Elected service people in the 16th and 18th centuries. Service people

instrument service people
- in Russia of the 14th-18th centuries, the general name for persons obliged to perform military or administrative service in favor of the state.

There are other names in the literature - Free servants, Attendants, Military people, Warriors, Sovereign's people.

• 1 History
  • 1.1 Service people “in the homeland”
  • 1.2 Service people “according to the instrument”
  • 1.3 Service people “on call”
  • 1.4 Church servants
  • 1.5 Combat serfs (servants)
• 2 See also
• 3 Notes
• 4 Literature
• 5 Links

Story

The armed forces of the Russian state (Russian army, Rat) at the end of the 15th - first half of the 17th centuries were staffed by all the servicemen of the state who carried out military service personally and indefinitely and made up the local noble cavalry (local army).

They were divided into:

• Moscow service people, so in sources from the end of the 16th century they report about the Ukrainian service of Moscow service people: “And the sovereign ordered all Ukrainian governors in all Ukrainian cities to stand in their place according to the previous list and at the gathering they should be in regiment according to the previous list; and how will the military people come to the sovereign’s Ukraine, and the sovereign ordered to be in the forefront of the Ukrainian regiment.”;
• city ​​service people (city nobles and boyar children, enrolled in military service in cities (Kaluga residents, Vladimir residents, Epifans and others), made up city noble horse hundreds with their heads and other commanders).

Service people in the Russian kingdom were divided into categories:

• servants “for the fatherland” (out of duty), these included Moscow ranks, city nobles and boyar children, who bore personal land duties and served at their own expense in the “hundred service” (the most noble and wealthy), or for a salary in the “reitarsky system", the most noble people from among the reitar were allocated to hussars (only in the Novgorod rank) and spearmen;
• servants “by instrument” (selection, selection), these included archers, Cossacks, gunners, zatinshchiki, pishchalniks, and so on, who carried out constant service for a salary in money, in-kind provision of bread, salt, fabrics, and more;
• “conscript” servicemen, temporarily serving in wartime by decree (conscription), these included peasants according to a certain proportion - the so-called “dacha people”;
• church service people;
• combat slaves or servants.

Service people "in the homeland"

The service was mainly passed down from father to son. This category included boyars, okolnichys, stolniks, boyar children, Murzas and service Tatars, Lithuanian courtyards, stellate sturgeons, nobles, Duma clerks, white-domestic Cossacks and others. They were considered a privileged class, owned land (on patrimonial, “quarter” or local rights) and peasants. For their service they received cash or local salaries, titles and other rewards.

Main article: Local system

Service people "according to the instrument"

They were recruited from representatives of the tax-paying classes who were personally free. First of all, these are the Streltsy, who obeyed the Streletsky order. Most of the city Cossacks also obeyed the Streletsky order. This can be explained by the lack of a clear difference in the service of city Cossacks and archers. Both were armed with arquebuses and did not have horses for service. Some of the Cossacks obeyed the Cossack order. There were few such Cossacks with atamans and esauls. Subsequently, the service “on the device” also turned into hereditary. Children of Streltsy became Streltsy, children of Cossacks became Cossacks. A specific group of the population were Streltsy and Cossack children, nephews and elders. This group formed gradually, when all the places in the required number of city Cossacks or Streltsy were already occupied, but their origin obliged these people to serve in the “instrument” people. The state did not consider them a full-fledged army, but they were included in the city estimate lists. Streltsy and Cossack children, nephews and elders were armed with spears and “served on foot.” There were also smaller service units: gunners, zatinshchiki, collar workers, state blacksmiths, interpreters, messengers (messengers), carpenters, bridge builders, notch watchmen and yam hunters. Each of the categories had its own functions, but in general they were considered inferior to the Streltsy or Cossacks. Bridge builders and watchmen are not mentioned in all cities. In Korotoyak and Surgut, among the local service people there were also local executioners. Serving people “according to the instrument” were rarely involved in regimental service. They were engaged in gardening, crafts, trade, and crafts. All service people paid grain taxes into the city treasury in case of a siege. In the 17th century, ordinary military personnel of the regiments of the “new order” were added to the category of service people “according to the instrument” - musketeers, reiters, dragoons, soldiers, as well as plow soldiers and dragoons.

Service people "on call"

In wartime, by decree (conscription) of the tsar, at critical moments for the state, peasants were temporarily called up for service according to a certain proportion - the so-called “dacha people”.

With the formation of a centralized state, the people's militia was eliminated by the grand ducal government. The prince attracted the masses to military service only in case of serious military danger, regulating the size and nature of this service at his own discretion (pososhny army).

