Social structure of ancient Rus' - military history. Estates in the Russian Empire

Any society is a class or estate structure. These are two ideal models that are very complexly intertwined in the present tense. At the same time, it is generally accepted that in the West the class structure is more predominant, and in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE, the class structure is more dominant. One way or another, elements of the class division of society are everywhere, and it represents a pyramid, in the lower layer of which there are the social lower strata, and the top is crowned by the privileged upper strata. Most likely, the reason for this reality lies in the history of the formation of society and the desire of people of a certain status to maintain relationships only with their own kind. So, what is an estate, and what social groups was it represented in Russia?

Definition of class

Some researchers, not unreasonably, believe that in Rus', before the reign of Peter I, the estate bore the concept of “assembly, gathering” and the word was not used to describe any group in the social hierarchy. But by the end of the 18th century, the term “estate” acquired a new meaning, and it began to be identified with social communities that had certain rights and responsibilities enshrined at the legislative level.

A class society of any era is always characterized by a hierarchy, expressed in inequality of status and privileges: the dominant category of people, semi-privileged and tax-paying people. In other words, each individual was strictly dependent on his class affiliation. It was she who determined the code of conduct, a person’s environment, his occupation, and sometimes the hairstyle and clothes that were allowed to be worn. Often the presented norms, rules and requirements were such that the class seemed like a hopeless prison, from which it was practically impossible to escape.

Estates of ancient civilizations

A significant part In its history, humanity lived in a class system, which was typical for all countries of antiquity. For example, the society of Ancient China had a rather complex structure. It included the following classes: representatives of the imperial family and aristocracy, numerous officials (it was an open class and both townspeople and peasants could join it), scientists, and farmers. What’s interesting is that, unlike other states, slavery in Ancient China was not developed.

In one of the most ancient civilizations - Egypt, history also determines several classes. The most important in importance were the nobles (close to the pharaoh), then the priests, royal people, farmers and artisans, and slaves. There was another special group of people - scribes, they spoke on behalf of the pharaoh.

For the inhabitants of Ancient Rome, the greatest state of antiquity, society was represented by such classes as: nobility, patricians (privileged nobility), horsemen, plebeians (free population), peasants and artisans, powerless slaves. It was often found that the rights and duties of some classes were inseparable. For example, for a citizen of Athens or Rome, serving in the army was both a right and an obligation.

Class structure of medieval society

Modern society has many faces, and does not have clear distinctions between classes, but this was not always the case. In medieval Western society, the class structure was able to acquire clear contours only by the 11th century. As a result, three main classes emerged: clergy, knighthood and townspeople. The situation with the peasantry was not so clear. Free peasants were classified as the third estate, while dependents remained outside the estates and without any rights.

Initially, the estates were open, for example, people could join the clergy younger sons knightly families or the class of knighthood were replenished with free peasants. But by the 15th century, the estates became increasingly closed and acquired a complex hierarchical structure. For example, in cities there were three levels of citizenship and only first-level citizens had full rights and privileges, and they also occupied high positions.

Estates in Russia

The process of formation of social groups in the Russian state proceeded gradually and was established only by 1649 in the Council Code. It should be noted that Russian society was distinguished by its variability and mobility; it was divided and altered several times. Thus, the hierarchy of the main classes in the 17th century was as follows: feudal lords (boyars and nobles), clergy, townspeople and urban populations (merchants, artisans), peasants.

The civil war at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries gave rise to an era of strong social upheaval. These were the consequences of increased class inequalities, when the final enslavement of the peasants occurred. The resulting difference between the prosperous top and the plight of the lower classes resulted in a series of popular uprisings.

Belonging by birthright

The position of certain civil groups in the state hierarchy, as well as their rights, privileges and obligations, were established by laws and reinforced by religious dogma. The higher the class was on the social ladder, the greater rights it had. At the same time, within each class, many levels, ranks, layers were determined. Belonging to one class or another was automatically determined by birthright. Thus, the established barriers between civil groups were quite strict.

The upper classes often had their own social symbols and signs. These could be titles, ranks, flags, coats of arms, uniforms, orders. The lower classes also had their own symbolism. And usually there were no questions about what class a person belonged to, it was obvious.

Russian Empire 19th century

TO 19th century Most European states abandoned the clear division of social groups, and the boundaries became more blurred. Russia in this regard lagged significantly behind the developed powers; its rigid class traditions continued to exist for some time. Even the abolition of serfdom did not ease the growing contradictions between classes, although it slightly improved the situation of the peasants. Crushed by exorbitant payments, it was never able to rise out of need. The privileged classes in Russia held dominant positions in society for a long time.

What is the difference between a class and an estate?

At first glance, the meaning of the terms “class” and “estate” are very similar: both definitions mean a social group of people who are united on some basis. But this is where the difference lies. With the class division of society, people are divided by occupation and income level, but everyone will be equal before the law. In a class society, people are divided depending on the level of rights and privileges available to them and have far from equal positions before the law.

Movement between classes is allowed: a person from a farming family can easily become a doctor or lawyer. The boundaries of the classes are such that moving between them is a significant rarity; a simple peasant cannot become a nobleman. It is believed that the class division of society is a kind of evolution of classes, which could not be avoided with the general development of the political and legal systems of the state, the development of production and monetary relations.

In medieval European society, the clergy had all the leading positions, this was explained by the fact that for a person of that era, the most important thing was the relationship with God.

The standard of living of townspeople and peasants in Rus' before the introduction of serfdom was much better than in the countries of Western and Southern Europe. The wardrobe of peasants and serfs could boast of shirts decorated with pearls and gold. Consequently, the rights and privileges were such that the class could well flourish.

When smallpox vaccinations appeared in Europe, Catherine II invited an English doctor to vaccinate herself first, thereby setting an example for those who set an example. The donor was a peasant boy, Alexander Markov, who was later promoted to the rank of nobility.

In Spain, the royal family and upper classes traced their ancestry to the Visigoths. Unlike the dark commoners who mixed with the Moors, they had very pale skin with prominent veins. This is where the expression “blue blood” comes from.

Feudal society is characterized by the division of people into estates, those. legally closed population groups. At the early stage of the development of feudal relations, the process of formation of estates took place. The entire population of Kievan Rus was conventionally divided into free and dependent people. There were also intermediate categories of the population.

Privileged ruling classes were formed from free individuals who owned land and had legal privileges.

Legal privileges are defined in "Russkaya Pravda" by a special procedure for inheriting land and increased (double) criminal liability for the murder of a representative of a privileged segment of the population.

Such privileges were enjoyed by princes, princely men, boyars, firemen, princely tiuns, fire grooms. Thus, for the murder of princely husbands, a double penalty of 80 hryvnia was exacted. After the death of boyars and warriors, in the absence of sons, their property could pass to their daughters (Article 91 PP). In such a situation, after the death of the smerd, his property passed to the prince (Article 90 PP).

Gradually, from the above-mentioned privileged categories of the population, an upper class is formed - boyars.

One of the most important privileges of the boyars was the right to own land. Feudal land ownership was formed due to the grand ducal grants and the seizure of empty lands of communal smerds. The prince's warriors, who received land from him, turned into his vassals. The vassal carried military service and was obliged to participate in the Council under the prince.

