and old customs, peasants had the right to move from one owner to another, hoping to find better living conditions in a new place. Over the years, it became increasingly difficult for peasants to move to new places, as their debt to landowners constantly grew.

Gradually, the feudal lords and the church began to demand an increase in quitrents from the peasants. In addition to quitrent in kind, from the end of the 15th century the number of various duties and labor in favor of the feudal lord increased noticeably. Corvée began to reach four days a week. The peasants could not stand such oppression and fled to the Don, Southern Urals, and Trans-Volga region.

Under Ivan III in 1497, the Sudebnik was published, according to which the rules for the transition of peasants from feudal lord to feudal lord were established. A period was approved: one week before the autumn St. George’s Day (November 26, old style) and one week after, but first the peasant had to pay “elderly” for living and using the land of the feudal lord. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, the amount of “elderly” was equal to 1 ruble per person (the cost of one working horse or 100 pounds of rye, or 7 pounds of honey). The introduction of such a condition significantly limited the peasants' ability to move freely and became the first legislative step towards the enslavement of the peasants. The mass exodus of peasants (especially after the unsuccessful Livonian War and the oprichnina) led to the strengthening of serfdom. In 1582-1586. For the first time, “reserved years” were established, during which peasants were prohibited from crossing over on St. George’s Day. In 1591-1592 a census of land and population was carried out. “Scribe books” were compiled, i.e. a legal document that indicated the affiliation of peasants to any owner during the census period. It can be assumed that in 1590-1595. in fact, there was a complete cancellation of St. George's Day throughout the country. At the same time, “scheduled summers” were established, during which the search for fugitive peasants was announced. By decree of 1597, a five-year sentence was determined for those who escaped from 1592.

During the Time of Troubles, the process of enslavement intensified.

In 1607, a 15-year period of investigation was announced. When the free movement of peasants was practically prohibited, it was replaced by peasant export, or transport. Before St. George's Day, rich feudal lords ransomed the peasants, paying their debts for them, and then took them to their farms. The legal position of the peasants did not change. Small and medium-sized landowners suffered the most from this process.

So, at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century, such important changes took place in the situation of the peasants that we have to talk about a turning point in the history of the formation of serfdom. And although there was no official serfdom, the bulk of the peasants were dependent on the feudal lords. During the 17th century, the power of feudal lords over the peasants continuously increased. They had complete control over the peasants, exchanged them, gave them as gifts, mortgaged them, and subjected them to corporal punishment.

In January 1649, the Zemsky Sobor adopted the Council Code, which established an indefinite search for fugitive peasants. Peasants with their family and property were declared the property of the feudal lord.

Already in the 16th century, most of the agricultural land was in the hands of landowners and the church. Only in the north, in the basin of the Pechora and Northern Dvina rivers, were there almost no feudal estates. Black-growing peasants lived there, reporting directly to the state. The category of state peasants was in more favorable conditions than privately owned peasants. They paid only tax to the state (“tax”), although it was the highest in the state. The main difference between the black-sown peasants was that, sitting on state land, they had the right to alienate it: sale, mortgage, inheritance. An equally important feature of the black-sown peasants is their personal freedom. Owner-owned peasants in the 17th century already accounted for a total of 89.6% of the country's draft population; the number of black-mown peasants was constantly decreasing. There was another category of peasants - palace peasants, who directly served the needs of the royal court. They were governed by palace clerks, had their own elected elders and some self-government. In their position they were close to the state peasants.

The reign of Peter I was accompanied by the development of serfdom. It was associated with the implementation of a grandiose event - a census of the taxable population and changes in taxation. Before the census, the unit of taxation was the yard, after the census it was the male soul. As a result of the tax reform1, state revenues increased 3 times. For many categories of the population, the census had social consequences. If previously enslaved slaves received freedom after the death of their master, then during the first revision they were equated to serfs and were obliged to pay the poll tax on the same basis as them. They became the hereditary property of the landowner.

Before the census, about a million peasants did not belong to anyone and paid state taxes. At the same time, the landowners, monasteries, and palace peasants, in addition to taxes in favor of the state, paid quitrent to their owner or performed corvée. The tax reform united all these categories of the rural population (here were the black-growing peasants of the North, the yasak people of the Middle Volga region, etc.) into a single category of state peasants and equated them in terms of payments to the landowners, monasteries, and palaces.

