Feudalism (French féodalité, from late Latin feodum, feudum - possession, estate, feud) - class antagonistic socio-economic formation, representing the middle link of a holistic dialectical process of changing socio-economic formations: the era of feudalism lies between the slave-owning system and capitalism. In the history of many peoples, feudalism was the first antagonistic class formation (that is, it directly followed the primitive communal system).
The economic system of feudalism, with all the variety of its forms in different countries and at different times, is characterized by the fact that the main means of production - land is in the monopoly property of the ruling class of feudal lords (sometimes almost completely merging with the state), and the economy is carried out by the forces and technical means of small producers - peasants, one way or another dependent on the owners of the land. Thus, the feudal mode of production is based on a combination of large landed property of the feudal class and small individual farming of the direct producers, the peasants, who are exploited with the help of non-economic coercion (the latter is as characteristic of feudalism as economic coercion is of capitalism).
Thus, the most important relations of the feudal mode of production are land relations. Land relations form the basic production relation of the feudal mode of production. Feudal land relations were characterized by the monopoly of large landowners - feudal lords on land.
Most of the land owned by the feudal lords consisted of many land plots that were in the use of the peasants, which gave them the opportunity to conduct their own individual farming on this land. The allotment nature of peasant land tenure is an important feature of land relations under the dominance of the feudal mode of production. Since the land was the property of the feudal lords, the peasant could be driven off the land at any time. However, feudalism had a tendency to attach the peasant to the land. Allotment land tenure of the peasants was in most cases hereditary. Thus, in a feudal society, the direct producer was not the owner of the land, but only its holder, he only used it, cultivated it.
On the lands of the feudal lords there were not only numerous villages and villages, but also a significant number of cities. Therefore, not only peasants, but also urban artisans fell into the sphere of exploitation of the feudal lords. Feudal property meant the complete domination of the feudal lord within a certain territory, including power over the people inhabiting this territory. Feudal land relations were inextricably linked with relations of personal dependence.
Relations of personal dependence permeate the entire socio-economic structure of feudalism. “... We find people here,” K. Marx pointed out, “who are all dependent - serfs and feudal lords, vassals and overlords, laymen and priests. Personal dependence here characterizes both the social relations of material production and the spheres of life based on it.
The relations of personal dependence of the peasants on the feudal lords (landlords) acted as interclass, antagonistic relations, opposing the direct producers to the exploiting feudal lords.
Under feudalism, the nature of dependence relations was already different than under slavery. The dependent peasant was not wholly owned by the landowner; he could work part of the time on his plot of land, working for himself and his family. The peasant had in his property the means of production, agricultural and handicraft implements, working and productive livestock. The means of production were in their sole ownership and urban artisans. Both peasants and artisans had their own housing and outbuildings. Some means of production, such as wells, roads, and sometimes pastures for livestock, were in a number of cases in the use of the surviving rural community.
The method of connecting the direct producer with the means of production under feudalism is characterized by a certain duality. The direct producer - the peasant, on the one hand, having his own small farm, was interested in working in this economy, and, on the other hand, his work for the feudal lord was in the form of forced labor exploited for the exploiter. Non-economic coercion of the direct producer to work for the feudal lord had as its economic basis and condition the monopoly of the feudal lords on land and was a means of realizing feudal property in the production process.
Thanks to a different way than under slavery, the method of connecting the direct producer with the means of production under feudalism, his attitude to work changed, a certain incentive to work appeared. Here the antagonism between the direct producer and the tools of labor, which took place under slavery, is overcome. Since the tools of labor belong under feudalism to the direct producer, he, despite his dependent oppressed position, took care of their preservation and improvement.
Non-economic coercion (which could vary from serfdom to simple class lack of rights) was a necessary condition for the appropriation of land rent by the feudal lord, and independent peasant farming was a necessary condition for its production.
The well-known economic independence of the peasant, which was established in the era of feudalism, opened up some scope for raising the productivity of peasant labor and developing the productive forces of society, and created more favorable conditions for the development of the individual. This, ultimately, determined the historical progressiveness of feudalism in comparison with the slave-owning and primitive communal system.
2.3. Forms of feudal production and feudal land rent. Feudal exploitation
Feudal production was carried out in two main forms: in the form corvée economy and in the form quitrent farm. For both forms of economy, the common thing was that: a) the direct producer was personally dependent on the feudal lord (landlord); b) the feudal lord was considered the owner of all the land on which agricultural production was carried out; c) the direct producer - the peasant - had a land plot in use, on which he ran his individual farm; d) all agricultural production was carried out by the labor and tools of labor (living and dead implements) of the peasants; e) the peasants expended surplus labor and created a surplus product for the landowner by way of non-economic coercion.
Corvee economy
Under the corvée economy, the entire land of the feudal estate was divided into two parts. One part is the lordly land, on which the production of agricultural products was carried out with the labor and inventory of the peasants, which were fully appropriated by the feudal landowner. On the lord's land, thus, the cost surplus labor peasants, production surplus product.
The other part of the land is peasant land, called allotment. On this land, the peasants farmed for themselves, created required product, i.e., a product necessary for the existence of the peasants themselves and their families, as well as for the restoration of the worn-out part of agricultural living and dead equipment.
When corvée surplus labor was given to the landowner in its natural form as a certain number of corvée days. The necessary and surplus labor of the producer exploited by the feudal lord were here separated from each other in space and time: necessary labor was spent on the peasant allotment field, surplus labor on the lord's field. Some days of the week the peasant worked in his field, and the other - in the master's field. Therefore, under corvée, the distinction between necessary and surplus labor was physically palpable.
Surplus labor was appropriated under corvée in the form labor rent.
Surplus labor under corvée differed little from slave labor. The product of all the labor expended on corvee was appropriated by the feudal landowner, the direct producer - the peasant - was not at all interested in the results of this labor, his coercion required large expenditures of labor for supervision. Therefore, the feudal landowners transferred their peasants to quitrent.
quitrent farm
In quitrent farming, almost all the land was transferred to the peasants as an allotment. All agricultural production was carried out in the farms of peasants who were on dues. One part of the product created in the economy in the form of quitrent was transferred by the peasant to the feudal landowner, and the other part remained with the peasant as a fund for the reproduction of his labor force and the maintenance of the existence of his family members, as well as a fund for the reproduction of peasant inventory, living and dead.
In many feudal estates, a mixed system was used: along with corvée, peasants had to deliver dues. It happened that corvée prevailed in some estates, while quitrent prevailed in others.
Under the quitrent system of economy, all the labor of the peasant - necessary and surplus - was spent on the farm of the peasant. Surplus labor was given not in its natural form, but in the form of a product. Therefore, here the difference between the necessary and the surplus was physically tangible. product: what the peasant gives in the form of quitrent to the feudal landowner is the surplus product. That part of the product that remains on his farm constitutes the necessary product.
Under the quitrent system, surplus labor is appropriated by the feudal lord in the form of a surplus product. This form of feudal rent is called product rent. “Food rent,” wrote K. Marx, “suggests a higher production culture for the direct producer, and therefore a higher stage of development of his labor and society in general; and it differs from the previous form in that surplus labor must no longer be carried out in its natural form, and therefore no longer under the direct supervision and compulsion of the landowner or his representative; on the contrary, the direct producer must carry it out under his own responsibility, urged on by the force of relations instead of direct coercion and by the decree of the law instead of the whip.
Over time, dues in kind began to be combined with dues in cash, or were completely replaced by money. And the peasant had to not only produce a surplus product, but also turn it into money.
If quitrent is established in money, then the surplus labor is appropriated by the feudal lord no longer in the form of labor and not in the form of a product, but in the form of money. Transition to cash rent occurred as a result of the further growth of the division of labor, which caused the development of exchange and the gradual spread of commodity-money relations in society.
Features of rent relations in the countries of the East
A certain peculiarity in the development of forms of feudal land rent and forms of dependence of direct producers on feudal lords existed in many countries of the East.
Since the feudal state acted as the main owner of land and irrigation facilities in the East, a large-scale master economy did not develop here for a long time.
The predominant form of feudal land rent in most countries of the East was not corvee, but rent in products, partly cash rent, which was collected from the peasants by state officials. Usually, the state allocated a significant part of the collected funds (in kind or in cash) to the feudal lords in the form of a kind of salary.
Natural form of feudal production
The feudal estates, within which the production process was carried out, were characterized by the isolation and isolation of economic life. The personal consumption of the feudal lords and peasants, as well as production consumption, were provided mainly due to what was created on each estate by the labor of direct producers.
Characteristic of feudalism was the combination of agriculture as the main branch of production with domestic crafts that played a secondary role. In that era, household crafts provided the lordly and peasant households with most of the necessary products of handicraft labor. Only individual products that could not be obtained locally for various reasons, for example, some metal products, jewelry, salt, etc., were usually delivered by visiting merchants. The consequence of this was that the economy of the feudal estate was characterized by a closed, self-contained character.
The products created by the labor of direct producers in the process of feudal production were mostly consumed within the feudal estate itself by feudal landowners and serfs in kind.
The surplus product took on a commodity form only with monetary rent, which already corresponded to the period of the disintegration of feudalism.
The necessary product, even under conditions of money rent, and even more so under conditions of labor rent and rent in products, in most cases remained in kind, did not become a commodity. And this was of great importance, since the necessary product was a very significant part of the product produced.
Various duties performed by serfs at all stages of the development of feudal society were also of a natural nature. Thus, the characteristic feature of feudal production was that it had a natural form.
2.4. Basic economic law of feudalism
The purpose of feudal production was to create a surplus product that was used for the direct consumption of the feudal lords, acting in a specific socio-economic form of feudal rent.
The essence of the basic economic law of feudalism was that the surplus product produced as a result of the forced labor of peasants personally dependent on the feudal lords was appropriated by the feudal lords in the form of feudal land rent to satisfy their needs.
2.5. The contradictions of feudalism
All stages of the development of feudal society, which passed through successive forms of feudal production and feudal exploitation, are characterized by the presence of numerous contradictions. The large property of the feudal lords is opposed to the small individual property of the direct producers personally dependent on the feudal lords, on which their petty dependent production was based; large-scale feudal economy - small peasant land tenure; non-economic coercion to work for the feudal lord of direct producers - the possibility of their own economy on the basis of personal labor; the class of landowners and carriers of non-economic coercion - the feudal lords - to the class of peasants personally dependent on them.
The contradictions of feudalism were generated by duality, by the internally contradictory way of connecting the direct producer with the means of production.
2.6. Feudal reproduction
The determining factor was the reproduction that took place in the peasant economy. Peasant labor reproduced not only products used to satisfy the personal needs of the feudal lords (surplus product) and the producers themselves (essential product), but also the conditions for the subsequent continuation of the production process in the peasant economy.
The peasant had to perform household work that ensured the continuity of production: repairing tools, replacing worn-out tools with new ones, and creating stocks of seed grain. “... The product of a serf,” wrote K. Marx, “should be enough here to, in addition to his means of subsistence, compensate for the conditions of his work ...” .
The source of any increase in production is the surplus product.