Peasantry in Kievan Rus is referred to in various sources by the terms “smerdy”, “lyuda”, “syabry”. The peasants lived in communities and for the most part were still free. They bore certain duties in favor of the state (tribute, participation in the people's militia). The law protected the person and property of smerds. Smerd had property that he could bequeath to his children (sons). Smerd bore personal and property liability for obligations and contracts. He acted as a full participant in the trial.

Some community smerds fell into economic dependence, and categories of dependent population were formed from them. The main category of the dependent population were purchases- peasants who took out a kupa (loan) in the form of land, money, grain, etc. and obligated by their work on the lender's farm to repay the debt (kupa).

The legal status of procurement is defined in the Long Edition of "Russkaya Pravda" (PP) in the "Charter on Procurement". The purchase owned property (farm, horse, etc.). The law protected the person and property of purchasers. The master could not subject the purchaser to punishment “without guilt”, sell him into serfs. The purchase could go to court against Mr. with a complaint. However, purchasing rights were limited. When an offense was committed by a purchaser, the fine was paid by his master, but the purchase itself could be “issued completely,” i.e. turned into a slave (Article 64 PP). The law punished a purchaser for escaping from his master by turning him into a complete slave (Article 56 of the PP). At the trial, the procurement could act as a witness only in the absence of other witnesses and in minor cases.

The completely dependent category of the population were serfs (slaves). The slave was the property of his master. The murder of a slave was considered as the destruction of the master's property. The identity of a slave was practically not protected by law. He had no property, all his property was the property of the master. The slave was not responsible for the offenses he committed; his master paid the fine for him.

However, slavery in Rus' was patriarchal in nature; slaves were endowed with certain rights. The highest category of serfs - princely tiuns - could act in court as vidocques (hearings had to be free). Transactions made by a slave trading on behalf of his master were recognized as valid.

The sources of servility were:

Selling oneself into slavery;

Marrying a slave without entering into a contract with the master;

Fleeing of the purchase from the master or catching him in theft;

Admission to tiuns or key holders without an agreement;

Debtor's insolvency;

Birth of a slave;

Urban population was very diverse in composition.

It was divided into two main categories:

City aristocracy (the best people) - princes, boyars, high clergy, merchants engaged in foreign trade ("guests");

The lower layer (black people, young) - artisans, small traders, etc.

The bulk of the urban population was free. Their identity and property were protected by law. Most of townspeople paid taxes and bore duties in favor of the state. The city aristocracy enjoyed certain legal privileges.

The main source of law of Kievan Rus on initial stage there was common law on which the prince relied when making decisions in the field of court and administration. As E.N. wrote Trubetskoy, “legal custom refers to those legal norms that have developed through the constant application of the same rules to homogeneous cases of life.” For a long time, customs operated not only in the criminal sphere, but also in the trade sphere, in the marriage and family sphere, and even in the field of public law, determining the competence of government bodies, the procedure for collecting taxes, etc. As social relations regulated by law develop and become more complex, a normative legal act arises as a written source of law. Initially, it relies on custom, then on judicial practice and foreign borrowings.

The earliest written sources of law that have reached us are treaties between Rus' and the Greeks. IN The chronicles contain the text or retelling of the text of four treaties: 907, 911, 944 and 971. The treaty of 907 was concluded by Prince Oleg. According to this agreement, the Greeks agreed to pay tribute to Rus', feed Russians coming to Byzantium and give monthly allowances to Russian merchants in Constantinople. In response, the Russians pledged to live in the city in only one suburb and enter the city only through one gate. Treaty 911 much richer in content. It defines the rights and jurisdiction of Russians on the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire, regulates relations between the parties in the case of criminal offenses. Thus, for murder the contract provides for death, for theft - triple compensation, for mutilation - a fine. Regulates the contract and some types of civil legal relations, for example, inheritance. One of the articles says that if a Russian person dies in Greece without leaving a will, and he has no relatives there, then the property returns to his relatives in Rus'. The Treaty of 944, concluded by Igor, is similar in meaning to the Treaty of 911. It also contains norms of criminal and civil law, establishes trade rules, and defines the procedure for compensation for losses. It is characteristic that this agreement contains references to “Russian law”. Thus, a thief, having returned a stolen thing and paid more than that, is also subject to punishment “according to Greek law and according to the charter and Russian law.” As for the Treaty of 971, it was concluded by Prince Svyatoslav during his siege in the city of Dorostol and contains assurances about eternal peace with the Greeks

"Russian Truth" - is the most important monument of the law of the Kyiv state, the first code of ancient Russian law. More than a hundred lists of “Russian Truth” have reached us, which are usually divided into three main ones: editors.

Brief truth(XI century). It included the Truth of Yaroslav (v. 1-1.8), the Truth of the Yaroslavichs (v. 19-41), Pokon Virny (v. 42), The Lesson of the Bridge Workers (v. 43);

The lengthy truth (XII century) consists of two parts - the Charter of Yaroslav Vladimirovich and the Charter of Vladimir Vsevolodovich;

The abridged truth. There is no consensus about the time of its origin - XIII-XIV centuries (Rogov V.A.), XV century. (Yushkov S.V.), XV-XVI1 centuries. (Titov Yu.P.).

Sources"Russian Truth":

Customary law is a system of norms consisting of customs recognized and protected by the state;

Church statutes;

Byzantine law;

Treaties between Rus' and Byzantium (911,944,971).

Crime in "Russkaya Pravda" it was called insult. A crime was understood as causing material, physical or moral harm to someone.

The objects of the crime were person and property. The state was not seen as an object of crime. The objective side of the crime presupposed the presence of two stages in the commission of a crime: an attempted crime (the person drew a sword, but did not strike) and the committed crime. The subjects of the crime, i.e. the persons responsible for the deed were all free people, except slaves. Slaves were not responsible for the offenses they committed; their master bore financial responsibility for them.

The subjective side of the crime included intent and negligence. A distinction was made between the murder of a fireman for offense (Article 19 of the Communist Code), and the murder “at a wedding or at a feast” (Article 6 of the Civil Code), i.e. unintentional, able alcohol intoxication, murder “for robbery without any wedding” (Article 7 PP), i.e. premeditated robbery. Malicious destruction of property was punishable by a fairly high fine of 12 hryvnia.

"Russkaya Pravda" is aware of the institution of complicity (attack in en masse, theft committed by several persons), although it is still very undeveloped. The types of complicity and the roles of accomplices are not defined. All guilty persons were punished equally, regardless of the degree of participation of each of them in the commission of the crime.

The Russkaya Pravda defines mitigating (state of intoxication) and aggravating (selfish intent) circumstances. However, there is no mention of circumstances exempting from punishment.

Types of crimes:

Crimes against the person: murder, mutilation, wounds, beatings, crimes against honor (insult by word or action);

Property crimes: robbery, theft (tatba), illegal use of someone else's property (unauthorized riding on someone else's horse, harboring fugitive slaves, appropriation of a stolen item, malicious non-payment of debts, appropriation of property through illegal transactions);

Crimes against family and morality. There were no crimes against the state as a special type of crime. This was due to early period existence of the state and the absence, in connection with this, of an abstract concept of the state and state power. Crimes against princely power were considered as crimes against the prince as an individual.

