Termination of the activities of city councils. The dependence of the princes on the Tatar Khan; order of princely possession. The power of the Grand Duke of Vladimir until the end of the XIV century. Emancipation of Ryazan and Tver from submission to the Grand Duke of Moscow and Vladimir.

2

SUMMARY ON THE TOPICPOLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF NORTH-EASTERN RUSSIAIN A SPECIFIC EPOCHPlan 1. Termination of the activity of city councils.2. The dependence of the princes on the Tatar Khan; order of princely possession.3. The power of the Grand Duke of Vladimir until the end of the XIV century.4. Emancipation of Ryazan and Tver from submission to the Grand Duke of Moscow and Vladimir.5. Subordination to the Grand Dukes of Moscow, Tver and Ryazan specific princes.6. Internal independence of appanages.7. Rapprochement of principalities with private estates.8. Elements of statehood in specific order.9. Features of feudalism in the specific system of northeastern Russia in the XIII-XV centuries; fragmentation of state power.10. The origin of feudal relations in Russia.11. Mortgage and patronage.12. Transitions of boyars and servants; salaries and feeding.13. Features of feudalism in the views, language and way of life of specific era.14. Literature. 1. Termination of the activities of city councils. The Tatar invasion, with all the consequences that accompanied it, accelerated the very process life, which led to a decline in significance, and then to the final cessation of the activities of city councils in northeastern Russia. Already in the second half of the XII century, in the era of intensive settlement of the region by colonists from the south, the princes of northeastern Russia showed a tendency to become the masters of the country, its masters as its creators and organizers. Let us recall that Andrei Bogolyubsky was already an autocrat in the Suzdal land and did not want to know either his boyars or the people's council. Andrei, as you know, became a victim of his domestic politics and died from a conspiracy of those dissatisfied with his autocracy. After his death, the old veche cities - Rostov and Suzdal - tried to become masters in the country, to plant princes of their own free will and on their own. But they failed to achieve this, because they did not have strong, ancient ties with the rest of the population, who had recently arrived, planted on the land by the princes-colonizers, and above all with the suburbs of Suzdal land. Vladimirians refused to recognize the princes nominated by the Rostov and Suzdal people. In the internecine struggle that followed, the old veche towns suffered a complete defeat. In the Rostov-Suzdal land, therefore, even before the Tatars, the prince became the master of the situation, and the veche receded into the background. The very composition of the population in the Rostov-Suzdal land should have favored the strengthening of the prince at the expense of the veche. This population consisted of inhabitants of small villages and villages scattered over great distances. There were few crowded, large settlements, commercial and industrial cities, and therefore the veche of the main cities could not acquire the dominance that they received in other regions of the Russian land. The Tatars completed this political evolution of northeastern Russia. Cities during their invasion were subjected to terrible ruin, impoverished and impoverished. Due to the decline of crafts and trade, they could not recover for a long time to any significant extent. Under such conditions, their inhabitants had to think more about their daily bread, about tomorrow, and not about politics. With the assertion of Tatar dominion over Russia, the appointment and change of princes began to depend on the will of the khan. Therefore, the most important function of the veche, the calling and expulsion of princes, also fell by itself. If a vecha was to be held, it was only in cases of emergency, and moreover, in the form of a mutiny. “God deliver,” writes, for example, a chronicler under the year 1262, “from the fierce languor of the Basurman people of the Rostov land: put fury into the hearts of the peasants, who do not tolerate the violence of the filthy, deigning forever and driving them out of the cities, from Rostov, from Volodimer, from Suzdal, from Yaroslavl, they are okupahuting the repentance of the unruly tribute ”(Lavrent. ). Or under the year 1289: “Prince Dmitry Borisovich is sitting in Rostov. Multiply then the Tatars in Rostov, and the citizens created a veche and drove them out, and plundered their property ”(Voskres.), etc. So, of the two forces that led society in Kievan Rus, in the northeastern specific era, one remained - prince. 2. The dependence of the princes on the Tatar Khan; order of princely possession. But this political force, for all that, did not become independent. In 1243, Grand Duke Yaroslav Vsevolodovich went to Batu, who, according to the chronicle, received him with honor and said to him: “Yaroslav! Be older than all the prince in the Russian language. The following year, other princes went to Batu “about their fatherland”: “I honored Batu ace with a worthy honor and let me go, judging them, someone to my fatherland” (Lavrent.). The same order continued after. As a rule, the khans approved as both the great and the local prince the one who had the right to do so on ancestral or patrimonial grounds that were in force in the then customary princely law. As a result of this, in the 13th century, the seniority of the princes sat in turn on the Grand Duchess of Vladimir: Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, his brother Svyatoslav, son Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, another son - Yaroslav of Tverskoy and the third - Vasily Kostroma, then the eldest grandson Dimitri Alexandrovich, the next Andrey Alexandrovich, then Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tverskoy. Thus, in the succession of the senior grand-ducal table, approximately the old Kievan custom was observed. But in replacing all other princely tables, as was already indicated in due time, a new, patrimonial order was established - the transition from fathers to sons, and in the absence of such, to the closest relatives. Thus, for example, in Rostov, after Konstantin Vsevolodovich, his eldest son Vasilko reigned, who was succeeded by his son Boris, etc., in Ryazan, after Ingvar Igorevich, his son Oleg reigned, then his grandson Roman Olgovich, great-grandson Fedor Romanovich, from whom no offspring remained, why his brother Konstantin Romanovich began to reign in Ryazan, etc. The khans for the most part approved the reign of the one who followed it according to custom. But for all that, the khan's sovereignty had not a formal, but a purely real meaning. The princes paid the khan an exit from their principalities and gifts for shortcuts to reign. Therefore, in the 14th century, the khans began to give the great reign of Vladimir not to those princes to whom it followed in order of seniority, but to those who knew how to ask them again, to give them more gifts. Thus, for example, in 1341, the sixteen-year-old Moscow prince Semyon Ivanovich left the Horde for a great reign, “and all the Russian princes were given under his hand, and gray-haired on the table in Volodimer” (Resurrection). In 1359, the Khan gave the label for the great reign to the young Dimitry Ivanovich Donskoy, whose boyars managed to outbid this label, which was also begging for the prince of Suzdal Dimitry Konstantinovich. At the end of the 14th century, labels began to be bought from the khan not only for the great reign of Vladimir, but also for destinies. Thus, for example. Moscow prince Vasily Dmitrievich bought the label for the principality of Nizhny Novgorod, which had been given to his stepfather, Boris Konstantinovich. In this case, the khan in relation to the princes began to play the same role that the councils of the main cities in Kievan Rus played, planting the princes all the time without paying attention to their family accounts.3. The power of the Grand Duke of Vladimir until the end of the XIV century. What mutual relations were established under the Tatars between the princes of northeastern Russia? Until the end of the 14th century, the great princes of Vladimir had a certain power over all the other princes, although neither the content of this power nor its extent is quite definite from the sources. Chronicles muffledly say that other princes were "at hand" of the great princes. Above, evidence from the annals was cited that all the Russian princes were "under the arms" of the Grand Duke Semyon. It is written about Dimitri Donskoy that he “summoned all the princes of the Russian lands, which exist under his authority” (Voskres.). The subjugation of the princes can be traced in the facts only in the fact that the specific princes during the all-Russian campaigns became under the banner of the Grand Duke of Vladimir. The Grand Duke of Vladimir, by all indications, was a representative of all Russian princes before the khan, was originally the only prince who knew the Horde, that is, he went to petition the khan for the interests of the Russian land, received orders from him, etc. All these special rights and advantages in connection with the possession of the Vladimir district were the reason for the struggle of the princes of different lines for the great reign of Vladimir. The last struggle for the great reign of Vladimir took place under Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy. In 1367, Prince Dimitri Ivanovich laid a stone Kremlin in Moscow and began to bring all the princes under his will, among other things, Prince Mikhail Alexandrevich of Tverskoy. Michael, not wanting to obey, turned for help to his son-in-law Olgerd, the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Several times, Lithuanian troops entered the Moscow possessions, subjected them to devastation. Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich launched against them not only the regiments of the princes of the Moscow appanages, but also the Ryazan regiments of Oleg Ivanovich, the Pronsky prince Vladimir Dmitrievich. Not having time in his business with Lithuanian help, Mikhail in 1371 went to the Horde and returned from there with a label for the great reign of Vladimir and the khan's ambassador Sarykhozha. But Demetrius did not let Michael into the great reign, gave Sarykhozh as a gift and then went to the Horde himself, gave the Khan, the Khansh and all the princes there, and again received a label for the great reign. Mikhail, for his part, again went to Lithuania and incited Olgerd against Moscow. In the struggle that followed, Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich took his father-in-law Dimitri Konstantinovich of Suzdal with him to the battle field with his two brothers and son, cousin Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovsky, three princes of Rostov, the prince of Smolensk, two princes of Yaroslavl, prince Belozersky, Kashinsky, Molozhsky, Starodubsky, Bryansk, Novosilsky, Obolensky and Tarussky. The struggle ended with Mikhail Alexandrovich pleading himself the “younger brother” of Dimitri, equal to Vladimir Andreevich, undertaking not to look for the Grand Duchy of Vladimir under Dimitri, to mount a horse and go to war when the Grand Duke himself or his brother Vladimir Andreevich mounts, or send their governors if they send a governor: he undertook to jointly determine his relations with the Tatars, to give them tribute or not to give them, to fight with them if it comes to war, to fight together against Lithuania, to live with Veliky Novgorod and Torzhok like old times. All these the details of the struggle for the Grand Prince of Vladimir, as well as the agreement between Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich and Mikhail of Tver, which ensures his obedience to the Grand Duke of Vladimir, show what the power of the Grand Duke of Vladimir consisted of. This power was military-political. Local princes were obliged to go to war at the call of the Grand Duke, not to conduct any independent foreign policy. The significance of the Grand Duke of Vladimir then appears quite clearly in the ensuing struggle of Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy with the Tatars and Ryazan. In 1380, Demetrius gathered a huge army of 150 thousand people against Mamai. This rati included regiments not only of Moscow appanages, but also of assistant princes of Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozersky; and the prince of Tver sent his troops with his nephew, Ivan Vsevolodovich Kholmsky. Oleg Ryazansky, out of fear of the Tatars, did not join the Grand Duke, after the Kulikovo defeat of the Tatars, had to flee to Lithuania for fear of reprisals, and Dimitri Ivanovich took Ryazan from him for disobeying Oleg. When they then reconciled and concluded an agreement, Oleg recognized himself as the “younger brother” of Dimitri, equal to Vladimir Andreevich, pledged to be at the same time against Lithuania, and is in the same relationship with the Horde as the Moscow prince. So, Oleg became to Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy in the same subordinate position as Mikhail Tverskoy. To characterize this situation, one can cite some data from the agreement with Dmitry Ivanovich of his cousin, Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovsky, to which princes Oleg and Mikhail were equated: “You, my younger brother, Prince Vladimir, keep my great prince under me honestly and menacingly; you, my younger brother, to serve without disobedience,” etc. 4. Emancipation of Ryazan and Tver from submission to the Grand Duke of Moscow and Vladimir. In the 15th century, the princes of Tver and Ryazan were emancipated from submission to the Grand Duke of Vladimir. The great princedom of Vladimir could hold on menacingly and honestly only when the grand dukes were representatives of the khan in Russia, used his authority and military assistance. But by the middle of the 14th century, the Horde had weakened, and the Grand Duke not only did not receive support from there, but was already in frequent conflict with the Tatar khans, and acted as a leader in the struggle for liberation from Tatar rule. Under such conditions, he was forced to consolidate his power and authority by agreements with the princes. Treaties are valid only when they can be backed up by force at any time. But the Grand Duke of Moscow, although he appropriated the great reign of Vladimir, was not yet in such a position at the end of the XIV and the first quarter of the XV century. His forces were paralyzed not only by the Horde, which at times acted hostilely against him, but also by Lithuania, which at any moment was ready to support local princes against him. Under such conditions, the princes of Ryazan and Tver gradually began to occupy an independent position relative to the Grand Duke of All Russia. In an agreement concluded with Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich in 1402. The Ryazan prince Fedor Olgovich, although he recognized himself as a younger brother and undertook not to pester the Tatars, but with all this he negotiated for himself the right to send an ambassador (kilichei) with gifts to the Horde, the right to receive a Tatar ambassador for the good of a Christian with honor, notifying only about to everyone and about all the Horde news of Grand Duke Vasily. Even more significant is the agreement concluded with Vasily Dmitrievich of Tver by Prince Mikhail around 1398. In it, Mikhail is no longer called a younger brother, but simply a brother, and gives obligations equivalent to the obligations of his counterparty - to be for one against the Tatars, Lithuania, Germans and Poles. This mutual obligation is developed in the agreement in the following way: if the tsar himself, or the Tatar army, or Lithuania, or the Germans, or the Poles, go against the Moscow princes, and the Grand Duke of Moscow and his brothers mount horses, then Mikhail will send two of his sons, and two brothers, leaving one son with him; if the Tatars, Lithuanians or Germans attack the Principality of Tver, then the Moscow prince is obliged to mount his horse himself and with his brothers. The Grand Duke, obliging the Prince of Tver, his children and grandchildren not to take love, that is, not to enter into agreements with Vitovt and Lithuania, at the same time, for himself and his brothers, undertook not to conclude agreements without the Prince of Tver, his children and grandchildren . The prince of Tver was given complete freedom in relations with the Horde: "And to the Horde, brother, and to the king, the path is clear, and your children, and your grandchildren, and your people." The strife that ensued in the family of the Moscow princes further contributed to the liberation from subjugation to them of the princes of Tver and Ryazan, who during this time were closely adjacent to the Grand Duke of Lithuania. 