Comparative mythology. Modern meaning of comparative mythology

The significant increase in the Russian Empire, noted according to the results of the census of the eighties, was caused not only by natural growth, but also by the annexation of new lands and the census coverage of some territories that were not taken into account in the first revision.

In 1781 - 1783, the population of Russia was about 30 million people. Undoubtedly, the most numerous category of the rural population were landowner peasants. In the sixties of the 18th century, they made up almost 53 percent of the peasants living in Great Russia.

South of Moscow, in some black earth provinces, the number of serfs was especially large.

The smallest number of serfs was noted in the North and Siberia. L on average by province Russian Empire landowner peasants made up from forty-FIVE to seventy percent of all peasants.

The most unfavorable territory was the black soil zone located south of the Oka, where corvée prevailed and the peasant shortage of land was felt especially acutely.

Quit peasants in the 80-90s made up only forty-four percent of the total serf peasantry. Corvee remained the most common type of service.

The landowner himself set the size of the corvee. The most common was a three-day corvee, but sometimes a peasant had to work in the master’s field all six days a week, and he only had nights and holidays to work on his piece of land.

Obrok peasants, unlike corvee peasants, enjoyed great economic initiative. In the northern non-black earth provinces, where the production of grain for the market could not generate large incomes and lordly plowing accounted for 20-25 percent of all cultivated land, quitrent was the most common form of service.

However, much to the displeasure of the peasants, the quitrent had a constant upward trend.

Over the course of 35-40 years (60-90s of the 18th century), rent rose from one or two rubles to four or five rubles per capita. As noted in previous chapters, the enslavement of the peasant masses in the second half of the 18th century occurred intensively.

In 1760, nobles received the right to exile their serfs to Siberia. In 1765 - the right to send them to hard labor. According to the decree of 1768, any complaint from a peasant against a landowner was qualified as a false denunciation and was punishable by lifelong exile. During the first five years of application of this decree, landowners exiled more than 20 thousand of their serfs to Tobolsk and the Yenisei province alone.

A kind of market for serfs appeared, whom landowners sold along with livestock.

Some landowners took pleasure in composing special instructions on punishments, which determined the exact size of fines or the number of blows for various violations of patrimonial orders...

In the areas where state peasants settled, there was no landownership. Despite the fact that they had to pay an increased poll tax, the position of the state peasant was incomparably better than that of the serf.

Mordovians, Mari, Chuvash, Tatars, Udmurts, Buryats, Yakuts and other peoples of the North, Volga region and Siberia were also included in the category of state peasants. The decline of the hunting economy, as well as the development of the participation of these peoples in agriculture, led in the second half of the 18th century to the fact that they were all gradually transferred to a poll tax, levied in money.

After the secularization of the possessions of spiritual feudal lords, which took place in 1764, numerous categories of church and monastic peasants began to be called economic peasants. Later they also became part of the state peasants.

The process of social stratification in the countryside also affected serfs and quitrent peasants. Among them were those “who could be considered rich among peasants and richer than many nobles.”

Rich peasants rented land, bypassing existing laws, bought their own serfs, and hired workers. They owned entire herds of large and small cattle, dozens of horses, and so on.

On the other hand, there were many peasants who lived in “extreme poverty” and did not have a single cow.

The population of Russia in the early 80s of the 18th century. amounted to 27-28 million people, i.e., in the 60 years that have passed since the first audit, it has doubled. The increase in population occurred both due to natural growth and due to the annexation of new lands and the census coverage of residents of some territories that were not taken into account in the first revision (Ukraine, the Baltic states, Siberia).

The most numerous category of the rural population were landowner peasants, whose number, according to the third revision (1762-1766), amounted to 3,787 thousand male souls. In the 60s of the XVIII century. they made up almost 53% of the peasants living in Great Russia. South of Moscow, in some black earth provinces (Tula, Kursk), the number of serfs was especially large. On average, in the provinces of the Russian Empire, landowner peasants made up from 45 to 70% of the total number of peasants, and only in the North and Siberia were there few of them.

The fabulous luxury of the Sheremetevs, Razumovskys, Bezborodkos, Stroganovs and other representatives of the highest nobility of the “golden age of Catherine,” as well as the more modest life of ordinary provincial nobles, was ensured by the cruelest exploitation of serfs.

In the 80-90s, 56% of serfs were on corvée, 44% on quitrent. In the black earth zone located south of the Oka, corvée labor prevailed. Peasant land shortage was especially acute here. The lord's plowing expanded due to the reduction of peasant plots.

The size of the corvee was not determined by law and depended on the arbitrariness of the landowner. The most common was a three-day corvee, but sometimes a peasant had to work in the master’s field all six days a week, and he only had nights and holidays to work on his piece of land. Some of the corvée peasants were transferred to the “month”. Such peasants had no allotments at all, worked all the time for the landowner and received a monthly allowance in food.

In the northern, non-black earth provinces, where the production of grain for the market could not generate large incomes and lordly plowing accounted for 20-25% of all cultivated land, quitrent prevailed.

Obrok peasants enjoyed greater economic initiative. But the increase in rent worsened their situation. Over the course of 35-40 years (60-90s of the 18th century), the quitrent rose from 1-2 rubles to 4-5 rubles per revision person. This increase in quitrents was partly due to the fall in the exchange rate of the ruble, but it was also caused by the intensification of feudal exploitation.

The rights of serfs were limited from year to year, and in the second half of the 18th century. serfs became the complete “baptized property” of the landowner. In 1760, the nobles received the right to exile their serfs to Siberia, and in 1765 - the right to send them to hard labor. Any complaint by peasants against the landowner was qualified, according to the decree of 1767, as a false denunciation and was punishable by lifelong exile to Nerchinsk. During the first five years of application of this decree, landowners exiled more than 20 thousand of their serfs to the Tobolsk and Yenisei provinces alone. Peasants were sold along with livestock, and landowners brought serfs to the market in droves. Some landowners composed special instructions on punishments, which determined the exact size of fines or the number of blows for various violations of patrimonial orders. The arbitrariness, cruelty, whims and tyranny of the landowners knew no bounds. Such monsters as the landowner Daria Saltykova (Saltychikha), who personally tortured 38 people, or the Oryol landowner Shenshin, who had a special staff of executioners and various instruments of torture, were by no means an exception.

Thus, the position of a serf differed little from that of a slave.

Among other categories of peasants, the most numerous were state peasants, of whom, according to the third audit, 2,880 thousand male souls were counted. In the areas where state peasants settled, there was no landownership. Although they paid a higher poll tax, their position was still better than that of the landed peasants.

In addition to the Russian population, the category of state peasants included numerous peoples of the North, Volga region and Siberia, the so-called yasash peoples (who paid yasak - tax): Mordovians, Mari, Chuvash, Tatars, Udmurts, Buryats, Yakuts, etc. In the second half of the 18th century . due to the decline of the hunting economy and the development of agriculture among some of these peoples, almost all of them were gradually transferred to a per capita tax, levied in money.

Quite numerous was the category of church and monastic peasants, who were called economic peasants after the secularization of the possessions of spiritual feudal lords (1764). Later they also became part of the state peasants. There were still palace peasants who were property royal court. There were over 487 thousand souls.

The development of commodity relations led to social stratification among some peasants. This process also affected serfs, especially those released on quitrent. Among them, along with the peasants who lived, as one document says, in “extreme poverty” - and these were the majority - there were those “who among peasants can be considered richer and richer than many nobles.” Rich peasants rented land, bypassing existing laws, bought their own serfs, and hired workers; they owned entire herds of large and small cattle, dozens of horses, beekeeping, etc. On the other hand, there were many peasants who did not have a single cow; all the “livestock” of such a peasant family consisted of one pig and three or four chickens. Some didn't even have that.

The quit-rent peasants grew into “rich people” who were engaged in trade and crafts. The Butrimovs, Borisovs, Grachevs, Garelins and other rich people, or, as they said then, “capitalist peasants,” became industrialists, owners of large enterprises. The famous owner of the manufactory, Grachev, was himself a serf of Sheremetev and at the same time acquired over 3 thousand acres of land and about 900 serfs. In 1795, he bought his freedom for 130 thousand rubles. But the overwhelming majority of otkhodniks belonged to the lower rural classes, from whom the main cadres of hired workers in the city and countryside were formed.

The noted facts of social stratification among the peasantry have not yet become widespread. The serfdom system delayed the process of differentiation, assigning the poor to the land in order to maintain taxes, often leading to the ruin of the top of the village as a result of exorbitant extortions on the part of the landowner.

Serf Russia in the second half of the 18th century

In the 2nd half of the 18th century. Russia expanded its borders in the south and west, annexing the Black Sea and Azov regions, the Buzh-Dniester lands, Belarus, and part of the Baltic territory.

Compared to the first half of the 18th century. By the end of the century, the population doubled and amounted to 36 million people, with only 4% of the population living in cities; in Russia the predominant population was rural. Up to half the population are privately owned peasants.

The development of the annexed territories was accompanied by the growth of feudal-serf relations in breadth and depth.

For 1783–1796 serfdom spread to the Ukrainian lands, Crimea and Ciscarpathia. Agriculture developed mainly extensively, due to new Russian lands and advancement into suitable areas of the Urals and Siberia.

With the increasing exploitation of peasants, serfdom expanded deeper. By a decree of 1765, landowners were allowed to exile their peasants without trial or investigation to hard labor in Siberia, which was counted as fulfilling conscription duties. The sale of peasants and cruel punishments were widespread. According to the decree of 1763, peasants themselves paid the costs, if they were recognized as instigators, for suppressing unrest. Finally, in 1767, Catherine II issued a decree prohibiting peasants from complaining about their masters.

In the 2nd half of the 18th century, two large regions with different forms of serf exploitation were identified in Russia. In the black earth provinces with fertile soil and in the south, corvée prevailed. Sometimes the landowner took the land from the peasant, and he actually turned into a farm laborer working for meager pay. In areas with infertile soil, cash rent prevailed. Some landowners sought to increase the profitability of their estates, used technical devices, introduced crop rotation, introduced new crops imported from other countries - tobacco, potatoes, sunflowers, built manufactories, then using the labor of their serfs. All these innovations were a sign of the beginning of the disintegration of serfdom.

In 1785, a special “craft regulation” (from the “Charter of Grant to Cities”) regulated the development of crafts in cities. Craftsmen were grouped into workshops, which elected foremen. This organization of life for artisans created better conditions for their work and apprenticeship. With this provision, the government hoped to turn urban artisans into one of the classes of feudal society.

