The onset of feudalism was caused by the emergence of a division of labor between two vital functions of ancient society - agriculture and security (defense) and was characterized by the separation of numerous socially significant unproductive professional groups of the population such as princes, boyars, clergy, warriors, merchants, etc. Precious utensils and works of art crafts that arrived along transcontinental routes from Byzantium and Europe settled in the treasuries of the nobility and monasteries or turned into personal property, and later served as attributes of the secular and spiritual power of the feudal lords.
Feudal land tenure in Ancient Rus' was carried out in the following ways:
1. taxation of free owner-producers (polyudye, tribute, quitrent, etc.);
2. performance of various duties by agricultural producers;
3. direct exploitation of dependent labor (with signs of slavery);
4. use of hired labor;
5. the owner’s right to redistribution, purchase and sale, inheritance, resolution of boundary disputes, alienation, etc.
The combination and ratio of the above factors could vary significantly for lands (the so-called territories and settlements united on the basis of geography and belonging to tribal unions), volosts and various farms - individual, rural communities, urban, patrimonial, monastic, etc. - depending on local conditions, relationships and over time. The greatest importance in the Kiev period - many researchers agree on this - both in the total volume of agricultural production and in relation to the size of the population associated with it, was the taxation of free community members - land rent.
The relations of feudal land ownership that developed during the Kiev period, legislatively reflected in the Russian Pravda, turned out to be extremely conservative, were of a hereditary class-class nature, but did not cover the entire agricultural population - chronicles speak of the existence of a black-mown peasantry (people); and in subsequent centuries they took the form of state serfdom, the vestiges of which survived until the 20th century.
Several centuries after the Kievan period, in the steppe lower reaches of the Dnieper and Don, another form of land ownership arose and spread - free armed agriculture (Cossacks), which played a visible role in the exploration and development of the South.
Administrative-territorial possessions
The formation of the state of the Eastern Slavs took place in the 9th-10th centuries. by enclosing districts and tribal territories, establishing the sovereign rights of princes, which could only occur in a relatively peaceful and loyal environment. This is how volosts arose (later a domain and administrative division), which were territories and settlements associated with the city center, a princely residence or a private estate (fireplace), as well as with graveyards.
Occupation (IX-X centuries) - the establishment of the right of land ownership and the establishment of tribute did not always occur peacefully and preceded polyud - the organization of the collection and transportation of tribute, although initially it could coincide with it.
The center of the administrative-territorial possession of the prince (principality, land), where his squad, residence, administration and treasury were located, was the capital city. In Kyiv, Novgorod, Smolensk, Polotsk, in the Rostov-Suzdal land, the princes had city tower courtyards and country residences, among which are known: Vyshgorod (“Olgin’s city”), the Novgorod princes - on Gorodishche and in the village of Rakoma (Yaroslav), Smyadyn under Smolensk, Rostov-Suzdal - Vladimir, Bogolyubovo - Andrey, etc.
Relations with the population of the princely territories were built by:
1. direct leadership by the prince of territorial military formations and actions (squad, city militias, wars, etc.);
2. direct taxation of various types of activities (tribute, polyudye, trade duties, court fines and costs);
3. receiving income from private property (crafts and patrimonial craft);
4. trade.
The charters of those years provide information about the princely squad and the subsequent emergence of the civil princely administration, in which by the 12th century. included: posadnik, tribute-payer, chernoborets, podezdnoy, pischiy, tiun, mytnik, virnik, emets, etc.
The emergence of a permanent layer of professional warriors in East Slavic society, according to modern sources, dates back to the 6th-7th centuries. The prince’s squad existed at the expense of his income and was divided into the senior squad, which consisted of “princely men” (later the boyar duma), and the junior squad, which was constantly attached to the prince. Senior warriors took part in military, administrative, political, trade, financial and other affairs of the prince. The younger warriors were with the prince, living in gridnitsa, and in non-war times, in addition to military service, they performed executive duties, participated in hunting, collecting tribute, etc.
From the end of the 11th century. relationships within the princely dynasty acquire the features of vassalage, however, throughout the pre-Mongol period, they also had the character of family relations, which is a characteristic feature of ancient Russian feudalism.
In the Galicia-Volyn land there was a case when the princely table was occupied by a boyar: in 1210 “Volodislav (boyar) entered Galich, became a prince and sat on the table.”
Private property
As early as the 10th century, princely villages were mentioned; in the 12th century, descriptions of private estates with a feudal-dependent population were found. These were: Oginy - Olzhichi, Berestov - Vladimir, Rakoma - Yaroslav, Belchitsy near Polotsk, etc. The prince could have several such volosts located at a considerable distance from each other, which could be inherited, transferred to other owners, or donated to the church.
During the reign and subsequently, the princes transferred their right to receive tribute from individual territories and settlements to their warriors as payment for service in the form of private ownership or a temporary right to receive a portion of the income. This process begins in Rus' at the end of the 9th century. from the southern lands, later spreading to the north and northeast.
In the 11th century In Rus', fatherland (passed from the father, later - fatherland, fatherland) appeared - fortified estates, to which a number of rural communities with a dependent population gravitated, and - the feudal layer - the boyars, which was formed from the senior squad and the communal nobility. The income of the vigilantes included feeding, administrative and managerial, patrimonial and salary. The process of formation of boyar land ownership occurred unevenly in different parts of the Old Russian state - if the first individual boyar estates in the south of Rus' appeared in the 10th - 11th centuries, then in the northeastern lands the feudal estate appeared in the middle - second half of the 12th century. Large landowners had armed detachments and urban estates.
In the princely and boyar estates, the most powerless and dependent forms of labor were used - servants and serfs, however, in general, there were relatively few private land holdings of feudal lords, the bulk of the population were free community members.
The position of the smerds, who made up the bulk of communal farmers, could differ significantly depending on local conditions and the type of property: from prosperous or even rich using hired and other labor, to poor and powerless. In the event of the death of a farmer (smerda or serf) - in the absence of heirs - his property belonged to the owner, who could be: a prince, a boyar, a monastery, etc.
Russian Truth does not make a strict distinction between princely and boyar private land ownership, and in the future the term fatherland(votchina) meant not only a fortified farm, but also any hereditary boyar or princely land ownership.
From the end of the 12th century. The druzhina organization is replaced by the courtyard, and the process of formation of the nobility begins. Subsequently, large landowners had their own armed detachments. Private landowners were more important in Novgrod - they included boyars and wealthy merchants, who formed a council that elected the mayor and the thousand.
