We have all heard about the era of Western slavery, when for several centuries European civilization built her well-being in a barbaric way on the bones of free slave force. In Russia there were completely different orders, and the cruelty that dominated from England to Poland never existed.
I bring to your attention a short excursion into the history of Russian serfdom. After reading, I only had one question: “was there slavery in Russia?” (in the classical sense of the word).
Well, in our country, since ancient times, there have been forced people - slaves. This category included prisoners of war, unpaid debtors, and convicted criminals. There were “purchases” that received a certain amount of money and went into service until it was worked off. There were “rank and file” who served on the basis of a concluded agreement. The owner had the right to punish the careless and find the fugitives. But, unlike European countries, had no power over the life of even the lowest of slaves. IN Kievan Rus The appanage and grand dukes had the right to execute the death penalty. In Muscovite Rus' - the sovereign himself with the boyar duma.
In 1557 - 1558, at the same time when tens of thousands of peasants driven off the land were being enslaved in England, Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible issued a series of decrees limiting servitude. He pinned down the moneylenders and forcibly reduced the loan interest rates to 10% per annum. He forbade the captivity of serving people (nobles, children of boyars, archers, serving Cossacks) for debts. Their children, who became slaves for the debts of their parents, were freed immediately, and adults could file lawsuits to return to a free state. The sovereign also protected his subjects from forced enslavement. From now on, a person could be considered a slave only on the basis of “bondage”, special document, registered in the zemstvo institution. The king limited bondage even for prisoners. They also had to be formalized into bondage in accordance with the established procedure. The children of the “polonyanik” were considered free, and he himself was freed after the death of the owner and was not passed on by inheritance.
But we note that it would be incorrect to equate the terms “slave” and “slave” in general. Slaves were not only workers, but also housekeepers - managers of princely, boyar, and royal estates. There were military serfs who made up the personal squads of boyars and princes. They took an oath to the owner and served him, but at the same time they lost their legal independence. That is, this term defined a person’s personal dependence.
By the way, in addresses to the tsar, not all people called themselves “servants”, but only servicemen - from an ordinary archer to a boyar. The clergy wrote to the king “we, your pilgrims.” And the common people, peasants and townspeople - “we, your orphans.” The designation “serf” was not self-deprecation, it expressed real relationship between the monarch and the given public group. Those who were in the service were indeed not free in relation to the sovereign: he could send them there today, here tomorrow, or give some order. From the form of appeal of the clergy, it is clear that the tsar is obliged to help them: they also support the sovereign with their prayers. And the address “orphan” indicates that the monarch stands “in place of a father” to the common people, obligated to take care of his children.
But the share of slaves in the Russian population and in the economy was extremely insignificant. Usually they were used only in the household. And serfdom in our country for a long time didn't exist at all. The peasants were free. If you don’t like it, you could leave the landowner for another place by paying a “senior fee” (a certain fee for the use of a hut, equipment, a plot of land - depending on the area and length of residence). Grand Duke Ivan III determined a single deadline for such transitions - a week before St. George's Day and a week after St. George's Day (from November 19 to December 3).
And only in late XVI century, the situation was changed by Boris Godunov. He was a “Westernizer” by nature, tried to copy foreign practices, and in 1593 he pushed Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich to adopt a decree abolishing St. George’s Day. And in 1597, Boris passed a law establishing a 5-year search for runaway peasants. Moreover, according to this law, any person who served for hire for six months became, together with his family, lifelong and hereditary slaves of the owner. This also hit the urban poor, small artisans, gave rise to a lot of abuses and became one of the causes of the Troubles.
Boris's law on servitude was soon repealed, but serfdom was preserved after the Time of Troubles and was confirmed by the Council Code of Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649. The search for fugitives was established not for 5 years, but for an indefinite period. But it is worth emphasizing that the very principle of serfdom in Rus' was very different from the Western one. It was not man, but the land that had a certain status! There were “black-growing” volosts. The peasants living here were considered free and paid taxes to the state. There were boyar or church estates. And there were estates. They were given to the nobles not for good, but for service, instead of payment. Every 2-3 years the estates were turned over and could go to another owner.
Accordingly, the peasants provided for the landowner, patrimonial owner, or worked for the church. They were “attached” to the ground. But at the same time they could completely manage their own household. They could bequeath it as an inheritance, donate it, sell it. And then the new owner, together with the farm, acquired the “tax” of paying taxes to the state or maintaining the landowner. And the former was freed from the “tax” and could go anywhere. Moreover, even if a person ran away, but managed to start a household or get married, Russian laws protected his rights and categorically forbade separating him from his family and depriving him of property.
IN In the 17th century, no more than half of the peasants in Russia were enslaved. All of Siberia, the North, and significant regions in the south were considered “sovereign estates”; there was no serfdom there. Tsars Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexei Mikhailovich also recognized the self-government of the Cossack regions, the law “there is no extradition from the Don.” Any fugitive who got there automatically became free. The rights of serfs and slaves were protected by the rural community, the Church, and they could find protection from the tsar himself. There was a “petition window” in the palace for filing complaints personally with the sovereign. For example, the serfs of Prince Obolensky complained that the owner forced them to work on Sunday and “barked obscenely.” Alexey Mikhailovich put Obolensky in prison for this and took away the village.
In Europe, by the way, the relationships between layers of society were much different, and because of this, misunderstandings occurred. It seemed to the high-ranking Danish ambassadors returning from Moscow that the Russian men were taking them slowly, and they began to push them forward with kicks. The coachmen were sincerely surprised by this treatment, unharnessed their horses near Nakhabino and declared: they were going to complain to the tsar. The Danes had to ask for forgiveness and appease the Russians with money and vodka. And the wife of an English general, who entered the service in Moscow, hated the maid and decided to brutally deal with her. I didn’t consider myself guilty - you never know, noble lady tried to kill my servant! But in Russia this was not allowed. The tsar’s sentence read: given that the victim remained alive, the criminal would “only” have her hand cut off, her nostrils torn out and exiled to Siberia.