Along with the city, crafts were widely developed in industrial villages. Thus, Ivanovo was famous for textile production, Pavlovo for metal products, Khokhloma for woodworking, Gzhel for ceramics, etc.

Second half of the 18th century. for Russia this means further growth in manufacturing production. If in the middle of the century there were more than 600 manufactories, then at the beginning of the 19th century. up to 1200. Manufactories using the labor of serfs predominated. But manufactories using free labor also appeared, in particular in textile production. The role of civilians was played by serfs released on quitrent. The relations of free employment were capitalist relations.

In 1762, it was forbidden to purchase serfs for factories, and manufactories founded after this year used civilian labor.

In 1775, peasant industry was allowed, which led to an increase in the number of business owners from merchants and peasants.

The process of the formation of capitalist relations became more and more noticeable and irreversible. The market for civilian labor appeared and began to grow. However, new relations appeared in a country where serfdom dominated, which influenced this process.

In the 2nd half of the 18th century. The all-Russian market continued to form. The specialization of the regions became more noticeable: the black earth Center and Ukraine produced bread, the Volga region supplied fish, leather, wool, the Urals - iron, Novgorod and the Smolensk lands - flax and hemp, the North - fish, furs, Siberia - furs, etc. All this was exchanged at auctions and fairs, the number of which grew. Through the ports of the Baltic and Black Sea regions, Russia conducted active foreign trade, exporting its goods - metal, flax, hemp, sailing cloth, timber, leather, bread. Russia imported sugar, cloth, silk, coffee, wine, fruit, tea, etc. Russia's leading trading partner at that time was England.

Trade primarily served the needs of the state and the ruling class. But it contributed to the establishment of a capitalist structure in the country.

In the 2nd half of the 18th century. The class system of the country is strengthened. Each category of the population - nobility, clergy, peasantry, townspeople, etc. - received rights and privileges by appropriate laws and decrees.

In 1785, in development of the Manifesto on the Freedom of the Nobility (1762), a Charter to the Nobility was issued, which confirmed the exclusive right of landowners to own land and peasants. The nobles were freed from compulsory service and personal taxes, and received the right to special representation in the district and province in the person of leaders of the nobility, which increased their role and importance locally.

Strengthening the class system in the 18th century. was an attempt to maintain the power of the ruling class, to preserve the feudal system, especially since this happened on the eve of the Great French Revolution.

Thus, in the 2nd half of the 18th century. The reserves of feudalism in the country had not yet been exhausted, and it could still ensure progress, despite the development of capitalist relations.

Catherine II. Enlightened absolutism 60–80 XVIIIV. Catherine II (1762 - 1796), having taken the throne in difficult times, showed remarkable abilities as a statesman. And indeed, her inheritance was not easy: the treasury was practically empty, the army had not received money for a long time, and manifestations of the ever-growing protest of the peasants posed a great danger to the ruling class.

Catherine II had to develop a policy that would meet the needs of the time. This policy was called enlightened absolutism. Catherine II decided to rely in her activities on certain provisions of the ideologists of the Enlightenment - the famous philosophical movement of the 18th century, which became the ideological basis of the Great French bourgeois revolution (1789–1794). Naturally, Catherine II set out to use only those ideas that could help strengthen serfdom and feudal orders in the country.

In Russia, apart from the nobility, there were no other forces capable of personifying social progress.

The French encyclopedists Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, and Rousseau developed the main provisions of the Enlightenment, affecting the problems of social development. At the center of their thinking was the theory of “natural law,” according to which all people were naturally free and equal. But human society in its development it deviated from the natural laws of life and came to an unjust state, oppression and slavery. In order to return to fair laws, it was necessary to enlighten the people, the encyclopedists believed. An enlightened society will restore fair laws, and then freedom, equality and fraternity will be the main meaning of the existence of society.

Philosophers entrusted the implementation of this goal to enlightened monarchs who wisely used their power.

These and other ideas were adopted by the monarchs of Prussia, Austria, and Russia, but approached them from the position of serfdom, linking the demands of equality and freedom with the strengthening of the privileges of the ruling class.

Such a policy could not be long-term. After the Peasants' War (1773 - 1775), as well as in connection with the revolution in France, the end of enlightened absolutism came, and the course towards strengthening internal and external reaction became too obvious.

Catherine II had been corresponding with Voltaire and his associates since 1763, discussing with them the problems of Russian life and creating the illusion of interest in applying their ideas.

In an effort to calm the country and strengthen her position on the throne, Catherine II in 1767 created a special commission in Moscow to draw up a new set of laws of the Russian Empire to replace the “Conciliar Regulations” of 1649.

573 deputies were involved in the work of the Commission - from nobles, various institutions, townspeople, state peasants, and Cossacks. Serfs did not participate in this Commission.

The commission collected orders from localities to determine people's needs. The work of the Commission was structured in accordance with the “Order” prepared by Catherine II - a kind of theoretical justification for the policy of enlightened absolutism. The order was voluminous, containing 22 chapters with 655 articles, most of the text was a quotation book from the works of enlighteners with justification for the need for strong monarchical power, serfdom, and the class division of society in Russia.

Having begun its meetings in the summer of 1767, the Commission solemnly awarded Catherine II the title of “great, wise mother of the Fatherland,” thereby declaring her recognition by the Russian nobility. But then, unexpectedly, the peasant question came into focus. Some deputies criticized the system of serfdom; there were proposals to attach the peasants to a special board, which would pay the landowners' salaries from peasant taxes; this was a hint of the desire to free the peasants from the power of the landowners. A number of deputies demanded that peasant duties be clearly defined.

The commission worked for more than a year and was dissolved under the pretext of the outbreak of war with Turkey, without creating a new code.

Catherine II learned from parliamentary speeches about the mood in society and in further legislative practice proceeded from her “Order” and the materials of this Commission.

The work of the Statutory Commission showed a growing critical, anti-serfdom attitude in Russian society. Pursuing the goal of influencing public opinion, Catherine II took up journalism and began publishing in 1769 the satirical magazine “All Things”, in which, trying to divert attention from criticism of serfdom, she offered criticism of human weaknesses, vices, and superstitions in general.

The Russian enlightener N.I. spoke from a different position. Novikov. In the magazines “Drone” and “Painter” he published, he spoke out, defending specific criticism of vices, namely, he castigated the unlimited arbitrariness of the landowners and the lack of rights of the peasants. It was expensive for N.I. Novikov had this position, he had to spend more than 4 years in the Shlisselburg fortress,

Criticism of serfdom and social activity Novikov contributed to the formation of anti-serfdom ideology in Russia.

A.N. is considered to be the first Russian revolutionary-republican. Radishchev (1749 – 1802). His views were formed under the strong influence of internal and external circumstances. These are the Peasant War of E. Pugachev, and the ideas of French and Russian enlighteners, and the revolution in France, and the War of Independence in North America (1775 - 1783), and the work of Novikov, and the statements of deputies of the Statutory Commission.

In the work "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow", the ode "Liberty" and others, Radishchev called for the abolition of slavery and the transfer of land to the peasants, for the revolutionary overthrow of the autocracy.

Catherine II called Radishchev “a rebel worse than Pugachev.” He was arrested and sentenced to death, commuted to 10 years of exile in Siberia (Ilimsky prison).

So, Catherine II is a traditional figure, despite her negative attitude towards the Russian past, despite the fact that she introduced new techniques in management, new ideas into social circulation. The duality of the traditions that she followed also determines the dual attitude of her descendants towards her. The historical significance of Catherine's era is extremely great precisely because in this era the results of previous history were summed up and the historical processes that developed earlier were completed.

Introduction

§ 1. Black-growing (state) peasants

§ 2. Palace peasants

§ 3. Landowner (privately owned) peasants

§ 4. Monastic peasants

§1. Yards and houses

§2. Home furniture and utensils

§3. Cloth

§4. Food and drink

Conclusion

peasants life in black soshny monastery

Introduction

In Russia, the formation of national estates began in the 16th century. In this regard, the class structure was affected by remnants of appanage times. Thus, the presence of numerous divisions in the political elite of the then society was a direct legacy of feudal fragmentation.

Estates are usually called community groups having certain rights and obligations that are enshrined in custom or law and are inherited. With the class organization of society, the position of each person is strictly dependent on his class affiliation, which determines his occupation, social circle, dictates a certain code of behavior and even prescribes what kind of clothes he can and should wear. With a class organization, vertical mobility is minimized; a person is born and dies in the same rank as his ancestors and leaves it as an inheritance to his children. As a rule, the transition from one social level to another is possible only within one class.

Thus, the main research goal of the work is to try to fully reveal the main problems of the situation of the peasantry in the second half of the 17th century, to consider their arrangement in law and life. The main objectives of the work are as follows: firstly, to consider each individual category of the peasantry, to trace what position they occupied in relation to the landowner or the state; secondly, it is necessary to find out what legal and economic position the peasants occupied during the period we are considering; thirdly, the living conditions of the peasants are directly subject to consideration.

In contrast to the feudal class, especially the nobility, the position of peasants and serfs in the 17th century. has deteriorated significantly. Of the privately owned peasants, the best life was for the palace peasants, the worst of all for the peasants of the secular feudal lords, especially small ones.

A lot of both Soviet and Russian literature. This topic is still relevant today. Leading researchers of the peasant question consider both the general situation of all categories of peasants and individual categories. The total number of each category of peasants was well covered by Ya. E. Vodarsky in his monograph “The Population of Russia by the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries.” this monograph is well equipped comparative tables, is replete with documentary materials. In addition, the author in his work relies on the works of V.M. Vazhinsky, who dealt with the issue of single-dvortsev in Russia.

Consideration of the development of the village in the 17th century. and agriculture in general was engaged in A.N. Sakharov. Agriculture recovered slowly after the turmoil. The reasons for this were the weakness of peasant farms, low yields, natural disasters, crop shortages, etc. Since the middle of the century, agricultural production began to grow, which was associated with the development of fertile lands Central Russia and the Lower Volga region. The lands were cultivated with tools that did not undergo changes: a plow, a harrow, a sickle, a scythe, and sometimes a plow. The peasant's labor was unproductive not only due to unfavorable climatic conditions, but also due to the peasant's lack of interest in increasing the results of labor. Main way, according to which it developed Agriculture, was extensive, i.e. An increasing number of new territories were included in economic turnover. Each new form of rent, new forms of feudal exploitation of the peasants determines not only the degree of dependence of the peasants on the feudal owners, but also the level of property differentiation and social stratification of the peasantry.

