The Old Russian state in the assessments of modern historians. Chapter II. Feudal relations in Ancient Rus'

(de lion @ 10/22/2015 - time: 19:51)
(Theophylact @ 10/17/2015 - time: 00:04)
What are you saying! Therefore, there were no boyars, and there was no service class, there were no princes and counts... That is, there was no one?
If we consider Rus' in the same period of time when there was feudalism in Europe, i.e. in the Middle Ages, there was no feudal ladder, if only for the reason that the Russian principalities belonged to members of one family - the Rurikids. There was a struggle between the Tsar Rurikovich and the Rurik princes for centuries to preserve/destroy the laddered system of inheritance of power (not to be confused with the feudal ladder) - when the highest power in the state was inherited by the eldest brother, then not by his son, but by the second brother, and finally by the third , after which power passed to the son of the eldest brother (nephew of the third brother), and from the eldest nephew to the middle and youngest. Then everything was repeated in a circle. At the same time, all other princes moved one step higher on the ladder of power, which was expressed in moving to a more significant reign. From which it is clear that these princes initially did not have a hereditary principality, which they would pass on to their sons - i.e. feud. This system became outdated in the 12th century, but existed 200 years longer. Along with it, a system of hereditary ownership of the throne arose. The confrontation between supporters and opponents of these systems even led to internecine war in the 15th century. One way or another, the ownership of the state by one family, even if the princes are constantly fighting with each other, is in no way similar to the feudal fragmentation of Europe, where fiefs belonged to various aristocratic families on the basis of hereditary land ownership. Landowners cannot be considered feudal lords, because the land did not belong to them at all, but was given for temporary possession while they served the state. The children of the boyars were indeed initially landowners, and could even receive the rank of boyar (a boyar is, in general, a rank, not a title, unlike a prince, that is, it was not always inherited), but by the 16th century. the boyars' children slid to the lowest position in the service class - after the landowners, and some of them became single-painters, i.e. became equal to the peasants (paid taxes). They don't look like feudal lords either. The only ones who can be called a feudal lord are the boyars. They are not Rurikovichs and owned the land hereditarily. But there weren’t enough of them to make up the class of feudal lords (and feudal lords, I want to point out, are a class. How could classes exist simultaneously with estates? I can’t imagine). And besides, boyar landownership was constantly declining, and under Ivan the Terrible it was legally equalized with landownership. In general, there was no basis for the existence of feudal lords in Russia. It is until the 18th century. was an extremely socialized country, ownership of private property was almost nominal. It was a classless class society. And feudalism is a class society.
By the way, the princely squad was in Kievan Rus a little later. She was fed at the expense of the treasury.
Only the senior squad (the prince's closest advisers) had land plots. But these were not ordinary soldiers, but in our understanding – ministers. Then among the Moscow tsars the squad was replaced by archers, and among the princes and boyars - military serfs (mostly slaves - professional military men who sold themselves into slavery). Both of them received payment/maintenance from the treasury (of the king or prince/boyar). Landowners-nobles were fed at the expense of rent. And they are not feudal lords, because... did not own the land, but only used it.
And I repeat that yes, in Rus' there was a lot of free land without a master - this is an important anti-feudal factor.
In reply Theophylact in addition to his disagreement with the above, I asked me to support the conclusions about the absence of feudalism in Rus' with references to any sources, works of historians, which I will do in the next post.

This message has been edited de loin - 29-10-2015 - 09:28

In old Russian historiography for a long time the prevailing trend was one that generally denied the existence in our history of social and economic relations that characterized the era of feudalism in Europe.

At present, this direction has been refuted, and, on the contrary, the question of the presence of feudal relations in Russian history has been completely resolved. Priority in this matter belongs to V.I. Lenin, who back in the 90s of the 19th century. in the works “What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?” and especially in “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” he not only clearly defined the historical boundaries of the origin of feudal relations and the process of “enslavement” of the smerds back in Kievan Rus of the 10th century, but also gave a coherent theory of the feudal-serf economic system. It would be wrong to completely identify the development of Russian feudalism and its political, social and economic structure with the development of these forms in the West, especially since in Western countries the type of feudal relations was often very different. As mentioned above, by the VIII-IX centuries. The primitive communal system had already been eliminated by the Eastern Slavs. A new level of development of productive forces, the transition to “arable”, sedentary and mass agriculture with the emergence of relations of personal, economic and land dependence gave new production relations a feudal character, highlighting the former leadership groups of the tribal aristocracy, tribal princes, military squads as large landowners. Further development ancient society In Rus', therefore, it went mainly not along the path of slavery, but along the path of feudalization. The external impetus that strengthened and formalized this process was partly of a military nature here too - military invasions into the ununited Slavic lands of eastern and western peoples. At the same time, as Marx put it, there was an assimilation of the “forms of society” of the conquerors who settled in the country with the forms of society and with the productive forces that they found in the country. This assimilation took place during the 9th-10th centuries. on the basis of the final collapse of the old society and the emergence of new forms of class society and its feudalization.