A. V. Chernov, “Armed forces of the Russian state in the XV-XVII centuries,” M., Voenizdat, 1954, p. 27-28.

Main article: The marching army

Church servants

The third, special and quite numerous category was made up of church ministers (patriarchal nobles, boyar children, archers, messengers, etc.), who accepted obedience or tonsure (monasticism), were supported and armed at the expense of the church and were subordinate to the Patriarch and the highest hierarchs (metropolitans, archbishops, archimandrites) of the Russian Orthodox Church. According to contemporaries, Patriarch Nikon, “if necessary,” could “put into the field” up to ten thousand people. The Patriarchal Streltsy, for example, guarded the patriarch and were a special intra-church “morality police” that monitored the behavior of the clergy. “The Patriarchal archers constantly go around the city,” wrote Archdeacon of the Antiochian Orthodox Church Pavel of Aleppo, who visited Moscow, “and as soon as they meet a drunken priest and monk, they immediately take him to prison and subject him to every kind of reproach...” The Patriarchal Archers were also a kind of church inquisition - they were engaged in the search and arrests of people suspected of heresy and witchcraft, and after the church reform of 1666, Old Believers, including Archpriest Avvakum and noblewoman Morozova. “The Patriarch’s archers grabbed the noblewoman by the chain, knocked her to the floor and dragged her away from the chamber down the stairs, counting the wooden steps with her unfortunate head...” The Patriarchal archers walked around Moscow churches and houses and, having seized the “wrong” icons, brought them to Patriarch Nikon, who publicly broke them, throwing them to the ground. Church service people were also involved in public service. At the end of the 16th and at the beginning of the 17th centuries, the “people of the Ryazan ruler” carried out guard duty to protect the southern border of the Russian state, along with the Cossacks. Numerous monasteries-fortresses - Novodevichy Monastery, Donskoy Monastery, Simonov Monastery, Novospassky Monastery, New Jerusalem Monastery, Nikolo-Peshnoshsky Monastery, Vysotsky Monastery, Spaso-Evfimiev Monastery, Bogolyubsky Monastery, Epiphany-Anastasia Monastery, Ipatiev Monastery, Tolgsky Monastery, Rostov Boris and Gleb Monastery , Zheltovodsk Makariev Monastery, Spaso-Prilutsky Monastery, Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, Solovetsky Monastery, Pafnutyevo-Borovsky Monastery, Pskovo-Pechersky Monastery, Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, Joseph-Volotsky Monastery, Trinity-Sergius Lavra and others had powerful artillery, high walls with towers and numerous garrisons of monastic warriors, were able to withstand a long siege and played a key role in the defense of the Russian state. The Holy Trinity Borshchevsky Monastery, one of the most powerful fortresses of the Belgorod region, was founded in 1615 by the Don Cossacks and Borshchev was built specifically for the atamans and Cossacks, “which of them are tonsured and which of them are wounded and maimed in that monastery.”

Combat serfs (servants)

The fourth category was fighting slaves (servants) - armed servants who belonged to the category of the unfree population. They existed in the Russian state in the 16th-18th centuries, they formed the armed retinue and personal guard of large and medium-sized landowners and carried out military service in the local army along with nobles and “children of the boyars.” The servants occupied an intermediate social position between the nobility and the peasants. Compared to the completely powerless arable and yard serfs, this stratum enjoyed considerable privileges. Starting from the second half of the 16th century, among the military serfs, ruined “children of the boyars” and “newcomers” rejected during the tsarist establishment increasingly began to appear, for whom joining the boyar retinue, even at the cost of freedom, was the only way to maintain their belonging to the military class. In different years, the number of combat slaves ranged from 15 to 25 thousand people, which amounted to from 30 to 55% of the total number of the entire local army.

In the 19th century, the word was retained in the form “servant” as an address to soldiers or other lower military ranks.

See also

• Serviceman
• Person liable for military service
• Conscript
• Volunteer
• Mercenary
• Warrior
• Soldier
• Hussar
• Militiaman
• City Cossacks
• Serving Tatars
• Boyar children
• Sagittarius
• Cossacks
• Battle serfs

Notes

1. Ill. 92. Warriors in tags and iron caps // Historical description of clothing and weapons of the Russian troops, with drawings, compiled by the highest order: in 30 volumes, in 60 books. / Ed. A. V. Viskovatova.
2. Belyaev I. D. “On guard, village and field service in the Polish Ukraine of the Moscow State, before Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich” - M. 1846
3. Seredonin O. M. “News of foreigners about the Russian armed forces.” - St. Petersburg, 1891
4. “Boyar lists of the last quarter of the 16th - early 17th centuries. and painting of the Russian army in 1604." / Comp. S. P. Mordovina, A. L. Stanislavsky, part 1 - M., 1979
5. Richard Halley. “Service in Russia” 1450-1725. - M., 1998

Literature

• Brodnikov A.A. About the protective weapons of the service people of Siberia in the 17th century // Bulletin of NSU. Series: History, philology. - 2007. - T. 6, No. 1.
• About the Russian army during the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich and after it, before the transformations made by Peter the Great. Historical research of action. member Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities I. Belyaev. Moscow. 1846

Links

instrument service people

Service people Information About

Service people in their homeland in Russia in the 17th century (nobles).

