The social structure of ancient Russia. An patrimony is a form of land ownership What was called a patrimony
', as a possession on a broader right of ownership.
During the time known to us from documents (XV - XVII centuries), patrimonial ownership was gradually limited, finally merging at the beginning of the XVIII with the local. The patrimonial possessions of the princes are the first to be subjected to restrictions. Already Ivan III forbade the princes of the appanages of North-Eastern Russia (Yaroslavl, Suzdal and Starodub) to sell their estates without the knowledge of the Grand Duke, and also to give them to monasteries. Under Ivan the Terrible, by decrees of 1562 and 1572, all princes were generally forbidden to sell, change, give, give their estates as a dowry. By inheritance, these estates could only pass to sons, and in the absence of them (in the absence of a will) they were taken to the treasury. The princes could bequeath their patrimony only to close relatives and only with the permission of the sovereign.
If these restrictions on the ruling princes arose from state-political considerations, then the main motive for restricting simple patrimonial landowners was the interest of military service. Already by their very origin, part of the estates has long been conditioned by the duty of service. When Muscovite Rus began to introduce on a large scale, for the same purpose, completely conditional estate ownership, then it imposed military service on all estates in general, on the same scale as estates. According to the decree of 1556, from every 100 quarters (50 acres in one field) of land, the votchinnik, along with the landowner, had to put one armed horseman. Further, simultaneously with the princely estates, but to a lesser extent, the right to dispose of service estates was also limited (1562, 1572). Women received from them only a part of “how to live,” and men inherited no more than 4 tribes.
Village yard. Painting by A. Popov, 1861
Since, for all that, service estates could be sold and given to monasteries, then, with constant financial difficulties caused by the landownership crisis of the 16th century, a significant part of them left the hands of the estate owners. The government tried to fight against this by establishing in the law the right of tribal redemption and by prohibiting the giving of estates to monasteries. The rules of the family ransom were established by the judges of Ivan the Terrible and Fyodor. In 1551 it was forbidden to sell estates to monasteries; in 1580, relatives were given an unlimited right to redeem, “although someone is far from the family,” and in the absence of them, it was determined to redeem the estates from the monasteries to the sovereign. In the 17th century the government begins to monitor even more closely, "so that the land does not go out of service." Service from the estates was precisely regulated: those who failed were threatened with the removal of part or all of the estate; those who devastated their patrimony were ordered to be beaten with a whip (1621).
According to the method of acquisition, estates differed generic or old, served (granted by the government) and purchased. The disposal of the first two categories of estates was limited: women could not inherit ancestral and granted estates (1627); by decree of 1679, the right to bequeath estates, past children, to brothers, relatives and strangers was taken away. Since the decrees of the XVI century. about the non-delivery of the estates to the monastery were not executed, then in 1622 the government recognized the estates for the monasteries that had not been redeemed until 1613; it was allowed to continue to give estates to monasteries, not only conditionally until redemption, but in 1648 it was absolutely forbidden for monasteries to accept estates, under the threat, if relatives did not immediately redeem them, they would be taken to the treasury for free.
On March 23, 1714, by the decree of Peter I on uniform inheritance, it was determined henceforth "both estates and patrimonies should be called equally one, immovable estate votchina." The ground for such a merger was prepared both by the described restrictions on the disposal of estates, and by the opposite process - the gradual expansion of the right to use estates.
Literature about estates: S. V. Rozhdestvensky, Serving land tenure in Moscow State XVI century. (St. Petersburg, 1897); N. Pavlov-Silvansky, Sovereign's servants (St. Petersburg, 1898); V. N. Storozhev, Decree book of the Local Order (movement of legislation on the issue of estates; M., 1889).
The constructions of V. O. Klyuchevsky, who discovered one paradoxical phenomenon in the economy of medieval Russia, gained wide popularity and recognition. He wrote: "The history of our society has changed significantly, if in the course of eight or nine centuries the national economy had not been a historical contradiction to the nature of the country."
The meeting of the Yaroslavichs - Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod and their husbands - at which issues related to the princely patrimony were considered, left us material for judging the organization of the ancient Russian patrimony. The meeting took place, apparently, after the death of Yaroslav, i.e. shortly after 1054
We can only speculate about the reasons for this meeting. The results are in front of him. This is the so-called “Pravda” of the Yaroslavichs.