The position of the serfs began to deteriorate under Peter I. The redistribution of estates between nobles stopped, they turned into permanent property. And instead of “household” taxation, “per capita” taxation was introduced. Moreover, each landowner began to pay taxes for his serfs. Accordingly, he acted as the owner of these “souls”. True, it was Peter who was one of the first in Europe, in 1723, to ban slavery in Russia. But his decree did not affect the serfs. Moreover, Peter began to assign entire villages to factories, and the factory serfs had a much harder time than the landowners.
Trouble came under Anna Ioannovna and Biron, when the laws on serfs from Courland spread in Russia - the same ones where peasants were equated with slaves. That's when the infamous peasant retail trade began.
What happened, happened. The excesses of Daria Saltykova are also known. These were no longer the times of Alexei Mikhailovich, and the lady managed to hide the crimes for 7 years. Although another thing can be noted: after all, two serfs still managed to file a complaint with Catherine II, an investigation began, and the maniac was sentenced to life imprisonment in the “penitential” cell of the Ivanovo Monastery. A completely adequate measure for a mentally ill person.
"The Liberation of the Peasants." Artist B. Kustodiev.
However, Saltychikha became “notorious” because in our country she was the only one who descended into atrocities that were quite common on those same American plantations. And the laws protecting the property rights of serfs have not been repealed in Russia. In 1769, Catherine II issued a decree calling on peasants to start private industries, for this it was necessary to buy for 2 rubles. special ticket in the manufacturing college. Since 1775, such tickets have been issued free of charge. Enterprising peasants took advantage of this, quickly made fortunes, bought their freedom, and then began buying up villages from their landowners. Serfdom began to weaken. Already during the reign of Nicholas I, its abolition was gradually being prepared. Although it was only abolished by Alexander II in 1861.
Following Columbus, slave trading ships began to cross the ocean.
But let us emphasize once again: for the 18th – 19th centuries similar phenomena remained ordinary. England, traditionally portrayed as the most "advanced" power, in 1713, after the War of spanish inheritance, considered the main gain not to be the conquest of Gibraltar, but “asiento” - a monopoly on the sale of Africans to Latin America. The Dutch, French, Brandenburgers, Danes, Swedes, Courlanders, and Genoese were also active in the slave trade. The total number of slaves exported from Africa to America is estimated at 9.5 million people. About the same number died out along the way.
The French Revolution loudly abolished slavery in 1794, but in reality it flourished; French ships continued to trade in slaves. And Napoleon restored slavery in 1802. True, he forced the abolition of serfdom in Germany (in order to weaken the Germans), but he kept it in Poland and Lithuania - here the gentlemen were his support, why offend them?
Great Britain abolished slavery in 1833, Sweden in 1847, Denmark and France in 1848 - not so much ahead of Russia. By the way, it is worth remembering that the criteria of “freedom” themselves are in no way indicators of prosperity. Thus, in 1845, potatoes failed to grow in Ireland. Peasants, unable to pay rent because of this, began to be driven off the land and their farms destroyed. In 5 years, about a million people died of hunger! Did anything similar happen in feudal Russia? Never…
But this is so, by the way, it had to be. If we return to the chronology of the abolition of slavery, it turns out that not all Western powers were ahead of the Russians in this regard. Some fell behind. The Netherlands abolished it in 1863, the USA in 1865, Portugal in 1869, Brazil in 1888. Moreover, among the Dutch, Portuguese, Brazilians, and even in the American southern states, slavery took much more brutal forms than Russian serfdom.
It is also worth remembering that in American war Between the North and the South, the northerners were supported by Russia, and the southerners by England. And if slavery was abolished in the USA, in the 1860s – 1880s it was widely practiced by landowners in Australia. Here, sea captains Hayes, Lewin, Pease, Boyce, Townes, and Dr. Murray were actively involved in slave hunting. The city of Townsville was even named after Townes. The exploits of these “heroes” consisted in the fact that they depopulated entire islands in Oceania, smashed and captured the inhabitants, stuffed them into holds and brought them to Australian plantations.
By the way, even in England itself, the first full-fledged legal act, officially prohibiting slavery and serfdom and recognizing them as a crime, was adopted... three years ago! This is the Coroners and Justice Act, which came into force on 6 April 2010. So why blame the Russians then?
Yes, the peasants of Russia worked hard and lived poorly, but they were not slaves either, because the sovereign’s power protected their human rights to life and not violence against them. The bondage was mainly economic and the fact that the peasant was assigned to the land of a specific landowner, on which he lived and had to work off his due dues, did not allow the peasant to rise financially. These heavy landlord burdens, placed on the peasants, and in the cities on the workers (a somewhat different situation), accumulated revolutionary potential in the souls of the people, which they were easily able to set on fire with promises better life Bolsheviks.
Life of a peasant around the 18th-19th century
Did slavery exist in Rus'? Of course it existed. Russian state obeyed the same social laws development as other countries. And therefore, slaves were a common phenomenon in the lands of Ancient Rus' and the Muscovite kingdom. Another thing is that Russian slavery had its own specificity, unique to him. Slavic customs, centuries-old way of life, traditions that differed from similar factors of the same Western Europe or East.
From history we know such terms as serfs, smerds, servants. All of them had one thing or another to do with slavery, that is, forced labor. But let's take a closer look at these groups of people and find out which of them were in to a greater extent a slave, and some less.