The peasant, like the landowner, economy basically retained a natural character: the peasants were content with what they produced themselves, and the landowners with what the same peasants delivered to them in the form of rent in kind: poultry, meat, butter, eggs, lard, as well as such handicraft products such as linen, coarse cloth, wooden and earthenware, etc.

In the 17th century the expansion of serf land ownership occurred due to the granting of black and palace lands to nobles (landowners), which was accompanied by an increase in the number of enslaved people.

Among the nobles, the direct connection between service and its reward was gradually lost: the estates remained with the family even if its representatives stopped serving. The rights to dispose of estates were increasingly expanded (transfer as a dowry, barter, etc.), i.e. the estate was losing the features of conditional land ownership and was approaching a fiefdom, between which by the 17th century. formal differences remained.

During this period, the share of secular land ownership increased, because The Council Code of 1649 reduced the church. From now on, the Church was forbidden to expand its possessions either by purchasing land or receiving it as a gift for the funeral of a soul. It is no coincidence that Patriarch Nikon called the Code a “lawless book.” The main trend in the socio-economic development of Russia was the further strengthening of serfdom, in the implementation of which government measures to prevent the flight of peasants occupied a special place: military teams led by detectives were sent to the counties to return fugitives to their owners.

After 1649, the search for fugitive peasants took on wide proportions. Thousands of them were captured and returned to their owners.

In order to survive, the peasants went into retirement, to become “farmers”, to earn money. Impoverished peasants moved into the category of peasants. Feudal lords, especially large ones, had many slaves, sometimes several hundred people. These are clerks and parcel servants, grooms and tailors, watchmen and shoemakers, falconers and “singing guys.” By the end of the century, serfdom merged with the peasantry. The peasants were outraged by their situation, so writing petitions was quite common in those days, which are widely represented in the collection of peasant petitions of the 17th century, published in 1994. But despite all this, the peasants had certain rights. For the legal status of peasants, census books played a significant role. A.G. Mankov and I. Belyaev studied them in detail. In their works, researchers of this problem widely revealed how and on whom the peasants depended, whether they could enter into various types of transactions and act in court proceedings. In general, the average level of well-being of the Russian serf peasantry decreased. For example, peasant plowing has decreased: in the Zamoskovny Territory by 20-25%. Some peasants had half a tithe, about a tithe of land, others did not have even that. And the wealthy had several dozen acres of land. There were acute contradictions in Russian society at that time. So, for example, I. Belyaev writes in his work that although the peasants were dependent, at the same time they could buy serfs for themselves. It follows that some peasants were quite wealthy to afford this kind of purchase. But most likely, the personality of the feudal lord played a significant role here, who allowed his peasants to develop their farms, and not rip them off “like a stick,” as most landowners of that time did. Along with the landowner peasants, the monastery peasants also suffered from extortions. Gorskaya N.A. in her monograph examines land ownership and land use of monastic peasants, the role of the peasant community in the life of the monastic village, changes in the forms and sizes of rent of monastic peasants throughout the 17th century. In her work, she actively uses records preserved in archives regarding peasants from different regions of the country. Her monograph widely presents data on the volume of taxes and various types of duties levied on peasants, both by landowners and by the state.

Life was better for the state-owned, or black-growing, peasants. The sword of Damocles of direct subordination to a private owner did not hang over them. But they depended on the feudal state: they paid taxes in its favor and carried out various duties. In the 17th century The lines between individual categories of the peasantry are being erased, because All of them were equalized by serfdom. However, some differences still remained. Thus, the landowners and palace peasants belonged to one person, while the monastery peasants belonged to institutions: the patriarchal palace order or the monastic brethren. But, despite all the hardships and deprivations of peasant life, the cultural and everyday aspect continued to develop. XVII century brings some changes to the lives of peasants, even if not significant. The work of N. I. Kostomarov covers the daily life of peasants quite well, describing their houses, courtyards, customs and traditions and gives us a complete picture of the life of not only nobles, but also commoners. I would like to note that the life of the nobility was always distinguished by special luxury, but regarding the peasants, the material is not particularly rich. And the modest life of peasants has always attracted researchers less than the living conditions of the noble class. Ryabtsev Yu. S. In his work on the history of Russian culture, he gives a complete picture of the holidays in peasant environment, about the customs of their implementation. Yes, in fact, almost every action among the peasants had its own ritual peculiarity. So, for example, the peasant prepared for sowing grain with special care: the day before he washed himself in a bathhouse so that the grain was clean and free of weeds. On sowing day, he put on a white shirt and went out into the field with a basket on his chest. A priest was invited to the sowing to perform a prayer service and sprinkle the ground with holy water. Only selected grain was sown. A quiet, windless day was chosen for sowing. The peasants in general were a believing people, and they believed not only in God, but also in all kinds of brownies, goblins, mermaids, etc.

In the second half of the 17th century. The main occupation of the population remained agriculture, based on the exploitation of the feudal-dependent peasantry. During the period under review, already established forms of land cultivation continued to be used, such as three-field farming, which was the most common method of land cultivation; in some areas, shifting and shifting farming was maintained. Tools for cultivating the land were also not improved and corresponded to the era of feudalism. As before, the land was cultivated with a plow and a harrow; such cultivation was not effective, and the harvest was accordingly quite low.

The land was owned by the spiritual and secular feudal lords of the palace department and the state. By 1678, the boyars and nobles had concentrated 67% of peasant households in their hands. This was achieved through grants from the government and direct seizures of palace and black-plow lands, as well as the possessions of small and service people. The nobles tried to create serfdom as quickly as possible. By this time, only a tenth of the tax-tax population of Russia was in a non-enslaved position. The second place after the nobles in terms of land ownership was occupied by spiritual feudal lords. Bishops, monasteries and churches by the second half of the 17th century. Owned over 13% of tax yards. It should be noted that patrimonial monasteries were not much different from secular feudal lords in their methods of running their serfdom.

As for the state, or as they are also called, black-sowing peasants, in comparison with the landowner and monastic peasants, they were in slightly better conditions. They lived on state lands and were burdened with various kinds of duties in favor of the state treasury, but in addition to this, they constantly suffered from the arbitrariness of the royal governors.

Let's look at how the life of serfs was built. The center of an estate or patrimony was usually a village or hamlet, next to which stood the manor's estate with a house and outbuildings. The village was usually the center of the villages adjacent to it. In an average village there were about 15-30 households, and in villages there were usually 2-3 households.

So, as it has already turned out, the peasants were divided into several categories, such as: palace, black-sown, monastery and landowner. Let's look at how the life of representatives of each category was built in more detail.

§1. Chernososhnye (state) peasants

Black-footed peasants are a category of tax-paying people in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries; they are a class of the agricultural population of Russia who lived on “black”, i.e., non-owner land. Unlike serfs, black-sown peasants were not personally dependent, and therefore bore taxes not in favor of the landowners, but in favor of the Russian state. They lived mainly on the underdeveloped outskirts of the country with a harsh climate, and therefore were often forced to engage in hunting, fishing, gathering, and trading. The black-sown peasants include the peasants of the Northern and North-Eastern lands (Pomerania), state peasants of Siberia, as well as the community of single-household peasants that began to take shape towards the end of the 17th century. Historically, the most numerous (up to 1 million people by the beginning of the 18th century) black-mown peasants were in Pomerania (the so-called “Blue Rus'”), which did not know serfdom. This allowed the black openers to engage early in foreign trade with Western countries through Arkhangelsk.

During the 17th century, “black” or state lands were systematically plundered and by the end of the century they remained only in Pomerania and Siberia. The main difference between the black-sown peasants was that, sitting on state land, they had the right to alienate it: sale, mortgage, inheritance. It was also important that they were personally free and did not know serfdom.

With development state power in Rus', communal lands little by little turned into black or sovereign lands and were considered the prince, but not as a private owner, but as a bearer of state power. Black-growing peasants used the land only as members of the community, receiving certain plots of land or vyti as an allotment. A peasant could sit on the same plot for his whole life and pass it on to his heirs, but with the condition that they were considered members of the community and were involved in all community cuts and markings. To some extent, the land was, as it were, the property of the peasant; he could give it as collateral and sell it, but on the condition that the buyer would go to communal cuttings and markings or immediately pay all community fees and “whitewash” the plot; otherwise, the cession of land was considered invalid.

The owner was responsible for the performance of state duties, and the state transferred to him part of the administrative-fiscal and judicial-police functions. Among the black-sown peasants, these functions were performed by a community with a lay assembly and elected officials: the headman and the sotskie. The secular authorities distributed taxes, carried out trials and reprisals, and defended land rights communities. The world was bound by mutual responsibility, which prevented peasants from leaving the community.

State peasants were not in a position of direct subordination to the private owner. But they depended on the feudal state: they paid taxes in its favor and carried out various duties. Black-growing peasants paid the highest tax in the country. Until 1680, the unit of taxation was the “plow,” which included land, the area of ​​which depended on the social class of the owner.

The conditional right of alienation of black lands was especially developed in cities: it was not the land that was sold, but the right to it, since even the princes could not buy the plot itself. The presented view of the black-sown peasants is shared by the majority of Russian scientists, with the exception of Chicherin.

Among the black-sown peasants, the largest communal unit was the volost, which had its own headman; Lower communities were drawn into this higher community - villages and large villages assigned to the volost, which also had their own elders; Small villages, repairs and other small settlements were drawn to the villages. Communities themselves brought claims for land, could exchange land with neighbors, buy or redeem land. They also tried to populate the wastelands that belonged to them, called people to them, gave them plots of land, benefits and allowances, and paid money for them to the owners with whom they had previously lived. Communities in the black lands were responsible to the government for order in the volosts and for the proper collection of taxes and administration of duties. Elected chiefs, elders, councilors and good people from the black-growing peasants participated in the courts of governors and volosts.

The picture of complete self-government of the black-sown peasants is clear from the court lists and charters of the 15th century. By monuments XVI V. Black-growing peasants had two types of relationships with the land: either they owned a certain share of the communal land, or the community gave the peasant land for rent according to a quitrent record. The first type of land relations was determined by a serial record, which the peasant issued to the community or volost. With the addition of peasants, this class, until then integral, was divided into 2 categories: peasants of palace and black lands and peasants of proprietary or private lands. It was then that the term “black-mown peasants” appeared for the first time.

As for the number and distribution of peasants, it can be determined by the decree of September 20, 1686. or according to the certificate of 1722. But both of these sources can be considered incomplete, since they indicate the number of peasants mainly living in the territory of Pomerania. The approximate number of peasants inhabiting Pomorie, taking into account the concealment, was about 0.3 million people.

