development of Russia. Most researchers believe that adult free men participated in veche meetings. The meetings were led by the administration of the cities, minutes were kept, and there were their own council authorities.

Local government and military organization

Chronicles mention quite a few managerial positions that were part of the princely apparatus. Their names generally reflect their functions: hunter, printer, stolnik, etc. S.V. Yushkov believed that with the decomposition of the primitive order, the army of the Slavs was divided into thousands, hundreds, tens, from which the positions of thousand, ten, sotsky arose. These posts were transferred to the city administration along with the princely posadniks (from the concept of "plant"). Posadnik and tysyatsky were considered the highest positions. In the princely lands, the administration was carried out by vassals, tiuns and elders. Community administration operated in free villages. Military functions were performed by a professional princely squad, but in the event of a military danger, a military militia was assembled from free “wars”.

§ 2. Legal status of the population

All ancient societies were strictly stratified, that is, they consisted of estates, the rights and obligations of which are clearly defined by law as unequal in relation to each other and to the state. In other words, each class had its own legal status. It would be a great simplification to consider feudal society in terms of the exploiters and the exploited. The estate of feudal lords, constituting the fighting force of the princely squads, despite all their material benefits, could lose their lives - the most valuable - easier and more likely than the poorer class of peasants. The monasticism of the economically flourishing monasteries of Sergius of Radonezh, Joseph Volotsky and others lived in such asceticism and deprivation that, from the material side, it could hardly arouse the envy of ordinary classes.

The concept of material well-being is very difficult to apply to that time, since the values ​​were different, and it is impossible to determine who is happier - a modern car owner or a medieval peasant whose life was inseparable from the surrounding nature. The modern emphasis on the material aspects of life is a consequence of non-religious, "progressive"

stskogo" thinking that came along with capitalism. Feudal society was religiously static, not prone to abrupt evolution. In an effort to consolidate this static, the state conserved relations with the estates in the legislative order.

Slaves and serfs

Not having developed into a global system of production, slavery in Russia became widespread as a social way of life. Researchers indicate several reasons preventing in the first millennium AD. its development: the unfavorable climatic conditions (the cost of maintaining a slave); the decline of slavery in neighboring countries (lack of a clear example for its modification); a high level of development of the productive forces among the Slavs (the possibility of obtaining large crops on their own); the strength of community ties (the impossibility of enslaving fellow tribesmen). For persons of a slave state, the terms "slave", "servant", "serf" were used. Some scholars believe that they are of different origin: servants and serfs were formed in ancient times from fellow tribesmen (child, lad), slaves - in the process of wars. The source of slavery was first of all captivity, birth from a slave. They fell into slavery for serious criminal offenses (stream and plunder), a dependent purchase turned into a slave in case of flight from the owner of the roe, a malicious bankrupt turned into slavery (Articles 56, 64, 55 of the Long Truth). Article 110 of the Long Truth establishes three more cases of servility: marriage to a slave without a contract, entry into the service of a housekeeper without a contract of freedom, self-sale into slavery even "for a foot".

In the first millennium AD. slavery among the Slavs, according to Roman authors, was patriarchal in nature, captive slaves were released for ransom or included in the tribe. The most severe forms are inherent in slavery in the early stages of statehood, in the IX-X centuries. slaves among the Slavs are the subject of sale and enrichment. In agreements with Byzantium (X century) there is a special "personal price". In the XI century. in Russian law, the principle is already in effect, according to which a slave cannot be the subject of legal relations, enter into contracts. Russkaya Pravda considered the serfs to be the property of the master, they themselves did not own property. For the criminal offenses of the serfs and the property damage caused by them, the owners were responsible for its compensation. For the murder of a serf, compensation for damage of 5-6 hryvnia was supposed (as for the destruction of a thing). Master

the serf for his murder was not held accountable - for such cases church repentance was appointed.

The relief of the fate of the serfs took place under the influence of Christian law, which considered any murder a sin. It was impossible to refer to the testimony of serfs. However, in relation to the XI century. one can speak about the protection of the identity of serfs for pragmatic reasons (harm for a serf meant harm to his master). A stratum of serfs appeared, who advanced in the administrative service of the master as key-keepers-tiuns and had the right to command the ordinary mass of the population. The church intensifies the persecution for the murder of serfs, in church monuments there are instructions on how to punish them, including from 9 to 30 blows. Slavery degenerates into one of the forms of severe personal dependence with the recognition of certain rights, primarily to life and property. Russian Pravda reflected processes similar to Roman law, where a slave was endowed with special property (peculium), with the right to dispose of it for economic purposes in favor of the master. The charter on serfs (Articles 117, 119 of the Long Truth) refers to the conduct of trade operations by serfs on behalf of the owners.

The estate of feudal lords was formed gradually. It included princes, boyars, squads, local nobility, posadniks, tiuns, etc. The feudal lords carried out civil administration and were responsible for the professional military organization. They were mutually connected by a system of vassalage, regulating rights and obligations to each other and to the state. To ensure the functions of government, the population paid tribute and court fines. The material needs of the military organization were provided by landed property. Vassal and land relations of the feudal lords, their connection with the Grand Duke were most likely regulated by special treaties. In Russkaya Pravda, only some aspects of the legal status of this class are disclosed. It establishes a double vira (fine for murder) at 80 hryvnias for the murder of princely servants, tiuns, grooms, firemen. But the code is silent about the boyars and warriors themselves. Probably, the death penalty was applied for encroachments on them. Chronicles repeatedly describe the use of execution during popular unrest.

The next group of Russian Pravda articles protects property. A fine of 12 hryvnia is established for violation of the land boundary. Some researchers believe that the high rate of the fine

indicates that the property belonged to a feudal lord. The same penalty follows for the ruin of apiaries, beaver lands, for the theft of hunting falcons and hawks. The highest fines of 12 hryvnias are set for beatings, broken teeth, damaged beards - apparently, the corporate understanding of honor often led to physical clashes.

In the feudal stratum, the earliest was the abolition of restrictions on female inheritance. In church charters for violence against boyar wives and daughters, high fines are set - from 1 to 5 hryvnias, for the rest - up to 5 hryvnias.

Peasants and smerds

The duties of the peasant population in relation to the state were expressed in the payment of taxes in the form of tribute and dues and participation in armed defense in the event of hostilities. The state jurisdiction and the princely court extended to the peasants. To designate the rural population, ancient Russian sources use several terms - "people", "syabry", "smerds". When the sources speak of people (people), it is clear that they are talking about free peasants. Difficulties arise in the evaluation of smerds.

The chronicles describe the life of the political centers, but the rural areas are told very sparingly. Smerd was a villager, it is very difficult to determine his legal status. Scientific controversy on this issue is important not only from a scientific and cognitive point of view, but also political. The assessment of the ancient Russian nationality, capable or not capable of bringing their own peasantry to the most difficult situation, depends on how severe the dependence of the smerds was.

In science, there are a number of opinions about smerds, they are considered free peasants, feudal dependents, persons of a slave state, serfs, and even a category similar to petty chivalry. But the main controversy is conducted along the line: free - dependent (slaves). Two articles of Russian Pravda have an important place in substantiating opinions.

Article 26 of the Brief Pravda, which establishes a fine for the murder of slaves, reads in one reading: "And in a smerd and in a serf 5 hryvnias" (Academic list). In the Archaeographic list we read: "And in the stink in the slave 5 hryvnias." In the first reading, it turns out that in the case of the murder of a smerd and a serf, the same fine is paid. From the second list it follows that the smerd has a serf who is killed. It is impossible to resolve the situation.

Article 90 of the Long Truth reads: "If the smerd dies, then the inheritance to the prince; if he has daughters, then give them a dowry ...". Some researchers interpret it in the sense that after the death of a smerd, his property passed entirely to the prince, and he is a man of the "dead hand", that is, not able to transfer the inheritance. But further articles clarify the situation - we are talking only about those smerds who died without sons, and the removal of women from inheritance is characteristic at a certain stage of all the peoples of Europe.