Servants (servants)
In ancient times, the Slavs were extremely warlike and often raided neighboring territories. If the campaign was successful, many prisoners were captured. They were made slaves or servants. Such people had no rights; they could be bought and sold. Starting from the 9th century, the entire dependent population began to be called servants. Those persons who worked off the loan also fell into this category.
With the introduction of Christianity in Rus', such a term as servanthood began to become obsolete. Serfs replaced the servants. And the servants, starting from the 11th century, gradually acquired a slightly different status. The people who served the boyars and princes began to be called servants. The same category included the poor relatives of the rich owner, who lived in his house and ate at his expense. This whole public, consisting of servants, cooks, gardeners, grooms, huntsmen, nurses, hay girls, nannies, poor parasite relatives, began to be called servants.
Serfs
If in Rus' they wanted to insult or offend someone, they would say: “The way you talk to me, slave!” This term came into use in the 11th century. According to the legal norms of Ancient Rus', a serf was not a subject, but an object. In other words, it was equated with livestock, yard buildings, and household items. For killing someone else's slave, there was a fine, just like for killing someone else's horse or for damaging someone else's expensive caftan. And if the owner killed his slave, he did not suffer any punishment, since he could do whatever he wanted with his property.
From this it is clear that slaves were real slaves, and this proves that slavery in Rus' was a common occurrence. But how did people lose all their rights and become slaves?
In all countries, the most common path to slavery was captivity. In this case, Rus' was no exception. Prisoners were captured during wars with other states or neighboring principalities. We must not forget that in the 11th century the period began feudal fragmentation. Ancient or Kievan Rus split into separate principalities. They were at enmity with each other and waged endless wars. Therefore, there were never any problems with prisoners. Sometimes so many prisoners were brought in that they were sold for almost nothing, just to sell live goods.
The second path to servitude was debt bondage. The man borrowed money, but various reasons could not return the required amount. In this case, he lost all rights and ended up in complete dependence from the creditor, that is, he became a slave.
Criminals who committed murders during robbery, horse theft, and arson were also turned into serfs. At the same time, not only the perpetrators themselves became slaves, but also their families. This practice was widely practiced until the 15th century.
And finally, the children of slaves became slaves. Already by birth, the babies were doomed to eke out a miserable existence all their lives. And it was beneficial for the rich owner for the slaves to produce offspring. In this case, he received a noticeable increase in forced people absolutely free of charge.
Strange as it may sound, voluntary or white-washed servitude was also practiced in Rus'. In this case, people of their own free will became powerless slaves. But we must understand that life is a complicated thing. After a bad harvest, famine set in peasant families, and parents were simply forced to give their children to slaves so that they would not die of hunger. Adults did the same to themselves. Yes, they suffered humiliation, but the owner fed and watered them.
It should also be noted that such servitude could last no more than a year. A man worked for mercy, and then he was released, and he became free again. Then, after some years, a person could again become a slave, and for this it was only necessary to sell himself in the presence of a witness for a symbolic price.
That is, it turns out that servitude for some people was a kind of lifesaver. Things went badly, I signed up as a slave. After a year, you were released and enjoy your freedom. And if the owner is kind and fair, then you can remain a slave for the rest of your life. In a word, whatever your luck. This is how slavery was practiced in Rus', but there is no need to idealize it.
Those who married or were marrying a serf doomed themselves to voluntary servitude. But a special agreement (nearby) could change this rule. If, for example, a rich man wanted to marry a beautiful servant, then after the wedding she could become a free woman, but only in accordance with a special contract.
Also in Rus' there were positions that could only be filled by voluntary or white slaves. This is the manager (tiun) of a princely or boyar estate. It was believed that it was better to have a forced laborer in such a position, rather than free man. A slave will serve honestly and remain faithful to his master, but a free man can leave at any moment, and even start stealing.
The second servile position is housekeeper. This man was responsible for the food supplies of the estate, and therefore carried with him the keys to all barns and cellars. This position was considered high. In terms of status, she stood behind the owner and manager. It is quite clear that a free to a stranger she could not be trusted.
Serfdom was practiced in Rus' until the first quarter of the 18th century. It was canceled by the highest decree of Peter I, Emperor of All Russia, on January 19, 1723. After that, only the name remained, with which people sometimes insulted each other.
Smerda
Until the 15th century, such a word as “peasant” was almost never practiced in Rus'. Farmers were called smerds. They lived in rural communities and largely depended on the princes. Each smerd had his own land allotment. By inheritance it passed to his son. If a person had no sons, then the prince took the land and used it at his own discretion.
Judicial power among the Smerds was exercised by the prince. At the same time, these people had very few rights, and killing a scumbag was equated to killing a slave. Working on the land, the smerds either paid a tax to the prince or served a service in kind. They could be donated by the entire community to a church or moved to another place.
IN XV-XVII centuries In the Russian state, a local system began to develop, enshrined in the Code of Laws of 1497. According to this system, a serving person (nobleman) received personal ownership of land from the state for the duration of his service or for life. This was a source of income as a state reward.
But someone had to work on the land granted by the state. And for these purposes they began to attract smerds. At the same time, the word “smerd” itself, like legal term, they began to forget, and the word “peasant” became widespread. New legal norms have appeared that secure peasants on land plots. In 1649, an indefinite attachment of peasants to the land was established. That is, serfdom began to work in full force, and the former smerds turned into serfs.
It should be noted that stinking and slavery did not exist in Rus' strong connection. For the most part, slaves were considered slaves. But the servants, the serfs, and the slaves were forced people. They were completely dependent on their masters and carried out their will. Elements of slavery persisted on Russian soil until the middle of the 19th century. Only with growth industrial production And scientific and technological progress Slave work lost its relevance; it has outlived its usefulness and faded away.