Until now, as we see, this process in its main features repeats the path of the emergence of feudalism in the West. But here there are significant differences. First of all, the military penetration of the Normans and other nationalities into the Slavic lands, in terms of its strength and the mass of the conquerors themselves, was weaker than the penetration of the Germans into Rome and was not accompanied by the confiscation of almost all the land from the conquered, as was the case in ancient Rome. Eastern peoples were nomads and did not settle on the earth. The Varangians were also not, like the Germans, large agricultural tribes with a complex military-tribal organization, who came with the goal of conquering and taking away, first of all, the land. These were small bands of Vikings, half-robbers, half-merchants, who at first were least interested in land, agriculture and land ownership. They, in the words of the newest historian of Russian feudalism, “could not penetrate the thickness of the conquered society, could not rebuild it, but quickly took advantage of what was easiest to take.” And in terms of the level of development of productive forces and public relations the Slavic peoples who inhabited the East European Plain were different from the Romans. The peoples who settled on the territory of the former Roman Empire and around it already dealt with a huge part of the territory being occupied and economically developed (of course, within the limits of the technical capabilities of that time). The number of new claimants to the land was very large, and there were few free spaces for any kind of “free colonization”. The main forms of population and salaries therefore came mainly in the form of redistribution, confiscation, partial or complete expropriation of land both from the former large owners and from small farmers. On this basis, the process of feudalization proceeded especially easily and quickly and all sorts of forms of both personal and economic land dependence of the small farmer and hierarchical relations of feudal lords were created.

In ancient Rus' there was no such massive process of forced expropriation of land by conquerors. Even much later, the economic development of the land by the prince and his warriors often took place through the seizure of vast expanses of free, uninhabited and economically undeveloped land. Moreover, the bulk of the agricultural population had such an important instrument for preserving their land rights under the conditions of the era as the land community. Of course, all this could not prevent the growth of land dependence and bondage, since the seizure of free and cultivable land quickly progressed, and the “free” but weak stink, who often had neither livestock, nor tools of production, nor even means of food, was unable to either raise new and unoccupied land, or go in search of new lands independent of the feudal lord. That is why the state that was formed Slavic tribes by the middle of the 9th century, for another century and a half it did not receive the completed features of feudalism. In this regard, Marx’s opinion about the significance of the Varangians in the genesis of Russian feudalism is remarkable in its correctness and depth: its features, in Marx’s opinion, were “the primitiveness of the organization of the Norman conquests - vassalage without fiefs and fiefs consisting only of tribute.” In other words, both the nature of the relations of the Norman newcomers to the Slavic society, and the internal relations of the Norman squads themselves created at the beginning (in the “conquering” period, in Marx’s terminology, the 9th-10th centuries) significant features in the pace and course of development of relations typical of feudalism vassal dependence and feudal hierarchy on the basis of land ownership, land fiefs, etc. Using Engels’ instructions about the “free franc”, which stood in the way of the feudalization of society in the West, we can say that the “free Slav” - the farmer with his peasant land community for a long time limited the depth and progress of the process of feudalization. Feudal relations in Slavic society during this period were limited only to “tribute” to the princes and their squads. At the first stages, this was reflected in the slowness of the very completion of the process of feudalization, and later in the less depth of the political forms of feudalism, which in Russia did not achieve the transformation of patrimonial owners into completely independent and independent local “sovereigns” and barons, as in the West. In this regard, the lasting formation of a single feudal-serf Russian state, which always had vast expanses of free land and could feel more independent of local patrimonial lords, began faster. It took them into its “service”, destroying the isolation of individual parts of the feudal economy. It is clear that the duration of this historical era, covering several centuries, determined not only the variety of changing forms of state formations of ancient Russia, but also the difference in their economic forms. Therefore, although we unite this entire era as the economic system of feudalism-serfdom with its basic and typical economic form - the closed and isolated economy of the feudal-serf estate, with its special method of production and with the typical feudal-serf relations emerging around it, nevertheless , we must remember that these relations must have undergone significant changes during the many centuries of their existence. As was said above in relation to the countries of Western Europe, feudal relations in Russia were different in their development in the initial period of Kievan Rus and at the end of this public education, just as they were different in the appanage Rostov-Suzdal and Moscow Rus' of the 12th-13th centuries. They finally got it special forms in the Russian state of the XVI-XVIII centuries. and in absolutist Russia in the 18th-19th centuries.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

1. Prerequisites

2. Concepts of the origin of feudal relations

3. The position of peasants and feudal lords in the XIII - XV centuries

4. The difference between feudal relations in Rus' and Western Europe

Conclusion

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

The feudal mode of production among some peoples replaced the slave system, and among others the primitive one; in the latter case it was the first class formation.

“Feudal relations are the relations between land owners (feudal lords) and peasants. The feudal lords allocated land to the peasants, who ran their own farms on it. For the use of land, peasants performed feudal duties: labor on the feudal lord’s farm (corvee labor), food and monetary dues.”

In the ancient Russian state, the prince was the ruler of the land, which contributed to the development of feudal relations.

“The transition to feudal relations on the territory of our country first occurred in Transcaucasia, where in the 4th century. AD classes of feudal-dependent peasants and feudal lords emerged.”

Feudalism in Rus' had characteristic features that differed from those in Europe.

1. BACKGROUND

Since the time of the great migration of peoples, many barbarian states arose on the ruins of the Roman Empire; their development followed a different path: slavery gave way to the feudal period, in which kings, princes, and warriors exploited not powerless slaves, but community members who owned their farms.