5. Subordination to the Grand Dukes of Moscow, Tver and Ryazan specific princes Thus, from the end of the 14th century and during the first half of the 15th century, in northeastern Russia there was already not one great reign, but three - Moscow, Tver and Ryazan. The great princedom of Vladimir was inextricably linked with the Moscow Grand Duke, as a result of which not only his relatives, but also the princes of other destinies, for example, Rostov, Suzdal, Yaroslavl, etc. were subordinate to the Grand Duke of Moscow. Only their relatives were subordinate to the Grand Duke of Tver and Ryazan. This subordination of relatives to the elder or grand prince is evidenced both by the agreements of these great princes with other great princes, and by the agreements of the great princes with younger relatives. Above, the obligation of the Grand Duke of Tver to Moscow, to send his sons and brothers to help, has already been given. This means that the younger appanage princes had to go to war on the orders of the elder. Prince Boris Alexandrovich of Tver, concluding an agreement with Vitovt in 1427, directly stipulated: “To my uncles, brothers and my tribe - princes, be in obedience to me: I, the great prince Boris Alexandrovich, am free, whom I favor, whom I execute, and my master grandfather, Grand Duke Vitovt, do not intervene; if any of them wants to surrender to the service of my master grandfather with a father, then my master grandfather with a father is not accepted; whoever of them goes to Lithuania will lose his fatherland, - in his fatherland I am free, Grand Duke Boris Alexandrovich. It can be seen from the agreements of the grand dukes with specific appanages that the obedience of the latter was expressed in their obligation to mount horses and go to war when the grand duke himself mounted a horse or sent his sons or other younger brothers, and in the obligation to send a governor if the grand duke will send his commanders. The great princes received from the khans labels for the whole land, including the destinies of younger relatives. In 1412, the Grand Duke of Tverskoy Ivan Mikhailovich, to whom the appanage prince Yuri did not want to obey, said: “The label of the tsar is given to me on the whole land of Tver, and Yuri himself is the tsar of the given mi in the label.” Because of this, the specific princes could not be given with their fatherlands into submission to other princes, they were obliged, collecting tribute according to the apportionment, to pay this tribute to the Grand Duke, and the Grand Duke was already taken to the Horde. Therefore, Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark and punished in his spiritual testament: “As my children begin to live according to their destinies, then my princess and children will send scribes who will describe their destinies by kissing the cross, impose tribute on plows and people, and according to this salary the princess and my children will give way to my son Ivan. So, the specific princes of northeastern Russia in military and political terms were subordinate until the end of the XIV century to the Grand Duke of Vladimir, and from the end of the XIV century to the three Grand Dukes - Moscow-Vladimir, Tver and Ryazan, who were independent of each other and determined their relations with contracts that varied depending on the circumstances of their conclusion. Some researchers, especially Sergeevich, are inclined to look in exactly the same way at the relationship of junior appanage princes to local great ones. They admit that the subordination of junior princes to elders was not any kind of order, state-legal custom, that de jure princes were all equal, and relations of subordination were established between them only by virtue of agreements, depending on the circumstances of each given moment. But such a concept of inter-princely relations of a specific era can hardly be accepted. If you delve into the content of the agreements between the senior princes and the junior ones, it is easy to see that the agreements are trying to guarantee such relations between them, which were considered normal, to confirm the state-legal antiquity. 6. Internal independence of destinies. The subordination of the junior princes to the great ones was limited to an obligatory alliance against enemies, military assistance, and the contribution of the Tatar output to the grand duke's treasury, which in turn was due to the fact that the junior princes did not have the right to independent relations with the Horde. But in all other respects the younger princes were free and independent. The treaties guaranteed them the inviolability of their possessions and the full right to dispose of them, without breaking only their ties with the great reign. “You know your fatherland, and I know mine” - this is the usual article in these agreements. The contracting parties usually pledged not to buy villages in the destinies of each other, not to allow their own boyars to do this, not to give letters of commendation for possession in someone else’s inheritance, not to hold a mortgage and quitrents, to give court and justice to their subjects at the suits of other princes or their subjects, not to send bailiffs to each other and not to judge courts. In these agreements, the boyars and free servants were usually provided with freedom of transition from one prince to another, and they also retained their estates in the inheritance of the abandoned prince. The princes pledged not to accept written or numerical people, as well as servants “under the court”, who owned lands: whoever of these servants transferred to the service of another prince, he lost his lands in the inheritance of the former prince. The junior appanage princes thus enjoyed complete independence in the internal administration of their principalities. They divided these principalities among their children, allocated “oprichnina” from them for living after their death to their princesses, bequeathed these principalities to relatives or foreign princes, etc.7. Rapprochement of principalities with private estates. We examined the mutual relations of the princes of northeastern Russia in a specific era. Let us now look at their relationship to their possessions, to the territories of the principalities and the population living on them. The princes, as we have seen, remained in northeastern Russia the only masters, masters in their principalities. Due to the general impoverishment of the country and the impossibility of living on income from government, the princes occupied many lands and fishing grounds in their principalities and developed their palace economy on a vast scale, for which they attracted a significant part of the rural population to various jobs and duties. The income from this farm became the main means of their maintenance, and the income from management was only a certain help. Having become a major master, the prince began to consider his entire principality as a huge economic institution, as an patrimony, and therefore began to dispose of it like all votchinniks, divide it among his heirs, allocate parts of it for a living to his wife and daughters, sometimes transfer it to sons-in-law, as it was, for example, in Yaroslavl, where Prince Vasily Vsevolodovich transferred the inheritance to his son-in-law Fyodor Rostislavich Smolensky. As a result of the multiplication of some branches of the princely family and the numerous redistributions of their possessions, in the course of time such microscopic principalities were obtained that were no larger than any boyar patrimony. Klyuchevsky, on the basis of evidence from the life of one saint who labored on Lake Kubenskoye, draws one of these principalities - Zaozerskoye in this form: its capital consisted of one princely court, located at the confluence of the Kubena River into Kubenskoye Lake, and not far from it stood "the whole Chirkov ". You see in front of you, therefore, an ordinary landowner's estate, nothing more. Many of the principalities that formed in the Rostov Territory included villages and villages spread along small rivers, such as Ukhtoma, Kem, Andoga, Sit, Kurba, Yukhot, etc. Numerous appanage princes began to resemble landowners. not only by the size of their possessions, but also by the nature of their activities. It was not the court and the administration as such that now began to fill their time, but economic concerns, economic affairs; and their usual employees and advisers were not the boyars, thinking about military affairs and the zemstvo system, but their clerks, to whom they entrusted certain branches of their vast economy. These were: the courtier, or butler, who was subordinate to all the arable lands of the prince with the entire population working on them, and then the worthy boyars, the administrators of the ways, or the aggregates of one or another category of economic lands, which are: the stolnik, who was in charge of all fishing and fishermen, a hunter, who was in charge of the animal "paths" and trappers, a beaver, a bowler, who was in charge of all the onboard lands and beekeepers, a stableman, a falconer. Since all these lands were not concentrated in one place, but were scattered throughout the principality, the departments of the worthy boyars were not territorial districts, but precisely the paths that cut the principalities in different directions. All these clerks of the prince constituted his usual council or council, with which he conferred not only on the economic affairs of his principality, but also on those that could be called state affairs. Both private owners and princes had not only freemen, but also slaves in their positions. Treasurers, keykeepers, courtiers, ambassadors, tyuns were very often from serfs, as can be seen from the spiritual letters of the princes, in which these persons were set free. Even in the management of the population, not involved in the work of the palace economy, the princes began to dominate purely possessory, economic interest. The territories of the specific principalities were administratively divided into counties, with central cities, and counties into volosts. For court and management, the princes sent governors to the districts, to the volosts of the volosts or their tiuns. The governor, who was sitting in the central city of the county, repaired the court and the council in all cases in the suburban volost, and in cases of murder, robbery and red-handed tatba - within the entire county; volostels or tiuns repaired the court and administration in the volosts in all cases, with the exception of those that were subject to the court of the governor. Under the governors and volostels there were executive officials - right-handers and closers, bailiffs, podvoisky. The main goal of this administration was not so much to ensure public order and individual rights, but to extract income and maintain servants. The viceroys and volostels repaired the court quite formally, without entering into an internal assessment of the evidence. The court was created, so to speak, by itself, according to the established rules of old, the observance of which was monitored by the court men from the local society, and the judges sat and looked at their profit, that is, from whom and how much to take court fines and fees. Half of these incomes were usually received by princes, and half went to judges. The governors and volostels, in addition, received fodder in kind and money from the population - entry, Christmas, Great and Peter's. The princes sent their boyars and servants to these positions to feed themselves, and therefore did not allow them to stay in their positions for a long time in order to enable all their servants to stay in these profitable places. Looking at the position of governors and volosts mainly from a financial point of view, the princes, therefore, easily issued the so-called non-conviction letters that freed the population of boyar and church estates from the court of governors and volosts and subordinated it to the court of the owners. It was the same material favor to the owners, as well as sending boyars and servants for feeding. The owners of such privileged estates themselves were usually exempted from the court of governors and volosts. They were judged by the prince himself or by his introduced boyar, i.e. specifically authorized to do so. 8. Elements of statehood in specific order. Combining into one whole the features that characterize the relationship of the princes to each other, to the territory and population, some researchers, especially Chicherin in "Experiments in the History of Russian Law", come to the denial of state principles in a specific order. According to Chicherin, only private law, and not state law, dominated in specific life. The princes in their destinies did not distinguish between the grounds on which they owned the cities and the entire territory of the appanage, on the one hand, and some small item of their use, on the other hand, like utensils and clothes, and in their spiritual testaments indifferently blessed their sons cities and townships, icons, chains, hats and fur coats. Inter-princely relations were regulated by treaties, and the treaty was a fact of private law. It became to be, neither in individual destinies, nor in the entire Russian land, there was either state power, or state concepts and relations among the princes. They were not in the relationship of the princes to the population: the princes were the owners of the land, and they were connected with free residents only by contractual relations: these residents remained in the principalities as long as they wanted, and the prince could not force them to stay, and their departure was not considered as treason. But such a characteristic of the specific system, for all its brightness, suffers from one-sidedness. Gradovsky in his "History of Local Government in Russia" rightly pointed out that the princes in their wills, placing cities, volosts, their villages and movables next to each other, transfer various items of possession to their heirs. Villages, for example, and things they transfer entirely as full property, and in volosts only income and management rights. This serves as proof for Gradovsky that in the specific period, there were concepts that came out of the sphere of civil law and had the character of state concepts. In addition to this, it can be added that the princes were not connected with all the free population of the appanages by contractual relations. This applied only to the boyars and free servants, for whom the princes negotiated the right of free passage in contracts. But the peasants, written or numerical people who paid tribute to the Tatars and carried various duties to the princes, the princes kept in their destinies and pledged not to call them back from each other. In view of this, it is still better to recognize the inheritances of the northeastern princes as their hereditary property as political rulers, and not private ones, although it cannot be denied that in terms of the type of administration and life, according to the prevailing interests, this property came close to a simple estate. Then, in the relations of the princes to each other, one can notice the beginning of subordination due to the well-known political right of the elders in relation to the younger ones. The treaties of the princes did not always re-establish relations between them, but quite often only sanctioned customary law already in force. This political right determined princely relations beyond treaties. All this in total allows us to speak only about a certain mixture of state and private law in a specific era, and not about the replacement of state law by private law. 9. Features of feudalism in the specific system of northeastern Russia in the XIII-XV centuries; fragmentation of state power .So, the specific principalities, both in size and in the nature of their ownership and use, came close to the large estates of private owners and church institutions, and on the other hand, large possessory estates came close to the principalities, because their owners acquired political rights over the population of their estates . Thus, in the political system of northeastern Russia, the most characteristic features of medieval feudalism appeared - the fragmentation of state power and its combination with land ownership. In addition to this, it can be pointed out that in our country, as in the West, with the division of state power, a whole hierarchy of sovereigns was formed, differing from each other in the number of their supreme rights. The highest sovereign of Russia, from whom the Russian princes received their investiture, corresponding to the emperors, western and eastern, was the Tsar of the Horde, who considered the entire Russian land as his ulus, as one of his possessions. Below him were the great princes - Vladimir-Moscow, Tver and Ryazan, corresponding to the Western European kings, who received from him labels for great reigns with all their territories; under the great princes were the appanage princes, corresponding to the Western European dukes, subordinate to the great in some respects, and even lower were the landowning boyars and church institutions, who, as we have seen, enjoyed state rights of court and taxation in their estates. However, those rights that constitute sovereignty - are independent, not derivative - had only the first three categories of sovereigns. Sovereignty was divided between the khan and the great and specific princes. Only these sovereigns had the right to diplomatic relations (specific - limited), the right to beat coins, etc. Even the smallest princes used the right to beat coins. The Tver Museum keeps coins with the inscriptions: Denga Gorodesk., Gorodetsko, Gorodensko. These Gorodensky or Gorodetsky money were believed to have been minted by some of the most insignificant Tver specific princes, namely the princes of Staritsky or Gorodensky. Other non-grand princely silver and copper money (pools) are also known: Kashinsky, Mikulinsky, Spassky and others. As for private landowners and church institutions, they have not achieved sovereign rights in Russia, which their Western brethren acquired for themselves. As is known, in the West, many feudal lords usurped sovereign rights for themselves, magnified sovereigns by the grace of God, minted coins, conducted diplomatic relations, etc. e. The latest researcher of the Russian appanage system Pavlov-Silvansky gave the following explanation to this difference between our orders and those of the West: “In our country, just as in the West, the earth had to uncontrollably disintegrate, be divided into small independent worlds. But at the time of the imminent division of the country, we had a lot of princes-pretenders with hereditary sovereign rights. They have replaced in our country the western feudal lords who seized sovereign rights: division from above prevented division from below; the reign of the earth warned her charisma. In this explanation, the named historian, in my opinion, correctly noted the essence of the matter, although he did not finish it, because this did not agree with his other views. The princes became territorial sovereigns in Russia before the boyar landownership was created, which developed already under the protection and dependence of the princely power. Meanwhile, Pavlov-Silvansky, sharing the theory of "zemstvo boyars", thinks that boyar landownership was created in our country earlier, or in any case independently of princely power. 