Therefore, expanded reproduction could be carried out only if some part of the surplus product was directed from time to time to the expansion and improvement of production. This happened sporadically and mainly in those cases when, due to the presence of previously fixed duties, which were usually established for quite a long time, the feudal lord did not have time to appropriate all the results of the growth in labor productivity in the peasant economy.
2.7. feudal city
Feudal relations covered not only the village, but also the city. The cities were inhabited mainly by artisans and merchants. Artisans, who made up the majority of the urban population, were recruited mainly from among the former serfs who fled to the city from their landowner or were transferred to the city by the landowner himself.
Having freed themselves from serfdom in the countryside, the former serfs, who became urban artisans, again fell into the conditions of feudal oppression here. Using the right of the owners of the land on which the cities stood, the feudal lords established a system of personal dependence in the cities, forcing the townspeople to perform various kinds of duties.
Workshop system
In the cities, a specific feudal form of organization of crafts took shape in the form of so-called workshops. Workshops were associations of artisans of a certain branch of handicraft production living in a given city.
The full members of the workshops were the workshop masters - the owners of their own workshops. In the workshop of the guild master, besides himself, several apprentices and apprentices worked. A characteristic feature of medieval workshops is the strict regulation of the conditions of production and marketing (determining the quality of raw materials and finished products, the volume of production, the time and procedure for working in the workshop, etc.). This ensured the monopoly of the workshop in the production of a particular product and prevented competition between artisans.
Under the conditions of the guild system, apprentices and apprentices were exploited by guild foremen. Since the master himself worked in the workshop, his higher position in relation to apprentices and apprentices was based not only on private ownership of the means of production, but also on his professional skill. When teaching a student who came to him, the master did not pay him any remuneration, although the student brought a certain income with his work. Apprentices, who were already in essence skilled artisans, received from the master a certain payment for their work.
merchant guilds
The cities were the center of concentration of the merchant class, which carried out both domestic and international trade. Merchant capital played a very significant role under feudalism. Small commodity producers were by no means always able to sell their goods due to the fragmentation of production and the remoteness of sales markets. Merchants took on the role of an intermediary in the sale of their products. They appropriated a significant part of the product of direct manufacturers. Merchants sold luxury items, weapons, wines, spices, etc., to the feudal lords, which were purchased partly within the country, partly in foreign markets. The profit they received from the resale of goods at higher prices contained part of the feudal land rent.
The weakness of the central government of the feudal state, its inability to provide personal and property protection to wandering merchants, prompted the latter to unite for self-defense in the guild. The guilds fought the competition of outside merchants, streamlined measures and weights, and determined the level of selling prices.
As monetary wealth accumulated, the role of merchant capital changed. If at first the merchants were only occasional intermediaries in the exchange, then gradually the circle of producers selling their goods to this or that merchant became permanent. Merchants often combined trading operations with usurious ones, issuing loans to artisans and peasants and thereby subordinating them even more.
The accumulation of significant sums of money in the hands of the merchants turned them into a major economic force, which became the basis for the dominance of the merchants in the city government. At the same time, the merchant class gradually became a force capable of resisting the feudal lords and striving to free itself from feudal dependence.
Opposite between city and countryside
Under feudalism, the village politically dominated the city, because the cities were owned by the feudal lords. The townspeople were obliged to bear certain duties in favor of the feudal lord, the feudal lord was the supreme judge for the townspeople, he even had the right to sell the city, transfer it by inheritance, and mortgage it. However, the economic development of the city was far ahead of the economic development of the countryside.
The growth of handicraft production, the accumulation of great wealth in the hands of usurers and merchants created the prerequisites for the economic domination of the city over the countryside. “If in the Middle Ages,” K. Marx noted, “the countryside exploits the city politically everywhere where feudalism was not broken by the exceptional development of cities, as in Italy, then the city everywhere and without exception exploits the countryside economically with its monopoly prices, its tax system, its by the guild system, by its direct merchant deceit and its usury.
The power of the feudal lords hindered the development of crafts and trade. Therefore, the cities waged a fierce and constant struggle with the feudal lords for their liberation. They sought political independence, self-government, the right to mint coins, and exemption from duties. Due to the fact that significant amounts of money were concentrated in the hands of merchants, usurers and rich craftsmen, cities often managed to buy off the feudal lords, buying their independence for money. At the same time, cities often achieved their independence by force of arms.
2.8. Commodity-money relations under the feudal mode of production
As a result of the growth of the productive forces and the deepening of the social division of labor under feudalism, commodity production and commodity circulation gained a certain development. Commodity production in the era of the development of feudalism was subordinate to subsistence farming in nature and represented only a separate mode of the feudal economy. It served feudal production and played, especially in the early feudal period, an auxiliary role.
As a result of the expansion of trade between peasants and feudal lords, on the one hand, and urban artisans, on the other, internal markets are taking shape. With the help of trade, an economic link between agricultural and handicraft production is established and strengthened.
Merchant capital under feudalism was primarily an intermediary in the exchange of the surplus product appropriated by the feudal lords for luxury goods imported from other countries. Merchant capital also acted as an intermediary in the exchange of products between peasants and urban artisans. The trade profit received by the merchants was formed as a result of non-equivalent exchange, i.e., the purchase of goods at prices below their value and their sale above their value. The source of commercial profit was ultimately the surplus product created by the direct producers (peasants and artisans), and in some cases also a part of their necessary product.
The process of development of commodity production and circulation is intensified by the expansion of foreign trade. International trade was relatively developed already in the slave era. During the transition from slavery to feudalism, international trade died out somewhat. With the growth of production and the spread of commodity-money relations, it revives again.
The growth of domestic and foreign trade led to the development of money circulation, an increase in the amount of money in circulation, and the improvement of coinage. However, medieval trade, despite its significant development, was still limited. It existed under conditions of dominance of natural production, feudal fragmentation, lack of roads, imperfect means of circulation, the absence of uniform measures of weight and length, a single monetary system, and frequent robbery attacks by feudal lords on merchants.
With the growth of commodity-money relations in feudal society, usury capital develops. Money loans were issued by usurers to feudal lords, as well as to artisans and peasants. The source of usurious interest, as well as the source of commercial profit, was the surplus product created by the peasants and artisans, as well as part of their necessary product.
With the growth of commodity-money relations, the feudal estate was more and more involved in the market turnover. Buying luxury goods and urban handicrafts, the feudal lords are increasingly in need of money. It becomes profitable for them to transfer peasants from corvée and quitrent in kind to quitrent in cash. In this regard, the peasant economy was drawn into the market turnover.
3. Decomposition of feudalism
3.1. Growth of commodity relations and decomposition of subsistence economy
The feudal organization of handicraft production in the form of a guild system, with its strict regulation of the volume and technology of production, with a guild monopoly, limited the possibilities for significant and consistent progress in production technology and an increase in the volume of marketable products. Feudal agriculture, with the fragmentation of allotment land use by small producers, and forced crop rotations within a community subordinate to the feudal lord, prevented an increase in labor productivity and the enlargement of the size of the economy. At the same time, a self-sufficient subsistence economy limited the capacity and possibilities of the domestic market and hindered the development of commodity exchange. Feudal relations of personal dependence prevented the influx of labor into the cities, without which commodity production could not expand further. Craftsmen and peasants were kept in the system of feudal production by the force of non-economic coercion. Even individuals who had accumulated significant monetary wealth (merchants, usurers, wealthy artisans) could not, in essence, organize large-scale production in a city or village, since there was not a sufficient amount of free labor. In this situation, the method of connecting the worker in production, the direct producer, with the means of production, inherent in feudalism, began to increasingly hinder the further development of the productive forces of society.
The development of production inevitably led to an aggravation of the contradictions inherent in feudalism: between the economy of the feudal lord and the individual economy of peasants and artisans, between physical and mental labor, between town and country, between the naturalness of production inherent in feudalism and its growing marketability.
An irreconcilable contradiction arose and became more and more aggravated between the new productive forces, which require enlarged forms of organization of labor and production in the form of cooperation of specialized producers and a new way of connecting labor force with the means of production, on the one hand, and the old production relations based on the personal dependence of producers. from landowners, feudal lords, on the other.
A conflict is brewing between the productive forces and production relations, and objective prerequisites are being created for a profound socio-economic revolution, for the replacement of feudal production relations by new production relations, for the transition to a new, more progressive mode of production. Thus, a social need arose for the elimination of feudal production relations, for their replacement by new relations that would correspond to the level and nature of the growing productive forces.
These new relationships were capitalist production relations, which assumed the replacement of non-economic coercion of direct producers to work on the basis of their personal dependence by economic coercion through the system of using producers in the production of hired labor.
3.2. Property and social stratification of commodity producers
With the deepening of the social division of labor and the expansion of the sphere of commodity-money relations, the property stratification of commodity producers and the social stratification of commodity producers are intensifying. In the conditions of the growth of market relations between commodity producers, a fierce competitive struggle unfolded, which led to an ever greater deepening and property stratification of them into the poor and the rich, both in the city and in the countryside.
The process of stratification of the peasantry in the countryside was significantly accelerated by the transition to cash rent. Thus, new conditions and factors for the development of social production lead to overcoming the limitations of the feudal era, to the disintegration of the guild system in the city, to the social differentiation of producers - peasants and artisans - both in the countryside and in the city.
Thus, conditions are objectively emerging for the emergence of a new method of connecting direct producers with the means of production. The increasingly significant use of wage labor in production meant that a new way of connecting producers with the means of production was emerging. Simple commodity production, based on the producers' own means of production and the producers' own labor, creates the conditions for the emergence of a new, capitalist form of commodity production, and grows more and more into this new form.
3.3. The emergence in the depths of feudalism of the capitalist form of commodity production. initial accumulation of capital
Capitalist commodity production, which arose in the depths of feudalism, differed from the former forms of commodity economy in the form of commodity production as large-scale production using the cooperation of wage labor of many producers.
The development of commercial (merchant) and usurious capital was one of the necessary historical conditions for the emergence and development of capitalism. Commercial capital in many cases rushed into industry, and the merchant then turned into a capitalist industrialist. Usurers, using the money they had accumulated, sometimes also became capitalist industrialists, or turned into capitalist bankers. But neither commercial nor usurious capital could in itself bring about a fundamental revolution in production relations. They only contributed to the creation of conditions for the emergence of capitalist forms of production.
Workshops based on the simple co-operation of hired labor and merchant manufactories were the first embryos of large-scale capitalist production. They arose in Europe in the XIV-XV centuries, first of all in the city-republics of Italy, and then in the Netherlands, England, France and other countries.
The establishment of the capitalist mode of production presupposes, firstly, the transformation of the mass of producers into proletarians, personally free and at the same time deprived of any means of production, and secondly, the concentration of money wealth and means of production in the hands of a minority. In the creation of these conditions lies the essence of the so-called primitive capital formation, which represented the prehistory and the immediate starting point for the formation of the capitalist mode of production.