After the formation of the Old Russian state, the Grand Duke, based on the principle “power gives birth to property,” becomes the supreme owner of all Russian land. Thus, we can talk about the emergence in Rus' of state ownership of land, on the basis of which feudal relations began to emerge.

The different composition of individual families that were part of patriarchal communities different levels their well-being and accumulated wealth, inequality of land developed on the basis of labor borrowing, etc. - all this created conditions for property and social stratification of the rural community. The tribal nobility used their wealth, their power and authority to subjugate their fellow tribesmen. “The princes and warriors turned the tribute collected from the rural people into a product sold in city markets. The growth of crafts and the development of trade undermined the foundations of primitive communal relations and contributed to the emergence and development of feudal relations.”3 The ruling elite, in ancient Russian sources, appears to us under the name of princes, warriors, boyars, etc., it grows out of the old tribal nobility. Accumulating valuables, seizing lands and holdings, creating a military squad organization, making campaigns to capture military booty and captives - the ancient Russian nobility broke away from tribal and communal associations and turned into a force standing above society and subjugating previously free and equal community members.

Thus, the basis arose and developed feudal society- feudal ownership of land.

2. CONCEPTS OF THE ORIGIN OF FEUDAL RELATIONS

In the Soviet historical science The concept of agriculture as the main occupation of the Eastern Slavs and the dominance of feudal relations among them was established at the beginning of the 9th century.

In the 60s of the 20th century, L. Cherepnin showed that feudal relations in Ancient Rus' arose not on the basis of patrimony, but on state ownership of land.

However, there were other opinions. Thus, I. Froyanov attempted to prove that feudalism in Rus' arose no earlier than the 13th century, and before that there was a tribal system.

According to V. Goremykina, in Rus' the slave system survived until the popular uprisings of the 11th and early 12th centuries, as a result of which they were replaced by feudal relations.

3. POSITION OF THE PEASANTS AND THE FEUDAL LORD IN THE XIII - XV CENTURIES

“Feudalism is an economic and social model in which the main social classes of people are feudal lords (landowners) and the peasantry economically dependent on them; feudal lords are bound to each other by a specific type of legal obligation known as the feudal ladder.”

The main form of large feudal land ownership in Rus' in the 14th century was patrimony: princely, boyar, church.

(Votchina is land that belonged to the feudal lord by right of hereditary use. This land could be sold, exchanged, but only to relatives or other owners of the estates.)

The involvement of the entire rural population in the system of feudal relations led to the disappearance of many terms that in the past denoted various categories of the rural population (“people”, “smerds”, “outcasts”), and the emergence by the end of the 15th century of a new term “peasant” - a word of Russian origin , originally a Christian, a person; since the 14th century, the peasantry is a collection of small agricultural producers conducting individual agriculture with the help of their families, which indicated the acquisition by various categories of the rural population of a number common features, characteristic of the peasantry as a class. This name has survived to this day.

However, even in the second half of the 15th century, the so-called “black” lands prevailed in northeastern Rus', which were characterized by communal land ownership of peasants with individual ownership of a personal plot and arable land, as well as the presence of elected peasant volost self-government under the control of the princely administration. Large tracts of black lands were located in the northern regions of the country, where feudal land ownership was just beginning to penetrate. There were 2 categories of peasants: “black” peasants and landowner peasants. The former lived in communities that did not belong to individual feudal lords, while the latter lived on allotment lands in a feudal fiefdom system. The owning peasants were personally dependent on the feudal lord. But the degree of this dependence varied in different regions. The peasants still retained the right to freely transfer from one feudal lord to another, but in practice this right was most often formal.

In the 14th century, the system of the Russian feudal hierarchy included four descending levels. On the top step sat the great princes - the supreme rulers of the Russian land. The second level was occupied by the vassals of the Grand Duke - appanage princes who had the rights of sovereign rulers within the limits of their destinies. At the third stage were the vassals of appanage princes - boyars and service princes who had lost their appanage rights, in other words, large feudal landowners. At the lowest level of the feudal hierarchy were the servants who managed the princely household and made up the princely and boyar administration.

In order to quickly develop and more successfully exploit the fiefdom, as well as to have military support, the owners of the fiefdom transferred part of the land to their vassals under certain conditions. Such land ownership was called conditional, service or local.

During the same period (XIV century), church land ownership expanded very quickly. The Russian princes were interested in supporting the church, so they replaced tithes (taxes paid in money or kind) with land distributions. Land ownership and wealth of the monasteries also grew because, unlike the lands of secular feudal lords, the lands of the monasteries were not divided among the heirs, as was the case after the death of the secular landowner. The most famous among Russian monasteries was the Trinity Monastery, founded by Sergius of Radonezh.

The economic basis of feudalism is the ownership of land by the ruling class. By depriving the peasant of the right to own land and concentrating power and land in their own hands, the feudal lords were able to exploit the dependent peasantry by collecting land rent from them. Three forms of rent are known: corvee labor, the work of serfs in favor of the feudal lord. Mainly for the provision of part of the land for their use and for obligated labor; quitrent - payment of tribute to the landowner in money; grocery - a type of tax paid in products. The change in the form of rent was due to the development of the productive forces of feudal society.