As was already mentioned above, the number of state peasants also included members of the same household. In the 17th century, “odnodvorki” were the name given to landowners who worked the land themselves or with the help of serfs and did not have serfs or peasants; Odnodvortsy were both service people “according to the device” and service people “according to the fatherland”.

When calculating state peasants, single-yard peasants were counted separately. V. M. Vazhinsky, who specially studied the number of single-dvortsev who settled in the South, determines it at the end of the 17th century. - 76 thousand households, that is, counting 3 people per family, their number was approximately 0.2 million people.

Until the second half of the 18th century. There are no changes in the situation of black-sown peasants. The Code of 1649 recognizes all peasants as one indivisible class of the population; the distinction between black-sown peasants and landowners became clearer at the beginning of the 18th century, under the influence of the measures of Peter I.

§2. Palace Peasants

Palace peasants were feudal-dependent peasants in Russia who belonged personally to the Tsar and members of the royal family. The lands inhabited by palace peasants were called palace lands. Palace land ownership developed during the period of feudal fragmentation (XII-XIV centuries). The main responsibility of the palace peasants was to supply the grand ducal (later royal) court with food.

Palace peasants occupied an intermediate position between privately owned and state peasants. That part of the peasants who were in the personal estates of the king in the 17th century. was in the position of a landowner. The position of the rest of the palace peasants was closer to the state than to the privately owned ones.

During the period of formation and strengthening of the Russian centralized state (late 15th-16th centuries), the number of palace peasants increased. According to scribe books of the 16th century. palace lands were located in no less than 32 counties in the European part of the country. In the 16th century In connection with the development of the manorial system, palace peasants began to be widely used to reward the serving nobility.

In the 17th century As the territory of the Russian state grew, the number of palace peasants also increased. In 1700 there were about 100 thousand households of palace peasants. At the same time, distribution to the palace peasants also took place. The distribution of palace peasants acquired a particularly wide scope in the first years of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (1613-1645).

Under Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) about 14 thousand households were distributed, under Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-82) - over 6 thousand households. In the first years of the reign of Peter I (1682-99), about 24.5 thousand households of palace peasants were distributed. Most of them fell into the hands of the royal relatives, favorites and those close to the court.

So, the summary of the courtyards in the palace estates at the end of the 17th century. ranges from 102 thousand to 110 thousand households.

In the 18th century, as before, the replenishment of palace peasants and lands was mainly due to the confiscation of lands from disgraced owners and the population of the newly annexed lands (in the Baltic states, Ukraine and Belarus).

Already from the end of the 15th century. The palace peasants and lands were administered by various special palace institutions. In 1724, the palace peasants came under the jurisdiction of the Main Palace Chancellery, which was the central administrative and economic body for managing the palace peasants and the highest court in civil cases. Palace parishes on the ground until the beginning of the 18th century. were controlled by clerks, and then by managers. In the palace volosts there was local government. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 18th centuries. palace peasants paid rent in kind or cash, or both at the same time, supplied bread, meat, eggs, fish, honey, etc., performed various palace work and delivered food, firewood, etc. to the court on their carts.

From the beginning of the 18th century. Cash rent began to become increasingly important; therefore, in 1753, most of the palace peasants were freed from corvée and natural duties and transferred to cash rent. In the 18th century The economic situation of the palace peasants was somewhat better compared to privately owned peasants, their duties were easier, and they enjoyed greater freedom in their economic activities. Among the palace peasants in the 18th century. rich peasants, merchants, moneylenders, etc. are clearly distinguished. According to the reform of 1797, palace peasants were transformed into appanage peasants.

§3. Landowner (privately owned) peasants

In the 17th century the expansion of serf land ownership occurred due to the granting of black and palace lands to nobles (landowners), which was accompanied by an increase in the number of enslaved people. As mentioned above, the bulk of the peasantry was concentrated in the hands of the landowners, which by the second half of the 17th century. fell into serfdom (67% of the total tax population).

The bulk of the serfs were located in the Non-Black Earth Center, the North-Western and Western regions. In other areas where settlement and development of new lands took place, the peasants had half as many serfs.

According to the method of working out serfdom, the landowner peasants were divided into corvée, quitrent and courtyard peasants. The landowners' main income came from the corvée and quitrent duties of the serfs. While serving his corvee, the peasant worked the landowner's land with his own tools, of course, for free; by law - three days a week, although other landowners extended the corvee to six days. The peasants cultivated the landowner's land, harvested crops, mowed meadows, transported firewood from the forest, cleaned ponds, built and repaired mansions. . In addition to corvée, they were obliged to deliver “table supplies” to the gentlemen - a certain amount of meat, eggs, dry berries, mushrooms, etc.

While on quitrent, the peasant was engaged in various trades, trade, crafts, carriage, or hired out to manufacture; He paid part of his earnings - quitrent - to the landowner. Obrok peasants were released from the estate only with a special document - a passport issued by the landowner. The volume of work in corvée or the amount of money for rent was determined by taxes; tax was a peasant household (family) with a team, as well as the rate of labor for such a unit. Thus, corvée was more profitable for landowners who owned fertile lands, and quitrent was more preferred in less fertile, that is, in non-black earth provinces. In general, quitrent, which allowed him to freely manage his time, was easier for the peasant than grueling corvee labor. The increase in domestic demand for agricultural products, as well as partly the export of some of them abroad, encouraged landowners to expand the lordly plowing and increase the rent. In this regard, in the black earth zone, peasant corvée continuously increased, and in non-black earth regions, mainly central, where corvée was less common, the proportion of quitrent duties increased. The landowners' arable land expanded at the expense of the best peasant lands, which were allocated to the master's fields. In areas where quitrent prevailed, the importance of cash rent grew slowly but steadily. This phenomenon reflected the development of commodity-money relations in the country, into which peasant farms were gradually involved. However, in its pure form, monetary rent was very rare; as a rule, it was combined with food rent or corvee duties.

Landowner peasants were also subject to state taxes. These taxes were usually collected by the elders. In addition to state taxes, the landowner himself did not hesitate to collect taxes from the peasants, but at the same time he had to stipulate from whom and how much to take. “And the tsar’s taxes are ordered to be collected from their peasants by the elders and given to their people into the tsar’s treasury, according to the tsar’s decree; and they put their taxes on their peasants themselves, depending on how much they take from each.”

In addition to the draft peasants, there were non-draft peasants - the elderly and sick, who were used as needed in various feasible jobs. Maintaining this kind of peasants was not profitable for the landowners.

Serfs were called serfs, cut off from the land and serving the manor's house and courtyard. They usually lived in people's or courtyard huts located near the manor's house. The room for servants in the manor's house was called the people's room. The courtyard people fed in the common room, at a common table, or received a salary in the form of a month - a monthly food ration, which was sometimes called otvesny ("vertical"), since it was sold by weight, and a small amount of money - "for shoes." Guests came to the owners, the servants were visible; Therefore, the servants dressed better than the corvee workers, wore uniforms, and often wore out the lord's dress. Men were forced to shave their beards. Although the courtyards were the same serfs, they were not called that.

A special category of peasants, formally state-owned ("state-owned"), but actually in the position of landowners, were peasants assigned to private manufactories. For example, the peasants of the Solomenskaya volost of the Kashira district and the Vyshegorodskaya volost of the Vereisky district were assigned to iron factories. The total number of registered peasants in the second half of the 17th century did not exceed 5 thousand people.

In 1696, all owners of serfdoms were subject to a tax for the construction of ships. The feudal lords were united into “kumpanships” of 10 thousand households (each “kumpanship” had to build a ship).

Number of households of secular feudal lords according to the 1678 census. amounted to 436 thousand households and that the distribution by district covered 419 thousand households, that is, 97%.

The peasant, like the landowner, economy basically retained a natural character: the peasants were content with what they produced themselves, and the landowners with what the same peasants delivered to them in the form of rent in kind: poultry, meat, butter, eggs, lard, as well as such handicraft products such as linen, coarse cloth, wooden and earthenware, etc. The estates of landowners were scattered across many counties. The patrimonial administration was in charge of collecting rent, managing the economy, and performing supervisory functions.

§4. Monastic peasants

One of the categories of peasant ownership was the assignment of peasants to monasteries. What was the situation of the monastic peasants we will try to consider in this paragraph. How did their position differ from the peasants of the landowners or palaces? After all, in fact, they were also assigned to the monastery, like a serf to a landowner’s land.

Based on the number of peasant households belonging to the monasteries, monasteries can be divided into three groups: large (over 1 thousand households), medium (over 100 households) and small (over 10 households). Vodarsky Ya.E. in his monograph relies on the data of Gorchakov M.I. in calculating the number of courtyards that belonged to the monasteries. So, total number households ranged from 120 thousand to 146.5 thousand households.

Real conditions peasant life were largely determined by the nature of the organizational forms within which the economic activities of the peasantry took place. Like state peasants, one of the most important forms of unification of monastic peasants was the community. Within each monastic estate and each peasant world, strict correspondence was observed between the land allotment and the taxation of the peasant household. The peasant's allotment included lands different types. Thus, field arable land (could be located on different fields), feeder wastelands, meadows, vegetable gardens and estate land - this is the structure of the peasant allotment in the 17th century. The basis, as a matter of course, was field arable land, while the size of feeder wastelands was directly dependent on the monastic reserves lands. It should be noted that the provision of land resources in different monastery estates was far from equal. Thus, the tax allotment of the monastic peasants, in conditions of a fixed rent, represented the minimum that ensured the simple reproduction of the peasant economy and rent for the patrimonial monastery. Such an allotment really “served entirely and exclusively for the exploitation of the peasant by the landowner, to “provide” the landowner with labor, never to actually provide for the peasant himself.”

In addition to allotment land, monastery peasants could have so-called non-allotment lands. The overwhelming majority of peasant households resorted to renting non-allotted lands. Non-allotment land use in a monastic village traditionally complemented allotment land and served for the landowner as a means of making the most complete use of the changing labor resources of the peasant farm, and for the peasant landowner (in conditions when the minimum size of the allotment was provided only by the landowner’s working hands) - the only way to “independently increase property” , i.e., conduct in separate periods of time and at almost favorable conditions expanded reproduction of one's economy, which could take place with all forms of alienation of surplus product from the direct producer without exception.