Describing the essence of the initial accumulation of capital, K. Marx wrote: “The capitalist relation presupposes that the ownership of the conditions for the implementation of labor is separated from the workers ... Thus, the process that creates the capitalist relation cannot be anything other than the process of separating the worker from the ownership of the conditions labor, a process which transforms, on the one hand, the social means of production and means of subsistence into capital, and, on the other hand, the direct producers into wage-workers. Consequently, the so-called primitive accumulation is nothing but the historical process of the separation of the producer from the means of production.
3.4. The role of violence in the rise of capitalism
Bourgeois historians and economists portray the history of the rise of capitalism idyllically. They argue that the accumulation of wealth occurred in ancient times as a result of the "industriousness and frugality" of some, the "negligence and extravagance" of others. In fact, the production relations of capitalism arose and then became dominant due to the objective laws of social development. But the primitive accumulation of capital was facilitated and accelerated by the use of direct, undisguised violence.
A classic example of this was those dramatic events that took place in the XVI-XVII centuries. in England, where capitalist production reached a significant development earlier than in other countries. Here, the bourgeois nobility forcibly drove the peasants, who by that time had been freed from serfdom, from the lands. Deprived of land, the peasants, having lost the opportunity to run their own economy, were forced to hire themselves to the capitalists. In parallel with this, the process of formation of capitalist farmers - agricultural capitalists - was going on in the countryside. Landlessness of agricultural producers, their expropriation is the basis of the entire process of primitive accumulation of capital. “... The history of this expropriation of them,” wrote K. Marx, “is inscribed in the annals of mankind with a flaming tongue of blood and fire.”
Thus, the new class - the emerging bourgeoisie - used on a large scale violent methods of forcing the proletarians to work in capitalist enterprises, violent methods of creating a new labor discipline to subjugate producers to capitalist wage slavery. State power with the help of legal legislation against the "homeless" and "tramps" forced disadvantaged people to go to work for capitalist enterprises.
Violence was also an important means of accelerating the process of concentration of wealth (money, means of production) in the hands of a few. A significant number of capitalist enterprises were created at the expense of accumulations, which were concentrated in the hands of merchants and usurers. But, as already noted, other methods of accumulating wealth with the use of violence also played a major role, as well as the system of colonial robbery of peoples, colonial trade, including the trade in slaves, trade wars, the system of state loans and taxes, and the patronizing customs policy of the state.
In Russia, which began the transition from feudalism to capitalism later than many other European countries, the process of forcible separation of direct producers from the means of production developed intensively only in connection with the abolition of serfdom. The reform of 1861 was a grand robbery of the peasants. As a result of its implementation, the landowners seized two-thirds of the land, in their hands were the most convenient land for use. Determining the nature of the peasant reform of 1861, V. I. Lenin pointed out: “This is the first mass violence against the peasantry in the interests of emerging capitalism in agriculture. This is the landowner's "cleansing of the land" for capitalism.
Through robbery, the forcible ruin of the masses of small producers, and the cruelest enslavement of the colonial peoples, the creation of conditions for the domination of the capitalist mode of production was accelerated.
3.5. Class struggle in feudal society and bourgeois revolutions
The disintegration of feudalism was an inevitable process that unfolded due to the operation of the objective laws of economic development. This process was accelerated by the widespread use of violence as a means of primitive accumulation of capital.
The foundations of feudalism were increasingly shaken under the blows of the intensifying class struggle in feudal society, under the influence of mass actions by the peasants against their oppressors. In the XIV century. an uprising of English peasants under the leadership of Wat Tyler and an uprising of French peasants (Jacquerie) broke out. In the XV century. peasant wars broke out in the Czech Republic under the leadership of Jan Hus. 16th century was marked by a broad peasant movement in Germany under the leadership of Thomas Müntzer.
The feudal system of Russia was the cause of major peasant uprisings led by Bolotnikov (XV century), Stepan Razin (XVII century), Emelyan Pugachev (XVIII century), and others.
Peasant uprisings were harbingers of bourgeois revolutions. Peasants, as well as artisans, made up the bulk of the fighters during the bourgeois revolutions. But the bourgeoisie took advantage of the fruits of their struggle and victories, seizing state power in their hands. The first bourgeois revolutions took place in the Netherlands (sixteenth century) and England (seventeenth century). The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was of great importance for overthrowing the rule of the feudal lords and establishing the power of the bourgeoisie in Europe. Later, bourgeois revolutions took place in other countries as well.
Bourgeois revolutions completed the collapse of the feudal social system and accelerated the development of bourgeois relations.
3.6. "Second edition of serfdom"
A long feudal reaction, which took the legal form of the "second edition of serfdom", triumphed during the period of late feudalism in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The political expression of feudal reaction was the developed system of an undivided noble dictatorship (the political dominance of the magnate and gentry in the Commonwealth, the tsarist autocracy in Russia). In the countries of the "second edition of serfdom" feudalism assumed a stagnant character, only gradually giving way to the embryonic forms of capitalist relations. Their development under the cover of feudalism proceeded along the path of a painful restructuring of the landlord economy for the peasantry on the basis of enslaved, semi-serf forms of wage labor, which personified the so-called Prussian path of development of capitalism in agriculture; In industry, the use of hired labor has long been combined with the use of forced labor. The stage of late feudalism continued in this region until the middle and even the second half of the 19th century, after which significant feudal vestiges remained (especially in agrarian relations, in the political superstructure).
4. Remnants of feudalism in capitalist and developing countries
Several centuries have passed since the fall of feudalism in many countries. However, its remnants and survivals persist in the modern capitalist world. Thus, in Italy, with a high level of capitalist development, large landed estates of the nobility still continue to exist. The system of share-cropping is widespread here, under which a part of the harvest is paid to the owner of the land in the form of ground rent. In essence, this is nothing but a remnant of feudal relations.
There are remnants and survivals of feudalism in a number of other European capitalist countries, for example, in Spain, Portugal and Greece.
There are remnants of feudalism in a number of developing countries. Significant remnants of feudalism in the form of large landownership and remnants of pre-capitalist forms of rent have survived in countries such as India, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, some Arab countries, and other countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The backward economic structure of a number of developing countries is exploited by the monopolies of the imperialist states for the purpose of enriching themselves. The remnants and vestiges of feudal economic forms impede the progress of the peoples of the developing countries, hinder their struggle for genuine freedom, for national rebirth and economic independence.
The attempt to prove the eternity of capitalist relations leads bourgeois economists to the other extreme. They seek to identify capitalism with those forms of production that existed before it, to attribute capitalist essence to feudalism, to deprive it of its own socio-economic content. A number of bourgeois economists and historians confine themselves to a political and legal definition of feudalism, without revealing its socio-economic content, thereby turning one or another “secondary” feature of the feudal system (derived from the economic basis) into a defining one. Proceeding from the eternity of capitalism, they depict feudalism as a time of immaturity and underdevelopment of capitalist forms of economy, as a kind of "rudimentary capitalism".
Being on an idealistic position, bourgeois ideologists deny the class struggle in the period of feudalism, ignore the role of the masses as a decisive force in social progress, overestimate the importance of individual historical figures, and characterize the feudal state as an organ standing above society and supposedly ensuring "social peace". Propositions of this kind have nothing in common with a real analysis of the process of the rise, development, and death of the feudal mode of production.
§ 17. The main features of Western European feudalism
Whatis feudalism.
Classical Middle Ages in Europe ". - XIII centuries) was the heyday of feudalism. The word "feudalism" comes from the word "feud" - hereditary land ownership for service. The person who received the fief was a vassal (servant) of the one who provided him with land. The one who endowed the feud was the lord (senior). Both seniors and vassals were called feudal lords. The feudal lord was also a lord for all residents
his fief.
By X-XI no. in Europe, almost all the land was divided into fiefs. At that time they said: "There is no land without a lord." All feudal lords became virtually independent rulers in their domains. However, a connection remained between the feudal lords, which protected the states from complete collapse. This connection is depicted in the form of the so-called "feudal ladder". On its upper step was the king or emperor - the supreme owner of all lands and the supreme lord of the state. It was believed that the king distributed large areas to his vassals - princes, dukes, counts. Those. in turn, they allocated separate parts of their principalities, duchies and counties to their own vassals - barons. The barons also have 61.1:111 vassals - knights. The word "knight" in translation from German means a rider, a cavalryman. As a fief, the knights received an estate - a village or part of a village. The knights constituted the bottom rung of the "feudal ladder".
There was a rule: "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal." This meant that the vassal served only his immediate lord. The king, for example, could not call on the service of a baron - a vassal of dukes, and a duke - a simple knight. very weak.
The lord gave the vassal land, helped him and protected him from enemies. The vassal, at the call of the master, became in the ranks of his army. As a rule, military service was compulsory for the vassal for 40 days a year. For the rest of the days. held and saddle, he was getting! senior person to> pay. In certain cases, the vassal also gave gifts to the lord, redeemed him from captivity, etc. The feud after the death of the owner was inherited by his eldest son.
Reasons for the rise of feudalism.
During the Middle Ages, wars were common. After the collapse of the empire of Charlemagne, all the countries of Europe were shaken by bloody strife. Even worse in the IX-X centuries. there were devastating raids of the Normans (inhabitants of Scandinavia and Denmark), Arabs, Hungarians, who at times threatened the very existence of European society. To save from complete extermination and ruin, it was necessary to have a reliable army. Improvements in military affairs (for example, the introduction of regiments for horses and stirrups for saddles) dramatically raised the importance of a professional knightly army (riders with heavy weapons and heavy armor). Thanks to horseshoes, the horse could carry a heavily armed, iron-clad knight, who, leaning on stirrups, hit the enemy with a spear and sword.
The knight became a formidable force, but each such warrior and his horse now had to be supported by dozens of people. The mass militias are being replaced by small detachments of professional warriors. The feudal order ensured the existence of a sufficiently reliable military force to protect the entire society.
Three Estatesfeudal society.
In the Middle Ages, people were divided into classes of praying, fighting and working. These estates differed in their rights and obligations, which were established by laws and customs.
AT class of belligerents(feudal lords) included descendants of noble people of barbarian tribes and noble inhabitants of the Western Roman Empire conquered by them. The situation of the belligerents was different. The richest owned entire regions, and some simple knights were sometimes very poor. However, only feudal lords had the right to own land and rule over other people.
AT working class went as the descendants of impoverished free people from among the barbarians and Roman citizens, as well as the descendants of slaves and columns. The vast majority of those who worked are peasants. They fell into two categories. Some peasants remained free people, but lived on the lands of feudal lords. The feud was divided into master's land and peasant allotments. It was believed that these allotments were provided to the peasants by the feudal lord. For this, the peasants worked on the master's land (corvée) and paid taxes to the feudal lord (tire). The feudal lord promised the population of his fief, levied fines for breaking the laws. Another category of peasants was called serfs. They were considered "attached" to their allotments and could not leave them. The duties of the serfs (corvee, dues) were more difficult than those of the free. They were personally dependent on the feudal lords, they were sold and bought together with the land. The property of the serfs was considered the property of the lord. Servants-serfs were in fact the position of slaves.