However, the difficulties of determining the status of a smerd do not end there. Smerd, according to other sources, acts as a peasant who owns a house, property, and a horse. For the theft of his horse, the law establishes a fine of 2 hryvnia. For the "flour" of a smerd, a fine of 3 hryvnias is set. Russkaya Pravda nowhere specifically indicates the restriction of the legal capacity of smerds, there are indications that they pay fines (sales) that are typical for free citizens. But in the testimonies about smerds, their unequal position, constant dependence on the princes, who "favor" villages with smerds, slips through.

To get out of a difficult situation, academician B.D. Grekov proposed a hypothesis about the existence of both legally free and feudally dependent smerds. This point of view is most often represented in the literature. But, most likely, the smerds were a special, somewhat belittled group of the peasantry. The fact is that Russian Truth always indicates, if necessary, belonging to a particular social group (combatant, serf, etc.). In the mass of articles about free people, it is precisely free people that are implied, smerds are discussed only where their status needs to be specially highlighted.

dependent peasants. Procurement

In ancient Russian society, property was of great importance. The attitude to the individual was determined primarily by the presence of property. A person who was deprived of property or squandered it could provide property ties with other persons with the only thing left for him - his own personality.

At the heart of the formation of the categories of the dependent peasantry is "purchasing" - a form of agreement with the master, secured by the identity of the debtor. A purchase is an impoverished or ruined peasant who fell into a dependent position to the master, he took inventory, a horse and other property from him and worked off the interest on the debt, and not the debt itself. Its legal and social status

changes until the payment of the debt, he fluctuated between free and dependent with a constant threat to go into a servile state. The purchase retained partial legal capacity: he could act as a witness in small lawsuits, his life was protected by a vira of 40 hryvnias (like the life of a free person), he had the right to leave the owner to earn money to repay the debt, he could not be beaten without "guilt", the law protected his property. However, for escaping from the master, the purchase turned into a serf. For the theft committed by the purchase, its owner was liable, the purchase turned into a serf. In practice, there were cases of ill-treatment with purchases, and church monuments emphasize that killing by the owner of the purchase is a criminal offense.

The laws on this social category were included in the Russian Pravda in the form of the Charter on Purchases (Articles 53–62 of the Long Truth) during the uprising in Kyiv in 1113, directed against usurious abuses. Having occupied the grand prince's table, Vladimir Monomakh eased the position of debtors. The charter stated that in the event of an unjustified sale into slaves, the purchase becomes completely free. At the same time, Monomakh carried out a reform of the interest charged and moderated the appetites of usurers (Article 53 of the Long Truth). At a meeting in the village of Berestovo near Kyiv, it was decided that it was impossible to take interest (at the rate of 50% per year) more than twice, and whoever took interest lost the right to debt three times. Some time later, bankruptcy issues were settled. All this speaks of the process of transition from enslavement to economic methods of influencing debtors.

Urban population. Merchants

The urban population consisted of artisans, small traders, merchants, etc. In science, the question of its legal status has not been adequately resolved due to a lack of sources. It is difficult to determine to what extent the population of Russian cities used city liberties similar to those in Europe, which further contributed to the development of capitalism in cities. According to M.N. Tikhomirov, up to 300 cities existed in Russia in the pre-Mongolian period. City life was so developed that it allowed V.O. Klyuchevsky to come up with the theory of "commercial capitalism" in Ancient Russia. M.N. Tikhomirov believed that in Russia "the air of the city made a person free", and many runaway serfs hid in the cities.

Free residents of cities enjoyed the legal protection of Russian Pravda, they were subject to all articles on the protection of honor,

dignity and life. Merchants played a special role. It early began to unite in corporations (guilds), called hundreds. Usually "merchant hundred" acted at any church. Ivanovo Sto in Novgorod was one of the first merchant organizations in Europe.

Ancient Russia developed in the same direction as the largest countries of Europe. It had a huge cultural potential, a highly developed legal sphere. The political fragmentation of the country coincided with the ruin of the Horde, and this caused extremely serious consequences, predetermined the deformation of the natural course of political and legal development.

CHAPTER II. RUSSIAN STATEHOOD AND THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE POPULATION DURING THE PERIOD OF Fragmentation (XII-XV centuries)

§ 1. The state structure of the Russian principalities

in fragmentation period

The tendency towards political fragmentation manifested itself in Russia very early. Already in the tenth century after the death of Svyatoslav (972), his sons were drawn into the struggle for power. In the XI century. the struggle between the princes continued, and in the XII century, with the capture of Kyiv in 1169 by the troops of Andrei Bogolyubsky, the country was fragmented.

The economic basis for the inter-princely struggle was created by huge tracts of state lands, tribute from which went to the princely treasury. Formed by the XIII century. the largest Russian principalities - Rostov-Suzdal, Ryazan, Galicia-Volyn - had the same political features. There were significant differences in the two Russian republics - Novgorod and Pskov.

The state system of the Russian principalities

Political fragmentation did not introduce fundamental changes in the state system of the Russian principalities. With the exception of Novgorod and Pskov, they retained a monarchical structure with the subordination of the administrative apparatus to the princes (printer, hunter, posadnik, thousand, etc.). Formally, the recognition of the grand duke's power, approved by the label from the Horde, was also preserved. Within the framework of individual principalities, feudal congresses operated, there were councils under

princes. City life contributed to the activities of veche meetings, the so-called palace-patrimonial system of government developed, in which management was carried out from the princely palace by its apparatus without division into public and private functions. After the victory of Ivan Kalita (1325-1340) over the princes of Tver in the struggle for the great princedom, the rise of Moscow began.

Fragmentation hindered the development of the country. Only in the XV century. an economic level was reached that made it possible to create a single state.

Causes of the emergence of Russian feudal republics

Novgorod and Pskov went through a long period of political evolution before a republican developed system was established there. At certain stages, the real power of the prince, posadnik, and veche bodies was different. Only in the XV century. statehood has acquired its final form, while already experiencing a crisis of democratic institutions.

Initially, Pskov was part of the Novgorod land and quite actively sought independence, as a result of which in the 13th century. the sovereignty of Novgorod over it was largely formal. In 13471348 Pskov received final independence, which was facilitated by the case. Novgorod was attacked by the Swedes and, in need of the Pskov militia, he was forced, in exchange for military assistance, to give the Pskovites the right to choose their own posadnik (previously he was sent from Novgorod). Judicial functions over the Pskovites moved from Novgorod to Pskov. At the same time, according to the Bolotov Treaty, the Novgorod archbishop began to appoint the head of the Pskov church from Pskov. Pskov began to independently invite princes.

In the question of the formation of republican statehood, two reasons should be distinguished related to the specific alignment of social and political forces that weakened each other in the political struggle.

The first reason is due to the fact that in ancient times Novgorod and Pskov did not become hereditary possessions of the branches of the Rurikovich. The princes, engaged in the struggle against the nomads, were interested in the Novgorod tribute, and either the prince or the posadnik ruled there (under the sovereignty of Kyiv). The possibility of a frequent change of prince weakened the position of Novgorod. From the end of the 11th century, when, according to M.N. Tikhomirov, the struggle for city liberties began, the political leaders of Novgorod began to actively fight for "pleasing princes." sometimes even

a kind of "dual power" was established: "prince - posadnik". The frequent change of princes prevented the development of princely land ownership, the system of vassalage. In 1126, Novgorodians received the right to choose independent posadniks from among the citizens of the city, and after the unrest of 1136, they began to choose princes. Previously subordinate to the princes, the administration became elective.