4. DIFFERENCES IN FEUDAL RELATIONS IN Rus' AND WESTERN EUROPE

At the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, more than two centuries of struggle of the Russian people for their state unity and national independence ended with the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow into a single state. Despite the commonality of the socio-economic and political facts underlying the state-political centralization that took place in the 13th - 15th centuries in many European countries, the formation of the Russian centralized state had its own significant features.

The catastrophic consequences of the Mongol invasion delayed the economic development of Rus' and marked the beginning of its lag behind the advanced Western European countries that escaped the Mongol yoke. Rus' bore the brunt of the Mongol invasion. Its consequences greatly contributed to the conservation feudal fragmentation and the strengthening of feudal serf relations. The Russian state was formed during the XIV-XV centuries on a feudal basis in conditions of the growth of feudal land ownership and economy, the development of serfdom and the aggravation of class struggle.

As a result, at the end of the 15th century, the unification process ended with the formation of a feudal-serf monarchy. The emergence of state ownership of land in Rus' was one of the features of the development of feudalism in Rus' in comparison with Western Europe, where the basis of feudal relations was at first corporate and then private ownership of land. In Western Europe, where feudalism developed on the basis of private land ownership, the original form was labor rent. Since ancient Russian princes did not have its own economy, then in Rus' at first a natural-monetary rent appeared, which arose on the basis of tribute as a military indemnity from the subject population. Under feudalism, land owners could transfer part of it, usually for service, into conditional holding to other persons who received feudal rent from the peasants. On this basis, relations of suzerainty and vassalage developed between the owners of land and its conditional holders, which were of a legal contractual nature in the countries of Western Europe. Since in Rus' until about the middle of the 9th century there was no private agriculture, and the princes and warriors did not have their own farms, the princes transferred to individual elders and warriors the right to collect tribute from the subject population, i.e., they shared part of the feudal rent with them. Unlike Western European feudal lords, Russian boyars received estates only from the prince and only for service. They were interested in strengthening the grand ducal power and unifying the Russian lands, since their possessions were scattered throughout the vast territory that belonged to Moscow. Unlike Western Europe, where cities played an active and independent role in political life, in Rus' they were in a subordinate position in relation to the feudal nobility.

CONCLUSION

feudal attitude russ

Feudalism is a socio-economic concept that completely denies the supreme political power. The economic side of this phenomenon was present in Rus' to a certain extent, which was reflected in the specific fragmentation of the principalities and the partial immunity of the boyars. The social and political characteristics of Rus', on the contrary, were in no way feudal: Rus' was still perceived as a kind of unity, and some of its fragmentation was considered harmful to the state as a whole.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. “History of the Fatherland”, T. F. Ermolenko; 2006

2. “History of the USSR”, B. A. Rybakova; 1987

3. “History of the USSR”, A. I. Kozachenko; 1983

4. http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1163851

5. “History of Russia”, Sh. M. Munchaev, V.M. Ustinov; 2001

6. Directory “History of the Fatherland” by L. F. Katsva 2001

7. “History of Russia” M. M. Gorinov 2005

8. “History of Russia” A. S. Orlov, V. A. Georgiev 2007

9. “History of Russia” A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev 2011

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Basic types and features of feudal systems. Genesis and development of the feudal economy (using the example of the Frankish state). Classic model of feudal economy in France. Features of feudalism in Russia. Characteristics of the feudal economy of England.

course work, added 11/14/2013


The problem of the emergence of feudal relations in Europe. The remnants of the consanguineous community of Germans in Lex Salica, yielding under the pressure of newly created feudal relations and processes of class formation. Study of new trends in relations between the Franks.

report, added 06/24/2014


Development of feudal land tenure and feudal relations in Kievan Rus. Legal status of feudal lords. Privileges of the nobility according to Russian Truth. Legal status of smerds and purchases according to Russian Pravda. Legal status of servants, slaves, forgiven people, outcasts.

course work, added 05/05/2015


State educational processes in Eastern Europe during the Middle Ages. Prerequisites for the rise of Novogorod. Forms of feudal property in the Principality of Lithuania. The growth of feudal land ownership in the XV-XVI centuries. The role of peasants in the feudal economy.

abstract, added 04/27/2011


History of the feudal system in Asia and Africa. The problem of the emergence of feudal relations in the countries of the East. Discussions on Chinese history. The emergence of elements of feudalism in the conditions of a primitive communal pre-class system and in a slave society.

abstract, added 07/10/2010


Military organization and armies of feudal states. The Armed Forces of Russia and their participation in the wars of the XIII-XVII centuries. Characteristics of the armed forces and methods of recruitment, armament and organization of the armies of feudal states in different periods feudalism.

abstract, added 04/25/2010


The development of patrimonial land ownership, the enslavement of peasants and the establishment of feudal relations. Development of the feudal city, craft production and trade. The largest Russian lands. Consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. Reasons for the rise of Moscow.

test, added 11/10/2009


Works by B.A. Rybakov, dedicated to the formation of the system of feudal relations during the period of the existence of Kievan Rus (IX–XII centuries). B. Rybakov’s views on the strengthening and reorganization of the system of feudal relations during the period of fragmentation of the Russian principalities.

abstract, added 03/23/2016


Development of feudal relations in the 7th-12th centuries. Forms of feudal exploitation. Feudal states of India, structure of society and the role of Hinduism. Formation of the Delhi Sultanate, its political system. The power of the Great Mongol and the reforms of Shah Akbar.

course work, added 03/05/2011


The process of formation of feudal relations in Rus'. Economy of feudal Russia. The transition to the estate and its consequences. Enslavement of the peasants. City, craft and trades. State industry. The birth of manufacture. Formation of the All-Russian market.