In addition to the warring and working, there were class of worshippers. He was considered the main and was called the first. It was believed that the feudal lord or peasant was not able to fully comprehend the full depth of the teachings of Christ and independently communicate with God. In addition, people are constantly tempted by the devil. Only the Christian church and its ministers - the clergy - could explain the divine laws to everyone, connect a person with God, protect him from the wiles of the devil and atone for his sins before God. The main duty of the class of worshipers was worship. The priests also baptized children, married the newlyweds, received confession from the penitents and remitted their sins, communed the dying.
Unlike those at war and working, the clergy were an open estate. People from two other classes could become priests. For the maintenance of the first estate, the workers were charged a tax in the amount of a tenth of the income (church tithe). Considerable land was in the direct possession of the church.
Peasants.
Peasants in the Middle Ages, in addition to farming and cattle breeding, hunted, fished, collected honey and wax from forest bees. They sewed their own clothes and shoes, built dwellings and baked bread, paved roads and built bridges, dug canals and drained swamps. But agriculture remained their main business. The needs of its development turned many villagers into genuine inventors. The success of agriculture is largely due to the invention by the peasants heavy plow with coulter - device for dumping the earth. They also invented a collar for a horse. He allowed the use of these animals for plowing the fields.
Peasants mastered three fields. Were bred winter varieties plants resistant to winter cold. Manure and other fertilizers began to be applied to the fields. The cultivation of vegetables and fruits has become widespread. Vineyards gradually spread not only in the southern, but also in the relatively northern regions, right up to England.
Each peasant family cultivated its allotment. This allotment was a long strip of land in a large field. Allotments of other families were located nearby, as well as strips of the master's land. After the harvest, cattle were driven out to a large field. He not only grazed, but fertilized the arable land. Therefore, the work on the plots had to be carried out by the villagers at the same time, and everyone had to plant the same crops. Fellow villagers helped neighbors in trouble, jointly defended fields and herds from robbers, cleared new fields, used forests and meadows.
The villagers resolved the most important issues at meetings, elected the headman - the head of the peasant communities. The community was necessary for the peasants and to their relationship with the feudal lord. The headman monitored the full payment of dues and at the same time ensured that the peasants were not charged in excess of the norm.
Feudal lords.
Near the village was the fortified dwelling of her lord - lock. Castles were built simultaneously with the folding of feudalism itself. In IX-X iv. they were erected to protect against the Normans, Arabs and Hungarians. 13 castles sheltered the inhabitants of the entire district. At first, castles were built of wood, then of stone. These fortresses were often surrounded by a moat with water over which a drawbridge was thrown. The most impregnable place of the castle was a multi-storey tower - donjon. Upstairs in the donjon lived the feudal lord with his family, and downstairs - his servants. There was a dungeon in the basement. Each floor of the donjon, if necessary, turned into a small fortress. From the upper floor in the wall of the tower, a secret spiral staircase to the basement was often laid. There was an underground passage from the full to a remote place. Therefore, even when capturing the castle, the feudal lord could avoid death or captivity. However, it was almost impossible to take the castle by storm. Only after a long siege could the defenders surrender due to starvation. But the castle usually kept large supplies of food.
Chivalry.
The whole life of the belligerent class was spent in campaigns and battles. The sons of feudal lords began to prepare for knightly service from childhood. Without many years of training, it was impossible not only to fight in the heavy armor of a knight, but even to move around in them. From the age of 7, the boys became pages, and at the age of 14 they became the squires of the knights. The knights came to the service of the lord with pages and squires, with lightly armed servants. This small detachment led by a knight was called a "spear", the feudal army consisted of such detachments. In battle, the knight fought with the knight, the squire fought with the squire, the rest of the soldiers showered the enemy with arrows. At the age of 18, squires became knights. The senior at the same time handed him a belt, sword and spurs.
Gradually formed rules of knighthood. Loyalty to the lord and generosity to vassals were considered one of the clay qualities. An even more important quality was valor. A valiant knight must constantly strive for exploits, show courage and even recklessness in battle, despise death. Valor is associated with nobility and courtesy towards the enemy. A real knight will never attack secretly, but, on the contrary, will warn the enemy about the upcoming battle, during the duel with him he will have the same weapon, etc. Sacred for the knights was military friendship, as well as revenge for an insult.
The rules of knightly honor prescribed to protect the church and its ministers, as well as all the weak - widows, orphans, beggars. There were many other rules. True, in real life they are very often violated. Among the knights there were many unbridled, cruel and greedy people.
The favorite pastimes of the feudal lords were hunting and tournaments - military competitions of knights in the presence of spectators. True, the church condemned tournaments. After all, the knights spent their time and effort on them, which were necessary to fight the enemies of Christianity.
The feudal society was considered a practically universal form of government for Eurasia. Most of the peoples who inhabited it went through this system. Next, let's take a closer look at what a feudal society was.
Characteristic
Despite certain changes in the relationship between the consumer and the producer, the latter remained in absolute dependence on the former. The feudal was based on a certain way of doing business. The direct producer had his own farm. However, he remained dependent as a slave. Coercion was expressed in rent. It could be presented in the form of corvee (working wages), dues (products) or expressed in money. The amount of the annuity was firmly established. This gave the direct producer a certain freedom in the conduct of his business activities. These features of feudal society were especially pronounced during the transition to monetary compulsory payments. In this case, the freedom of the farmer was expressed in the ability to sell his own products.
Signs of a feudal society
We can distinguish the characteristic features of such a society:
- the predominance of subsistence farming;
- a combination of small peasant land tenure and large-scale feudal land tenure;
- personal dependence of the direct producer. Non-economic forced labor and product distribution;
- routine and outdated state of technology;
- the presence of rental relations (compulsory payments were made for the use of land).
However, specific features of feudal society were also noticeable:
- the dominance of a religious worldview (in this historical period, the church played a special role);
- feudal society was distinguished by the wide development of corporate organizations;
- hierarchical structure;
- there were classes of feudal society.
classic model
The most striking feudal society was developed in France. However, this system extended more to the state, rather than the economic structure of the country. Nevertheless, it was in France that the estates of feudal society were very clearly formed. They were presented in the form of a vassal staircase. Its economic meaning was concluded in the redistribution of compulsory payments between the layers of the ruling class. By order of the overlord, the vassals gathered the militia at their own expense. It guarded the borders and represented, in fact, an apparatus for non-economic coercion of the peasants. Such a system, according to which feudal society existed, often failed. As a result, France became a platform for national and internecine wars. The country experienced the consequences of the war with England in the 14-15th centuries especially hard. However, it was this war that contributed to the acceleration of the liberation of the peasants from dependence. This was due to the fact that the king needed soldiers. Free peasants could become a resource for a mass mercenary army with artillery. Despite the introduction of redemption, the economic situation of dependent people did not actually improve, since taxes and redemption payments replaced feudal rent.
Agricultural specialization
It should be noted that already by the 14th century, France was conditionally divided into several zones. For example, its central and northern parts were considered the main granary, the southern - the base of winemaking. At the same time, the superiority of one of the areas in economic terms began to appear. In particular, the three-field system began to take hold in Northern France.
Features of the development of the economy of England
The feudal society of this country had several differences from the French system. In England, the centralization of government was more pronounced. This was due to the conquest of the country by feudal lords in 1066. A general census was carried out. She showed that the structure of a feudal society with estates had been built by that time. However, unlike the French, the English owners were vassals directly to the king. The next feature that English feudal society possessed concerns the technological basis of the estate itself. Favorable seaside ecology contributed to the active development of sheep breeding and the production of raw wool. The latter was the subject of great demand throughout the entire area. The sale of wool, which was carried out not only by feudal lords, but also by peasants, contributed to the replacement of serf labor by hired work, and natural quitrent by rent in monetary terms (commutation).
Crucial moment
In 1381 there was a popular uprising led by Wat Tyler. As a result, there was an almost complete commutation, and after that, the peasants also bought out their own feudal duties. Virtually all became personally free by the 15th century. They are divided into two categories: copyholders and freeholders. The former paid rent for allotments, while the latter were considered absolutely free land holders. Thus, a gentry was formed - a new nobility - which conducted economic activities only on hired labor.
Development of the system in Germany
In this country, the structure of feudal society was formed later than in France and England. The fact is that individual regions of Germany were cut off from each other, in connection with this, a single state did not develop. Equally important were the seizures of Slavic lands by German feudal lords. This contributed to a significant increase in the sown area. Over time, the internal territorial colonization of the regions east of the Elbe by peasants began to develop. They were granted favorable conditions and minimal dependence on the feudal lords. However, in the 15th century, the owners of the estates of the eastern part of Germany, took advantage of the export of grain to England and Holland through the Baltic ports and carried out the absolute enslavement of privileged peasants. The owners created extensive plowlands and transferred them to corvee. The term "land beyond the Elbe" came to symbolize the development of late feudalism.
Features of the development of the system in Japan
The economy of this country had many differences from the European one. First of all, in Japan there was no master's plowing. Consequently, there was neither corvée nor serfdom. Secondly, the national economy of Japan operated within the framework of the feudal fragmentation that had developed over many centuries. The country was dominated by small peasant farms based on hereditary land ownership. She, in turn, belonged to the feudal lords. Rice in kind was used as rent. Due to feudal fragmentation, quite a lot of principalities were formed. They were attended by service troops, which consisted of samurai knights. As a reward for their service, the soldiers received a rice ration from the princes. The samurai did not have their own estates. As for the Japanese cities, a feudal system took place in them, as well as in Europe. Artisans were united in workshops, merchants - in guilds. Trade was rather poorly developed. The absence of a single market was explained by feudal fragmentation. Japan was closed to foreigners. Manufactories in the country were in their infancy.
Features of the system device in Russia
The classes of feudal society took shape rather late in comparison with other countries. In the 15th century, a service army appeared. It was made up of landowners (nobles). They were the owners of the estates and at their own expense every summer went to forced service. By autumn they were sent home. The transfer of estates was carried out from father to son by inheritance. In accordance with the 1649 year, the peasants were indefinitely attached to the possessions on whose territory they lived, becoming serfs. In Europe, by this time, many of the representatives of this class were becoming free. Rent was a duty. In the 17th century corvee could go up to 4 days a week. By the second half of the 16th century, the formation of large regional markets began, and by the 17th century, trade relations had acquired a national scale. Novgorod became the center in the northwestern part of the state. It was an aristocratic republic dominated by the wealthy classes of feudal society. Their representatives, in particular, included merchants and landowners (boyars). The bulk of the Novgorod population consisted of "black people" - artisans. Among the most important livestock markets of that time, Kazan should be singled out. Moscow was the main center of trade for the entire state. Here they sold furs, silk, woolen products, metal products, bread, lard and other foreign and domestic goods.
Credit Development
Subsistence farming was the main form of business. This is what distinguished early feudal society. Capitalist production began to emerge on the basis of simple cooperation, and then on the basis of manufactory. Money began to participate in servicing simple commodity circulation. These funds participated in the movement of usurious and merchant capital. Banks began to emerge. Initially, they were a storehouse of money. Change business developed. Since the 18th century, settlements on merchant transactions began to spread. In connection with the increase in the needs of states, a budget began to be formed.
