2. FEUDAL LAND OWNERSHIP
The advent of feudalism was due to the emergence of a division of labor between two vital functions of ancient society - agriculture and security (defense) and is characterized by the emergence of numerous socially significant unproductive professional groups of the population such as princes, boyars, clergymen, warriors, merchants, etc. crafts that came 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 Russia was carried out in the following ways:
Taxation of free owners-producers (polyudye, tribute, dues, etc.); performance by farmers-producers of various duties; direct exploitation of dependent labor (with signs of slavery); the use of hired labor; the right of the owner 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 according to geography and belonging to tribal unions), volosts and various households - individual, rural communities, urban, patrimonial, monastic, etc. - depending on local conditions, relationships and over time. In the Kiev period, many researchers agree, both in the total volume of agricultural production and in relation to the size of the population associated with it, the taxation of free community members - land rent - was of the greatest importance.
The relations of feudal landownership that developed in the Kyiv period, legislatively reflected in Russkaya Pravda, turned out to be extremely conservative, were of a hereditary class-estate character, but did not cover the entire agricultural population - the chronicles speak of the existence of a black-sown peasantry (people); and in subsequent centuries they took the form of state serfdom, the remnants of which survived until the 20th century.
A few centuries after the Kyiv 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 development and development of the South.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TERRITORIAL POSSESSIONS
The formation of the state of the Eastern Slavs took place in the 9th-10th centuries. by reigning districts and tribal territories, asserting the sovereign rights of princes, which could only take place in a relatively peaceful and loyal environment. This is how volosts (later a domain and administrative division) arose, which were territories and settlements associated with the city center, princely residence or private estate (fire), as well as graveyards.
Enthronement (IX-X centuries) - the assertion of the right to land ownership and the establishment of tribute did not always occur peacefully and preceded the 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 was located, was the capital city. In Kyiv, Novgorod, Smolensk, Polotsk, in the Rostov-Suzdal land, the princes had city terem courtyards and country residences, among which are known: Vyshgorod ("Olgin grad"), Novgorod princes - in 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 (druzhina, city militias, wars, etc.);
2. direct taxation of various types of activities (tribute, polyudie, trade duties, court fines and costs);
3. receiving income from private estates (crafts and patrimonial craft);
4. trade.
Letters of those years provide information about the princely squad and the subsequent emergence of a civil princely administration, in which by the XII century. included: posadnik, tributary, Chernoborets, access, scribe, 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 eldest, consisting of "princely husbands" (later - the boyar thought), and the younger - the armed detachment that was constantly with the prince. Senior warriors took part in the military, administrative, political, commercial, financial and other affairs of the prince. The younger warriors were with the prince, living in grid houses, and in non-war times, in addition to military service, they performed executive duties, participated in hunting, collecting tributes, etc.
From the end of the XI century. relationships within the princely dynasty, acquire the features of vassalage |, however, throughout the entire pre-Mongolian | time, they have the character and kindred relations | related |, which is a characteristic feature of ancient Russian feudalism.
In the Galicia-Volyn land, there was a case when a boyar occupied the princely table: in 1210, “Volodislav (boyar) entered Galich, reigned and sat on the table.”
PRIVATE PROPERTY
As early as the 10th century, princely villages are mentioned; in the 12th century, there are descriptions of private estates with a feudally dependent population. These were: Oginy - Olzhichi, Berestovo - 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, donated to the church.
During the reign and in the future, the princes transferred their right to receive tribute from certain territories and settlements to their warriors as a payment for service in the form of private ownership or a temporary right to receive part of the income. This process begins in Russia at the end of the 9th century. from the southern lands, later it spreads to the north and northeast.
In the XI century. in Russia, fatherlands arise (passed over from the father, later - the fatherland, fatherland) - fortified estates, to which a number of rural communities with a dependent population gravitated, and - the feudal stratum - the boyars, which was formed from the senior squad and the communal nobility. The income of the combatants included - feeding, administrative and managerial, patrimonial and salaries. The process of formation of the boyar | best man | land tenure occurred unevenly in different | different | parts of the Old Russian state - if the first individual boyar | best man | possessions in the south of Russia appear in the X-XI century, then in the north-eastern lands the feudal patrimony arises from the middle - second half of the XII century. Large landowners had armed detachments and city estates.
In the princely and boyar estates, the most disenfranchised 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 the community farmers, could differ significantly depending on local conditions and the type of property: from prosperous or even rich with the use of hired and other labor, to poor and disenfranchised. In the event of the death of a farmer (smerd or serf) - in the absence of heirs - his property belonged to the owner, who could be: a prince, a boyar, a monastery, etc.
Russkaya Pravda does not make a strict distinction between princely and boyar private land ownership, and later the term otchina (votchina) denoted not only a fortified economy, but also any hereditary boyar or princely land ownership.
From the end of the XII century. the druzhina organization is replaced by the court, the process of formation of the nobility begins. In the future, large landowners had their own armed detachments. Private landowners were of greater importance in Novgorod - they included the boyars and wealthy merchants who formed the council that elected the posadnik and the thousand.
In the Kyiv period, regularly cultivated fields, household plots, etc. were in private ownership. In R.P. there are indications of side, role, yard boundaries and boundary signs (signs), which allows us to talk about the further development of the feudal economy, while it is not specified whose boundary it is: producer, community or feudal lord; it distinguishes between arable lands, boarding and hunting grounds, and fish traps.
Rope - a rope that was used in allocating allotments and determining boundaries - this is a settlement of farmers, consisting of several individual farms (smoke), sharing a certain piece of land; not every rural community was called this way - they also used names: the whole, the settlement, the village, etc.; it could include several villages. The emergence of vervi in the conditions of Russia, where there was no lack of free land, was associated with a certain stage of development - when producers began to choose the best lands, settle and share them.
In ancient Russia, a rural tribal or territorial community had self-government (headmen, etc.), paid certain types of taxes with mutual responsibility and performed duties; in the period of early feudalism, characteristic relations had not yet embraced the entire population; for a long time, it retained pre-Christian tribal traditions.
After the adoption of Christianity (988), a metropolitan see was created in Kyiv. Later, separate bishoprics appeared in Belgorod, Chernigov, Vasilev, Pereyaslavl, Yuryev. The emergence of church and monastic land ownership can be attributed to the second half of the 11th century. in southern Russia, 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 wills. In the future, the church had land holdings with a feudally dependent population and income from church courts for special types of crimes. Under the jurisdiction of the church court were: divorce, kidnapping, sorcery, sorcery, witchcraft, quarrels between relatives, robbery of the dead, pagan rites, the murder of illegitimate children, etc. The Metropolitan of Kiev, Vladyka Novgorod and the bishops of the Russian dioceses had their own armed detachments. In the system of feudal landownership of the X-XIII centuries. the church takes its place late, when other institutions - princely and boyar - already existed.
Unlike princes and boyars, the allotments of the monasteries were not divided among the heirs, as was the case after the death of secular landowners.
COLONIZATION
Another, parallel way for the emergence of feudal landownership is the colonization of uninhabited or undeveloped territories. In the Kyiv period, it successfully continued in the territory of Russia, in 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. Wars that sometimes arose did not lead to massacres or the 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 the 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 Warrior (Zhelny) - Ltava - Donets; and Volodimer said: “This is not good, if there is a small city near Kyiv. And they began to set up cities along the Desna, and along Vostry, and along Trubezhev, and along Sula, and along Stugna. And the time to chop the best for a husband from Slovenia, and from Krivich, and from people, and from Vyatichi. and from here dwelled cities; keep away from the Pechenegs"; and was completely discontinued by the Polovtsians in the 12th century; Slavic settlements of the Northern Black Sea region fell into decay - Tmutarakan was last mentioned in the annals in 1094.
INHERITANCE
Kievan Rus did not have the hereditary right to land ownership (princely and boyar). Attempts by the Grand Duke - and later by other princes - to put his sons, brothers, etc. on the 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 elder brother; or only through the line of eldest sons, from the father to the eldest son.