Nobles occupied a more privileged position in Russian society of the 17th century. Οʜᴎ constituted the highest level of sovereign people who served the fatherland. Nobles owned estates that were inherited, subject to the continuation of the heir's service to the sovereign. By the mid-17th century, the nobles became the main support of tsarist power in Russia. It is worth noting that the only noble title that was inherited was the title of prince. The remaining ranks were not inherited, but assigned, and first of all, they meant a position, but gradually they lost their official meaning.

The clearest hierarchy reflecting official significance was in the ranks of the Streltsy army. The regiment commanders were colonels, the commanders of individual detachments were semi-colonels, then came the heads and centurions.

In the 17th century in Russian society, most ranks did not have a clear division by type of activity. The highest ranks were considered to be the Duma ranks, people who were close to the tsar: Duma clerk, Duma nobleman, okolnichy, boyar. Below the Duma ranks were the palace or court ranks. These included: steward, solicitor, military leader, diplomats, compilers of scribe books, tenants, Moscow nobleman, elected nobleman, courtyard nobleman.

The lower strata of service people included recruited service people. These were archers, gunners, and serving Cossacks.

Peasantry in Russian general

17. Government and nobility in 17 – trans.
Posted on ref.rf
even 18th century (decree on unified inheritance and Table of Ranks)

By decree of January 16, 1721, Peter declared service merit, expressed in rank, to be the source of nobility of the nobility. The new organization of civilian service and its equation with the military in the sense of obligatory for the nobility created the need for a new bureaucratic structure in this area of ​​public service. This was achieved by the establishment of the “Table of Ranks” on January 24, 1722. In this table, all positions were distributed into three parallel rows: land and naval military, civilian and court. Each of these series was divided into 14 ranks, or classes. The series of military positions begins, going from the top, with Field Marshal General and ends with Fendrik. These land positions correspond in the navy to the admiral general at the head of the rank and the naval commissioner at the end. At the head of the civilian ranks is the chancellor, behind him is the actual privy councilor, and below are the provincial secretaries (grade 13) and collegiate registrars (grade 14). The “Table of Ranks” created a revolution not only in the service hierarchy, but also in the foundations of the nobility itself. Having made the basis of the division into ranks a position that was filled through merit based on personal qualities and the personal suitability of the person entering it, the Table of Ranks abolished the completely ancient division based on birth and origin and eradicated any meaning of aristocracy in the Russian state system. Now everyone, having reached a certain rank through personal merit, was promoted to the corresponding position, and without going up the career ladder from the lower ranks, no one could reach the highest. Service and personal merit become the source of nobility. In the paragraphs that accompanied the Table of Ranks, this was expressed very definitely. It says there that all employees of the first eight ranks (not lower than major and collegiate assessor) and their descendants are ranked among the best senior nobility. In paragraph 8, it is noted that, although the sons of the most noble Russian nobility are given free access to the court for their noble breed, and it is desirable that they should in all cases be distinguished from others in dignity, however, none of them is given any rank for this, until they show their services to the sovereign and the fatherland and receive character (that is, state position expressed in rank and corresponding position) for them. The table of ranks further opened up a wide path to the nobility for people of all classes, once these people got into military and civil service and moved forward through personal merit. Because of all this, the final result of the Table of Ranks was the final replacement of the old aristocratic hierarchy of breed with a new bureaucratic hierarchy of merit and seniority.

The people who suffered from this innovation, first of all, were well-born people, those who had long been a select circle of the family tree of the nobility at court and in the government. Now they are on the same level as the ordinary nobility. New people, coming from not only the lower and seedy service ranks, but also from lower people, not excluding serfs, penetrated into the highest government positions under Peter. Under him, from the very beginning of his reign, A.D. Menshikov, a man of humble origin, took first place. The most prominent figures of the second half of the reign were all people of humble origin: Prosecutor General P. I. Yaguzhinsky, Peter’s right hand at that time, Vice-Chancellor Baron Shafirov, Chief of Police Devier - they were all foreigners and non-residents of very low origin; inspector of the Town Hall, vice-governor of Arkhangelsk Kurbatov was one of the serfs, and so was the governor of the Moscow province Ershov. Of the old nobility, Prince Dolgoruky, Prince Kurakin, Prince Romodanovsky, Prince Golitsyn, Prince Repnin, Buturlin, Golovin and Field Marshal Count Sheremetev retained a high position under Peter.