The monastery peasants, like the black-sown peasants, paid state duties, but they also combined them with corvee payments to their patrimonial owner. State payments to monastic peasants were divided into natural and monetary - by their nature and into salaries (the annual salary of which is established for a long period or is determined for next year according to the previous one), request and emergency in the form of their collection. The main salary tax for monastic peasants throughout the 17th century. There was Streltsy bread, and the money was Yamsky money. The amount they collected in most cases depended on the patrimonial owner. In some fiefdoms, state payments exceeded payments to the feudal lords, while in others it could be the other way around. In addition, government payments were constantly increasing, and emergency collections from peasants were also becoming more frequent. For the best collection of taxes, the state introduced the yard salary unit, and within the community the principle of secular distribution of duties continued to be preserved.

At the end of the 17th century. With the coming to power of Peter I, annual fees for ship construction, equipment and repairs also fell on the shoulders of the peasants. And already in 1701, all the peasant clergy were transferred to the jurisdiction of the restored Monastic Order, and subsequently the Synod was created. So, the situation of the monastic peasants was by no means easier than that of the serfs or state ones. Constant extortions allowed the peasants to only eke out their miserable existence. Even despite the use of non-allocated land, the peasants could barely make ends meet. Although the tithe of non-allotment land brought in much more income than the use of allotment land. Only in in rare cases the use of this kind of land led to an improvement in the material well-being of individual peasants.

Chapter II. Socio-economic situation of peasants

The situation of peasants in the 17th century worsened significantly. The Council Code of 1649 established permanent hereditary and hereditary serfdom of peasants, including their families, as well as direct and collateral relatives. Because of this, the regular years of searching for fugitives were cancelled. The investigation became indefinite.

Black-growing peasants were also assigned to the volost communities and were subject to search and return to their former plots on a general basis. The Code of 1649 secured the monopoly right of ownership of peasants for all categories of service ranks in the fatherland. The legal basis for the rights to peasants, their attachment and investigation were the scribe books of the 20s. XVII century, and for the period after the Code, in addition to them - census books of 1646-1648, individual and refusal books, letters of grant, acts of transactions for peasants between feudal lords, inventories of the return of peasants as a result of investigation. To give private acts of transactions on peasants official force, their registration in the Local Order was mandatory.

The Code completed the process of legal rapprochement between bobyls and peasants, extending to bobyls an equal measure of serfdom. The Code, in order to preserve the local system, limited the rights of disposal of peasants recorded in the books of the estates: it was forbidden to transfer them to patrimonial lands and to give them vacation pay. Rights to patrimonial peasants were more complete. Thus, the Code, following the immediately preceding legislation and supplementing it, resolved land and peasant issues in conjunction, subordinating the question of the peasantry to the land issue.

In the bulk of cases, the legal capacity of peasants was limited (the landowners were “searching” and “responsible” for them), but in criminal cases they remained the subject of a crime. As a subject of law, a peasant could participate in a trial, as a witness, or be a participant in a general search. In the civil legal sphere, he could bring material claims within the limits of 20 rubles. In the fact of compensation for dishonor and injury provided for by the Code, the peasant, along with other classes, received recognition (from the standpoint of feudal society) - a certain complex civil rights inherent in the lower class-estate of this society. The peasant, according to the Code, had a certain legal capacity and legal capacity. Black-sown peasants had more rights than privately-owned peasants.

A new step on the path to the final enslavement of the main producers of material goods is associated with the Council Code of 1649.

§1. Legal status of peasants

By the second half of the 17th century, the legal basis for the serfdom of peasants, established by the Council Code, was in force on the territory of Russia. First of all, these should include the scribe books of 1626-1628. and census books of 1646-1648. Census books from 1678 were later added. and other inventories of the 80s. It was the census books that played a significant role in determining the legal status of peasants. Their main feature was that they provided detailed information about males in each household, regardless of age, and they also contained information about runaway peasants. The dependent state of Russian peasants was determined and secured, in addition to census and scribe books, by various kinds of acts that recorded changes in the legal status and affiliation of peasants and serfs to one or another feudal owner, in the interval from the previous census and scribe books to the compilation of new ones. These kinds of measures were taken by the state taking into account the practiced transactions between landowners in relation to peasants.

The right to own serfs was assigned mainly to all categories of service ranks “according to the fatherland,” although these small service units did not even always have peasants. The law on hereditary (for feudal lords) and hereditary (for peasants) attachment of peasants is the largest measure of the Council Code, and the abolition of the fixed-term years for the investigation of fugitives became a necessary consequence and condition for the implementation of this norm. Thus, the complete attachment of peasants to the land according to the Code extended not only to the peasants themselves, but also to their children, who were born at a time when he lived on the run for another owner, and even to sons-in-law, if the peasant, while on the run, married his daughter to someone, or a peasant girl or a widow on the run married someone - all these persons, through court and investigation, were returned to the old owner from whom the peasant father, recorded in a scribe or census book, had fled.

But the attachment of peasants to the land according to the Council Code was only a financial measure of the government, without in any way affecting the rights of the peasantry as a state class; the only purpose of attachment was the convenience of collecting government taxes from the lands. But it should be noted that the attachment of peasants to the land according to the Council Code did not yet make the peasants serfs of their landowners. The Code considered peasants only to be strong to the land; they belonged to landowners insofar as the landowner had the right to the land. Thus, a full landowner-owner had more rights to a peasant living on his estate, and a landowner, an incomplete owner, had less rights to a peasant living on his estate.

Serfdom acts for peasants and serfs, on the basis of which the peasant was attached to a plot of land, can be divided according to their purpose into two groups. The first group includes those that concerned the cash mass of the serf population living in estates and estates. For this group, the following documents were important: salaries, waivers, import certificates, decrees on the allocation of estates and estates, on the sale of estates, etc. With the exercise of the right to transfer a votchina or estate, the rights to the peasant population attached to the land were also transferred. For this purpose, the new owner was given obedient letters to the peasants. Also related to the actual population of feudal estates were acts that served as a form of implementation of non-economic coercion against peasants: separate records, marriage licenses, settlements, mortgages and deeds of sale, etc.

The second group should include those who were related to newcomers, temporarily free people who became peasants of a given patrimony and estate. Thus, in relation to outsiders and those who became peasants, housing, order, loan and surety records were concluded. Formula for peasant obedience in the second half of the 17th century. usually included in the act with which the transfer of ownership rights to the votchina and estate was associated.

Russian legislation considered patrimonial owners and landowners as representatives of state power locally, and above all within their domains, endowing them with certain rights and responsibilities. It should be noted that the terms of reference of the feudal lord of the second half of the 17th century. was significantly wide. But the presence of various kinds of powers of feudal lords in relation to peasants did not exclude the fact that the peasant, as a subject of law, had certain rights to own his plot and farm. In the second half of the 17th century. Both of these interrelated aspects of the legal status of peasants as an object of feudal law and as a subject of law, possessing a certain, albeit limited, set of civil legal powers, closely interacted. But directly within the boundaries of estates and estates, the jurisdiction of feudal lords was not clearly regulated by law. However, the property and life of the peasant were protected by law from the extreme manifestation of the willfulness of the feudal lords. The landowners had to protect the peasants from various kinds of encroachments on them from the outside, and in case of improper treatment of the peasants, the feudal lord could lose not only the peasant, but also the land, if it was given to him by the tsar. For the murder of a peasant, the boyar was subject to trial, and the tsar himself could act as a plaintiff. “And if a boyar and a Duma member, a neighbor, or any landowner and patrimonial owner commits capital murder against his godparents or some outrage against a non-Christian custom, there will be petitioners against him, and to such a villain the decree is written authentically in the Coded Book. But there will be no petitioners against him , and the king himself is the plaintiff in such cases for dead people.” It follows from this that male peasants were protected from arbitrariness by the tsar personally, and as for the abuses committed against peasant women and children, they did not even fall within the scope of consideration of the tsar’s court. “And if they commit some kind of fornication on their subjects, peasant wives and daughters, or they will take out a little woman’s child, or she will die tortured and beaten with a child, and there will be petitions against such evil-doers, and according to their petitions, such cases and plaintiffs in Moscow will be sent to the Patriarch, and city ​​to the metropolitan... but in the royal court there is no case"

Thus, protection from the state was provided for peasants of both sexes. As noted earlier, males were given more “privileges” than females.

The following phenomena in the life of Russian society serve as a denial of the full development of the possessory right of full ownership of the peasants and as evidence of the civil rights still retained by the peasants:

.The landowner peasants still retained the old right to enter into agreements with the treasury and with outsiders without regard to their masters; the government recognized this right for them and recorded them in contracts in the land registers;

.The peasants took out various contracts from their owners and wrote conditions in public places without any powers of attorney from their owner, as independent persons;

.Peasants, both proprietary and black-sown, enjoyed full ownership rights, both movable and immovable, and the right to engage in various crafts and trade;

.Peasants, both landowners and black farmers, continued to form communities governed by elders and other elected officials. And the peasant communities were still quite independent of the owners in relation to their common affairs;

So, the basis of the legislation on peasants of the second half of the 17th century. lay the norms of the Council Code of 1649, since this code remained effective for quite a long time, various kinds of additions were included in it (changes in the original terms of investigation, new grounds for attachment, etc.). Recognition of the economic connection between feudal ownership and peasant farming continued to form the basis of feudal law and entailed the protection of the property and life of the peasant from the arbitrariness of the feudal lord. The range of powers of the feudal lord in relation to the peasants was quite wide and along with this, the peasant had, as a subject of law, certain rights of ownership and disposal of his farm, could participate in the trial as a witness, plaintiff and defendant and be a participant in a general search

Black-sown peasants had more civil rights than privately-owned peasants.

To summarize the above, we note that although the peasantry as a class did not take part in legislative activity, nevertheless it exerted significant influence through the submission of petitions. Great importance in the development of legislation there was ordinary class peasant law. Part of the norms of communal law at the stage of developed feudalism received the sanction of the state, which to varying degrees invaded the estate law of state, palace, monastic and landowner peasants. Common law had a certain social value for peasants as a means of protection, but at the same time it was distinguished by its conservatism, contributing to the reproduction of existing social relations.

§2. Economic situation of peasants

The situation of peasants in life is much more varied than is stated in the law. It is quite important that, both in law and in life, peasants were sharply different from slaves or complete serfs and did not constitute the silent private property of their owners. The position of the peasant economy and, if possible, its development under feudalism, other things being equal, were ultimately determined by the size of the rent, which was the normal limit of profit.

In the last quarter of the 17th century. in the life of Russian society, various kinds of contradictions regarding the economic situation of the peasants coexisted. On the one hand, the peasant could become the subject of sale without land as a complete private property owner. On the other hand, landowner peasants, as full citizens, could buy serfs in their own name, sell them, exchange them - a right that complete serfs did not have, as silent private property.