Market relations
The development of foreign and domestic trade was significantly influenced by the growth of cities in Western Europe. They formed, first of all, the local market. There was an exchange of products of urban and rural artisans. In the 14th and 15th centuries, single markets began to form. They became in some way the economic centers of the feudal states. London and Paris are among the largest. At the same time, internal trade was rather poorly developed. This was due to the natural nature of the economy. In addition, the development of internal trade was slowed down by fragmentation, due to which duties were collected in each seigneury. Merchants who traded a certain type of product united in guilds. These closed associations regulated the rules and composition of the market turnover.
a type of society, in Marxism, a socio-political formation based on private feudal ownership of land and the exploitation of peasants who are personally dependent on the feudal lord or the feudal state. The state under feudalism, as a rule, existed in the form of a monarchy. In Russia, the period of feudalism is dated to the IX-XIX (1861) centuries.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
FEUDALISM
German Feudalismus, French. f?odalit?, from Late Lat. feodum, feudum - feud) - in the world-historical process, the second class-antagonistic formation, representing - in the progressive development of society - a stage following the slave system in stages; F. represented the first class formation in the history of a number of regions. The definition of F. is associated with many others. difficulties caused by both the similarity of a number of features inherent in all pre-capitalist. formations in general and those that are not excluded. the specifics of feudalism (such as the predominance of the agrarian economy and natural economy, the routine state of technology, etc.), and the presence of many regional and stadial varieties of feuds. building. These are the differences: in the forms of zem. property (private, state, combination of both); in economic forms. realization of this property (seigneurial - rent, state - tax, their combinations); in the forms of constitution of the feud. the ruling class (private-contractual hierarchically subordinated vassal-fief system, state-service system, their combinations); in the form of political feudal organizations. domination (state-in - the sum of loosely connected territorial principalities, state-in centralized - estate and absolute monarchy), etc. Bourges. Historiography, focusing on the features of the elements of the superstructure, defined F. from a legal, political, or ideological point of view. But thereby this or that "secondary" feature of the feud. system (the derivative of the economic basis) turned into its defining feature. Since the time of F. Guizot, who gave political and legal. definition of F., as a "classic. features" F. began to be considered the conditional nature of the earth. property, vassal system and feud. hierarchy. Historians who have studied Ph.D. one of these features, most often it was interpreted as fundamental. So, historians of the so-called. The vassalage treaty (in modern times, F. Ganshof, F. Stenton, K. Stephenson, and others) put forward a vassal-league agreement as a decisive feature of law school. Historians of the so-called. political school focused on the problem of "scattering sovereignty", ie, the weakening of the center. power and transition state. functions to votchinniki on the ground; as a result, F. for them is a synonym for political. fragmentation, any form of centralized monarchy, even nominally "based" on the institution of citizenship, is no longer in their eyes F. (G. Weitz, P. Roth; in modern times - R. Kulborn, I. Strayer). Developed not without the influence of Marxism, the so-called. social direction (in modern times - M. Blok and others) sees one of Ch. signs of F. in the patrimonial (seigneurial) system. Within the framework of this trend, there was also a tendency to elevate the natural-economic character of the economy to the absolute (P. G. Vinogradov, O. Khinze, and others). As a result, the development of commodity-den. relations, market exchange was identified with the decomposition of F. (the relapse of this approach to the essence of F. is represented by the modern concept of the “crisis of F.” already in the 14-15th centuries, which became widespread not only among bourgeois historians, but also among a certain part of Marxist or close to Marxist historians). For part of the modern bourgeois historians are characterized by skepticism. attitude to the possibility of giving a general definition of F., calls to abandon the very term "F." (in view of its "ambiguity" or vice versa - "extreme narrowness") or limit its application only to the territory between the Loire and the Rhine, where the legal. the institution that gave the name to the whole system - the feud took shape in its classic. form. With a different approach to the definition of F., the answer to the question of the world-historical or narrow-local nature of F. is connected. Historians who insist on strictly legal. interpretations of the term "F.", deny the presence of F. even in means. parts of European countries continent. Historians who are inclined towards a social interpretation of F. give this system a more universal character, believing that it existed not only in the countries of Europe, but also in Asia and the North. Africa. However, at the same time, in some directions, bourgeois. historiography revealed a tendency to turn the concept of "F." from the historical, associated with a certain ist. epoch, into the ideal-typical, timeless, with the help of which one can "ascend" in search of F. to any epoch (Stryer and others). The definition of F., based on Marxist methodology, allows for a variety of concrete historical. forms of F. to see its world-historical stadial essence. From the point of view of the Marxist concept, philosophy is not an institution or the sum of institutions, but a socio-economic formation that encompasses the functioning of all aspects of society (including forms of ideology, morality, etc.). With all the variety of specific historical, regional varieties of F. and its stadial features, there are two features that characterize production. the relations of this system are obligatory for the recognition of this society as feudal: firstly, the monopoly of the ruling class on land. property, ist. the originality of the swarm was that its "belongings" included (in one form or another legal form) the direct producer - the farmer; secondly, economic the realization of this property in the form of small-scale agriculture, i.e., the existence of independent peasants. x-va, conducted on land owned by a large owner (state or master) and therefore burdened with services and duties (feudal land rent) in favor of the owner. So, feud. production method is based on a combination of large land. property of the class of feudal lords and small individual farms of direct producers - peasants, exploited by methods of non-economic coercion (the latter is just as characteristic of F. as economic coercion is for capitalism). Without certain forms of direct power of the feudal lord over the farmer (relations of direct domination of one and subordination of another), the gratuitous appropriation by the feudal surplus product in the form of rent could not occur either regularly or in full. Non-economic coercion (which could vary from serfdom to simple class inequality) was a necessary condition for the implementation of feuds. "rights" to rent, but independent. peasant x-in - a necessary condition for its production. Such specific. the form of subordination and exploitation opened up the possibility of maintaining and functioning of an individual-family, parcel farm, which most corresponded to the level of production achieved by that time. forces as the basis of societies. production in general. And although the early period of the existence of F. was the time of the decline of households. life (compared with the period of antiquity), established in the era of F. well-known economic. the independence of the peasant gave, although limited, but still more scope for increasing labor productivity, which created the prerequisites for subsequent qualities. shift. This was the definition of ist. F.'s progressiveness in comparison with the slave-owner. system, although it paid off at the cost of heavy exploitation of the working majority of society. Finally, in the epoch of F. the expansion of the circle of peoples who were drawn into civilization for the first time was a tremendous progress (for many peoples F. was the first class formation). The fetishism of personal relationships characteristic of this era hides the economic. essence of feud. relations (just as commodity fetishism veils the exploitative nature of the capitalist system). Feud. the way of production (with varying degrees of mediation) determines the features: the social structure of the feud. society (corporatism, hierarchy, class, etc.); political and ideological. superstructures (public power as an attribute of land ownership, domination of theological worldview); socio-psychological. warehouse of the individual (communal connectedness of consciousness, etc.). Filling the content of the concept of the Middle Ages, F. as a world-historical era dates back to the end. 5 - ser. 17th century Although in a number of regions of the world feud. relations were not only preserved, but continued to be dominant in the subsequent era, its content (on a world-historical scale) was determined to an ever-increasing degree not by them, but by the emerging and ever stronger capitalist relations. F. went through three stages in its development: genesis, developed F., late F. The chronological framework of these stages is different for different regions and countries of the world. Genesis F. The process of formation F. is best studied on the material of the history of countries Zap. Europe, where F. developed on the ruins of Zap. Rome. the empire conquered by the barbarians (ch. arr. the Germans); the genesis of F. here covers the period from the end. 5th c. to 10-11 centuries. Burzh. historiography gives (with rare exceptions) an essentially alternative answer to the question of the path of formation of F. in Zap. Europe. Some historians believe that F. goes back to its core. features to the socio-legal and political. institutions later. empires (the so-called novelists), others - that F. was established as a result of the predominance of German (barbarian) institutions in societies. and political middle-century organizations. society (the so-called Germanists). In the beginning. 20th century A. Dopsh attempted a "third", "conciliatory" solution. According to his concept, the penetration of the Germans did not lead to a break, qualities. change in the history of the late Roman beginnings, but was their continuation, since societies. system invading the West. Rome. The barbarian empire was essentially no different from late Roman societies. building. However, the degree of modernization of barbarian societies was so excessive in this concept that the latter in the 20-30s. 20th century has been subject to serious criticism. However, most modern app. historians share the concept of continuity, that is, the slow evolution (without interruption) of Roman or Germanic, barbarian beginnings into feud. society; F. grows out of these principles, develops and distributes them, and builds them into a system. In Marxist historiography, the concept of revolution is universally recognized. the transition from pre-feudal formations (in one case - slave-owning, in the other - primitive communal) to F. This transition - in the world-historical. plan - was in the nature of a social revolution; its features still need to be studied (the simplistic idea that prevailed in the 30-50s of the 20th century about it as a "revolution of slaves" that overturned the slave-owners. system, now discarded as scientifically untenable). The problem is complicated by the fact that this coup did not immediately lead to the establishment of F. in the societies that have developed on the territory. Zap. Rome. empires; at the first stage, it only led to the creation of a fundamental prerequisite for F. - the predominance of the individual-family labor economy as the basis of societies. production (in the 60s, for the historical stage from the emergence of an individual family farm of a free community member to the beginning of the process of his feudal subordination, the concept of "pre-feudal period" was proposed - A. I. Neusykhin). Recognizing the presence of "proto-feudal" elements as in the structure of the Late Roman. Marxist historiography, at the same time, denies the possibility of deriving F. directly from them as a formation. “Between the Roman column,” emphasized F. Engels, “and the new serf stood a free Frankish peasant” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 154). For those European countries where the late Roman social orders were crushed by barbarian conquests, Marxist medieval studies, in explaining the genesis of F., adheres to the theory of synthesis of decaying slave-owning and primitive communal relations. At the same time, synthesis is understood not as a mechanical linkage of ancient and barbarian social relations, but as the birth of a qualitatively new system in the process of long-term interaction of "proto-feudal" elements that matured in one and another society. The success of local studies of the genesis of F. made it possible to outline its typology. There are several types of F.'s genesis in Europe. The first is the genesis of F. based on synthesis, but with a predominance of barbarian principles. The "classic" standard of this type is the Frankish state (especially Northern France). The second type is based on synthesis, but with a clear prevalence of antiquity. began (Mediterranean region - Italy, South Gaul, Visigothic Spain). The third type is non-synthetic or with very little. synthesis elements. F. here was born from the tribal system of barbarians, bypassing the stage of a developed slave owner. societies (regions that did not experience Roman domination - North-West Germany, Scandinavian countries, areas of the West and East Slavs, or those countries where this domination turned out to be fragile - South-West Germany, Britain). However, one can speak of a non-synthetic variant only in the sense of the absence of a direct influence of the Late Roman. began, because the regions of non-synthetic genesis F. were in interaction with the regions of the synthesis genesis of F. T. o., the problem of the genesis of F. and