Community
During the Kyiv period, regularly cultivated fields, personal plots, etc. were privately owned. In the R.P. there are indications of side, roll, yard boundaries and boundary signs (signs), which allows us to talk about the further development of the feudal economy, without specifying whose boundaries it is: the producer, the community or the feudal lord; it distinguishes between arable land, land and hunting grounds, and fishing grounds.
Rope - a rope that was used in allocating plots and defining boundaries - is a settlement of farmers, consisting of several individual farms (dimos) sharing a certain plot of land; Not every rural community was called this way - names were also used: whole, selishche, village, etc.; it could include several villages. The emergence of vervi in the conditions of Rus', where there was no shortage of free land, was associated with a certain stage of development - when producers began to choose the best lands, settle and use them together.
In Ancient Rus', a rural clan or territorial community had self-government (elders, etc.), paid certain types of taxes and performed duties; During the period of early feudalism, characteristic relations had not yet embraced the entire population; for a long time, it retained pre-Christian tribal traditions.
Church
After the adoption of Christianity (988), a metropolitan see was created in Kyiv. Later, separate bishoprics emerged in Belgorod, Chernigov, Vasilyev, Pereyaslavl, and Yuryev. The emergence of church-monastic land ownership can be dated back to the second half of the 11th century. in southern Rus', and not earlier than the second quarter of the 12th century. - in Novgorod and in the northeast. The original sources of real estate were gifts, donations, or bequests. Subsequently, the church had land holdings with a feudal-dependent population and income from church courts for special types of crimes. Subject to the jurisdiction of the church court were: divorce, kidnapping, sorcery, sorcery, witchcraft, quarrels between relatives, robbery of the dead, pagan rituals, murder of illegitimate children, etc. The Metropolitan of Kiev, the Bishop of Novgorod and the bishops of the Russian dioceses had their own armed detachments. In the system of feudal land tenure of the X-XIII centuries. The church takes its place late, when other institutions - princely and boyar - already existed.
Unlike princes and boyars, monastery plots were not divided among heirs, as was the case after the death of secular landowners.
Colonization
Another, parallel way of the emergence of feudal land ownership is the colonization of uninhabited or undeveloped territories. During the Kiev period, it successfully continued in the territory of Rus', the north and northeast: settlements of Novgorodians and Suzdalians appeared on the coast of the White Sea and in the Urals. Relations with local tribes such as: Chud, Noroma, Yam, Chud Zavolochskaya, Perm, Pechora, Yugra were relatively peaceful. The wars that sometimes broke out did not lead to massacres or extermination of the local population. The material culture of a number of northern monuments of this period contains a combination of Slavic and Finnish elements. Following colonization from the Novgorod and Vladimir-Suzdal lands, settlements of farmers, boyar estates and monasteries appeared on the Dvina and Vyga. The most remote colony of Novgorod was the Vyatka land.
Proper colonization of the southern steppes stopped in the 10th century. somewhere along the line Voin (Zhelni) – Ltava – Donets; and Volodymer said: “This is not good, even if the city is small near Kyiv. And they began to build cities along the Desna, and along Vostri, and along Trubezhevi, and along Sula, and along Stugna. And the husband began to chop up the best ones from the Slovens, and from the Krivichs, and from the Chudi, and from the Vyatichi. and from these the cities were inhabited; fight from the Pechenegs"; and was completely stopped by the Polovtsians in the 12th century; Slavic settlements of the Northern Black Sea region fell into decay - Tmutarakan was last mentioned in the chronicle in 1094.
Inheritance
Kievan Rus did not have hereditary rights of land ownership (princely and boyar). Attempts by the Grand Duke - and later by other princes - to place their sons, brothers, etc. on tables often led to conflicts with other Rurikovichs, opposition from the local nobility and the city council. After Yaroslav, the right of all the sons of the prince to inheritance in the Russian land was established, however, for two centuries there was a struggle between two principles of inheritance: in turn all the brothers, and then in turn the sons of the eldest brother; or only through the line of the eldest sons, from the father to the eldest son.
At congresses in Lyubech (1097), Vitichev (1100) and Doloboka, convened thanks to the efforts of Vladimir Monomakh, the princes kissed the cross that they would no longer participate in civil strife and pledged to jointly fight against violators of harmony, but in Lyubech they said firmly: “Let each one keep his homeland.” In (1111) the united action of the princes under the leadership of Vladimir led to success in the Zadonsk steppes on the Sal River, after which Rus' did not experience invasions of nomads for more than 20 years.
The last Grand Duke of Kievan Rus was Mstislav (1125-1132), the son of Monomakh. In 1169, the son of Yu. Dolgoruky, Prince A. Bogolyubsky, led a coalition against Kyiv, weakened by internal and external conflicts, captured it and gave it to his brother, and then he himself fell at the hands of the “kuchkovy seed” - after which Kievan Rus finally disintegrated into one and a half dozen independent lands; in this form it existed until the second quarter of the 13th century.
In 1221, in Kyiv, on the initiative of the Galician prince Mstislav, a new and last congress of feudal lords took place - the predecessor Kalki(Kalmius) and the Mongol-Tatar invasion.
In the 10th century, the first feudal lords appeared on the territory of Kievan Rus, who owned large plots of land. At the same time, the word patrimony appears in Russian documents. This is a special legal form of ancient Russian land ownership. Until the end of the 13th century, patrimony was the main form of land ownership.
Origin of the term
In those distant times, land could be acquired in three ways: buy, receive as a gift, or inherit from your relatives. The patrimony in Ancient Rus' is the land obtained in the third way. The word comes from the Old Russian “otchina,” which meant “father’s property.” Such land could not be transferred to uncles, brothers or cousins - only inheritance in a direct line counted. Thus, votchina in Rus' is property transferred from father to son. The inheritance of grandfathers and great-grandfathers in a direct line fell under the same category.
Boyars and princes received patrimony from their ancestors. Wealthy landowners had several fiefdoms under their control and could increase their territories through redemption, exchange, or the seizure of communal peasant lands.
Legal aspects
Patrimony is the property of one specific person or organization. Community and state lands did not have patrimonial rights. Although public ownership was of little significance at that time, it provided an opportunity to live for millions of peasants who cultivated these lands without the right to them.
The owner of the estate could exchange, sell or divide the land, but only with the consent of his relatives. For this reason, the owner of the estate could not be called a full owner. Later, the clergy joined the class of private landowners.
Owners of patrimonial lands had a number of privileges, especially in the field of legal proceedings. Also, patrimonial owners had the right to collect taxes and had administrative power over the people living on their lands.