“One of the goals of the meeting can be traced in the Wide Truth. It was to revise the system of punishments and finally abolish the dying revenge. This system has indeed been revised, and revenge has been officially eliminated. The rest, everything that was under Yaroslav, remained untouched even with his children.
Princes and boyars owned land in the 10th century (no doubt earlier). Consequently, Yaroslav found both in Novgorod and in Kyiv the princely estates already existing and, of course, organized in one way or another. Undoubtedly, for housekeeping in the princely estate there had to be people: the administration and direct producers of various specialties.
In the XI-XII centuries, according to S. V. Yushkov, "the administrative and economic center of the feudal seigneury - the village" arose and took shape.
Since it is obvious that the patrimonial organization was formed over a fairly long time, there is no doubt that the data of the beginning of the 11th century may well characterize the structure of those princely patrimonies of the 10th century, about which we have information in the annals, as well as those boyar patrimonies, the presence of which is indicated by agreements with the Greeks of the beginning and first half of the same, the 10th century, and, consequently, the 9th century.
However, Grekov restores the main features of the ancient Russian patrimony solely on the basis of materials from Pravda by the Yaroslavichs.
The center of this patrimony is the "prince's yard", where, according to Grekov, first of all, the mansions in which the prince lives, the houses of his high-ranking servants, premises for secondary servants, the dwellings of smerds, ryadoviches and serfs, various outbuildings are thought of - stables, cattle and poultry yards, a hunting house, etc. B. A. Rybakov agrees with the characteristics of the estate given by B. D. Grekov. Rybakov, even in his work "Kievan Rus and the Russian Principalities of the XII - XIII centuries." quotes a fairly large passage from Grekov's work.
At the head of the princely patrimony is the representative of the prince - the boyar ognischanin. He is responsible for the whole course of the life of the patrimony and, in particular, the safety of the prince's patrimonial property. Under him, as Grekov believes, “is the collector of all kinds of receipts due to the prince -“ access princes ”. At the disposal of the fireman are tiunas. In Pravda, the “old groom” is also called, i.e. head of the princely stables and princely herds of horses. All these persons are protected by a double 80-hryvnia vira, which indicates their privileged position. This is the highest administrative apparatus of the princely patrimony. Then follow the princely elders - "rural" and "ratai". Their life is estimated at only 12 hryvnia. They are definitely addicts. We cannot say exactly how their functions are distributed, but their roles are largely determined by the content of the terms “rural” and “warrior”. B. D. Grekov believed that “the village headman, apparently, performed the functions of monitoring the population of the estate, was the executor of the orders of its higher administrative apparatus.
As for the ratai headman, since the ratai is a plowman, the ratai is arable, we inevitably have the assumption that the duty of the ratai headman is to monitor the arable land; and since we are talking about a princely headman and a princely patrimony, it is natural to assume here the presence of a princely arable land, i.e. princely lordly smell. This assumption is also confirmed by the fact that the same “Pravda” names the boundary and imposes an exorbitantly high fine for its violation, following the murder of a person according to the penalty net: “And even the boundary will over-yell ... then 12 hryvnias for insult.” Such a high fine can hardly apply to the peasant border (for the theft of the prince's horse - 3 hryvnia, for the "prince's side" - 3 hryvnia). Then we have reason to recognize the presence of princely arable land in the princely patrimony, B. D. Grekov adhered to the same opinion.
These observations are confirmed by the details that are scattered in different parts of the "Pravda" of the Yaroslavichs. Here they are called - a cage, a barn and a full, ordinary in a large agriculture, an assortment of working, dairy and beef cattle and poultry, common in such farms. There are: princely horses and smerds (peasants), oxen, cows, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, pigeons, ducks, geese, swans and cranes.
According to B. D. Grekov, they are not named, but clearly imply meadows where cattle, princely and peasant horses graze.
Rybakov and Grekov are sure that the boards mentioned in Russkaya Pravda are princely. Grekov writes: “Next to rural agriculture, we also see boards here, which are called “princely” ones: “And in the prince board there are 3 hryvnias, it’s nice to burn, it’s nice to hack.”