At the congresses in Lyubech (1097), Vitichev (1100) and Dolobok, 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 fight together against violators of the agreement, but in Lyubech they said firmly: "Let each one keep his own line." In (1111) the joint action of the princes under the leadership of Vladimir led to success in the Zadonsk steppes on the Sal River, after which Russia did not know the invasions of nomads for more than 20 years.
The last Grand Duke of Kievan Rus was Mstislav (1125-1132), son of Monomakh. In 1169 the son of Yu. one and a half dozen independent lands; in this form it existed until the second quarter of the 13th century.
The process of Christianization - the introduction of pagan peoples to Christian culture, beliefs and customs, entry into Christian organizations - Catholic and Orthodox churches. 2. Acceptance of Christianity in Kievan Rus. The Russian state in which we live dates back to the 9th century. The tribes that formed this state existed even earlier. At the beginning of its historical...
... - in the post-industrial. In modern socio-economic literature, history is considered at the stages of the primitive era, slave-owning society, the Middle Ages, industrial and post-industrial society. Numerous works are devoted to the economic history of foreign countries, among which some are of a general nature and consider the development of any sector of the economy in ...
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru
Introduction
1. Feudal tenure
1.1 Votchina
1.2 landownership
1.3 Disposition of estates
1.3.1 Estate management. Inheritance
1.3.2 Renting out the estates
2. Other types of land holdings
Conclusion
List of sources used
land tenure rus votchina estate
Introduction
Land plays an extremely important role in the life of any society. It performs many functions, not only as a natural resource, a spatial basis, a means and object of labor, a means of production, a real estate object, but also many others. This is also the reason for the complexity of land relations - a system of socio-economic ties related to the ownership, use and disposal of land.
The most vivid and complete description of land holdings in Russia by the period of the elimination of feudal fragmentation and the emergence of a centralized state. The descriptions provided information about the amount of land in the possessions, and an assessment of these lands was given by bringing them to certain conventional units. The plow was considered the basic unit of taxation. In this regard, the land census system was called the soshny letter. In addition to tax purposes, the description of the lands according to the letter was of great importance for determining the number of warriors, horses and food needed for defense. The distribution of land for service and the need to bring patrimonial and estate lands in line with the service sent became one of the main reasons for frequent land censuses in the 15th - 16th centuries.
Under Ivan the Terrible, the Decree of September 20, 1556 approved the first scribal order, which ordered all estates to be distributed by "land surveying", and the surplus to be divided among the poor, which was the beginning of scribal descriptions. The work was carried out on the basis of "scribe orders" - special documents on the procedure for carrying out descriptions. Watchers were engaged in checking, correcting and supplementing the descriptions already made earlier, measuring the earth - measurers.
Under Tsar Ivan IV, almost all the lands of Russia were described, and some of them even several times.
To describe the land in the XVI century. A special institution was created - the Local Order, which became the nationwide leading center, uniting all land surveying, cadastral and serf work. Descriptions of the lands were carried out by persons called scribes, watchers and measurers. The scribe's order of 1622 entrusted the scribes with the measurement of arable land, fallows, hayfields, forests and other lands. The amount of land was estimated approximately. Information about the land was reflected in cadastral books. They were made in two copies: one was sent to Moscow to the local order, and the second was intended for governors, governors and clerks.
Monitoring the course of land descriptions and land surveys was entrusted to the local hut, established by Ivan IV to conduct all matters relating to estates and estates. In essence, it was the first body in the history of the Russian state in charge of land cadastral work. Subsequently, it was transformed into the Local Order. Through the order, service people were provided with land in local ownership. The order was the highest authority for resolving land disputes.
in Russia in the sixteenth century. the following forms of land tenure and land use were formed: feudal (patrimonial and local) land tenure; peasant land ownership and land use; monastic and church land tenure; palace and state land ownership.
The purpose of this work is to consider these forms of land ownership and land use and to identify land relations between estates in the 16th-17th centuries.
1. Feudal tenure
1.1 Votchina
The dominant form of land ownership in the 16th-17th century was the patrimony (derived from the word<отчина>, i.e. paternal property), which could be inherited, changed, sold. The estates are owned by princes, boyars, members of squads, monasteries, and higher clergy.
The patrimonial landownership arose during the period of specific principalities. Votchina - a piece of land that the owner could dispose of on the basis of full ownership (sell, donate, bequeath). The owners of estates were obliged to provide armed soldiers to the state army. On the basis of the Council Code of 1649, three types of estates were distinguished: hereditary (ancestral); honored - received from the prince for certain merits; bought - acquired for money from other feudal lords.
Analysis of Art. 3 of Russkaya Pravda, in which “people” were opposed to “prince husband”, shows that in Ancient Russia there was a differentiation of society into feudal lords and non-feudal lords, since the term “people” “Pravda” meant all free persons, mainly communal peasants, constituted the bulk of the population.
The feudal system of Russia grew out of primitive communal, as well as from elements of patriarchal slavery - the initial form of slavery, in which slaves were included in the family that owned them as its disenfranchised members who performed the most difficult work. This circumstance left its mark on the formation of the feudal system and its further development.
Initially, all private land holdings were subject to enhanced protection. For example, in Art. 34 of the "Russian Truth" of the Brief Edition, a high fine was established for damage to the boundary sign, which indicated the care of the Old Russian state about ensuring the stability of land relations.
Then the “best men” stand out - the owners of feudal estates. Since large-scale landownership, which made it possible to apply more efficient landownership, becomes the leader, ruined and impoverished peasants come under its patronage. They became dependent on large landowners.
The Old Russian state ensured the legal status of representatives of the feudal class, since they were a more reliable support than community members and free people. So, in Art. 19-28, 33 of Russkaya Pravda of the Brief Edition determined a special procedure for the protection of both feudal land holdings and the servants who worked for them (starosts, firemen, etc.).
At the same time, relations between the feudal part of the population and the non-feudal part of the population developed and improved with the strengthening of feudal domination. For example, persons who fell into debt bondage to the feudal lord became purchasers, i.e. obliged by their work in the household of the feudal lord to return the “kupa” (debt) received from him, for which they were provided with land and means of production. If the purchase made an escape, then he turned into a complete (“whitewashed”) serf (Articles 56-64, 66 of the Russkaya Pravda, Long Edition).
The establishment of the feudal dependence of the rural population was a long process, but even after its formation, feudalism underwent certain changes characteristic of Russia.
An analysis of this historical material gives reason to believe about the following features of the legal regulation of land relations in ancient and medieval Russia.
In Kievan Rus, feudal relations developed unevenly. For example, in Kyiv, Galicia, Chernihiv lands, this process was faster than among the Vyatichi and Dregovichi.
In the Novgorod feudal republic, the development of large feudal landownership proceeded faster than in the rest of Russia, and the growth of the power of the Novgorod feudal lords was facilitated by the cruel exploitation of the conquered population living in the vast Novgorod colonial possessions.
In the Middle Ages, feudal landownership gave rise to the relationship of feudal lords with the help of a system of vassal relations such as vassalage-suzerainty. There was a personal dependence of some vassals on others, and the Grand Duke relied on lesser princes and boyars; they sought his protection during frequent military skirmishes.
The high authority of religion in the ancient and Middle Ages gave rise to the land domination of the church, which received significant land from the state and feudal lords. For example, it was traditional on the part of the feudal lords to donate to the church and monasteries part of the land plots pledged for the eternal remembrance of the soul; donations of land to them for the construction of temples, monasteries and for other needs. There were also facts of occupation of land in violation of the land rights of other persons. So, in 1678, the monks of the Trifonov Monastery (now the city of Vyatka) received a complaint from the peasants, from whom hayfields and fishery reservoirs were taken away by force. Tinsky A. Storage of History // Kirovskaya Pravda. 1984.
The development of feudal relations was facilitated by such circumstances as almost two centuries of domination over the Old Russian state of the Golden Horde. The systematic payment of tribute was required, but in the routine state of feudal technology, the efficiency of agriculture could be achieved only through open violence against the personality of the peasant. These two circumstances, while strengthening feudal tendencies, contributed to the long and lasting dominance of peasant law in Russia, right up to 1861.