What was included in the concept of patrimony
One should not think that the land passed on by inheritance was only land suitable for agriculture. A patrimony in Ancient Rus' consisted of buildings, arable land, forests, meadows, livestock, equipment, and most importantly, peasants living on the patrimony land. In those days, serfdom as such did not exist, and peasants could freely move from the land plots of one patrimonial estate to another.
Boyar estate
Along with private and church land property, there was also a boyar estate. This is land given as a reward by the king to his personal servants - the boyars. The granted land was subject to the same rights as a simple estate. The boyar estate quickly became one of the largest in Rus' - the land wealth of the boyars increased through the expansion of the state's territories, as well as through the distribution of the confiscated property of the disgraced boyars.
Feudal fiefdom
This form of land ownership, such as an estate, arose in the 13th century. The reason why the estate has lost its meaning is of a legal nature. As you can see, during the fragmentation of Rus', service under the prince was not connected with land ownership - a free servant could own land in one place and serve the boyar in another. Thus, the approximate position of any landowner did not in any way affect the amount of his land. Only the land paid, and only people performed the service. The feudal estate made this clear legal division so widespread that boyars and free servants, if they did not properly care for the land, lost their right to it, and the land was returned to the peasants. Gradually, patrimonial land ownership became the privilege of servicemen subordinate to the tsar himself. This is how the feudal estate was formed. This land tenure was the most common type of land ownership; state and church lands began to expand their territories much later.
The emergence of estates
In the 15th century, a new form of land ownership emerged, which gradually changed the outdated principles of land ownership, such as fiefdom. This change primarily affected landowners. From now on, their right to own and manage estates was restricted - only a narrow circle of people were allowed to inherit the land and dispose of it.
In 16th-century Muscovy, the word “votchina” practically never appears in civil correspondence. It disappeared from usage, and persons who were not in public service ceased to be called patrimonial people. The same people who served the state had the right to a land plot, called an estate. Service people were “placed” on the lands for the sake of protection or as payment for service to the state. With the end of the service period, the land returned to the royal property, and later this territory could be transferred to another person for services to the king. The heirs of the first owner had no rights to the estate land.
Two forms of land tenure
Votchina and estate are two forms of land ownership in Muscovy of the 14th-16th centuries. Both acquired and inherited lands gradually lost their differences - after all, the same responsibilities were imposed on landowners of both forms of ownership. Large landowners, who received land as a reward for service, gradually achieved the right to transfer estates by inheritance. In the minds of many land owners, the rights of patrimonial owners and service people were often intertwined; there are cases when attempts were made to transfer estate lands by inheritance. These judicial incidents led to the state becoming seriously concerned about the problem of land ownership. Legal confusion with the order of inheritance of estates and patrimony forced the tsarist authorities to adopt laws equalizing both of these types of land ownership.
Land laws of the mid-16th century
The new rules of land ownership were most fully set out in the royal decrees of 1562 and 1572. Both of these laws limited the rights of owners of princely and boyar estates. Private sales of patrimonial plots were allowed, but not more than half of them, and then only to blood relatives. This rule was already spelled out in the Code of Laws of Tsar Ivan and was supported by numerous decrees that were issued later. A patrimonial owner could bequeath part of his lands to his own wife, but only for temporary possession - “for subsistence.” The woman could not dispose of the given land. After the termination of ownership, such patrimonial land was transferred to the sovereign.
For peasants, both types of property were equally difficult - both the owners of the patrimony and the owners of estates had the right to collect taxes, administer justice, and draft people into the army.
Results of the local reform
These and other restrictions stated served two main purposes:
- support “their” service names and stimulate their readiness for public service;
- prevent the transfer of “service” lands into private hands.
Thus, the local reform practically abolished the legal meaning of patrimonial land ownership. The votchina became equal to the estate - from legal and unconditional ownership, the possession of land property turned into conditional property, directly related to the law and the desire of the royal power. The concept of “patrimony” has also transformed. This word gradually disappeared from business documents and colloquial speech.
Development of private land ownership
The estate became an artificial incentive for the development of land ownership in Muscovite Rus'. Huge territories were distributed to the sovereign's people thanks to local law. At present, it is impossible to determine the exact relationship between local and patrimonial lands - accurate statistics of land plots have not been maintained. The addition of new lands made it difficult to account for existing holdings, which at that time were owned by private individuals and the state. Votchina is an ancient legal land tenure, at that time it was significantly inferior to the local one. For example, in 1624, the Moscow district contained about 55% of all available agricultural land. This amount of land needed not only legal, but also administrative management apparatus. County noble assemblies became a typical local body for the protection of landowners.
County societies
The development of local land ownership caused the birth of district noble societies. By the 16th century, such meetings were already quite organized and acted as a significant force in local self-government. Some political rights were also assigned to them - for example, collective petitions to the sovereign were formed, local militia were formed, petitions were written to the tsarist authorities about the needs of such societies.
Estate
In 1714, the royal decree on single inheritance was issued, according to which all landed property was subject to single rights of inheritance. The emergence of this type of land ownership finally united the concepts of “estate” and “patrimony”. This new legal formation came to Russia from Western Europe, where at that time a developed land management system had long existed. The new form of land ownership was called “estate”. From that moment on, all landed property became real estate and was subject to uniform laws.
For many centuries, land in agrarian Russia was the main value and constituted the main wealth of society. This fully explains why Russian historians paid special attention to the history of land relations. The central problem in these relations is the issue of land ownership. In domestic historiography, both communal and private land ownership were considered. The presence of the latter was assumed by S.M. Soloviev already in the era of the first Rurikovichs, believing that the princely warriors of that time could have villages inhabited by prisoners of war, purchased slaves and hirelings. 1
Another outstanding Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky pushed back the signs of the emergence of private land ownership in Rus' to the 11th century. 2 He found the first mention of landowner villages with courtyard servants in a well-known trade agreement concluded, according to V.N. Tatishchev, by Prince Vladimir with the Volga Bulgarians in 1006. 1 Then “in the 12th century we find several references to private land owners. Such owners are: 1) princes and members of their families, 2) princely men, 3) church institutions, monasteries and episcopal sees. But in all the news about private land ownership in the 12th century. landed property has one distinctive feature: it was inhabited and exploited by slaves; this is the village with the servants.”