10. The origin of feudal relations in Russia. How, then, was created in Russia, too, an order close to Western European feudalism? In the previous lecture, one of the main reasons that gave rise to this order was noted, the dominance of natural agriculture, which was established in Russia with the arrival of the Tatars, in connection with the depletion of people's capital. This circumstance, as we have seen, forced the princes to engage mainly in the business that the landowners, the rural owners, are engaged in, because otherwise the princes had nothing to live on; the princes thus approached the private landowners. On the other hand, having no money to distribute salaries to their servants and church institutions, the princes willingly sacrificed their rights over the population of their estates in their favor, granted them immunities, various benefits and exemptions, thus bringing them closer to sovereigns. But is it possible to dwell on this one reason in explaining the origin of Russian feudalism? Economic historians tend to be content with this one reason and ignore others that have been put forward by historians of law and culture. We cannot ignore these reasons of an internal, spiritual nature. What forced the princes to divide the territory of the state into appanages? Economic needs, the need for intensive agricultural labor, the economists will answer us. But for this, we say to them, it was not at all necessary to divide the state power itself. It was enough for the eldest prince to place himself on the destinies of the younger ones, retaining all his state rights over the population of the destinies and giving the younger princes only the economic exploitation of the land, in extreme cases, governorship in the destinies. If the princes divided state power itself, then this was still due to their political underdevelopment, from their lack of the view that the highest state power, in its essence, cannot be the subject of a family division. Dividing state power, the princes obviously looked at it as a subject of private ownership. This partly explains the fact that they shared it with their boyars. To welcome the boyar for his service, there was no need to give him immunity without fail. For the award of what gave immunity, in in essence, it was enough to make the boyar a governor or volost in his estate, grant him princely income and provide some benefits to the population of his estate. But the princes usually went further and forever retreated from their rights in relation to the population of such estates, obviously not appreciating these rights not only from an economic, but also from a political and legal point of view. Therefore, the opinion of those historians who deduced feudalism from the general state of culture of a certain era, not only economic, material, but also political, legal, and spiritual, seems more correct. 11. Pawning and patronage. On the basis of the order described above and in connection with the general conditions of culture in Russia, phenomena developed that have an analogy in the phenomena of the feudal era in the West. To such events it is necessary, first of all, to carry the pledge. Since the difference between the sovereign and the private owner in his state was obscured in practice and in the public consciousness, then naturally the concept of the subject should have become muddied. Free persons began to consider themselves entitled to give themselves into citizenship not only to numerous princes, but also to private individuals and institutions, to pledge, as it was said then, not only for different princes, but also for boyars, lords and monasteries, if this promised them any benefit. . And this benefit was presented all the time, because the princely power, weakened by division and specific fragmentation, was often unable to provide the necessary protection and means of subsistence to a private person. In Russia, therefore, the same thing began to happen as in Western Europe in the era of the weakening of royal power, when the weak sought protection by commanding powerful landowners and church institutions. The analogy in this regard went so far that in Russia, as well as in the West, they began to be mortgaged with estates. It was said above that the boyar estates were under the sovereignty of the territorial prince, and not the one who was currently served by their owner, dragged court and tribute on land and water. But this rule has been broken over time. The owners began to mortgage for the princes, to whom they entered the service with estates, just as in the West the owners acted with their fiefs, which were once also under the rule of territorial sovereigns. This created a terrible confusion of relations, which the princes tried to counteract with treaties. In these treaties, they confirmed that the boyar estates should remain under the sovereignty of the territorial prince, pull court and tribute over land and water, that the princes should not keep villages in other people's destinies, buy and accept for free, should not give letters of commendation to someone else's inheritance, judge there, and take a tribute and in general "do not intervene in someone else's lot with any deeds." But by all indications, the princes did not succeed in eradicating this phenomenon, and the transfers of owners with estates to the citizenship of other princes continued. Such transitions are ascertained from sources even at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th century. So, in 1487, a certain Ivashko Maksimovich, the son of Looking, beat Grand Duchess Sofya with his brow "and with his patrimony, with half the village of Looking, which is in Murom in the Kuzemsky camp, with everything that was drawn to his half." With such cases in mind, Ivan III wrote in his spiritual letter of 1504: “and the boyars and children of the boyars of Yaroslavsky with their estates and with purchases from my son Vasily cannot leave anyone anywhere.” In 1507, the well-known hegumen of the Volokolamsk Monastery, Joseph Sanin, who founded his monastery in the estate of Prince Boris Vasilyevich of Volokolamsk and with his assistance, having quarreled with his prince, “renounced his sovereign to a great state”, under the high hand of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich. When Joseph was reproached for this, he cited precedent. “In our years,” he said, “Prince Vasily Yaroslavich had a Sergius monastery in his patrimony, and Prince Alexander, Fedorovich, Yaroslavsky had a Kamensky monastery in his patrimony, and the princes of the Zasekinskys had a monastery in the patrimony of the Most Pure Ones on Tolza »; and so the abbots of these monasteries browed Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, and he "took those monasteries into his state, but did not order those princes to intercede in those monasteries for nothing." And in ancient times, - remarks on this occasion the compiler of the life of St. Joseph, - "from lesser offenses to greater resorted." Individuals were pledged not only for the princes, but also for the boyars, for the lord and monasteries. Thanks to this, the rich boyars had entire detachments of servants who served them at court and in war, and who thus represent a complete analogy with the Western European subvassals. The boyar Rodion Nestorovich, having come from Kyiv to serve the Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich Kalita, brought with him 1,600 men of the squad. Then the noble Moscow boyar Akinf Gavrilovich Shuba, offended by the honor given to the visiting boyar and not wanting to be under Rodion in the smaller ones, went to the service of Mikhail Tverskoy and took 1,300 servants with him. Ivan III, having taken Novgorod, first of all dissolved the large princely and boyar courts in Novgorod and distributed estates to the princely and boyar servants. But in the Principality of Tver, servants who served the boyars with their estates existed even under Grozny. As in the West, many service people in the specific epoch were mortgaged in our country for the clergy - the metropolitan, bishops and monasteries. The metropolitan and the bishops had boyar children in the later era of the Muscovite state, until the very beginning of the 18th century. If, therefore, at a specific time there was no idea of ​​citizenship, in our sense of the word, then there is nothing surprising if private individuals were given under the protection of the prince the territory where they lived, to their own sovereign. This fact is impossible today, in the present state, where it is assumed that the sovereign is the same patron for everyone. But at that time they did not think so, and therefore many persons were given under the special protection of the prince, in munde-burdium regis, as they said in the West, they received the right to sue only before him, etc. d. 12. Transfers of boyars and servants; salaries and food. Due to the obscurity of the idea of ​​allegiance between the princes and their boyars and servants, the same contractual relations that were established between them at a time when the princes were not territorial owners and the boyars were not landowners continued to be preserved. This or that boyar and servant served the prince not because he was obliged to serve him as a sovereign country, but because he "ordered" to serve him, finding it profitable for himself. And this is true both with respect to the boyars and servants, and with respect to the settled ones, for the latter could always leave their prince. The right of the boyars and servants to freely move was undoubtedly a legacy of the former retinue life of Kievan Rus. But if it lasted so long in a specific era, already when the boyars were settled, it was only because the idea of ​​citizenship did not become clear in this era. On the basis of contractual relations between princes and boyars and servants, phenomena developed that corresponded to the Western European distribution of beneficiaries. Boyars and servants came to one or another prince to serve, beat him with a forehead (Western European homagium), and he gave them a salary, beneficium, which they received as long as they served. In the west, most of the land was distributed as benefices. And among us, the princes gave to some servants palace lands, plots of their domains, which were in charge of the court, corresponding to the western majordoms, palatine counts, etc. In the spiritual letter of 1388, “villages and suburbs” are listed for servants. Another charter mentions "villages - the prince's salary", the time of the award of which dates back to the beginning of the 15th century. And just as in the west, the princes took these lands from their servants if they drove away from them. About one of these servants, who conditionally owned the village granted to him, about Boris Vorkov, Ivan Kalita says in his spiritual 1328: “even if my son whom I serve, the village will be after him; if you don’t have to serve, the village will be taken away. In agreements between themselves, the princes agreed on these servants: and whoever leaves their inheritances ... is deprived of the land. But due to the peculiarities of our country, land was not the main object of distribution of beneficiaries for a long time. There was plenty of land everywhere, it had little value for the princes, and the boyars and servants borrowed a lot of it without any conditions, according to the tacit or public recognition of the princes. The developed patrimonial boyar land tenure for a long time excluded the need for the distribution of land as a beneficiary or, as we said, estates. In Russia, at a particular time, another form of beneficiation has been predominantly developed - the distribution of posts as a salary for service, feeding, that is, not fief-terre, but fief-office. Therefore, in the letters of our princes we meet such expressions: “I granted you to the nursery for feeding for their departure to us,” that is, for entering the service; or: “I granted Ivan Grigoryevich Ryla ... the parish of Luza (that is, the volost to Luza) for their departure to us in feeding. And you, all the people of that volost, honor them and listen, and they know you, and judge and go to order your tyun with you, and have income according to the mandate list. Feeding in the volosts became a common sign of free boyars and servants. "And the free servants will, who was in feeding and argument with our father and with us." These feedings in the west, as we know, became hereditary fiefs: there the dukes, our governors, counts, our deputies, vice-graphs or viscounts, our volosts, became hereditary owners of their posts and the income associated with them. But in our country, feedings did not become not only hereditary, but even lifelong, they were usually given for years and generally for short periods. The reason for this was the poverty of our princes, who did not have the opportunity to feed all their servants at once, but had to observe a certain queue in this regard, and, moreover, the absence of a connection between official feeding and land ownership. In the west, in addition to income, feeders received a certain land allotment for the position, and this allotment, becoming, like all fiefs, over time, hereditary, dragged along the position itself. In our specific era, as already mentioned, the boyars and servants needed little land, provided with patrimonial land tenure, and therefore we did not develop phenomena similar to the above. 13. Features of feudalism in the views, language and life of a specific era. From all that has been said, it can be seen that in Russian antiquity of specific time there were many features that made it related to Western European feudalism. We meet here the same institutions, the same attitudes and views as in the feudal West, sometimes in full development, sometimes in less definite features. In our letters there are phrases that are, as it were, a literal translation of the corresponding Latin texts. For the most important feudal institutions in Russian antiquity, there were special terms corresponding to Western European ones. Commandants were called mortgages among us; to designate a feudal commendation, the words were used to ask, to lay. The Russian warrior, like the German one, was called a husband; the boyar, just like the vassal, is a servant of the master of the grand duke. We had a special word for beneficiation, salary; this word was as widespread among us as in the West the word benefice, flax. The land granted to conditional possession (estate), and the position, and immunity benefits were also called salaries. With the similarity of the socio-political system, the similarity of life is also noticed. The spirit of discord, singularity, freedom and independence hovers in Russian society of the specific era, as well as in Western feudal society. Feudal freedom and independence led us, just as in the West, to violence and arbitrariness, especially on the part of the boyars, who often undertook robbery raids on each other. A characteristic feature of the Western feudal lords was their military profession, their military spirit. This trait was expressed in chivalry. Our boyars and princes have largely lost the chivalrous features that were characteristic of their predecessors and so vividly depicted in the Tale of Igor's Campaign. However less, and they were all warriors. During the constant appanage civil strife, all of them often had to fight at the head of detachments of their servants and people. Spiritual lords did not go on a campaign themselves, but in return for themselves they sent their governors who led their servants. One of the typical features of Western feudalism is, in the usual view, a fortified castle with loopholes, ditches, and drawbridges. In specific Russia there were no stone castles. But stone castles were replaced by fortified towns on the hills, on the elevated bank of the river, or on the ancient Meryan barrows. These princely towns and kremls satisfied the same need as the western feudal castles. Our spiritual masters also erected fortifications. Monasteries were built in the same way as princely kremlins, usually near a lake or a river. Both were surrounded by walls of uniform architecture with towers, loopholes, and gates. The boyars of the 14th-15th centuries did not have such fortifications, but each boyar estate, even in later times, in the 17th century, was an armed camp surrounded by a palisade. This means that in this case the difference between Russia and Western Europe was not so much qualitative as quantitative. Western European feudalism generally went much further in its development than Russian feudalism. Russia did not develop that feudal system, those strictly defined legal institutions, customs, concepts, that everyday ritual that can be observed in Western countries in the Middle Ages. Russian feudalism in its development did not go beyond the primary, rudimentary forms, which failed to harden and consolidate. The reason for this is the unsteady social ground on which it was created, the mobility of the population in a continuously colonizing country, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, intense pressure from outside, which awakened the instincts of national self-preservation and called to life and creativity the state principle in the present, true sense of this word. Literature. 1. V. I. Sergeevich. Veche and prince (Russian legal antiquities. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1893) .2. B. N. CHICHERIN Experiments on the history of Russian law. M., 1858.3. V. O. Klyuchevsky. Boyar Duma of ancient Russia. M., 1909. Ed. 4th.4. N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky. Feudalism in ancient Russia. SPb., 1907. Works. T. 3. St. Petersburg, 1910.