Probably, many of us have confirmed since our school days that serfdom in Russia was abolished back in 1861. But in fact, the tradition of the slave trade has existed throughout the world for a long time. Ancient Rus' was no exception.
"Servants"
There were several ways to become a slave in Rus'. One of them is the capture of foreign prisoners. Such “Polonyan” slaves were called “servants.”
In one of the articles of the agreement concluded in 911 with Byzantium after the successful raid of the ancient Rus on Constantinople, the Byzantines were offered to pay 20 gold coins (solids) for each “servant” captured. This amounted to about 90 grams of gold and was twice the average market price for slaves.
After the second campaign against Byzantium (944), which ended less successfully, prices were reduced. For “a good boy or girl” this time they gave 10 gold coins (45 grams of gold) or “two pavoloks” - two pieces of silk fabric. For a “seredovich” - a middle-aged slave or slave - eight coins were awarded, and for an old man or child - only five.
“Servants” were most often used for various unskilled jobs, for example, as domestic servants. Polonian women, especially young ones, were valued higher than men - they could be used for lovemaking. Many of them became concubines and even wives of slave owners.
According to “Russkaya Pravda” - a collection of laws of the 11th century - average cost“Chelyadin” was five to six hryvnia. Many historians believe that we're talking about not about silver hryvnias, but about kuna hryvnias, which were four times cheaper. Thus, at that time, about 200 grams of silver or 750 tanned squirrel skins were given for a slave.
In 1223, after an unsuccessful battle with the Mongols on Kalka, the Smolensk prince Mstislav Davidovich concluded an agreement with Riga and Gotland merchants, according to which the cost of one servant was estimated at one hryvnia in silver (this corresponded to 160-200 grams of silver and approximately 15 grams of gold).
Prices for servants depended on the region. So, in Smolensk a slave was a little cheaper than in Kyiv, and three times cheaper than in Constantinople... more people captured into slavery during military campaigns, the more the price fell.
Slavery by law
The domestic slave market was also actively developing in Rus'. Another common form of slavery, in addition to “servants,” was servitude. One could become a slave for debts, as a result of marriage with a slave or slave, entering service, as a punishment for a serious crime... There were cases when parents themselves sold or gave their children into slavery because they could not feed them.
Serfdom began to develop only in the 11th century, with the formation centralized state. It was based on the dependence of poor peasants on landowners. In Kievan Rus and Novgorod Principality all unfree peasants were divided into three categories - smerds, purchases and serfs. Unlike the first two categories, slaves could not have any property and did not have the right to pass to another owner.
In the 15th century, after the Moscow principality was freed from Tatar-Mongol yoke, the price for one slave ranged from one to three rubles. Towards the middle XVI century it increased to one and a half to four rubles. On the eve of the Time of Troubles it had already reached four or five rubles. However, crop failures and wars invariably lowered prices for living goods.
If it was quite difficult to control the external slave trade, then within the country the state tried to regulate slavery. There were special bonded books where the relevant transactions were recorded. At the same time, a special tax was taken from the owners of slaves.
There is a topic about which, it would seem, teachings are being broken like a breakwater. alternative historians and singers of the great past of the Rus. This topic is so shameful and obvious that few people undertake to discuss it, much less challenge it.
But you can’t keep such a skeleton in the closet, you have to, you have to figure it out, try to understand. Where would we be without this?
“Here they are, the free tribes of the ancient Slavs. Here is their daring prince and his retinue. Here are the freedom-loving Russian people throwing off the Tatar yoke (and if they are not freedom-loving, then why are they throwing it off, one wonders?). And then - bam: 90% of the population are slaves , which are traded like cattle. How, at what point could this happen? Why did people allow this to be done to them? Why didn’t they rebel, as they rebelled against the Tatars? Why didn’t they put presumptuous princelings and boyar children in their place, as they did more than once before, driving out the careless prince and his retinue away? Even the pride of the Russian Land, the Holy and Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky, was driven away by the Novgorodians when he was too much of a borer. And here... What happened to these people? How in two hundred years, by the middle of the 16th century, they lost all that freedom and dignity, which he was rightfully proud of and which even foreigners celebrated?” ( Alfred Koch "How our ancestors became slaves")
Das, the formulation of the question is very common. Let's finally figure it out!
The picture of the development of serfdom in Rus' from ancient times to the mid-17th century is presented in textbooks in the following way: princely and boyar land ownership, in combination with a strengthening bureaucratic apparatus, attacked personal and communal land property.
Previously, free farmers, communal peasants, or even private land owners—“fellows” of ancient Russian legal acts—gradually became tenants of plots belonging to the clan aristocracy or the serving nobility.
This is clear and understandable to everyone from school. I’ll start with the question of where and when the first Russian Tsar came from and why he is a Tsar and not a Prince.
I apologize for such a primitive educational program, but it is necessary to point it out because, it turns out, there is confusion here too.
But, there is another opinion that the first of the great princes who ruled in the now united Rus', his grandfather Ivan began to call himself tsar III Vasilievich.
Why is that? It's simple - Ivan's wife is the niece of the last Emperor of Constantinople, Sophia Paleologus (actually Zoya).
Ivan III, having married, became king by right. Tsar with capital letters C. (Caesar/ Caesar or Caesar - mandatory part title of Roman emperors during the Roman state). And Moscow became the third Rome after Constantinople (Constantinople).