According to N.A. Rozhkov, “our sources contain absolutely no information about the existence of private, personal land ownership before the calling of princes... But since the appearance of princes in the Russian land, new forms have been mixed into the ancient purely faithful landowning orders, gradually slowly creeping into life. First of all, princely land ownership appeared. The first traces of it became noticeable already in the 10th century, when Olga established her “places” and “villages” throughout the land...” 3 Following the princely landownership, boyar landownership appeared. It originates in the 11th century. In the same 11th century, spiritual land ownership also emerged. 4 We have similar judgments from G.F. Blumenfeld and P.I. Belyaev. 5
A.E. Presnyakov, although he noted the weak contours of princely land ownership and the princely economy of the times of the Yaroslavichs, did not doubt at all the existence of princely courts and villages. 1 Along with the prince, A.E. Presnyakov mentions church land ownership, which, in his opinion, arose back in the 11th century. Its source “were grants from princes and contributions from other persons.” 2 In contrast to princely and ecclesiastical ownership, boyar ownership of land was built on fundamentally different principles. It arose “by borrowing and plowing new crops in unoccupied areas. This farm was set up and maintained by the hands of servants.” 3
Insignificant development of private land ownership in Rus' until the 11th century. noted A. Vasilchikov and N. Oganovsky. 4 “In the Kyiv era,” said N. Oganovsky, “the land had no value, since most of it lay “in vain” ...” 5
Some pre-revolutionary authors were not averse to attributing to the ancient Russian princes the right of private ownership of the entire state territory. N.M. Karamzin also noted that “the entire Russian land was, so to speak, the legal property of the Grand Dukes: they could distribute cities and volosts to whomever they wanted.” 6 The author finds it possible to even talk about the local system at that time. 7 Similar ideas flashed through N.A. Polevoy. 8 who disposed of the entire earth according to personal arbitrariness. 1 Lakier’s idea was actively supported by B.N. Chicherin. Their ideas met sharp criticism from K.D. Kavelin, I.D. Belyaev, A.D. Gradovsky, N.L. Duvernois, F.I. Leontovich, G.F. Blumenfeld and others. 3
Nevertheless, the Lakier-Chicherin scheme has grown into the works of subsequent researchers. Thus, Yu.V. Gauthier wrote: “... it can be assumed that even then (X-XII centuries - I.F.) the prince was considered the supreme owner of the verna land.” 4 Being the supreme owner of the land of the Smerd community members, he freely distributed it to his husbands, the churchmen. 5 Yu.V. Gauthier wrote somewhat straightforwardly about the emergence of individual land ownership, linking it with the emergence of “strong people establishing their power over initially free groups of equal people.” 6
It would be worth remembering those who were specifically involved in church land ownership. For V. Milyutin there was no doubt that “already at the end of the 11th century the Russian clergy owned both uninhabited and populated lands.” 1 The methods used by the clergy in the policy of “acquisitiveness” were different - these were government grants, donations from private individuals, purchase, barter, etc. 2 The caution with which V. Milyutin marked the initial stage of real estate among the clergy in Russia seemed unnecessary to M. Gorchakov. “There is no doubt,” he argued, “that the very first Christian Russian princes, St. Vladimir and Yaroslav, granted the Metropolitan of All Russia the right to own land property. The example of the first princes was followed in this regard by other princes of the 12th century, great and specific. To determine exactly where and what lands, how many of them and in what power the metropolitans of all Russia had during the 11th and 12th centuries - historical evidence does not provide sufficient materials for this” 3.
M. Gorchakov was joined by E. Golubinsky. Examining the question of material support for the early church hierarchs, he concludes: “So, St. Vladimir provided the bishops with the means of maintenance, firstly, with tithes, which should have been collected from princely incomes in more or less full volume of the latter and from the incomes of private people, who made up the class of patrimonial owners; secondly, as most likely it should be assumed, by immovable estates that consisted of lands for running their own farms, with the addition to the lands of the required number of rural serfs, as well as the required number of service people or servants who would actually run the farms and generally manage them " 1 As for the monasteries, they, according to E. Golubinsky, “began to own real estate no later than from the time of St. Theodosius.” 2 B.D. Grekov took V. Milyutin’s point of view when he was working on the history of the Novgorod house of St. Sofia. The clergy, B.D. Grekov believed, began to acquire land relatively late - by the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. 3 Characteristically, “in the early days of the existence of the Russian church, not many of its members were willing to donate their property to the church, primarily because there were few real Christians in Rus' at that time... With such an attitude towards faith, it cannot be allowed that the Novgorod church in during the first period of its existence it could have been enriched by private donations on a significant scale, as was the case later.” 4
The issue of land ownership in Soviet historical literature has acquired extreme importance. M.N. Pokrovsky placed the process of formation of princely land ownership in close dependence on the development of statehood in Ancient Rus'. He believed that “the most ancient type of state power developed directly from paternal power.” 5 Hence the peculiarity “due to which the prince, later the sovereign of Moscow, was the owner of the entire state on private law, just as the father of a patriarchal family was the owner of the family itself and everything that belonged to it.” 6 Ownership of state territory by private law, allocated by M.N. Pokrovsky to the ancient Russian prince, resulted from mixing of private and public law.
M.N. Pokrovsky meets the boyars in a very early era. 2 But “the process of formation of large landholdings in Ancient Rus' cannot be studied in detail due to the lack of documents.” 3 The author believed that “violent seizure in its legal or illegal form was hardly the main way of forming large landholdings in Ancient Rus'. In history, as in geology, slow molecular processes produce larger and, most importantly, more lasting results than individual catastrophes.” 4 He saw these “molecular processes” in the sphere of economic relations that put the peasant economy in chronic dependence on the lordly economy. 5
In the 1920s, many interesting considerations were expressed regarding the establishment of private land ownership in Rus'. Of course, many of them have now lost their scientific value. It is impossible, for example, to agree with P.G. Arkhangelsky, who wrote: “The first sprouts of private ownership of land appeared in our country as long ago and early as the first beginnings of communal land ownership.” At present, no one will dispute the position that communal land ownership historically preceded private land ownership. But it should be recognized as very fruitful the observation of P.G. Arkhaneglsky, according to which “the cradle of private and communal land ownership was common: this cradle was the initial seizure of no one’s, empty wild land; This seizure took place in the distant time of limitless land freedom.” P.G. Arkhangelsky’s attempt to show the evolution of industrial trends in the princely and boyar economy is also worthy of attention. “Having occupied a lot of free, wild land,” he wrote, “princes and boyars extracted income from it with the hands of their slaves: they forced them to catch and kill valuable fur-bearing animals in the forests - beavers, bears, foxes, martens, etc.; fish, keep bees, engage in cattle breeding (lead horses); As for arable farming, at the very beginning it was not in the first place in the economy of the large “lords” of ancient Rus': there was almost no one to sell grain, transporting it to foreign lands was dangerous, time-consuming and unprofitable; therefore, only enough grain was sown on princely and boyar estates to feed the master’s family, the master’s guests, servants and slaves.” And only “over time, the structure of the princely and boyar large estate began to change little by little: agriculture began to acquire more and more importance in it, and trapping, fishing and horse breeding gradually receded into the background. This happened because the supply of valuable fur-bearing animals itself the battle was reduced, and their sales abroad, which had previously given large incomes to princes and boyars, were greatly upset after predatory Asian nomads - the Polovtsians, and even later the Tatars - appeared and established themselves in the steppes of what is now southern Russia.” These arguments, although rather schematic, are not without a rational grain, which, unfortunately, did not manage to germinate: the ideas of P.G. Arkhangelsky remained aside from the main road of Soviet historiography.