Russkaya Pravda also does not mention crimes against the church. The corresponding articles are available in church statutes.

Main goals punishments according to "Russian Truth" were compensation for damage and retribution. The punishment system was class-based, i.e. the life and property of privileged categories of the population were more protected by law than the life and property of ordinary people.

Types of punishment:

- revenge is the oldest form of punishment. The law limits its use only to the most serious type of crime - murder. The circle of avengers in Russkaya Pravda was limited to immediate relatives. In the absence of avengers, a fine (vira) was levied in favor of the prince;

- “flood and plunder” is the ultimate punishment. It was assigned for three types of crimes: murder by robbery, horse theft (Article 35 of the PP), arson of a house or barn (Article 83 of the PP). The content of this type of punishment remains not entirely clear. “Looting” certainly meant confiscation of all the property of the criminal. There is no consensus on the understanding of what constituted a “flow”. There are several points of view: expulsion from the community. turning into slaves, death penalty. Most authors believe that expulsion from the community was used in the early stages of state formation.

At a subsequent stage, criminals began to be turned into slaves;

A fine is the most common type of punishment. There was a system of double monetary penalties: vira - blasphemy, sale - lesson. Vira - a fine for murder, was paid in favor of the prince. There were several types of vir:

Single - 40 hryvnia, was awarded for the murder of a free, unprivileged person;

Double - 80 hryvnia, was awarded for the murder of representatives of privileged categories of the population;

Wild vira is a fine paid by the community on whose territory the corpse of a murdered person is found, if the community does not search for the criminal.

Golovnichestvo is a fine paid to the relatives of the murdered person in the amount of 12 hryvnia.

Sale - a fine for other types of crimes (assault, infringement of property, insults) which was paid in favor of the prince. Sales were charged in two sizes - 12 hryvnia and 5 hryvnia.

Lesson - a fine for other types of crimes, which was paid in favor of the victim. Its size depended on the nature of the offense and the property damage.

The death penalty is not mentioned in Russkaya Pravda. But most researchers believe that in reality it was used for anti-state crimes, participation in uprisings, etc.

Imprisonment in prison (dungeon) is also not mentioned in Russkaya Pravda, but the church resorted to this type of punishment.

Civil law. In ancient Russian law there is no general term to define ownership. The subjects of property rights were free people. The objects of property rights could be various things (tools, slaves, livestock, clothing and land). However, the law did not have a clear division of things into movable and immovable, although the status of movable property was developed much more fully.

The "Russian Pravda" distinguishes between the right of ownership and the right of possession. The owner had the right to return his thing that was in the illegal possession of another person. In this case, the illegal owner had to return the thing to its owner, paying compensation for the use of it (Article 13-16 KP , art. 34,35 PP).

Forms of ownership to the ground:

Community property (arable land belonged to the community. The yard plot was in family-individual ownership);

Princely domain - lands that belonged personally to the prince;

Estates are lands that were privately owned by the boyars and granted to them by the prince on the terms of their service. At the same time, the boyars received immunity rights, i.e. the right to govern, judge and collect tribute on their territory; state lands - there is no consensus in science about their ownership. "Some authors consider them the property of communities; others - the property of the state.

Inheritance law was formed simultaneously with the development of property rights. There was a difference between inheritance by law and by will (the treaty between Rus' and Byzantium in 911, “Russian Truth”).

Only sons had the right of inheritance by law. Daughters could not inherit property, but received a dowry when they got married. The exception was the boyars and warriors, whose property passed to their daughters in the absence of other heirs (Article 91 PP). In the event of the death of a smerd, in the absence of sons, his property passed to the prince, and his daughters were allocated part of it as a dowry (Article 90, 91 PP).

According to the will, property could be transferred only to sons and wife, the daughter received part of it as a dowry.

Until the children reached adulthood, their mother managed their property. If she remarried, then a guardian from the closest relatives managed the property of the children. The mother disposed of her share of the property independently, but could only bequeath it to her children.

Children of a slave and a free man, in the event of the death of the latter, did not inherit property, but received freedom.

Law of obligations was quite developed in Kievan Rus. There were two types of obligations - from offenses (torts) and contracts.

Liabilities resulting from offenses entailed property liability in the form of payment of a fine and compensation for damages.

Obligations from contracts entailed property (payment of a fine) and sometimes personal liability (becoming a slave in case of failure to fulfill obligations). A contract was an agreement between the parties, concluded orally.

Types of contracts:

1) The purchase and sale agreement is the oldest and most common type of agreement. The Russkaya Pravda defined the procedure for establishing the good faith of the acquisition of a thing. If the illegal nature of the acquisition of an item is proven, the item is returned to the real owner. A special procedure was determined for carrying out a number of purchase and sale transactions: the sale of oneself into slavery could only be carried out in the presence of witnesses, the transaction for the sale of the most significant things was carried out publicly at auction.

2) The loan agreement existed in three types: regular (household), loan made by merchants with simplified formalities, loan with self-mortgage - procurement. The subject of the loan agreement could be products and money. The borrower was obliged to pay interest to the lender, the amount of which was limited (after the uprising of 1113).

The loan agreement between merchants was concluded in the presence of witnesses (rumors). Controversial issues were resolved by a purifying oath. There were three types of bankruptcy: accidental (as a result natural disaster) - the merchant received a deferment in payment; careless (for example, loss of someone else's goods while intoxicated) - the creditor could give the bankrupt a deferment in paying the debt or turn him into a slave; malicious (taking out a loan by an insolvent debtor) - the creditor turned the debtor into a slave.

The purchasing agreement consisted in the receipt of a “purchase” by a free person on the condition of working it off with interest, secured by the identity of the debtor.

3) The rental agreement was not widespread in Kievan Rus and is mentioned in “Russkaya Pravda” only in Art. 97 (PP), where we're talking about about hiring bridge workers. At the end of the XII - beginning of the XIII century. a special category of the population appeared - hirelings. The hirer entered into an agreement with the lessor, which he had the right to terminate by compensating for losses.

4) Deposit agreement - an agreement on the transfer of property for storage. It was carried out, as a rule, without witnesses and did not involve payment for this service (Article 49 PP).

Trial. There were no special judicial bodies in Kievan Rus. Court was not separated from the administration. Judicial functions were performed government bodies both in the center and locally. There were princely, boyar (patrimonial), communal and church court.

IN princely court Judicial functions were performed by:

Posadniki (in cities where there were no princes);

Tiuns (the closest assistants of the princes in the cities where the princes were located);

Volostels are representatives of local administration in volosts and churchyards.

The expansion of the prince's jurisdiction led to the growth of the judicial apparatus. Auxiliary judicial officials appeared: swordsmen, children's, virniks (collected vires and sales from the population), blizzards (collected court fees), yabedniks (probably supported the prosecution). Virniks and other auxiliary judicial bodies had youth assistants.

Along with the princely court there was boyar (patrimonial) court over the dependent population, who acted on the basis of immunity awards. The boyar administered justice with the help of his tiuns and youths.

Church court carried out by bishops, archbishops, and metropolitans. This court had jurisdiction over cases related to religion.

Community court in conditions of development feudal state gradually lost its significance.

