The main layers of the ancient Russian population. Social structure of ancient Rus' - military history

The population of Kievan Rus was one of the largest in Europe. Its main cities - Kyiv and Novgorod - were home to several tens of thousands of people. These are not small towns by modern standards, but, given the one-story buildings, the area of ​​these cities was not small. The urban population played a vital role in the political life of the country - all free men participated in the assembly.

Political life in the state affected the rural population much less, but the peasants, who remained free, had elected self-government longer than the townspeople.

Historians distinguish the population groups of Kievan Rus according to the “Russian Truth”. According to this law, the main population of Rus' was free peasants, called “people”. Over time, more and more people became smerds - another group of the population of Rus', which included peasants dependent on the prince. Smerd, like an ordinary person, as a result of captivity, debts, etc. could become a servant (later name - serf). Serfs were essentially slaves and were completely powerless. In the 12th century, purchases appeared - part-time slaves who could buy themselves out of slavery. It is believed that there were still not so many slave slaves in Rus', but it is likely that the slave trade flourished in relations with Byzantium. “Russian Truth” also singles out ordinary people and outcasts. The former were somewhere at the level of serfs, and the latter were in a state of uncertainty (slaves who received freedom, people expelled from the community, etc.).

A significant group of the population of Rus' were artisans. By the 12th century there were more than 60 specialties. Rus' exported not only raw materials, but also fabrics, weapons and other handicrafts. Merchants were also city dwellers. In those days, long-distance and international trade meant good military training. Initially, warriors were also good warriors. However, with the development of the state apparatus, they gradually changed their qualifications, becoming officials. However, combat training was needed by the vigilantes, despite the bureaucratic work. From the squad, the boyars stood out - those closest to the prince and rich warriors. By the end of the existence of Kievan Rus, the boyars became largely independent vassals; the structure of their possessions as a whole repeated the state structure (their own land, their own squad, their own slaves, etc.).

Categories of the population and their position

The Kyiv prince is the ruling elite of society.

The squad is the administrative apparatus and the main military force of the Old Russian state. Their most important duty was to ensure the collection of tribute from the population.

Elder (boyars) - The closest associates and advisers of the prince, with them the prince first of all “thought” about all matters, resolved the most important issues. The prince also appointed boyars as posadniks (representing the power of the Kyiv prince, belonging to the “senior” warriors of the prince, who concentrated in his hands both military-administrative and judicial power, and administered justice). They were in charge of individual branches of the princely economy.

Younger (youths) - Ordinary soldiers who were the military support of the mayor’s power.

Clergy - The clergy lived in monasteries, the monks abandoned worldly pleasures, lived very poorly, in labor and prayer.

Dependent peasants - Slave position. Servants - slaves-prisoners of war, serfs were recruited from the local environment.

Serfs (servants) - These were people who became dependent on the landowner for debts and worked until the debt was repaid. Purchases occupied an intermediate position between slaves and free people. The purchase had the right to buy out by repaying the loan.

Purchases - Due to need, they entered into contracts with feudal lords and performed various works according to this series. They often acted as minor administrative agents for their masters.

Ryadovichi - Conquered tribes who paid tribute.

Smerda - Prisoners placed on the ground who bore duties in favor of the prince.

In the Old Russian state, the main occupation was agriculture, and the main wealth was land. The land was the joint property of the community and was divided among all families in the community. Community farmers paid tribute to the state for the use of land.

Feudal relations began to appear. The first feudal lords were PRINCES. They appropriated “communal” lands for themselves or declared vacant lands their property, built mansions and outbuildings on their personal property, established stables, and fisheries. Special people were appointed to manage their own households - stewards. The princes began to grant land holdings to the warriors and the church. The first ones appear fiefdoms- hereditary land holdings. The owner was the prince. He could grant the estate for service and could take it away.

All people in the Old Russian state formed a single society, but it was not homogeneous. Depending on occupation, ancient Russian society was divided into two large categories: free and dependent. Available- these are the prince, warriors, merchants, church ministers, communal peasants. But a dependent population also appeared: smerdas - villagers who bore duties to the prince, purchasers - bankrupt community members who went into debt bondage for a loan, interest worked off the landowner's field, ordinary people, serfs - powerless slaves.

That. The reign of Yaroslav the Wise was the heyday of Rus'. He paid a lot of attention to internal and external affairs of the state , Time passed and the slow formation of feudal property.

Appendix 2.

"Finest Hour". Extracurricular activity - an intellectual game in the 6th grade dedicated to February 23 and March 8.

Lesson objectives:

determining the level of knowledge, skills and abilities;

their comprehensive application, broadening the horizons of students;

development of logical thinking, cultivate accuracy, speed of reaction.

Lesson type: testing knowledge, skills, abilities.

Lesson structure:

Introductory speech from the teacher (7 minutes).

Game (40 minutes).

Summing up the lesson (13 minutes).

“Today is an unusual event, today you have “Finest Hour” - a game where everyone can express themselves. Listen to the rules of the game.” (Congratulations to the male and female halves on the holidays)

8 people are participating - 4 boys and 4 girls. The rest are participants in the game.

The game is played in four rounds:

I round - “Give the correct answer” 8 people.

Round II - “Words” 6 people.

III round - “Logical chains” 4 people.

IV round – Final 2 people.

I round – theme “Commanders”

1. M. Kutuzov. 2. M. Platonov. 3. A. Suvorov. 4. A. Nevsky. 5. G. Zhukov. 6. D. Donskoy.

Questions:

1. The prince who defeated the German crusading knights on the ice of Lake Chukchi? (4 - A. Nevsky)

2. Which commander commanded the Russian army during the war with the French in 1812? (1 - M. Kutuzov)

3. Whose words: “It’s hard to learn, but it’s easy to fight” (3 - A. Suvorov)

4. Grandson of Prince I. Kalita, who refused to pay tribute to the Golden Horde. (6 - D. Donskoy)

Topic “Military equipment”

1. Cannon. 2. Grenade. 3. Mine. 4. Machine gun 5. Tank. 6. Automatic.

A weapon used to create an explosion. (3 - mine)

Tracked armored combat vehicle. (5 - tank)

Limonka. (2 - grenade)

An artillery weapon named after a woman. (1 gun)

Theme “Flowers”

1. Cornflower. 2. Carnations. 3. Snowdrops. 4. Lilies of the valley. 5. Rose. 6. Dandelion.

Riddle questions:

1. Even at night there is an ant

Will not miss his home:

The path is illuminated by lanterns until dawn.

On large pillars in a row

White lamps are hanging. (4 - lilies of the valley)

2. A friend came out from under the snow

And suddenly it smelled like spring. (3 - snowdrop)

3. On a green fragile leg

The ball grew near the path.

The breeze rustled

And dispelled this ball. (6 - dandelion)

4. Everyone knows us:

Bright as a flame.

We are namesakes

With small clusters,

Admire the wild

Scarlet... (2 - carnations)

5. Rye is earing in the field,

There you will find a flower in the rye.

Bright blue and fluffy,

It's just a pity that it's not fragrant. (1 - cornflower)

6. Lovely beauty

Only afraid of frost

Do we all like it in the bouquet?

What flower? (5 - rose)

(Those with fewer other stars are eliminated from the game)

2.2. Legal status of rank-and-file employees and procurement. 17

3. Legal status of the lower strata of the population of Ancient Rus'. 23

3.1. Legal status of servants and slaves. 23

3.2. Legal status of forgiven and outcasts. 27

Introduction

Speaking about the topic of the legal status of certain social groups of the population in Ancient Rus', it is necessary to highlight the fundamental provisions that determined the importance and relevance of the research being carried out. The democratization of our society and the appeal to universal humanistic values ​​are associated with the study of history. It is necessary to know the origins of ideas, the struggle of opinions, to be able to accurately and impartially analyze the past in order to identify promising historical trends and the logic of development, and determine ways to further improve the economic and socio-political structure of society.

