What is the name of the princely squad? Organization of the Russian army during the period of Ancient Rus'

The price of goods and services can be determined different ways. One of these methods is transfer pricing (TP). Let's look at all its features.

What is transfer pricing?

Transfer pricing is the setting of value based on intercompany prices. They may differ from market ones. The main advantage of this method is the maximum reduction in company taxes. Its essence lies in the fact that there is a transfer of total profits in favor of firms located in countries with a minimum tax burden. Setting transfer prices has the following advantages:

• Distribution of spheres of influence between different branches of companies.
• Withdrawal of funds earned by subsidiaries from states with restrictions on the withdrawal of capital.
• Capturing a large part of the market by artificially reducing the cost of products.

Transfer pricing is relevant not only for large holdings, but also for representatives of small and medium-sized businesses. Reducing taxation and, as a result, increasing profits is achieved in completely legal ways. The final value is formed on the basis of the subjective properties of the object.

Regulation of transfer prices

The first laws relating to transfer pricing were adopted in the United States more than half a century ago. In the 90s, corresponding international standards appeared. In Russia, laws were adopted only in 2012. Transfer pricing is regulated by Chapter 6.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, as well as Articles 20 and 40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. IN regulations situations are listed in which tax authorities have the right to check the prices set by the company. Let's consider the goals of pricing regulation:

• Creating obstacles to artificially lower the profit received by the company.
• Elimination of barriers for companies that are bona fide taxpayers.

The laws of the Russian Federation are based on international experience. In particular, an important principle applies: comparing the prices set by interdependent firms with the prices that would be generated by independent companies.

In what case will transfer pricing be controlled?

Additional control is introduced regarding transactions with the following characteristics:

• Transactions between parties that depend on each other (including those involving a supporter).
• Transactions between Russian companies and representative offices of other countries.
• Transactions carried out on the foreign market with exchange-traded products (this includes, for example, metals). Additional verification is carried out only when the company’s annual revenue exceeds 60 million rubles.
• One of the counterparties is located in a zone with preferential taxation.
• For one of the counterparties the tax rate is 0%.
• The transaction is carried out with the participation of the entity that produces Natural resources and transfers funds to the severance tax treasury.
• Transactions between sister companies if their share of participation in the parent company is 25% or more.
• Transactions between the entity and its CEO.
• Transactions between enterprises in which the general director is the same person.

There may be other reasons for inspections. However, all of them must be confirmed by law. Control is carried out only when the transaction amount exceeds a certain level. As a rule, this is 60-100 million rubles.

In what cases will there be no control?

The list of transactions in respect of which additional control is not performed is determined by Article 104.4 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation:

• Operations performed by representatives of the consolidated group that comply with the laws of the Russian Federation.
• Transactions carried out between persons with legal addresses within the same region.
• Transactions between enterprises that do not have separate divisions in other regions of the country or other states.
• Transactions between parties who pay tax to the budget of the same region.
• One of the parties does not have losses for the previous period, which reduce the tax burden.
• None of the participants switched to a special tax regime.

Regulations assume that the value of transactions between independent firms is a priori.

Who are the related parties within the framework of transfer pricing?

TP involves calculating costs based on prices established between interdependent parties. But what is meant by interdependent persons? These are companies that can influence each other's financial performance. Such firms are subject to special control by the tax authorities, since they have the ability to reduce the fiscal burden and remove profits from taxation.

Related persons can influence the following indicators of each other:

• Cost of transactions.
• Amounts of income and profit.
• Other economic parameters.

The interconnectedness of persons is determined according to the following principles:

• Direct or indirect participation of individuals or legal entities in the capital of the company, amounting to at least 25%.
• Family connection between FL.
• Availability of official subordination.

If there are other signs of interconnection, the tax authorities have the right to go to court and establish them. The characteristics can be recognized by companies on a voluntary basis.

Responsibilities of transfer pricing participants

Companies that create transfer prices have the following responsibilities:

• Annual submission to the Federal Tax Service on transactions subject to additional control. Notification must be sent by May 20 of the following period.
• At the request of the tax authorities, the company must provide all documents related to the transaction.

The company can be checked at any time for the objectivity of pricing.

Transfer pricing methods

Comparable market price method

The comparable market prices method is considered priority. That is, it can be used in all cases, excluding situations with legal restrictions. Its essence is to establish value based on prices for similar objects. This method is relevant only if there is information from open sources about prices for identical products. Let's consider situations in which the SRC method must be used:

• A transaction with a counterparty, the terms of which are identical to the terms of internal transactions carried out by the entity.
• Issuing a loan.
• Trademark development.
• Transactions with products for which there are stock quotes or other statistical data.

In all these cases, you can find information about the prices of objects that are comparable to the object being sold.

Resale price method and cost method

The principle of applying the subsequent sale price method and the cost method lies in the fact that in this case the market range of profitability of independent persons is compared with the gross profitability acquired as a result of a transaction with a person who is dependent on the company.

For example, a company purchases products from a related party and then sells them to an independent party. In this situation, the subsequent sales price method is relevant. Within its framework, the distributor’s receipt of gross profitability (GR) and the objectivity of purchase prices are checked. The resulting value must be compared with the BP of independent distributors. If the BP within the transaction is within the market interval, the purchase price is recognized as market value.

The cost method involves analyzing not purchase prices, but selling prices. It is necessary to compare the BP of spending with the market interval of independent persons.

The listed methods are used quite rarely. This is due to the fact that it is quite difficult for the company to find data on the BP of independent persons. In addition, the transactions being compared must be comparable.

Comparable profitability method

The comparable profitability method is quite popular. Within its framework, the parameters of operating profitability are taken into account. Let's consider the stages of applying the method:

1. Conducting functional analysis.
2. Selecting the participant to be tested.
3. Selection of financial indicator.
4. Finding the source of data.
5. Search for companies whose performance is comparable.
6. Determination of the market profitability interval.
7. Comparing the profitability of the tested participant with the market interval.

Let's look at an example. The company is engaged in wholesale purchases. That is, you need to find organizations that also specialize in wholesale purchasing. Then, companies for which there is no information in the list are excluded from the resulting list. open access. After this, the market interval is determined. After this, the profitability of the entity is compared with the profitability of comparable organizations.

IMPORTANT! The method will be relevant if there is no completeness of data to apply the above methods.

Profit distribution method

This method is used extremely rarely. This is due to the fact that it is very complex. Its essence lies in the redistribution of profits of all participants in the operation in proportion to the functions they performed. When making distributions, you can focus on the features of distribution between independent participants within a comparable transaction.

Sources of information

TC involves the use of a certain list of data. The necessary information can be taken from sources such as:

• Data on prices of stock and commodity exchanges.
• Customs statistics.
• Information posted on government resources.
• Information received by information and pricing organizations.
• Data on comparable transactions already carried out by entities.
• Financial and statistical reporting.
• Conclusion received from independent appraisers.

The company also has the right to use other information that is needed for adequate pricing.