In order to elevate the importance of his unborn companions in the eyes of those around him, Peter began to bestow upon them foreign titles. Menshikov was elevated to the rank of His Serene Highness Prince in 1707, and before that, at the request of the Tsar, he was made a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire. Boyar F.A. Golovin was also first elevated by Emperor Leopold I to the dignity of a count of the Roman Empire.

Along with the titles, Peter, following the example of the West, began to approve the coats of arms of the nobles and issue certificates of nobility. Coats of arms, however, became a big fashion among the boyars back in the 17th century, so Peter only legitimized this tendency, which began under the influence of the Polish nobility.

Following the example of the West, the first order in Russia, the “cavalry” of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called, was established in 1700 as the highest sign of distinction. Since the time of Peter, the noble dignity acquired through service has been inherited, as granted for length of service, which is also news unknown to the 17th century, when, according to Kotoshikhin, nobility, as a class dignity, “was not given to anyone.” "So, according to the table of ranks,- said Professor A. Romanovich-Slavatinsky, - a ladder of fourteen steps separated every plebeian from the first dignitaries of the state, and nothing prevented every gifted person, having stepped over these steps, from reaching the first ranks in the state; it opened wide the doors through which, through the rank, “vile” members of society could “ennoble” and enter the ranks of the nobility.”

[edit] Decree on unified inheritance

Main article:Decree on unified inheritance

The gentry of the times of Peter the Great continued to enjoy the right of land ownership, but since the foundations of this right changed, the nature of land ownership itself changed: the distribution of state-owned lands into local ownership ceased by itself as soon as the new nature of the noble service was finally established, as soon as this service, having concentrated in regular regiments, it lost its former militia character.
Posted on ref.rf
Local distribution was then replaced by the granting of inhabited and uninhabited lands to full ownership, but not as a salary for service, but as a reward for exploits in the service. This consolidated the merger of estates and estates into one that had already taken place in the 17th century. In his law “On movable and immovable estates and on joint inheritance,” issued on March 23, 1714, Peter did not make any distinction between these two ancient forms of service land ownership, speaking only about immovable estate and meaning by this expression both local and patrimonial lands.

The content of the decree on single inheritance is that a landowner with sons could bequeath all his real estate to one of them whom he wanted, but certainly only to one. If the landowner died without a will, then all real estate passed by law to one eldest son. If the landowner did not have sons, he could bequeath his estate to one of his close or distant relatives, whomever he wanted, but certainly to just one. If he died without a will, the estate passed to the next of kin. When the deceased turned out to be the last in his family, he could bequeath real estate to one of his maiden daughters, a married woman, a widow, whomever he wanted, but certainly only one. The real estate passed to the eldest of the married daughters, and the husband or fiancé was obliged to take the surname of the last owner.

The law on unified inheritance concerned, however, not just the nobility, but all “subjects”, whatever their rank and dignity. It was forbidden to mortgage and sell not only estates and estates, but also courtyards, shops, and any real estate in general. Explaining, as usual, the new law in the decree, Peter points out, first of all, that “If the immovable property will always go to one son, and the rest will only have movable property, then state revenues will be more manageable, because the master will always be happier with the big one, although he will take it little by little, and there will be one house, not five, and he can better give benefits to his subjects, and don't ruin.

The decree on unified inheritance did not last long. He caused too much discontent among the nobility, and the nobility tried in every possible way to circumvent him: fathers sold part of the villages in order to leave money for their younger sons, obliging the sole heir with an oath to pay the younger brothers their part of the inheritance in money. A report submitted by the Senate in 1730 to Empress Anna Ioannovna indicated that the law on single inheritance caused among members of noble families “hatred and quarrels and prolonged litigation with great loss and ruin for both sides, and it is not unknown that not only some brothers and neighbors relatives among themselves, but the children also beat their fathers to death. Empress Anna abolished the law on single inheritance, but retained one essential feature of it. The decree abolishing single inheritance ordered “from now on, both estates and votchinas will be called equally one immovable estate - votchina; and it is the same for fathers and mothers to divide their children according to the Code, and it is the same for daughters to give a dowry as before..

In the 17th century and earlier, service people who settled in the districts of the Moscow state lived a fairly cohesive social life that was created around the fact that they had to serve “even to death.” The military service collected them in some cases in groups, when each had to settle in on its own so that they could all serve the review together, choose a governor, prepare for a campaign, choose deputies to the Zemsky Cathedral, etc. Finally, the very regiments of the Moscow army were formed each from the nobles of the same locality, so that the neighbors all served in the same detachment.

Service people in their homeland in Russia in the 17th century (nobles). - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Service people for the fatherland in Russia in the 17th century (nobles)." 2017, 2018.

Having cast off the centuries-old shackles of the Horde and overcoming feudal fragmentation, Rus' by the middle of the sixteenth century turned into a single state with a large population and vast territories. She needed a strong and organized army to protect the borders and develop new lands. This is how service people appeared in Rus' - these are professional warriors and administrators who were in the service of the sovereign, received a salary in lands, food or bread and were exempt from paying taxes.