The second reason is related to the power of the commercial and entrepreneurial strata in the economic and veche life of Novgorod. There existed favorable conditions for trade, internal and external. Stocks of furs, honey, wax, leather stimulated the production, exchange, and influx of precious metals into the city. According to N. Khoroshkevich, up to half a million squirrel skins were exported from Novgorod annually. This situation led to the creation of powerful social strata of owners, from small to large, who felt the economic significance and the "taste of struggle" for the "necessary" princes. The Novgorod boyars stood out in particular. The 30 largest boyar families concentrated their political and economic potential in their hands, "pressed" the princes, and strove to create oligarchic authorities.

A huge number of free townspeople, independent proprietors, who represented a significant force at veche meetings, were drawn into the craft and trade. And their own positions, and the agitation of the city administration, and the “bribery” that took place on the part of the boyars sometimes directed this active mass against the policy of the princes and weakened power. Relations with the princes received a legal basis.

Republic and princely power

There is a well-known mystery why the princely power in Novgorod was not eliminated. The main task of the invited princes was the armed defense and organization of the defense of the republic, relying on princely squads. But couldn't the warlike Novgorodians have limited themselves to their own commanders and militia? Obviously, in the political consciousness of that time, the power of the prince was such a phenomenon, without which people did not think of doing.

The role of princes was noticeably limited in the 13th century. Treaties were concluded with the princes, which provided for their rights and obligations, and the veche finally approved the candidacy of the prince. In total, up to 30 such contracts are known. Previously, the candidacy was discussed at a meeting of the boyar council, his opinion was of great importance.

The three oldest known treaty letters of Novgorod with the Grand Duke Yaroslav date back to 1264-1270. They are typical for subsequent documents of this kind and have the following content.

All of them begin with a princely oath (kissing the cross) to comply with the treaty and the ancient city liberties of Novgorod, which meant veche organization, elective administration and the preservation of political orders. The "violent" actions of the prince in Novgorod were forbidden, his policy had to be coordinated with the administration. It was assumed that the prince was involved in the administration of the republic, but the sphere of activity was not regulated in detail. Most likely, management issues were resolved collegially (with the posadnik, the boyar council, the thousand, etc.)

Significantly more attention is paid in contractual letters to the limitation of princely powers. The prince could not create a court alone (only together with the posadnik), single-handedly review court sentences, could not hand out Novgorod lands and state "letters" without the control of the posadnik. It was forbidden to acquire land in the republic to the prince and his vassals. The prince could hunt only in designated places. Decrees on restrictions on land distributions and acquisitions made it impossible to form the economic power of the princes and create a stratum of persons dependent on him, capable of supporting the princely policy. It was forbidden to deprive the administration on the periphery "without fault". Legislative and diplomatic activity could not be carried out alone. The princes were forbidden to accept Novgorod people into dependence, to tax the population and conduct independent trade with foreigners. However, the activity of the princes was not gratuitous, they received a certain part of the financial income of the republic.

The princes occupied approximately the same position in the Pskov Republic. But Pskov was a border region, more in need of princes as organizers of defense. In this regard, he was more closely connected with the grand duke's power and was the first to limit his sovereignty and join Moscow.

The administrative structure of the republics and the structure of veche bodies

The republics were state formations centered in the capitals, where political life was concentrated, with a very similar administrative structure and the nature of government. In the vast northern territories of the Novgorod land,

there were highly developed cities with long cultural traditions - Vologda, Torzhok, Gorodets, etc. Excavations of birch-bark writings carried out by A.V. Artsikhovsky and V.L. Yanin, showed a high degree of literacy of ordinary citizens, and, consequently, the presence of a developed system of schools and education. Birch bark letters are known from excavations dating back to the 11th century. Writing played an important role in the trade transactions of citizens of the republics.

The bulk of the trading population of Novgorod was concentrated on the trading side of the city, on the right bank of the Volkhov River, which divided the city in half. On the left bank was the Sofia part, named after the church of St. Sophia. The predominant part of the boyars of noble families lived here. More than once, residents of the city, inflamed by political agitation, converged in bloody skirmishes across the Volkhov Bridge. Volkhov swallowed up more than one life ruined by politics.

The entire territory of Novgorod was divided into five ends, two - on the Trading part, three - on Sofia (Pskov was divided into six ends and 12 suburbs adjacent to them, and the lands close to the borders were divided into special districts). Novgorod ends were divided into hundreds, two in each. Hundreds were divided into streets - the smallest territories. Five pyatins throughout the rest of the state belonged to the five Novgorod ends.

The administrative structure of the city determined the structure of the veche bodies: there were veche meetings in Konchansk, hundreds, and street meetings. They were headed by elected elders. The competence and subordination of veche structures is not entirely clear, but the city veche was considered the main body of power.

Veche of the city - the highest authority

Formally and legally, the city veche was the highest authority. It had the highest rights in issuing laws, concluding international treaties, matters of war and peace, it approved princes, elected senior officials, approved taxes, etc. Veche meetings were attended only by adult free men.

There is much that is unclear about the activities of this body. It was believed that the veche met at the ringing of the veche bell at the Yaroslavl court. However, excavations have shown that several hundred people could fit in the courtyard, but not all the inhabitants. Probably, some elite part of the inhabitants gathered there, and it is difficult to separate its relations with the rest of the mass of free participants in the veche. IN. Klyuchevsky believed that there was a lot of anarchy in the work of the veche meeting,

strife, noise and shouting. There were no clear ways to vote. Nevertheless, the speeches were held from a special place - a degree (tribune), a sedate posadnik led the veche meeting, office work was carried out and there was an archive of documents. But the decisions of veche meetings were often "prepared" by the city administration and did not express the interests of citizens.

Supreme executive power

In the XII century. with the formation of the republican system, a special place was occupied by the head of the Novgorod church (Vladyka) - the archbishop. He concentrated in his hands the highest managerial functions in the field of finance, trade, courts, was the head of the city council of the nobility, and had an ideological influence on ordinary citizens. The second most important person was the mayor, who was elected for a limited term. The current posadnik was called sedate, the re-elected - old. The re-elected posadniks were members of the council of the nobility and continued to influence state policy. Eminent citizens were elected posadniks. According to researchers, in the XIII century. the majority of posadniks were elected from two surnames - "Mikhalchichi" and "Nezdenichi".

In Pskov, there were two sedate posadniks. A. Nikitsky believed that in "two persons" they counterbalanced the political fluctuations of the Pskov government. But in Pskov there was no position of a thousand man, who in Novgorod, according to some scientists, managed trade, according to others, the functions of a thousand man and a posadnik were largely the same.

City Council. "Lord"

The highest executive and administrative body in Novgorod and Pskov was the city council (boyar council), which concentrated all aspects of management in practice. At the heart of its occurrence lay the ancient council under the prince. With the weakening of the princely role, the Novgorod council included, along with the prince and the archbishop, posadniks, thousand, elders of veche structures. The council prepared all government decisions at the city council and controlled all administrative and other activities. But his role is constantly changing.

Boyar Council and City Veche.

Crisis of republican statehood

The evolution of republican statehood was accompanied by the extinction of the role of the city council. At the same time, the importance of the city

I. The essence of the feudal system

78. The Essence of Western Feudalism

84. Feudal Society

The feudal ladder of lords and vassals rested below on the rest of the population. Feudalism sharply divided the country's population into gentlemen class and commoner class. The first was the nobility or the noble class, the class of well-born people (gentiles homines, from the French gentilhomme), from which the later nobility. It was first of all military estate, which should have protect the rest of the population. The higher clergy also belonged to the class of masters, who also possessed feuds and put up warriors from their lands (the real calling of the clergy was considered prayer). The rest of the mass, that is, farmers, artisans and merchants, was dependent on the feudal lords and owed their labor feed seniors and spiritual. Thus, feudal society was divided into three classes, of which one prayed, another fought, and the third worked.