Currently, heated discussions are arising about various institutions in the history of the social structure: the relationship between the collective nature of Russian agriculture (community) and individual peasant farming (family farming); forms of ownership and method of organizing the workforce; determinants of development of productive forces in agricultural production; cooperation and integration in the agro-industrial complex; the relationship between property and political power, etc. Practical conclusions can contribute to achieving the highest results in socio-economic production and the effective functioning of the economy.

Since ancient times, the basis of the Russian economy has been agriculture. Many modern phenomena and actions are carried out on the basis of the historical past. Therefore, to understand the present, you need to know history.

The purpose of the course work is to consider and analyze the legal status of certain social groups of the population in Ancient Rus'.

Coursework objectives:

– consider the social system of the Old Russian state,

–list the types of social groups and their legal status,

– analyze the political, cultural and economic stratification in the Old Russian state.

Object of study: socio-economic and socio-legal differentiation of the population in Ancient Rus'.

Subject of research: the legal status of certain social groups of the population in Ancient Rus'.

The course work uses the following principles and methods:

The scientific principle is manifested in the fact that the course work uses sources, the authenticity and accuracy of which at this time is not in doubt;

The principle of objectivity lies in the fact that the course work used printed materials reflecting different versions and views on the process of formation of ancient Russian feudal law;

The method of historicism was reflected in the fact that we considered Old Russian feudal law both in the dynamics of our own development (the process of codification) and in the context of the development of the Old Russian state as a whole;

The formal legal method consists of a formal legal analysis of events and facts of legal significance;

The bibliographic method is based on the fact that in order to write the course work, scientific and educational literature devoted to the history of the ancient Russian state and law of the 9th - 16th centuries was studied and analyzed.

When writing the course work, the texts of treaties between Rus' and Byzantium and Russian Truth, as well as educational literature, monographs and articles from specialized periodicals were used as sources.

1. Social structure and legal status of the feudal population of Ancient Rus'

1.1. Social structure of the population of Ancient Rus'

To characterize the socio-political system of Ancient Rus', which is schematically presented in Figure 1, you can use such sources as the Russian Pravda code of laws.

Figure 1. Social structure of the population of Ancient Rus'

“Russkaya Pravda” calls the main population of the country free community members - lyudin or people (hence: collecting tribute from peasants - community members - polyudye).

"Russkaya Pravda", considering the people, indicates that they united into a rural community-rope. Verv had a certain territory, and there were separate economically independent families in it.

The second large group of the population is the Smerds. These may not be free or semi-free princely tributaries. Smerd had no right to leave his property to indirect heirs. It was handed over to the prince. With the development of feudal relations, this category of population increased at the expense of free community members.

The third group of the population is slaves. They are known by different names: servants, serfs. Servants is an early name, serfs - a later one. "Russian Truth" shows slaves completely without rights. A slave had no right to be a witness in court. The owner was not responsible for his murder. Not only the slave, but also everyone who helped him was punished for escaping.

There were two types of slavery - complete and incomplete. Sources of complete slavery: captivity, selling oneself into slavery, marrying a slave or marrying a slave; entering the service of the prince as tiun, housekeeper, military headman and failure to conclude an agreement, etc. However, total slavery was not uniform. The bulk of slaves performed menial work. Their heads were valued at 5 hryvnia. Slaves—overseers, managers, and housekeepers—were on another rung of the social ladder. The head of the princely tiun was valued at 80 hryvnia; he could already act as a witness at the trial.

Partial slaves-purchases appeared in the 12th century. A purchase is a bankrupt community member who went into debt bondage for a certain loan (kupa). He worked as a servant or in the fields. Zakup was deprived of personal freedom, but he retained his own farm and could redeem himself by repaying the debt.

A small group of the dependent population of Rus' were the ryadovichi. Their lives were also protected by a five-hryvnia fine. Perhaps these were tiuns, housekeepers, elders, husbands of slaves, etc. who had not gone into servitude. Judging by the Russkaya Pravda, they were petty administrative agents.

Another small group is outcasts, people who have lost their social status: slaves who were set free, community members expelled from the ropes, etc. Apparently, outcasts joined the ranks of city artisans or the princely squad, especially during the war.

A fairly large group of the population of Rus' were artisans. As the social division of labor grew, cities became centers for the development of crafts. By the 12th century there were over 60 craft specialties; Russian artisans sometimes produced more than 150 types of iron products. Not only flax, furs, honey, wax, but also linen fabrics, weapons, silverware, spindle whorls and other goods went to the foreign market.

The growth of cities and the development of handicrafts is associated with the activities of such a group of the population as merchants. Already in 944, a Russian-Byzantine treaty allowed us to affirm the existence of an independent merchant profession. It should be remembered that every merchant in those days was also a warrior. Both warriors and merchants had one patron - the god of cattle Veles. Important trade routes along the Dnieper and Volga ran through Rus'. Russian merchants traded in Byzantium, in the Arab states and in Europe.

Free residents of cities enjoyed the legal protection of Russian Pravda; they were covered by all articles on the protection of honor, dignity and life. The merchant class played a special role. It early began to unite into corporations (guilds), called hundreds.

It is also necessary to highlight such a group of the population of Ancient Rus' as warriors (“men”). The warriors lived at the prince's court, participated in military campaigns and collected tribute. The princely squad is an integral part of the administrative apparatus. The squad was heterogeneous. The closest warriors formed a permanent council, the “Duma.” They were called boyars. The prince consulted with them on important state affairs (the adoption of Orthodoxy by Vladimir; Igor, having received an offer from Byzantium to take tribute and abandon the campaign, convened a squad and began to consult, etc.). Senior warriors could also have their own squad. Subsequently, the boyars acted as governors.

Junior vigilantes performed the duties of bailiffs, fine collectors, etc. The princely warriors formed the basis of the emerging class of feudal lords.

The squad was a permanent military force that replaced the general arming of the people. But people's militias played a big role in wars for a long time.

1.2. Features of the legal status of feudal lords

In the process of development of feudal relations, the process of transformation of the tribal nobility into land owners and feudal lords took place everywhere. Direct seizures of communal lands contributed to the growth of feudal land ownership and accelerated the formation of a class of feudal lords.

The highest social group in Kievan Rus were the great and appanage princes. They were the largest landowners in Rus'. There is not a single article in Russkaya Pravda that directly defines the prince’s legal status. And this, apparently, there was no need. The concentration of legislative, executive, military and judicial power in his hands made him the supreme owner of all lands that were part of the principality. One of the initial ways to establish princely ownership of land was the financial and administrative reform of Princess Olga. By abolishing polyudye and replacing it with certain rates of tribute and other duties, she thereby marked the beginning of the transformation of tribute into feudal rent. Another way to establish the prince's ownership of land was the construction of cities on the outskirts of princely villages, where princes exploited serfs and landless peasantry: purchasers, outcasts, etc.

Further development of the princely domain followed the line of gradual consolidation of princely cities and volosts with cities and volosts located in the general administrative system of the land - principalities.
The Kyiv princes, in the process of their legislative activities, sought to create rules of law that would secure their right to land, the exploitation of peasants, and the protection and protection of the property of feudal lords. The boyars, as the top of the feudal class, sought to formalize their legal status, securing for themselves a number of privileges.

Initially, the right to own land was granted to the prince's vassals for the period of service, but over time they achieved the transformation of this right into hereditary. The possessions of feudal lords began to be called estates. And “Russian Truth”, as a code of feudal law, sensitively stood guard over the protection of feudal ownership of land. “Russian Truth” paid great attention to the protection of feudal land ownership. For damaging boundary signs in side forests, for plowing up field boundaries (Articles 71, 72), for destroying a tree with a boundary sign (Article 73), a sale of 12 hryvnia was required, while for the murder of a peasant (smerda) the fine was only 5 hryvnia (Article 18).