The trial was adversarial (accusatory in nature. Characteristic features adversarial the trial were:

It began on the initiative of a private individual (the plaintiff);

The parties (plaintiff and defendant) had equal rights;

The collection of evidence and evidence was carried out by the parties themselves;

The proceedings were public and oral.

The reasons for initiating the case were complaints from the plaintiff, the capture of a criminal at the scene of a crime, and the fact that a crime had been committed.

Before the trial, the plaintiff carried out a number of actions aimed at finding the criminal:

- "cry " - advertisement on retail space about the loss of a thing (serf, horse, weapon, etc.) that had individual characteristics. If, after three days after the call, the missing item was in someone’s possession, then that person was considered the defendant. The defendant had to return the item and pay a fine;

- "vault" - a procedure for searching for the person who stole the thing, carried out before the call or until three days have passed after it. The person from whom the missing item was found had to indicate the person from whom the item was purchased. The new defendant also had to indicate from whom he purchased the stolen item. The collection could continue until the thief was found, who had to pay the sale and reward to the person to whom he sold the stolen item. If the thief had to be looked for outside the city, then the owner led the investigation to a third party. It had to pay the owner the value of the thing and could continue the collection. If the code led to the borders of the state or if the acquirer of the thing could not prove the good faith of its acquisition, then the bona fide acquirer could clear himself of the accusation by presenting two witnesses to the purchase who took an oath;

- "chasing the trail" was to search for the criminal in his tracks. It was believed what's there, Where the trail is lost, the criminal is found. If there was a trace lost on a high road or in the steppe, then the search stopped. If the trail was lost in the rope, then the rope was obliged to find the criminal or pay a wild fine.

During the trial, the parties proved their guilt with the help of evidence.

Types of evidence:

- data obtained as a result of conducting the arch and chasing the trace;

Own recognition;

Testimony of witnesses - hearsay and video evidence. According to most researchers, rumors were witnesses of good fame, i.e. the good reputation of the defendant, not the fact of the crime. Vidoki witnessed the very fact of the crime;

Ordeals (“courts of God”) - test by water and iron;

The oath is a verbal oath accompanied by kissing the cross;

A judicial duel (field) is a single combat between the plaintiff and the defendant, often with weapons in their hands.

The process began and ended with the parties themselves. The judge played the role of arbitrator, weighed the weight of the evidence presented by the parties, and made a decision in verbal form. Complaints about the incorrect actions of the judicial authorities were submitted to the prince, who reviewed the case on its merits.

Chapter 2. THE ERA OF LOCAL LAWS IN THE PERIOD OF APATE Rus' (XII-XV centuries).

The period of feudal fragmentation, which all European states experienced, began in Rus' in the second half of the 11th century. and ends at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. Education centralized state. This period can be divided into the following stages:

1) 1054-1113 (from Yaroslav the Wise to Vladimir Monomakh) - a period of feudal strife, movements of princes from one principality to another;

2) beginning of the 12th century. - 1238 - establishment of the boundaries of the principalities;

3) 1238 - beginning of the 16th century. - Mongol-Tatar yoke and gathering of lands around Moscow.

Feudal fragmentation is considered a natural progressive stage in the development of feudalism. The main reason feudal fragmentation was the strengthening of feudal land tenure under the dominance of subsistence farming. The decline in the role of Kyiv as a result of the movement of trade routes to Eastern Europe and the decline of the route from the Varangians to the Greeks.

The first princes of Kyiv established the political dependence of the regions on Kyiv. This dependence was supported by the princely mayors and was expressed in tribute, which was paid to the Grand Duke of Kyiv. After the death of Yaroslav the Wise, the mayors of the Prince of Kyiv in large cities disappeared, local princes stopped paying tribute to Kyiv, limiting themselves from time to time to voluntary gifts. From that moment on, there was virtually no state unity on Russian soil.

The second period of feudal fragmentation was marked by an outflow of population from the Dnieper region in two directions: to the west and to the northeast and, accordingly, the strengthening of the Galicia-Volyn and Vladimir-Suzdal principalities. Something important is happening at this time. political event, as the separation of seniority from place. Andrei Bogolyubsky, having become the Grand Duke of the entire Russian land, did not leave his inheritance. As a result, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality became by the 13th century the political center of Russian lands, dominating the rest of Russia, and the city of Vladimir was declared the new capital.

Particularly intensified political influence Vladimir under Prince Vsevolod, nicknamed the Big Nest (1176-1212). Under him, Vladimir's influence extended to Novgorod, Kyiv, and Ryazan. Tatar-Mongol invasion led to the decline of Vladimir as a capital city. The independence of appanage princes began to increase.

Feudal relations in North-Eastern Rus' began to develop later than in other parts of the Russian land; a strong local nobility did not have time to develop here, opposing themselves to the princely power. The prince, in addition, could rely on rapidly growing cities.

The socio-political system of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality was characterized by the following features. The bearer of supreme power was the prince; as governing bodies there were a council under the prince, a veche, and also feudal congresses. A significant place in the management system belonged to the princely squad. Among the categories of the population one can distinguish boyars, free servants, “children of boyars,” as well as smerds, purchases, serfs, outcasts, ladles, mortgagees, and sufferers.

In North-Eastern Rus', a new order of princely ownership is being established, which, in contrast to the regular one, is called appanage. It is characterized by two features: the princes become settled owners of their lands and the order of princely inheritance changes - now the prince transfers the land by personal order. In essence, each appanage principality was a monarchy. The basis of the sovereign power of the appanage prince was the right of private ownership of the appanage. The specific order has become transitional political form- from national unity to political unity.

Simultaneously with the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, the growing wealthy Galicia-Volyn principality also developed. The peculiarity of its state structure was that for a long time it was not divided into appanages. IN political life The leading role was played by the boyars, who actually controlled the princely table. The veche did not play an important political role. The processes of development of the feudal system began here earlier than in North-Eastern Rus'. In addition, fairly strong trade ties were established here with Western European countries. The political importance of the Galicia-Volyn land especially increased under Yaroslav Osmomysl (1152-1187), as well as under Prince Daniel (1238-1264). After the death of Daniel, the decline of the Galicia-Volyn principality began. Over time (in the 14th century), the Galicia-Volyn land was conquered by priests and Lithuanians.

Feudal fragmentation in Rus' was one of the reasons for the establishment of the Tatar Mongol yoke. The fragmented Russian state could not withstand the onslaught of such a powerful, well-organized, militarily prepared enemy.

The Mongol Empire was a highly developed state. According to the form of government, it was a monarchy; the head of the state was the khan, under whom an advisory body, the kurultai, was convened to resolve important issues. The legislation was characterized by extreme cruelty; death was provided for numerous offenses. The strict discipline established by the Mongols helped to win victories in battles. As you know, the entire Mongol army was divided into tens, hundreds, thousands and darkness (ten thousand). As a rule, relatives served in one ten. If a dozen wavered in battle and ran, the entire hundred they were part of was executed. The same was done with a thousand in case of flight of a hundred. Such a military organization, combined with cunning tactics, could not fail to bring success.

True, it should be noted that there are historians who deny the very existence of the yoke. So, L.N. Gumilyov, the author of the original concept of the relationship between Rus' and the Horde, argued that there was no yoke, but only a military alliance. After Batu's invasion, the Mongols did not leave garrisons in Russian cities. The tribute that the Russians paid to the Horde was not so much a tribute as a tax for the maintenance of troops called upon to repel aggression from the west on occasion. The Russian principalities that accepted the alliance with the Horde completely retained their ideological independence and political independence. Those principalities that neglected this union were captured partly by Lithuania and partly by Poland.