The emergence, formation and strengthening of feudal relations in the Old Russian state was of progressive importance at a certain stage of its development, since it helped to form and strengthen regional (princely) formations, the centralized union of which made it possible to create a powerful Russian state.
At the same time, feudal fragmentation was a brake on the economic development of the regions, since it hindered the exchange between them (commodity, information, etc.). This had a negative impact on the development of agriculture, agriculture, crafts, culture and other spheres of public life.
Since the upper strata of the feudal lords were the main opposition to the power of the sovereign, by the end of the 15th century. there was a pronounced tendency to limit their privileges and the formation of a new class - landowners-nobles.
Landowners-nobles were given land under the condition of serving the sovereign, and the first large-scale transfer of land to Moscow service people took place at the end of the 15th century. after the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow (1478) - Ivan III granted them the confiscated Novgorod lands, and in the 16th century. landownership became an important form of management.
The distribution of land to the noble army intensified the exploitation of the peasantry, which encouraged the peasants to go in search of places where feudal oppression was not so heavy. The rise of the migration wave has caused the need to limit such movements. Restrictive measures were carried out at first through the conclusion of inter-princely agreements, and then legal intervention was applied: a ban was established on the transfer of peasants from princely lands to private lands; the right to move a peasant only once a year - on St. George's Day (November 26) and within a week after it; the obligation to pay a high fee for leaving the feudal lord, etc.
The distribution of land to the noble army conserved the feudal system, but it was impossible to stop it, since there were no other sources of strengthening the army.
In 1565, Ivan the Terrible divided the lands of the state into zemstvo (ordinary) and oprichny (special), including in the last lands of the opposition princely-boyar aristocracy. Some of the small princes and boyars perished during the years of the oprichnina, others received new lands in the neoprichny districts from the hands of the tsar as a grant under the condition of loyalty and service. As a result, not only was a blow dealt to the old feudal nobility, but also its economic foundation was undermined, since the distributed lands were transferred to service people.
At the beginning of the XVI century. an attempt was made to limit the growth of church and monastic land ownership, which occupied up to 1/3 of all feudal estates in the country. In some areas (for example, Vladimir, Tver), the clergy owned more than half of all lands.
Since this attempt was not successful at first, in 1580 the Church Council adopted a decision forbidding the metropolitan, bishops and monasteries to buy patrimonies from service people, accept land as a pledge and a memorial of the soul, increase their land holdings in any other way.
In the second half of the XVI century. a widespread inventory of patrimonial lands was carried out, information about which was entered in cadastral books, which contributed to the streamlining of the financial and tax systems, as well as the official duties of feudal lords. Subsequently, the government carried out a widespread description of the lands with their subdivision into salary units (“plows”), depending on the quality of the land.
At the same time, the information received and documented was a circumstance that contributed to the creation of a system of serfdom in Russian agriculture, since the state found a way to get rid of St. George's Day. So, from 1581, “reserved summers” began to be introduced, i.e. the years when St. George's Day did not work, and in 1649 the peasants were finally assigned to the feudal lords - serfdom was introduced.
Now let's look at land ownership.
1.2 Local land tenure
Local landownership arose under Ivan III and became widespread along with patrimonial, but in the 17th century. almost completely replaced it and began to occupy about 80% of all land. The estate was a temporary land holding and was provided to state servants (together with the peasants living on it) under certain conditions for a period of service. If a serviceman left the service for any reason, then the land plot was transferred to another person. The estate could not be divided, and if it was inherited, then only to the eldest son.
Legislation shows that the most common form of allocation was the grant of land in the estate, and even in the patrimony. The very act of granting was an expression of the will and mercy of the monarch, but at the same time, his public duty in conditions of almost the only possible form of material support and remuneration of the service class. This explains that the form of expression of the award was mainly a legal act. With this understanding of the phenomenon of granting, it becomes clear why it was almost the only form of granting land to the ruling class. Cases of initial granting of estates to people who first came to the attention of the government were insignificant. They mainly concerned the placement of boyar children and undergrowths fit for service, military ranks of the regiments of the new system - captains, dispossessed and without patrimonial tenants. The prevailing form of award was an increase to the already existing dacha or salary.
During the years of the war with Poland (1654-1667), nominal decrees on granting estates in the form of an increase to existing salaries followed one after another. Moreover, the decrees fell on the initial years of the war and often had the character of broadcast promises of remuneration for the exemplary performance of military duty, a kind of propaganda manifestos. Nobles in the army of the new service (reiters) for participating in hostilities were rewarded with an increase in local and monetary salaries in the amount of what city nobles and boyar children had.
The differentiation in the size of awards and increases to the previous salaries was enormous. With regard to the next category of complainants - stewards and colonels - we are talking about land.
The basis of awards as an expression of the monarch's will could be very different circumstances. In the form of an award, the rights to land in the newly annexed areas were fixed.
The legislator was concerned about the development and cultivation of empty lands that were deserted for one reason or another, but covered by a description, which excluded them from the sphere of taxation. In April 1650, a decree was adopted with a boyar verdict on the return of empty wastelands according to scribe books to the first petitioners.
Encouraging the initiative of the landowners in finding vacant lands and developing them, the tsarist government sought to protect wastelands from the palace lands or adjacent to them from such encroachments. The decree of 1676 legalized the return on petitions of "removed" empty estates, which were taken into the treasury at the request of their owners.
When such lands were sold to a fiefdom, they were valued three times higher than ordinary empty lands.
In accordance with the articles on January 28, 1681, patrimonial and merited estates, confiscated from those who bought them or took them as a pledge, went into distribution on the local right. Relatives of the former owners of these patrimonies lost the right to family redemption. This norm clearly demonstrates the blurring of the lines between estates and estates. The confiscated estates served as a source of accommodation. Land confiscation was widely practiced for political reasons. In the interests of providing land to the lower strata of the army, the government went to the crushing of large estates. Voronin A.V. History of Russian Statehood. Tutorial. M .: "Prospect", 2000. - S. 281.
The escheated lands served as a source of allocation, but on the condition that they had no heirs. Petitioners who received such lands, but hid the presence of heirs (wives, children, relatives), were fined in the form of possession in favor of the heirs: for peasants and hay meadows - according to the Code, and for arable land with bread - 2 rubles each. from tithe and without bread - from tithe to the ruble. In addition, proest and red tape were charged. In order to streamline the paperwork in cases of escheat estates, the legislator obliged the heirs to submit petitions no later than within a year. The law exempted from such a term only those who were in the service, in captivity and minors. However, as a result of the demands of the nobles, the terms were lengthened and subsequently changed several times.
The struggle for land forced the government to legally regulate the size of dachas by adding exemplary and bypass lands. The law allowed for the addition of exemplary lands, but within the limits of the specified articles and salary. At the same time, it was prescribed in the case of a petition about the presence of extra land in someone's hands, to conduct a search - to give face-to-face confrontations. If it is established that the objectors tried on extra lands, they will be taken away and given to the petitioners.
Later, a clarification was made to the distribution of approximate lands. The decree of 1683, referring to retired nobles, boyar children, undergrowths, widows and single girls, ordered that exemplary lands be given to those who had them, and petitioners from outside were refused. The concealment of old estates upon receipt of new ones was strictly prosecuted by law and was usually accompanied by the confiscation of new lands and giving them to the dispossessed. Illegally obtained lands were commonly referred to as "slandered". The seizure of foreign land was especially strictly prosecuted by law.
The decree of 1684, in contrast to previous regulations, when the seizure of foreign land and the settlement of their peasants on it entailed the removal of the peasants from the land and returning it to the owner, ordered the return of the land to the rightful owners with the peasants, with all buildings and bread. It was already a crime. In 1682, petitions for the seizure of land were required to be submitted not to the Local, but to the Judgment Order.