In contrast to P.G. Arkhangelsky, A.A. Rzhanitsyn called communal, or, as he puts it, faithful, the most ancient type of land ownership in Rus'. “However, very early,” continues A.A. Rzhanitsyn, “the lands of private owners appear next to regular land ownership. The first prominent representatives of private land ownership were the princes of the Rurik family. Then - the warriors and associates of the princes, to whom the princes begin to distribute lands for their exploits and services. Finally, with the introduction and spread of Christianity in Rus', land ownership of churches and especially monasteries acquired prominent importance.” 2 The moment of the emergence of private ownership of land A.A. Rzhanitsyn designated the 12th century. 3 Following V.O. Klyuchevsky, he emphasized that the owner’s land was inhabited and exploited by slaves, that “the idea of land ownership flowed from slavery, was a development of the ownership of serfs. This land is mine because the people who work it are mine.” 4 In conclusion, A.A. Rzhanitsyn comes to the conclusion that “even during the period of Kievan Rus, the seizure of the lands of peasants (smerds) by landowners had already begun.” 5 I.D. Shuleikin also wrote about the significant significance of the expropriation of the land of “primitive village producers” in the process of forming a privately owned land fund. 1
In V.I. Picheta’s book on the history of agriculture and land ownership in Belarus, there are also considerations about the initial period of private land ownership in Rus'. First, according to the idea of V.I. Picheta, princely land ownership appears - these are villages of the 10th century. But they “were not productive farms. These were more like country palaces, dachas, where the princes went to relax or stayed while hunting.” 2 “It is difficult to say,” writes V.I. Picheta, “what the size of the princely possessions is, since there is no data for this. But, of course, one cannot agree with those researchers who believe that at the beginning of the princely era the land belonged to one prince, and that princes and warriors, as Chicherin thinks, seized the land by force of arms, thereby contributing to the disintegration of the clan community... Princes on property rights owned only individual plots of land, which was partly reflected in “Russian Pravda”. 3 With the adoption of Christianity and the creation of church institutions in Rus', large landholdings of clergy appeared. 4 V.I. Picheta calls the third type of large land ownership boyar, which “developed along with princely, but only less intensively...” 5 Boyar land ownership did not receive serious development until the half of the 12th century. 6 And only from this time, as a result of the economic crisis and the collapse of the Kyiv state, the boyars settled on the land and began to engage in agriculture. 7
In the 1930s, the problem under consideration received a completely different coverage than it had before. The leading topic at this time was socio-economic issues, as a result of which the issue of private ownership of land became one of the central ones. The solution to key problems in the history of ancient Russian feudalism is associated with the name of B.D. Grekov. Speaking at the plenum of the GAIMK in 1932, he argued that “princes, boyars, the church, i.e. the entire ruling elite of Slavic and non-Slavic society, united in the 9th - 10th centuries. under the hegemony of Kyiv, was basically a landowning class.” 1 If initially B.D. Grekov defined princely land ownership by listing information about villages preserved in ancient written monuments, then very soon he gave a general designation for the princely economy, introducing the term “domain”. We would be mistaken in thinking that B.D. Grekov’s use of the concept “domain” did not have a fundamental property. On the contrary, using this term, the author wanted to highlight the large scale of princely land ownership, and with it boyar and church ownership in the economy of Kievan Rus. Subsequently, B.D. Grekov only improved and polished his ideas about the nature and role of large feudal land ownership in Ancient Rus'. 3 A.G. Prigozhin reasoned in unison with B.D. Grekov. Productive forces of Kievan Rus IX - X centuries. he distributed it in such a way that “the land - the main source of production - is in the monopoly possession of the princes of the boyars and the church, who are opposed by true producers, starting from slaves (but slaves already modified by the conditions of feudalizing processes) and ending with a whole galaxy of categories of dependent population.” 1
S.V. Voznesensky criticized the ideas of B.D. Grekov. He showed how B.D. Grekov, combining into one picture the different-time features of the princely economy, painted, in essence, a static feudal land tenure. 2 According to S.V. Voznesensky, “in the X - XI centuries. we are present only at the initial formation, so to speak, at the very formation of the feudal estate, which only in the XII - XIII centuries. appears in the form as described by B.D. Grekov.” 3 S.V. Voznesensky drew attention to one very important detail, which shows that “rolya, or princely plowing, began to play a certain role in the princely economy much later than beekeeping and hunting. It is also interesting to note that in the Brief Truth, in general, the first place is not agriculture, but cattle breeding and especially horse breeding, in which the ruling class was especially interested.” 4 The products of agriculture - primarily bread - were received by princes and boyars in the form of tribute from the population subordinate to them. 5
S.V. Bakhrushin also argued with B.D. Grekov. He, like S.V. Voznesensky, reproached B.D. Grekov for a static approach in depicting the socio-economic life of the Dnieper region. 6 S.V. Bakhrushin himself does not find any signs of princely land ownership in the 9th and first half of the 10th centuries. 1 All news about villages of the second half of the 10th century. bear the stamp of legend. But this does not mean that “at the end of the 10th century. The process of development of communal lands by future feudal lords has not yet begun... but things are still going on... not so much about arable lands, but about fishing grounds.” 2 We must not, however, forget that S.V. Bakhrushin in his constructions proceeded from the erroneous thesis about the weak development of agriculture in the economy of the Dnieper Slavs until the 11th century; Only from the 11th century did agriculture become the main component of the economy of Ancient Rus'. 3 “In this regard,” he notes, “the emergence of large feudal land ownership should be attributed to a later era.” 4
S.V. Yushkov devoted a chapter to the emergence and development of feudal land ownership, feudal rent and feudal dependence in the book “Essays on the history of feudalism in Kievan Rus.” He wrote that “in the historiography devoted to the issue of the emergence and initial development of feudalism in Ancient Rus', the issue of the princely domain was little discussed. They usually talk about “princely villages”, about the “princeship” of the land. The very term “princely domain” is not used. 5 As we can see, in Soviet literature back in 1933 B.D. Grekov introduced this term; he soon gave it a corresponding meaning. Therefore, S.V. Yushkov is hardly right in this case. But his attempt to consider the princely domain stage by stage, i.e. historically, can be assessed as a new step in the historiography of the topic. “One of the initial stages of the formation of the princely domain,” believed S.V. Yushkov, “was the organization of princely villages, where the princes exploited serfs and the first groups of unsettled and landless peasantry - purchasers and outcasts.” 1 Similar princely villages have appeared since the middle of the 10th century. 2 In the 11th and 12th centuries. the number of villages owned by princes is increasing. The main way of their formation is the seizure of land from community members, “expropriation of land”, “possession of the land of community members.” 3 “One of the points indicating the growth of the rights of princes over the territory of the princes and the growth of the princely domain,” the author continues, “is the message in the chronicles about the emergence of the prince’s “own” cities.” 4 They (the cities) belonged to the Kyiv princes on a special right, were points of feudal rule, and their inhabitants were the prince’s people, and not subjects. 5 The emergence of the prince’s own cities created favorable conditions “for the growth of princely land ownership, the princely domain. Having these strongholds, the princes took possession of the surrounding territory.” 6 The subsequent history of the princely domain “follows the line of gradual consolidation of princely cities and volosts with cities and volosts located in the general administrative system of the princely land... Probably, in some princely lands the princes managed to achieve this merger, and thus all lands that were not part of the church and boyar lordships began to constitute the princely domain. The princes in this case could exploit all possessions in the same way and dispose of them at their own discretion.”