The formation and development of feudal economic relations was predetermined by various factors. These include climatic conditions, the nature of the political system, legal status classes and social strata in society, established customs and traditions.

In the 8th - 9th centuries, the Eastern Slavs experienced major economic, political and social changes. In the economy, crafts were separated from arable farming and cattle breeding, which became independent industries economic activity. Trade and various crafts developed. Based on property inequality and differentiation of economic activities, the Slavs experienced a complication of social structure society and class formation.

On the question of the nature of economic relations in Ancient Rus' in scientific literature There were different points of view. Some authors believe that pre-feudal economic relations existed in the ancient Russian state, however, most researchers consider the economy of Kievan Rus to be early feudal, since it was characterized to one degree or another by the following features: a combination of large land ownership with the subordination of small peasant farms; granting special rights to land ownership to service people performing military or public service; class organization of society and hierarchy in the ruling class.

In Kievan Rus, the transition to feudalism occurred as a result of the decomposition of primitive communal relations. At the initial stage of development of feudal relations, as in other European countries, direct producers were subordinated state power. In parallel with this, the formation of individual large-scale land ownership took place. Large feudal land ownership developed in Rus' in the form of princely, boyar estates and church (monastic) estates. Such lands were given the right of transfer by inheritance. The peasants living on them became land dependent on the feudal lord and paid him rent in kind for the use of the land or worked off corvée.

Compared with primitive system feudalism was a more progressive mode of production. The peasants had their own farms and were to a certain extent interested in the results of their labor. The relationship of domination and subordination between the feudal lord and the peasant served as a condition for the growth of production. Under feudalism, the social division of labor increased, new branches of agriculture arose, land cultivation improved, crafts, trade, and cities developed.

The development of arable farming instead of hoe farming, the growth of crafts and cities contributed to the growth of labor productivity, the development private property, the emergence of classes and the state. Changes that took place in the nature of the productive forces and in the social sphere led to the formation of early feudal relations among the Slavic peoples.

The period of early feudalism was characterized further development arable farming. Agriculture developed in breadth due to the development of new lands, as well as through the improvement of agricultural tools and the use of two-field and three-field farming systems. However, in general, the agrotechnical level of farming remained low.

Craft in the Old Russian state was an independent branch of economic activity. In the 9th – 11th centuries. Many craft specialties were known. Among the artisans were blacksmiths, gunsmiths, jewelers, potters, and minters. Craftsmen produced more than 150 types of different products from iron alone. Kyiv craftsmen were skilled in metal forging, welding, steel hardening, welding, and casting. Instead of a cheese furnace, an iron foundry appears.

The growth of the social division of labor contributed to the development of domestic and foreign trade. In the cities they traded bread, salt, handicrafts, furs, wax, and hemp. Kievan Rus traded with the Caspian and Black Sea states and with Byzantium. Slavic merchants exported wax, honey, furs, handicrafts, and imported silk fabrics, cloth, velvet, gold, silver, spices, and wine. However, trade did not yet occupy a significant place in the national economy, since the economy was of a subsistence nature.

The development of trade led to the emergence of monetary relations. In ancient times, the Slavic peoples used livestock, expensive furs, and then foreign coins as money in exchange. At the end of the 10th century. Rus' began to mint its own coins. The hryvnia became the monetary unit - a silver ingot of a certain weight and shape. The hryvnia usually weighed 400 grams, it was cut in half, and each half was called a ruble. In turn, the ruble was divided into half and quarters. However, throughout the entire period of Kievan Rus, the use of foreign coins continued, since there was no own production of gold and silver.

In the ancient Russian state, a certain tax system developed. In late autumn, the prince and his retinue traveled around their possessions in order to collect tribute from them. This detour by the prince of his vassal possessions was called polyudye. The collection of tribute continued throughout the winter and ended in early spring. The furs of marten, ermine, squirrels, wax, flax, clothing, and food were collected as tribute. The unit of taxation was “smoke”, i.e. every residential building. Initially, tribute collection was not fixed. However, after the Drevlyan uprising in 945, Princess Olga established a fixed procedure for collecting tribute.

In Kievan Rus already in the 11th century. there was a system of credit relations. In “Russkaya Pravda” there are such concepts as long-term and short-term credit, trade on credit, profit. This regulatory document determined the procedure for debt collection. There were cases of intentional and accidental damage to property. Interest on the loan was not regulated at the beginning. Subsequently, Prince Vladimir Monomakh adopted the “Charter on Res,” in which debt interest did not exceed 20% per annum, and debt slavery was prohibited.

The growth of agriculture, crafts and trade contributed to the development of ancient Russian cities. Cities arose, as a rule, at trade crossroads and water transport routes. In Ancient Rus', fortified cities were created in order to protect against external enemies and to develop trade. Cities became administrative, trade, craft and religious centers.