Mutual relations between suzerains and vassals were determined many customs and rituals. The establishment of a vassal relationship was accompanied by the following ritual: the vassal knelt before the overlord and put his hands in his hands; this was tantamount to declaring oneself a “man” (homo) of the seigneur, hence the name of the oath Hommagium(or homage). At the same time, the lord kissed his vassal and gave him some gift that symbolized the feud (a ring, a glove, etc.). After that, the vassal sealed his allegiance with an oath of allegiance (foi). Feudal law developed a whole code of mutual "duties of the lord and vassal. For example, the vassal had to help the lord in the war for at least forty days a year, redeem him from captivity, appear in the curia to give advice at least three times a year, etc.

85. Military life of the feudal era

Western feudal lords were in general class of privileged warriors. One of the reasons for the development of their power over the population of certain areas was that they protected it from all sorts of attacks and invasions. For the sake of this, the population itself helped them build fortified castles where, if necessary, one could hide. However, these same castles allowed the lords, in addition, to defend their independence from the state and strengthen their power over the surrounding residents. Having become sovereigns, the feudal lords became wage wars among themselves attack each other and plunder the possessions of their enemies. In occasions of private wars (fedam) there was no shortage; even the feudal relations themselves often gave rise to them when, for example, one party violated a vassal treaty. Feudal strife was a real scourge for the civilian population. However, the church came to his aid, which, after unsuccessful attempts to establish a common peace, limited itself to the establishment Truce of God(treuga Dei), which consisted in the prohibition to attack opponents and fight in general on the days of the week dedicated to the memory of the suffering, death and resurrection of the Savior.

Castle of Carcassonne, France

The feudal militia consisted mainly of cavalry, and the very name rider, or knight(German Ritter, i.e. Reiter) began to denote lower ranks of the feudal nobility. But the knighthood received another meaning. Knights have become over time honorary military class, entry into which was made through a special rite dedications and belonging to which imposed a duty obey certain moral requirements. Sons of knights (Damoiseau, i.e. gentlemen, barchuks) were brought up at the courts of their future seigneurs as privileged servants (pages) and squires, until they received knighthood in observance of a rather complex ritual, which had a religious character. The initiate gave at the same time vows of knighthood to defend the church, widows and orphans, in general, all the innocently oppressed, to always tell the truth, to keep the given word, to avoid unclean methods of enrichment, etc. Life has even developed a number of special customs knightly honor and courtesy even towards opponents. Especially developed in chivalry was polite treatment of ladies, that is, ladies (dame - from Latin domina), which even turned into a special lady cult. Further, each knight had the right to coat of arms, as its emblem and decal. However, knights who fully corresponded to their ideal met more in the then poetry, than in reality. The knights spent their time in wars, hunting and in exemplary battles, called tournaments. Their mental culture was very weak, and their attitude towards the subject was far from being the fulfillment of a vow to protect the weak and oppressed.

Knight Tournament. 14th century miniature

86. Rural population of the feudal lordship

Establishment of senior power equalized the position of all the class rural population of the seigneury. The peasantry of the feudal era was formed in the West from the descendants of both slaves and columns as far back as Roman times, and from landless or landless free barbarian era. From the very beginning, slaves and columns did not enjoy civil freedom, but free enslaved themselves by way of a comment. The lord, who was both a sovereign, and a landowner, and a master of unfree people, equalized everyone under his authority. The rural population of individual lords became serfs. villany, as they were now called, were in a better position than the slaves, but still their position was difficult. The lords farmed only a small part of their lands, but most of them consisted of small peasant farms. Villans paid from their plots dues and served corvée, i.e., they worked on the land of the lord, and although the amount of dues or work was for the most part determined custom, nevertheless, often the lords demanded one or the other at their discretion. On the other hand, the peasants who lived in the same village formed from themselves rural communities, jointly owned various lands and even ran their own internal affairs.

87. Feudal tenure and peasant duties

A feature of western feudal landownership was that everyone"kept" the earth from someone higher. Free property disappeared and was replaced conditional property. The former free owners converted their lands (the so-called allods) in benefices, placing themselves under the care of powerful people, and large landowners also distributed benefices to small people. For his feud, each had to carry out a certain service. The peasants also kept the land under the same conditions, but only they did not serve, but paid or worked. They paid their dues for the most part not in money, but in kind(bread, livestock, etc.). The corvee consisted not only of field work for the lord, but also of work on the construction or repair of castles, etc. While the holder of the land performed his duties, the land remained with him and passed on by inheritance from father to son. Thus, if the peasant was attached to the land, then the earth was attached to it. The rights of the lord in relation to the peasant were not limited to their one connection on the ground. The lord was also a sovereign in his possession, and in relation to some classes of the rural population, his power even had the character of the power of a slave owner. As a sovereign, the seigneur could establish whatever taxes he liked and subordinate the peasants any order, in the genus, for example, the obligation to grind grain without fail at a lordly mill and bake bread in a lordly oven (banality) or at night disturb the frogs with their croaking and disturb the sleep of the inhabitants of the castle. As a sovereign, the seigneur used various duties, fines, etc. In the worst situation were those peasants who were, as it were, in a slave position (serfs). The lord was for them not only a landowner-sovereign, but also a master. Such peasants in France were called menmortables(deathhanders), since their "hand was dead" to pass on the inheritance to children. They could not marry without the consent of their masters, and when a serf of one lord married a serf of another, the children from such a marriage were divided equally between both masters.

88. Feudal power in cities

Western cities also entered the general feudal system. In general, urban life fell into decay in the era of the barbarian kingdoms, and rural life took precedence over urban life. Feudal lords lived in castles among their estates with their retinues and servants. Constant unrest and wars have caused a terrible trade blow. The industry also fell especially since the feudal owners had among their servants artisans who worked for themselves and for all their households. As a result, the population of cities decreased. With the fragmentation of the country into feudal possessions, the cities found themselves under the rule of individual counts, power was established in many cities bishops. The situation of the townspeople therefore worsened, for not infrequently the counts and bishops sought to reduce even the urban population to the level of villans.

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation

KNOU VPO Kislovodsk Institute of Economics and Law

TEST

According to the discipline "History of the national state and law"

On the topic “Russian Truth. Legal Status of Social Groups in Kievan Rus'

Completed:

1st year student

Faculty of Law

Kislovodsk 2009

Topic 1. Russian Truth. Legal status of social groups in Kievan Rus

Plan.

Introduction.

I. Origin. Sources, structure and significance of Russian Pravda.

II. Legal status of social groups of Ancient Russia:

2. 1. Feudal lords: composition of the class of feudal lords, their personal and property rights.

2. 2. Dependent people: smerds, purchases, serfs - personal and property status.

Conclusion.

Introduction

The largest monument of ancient Russian law is Russkaya Pravda, which retained its significance in later periods of history and not only for Russian law. Russian Pravda was a code of ancient Russian feudal law. Its norms underlie the Pskov and Novgorod judicial charters and subsequent legislative acts not only of Russian but also of Lithuanian law. The articles of Russkaya Pravda speak of establishing the right of feudal property not only to land and lands, but also to movable property of horses, tools of production, etc.

In the literature on the history of Russian law, there is no consensus on the origin of Russian Pravda. Some consider it not an official document, not a genuine monument of legislation, but a private legal collection compiled by some ancient Russian lawyer or a group of lawyers for their own personal purposes. Others consider the Russian Pravda an official document, a genuine work of the Russian legislative power, only corrupted by scribes, as a result of which many different lists of Pravda appeared, which differ in the number, order, and even the text of the articles. The external form of the monument (on behalf of the prince is nowhere mentioned, and the princes are mentioned in the third person), the processing of individual articles in the sense of a gradual generalization of the rules contained in them, the variety of articles in different lists of the later edition, characteristic comments on some articles - all this leaves no doubt that Pravda is the work of many individuals at different times. In addition to customs, it included records of individual court decisions (initially in the entire specific situation), princely charters, or lessons, and legal norms borrowed from Byzantium.