Categories

There were two main categories of service people.

1. Those who served in their country. The highest military class, recruited from among the Russian nobility. From the name it is clear that the service was passed on to the son from the father. Occupied all leadership positions. For their service, they received land plots for permanent use, fed and grew rich through the work of the peasants on these plots.

2. Those who served according to the device, that is, by choice. The bulk of the army, ordinary warriors and lower-level commanders. They were chosen from the masses. As a salary they received land plots for general use and for a time. After leaving service or death, the land was taken over by the state. No matter what talents the “instrumental” warriors possessed, no matter what feats they performed, the road to the highest military positions was closed to them.

Servicemen for the Fatherland

The children of boyars and nobles were included in the category of service people in their homeland. They began to serve at the age of 15, before which they were considered minors. Special Moscow officials with assistant clerks were sent to the cities of Rus', where they organized shows of noble youth, who were called “noviki.” The new recruit's suitability for service, his military qualities and financial status were determined. After which the applicant was enrolled in the service, and he was assigned a monetary and local salary.

Based on the results of the reviews, tens were compiled - special lists in which records of all service people were kept. The authorities used these lists to control the number of troops and the amount of salaries. In tens, the movements of the serviceman, his appointment or dismissal, injuries, death, and captivity were noted.

Service people in the country were hierarchically divided into:

Moscow;

Urban.

Duma servants for the fatherland

People from the highest aristocratic environment who occupied a dominant position in the state and army. They were governors, ambassadors, governors in border cities, led orders, troops and all state affairs. The Duma were divided into four ranks:

Boyars. The most powerful people of the state after the Grand Duke and the Patriarch. Boyars had the right to sit in the Boyar Duma and were appointed ambassadors, governors, and members of the Judicial Collegium.

Okolnichy. The second most important rank, especially close to the sovereign. Okolnichy represented foreign ambassadors to the ruler of Rus', they were also involved in all the grand ducal trips, be it a trip to war, prayer or hunting. The okolnichy went ahead of the king, checked the integrity and safety of the roads, found overnight accommodation for the entire retinue, and provided everything necessary.

Duma nobles. They performed a variety of duties: they were appointed governors and managers of Prikazas, participated in the work of commissions of the Boyar Duma, they had military and court duties. With the proper talent and zeal, they moved to a higher rank.

The clerks are Duma. Experienced officials of the Boyar Duma and various Orders. They were responsible for working with the documents of the Duma and the most important Orders. The clerks edited royal and Duma decrees, acted as speakers at Duma meetings, and sometimes rose to the rank of head of the Order.

Instrument officers

According to the instrument, service people constituted the combat core of the Russian troops. They were recruited from free people: the population of cities, bankrupt servicemen in the homeland, and partly from “Pribornye”, they were exempt from most duties and taxes and for their service they were given a cash salary and small plots of land, on which they worked themselves in their free time from service and wars.

Service people according to the device were divided into:

Kazakov;

Streltsov;

Gunners.

Cossacks

The Cossacks did not immediately become the sovereign's servants. These willful and brave warriors only entered the sphere of influence of Moscow in the second half of the sixteenth century, when the Don Cossacks, for a reward, began to guard the trade route connecting Rus' with Turkey and Crimea. But the Cossack troops quickly became a formidable force in the Russian army. They guarded the southern and eastern borders of the state and actively participated in the development of Siberia.

Cossacks settled separately in cities. Their army was divided into “devices” of 500 Cossacks each, under the leadership of a Cossack head. Additionally, the instruments were divided into hundreds, fifty and tens, they were commanded by centurions, pentecostals and tens. The general management of the Cossacks was in the hands of who appointed and dismissed service people. The same order determined their salaries, punished and judged them, and sent them on campaigns.

Sagittarius

Streltsy can rightfully be called the first regular army in Rus'. Armed with bladed weapons and arquebuses, they were distinguished by high military training, versatility and discipline. The archers were mainly foot warriors, they could fight both independently and as a full-fledged addition to the cavalry, which until then had been the main striking force of the sovereign's troops.

In addition, the streltsy regiments had a clear advantage over the noble cavalry, because they did not need long training, they went on a campaign at the first order of the authorities. In peacetime, archers monitored law and order in cities, guarded palaces, and performed guard duty on city walls and streets. During the war, they took part in sieges of fortresses, repelling attacks on cities and in field battles.

Like the free Cossacks, the archers were divided into orders of 500 warriors, and they, in turn, were divided into hundreds, fifty, and the smallest units - tens. Only serious injuries, old age and wounds could put an end to the service of the archer; otherwise, it was for life and was often inherited.