A lot of articles are devoted to the protection of the property of feudal lords. Yes, Art. 83 prescribed flooding and plunder (conversion of the criminal and his family members into slavery and confiscation of all property) for arson of residential and non-residential premises (yard, threshing floor), Art. 35 - for horse stealing. For the deliberate destruction of livestock under Art. 84, a fine of 12 hryvnia was collected in favor of the prince and the damage to the owner was compensated (lesson). For cutting down a bevel tree (Article 75) - 3 hryvnia fine for the prince and half a hryvnia for the owner.

Of all the crimes against property rights, the main attention in “Russian Pravda” was paid to theft (tatba) (Tatba is the secret theft of someone else’s property). The most serious types of theft were considered to be theft from closed premises (Articles 41, 43). The class rationale for enhanced protection of property in enclosed spaces is enshrined in Art. 41, 42, 43, 44 liability for complicity in theft.

The “Russian Truth” talks in detail about the responsibility for the theft of a wide variety of types of property. We can say that the law protected everything that was in the feudal lord’s household: a horse, a pig, a hawk, a dog, hay, firewood, bread, buildings, arable land, etc. .d. The issues of protecting the property rights of feudal lords to serfs are regulated in exceptional detail, the procedure for finding and detaining a runaway serf (Article 32), his return to the owner, as well as responsibility for his harboring or assistance is determined in detail (Articles 112, 113, 115 , 144).

The class essence of ancient Russian law is especially clearly expressed in the norms protecting the life and health of representatives of the feudal class, distinguishing them as a special privileged class. In "Russian Truth" there are no rules defining responsibility for the murder of the prince. But it was, of course, punishable by death. For the murder of feudal lords and members of the princely administration, a fine was established in the amount of 80 hryvnia (Article 3).
Obviously, the protection of the personality and honor of the boyars was generally ensured by more severe punishments than the punishments according to the “Russian Truth”, which were often established by the prince, based on each individual case. Thus, “Metropolitan Justice” says that “the prince’s chapter has been removed for dishonor.”
For the murder of a common man, junior princely warriors and junior princely servants - 40 hryvnia; for the murder of a free woman - 20 hryvnia (Article 88); for the murder of arable and rural tiuns, breadwinners and artisans - 12 hryvnia (Article 13. 15, 17). The murder of feudal-dependent people entailed a significantly smaller punishment of 5 hryvnia (Articles 14 and 15). For the murder of slaves of all categories, no vire was collected at all; monetary compensation was paid to the owner of the slave (Article 89).

The fine for the murder of a feudal lord was so great that it was impossible to pay it with the help of one peasant farm (80 hryvnia was equal to the cost of 23 mares or 40 cows, or 400 rams). Therefore, "Russian Truth" established in some cases the payment of vira by all members of the peasant community - wild vira (Articles 3 - 6). “Russian Truth” protected the health of the feudal lord, firmly observing the principle of feudal law, according to which beating was considered a more serious crime than inflicting wounds with a weapon. Thus, for inflicting a wound with a sword, even the most serious one, the same fine was imposed (Article 30) as for a blow to the face or a blow with a stick (Article 31).

The establishment of such norms will become understandable if we consider that the armed men most often were representatives of the feudal class, and the peasant could only use his fist or stick. The basic principle of feudal law - the right of privilege - is also reflected in norms that can be conditionally attributed to the norms of civil law.

A different procedure for inheriting property after the death of boyars and after the death of smerds was established. If the smerd did not leave sons behind, then his property went to the prince (v. 90). The property of the warriors and boyars did not go to the prince - in the absence of sons, his daughters inherited it (Article 91).
With the adoption of Christianity in Rus', a clergy began to emerge. Churches and monasteries acquired plots of land and populated them with dependent people. The clergy were exempt from paying tribute and taxes, their legal status was regulated by various church rights (Helmsmen's books, nomocanons).

The reason for such significant disagreements in conclusions about the nature of smerds is the small number of news about smerds in sources of the 11th-13th centuries. and the possibility of different, sometimes contradictory, interpretations of such messages. Meanwhile, there is news that can only be interpreted as evidence of free deaths.

Thus, in the first chronicle mention of smerds, it is reported that after the reign in Kiev in 1016, Yaroslav awarded his Novgorod army: “... 10 hryvnia for the elders, and 10 hryvnia for the smerd, and 10 hryvnia for everyone from Novgorod.” When interpreting the Smerds as a free rural population, this message is perceived as a reward from the elders, the village militia - the Smerds for help after the bloody massacre of the Novgorodians for their uprising against the Varangians. When defining smerds only as dependents, the question arises: why did Yaroslav, attracting Novgorodian townspeople into the army, but ignoring the surrounding free population, recruited warriors among slave slaves, planted on the ground, and slave servants (smerds, according to A.A. Zimin ) or among the “external smerds” - “foreign-speaking tribes allied with Yaroslav, who had nothing to do with the rural population of Kievan Rus as such.” A.A. Zimin, without answering this question, writes only about the inferiority of smerds, which follows from the large difference in remuneration. AND I. Froyanov gives a different definition of “external smerds” - they “act in the role of conquered tribes, subject to tribute, which was not feudal rent, but was the most common type of robbery at that time.”

Another message that testifies to the smerds as the bulk of the free population is the proud statement of Vladimir Monomakh in the “Instruction”:

“... and I did not let the bad stink and the wretched widow offend the powerful.” The reference to the “bad smerda” who is “offended” by the “strong” indicates that the smerdas were not slaves who were protected by the power and authority of the master, but free people, owners of individual farms; They, as well as single widows, also personally free, were attacked by the “strong”, and the prince provided them with a fair trial.

The social status of the smerds is revealed in the charter of Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavich, in which “the village of Vitoslavlipy, and the smerds, and the fields of Ushkovo” were transferred into the possession of the Novgorod Panteleimon monastery. According to L.V. Cherepnin, “smerds are state peasants who perform duties in relation to the prince and the city (Novgorod) according to the allocation of communal authorities,” who were now supposed to bear duties on the monastic authorities.

The legal status of smerds as personally free is evidenced by Art. 45 and 46 of the Long Edition of Russian Pravda (hereinafter referred to as PP). Art. 45: “And behold the cattle…. then you stink, you already have to pay the prince for the sale”; Art. 46: “Already the servant will blow, the court prince. Even if there are serfs... the prince will not execute them by selling them, since they are not free, then he will have to pay the plaintiff twice for the insult.”

The interpretation of news about smerds as personally free reveals the content of messages about smerds, suggesting their interpretation as free and unfree, combines data from the 11th-13th centuries, testifying to smerds as the bulk of the free rural population, the socio-economic and legal status of which is determined as follows :

1) according to the socio-economic status of a smerd - a farmer who owns a horse, an “estate” and according to the official materials of the 14th century. freely alienable land; 2) the smerd is under the jurisdiction and “subjection” of “its” prince; 3) he participates in the prince’s foot army, his horses are mobilized for war; 4) princely legal protection should ensure the independence of the smerd, as well as other free, poor and humble people, from the “strong”; 5) as a free smerd, he pays the sale to the princely court for the crimes committed; 6) the smerd lives in the graveyard and pays a regular fixed tribute to the prince; 7) the escheated property of the smerd goes to the prince as the head of state, in whose person the right of supreme ownership of the feudal state to land was personified.

However, the smerds were subject to growing state exploitation through a system of taxes, judicial rules and sales. The “freedom” of smerds in feudal society acquired a different content than in pre-class society. If in the latter it had the positive content of full rights, then in the former “it denotes the absence of known forms of personal and material dependence of a person on the owner-landowner and becomes purely negative (“free” - non-serf). The change in the content of the “freedom” of the rural population was based on the developing new feudal system of social relations, the consequence of which was state forms of exploitation, the transfer of smerds to the master’s economy, the transition of smerds into various feudal types of dependence, carried out through non-economic and economic coercion and sanctioned by the legal norms of the feudal state .

At the same time, the thesis about the personally free state of Smerd farmers applies only to a part of the Smerds. This is evidenced by Art. 16 and 26 PP about the payment of the same amount of five hryvnia for the murder of a smerd and a slave. Although from the fact that serf and smerd are named next to each other and the same punishment is imposed for their murder, it does not follow that their legal and socio-economic status is the same.