its typology is closely connected with the problem of the ist. interaction of various regions in the world-historical process. European society that emerged on the territory. Zap. Rome. empire after its conquest by the barbarians, was characterized by all the local features of certain common features. The conquering tribe (more precisely, the union of tribes), which established its military in this area. domination, acted as the founder of statehood - queens. authorities. Main the mass of the local subjugated population (usually much larger in number than the conquerors) found itself in the position of unequal, "hard" people. The social structure of the society of the barbarians themselves seems to be three-membered: free fellow tribesmen who settled (in communities) on the ground and retained the status of public full rights; semi-free; slaves. The latter personified the original exploitative (slave-owning) way of life in barbarian society. His education is explained not only by the fact that the barbarians brought with them a lot of slaves from their former homeland, but also by the large number of slaves that the conquerors took possession of in the occupied territory along with the villas of the possessors of Roman times that passed to them. But the determining factor development of these societies was not this way, but the evolution of villages. community of free farmers, based on the individual-family form of land ownership. This form, which was the result of development, produces. forces and the condition for their further progress, proved to be extremely unstable: property. differentiation of households that functioned on a developed allod - a freely alienable land. allotment, the ruin of the state gravitating over them. duties - judicial, tax, military, etc., the neighborhood of magnates who turned thanks to queens. land grants to large landowners and seekers at the expense of the cross. lands to expand the territory of their dominance, and many others. another made inevitable the ruin of the free community-farmers, who lost the right of ownership to their land. allotments. Under these conditions, the formation of large earth. ownership was a matter of time. This process proceeded in a specific feudal form. Since for large land. feudal owner. type, it was not the land itself that was of paramount importance, but the worker cultivating it (which was due to the place of labor among the elements of the productive forces of that time), in the process of forming a large feud. property, the decisive factor was not the expropriation of an independently managing farmer, but his subordination to a large land. to the owner and, moreover, in such a form, which meant the transfer to the latter of the right of supreme ownership of the arable allotment, which remained in the hands of the farmer (Engels called this form of subordination, directly opposite to capitalist subordination, appropriation of the peasant to the land); the peasant at the same time turned into a feudal dependent, exploited, indebted to the lord of the feud. rent. Historically, the process of feud. subordination and folding of the institute of feud. ownership proceeded in two forms: "private-contractual" and state, "donation". In the first case, it usually began either with the establishment of personal ties (relations of commendation), or with the recognition by the peasant of land dependence on the master (precaria), but there were no feudal productions in the proper sense. relations where both of these forms of dependence did not merge in one proportion or another. In the second case, queens. power, granting its service people the right to receive services due to the crown, thereby laying the foundations for the process of gradual transformation of this territory. to a private estate. The transformation of the allod - inheritances. putting the commune farmer into a holding, burdened with duties in favor of its nominal owner, and a free farmer into a personally dependent peasant, into a "man" master (patrimony, seigneur) was the basis of the feudalization process. The formed large estate became org. a form of appropriation by the feudal lord of the surplus labor of feudally dependent peasants. Thanks to immunity, they found themselves in the hands of the votchinnik. the levers of state coercion in the character of the population of the immune district, and it itself, recently still legally and politically equal in rights with the votchinnik (with all economic dependence), has now become its subjects. Such is the first, decisive side of the agr. coup (in the Frankish state-ve - in the 8th-9th centuries), which marked in the West. Europe, the transition from a barbarian society to an early feudal one. The second side of this coup is the appearance of a conditional (primarily military service) holding - beneficiation. Instead of donations of land in full and unlimited ownership (allod) to the practice of queens. power (and then magnates in the field) included a conditional donation - on the terms of carrying the military. service to the donor. Previously, beneficiation and then in parallel with it in the West. In Europe, the institution of vassalage spread, that is, relations of personal dependence, which assumed the honorary services of a vassal to the overlord and, therefore, are compatible with the belonging of both counterparties of the vassal agreement to the same class - the feudal lords. The gradual merging of these two forms of ties among the ruling class led to the fact that usually the beneficiary was the vassal, and the vassal received the land. award. Thus arises and develops the fragmentation of the title of ownership of the same piece of land between a number of hierarchically co-subordinate co-owners who constituted a single ruling class of feudal lords. Gradually (by the 10th century), the beneficiation becomes a hereditary holding (feud, fief), although it remains conditional and service. The result of the process of feudalization was thus. folding the main antagonistic feudal classes. society. On the one hand, the mass of simple (formerly free) community members, as well as slaves, columns, germ. the semi-free (litas) merged into the class of the feudal-dependent peasantry (see Art. Peasantry). On the other hand, there is a military feud. class and the restructuring of its structure on the principles of the vassal-fief system is being completed. In the process of feudalization, something happened. differentiation of societies. functions - the limitation of the farmer only by the sphere of production and the concentration of the military. affairs (as well as management, court, legislation) in the hands of the feudal lords, who established their military-political. dominance in society. The process of feudalization was accompanied by a sharp social struggle both between the dependent strata of the population and their masters, and between the free strata of the community members, on the one hand, and the feud that carried them. oppression of queens. administration and land. magnates - on the other hand (the largest performance of the last kind - Stellita uprising 841-843 in Saxony). The completion of the process of transforming allodial land ownership into feudal tenure was accompanied in the political sphere. superstructures by the transition from early feud. empire (Carolingians) to feud. fragmentation. In the field of ethnicity, this stage corresponded to the spread of the so-called. regional nationalities, i.e. ethnic. communities formed on the soil of regional territories. connections. In the ideological sphere, the process of feudalization was accompanied by the spread of Christianity, which everywhere replaced paganism. Christ. theology acted as a kind of completion of the feudal legal order in the field of ideology, i.e., its ideological sanction. These are the general processes of F.'s genesis in Zap. Europe. The most complete, classic. they received expression in the region of synthesis with a predominance of barbarian principles (that is, the Frankish state and especially the northern French region). For this area were characteristic: the maximum completeness of the process of feudalization, refers. a clear class-legal divide between the antagonistic. classes, almost complete absorption of the allod feud. forms of land tenure (the feud - on the one hand, the dependent holdings of the peasants - on the other), the presence of a developed and completed feud. hierarchies in the dominance environment. class, the gradual convergence of the social and legal status of holders-peasants on the basis of a common belonging to the class of the exploited, the spread of the classic. estates with extensive domains and dependent holdings, a large proportion of corvee among peasant duties, etc. This is a type of feudalization of countries with a pronounced predominance of subsistence farming, the village over the city; private law beginning over public law, estates - over the rural community. For the P. variant, which was formed on the basis of synthesis, but with the prevalence of ancient principles (i.e., the Mediterranean region - Italy, South. France, Visigothic Spain) - in the presence of general patterns of folding F. - such features are characteristic as long. the preservation of the slave style, roman. forms of ownership, cities of ancient origin, elements of Rome. statehood, law; in the structure of estates - an insignificant role of the domain in general, the predominance of natures. and den. dues in the duties of the peasants, the important role of the feud. lease in the form of a feud. the subjugation of the impoverished community members (Italian libellaria) and the preservation of a vast stratum of small free allodists, among the dominions. class - the incompleteness of the feudal-hierarchical. building a feud. land ownership, the vassal system, etc. Byzantium also belonged to the same type of genesis F., where the old slave owner. the basis for the emergence of F. was expressed even more clearly, in particular, the eradication of antich. slave owner way of life, there was a gradual transformation of the slave-owner. state-va in the early feudal, were characterized by the stability of the Byzantine-Slavic community and the hypertrophy of centralized statehood as a form of class. the dominance and preponderance of centralized forms of exploitation (rent-tax) over its seignioral-patrimonial forms, the practical absence of feuds. hierarchies based on the vassal-fief system, instead of it - the service character of dominions. class. The genesis of F. had significant differences in the regions where it arose without synthesis - on a barbarian basis (North-West Germany, Scandinavian countries, regions of the Western and Eastern Slavs). Here, it is characterized by: an extremely slow and protracted process of feudalization (with the long-term preservation of communal forms of land ownership and land use, as well as patriarchal slavery), the weakness of large-scale land ownership, the vitality of patriarchal-communal ties; a significant role of the old tribal nobility in shaping the structure of dominance. class, patriarchal features of early feuds. monarchy, predominance in land ownership of the state. elements over private estates and hence the great importance of royal awards (feeding), the "truncated" nature of vassal-feudal ties, the long-term preservation of the leading role of public duties in the feudal system. exploitation of the peasantry, the long-term preservation by the peasantry of a certain share of public and private legal capacity, and by part of the peasants - and land independence (for example, in Norway). Thus, if in the region of the synthesis of Roman and barbarian elements with a predominance of barbarian principles, a certain synchronism of various aspects of the process of feudalization was observed, then in regions with other types of genesis F. at b. or m. a long and pronounced hypertrophy of the role of one of these factors, various aspects of this process turned out to be broken and the process as a whole dragged on for longer. time. The genesis of F. in the countries of the East has not yet been studied enough. Burzh. Oriental studies, based on the concept of F. as a purely superstructured phenomenon, determined by the degree of political. centralization and the structure of the ruling class, as a rule, denies the existence of F. in the countries of Asia and Africa (an exception is sometimes made for Japan, whose outward features of development in the Middle Ages are more reminiscent of Western Europe). Burzh. scientists write about the "traditional" east. society, in the development of which the decisive role allegedly belonged to non-economic. factors, but traditions, ideology, non-class "state" (M. Weber, J. K. Fairbank). Sometimes these factors, which supposedly constituted the exclusive specificity of the countries of the East, are vulgarly derived directly from the natural features of the "East" as a whole. Marxist ist. Science has put forward the concept of F. in the countries of the East (which does not deny the essential differences in the development of various Eastern countries from Western Europe and the differences between these countries themselves). It is accepted by the majority of Marxist authors; attempts to scientists (F. Tekei) to consider F. only as an internal stage in a single "Asian" formation were reduced in practice to the same recognition of the existence of a separate. feud. stages in the East. Observed up to the beginning. 