Interesting addition from the site otvetina.narod.ru:
“But it’s one thing to call oneself a tsar, and another to actually be one. Until the middle of the 15th century in Ancient Rus', tsars were called, except Byzantine emperors, Also Khans of the Golden Horde. The grand dukes were subordinate to the Tatar khans for several centuries and were forced to pay them tribute, so the grand duke could become king only after he ceased to be a tributary of the khan. But in this regard, the situation has changed. Tatar yoke was overthrown, and the Grand Duke finally stopped attempts to demand tribute from the Russian princes."
When we put everything back on its feet, we will see that already under Ivan the Third it was possible to snatch a large piece from Great Tartaria, the former part of it called “Muscovy” becomes independent with its center in the city of Moscow, where Ivan proclaims himself the new tsar.
It was then, apparently, that the century of slave lawlessness, which later developed into serfdom, began its mournful course. History is gradually being rewritten, Tartary is gradually turning into a fairy tale about the Tartar-Mangol yoke, betrayal and war for a just cause, the sovereign is well done and all in white.
I want, my friends, I want to believe in the version that serfdom is a myth. That under this shameful affair lies only a system of relationships between the inhabitants of the fortresses. When everyone, as if in reserve, is in military service and, if something happens, takes his place in the fortress, exercising and receiving protection in it from the enemy. The collection of tributes, a tax on the fortress, implements this very serfdom. There is such a version, how beautiful and slender she is. And perhaps something similar happened somewhere. Somewhere, but not here. Ours was not a play on words and substitution of concepts, but real trash.
The history textbooks that some of my visitors strongly advise me to take and finally read and not disgrace, present the unification of the “scattered” principalities in the single state. In fact, I see that the result of this “good” soon became that terrible serfdom.
The peasants lived village communities, in which a special peasant world was formed. Some of these communities found themselves under the rule of landowners, who imposed taxes on each household, peasant farm. The most freedom-loving people went to the “inconvenient areas”, where free villages were formed. As they strengthen " the mighty of the world In addition, they were again subject to taxes. Some of the peasants, for whom “freedom” was not an empty word, again went to uninhabited places.
In 1646, Tsar Mikhail Romanov introduced serfdom in Muscovite Rus'.
Mikhail Romanov. Handsome. Beard, still Tartar clothes and headdress.
The first Russian Tsar from the Romanov family, Mikhail Romanov, was the son of the boyar Fyodor Nikitich Romanov and the noblewoman Ksenia Ivanovna Romanova.
Romanov needed a way to simplify and increase the collection of taxes. For this purpose, the peasants were “assigned” to the owners of the land. People who were on military service, the king began to allocate “estates”, lands with peasants living on them.This is how the “landowners” appeared. They had to feed themselves from the peasants and were obliged to ensure the collection of taxes into the royal treasury.
The peasants who lived on the lands of churches and monasteries were assigned to the clergy.
Some of the peasants living on the estates of the royal court were assigned to the clerks of the court.
The collection of taxes “to the treasury” became more efficient. But on the other hand, such a law deprived many Russian peasants of the age-old value of “free will.”
What is free will
At first glance, “free will” is a meaningless expression, like “butter.”
However, it has a very ancient, and extremely important for the study of this chapter, meaning.
In ancient Rus', concluding a “row” (agreement) with each other, the princes wrote: “And free will for the boyars and boyars’ children, and servants, and peasants.”
When this proverb took shape, every peasant was free to plow wild land, create fertile plots, grow bread and other products. With their labor, the peasants turned empty, worthless land into valuable land.
At first, the princes demanded taxes for the protection of such land, and the peasants agreed to pay.
Then the princes and boyars forcibly turned such land into their possessions, and the peasants were forced to hire out or move away from such possessions. The Russian plain is vast, so there was plenty of room to escape.
When hired to work for a landowner, a peasant paid him with his labor or the harvest in half (half the harvest). He settled with the landowner according to honor and conscience and is free. That is, “free will” meant freedom to live on the owner’s land as long as he lives, and to go wherever he pleases.
Even in the Middle Ages, a peasant, if he wished, could leave the landowner’s territory by fulfilling his obligations under the lease and loan.
Yes, and about the role of the Church in the enslavement of the peasants.If without special emotions, then Russian Orthodox Church not only did she not condemn serfdom spiritually, but also received great material benefits. Almost immediately, a huge mass of peasants were assigned to monasteries and churches.
An audit of 1678 shows: a quarter of all serfs belonged to the clergy.
There was a particularly large share in the Moscow region. In 1719 - 1.1 million out of 1.6 million of all serf peasants were clergy.
Of course, before 1646, the official date of the introduction of serfdom, the peasants were not having a sweet time, but fundamental changes in the situation of peasants are coming EXACTLY
with the accession of the Romanov dynasty. For example, by this time the time it took to find runaway peasants had increased up to 15 years old. And in the Council Code published in 1649, two fundamentally new circumstances appeared:
Firstly, it was announced unlimited period of search for fugitive peasants. The gentleman now had the right to return the fugitive himself or even his descendants with all the goods acquired while on the run, if he could prove that it was from his estate that the peasant fled.
Secondly, even a debt-free peasant lost the right to change place of residence— he became “strong”,
that is attached forever to the estate where I found him 1620s census. In the event of his departure, the Code ordered the forcible return of the previously free person back along with his entire household and family. He fell hard, in short, but did not become a resident of the fortress.
In fact, the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich accomplished social revolution, depriving the majority of the country's population of the right to free movement and disposal of themselves, their labor and property.
During the reign of Peter the Great, the trade in serfs acquired the most cynical and outspoken character. People are starting sell wholesale and individually, in the market squares, dividing families, separating children from their parents, and wives from their husbands.
And let us note that we are not talking about some brought slaves or captives, but about our own relatives! Yes, just family?