As for the empty lands, in addition to the distribution on account of the salary, they were also distributed on the terms of the payment of quitrent not only to the landowners, but also to the townspeople.
During the description and surveying of lands, the distribution of empty and bypass lands was legally stopped until the description was completed. Typically, such decrees provoked petitions from stolniks and other service officials that their newly cleared lands, which “they owned from time immemorial, were called by other names” and were taken away from them. By prohibiting the distribution of land during the period of descriptions, the government had in mind that surveying would reveal arbitrary seizures of vacant land. One such decree dates back to 1684.
For the second half of the XVIII century. The largest source of allocation and allotment of estates were lands in Ukrainian cities and the so-called "wild fields".
The Moscow ranks were allowed to exchange Ukrainian lands for those outside Moscow, but such an exchange between Moscow landowners and "Ukrainians" was strictly forbidden, as well as the seizure of land from local landowners.
The forbidden zone for the penetration of private feudal landownership was the Urals and Siberia Buganov VI, Preobrazhensky AA, Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980. - S. 385.
Also, you need to pay attention and consider the possibility of disposing of estates.
1.3 Disposition of estates
1.3.1 Disposition of estates. Inheritance
The first inalienable right to dispose of estates was the right to transfer them by inheritance and the right to inherit. It didn't happen all of a sudden. Contrary to the opinion of historians who argued that the inheritance of estates arose initially, from the moment the very type of feudal landownership appeared and, in any case, already in the 16th century, it is more correct to believe that in the first century of the existence of the estate system among landowners, there was an inheritance of service by sons suitable for it. , and the estates were transferred to them as provision of service. The estate itself was not yet the subject of inheritance.
In the Council Code of 1649, taking into account the legislation of the first half of the 17th century. The following norms of inheritance of estates were fixed:
estates are inherited by sons, some of them are transferred to live-current widows and daughters;
in the absence of sons and brothers, the subsistence is inherited by widows, daughters and sisters, the rest is transferred to relatives, and in the absence of such, to the state;
the estate is transferred to the clan even in the absence of direct heirs, and in the absence of relatives - to the state.
In the Code, thus, the patrimonial status of the estate was fixed, which to a large extent had already taken shape in the first half of the century and meant a noticeable step towards the convergence of the estate and patrimonial land ownership. In the Code and in further legislation, it is not the former principle that becomes dominant - in the service of the estate, but the new one - in the service of the estate. Legally, the starting point in the development of this principle was the Service Code of 1556. Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980. - S. 411.
The decree of February 20, 1654 obliged the children of the nobles, retired from service due to old age, to serve from the estates and estates of their fathers, but with a significant difference. If in 1556 the size of land holdings served as the basis for the supply of a military contingent, then a hundred years later, the number of peasant households became such a basis. With one son from the households, if there were more than ten of them, in addition, grant money was levied. With two or more sons, no money was collected.
For the legislation of the second half of the XVII century. characterized by the expansion of the circle of heirs. Soon after the Code of 1649, the February decree of the same year included children born after the death of their fathers among the heirs of the estates.
The attitude of the legislator to the fourth marriage and to the rights of wives and children associated with it has changed, but not for long. The Code of 1649 deprived such wives of subsistence, and children - the right to inherit. The decree of October 29, 1669 limited the effect of this rule, preserving the right to a living for wives of the fourth marriage concluded before the Code. In the future, children from the fourth marriage were assigned the right to family estates, if the relatives of the deceased father did not reject such children. But the Articles on Estates and Estates of August 10, 1677 abolished fourth marriages in the future, thereby depriving the rights of inheritance of wives and children from such marriages, but leaving in force the previous decisions of these incidents. There is no doubt that in this case the pressure of the clergy affected, since the law contains a reference to the prohibition of fourth marriages by the apostles and church fathers. And this is connected with the church council of 1677.
On the issue of division between heirs, sons and grandsons, paternal and grandfather's estates, the legislator took the position of the Code, prescribing to mix and divide equally both the father's estates and the estates of the eldest sons, who received them "for withdrawal" during the life of the fathers. The only new thing was that dowries and leased estates as a personal acquisition were excluded from the sections. The norm was confirmed by the decree of 1679. Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980. - S. 402.
The gradual development of the right to inherit estates, which took place not only in the legislative sphere, but also in practice as a result of the recognition in a number of cases and the registration of the fact of inheritance by the Local Order, ultimately led to the adoption of a nominal decree with a boyar verdict on March 21, 1684, which legalized the registration of inheritance estates for the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of deceased owners. Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980. - S. 404
One of the forms of inheritance of the estate was a living, that is, a part of the estate allocated after the death of the owner for the maintenance of the widow, daughters, elderly parents, and minor children. And although the germ of such a phenomenon dates back to the 16th century, living as an institution of law did not exist then. Its design is associated with the Council Code of 1649, which paid great attention to living and legitimized the main provisions that formed the basis of the legislation of the second half of the century. They come down to the following: first of all, widows, both with young children and childless, and daughters who have lost their parents, had the right to receive a living. Widows received subsistence until their third marriage. Widows and children of the fourth marriage of men were deprived of subsistence and inheritance. Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980. - S. 422.
The size of the subsistence depended on the size of the salary and the circumstances of the death of the head of the family. If he was killed in battle, then from 100 quarters of the salary, 20 quarters were due to wives, 10 to daughters, if he died in the regiment, then to wives - 15, to daughters - 7. In case of death at home - to wives 10, daughters - 5 quarters. The rest went to the relatives, but only to the dispossessed and of little locality. If there were no such people in the family, then the estate, by decree of the king, was subject to transfer to a foreign family. The estate became family property, but only conditionally - within the framework of the local salary.
Widows and girls (daughters, sisters, nieces) had certain rights to dispose of living expenses: they could rent it to relatives and any person on condition that they support the owner of the living expenses, and marry the girls. Written registration of the transfer of residence with registration in the Local Order was required. Violation of the conditions for the delivery of a residence entailed the return to its owner. A livelihood could be a dowry when a widow or girl marries. Upon the death of her husband, the widow received a living allowance, but its size could vary depending on the size of her husband's estate. The Code, thus, comprehensively developed the status of a living estate.
The legislation of the second half of the century, relying on the regulations on subsistence in the Code, expanded the boundaries of their application. The wives and daughters of the nobles, released from the regiments ahead of schedule due to illness, in the event of their death on the way or upon arrival home, were determined to live the same as in the case of the death of the nobles in battles. The norm was repeated in the decree of 1656 with some reduction in the amount of subsistence. When determining the amount of subsistence, it is prescribed to take into account the increase in salary, approved by the Discharge.
At the same time, the government began to control the process of transferring subsistence by widows and their further movement. By a decree of 1666, widows were not allowed to register subsistence estates received after their husbands who died in the battle of Konotop, when entering into a second marriage without a certificate from the Rank about the death of their former husbands. The essence of the norm is clear from the other part of the decree, which determines the return of the estates to those released from captivity. There is no doubt that the decree, adopted in relation to a particular case, was of general importance. There were also local restrictions. Widows who received subsistence in Pskov could rent them out only to Pskov landowners. This is where the protection of the land fund of the border counties comes into play. The transfer of living quarters with passing quarters was prohibited. But, since this happened in practice, the legislator left all cases committed before the decree of 1676 in force, and the ban extended to the future. The subsistence laws also applied to the widows of new ranks in the army, including generals.
The right to subsistence for widows and daughters was based on the Code of 1649. Such confirmation is contained in the Articles on Estates of 1676. The same articles ordered that widows and daughters be given a subsistence estate from the estates of the father-in-law and grandfather, if the deceased husband and father "served from the father's estates" without having their own. The norm is confirmed by the Articles of August 10, 1677 and by decree of October 2, 1686.
In response to the petition of widows and daughters, whose dead husbands and fathers had lands in the "wild fields", in 1676 a decree was adopted with a boyar verdict on the allocation of living expenses to widows and daughters in accordance with the salary from the estates in the "wild fields" only in in the event that these plots are separated and denied to husbands and fathers, that is, they are officially assigned to them.