ATTENTION! The sources used must be verifiable. This is required to ensure the possibility of checking the adequacy of the shopping center.

Main tasks of transfer pricing management

The tax service is responsible for managing the shopping center. Management is necessary to solve the following tasks:

• Ensuring work to verify established prices by local tax authorities.
• Analysis and assessment of processes occurring in the market.
• Control over compliance with the law of the country.
• Review of applications regarding pricing agreements.
• Formation of proposals to improve legislation in the area under consideration.
• Informing enterprises about innovations.
• Ensuring the stable operation of regulatory authorities.

Tax authorities have the right to inspect companies and request Required documents. Based on the completed inspection, fines are issued.

Required documents

An enterprise must maintain documentation on a shopping center when the amount of its income from transactions with the same participant is more than 100 million rubles. The form of documents is not established by law, but the papers must contain the following information:

• Activities of participants in controlled transactions.
• List of participants in operations.
• Information about the transaction: conditions, selected pricing method, payment receipt deadlines.
• Information about the parties to the transaction: their functions, existing risks.
• Explanation of the choice of price formation method.
• Links to data sources used in pricing.
• Data on income and expenses for the operation.
• Data on adjustments made to the tax amount.

The documents must contain information that could affect the pricing of the transaction.

ATTENTION! The tax service has the right to request transfer pricing documentation from the company. Documents must be submitted to the service within a month from the date of the request.

Reporting

The new rules oblige the company to submit reports on transactions performed to the tax service only if the income from the transaction amounted to more than 100 million rubles. Documentation must be submitted no later than May 20 of the following year. The document must include the following information:

• Subject of the operation.
• Information about the participants in the transaction.
• Data on income arising from the transaction.

Tax authorities have the right to check the accuracy of the trading price. This is necessary to control the payment of taxes in full.

ATTENTION! The burden of proof of the adequacy of transfer prices lies with the tax authorities, not the company. That is, the tax service cannot oblige the enterprise to prove the validity of the trading price.

Legal liability of the company

If the audit reveals a discrepancy between the established prices and the market prices, the tax authorities may oblige the company to pay additional tax taking into account the completed transaction. The company may also be subject to a certain fine. If a discrepancy is detected for the years 2014-2016, the fine will be 20% of the amount of unpaid tax, for 2017 - up to 40%. To establish a fine, the enterprise's violation must be proven. For this purpose, organization documents and other sources can be used.

Back in February 2017, Cyprus announced that it would abolish the practice of margining for back-to-back loans. This law was in effect until June 30. Now, from July 1, it has become more difficult for foreign investors to take out loans, especially for those who want to register a company in Cyprus.

The Cyprus Tax Department (CTD) has notified the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Cyprus (ICPAC) of its change of policy to no longer apply the pre-agreed margin of 0.125% - 0.35%.

This means that Cyprus has finally fulfilled its promise - it has updated its transfer pricing rules. The Cyprus application stated that independent transfer pricing must be provided as evidence that the interest rate used in a particular transaction would be considered correct based on the market conditions existing at the time of the transaction. That is, the company’s activities in Cyprus are complicated by the fact that it is necessary to prepare additional documents on transfer pricing

The arm's length principle is already included in Article 33 of the Income Tax Law, which allows tax authorities to adjust reported taxable profits if the transfer prices agreed between related parties, differ from the prices that would be agreed between independent organizations.

However, on the other hand, registering a company in Cyprus for a non-resident remains relevant. Against the background of generally accepted legislation established in Cyprus, no one has abolished the simplified regime. This suggests that if you do not use the simplified regime, you can forget about preparing transfer pricing documents. And return to your previous business in Cyprus.

Impact of a shopping center for a company in Cyprus

This change may have a significant impact on entrepreneurs-citizens of the CIS who took out a loan from a legal entity. persons operating in Cyprus. This means that during the analysis you need to study in detail the likely risks in the beneficiary’s country of residence and in Cyprus.

New transfer pricing rules in Cyprus - what to do?

Since during the updating of the Cypriot legislation no one mentioned how to correctly analyze loans, it is necessary to pay attention to world practice. It is necessary to conduct a study of the margin that is generated by the company in Cyprus or an analysis of interest rates.

In addition, what is new for transfer pricing is the study of the level of equity capital that is needed to cover the risks of a company in Cyprus.

Please note that the Cyprus tax authorities have not explained in detail how to correctly calculate net worth. The Cyprus tax organization is aware of this - new manuals with algorithms and methods will be released after the summer.

Beneficial owner of income under a loan agreement in Cyprus - definition

Business in Cyprus is complicated by the fact that the Cypriot company is now required to have staff responsible for monitoring the fulfillment of financial obligations. The subcontractor is allowed, as stated by the legislator. At the same time, the company must assign tasks to subcontractors and control them independently.

Details of the methods within the subcontractors described above were not provided at this time. Likely to appear in an upcoming guide.

Those CIS citizens who have a registered company in Cyprus will need to review everything: from personnel to offices. Within the framework of the legislation of both Cypriot and Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.

Actual recipient of income

Those who have a public company in Cyprus and with a loan need to ensure that they are able to confirm the Cyprus lender's right to income. Otherwise, a fine may apply.

In short, when you have a business or are planning to create a business in Cyprus and you find yourself in a similar situation, you have the opportunity to get free consultation from our professional specialists. This will reduce the likelihood of unnecessary and erroneous steps leading to unnecessary problems. Use any feedback form!

IN written monuments In ancient Rus', the prince invariably appears against the backdrop of the squad, in the company of his comrades and assistants, who shared with him, as they say, both joy and sorrow. According to the correct definition of A.E. Presnyakov, the squad is the closest associates and collaborators of the prince who surround him both in peace and in war; the squad embraces a circle of people who are constantly with the prince, who live with him, and who care about his interests 1 . One of the main characteristic features the union of the prince and the squad - the community of hearth and bread 2.

Druzhina in social development Kievan Rus played a very significant role. This significance was already well understood by pre-revolutionary scientists. True, assessing the social significance of the squad, they sometimes went to extremes. B. N. Chicherin, for example, believed that the druzhina organization broke the original tribal connection and became an integral element “in most of the civil relations of that time” 3. According to another major researcher of Russian antiquity, S. M. Solovyov, the squad had a powerful influence on the formation of a new society by introducing a new class principle into the social environment, as opposed to the previous tribal one 4 .

For E. A. Belov, “the prince and the squad in Kievan Rus were the only drivers of events, and casting vote in cases that were out of the ordinary, it belonged to the squad” 5 . That is why “the Kiev period in Russian history was predominantly druzhina or... aristocratic” 6.

1 Presnyakov A.E. Princely law in ancient Rus'. St. Petersburg, 1909, p. 220, 228.

2 Ibid., p. 225.

3 Chicherin B.N. Experiments on the history of Russian law. M., 1858, p. 344.

4 Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. M., 1959, book. 1, p. 226.