Part of the scientists the main branch of the economy Kievan Rus seen in agriculture, and not in hunting and beekeeping. These scientists included M. S. Grushevsky, whose works collected numerous facts confirming the primacy of agriculture in the economic life of ancient Russian society. M. N. Pokrovsky says that the Slavs were farmers already before the separation.
N. A. Rozhkov points to the important role of the extractive industry in the Russian national economy. He summarizes facts related to hunting, beekeeping, fishing, salt production, draws attention to the growth in the 11th and 12th centuries. cattle breeding, and P. I. Lyashchenko pointed out that agriculture became the basis of production of that time, especially in the southern regions of Russia. Along with it, a prominent place was occupied by hunting, hunting, fishing and beekeeping. They played an important role in the economy of the more northern forest regions.
Rybakov comes to the conclusion that the prince visits his patrimony from time to time. “This is evidenced by the presence of hunting dogs and accustomed to hunting hawks and falcons: “And if you steal someone else’s, like a hawk, like a falcon, then 3 hryvnias for insult.” Here, however, it is not said that these dogs, falcons and hawks belong specifically to princely hunting, but we have the right to draw such a conclusion, firstly, because in Pravda of the Yaroslavichs it is mainly about the princely estate, firstly secondly, because otherwise the height of the fine for the theft of a dog, a hawk, and a falcon is made incomprehensible. In fact, this fine is equal to the fine for stealing a horse with which a smerd works in the princely estate.
The prince in his patrimony is portrayed by Pravda as a feudal landowner who has certain feudal rights in relation to the population dependent on him as a patrimony. The entire administration of the votchina and all its population, dependent on the votchinnik, is subject to his patrimonial jurisdiction. You can judge them only with the permission and knowledge of the votchinnik.
It is impossible not to note another very important circumstance concerning the princely patrimony. It does not exist in an airless space, is not isolated from the outside world, but is located in the world, directly and most closely connected with the rural community.
B. D. Grekov emphasizes the relationship of a large estate to the rural community. A large fiefdom is not only locally connected with the rural community; the princely patrimonial administration has some relation to other communities that are not directly in contact with the patrimony. The fireman can be fished not only in the rope that is connected with the patrimony, but also in other ropes. Responsible for the murder of the fireman - and, of course, not only him alone, but all representatives of the patrimonial administration - is the rope on the territory of which the body of the murdered was found (in case the killer was not found). This circumstance may indicate that the ognischanin, access roads, tiuns have a radius of action that goes beyond the boundaries of the patrimony; this circumstance may also indicate that representatives of the princely patrimonial administration have not only economic, but also political functions.
The location of the princely patrimony surrounded by peasant worlds explains a lot about the content of the Pravda of the Yaroslavichs. First, Pravda gave the old customs the form of a written law. Secondly, she emphasized the role of the state, i.e. superstructure necessary for the feudal lords to strengthen their positions.
The question of the mutual relations of the patrimony and the rural community concerned the interests not only of the princes, but of all large landowners and, above all, of course, the boyars, as well as the church.
No wonder the boyars accepted this law for guidance and execution: the interests of all the feudal estates were basically the same.
In the Long Pravda, it is not at all accidental that in the margins against the list of personnel of the princely patrimony (significantly expanded against the Pravda of the Yaroslavichs), obviously, some lawyer attributed: “The same for the boyar”, i.e., that all laid down for the murder of patrimonial princely servants, apply to the estates of the boyars.
However, B. A. Rybakov believes that the princely court was much richer than the boyar court and “if the princes greedily and unreasonably exhausted the peasantry, then the boyars were more careful.
Firstly, the boyars did not have such a military force that would allow them to cross the line that separated the usual exaction from the ruin of the peasants, and
secondly, it was not only dangerous, but also not profitable for the boyars to ruin the economy of their patrimony, which they were going to pass on to their children and grandchildren.
In the opinion of Grekov and Rybakov, the Long Pravda gives almost nothing fundamentally new. The patrimony, the same one that is depicted in the "Pravda" of the Yaroslavichs, continues to live its long-established life in the 12th century. Pravda Vernacular, as a matter of fact, only clarifies and expands the information already at our disposal.