The situation of peasants was heavily affected by the increase in state duties. Compared to XV II over the century, stationary and household duties increased: peasants were obliged to provide military teams with food and horses with fodder during billets.

An indicator of the development of serf relations in the country was the expansion of noble land ownership and the strengthening of feudal ownership of land. From 1682 to 1710 273 volosts with more than 43 thousand peasant households were distributed from the palace fund.

In the 2nd half of the 18th century, the already powerless situation of the peasants continued to worsen. Under Catherine II, the process of turning peasants into “slaves,” as Catherine and her contemporaries called them, was completed.

The darkest side of serfdom was the unlimited arbitrariness of landowners in disposing of the personality and labor of serfs. Under Catherine II, on the one hand, the power of landowners over the peasants increased, on the other, the area of ​​serfdom expanded. She distributed up to 800 thousand state-owned peasants of both sexes into private hands. A decree of 1783 prohibited the transfer of peasants from one owner to another in Little Russia, and thus serfdom was established here. The growth of landowner power under Catherine reached its limit. In 1765, landowners were given the right to exile peasants to hard labor. The Senate decree of 1767 prohibited peasants from complaining about their landowners - state power refused to protect peasants from the tyranny of their masters, which led to abuses. Landowners used corporal punishment and imprisonment of serfs at their own discretion, and trade in serfs developed.

The dominant form of land ownership in the 16th-17th centuries became the estate (derived from the word<отчина>, i.e. paternal property), which could be inherited, exchanged, or sold. The estates are owned by princes, boyars, members of squads, monasteries, and the highest clergy.

Patrimonial land ownership arose during the period of appanage principalities. Patrimony is a piece of land that the owner could dispose of with the right of full ownership (sell, donate, bequeath). The owners of the estates were obliged to provide armed soldiers to the state army. Based on the Council Code of 1649, three types of estates were distinguished: hereditary (ancestral); meritorious - received from the prince for certain merits; purchased - purchased for money from other feudal lords.

Analysis of Art. 3 of “Russian Pravda”, in which “lyudin” was contrasted with “prince husband”, shows that in Ancient Rus' there was a differentiation of society into feudal lords and non-feudal lords, since by the term “people” “Pravda” meant all free persons, mainly communal peasants, who made up the bulk of the population.

The feudal system of Russia grew out of the primitive communal system, as well as from elements of patriarchal slavery - the initial form of slavery, in which slaves entered the family that owned them as its powerless members who performed the most difficult work. This circumstance left its mark on the process of formation of the feudal system and its further development.

Initially, all private landholdings were subject to enhanced protection. For example, in Art. 34 of the “Russian Pravda” Brief edition established a high fine for damaging a boundary sign, which indicated the concern of the Old Russian state to ensure the sustainability of land relations.

Then the “best men” are identified - the owners of feudal estates. Since large landownership, which made it possible to use more efficient land tenure, becomes leading, the ruined and impoverished peasants come under its protection. They became dependent on large landowners.

The Old Russian state ensured the legal status of representatives of the feudal class, since they were a more reliable support than community members and free people. So, in Art. 19-28, 33 of the “Russian Pravda” Brief edition determined a special procedure for the protection of both feudal landholdings and the servants who worked for them (elders, firemen, etc.).

At the same time, relations between the feudal part of the population and the non-feudal part of the population developed and improved with the strengthening of feudal domination. For example, persons who fell into debt bondage to a feudal lord became purchasers, i.e. obligated by their work on the feudal lord’s farm to return the “kupa” (debt) received from him, for which they were provided with land and means of production. If the purchaser escaped, then he turned into a complete (“whitewashed”) serf (Articles 56-64, 66 of the “Russian Truth”, Long Edition).

The establishment of feudal dependence of the rural population was a long process, but even after its formation, feudalism underwent certain changes characteristic of Russia.

Analysis of this historical material gives reason to believe about the following features of the legal regulation of land relations in Ancient and Medieval Rus'.

In Kievan Rus, feudal relations developed unevenly. For example, in the Kyiv, Galician, and Chernigov lands this process was faster than among the Vyatichi and Dregovichi.

In the Novgorod feudal republic, the development of large feudal land ownership occurred faster than in the rest of Rus', and the growth of the power of the Novgorod feudal lords was facilitated by the brutal exploitation of the conquered population living in the vast Novgorod colonial possessions.