The law on the provision of subsistence for wives and daughters also affected privileged estates near Moscow, but only in a conditional form. If the deceased landowner did not have any other estates, except for those near Moscow, then the latter were provided in full force to mothers, widows and daughters, but without the right to rent, exchange, etc. In the event of the death of the owner of the estate, her marriage or -haircuts in nuns estates near Moscow were subject to transfer to relatives. The owners of such subsistences were deprived of the usual rights to dispose of them. And yet, this law violated the inviolability of estates near Moscow, since some of them could go out of service for some time. But at the same time, the estates near Moscow were protected from encroachment on them by the landowners of Novgorod and Pskov.
A prominent place in the legislation was occupied by the question of the return of living expenses to widows with whom they married after the death of their husbands. A number of specific life situations are provided.
Having been widowed in a second marriage, the widow received what she gave as a dowry. If the husband exchanged her subsistence estate for another, then the new estate was to be returned to the widow. The shortage, taking into account the salary, was made up according to the Code from other estates of the husband and even from the estates without the right to alienate them. If the wife died childless before her husband, then her estate remained with her husband, and after his death passed to his children from his first marriage. The relatives of the first husband were excluded from the inheritance.
A widow who remarried with a large subsistence estate, after her husband's death, could receive a subsistence in a smaller amount in accordance with her husband's salary, and the surplus went to her husband's relatives, and in their absence - to strangers. The same rule applied to the estates of grandfathers and fathers-in-law.
If the husband received or bought his wife's subsistence estate in the patrimony, then after his death the widow received half of this patrimony with the right of alienation, and the other half - until her death or before getting married, but without the right to dispose of it.
For widows who have received a livelihood from ancestral and well-served estates (in the absence of estates), it is prescribed to take guarantees that they will not alienate these estates and ruin the peasants. In the latter case, the incident, which consisted in a clash of opposing requests to the government, received legislative permission. Widows who had a livelihood from ancestral and well-served estates asked that they not be issued bail. Relatives of husbands, on the contrary, beat with their foreheads about the registration of bail. In the spirit of the legal status of the estates, the government decided the issue in favor of the latter.
1.3.2 Leasing of estates
Confirmation of the law contained in the Code of 1649, on the right to lease estates by persons who retired due to old age, with the condition of their maintenance with the obligatory registration of the act of surrender in the order, is contained in the decree of 1650, but with a certain innovation. If the Code (XVI, 9) obliged elderly service people to rent the estate only to relatives, then the decree of 1650 did not contain such restrictions. And the Articles on Estates on March 10, 1676 allowed the surrender of estates on the same conditions “to a strange family past children and relatives”, which was confirmed by the Articles on Estates on August 10, 1677. However, there were restrictions associated with violation of the procedure for surrendering an estate. In addition to drawing up the act of surrender, interrogation of the parties was required in the order or with the governor. If the surrendered estates died without interrogation, then, according to the Articles of 1676, the cases before the decree of 1667 remained in force without interrogation, and after 1667 the estates and estates surrendered without interrogation were subject to return to the family of the deceased. The norm was confirmed by decree on September 3, 1681. The legislator gradually expanded the circle of persons to whom estates could be handed over. According to the Articles of 1676, this number included widows and girls not only of their own, but also of someone else's family, with the condition that they did not have a livelihood or it was less than the salary of the deceased husband or father. On the other hand, the right to lease estates was assigned to the same category of persons. Moreover, the law denied the return of such estates to the relatives of the husband or father. However, the Articles of Estates and Estates on 10 August 1677 repealed this law. The cases cited are one of many in the zigzags of legislation in the second half of the 17th century.
The Articles of March 10, 1677 confirmed the right of servicemen to lease estates to other persons, but denied them the right to receive new estates. The right to rent out estates was also assigned to landlords who were not in the service due to defects in vision, hearing, or mental inferiority. The protests of the relatives of such persons were not taken into account. Articles on estates and estates on August 10, 1677 in relation to persons in the service, limited their right to rent out estates in half the size, they left the other half. From among persons with physical and mental defects, the same Articles singled out the mentally deranged, who, upon confirmation of their condition, were denied the right to rent out estates. In such a norm, it is impossible not to see the legislator's awareness of the principle of legal capacity.
The widespread practice of renting out estates to others under certain conditions included the option of renting for money under the same conditions. If the conditions were not met, the estate was returned. But if, in the case of money, the applicant did not indicate them in the petition, did not declare during interrogation, then, despite the fact that the one who accepted the estate presented a record of money, at the request of the deliverer, the estate should have been returned to him. In this part, we considered the possibility of inheriting and renting out estates, but in addition to the types of land ownership discussed above, there are others, now let's move on to them.
1.3.3 Other types of land holdings
Acquaintance with the sources that have come down to us shows that each external success of Christianity in the Russian lands was also marked by a new increase in church property. Since the monastery was considered as an intermediary between God and the laity, a new source of monastic land ownership arises - the contributions of private individuals.
Thus, the sources of the increase in monastic and church lands were different: the provision of land by the princes; contributions of boyars and other landowners under a will; deposits "for the memory of the soul"; purchase and mortgage of land; seizure and annexation of free state lands and lands of black-mowed peasants. In the latter case, the peasants fell into serfdom from the church.
In the XVI century. monastic land ownership expanded so much that it began to undermine the local system, so the state takes measures to limit it. In particular, the transfer of local lands to monasteries was limited. According to the Gross Order of 1622, the main goal of the government in relation to the monastic land ownership was to limit their growth "... so that the land of the service people does not decrease." The Council Code of 1649 completely prohibited the transfer of local lands to monasteries.
Palace landownership originated in the period of specific principalities. The specific princes had significant possessions, which were inherited and constantly expanded at the expense of the lands of small specific princes, estates belonging to the boyars and service people, as well as peasant lands. With the development of statehood, palace and state lands were divided. The palace houses were owned by the prince, the income from them went to the maintenance of his family and the palace. State lands were considered the property of the state as such; income from them went to the treasury. From the 14th century until the beginning of the 18th century. they were also called the black lands. The fund of state lands was replenished mainly due to conquests. So, in the reign of Ivan IV, after the annexation of the Kazan Khanate, more than one-fifth of its lands were included in the state lands. At the same time, service people were allocated estates from state lands and estates complained.
From state lands, estates were allocated to service people or estates complained. Subsequently, special lands of departments, such as the Yamsky (postal) department, were allocated from state lands.
Depending on the owner of the land, serfs were divided into local, monastic, palace, state, etc. The conditions for transferring land for use by communities varied. Peasants could work in the field, on the estate, as well as in various crafts. Some landowners, issuing passports to peasants, sent them to work, receiving a certain quitrent for this.
Mid 17th century was marked by the completion of the enslavement of the peasants. The Council Code of 1649 introduced the principle of serf heredity, thereby finally securing the dependence of the peasant on the feudal lord. The peasant could be disposed of at his own discretion, in particular, to sell, exchange, punish, etc. By the end of the 17th century. almost 90% of the peasants were serfs.
In the XV-XVI centuries. was the most common form of quitrent farming. The quitrent was paid by the peasants to the landowner in kind (products, services) or in cash for the use of the land plot. In the eighteenth century the quitrent form of farming is being replaced by corvée, which is the work of peasants on the land of the landowner 3-6 days a week.
In 1680, the Scribal Order was issued, prescribing a gross land survey. Already in April 1684, the government issued a new clerk's mandate to carry out a general gross survey of all the lands of the state. The basis of the newly issued decree was the verification of the rights of each owner of the land.
Conclusion
So, we examined the existing types of land ownership, as well as land relations between estates, and we can conclude that it was a difficult time - the second stage of developed feudalism in Russia covers the period from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century. That was a time of complex and contradictory processes in the development of feudal property, in the evolution of rent, in the growth of industry and trade, and finally, in the change in the economic position and legal status of the peasantry. The inconsistency of social evolution is clearly visible from a simple indication of the extreme poles: on the one hand, the Council Code of 1649 largely summed up the legal formalization of the enslavement of the peasantry; on the other hand, in the middle of the 17th century, the first sprouts of capitalist relations in industry appeared, and the 17th century as a whole was the initial stage in the formation of the all-Russian market.