In the process of the formation of feudal relations in Rus', various forms of land ownership were formed. The leading one was patrimonial, which meant large feudal land ownership on the basis of property rights. Small plots of land were owned by Smerd peasants. The main trend in the development of land relations of this period was the expansion of feudal property at the expense of free lands and the possessions of smerds. Feudal lords, using economic and non-economic methods, strengthen their monopoly ownership of land. In parallel with this, the layer of feudal-dependent population expanded. Small peasant farm it was very unstable due to crop failures, raids by nomads, military campaigns, and government levies. The peasants were forced to turn to the feudal lord for help, entering into an obligatory relationship with him. The loan agreement was fulfilled by performing work on the lands of the feudal lord with interest. For the duration of the contract, the peasants became dependent on their lender and, if they did not fulfill the terms of the contract, they could lose their personal freedom. The economic and political insecurity of the peasants predetermined the formation of early feudal relations and the formation of various categories of dependent population.

The development of feudal relations formed the conditions for their entry into new stage- the stage of feudal fragmentation, which is natural for all countries of early feudalism. In the middle of the 12th century, the unified Old Russian state broke up into a number of independent principalities. Economic and political conditions, the natural nature of the economy allowed individual Slavic lands to conduct independent economies and develop on the basis of self-sufficiency and self-sufficiency. Economic ties between individual principalities were sporadic. On the lands of the Slavic peoples, economically closed areas developed, within which agricultural products were exchanged for handicrafts.

At this time, economic development was controversial nature. Natural conditions allowed the development of agriculture, crafts and exchange. There was economic growth in independent principalities, but at the same time, the economic isolation of individual territories restrained the growth of productive forces. Economic development was hampered by constant internecine wars. The difficulties of economic development during the period of fragmentation increased under the conditions of the establishment of the Mongol- Tatar yoke over the Slavic peoples. The conquered Russian lands fell into economic and political dependence. Economic dependence meant that the population was obliged to pay an annual tribute in silver and property. The collection of tribute was carried out by special detachments of Baskaks, who often destroyed economies, cities and trade. Later, the collection of tribute was carried out by Russian princes. In addition, the population performed military, pit, and horse-drawn duties and was obliged to pay high trade duties.

Due to the devastation of the southwestern Kyiv lands by the Tatar-Mongols, arable farming gradually moved to the northeast. This process was explained by the relative safety of farming in these areas. They were surrounded by forests and were far from the Golden Horde. Economic and political rise allowed the Principality of Moscow, which had an advantageous geographical location, to assume the role of political leader in the process of unifying the Russian lands.

In the scientific literature there are different opinions about the influence of the Tatar-Mongols on the economic and political development of the Slavic principalities. Over the past two centuries, there has been debate on these issues. A number of researchers attach great importance Mongol influence on Rus'. In their opinion, the Principality of Moscow owes its greatness to the khans of the Golden Horde. Other researchers deny the importance of Mongol influence on internal development Rus'. In modern scientific literature, two main points of view have emerged. According to one of them, the Tatar-Mongol yoke had a negative impact on the Slavic principalities and became a disaster for the Russian lands. During this period, there was a massive migration of Slavs, and the process of forming a new economic center in the northwestern lands, which were less convenient for economic development, was underway. The economic and political role of cities sharply decreased, the power of the princes over the population increased, and there was some reorientation in the policy of the Russian princes to the East. The Mongol-Tatar invasion caused particular damage to the cities. Many of them were destroyed, others experienced a deep economic crisis. During the Mongol-Tatar invasion, a number of craft specialties disappeared. Trade ties between Western Europe and the East were disrupted. The development of agriculture and forms of land ownership slowed down.

The Mongol-Tatar yoke preserved the stage of feudal fragmentation in Rus' for more than two centuries. The transition to a centralized state occurred with a significant time lag compared to Western European countries.

Researchers who hold a different point of view on the influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke argue that the Mongols destroyed only those cities that stood in their way, did not leave garrisons, did not establish permanent power, Orthodox religion and the churches were not touched. Moreover, during the period of yoke, the Eastern Slavs mastered the economic experience and culture of another people.

The idea of ​​feudalism in Rus' was first expressed by A.L. Schletser (in his Nestor, vol. II, p. 7). Of the later scholars, feudalism was assumed by N.S. Artsybashev (The Tale of Russia), N.A. Polevoy (History of Russian people), I.I. Evers (Dr. Russian law), K.D. Kavelin (Look at legal life), A.S. Klevanov (On feudalism in Rus'), I.E. Andreevsky (About revenge) and I.I. Sreznevsky (Izv. Acad. Nauk. T. III. P. 264), N.I. Kostomarov in his latest study (On the beginning of autocracy in ancient Rus'; see Vestn. Evr. 1870. 11 and 12) allows us to have feudalism in its general characteristics, as one of the results of the Tatar conquest" (Leontovich. The friendly-communal nature of life of Dr. . Russia. J. M. N. Pr. 1874, June. P. 203-204).