Special merit in establishing an alliance with the Mongols belongs, according to Gumilyov, to Alexander Nevsky, whose policies determined the principles of the structure of Rus' for several centuries to come. The traditions of alliance with the peoples of Asia, founded by the prince, based on national and religious tolerance, until the 19th century. attracted peoples living in adjacent territories to Russia.

Most historians, however, take a different view. For example, the Russian emigrant historian D. Karoteev noted that 242 years of the Mongol yoke were marked by extremely heavy material sacrifices (according to some estimates, only a tenth of the population remained in Rus' as a result of resistance to the establishment of the yoke) and the complete decline of Russian culture, which had hitherto been brilliant developed and outstripped the culture of Western European countries. At the same time, spiritually the oppression of the Tatars was not so severe - on historical traditions and they did not encroach on the everyday life of Rus', were absolutely tolerant, and even provided patronage Orthodox Church. In the capital of the Horde, Sarai, there were five Orthodox churches.

Among all the negative consequences of the yoke, one positive can be highlighted - the desire to free ourselves from oppression became one of the factors in the unification of Russian lands.

In general, the issue of the influence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke on the development of national statehood has not been fully studied and remains debatable.

According to a number of researchers, Rus' owes its centralization to the Tatar influence government controlled, the accumulation of power in one person. The khans raised the rank of Grand Duke and gave the Grand Duke power and strength. Together with the Tatars in Rus', the institution of autocracy arose, the suppression of political freedoms, which entailed a change in the character of the Russian people.

Peculiarities political system The Novgorod and Pskov lands began to form in the 10th-11th centuries, which was due to a number of factors:

The Novgorod and Pskov lands did not become the hereditary possessions of the Kyiv princes. Novgorod was the second most important city of Ancient Rus' after Kiev. According to custom, the eldest son of the Grand Duke reigned here, who after the death of his father occupied the Kiev throne and, therefore, was not interested in establishing his domain here. Princely land ownership and vassalage relations did not receive much development in these lands;

Proximity to the Baltic Sea made the Novgorod and Pskov lands developed centers of internal and foreign trade. This created favorable conditions for the accumulation of wealth by the local boyars and merchants. The boyars concentrated in their hands large tracts of land that provided the main trade products. Boyars and rich merchants organized expeditions to conquer new fishing lands. A large number of free citizens were engaged in crafts and trade.

Competition with foreign traders led to the need to unite them into craft artels and partnerships. Thus, a powerful layer of free owners arose in Novgorod, striving to determine the development of their land themselves.

From the end of the 11th century. The struggle of the Novgorodians for their independence begins. Throughout the XI century. The Novgorodians sought to have a prince “pleasing” and “fostered” (raised from childhood) by them. They considered the son of Vladimir Monomakh Mstislav Vladimirovich to be such a prince and sharply opposed when in 1118 the new Kiev prince Svyatopolk decided to send his son to Novgorod.

Weakening Prince of Kyiv led to strengthening the independence of Novgorod. In 1126, Novgorodians received the right to elect independent mayors from among the townspeople. In 1136, the Novgorodians rebelled against Prince Vsevolod Mstislavovich, who dragged them into an unnecessary internecine struggle. According to the verdict of the veche, Vsevolod was taken into custody and then expelled from Novgorod. A republican system was established in Novgorod, and relations with the princes acquired a contractual nature.

The Novgorod aristocratic republic existed from 1136 to 1478 and the Pskov republic from 1348 to 1510

Princely power in Novgorod and Pskov it was not completely eliminated, but had a limited, subordinate character. The prince was invited to Veliky Novgorod by the Novgorod veche. His candidacy was carefully selected and discussed at the Council of Gentlemen. Before arriving in Novgorod, the prince concluded a contract with “Mr. Veliky Novgorod”; which regulated the rights and obligations of the prince and the Novgorod authorities in relation to him.

The limitations of princely power were as follows:

The prince could not acquire land holdings in Novgorod on the right of ownership, but he was assigned lands for temporary possession with the right to receive income from them. At the same time, in the princely lands the administration was retained from Novgorod men, and not from princely servants. The prince and his servants (boyars) did not have the right to buy lands in Novgorod or accept them as gifts;

Princely power in Novgorod was strictly limited to serial charters. Thus, the princes were involved in judicial practice, but did not have the right to make judicial decisions independently, without the Novgorod mayor, and did not have the right to examine the most important categories of cases;

The prince did not have the right to conduct independent trade with foreign merchants other than Novgorod merchants. The residence of the prince was located on the outskirts of Novgorod, which bore the name of the settlement, which made it possible to isolate the prince from communication with the residents of Novgorod.

Competence of princely power:

The prince was obliged to organize the defense of Novgorod from external attacks, exercise military command, and build defensive structures;

The prince, together with the Novgorod mayor, established the local administration and controlled its activities.

In Pskov, the position of the prince was somewhat different than in Novgorod. Before the separation of Pskov from Novgorod in 1348, there were princes appointed by the Novgorod authorities, whose duties were limited only to military functions. After gaining independence, the prince began to be invited to the Pskov veche, and the princes depended on the Pskov veche to a much greater extent than in Novgorod.

Citywide Veche was supreme body authorities in the Novgorod and Pskov republics. It made laws, entered into treaties with foreign states, declared war and concluded peace. , invited princes, elected senior officials, and established taxes. All city officials were accountable to the veche.

All full-fledged residents of the city (men) took part in the meeting. No specific dates for convening the meeting were established. The gathering of the veche took place by the ringing of a large bell (in Novgorod from the belfry of the St. Sophia Cathedral, in Pskov by the ringing of the “great vechnik” from the Kremlin). The initiative to convene the veche belonged to the mayor-princes and the people. The council of gentlemen prepared the agenda for the meeting and selected candidates for officials to be elected at the meeting. Issues on the agenda were announced from a degree (special elevation) by the highest dignitaries - the mayor or the thousand.

Decisions had to be made unanimously, as evidenced by loud shouts of approval (there was no special voting procedure). If the veche was divided into parties, the decision was often made by force (fight), with the winning side being recognized by the majority.

There was an office and archive of the veche meeting. Record keeping was carried out by veche clerks.

Posadnik - highest official elected by the veche for 1-2 years. Executive power was concentrated in his hands. Landlord's competence:

Management of the activities of all officials;

Management of the work of the veche meeting and the Council of Gentlemen;

Dispatch of court in the posadnik court;

Command of the army together with the prince (with the consent and by the verdict of the veche);

Monitoring the condition of defensive structures (the Kremlin and fortress walls in Novgorod, Pskov and other large cities);

Control over the collection of taxes and duties from the population;

Presided over the conclusion of international treaties.

The mayor had his own seal, on the back of which there was the inscription: “Novgorod seal,” i.e. city ​​seal. It was used to seal travel documents given to merchants and legal documents that replaced a court decision in the mayor's court.