List of sources used
Varlamov A.A. History of land relations and land management. - 2000.
Voronin A.V. History of Russian Statehood. Tutorial. M .: "Prospect", 2000.
Omelchenko O.A. General history of state and law: Textbook in 2 volumes. T. 2. - M .: TON-PRIOR, 1999;
Galchenko S.A. Development of land relations in Russia
Russian history. The growth of landownership in Russia - XVI century.
Buganov V.I., Preobrazhensky A.A., Tikhonov Yu.A. The evolution of feudalism in Russia. M., 1980.
Comparative constitutional law / Ed. count A.I. Kovler, V.E. Chirkin, Yu.A. Yudin. M.: Manuscript, 1996.
Steshenko L.A., Shamba T.M. History of State and Law of Russia: Academic course. In 2 volumes - V. 1. V - the beginning of the 20th century. - M.: Publishing house NORMA, 2003. - 752 p.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
Free and domestic servants and their right to acquire princely land plots. Development of local landownership under specific princes. The emergence of the legal idea of the estate as a land plot providing public service to a person.
abstract, added 01/05/2011
The history of the emergence, main features and forms of feudal land tenure in Western Europe. The difference between feudalism and the slave system, the stage of transition to capitalism. The role of the feudal type of state in the progressive development of mankind.
term paper, added 12/07/2013
The peculiarity of the activities of the Local Order, which existed in the 16th-18th centuries, dealt with matters relating to land ownership and property rights and ownership of land and peasants. Creation of an order, composition of documents and organization of office work.
abstract, added 01/05/2013
Disruption of foreign trade. The development of princely agriculture and land ownership. The birth of the boyar and church economy and land ownership. The origin and strengthening of the idea of private ownership of land. The development of the institution of slavery. Purchases and outcasts.
abstract, added 10/29/2008
Tendencies towards the unification of Russian lands, prerequisites and features of the formation of a centralized state. Changes in the economic, political and social life of Russian society at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, the formation of landownership.
abstract, added 11/22/2010
Analysis of the position of the Bulgarian people under the rule of the Ottoman Empire (XV-XVII centuries). Timar system as the basis of Ottoman land ownership. Socio-political crisis in the Bulgarian lands. Enlightenment stage in the Bulgarian Renaissance. Balkan wars.
term paper, added 01/13/2011
Position of Japan in V-VII centuries. Forms of development of land tenure in the early Middle Ages. The social and political system of Japan. Features of the board of regents and chancellors. Creation of the code of laws "Taihoryo". characteristics of Japanese culture.
abstract, added 07/10/2010
Development of feudal landownership and feudal relations in Kievan Rus. The legal status of the feudal lords. Privileges of the nobility according to Russian Pravda. The legal status of smerds and purchases according to Russian Truth. The legal status of servants, serfs, forgiveness, outcasts.
term paper, added 05/05/2015
Features of the local form of land tenure. The nobility in the period of the oprichnina, the consequences of this historical phenomenon for the lower stratum of landowners. The order and specificity of the reflection of the interests of the nobility in Russian legislation in the 80–90s. 16th century
test, added 06/18/2013
Features of the socio-economic development of Russia in the IX-XII centuries. Characteristics of family traditions. Historical prerequisites for the emergence of cities. Features of princely and church land tenure and economy. Patriarchal character of slavery in Kievan Rus.
In a feudal society, the right to property among the feudal lords is determined by their mutual connection and connection with the state, that is, by the system of vassalage, and in the peasant environment by the system of prohibitions on disposal. Differences in the status of property also depend on the differences in these relations. In pre-revolutionary studies, there was mainly a discussion of questions about the existence of tribal and private property, the opinion about collective forms of landed property prevailed.
The category of smerds included both free and dependent peasants, all smerds paid tribute. During the period of development of feudal relations in Russia, there was a process of transition of smerds into a dependent state. Russkaya Pravda points to the existence of two categories of smerds: free and dependent. right property serf feudal rus
The free smerd himself is responsible for his crimes: “Then I’ll sell the smerd to pay kiyazh for sale” (Article 45 of the “Large Truth”). However, most of the peasants were dependent smerds, who, in their disenfranchised position, were close to serfs: “And for the murder of a smerd or a serf, pay 5 hryvnias”; “If a smerd dies, then his inheritance goes to the prince, if he has daughters in his house ...” (Article 90).
Smerdy - this is the bulk of the feudal-dependent population, which for the most part consisted in the community. With the development of feudal relations, part of the communal smerds retained a position independent of private owners, and most of them fell under the power of private owners. The form of dependence of the smerd on the feudal lord was determined by the land on which he lived.
Along with serfs, purchases, smerds, hirelings are mentioned in the documents. The term "hired" was applied in Ancient Russia to different categories of people and was used in three meanings:
- 1. A person who undertakes to perform certain work for remuneration.
- 2. Tenant.
- 3. Mortgage person (hiring - purchase).
In all cases, employment is understood as a contract between a person who undertakes to work and a person who will use the results of labor. In the process of development of feudal relations in Russia, the legal status of the feudal-dependent peasantry was unified.
In the X-XI centuries. communal survivals in Russia were still quite significant. However, it is very difficult to determine the degree of existence of collective and individual forms of ownership due to a lack of sources. In Russian Pravda, in the overwhelming majority of cases, we are talking about individual property (horse, weapons, clothing, etc.). Most likely, in developed areas where princely legislation was in force, individual (private) property played a decisive role.
According to Russkaya Pravda, the owner had the right to dispose of property, enter into contracts, receive income from property, demand its protection in case of encroachment. The objects of property rights are a very wide range of things - horses and cattle, clothes and weapons, trade goods, agricultural implements and much more.
Other sources testify to the existence of an individual peasant economy in the period under review. However, they point to the existence of villages, churchyards, vervey, village settlements with collective forms of land ownership. Probably, these are neighboring communities with an individual form of ownership of a yard plot and periodic redistribution of arable land. Payments of taxes to the prince did not prevent the population from disposing of the land at their collective discretion, tk. the unit of taxation was not the land, but the yard, farms.
The property of the feudal lords arose as private and based on princely awards. In the XI century. chronicles mention the villages of princely warriors, in the XII century. there are many more such testimonials. The estates of the boyars were private property. The princes handed out land under the condition of service (possession of a beneficiary type, temporary or lifelong).
O. Rakov believes that there were hereditary beneficiaries. Conditional holdings could also be in the boyar hierarchy itself. The princely distribution of lands was accompanied by the receipt of immunities (independent actions in these possessions) - judicial, financial, administrative. In Russkaya Pravda there is no information about the land ownership of feudal lords, but the Long Pravda mentions persons who lived on these lands: boyar tyun (Art. 1), boyar serfs (Art. 46), boyar Ryadovich (Art. 14).
The land ownership of the church arose on the basis of state grants in the form of tithes. In the future, it grew due to deposits, purchases, etc.
The subjects of property rights could only be people who were not in a slave state. The division of things into movables and real estate has not found legal formalization, but the status of movables has been developed in Russkaya Pravda quite thoroughly. Property and its content, as well as various types of ownership, did not have special generalizing terms, however, in practice, the legislator distinguished between ownership and ownership.
The owner had the right to return his property (horse, weapon, clothes, serf) from someone else's illegal possession on the basis of a strictly established procedure, and a fine of 3 hryvnia was imposed for the “offense” caused. The return of things required testimonies and proceedings, if necessary, before a “community of 12 people” (Articles 13, 14, -15, 16 of the Short Truth; Articles 34, 35 of the Long Truth).
The general principle of protecting movable property was to return it to its rightful owner and pay him a fine as compensation for damages. Movable property (including serfs) is considered in Russian Pravda to be the scope of the complete domination of the owner: in disputes about its return, the state does not impose fines, the parties themselves agree among themselves. Those who entrusted property to slaves and serfs (for trade transactions, etc.) were liable to third parties in full in the event of damage and destruction of things (Articles 116, 117).