Under the cover of the squad, according to A.E. Presnyakov, the ancient Russian prince gathered new social forces around himself, “opposing them to folk communities and organizing them according to principles independent of popular law,” as a result of which “the foundation of a new socio-political system was laid, which replaced the system of veche communities" 7.

Soviet historians have attached and continue to attach great importance to druzhina relations in the social evolution of Ancient Rus'. At the same time, they constantly keep in view the instructions of F. Engels regarding the influence that the squads had on the process of disintegration of the primitive communal system among the barbarians of Western Europe. The squads, F. Engels noted, contributed to the emergence of royal power 8 . “A military leader who had gained fame gathered around him a detachment of young men eager for booty, who owed him personal loyalty, just as he did to them. He supported and rewarded them, established a certain hierarchy between them; for small campaigns they served him as a detachment of bodyguards and an army always ready for action, for larger ones - ready officer corps" 9 . In the squads, as F. Engels put it, lurked “the germ of the decline of ancient people’s freedom” 10 .

As a result of long and painstaking research conducted by Soviet scientists, the active participation of the squad in the formation of princely power in Rus', in preparing the conditions for the transition from pre-class to class relations, became completely obvious. Much in this regard was done by B. D. Grekov, B. A. Rybakov, M. N. Tikhomirov, L. V. Cherepnin, V. T. Pashuto, A. A. Zimin, V. V. Mavrodin, B. A. Romanov, S. V. Yushkov and others 11

5 Belov E. A. On the historical significance of the Russian boyars until the end of the 17th century. - ZhMNP, 1886, January, p. 75.

6 Ibid., p. 78.

7 Presnyakov A. E. Princely law... p. 219.

8 See: Marx K., Engels F. Soch., vol. 21, p. 143.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M., 1953; Rybakov B. A. The first centuries of Russian history. M., 1964; Tikhomirov M. N. Ancient Rus'. M., 1975; Cherepnin L.V. Socio-political relations in Ancient Rus' and Russian Truth. - In the book: Novoseltsev A.P. and others. The Old Russian state and its international significance. M., 1965; Pashuto V. T. Essays on the history of Galician-Volyn Rus. M., 1950; Zimin A. A. Feudal statehood and Russian Truth. - Historical Notes, 1965, v. 76; Mavrodin V.V. Formation of the Old Russian state. L., 1945; Romanov B. A. People and customs of Ancient Russia. M.; L., 1966; Yushkov S.V. Socio-political system and law of the Izhevsk state. M., 1949.

The word “druzhina” is common Slavic 12. It is derived from the word “friend”, the original meaning of which is companion, comrade in war 13. Consequently, the squad is combat companions, comrades. It is possible, however, that the squad at first simply meant comrades, companions, household members, servants, as well as a community, community members, partnership, artel, company nuyu 14 Over time, new values ​​were added to these values: clan or tribal squad led by a local leader, princely squad, army in general 15. From the above etymolo According to this list, we are interested in the squad as the prince’s inner circle, sharing with him military exploits and peaceful concerns.

It must be said that the study of the princely squad faces difficulties due to the polysemy of the word “druzhina”, which in many cases prevents the identification of its exact meaning. Difficulties haunt the researcher from the very beginning, since even in the earliest news of the chronicle the squad appears as a complex concept, implying comrades, companions and friends 16, the army as a whole 17 and the princely squad itself 18. It is to the latter that we turn. The next thing we need to understand is the relationship between the prince’s squad and East Slavic and then Old Russian society. Otherwise, whether it was an external appendage to it or whether it was organically part of its political structure.

In noble-bourgeois historiography, which, following the chronicler, brought out the ancient Russian princes “from overseas,” the squad was often thought of as something foreign, brought from outside along with princely power. I. D. Belyaev, for example, speaking about the times of the first “Varangian princes,” noted: “The prince and the squad were on their own, and the urban and rural zemshchina were on their own” 19 . The squad, according to I.D. Belyaev, was sharply separated from the zemshchina, having “its own special structure, unlike the structure of the zemshchina” 20. This situation persisted for a long time. And only in the second half of the 12th century. There was a rapprochement between the squad and the zemshchina, which was a consequence of the change in the relationship between the prince and the zemstvo 21. According to N.I. Khlebnikov, the first princes and their squads “were completely alien to the people’s life and did not take the slightest part in it” 22. N.I. Kostomarov considered the squad to be an element, cut off from the people, which only gradually merged with them 23. A concept was built on the opposition between the squad and the zemstvo, which affirmed the idea of ​​the existence in Rus' until the 11th century. princes and zemstvo boyars 24. A.E. Presnyakov saw the squad as a union that “stands out from the general structure of the people’s community into a special, self-sufficient whole” 25 . M. S. Grushevsky, proving the origin of the prince and his squad from the native community, nevertheless stated: “The princely-squad element is opposed to the communal one, because the prince and the squad, although they were nominated by the community itself from their midst, then unite and separate from the community” 26 .

12 Shansky N. M. et al. Brief etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1971, p. 133; Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages. Proto-Slavic lexical fund. M., 1968, issue. 5, p. 134- 135; Etymological Russian language dictionary. M., 1973, vol. 1, issue. 5, p. 196.

13 F a s m e r M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1964, vol. 1, p. 543; Shansky N.M. et al. Brief etymological dictionary, p. 133.

14 F i l i n F. P. Russian vocabulary literary language ancient Kyiv era. L., 1949, p. 22; Sorokoletov F.P. History of military vocabulary in the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. L., 1970, p. 56-57; Lvov A. S. Vocabulary “Tales of Bygone Years.” M., 1975, p. 281.

15 F and l and n F. P. Vocabulary of the Russian literary language... p. 22; K o ch i n G. E. Materials for the terminological dictionary of Ancient Rus'. M.; L., 1937. p. 104-106; Dictionary from the right to “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign.” L., 1967, issue. 2, pp. 51-52.

16 “Rus' has grown close to its squad”; “Where our squad is, they are your ambassador”; “and took it to Lodya and brought it to the squad”; “let’s fight like a man, brothers and squad”; “pull, squad, according to the prince” (PVL, part I, pp. 33, 42, 47, 50).

17 “Take tribute on us and on your squad”; “Here you go, Svyatoslav with a small squad” (PVL, h. I, p. 50, 52).

18 “Rekosha squad of Igorevi”; “The villagers killed Igor and his squad”; “How do I want to accept the same law? And my squad will start laughing at this”; “Vladimir and his squad came into the city”; “When the squad saw him, they were baptized” (PVL, part I, pp. 39, 40, 46, 76, 77).

All these attempts to isolate the squad from the civilian artificial societies are hardly justified.