The current mayor was called “sedate” (he led the work of the veche from a “degree”), and the re-elected one was called “old”. The “old” mayors continued to play a fairly large role in the political life of the republic and were members of the Council of Gentlemen.

Tysyatsky- the closest assistant to the mayor, who was also elected by the veche. His main task was to lead the city militia - the most important part of the Novgorod army. He also enforced trade regulations and headed a special court for trade matters.

Archbishop(lord) - headed the church hierarchy. After the uprising of 1136, he began to be elected by the Novgorod council. The election procedure was as follows. At the veche, three candidates for this position were elected from among the Novgorod clergy, then in the Cathedral of St. Sophia, by drawing lots, the name of the archbishop was determined.

The Bishop had very significant powers - he presided over meetings of the Council of Gentlemen;

Conducted by ecclesiastical court;

Controlled trade measures and scales;

He was the custodian of the state treasury. The official residence of the bishop was the courtyard of the Cathedral of St. Sofia.

Council of gentlemen(“Gentlemen”, boyar council) was the most important executive and administrative body in the Novgorod and Pskov republics. It included all the highest officials of the republic: the prince, the archbishop, the “sedate” and “old” mayors, the thousand, the city elders. The council prepared the agenda for the veche, selected candidates for senior officials elected by the veche, and then controlled their activities.

Local government in the Novgorod and Pskov republics it was elected and was built on the basis of the administrative division of the city and its suburbs

Novgorod was divided into two parts (sides) by the Volkhov River - Torgovaya (right) and Sofia (left). The sides were divided into five ends. Each end was governed by the Kochansky council, which elected Kochansky elders. The ends were divided into hundreds, governed by a veche headed by an elected centurion. Hundreds were divided into streets, which also had their own , who elected street elders.

The territory around Novgorod was divided into Pyatina, each of which was assigned to one of the five ends of the city and was administratively dependent on it. Pyatina was divided into suburbs, and the suburbs into volosts. The administration was structured similarly to the city administration.

Local government in the Pskov Republic was organized in the same way as in Novgorod. Pskov was divided into six ends, the area around the city was divided into twelve suburbs.

As we have just seen, people of the lower classes in Russian cities of the Kievan period were called "young people" (young people). They were mainly workers and artisans of various kinds: carpenters, masons, blacksmiths, fullers, tanners, potters, etc. People of the same profession usually lived in one part of the city, which bore the corresponding name. Thus, in Novgorod the Gorshechny district and the Plotnitsky district are mentioned; in Kyiv - Kuznetsk Gate, etc.

For this period there is no evidence regarding the existence of craft guilds as such, but each part of a large Russian city of this time constituted an independent guild (see Chapter VII, Section 6), and the “street guild” or “row guild” in the craft part should was to be not only a territorial community, but in a certain sense also a professional association.

The lower classes of Kyiv society also included hired workers or laborers. In the cities, artisans who did not have their own workshops and younger members of craft families apparently offered their services to anyone who needed them. If many workers came together for a major job, as in building a church or big house, then in most cases they created cooperative associations.

During this period, little is known about wage workers in rural areas. They are, however, mentioned in some contemporary sources; presumably the greatest need for their help was during the harvest season.

Now we come to the smerds, who formed the backbone of the lower classes in rural areas. As I already mentioned, the term stinks should be compared with Iranian mard ("man"). It is very likely that it appeared during the Sarmatian period of Russian history.

The Smerds were personally free, but their legal status was limited since they were subject to the special jurisdiction of the prince. That they were free can be best seen by comparing Article 45 A of the extended version of Russian Pravda with the subsequent Article 46. The first says that smerds can be fined by the prince for aggressive actions committed by them. In the latter, that slaves are not subject to these payments, “because they are not free.”

The fact that the prince’s power over the smerds was more specific than over the free is clear from the “Russian Truth”, as well as from the chronicles. In the “Pravda” of the Yaroslavichs, smerd is mentioned among people dependent on the prince to one degree or another. According to the expanded version of Russian Pravda, the smerd could not be subject to arrest or restrictions in any way in its actions without the sanction of the prince. After the death of the smerd, his property was inherited by his sons, but if there were no sons left, then the property passed to the prince, who, however, had to leave a share for unmarried daughters, if any remained. This is similar to the dead hand law in Western Europe.

It seems important that in the city-states of Northern Rus' - Novgorod and Pskov - the highest power over the smerds belonged not to the prince, but to the city. So, for example, in 1136, the Novgorod prince Vsevolod was criticized by the veche for the oppression of the smerds. The Novgorod treaty with King Casimir IV of Poland directly states that the smerds are under the jurisdiction of the city, not the prince. This treaty is a document of a later period (signed around 1470), but its terms were based on ancient tradition.

Taking into account the status of the smerds in Novgorod, we can assume that in the south, where they were subordinate to the prince, the latter rather exercised his power as head of state than as a landowner. In this case, the smerds can be called state peasants, taking into account due reservations. Bearing in mind that the term stinks, most likely, appeared in the Sarmatian period; we can attribute the appearance of smerds as a social group to this period. Presumably the first Smerds were Slavic “people” (mardan) who paid tribute to the Alans. Later, with the emancipation of the Ants from Iranian tutelage, power over them could pass to the Ant leaders. In the eighth century, the smerds had to submit to the authority of the Khazar and Magyar governors; with the emigration of the Magyars and the defeat of the Khazars by Oleg and his heirs, the Russian princes eventually gained control over them. This sketch of the history of the Smerds is, of course, hypothetical, but, in my opinion, consistent with the facts; in any case, it does not contradict any known data.

Whether the land they cultivated belonged to themselves or to the state is controversial issue. It turns out that in Novgorod, at least, smerds occupied state lands. In the south there must have been something like co-ownership between the prince and the smerd on the latter’s land. At a meeting in 1103, Vladimir Monomakh mentions the “smerda farm” (its village). As we have already seen, the son of Smerd inherited his possession, that is, his farm. However, taking into account that the smerd owned the land he cultivated, it should be noted that this was not full ownership, since he was not free to bequeath the land even to his daughters; when after his death there were no sons left, as we saw, the land passed to the prince. Since the smerd could not bequeath his land, he may also not have been able to sell it.

The land was in his permanent use, and the same right extended to his male descendants, but it was not his property.

Smerds had to pay state taxes, especially the so-called “tribute”. In Novgorod, each of their groups registered at the nearest churchyard(tax collection center); apparently they were organized into communities in order to simplify the collection of taxes. Another duty of the Smerds was to supply horses for the city militia in the event of a major war.

At the princely meeting of 1103, mentioned above, the campaign against the Polovtsians was discussed, and the vassals of Prince Svyatopolk II noted that it was not worth starting military operations in the spring, since by taking their horses they would ruin the Smerds and their fields, to which Vladimir Monomakh replied: “I I’m surprised, friends, that you are preoccupied with horses on which the stink plows. Why don’t you think that as soon as the smerd begins to plow, the Polovtsian will come, kill him with his arrow, take his horse, come to his village and take away his wife, his children and his property? Are you concerned about Smerd’s horse or about him himself?” .

The low level of social status of the smerd is best demonstrated by this fact: in the event of his murder, only five hryvnias - that is, one-eighth of the fine - had to be paid to the prince by the killer. The prince was supposed to receive the same amount (five hryvnia) if a slave was killed. However, in the latter case, the payment did not represent a fine, but compensation to the prince as the owner. In the case of the murderer, compensation to his family had to be paid by the killer in addition to the fine, but its level is not specified in Russkaya Pravda.