First of all, this "Pravda" increases the list of servants of the princely and boyar estates. In Art. 11-17 are called youths, a groom, a cook, a fiery and stable tyun, a rural tiun and a ratai, a rowovich, an artisan and a craftswoman, a serf, a serf, a slave, a breadwinner and a breadwinner.
Grekov is trying to add a system to this list, and says that it is possible to divide all this dependent population of the patrimony “into two main groups: 1) servants and 2) direct producers, the working population of the patrimony in the narrow sense of the word. Servants should include: youths, grooms, tiuns, breadwinners; to the working staff - rank and file, serfs, serfs and artisans.
The lengthy Pravda pays special attention to the “role-play” purchase, i.e. agricultural worker. The articles mention not only his duties (guarding livestock or plowing the land), but also agricultural tools, or rather: a plow and a harrow, which indicates the level of development of tools.
Thus, the whole fiefdom is called in Pravda a “house”. In the center is always the master's "court" (in the prince's patrimony - "prince's yard"). The yard consists of the owner's house and various outbuildings. In the yard, the richer he is, the more all kinds of servants. Behind the yard - the huts of peasants-smerds, ryadoviches, serfs. And the fields, cultivated partly for the owner, partly for themselves by smerds, ryadovichi-purchases and serfs, stretch longer.
The owner has a significant apparatus of patrimonial administration, the direct participation of the owner himself in the affairs of the patrimony is noticeable. Obviously, the master's economy is not very large. The products obtained on the farm are enough to support the master's family and his servants. B. D. Grekov is convinced that “the masters had no special incentives to expand their own patrimonial economy, since agricultural products had not yet become any noticeable commodity. Bread, in any case, in the market, has not yet played any noticeable role; the internal market is still weak enough to force the landowners to expand their agricultural activities.”
The picture of the organization of the patrimony will be incomplete if we do not note the presence of handicraft, and sometimes wage labor in it. It is clear that the needs of the estate owner went beyond agriculture; Finally, agriculture itself needed the help of an artisan: neither the estate owner nor the peasant could do without a blacksmith. The votchinnik dressed, put on shoes, furnished his dwelling with the necessary utensils, sometimes even very exquisite ones, and could not do without the services of a tailor, shoemaker, carpenter, silversmith. Most often, the artisan was his own, from his own lackeys. But not always. In some cases, it was necessary to turn to a free artisan who worked to order. For this, obviously, it was necessary to apply to the city. This is said, although very sparingly, written monuments. The most ancient "Russian Pravda" knows the "bribe" to the doctor, the "Pravda" of the Yaroslavichs names the payment "from work" to carpenters ("bridgemen") for the repair of the bridge.
Knorring V.I. The art of management. - M., 1997. - S. 1.
See: Fundamentals of Modern Social Management: Theory and Methodology. - M., 2000. - S. 26.
Sociology of management: textbook. allowance. - M., 2007. - S. 85.
Zborovsky G. E., Kostina N. B. Sociology of management: textbook. - M., 2007. - S. 84.
Zborovsky G. E., Kostina N. B. Fundamentals of modern social management: theory and methodology. - M., 2000. - S. 8.
Zborovsky G. E., Kostina N. B. Sociology of management: textbook. allowance. - M., 2007. - S. 86.
Zborovsky G. E., Kostina N. B. Sociology of management: textbook. allowance. - M., 2007. - S. 88.
End of free trial.
Introduction.. 3
1. Characteristics of the position of the great princes in the Old Russian state .. 4
2. reign of the great princes.. 7
2.1. The reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and the Baptism of Russia. 7
2.2. State administration under Yaroslav the Wise.. 9
Conclusion.. 11
REFERENCES... 12
Introduction
date of formation Old Russian state 882 is conditionally considered when Prince Oleg, who seized power in Novgorod after the death of Rurik (some chroniclers call him the governor of Rurik), undertook a campaign against Kyiv. Having killed Askold and Dir, who reigned there, for the first time he united the northern and southern lands as part of a single state. Since the capital was moved from Novgorod to Kyiv, this state is often called Kievan Rus.