Peasants of all the above categories bore duties both to the owner (landowners, monasteries) and to the state. Now let's take a closer look at what duties the peasant bore to the feudal lord and the state.

As is already known, most of the tax-paying population was concentrated in the hands of the feudal lords. Peasants belonging to the feudal lord were, in most cases, required to work corvée and pay quitrent. For failure to comply with which, the landowner could punish the peasant, both financially, by depriving him of his land plot, and physically.

So, the quitrent was usually determined by the landowner by mutual agreement with the peasants. That's why general measure There are no dues. The quantity and various measures of quitrent paid by peasants were determined by salary books. These kinds of quitrent estates were managed either by elected elders, or by clerks sent by the master. Together with the elected elders, two powers acted: the secular elective and the possessory order, thus, the power of the master did not destroy the communal structure of the peasants. But still, the management of the estate depended on the will of the feudal lord.

An ordered person depended only on the master, the world had no rights to him and could only complain to the master about his disorder and oppression. The headman depended both on the master and on the world. The master could recover from the headman all faults in management and, if anything happened, punish him.

The intervention of landowners in the social relations of peasant communities was at the request and with the consent of the peasants themselves, and this in turn led to the influence of the landowners on the police and on the government between the peasants. Such influence was convenient for the feudal lords, because many of them still enjoyed the right to trial and reprisal their peasants.

Thus, despite the right of civil personality, which was recognized for the peasants, and the right of property, they were quite often violated by the feudal lord himself, and the peasants were easily subjected to violence on his part, since he considered the peasants his property, although this property had not yet been accepted by law.

But it should also be noted positive side economic relations between peasants and feudal lords. The feudal lord could involve his peasants in the management of his estate, could ask their advice and opinion.

The next form of economic dependence of the peasant on the feudal lord was corvée. The owner disposed of the labor of the peasants who belonged to him. With quitrent, the share of capital collected by the master from the peasant, by the very nature of capital, allowed for greater certainty, but the share peasant labor did not allow such certainty, thus giving scope to the arbitrariness of the owner.

The master's field work was carried out both by the tithe and the harvest, by peasants and courtyard business people, based on the needs and considerations of the clerk. Working off the corvee was mainly expressed only by working in the fields of the feudal lord and repairing outbuildings; The peasants did not accept other forms of labor. In general, the power of landowners was strongly developed and, at every opportunity, put pressure on peasant rights. The peasant community itself in the 17th century. was strongly subordinate to the owner, who could unceremoniously meddle not only in public affairs, but even in family affairs. Thus, the peasants in their lives were not far from becoming completely equal to slaves, to complete serfs. Now we should consider how the state exploited the tax-paying population of Russia. The state in the second half of the 17th century. also increased her appetites. Various taxes were introduced, as a result of which the peasants rose up in riots and wars, not without reason in the 17th century. went down in history as "rebellious". So, in the period we are considering, the main taxes were: 1) yam and polonyany money (10.5-12 kopecks from the yard); 2) for retired archers for food (10 kopecks from the yard); 3) for granary crafts (2 kopecks from the yard); 4) hay, for hay to the sovereign's horses (10-12 kopecks from the yard); 5) Streltsy bread (5 squares of rye and oats from the yard).

In addition to these taxes, there were also emergency fees, which could be collected 3 times a year. Fees have also been introduced for shipbuilding, equipment and ship repairs.

Chapter III. Life of the Russian peasantry

In order to understand what the life of the Russian peasantry is like, one must first find out what life is in general. Everyday life, as M. Yu. Lotman defines it, is the usual course of life in its really practical forms; everyday life is the things that surround us, our habits and everyday behavior. Everyday life surrounds us like air, and like air, it is noticeable only when it is missing or deteriorates. We can notice some features of someone else’s life, but the features of our own are always elusive to us. Most often, everyday life can manifest itself in the world of things, but its manifestations are far from limited to this. Life can manifest itself both in the material sphere and in the spiritual. So, for example, in every established society it is already possible to identify certain norms of behavior, an established system of traditions and customs, in general, this is the structure of life that determines the daily routine, the time of various activities, the nature of work and leisure, forms of recreation, play love rituals and funeral ritual.

Everyday life is one of the forms of manifestation of culture. And in every social circle of society it is different. Peasants, especially serfs, could not boast of the “luxury” of their existence. They basically had to be content with what they inherited either from their ancestors or what they created with their own hands. But even in this case, everything depended on the personal qualities of the person himself. If a person was enterprising, then his household had much more aesthetic things than those who saw the meaning of their existence only in sleeping, eating and sometimes working “under pressure”.

In this chapter we will try to look at how peasants lived in the second half of the 17th century, how and what they dressed in, what rituals they performed, etc.

§1. Yards and houses

The courtyards, as was the long-standing Russian tradition, were always very spacious so that you could roam around. If possible, they tried to build them somewhere on a hill, so that in the event of a flood, the household would suffer as little as possible. This rule was also observed in villages and villages during the construction of estates of the owners. Yards were usually fenced with a fence or a sharp fence. This was done with the aim of preventing any animal from getting through to its neighbors or vice versa. In the 17th century In addition to wooden fences, stone ones also appear, but so far such luxury could be found in rare courtyards. There could be two or three gates leading into the fence (sometimes there were more), between them there were only the main ones, which had their own symbolic meaning. The gates were not left open either day or night. During the day they were only covered, and at night they were locked.

A peculiarity of the Russian courtyard is that the houses were not built next to the gate. There was usually a path leading from the central gate to the house. There could be several buildings on the territory of the yard. A necessary accessory to any decent yard was a soap bar. Almost everywhere it formed a separate special structure. The soap box was an accessory to the first necessities of life. Usually it consisted of a room with a stove for washing, with a vestibule that was equal to the entryway in residential buildings and was called a dressing room or a soaping room. Cages were built to store household property, and the more prosperous the peasant was, the more cages he had at court, which served as a kind of storage not only for any utensils, but also for food.

If the peasant had livestock, he also created a barnyard. So a peasant’s yard could be divided into several parts. There could also have been residential courtyards, on which there were granaries with grain or barns.

Peasant houses differed in many ways from lordly buildings. The houses were quadrangular in shape, made of solid pine or oak beams. Ordinary peasants had black huts, that is, smoke huts, without chimneys; The smoke in such huts usually came out of a small fiberglass window. If necessary, fiberglass windows could be covered with leather. Small windows were made specifically to preserve warmth, and when they were covered with leather, it became dark in the hut in broad daylight.

The so-called huts had extensions called rooms. In this space the Russian peasant lived, as he lives in many places now, with his chickens, pigs, geese and heifers, in the midst of an unbearable stench. The stove served as a lair for the whole family, and from the stove, roofs were attached to the ceiling. Various walls and cuts were attached to the huts. The wealthiest peasants could afford to build a hut or several huts in their yard for their relatives, and these huts were usually connected to each other by passages or (if the houses were under the same roof) vestibules. The canopy is a kind of vestibule between the street and the residential part of the house, protecting against cold air. In the summer, peasants could sleep there. In addition, the canopy connected the residential and utility parts of the house. Through them one could go to the barn, to the barnyard, to the attic, to the underground. But the main room in the hut remained the room with the stove.

A significant part of the peasant yard was occupied by a barn where work equipment was stored - plows, harrows, scythes, sickles, rakes, as well as a sleigh and a cart (if any). A bathhouse, a well and a barn were usually placed separately from the house. The bathhouse was placed closer to the water, and the barn away from the housing, in order to preserve a year's supply of grain in case of fire. They usually placed the barn in front of the house so that it could be seen

The usual roof of Russian houses was made of wood, planks, shingles or shingles. In the XVI and XVII centuries It was customary to cover the top with bark to prevent dampness; this gave it a variegated look; and sometimes earth and turf were placed on the roof to protect against fire. The shape of the roofs is quite ordinary - pitched on two sides with gables on the other two sides. Along the edges, the roof was framed with slotted ridges, scars, railings or railings with turned balusters.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, peasant households differed from each other. From them one could judge the position of the peasant, his hard work. The most purposeful peasants maintained their farm, constantly trying to transform it.

§2. Home furniture and utensils

The home environment of peasants was usually quite modest. To some extent, it depended on the wealth of the owner, on his position. As already mentioned, the main room in the house was the room with the stove, so let’s look at the arrangement of household utensils in this room.

The location of the stove in the house determined its layout. The stove was usually placed in the corner to the right or left of the entrance. The corner opposite the mouth of the furnace was considered working and was called “woman’s kut” or “middle”. Everything here was adapted for cooking. At the stove there was usually a poker, a grip, a broom, a wooden shovel, and next to it there was a mortar with a pestle and a hand mill. Not far from the stove hung a towel and a washstand - an earthenware jug with two spouts on the sides. Underneath there was a wooden basin for dirty water. In the woman's kutu, on the shelves there were simple peasant utensils: pots, bowls, ladles, cups, spoons. This was usually made directly by the owner of the house, mainly from wood. Among the peasant utensils there were many wicker things, such as baskets, baskets, and boxes. Birch bark tues served as containers for water. But the owner’s corner was also present in the house. It was usually located to the left or right of the door. There was also a bench on which the owner slept. A toolbox was usually kept under the bench. In his free time, the peasant did not sit idle. He was engaged in making counterfeits, weaving bast shoes, cutting spoons, etc.

The main decoration of the houses of both nobles and commoners were images. The more prosperous the owner was, the correspondingly more images there were in the house. This “red corner” occupied a place of honor in the hut and was usually located diagonally from the stove. The most honored guests were usually seated in this corner. In almost every home one could find several images Mother of God in various names such as: Hodegetria Friday, Mother of God the Merciful, Tenderness, Sorrowful, etc. The image was placed in the front corner of the chamber, and this corner was covered with a curtain called a dungeon. Ubrists and shrouds were changed on the images, and on holidays more elegant ones were hung than on weekdays and fasts. Lamps hung in front of the icons and burned wax candles. Between all the images, the main one stood out, which was placed in the center and usually decorated with it. It should be noted that there were no wall mirrors in the houses, as the church treated this with contempt. Yes, in fact, not every peasant house had mirrors; everything depended on the wealth of the owner.

There was little furniture in the hut: benches, benches, chests, crockery chests. For seating in the house there were benches attached tightly to the walls. If the walls in the house were upholstered, then the benches were also upholstered with the same thing, but in addition, the benches were also covered with shelf stands, usually there were two of them (one was larger than the other; the larger one hung down to the floor). The counters also changed; they were different on weekdays and holidays.