We cannot do without Russian Truth in the light of the topic we have touched on - legal status of various categories of the population in Kievan Rus . It was in it that the basics of interaction between various segments of the population were contained, although it should be noted that this information is dispersed in various chapters of the Russian Truth and, in part, this can be explained by its origin.

I. Origin. Sources, structure and significance of Russian Pravda.

The history of Russian Pravda is rather complicated. The question of the time of origin of its oldest part in science is debatable. Some authors even date it to the 7th century. However, most modern researchers associate the Most Ancient Truth with the name of Yaroslav the Wise. The place of publication of this part of Russian Pravda is also debatable. The chronicle points to Novgorod, but many authors admit that it was created in the center of the Russian land - Kiev.

More than a hundred lists of Russkaya Pravda have survived to this day, but the original text of Russkaya Pravda has not reached us. However, it is known that the sons of Yaroslav in the second half of the 11th century. significantly supplemented and changed it, creating the so-called Truth of the Yaroslavichs. United later by scribes, Pravda Yaroslava and Pravda Yaroslavichi formed the basis of the so-called Short Edition of Russian Pravda. Vladimir Monomakh made an even larger revision of this law. As a result, the Extended edition was formed. In subsequent centuries, new editions of Russian Truth were created, up to six in total. All editions have come down to us as part of chronicles and various legal collections, of course, handwritten. More than a hundred such lists of Russian Pravda have now been found. They are usually assigned names associated with the name of the chronicle, the place of discovery, the person who found this or that list (Academic, Trinity, Karamzinsky, etc.).

The short edition constitutes, in fact, the original original package of truth. Behind it, the name of Pravda Yaroslav was established.

By the title above the first article of the monument in the oldest lists, you can find out that this is the court or charter of Yaroslav. In Pravda itself, more than once there is a remark that Yaroslav judged or established this way. The first conclusion to which these instructions lead is that Russkaya Pravda is a code compiled by Yaroslav and served as a guide for princely judges of the tenth century. In ancient writing, the memory of Yaroslav was preserved as the establisher of the truth of the law, he was sometimes given the nickname "Justice". However, peering and analyzing the text of the monument, this first impression is destroyed. Most likely, it was part of the church vault and was compiled not only by Yaroslav

The children of Yaroslav, and even his grandson Monomakh (1113 - 1125), who owns the law directed against usury and included in Pravda, took part in the formation of the laws of Russian Truth.

Russkaya Pravda - the oldest Russian collection of laws was formed during the 11th - 12th centuries, but some of its articles go back to pagan antiquity. The first text was discovered and prepared for publication by V.N. Tatishchev in 173. The name of the monument is different from European traditions, where similar collections of law received purely legal headings - law, lawyer. In Russia at that time the concepts of "charter", "law", "custom" were known, but the code was designated by the legal and moral term "Pravda".

It is customary to divide Pravda into three editions (large groups of articles, united by chronological and semantic content): Brief. Spacious and Abbreviated. The Brief Edition includes two components: the Truth of Yaroslav (or the Most Ancient) and the Truth of the Yaroslavichs - the sons of Yaroslav the Wise. Yaroslav's Truth includes the first 18 articles of the Short Truth and is entirely devoted to criminal law. Most likely, it arose during the struggle for the throne between Yaroslav and his brother Svyatopolk (1015-1019). The hired Varangian squad of Yaroslav came into conflict with the Novgorodians, accompanied by murders and beatings. Trying to fix the situation. Yaroslav appeased the Novgorodians "by giving them the Truth, and copying off the charter, taco told them: go according to her letter." Behind these words in the Novgorod First Chronicle is the text of the Most Ancient Pravda.

True Yaroslavichi includes Art. Art. 19-43 Brief Truth (Academic list). Its title indicates that the collection was developed by the three sons of Yaroslav the Wise with the participation of major figures from the feudal environment. There are clarifications in the texts, from which it can be concluded that the collection was approved no earlier than the year of Yaroslav's death (1054) and no later than 1072 (the year of the death of one of his sons).

From the second half of the XI century. The Long Truth began to take shape (121 articles on the Trinity List), which took shape in the final version in the 20th century. According to the level of development of legal social economic content is already a highly developed monument of law. Along with new decrees it included modified norms of the Brief Truth. The Long Truth consists, as it were, of groups of articles united by a single meaning. It presents criminal and inheritance law, thoroughly developed the legal status of the category of the population of slaves, contains bankruptcy charter etc. By the beginning of the XII century. The Broad Truth has formed.

Thus, Russian Truth lived and acted in a church-legal society.

II. Legal status of social groups of Ancient Russia

All feudal societies were strictly stratified, that is, they consisted of estates whose rights and obligations were clearly defined by law as unequal in relation to each other and to the state. In other words, each class had its own legal status. It would be a great simplification to consider feudal society in terms of the exploiters and the exploited. The estate of feudal lords, constituting the fighting force of the princely squads, despite all their material benefits, could lose their lives - the most valuable - easier and more likely than the poor class of peasants.

Feudal society was religiously static, not prone to sudden evolution. In an effort to consolidate this static nature, the state conserved relations with the estates in the legislative order.

2. 1. Feudal lords: composition of the class of feudal lords, their personal and property rights.

Feudal relations are those relations that are based on private ownership of land and incomplete ownership of workers - peasants. Since land was the main means of production under feudalism, it became the property of the feudal lords. The Grand Duke was the supreme owner of the land, its distributor in the early feudal state - Kievan Rus, which included the lands of the Krivichi, Radimichi and Dregovichi. He regulated the possessions of large, medium and small feudal lords, depending on his military-political and financial goals. The feudal lords received land from the Grand Duke for their service, mainly military or state.

The norms developed by princely judicial practice are numerous in Russkaya Pravda and are sometimes associated with the names of the princes who adopted them (Yaroslav, sons of Yaroslav, Vladimir Monomakh).

Russian Pravda contains a number of norms that determine the legal status of certain groups of the population. According to the text, it is difficult to distinguish between the legal status of the ruling stratum and the rest of the population. Only two legal criteria have found a place that specifically single out these groups in society - the norms on increased criminal liability for the murder of a representative of a privileged stratum and the norms on a special procedure for inheriting real estate for a representative of this stratum. These legal privileges extended to subjects named in Russkaya Pravda as follows: princes, boyars, princely men, princely tiuns, ognischans. The code contains a number of articles on the protection of princely property, which was defended more zealously. A fine is set for killing a princely horse at three hryvnias, and for a smerd horse - at two hryvnias.

On the basis of a long tradition of developing law in the conditions of the state of the 9th-10th centuries, Pravda consolidated the existing system of class relations and property relations in the state.

The great princes of Kyiv recognized the Russian land as their acquired estate and considered they had the right to dispose of it at their own discretion: to bequeath, to give, to throw. And in the absence of a will, power passed by inheritance to the children of the dying princes.

The bulk of the population was divided into free and dependent people, there were also intermediate and transitional categories. Legally and economically independent were the townspeople and smerds-communists (they paid taxes and performed duties only in favor of the state).

The urban population was divided into a number of social groups: the boyars, the clergy, the merchants, the "lower classes" (artisans, workers

The feudal class was formed gradually. It included princes, boyars, squad, local know, posadniki, tiunas etc. The feudal lords carried out civil administration and were responsible for the professional military organization. They were mutually connected by a system of vassalage, regulating rights and obligations to each other and to the state. To provide control functions population paid tribute and legal fines. The material needs of the military organization were provided by landed property. Vassal and land relations of feudal lords, their connection with the Grand Duke regulated most likely by special contracts. In Russian Pravda, only some aspects of the legal status of this class. She sets up a double virus(penalty for murder) 80 hryvnia for the murder of princely servants, cakes, grooms, firemen. But the code is silent about the boyars and warriors themselves. Probably, the death penalty was applied for encroachments on them. Chronicles repeatedly describe the use of execution during popular unrest.