Pushkari

Already in the sixteenth century, statesmen understood the importance of artillery, so special service people appeared - these were gunners. They performed all tasks related to the guns. In peacetime, they kept the guns in order, stood guard next to them, and were responsible for obtaining new guns and making cannonballs and gunpowder.

During the war, they were responsible for all the artillery issues. They transported guns, maintained them, and took part in battles. The gunners were additionally armed with arquebuses. The Pushkar rank also included carpenters, blacksmiths, collar workers and other artisans needed to repair tools and city fortifications.

Other service people in Russia in the 16th century

Conscripted service people. This was the name of the fighters who were recruited from the peasants by special decree of the tsar during difficult wars.

Battle serfs. Military retinue of large aristocrats and middle-class landowners. They were recruited from unfree peasants and rejected or bankrupt newcomers. Combat serfs were an intermediate link between the draft peasantry and the nobles.

Church servants. These were warrior-monks, patriarchal archers. Warriors who took monastic vows and reported directly to the patriarch. They played the role of the Russian Inquisition, monitoring the piety of the clergy and defending the values ​​of the Orthodox faith. In addition, they guarded the highest dignitaries of the church and, if necessary, became a formidable garrison in the defense of fortress monasteries.

The highest positions in Muscovy society were not occupied by land owners, capitalists, or holders of privileges. But almost no one has capital or land, or special privileges.

The highest class of society consists of those who directly serve the state - service people. This layer is very heterogeneous; there are many differences between its groups.

The owners of patrimony - land holdings that passed to them “from their father” and which cannot be taken away under any circumstances - differ sharply from each other. And the bulk of the service class are landowners, those to whom lands are given for temporary holding, “locally.”

Everyone is given a different amount of land, and they can give it for life, or they can give it for a number of years - ten or twenty. If an employee gets promoted, he must be given more land. If there is no more land where he has an estate, he has to be given another estate, a larger one, but in another part of the country. If a serving person behaves badly, part of the land has to be cut off, and this causes no less problems. And a completely insoluble question: what to do if the landowner has not one son, but three? Then you have to “make land allotment” for two sons and give them separate estates. Then only one of the sons remains with his father on the estate; in theory, he should wait until his father’s death and become a landowner after him.

Estates increasingly became hereditary possessions; Having become decrepit, the landowner usually “beat him with his forehead” in the Local Order so that the sovereign would “compassionate” him for his service and for his wounds, would order him to “leave” his estate to his son, and if there is no son, then to his son-in-law, nephew, to whom “his sovereign service it’s easy to rule.” Such requests were usually complied with unless there were compelling reasons to do otherwise.

The estate was given so that a person could field a number of armed people and take part in wars waged by the state. According to the Code of Service of 1556, the landowner had to field one armed horseman from one hundred quarters of land. The clerks of the Rank and Local Orders were guided by this norm, calculating: what kind of private army should each landowner maintain?

Every three years, the landowner had to appear for inspection, show the clerks of the Local Prikaz what forces he had prepared, so to speak, confirm his right to the estate. Not too often, but it did happen that those unable to manage the farm and provide the required number of warriors were deprived of their estates.

At the bottom of the military class, among the nobility and the children of the boyars, many different groups clash: who is richer, who is poorer, who is more important, and who has fallen into insignificance. Many differences are generally not very clear without long preparation, without delving into many details - for example, the differences between nobles and boyar children.

The boyar children came from the shattering boyar families, from the second and third children of the boyars who did not inherit estates, from the personally free servants of the boyars and princes. The nobles were sometimes from the personally unfree servants of the boyars, and their genealogies were not so ancient; Among the nobles there were many ignorant people. And despite the fact that the real position of these two groups did not differ at all, the children of the boyars were considered to occupy a higher position.

For the children of our rational century, it is somehow not even clear what the differences are (if there is no difference both economically and legally), but the people of the 17th century subtly found these differences; in some cases they turned out to be quite serious. For example, during the royal wedding, the boyar children “guarded the path of the Sovereigns” - when the Tsar and Tsarina were married in the cathedral, they made sure “that no one crossed between the sovereign’s horse and the Tsarina’s sleigh.” But the nobles could never receive such an honor.

And of course, the metropolitan nobility is very different from the provincial one; the servants of the state do not occupy the same position as the servants of the boyars and princes. The capital's "ranks" - stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles and residents - make up the tsar's guard, serve as officer cadres for provincial detachments, serve at the tsar's palace, and carry out various orders from senior dignitaries, and even the tsar himself.

In the provinces, the bulk of service people were “tribal” (that is, hereditary - A.B.) nobles and boyar children.

For peasants, of course, all groups of service people are a social “heaven”. These are those whom the government orders “to listen to his landowner and plow his arable land and pay him the landowner’s income.” It’s not for nothing that the word “boyar” is applied to all service people, to which, in fact, the absolute majority of service people had no right. There is absolutely nothing specifically Russian about this - in the same way, in Western Europe, for every commoner, every feudal lord became “sire”, “sir”, “signor”.