Emperor Peter himself distributed private property more than two hundred thousand male souls (government statistics took into account only men) and, therefore, in reality, about half a million people
of both sexes. These distributions were usually gifts Peter to his associates.
From the end of the 17th and especially from the beginning of the 18th century, serfdom in Russia acquired a fundamentally different character than that which it had at its inception. It began as a form of state “tax” for peasants, a kind of public service, but in its development it came to the point that serfs, deprived of all civil and human rights, ended up in slavery from their landowners.
The apogee of serfdom was the reign of Catherine the Great.
These 30-odd years ( 1762-1796
gg.) became the time of greatest enslavement of the peasants. The landowner could exile the peasants to Siberia for some offenses, sell them as conscripts, the peasants were forbidden to complain about the landowner to the emperor, although they could go to court. During the reign Catherine gave away gifts to about 800 thousand peasants,
which became a record.
And just by chance, Vicki mentions that on Most of the territory of Russia was subject to serfdom did not have : in all Siberian, Asian and Far Eastern provinces and regions, in Cossack regions, in the North Caucasus, in the Caucasus itself, in Transcaucasia, in Finland and Alaska.
Replies to mail.ru:
- Serfdom was absent in Siberia for one reason - settlement of this region began during the Stolypin reform.
-With a population density of 1 person per 2 km2, this is not easy.
Well, finally, as a conclusion, let me suggest you follow this old link, otherwise everything turned out quite sad.
Here is another thought that has been tormenting me for a long time:
Russians female surnames bow when answering the question “whose”. That is, the wife of such and such a husband. Petrova, Smirnova, etc.
Men's surnames often end in "in". They hesitate when answering the question “whose”. Are there not traces of a slave past?
I myself have a surname ending in “in” and I don’t like talking about it, but in the search for the truth, turning a blind eye to unsightly facts is stupid - you won’t get far.
And you, reader, whose will you be?
I have already written that one of Russia’s troubles, which prevents it from moving towards a developed civil society is slave psychology, which is on genetic level laid down by the vast majority Russian citizens(see the article “The Troubles of Russia” published in No. 5 of the Don Consumer).
When did this disaster appear in Russia and is it possible for modern Russians to get rid of this manifestation of human nature?
I'll try to figure it out in this article.
History of slavery
The phenomenon of slavery dates back to ancient times. The first mentions of slaves can be seen in rock paintings that date back to stone age. Even then, captured people from another tribe were enslaved. This tendency to enslave captured enemies also existed in ancient civilizations. For the past 5,000 years, slavery has existed almost everywhere. Among the most famous slave states- Rome, in Ancient China the concept - si, equivalent to slavery, has been known since the middle of the 2nd millennium BC.
In more late period, slavery existed in Brazil. Slavery in the Ancient East had many distinctive features and was distinguished by the greatest cruelty towards slaves.
IN totalitarian states The largest slave owners were not individual owners, but these states themselves.
That is, as can be seen from history, slavery in different countries and civilizations proceeded in different ways and influenced the development of both the economic and spiritual components of a particular country or civilization.
We all know the first civilizations such as Ancient Greece and Rome. Using the slave labor of the peoples they conquered, these civilizations flourished for centuries. But the key to their prosperity, in the first place, of course, was not the labor of slaves, but the science, culture and craft developed to heights unattainable at that time, which the citizens were engaged in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, being freed from daily heavy physical labor, since only slaves were used in these jobs. It is thanks to this freedom of the Greeks and Romans that we are still amazed by the works of art, inventions and achievements in science made at that time. IN Soviet time singer I. Ivanov sang a song with the following words;
I believe the day will come when
We'll meet again.
I'll gather you all together
If in a foreign land
I won't die by chance
From its Latin.
If they don't drive you crazy
Romans and Greeks,
Authored volumes
For the library.
The content of this song very well reflects what contribution the ancient Greeks and Romans actually made to the development of science, art and technology during that period. It turns out that for free citizens ancient Greece and Rome, the use of slave labor in that period of time benefited them and gave impetus to the development of these ancient civilizations. What did slavery give to ancient Rus'?
Slavery in ancient Rus'
Among the dependent population of ancient Rus' in the 9th - 12th centuries, slaves also occupied a very significant place. Their labor, perhaps, even prevailed in the ancient Russian estate. In modern historical science The idea of the patriarchal nature of slavery in Rus' is especially popular. But there are other opinions in the literature. P.N. Tretyakov, referring to slavery among the Slavs and Antes, wrote: “Slaves were bought and sold. A member could become a slave neighboring tribe. During wars, slaves, especially women and children, were an indispensable and very important part spoils of war. It is hardly possible to consider all this as primitive patriarchal slavery, which was common among all primitive peoples. But this was not, of course, developed slavery, which took shape as complete system industrial relations".
"Russian Truth" also indicated other sources of the appearance of slaves in Rus', in addition to the capture of prisoners. Such sources were: self-sale into slavery, marriage with a slave, entry into service (tiuns, keymasters), “without a row” (that is, without any reservations), bankruptcy. A runaway purchaser or a person who committed a serious crime could also become a slave.
Researcher E.I. Kolycheva writes the following about slavery in ancient Rus': “... servility in Rus' as a legal institution was not something exceptional, unique. It is characterized by the same important features as slavery in other countries, including ancient slavery.”
Since slave labor in Rus' did not become the basis of social production, the history of slavery in our country should be transferred, first of all, to the plane of changing forms of exploitation of slaves, that is, forms of organization of slave labor.