As part of the master's household, along with the personally and economically dependent, there were probably also smerds, who had the status of free people, but were obliged to pay taxes to the master of the domain or patrimony.

Thus, it is possible to establish the initial forms of dependence of large masses of free farmers in the villages transferred to the master's economy. The nature of the changes in the economic and legal status of the free people who lived on patrimonial lands in the Carolingian period was formulated by F. Engels as follows: “Previously legally equal with their patrimonial owner, despite all their economic dependence on him, they now legally became his subjects. Economic subjugation received political sanction.

The fief becomes a lord, the holders become his homines; The “master” becomes the boss of the “man.” These socio-economic changes explain the peculiarities of the situation of smerds, independent in economic terms, under princely jurisdiction, but upon transition to the master's economy, they fell into the category of people for whom in the 11th-12th centuries. a five-hryvnia vira was paid.

The main tax of the Smerds who became private households was the tribute that had previously been collected by the prince as the head of state. In privately owned farms, the state tax also continued to be collected in favor of the prince - the gift (martens, which could be monetary units - kunas, a valuable source of wealth - furs). In the 15th century the gift was part of the quitrent in kind, which is seen as a further development of this feudal obligation, merged with the quitrent. This tax was also levied on free smerds.

Art. 25 and 26 KP, which are part of the princely domain charter, mark smerds along with ordinary people and slaves among the dependent population, the lowest fine is paid for them. But it does not follow from this that they were slaves. The low rate of fine for the murder of various types of dependents reflected the initial stage of legal registration of the emerging class of feudally dependent peasants. However, only this norm indicates the degraded position of domain smerds. In all other respects, they are probably equal to the smerds, for whom the 40-hryvnia vira continued to be paid.

Thus, it seems most fruitful to represent smerds - personally free and smerds - feudally dependent. Initially, the smerds were exploited on the master's farms, preserving the rights of the free. The worsening situation of the smerds, associated with the loss of the benefits of the hunting economy, captured by the boyar people, entailed, as V.A. writes. Anuchin, “their forced transition to agriculture. For even a very modest intensification of agriculture (the transition to a three-field system), smerds often had to turn to the prince, boyars, and later monasteries for loans... The obligation to pay debts in kind and in money forced smerds to work more diligently and improve tools and agricultural technology.” And this led to the development of crafts and agriculture.

2.2. Legal status of rank-and-file employees and procurement

A common term for the feudal-dependent peasantry in Kievan Rus was the term "purchase". The main source for studying procurement is the Long Edition of Russian Pravda.

Purchase of smerd, which is in feudal dependence on the master for a loan, i.e. depended on the “kupa” (loan) of the amount borrowed. The loan could include different values: land, livestock, grain, money. This debt had to be worked off, and there were no established standards or equivalents. The amount of work was determined by the lender, so as interest on the loan increased, bondage could intensify and continue for a long time. Only later in the Extensive Pravda (the Charter of Monomakh, an integral part of the PP) after the procurement uprising at the beginning of the 12th century, maximum interest rates on debt were established. The purchase directly lived on the lands of large landowners and was associated with agricultural work.

Zakup had his own property (perhaps even a horse) and in some cases could compensate for damage caused to the gentleman for whom he worked:
The purchase had a number of rights:

The law protected the person and property of the buyer, prohibiting the master from punishing him and taking away his property.

Zakup cannot be beaten and sold into slavery, but it was possible to beat him, but only for the cause.

If the purchaser steals something, the master can do with him according to his will: either, after the purchaser is caught, he pays (the victim) for the horse other (property) stolen by the purchaser, and turns him into his slave; or, if the master does not want to pay for the purchase, then let him sell it, and having first given it to the victim for a stolen horse or ox or for goods, he takes the rest for himself.

Could get freedom

Could turn to the protection of the princely court

A purchaser who did not want to remain with the master and went to court could gain freedom by returning “double the deposit” to the feudal lord, which was tantamount in practice to the complete impossibility of breaking with the master, since he also determined the size of his “deposit” to the purchase.

He could act as a witness, but in minor cases or in the absence of other witnesses.

However, the right of purchase not to be sold into slavery is very unstable, because could become a complete slave under two circumstances:

If the purchase runs away from the master (without paying him)
- If the purchase steals anything.

The hirelings - an intermediate position between free and feudally dependent peasants - were occupied by purchases - former smerds, who, for a number of reasons, lost their own farm and became dependent. The basis for the formation of categories of dependent peasantry is “purchase” - a form of agreement with the master. In Ancient Rus', the concept “hire” was used to mean “hired employee.” At the same time, the existence of the concept of “hire” - interest led to the creation of a form similar in name, but with a different content: “hire” is a person paying off a debt with interest. This can explain the use of the term “hire” as an equivalent to “purchase” in Art. 61.

Researchers assumed the existence of a series of agreements when concluding purchasing relationships, defining them as a hiring agreement or a loan agreement. On this basis, purchases were identified with the rank and file. A.A. Zimin considers both of them to be serfs-slaves who, earlier than others, “acquired the features of feudal dependence.” However, the economic and legal status of purchases makes it possible to note their significant differences from the status of slaves.

The term "ryadovich" is rarely mentioned in ancient Russian legal and regulatory sources. In the KP, Ryadovich is named in a group of articles where free and dependent people associated with the princely economy are indicated (Articles 22-27). For the murder of a ryadovich they paid 5 hryvnia (Article 25), as for a smerd and a serf (Article 26). This is the lowest fee. But in determining the essence of ryadovichi, the opinions of researchers differ, boiling down to two main points of view: ryadovich - “ordinary”, ordinary dependent or free; Ryadovich - free or dependent, who has entered into a row with his master.

When understanding the term “ryadovich” as “ordinary”, the terminological clarity of the legal code is preserved. However, the analysis of the texts of Art. 22-27 KP allows us to assume the independence of Article 25 with the indication of ryadovich, and, consequently, the difference between the concepts of “ryadovich”, “smerd” and “serf”. Moreover, it can be argued that Ryadovich is not a stinker and not a slave, although they paid the same amount for them. This is also evidenced by the location of Art. 14 about Ryadovich and Art. 16 about smerda and serfs in the PP (between them there is article 15 about artisans), which indicates that legislators did not attach importance to the connection between the articles about rank-and-file workers, on the one hand, and about smerdas and serfs, on the other.

The resolution of the Communist Party on ryadovichi was included in the PP (Article 14), but formulated more broadly: “And for a ryadovichi 5 hryvnia. The same goes for the boyars,” which indicates its relevance at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries. the question of protecting the life of Ryadovich. Although the text does not indicate the meaning of the social category “ryadovich” as the concept of “ordinary”, “ordinary” in relation to smerd or serf in Art. 25 and 26 KP, the independence of these terms allows us to establish that Ryadovich is not a stinker and not a slave.

There is a tradition to explain the term “ryadovich” through the concept of “row” as a legal term - an agreement - which was concluded between a free man, on the one hand, and a prince or boyar, on the other. In contrast to the most ancient social terms, which go back to the clan system and originate from the circle of family-tribal relations, the concept of “row” contains information about the establishment of a form of dependence (and in this it is similar to the name of another social category - procurement). Russian Truth indicates cases when, as a result of a series, relations of property and social dependence are established. A nearby agreement was accompanied by a loan of money at interest, the transfer of honey or grain with the condition of returning the debt in an increased amount, marriage to a robe and transfer to the tyunate with the condition of maintaining personal freedom (Articles 50, 110 PP). Judging by the presence of rumors obliging both parties to fulfill the terms of the series (Article 50), and the presence of a series protecting the person being ordered from servitude, both sides represented free people. Art. 110 (“whatever happens, it will cost the same”) indicates that when concluding a series, in addition to the condition of preserving the freedom of the orderer, there could be others that would make him dependent on the master.