A certain one-sided approach to the ancient Russian squad is noticeable in the works of Soviet authors, who see in the emergence and development of the squad only the process of formation of the ruling class, thereby completely separating the squad elements from the people's soil and turning them into a social antipode to the ordinary population of Ancient Rus' 27. The fact is that

19 Belyaev I.D. Stories from Russian history. M., 1865, book. 1,-

20 Ibid., p. 55.

21 Ibid., p. 329-330.

22 Khlebnikov N. Society and state in the pre-Mongol period of Russian history. St. Petersburg, 1872, p. 146-.147.

23 Ko s t o m a r o v N. I. Sobr. op. in the 21st volume. St. Petersburg, 1904, book. 5, p. 331.

24 Vladimirsky-Budanov M. F. Review of the history of Russian law. St. Petersburg, Kyiv, 1907, p. 26-30; D o v n a r - 3 a p o l s k i M. V. Druzhina and boyars.-In the book: Russian history in essays and articles B. m., b. g. vol. 1, p. 290-311.

25 Presnyakov A. E. Princely law... p. 225.

26 Grushevsky M. S. History Kyiv land. Kyiv, 1891, p. 290, approx.

27 Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus, p. 338-346; Rybakov B. A. The first centuries of Russian history, p. 21-22; Tretyakov P. N. East Slavic tribes. M., 1953, p. 305; Mavrodin V.V. Education Ancient

in the formation of classes, the squad played an important role, there is no doubt. However, this does not exhaust its historical mission. Having arisen under the conditions of a primitive communal system, the squad initially did not in any way violate the pre-class social structure 28 . The warriors grouped near the prince were his associates, comrades and assistants. Very soon the squad became so integrated with the prince that it became, in some way, a social prerequisite for his activities. But if the prince personified among the Eastern Slavs and Kievan Rus political body, performed certain socially useful functions 29, then the squad, closely connected with him and helping him in everything, inevitably had to learn a similar role and be constituted into an institution that, together with the prince, ensures the normal functioning of the socio-political mechanism of the East Slavic, and subsequently the Old Russian society. This explains the importance of studying the squad.

The study of druzhina relations, in addition, sheds light on some features of princely power and the socio-economic basis of the serving nobility. How does this happen?

Among the warriors, the prince, as far as we know, is not a master, but the first among equals. Therefore, by identifying the degree of strength of friendship ties, we at the same time measure the degree of independence and strength of princely power. Further, friendly relations serve as an indicator of the immaturity of the landowning class: the deeper and wider they capture the nobility, the less landowning it appears. When a warrior completely sits down on the land, he ceases to be a warrior, turning into a land owner - a feudal lord 30.

The question arises as to how long the squad survived in Rus'. Historians offer different answers to this question. N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky believed that “the complete dominance of the druzhina warehouse of the upper class dates back to the Kyiv period of our history, from the times of Igor, Svyatoslav and Vladimir the Saint, through

non-Russian state and the formation of the ancient Russian nationality. M., 1971, p. 80-87.- V.I. Goremykina has a different view, who believes that the selection of professional warriors among the Eastern Slavs was connected with the needs of the entire society, which needed protection from external enemies. The “social category of warriors” provided, according to V.I. Goremykina, normal conditions for the “development of the economy of a sedentary farmer.” - See: Goremykina V.I. To the problem of the history of pre-capitalist societies (based on the material of Ancient Rus'). Minsk, 1970, p. 29, 30, 34-35.

28 Korsunsky A. R. Formation of the early feudal state in Western Europe. M., 1963, p. 158.

29 See p. 19, 26-44 of this book.

30 G rekov B. D. Kievan Rus, p. 345; Yushko in S.V. Socio-political system...s. 243; Mavrodin V.V. Formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian nationality, p. 80.

the century of Yaroslav the Wise and his sons, until the time of Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav the Great" 31. Throughout the 12th century. the vigilantes acquire land and lose mobility. By becoming sedentary, they “get closer to the zemstvo boyars; princely boyars, in turn, become zemstvo boyars” 32. As a result, the squad disintegrates: “With the sedentarization of the princely boyars-combatants, the former squad - the close partnership - disappears. Previously, no other connections weakened the bonds of comradeship among the warriors; Now settled life isolates individual members of the squad, they acquire special interests and special connections. The vigilante landowners can no longer live in the former close, friendly circle of people who have no other interests other than the interests of the partnership. The prince now deals no longer with the squad, as with one whole, but with individual servants, boyars” 33.

The ancient Russian squad seemed less durable to S.V. Yushkov, according to whom “the process of disintegration of the squad, which began in the 9th-10th centuries, intensified under Vladimir, ended under Yaroslav” 34. However, in his other work, S.V. Yushkov somewhat extended the life of the squad in Rus'. He wrote that the decomposition of the squad especially intensified from the middle of the 11th century. But, despite this, “the vitality of druzhina organizational forms” was observed for a long time 35. S.V. Yushkov saw the main reason for the disintegration of the squad in the gradual transformation of the squad into feudal landowners, breaking away from the princely grid and acquiring economic independence 36 . S. V. Yushkov considered two circumstances to be signs of the decomposition of the squad: 1) the vagueness and sometimes meaninglessness of the term “druzhina” (“the squad is beginning to be understood as armed detachments”) and 2) the local nature of the squads, called in the sources Vladimir, Russian, etc. no. 37

We cannot recognize these circumstances as signs of the disintegration of the ancient Russian squad. The vagueness of the term does not give reason to think that the squad is disorganized, since this vagueness is a fact of a much earlier time than it seemed to S. V. Yushkov. There is even reason to believe that the word “druzhina” as a military term was first used to designate military units of a tribe or men’s unions, which were military units of a general tribal military organization, as was the case among the Indians North America 38. And only later, with the consolidation of the squad elements, the prince’s immediate circle began to be called this word. With such a semantic sequence, the uncertainty of the term “druzhina” noted by S.V. Yushkov cannot be qualified as a sign of the decomposition of druzhina relations, because this uncertainty is the linguistic heritage of the past, nothing more. There is also no reason to attribute the appearance of local squads in Rus' (Vladimir, Belozersk, Pereyaslav, etc.) to signs of the disintegration of the princely squad. The emergence of local druzhina formations is the result of the development of the military organization of urban communities that stood at the head of the volost-states of Ancient Rus' 39 . The presence of city squads did not at all mean that the princely squad entered into a deep crisis.

31 Pavlov-Silvansky N.P. The Sovereign's service people: The origin of the Russian nobility. St. Petersburg, 1898, p. 10-11.

32 Ibid., p. 13.

33 Ibid., p. 12.

34 Yushkov S.V. On the issue of political forms of the Russian feudal state before the 19th century. - Questions of History, 1950, No. 1, p. 77.