After the death of Oleg, Igor became the ruler of Russia. He managed to basically preserve the unity of the young state. Igor's attempt to collect additional tribute from the Drevlyane tribe ended in his death in 945. In Kyiv, the four-year-old son of Igor Svyatoslav remained to reign. His mother, Princess Olga, ruled on his behalf for the first years. The son of Igor and Olga Svyatoslav became famous as one of the largest commanders of Russia.
After the death of Svyatoslav, his son Yaropolk began to rule in Kyiv. Soon, between Yaropolk and his brothers Oleg and Vladimir, a struggle for primacy in Russia began. During it, Oleg and Yaropolk died, and Vladimir, who had previously ruled in Novgorod, seized power in 980.
Vladimir went down in history as the largest statesman of the early period of Russian history. After the death of Vladimir, his son Yaroslav the Wise, who made a significant contribution to the development of Russian law, became the Grand Duke. The reign of the princes of Vladimir and Yaroslavl is considered the heyday of Kievan Rus.
O public administration in the era of the reign of the Grand Dukes Vladimir and Yaroslav and will be discussed in this work.
Characteristics of the position of the Grand Dukes in the Old Russian state
According to the form of government, Kievan Rus was an early feudal monarchy. was at the head of the state Grand Duke. Its functions at an early stage of the existence of the Old Russian state consisted in organizing the armed forces, commanding them, collecting tribute and establishing foreign trade. In the future, the activities of the prince in the field of administration acquired greater importance: the appointment of a local administration, princely agents, legislative and judicial activities, management of foreign relations, etc.
The income of the prince consisted of feudal duties, tribute (tax), court fees, criminal fines (vir and sales) and other requisitions. Relations with other princes were built on the basis of letters of the cross, which determined the rights and obligations of the Grand Duke and the vassal princes (protection of the latter, rendering assistance to them, their assistance to the Grand Duke, etc.). The Grand Duke's throne was transferred by inheritance: first, according to the principle of seniority - the eldest in the family, and then "fatherland" - to the son.
The Grand Duke in his activities relied on the advice of large feudal lords - the boyars and the clergy. Although the council did not have a clearly defined competence, the boyars, together with the prince, resolved the most important issues of governance, foreign policy, court, legislative activity, etc. Under the prince was advice from the boyars and "princely husbands". The management of the branches of the princely palace economy was entrusted to tiunov and elders Over time, they turn into managers of branches of the princely economy. The decimal system of government is being replaced by the palace-patrimonial one, in which political power belongs to the owner (boyar-patrimony). There are two centers of power - princely palace and boyar estate.
In the early feudal monarchy, the popular assembly plays an important state and political role - veche. All free residents of the city (posada) and adjacent settlements (slobodas) participated in the veche. The competence of the veche included issues of taxation, defense of the city, organization of military campaigns and the election of princes. The executive body of the veche was the council, which consisted of the city patriciate, elders, and others.
local government carried out by posadniks (governors) in cities and volosts in rural areas, and relied on military garrisons led by thousands, centurions and tenths.
The representatives of the prince had the following powers: they collected tribute and duties, administered justice, established and levied fines, etc. Instead of a salary for service, they had the right to keep part of the money collected from the population for themselves. This control system is called feeding systems.
The body of local peasant self-government was territorial community - rope. Verv XI-XII centuries. combined elements of neighborhood and family communities and was a conglomerate of small settlements. The competence of the Vervi included issues of redistribution of land allotments, tax and financial issues, police supervision, resolution of litigation, investigation of crimes and execution of punishments. The state, using the rope for fiscal, police and administrative purposes, was interested in the further preservation of the community structure.
Judicial bodies as special institutions did not yet exist. Judicial functions carried out by authorities and administrations in the center and locally - princes, posadniks, volostels and other representatives of princely power.
issued church jurisdiction. The Church judged: the dependent population of their lands, the clergy in all categories of cases, the population of the state in certain categories of cases (crimes against religion, morality, etc.).