Ryadovichi were involved in the sphere of the feudal domain, and therefore the price for them, as well as for smerds, was estimated at 5 hryvnia, but unlike purchases, they did not become its labor force. According to Daniil Zatochnik, the ryadovichi, along with the princely tiun, for whose murder under Art. 12 PP were paid the highest rate of 80 hryvnia, are the greatest danger for the neighbors of the princely village. Consequently, next to the princely tiun there were free tiun-governors, free, married to robes, but retaining freedom in the ranks, various kinds of property dependent, but personally free, ordering with the prince or his administration. The ryadovichi threatened the neighbors of the princely court or village, but they themselves were protected by the power of the prince, the real power of the princely estate.

In historiography, procurement also included the “dacha” of Article 111 of the PP, and in the interpretation of the term, the interpretation of the graphics of its writing became of great importance. When reading the word together, the term “vdacha” was obtained - dependent, who has not lost his freedom. When reading the words separately (“in the dacha”), “dacha” turned out to be an independent concept, interpreted as “bread”, “appendage”, “mercy”, for which it is forbidden to grovel a free person, while the term “dacha” turns out to be “imaginary”.

B st. 111 PP we are talking about a free person who is in a certain economic dependence, but with the preservation of all the rights of a free person. He freely leaves his master, returning the help he took from him - “mercy”. The “bread” and “appendage” received from the master cannot become the basis for turning him into a slave. Thus, Art. 111 PP indicates the formation in the 12th century. an institution close to the precarists, which covered a wide range of dependent smerds and merchants without losing their freedom in patrimonial farms. These people were victims of the social activity of princes and boyars and in their economic activities contributed to the further strengthening of the patrimonial economy.

3. Legal status of the lower strata of the population of Ancient Rus'

3.1. Legal status of servants and slaves

In Rus' in the 10th century. The concept of “servants” denoted a wide group of dependent people.

The assessment of these social categories is mostly unanimous: servants and serfs are slaves. The differences between a serf and a slave, which are in fact very close in legal status, can only be traced in a historical context, and not in a legal context alone.

When studying servants and serfs and their differences from slaves, the main thing is to determine their socio-economic status and the nature of exploitation.

Servants were mentioned in Russian-Byzantine treaties of the first half of the 10th century. The use of the term “servants” in the Communist Party indicates that it continued to be used in the public life of Ancient Rus'. The social content of this category is revealed in materials from written sources of the 11th-13th centuries.

According to Art. 11 KP, if a servant hides with a Varangian or a kolbyag, then the fugitive must be returned to the master, and the hider pays 3 hryvnia “for the insult.” Art. 16 KP defines the procedure for “recovery” if a runaway or stolen servant is identified, who was then sold or resold. At the same time, in the Communist Party, as in the Russian-Byzantine treaties, the term “servants” does not indicate a specific form of socio-economic dependence and use of the labor of servants. Art. 11 and 16 CP. are repeated in articles 32 and 38 PP, which indicates the continuing practice of these regulations. However, even in the PP the position of the servants in the master’s household is not explained, although it indicates other categories of the dependent population with a certain range of responsibilities in relation to the master and a specified social status.

This indicates that the term “servant”, which dates back to tribal society and refers to the younger members of a large family, in the 10th century. and later continued to be a broad concept to designate various types of categories of dependent population. According to A.A. Zimin, the old term “servant” in the princely charter, which was included in the Communist Party, was replaced by a new one - “serf”, which now meant “all categories of slaves”, and the term “servant” “for a whole century” disappeared from the chronicle and Russian Pravda. These terms coexisted as a designation for socially disadvantaged and then dependent people from the period of decomposition of tribal society. This is confirmed by the absence of the word “servant” in the articles of the princely domain charter, since it specifically lists categories of dependent people, and a general, depersonalizing term was inappropriate.

Art. 11 and 16 KP and the corresponding articles of the PP also indicate a significant expansion of the ownership of servants among the free population, since they report the struggle of broad sections of the free for servants. In the first half of the 10th century. “Polonyanik” and “Chelyadin” are clearly distinguished. From this we can assume that in the 11th century. to designate a captured person, the term “servant” began to be used instead of the term “polonyanik”, which remained in the vocabulary of church and translated monuments, and a dependent person who fell into “servantry” through captivity or another way began to be called a servant, and the word “servant” meant prisoners, regardless of their previous state before captivity.

Sources XI-XV centuries. testify to the difficult legal and actual position of the servants: they were sold and given away, passed on by inheritance (Article 90 PP), tortured, for the murder of the servants the master was subjected only to church penance. True, there was information about a ransom for the release of servants. During the X-XIII centuries. and in subsequent times, the concept of “servants” denoted a wide range of categories of dependent population associated with the master's possession. This, apparently, explains the fact that Russian Truth does not indicate a fine for the murder of a servant, and legal monuments and narrative sources, although they contain numerous references to servants, do not indicate specific forms of labor of servants in the master’s household. As B.D. notes Greeks, in translated literature the term “servants” was used to designate broad groups of the dependent population.

The first mentions of the term “slave” are contained in the Tale of Bygone Years (hereinafter - PVL) when presenting the biblical story of 986, recorded in the late 30s of the 11th century, and in Art. 17 KP, newer compared to Art. 1-16 CP. However, it does not follow from this that “slaves” were a new concept or social category in relation to “servants,” since in the general formulations of Russian-Byzantine treaties and art. 1-16 KP the broad concept of “servants” is used. “The Truth of Yaroslav” (Articles 1-18 KP) is the first secular written source where a serf is indicated.

The name of a specific social category of servitude already in the 11th-13th centuries. became a general designation for a dependent, powerless state and began to be used in this sense along with the word “slavery,” which was found not in ancient Russian legal and social practice, but in literature. Mentioned in the 11th century. serfs were a social group of personally dependent people, narrower than servants. With the expansion of the circle of serfs with different amounts of legal capacity and legal capacity, and the multiplication of sources of servitude, the content of the term “serf” became more capacious, approaching in meaning the term “servant.”

The main source of servitude was not captivity, but the personal dependence of fellow tribesmen, established as a result of socio-economic processes. The forms of exploitation of the labor of slaves in the master's economy were very different, and slaves could be in service, not have the means of material production and own a personal farm. The sources of servitude were: self-sale, marriage to a slave “without a row”, entry into the position of a tiun or housekeeper. An escaped or guilty purchaser automatically turned into a slave. A bankrupt debtor could be sold into slavery for debts. Debt servitude became widespread, ending once the debt was paid. Serfs were usually used as domestic servants. In some estates there were also so-called arable serfs, planted on the land and having their own farm. Recruited from different social groups and occupying significantly different socio-economic positions, serfs are united by one legal characteristic - an almost complete lack of legal capacity, determined by personal dependence. This socio-economic situation allows us to define servility as a class of legally powerless people who occupy different places in material production and maintenance of the master's economy.

The question of determining the actual and legal status of slaves in the Old Russian state develops into the problem of the existence of slavery in Rus'. If we accept the understanding of serfs as a class of feudally dependent population, then the definition of serfdom as slavery in ancient Russian feudal society is removed. Identification of the social nature of servitude allows us to establish its similarities and differences with patriarchal slavery and slavery of the slave-owning mode of production in the process of the genesis of class societies. Patriarchal slavery of a tribal society is characterized only by external sources, soft forms of exploitation through service and quitrent when allotting a house and land. The life of a slave was at the mercy of the master, but liberation was probably accomplished easily. With the slave-owning method of production, slaves became a thing, an instrument of production. They were used in crafts, agriculture and everyday life as servants not only by rich, but also by middle-income citizens, as well as by disadvantaged ones (metecs). There were also state slaves, whose exploitation freed the entire free population from a significant part of socially necessary labor. Therefore, in a slave-owning society, it was legitimate to perceive slaves as “relieving labor.” In the process of material production, the slave class was opposed by a community of free citizens of the state-polis, direct or indirect (by the socio-political system, state and temple slavery) slave owners, from which the formation of the institution of freedmen necessarily followed.