35 Yushko in S.V. Socio-political system... p. 342.

36 Ibid., p. 243.

37 Ibid.

The acquisition of land for warriors, observed in Rus' in the second half of the 11th-12th centuries, also requires a more cautious interpretation. In any case, it does not indicate the complete disintegration of the squad. It must be remembered that a significant part of the squad, consisting of youths, children and others, continued to live under the prince and on his support, being with him in everyday and economic unity. But even those warriors (mainly boyars) who acquired houses and villages did not break all the threads that connected them with the squad. Comparing the German and Russian squads, N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky expressed a very valuable consideration. “The cohabitation of the squad with the prince,” he said, “begins to collapse very early. In Merovingian times, many warriors, while maintaining their belonging to the princely house, mundium (fire), already lived at a distance from the prince on the land granted to them or in the district entrusted to their management. In Kievan Rus we also see many warriors ruling cities as posadniks at a distance from the prince or living in their Bolyar villages. In our country, just like in the West, over time the squad moves further and further away from the prince, acquiring settled land. But the closeness remains in visits to the princely court: they used to live together, now they come together” 40. Consequently, the squad, or better yet part of the squad, although it sits on the ground, its closeness to the prince remains. This idea of ​​N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky is, in our opinion, very constructive. On our own behalf, we will only add: the noted closeness of the squad settling on the ground to the prince is expressed not only in visits to the princely court, and not even only in visits. The visits themselves indicate, perhaps, that there is still something in common between the prince and the squad leaving his grid for their own home, which attracts them to each other, which explains the periodic returns of the squad to the princely penates. Hence we conclude: the emergence of land ownership among the warriors did not at all mean the complete collapse of the squad. For now it lived, combining old traditions with new trends, that is, it was declining, but had not yet fallen completely. Thus, we observe a gradual (viepes intermediate forms) transformation of the squad into a class of feudal landowners. Having formulated these general provisions, let us turn to the analysis of specific material in order to confirm the validity of what has been said with facts. Let's start with data indicating the existence of druzhina relations in Ancient Rus' of the 11th-12th centuries, in their form that was not differentiated by the personal composition of the druzhina.

38 Averkieva Yu. P. Indians of North America. M. 1974, p. 316: see also: Filin F. P. Vocabulary of the Russian literary language... p. 22

39 See p. 211 of this book.

40 Pavlov-Silvansky N.P. Feudalism in Appanage Rus'. St. Petersburg, 1910, p. 349-350.

The very presence in the ancient Russian vocabulary of the 11th-12th centuries is quite eloquent. the words “squad” in a specific or, if I may say so, technical significance the prince's inner circle, his assistants and comrades-in-arms in war and in peaceful affairs 41. In the chronicles telling about the events of the 11th-12th centuries, the prince and the squad are thought of as something indissoluble. A prince without a squad is like “a bird taken aback.” In turn, a squad without a prince is like a ship without a helmsman. Princes of the XI-XII centuries. like their predecessors, the princes of the 10th century, they are constantly depicted by chroniclers against the background of a squad. The squad invariably surrounds the prince in the most different situations. There are many examples of this 42.

It is quite typical that the fates of the prince and his squad were closely intertwined. Together with the prince, the warriors experienced his successes and (which is especially significant) failures. One day, Vladimir Monomakh, forced by Oleg Svyatoslavich to leave Chernigov, went to Pereyaslavl with his squad. It was very difficult for him and his squad there. “And I traveled to Pereyaslavl,” says Monomakh, “3 summers and 3 winters, and with my retinue, and suffered many troubles from the army and from hunger” 43. Izyaslav Mstislavich, addressing the squad, said: “For me, you came out of the Ruska land, having lost your villages and your lives, and yet I can’t get over the ripening of my grandfather and fatherland, but I’ll lay down my head if my fatherland fits in with yours.” all my life" 44. The squad, therefore, follows the prince, expelled from Kyiv by successful rivals, sharing his misfortunes. In the chronicles we often observe how the squad follows the prince from city to city, from volost to volost, which undoubtedly reflects the commonality of its interests with the princely 45. There is reason to believe that the mobility of the princes of Kievan Rus, noted by researchers (including the latest 46), made the princely squad mobile as well 47. It is impossible, of course, to absolutize this phenomenon, because we also have information about druzhina settlement. Thus, the Tale of Bygone Years describes a case when the Polovtsians, having heard about the death of Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich, “sent word to Svyatopolk about peace. Svyatopolk, without even thinking about his formation with the larger retinue, held a council with those who came with him, and, having taken away the words, planted them in the center” 48 . Svyatopolk, as you know, came to Kyiv from Turovo. In Kyiv, he found the “larger squad” of his father and uncle, which, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, settled here “for 40 years, under the great princes Izyaslav and Vsevolod” 49. With the arrival of Svyatopolk, it was supposed to be replenished by his warriors. “So towards Kyiv,” says V. O. Klyuchevsky, “there was a constant surf, which deposited one squadron layer after another on the surface of the local society. This made the Kyiv region one of the most druzhina in terms of population composition, if not the most druzhina” 50. It is unlikely that Kyiv stood out sharply in this regard from other large volost centers of Rus', where a similar process of crystallization of local druzhina elements took place.

41 Sorokoletov F.P. Story military vocabulary...pp.56-62.

42 PVL, part I, p. 92, 96, 98, 100, 101...

43 PVL, part I, p. 161.

44 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 409-410.

The rotation of the princes did not always carry the squad along with it. According to the Ipatiev Chronicle, in 1146, Prince Svyatoslav Olgovich, pressed by the regiments of Izyaslav Mstislavich, “fled” from Novgorod Seversky to Korachev, “and his squad followed him, and his friends left him behind” 51 . This probably didn't happen very often. The warriors left the prince because they were free people who enjoyed the right to serve whomever they wanted 52

So, in the ancient Russian squad of the 11th-12th centuries. contradictory trends coexisted. On the one hand, the warriors show a tendency to mobility, due to the movements of the princes, on the other hand, they experience some desire to settle down. The first strengthened traditional squad ties, the second, on the contrary, contributed to their gradual destruction. The confrontation between these aspirations reflected the transitional nature of the era, combining the old orders of the pre-class system with the emerging new social relations leading to a class-based feudal society.

45 PVL, part I, p. 98, 143, 160-161; NPL, p. 35; PSRL, vol. I, stb. 305, 313, 314, 320, 327, 354, 461; vol. II, stb. 307, 328, 369, 402, 409, 495, 515-516, 544, 561-562, 660.

46 See p. 50 of this book.

47 Klyuchevsky V. O. Op. in 8 t. M., 1956. T. 1, p. 196.

48 PVL, part I, p. 143.

49 Klyuchevsky V. O. Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'. Pg., 1919, p. 63-64.

50 Ibid., p. 64

51 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 334.

52 Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. M., 1960, book. 2, p. 17-18.

However, until class society took shape, druzhina ties were still quite strong. During the XI-XII centuries. Some squad customs are preserved, dating back to the initial stage of the squad’s history. These include the custom of a meeting, a “duma” between the prince and his retinue. This “thought,” as is clear from the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh, was almost the prince’s daily occupation 53 . Chronicle sources contain numerous news about the councils of princes with their squads 54 . The opinion expressed by the warriors is by no means binding on the prince. He could do things his own way 55. This was made easier by the fact that disagreements arose in the squad on the issues under discussion and the prince, therefore, had the opportunity to choose from the recommendations the one that seemed correct to him 56 . But the squad, in turn, did not agree with the prince and even refused to support him if the latter started something without her knowledge 57 . Such relations between the prince and the squad cannot be interpreted otherwise than as a manifestation of the ancient principles on which the squad alliance was built. But time took its toll, introducing changes that disrupted the old order and ultimately negated it. In the XI-XII centuries. The desire of a certain part of the squad, consisting of boyars, to monopolize the right to give advice to the prince is increasingly felt. In the sources it was called the “senior”, “front”, “larger” squad. By the end of the 12th century. Even the concepts of “thinking boyars” and “men of good fortune” were developed 58. If earlier in the face of the prince the warriors were all equal, now the situation is changing and the rights of the squad are differentiated. But even in its differentiated form, it still remains fundamentally druzhina.