But this is for the peasant, who, willy-nilly, looks up from below. But in relation to the real boyars and from the point of view of the state, all these “thin humble serfs”, Ivashki and Mikishki, are exactly the same slaves, two-legged property, like the peasants themselves. Under the threat of the whip, confiscation of estates, “words and deeds,” exile to Siberia, deprivation of all rights on the sole suspicion of “disorder” and “negligence,” they had to endure “for his sovereign honor” from the age of 15 until old age. hunger, cold, all the hardships of campaigns, injuries and “utter patience.”

But in general, if you do not take the everyday word “boyar”, then the real boyar, according to the law, was not even the one who owns the estate... But only the one who holds the Duma rank of “boyar” and is included with other boyars in a very small , a narrow layer - literally a few dozen people.

But even at the very top of the military-feudal, service class, in the same Boyar Duma, among the owners of estates, in the community of descendants of ancient families, there is also no unity and equality of status. And here, too, everyone is somehow higher or lower than the other, even by the smallest, barely perceptible step. They - the highest aristocracy of the country who sat in the Boyar Duma - were not at all equal to each other. The Duma boyar was taller than the okolnichy boyar. At the same time, there were never many boyars and okolnichy, at most 50 people. In addition to them, the Duma included several Duma nobles (of course, standing incomparably lower than the most seedy okolnichy) and three or four Duma clerks who headed the most important orders.

Several dozen noble families, no more than a hundred, descendants of appanage princes, tenaciously clung to their privileges, and the hierarchy divided even these few hundred, at most thousands of people - the highest aristocracy of the entire service class.

At the very top of this hierarchy of the very top are sixteen noble families, whose members entered directly into the boyars, bypassing the rank of okolnichy: Cherkassky, Vorotynsky, Trubetskoy, Golitsyn, Khovansky, Morozov, Sheremetev, Odoevsky, Pronsky, Shein, Saltykov, Repnin, Prozorovsky, Buinosov , Khilkovs, Urusovs. When forming the Boyar Duma, it was absolutely impossible for the tsar to do without at least the “Bolshaks” of these families, and sometimes several of their representatives accumulated in the Duma. Unfair? No more so than the House of Lords, for example.

Moreover, in our seemingly “democratic” society there are ranks that would also seem wild to a 17th-century boyar. Let's say, the enormous importance of money, material wealth would seem simply indecent to him. Neither the nobility of the family nor other parameters important to it depended at all on money.

Some of these families are well known to readers - the Golitsyns, Odoevskys, Sheremetevs, Trubetskoys - intelligent families, they gave many glorious representatives in different generations, in different periods of Russian history. The Saltykovs are known only by Pyotr Semenovich Saltykov, the winner of Frederick the Great in the Seven Years' War, and, of course, by Daria Saltykova, the famous “Saltychikha”. The Morozovs are completely inexpressive after Boris Ivanovich Morozov, educator and close friend of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The remaining surnames remained in history precisely because they were the surnames of the “Rurikovichs” and “Gediminichs”. The representatives of these families were and remained completely inexpressive, boring people, and did not commit any personal actions for which they should be remembered.

Each noble family - both these sixteen and the other hundred, a little lower in rank - knew very well what kind of family it was higher or lower, what principalities and what inheritances their ancestors owned and what place they should occupy in this hierarchy of the highest. The descendants of serving Moscow princes were considered superior to the descendants of appanage princes. The descendants of appanage princes were higher than “simple” boyars, without titles. The Moscow grand-ducal boyars were considered superior to the appanage ones. The descendants of the eldest son are “more important” than the descendants of the younger, and, of course, the antiquity of the family itself was of great importance.

Of course, every aristocrat knew perfectly well which families his representatives should sit “above” or “below” in the Boyar Duma and at feasts. In this case, “above” and “below” mean the same thing - closer to the king or further. And besides, everyone knew what positions they could count on.

It was considered a monstrous injustice if a “high-born” one was appointed the boss of a “high-born” one, and a representative of the “younger” family received a position earlier than a representative of the “good” family. If the tsar allowed such injustice, the boyar “beat him with his brow”, asked to correct the discrepancy and did this with full confidence that he was right. Usually the tsar “corrected” things, and under strong pressure from his inner circle. After all, almost everyone was confident in the value of localism!

If some reckless boyar or an entire clan violated the rules of localism, staves could be used - weighty sticks on which the boyars leaned, and even “foot swords” - knives that were worn “behind the boot”, behind the boot. You can laugh as much as you like at the elderly, fat boyars who pulled each other’s beards or committed stabbings directly in the Duma, but we must admit that there is a completely iron logic behind their behavior. This logic is completely different from that of us, their distant descendants, but there is logic!