The armed forces included: the squad of the Grand Duke, the squads of local princes, the feudal militia and the people's militia.
the most famous prince of Kyiv was Vladimir, nicknamed Red Sun(978-1015). The period of his reign is the time of the heyday of Kievan Rus, the strengthening of statehood. Under him and on his initiative historical event of great importance, which had an impact on the entire subsequent history of our state. We are talking about the adoption of Christianity according to the Byzantine model, about the baptism of Russia, which began in 988. For this, Vladimir was later canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. Baptism was not always carried out easily, for example, Novgorod was baptized with "fire and sword." The baptism of Russia had a huge, decisive influence on its further development, including the development of statehood, as well as law. Together with the unity of faith, the realization of the unity of the state gradually began to come. With Christianity also came the idea of the unity of church and state.
After death Vladimir his son became the grand duke Yaroslav the Wise made a significant contribution to the development of Russian law. After Yaroslav, Russia actually begins to enter a new period of its development - a period of feudal fragmentation. Particularly intensified the processes of fragmentation after the death of the prince Vladimir Monomakh(1113-1125), when new centers were strengthened: Vladimir, Galich, Novgorod. the end Kyiv state a number of researchers consider the capture and plunder of Kiev by the prince Andrey Bogolyubsky in 1169
Votchina is the most important phenomenon that existed in the medieval Western Europe and in Russia. So the land was called along with outbuildings and other property, as well as dependent peasants. This word has the same root as in the words "father", "fatherland", which indicates to us that the patrimony was inherited, was the property of the family.
Votchina appeared in Ancient Russia, when the power of princes and boyars was formed. The princes distributed lands to members of their squads and other representatives of the nobility. As a rule, it was an award for service or some kind of outstanding service. There was another category of landowners - the highest church hierarchs and monasteries.
The patrimony was transferred to the owner and his family in full undivided possession, without any conditions whatsoever. It could be inherited, donated, sold. In his fiefdom, the owner was a full owner. He not only enjoyed the results of the activities of the peasants, that is, ensured his existence. Within the boundaries of the estate, the votchinnik repaired the court, resolved disputes, and so on.
Votchina in Ancient Russia
The institution of hereditary landownership played a huge role in the formation of medieval states, including Ancient Russia. In those days, land was the main means of production. The one who owned the land could influence all spheres of society. Thanks to the activities of the ruling nobility, law, legal proceedings, the economy, church and state foundations were formed.
During the period of feudal fragmentation, the main owners of estates were boyars and princes. Free peasants also owned land, but only in the form of communal property. Gradually, the situation in the state changed: Russia freed itself from the Mongol conquest, the processes of collecting land and centralizing power in the hands of the Moscow Grand Dukes began. In such a difficult situation, the princes were forced to limit the rights and freedoms of the boyars. 
The nobles gradually began to replace the old nobility - people who received their privileges for service and used them only as long as they served. This is how a new form of land ownership appeared - estates.
Estate and estate - what's the difference
The most important difference between estates and estates is their conditional and impersonal character. It happened like this: the Moscow princes had to wage wars, pacify recalcitrant regions and protect their borders. There was a need for in large numbers service people. To provide for the servicemen and their families, they were allocated estates - land with peasants.
Initially, the nobleman owned the estate only during his service and could not pass it on by inheritance. The estate remained state property - it was given to the servant for use and alienated with the end of the service.
Subsequently, two parallel processes took place. The Grand Dukes (who, starting with Ivan the Terrible, began to be called Russian Tsars) increasingly actively curtailed the rights of the boyars. Restrictions were imposed on the possession of estates, and the estates were simply taken away from some objectionable boyar clans. In addition, the boyars were forced to serve in without fail. A significant part of the service people were recruited from boyar children, who from now on could not enjoy the privileges of their fathers without benefiting the country.
At the same time, estates became inherited property. So those in power stimulated the nobles to devoted service. In essence, by the beginning of the 18th century, the estate and the estate became one and the same. This issue was finally resolved by Peter the Great, who issued a decree on single inheritance. All lands that were previously called estates or estates from that moment began to be called estates. 
This has had far-reaching consequences in the history of our state. A class of landowners was formed, who owned vast lands and inherited property rights. In the future, the nobles received "freedom": their duty to serve was canceled, and the estates, along with the peasants, remained. The system "land in exchange for service to the Fatherland" was no longer valid, which led to subsequent social upheavals.