53 PVL, part I, p. 158.

54 Ibid., part I, p. 143, 144, 158, 181, 183; PSRL, vol. I, stb. 307, 319, 358, 375, 376, 389, 415; t. I, stb. 305, 354, 355, 357, 358, 409, 412, 522, 537, 555, 561-562, 637, 638.

65 See, for example, PSRL, vol. II, stb. 389, 473-474, 637.

66 See, for example, ibid., stb. 308-381.

57 Once, Prince Vladimir Mstislavich conceived a military campaign without consulting with his squad, and was refused: “But you, prince, planned it for yourself, and we are not going after you, we did not know that.” As a result, Vladimir’s idea failed (ibid., stb. 536). The warriors were well aware of the extent of their influence on the prince. When one prince was slandered that he wanted to treacherously seize the allied princes, he “show it to his squad.” And the squad told him: “You couldn’t have planned or done this without us, but we all know your true love for all your brothers” (ibid., stb. 526).

58 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 643.

According to sources of the 11th-12th centuries. the everyday closeness of the prince and the squad can be traced. It is expressed not only in the fact that the warriors are constantly with him, as an alter ego, but also in the everyday feasts that thundered under the arches of the princely gritsnitsa. The feast of the prince and his retinue is one of the ordinary chronicle scenes of 5E. In the princely “feasts”, in our opinion, another facet of the community of the prince and his squad was refracted, lying in the economic plane of their relations, which was characterized, among other things, by unity over bread 60. This unity gradually became a thing of the past. And in the XI-XII centuries. it remains as a residual phenomenon, and in a reduced form 61 .

The economic connection of the squad with the prince is felt more tangible in the sphere of its material support. We can say with confidence that the squad lived mainly at the expense of the prince’s income. This was done in two ways: the squad either received a monetary allowance from the hands of the prince, like a salary, or used deductions from volost feeds and various payments received from the population, while fulfilling police, judicial and administrative orders of the prince. In the Introduction to the Initial Code of the end of the 11th century we read: “I pray to you, flock of Christ, with love incline your ears wisely: how there were ancient princes and their husbands, and as if from the land of Russia, and other countries, I gave them over; those princes did not take away a lot of property, nor the wealth they created, nor the sales of people; but he awakened the right faith, and took that one , Yes, the squad is at arms. And his squad feeds, fighting in other countries and fighting and roaring: “Brother, let’s fight for our prince and across the Russian land”; saying: “Two hundred hryvnia is not enough for us, prince.” They do not store gold hoops for their wives, but wear silver hoops for their wives; and they multiplied the Russian land" 62. In the chronicler’s terms, therefore, 200 hryvnia was for the 12th century. the usual salary of a vigilante - a rather impressive amount at that time 63 . Reward for vigilantes

59 PVL, part I, p. 96, 111; PSRL, vol. II, stb. 415, 473.

60 Presnyakov A. E. Princely law... p. 225.

61 This must be understood in the sense that the squad was no longer on the full princely allowance, as it was before.

62 NPL, p. 103-104.- L. G. Kuzmin, polemicizing with A. A. Shakhmatov, puts the Introduction (Preface) in connection with Novgorod chronicle HTTT c. and believes that it is Novgorod in origin, and not Kiev. - See: Kuzmin A. G. 1) On the question of the origin of the Varangian legend. - In the book: New about the past of our country. M., J967, p. 50-51" 2) Russian chronicles as a source on the history of Ancient Rus'. Ryazan, 1969, p. 142; 3) Initial stages of ancient Russian chronicles. M.,

63 Klyuchevskii V. O. Soch., vol. 1, p. 197; Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 81.

feed and court fees were recorded by Russkaya Pravda 64. Squad feedings are depicted very clearly in chronicles. We have already had to study the corresponding chronicle material 65. To what we have collected, we will add two very expressive fragments taken from the Laurentian and Ipatiev Chronicles. In 1148, Yuri Dolgoruky sent his son Rostislav with a squad “to help Olgovich against Izyaslav Mstislavich.” But Rostislav did not go to the Olgovichs, but to Izyaslav. The chronicler talks about it like this: “When Rostislav and his squad thought, the river: “I love to anger my father with me, I don’t go to my enemies, then they were brought back to my grandfather and my formation. But let’s go, my squad, to Izyaslav, then I have my heart, give us the parish,"(our italics - Ya. F.). And she sent to Izyaslav. Izyaslav was glad when he sent his men against him, and when they came to him, Izyaslav was glad and created a great dinner and gave him God’s and other cities” 66. Consequently, the volost, or rather the income from it, is the property of not only the prince, but also the squad. Another chronicle entry shows how the squad received volost income. In 1164, Svyatoslav Olgovich died in Chernigov. The widowed princess and the “front men” of the late prince decided to invite Oleg, Svyatoslav’s son, to Chernigov, bypassing his nephew, Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich. However, Bishop Anthony, who verbally agreed with the princess and the boyars, secretly sent a letter to Vsevolodovich, in which he wrote: “You died, but they sent along the Olga, and the squad in the cities is far away, and the princesses sat in amazement with the children, and She has a lot of goods, but eat on the borze” 67. The squad sitting in the cities “far away” is a squad engaged in judicial and administrative matters, receiving food and other compensation for their work. V. O. Klyuchevsky was not far from the truth when he said: “Having sat down on the new table, the prince hastened to seat his husbands and children in the cities and volosts of the principality, leaving some with him for government and palace needs. But the society of all these large and small “posadniks” did not lose the character of a camp, scattered throughout the principality for a hasty and short-term “feeding” before a quick campaign or movement to a new principality” 68. Perhaps V. O. Klyuchevsky somewhat absolutizes the phenomena, but one of the aspects of druzhina life in Rus' XII V. shown by him with plastic expressiveness.

Thus, the squad in Kievan Rus lived largely on princely funds. Ideal was considered a prince who generously gave gifts to his warriors. In the chronicle obituaries about the death of this or that prince, princely generosity towards the squad is especially praised: “Loving the squad greatly, you do not spare your property, neither drink nor food” 69; “Having a squad and property was honored with worthy honor, not sparing, not collecting gold and silver, but giving to the squad” 70; “Be kind to your squad and not to spare your property and not to collect gold or silver, but to give to your squad” 71 ; “If you love your squad and don’t collect gold, don’t spare your property, but give it to your squad” 72; “Do not collect gold and silver, but give to the squad, loving the squad” 73.