As the Great Russian state took shape, the central and local administrations began to take shape.

The central power in the country was exercised by the Grand Duke, the Boyar Duma, palace institutions and the clerical apparatus. The Grand Duke had the highest legislative power (he approved the Sudebnik - a set of laws, issued statutory and decree letters), appointed him to the highest government posts. The Grand Duke's court was the highest court, the Grand Duke was, as it were, the supreme commander in chief.

Ivan III understood the importance of a strong army, which he created and provided with land. It was he who began to distribute land with peasants to service people (place them on land, hence the term "estate") on the condition that they perform military service and only for a period of service and without the right to be inherited, as well as without the right to sell and contribute to the monastery. Thus, an army was created that was completely dependent on the sovereign, whose well-being directly depended on the power of the monarch and the state as a whole.

Ivan III's entourage played an important role in governing the state, primarily the Boyar Duma - the council of the feudal nobility under the Grand Duke. The Boyar Duma at that time consisted of two higher ranks - the boyars and the roundabouts, and was still not numerous: 5-12 boyars and no more than 12 roundabouts. The boyars were formed from the old Moscow untitled boyar families and princes, the boyars were appointed to the Duma according to the principle of seniority, according to the local account, which was determined by the service of their ancestors.

The boyars occupied commanding positions in the armed forces of the country and the state apparatus. The boyars led regiments on campaigns, judged land disputes, and carried out diplomatic missions. With the allocation of the grand-ducal lands and economy from the state, their management was formed, headed by butlers.

The functions of the grand ducal office were performed by the Treasury. As the territory of the state grew, the tasks of the Treasury became more complicated, the functions of the treasurer began to be allocated to a special position, to which people were appointed, especially those close to the Grand Duke, who knew finances and diplomacy well. Gradually, a hierarchy of palace positions was formed - bedkeepers, nurseries, hunters, falconers, etc. As the last independent and semi-independent principalities are included in the unified state, central governing bodies of these territories are formed, headed by special butlers.

At the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. clerks - officials of the grand duke's chancellery (treasury) - began to play an increasingly important role in government. The clerks were in charge of embassy affairs, conducted office work on military affairs (“ranks”). They were the real executors of the sovereign's will, they constituted the apparatus of the Boyar Duma. Treasury and palace institutions. Specializing in the performance of certain functions (financial, diplomatic, military, yama, etc.), they gradually prepared the creation of government bodies with a new, functional, rather than territorial distribution of affairs. By social origin, the clerks did not belong to the nobility, but came from the clergy and "simple nationwide", which made them completely dependent on the Grand Duke. Their well-being was based solely on public service, like that of the landowners.

Administration and court in the localities were carried out by governors and volostels with a staff of tiuns, closers and righteous people. The governors were the highest judicial-administrative officials and chiefs of local troops. Governors and volostels were provided with a feeding system, which gave them the right to collect various requisitions in their favor ("fodder").

The feeders came from both the feudal aristocracy and the rank and file of service people. The power of the governors and volostels in the field was limited and regulated by the Sudebnik of 1497, charters issued by the Grand Duke to the local population, and income lists received by feeders.

After the unification of all the northeastern Russian lands and the liberation from the Tatar yoke, the army was not reduced. It increased further: artillery appeared, and with it the cannon collection. The state apparatus was still being formed, its heyday was still ahead, but its numbers were steadily growing. The self-government of the estates was still preserved - communities of peasants, townspeople, noble fraternities, church and merchant corporations, etc.

The central state power was not yet able to control everyone and everything, control was carried out through these primary social communities, which thus received significant political weight in society, which weakened the influence of the state and its officials. Thus, according to the Sudebnik of 1497, the principle of the obligatory participation of representatives of the local population in the activities of governors sent from Moscow was fixed.

But the heavy burden of the growing state, its army, judicial-administrative and economic apparatus affects the position of the peasantry, destroys the sprouts of free enterprise and spiritual free-thinking. The strengthening of the state, the strengthening of the central power is always accompanied by the growth of its apparatus - the army, courts, police, bureaucracy, the maintenance of which requires significant funds. And the stronger the state, the larger its apparatus, the greater the taxes and other fees from the population become, the less opportunities for the growth of the peasant and handicraft economy.

A single Russian centralized state was not the first state formation of the Russian people. It was preceded by the ancient Russian state, which arose at the initial stage of feudal relations and was different from the Russian state of the 15th-16th centuries. Already in ancient times, the Eastern Slavs inhabited the European part of our country. The chronicle recalls those times when the "Slovenian language in Russia" was represented by different tribes: Polyans and Drevlyans, Krivichi and Dregovichi, Dulebs and Northerners, Slovenes and Vyatichi, etc.

In the first centuries of the new era, among the Antes, as the southwestern branch of the Eastern Slavs, who lived from the Dnieper to the Danube, was then called, there was a process of decomposition of primitive communal relations and the emergence of slavery. Property began, social stratification was planned. The Ants entered the era of "military democracy" (F. Engels). On this basis, tribal unions were formed - the embryos of the future state. The most powerful was the unification of the Antes, achieved in the 70s of the 4th century in the fight against the East Germans - the Goths and led by God, to whom seventy Antian leaders (“Rixes”) were subordinate. With the passage of time, the tribal associations of the Ants become longer and stronger. In the VI century. Antes in the fight against nomads - Avars - united under the rule of the Antes family: Idar and his sons - Mezhamir and Kelagast. The power of the leader in this family became hereditary.

At the same time, in the 6th century, in the struggle against the Avars in Volhynia, in the Carpathian region, a powerful and extensive association of Antes was created under the leadership of the Volhynian Dulebs. It was not just a tribal, but a political union. The ancient tribal name - Duleby gives way to a territorial one - Volhynia. The memory of the struggle of the Ants with the Avars was still fresh in Russia at the time of the chronicler and has come down to us in the form of a folk tale about dulebs and images, recorded in the Tale of Bygone Years.

Through the mediation of Eastern merchants, this story reached the Arab writers of the 10th century. (Masudi and Ibrahim Ibn-Yakub), who recall how in "ancient times" the Volhynians ("valinana") "obeyed ... all other Slavic tribes." In the Masudiev "Valinana" we see an intertribal association, and the very name "Valinana" (Volynians) is not tribal, ethnic, but political, derived from the name of the city of Volyn, or Velynya, the geographical and political center of the southwestern lands of the Eastern Slavs, the name, which for more than a millennium fixed the name of Volhynia for the whole land.

Absence in the Carpathian region, in Volhynia, in Podolia in the 9th-10th centuries. tangible tribal boundaries, the leveling of material culture, the monotony of grave goods indicate that the union of the Volhynians did not mechanically unite the tribes, but, uniting them, merged them. Therefore, here early, in the 6th-7th centuries, tribal, particular features began to disappear, and common features were strengthened - the result of political unity. According to Masudi, this was "in antiquity", that is, long before the 10th century.

Only at the end of the 20s of the 7th century. (626 or so) "the power of the Volhynians" was defeated by the Avars, who "went against Heraclius the king and not enough of him."

He recalls the collapse of the "power of the Volhynians" and Masudi. He says: “Subsequently, strife began between their tribes, their order was violated, they were divided into separate tribes and each tribe chose a king for itself ...”.

There is no doubt that the "power of the Volynians" of the VI-VII centuries. - the first East Slavic political association, the first "power" of the Eastern Slavs of the era of "military democracy", - the direct predecessor of the Kievan state. It is this “power of the Velynians” that can be considered the beginning of Russian statehood.

The phenomena of the social life of the Eastern Slavs that we have considered took place only in a certain territory, in the south-west of Russia, where in the 4th-6th centuries. the disintegration of primitive communal relations began and social relations were formed that were characteristic of "military democracy". In the north, in the forest belt, social development proceeded at a slower pace, and here, north of Teterev and the Desna, relatively backward forest East Slavic tribes lived, occupying vast areas.

In the VIII-IX centuries. in the Middle Dnieper, deserted as a result of the movements of the Antes to the south, to the Danube and beyond the Danube, and the attacks of nomads, the backward forest Slavic tribes are advancing.

But here, in the Middle Dnieper, these forest Slavic tribes did not meet the lifeless desert. The ancient Antian population continued to live in the old places, inhabited Kyiv and the adjacent regions, which became the same centers of the Eastern Slavs of the 9th-10th centuries, as they were during the period of the Antes.

To their backward northern relatives, on whom they begin to exert a great influence from the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e., the Antes conveyed their cultural and everyday characteristics, their social system, historical traditions, their connections. Therefore, the system of "military democracy" that existed among the Ants was quickly passed by the northern Russian tribes, who moved to the Middle Dnieper and here mixed with their southern tribesmen, standing on the verge of civilization. That is why the Middle Dnieper region passes through the stage of “military democracy”, the pre-feudal period, and enters the era of feudalism for one or two centuries.

The path traversed by the southwestern branch of the Eastern Slavs - the Ants, was continued by their neighbors and descendants.

If the Antes entered the era of "military democracy", judging by the material monuments and information from written sources, in the first centuries of the new era they left the arena of political history, disappearing from the pages of the writings of writers of the early Middle Ages at the beginning of the 7th century. all with the same social system, then their descendants both on the Middle Dnieper and on the banks of the Dniester and Volkhov, the Western Dvina and the Oka in a short time passed the era of “military democracy” and created a feudal world. The fact that “military democracy” was developing in the southwestern part of Eastern Europe even in the time of the Ants led to the fact that already in Russian, Kievan times, feudalism developed in breadth and depth over a much larger territory than the land of the Ants.

In the VIII-X centuries. among the East Slavic and non-Slavic tribes of Russia, in its various parts at different rates, there was a process of decomposition of primitive communal relations and the development of "military democracy". This process, covering a vast territory from the shores of Lake Ladoga to the Danube arms, from the Carpathians to the Oka, is nothing but the emergence of feudalism. The birth of feudalism takes place within the framework of primitive society, in the world of communities, during the period of decaying patriarchal tribal life.

This process stretches for several centuries and goes far from evenly: when feudal Kyiv already numbered many centuries, at the same time in the lands of the Vyatichi, in the Pinsk Polissya, in the land of the Dregovichi, remnants of the tribal system remained for a long time.

Already at the end of the VIII and the beginning of the IX century. as a result of the social development of the Eastern Slavs on the Middle Dnieper, near Kyiv, one Russian state formation arises, the so-called "Russian Kaganate", and in the Ladoga region and near Ilmen - another, which received the name "Slavia" from the Arabs.

Thus arose "first 2 states: Kyiv and Novgorod».

In the second half of the ninth century there is a merger of Kyiv and Novgorod into a single Kiev state, which the annalistic tradition associates with the name of Oleg. The heyday of Kievan Rus falls during the reign of Vladimir (973-1015). The time of Vladimir is the time of Russia's glory, victorious wars and campaigns, Russia's exceptional successes in the international arena and at the same time that period in the history of the people when he himself still plays a big role in the history of his country, when the masses are just beginning to turn into a forced, oppressed by the burden of duties , exploited people.

That is why the Russian people in their epics, legends and traditions with such love remembers their first capital - Kyiv, their glorious Kyiv heroes and Vladimir the Red Sun, the personification of the "old princes" of the irretrievably bygone era of "glorious barbarism" (K. Marx).