Kulisher(History of the Russian National Economy. T. I, M., 1925. pp. 109 - 111) gives the following summary of the views expressed in our literature on feudalism:

“The presence in Ancient Rus' of various features characteristic of feudalism, especially the role and importance of immunity, was also pointed out by Chicherin, Solovyov, Kavelin, Nevolin, B. Milyutin, although they did not try to compare our institutions with Western European ones; they especially emphasized the nature of feudal building Kostomarov, who found it since the time of the Tatar invasion and saw it in the fragmentation of power between the princes, with the formation of higher and lower levels with a certain subordination of the second to the first.No, he also called the emergence of the feudal system a product of the Tatar conquest, and in the same way its cessation is attributed to the disappearance of the Tatar yoke (“The beginning of autocracy in Ancient Rus'”)... The relations that developed during the appanage period to Klyuchevsky resembled feudal orders, but in them he saw “not similar phenomena, but only parallel ones.” (Course of Russian history, vol. I, lecture 20- I). Rozhkov found that “although feudalism in its final form never existed in Russia, its embryos were... characteristic of our fatherland” (“City and Village”; "Review of Russian History"; "Russian History", vol. III).

Pavlov-Silvansky has the enormous merit of clarifying the issue of feudalism in Ancient Rus' through a detailed comparison of the characteristic phenomena of Russian life with the corresponding institutions in the West, as a result of which he was able to establish the position that we have everything in Rus' the most important signs feudal organization fragmentation of the supreme power, seigneurial system, vassal hierarchy, service from the land, immunity, protection-patronage, victory of the boyars over the community (Feudalism in ancient Rus', 1907; Feudalism in appanage Rus', 1910). Although he was accused of pushing too hard general Russia and the West phenomena and mainly meant legal, and not economic phenomena, characteristic of feudalism, disagreed with him on various particular issues, yet the vast majority of researchers could not help but recognize the correctness of his position, that it is impossible to talk about the originality of the Russian historical process and deny the existence of feudal orders in Rus' (see bibliography: Articles, notes, reviews of his first book in Appendix II to Volume III of his Works).

"This point of view is taken by: Taranovsky ("Feudalism in Russia", 1902), Kareev "In what sense can we talk about the existence of feudalism in Russia?", 1910), Pokrovsky (Russian history, vol. I, History of Russian culture, vol. . I), Plekhanov (History of Russian social thought, 1914), Oganovsky (Patterns of agrarian evolution, 1911), M.M. Kovalevsky ("Past Years", 1908. Vol. 1) and a number of other authors."

Disagree with Pavlov-Silvansky: Vladimirsky-Budanov; he does not consider the facts cited by Pavlov-Silvansky to be feudalism, known to Western Europe (Review of the History of Russian Law); Sergeevich believes that there were harbingers of feudalism, but they were weak (Antiquities of Russian Law. T. III, 1903. P. 469-475); Miliukov (Feudalism in North-Eastern Rus'. Enc. Words. Brok. - Ephraim, half volume 70) “is ready to admit the existence in our country of the main features of the medieval system of Western Europe and the presence of feudalism in the generic sense, but due to the difference in species, he does not consider it possible to name Russian version of this term." Comp. even more early works Pavlov-Silvansky: “Pawnbroking and Patronage” (St. Petersburg, 1897); “Immunity in appanage Rus'” (St. Petersburg, 1900 and “Feudal relations in appanage Rus'” (St. Petersburg, 1901). Also: Lyubavsky. Feudalism in the Lithuanian-Russian state (Enc. words. Brock, - Efr., half 70) ; in North-Eastern Rus' (Ancient Russian history until the end of the 16th century, pp. 173 - 181). Kareev. Estate-state and class monarchy of the Middle Ages. St. Petersburg, 1906 - P.B. Struve. Did it exist in Ancient Rus''s feudal legal order? "Collection of the Russian Institute in Prague. Prague, 1929. S. G. Pushkarev. Russia and Europe in their historical past. "Eurasian Temporary", book V (1927): there was no feudalism in Ancient Rus'.

In the works Pavlov-Silvansky the theory of feudalism in Rus' found its most vivid expression; No one before him had raised the question so acutely and collected so much evidence in favor of the existence of the feudal system not only in Western Europe, but also in Ancient Rus'. Here are his main thoughts and provisions (I quote his last work from 1910):

1. Boyar lynching (immunity) existed in Rus', as in the West: a privileged landowner (boyar, monastery) was not subject to the jurisdiction of the prince's court and administration; he and all the people living on his land were free from taxes, duties and duties in favor of the treasury or officials. “Princely governors, volostels and lower provincial officials: tiuns, closers, duty officers, customs officers are deprived of the right to “enter the outskirts” of a monastery or secular patrimony” (p. 265, 266).

2. The conditions for granting immunity privileges are also similar (p. 282): they were given, as a favor, a grant (beneficium), although, in essence, granting letters, as in the West, only consolidated a fact that had grown in its own right, regardless of the will of the person granting (p. 295).

3. Mortgaging- corresponds to Western European commendation. Pavlov-Silvansky categorically disputes the prevailing scientific idea of ​​mortgaging as “a personal mortgage, as a self-mortgage, about collateral dependence under a mortgage contract” - mortgaging, he objects, is “entry into protective dependence, giving oneself not for bail, but for protection strong man", "behind the ridge" of which he thus becomes."

4. With the development of the settled way of life of the princes in the 12th century, the princely squad also became settled, turning into boyars and landowner servants. The boyar service of the allotted time, according to its main principles, created a position similar to the position of a Western European vassal. Just as in the West, vassals are obliged to go on campaign at the first call of their master, to perform court and civil service, our boyars and the prince’s servants perform the same service. And just as in the West “the choice of the lord depended solely on the desire of the vassal servants,” so “the boyar, a military servant, was just like a warrior, free servant his prince-lord. He reserved the right, at any time, at his own discretion, to sever his official connection with his master" (p. 357).