Due to the lack of data, S.V. Yushkov did not dare to say when and how land ownership of the boyars arose, but its growth was quite noticeable in the 10th century, and in the 12th and 13th centuries. it is undergoing “real rapid development.” With regard to land holdings belonging to church institutions, “there are no serious reasons to doubt the reliability of later sources speaking about the fact of the existence of holdings already in the first years of Christianity in Rus'.” 2 Despite all the seemingly unique provisions of S.V. Yushkov, his point of view is close to the concept of B.D. Grekov; he, like the author of Kievan Rus, recognizes the early emergence of feudal land ownership and gives it such dimensions that allow us to speak about the leading nature of this land ownership in the economy of the Old Russian state.
Further development of the historiography of the genesis of feudalism in Russia proceeded in the plane of clarifying the chronology of the issue. Some researchers considered it possible to talk about feudal society in Rus' in relation to the 9th century. 3 Other authors attributed the problem to a later period. So, according to V.V. Mavrodin, “in the 9th and even in the 10th centuries. feudal land tenure has not yet taken shape.” 4 According to A.A. Zimin, it was during the turning point of the reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich that “the prince and his squad settled more and more to the ground.” 5
It should be said, however, that changes of a more radical nature have emerged in literature. If B.D. Grekov made the emergence of feudalism dependent on the emergence of large land ownership of princes, boyars and clergy, who acted as private owners, then later some historians began to consider the problem of the formation of feudalism in Rus' against the background of the encroachment of the land, expressed in the subordination of the East Slavic tribes to the power of the Kyiv princes. The tribute paid by the subordinate tribes was identified with feudal rent. 1
This concept has its most completed and polished form in the works of L.V. Cherepnin. He establishes three lines of development of feudalism in Ancient Rus': “firstly, there was a “possession” of the land and the imposition of tribute on free community members, which developed into feudal rent. This is how state property developed, which later received the name “black”. Secondly, there was a stratification of the neighboring community, from which allodist peasants emerged, who then turned into feudal lords, and landless people, whose labor was appropriated by the landowners. Finally, thirdly, feudal owners planted slaves on the land, who became dependent peasants. Until the middle of the XI - XII centuries. the dominant form of feudal property was state property, the dominant type of exploitation was the collection of tribute. By the 12th century. Princely (domain), boyar, and church landownership was formed, based on the appropriation of the surplus product produced by the labor of the dependent peasantry and slaves planted on the land. But these are not two different formations, but two periods within the same social system (feudal).” 2
What conclusions can be drawn from a review of pre-revolutionary and Soviet historical literature on large land ownership in Kievan Rus? Old historians wrote about this, as a rule, in the form of citing sources mentioning princely, boyar and church lands. Although they outlined the stages of the emergence of land ownership of princes, boyars and clergy, the history of land ownership as such remained generally unrevealed. The question of the socio-economic nature of private land ownership and its significance in the general economic system of Ancient Rus' also turned out to be not fully developed.
The last deficiency was corrected during the Soviet period. The works of B.D. Grekov and his supporters promoted the idea of the feudal essence of private land ownership already at the time of its inception, and proved that in Kievan Rus it became the economic basis of social relations. The new conclusions, however, rested on previous research techniques - a simple listing and summation of evidence from monuments about private land ownership. Therefore, here we do not yet have the actual history of private land ownership, but we are learning more about what it really was. In the works of B.D. Grekov, in addition, there is no image of the industrial directions of a large estate, changes in industries over time are not shown. B.D. Grekov’s opponents (S.V. Voznesensky and S.V. Bakhrushin) drew attention to this important gap, but their comments did not reach their goal and hung in the air. Only recently has there been a turning point. However, historians have so far turned primarily to the history of the dependent population in Ancient Rus', the formation of law and statehood. The exception here is an interesting study n and L.V. Cherepnin. 1
The most important omission is that the private economy was often studied in isolation from the outside world, without connection with such significant phenomena as foreign trade, numerous wars, and feeding societies, which greatly influenced the production structure of the estate. All this gives reason to once again return to the issue of private land ownership in the Old Russian state. But first, about the role of large landownership in the process of the formation of feudalism and about some terminological nuances.
Ismailova S.
Scientific supervisor
Prof. Ismailov M.A.
The evolution of forms of land ownership in Rus' from ancient times to X Vcentury
For many centuries, land in agrarian Russia was the main value and constituted the main wealth of society. Many Russian historians paid great attention to land relations, in particular, the issue of land ownership was of particular importance to them. Thus, S.M. Soloviev wrote about the emergence of the latter already in the era of the first Rurikovichs.
Another outstanding Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote that the emergence of the first forms of land tenure dates back to X I century. He found the first mention of landowner villages with courtyard servants in a well-known trade agreement concluded, according to V.N. Tatishchev, Prince Vladimir with the Volga Bulgarians in 1006.
Since the beginning of the formation of the state, there have been various forms of land ownership. With gradual evolution, forms of ownership also changed. It was influenced by the development of the production forces of society and other factors. It is very difficult to notice one factor in particular, since the development and formation of the state also had a huge influence. Each land property is characterized by its own formation. Despite the fact that over time new forms of land ownership have appeared, the forms of previous formations have been preserved.