Vladimir stands on the verge of two eras. He is the last prince-warrior of retinue Russia of the era of “military democracy”, and at the same time he is the first prince who, with all his activities, prepared for the flourishing of early feudalism, concealing elements of the impending collapse of the Kievan state, which falls on the reign of his grandchildren. The times of Vladimir and Yaroslav - the heyday of Kievan Rus.

Over time, especially in the second half of the 11th century, the picture changes dramatically. The times of campaigns in "other countries" with the aim of capturing military booty and collecting tribute are ending. The exploitation of the population of Russia itself becomes a source of enrichment for the feudalizing elite.

The process of seizure by the prince and his warriors of communal lands and lands is intensifying. Tribute turns into rent. The value becomes not a tribute from the land, but the land itself, together with the rural people sitting on it. Expropriation and enslavement turn free community members into dependent people. Feudalism is growing in depth and breadth.

The development of productive forces, the development of feudal land tenure and feudal relations, so vividly presented in Pravda Yaroslavichi, the growth of the economic and political power of individual regions, headed by large cities (Novgorod, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Rostov, etc.) are gradually undermining the unity of the Kievan states.

The boyars, who grew up in certain regions of Russia, strive to become their sovereign master and, having rallied around “their” prince, who has acquired here, at the place of his planting, in the land of “father and grandfather”, any “life”, “gobin”, lands and lands, courtyards and the servants, imbued not with all-Russian, but with local “zemstvo” interests, are trying to break away from Kyiv, which from now on becomes an obstacle to the independent development of these regions and lands, which will soon turn into principalities, small feudal independent semi-states.

Each region of the Kievan state becomes a nest of boyar estates. The fate of Kyiv ceases to interest not only the Novgorod, Rostov, Chernigov, Galician and other boyars, but also the Novgorod, Rostov, Chernigov and Galician princes themselves. They seek to secede from Kyiv, to create independent principalities.

The absence of an organic connection between the individual Russian lands, the absence of an economic community - all this, making the unification of the lands achieved by the Kievan state, fragile and short-lived, was a sign of the impending collapse. And this collapse has come.

Feudal fragmentation was an indicator of the development of productive forces, but at a certain stage it also became a brake on their further development, on the growth of crafts, trade, cities, on new forms of feudal land tenure and the organization of a feudal economy.

It also contributed to the decline of the power of Russia, weakened the Russian land, belittled its international significance, made it the prey of neighboring hostile states and hordes of nomads. Russia "lost entire regions as a result of the intervention of neighboring peoples", which fell under the yoke of foreigners for centuries.

This is the result of the action of centrifugal forces that tore apart the Kievan state.

After the death of Yaroslav the Wise, the disintegration of the Kievan state began and its transformation into feudal Russia, which corresponds to feudal fragmentation as a form of organizing the state power of the ruling class of feudal lords.

What is the socio-political system of the period of feudal fragmentation?

Russia as a single state does not exist. The country is divided into many feudal "independent semi-states".

Their number is increasing, their sizes are decreasing. Their political existence is very fragile. Sometimes they unite under the rule of a fortunate prince, but such associations are short-lived. The prince "which" ruins the Russian land. The strife does not stop even when an external enemy attacks the country.

So, we see that the unification of Russian lands into a single state was preceded by the feudal fragmentation of Russia.

I.V. Stalin in a number of his works stressed the need to establish a scientific periodization of the history of the USSR. In "Remarks on the synopsis of a textbook on the history of the USSR" I.V. Stalin, S.M. Kirov and A.A. Zhdanov pointed out that “feudalism and the pre-feudal period, when the peasants were not yet enslaved, were thrown into one heap; the autocratic system of the state and the feudal system, when Russia was fragmented into many independent semi-states.

Before proceeding to an analysis of the reasons for the formation of an autocratic system in Russia and the formation of a centralized state in the east of Europe, it is necessary to characterize the socio-economic and political system of North-Eastern Russia during the period of feudal fragmentation and briefly dwell on its history. As Comrade Stalin pointed out, the formation of an autocratic system in Russia and the formation of centralized states in the east of Europe are "two different topics, although they cannot be considered separated from each other."

In the history of North-Eastern Russia and Russia in general, already the second half of the 11th century. was characterized by the establishment of feudal fragmentation as a socio-economic and political state system, but from the middle of the 13th century, from the time of the Batu invasion, the feudal fragmentation of lands was rapidly progressing, and it continued until the second half of the 15th century, when, as a result of the struggle of two opposite tendencies - fragmentation and associations - this last one wins.

K. Marx emphasizes that the last remnants of the former unity of Russia “dissipate with the formidable appearance of Genghis Khan”, and when the yoke of the Golden Horde khans was established, then “set the Russian princes against each other, support disagreement between them, balance their forces, not allow any of them to grow stronger - all this was the traditional policy of the Tatars.

The Golden Horde sought to preserve the "independent semi-states" into which the Russian land was fragmented; in turn, these "independent semi-states" - the principalities - "not only were not connected with each other by national ties, but resolutely denied the need for such ties." They were at enmity with each other, fought, mutually devastated cities and villages, weakening and ruining the Russian land in the process of endless and senseless princely strife.

The very term used by I.V. Stalin to designate the principalities in the period of feudal fragmentation - "half-state". Such a definition suggests that if the feudal principalities - "independent semi-states" - had the first and main internal function of the state - "to keep the exploited majority in check", then their tiny size, inconstancy of borders, instability of existence, constant division and subdivision, disappearance some and the emergence of others, exceptional weakness in the fight against an external enemy - do not make it possible to call the independent principalities of the period of feudal fragmentation states in the full sense of the word.

What was the North-Eastern Russia in the period of time we are considering?

The rout perpetrated by the Tatar-Mongols could not but affect the economy of Ancient Russia. K. Marx points out: “The Tatar-Mongols established a regime of systematic terror, and ruin and massacres became its permanent institutions. Being disproportionately small in relation to the scope of their conquests, they wanted to create an aura of greatness around themselves and, through massive bloodshed, to weaken that part of the population that could raise an uprising in their rear. They passed, leaving deserts behind them"... K. Marx emphasizes the basic principle of the Tatar khans, which was to "...turn people into obedient herds, and fertile lands and populated areas into pastures."

In another work, K. Marx notes: “During the devastation of Russia, the Mongols acted according to their mode of production; for pastoralism, large uninhabited areas are the main condition. Marx goes on to point out that when “the Mongols penetrate into Russia... the Russians flee into the swamps and forests. Cities and villages were burned to the ground."

The entire east and south of Russia were devastated, devastated and bled dry. Cities and villages were destroyed and burned, entire regions were deserted, the population was partly killed, partly taken into captivity, partly fled. Who did not have time to escape - remained in the old place, hiding in huts and dugouts, in thickets of forests and in swamps. The arable lands were again overgrown with forest, there were no cattle grazing in the forest clearings and flood meadows, there were no haystacks, traces of conflagrations could be seen in the place of the villages. On the old trade roads, "guests" - merchants rarely passed, and Tatar Baskaks with their detachments passed much more often. The volosts of Russia in the south and east, surrounding the cities destroyed by the Tatars, “was a dwelling place for a great overgrowth tree and many beasts”; from the neighboring surviving cities and villages came here to "departure" and "create people walking for profit for the sake of their animals and honey." Since it was dangerous to plow the land, and there was no need to, in many places agriculture gave way to fishing, hunting, and beekeeping. Cities are turning into "settlements", trade is falling, dozens of crafts that Russia was once famous for are disappearing. The handicraft technique is coarsened and simplified, products are simplified, ancient craftsmanship is lost and forgotten, artisans are taken away to the "full" and settled in different lands of the Golden Horde, cities are deserted. This is how the Batu invasion and the Tatar-Mongol yoke that followed it affected the economy of Ancient Russia.

The Tatar-Mongol yoke with all its weight fell primarily on the peasantry and the "black people" of the cities. "Horde exit" (tribute), extraordinary tributes and requisitions, all kinds of gifts that the princes had to carry the khan to the Horde, taxes, tamga, myt, etc., duties (military, road, yamskaya, etc.) along with cruelty, systematic terror and "repeated slaughter" (K. Marx), arbitrariness and despotism of the Khan and his officials (Baskak, Darug) - all this, which ruined and oppressed the Russian people, constituted the "Tatar yoke".

The “Horde Exit” amounted to huge sums of several thousand rubles (in rubles of that time). So, for example, the great reign of Vladimir at one time paid seven thousand rubles, the Nizhny Novgorod principality - one and a half thousand rubles. Huge sums were pumped out of the population and ended up in the khan's treasury. The Horde systematically and predatory sucked the juices out of the Russian people.

At first, having rewritten the Russian population, the khans instructed their officials, the Baskaks, to collect "yasak" ("exit", tribute). Sometimes the collection of tribute was given at the mercy and then "to repay the damned fools of tribute and from that cause great destruction to people, hard-working cuts and many souls of the peasants are given away." The tax-farmers were the Tatars and mainly the Central Asian merchants. The management of the Baskaks (“pressors”) and tax-farmers aroused the hatred of the masses of Russia for the Khan and the Baskaks. The Baskaks knew they were hated and were afraid of rebellions. So, for example, in 1259 they turn to Alexander Nevsky: "Let us guard - they won't beat us."

In some places in Russia, the Baskaks and other noble Tatars felt secure and in the deserted land they seized lands and started their own “settlements”. So, for example, did the Baskak Akhmat, who was in charge in the Kursk darkness, "violence and resentment do a lot" in the Family.

In some places in the south and, perhaps, in the east, the Tatars forced the peasants to work for themselves: "let them yell wheat and millet."

Russia was going through hard times.

K. Marx calls the subjugation of Russia to the khans of the Golden Horde "a bloody swamp of Mongol slavery ...", which "... insulted and withered the very soul of the people who became its victim."

The severity of the Tatar yoke is indicated by I.V. Stalin in his article "Ukrainian Knot", emphasizing that the yoke that "the imperialists of Austria and Germany carry on their bayonets ... is no better than the old, Tatar one."

Russia was unable to stop the hordes of Batu, but the boundless plains of Russia heroically fighting the conquerors “swallowed up the power of the Mongols and stopped their invasion at the very edge of Europe,” wrote A.S. Pushkin, - the barbarians did not dare to leave enslaved Russia in their rear and returned to the steppes of their east. The emerging enlightenment was saved by a torn and dying Russia...”.

Western Europe owes its salvation from defeat, ruin and decline to Russia.

“No, Russians are not conquerors and robbers in political history, like the Huns and Mongols,” wrote N.G. Chernyshevsky, - and saviors - saviors from the yoke of the Mongols, which they kept on their powerful neck, not allowing it to reach Europe, being its wall, however, exposed to all shots, a wall that was half broken by enemies ... ".

Dante and Leonardo da Vinci, Marco Polo and Vasco da Gama, Copernicus and Columbus, Magellan and Chaucer, Guttenberg and Jan Hus got the opportunity to create their wonderful works, do great things and accomplish amazing feats only because Russia saved the rest of Europe from " bloody swamp of Mongol slavery” (K. Marx). Neither the Renaissance, nor the era of primitive accumulation and great discoveries and inventions can be understood without taking into account what was done by the Russian people during the time of the Batu invasion.

Defeated and bled, oppressed and disgraced, Russia did not give up. Many years after the Batu invasion, according to the testimony of the traveler Wilhelm de Rubruk, in the steppes, beyond the Don, Russian detachments attacked the Tatars.

The Tatars did not feel safe in the center of devastated Russia either.

"Dani-outs" and duties, oppression and arbitrariness cause an increase in discontent. This discontent of the Russian people resulted in popular uprisings against the Baskaks and tax-farmers. Uprisings broke out in Novgorod in 1259, in 1262 - in Rostov, Vladimir, Pereyaslavl, where the people rose up against the "fierce languor of the besurmen" and expelled tax-farmers from their cities.

Seeing the stubbornness of the Russians, the khans were forced to change the form and method of collecting tribute, and from the beginning of the 14th century. entrust its collection to the Russian princes. The Russian land breathed a little easier.

XIV-XV centuries in the history of North-Eastern Russia are characterized by the growth of feudal landownership.

The feudal social system is characterized by a combination of large landed property with small farming. Feudal landownership takes shape in various ways: by grants, "purchase" (purchases), seizures, borrowings, etc. Often the lands of the same owner were located in different places, and each separate property was allocated to a closed economic unit.

The source of the growth of feudal landed property was the "black lands", where once dominated the borrowing and labor development of land by peasant communities, who owned everything that they "cleared" from the forest, everything "where an ax, a scythe, a plow went."

Soon these lands were “princessed”, taxes were imposed on them, but nevertheless the peasant remained the actual owner of the land, who agreed that “the land of the Grand Duke” and “Tsar”, but added that “rye and rospashi” or “clear ours", or even completely noted that "the land of the Grand Duke, but my possession." And the ownership of the "black lands" for a long time remained with the peasants.