60s some Marxist historians strive to date the beginning of the feud. stage in the history of India and China much earlier than in the history of the Mediterranean countries, does not find support in research. In the East, three basics can be distinguished. groups of countries that differed in the forms and rates of feudalization: the most ancient centers of civilization - Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, India, China; other farmers. civilizations that embarked on the path of the formation of classes and states from the first centuries AD. e., - Korea, Japan, the countries of the South-East. Asia, Ethiopia; retarded, preim. nomadic peoples who still lived in the conditions of the primitive communal system and only in the 2nd half. 1 - early 2nd millennium AD e. reached the class stage. societies (some Arab, Turkic, Mong. tribes). While in the countries of the first group of feuds. system has replaced the already developed class. society, among those peoples (agricultural and nomadic), to-rye entered the stage of the class. society relatively late, the slave owner. the trend of development in a fairly short time gave way to the feudal. Nevertheless, it is typical for the entire East to be long. existence within the framework of the feud. society of a strong slave owner. way of life. The genesis and forms of F. in such countries as China, India, and Iran are characterized by a relatively high level of commodity-den. relations, hypertrophy of the centralized state. machines, smaller than in Zap. Europe, the role of vassal relations, a slow process of feudalization extended over time. Apparently, the birth of feud. relations, primarily the formation of large land ownership, the distribution of land. lease, began in countries such as China, India, earlier than in Europe. However, the process of feudalization dragged on here for a long time. period - from about the first centuries AD. e. (sometimes even from the first centuries BC) to the end. 1 - early 2nd millennium AD e. It is no coincidence, apparently, changes in the economy, indicating a transition from slave-owning. formations to the feudal, were accompanied (both in China and in India) by waves of "barbarian" invasions, the largest ideological. shifts (spread of Buddhism, serious changes in traditional ideological systems - Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism). The turning point, from which, obviously, the beginning of the feud should be dated. formations on Bl. East, is the time of the emergence of Islam and the Arab conquests (7-8 centuries). For early feud. period in the countries of the East, the existence of strong centralized monarchies is typical. While maintaining the community here, the ruling class in the early feud. empires of the East (Arab. Caliphate, Tang Empire in China, etc.) the first time is not yet strong enough to turn the main. part of the cultivated land in his inheritances. possession, to put the peasants in direct dependence on themselves. During this period, the role of the collective form of exploitation of the peasantry through the state was great. apparatus, by means of a rent-tax. The growth of private ownership of land and an acute class. wrestling in the early feudal east societies led to con. 1st thousand to the victory of a private feud. began and to the triumph (sometimes temporary - China of the 9th century, sometimes longer - the Bl. East, India) political. fragmentation over the early feud. centralization. In those countries of the East, to-rye switched from the primitive communal system directly to the feudal one, this transition was facilitated by economic, cultural, and especially religious and ideological. the influence of more developed countries. It is not necessary, however, to interpret the transition of these countries to the F. as an obligatory and equal for all complete exclusion from their development of all elements of slave ownership. formations. Despite the insufficient study of the problem, there is reason to believe that in some of these countries slaveholding relations developed and only after some time the slaveholding trend was replaced by a feudal one as the dominant one (Japan of the Nar period, early Aksum, some nomadic empires of Central Asia). Developed fiefdom The stage of developed fiefdom in Europe (11th-15th centuries) is characterized by the completion of the formation of feudalism. building in economic basis and in all elements of the superstructure. By this time, the main feudal institutions. society - a large feud. land property, the seigneurial (patrimonial) system, etc., have already been formed. As a formation F. in this period realized all the possibilities of progress inherent in it. The most important factor that ensured the flourishing of F. was the mean. lift produces. forces and on its basis - the growth of population, the emergence of feuds. cities as the center of crafts and trade, as the personification of the further development of societies. division of labor - the separation of crafts from agriculture. Established in the early Middle Ages relative economic. the independence of the peasant (protected by the very dominance of natural farming from the excessive encroachments of the feudal lord) led over time to the strengthening of the cross. x-in, which became the basis of the economic. the rise of Europe in the 11th-13th centuries. Growth produces. strength manifested itself primarily in progress with. x-va - the decisive industry of production of the F. era (expansion of the cultivated area - the so-called internal colonization, the spread of three-field land and the improvement of land cultivation, which resulted in an increase in productivity, the spread of horticulture, horticulture, etc.). The rise of cities as centers of trade and exchange brought about important changes in the structure of feudal lords. society. With the movement of crafts to the city, a sphere of production arose, in which property relations were fundamentally different from property relations in the village. x-ve - legally recognized property of a worker (artisan) on the basis. the condition of his production (tools, workshop) and the results of his labor. A new social stratum appeared - the townspeople, finally consolidated in the course of the liberation. fight against the mountains. seniors (see Communal movement). The system of senior exploitation of the mountains. crafts and trade was significantly undermined (in places it was completely eliminated). Thus conditions were provided for the more or less free development of commodity production. However, this freedom was relative, since in the very structure of the Middle Ages. crafts (workshops) had many restrictions, purely feudal in nature. But one way or another, the development of cities as centers of crafts and trade over time increasingly shattered the institution of feuds. property. Ever since movable property in the city has opposed itself to land. owner as a separate mountain. wealth, in the very center of the feud. production - in the patrimony there was also a discrepancy between the volume of fiefs. rent and the amount of surplus product produced in the cross. x-ve. As performance grows, cross. of labor, a surplus product arises here, economically personifying not only peasant ownership of movables, but also the strengthening of the peasant's property rights to his land. allotment. All this, under the conditions of the continued domination of feudalism, resulted in a radical restructuring of the feudal system. exploitation in order to turn all types of movable property (both in the city and in the countryside), out of the control of the feudal lord, into the object of the feud. exploitation - the source of some form of feud. rent. In the course of this restructuring, the domain system, and with it the corvée, was increasingly inferior in the West. In Europe, there was a place for the quitrent system, the servage gradually disappeared, personal dependence was weakened, and the land dependence of the peasantry came to the fore, the sphere of contractual, real relations in peasant-patrimonial relations expanded, and economic elements played an increasingly important role. coercion. The structure of the feud changed. rents: against the background of a generally sedentary quitrent (qualification, chinsha), the share of payments associated with senior jurisdiction, bann, market rights, etc., grew especially rapidly, to-rye acquired the value of the movable part of senior rent. The process of restructuring the entire feudal system. exploitation has ranked in a number of countries mean. part of the 14th c. and 15th c. and constitutes the content of the so-called. "crisis" dating back to these centuries. It was not the decomposition and crisis of fiefdom as a formation, but the decomposition and crisis of one of its stages - the senior - and the transition to a higher stage of development, when the universal center of production was the feud. rent becomes a peasant economy. 14th-15th centuries were also marked by a new stage in the class struggle of the peasantry, which reflected the patterns of the phasic crisis of F. - mass crosses. wars: Dolcino's uprising in Italy in 1304-07, Jacqueria in France in 1358, Wash Tyler's uprising of 1381 in England, Hussite wars (see Hussite revolutionary movement) in the Czech Republic in the 1st half. 15th c. and others. East. the meaning of the cross. antifeod. wrestling 14-15 centuries. - in victory cross. x-va over senior (in Western Europe), in the very fact of the formation of the cross. parcel form earth. property, regardless of the feuds that masked it. signage. During the period of developed F., there were changes in the internal. the structure of the main antagonistic classes - feudal lords and peasantry. In the conditions of distribution of den. forms of rent deepened the property differentiation of the peasantry. In the 11th-13th centuries. there are consolidation and legal. the formation of the ruling class in the privileged estates. Inheritances are being formed. and a privileged layer of chivalry, and then on its basis - the estate of the nobility. The higher and middle clergy (an integral part of the feudal class) are another ruling class. The third estate, which formally included all the common people, but actually represented in the class, will represent. institutions of the burghers, bore the stamp of lack of rights and oppression. The vast majority of this estate, the so-called. "people of the seigneury" (i.e., subject to the seigneurs), in fact, stood outside the publicly recognized estate system. dominant feud. the class, outwardly speaking as one (in relation to all commoners), was internally very heterogeneous. Nobles who were at various levels of the feud. hierarchy, possessed a different amount of "power and interest" in the total feud. property. The top - dukes, counts, as well as prelates of the church (bishops, abbots of large monasteries) were not only overlords in relation to a large number of vassals, not only lords of many tens, even hundreds of fiefdoms, but also sovereigns in relation to means. the population of their lands, who was neither in personal nor land dependence on them. At the other extreme of the feud. hierarchy was the mass of small and medium seniors, DOS. incomes to-rykh were limited to the rent of a small number of dependent peasants, and the territory of domination was limited to the boundaries of the patrimony. The earth in process of retraction of page - x. production in the market exchange became a commodity. This (along with family divisions, church contributions, etc.) led to the fragmentation of feuds, which resulted in, in addition to impoverishment, it means. parts of the petty and middle nobility, the destruction of the original system of vassal ties. Instead, new forms of intrafeuds arise. relations: there is a transfer of vassal service from land provision to a monetary award (the so-called rental fiefs). All this causes significant shifts in society. superstructure, especially the political one. Because the host communications during this period went far beyond the limits of not only otd. seniors, but also otd. provinces, began folding nat. markets, there were objective opportunities for political. feudal centralization. state-in. This was in the interests of the masses of small
Feudal society in the Russian centralized state consisted of two main classes - the class of feudal lords and the class of feudal-dependent peasants.
The class of feudal lords was divided into four social groups:
Serving princes ("princes"); boyars; servants under the court; boyar children.
Servant princes are former appanage princes. After joining their destinies to the Grand Duchy of Moscow, they lost their political independence. However, they retained the right of patrimonial ownership of their lands and were large landowners. The princes were obliged to serve the Grand Duke. Gradually they merged with the top of the boyars.
The boyars, as before, remained large estate owners. They also belonged to the service class, occupied important positions in the grand duke's administration.
The children of the boyars and the servants of the court formed a group of medium and small feudal lords and carried out personal service to the Grand Duke.
During the formation of a centralized state, the feudal lords had the right to leave, they could choose a stronger prince as overlord. As the power of the Moscow Grand Dukes strengthened, their attitude to the right to leave changed. They viewed it as a manifestation of separatism, a desire for independence. Therefore, those who departed were deprived of their estates and were considered traitors. The grand dukes transferred the confiscated lands to the lower group of service people. For example, Ivan III from 1483 to 1489 confiscated the lands of 8,000 families of boyars and guests of Veliky Novgorod, who were in opposition to Moscow. On their lands, Ivan IV "placed" "Muscovites of the best of many guests and boyar children."
In the XV century. - the beginning of the XVI century. in the conditions of the centralization of the state, since all groups of feudal lords turned into a service estate, the meaning of the word, "boyar", changed. In a single state, belonging to the boyars was associated with public service and began to mean a court rank granted by the Grand Duke. The highest rank was the "boyar introduced" (passed through the procedure of solemn introduction, announcement). This rank was received by the princes and well-born boyars for special merits. The next rank - "rounder" was given to small specific princes and noble boyars who were not included in the boyars introduced. Other ranks are stewards, city nobles.
During the period under review, a new group of feudal lords took shape - the nobles. Ivan III and other great princes gave land under the condition of serving free people and even serfs, mainly servants under the court (hence the name - nobles).
Nobles received land for service under the condition of local law, that is, without inheritance. They did not have the right to freely move from prince to prince and occupied minor positions. The nobles could not be the main leaders of the troops, the heads of the regiments. They could only command dozens or hundreds. They were responsible for protecting the borders of the state. The nobles could hold the positions of "messengers" - persons sent to different places with instructions from "non-workers", whose duties included subpoenaing the parties, executing court decisions, arresting and torturing "tateyas". The nobles performed various positions in the court service, took part in princely hunting as kennels, baptismal workers, and falconers. In the Russian centralized state between the Grand Duke and the rest of the feudal lords, not contractual, but service relations developed. The following principles were in effect: “in service is honor!”, “serve to death”.