With the immanent genesis of feudalism in Ancient Rus', patriarchal slavery developed into a class-estate of feudally dependent slaves; The main source of servility was the servility of fellow tribesmen. The source of the quasi-slave legal status of slaves was the need for non-economic coercion of the personally dependent. However, the place of slaves in the system of feudal production relations was completely different than in tribal and slave societies, and there are no traces of the “planting” of slaves on the land. Therefore, the definition of serfs as slaves, which presupposes slave-owning production relations, introduces into the system of production relations in Ancient Rus' those forms that did not exist.

3.2. Legal status of forgiven and outcasts

There were several other terms that denoted various categories of the disadvantaged population: “outcast” - a person who had broken ties with the community; “freedman”, “forgiven” - slaves set free, etc.

Pardoners are a category of people whose rights were not protected by Russian Pravda. The root stem of the word indicates its origin from the verb “forgive”. In the charter of the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, they are named in connection with the transfer of them with duties and judicial immunity to church patrimonial lands: “And behold, I give to the Holy Mother of God and to the bishop: pardons with honey, and with kuns, and with vira, and with sales...”. The collection of sales from forgiven people in the princely court indicates that they were free people. The transfer of forgiven people “with kuns” means that the forgiven people paid tribute - a cash tax to the Smolensk prince. Thus, in terms of basic rights and obligations, they are equal to the free population. A special reference to the collection of honey as a duty for pardoners indicates that they lived in a village and had a specialized economy.

Pardoners are also mentioned among church people in the Charter of Vladimir, the formation of the archetype of which dates back to the first or second half of the 12th century...

As V.O. believed Klyuchevsky, pardoners were serfs who were forgiven, released without ransom, “got to the prince” for crimes, debts, or acquired in some other way, endowed with land plots (before or after liberation), who sometimes received personal freedom with the obligation to remain on arable land in position of people attached to the ground. B.D. Grekov emphasized various reasons for the pardoned people leaving their condition: they could be former slaves and free people who became dependent on church and secular feudal lords. By status they are close to outcasts and are serfs, not slaves

“Putniks” and “suffocating people” mentioned among “church people” indicate that in Ancient Rus' there was manumission during the lifetime and according to the will of the master. In terms of the forms of subsequent dependence, they could be close to the “forgiven”, which was reflected in the interchange of terms in various editions of Yaroslav’s Church Charter. For “suffocating people”, “dispensed by will, in Western European medieval terminology there is a similar word proanimati. However, nothing is said about the subsequent exploitation of the “released” people, and legal and narrative sources contain no information about these people included in the broad concepts of freemen or servants.

The CP mentions another social category - “outcasts”. An outcast is an “outdated” person, knocked out of his usual rut, deprived of his previous condition. It was found that the word “outcast” goes back to the same root *zi-/*goi- as the Russian word “goit” - “groom”, “to live”. The prefix “of” gave the word the meaning of lack of quality. Therefore, many researchers sought to determine what the process of taking “life” meant. According to some, outcasts were people who had been eliminated from their social environment and had lost ties with it. Others paid special attention to the economic reasons for the emergence of outcasts, which were expressed in depriving outcasts of their means of subsistence. B.D. The Greeks saw the outcasts primarily as freedmen, former slaves who were put on the ground. In his opinion, the outcasts were urban - they were characterized by freedom and a 40 hryvnia fee - and rural, mainly freedmen, serfs placed on the master's land.

Art. 1 CP and Art. 1 PP, which indicates a penalty of 40 hryvnia for killing an outcast along with a gridin, a merchant, a yabetnik and a swordsman (a boyar tiun was added to the PP), indicate that the law protected the position of an outcast as a free person. In the Charter of the Novgorod Prince Vsevolod of the 13th century. it is written: “And these church people ... outcasts of Troy: the priest’s son does not know how to read and write, the slave is redeemed from servitude, the merchant is in debt.” It indicates people from three social groups, the clergy, merchants and serfs, who changed their position in society, and not necessarily for the worse - the serf was bought out. An outcast also includes a prince without a principality: “... if the prince becomes orphaned.” Regardless of whether this postscript was “lyrical” or, as B.A. believes. Romanov, “ironic”, made as a joke by Prince Vsevolod himself, it reflects the actual use of the concept of “rogue prince”.

The ambiguity in the use of the word “outcast” remained in subsequent times. A change in the social status of people could occur as a consequence of socio-economic, socio-political and subjective (“priest sons cannot read and write”) reasons.

Outcasts as a social category were not named in the CP and PP among the dependent population, for whose life a fee of 5 hryvnia was established, which indicates the special social status of outcasts and the features of the use of this social term discussed above.

Conclusion

Summing up the analysis of the legal status of the population of Ancient Rus', it should be noted its complex nature, due to the complexity of feudalizing relations.

The princes were in a special legal position (“above the law”). Smaller feudal lords - boyars, for example, were in a privileged legal position; their lives were protected by a double virtuous rule; unlike smerds, boyars could be inherited by daughters, and not only by sons; etc.

The boyars, as a special social group, were called upon to perform two main functions: firstly, to participate in the prince’s military campaigns, and secondly, to participate in administration and legal proceedings. The boyar estate is gradually being formed - a large immune hereditary land tenure.

Smerds (peasants) are personally free (this position is disputed by some researchers who believe that smerds were to a certain degree of personal dependence; some even believe that smerds were practically slaves, serfs) rural workers. They had the right to take part in military campaigns as militias. A free community member had certain property, which he could bequeath only to his sons. In the absence of heirs, his property passed to the community. The law protected the person and property of the smerda. For committed misdeeds and crimes, as well as for obligations and contracts, he bore personal and property liability. In the trial, Smerd acted as a full participant.

Purchases (ryadovichi) are persons who work off their debt on the creditor’s farm. The procurement charter was placed in the Long Edition of the Russian Pravda (these legal relations were regulated by Prince Vladimir Monomakh after the procurement uprising in 1113). Interest limits on debt were set. The law protected the person and property of the purchaser, prohibiting the master from punishing him without reason and taking away his property. If the purchase itself committed an offense, then its responsibility was twofold: the master paid a fine for it to the victim, but the purchase itself could be “issued by the head,” i.e. converted to servitude. The same outcome awaited the purchaser if he tried to leave the master without paying. A purchaser could act as a witness in a trial only in special cases. The legal status of the procurement was, as it were, intermediate between a free person (smerd?) and a serf.

Ryadovichi - under a contract (row) worked for the landowner, often turned out to be temporary slaves.

Outcasts are persons who seem to be outside social groups (for example, freed slaves who are actually dependent on their former master)

In fact, in the position of slaves were serfs (servants) - persons who fell into slavery as a result of self-sale, birth from a slave, purchase and sale (for example, from abroad), marriage to a slave (slave).

Bibliography

1. Borisov O.V. Legal written monuments of Rus' // Ros. justice. - 2008. - No. 5. - P.64-66.

2. Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. - M., 2006.- 448 p.

3. Old Russian princely charters of the XI-XV centuries. / The publication was prepared by Y.N. Shchapov. – M., 2006.- 356 p.

4. Duvernois N.L. Sources of law and the court of Ancient Russia: Experiments on the history of Russian civil law. - St. Petersburg: Legal. Center Press, 2009. - 394 p.

5. Zimin A. A. About the smerds of Ancient Rus' of the 11th - early 12th centuries. // Historical and archaeological collection. - M., 1962.

6. Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia: textbook. allowance. – M.: TK Velby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2009. – 347 p.

7. History of the domestic state and law: textbook / ed. O.I.Chistyakova. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M., 2010. - 430 p.;

8. History of the domestic state and Russian law: textbook. / V.M. Cleandrova, R.S. Mulukaev (and others); edited by Yu.P. Titova. – M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2008. – 491 p.

9. Klimchuk E.A. History of state and law of Russia: Schemes, tables, diagrams: textbook. allowance / Klimchuk E.A., Vorobyova S.E. - M.: RosNOU, 2008. - 296 p.