In addition to benches, the house had benches and tables. The benches were somewhat wider than the benches, and at one end there was usually a raised platform called a headrest, since they not only sat on them, but also rested. Stoltsy are quadrangular stools for one person to sit on; they were also covered with a piece of cloth. But the main piece of home furniture was the dining table. He usually stood in the "red corner". The tables were made of wood, usually narrow, and were often placed next to benches. They were also covered with a tablecloth, which was replaceable.

The bed in the house was usually a bench attached to the wall. Peasants (depending on their social status) usually slept on bare benches or covered with felt. Very poor villagers usually slept on the stove, with only their clothes under their heads. Young children most often slept in cradles, which were hanging and usually wide and long. This was done so that the child could grow freely. An icon or crosses were usually hung inside the cradle.

To store things they used hide-outs, cellars, chests, and suitcases. The dishes were placed in shelves: these were pillars lined with shelves on all sides; They were made wider at the bottom and narrower at the top, since more massive dishes were placed on the lower shelves, and smaller ones on the upper ones.

Peasant houses were usually illuminated with torches or tallow candles; wax candles were a luxury and therefore were usually used by representatives of the noble classes. The light from the torches was quite dim, making the house dim. In addition, the splinters made the room very smoky.

Tableware for food and drink bore the general name of pike perch. Liquid food was served on the table in cauldrons or pans. At the table, liquid food was poured into bowls. If the nobles had them mostly in silver, then among the peasants they were most often made of wood, and less often of tin. There were dishes for solid foods. Liquids had their own instruments, which had different names, and each served for certain cases. So, for example, they used buckets, jugs, suleys, quarters, bratins. They scooped from them with chumkas, scoopers or ladles. The peasant's home life was not particularly luxurious. The utensils used by peasants during the period under review were predominantly wooden; occasionally copper or tin could be found. Dishes for storing liquids were usually clay or wooden (for large quantity). We also had to sleep on whatever and wherever we had to, especially for poor peasants.

§3. Cloth

Clothes are an irreplaceable attribute of every person. The clothes of the peasants, unlike those of the lords, were not particularly colorful, but nevertheless, peasant clothes were the main form of life. Men's and women's clothing differed from each other only slightly.

So, what was men's clothing? Let's start our review with shoes. The shoes of a simple peasant were not particularly luxurious. It was usually made from natural materials at hand. Usually these were bast shoes made from tree bark or shoes woven from vine twigs. Some could wear leather soles, tied with belts. Such shoes were worn by both peasants and peasant women.

The shirts of the common people were usually made of canvas. Men's shirts were made wide and short and barely reached the thighs, dropped over the underwear and girded with a low and weakly narrow belt. In canvas shirts, triangular inserts from another linen were made under the arms. But most often in a shirt, attention was paid to the collar, which came out of the outerwear. It was usually decorated among peasants with copper buttons or cufflinks with loops.

Russian trousers, or ports, were sewn without cuts, with a knot, so that it could be made wider or narrower. Peasant trousers were usually made of canvas, white or dyed, and semiryaga - coarse woolen fabric. In general, Russian trousers were not long; they usually only reached the knees. They were made with pockets called zepya.

Most often, three clothes were worn over a shirt and trousers: one on top of the other. The underwear was the one in which people sat at home. It was called zipun, and was a narrow, Short dress, often not even reaching the knees. Zipuns were usually made from dyed leather, and winter ones from semiryaga. If it was necessary to go somewhere to visit or receive guests, then different clothes were put on. This clothing had several names, but most often it was called a caftan. They were also decorated whenever possible. The third garment was a throw-on garment for going out. These are, for example, opashen, okhaben, one-row, epancha and fur coat. In the peasant environment, the fur coats were most often made of cloth, and the fur coats were sheepskin, or sheepskin coats and hare's. The belt was indispensable in Russian everyday life. It was considered indecent to walk without a belt. The belt also acted as an indicator of position; the more colorfully it was embroidered, the richer its owner was.

Women's clothes were similar to men's, especially since the latter were also long. The woman's shirt was long, with long sleeves, white or red. Red shirts were considered festive. A flyer was worn over the shirt. The flyer itself was not long, but its sleeves were usually long. They were white or painted in color. Peasant women tied a scarf made of dyed or woolen material around their heads, tying it under their chin. On top of everything, instead of a cape dress, the village women wore clothes made of coarse cloth or semiryag, called sernik. In winter they usually wore sheepskin coats. The girls made themselves kokoshniks from tree bark in the form of a crown. The expensive clothes of the peasants were cut quite simply and were usually passed down from generation to generation. For the most part, clothes were cut and sewn at home.

Both men's and women's expensive clothes were almost always kept in cages and chests under pieces of water mouse skin, which was considered a preventative against moths and mustiness. Expensive clothes were usually worn on holidays, and all the rest were usually kept in the chest.

§4. Food and drink

The everyday peasant table was not particularly luxurious. The usual diet of peasants is cabbage soup, porridge, black bread and kvass. But it is worth noting that the gifts of nature - mushrooms, berries, nuts, honey, etc. - were a serious help. But the main thing has always been bread. It is not for nothing that proverbs arose in Rus': “Bread is the head of everything” or “Bread and water are peasant food.” Not a single meal was complete without black bread. If there was a bad year, it was a tragedy for the peasant. The honorable duty of cutting bread was always presented to the head of the family.

In addition to the everyday table, bread was also a ritual food. So, for example, bread for communion was baked separately, special bread - pepper - took part in the wedding ceremony, Easter cakes were baked for Easter, pancakes for Maslenitsa, etc. Bread was usually baked once a week. In the evening, the housewife prepared the dough in a special wooden tub. Both the dough and the tub were called kvashnya. The tub was constantly in use, so it was very rarely washed. The baked bread was stored in special bread bins. In times of famine, when there was not enough bread, quinoa, tree bark, ground acorns, nettles, and bran were added to the flour.

In general, Russian cuisine was rich in flour dishes: pancakes, pies, gingerbread, etc. For example, by the 17th century, only pancakes were popular. At least 50 species were known.

In addition to flour dishes, peasants ate porridge and various kinds of stews. Porridge was the simplest, most satisfying and affordable food. By the 17th century At least 20 types of cereals were known, some of which are still eaten today. Another type of peasant diet was cabbage soup. Shchi is an original Russian food. In those days, cabbage soup was the name given to any stew, not just soup with cabbage. Traditional Russian cabbage soup was made from fresh or sauerkraut in meat broth. In the spring, instead of cabbage, cabbage soup was seasoned with young cabbage or sorrel. The presence of meat in cabbage soup was determined by the wealth of the family.

Kvass was one of the favorite drinks of peasants. Each housewife had her own special recipe for kvass: honey, pear, cherry, cranberry, etc. Kvass was available to anyone. Various dishes were also prepared on its basis, such as okroshka or botvinya. But along with kvass, peasants drank the same ancient drink as jelly. Beer was a common drink in Rus'. In the XVI-XVII centuries. beer was even part of feudal duties.

§5. Holidays and home rituals

There have always been many holidays in Rus'. Both secular and religious holidays were celebrated. The peasants, just like the feudal lords, celebrated holidays, maybe not on such a grand scale, but still the fact remains a fact. Every holiday and every grief was accompanied by a certain ritual.

In peasant life, the chronology of marriage rituals was connected with the agricultural calendar, the antiquity of which appeared through the veil of Christianity. The dates of the marriage cycle were grouped around autumn, between the “Indian summer” and autumn fasting (from November 15 to December 24 - from the martyrs Guria and Aviva to Christmas), and the spring holidays, which began with Easter.

As a rule, acquaintances took place in the spring, and marriages in the fall, although this custom was not rigid. On the first of October (old style), on the day of the Intercession, the girls prayed to the Intercession for their suitors.

The wedding was a complex ritual event, because the wedding was one of the most important human events of that time. Russians generally married very early. With such an early marriage, it was natural that the bride and groom did not even know each other. Initially there was a viewing of the bride; After the review, a conspiracy usually followed. The arranged day was appointed by the bride's parents. Then, on the eve of the wedding, his guests gathered for the groom, and for the bride, guests prepared for her train. It was the custom among the peasants that the groom at that time sent the bride as a gift a hat, a pair of boots, a casket containing blush, rings, a comb, soap and a mirror; and some also sent accessories women's work: scissors, threads, needles, and along with them treats. This was a symbolic sign that if the young wife worked diligently, she would be fed sweets and pampered, otherwise she would be whipped with rods.

Special home rituals accompanied the death of a person. As soon as a person breathed his last, a bowl of holy water and a bowl of flour or porridge were placed on the window. The dead man was washed warm water, they put on a shirt and wrapped it in a white blanket, or shroud, put on shoes, and folded their arms crosswise. Burying in winter was an expensive pleasure for peasants, so they placed the dead in tombs or vestibules at bell towers and kept them there until spring. In the spring, families collected their dead and buried them in cemeteries. Drowned and strangled people were not buried in cemeteries. Suicides were usually buried in the forest and field.

Holidays in Rus' were quite frequent. In the 16th-17th centuries, the New Year was celebrated on September 1st. This holiday was called Summer Day. Another major holiday was Christmas. The peculiarity of the celebration of the Nativity of Christ was to glorify Christ. On Christmas Day itself, it was customary to bake crumbly rolls or baked goods and send them to friends’ houses. Christmastide evenings were a time for girls' fortune-telling and fun. On the eve of the Nativity of Christ, they ran around the village and called koleda and usen or tausen.

Maslenitsa was considered one of the most riotous holidays in Rus'. This holiday has been preserved since pagan times. The Church combined Maslenitsa with the eve of Lent. This holiday was celebrated for a whole week. On Monday of Maslenitsa week they began to bake pancakes - the main treat of this holiday. On the last day of Maslenitsa, that is, on Sunday, it was customary to ask everyone for forgiveness. And farewell to winter passed. Thus, the peasants welcomed spring, the most important time for peasants - the time when agricultural work began.

During the summer, the population of Rus' also had a number of holidays. The most famous to this day is the holiday of Ivan Kupala. It was celebrated on June 24th on the eve of Christian holiday John the Baptist. In the evenings on this day, fires were lit and fun games began, such as jumping over a fire. According to popular beliefs, bathing night is a mysterious time: trees move from place to place and talk to each other through the rustling of leaves, the river is covered with a mysterious silvery sheen, and witches flock to Bald Mountain and have a Sabbath.