In the feudal stratum, earlier, in total, there was an abolition of restrictions on female inheritance. In church charters for violence against boyar wives and daughters, high fines are set - from 1 to 5 hryvnias of gold, for the rest - up to 5 hryvnias of silver. The duties of the peasant population in relation to the state were expressed in the payment of taxes in the form of tribute and dues and participation in armed defense in the event of hostilities. The state jurisdiction and the princely court extended to the peasants.

In ancient Russian society, property was of great importance. The attitude to the individual was determined primarily by the presence of property. A person deprived of property or having squandered it could ensure property ties with other persons with the only thing left for him, his own personality.

2. 2. Dependent people: smerds, purchases, serfs - personal and property status.

Not formed into a global system of production, the slavery of Russia became widespread as a social way of life. The source of slavery was first of all captivity, birth from a slave. They fell into slavery for serious criminal offenses (stream and plunder), a dependent purchase turned into a slave in case of flight from the owner and theft, a malicious bankrupt turned into slavery (Articles 56, 64, 55 of the Long Truth). Article 110 of the Long Truth establishes three more cases of servility: marrying a slave without a contract, entering the service of a housekeeper-tiun without a contract of freedom, self-selling into slavery even for "nudity".

In the first millennium AD. slavery among the Slavs, according to Roman authors, was patriarchal in nature, captive slaves were released for ransom or included in the tribe. In the XI century. in Russian law, the principle is already in effect, according to which a slave cannot be the subject of legal relations, enter into contracts. Russkaya Pravda considered the serfs to be the property of the master, they themselves did not own property. For the criminal offenses of the serfs and the property damage caused by them, the owners were responsible for its compensation. For the murder of a serf, compensation for damage of 5-6 hryvnia was supposed (as for the destruction of a thing). The owner of the serf was not held accountable for his murder - church repentance was appointed for such cases.

Russian Pravda reflected processes similar to Roman law, where a slave was endowed with special property (peculium), with the right to dispose of it for economic purposes in favor of the master. In the Charter of the okholops (Articles 117, 119 of the Long truth) says on the conduct of trade operations by slaves on behalf of hosts.

In science, there are a number of opinions about smerds, they are considered free peasants, feudal dependents, persons of a slave state, serfs, and even a category similar to petty chivalry. But the main controversy is conducted along the line: free dependents (slaves). Two articles of Russian Pravda have an important place in substantiating opinions.

Article 26 of the Brief Pravda, which establishes a fine for the murder of slaves, in one reading reads: “In a smerda and in a serf 5 hryvnias” (Academic list). In the Archaeographic list we read: “And in the stink in the slave there are 5 hryvnias.” In the first reading, it turns out that in the case of the murder of a smerd and a serf, the same fine is paid. From the second list it follows that the smerd has a serf who is killed. It is impossible to resolve the situation.

Article 90 of the Long Truth reads: “If the smerd dies, then the inheritance to the prince; if he has daughters, then give them a dowry ... ”Some researchers interpret it in the sense that after the death of a smerd, his property passed entirely to the prince and he is a man of a “dead hand”, that is, not able to transfer the inheritance. But further articles clarify the situation - we are talking only about those smerds who died without having sons, and the removal of women from inheritance is characteristic at a certain stage of all the peoples of Europe.

However, the difficulties of determining the status of a smerd do not end there. Smerd, according to other sources, acts as a peasant who owns a house, property, and a horse. For the theft of his horse, the law establishes a fine of 2 hryvnia. For the "flour" of a smerd, a fine of 3 hryvnias is set. Russkaya Pravda nowhere specifically indicates the restriction of the legal capacity of smerds, there are indications that they pay fines (sales) that are typical for free citizens.

Legally and economically independent groups were townspeople and community members (they paid taxes and performed duties only in favor of the state). In addition to free smerds, there were other categories of them, which Russkaya Pravda mentions as dependent people. In the literature, there are several points of view on the legal status of this group of the population, however, it should be remembered that it was not homogeneous: along with the free, there were also dependent ("serfs") smerds who were in bondage and in the service of the feudal lords. A free smerd community member had certain property that he could bequeath to his children (land - only to his sons). In the absence of heirs, his property passed to the community. The law protected the person and property of the smerd. For committed offenses and crimes, as well as for obligations and contracts, he was personally and property liable. In the trial, the smerd acted as a full participant.

A more complex legal figure is the purchase. The short edition of Russkaya Pravda does not mention the purchase, but the Long Edition contains a special Charter on Purchases. Zakup - a person working in the household of a feudal lord for a "kupa" - a loan that could include various values: land, livestock, grain, money, etc. This debt had to be worked out, and there were no established standards and equivalents. The amount of work was determined by the lender. Therefore, with an increase in interest on a loan, bondage intensified and could continue for a long time.

The first legal settlement of debt relations of purchases with creditors was made in the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh after the revolt of purchases in 1113. Limits on interest on debt were established. The law protected the person and property of the purchase, forbidding the master to punish him without reason and take away the property. If the purchase itself committed an offense, the responsibility was twofold: the master paid a fine for it to the victim, but the purchase itself could be “issued by the head”, i.e. turned into a complete jerk. Its legal status changed dramatically. For an attempt to leave the master without paying, the purchase also turned into a serf. The procurement could act as a witness in the trial only in special cases: in minor cases (“in small claims) or in the absence of other witnesses (“out of need”). The purchase was the legal figure that most of all reflected the process of "feudalization", enslavement, enslavement of former free community members.

Kholop is the most disenfranchised subject of law. His property position is special: everything he possessed was the property of the master. The identity of a serf as a subject of law was not actually protected by law. Thus, the serf had almost no human rights. In criminal law, the class nature of feudal law is especially clearly manifested, openly defending the ruling class and neglecting the interests of the working people. This is clearly seen when considering the individual elements of the crime. So, the subject of a crime can be any person, except for a serf.

All the consequences arising from the contracts and obligations that the serf entered into (with the knowledge of the owner) also fell on the master. The identity of a serf as a subject of law was not actually protected by law. For his murder, a fine was levied as for the destruction of property, or another slave was transferred to the master as compensation. The serf who committed the crime himself should have been handed over to the victim (in an earlier period he could simply be killed at the scene of the crime). The lord always bore the penalty for the serf. In the trial, the serf could not act as a party (plaintiff, defendant, witness). Referring to his testimony in court, a free man had to make a reservation that he was referring to "the words of a serf."

The law regulated various sources of servility. Russian Pravda provided for the following cases: self-sale into slavery (one person or the whole family), birth from a slave, marriage to a slave, “keykeeping” - entry into the service of a master, but without a reservation about maintaining the status of a free person. The sources of servility were also the commission of a crime (such a punishment as “stream and plunder” provided for the extradition of the criminal “by the head”, turning into a slave), the flight of the purchase from the master, malicious bankruptcy (the merchant loses or squanders someone else's property). The most common source of servility, not mentioned, however, in Russkaya Pravda, was captivity.

His master is responsible for the actions of the serf. However, in some cases, the victim can deal with the serf-offender himself, turning to state bodies, up to the murder of the serf who encroached on a free person.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, Russkaya Pravda is the most unique monument of ancient Russian law. Being the first written code of laws, it, nevertheless, quite fully covers the very vast sphere of relations at that time. It is a set of developed feudal law, which reflects the norms of criminal and civil law and process.

Russian Truth is an official act. Its very text contains indications of the princes who adopted or changed the law (Yaroslav the Wise, Yaroslavichi, Vladimir Monomakh).

Russian Truth is a monument of feudal law. It comprehensively defends the interests of the ruling class and frankly proclaims the lack of rights of unfree workers - serfs, servants.

Russian Truth in all its editions and lists is a monument of enormous historical significance. For several centuries, it served as the main guide in litigation. In one form or another, Russian Pravda was included in or served as one of the sources of the later judgment letters:

Russian Truth satisfied the needs of the princely courts so well that it was included in legal collections until the 15th century. Lists of the Long Truth were actively distributed as far back as the 15th - 16th centuries. And only in 1497 was the Sudebnik of Ivan III Vasilyevich published, replacing the Long Truth as the main source of law in the territories united as part of the centralized Russian state.