IN ancient history In the Eastern Slavs, there was no gap between slaves and free people: slaves were part of related groups with the rights of junior members and worked equally and together with the rest. Mauritius the Strategist keenly felt the uniqueness of the situation of slaves among the Slavs, who, in his words, limiting the slavery of captives to a certain period, offer them a choice: either “for a certain ransom, return home or remain in the land of the Slavs and Antes as freemen and friends.
A voice that sounded several centuries later seems to indicate the same thing: “They (Russians - author’s note) treat slaves well...” This style of relations between slaves and masters was determined by the social affiliation of the slave owner, being most typical for the common people - peasants and artisans who managed to acquire slaves. These relationships were built on long traditions, lost somewhere in the primitive communal world and survived until the times of Kievan Rus.
That is, as can be seen from the history of ancient Rus', the Slavs for the most part were free, hardworking and kind even towards their slaves. So where then did the hatred of “the powers that be” for the people they rule and the slavish essence of the people themselves come from in later Rus'? How did it happen that free farmers actually became slaves in their own country? This question worries more than one generation of historians and researchers.
And indeed! Here they are, the free tribes of the ancient Slavs. Here is their daring prince and his retinue. Here are the freedom-loving Russian people throwing off the Mongol-Tatar yoke, because if they were not freedom-loving, they would not have thrown it off. And then - within a short time, 90% of the country's population become slaves, who are traded like cattle. How and at what point could this happen? Why did people allow this to be done to themselves? Why didn’t they rebel, as they rebelled against the Mongol-Tatars? Why didn’t they put the presumptuous princelings and boyar children in their place, as they had done more than once before, driving the careless prince and his retinue away? After all, even the pride of the Russian Land, the Holy and Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky, was driven away by the Novgorodians when he became too impudent. And then... What happened to these people? How in two hundred years, by the middle of the 16th century, did he lose all that freedom and dignity of which he was rightfully proud and which even foreigners noted?
The answer, I think, lies on the surface and our history has proven this more than once. The last such proof occurred in the middle of the last century. Our people, having gathered together, could defeat any external aggressor, but they always found themselves helpless and defenseless in the face of internal aggression and terror from their rulers. Why this happened, I think there is no need to explain, we all know that in Rus', from the tenth century, Orthodox Christianity was adopted as the main religion. And the Christian faith has always preached that any power on earth is from God. So the Russians, like true Orthodox Christians, endured any, even the most cruel, power given to him from above, as he believed from God.
The emergence of serfdom in Rus'
In the Moscow state at the turn of the 16th century, a local system took shape. The Grand Duke transferred the estate service man who was responsible for this military service. Local noble army used in the continuous wars waged by the state against Poland, Lithuania and Sweden, and in the defense of the “Ukrains” (that is, border areas) from raids Crimean Khanate, Nogai Horde: tens of thousands of nobles were called up every year to the “coastal” (along the Oka and Ugra) and border service. During this period, the peasant was still personally free and held a plot of land under an agreement with the owner of the estate. He had the right of withdrawal or refusal; that is, the right to leave the landowner. The landowner could not drive the peasant off the land before the harvest, and the peasant could not leave his plot without paying the owner at the end of the harvest.
The Code of Law of Ivan III established a uniform deadline for the peasants to leave, when both parties could settle accounts with each other. This is the week before St. George's Day (November 26) and the week following this day. A free man became a peasant from the minute he “instructed the plow” on a tax plot (that is, he began to fulfill public duty for cultivating the land) and ceased to be a peasant as soon as he gave up farming and took up another occupation.
Even the Decree on a five-year search for peasants dated November 24, 1597 did not cancel the peasant “exit” (that is, the opportunity to leave the landowner) and did not attach peasants to the land. This act only determined the need to return the escaped peasant to the previous landowner if the departure took place within a five-year period before September 1, 1597. The decree speaks only about those peasants who left their landowners “not on time and without refusal” (that is, not on St. George’s Day and without paying the “elderly fee”).
And only under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, the Council Code of 1649 established indefinite attachment to the land (that is, the impossibility of a peasant exit) and a fortress to the owner (that is, the power of the owner over the peasant located on his land). Moreover, according to the Council Code, the owner of the estate does not have the right to encroach on the life of a peasant and deprive him of land plot. The transfer of a peasant from one owner to another is allowed, however, in this case, the peasant must again be “planted” on the land and endowed with the necessary personal property (“bellies”).
Since 1741, the landowner peasants were removed from the oath, the monopolization of serf property in the hands of the nobility took place, and serfdom extended to all categories of the landowning peasantry.
2nd half of the 18th century - became the final stage of development state legislation, aimed at strengthening serfdom in Russia and the final enslavement of the peasants, as follows:
In 1760, landowners received the right to exile peasants to Siberia.
In 1765, landowners received the right to exile peasants not only to Siberia, but also to hard labor
In 1767, peasants were strictly forbidden to submit petitions against their landowners to the emperor personally.
At the same time, in a significant part of the country’s territory, in the Russian North, in most of the Ural region, in Siberia (where the bulk of rural population consisted of black soshnye, then state peasants), in the southern Cossack regions, serfdom did not become widespread. In 1861, a reform was carried out in Russia, nicknamed by the officialdom “ Great Reform", which abolished serfdom.
The main reason for this reform was the crisis of the serfdom system. In addition, historians of the USSR considered the inefficiency of the labor of serfs as a reason. TO economic reasons also attributed to the overdue revolutionary situation, as an opportunity to transition from the everyday discontent of the peasant class to a peasant war. In a climate of peasant unrest, which especially intensified during the Crimean War, the government, led by Alexander II, moved to abolish serfdom.
Serfdom is worse than slavery
As can be seen from the above section, a serf in Russia was the same as a slave, but the position of serfs was much worse than that of slaves. The reasons why the position of the serf in Russia was worse than the position of the slave were as follows.