Thus, the peasantry observed certain traditions and customs in their everyday life. Although in everyday life you quickly get used to it, and what seems ordinary to a peasant person can amaze a newcomer or a person of a different class. Various holidays were also held. And if it was big religious holiday, then everyone did not take up work that day, as this was considered a great sin. And the peasants were a superstitious people and therefore treated the observance of all traditions and customs with special respect.

Conclusion

From time immemorial, the life of peasants was quite difficult. The situation of the peasants was largely aggravated by the adoption of the Council Code and subsequent acts regarding the peasants. In the 17th century peasants give obligations that limit the rights of their care and give the owner the right to dispose of the peasant’s personality to one degree or another. Peasant children, who lived under their father and did not bear taxes, also become enslaved, and, as if they were not tied to taxes, they fall at the complete disposal of the owner. The exit of the peasants is replaced by their export, and, moreover, with the consent of the previous owner, and this, over time, is, in essence, their sale. The government only cared about the peasants fulfilling government duties, and made the owner responsible for paying these duties.

By the end of the 17th century. The rapprochement between the landowner peasants and the slaves continues. On the one hand, the owners put slaves on the land, on the other, the state seeks to impose duties on the slaves in its favor, but the law still strictly distinguishes between these two groups of the population.

The situation of the monastic and black-sown peasants was by no means the best. Like privately owned ones, they bore various kinds of duties. But the position of the black-growing peasants in this regard was much better, because, unlike privately owned and monastic peasants, they bore duties only in favor of the state, while serfs and peasants attached to monasteries were obliged both to the state and to their direct owner, be it a landowner or monastery.

The 17th century was the peak of the growing indignation of the peasants: riots and peasant wars were characteristic of this period. All reforms carried out placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of the peasants as the main tax-paying population. Legislation supposedly protecting the rights of peasants came into force very rarely. The feudal lords took advantage of this, increasingly exploiting the tax-taxed population, collecting almost everything from the peasants, even the grain left for planting. Thus dooming the peasants to a half-starved existence. Studying the life of peasants, we come to the conclusion that bread and water were the main food of the peasant table.

The state and feudal lords constantly increased their appetites. By that time, there was no progressive tax system and therefore the least protected in its rights and the most numerous class, namely the peasantry, acted as a “cash cow”.

However, in most cases, the peasants had to come to terms with their situation. After all, the state came to their defense only in rare cases, namely when it came directly to the murder of a peasant by a feudal lord.

To summarize, I would like to note that despite their difficult situation, the peasants lived and enjoyed life in their own way. This is most strongly reflected in the holding of various holidays. One even begins to get the impression that the Russian peasant is truly knee-deep in the sea and shoulder-deep in the mountains.

List of sources and literature used

Belyaev I.D. Peasants in Rus': A study on the gradual change in the importance of peasants in Russian society. - M.: GPIB, 2002.

Buganov. V.I. World of History: Russia in XVII century- M.: "Young Guard", 1989.

The World History. T. 5.// edited by Ya.Ya. Zutis, O. L. Vainshtein and others. M.: Publishing House of Socio-Economic Literature, 1958.

Vodarsky Ya. E. Population of Russia at the end of the 17th century -early XVIII centuries (numbers, class composition, placement) - M.: "Science" 1977.

Gorskaya. N. A. Monastic peasants of Central Russia in the 17th century. On the essence and forms of feudal-serf relations. - M.: "Science" 1977.

Zudina L. S. History of Russia in the 17th century. - Lipetsk, 2004.

Kostomarov. N. I. Russian morals: ("Essay home life and morals of the Great Russian people for centuries", "Family life in the works of the South Russian folk song creativity", "Stories by Bogucharov"). - M.: "Charlie", 1995. - P. - 150.

Kotoshikhin. G.K. About Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. - M.: ROSSPEN, 2000.

Peasant petitions of the 17th century: From the collections of the State Historical Museum. - M.: "Science", 1994.

Lotman. Yu. M. Conversations about Russian culture: Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII - early XIX centuries). - St. Petersburg: "Art of St. Petersburg", 1994.

Mankov. G. A. Legislation and law of Russia in the second half of the 17th century. - St. Petersburg: "Science" 1977.

Ryabtsev. Yu. S. History of Russian culture: Artistic life and life in the XI-XVII centuries. - M.: "Humanitarian Publishing Center VLADOS", 1997.

Sakharov A.N. Russian village of the 17th century. - M.: "Science", 1966.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Since 1762, in accordance with the manifesto of Peter III “On the granting of liberty and freedom to everyone Russian nobility» nobles were exempted from compulsory military and government service.

The most important acts that confirmed the special position of the nobility in society and carried out its legal consolidation are the Manifesto of Peter III of 1762 “On the freedom of the nobility” and the Charter of the nobility of 1785. These documents secured the following privileges of the nobility: the provision on the freedom of nobles to serve , leave service, travel to other states, renounce citizenship. The title of nobility was considered as inalienable, hereditary and hereditary, extending to all members of the nobleman’s family. For deprivation of a noble title, compelling reasons were required: the commission of a criminal act, which demonstrated the moral failure and dishonesty of the criminal. Political corporate rights of the nobility were introduced: the right to convene provincial congresses and participate in them, the right to elect judges for noble courts.

The personal rights of nobles included: the right to noble dignity, the right to protection of honor, personality and life, exemption from corporal punishment, from compulsory public service, etc.

The property rights of the nobility included the following: property rights; the right to acquire, use and inherit any type of property; exclusive right to purchase the village and own the land and peasants; the right to open industrial enterprises on their estates; right to trade, etc.

The special judicial rights of the nobility consisted of class privileges: the personal and property rights of the nobility could be limited or liquidated only by court decision; a nobleman could only be judged by a noble class court.

The class self-government of the nobility looked like this. The nobles created a society - the Assembly of the Nobility, which was endowed with the rights of a legal entity and political rights. The Assembly included nobles who had estates in this province. From among the district leaders of the nobility, once every three years the Assembly elected candidates for provincial leaders of the nobility. Nobles who did not have land and were under 25 years of age were not allowed to participate in the elections.

The peasant population was divided into "state villagers" who belonged to the state and owned lands received from the government; free peasants who rent land from nobles or the government and are not serfs; serfs who belonged to the nobles or the emperor.

All categories of peasants had the right to hire workers, recruit recruits in their place, educate their children (serfs could do this only with the permission of the landowner), and engage in small trade and handicrafts. The rights of inheritance, disposal of property, and entering into obligations for peasants were limited.

Serfs were completely subject to the court of landowners, and in criminal cases - to the state court. Their property rights were limited by the need to obtain permission from the landowner (in the area of ​​disposal and inheritance of movable property). The landowner, in turn, was prohibited from selling peasants at retail.

Changes in the legal status of the Russian serf peasantry in the first half of the 19th century.

The Russian state apparatus in the first half of the 19th century.

Systematization of Russian legislation by Speransky.

Code on criminal and correctional punishments of 1845

Abolition of serfdom in Russia. Organization of life of the peasant community.

Judicial reform of 1864.

Russian judicial system until the middle of the 19th century. was built in accordance with the Establishment of the Provinces of 1775. Judicial functions were carried out by both a complex system of class courts and administrative bodies. The theory of formal evidence continued to be used in legal proceedings, there was no publicity of the process, there was no equality of parties, the investigation and execution of the sentence were entrusted to the police authorities.

Flaws judicial system and legal proceedings caused discontent among various classes, and on November 20, 1864, Emperor Alexander II approved and entered into force judicial statutes - the main acts judicial reform:

1. Judicial institutions;
2. Charter of criminal proceedings;
3. Charter of Civil Procedure;
4. Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace.

The judicial reform of 1864 established new principles of judicial system and legal proceedings:

Separation of the court from the administration;

Creation of a clear judicial system;

Separation of preliminary investigation from trial;

The irremovability of judges and investigators;

Creation of an all-class court;

Equality of all before the court;

Introduction of jurors;

Establishment of prosecutorial supervision.

The reform introduced such institutions of the bourgeois process as orality, publicity, competition, equality of arms, presumption of innocence, appeal and cassation.

Judicial system consisted of local and general judicial bodies. There were also spiritual, commercial and military courts.

Local judicial authorities included justices of the peace And congresses of justices of the peace.

Justices of the peace were elected by district zemstvo assemblies and city dumas. Candidates for magistrate judges had to meet a number of requirements, including high property and educational qualifications. The list of candidates for magistrate judges was authorized by the governor.

The activities of magistrates were carried out within the magistrate’s areas, which constituted world district (county and its constituent cities).

Justices of the peace of the district formed congress of justices of the peace, served as an appellate authority for the magistrates' courts.

The grounds for considering the case in the magistrate's court were: a complaint from private individuals, reports from police and other administrative authorities, and the initiative of the magistrate himself. Magistrates considered cases individually, the process was oral and public.

The general judicial bodies included district courts And judicial chambers.

District courts were created for several counties. The district courts included a chairman and members of the court appointed by the emperor on the proposal of the Minister of Justice. A number of requirements were imposed on candidates for these judicial positions: property and educational qualifications, work experience, compliance with class and political requirements, etc.

The district court heard both civil and criminal cases (including those involving juries).

The court hearing was held collegially: it was attended by the chairman and two members of the court or the chairman and jurors.

The conduct of the preliminary investigation was entrusted to judicial investigators operating at the district courts.

Trial chambers were created as an appellate authority in cases considered by district courts without the participation of jurors, and as a first instance in the most important cases (state, official, religious and other crimes).

Judicial chambers were established one at a time for several provinces, their total number was 11 (later 14) for the whole of Russia. The chambers consisted of two departments - civil and criminal, which were headed by chairmen. The chairmen and members of the judicial chambers were appointed by the emperor on the proposal of the Minister of Justice.

The judicial chambers consisted of prosecutors, investigators and sworn attorneys.

The highest judicial bodies of Russia remained Senate It was the cassation authority for all judicial bodies of the state, as well as the court of first instance in cases of special importance (state, official and other crimes). To consider cases of state crimes of particular importance, a royal decree could create Supreme Criminal Court, which consisted of chairmen of departments of the State Council and members of the Senate and was headed by the chairman of the State Council.

The judicial reform of 1864 established structure And powers of the prosecutor's office. At the head of the prosecutor's office, which was attached to the general judicial bodies and the Senate, was the prosecutor general. The prosecutor's office supervised the court, investigation and places of detention, and also participated in the trial as the prosecution. To fill prosecutorial positions, a candidate had to meet a number of requirements (political reliability, etc.).

The judicial reform established:

advocacy(sworn attorneys) - to defend defendants in criminal court and represent the interests of parties in civil proceedings;

notary - for registration and certification of transactions, acts, facts of legal significance, etc.