The inequality of different segments of the population is one of the pillars on which Russian Truth is based. It regulates the main aspects of relations between all segments of the population. It is impossible to imagine ancient Russian society without a distinction between feudal lords and serfs, oppressors and oppressed, free and dependent.

Literature.

1. Isaev I. A. History of the State and Law of Russia: A Complete Course of Lectures. – M.: Jurist, 1996.- 448 p.

2. Krasnov Yu.K. History of the state and law of Russia. Tutorial. Part 1. - M .: Russian Pedagogical Agency, 1997. - 288 p.

3. Kuznetsov I. N. History of the state and law of Russia. Minsk. 1999

4. Klyuchevsky P.O. Russian history course. 1vol. Moscow. 1987

5. History of the domestic state and law 1 part. Under the editorship of O. Chistyakov. I.M.1992

6. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. Edited by Sakharov A.N. and Buganov V.I. M. Enlightenment. 1997.

7. Rogov V.A. The state system of Ancient Russia: a textbook. M. VUZI. 1984.

8. Sverdlov M.B. From Russian law to Russian Pravda. M. 1988.

9. Presnyakov A.E. Princely law in ancient Russia: essays on 10-12 centuries. M. Science. 1993.

10. Zimin A.A. Slaves in Russia. M. Science. 1973.

1. Specify the prerequisites for strengthening royal power in the countries of Western Europe.

Prerequisites:

Expansion of royal domains (personal possessions of monarchs);

Gradual transition from a feudal militia to a professional army (for a long time a combination of both forms);

Improving the weapons of the royal troops, including firearms;

Redistribution in favor of the king of the lands deserted after the plague epidemics;

The weakening of the feudal farms, in which there was no one to work because of the plague;

The emergence of a professional royal administration and judiciary;

Active support of cities, which in most cases benefited from a centralized state feudal civil strife.

2. Fill in the table.

3. Draw a conclusion about why the kings needed the support of the estates.

The kings were interested in class representation in order to resist the large feudal aristocracy. At the meetings of these bodies, royal policy was brought to the attention of all estates. Most importantly, thanks to them, the king received money for the maintenance of professional armies and other measures to centralize the country, because they approved the taxes proposed by the monarch.

4. Tell us about the peculiarities of the development of the countries of Eastern Europe. How did their proximity to the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation affect them?

In Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, as well as in the rest of Western Europe, feudal fragmentation began. In Eastern Europe, it was also aggravated by the proximity of the German nation to the Holy Roman Empire. The German feudal lords received land in the east from the emperors, therefore they did not consider themselves obligated to serve the local rulers. The cities were actively settled by more skilled German artisans. German peasants also sought to colonize the relatively empty lands of their eastern neighbors. However, over time, the rulers of these states were able to strengthen and become important components of the empire's governance system as a whole. At the same time, feudal lords, especially large ones, continued to play an important role in these countries.

Poland eventually ceased to be part of the empire. However, she faced directly the expansion of the German crusaders (Teutonic Order). At the same time, she had to periodically resist the onslaught of the Mongols, and her rulers also fought for the lands of Galicia-Volyn Rus. Under these conditions, the royal power and large feudal lords (tycoons) joined their efforts. As a result, fragmentation was overcome due to a significant weakening of royal power in favor of the representation of the magnates; over time, the nobility (medium and small feudal lords) also achieved participation in this representation. Poland also significantly strengthened its positions due to a number of personal unions with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Periodically, she entered into unions with other neighbors, for example, with Hungary. As a result, in the XV century. Poland became a significant power in the region, but its system of government remained complex.

5. Why was feudal fragmentation not overcome in Central Europe? What policies did the German emperors pursue?

Fragmentation in Central Europe, that is, in the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, was not overcome because there were not enough influential forces interested in this in this state. In other countries, royal power rested on part of the chivalry and the city. But the German chivalry depended on the dukes and other large feudal lords, they most often received land from them and supported them, and not the emperor. The strongest cities united in unions (the most famous example is the Hanseatic one), which pursued an independent policy. That is, the cities themselves could defend their interests and did not need a strong central government for this.

The policy of the emperors also increased the fragmentation. The ruler of the empire was elected. Often, in order to be elected, the applicant was forced to make significant concessions to large feudal lords, and not only distribute land to them, but more and more curtail his power over and over again. The culmination of this process was the "Golden Bull" of 1356, according to which the central government was deprived of almost all powers in favor of influential feudal lords. According to this document, the emperor was elected by the 7 largest church and secular feudal lords - the so-called electors.

6. Compare and characterize the main types of statehood that developed in Europe during the classical Middle Ages.

There are three types of states in Europe.

The first included France and the countries of the Iberian Peninsula. There, on the whole, feudal fragmentation was overcome by increasing the royal domain, professionalizing the royal army, and supporting the central government from the estates. At the same time, over time, as royal power strengthened, the role of estate representations gradually decreased. Along the same path until the revolution of the 17th century. England as a whole.

In the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, feudal fragmentation was not overcome. Instead, it was divided into many different domains. Large feudal lords (both secular and ecclesiastical) created their own semblance of states, and strong unions of cities also had their own states, which, due to this, were not interested in supporting the central government. Between them were smaller possessions in different legal status, maneuvering between larger neighbors and complementing the patchwork quilt that the empire was. Under these conditions, the emperor, whose power itself was not hereditary, directly depended on the will of the largest feudal lords (the so-called electors, who directly elected him), and also indirectly on other large groups, including unions of cities. He could pursue an independent policy only in his own hereditary lands.

Relatively strong states emerged in Eastern Europe, in which feudal fragmentation was overcome. However, this did not happen due to the strengthening of royal power, but due to its compromise with the feudal lords. Therefore, in these countries, the central power was seriously limited by representative authorities, and not by representatives of all estates, namely magnates and gentry (both strata made up the feudal estate) with varying degrees of influence of one and the other in different states.

Feudal lords. The class of feudal lords was divided into the following groups: service princes, boyars, free servants and boyar children, "servants under the court".

The serving princes constituted the top class of the feudal lords.

These are former appanage princes, who, after the annexation of their appanages to the Muscovite state, lost their independence. However, they retained ownership of the land. But since the territory of the destinies was, as a rule, large, the service princes became the largest landowners. They occupied leading positions in the army and went to war with their own squad. Subsequently, the service princes merged with the top of the boyars.

The boyars, like the princes, constituted the economically dominant group within the class of feudal lords, which provided them with a corresponding political position. Boyars occupied command posts in the state.

The middle and small feudal lords were free servants and boyar children. Those and others also served the Grand Duke.

The feudal lords had the right to leave, i.e. they had the right to choose their overlord at their discretion. If available in the XIV - XV centuries. various principalities, the feudal lords had quite ample opportunities for such a choice. The departing vassal did not lose his fiefdoms. Therefore, it happened that the boyar had lands in one principality, and he served in another, sometimes at enmity with the first.

The boyars strove to serve the most powerful and influential prince, able to protect their interests. In the XIV - early XV century. the right of departure was beneficial to the Moscow princes, as it contributed to the collection of Russian lands.

As the centralized state strengthened, the right to leave began to interfere with the Moscow grand dukes, because the service princes and the top of the boyars tried to use this right in order to prevent further centralization and even achieve their former independence. Therefore, the Moscow Grand Dukes are trying to limit the right to leave, and then completely cancel it. The measure of struggle against the departing boyars was the deprivation of their estates. Later, they begin to look at departure as a betrayal.

The lowest group of feudal lords were "servants under the court", who were often recruited from princely serfs. Over time, some of them took more or less high positions in the palace and state administration. At the same time, they received land from the prince and became real feudal lords. "Servants under the court" existed both at the grand duke's court and at the courts of specific princes.