One of the first forms of land ownership in Ancient Rus' was communal land ownership. Community is a traditional form of social organization. Also called community property is the right of ownership of land owned by a union of rural inhabitants, individual members of which have only rights of use. The community resolved the most important issues of economic life: redistribution (divisions) and distribution of land plots between its members, individual farms, individual members of which have their own use of land: pastures, forests, ponds, etc. Land ownership was not in the hands of one person, but in the hands of the tribal community. All economic products that were extracted were common, since there was a collective economy. There was no specific division of labor in Ancient society. And this indicates the presence of social equality between men and women. The main unit of primitive society was the clan. It arose as a result of a long evolution that took place in the previous period. Labor played a primary role in the formation of social man and the emergence of the race. When the land became the spoils of the winner, the common possession of the land by the vanquished became impossible, and the winners divided the spoils among themselves. The division between the winners of new territories in any proportions led to the fact that the conquered land and people became private property.
The emergence of private property leads to the disintegration of communal property. The next stage in the development of land ownership was patrimonial ownership. Patrimony is a land holding that belongs to the feudal lord hereditarily (from the word “father”) with the right to sell, pledge, or donate. The estate was a complex consisting of landed property (land, buildings and equipment) and rights to dependent peasants.
Patrimonial land ownership appeared in X-X II century. At this time it belonged to landowners - princes and boyars, as well as monasteries and squads. The prince received the estate by inheritance from his father. This distinguished patrimonial property from other forms of land ownership. The estates owned by the boyars were located in different places. Estates were of different categories: acquired, donated, ancestral. The owners could dispose of the lands: sell, divide, exchange or rent out the land, but only between relatives. Thus, the ownership of ancestral estates was limited to the state and relatives. The owner of such an estate was obliged to serve the prince on whose lands it was located, and without the consent of the members of his family, the patrimony could not sell or exchange it. In case of violation of such conditions, the owner was deprived of his estate. This suggests that the estate, although it was private property, was not yet equal to the right of unconditional ownership.
The estate included: forests, meadows, arable lands, buildings, equipment, animals, peasants living on these lands.
The owners of estates had great rights and privileges. Also in the Russian Pravda, the rights of patrimonial estates were enshrined. The number and size of patrimonial estates increased through the seizure of communal and peasant lands, grants, purchases, and exchanges. In addition to general patrimonial rights, patrimonial owners had immunity privileges in court, in collecting taxes, and paying trade duties. Not everyone had ownership of the estate; first of all, these were noble people. The peasants did not have such rights, since they received land from the boyar and the prince. From the middle of the 11th century, due to the growth of grand ducal power and the beginning of the formation of a centralized state, patrimonial rights began to be gradually pushed aside and limited. Also, feudal patrimonial lords had a number of immune rights, providing them with the opportunity to exercise non-economic coercion over dependent peasants. There were various forms of exploitation of peasants in the estate: corvee, rent in kind and cash. Corvee is labor, the work of serfs in favor of the feudal lord, mainly for the provision of part of the latter's land for their use, consisting of compulsory labor. A quitrent in kind in favor of the landowner was collected directly from the products of agriculture and cattle breeding. Peasants placed on a cash quitrent paid a set amount of money. The introduction of monetary rent went simultaneously with the decomposition of the natural economy. Princely judges and financial agents could not enter his estate. The votchinnik had his own apparatus of coercion and relied on it. And therefore he himself judged the people dependent on him and collected taxes from them.
Subsequently, with the annexation of other principalities to Moscow, the feudal lords retained their estates and were obliged to serve the Moscow prince. They wanted to maintain their supremacy over their property by any means and tried to prevent their reduction. Towards the collapse of Kievan Rus, the princes began to distribute estates as hereditary property to their associates.
Research by Soviet scientists (B.D. Grekov, S.V. Yushkova, M.N. Tikhomirov, etc.) has established that feudal land ownership in Ancient Rus' reached large proportions already in the 10th century. I - X III centuries.
From reliable letters of Novgorod with the princes of the second half of the X century III -X V centuries It is also possible to extract some information about feudal land tenure. Birch bark letters were especially valuable from this point of view.
The large landowners in Rus' were princes, boyars and spiritual feudal lords - monasteries and churches. Consequently, there were several types of large land ownership: princely, boyar and church-monastic. There are many disputes about princely land ownership in the Novgorod Republic. And this was due to the special political system of the Novgorod state. According to Grekov, as a result of the events of 1136, the Novgorod prince lost the right to dispose of land in Novgorod without the decision of the council and the blessing of the bishop. Let us note that at this time the prince disposed of the land, and after 1136 he was deprived of this right. The beginning of the formation of princely land ownership in Novgorod dates back to the 10th century, during the reign of Olga. It was she who, in 947, established tax collection sites “pogosts” and the size “lessons”. It should be noted that the princes, upon ascending the throne, did not seek to expand their possessions. The princely domain in Rus' was a complex of lands inhabited by people belonging to the head of state.
Despite the fact that the princely landholding was small in size, it existed until the end of the period of independence of Novgorod. Throughout the XII and the first third of the XIII century. There was a frequent change of princes in Novgorod. This explains why the Novgorod princes had no desire to increase their domain. However, the situation began to change in 1230, when Yaroslav Vsevolodovich came to power for the fourth time. It was at this time that Novgorod recognized the independence of the Vladimir princes, and already in 1252 Alexander Nevsky received the title of sovereign prince. Now, along with the great reign, the prince began to receive the Novgorod table, and, consequently, the Novgorod princely possessions.
Along with princely land ownership, there was also boyar land ownership.Over time, rulers began to grant their vassals not only the right to own land, but also the right to court in their subject territory. Essentially, the populated lands fell under the full influence of their masters: the vassals of the Grand Duke, who then granted part of these lands and part of the rights to them to their vassals. A kind of pyramid of power was built, which was based on the labor of peasants working on the land, as well as artisans living in cities. The bulk of the land, judging by the birch bark charters, belonged to the noble boyars. For a long time in Novgorod there was communal ownership of land, which belonged to the entire city. Back to top X III century, there are also some other messages from the Novgorod chronicler, allowing us to judge that the basis of the economic power of the boyars was not trade, but the ownership of “villages and servants,” i.e. feudal land tenure. The chronicler repeatedly reported on the confiscation of boyar households and villages, the sale and division of the boyars' property. Judging by the documents, during the period of the Novgorod Republic, the size of boyar land ownership increased and the boyars became not just large, but very large landowners. The power of the boyars in economic development played an important role in strengthening political positions. And this led to the fact that by the beginning of X IV century he had state power.