In other words, the legislator understood that the right to property is determined by the will of the owner himself. The protection of movable property, if it was not connected with a criminal offense, did not have an estate character, and everyone had the right to equally determine its fate.
According to Russian Truth, society did not want to know the slave, but only knew his master, who was responsible for the slave before society. The slave had no property rights; not only everything acquired by the labor of a slave, but also the wife and children of a slave were the property of his master. The law did not even recognize family rights for a slave; so, if a slave passed into the possession of another master, his wife and children remained with the former master.
The legislation on serfs is built on the idea that a serf is the master's thing. From this follow legalizations, by virtue of which the master had to pay for all the insults and debts of the serf and redeem him; for his crimes, the slave was not subject to punishment: the prince did not execute the slave, the master was responsible for him, he wanted to - he paid, he did not want to - he gave it to the plaintiff; the law did not intervene for him, did not appoint fines to the prince's treasury for the murder he committed, and for other crimes. The master himself paid for all this, who could kill the slave, sell it, mortgage it, etc. The will of the master was the only law for the slave. The law allowed the sale of a free person into slavery, while strictly observing that the sale of a free person was carried out with his consent and that there was no violence and deceit in it.
In addition, Russkaya Pravda provided significant benefits when freeing a slave. When buying a slave, the law levied 30 kunas in favor of the prince, and 9 kunas when the slave was released into the wild, and they seemed to be charged more so that the master of the slave would testify his will to grant the slave the rights of a free man before the court itself, after which the latter could no longer be subjected to the claims of its former master as to property.
Russian Truth, wishing to ensure the freedom of the sold slave, even recognizes a special class of free people, known as outcasts, who were under the protection of the church. Freed slaves were considered outcasts until they were included in any community, and then, from under the protection of the church, they came under the protection of their community.
The Russian Pravda reflects the norms of inheritance law, inheritance by law and inheritance by will are known. Russkaya Pravda determined two different orders of inheritance under the law: one for the boyars, the other for the smerds. “If one of the boyars or combatants dies, then the prince does not inherit, but daughters receive the inheritance if there are no sons left” (Article 9l). “If the smerd dies childless, then the prince inherits, if unmarried daughters remain in the house, then allocate some part of them, but if they are married, not to give part (v. 90).
The meaning of these articles, which restricts the right to inherit smerds, is not that the daughters of smerds cannot continue the labor exploitation of the land. It's all about the desire of the princes to further enrichment, including through the escheat economy of the smerd. The boyars, who were large landowners, defended the right of ownership to estates and the right to transfer them by inheritance. Article 92 is interesting in its content, where in the first part the will of the deceased head of the family is expressed in the form of a will. The law provided the testator with complete, unlimited freedom of disposal; it was not limited by the circle of heirs. The heir could deprive some of the children of the inheritance altogether. If there was no will, then according to the law, the property passed to the children (sons). Article 106 is formulated more clearly: “And the mother (let) give her (property) to that son who (was) kind (in relation to her, let him be from the first husband or from the second), and if all her sons are ungrateful, then may give (his property to that) daughter who fed her.” Russian inheritance law had some other features. Daughters in the presence of sons did not receive inheritance (Article 95). The younger son had precedence over his older brothers in inheriting his father's court (v. 100). "The younger son's father's court."
Children of the same mother but different fathers inherited the property of their fathers. But if a stepfather died, having squandered the property of his stepsons, then his children were obliged to pay to their half-brothers everything that their father had lost from the property of his stepsons (Art. 104, 105).
The wife was not the heiress of the bulk of her husband's property (Article 93), but received only a share (allotment). Russian Pravda knows the division of children into legal and illegal. The latter (Article 98) meant the children of a slave-concubine; after the death of their father, they could not inherit his property, but received freedom with their mother.
The norms of Russian Truth on inheritance fixed both the rights and obligations of heirs. Thus, the heirs were obliged to allocate part of the property of the church for the commemoration of the soul (Articles 92 and 93), and the heirs-sons were obliged to marry the sisters, "as they can."
Guardianship is closely related to inheritance. She was appointed in the event of the death of the father, the infancy of children, the second marriage of the mother, or in connection with this death. The guardian assumed certain legal obligations to preserve the property of the ward until adulthood, otherwise he would compensate for the losses.
prince- the largest feudal lord, owned all the palace and black-mowed (black-tax) lands. The palace lands belonged to the prince and his family directly and often
were distributed to those close for service ("servants" of the earth). The peasants of the palace lands carried dues or corvee and were ruled by palace servants. Chernososhnye lands belonged to the prince as head of state. The peasants of these lands bore taxes, duties in favor of the grand duke's power (the state) and were ruled by its governors. Black lands also often passed into the private possession of feudal lords - boyars, monasteries, nobility.Serving princes(princesses) turned (as they were subordinated to the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow) into large patrimonials, first vassals, and then subjects of the Grand Duke, obliged
service to him. Boyars- large landowners, estates, were also vassals of the Grand Duke, and then - his subjects. The patrimonial boyars became the main category of the ruling class of feudal lords (along with monasteries and churchmen) during the period of feudal fragmentation. Boyars had great rights to the land and the peasants who lived on it: handed over the land by inheritance, alienated it, changed it, etc.;
The prince owned all the lands. the prince grants his boyars the right to collect tribute from certain conquered territories. Those could distribute to their combatants, and they, in turn, could settle on this land. If the boyars built a house, then the property became a fiefdom and personally belonged to the boyars, and could also be inherited. Part of the land went to land owners as payment for patronage. Thus the feudal hierarchy was formed. The prince was the supreme owner of the land, then came the estates, then the boyars, who received the right to fully inherit their lands. The petty land holders were at the end of the feudal ladder, their holding of land backed by a contract of service.
The prince owned all the lands. He gave his approximate boyars or (serving people) land for service, for the duration of this service or for ownership. Those could distribute to their combatants, and they, in turn, could settle on this land.
There were also boyars who seized communal land, representatives of the grand ducal dynasty, local princes, who also owned land.
After the adoption in the X century. Christianity, a significant part of the land was concentrated
in handchurches, monasteries, clergy.
Immunities
Boyars had immunity rights. That is, they were not just landowners, in their hands (according to the immunity letters) were the court, administration, collection of taxes, etc.
in their villages and villages.
Sources of ancient Russian law. Russian truth. (lists and editions).
Ancient source of law custom. At an early stage in the development of the Old Russian state, the norms of customary law were in force. and as a transitional form from custom to law, the law of contracts took place
Russian truth. (lists and editions).
More than a hundred lists of Russian Pravda have survived to this day, which can be presented in three main editions: Short, Long and Abbreviated (denoted in the literature as KP, PP and SP).
The oldest edition (was adopted in 1068) is Brief Truth, consisting
from Pravda Yaroslav (Art. 1-18), Pravda Yaroslavichi (Art. 19-43),
The Long Truth was adopted in 1113. consisted of two parts - the Charter of Prince Yaroslav (Art. 1-52) and the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh (Art. 53-121)- systematized collection
legal norms included in the Brief Truth with later changes
and additions to the Charter adopted during the reign of Vladimir
Monomakh, after the suppression of the uprising in Kyiv in 1113.
abridged edition appeared in the middle of the fifteenth century. from the revised Extended Edition.
Sources of Russian truth.
The sources of codification were customary law and princely jurisprudence. Among the norms common law First of all, the provisions on blood feud (Article 1) and mutual responsibility (Article 19 of the CP) concern. The legislator evaluates these customs in different ways: he seeks to limit blood feud (narrowing the circle of avengers) or even cancel it, replacing it with a fine (vira). Mutual responsibility, on the contrary, is preserved as a political measure that binds all members of the community to responsibility for their member who committed a crime (the "wild vira" was imposed on the entire community). The norms developed by the princely judicial practice, are numerous in Russian Pravda and are sometimes associated with the names of the princes who received them (Yaroslav, the sons of Yaroslav, Vladimir Monomakh). Byzantine
Land tenure. The land with the population working on it was of great value. The economic basis of Ancient Russia was the large feudal land ownership of princes, boyars, vigilante husbands, and after the adoption of Christianity - the Church.