In the XV century. in the position of the feudal lords there are noticeable shifts associated with the strengthening of the process of centralization of the Russian state. First of all, the composition and position of the boyars changed. In the second half of the XV century. the number of boyars at the Moscow court quadrupled due to the specific princes who came to the service of the Moscow Grand Duke along with their boyars. The princes pushed the old Moscow boyars into the background, although the Moscow boyars stood on a par with or even higher than some of the younger categories of princes. In this regard, the meaning of the term "boyar" itself is changing. If earlier it meant only belonging to a certain social group - large feudal lords, now this term has come to mean a court rank, which was granted by the Grand Duke (introduced boyars). This rank was assigned mainly to service princes. The second court rank was the rank of roundabout. It was received by the bulk of the former boyars. The boyars, who did not have court ranks, merged with the boyar children and free servants.

The change in the nature of the boyars influenced his attitude towards the Grand Duke. The former Moscow boyars linked their fate with the successes of the prince and therefore helped him in every possible way. The current boyars - yesterday's appanage princes - were in a very oppositional mood. The Grand Dukes begin to look for support in the new group of the feudal class - the nobility. The nobles were formed primarily from "servants under the court" at the court of the Grand Duke, specific princes and large boyars. In addition, the great princes, especially Ivan III, gave land as an estate to many free people and even serfs, subject to military service. The nobility was entirely dependent on the Grand Duke, and therefore was his faithful social support. For their service, the nobility hoped to receive new lands and peasants from the prince. The growth in the importance of the nobility went simultaneously with the decrease in the influence of the boyars. The last from the second half of the XV century. greatly shaken in their economic positions.

The church was still a large feudal lord. In the central regions of the country, monastic land ownership is expanding through grants from local princes and boyars, as well as by virtue of wills. In the northeast, monasteries capture undeveloped, and often black-mowed lands. The Grand Dukes, worried about the impoverishment of the boyar families, even take measures to limit the transfer of their lands to monasteries. An attempt is also being made to take away the lands from the monasteries in order to distribute them to the landlords, but it fails.

Peasants. The rural feudal-dependent population by the beginning of this period was called orphans. In the XIV century. this term was gradually replaced by a new one - "peasants" (from "Christians"), although in the 15th century. the ancient one is also used - "smerdy". The peasantry was divided into two categories - black tax and property owners. Owning peasants lived on the lands belonging to the landowners and patrimonials, black-taxes - on the rest, not given to any feudal lord. This second category of land was considered to belong directly to the prince. Consequently, the black peasants lived in the dominal possessions of the great and appanage princes. 15th century It is marked by the attachment of the black-drawn (black-eared) peasants to the land and the intensified enslavement of the landlords. Attaching the black-eared peasants to the land was carried out by means of agreements between the princes on the non-acceptance of foreign taxable people on their lands. The enslavement of property owners was the attachment of a peasant to a certain patrimony or estate, i.e. to the land and its owner, depriving the peasant of the opportunity to choose his master, to move from one master to another.

The establishment of feudal dependence presupposes the economic coercion of the peasant to work for the feudal lord, who has seized the main means of production - land.

With the development of feudalism, measures of political, legal coercion are already required. The feudal lords increasingly intensify the exploitation of the peasants, but the latter, having the legal ability to pass from one owner to another, exercise this right, trying to find a place where it would be easier to live. Usually such places were large estates. Because of this, mainly small feudal lords suffered from peasant transitions. It was they who sought to enslave the peasants. Organized enslavement began with the fact that the Grand Dukes assigned certain groups of peasants to the owners with special letters. The old-timers were among the first to be attached.

The old-timers are mostly people who have lived with this or that feudal lord for a long time and carried in his favor the usual feudal duties, as well as tax to the state. They still enjoyed the right to move from one master to another, which was increasingly limited in the 15th century.

The old-timers were opposed to the new orderers (new comers). The feudal lords, interested in the influx of labor, willingly accepted the peasants into their estates and estates. Most often they were peasants who fled from other feudal lords. The new order was exempted from the state tax, and sometimes from feudal duties. The new orders sometimes received help or a loan from the votchinnik or landowner. They had the right to move from one feudal lord to another, paying off their master. If a new orderer lived in one place for many years, he was considered an old-timer.

The next group of dependent people were silversmiths. These were people who took "silver" from the feudal lord, i.e. money in debt, and obliged to fulfill it. Paying off such debts was often difficult because of the high interest rates. The silversmith could not leave the owner until the debt was paid.

One of the groups of dependent people were ladles. They plowed the master's land on their horses, giving half of the harvest to the owner. They were poor people who had no land.

At the end of the XV century. there is another category of dependent people - beans. Bobyls received housing from the feudal lords, sometimes land (non-taxable, that is, not taxed). There were even beans living in the black lands. In this case, they did not depend on the master, but on the peasant community.

The Sudebnik of 1497 marked the beginning of the general enslavement of the peasants. He established that peasants could leave their masters only on St. George's Day (November 26), a week before it and a week after it. In this case, the peasant had to pay a certain amount - the elderly.

Serfs. The Mongol-Tatar yoke led to a reduction in the number of serfs in Russia. Captivity as a source of servility has lost its significance. On the contrary, the Mongol-Tatars took a huge number of Russians into slavery.

Kholops were divided into several groups. There were large, full and reporting slaves. Big serfs are the pinnacle of servility, princely and boyar servants, who sometimes held high positions. So, until the XV century. the princely treasury was in charge of officials from the serfs. In the XV century. some serfs receive land for their service to the prince. Full and reporting serfs worked in the household of the feudal lord as servants, artisans, and farmers. The economic unprofitability of servile labor is becoming more and more obvious. Therefore, there is a tendency towards a relative reduction in servility. According to the Sudebnik of 1497, in contrast to Russkaya Pravda, a free man who entered the key keeper in the city was no longer considered a serf. The transformation of a feudal-dependent peasant into a serf for fleeing from his master was also cancelled.

At the same time, self-sale into slaves became widespread. The impoverished peasants were sold into slaves. The price of a serf in the 15th century fluctuated from one to three rubles. The number of serfs was also reduced due to their release into the wild. Over time, this becomes quite common. Most often, slaves were released by will. So, the Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich gave freedom to almost all of his serfs, leaving the heirs only five serf families each. Freed their slaves and monasteries. A serf who escaped from Mongol-Tatar captivity was considered free.

During the period under review, the process of gradual blurring of the line between serfs and peasants, which began in Ancient Russia, is developing. Kholops receive some property and personal rights, and enslaved peasants are losing them more and more. Among the serfs, sufferers stood out, i.e. serfs planted on the ground.

Along with the relative reduction in the number of serfs, a new category of people similar in position to serfs arises - bonded people. The bondage arose out of debt bondage. A person who borrowed (usually 3-5 rubles) had to earn interest. Most often, bondage became lifelong.

Urban population. Cities were usually divided into two parts: the city itself, i.e. a walled place, a fortress, and a trade and craft settlement surrounding the city walls. Accordingly, the population was divided. In peacetime, the fortress-detinets was inhabited mainly by representatives of the princely authorities, the garrison and servants of local feudal lords. Craftsmen and merchants settled in the settlement. The first part of the urban population was free from taxes and state duties, the second belonged to the taxable, "black" people.

The intermediate category consisted of the population of settlements and households belonging to one or another feudal lords and located within the city limits. These people, economically connected with the settlement, were nevertheless free from the city tax and carried duties only in favor of their master.

The economic upsurge in the 15th century, the development of handicrafts and trade strengthened the economic position of the cities, and, consequently, raised the importance of the townspeople. In the cities, the most wealthy circles of merchants stand out - guests leading foreign trade. A special category of guests has appeared - Surozh residents, who are bargaining with the Crimea (with Surozh - Sudak). Somewhat lower were clothiers - cloth merchants.