The next stage in the development of the "black lands" by the feudal lords was their "charming". Boyars and monasteries seized lands by force, subdued the population by enslavement, received lands as a gift from the princes. The enslavement of the rural people was explained by the instability of the economy of the smerd, the "orphan", and the impoverished rural people fell into economic and personal dependence on the "strong people" - the feudal lords. One of the reasons for the enslavement of the peasants by the feudal lords was the fact that if earlier, in the days of large family communities, under conditions of slash-and-burn agriculture, the rural people - community members - cultivated the land by collective labor, clearing forests, then under the rule of a small family of this latter, land clearing was not under the force and she was looking for "soft land", most often already the property of the feudal lord.

The feudal patrimony grows and becomes stronger. The largest estate owners were the princes themselves. They owned lands both in their own and in neighboring principalities, where most often lands were acquired by purchase, as Ivan Kalita did, for example. The Spiritual Kalita of 1328 mentions 54 villages that belonged to him, and Vasily the Dark already owned 125 villages.

The metropolitan, churches and monasteries also owned vast estates, which were considered inalienable and assigned to them "forever". Metropolitan land tenure especially expanded by the 15th century, but it began to take shape during the time of Metropolitan Peter, at the beginning of the 14th century.

Monasteries were rich landowners. By the end of the XV century. Trinity-Sergievsky, Kirillo-Belozersky and Solovetsky monasteries became the owners of vast lands. The princes granted land to the monasteries, where sketes and deserts arose, which later became large monasteries. The surrounding peasantry with their lands and lands became monastic. The monasteries bought lands, often received lands by “contributions”, as they called the transfer of their lands to monasteries by petty feudal lords.

The church is turning into a major owner. The Trinity-Sergius Monastery at the beginning of the 15th century, for example, owned several hundred villages in 13 places.

The boyar economy also grew. So, for example, the influential Chernigov boyar Rodion Nesterovich, having left for Moscow in the time of Ivan Kalita, received half of the Volokolamsk district as an award.

The peasantry lived in villages, villages, villages and repairs. The deserted village was called "wasteland". The sizes of villages and villages were very small. There were very few villages with a population of 50-100 souls. In the village, there was usually a wooden church and a boyar estate, where the boyar manager and servants lived.

Such a village with a princely or boyar court was usually the center of feudal possession. Various lands, fields, stubbles, meadows, traps, "side huts", beaver ruts, "goshawks", "eye gogol catches", "overhangs", berry fields, fishing tonnie, etc. "pulled" to the village.

At the end of the XIII-XIV and the first half of the XV century. The village was primarily an administrative and economic center. At the same time, the village began to play the role of a church parish. The term "village" meant in those days both a settlement like a later village, and a populated area or a piece of land in general. So, for example, in one bill of sale we find an indication of the “village of Molitvenskoye”, and from the boundary letter we learn that it was a piece of land, “Prayer land”, or another letter says about “villages in the Kinel camp”, and the villages are listed : “Beklemisheva, Vyakhireva village, Nazarevskaya village”, etc. In ancient times, the term “village”, “village”, “peche”, covered the concepts of “populated place”, or “settlement”, “housing”, “blood union ”, later the content of the term splits, and it begins to mean, on the one hand, land, on the other, a village.

As a rule, serfs, various servants, and peasants lived in the village. In more ancient times, in the XIII-XIV centuries, in the villages, the ratio between the number of households of serfs and the yards of taxable people (peasants) was in favor of serfs; later in the villages the number of hard-working people grows, although there are still quite a few serfs. So, for example, in the village of Stepurino, Pereyaslavl district (XV century), there were 3 servile and 6 peasant yards; in the village of Lykove - 2 servile and 6 peasant.

Villages, repairs, settlements were drawn to the village as an economic and administrative center. The villages were small, consisted of 1-3 households, often inhabited by one family. Most "chrestians" (peasants) lived in villages. The term "village" is relatively late, it appeared only in the XIV century. In some documents, the village-type settlement is called "family", which is true. In the letter of Oleg Ivanovich Ryazansky to the Olgov Monastery (circa 1372), which describes the conditions of the 13th century, the term “family” is used instead of the term “village”. This is understandable, since in those days a really one-yard (and not only one-yard) village was most often inhabited by one family. The village of the XIV-XV centuries, usually 1-3 yards, consisted of a "farmstead" - "yard", gardens and a pasture. The village had its own land: arable land, fallow, reaping, haymaking, hunting, fishing and side plots - “ukhozhai” (“leaving”), sometimes a forest. The boundaries of possessions were not precisely established and were often determined by "where the ax, plow, scythe went." As the land was developed, there came a time when the plots of various villages converged, and then boundaries appeared, "signed oaks", "remarkable" pines and birches, stones and pits.

In the XIII-XIV - the first half of the XV century. in North-Eastern Russia, arable plots and meadows belonging to villages were scattered across forest clearings and river valleys, often quite far from the villages. So, for example, in the XV century. on the river Vori, near Moscow, and along the rivers Vela, Yakhroma and Yakot, near Dimitrov, there were sap, "pulled" to the villages, separated from them by 10-15 or more miles.

As the population grew, such lands became inconvenient because of losses and disputes, and the peasantry tried to collect their lands in one boundary, to group them in one place near the village. This phenomenon is especially characteristic of a later time, namely, the end of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th centuries. The Russian peasant firmly grew together with the land he cultivated, with his native meadows and forests, rivers and lakes. But still, the villages in those days often changed their owners. So, for example, at the end of the 14th century, ten years before the invasion of Edigey, a peasant Ivan Lapot settled in one of the villages of the village of Zelenshchina (“village” is used here in the sense of a piece of land) in the Pereyaslavl district, which belonged to Lykov. After the devastation by Edigey (1408), a certain Fedenya with his sons Perkhur and Yurenya sat down in the deserted settlement of Laptev. By the name of its founder, the village began to bear the name Fedenino. In 1435, Lykov gave land to the Makhritsky monastery and Fedenino became a monastic village. After Fedenya, for five years, a certain Esaka with children lived in this village, followed by Maxim Vorobyov for four years, etc. In some 50 years, this small one-yard village changed seven owners who were not relatives. The same was observed in other places.

How to explain this phenomenon? “From military people and from robberies” the princely rati in their eternal strife “wasted the Russian land”; from “evil people”, from robberies and hardships, from requisitions and debts, from oppression and violence, Russian peasants “wandered separately” in all directions, looking for and not finding “soft” and free land, or at least “good” princes and boyars, died out from crop failures, hunger strikes, epidemics, were led away "in full" by both the neighboring prince and the "evil Tatar".

Often the feudal lords, who owned dozens of villages scattered in different places, did not run their own economy, but were content with collecting dues. The boyar plowing was small and its size was determined by the need of the boyar family with servants and servants. This phenomenon was facilitated by the natural nature of the patrimonial economy, the weak development of trade and the marketability of agriculture: bread relatively rarely appears on the domestic market as a commodity.

Speaking about corvée, that is, feudal, serf economy, V.I. Lenin considers the “dominance of subsistence economy” to be the first defining feature of it and points out that “the serf estate should have been a self-sufficient, closed whole, which is in very weak connection with the rest of the world.”

The natural nature of the economy, its isolation and isolation are especially characteristic of the feudal patrimony of the late XIII-XIV - early XV century.

The bulk of the products produced in the feudal patrimony by a personally dependent direct producer - a serf, a serf, an orphan, an old-timer, was intended for their own consumption by the feudal lord's family and his numerous households, servants, Chelyadins, and not for sale. All that was given by the vast lands of the feudal lord, his lands and “outings” cultivated by the labor of dependent people, all that was brought in as quitrent in kind by smerds, orphans, silver coins, isorniki and other forced population of the patrimony: bread, cattle, meat, fish , game, berries, flax, linen, leather, honey, etc. - all this was only partially supplied to the market in exchange for handicrafts, luxury goods and "foreign things" necessary for the feudal lord; most of the products were absorbed within the patrimony itself. The abundance of all kinds of serfs, servants, vigilante warriors and other servants necessitated large natural requisitions, the creation of reserves, etc.

But one cannot think that trade was completely unknown to the feudal lords and peasants. If the feudal lord needed money to buy expensive weapons and fabrics, jewelry and spices, etc., etc., then the peasant needed money primarily to pay all kinds of dues and taxes. Peasants traded products of agriculture, fishing and airborne trade, hunting, and their village handicrafts.

So, for example, the village of Medna near Torzhok, where at the beginning of the 15th century. was a boyar household, serviced by serfs and enslaved people (“silvermen”), located on the Tver-Torzhok-Novgorod trade route, already being the property of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in the middle of the 15th century. turns into a large trading village. The same evolution was experienced by the village of Klementyevo, the gift of Prince Andrei of Radonezh to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. It was located half a verst from the monastery on the road to Moscow and already in the middle of the 15th century. artisans lived here (icons, carvers, turners, etc.) and there were auctions. In 1504, there were 134 households in the village of Klementyev.

By special charters, the population of monastic and boyar villages was exempted from trade fees, while the townspeople continued to pay them, and this gave certain advantages to the villagers who were engaged in crafts and trade. It is necessary, however, to note that this phenomenon takes place only at the end of the period of time we are considering, that is, only in the middle of the 15th century. and later.

The organization and management of the fiefdom were not very complex. The center of the patrimony, as we have already seen, was the village where the prince or boyar court stood. Fenced with a tyn (palisade), the "boyar yard" consisted of residential and outbuildings. Residential buildings were rarely occupied by a prince or boyar with their families, unless, of course, this village was their permanent residence. Governors usually lived in these buildings: tiuns, ryadovichi, clerks, grooms, etc.

Outbuildings adjoined the living quarters: an odrin, where various household tools were stored (ploughs, plows, scythes, “horns”), a barn or “slaughter” for livestock, granaries, cellars, where there were pots of “green wine”, “standing honey” , "all vegetables", pickles, jams and other "food" were stored. Immediately, nearby, erected a "cook". On the edge of the estate there was usually a threshing floor with stacks of bread, a poultry house, or a poultry yard, there were senniks, stables. Away from the buildings there was a soap room (bath).

The princely patrimonies were managed by the "court", or butler.

The huge princely court was served by numerous servants, who bore the title of "servants under the court", or palace servants. These were clerks, clerks, psari, grooms, gardeners, falconers, beaver farmers, beekeepers, etc. The lands were allocated in special “paths”: falconer, trapper, stableman and others, served by special people from among the “servants under the court”.

Part of the "servants under the court" were the prince's servants, and the other part consisted of people personally free. For their service, "servants under the court" at first received part of the prince's income, and then, later, land, which was used and extracted by all feudal income. This land was called "estates".

The princely butlers were also in charge of all the "black people": peasants, serfs, etc. They laid out the "tax", monitored the regular execution of corvee work, and the payment of quitrents in kind and money. In the XIV century. the cash quitrent is still small, but the quitrent in kind is plentiful and variegated. Peasants, or "orphans", as the peasants in the north-east of Russia were called, had to pay quitrent with bread, cereals, livestock, meat, poultry, dairy products, berries, mushrooms, linen, flax, etc.

Corvee was just as colorful and varied. Since bread in the XIV century. did not often act as a commodity, then, quite naturally, the plowing of the feudal lord himself (prince, boyar, monastery) was small, and among the working-class duties, the work of the peasant on arable land was far from the first place. Therefore, labor rent was very varied. The peasant had to build buildings in the feudal yard, fence the yard with a palisade, fish, beat the beast, mow hay, carry firewood, etc. The boyar’s yard seemed to copy the prince’s yard, but everything was smaller, simpler there.

The duties of the peasants were the same both in the princely, and in the boyar and monastic economy. Of course, they could vary somewhat depending on the owner, and on the area, and on the size and nature of the farm itself.

The duties of the peasants are most fully depicted by the so-called Kyprianovskaya charter, given to the Konstantinovsky monastery in 1391. Wealthy peasants, “big people”, had to repair churches, erect “mansions”, enclose the monastery estate with a palisade, mow and bring hay to the yard, cultivate the monastery arable land , fish, work in the monastery garden, beat the beavers. Other peasants, the poorer - "pedestrians", had to grind rye, bake bread, thresh, grind malt, brew beer, spin flax and repair nets. In addition, the peasants paid dues in cattle and oats, although the dues were still being established. Such was the scope of duties of the monastic peasantry. By the way, in the Cyprian charter, for the first time, along with the old term “orphans”, denoting peasants, the name “peasants” itself is found. Approximately the same duties were carried out by peasants in the lands of the palace, boyars and nobles.

In the future, there is an increase and regulation of peasant duties. At the end of the XV century. in the Novgorod lands, a peasant household (the village of Shutovo) paid annually in kind: 2 boxes of rye and 2 of oats, a quarter of wheat and barley, a pound of ram, a quarter and a half of meat, cheese, a ladle of butter, a half of sheepskin, two and a half handfuls of flax and 5 money.

Speaking about the duties of the peasants, it must be borne in mind that they also carried the "sovereign tax": money, in kind and work. The position of the peasants, as can be seen from the foregoing, was very difficult.