The main reason, of course, was that the slave was not given to his owner for free, and the serfs were given to the landowner for free. Therefore, his treatment was worse than with “cattle.” Since the landowner always knew that even if the “two-legged beast” “dies” from excessive labor or beatings, the “Russian woman” will still give birth to new serfs, that is, “free slaves.”
The second reason is that serfdom as such deprived a person of even the hope that he would someday become free. After all, every serf knew from birth that this was his “heavy burden” for the rest of his life, as well as the burden of his children, grandchildren, etc. The slave, who was free before becoming a slave, lived in the hope that someday he would be able to become free again, by escaping, for example, from his master or receiving “freedom” from him for his merits. Therefore, the peasant children, who were already born unfree, did not even think about freedom, since they did not know any other life other than “living in eternal bondage” and therefore slowly, imperceptibly, the free Russian people turned into landowner property. Like a cane or a dog.
Supporters of the theory of the absence of slavery in Russia may object to me that the serf peasant differed from the slave in that he remained the subject of taxation. But this made his position even worse than that of a slave!
When to mid-17th century century building construction Russian slavery was completed. Russian peasants, and this is the majority of the population of a huge country in eastern Europe, became (not was, but became!) slaves. This is unprecedented! Not the blacks brought from Africa to work on the plantations, but their own compatriots, people of the same faith and language, who together, shoulder to shoulder for centuries, created and defended this state, became slaves, “draft animals” in their homeland. Those. they became so outcast that a century later their owners, out of disgust, feeling like people of a completely different breed, began to switch from Russian to French.
Formation of slave psychology
In fact, slavery in Russia lasted from the mid-16th century to the mid-20th century. It began with the enslavement of the peasants, and ended with Khrushchev’s issuance of passports to collective farmers. 400 years with a break of 68 years. The peasants received a small relief after the abolition of serfdom in 1861, and even then until the beginning of the 20th century, in order to leave the landowner, the peasant had to pay him redemption payment. And this relaxation ended with forced collectivization of 1929–1930.
The peasants who did not want to work “for the sticks” were driven to the great construction sites of communism, to camps, and into exile. And those who agreed were assigned to the collective farm, all their goods were taken away, and seven days a week - corvee. This didn’t happen even under the landowners. To get married, you also needed permission from the chairman if the bride or groom was from another collective farm. And if you go to work - don’t even think about it, they’ll catch you - and go to a camp. For twenty-five years, worse than under the Tsar. True, the last entry into slavery did not last long, thirty years. But more people were killed than in the previous three hundred...
Now for some simple arithmetic. In four hundred years, approximately twelve generations have changed. Formed national character, the so-called mentality. The majority of the population of our country are descendants of those same serfs. Because ruling class The aristocracy, commoners and Cossacks were destroyed by the Bolsheviks, and those who were not destroyed emigrated. And now let’s imagine how this character was formed. Unbearably huge spaces, dotted here and there with small villages of 100–200 souls. No roads, no cities. Only villages with black, rickety five-walled walls and impassable mud for almost six months of the year (spring and autumn). From early spring to late autumn, the serf worked day and night. And then almost everything was taken away by the landowner and the tsar. And then in the winter the “poor peasant” sat on the stove, howling from hunger.
And so from year to year, from century to century. True, sometimes a royal envoy would appear, take some of the stronger young village boys as recruits and that’s it, the guys would disappear forever, as if it had never happened. There was no connection between the villages. It’s a long way to visit each other, but it’s a pity to ride a horse. So, sometimes the master will go to his neighbor, so what will he tell? It’s none of your business, they say...
We heard out of the blue that there was a war somewhere. Are we going to hit the Turk or the Swede? The devil will sort him out. But mostly extortions, extortions, extortions... Nothing happens. From day to day. Year after year. From century to century. Complete and utter hopelessness. Nothing can change. Never. All. Literally everything is against you. Both the landowner and the state. Don't expect anything good from them. If you work poorly, they beat you with whips. You work well, they still beat you, but what you earned is taken away. Therefore, no matter what they killed, and the family did not die of hunger, the peasant always had to lie and “bend in” just in case.
And now the descendants of those serfs, already being “free” and regardless of their positions, at the genetic level continue to lie and “bend in” just in case of emergency. Somewhere there, far away beautiful life, some balls were going on... Someone killed someone in a duel... Some eccentric wrote a great book... All these Poltava and Izmail, Senate Square and the Sovremennik magazine, St. Petersburg and the torment of Raskolnikov - This is not all about serfs. Somewhere, two hundred to three hundred thousand other people lived separately, about whom their history was written, about their Russia.
And tens of millions lived a different life, where is this story... And until history is written common people we will not understand why Russian people do not trust their state. Why, since the 16th century, has the state always been perceived as an enemy? Perhaps because the Russian people have never seen anything good from the state? Maybe, after writing such a story, our statesmen will stop demagogy about power and strengthening statehood, and looking at the people crippled by the construction of a great power, they will say, paraphrasing Kennedy: “Don’t ask what you did for the state, but ask what the state did for you.” " And then every citizen of Russia, daily squeezing the slave out of himself drop by drop, will begin to truly build a state for citizens, and not citizens for the state.
1. Russian Truth(Old Russian (XI century, 1019-1054) (here “truth” in the meaning of Latin Greek) - legal code of Russia. Russian Truth appeared during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, based on the oral law and customary law of Rus'. - a smerd who found himself in a difficult economic situation, borrowed property from his master and guaranteed its return, as if it were a self-mortgage.
2. Purchase worked on the master's farm and could not leave him until he repaid the debt (otherwise he was transferred to a complete, “white-washed” slave).