Feudal land ownership gave rise in the Middle Ages to the interconnection of feudal lords through a system of vassal relations such as vassalage-suzerainty. There was a personal dependence of some vassals on others, and the Grand Duke relied on lesser princes and boyars; they sought his protection during frequent military skirmishes.

The high authority of religion in the ancient and middle ages gave rise to the land domination of the church, which received significant land from the state and feudal lords. For example, it was traditional for feudal lords to donate part of the land to the church and monasteries, pledged for the eternal remembrance of the soul; donating lands to them for the construction of temples, monasteries and other needs. There were also cases of land occupation in violation of the land rights of other persons. Thus, in 1678, the monks of the Trifonov Monastery (now the city of Vyatka) received a complaint from the peasants, whose hayfields and fishing ponds were forcibly taken away. Tinsky A. Repository of history // Kirovskaya Pravda. 1984.

The development of feudal relations was facilitated by such circumstances as the almost two-century domination of the Old Russian state by the Golden Horde. Systematic payment of tribute was required, but in the routine state of feudal technology, the efficiency of agriculture could only be achieved through open violence against the personality of the peasant. These two circumstances, with the strengthening of feudal tendencies, contributed to the long and lasting dominance of peasant law in Russia, until 1861.

The emergence, formation and strengthening of feudal relations in the Old Russian state had a progressive significance at a certain stage of its development, since it helped to form and strengthen regional (princely) formations, the centralized unification of which made it possible to create a powerful Russian state.

At the same time, feudal fragmentation was a brake on the economic development of the regions, since it restrained the exchange between them (commodity, information, etc.). This had a negative impact on the development of agriculture, agriculture, crafts, culture and other spheres of public life.

Since the upper strata of the feudal lords represented the main opposition to the power of the sovereign, by the end of the 15th century. There was a pronounced tendency towards limiting their privileges and the formation of a new class - landowners-nobles.

Landowners-nobles were given land under the condition of serving the sovereign, and the first large-scale mass transfer of land to Moscow service people occurred at the end of the 15th century. after the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow (1478) - Ivan III granted them confiscated Novgorod lands, and in the 16th century. Landownership became an important form of economic management.

The distribution of land to the noble army intensified the exploitation of the peasantry, which encouraged the peasants to go in search of places where feudal oppression was not so severe. The rise of the migration wave has created a need to limit such movements. Restrictive measures were carried out first through the conclusion of inter-princely agreements, and then legal intervention was applied: a ban was established on the transfer of peasants from princely lands to private lands; the right of a peasant to move only once a year - on St. George’s Day (November 26) and for a week after it; the obligation to pay a high fee for leaving the feudal lord, etc.

The distribution of lands to the noble army preserved the feudal system, but it could not be stopped, since there were no other sources of strengthening the army.

In 1565, Ivan the Terrible divided the lands of the state into zemstvo (ordinary) and oprichnina (special), including in the latter the lands of the opposition princely-boyar aristocracy. Some of the small princes and boyars died during the oprichnina years, others received new lands in the neo-oprichnina districts from the hands of the tsar as a grant under the condition of fidelity and service. As a result, not only was a blow dealt to the old feudal nobility, but its economic basis was also undermined, since the distributed lands went to the serving people.

At the beginning of the 16th century. an attempt was made to limit the growth of church-monastic land ownership, which occupied up to 1/3 of all feudal estates in the country. In some areas (for example, Vladimir, Tver) the clergy owned more than half of all lands.

Since this attempt was initially unsuccessful, in 1580 the Church Council made a decision prohibiting the metropolitan, bishops and monasteries from buying estates from service people, accepting lands as a mortgage and for the funeral of the soul, or increasing their land holdings in any other way.

In the second half of the 16th century. a widespread inventory of patrimonial lands was carried out, information about which was entered into the scribe books, which contributed to the streamlining of the financial and tax systems, as well as the official duties of the feudal lords. Subsequently, the government carried out a widespread description of the lands, dividing them into salary units (“plows”) depending on the quality of the land.

At the same time, the information received and documented was a circumstance that contributed to the creation of a system of serfdom in Russian agriculture; fortunately, the state found a way to get rid of St. George’s Day. Thus, from 1581, “reserved summers” began to be introduced, i.e. years when St. George's Day did not operate, and in 1649 the peasants were finally assigned to the feudal lords - serfdom was introduced.

Now let's look at local land ownership.