64 See Art. 41.42 Brief history. 9, 20, 74. 86,107,108, 114 Dimensional Truth.

65 Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus: Essays on socio-economic history. L ., 1974, p. 66-68. 66 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 319-320. 67 Ibid., vol. II, stb. 523. 68 K l u c h e v s k i i V. O. Boyarskaya thought Ancient Rus', p. 57.

The material dependence of the warriors on the prince, their closeness to their leader contributed to the development of the view that the squad was inseparable from the prince. Therefore, for each defeat of the prince, the squad paid with its own property, captivity, and even with its head 74.

The materials we have analyzed indicate the presence in Rus' of the 11th-12th centuries. friendly relations. Of course, by this time the squad had lost its former pristine nature, finding itself at the mercy of destructive processes. With the split of the squad into senior and junior, the symptoms of its disintegration began to appear more and more clearly. They become especially noticeable from the end of the 12th century. The decomposition of the senior and junior squads manifested themselves in different ways. In the first, consisting of boyars, we observe the evolution of druzhina relations into vassal relations, in the second, composed of youths, children and the like, we see the transformation of the druzhina into a princely court, living on different grounds and according to different laws than the druzhina union. At the end of the 12th century. the squad entered the sunset. But its final disappearance falls approximately in the second half of the 13th-14th centuries. As a result, the term “druzhina,” which denoted a permanent cadre army who were with the prince in the position of his comrades-in-arms and assistants, is falling out of common usage 75 . New socio-political institutions are emerging to replace the outdated squad 76.

69 PVL, part I, p. 101.

70 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 551.

71 Ibid., stb. 611.

72 Ibid., stb. 653.

73 Ibid., stb. 703.

74 “And he brought his squad into the cellar” (NPL, p. 30, 218); “Olgovich Vsevolod drove out Yaroslav from Chernigov and exterminated and plundered his squad” (PRSL, vol. I, stb. 296); “Izyaslav, having listened to them, took away his property and weapons and horse, and wasted his squad” (Ibid., stb. 320); “Izyaslavich fled with his brother from Kyiv to Volodymer with a small squad, and his princess Yasha and his son and his squad were seized” (Ibid., Art. 354); “Yat brother of Prince Andrei Vsevolod and Rostislavich Yaropolk and their squad” (Ibid., stb. 365); “I sat with Yaroslav Prince Izyaslavich in Kiev, Prince Svyatoslav of Chernigov rode to Kiev and entered Kiev, his squad was seized, and Prince Yarooslav fled” (Ibid., stb. 366); “and his brother-in-law Mstislav Rostilavich and his seized squad” (Ibid., stb. 384); “and their entire squad was confiscated” (Ibid., stb. 385); “and plundered Kiyane and Izyaslav, the squads of Igor and Vsevolozh, and the villages and cattle” (Ibid., vol. II, stb. 328); “And so he led the 4 youths into a nasad, and his squad was taken away, and the goods were taken away” (Ibid., stb. 373); “and he took his goods and his squad” (Ibid., stb. 395); “a lot of confiscation of Gyurgevi’s squad in Kyiv” (Ibid., stb. 416); “And plunder his squad and take away all the goods” (Ibid., stb. 485); “and the townspeople and his squad plundered his courtyard” (Ibid., stb. 493); “Mstislav brought a lot of goods from the squads, gold and silver and servants and horses and cattle, and ruled everything to Volodymyr” (Ibid., stb. 502); “and he plundered his goods and his squad” (Ibid., stb. 511); “and sent his entire squad to Chernigov” (Ibid., stb. 579); “and his squad also seized around him” (Ibid., stb. 614); “Svyatoslav confiscated his squad and goods” (Ibid., stb. 615); see also: Romanov B. A. People and customs of Ancient Rus', p. 124-125.

Having examined the main features of the squad as a whole, let’s take a look at its constituent elements, starting with the upper squadron layer - the boyars.

The origin of the word “boyar” still remains somewhat of a mystery, although many generations of historians have tried to penetrate its secret. V.N. Tatishchev traced the term “boyar” to the Sarmatian word “poyarik” - “boyarik”, meaning a smart head. The Sarmatians “called all nobles with this word, and among us, the spoiled boyar meant nobleman” 77 . It seemed to I. N. Boltin that the opinion of V. N. Tatishchev “of all other opinions is the most probable or, at least, the best” 78 . N. M. Karamzin, unlike V. N. Tatishchev, looked for the roots of the name “boyar” in the Russian linguistic environment, thinking that it “without a doubt comes from battle and at the beginning it could signify a warrior of excellent courage, and later it turned into national dignity” 79. V. Bulygin considered N.M. Karamzin’s guess “as being consistent with the true source, but not yet proven and therefore remains in the realm of doubt” 80 . Developing the thought of N.M. Karamzin, the author concludes that "the battle makes up the first half of the word (boyar.- I.F.) and, so to speak, the core of onago, and Yarin - the second, which serves as an indication to which class the word taken into consideration should be classified" 81 . A boyar in ancient times, according to V. Bulygin, was a victorious warrior 82. S. Sabinin rejected the word production of both Tatishchev - Boltin and Karamzin - Bulygin. He derived the term “boyar” from Scandinavian language, in particular from the word baearmenn, baejarmen (bayarmen, bayarmen), which meant: 1) citizen, husband of the city; 2) an employee at any court 83. Hence, a boyar is someone who lives in the city and serves “at the court of the prince or at the court of other high officials” 84. Yu. Venelin, accepting the reading “bolerin-bolyarin”, pointed to the “Bulgarian dialect” as a source, where ballerinas there is a sir, master 85.

75 Sorokoletov F.P. History of military vocabulary... p. 154, 156, 294.

76 "Term squad, - writes F.P. Sorokoletov, “in the military sense it goes out of use (at least it ceases to be used in writing) much earlier than the extinction of the very phenomenon of social life. In fact, the squad as the prince’s closest military entourage continues to exist until the end of the period of feudal fragmentation, that is, until the 16th century, and the term to designate this phenomenon is not known to be in active use already in the 14th century. This is explained by those fundamental changes in the social life of Russian society, which led to a change in the role of the squad as a social institution” (Sorokoletov F.P. History of military vocabulary... p. 156). We cannot agree with this interpretation of the issue. The squad as a socio-political institution characteristic of a certain era is moving away from historical scene along with this era. Talk about the squad in relation to the 16th century. It can only be due to a misunderstanding. In any case, draw an equal sign between the closest military circle of the prince of the 16th century. and the times of Kievan Rus means losing the sense of historical perspective.

77 Tatishchev V.N. 1) Russian history from the most ancient times. M., 1768, book. 1, part 1, p. 330; 2) Russian history. M.; L., 1962, vol. 1, p. 260.