10. Kudimov A.V. Legal status of feudal lords in Ancient Rus' / A.V.Kudimov, M.M.Shafiev // History of state and law. - 2009. - N 10. - P.9-10.

11. Mavrodin V.V. The formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian nationality. - M., 2006.-P.69.

12. Melnikov S.A. Population of Ancient Rus' // State and Law. - 2010. - N 5. - P.81-89.

13. Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Georgieva N.G., Sivokhina T.A. Textbook History of Russia from ancient times to the present day - M., 2008. - 615 p.

14. Novgorod first chronicle of the older and younger editions / Ed. A.N. Nasonova. – M., 2006. – 429 p.

15. Domestic history: Textbook / Edited by R.V. Degtyareva, S.N. Poltoraka.- 2nd edition, revised. and additional - Gardariki, 2010. – 276 p.

16. Russian Truth. Textbook allowance. - M.; 2007. – 287 p.

17. Sverdlov M.B. Genesis and structure of feudal society in Ancient Rus'. – L.: Science, 2006.-

18. Sergeevich V.I. Antiquities of Russian law: in 3 volumes - M.: Zertsalo. - T.1: Territory and population. - 2006. - 524 p.

19. Skrynnikov R.G. Rus' X – XVII centuries; Textbook. SPb., 2009.-372 p.

20. Smirnov I. I. Essays on socio-economic relations of Rus' in the XII-XIII centuries. - M.; 2006

21. Froyanov I. Ya. Smerdas in Kievan Rus // Bulletin of Leningrad State University. – 1966. - series of history, language, literature, vol. 1, no. 2.

22. Cherepnin L.V. From the history of the formation of the class of feudally dependent peasantry in Rus' // Historical notes. – 1956. - t. 56; -P.247.

23. Shchapov Ya. N. Princely charters and rules in Ancient Rus' XI-XIV centuries. - M., 2007.-P.115.

Klimchuk E.A. History of state and law of Russia: Schemes, tables, diagrams: textbook. allowance / Klimchuk E.A., Vorobyova S.E. - M.: RosNOU, 2008.-P.43.

Novgorod first chronicle of the older and younger editions / Ed. A.N. Nasonova. – M.-L., 2006.

Dovatur A.I. Slavery in Attica in the VI-V centuries. BC e. – M, 2008.

Old Russian princely charters of the XI-XV centuries. / The publication was prepared by Y.N. Shchapov. – M., 2006.-P.147

Shchapov Ya. N. Princely charters and rules in Ancient Rus' XI-XIV centuries. - M., 2007.-P.115.

Klyuchevsky V. O. Works. - M., 1959, vol. VII.

Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. - M., 2006. – p. 156.

Yushkov S.V. Socio-political system and law of the Kyiv state. - M., 1949.

Kalachev N.V. On the significance of outcasts and the state of outcastism in Ancient Rus' // Archive of historical and legal information. - M., 1950, book. I.

Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. - M., 2006. – P.247-255.

1. Romanov B. A. People and customs of Ancient Rus'. - L., 1966.

Estates and classes.

The entire urban and rural population was divided “according to the difference in rights of state” into four main categories: nobility, clergy, urban and rural inhabitants.

The nobility remained the privileged class. It shared into personal and hereditary.

Right to personal nobility, which was not inherited, received by representatives of various classes who were in the civil service and had the lowest rank in the Table of Ranks. By serving the Fatherland, one could receive hereditary, i.e., inherited, nobility. To do this, one had to receive a certain rank or award. The emperor could grant hereditary nobility for successful entrepreneurial or other activities.

City dwellers- hereditary honorary citizens, merchants, townspeople, artisans.

Rural inhabitants, Cossacks and other people engaged in agriculture.

The country was in the process of forming a bourgeois society with its two the main classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. At the same time, the predominance of semi-feudal agriculture in the Russian economy contributed to the preservation and two main classes of feudal society - landowners and peasants.

The growth of cities, the development of industry, transport and communications, and the increase in the cultural needs of the population lead to the second half of the 19th century. to increase the proportion of people professionally engaged in mental work and artistic creativity - intelligentsia: engineers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, journalists, etc.

Peasantry.

The peasants are still constituted the vast majority population of the Russian Empire. Peasants, both former serfs and state-owned ones, were part of self-governing rural societies - communities Several rural societies made up the volost.

Community members were connected mutual guarantee in paying taxes and fulfilling duties. Therefore, there was a dependence of the peasants on the community, manifested primarily in the restriction of freedom of movement.

For the peasants there was special volost court, whose members were also elected by the village assembly. At the same time, the volost courts made their decisions not only on the basis of legal norms, but also guided by customs. Often these courts punished peasants for such offenses as wasting money, drunkenness, and even witchcraft. In addition, peasants were subject to certain punishments that had long been abolished for other classes. For example, volost courts had the right to sentence members of their class who had not reached 60 years of age to flogging.

Russian peasants revered their elders, viewing them as bearers of experience and traditions. This attitude extended to the emperor and served as a source of monarchism, faith in the “tsar-father” - an intercessor, guardian of truth and justice.

Russian peasants professed Orthodoxy. Unusually harsh natural conditions and the associated hard work - suffering, the results of which did not always correspond to the efforts expended, the bitter experience of lean years immersed the peasants in the world of superstitions, signs and rituals.

Liberation from serfdom brought to the village big changes:

• P First of all, the stratification of the peasants intensified. The horseless peasant (if he was not engaged in other non-agricultural work) became a symbol of rural poverty. At the end of the 80s. in European Russia, 27% of households were horseless. Having one horse was considered a sign of poverty. There were about 29% of such farms. At the same time, from 5 to 25% of owners had up to ten horses. They bought large land holdings, hired farm laborers and expanded their farms.

• a sharp increase in the need for money. The peasants had to pay redemption payments and a poll tax, have funds for zemstvo and secular fees, for rent payments for land and for repaying bank loans. The majority of peasant farms were involved in market relations. The main source of peasant income was the sale of bread. But due to low yields, peasants were often forced to sell grain to the detriment of their own interests. The export of grain abroad was based on the malnutrition of the village residents and was rightly called by contemporaries “hungry export.”

• Poverty, hardships associated with redemption payments, lack of land and other troubles firmly tied the bulk of the peasants to the community. After all, it guaranteed its members mutual support. In addition, the distribution of land in the community helped the middle and poorest peasants to survive in case of famine. Allotments were distributed among community members interstriped, and were not brought together in one place. Each community member had a small plot (strip) in different places. In a dry year, a plot located in a lowland could produce a quite bearable harvest; in rainy years, a plot on a hillock helped out.

There were peasants committed to the traditions of their fathers and grandfathers, to the community with its collectivism and security, and there were also “new” peasants who wanted to farm independently at their own risk. Many peasants went to work in the cities. The long-term isolation of men from the family, from village life and rural work led to an increased role of women not only in economic life, but also in peasant self-government.

The most important problem of Russia on the eve of the 20th century. was to turn the peasants - the bulk of the country's population - into politically mature citizens, respecting both their own and others' rights and capable of active participation in public life.

Nobility.

After the peasant reforms In 1861, the stratification of the nobility was rapidly progressing due to the active influx of people from other segments of the population into the privileged class.

Gradually, the most privileged class lost its economic advantages. After the peasant reform of 1861, the area of ​​land owned by the nobles decreased by an average of 0.68 million dessiatinas 8* per year. The number of landowners among the nobles was declining. Moreover, almost half of the landowners had estates that were considered small. In the post-reform period, most of the landowners continued to use semi-feudal forms of farming and went bankrupt.

Simultaneously Some of the nobles widely participated in entrepreneurial activities: in railway construction, industry, banking and insurance. Funds for business were received from the redemption under the reform of 1861, from the leasing of land and on collateral. Some nobles became owners of large industrial enterprises, took prominent positions in companies, and became owners of shares and real estate. A significant part of the nobles joined the ranks of owners of small commercial and industrial establishments. Many acquired the profession of doctors, lawyers, and became writers, artists, and performers. At the same time, some of the nobles went bankrupt, joining the lower strata of society.