The clergy belonged to the large feudal lords, which was divided into white - the clergy of churches, and black - the clergy of monasteries.
During the period under review, there was an expansion of monastic land ownership due to the grant of princes and boyars, as well as the seizure of undeveloped lands, especially in the north-east of the country, numerous monasteries scattered throughout the country, enjoyed the support of local feudal lords and merchants, could exist comfortably at the expense of cash and in kind contributions to "remembrance of the soul", "about health".
Peasants. To designate the rural population, starting from the 14th century, the term peasants (from "Christians") is gradually gaining popularity.
The peasants were divided into two categories - black and privately owned. Black peasants lived on the lands of the princes and did not legally belong to any feudal lord. They paid the Grand Duke a tax - a nationwide tax. They were entrusted with the plowing of tithes - corvée for the Grand Duke, the maintenance of feeders, underwater duty, the construction of city walls, command huts, the construction of bridges, logging, the supply of "subsistence people".
The main measure in the distribution of taxes and duties on the community was a plow, a certain amount of land - from 400 to 1300 quarters (a quarter ½ tithe). Black peasants lived in communities ("world" "volost").
Privately owned peasants belonged to individual feudal lords. In the XIV century - XVI century. the feudal lords strive to attach the peasants to themselves, to their possessions. In this case, both economic and non-economic measures are used. Most often, the grand dukes assigned certain groups of peasants to individual owners with special letters. However, a single form of feudal dependence has not yet developed. Privately owned peasants were divided into groups. One of them were peasants-old-timers. These included peasants for a long time (from ancient times), who lived on the land of the feudal lord, performed duties in his favor and paid taxes. Until the middle of the 15th century, the old-timers were legally free. Then the princes began to issue charters, attaching them to the landowner.
Another category of peasants are new arrivals, new orders. These are peasants who were attracted by the feudal lords to their possessions by establishing benefits for them. For example, exemption for a year from taxes and feudal duties. The new orderers, who had lived in one place for many years, became old-timers.
Silversmiths are peasants who borrowed silver from their feudal lords, which was divided into “growth” and “product”. The first was given with the condition of payment of interest, the second - with the condition of repayment of interest by the "product", i.e., work on the land of the feudal lord. Until the debt was paid, the pieces of silver could not leave the owner
The newcomers are poor peasants who are forced to go to a rich master. They concluded agreements, "decent" letters, according to which they became dependent on the masters. The newcomer took "help" to equip. Within one year, he was either exempted from paying the quitrent to the master, or paid him "half", in a reduced amount. For this, he was obliged to acquire a household, build a house. If he did not do this, then he paid a "charge" - a penalty. After the expiration of grace years, newcomers merged with old-timers
Polovniki did not have their own land, they cultivated the master's land and gave half of the harvest to the owner.
Bobyls are landless peasants who did not have a farm and the ability to pay state service. They received housing and land from the feudal lord. For this they paid dues and performed corvée.
The bulk of the peasantry in the XV century. enjoyed the right of transition (“exit”) from one feudal lord to another at any time of the year (“low summer and always”). This did not suit the feudal lords, they began to demand the establishment of a certain period for the peasant output.
Ivan III in the Sudebnik of 1497 established a single deadline for the exit ("refusal") of the peasants - St. George's autumn day (November 26), when usually all agricultural work was completed. To receive a "rejection", i.e. the right to exit, the peasant had to pay the feudal lord "old" (for the use of the yard) in the amount of one ruble in the steppe areas and half in the wooded areas, if he lived with the owner for four years or longer.
The autumn St. George's day was extremely inconvenient for the peasants to leave and, in fact, tied the peasants to the feudal lord even more strongly. Without exaggeration, we can say that the Sudebnik of 1497, having established St. George's Day, marked the beginning of the legal registration of serfdom in Russia.
Serfs. During the formation of a centralized state, the process of rapprochement between serfdom and the feudal-dependent peasantry was slowly but steadily going on. So-called "suffering people" or "sufferers" appear - serfs planted on the ground. The number of sources of servility is reduced. The serf, who had escaped from the Tatar captivity, was released. “Keykeeping” in the city, birth from the free did not lead to servility. Another manifestation of the rapprochement between servility and the peasantry was the appearance of bonded people. This category of dependent population appeared at the end of the 15th century. The essence of bonded relations was the exploitation of the debtor by creditors on the basis of a special promissory note (“service bondage”). The debtor had to repay the interest on the borrowed amount by his labor (“service”). Often the amount of debt was fictitious, covering the transition into feudal dependence. In the XVI century. bondage acquires the features of complete servility. Therefore, bonded people began to be called bonded serfs. However, unlike a full serf, a bonded serf could not be passed on by will, his children did not become serfs.
Urban population. Residents of cities in the Russian centralized state were called townspeople. The fact is that the city at that time was divided into two parts: 1) a place enclosed by a fortress wall - “detinets”, “Kremlin”, representatives of the princely power lived here, there was a garrison; 2) Posad - a settlement outside the stone walls of the citadel, merchants lived here, artisans - townspeople.
Socially, the townspeople were heterogeneous. The top - rich merchants (some princes were debtors of merchants) - guests, sourozhans, clothiers. There were merchant associations - the so-called hundreds.
The bulk of the urban population are black townspeople (artisans, small traders). Craftsmen united in communities, "brothers" on a professional basis (masons, armored workers, carpenters, etc.). They were given the right to judge.
The townspeople formed the townspeople's black hundred, whose members, on the principle of mutual responsibility, paid the nationwide tax - the townsman's tax, and carried other duties.
§3 Government system
The formation of the Russian centralized state included two interrelated processes - the formation of a single state territory through the unification of fragmented principalities and the establishment of the power of a single monarch of this territory.
The dynamics of the formation of the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow is characterized by a steady increase in his autocracy. Before the unification, the Moscow princes were absolute masters in their own domain. Relations with the rest of the princes were built on the basis of the principle of suzerainty - vassalage - treaties, immunity letters. As the process of unification develops, the power of the Moscow Grand Duke is strengthened. Appanage princes turn into servants, the Russian state from a complex of feudal estates becomes a single state. The specific princes cannot pursue an independent foreign and domestic policy. The power of the Grand Duke of Moscow acquired the character of the real power of the entire Muscovite state. The state began to be divided not into destinies, but into counties, in which officials of the Moscow Grand Duke ruled.
From the point of view of the form of government until the middle of the XVI century. The Russian centralized state can be considered as a transitional from an early feudal monarchy to a class-representative monarchy
Bodies of power and administration. The supreme legislative and executive power belonged to the Grand Duke. There were two sources of strengthening the power of the Grand Duke: 1) internal - by limiting the immunity rights of specific princes and boyars; 2) external - the elimination of vassal dependence on the Golden Horde.
The Grand Duke of Moscow, both legally and in fact, became the bearer of sovereign power on the territory of Russia. Beginning with Ivan III, Moscow princes call themselves "sovereigns of all Russia." The rise of the power of the Moscow Grand Duke received an ideological justification. This was the theory put forward in the message of the monk of the Pskov Elizarov Monastery Philotheus “Moscow is the third Rome”. Two Romes (Western and Eastern - Constantinople) fell. The Russian people remained the only custodian of Orthodoxy, and Moscow became the third Rome and will be forever. “Two ubo Romes fell, and the third stands and the fourth will not be.” Philotheus addressed the Moscow prince: "You are the only king in the whole Celestial Empire".
A kind of practical confirmation of this position of Ivan III was his marriage to Sophia Palaiologos, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine Palaiologos.
The Grand Duke had the right to appoint to the main government posts, including the Boyar Duma. He also headed the armed forces and was in charge of foreign affairs. Laws were issued on his behalf, and the Grand Duke's court was the highest court. The strengthening of the power of the Grand Duke was facilitated by the fact that in the 90s of the XV century. Ivan III managed to secure the appointment of a Russian metropolitan independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
The Boyar Duma is a permanent advisory body under the Grand Duke, which arose in the 15th century. It grew out of the Council of Boyars under the prince, which existed earlier, but was convened from time to time.
The Boyar Duma had a permanent composition, it included the highest hierarchs, boyars, okolnichy. The numerical composition of the Boyar Duma at the beginning of the XVI century. did not exceed 20 people.
The competence of the boyar duma was not clearly defined. She could consider important national issues. In particular, the role of the Boyar Duma in foreign affairs was great. The boyars were put at the head of the embassy missions, corresponded, attended the receptions of the ambassadors of the grand dukes.
In the Boyar Duma and the system of state administration in general, the principle of parochialism operated, according to which the position of members of the Boyar Duma and other officials was determined by their generosity, nobility, and not by business qualities.
During the formation of the Russian centralized state, feudal congresses were still convened, as a rule, to resolve issues related to the unification of Russian lands. The last feudal congress was convened by Ivan III in 1471.
"Ways" - a kind of departments that combined both the functions of state administration and the functions of meeting the needs of the grand duke's court (falconer, trapper, stable, chalice, etc.). The “paths” were headed by the “worthy boyars” appointed by the Grand Duke from among the most well-born and trusted persons of the prince.
The "ways" were in charge of certain areas, which they were in charge of "court and tribute."
The presence of "paths" is an indicator that elements of the palace and patrimonial system were preserved in state administration. However, over time, this archaic system did not meet the requirements of centralized power. In the XV century. early 16th century there are new bodies - orders. These were bureaucratically centralized bodies in charge of certain branches of government. Officials were formed in orders - people in orders - professionally engaged in public administration.
The first of the orders was the Treasury order (yard). In 1450, the state clerk was first mentioned, and in 1467 - the state clerk, as officials. Initially, the Treasury Department had extensive functions: it was in charge of yamsk, local, serfs and embassy affairs. Following Kazenny, other orders began to appear.
Local government was built on the basis of the feeding system. In cities there were governors, in volosts - volosts. They had administrative and judicial power. The population provided the governors and volosts with everything they needed - "food". Its size was determined in special princely charters. The “fodder” consisted of: entry feed (“who will bring what”), periodic in-kind and cash requisitions several times a year - at Christmas, Easter, Peter’s Day, trade duties from out-of-town merchants, marriage duties (“output merchant” and "new ubrus"). The feeding system was a relic of the early feudal monarchy and did not satisfy the population, the nobles were especially unhappy with it.
The armed forces consisted of the Grand Duke's army, which consisted of the children of the boyars, servants under the court. The basis of the army was the sovereign regiment. In addition, a people's militia could be convened - the "Moscow Army", mainly consisting of residents of cities. However, if necessary, it was replenished with villagers. The judiciary was not separated from the administrative. The highest was the court of the Grand Duke - for large feudal lords, as well as the highest court of appeal.
Judicial functions were carried out by the Boyar Duma, worthy boyars, orders. Governors and volostels judged locally. At the same time, their judicial rights were not the same. Governors and volostels with the right of a "boyar court" could consider any cases, without a "boyar court" - they did not have the right to accept cases of serious crimes - robberies, tatba, cases of serfs, etc. In such cases, they had to report to the Grand Duke or the Boyar Duma.