Over time the term stinks, as I mentioned, took on the derogatory meaning of a person belonging to the lower class. As such, it was used by high aristocrats to refer to commoners in general. So, when the Chernigov prince Oleg was invited by Svyatopolk II and Vladimir Monomakh to attend a meeting where representatives of the clergy, boyars and Kyiv citizens were supposed to be, he arrogantly replied that “It is not proper for him to obey the decisions of the bishop, the rector or the minister”(1096)

At the beginning of the thirteenth century the term stinks was in use to refer to the rural population as a whole. Describing one of the battles in Galicia in 1221, the chronicler notes: “A boyar must take a boyar as a prisoner, a smerd must take a smerda, a city dweller must take a city dweller.”

In Kievan Rus IX - XII centuries. Estates have not yet been formed - closed groups of the population with rights and responsibilities inherent only to them. Classes are characterized by heredity of status and the presence of obstacles that make it difficult to move to another social group. Among the ancient Russian population, no class differences can be found. However, sources (primarily chronicles and the most ancient code of laws) make it possible to detect segments of the population that are separated by property, functional or professional characteristics. historical science They are usually called differently: categories, groups or strata of the population.

The incompleteness of social construction in Ancient Rus' also determined the diversity of terminology for designating certain categories of townspeople and peasants. The entire population of Rus' can be divided into free and dependent; In all this, outcasts constituted a special category. In turn, within the framework of the free population, a ruling stratum is distinguished by its legal and property status. Sources contemporary to the period under review always try to highlight the most influential group of the population, using the epithets “best”, “oldest”, “faded”, “front”, “deliberate”.

At the same time, the rest of the population is characterized as “younger”, “smaller”, “simple”, “black” people.

The highest elite layer of ancient Russian society was made up of princes, descended from the ancestor - Rurik. In many ways, the privileged position of the people of Ancient Rus' was determined by their closeness to the prince. One can discover several ways of forming the upper stratum - from the old family aristocracy, whose position in the new conditions could be preserved if they entered the circle of people close to the prince; from the top of the community (rich community members, elected officials); as well as from any category of the population thanks to the will of the prince. The prince could both elevate a person from the very bottom of society, and turn a free person into a slave (servant).

The dominant stratum of ancient Russian society included persons who are described in sources by the terms “boyars”, “ognishchans”, “princely men”, less often - “nobles”. The most ancient East Slavic legislation distinguished these people with two privileges: 1) their life was protected by a fine (vira) of 80 hryvnia, which is twice the fine for the murder of a simple free person (Article 3 “If someone kills a prince’s husband in a robbery, but does not look for the leader, then to pay a vernaya, in whose rope the head lies then 80 hryvnia” 2) they were subject to a special procedure for inheriting property, which presupposed the participation of female persons in the inheritance (daughters in the absence of sons).

The terms “boyars”, “ognishchans”, “princely men” meant practically one category of the population, whose high position was determined by proximity to the prince. The boyars, like the princely men, made up the princely squad. Ognishchanami in the XI-XIII centuries. called large landowners whose farms used slave labor. .

If you pay attention to the articles of the lengthy “Russkaya Pravda”, which, instead of the “ognishchanin” of the short “Russian Pravda”, talk about the “princely husband” or “fiery tiun”, then one can consider the ognishchanin precisely for the prince husband, and in particular for the tiun , the manager with the prince's slaves, that is, for the person preceding the later courtiers or butlers. The position of the latter was very high at the princely courts, and at the same time they could themselves be slaves. So, therefore, it is possible to mistake the Ognishchans for noble princely men; but it is doubtful that the Ognishchans were the highest class of zemstvo society.

Boyars and princes also became large land owners. The most powerful dominant stratum of the population of Ancient Rus' after the princes - the boyars - in the 11th century. no longer supplied a mass homogeneous in terms of property and prestige status. Thus, the boyars of the prince and the boyars of the prince’s sons, the “great” boyars and the “lesser” boyars are mentioned. Over time, the term “boyars” was transferred to the non-service (not serving in the squad) nobility, while at the same time the concept of “prince husband” extended only to people in the princely service. And in general, the boyars in the period under review did not yet constitute a separate class; researchers note that in addition to these privileges, the boyars had no other legal differences from free people; the sons of the boyars did not necessarily receive a high status by inheritance.

The wealth of another fairly influential layer of the population of Ancient Rus' - merchants and aunts - was of a different origin. Guests in Rus' were called traders engaged in international trade, or foreign and out-of-town merchants.

And division is emerging among the merchants. The “most senior” or “oldest” merchants play a noticeable role in public life: they are invited by princes to meetings with firemen and warriors, take part in diplomatic missions, and promote military actions. In the 12th century The creation of merchant organizations is noted (“Ivanovo Sto” in Novgorod). However, in legal terms, the merchants did not stand out in any way from the bulk of the free population: “Even if you kill your husband... if you are a Rusin, or a Grid, any merchant, any Tivun boyar, any swordsman, any outcast, or Slovenian, then 40 hryvnia will be paid for "Large "Russian Truth" (i.e., for the murder of a merchant, a fine of 40 hryvnia was exacted, as for the murder of any free person).

The largest segment of the population of Kievan Rus was made up of free community members - people, black people or smerds. There are still ongoing disputes in science regarding the property and personal rights of smerds, caused mainly by the lack of accurate characteristics of this segment of the population in the sources.

The prince gave the smerd land on the condition that he would work for him. In the event of the death of a smerd who had no sons, the land returned to the prince. For his right to own an independent farm, the smerd paid tribute to the prince. For the debts, the stink was in danger of becoming a feudal-dependent purchase. With the development of feudalism, the role of smerds in Kievan Rus decreased. It should be noted that sources provide very little information about smerdas. According to Pokrovsky S.A., “the stink of “Russkaya Pravda”, like a commoner, an ordinary citizen, is everywhere presented by “Russkaya Pravda” as a free person, unlimited in his legal capacity.” Sverdlov M.B. considers the most fruitful division of smerds into personally free and feudal-dependent. .

Quite definitely, only the rural population was called smerds - in relation to the entire simple free population (including urban ones) the term “black people” was used. Urban black people were farmers, small traders or artisans. Black people in cities could form their own communities - hundreds led by elected centurions.

The position of artisans was higher than that of farmers, as evidenced by the norms of “Russian Pravda” - the fine for killing a craftsman was 12 hryvnia, and for killing a stinker - 5 hryvnia. . Craftsmen were divided into princely and zemstvo. They settled in groups based on similar professions. This is how entire districts and streets of the city were formed: Goncharnyi end (Novgorod), Kozhemyaki (Kyiv), Shchitnaya street (Novgorod) and so on.

At this time, differentiation of the craft occurs, more wealthy craftsmen are identified, who, perhaps, own a place at the auction and sell their products themselves, being both producers and traders.

Urban artisans also felt feudal oppression and often experienced dire need. Feudal lords sometimes owned artisans as serfs, and sometimes imposed quitrent on them.