A variety of landed property were "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. By the middle of the 11th century, more and more land fell into private hands. Using their power, the owners appropriated vast lands for themselves, on which the prisoners worked, turning into permanent workers. The possessions of ordinary free community members were surrounded by princely lands, into which the best land plots, forests, and water spaces 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 Russia, 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. around large cities, boyar estates were formed (from the word "fatherland" - the legacy of the father, the so-called later estates that could be inherited and alienated), where boyars and combatants lived. The patrimony consisted of a princely or boyar estate and peasant worlds dependent on it, but the supreme ownership of this property 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 for feeding (the 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 own vigilantes. This is how the system of the feudal hierarchy was formed.
Late XIII - early XIV centuries. - this is the time of the growth of feudal landownership, when the princes own numerous villages. There are more and more estates, both large and small. The main way for the development of the estate at that time was the grant of land to the prince with the peasants.
The feudal lords were divided into upper strata - the boyars and the so-called free servants, who had broad immunity rights. But from the end of the 17th 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 (dvor - managers of the princely economy in separate volosts, to whom the small princely servants were subordinate), who received small plots of land from the prince for service. From these landholdings the manorial system subsequently developed.
In the XV century. in connection with the beginning of the centralization of power and its strengthening, all transactions with landed property are directly controlled by the authorities.
Church lands. In the XI century. church land possessions appeared, which the grand dukes provided to the highest hierarchs of the Church - the metropolitan, bishops, monasteries, churches. Church land ownership, in the form of cathedral and monastery, grew especially rapidly in the XIV-XV centuries. The princes endowed church owners with extensive immunity rights and privileges. Unlike boyar and princely estates, monastic estates were not divided, which put church land ownership in a more advantageous position and contributed to the transformation of monasteries into economically rich households. The largest landowners were Troitse-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 who became large landowners, was located in areas where peasant colonization was directed.
The main form of feudal tenure in the XIV-XV centuries. there remained a large princely, boyar and church fiefdom. In an effort to increase the profitability of possessions, 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 tenure became the basis for the material support of the nobles.
In the 16th century, the nature of the land tenure of the princes changed, who, having become subjects of the sovereign of Russia, retained the right of ownership to their lands. But these possessions were getting closer and closer to ordinary estates. In return for part of the old lands taken from them, the princes received estates on the territory of the great Moscow and Vladimir principalities, and also bought or received estates as dowries. Gradually, boyar land ownership approached princely land ownership, but this process ended only by the middle of the century.
Many old feudal fiefdoms became smaller in family sections. The fund of patrimonial lands was reduced due to the growth of land ownership of churches-monasteries, the metropolitan and bishops. They received part of the land for the "rest of the soul", and bought part. Votchinniks were often forced to give land to the monastery due to the fact that they were entangled in debt obligations.
The crushing and dispossession of part of the votchinniki did not correspond to state interests. During this period, the government did not have sufficient funds to support the army, following the example of some Western European states. The combat readiness of the troops could be ensured by the fact that each soldier would have landed property, and also could purchase weapons and war horses at his own expense. The need for military force was great due to the difficult international situation of the country.
In view of these circumstances, the government took the path of creating a state local system. Now the military servants of the state were "placed" on the land, at the expense of which they mainly had to provide themselves with everything necessary for military and other public service. They began to be called landowners, and their possessions - estates. The monetary salary that service people received could not fully provide them, because. the land was given to them on the right of conditional holding.
Soon the landowners began to distribute the land of the black-eared peasants. By the end of the XVI century. there are almost no black-moss lands in the center of the country. The development of the estate system had a severe effect on the position of the peasants who found themselves on the estates. The landowners subjected them to violence in order to maintain their sovereign service and the possession of populated lands associated with it. The landowners became the main driving force behind the offensive against the peasantry that unfolded in the 16th century.
A characteristic feature of the socio-economic development of medieval Russia was the territorial division of various forms of feudal land tenure. In the central densely populated areas, a stable estate-patrimonial land tenure of various categories of secular and spiritual feudal lords developed. On the vast, sparsely populated outskirts, various forms of communal peasant land ownership were preserved, gradually included in the sphere of increasing dependence on the state. The general trend of the socio-economic development of the Russian state during the XVI century. consisted in the growth of serfdom in the country.
In the 17th century the expansion of feudal landownership occurred due to the granting of black and palace lands to nobles (landowners), which was accompanied by an increase in the number of enslaved population.
Among the nobles, the direct connection between the service and its remuneration was gradually lost: the estates remained with the clan even if its representatives ceased to serve. The rights to dispose of estates expanded more and more (transfer as a dowry, exchange, etc.), i.e. the estate lost the features of conditional land ownership and approached the patrimony, between which, by the 17th century. formal differences persisted.
During this period, the share of secular landownership increased, because. The Cathedral Code of 1649 shortened the church code. From now on, the Church was forbidden to expand its possessions both by buying land and by receiving it as a gift for the remembrance of the soul. It is no coincidence that Patriarch Nikon called the Code "a lawless book." The main trend in the socio-economic development of Russia was the further strengthening of serfdom, in the planting of which government measures to prevent the flight of peasants occupied a special place: military teams led by detectives were sent to the counties, returning the fugitives to their owners; the size of the "elderly" for keeping the fugitive increased from 10 to 20 rubles.
In the first quarter of the 18th century, serious changes took place in the system of feudal property, the state duties of the peasants, and the power of the landlords over the peasants. The strengthening of land tenure and the rights of landlords led to an increase in the needs of the nobles for money, caused by changes in their way of life and way of life, which led to an increase in the size of feudal rent, the growth of peasant duties and new types of serfdom.
The Northern War caused a great increase in the state and property duties of the peasants. The most common was the 3-day corvee, in which the landowners forced the peasants to work much more often.
In the middle and second half of the XVIII century. the decomposition of feudal-serf relations began, although in general Russia remained a feudal country. Agriculture remained extensive. Serfdom spread to new areas: the Don, the Volga region, Novorossia, Siberia. The distribution of serf "souls" was massive. Catherine II alone gave the landowners 800,000 new serfs. The government strengthened the power of the landlords over the peasants: they could be sold, inherited, exchanged for thoroughbred dogs and horses, donated, lost at cards, forced to marry or marry, separate parents and children, wives and husbands. Corvee reached 4-5 days a week, and monetary dues also increased. In order to raise money for dues, the peasants were forced to go to work in the city and became "otkhodniks". Many peasant farms were ruined, but at the same time, prosperous, "capitalist" peasants began to appear in the countryside, who were engaged in trade, crafts, rented land and produced bread for sale. The intensive development of agriculture was hindered by serfdom. The sale and purchase of serfs, physical punishment, return to recruits or exile to hard labor for the slightest infractions were common. The seizure of church lands and the transfer of monastic peasants to the ranks of state peasants slightly eased the burden of duties imposed on them.
One of the signs of the decay of the feudal serf system was the decline of the peasant economy, the fall in the profitability of estates. Most of the landlords saw the only opportunity to improve their affairs by intensifying the exploitation of the peasants, which led to an aggravation of the social struggle.
Despite the progressive ideas proclaimed by Empress Catherine 2, the situation of the masses did not improve, and social contradictions did not smooth out either. An indicator of this was the peasant war led by Emelyan Pugachev (1773-1775), which became the most powerful anti-feudal movement in the history of Russia and covered the vast territory of the country from the Don to the Yaik and the Urals, the upper Volga and the Kama. It was attended by the broad masses of the peasantry, working people, the oppressed peoples of the Volga and Ural regions, the Cossacks. The peasant war shook the foundations of serfdom and frightened the nobility. Now the main concern of Catherine II was the strengthening of the feudal state and the strengthening of the dictatorship of the nobility.