The nobility of Muscovy did not believe in the existence of outstanding personalities, and directly associated family virtues with “breed”... and acted accordingly.

All ranks and positions occupied by representatives of the most noble families were entered into the Rank Books. Whenever any doubts arose, it was always possible to find out what ranks and positions were held by the great-grandfathers and great-great-grandfathers of those who are now applying for them. And the ranks and appointments of the ancestors, of course, were precedents for giving such reinforced concrete to their descendants.

As a result, the tsar could “bestow as boyars” people from the middle service strata - for example, Ordin-Nashchokin or Matveev. But even these talented nominees sat “below” the representatives of the ancient families; they were not always able to receive appointment to a position for which, perhaps, they were especially capable.

In localism, exactly the same way of thinking was very well manifested as in the peasant environment. The action of localism proves that the top of society thought in principle exactly the same way as the bottom. The boyars, just like the peasants, lived not even by family, but rather even by ancestral values. If a person belonged to the Dolgoruky, Golitsyn or Vyazemsky family, this affiliation from the point of view of the entire society was incomparably more important than his personal qualities. The ancestors, what to do, did not believe in the existence of outstanding personalities, and besides, the clans also had their own “bolshaks”, who held family power with an iron hand and represented the clan in the outside world. All his life, a person, no matter what ranks he was awarded, occupied a subordinate, secondary position in the clan and could very well never become the head of the clan.

The entire life of a noble boyar was determined to the least extent by his talents or his personal merits and was almost entirely determined by his belonging to the clan and his place in this clan.

Therefore, it was of great importance to find out whether the boyar family descended from the eldest or from the middle son of Prince Lychko, who came from Lithuania in the 14th century. The descendants of the eldest son acquired the right to sit one person closer to the king than the descendants of the middle son, and received, albeit insignificant, an advantage when appointed to any important positions.

And it turns out that at the top of society, among the noble and sometimes fabulously wealthy aristocracy, among literally several thousand of the most influential people in Muscovy, the same morals reign as among the Muscovite peasantry, which has hardly moved away from the primitive communal system.

The consequences for governing the country were different. On the one hand, the system became much more stable and permanent than in countries where active people could change something and achieve personal success. On the other hand... As Kotoshikhin, a former clerk of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, wrote, “many boyars, when asked by the sovereigns, set up their brads, do not answer anything, because the Sovereign elevates them to the Duma not according to their intelligence, but only according to their great breed.”

At the other extreme of the service population are the regular units of “service people according to the instrument”, those who “cleaned up” from the lower strata of the population and lived with their families in suburban settlements (Streltsy, Yamskaya, Pushkarskaya, Cossack settlements).

For their service, they do not receive estates with serfs, but they receive land - sometimes not only for vegetable gardens and orchards, but also for bread, and most importantly, they receive cash and grain salaries. For this, they must be ready to go on a campaign at any time, but in peacetime the government does not bother them much with training or studies. “Service people” are engaged in trade and craft, competing with the townspeople, especially since their salaries are not given to them particularly regularly.

These are the archers, of which there are 20 regiments of a thousand people in Moscow alone, and at least 10 thousand more in the most important cities and in border fortresses. These are detachments of gunners, Cossacks and troops, which we would now call “technical support units”: coachmen for the postal service, carpenters and blacksmiths, collar workers, zatinschiki, who build and guard the “tyns” of fortresses.

In the event of war, “dacha people” are collected from the township and district population, mainly for convoy and other auxiliary services. After the war, the “dacha people,” if they survive, can go back home; no one is holding them.

The soldiers of the “foreign regiments” find themselves in almost the same position. Even when inviting foreign officers, the Moscow government does not immediately organize a permanent regular army. For a long time, these regiments were formed only for the duration of the war. In peacetime, the government does not want to spend money on them, and the “willing people” who survived the battles, to call a spade a spade, are thrown out into the streets.

Of course, this is the lowest analysis of the service people of the Moscow state. And in this category of servants of the state one can see the same attitude towards their state: people serve it honestly, not pushed or coerced by officials. Society supports the state.

Service people

In the 14th century, a large, complex, socially heterogeneous layer of so-called service people, people in public service, began to form in the Russian state. Later, in the 16th century, service people were divided into two large categories: service people “according to the fatherland” - these included boyars, nobles, and boyar children. They owned land with the peasants, had significant legal privileges, and occupied major positions in the army and in the state apparatus. Service people “according to the order” were recruited (from the 16th century) from peasants and townspeople, received cash and grain salaries, and were exempt from state taxes and duties. Sometimes they were given land as a salary. They mainly served in the army, from which urban Cossacks were recruited.

In the 14th century, service people, especially the “regular” nobles, did not yet play a significant role in the political life of the country.