The dependence of artisans on moneylenders was especially severe. The interest on the loan sometimes exceeded half the amount borrowed, and if it was impossible to repay the debt, the debtor fell into eternal bondage and was forced to pay usurious interest all the time, although total amount could already far exceed the original debt. Only the uprising of 1113 forced the feudal lords to change legislation in favor of people in need of loans.

Urban artisans were a great social force. There is indirect evidence that they united into corporations similar to Western European workshops, which, of course, strengthened the position of the “black people” of urban suburbs. A completely powerless category of the ancient Russian population were serfs (woman - servant - robe). Serfs are characterized not as a subject, but as an object of law: in essence, they were property, slaves and did not have legal capacity. For the murder of a slave, the usual fine was not imposed: “And there is no virus in the slave and in the robe: but if the serf is killed without guilt, then pay for the slave a lesson, or for the robe, and 12 hryvnia sales to the prince.” .

Serfs were the property of their masters, and ancient Russian legislation did not interfere with the relationship between masters and slaves. But the owner must be responsible for the actions of his slave to third parties. If illegal actions were carried out by a slave with the knowledge of the owner, the latter had to fully compensate for all losses. If the slave acted on his own initiative, then the master was required to either pay for the losses or hand the slave over to the victim. The legislation provided for an indefinite search for fugitive slaves:

“And in the slave and the robe there is judgment from time immemorial.” The sources of servility are divided into two groups:

• 1) when a free person turned out to be a slave against his will,
• 2) when a person became a slave of his own free will.

The first group includes captivity, crime and failure to pay debt. A free person could voluntarily become a slave by selling himself in the presence of a witness, by marrying a rob, or by entering the service of a tiun or housekeeper. They also became slaves by birth. Already from the list of sources of servility it is clear that for one reason or another people from different segments of the population lost their personal freedom. The economic and property status of the slaves also turned out to be different.

Slaves were employed in all industries master's farm- in management, in craft and agricultural production, in serving the master and his court, in foreign trade relations. The number of serfs could include firemen and tiuns, who occupied a fairly high position in ancient Russian society.

More common name The slaves of Ancient Rus' were servants (singular "servants"). Apparently, initially this term denoted all categories of people who were captured: they could be used in the prince’s household or sold. Later, servants began to be called all categories of people who had lost their personal freedom.

The social system of Kievan Rus, in addition to serfs and servants, knows other categories of personally dependent people, whose dependence was temporary. First of all, these are purchases that became dependent through a loan (“for a purchase”), which had to be worked off on the master’s farm. A significant difference between purchases and slaves was their right to sue the master. The master could not punish the purchaser for no reason and take away his property. His master was responsible for procurement misconduct. In this case, the purchase could be turned into servitude. Similar in form of dependence to purchases were hirelings (hired to work off a monetary debt with interest), ryadovichi (contracting a contract with their owner), and vdacha (receiving a loan of grain).

A special category of the population of Ancient Rus' were the so-called outcasts. The appearance of outcasts, that is, people who, for one reason or another, had lost ties with their social stratum, was a widespread phenomenon, covering all segments of the population.

Those who left the community turned into outcasts; slaves bought out of slavery, bankrupt merchants; sons of a clergyman who were unable to read and write.

Old Russian legislation protected the outcast as a free person: “But if you kill... an outcast... then you’ll pay 40 hryvnia.” .

The church charters of the princes describe the composition of the church society as follows: “And these are the church people: the abbot, the abbess, the priest, the deacon and their children, and those who are in the wing: the priest, the monk, the chernitsa, the marshmallow, the pilgrim, the sveshchegas, the watchman, the blind, the lame, widow, freedman (i.e. freed according to a spiritual will), outcasts (i.e. persons who have lost civil rights); monasteries, hospitals, hotels, hospices, then church people, almshouses.” The church hierarchy is in charge of all these people with the administration and the court: “Either the metropolitan or the bishop knows whether there is a trial or an insult.” The church creates a firm social position for outcasts and slaves and all its people, gives them the rights of citizenship, but at the same time removes them completely from secular society. Thus, the motley structure of ancient Russian society with numerous categories of the population endowed with different legal status indicates the incompleteness of social processes. In socio-economic terms, Kievan Rus was characterized by a combination of several structures (patriarchal, feudal, slaveholding), which was reflected in the social system.

Social structure of Ancient Rus' February 19th, 2015

The formation of the Old Russian state on the territory of settlement of the Eastern Slavs occurred during the periodIX, Xcenturies This process occurred in parallel with the decomposition of the tribal system. In some areas, for example in the Kiev and Novgorod principalities, a developed social structure already existed byIX century In other areas, at the same time, tribal relations dominated. In parallel with the formation of the state, the fairly homogeneous social structure of the Slavic tribes was stratified and privileged classes were identified. In the initial period, while the norms of the tribal system were alive, the emerging class structure was quite soft. Moving to a more privileged class (with the exception of the princely class) for personal merit was common. Over time, the class structure became more and more rigid.

The upper class in Ancient Rus' were princes. Historically, princes were formed from tribal leaders during the period of disintegration of the tribal system. In turn, the princes were divided into great and appanage. Until the 12th century Grand Duke was the ruler of the Old Russian state. In the 12th century Kievan Rus split into several great principalities, actually not subordinate to a single center. From that time on, the rulers of the great principalities began to be called grand dukes. Appanage princes had a subordinate position in relation to the great ones and ruled the appanage principality allocated to them.

The second-ranking privileged class were boyars. This group was formed from zemstvo And princely boyars. The zemstvo boyars were the best people of each land (elders, large landowners). Princely boyars or princely men were members of the prince's senior squad. Since the 11th century, the distinction has been erased, due to the fact that the princely boyars settled on the land and became landowners, and the zemstvo boyars, through palace services, passed into the category of princely husbands. The lands belonging to the boyars were called votchina and were passed on by inheritance. As a rule, along with lands, the boyars owned a large amount forced people(slaves, servants).

Nextafter the boyars class there were vigilantes, or junior squad. The junior squad included the prince's servants, who were both in the army and at court in minor court positions. Depending on the position held and internal status, the younger warriors were called otroki, detskie, gridi, chad, etc. Since the 12thIin the name used for junior warriors servants. Since the 15th century, junior warriors have been called nobles. The privileged classes also included the clergy (before the 10th century, magicians, since the 10th century, priests).

Representatives of the lower free class were called People and made up the bulk of the population of Ancient Rus'. It included merchants, artisans, the free rural population and free townspeople. If necessary, it was from this class that the militia was formed, which was the most numerous military force of the Old Russian state.


The next class includes stinkers And procurement. The position of this class was intermediate between free people and slaves. The smerds were either princely or state (in the case of the Novgorod Republic) peasants. They owned plots of land, which they could pass on by inheritance. They had no right to leave the land. In the absence of heirs, the land went to the prince. The purchases included people who entered into an agreement with the feudal lord and became dependent on debts. During the period of working off the debt, purchases became quite dependent on the feudal lord.

The lowest class was the slave. The slaves were called serfs And servants. Serfs included slaves from the local population. It was possible to fall into slavery for crimes, for debts, as a result of selling oneself in the presence of witnesses, as a result of marrying a slave or servant. Children born as slaves also became serfs. The servants included slaves captured as a result of military campaigns against neighboring tribes and states.