The number of non-free people grew all the time. Thinner and thinner became the layer of "black people", or "black-haired" peasants, who were obliged only in relation to the prince to pay state taxes and to bear certain duties; less and less "black lands" remain, on which communities still remained - "volosts" and "graveyards". The number of serfs, silversmiths, ladles, old-timers is increasing. Peasants were often forced to conclude enslaving deals and were obliged to earn money or pay interest (“growth”) for a loan (“silver”). Such peasants were called "silvermen".

"Silver" was divided into "product" and "growth". Some pieces of silver, borrowing "silver", were obliged to work, to carry the "product" instead of paying interest. "Izdelniki" performed a number of works, including arable land. Such a “product” was called “silver in arable land”.

"Growth silver" provided for "growth", that is, the payment of interest in money, and if interest was paid regularly over the years, such "silver" was called "summer". Silver pieces appear in the first half of the 14th century. For the first time, silversmiths are mentioned by the contribution letter of the widow of Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich of Suzdal to the Vasilyevsky Monastery in 1353, but the institution of silversmiths reaches a special development in the 15th century, when bondage acquires the character of one of the main instruments of enslavement.

Of a similar nature were the obligations of the ladle in relation to his master. The ladle took the land from the feudal lord and worked it halfway (and sometimes from a third, from where the “tretnik” came from).

"Old-timers" were called peasants who from time immemorial lived on the master's land and performed all feudal duties. The name "old-timers" was due to the fact that relations between peasants and feudal lords were determined by "old times", custom. After 5-10 preferential years, the "newcomers" peasants also became old-timers. The old-timers became more and more tied both legally and economically to the land of their master, and their position more and more approached that of serfs, although formally no one had the right to keep them in place within one principality.

In the feudal economy of the XIV-XV centuries. the labor of serfs was also exploited. Kholops carried a wide variety of duties in the patrimony of their master. There were privileged serfs, serfs-servants: a rural tyun and a key keeper, a clerk, a breadwinner, etc. They were joined by skilled craftsmen and artisans: blacksmiths, gunsmiths, tanners, jewelers, spinners, weavers, etc., who lived at the courts of princes , boyars and at monasteries.

Most of the serfs performed various jobs and were called “sufferers”, or “suffering people”. They plowed arable land, and they themselves lived either in the boyar yard or in special villages (“full people in the villages”) and used for their needs scraps of boyar or princely “orama” of land. Kholops were not much different from the old-timers and similar enslaved and enslaved peasants. "Toothy" (full) serfs were not subject to taxation by the prince.

Enslavement grew, although the majority of peasants still had the right to move from one master to another. The peasant could, having completed the circle of work and performed his duties, go to another owner. The transition of "taxable" or "literate" people was difficult only if they left one principality for another. In order to complicate their transition, the princes agreed among themselves not to accept "taxable". But the right of transition of the peasants constrains the feudal lords, and they seek to limit it. Already in 1450, several letters were given allowing the peasants to leave only two weeks before St. George's autumn day (November 26) and a week after it, and the peasant had to first fully pay off the feudal lord. Thus, it was not so easy for a peasant to leave his master. Usually the prohibition of the transition of the peasants was, as it were, a special favor on the part of the prince to some feudal lord. So, for example, Vasily Vasilyevich first forbade the old-timer peasants from moving from the lands of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and then allowed the monastery to return the departed peasants. There are letters prohibiting the exit of peasants in general. The peasants tried to find a way out of the situation by moving from one principality to another, but in mutual agreements starting from the 14th century, as we have already seen, the princes undertake not to accept “written” and “taxable people”.

Feudal forms of domination and subjugation are getting stronger and expanding.

Feudal tenure in the XIII-XV centuries. divided into two categories of property: full property and conditional property. The estates (fatherlands) belonged to the lands owned by the right of full ownership. The patrimony could be sold, donated, bequeathed, or inherited.

Conditional land ownership was the so-called "salary", that is, the land that one feudal lord received from another, richer and more powerful, on condition that he performed service, primarily military. This land could not be sold, inherited or bequeathed. They used it only as long as they served their master. Termination of service or "departure" to another principality to serve another prince automatically entailed the deprivation of "salary".

A little later, the local system was based on a similar right to use “salary”, when petty feudal lords - “service people” - received land from the prince-sovereign for personal use.

The "salary" system existed in North-Eastern Russia already in the time of Ivan Kalita. So, for example, Ivan Kalita gave Boris Vorkov a village on the condition of the service that he had to carry to the Moscow prince.

Large feudal lords in their estates felt like complete masters, and not only masters, but also sovereigns, sovereigns-patrimonials. For a long time, such an order has been established in which the noble and wealthy boyars considered the entire population of their estates not only as serfs and servants, but also as their subjects, in relation to whom they enjoyed the same rights as the prince. They carried out court and reprisals, thus taking upon themselves the judicial and police functions, collecting judicial fines and tributes, and thereby becoming true sovereigns.

The established order, which took place in Ancient Russia and earlier, was developed in the XIV century. and was reflected in the so-called "commended letters". The monasteries were the first to receive such letters of commendation (for example, the commendation of Ivan Kalita to the archimandrite of the Yuryev Monastery Yesif 1338-1340, the commendation of the Tver Grand Duke Vasily Mikhailovich and the Tver appanage princes to the Tver Otroch Monastery 1361-1365, the commendation of the Nizhny Novgorod prince Alexander Ivanovich Blagoveshchensky monastery 1410-1417 etc.). From a somewhat later time, the first letters of commendation to large secular landowners have come down to us (for example, a commendation of Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich Ivan Kaftyrev at the end of the 14th century).

Letters of grant from princes usually, firstly, exempted the population subject to large feudal lords from paying a number of taxes. So, in letters of commendation to monasteries about the rural population of their estates, duties are listed and it is said: “They don’t need any tribute, no pits, no supply, no tamga, no osmniche, no watchdog, no writing, no food, no honey”, “not I don’t need ... no bones, no turnout, no other duty, no cities, they don’t set up my yard, they don’t feed my horse, they don’t mow my hay, neither to the socialist, nor to the court, nor the tenth, with heavy people they don’t pull into any protors ... ”.

One should not think that according to these letters of commendation, the population of the estates of large feudal lords was exempted from all taxes, as was the case, for example, in the letter of commendation to the Yaroslavl Spassky Monastery, which, for a quitrent of 2 rubles, was exempted from paying taxes from the inhabitants of their lands. Most often, the exemption from taxes was temporary, sometimes they were exempted for a long time, but only from certain taxes and duties. In all these cases, the feudal lord himself took upon himself the collection of taxes. So, for example, in the charter of the Nizhny Novgorod prince Alexander Ivanovich to the Annunciation Monastery it says: “If the tribute comes and the abbot will pay for them according to his strength.” Since the votchinnik himself collected tribute and other income for the prince, it is natural that the “princely men” - installers, ezovniks, governors, tiuns, volostels and other princely administration, in the name of the prince and for the prince, created court and reprisal, collected taxes and monitored performance by the population of a number of duties - they no longer “entered” the patrimony and did not interfere in the activities of the sovereign-patrimony. “But governors and volostels do not enter for nothing ...”, “neither installers, nor ezovniks travel for anything” - this is how the charters of feudal lords formulated this right. The second feature of immunity was the granting (by letter of commendation) to the feudal lord of judicial and police rights. “... Neither my vicegerents send them to those people, nor judge them, nor bringers to them enter for anything, besides murder and robbery,” says the above-mentioned letter of commendation to the Annunciation Monastery. The votchinnik himself knows and judges his people in everything “or to whom he orders”, and only murder, robbery and red-handed tatba were in the jurisdiction of the princely court.

To deal with cases concerning the interests of different feudal lords, a "mixed (joint) court" was established, which included all the feudal lords or their servants interested in it. “And there will be a mixed court, and the abbot judges with the governors, and the profit is divided in half.”

Judicial functions in the hands of the feudal lord were an additional means of enriching him, since the trial was accompanied by the collection of duties, fines, etc.

Letters of grant turned large feudal lords, who concentrated in their hands the collection of taxes and judicial and police power over their subjects, into real, almost independent sovereigns in their estates. These estates were, as it were, principalities in miniature, and the boyar himself or the spiritual lord imitated the prince in everything.

The actions of the princely administration (deputies, volostels, closers, etc.), who collected taxes and judged the urban "black people" and the rural population, were usually accompanied by the robbery of princely subjects, if only because this whole crowd of princely servants fed and lived at the expense of the local population where she "entered". Therefore, the desire of “black people” (i.e., those who pay state taxes) to get rid of them is natural by moving to the lands of feudal lords who received letters of commendation, luring them to themselves, to “whitened” (i.e., freed from taxes to the prince) places, any simple people also with the promise of benefits. Such people were called "mortgages", or "mortgagers". Mortgaging for a boyar who received a letter of commendation, or for a neighboring prince, the peasant, freeing himself from one oppression, from some duties, acquired others. The pawnbroker had to bear a number of duties in relation to his new owner or serve him, and in the latter case, the position of the pawnbroker was close to that of a petty vassal. In Russia, there were various forms of vassalage. “They were beaten with their foreheads in the service” or “ordered” to the grand dukes, that is, feudal lords, various in their wealth, strength and power, became vassal to them. The Grand Duke himself headed the feudal hierarchy, being the head of the "organization of the ruling class."

He was followed by “service princes”, that is, princes of liquidated or annexed appanages-principalities or “departed” from Lithuania and the Horde (“serving Tatar princes”). Many of the "service princes" owned their own lands, but received them already on the rights of estates from the Grand Duke; sometimes the prince gave them other lands and cities where they "fed", that is, they received part of the income from the population.

Behind them were the boyars, "free servants" and "children of the boyars." “Children of the boyars” are the descendants of the “thinner” boyar families; although the possibility is not ruled out that this term meant the same thing that in ancient times was called "lads", "children", i.e. "young squad". In need of patronage from the strongest, the boyars and free servants served him, and the largest of them, along with their squads. IN AND. Lenin points out that "local boyars went to war with their regiments." The smallest of this feudal "younger brethren" usually had 20-30 acres of land, 2-3 serfs, or even none at all, and such a petty "owner" himself went for the plow. Many of them were engaged in beekeeping, fishing, tar smoking, petty trade, etc. Most of these petty feudal lords were "children of the boyars." In Novgorod they were called "own-landers".

Fearing violence from the princes and boyars, many of the "children of the boyars" either gave their land to monasteries and became monastic servants, or went to the prince and, being unable to carry out military service on their own, turned into "servants under the court".

The boyar and the “free servant” could serve anyone, quit their service at any moment, “abandon” their prince and move to another, etc., and this did not in the least affect them as landowners, since no one owns their land touched even then, if they served a hostile prince.

Only in the event that the city, in the volost of which the lands of the boyar or “free servant” were located, was attacked, they had to participate in its defense and “sit down” in the siege. This duty was called the "city siege". In addition, the boyars and "free servants" had to, regardless of the service, "pull the court and tribute on land and water." In all other respects, they were free, and the princes usually indicated in their contracts: “and the boyars and servants, who will not be under the court, free will,” “and the boyars and servants between us will have free will.”

As you can see, the “servants under the court”, which were mentioned above, did not have the right to free transition, and the princes agreed among themselves “servants under the court” “... not to accept into service”.

The prince was not only a feudal lord, but also a ruler, a sovereign. He ruled, relying on the boyars and "servants of the free" who surrounded him. They carry out military service, manage on behalf of the prince his "fatherland", the principality, are in charge of individual branches of the large and intricate princely palace economy.

The boyars make up a duma, with which the prince consults, decides his affairs both as a sovereign and as a feudal lord, creates a court, discusses diplomatic and military affairs.

In peacetime, the Duma meets almost daily. In the morning, the boyars come to the prince's palace and "think" with the prince.

The top of the boyars bore the name of the boyars "big", or "introduced". Behind them were the boyars "worthy", who were in charge of the "ways", that is, individual branches of the princely economy or income. There were trapping (princely hunting), falconer (falconry), equestrian, bowler, steward and other "paths". The “good boyars” who headed them were called hunters, falconers, equestrians, bowlers, stewards, etc. “Ways” consisted of lands, uhozhaev (lands), villages and villages with their population. The main role in the palace was played by the “court”, who had at his disposal servants (“servants under the court”), who served the courtyard and the “ways”. Among them, from decade to decade, there are fewer and fewer slaves, more and more free people.

The boyars also ruled certain regions of the principality, cities and "volosts". The prince sent boyars to the city and volosts so that they would collect taxes on the spot, judge and manage the land on his behalf.

By the end of the XIII century. land administration is concentrated in the hands of governors who lived in cities, but periodically traveled around their lands, stopping in "stans". Later, the detours of the governors ceased (there remains only the “travel court” of the governor in the Bezhetsk district and somewhere else). Over time, volostels appeared everywhere in the camps, at the disposal of which were “duty people” who helped them in management. The volostels, apparently, did not permanently live in the camps. For stops they used graveyards. So, for example, in the "Korzenev camp" of the Moscow district, the camp of the volost was in the Kozmodemyansky churchyard. The boyars-“volostels” (in volosts) or “governors” (in cities) received part of the dues from the population, the so-called “fodder”, for their service to the prince. Hence the name of the boyars-managers "feeders". "Deputies" and "volostels" received "incoming fodder", requisitions in kind, court fines and wedding taxes ("newly married ubrus" and "brood marten"). The prince sent beloved and honored boyars to a volost that brought more income, and the boyars often argued among themselves for “feeding”. "Deputies" and "volostels" had assistants (closers), servants who summoned to court ("rightsmen"), bailiffs ("bailiffs") and other "duty people".