Individual land ownership arose in. Kievskaya. Russia only in the second half of the XI century. In "Russian Truth", compiled by. Yaroslav, has not yet talked about this method of ownership, therefore, in Pravda. Yaroslavichi ((1073) e certificate of personal land ownership, while princely. Only in the widespread edition of Russkaya Pravda, appeared at the end of XII - early XIII c, contained clear evidence of boyar land ownership and the boyars' management of their economy. In this first code of laws of the ancestral home Ukrainian state there was material testifying to the signs of a sufficiently developed market economy. Private property was defined by the law of protection, and the punishment for infringement on it was determined. The memo provided responsibility for arson, plowing of borders, theft of bread, animals and other property of princes and boyars. In stanovlyuvaly such a fine: for violation of the border - 12 hryvnia; the murder of a landowner-feudal lord - 80, for the murder of a serf - 5; murder of a free person - 40 hryvnia. If a debtor tried to run away from a creditor, the latter could turn him into a lifelong slave. The princes and boyars had an exclusive and hereditary right to land, which even the Grand Duke could not deprive them of, and such as the Grand Duke could not inspire.
"Russkaya Pravda" gives a fairly accurate idea of the system of monetary units and their functions of circulation and accumulation. In contrast to the early Western European states. Middle Ages, where usury was considered a sin of sheep, c. Kievskaya. Russia, it was legally regulated. The Code of Laws approved the procedure for ensuring the property interests of the creditor, their protection, the conditions under which the claim for the return of the loan must be legal. CNU force, the procedure for collecting debts, etc. "Russkaya Pravda", in fact, did not limit the amount of interest. Adjustment was carried out only on interest for a loan for a relatively short period (from a month to r eye), up to 50% per annum at a usurious rate of more than 60% provided for the punishment of the creditor. Russkaya Pravda contains more than 20 articles on credit and "stripes" (interest on loans). The whole system of punishments is based on monetary fines in it. Merchants gave each other money "in purchase" (i.e., for the purchase of the right goods) and "guest" (on credit at interest). Individual merchants invested part of their capital in the craft and received a certain percentage of this money. It is known that monasteries were also engaged in usury (although Christianity condemned its covetousness, monasteries were also engaged in usury (though Christianity condemned yoga).
In order to protect urban residents from the arbitrariness of usurers, the level of interest (due to the underdevelopment of commodity-money relations) was established by law. For example,. Vladimir. Monomakh, in a special charter, which became part of Russkaya Pravda, tried to determine maximum level interest that was taken for debts: 20 or 40% 0 or 40%,
The memo reflects the origin of the feudal dependence of the population through both economic and non-economic coercion (for example, a ruined smerd is forced to go into bondage to a secular or church feudal lord (ryadovichi and purchases).
In "Pravda. Yaroslavichi" the issues of arranging the estate as a form of land ownership and organizing production were embodied in the prince or boyar, the buildings of his entourage, stables, premises for livestock, the estate could be bought, sold, inherited. As a rule, it was formed by rich people by joining land plots other community members, in particular the impoverished. Sometimes this was done by force. That is the way the estates on. Russ turned into large landowners of landlords.
Distinguished the patrimony of the princely, boyar, monastic and church. From the X-XI centuries smerdy ( rural population) not only paid tribute to the state, but also became dependent on the feudal lord (boyar) and paid him dues (in kind) to use the land or worked out corvée. For the corresponding service to the prince, they received estates in possession. At that time, a significant part of the inhabitants still remained independent of the boyars. There was communal property, it prevailed in agriculture. So, by the end of the 14th century, two types of land ownership were formed on the territory of Ukraine:
1) patrimony (European analogue-allod). The land was in full unconditional ownership of the owner. Source of occurrence: adoption, preservation from ancient times; donated from the prince; purchase and exchange; then. Ermine tenure (at least 15 years). The principal subject was the prince;
2) estates (European analogue - beneficiaries). The land was transferred by the feudal lord to persons who were at a low level of the hierarchical ladder, in conditional possession for service without the right to alienate. Property rights were limited. The main subject is a landowner, a nobleman. From the second half of the 15th century, hereditary estates arise (the European analogue is a feud), if the son inherited his father's position.