5. In the West, the lord was obliged to provide his vassal with protection, to help him financially, to place him in a privileged position - and in our country, free military servants-landowners enjoyed the right to the personal court of the Grand Duke or his appointed boyar, and received material assistance in the form of land and profitable positions (benefits - salaries)".

6. “The spiritual rulers of our antiquity, metropolitans and archbishops, bear the sharp, undeniable features of feudal lords. Just like Western European spiritual feudal lords, they are surrounded by a staff of secular military servants-landowners, boyars and boyars’ children, serving them on the same conditions, on which other boyars and boyars’ children serve the great princes.”

7. Russian patrimony and estate correspond in the West to allod and feud: the nature of both institutions is the same in both cases

8. The most characteristic feature of feudalism is the disunity of the country, the fragmentation of power, its transfer to the landowners - a phenomenon observed both here and here (p. 405).

Objections Vladimirsky-Budanov(Review of the history of Russian law, 5th ed., pp. 292 - 298):

1. “Pavlov-Silvansky nowhere raises the question of how his theory relates to the currently established views on the history of Russian public order. In essence, his theory does not introduce an addition or amendment to existing views, but a complete revision of the prevailing historical and political dogma, or, more precisely, its destruction to its deepest foundations" (p. 293).

2. It is erroneous to assert that in the pre-Mongol period the political system of Rus' was, as in the system of Western feudalism, built on personal subordination, i.e. on vassalage - it was built on subordination territorial: on the relationship of older cities to suburbs (p. 294).

3. The feudal order presupposes the existence of class privileges - in the pre-Mongol period, Rus' did not know them (p. 295).

4. “Ancient Rus' does not know boyar possessions with state rights; princely warriors (this is the main similarity of feudal vassals) at first did not possess land property at all. Immunity, no matter how widely it was used in Rus', indeed did not turn into sovereignty. Princes did not purchased sovereign rights, and temporarily saved some of them; these rights did not increase, but, on the contrary, decreased over time” (p. 296).

5. “In our country, not a single feeder turned into a sovereign: feeding was given for a very short period of time - one, two years” (p. 297).

6. “The whole theory is a matter of the future,” but for now we have before us “a huge number historical facts who disagree with this theory; or, at least, not yet reconciled with it. Selected now individual facts do not yet denote feudalism, familiar to us from the history of medieval Western Europe, but the world-historical phenomenon of mixing public and private principles of law, which is observed in pre-reform Japan, and in Central Asian tarkhans, and in ancient Roman clientage, and in Byzantine estates" (with 298).

See also the academician's instructions Struve: service in the West was carried out from the feud, not from the allod, i.e. not from estates, which “did not count and were not taken into account in the feudal service”; Meanwhile, Russian free servants served the prince, sitting on their estates, and, while retaining the right of departure, were not deprived of them if they left the service. “Boyars and free servants served in Ancient Rus' on completely different principles than Western European vassals. The service of the former, as vassal servants, was not connected with their “salary”: on the contrary, the latter was a necessary basis and condition for the service of the latter. That is why the former had "the right of initially unrestricted departure and refusal. For the latter, departure and refusal, if possible, was associated with loss of salary. In this sense, legally and in fact, the Western feudal order was fundamentally different from the order of the ancient Russian free service." Thus, in the relationship between the sovereign and his servant there was no “that obligation of mutual fidelity that constituted the soul and determined the spirit of feudal law” (pp. 397, 399, 402).

Comp. still expressed Kostomarov:"From the half of the 12th century to the end of the 15th century, Rus' experienced a period of feudalism." This was not the order known in the West under the name feudal, but it was, similar to it, “a political system when the entire region is in the hands of the rulers, who constitute themselves as inferior and higher levels with a certain kind of subordination of the lower to the higher and with the supreme head above all. Such a system existed in Rus' completely." Russian feudalism begins with the advent of the Tatars: "The supreme ruler, conqueror and owner of Rus', the khan, correctly called the Russian Tsar, distributed lands and estates to the princes, and on these lands they naturally found themselves in an unequal relationship with each other: alone those who owned the former suburbs were lower, others who were in the main cities were higher. Above all of them was the eldest or grand duke. The lesser princes were in such dependence on the great ones, which reminds us of the feudal ladder in the West. Obliged to pay the Grand Duke the Tatar tribute due from them for transfer according to their affiliation, they were also obliged to be ready to provide military assistance to the Grand Duke at his call." But "such a feudal system could exist and was strong only as long as it was strong and active the power of the Horde." The Tatar yoke ended, so did feudalism in Rus' (The beginning of autocracy in Ancient Rus'. Bulletin of Europe, 1870, December, Chapter VIII. Works. Vol. XII).

See also the collection of “Literary opinions on the issue of the influence of the Tatar yoke on the Russian state and society”, P. Smirnov, in “Russian History”, ed. Dovnar-Zapolsky. T. I: the opinions of other researchers are also given here.

Shmurlo Evgeniy Frantsevich (1853 - 1934) Russian scientist-historian, corresponding member Russian Academy Sciences, Professor at St. Petersburg and Dorpat Universities. 4th Chairman of the Imperial Russian Historical Society.