Thus, the decline of the landowner economy accelerated the stratification of the nobility and weakened the influence of the landowners in the state. In the second half of the 19th century. the nobles lost their dominant position in the life of Russian society: political power was concentrated in the hands of officials, economic power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia became the ruler of thoughts, and the class of once all-powerful landowners gradually disappeared.

Bourgeoisie.

The development of capitalism in Russia led to the growth of the bourgeoisie. Continuing to be officially listed as nobles, merchants, bourgeois, and peasants, representatives of this class played an increasingly important role in the life of the country. Since the time of the “railway fever” of the 60s and 70s. The bourgeoisie was actively replenished at the expense of officials. By serving on the boards of private banks and industrial enterprises, officials provided a link between state power and private production. They helped industrialists obtain lucrative orders and concessions.

The period of the formation of the Russian bourgeoisie coincided with the active activity of the populists within the country and with the growth of the revolutionary struggle of the Western European proletariat. Therefore, the bourgeoisie in Russia looked at the autocratic government as its protector from revolutionary uprisings.

And although the interests of the bourgeoisie were often infringed by the state, they did not dare to take active action against the autocracy.

Some of the founders of famous commercial and industrial families - S.V. Morozov, P.K. Konovalov - remained illiterate until the end of their days. But they tried to give their children a good education, including a university education. Sons were often sent abroad to study commercial and industrial practices.

Many representatives of this new generation of the bourgeoisie sought to support scientists and representatives of the creative intelligentsia, and invested money in the creation of libraries and art galleries. A. A. Korzinkin, K. T. Soldatenkov, P. K. Botkin and D. P. Botkin, S. M. Tretyakov and P. M. Tretyakov, S. I. played a significant role in the expansion of charity and patronage of the arts. Mamontov.

Proletariat.

One more The main class of industrial society was the proletariat. The proletariat included all hired workers, including those employed in agriculture and crafts, but its core were factory, mining and railway workers - the industrial proletariat. His education took place simultaneously with the industrial revolution. By the mid-90s. XIX century About 10 million people were employed in the wage labor sector, of which 1.5 million were industrial workers.

The working class of Russia had a number of features:

• He was closely connected with the peasantry. A significant part of the factories and factories were located in villages, and the industrial proletariat itself was constantly replenished with people from the village. A hired factory worker was, as a rule, a first-generation proletarian and maintained a close connection with the village.
• Representatives became workers different nationalities.
• In Russia there was a significantly greater concentration proletariat in large enterprises than in other countries.

Life of workers.

In factory barracks (dormitories), they settled not according to the workshops, but according to the provinces and districts from which they came. The workers from one locality were headed by a master, who recruited them to the enterprise. Workers had difficulty getting used to urban conditions. Separation from home often led to a drop in moral level and drunkenness. The workers worked long hours and, in order to send money home, huddled in damp and dark rooms and ate poorly.

Workers' speeches for improving their situation in the 80-90s. became more numerous, sometimes they took on acute forms, accompanied by violence against factory management, destruction of factory premises and clashes with the police and even with troops. The largest strike was that broke out on January 7, 1885 at Morozov’s Nikolskaya manufactory in the city of Orekhovo-Zuevo.

The labor movement during this period was a response to the specific actions of “their” factory owners: increasing fines, lowering prices, forced payment of wages in goods from the factory store, etc.

Clergy.

Church ministers - the clergy - constituted a special class, divided into black and white clergy. The black clergy - monks - took on special obligations, including leaving the "world". The monks lived in numerous monasteries.

The white clergy lived in the “world”; their main task was to perform worship and religious preaching. From the end of the 17th century. a procedure was established according to which the place of a deceased priest was inherited, as a rule, by his son or another relative. This contributed to the transformation of the white clergy into a closed class.

Although the clergy in Russia belonged to a privileged part of society, rural priests, who made up the vast majority of it, eked out a miserable existence, as they fed on their own labor and at the expense of parishioners, who themselves often barely made ends meet. In addition, as a rule, they were burdened with large families.

The Orthodox Church had its own educational institutions. At the end of the 19th century. in Russia there were 4 theological academies, in which about a thousand people studied, and 58 seminaries, training up to 19 thousand future clergy.

Intelligentsia.

At the end of the 19th century. Of the more than 125 million inhabitants of Russia, 870 thousand could be classified as intelligentsia. The country had over 3 thousand scientists and writers, 4 thousand engineers and technicians, 79.5 thousand teachers and 68 thousand private teachers, 18.8 thousand doctors, 18 thousand artists, musicians and actors.

In the first half of the 19th century. The ranks of the intelligentsia were replenished mainly at the expense of the nobles.

Some of the intelligentsia were never able to find practical application for their knowledge. Neither industry, nor zemstvos, nor other institutions could provide employment for many university graduates whose families experienced financial difficulties. Receiving a higher education was not a guarantee of an increase in living standards, and therefore, social status. This gave rise to a mood of protest.

But besides material reward for their work, the most important need of the intelligentsia is freedom of expression, without which true creativity is unthinkable. Therefore, in the absence of political freedoms in the country, the anti-government sentiments of a significant part of the intelligentsia intensified.

Cossacks.

The emergence of the Cossacks was associated with the need to develop and protect the newly acquired outlying lands. For their service, the Cossacks received land from the government. Therefore, a Cossack is both a warrior and a peasant.

At the end of the 19th century. there were 11 Cossack troops

In villages and villages there were special primary and secondary Cossack schools, where much attention was paid to the military training of students.

In 1869, the nature of land ownership in the Cossack regions was finally determined. Communal ownership of stanitsa lands was consolidated, of which each Cossack received a share of 30 dessiatines. The remaining lands constituted military reserves. It was intended mainly to create new village sites as the Cossack population grew. Forests, pastures, and reservoirs were in public use.

Conclusion:

In the second half of the 19th century. there was a breakdown of class barriers and the formation of new groups of society along economic and class lines. The new entrepreneurial class - the bourgeoisie - includes representatives of the merchant class, successful peasant entrepreneurs, and the nobility. The class of hired workers - the proletariat - is replenished primarily at the expense of peasants, but a tradesman, the son of a village priest, and even a “noble gentleman” were not uncommon in this environment. There is a significant democratization of the intelligentsia, even the clergy is losing its former isolation. And only the Cossacks remain to a greater extent adherents to their former way of life.

>>History 7th grade >>Main strata of the population

The population of Kievan Rus was divided into separate layers. The social elite consisted of princes led by the Grand Duke of Kyiv. Next came the boyars - the descendants of tribal leaders and the top of the princely warriors. All of them were professional warriors, so valor and honor were valued above all else among them.

Along with large and small boyars, the highest clergy had significant influence in Kievan Rus: the Kiev mitronolite, bishops (governors of church districts), and abbots of large monasteries.
The urban population consisted of merchants, artisans, and servants (servants in princely and boyar houses).
The bulk of the population of Kievan Rus were peasants. Free peasants were called smerds. They paid tribute to the feudal lord. The feudal dependents in Kievan Rus were ryadovichi, who worked under a contract (ryad - outdated contract), and purchases, who worked for a cash loan (kupa). As a rule, these were people who found themselves in debt and were obliged to work off the loan on the creditor’s farm. Slaves in Kievan Rus were called serfs or servants. Prisoners of war mostly became slaves, and their children also remained slaves. The slaves did not have their own household and were completely dependent on the owner. The servants served in the master's yard - they were servants, grooms, cooks, etc.

Representatives of different segments of the population of Kievan Rus. Reconstruction by P. Tolochko

By what signs can we determine whether a person belongs to a certain class? Justify your answer by referring to the picture.

Patriarch - head of the Orthodox Church.
Bishop, metropolitan - the highest spiritual ranks in the Orthodox Church.

Svidersky Yu. Yu., Ladychenko T. V., Romanishin N. Yu. History of Ukraine: Textbook for 7th grade. - K.: Certificate, 2007. 272 ​​p.: ill.
Submitted by readers from the website