Part of the boyars remained with the prince, and they were “ordered” to do various things: “bit” (military), “state” (treasury and state archive), “ambassadorial” (foreign affairs), “serfs”, etc. They led the “case” , "order", served by competent, experienced servants: clerks and clerks. At the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries out of these "orders"-orders grew "Orders"-institutions. Positions for the boyars were not assigned. After a troublesome palace service, the boyar usually went to “feed”, and his place was taken by the “feeder”. Changed usually in a year or two, and sometimes more often.

But some positions were assigned to a well-born and noble boyar family, often becoming hereditary. So, for example, the position of the Moscow thousand was assigned to the family of the Velyaminov boyars.

The villages were ruled by "village", which were often among the prince's unfree servants. The prince also had a whole detachment of servants who were in charge of the smaller affairs of the prince's administration and economy. Various taxes were collected by special persons: tribute-payers, borovshchiks (collecting a tax - “cherny bor”), whitewashers (collecting a special tax - “squirrel”), coachmen (collecting “pit money”), etc.

The prince's scribes and tributaries compiled lists of villages and those living in them and determined the amount of the tax. Salary unit at the end of the XIII and in the XIV century. there was a "plow" (2-3 people) or a village (also in 2-3 yards). The layout inside the plow was the work of the peasants themselves. Scribes and tributaries received "writing squirrel", "snout", or "writing money" for their work. From the middle of the XV century. a new unit of taxation appears - “howl” - a taxable lot, very diverse in terms of quantity and quality of land.

As for the organization of the army, it was typically feudal.

The bulk of the troops of the grand dukes were squads of petty princes and boyars, consisting of armed horse and foot servants, servants, and serfs. In addition, there were city militias recruited from merchants and artisans. An important role was also played by the foot militia of peasants and "black people", collected "from the plow". It often decided the outcome of the most important battles. The great prince's own numerous squad, consisting of servants and boyar children, is beginning to acquire more and more importance, subject only to the prince and obeying only him alone, while in other squads the soldiers obeyed primarily their immediate master and lord - the boyar or prince.

Relations between the princes were determined by spiritual and contractual letters. The power of the father, the property of the family - the principality-fatherland - was divided between his sons. According to spiritual literacy, a “row” (order) was established, according to which each son received his share. A widow and daughters also received a certain share. The "eldest son" was established, who, moreover, received certain additional lands and incomes "on the oldest path." The main cities did not go to the division, as well as the hard-working people, and remained in common possession. The Grand Duke was considered the senior prince and was called, regardless of the degree of kinship, "the elder brother", "in his father's place." Below him, the standing princes were called “brothers”, and behind them were “younger brothers”, and the name “younger brother” did not mean genuine family relations, but the degree of subordination and the nature of the relationship. If now an all-Russian system of relations and subordination of princes was already established, then in his principality each prince was an independent ruler, and in their contractual letters the princes pledged not to have mortgages in foreign lands, not to send tribute-payers to them, not to buy villages, etc. In treaty letters among themselves, the princes first of all pledged to "be for one" ("for one"), mainly in the matter of relations with the Horde and Lithuania. Mutual treaties were concluded against possible enemies in Russia itself.

Inside the great principalities - Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, Ryazan - the specific princes were more and more subordinate to their grand duke. By the beginning of the XV century. appanage princes ceased to play an independent role in the foreign policy of the great principalities and in this area retained only the right to collect tribute for the Horde, and even that was handed over to the Grand Duke. In their internal activities, the appanage princes, however, were still independent then, and this independence was secured by a contractual letter with the Grand Duke. What these small specific principalities were can be judged at least from the description of the possessions of the specific prince Dmitry Vasilyevich Zaozersky (XIV - early XV century). His possessions consisted of the prince's court - "terem and chambers", a church on the shores of Lake Kubenskoye, nearby lay "the whole Chirkovo", where all the subjects of the prince and parishioners of the church lived - that's the whole principality.

By the middle of the XV century. the importance of the Grand Duke of Vladimir increases significantly, and since Moscow princes usually received a label for the great reign of Vladimir from the Khan, the treaty letters of the Grand Duke with Ryazan and Tver put the latter in fact in a subordinate position from Moscow. And if at that time in Tver and Ryazan there was a struggle between the grand dukes and appanage princes, usually ending in the victory of the first, then the growing power of the Grand Duke of Vladimir, to whom various social forces gravitated in the process of unification of the Russian lands by him, prepared the liquidation of the grand duchies of Tver and Ryazan from all over the world. their feudal political system, since the Moscow prince was the representative of "order in disorder" that dominated Russia during the period of feudal fragmentation, the representative of the "nascent nation as opposed to fragmentation into rebellious vassal states." . K. Marx. Secret diplomatic history of the eighteenth century. P. 78.

I.V. Stalin. Op. T. 4. S. 46.

A.S. Pushkin. Op. L.: GIHL, 1935. S. 732.

Literary heritage of N.G. Chernyshevsky. 1928. Vol. II. S. 44.

IN AND. Lenin. Op. T. 3. S. 158.

K. Marx and F. Engels. Op. T. IV. S. 15.

IN AND. Lenin. Op. T. 1. S. 137.

K. Marx and F. Engels. Op. T. XVI, part I. S. 445.

Features of the socio-political system of Galicia-Volyn Rus.

Volyn and Galicia, the lands were united around 1200 into one strong principality, with the center in Galich. (The heyday of the Galicia-Volyn land falls on the reign of Yaroslav Osmomysl.)

· Next to the princely autocracy, a strong aristocracy arose in the form of the princely boyars, the senior squad, which, together with the princes, destroyed the significance of city veche meetings. The boyars owned significant land and had both political and legal autonomy.

· The urban population was not numerous. The domain of the Galician princes was small, and the bulk of the rural population was dependent on the boyars (the exploitation of the peasantry here was much stronger than in other lands)

· A feature of the state structure of the Galicia-Volyn land was that it was not divided into destinies for a long time.

· The entire Galicia-Volyn land was divided into voivodeships (headed by voivodes appointed from the boyars.) Voivodeships were divided into volosts under the control of “smaller” boyars.

Political system:

The highest authorities:

Prince (invited by the boyars and had to reckon with them)

Influential officials appear in the palace administration system, such as the butler, equerry, and printer.

· Boyar Council (the prototype of the Boyar Duma).

(The boyars played the leading role in political life. They disposed of the princely table, invited and removed the princes)

o Veche (The princes looked for support in the veche, but it did not become a real force

o the right to participate in the veche meeting is given only to the free male population of the city

o The people at the veche were convened by heralds or bell ringing.

o Decisions were made by “unified statutes”, “unanimously” (in fact, the majority suppressed the minority)

o At the meeting, sometimes there was a trial of cases. Crowded meetings did not seem to be a convenient form for solving petty court cases.

In the 14th century the principality broke up: Galicia became part of Poland, and Volhynia - Lithuania.

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality withdrew from the Kyiv state in the 30s. 12th century In the second half of the XII century. Vladimir became the capital of the principality, where the residence of the Grand Duke subsequently moved. The characteristic features of this principality were the strong power of the prince and a large number of cities united by the principality.

social order Vladimir-Suzdal principality was typical for this period.
The ruling class was the class of feudal lords, which included boyars, boyar children and free servants. The clergy, who had large land holdings, played an important role. There were also nobles, who were called princely servants, who received remuneration for their service in the form of monetary or land grants.

Since on the territory of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality there were many large cities, the urban population had significant political influence.
The feudally dependent population consisted of peasants who lived on lands belonging to princes, boyars and other feudal lords.

The head of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was the Grand Duke with great political influence. In his activities, he relied on a council consisting of boyars and clergy, a princely squad and feudal congresses. To resolve important issues, a people's assembly - a veche - could be convened.

In the Vladimir-Suzdal principality there was palace and patrimonial management system. It is characterized by the following features: the butler was at the head of the system; on the ground, representatives of the princely power were posadniks (deputies) and volostels, who performed the functions of administration and court; instead of a salary for their service, they received "food" - part of the collected from the population.

SUMMARY ON THE TOPIC

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF NORTH-EASTERN RUSSIA

IN A SPECIFIC EPOCH

Plan

1. Termination of the activities of city councils.

2. The dependence of the princes on the Tatar Khan; order of princely possession.

3. The power of the Grand Duke of Vladimir until the end of the XIV century.

4. Emancipation of Ryazan and Tver from submission to the Grand Duke of Moscow and Vladimir.

5. Subordination to the Grand Dukes of Moscow, Tver and Ryazan specific princes.

6. Internal independence of destinies.

7. Rapprochement of principalities with private estates.

8. Elements of statehood in specific order.

9. Features of feudalism in the specific system of northeastern Russia in the XIII-XV centuries; fragmentation of state power.

10. The origin of feudal relations in Russia.

11. Pawning and patronage.

12. Transfers of boyars and servants; salaries and food.

13. Features of feudalism in the views, language and life of a specific era.

14. Literature.

1. Termination of the activities of city councils.

The Tatar invasion, with all the consequences that accompanied it, also accelerated the very process of life that led to the decline in significance, and then to the final cessation of the activity of city councils in northeastern Russia.

Already in the second half of the XII century, in the era of intensive settlement of the region by colonists from the south, the princes of northeastern Russia showed a tendency to become the masters of the country, its masters as its creators and organizers. Let us recall that Andrei Bogolyubsky was already an autocrat in the Suzdal land and did not want to know either his boyars or the people's council. Andrei, as you know, became a victim of his domestic politics and died from a conspiracy of those dissatisfied with his autocracy. After his death, the old veche cities of Rostov and Suzdal tried to become masters in the country, to imprison princes of their own free will and on their own. But they failed to achieve this, because they did not have strong, ancient ties with the rest of the population, who had recently arrived, planted on the land by the princes-colonizers, and above all with the suburbs of Suzdal land. Vladimirians refused to recognize the princes nominated by the Rostov and Suzdal people. In the internecine struggle that followed, the old veche towns suffered a complete defeat. In the Rostov-Suzdal land, therefore, even before the Tatars, the prince became the master of the situation, and the veche receded into the background. The very composition of the population in the Rostov-Suzdal land should have favored the strengthening of the prince at the expense of the veche. This population consisted of inhabitants of small villages and hamlets scattered over vast distances. There were few crowded, large settlements, commercial and industrial cities, and therefore the veche of the main cities could not acquire the dominance that they received in other regions of the Russian land. The Tatars completed this political evolution of northeastern Russia. Cities during their invasion were subjected to terrible ruin, impoverished and impoverished. Due to the decline of crafts and trade, they could not recover for a long time to any significant extent. Under such conditions, their inhabitants had to think more about their daily bread, about tomorrow, and not about politics. With the assertion of Tatar dominion over Russia, the appointment and change of princes began to depend on the will of the khan. Therefore, the most important function of the Eve, the calling and expulsion of princes, also fell by itself. If a vecha was to be held, it was only in cases of emergency, and moreover, in the form of a mutiny. God forbid, writes, for example, a chronicler under 1262, from the fierce languor of the Basurman people Rostov land: put fury into the hearts of the peasants, who do not tolerate the violence of the filthy, deign forever and drive them out of the cities, from Rostov, from Volodimer, from Suzdal, from Yaroslavl, okupahut boti repentance of the unbridled tribute (Lavrent.). Or under the year 1289: Prince Dmitry Borisovich sede in Rostov. Multiply then the Tatars in Rostov, and the citizens created a veche and drove them out, and plundered their estate (Voskres.), etc. So, of the two forces that led society in Kievan Rus, in the northeastern specific era, one prince remained .

2. The dependence of the princes on the Tatar Khan; order of princely possession.

But this political force, for all that, did not become independent. In 1243, Grand Duke Yaroslav Vsevolodovich went to Batu, who, according to the chronicle, received him with honor and said to him: Yaroslav! Be you older than all the prince in the Russian language. The following year, other princes went to Batu about their fatherland: I honored Batu ace with a worthy honor and let me go, judging them, someone to my fatherland (Lavrent.). The same order continued after. As a rule, the khans approved as both the great and the local prince the one who had the right to do so on ancestral or patrimonial grounds that were in force in the then customary princely law. As a result, in the 13th century, the Grand Duchess of Vladimir was seated in turn by the seniority of the princes: Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, his brother Svyatoslav, son Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, another son Yaroslav of Tverskoy and the third Vasily Kostroma, then the eldest grandson Dimitry Alexandrovich, the next Andrey Alexandrovich, then Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tverskoy . Thus, in the succession of the senior grand-ducal table, approximately the old Kievan custom was observed. But in the replacement of all other princely tables, as was already indicated in due time, a new, patrimonial order was established - the transition from fathers to sons, and in the absence of such, to the nearest p? / p>