Interesting information about the boyar's economy and his land holdings at the end of the 13th century. are contained in the spiritual chamber of Clement the Novgorodian. This is the will of a large feudal lord, who owned “two villages with abundance, and with horses, and with wrestling, and with small villages, and a stump and a log,” “Mikshinskoe village with a vegetable garden and with wrestling,” “Samuilovskoe village and stump ... with struggle,” a lot of livestock, “a city yard.”
A feature of feudal land ownership in Rus' was its territorial fragmentation. One owner, including the prince, had villages with arable land, scattered far from each other. In the conditions of fragmentation of the principalities, the large land holdings of the boyar could end up in two or even three specific principalities. So the boyar’s residence could not fulfill the role of a European castle. Firstly, it is only in one village and cannot protect all its lands. Secondly, it was impossible to stand alone against the Tatars or Lithuanians; even fairly large fortresses could not cope with this.
It is necessary to say something about the relationships between the owners of estates. Thus, various aristocratic families often referred to certain territorial connections during their political struggle. Intra-Konchan ties were distinguished by a certain strength, while the federation of ends throughout the existence of the Novgorod boyar statehood continually demonstrated the unhealed seams along which the political body of Novgorod was sewn together in ancient times. The strength of traditional intra-Konchan ties was based, as one might guess, on the stability of the original boyar nests, which over the centuries preserved the entire system of economic and political influence on the citizens of their end. In this regard, it seems interesting that the stability of not only the urban layout, but also the estate boundaries, which remained practically unchanged throughout the second half of the 10th – 15th centuries, was repeatedly noted during excavations.
Church-monastic land ownership developed in the same way as princely and boyar land ownership. The formation of this type of property began in 966, when Saint Vladimir allocated a tenth of his income for the maintenance of the cathedral Church of the Tithes, which he built in Kyiv. According to scribe books, church-monastic land ownership at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. accounted for 21.7% of all feudal land ownership in Novgorod.
The first news regarding the land holdings of the clergy concerns the Pechersky Monastery. Already during the abbess of Theodosius there were villages at the monastery. This is clear not only from references to contributions, but also from other equally expressive messages. “In one pack from the day,” the hagiographer narrates, “from the whole weight of the monastery, they came to our blessed father Theodosius, saying, as in the stable, where we keep the cattle, there is a dwelling for the demon... when they came (Theodosius. - I.F. .) in the village and then in the evening alone in the barn... and yet, no matter in the village, you do dirty tricks to no one...”
Peasant labor in the monastic estates was exploited in the usual way for the serf system: through corvée and quitrent. The following types of work were established for corvée. The peasants cultivated the monastery's fields and gardens, cut hay, transported timber, prepared bricks, erected various buildings, worked at the mills, delivered carts, grazed the monastery's livestock, made seines, caught fish for the monastery, and maintained guards. When comparing the situation of the corvée monastic peasants with those of the landowners, it turns out that the work of the former was somewhat easier due to the comparatively smaller monastic arables.
When renting in kind, peasants were obliged to pay the monastery with bread, hay, firewood, flax, hemp, sheep, pigs, eggs and various household items. With the development of monetary relations, 1 ruble per soul was considered a normal quitrent (50s of the 18th century). State peasants paid the same amount in addition to the poll tax. In general, we can conclude that the position of quitrent peasants was even easier than that of corvée peasants. Therefore, the peasants sought, and the monastery did its best to facilitate their transition from corvee to quitrent, especially since the poll tax (70 kopecks) was not taken from them.
Both corvee and quitrent peasants used patrimonial land, and in general they had enough land for their use - from 3 to 5 dessiatines (3.3-5.5 hectares). The position of both groups of peasants behind the monastery was determined not so much by law as by fact, by the order of the patrimonial authorities, and by local custom. Thus, Suzdal peasants could fully dispose of their land, even selling it to each other; they only had to submit an application to the monastery administration.
While emphasizing the significant role of non-land income in the life of the Old Russian Church, one cannot, of course, ignore the very clear indications from sources about church land ownership. The author of the Tale of Bygone Years, describing the burning of Suzdal at the behest of Oleg Svyatoslavich, concludes: “Only the courtyard of the monastery and the Pechersk monastery and the church where St. Dmitry is there remained, where Ephraim and the village were lost.” Andrei Bogolyubsky gifted the same Mother of God Church with many estates, bought by “freedoms”, “molded” villages. Bishop Kirill amazed the imagination of his contemporaries “with kunas and villages and all the goods and books and simply saying that he was so rich in everything, so not a single bishop was in the Judgment region.” However, although the hierarchs of the village kept the church, the land fund has not yet become the basis of their well-being, from which we can conclude that the development of land ownership in the ancient Russian church of the 11th - 12th centuries was relatively weak.
Obviously, the mass anger of the peasantry against the monasteries was the result of bitter experience. The clergy invaded villages, acquiring them by contributions or buying part of them and simply seizing the rest; it occupied empty lands and acquired charters on them, and resorted to violence. The monasteries embittered the peasants to such an extent that sometimes the monastery burned as a “victim of the malice of evil people.”
Thus, I would like to note that the development of land ownership in Rus' took a long time. Each specific period was characterized by its own type of land ownership. One type was followed by another, with characteristics characteristic of a given type of land ownership. Many different researchers studied these forms of land ownership, identified their similarities and differences, relying on sources of that time, namely birch bark charters, Russian Truth, etc.
Farming. The basis of the economy of Ancient Rus' was arable farming of various types. In the black earth 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 from under the 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 Tatar-Mongols 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 poorly 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 raising, gardening and various crafts: fishing, hunting, beekeeping, salt mining, marsh ores, and apiary beekeeping was 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.
Land tenure. 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 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 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 the 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 growing 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 connection with the beginning of the centralization of power and its strengthening, the government directly takes 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 hierarchs of the church - the metropolitan, bishops, monasteries, and churches. Church land ownership, in the form of cathedral and monastery, grew especially rapidly in the 14th and 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”;
procurement 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: outcast, a person who had broken ties with the community, a free spirit, a pardoner, those 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 - 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-owned black lands and were dependent on the state, also known as black-sown ones;
and proprietary peasants who ran their farms on allotment land in the system of feudal estates (princely, boyar, monastic, local) and personally dependent on the feudal lords.
1. Communal peasants paid state rent, performed various duties, but were not personally dependent on the feudal lord. The rights of princes, as the supreme owners of “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 the 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.