78 Boltin I. N. Notes on the history of ancient and modern Russia of Leclerc. M., 1788, vol. 2, p. 442.

After all such contradictory interpretations of the word “boyar”, I. I. Sreznevsky had reason to say that this word “was played by many scientists” 86. I. I. Sreznevsky himself allowed two possible options for the origin of the name “boyar”: 1) from a forked root fight with adding a suffix -ar; 2) from the root bol-vel with adding the same suffix. The term formed in this way was used to designate a nobleman, a representative of the superior class 87. I. I. Sreznevsky emphasized the Slavic origin of the word “boyar” 88, with which S. M. Solovyov agreed 89.

The abundance of contradictory judgments gave rise to a certain uncertainty about their validity. Therefore, probably, V. O. Klyuchevsky did not find in the literature a satisfactory explanation of the etymological meaning of the term “boyar” 90. But V. O. Klyuchevsky, like I. I. Sreznevsky, admitted that two roots could have been involved in the formation of this name: -the battle and -pain 91. One thing seemed certain to him: purely Slavic origin words 92. The point of view of I. I. Sreznevsky was also accepted by V. I. Sergeevich 93 . For M. S. Grushevsky, the initial history of the word “boyar” was lost in the darkness of obscurity. However, he noted its great antiquity and commonality “with other (half-day) Slavic languages” 94. It seemed equally dark in origin to A.I. Sobolevsky, who did not exclude that it was Turkism before him 95 .

79 Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State. St. Petersburg, 1892, vol. 1, p. 50.

80 Bulygin V. On the origin of the name boyar or pain- rie - ZhMNP, 1834, July, p. 64.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid., p. 66.

83 Sabinin S. On the origin of names: boyar or bolyarin - ZhMNP, 1837, October, p. 44.

84 Ibid., p. 74-75.

85 Venelin Yu. About the word boyar - CHOIDR, M., 1847, No. 1, p. 2.

86 Sreznevsky I. Thoughts on the history of the Russian language. St. Petersburg, 1850, p. 133-134.

87 Ibid., p. 134.

88 Ibid., p. 133.

89 Soloviev S.M. Story Russia from ancient times, book 1, p. 326.

90 Klyuchevsky V. O. Ancient Boyar Duma Rus', p.38.

Despite the renewed efforts of scientists every now and then to identify the etymology of the term “boyar,” much here still remains guesswork. There are still ongoing debates in science about this. Some researchers, attributing the word “boyar” to the Slavic languages, derive it from the noun fights - battles, battles 96, others see Turkism in it 97. Modern experts also do not agree on when the boyars appeared and became stronger in Rus'. So, S.V. Bakhrushin thought that this happened no earlier than the end of the 10th century, but most likely in the 11th century 98. According to B. A. Larin, the strengthening of the boyar stratum occurred only during the creation of the Extensive Truth 99. B. A. Rybakov observes the clearly defined process of the formation of the boyars at the end of the 8th century. 100 S.V. Yushkov considered it possible to talk about feudal boyars from the beginning of the 10th century. w.

Despite all the etymological controversies in science, a general idea still shines through, according to which the boyar is a noble, rich person belonging to the social elite 102. Accepting this definition as completely convincing, we cannot share the opinion of researchers who believe that the boyars, already under the first Rurikovichs, acted as large land owners who rose above the mass of the population thanks to their land ownership. 103 Boyar land ownership arose no earlier than the second half of the 11th century. 104 Therefore, any speculation about the boyars-landowners-businessmen of the previous time is groundless. Land ownership did not become the main, distinctive feature of the boyars in the era of Russian Truth, because at that time it was not so significant as to serve as the main source of income for the boyar nobility 105. That is why it is difficult to agree with V.O. Klyuchevsky that the term “boyar” in Ancient Rus' meant a privileged landowner 106. V. O. Klyuchevsky, however, has another, more correct, as it seems to us, definition of boyar status. Behind the boyar in the most ancient monuments was hidden, according to the scientist, “a ruler and at the same time a noble person, a person of the highest class of society” 107 . In V. O. Klyuchevsky’s characterization, the government aspect of the boyars’ activities attracts our attention. Further research showed that it was precisely the official, service role of the boyars who headed Old Russian society as a guiding force, was the main feature characteristic of this social category of Rus' in the 11th-12th centuries. 108. Consequently, “/ the boyars appear before us primarily as leaders who govern society, i.e., performing well-known generally useful functions. It is possible that in this role they replaced the tribal nobility, who left the historical stage as a result of the fall tribal system and the emergence of a new social organization, which can be called, using the terminology of A.I. Ne-Usykhin, communal without primitiveness 109.

91 Klyuchevsky V. O. 1) Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus', p. 527; 2) Op. M., 1959, vol. 6, p. 145-146.

92 Klyuchevsky V. O. Soch., vol. 6, p. 146.

93 Sergeevich V.I. Russian legal antiquities. St. Petersburg, 1902, t. 1, p. 331.

94 Grushevsky M. Galitsky boyars of the XII-XIII centuries. - In the book: Notes of the scientific partnership of 1men Shevchenko, 1897, vol. XX, p. 1.

95 S o b o l e v s k i A. I. Several notes on Slavic vocalism and vocabulary. - Russian philologist, vest., 1914, v. 71, no. 2, p. 440; see also: Melioransky P.M. Turkish elements in the language of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign.” - IORYAS, 1902, vol. 7, book. 2; K o rsh F.E. Turkish elements in the language of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign.” - IORYAS, 1903, vol. 7, book. 4.

96 Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1965, vol. 1, issue. 2, p. 181-182; Shansky N.M. et al. Brief etymological dictionary of the Russian language, p. 55.

97 M a l o v S. E. Turkisms in the language of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign.” - ZOLYA AN USSR, 1946, vol. 5, issue. 2; Lvov A. S. Vocabulary... p. 215-216; Men-g o s K.G. Eastern elements in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” L., 1979, p. 85.

98 Bakhrushin S.V. On the issue of the baptism of Kievan Rus. - Marxist historian, 1937, book. 2, p. 54-55.

99 L arin B. A. Lectures on the history of the Russian literary language (X - mid-18th century). M., 1975, p. 84.

100 Rybakov B. A. The first centuries of Russian history, p. 25.

101 Yushkov S.V. Socio-political system... p. 91.

Being “primary people,” the boyars naturally crowded around the prince, who held in his hands the threads of control of ancient Russian society. The relations of princes with boyars cannot be perceived as something monotonous. Relations among the princely-boyars were distinguished by their complexity, due to the contradictory historical reality of Kievan Rus with its incomplete process of class formation.

There is no doubt about the involvement of the boyars in the druzhina 110.VOHH were part of the druzhina union, forming its upper layer, often called in sources, as we noted, the “best,” “oldest,” “front,” “larger” druzhina. Boyars are the indispensable companions of princes, their constant entourage. The chronicles are replete with stories about princes who were in boyar company under a variety of life situations, public and household 111 . The old tradition of the duma of the prince and his squad was fundamental in the relations of the prince with the boyars 112. Whatever the prince was up to, he always had to “reveal” his plan to the boyars who served him, otherwise risking losing boyar support, which threatened failure. Of course, the princes sometimes neglected to consult with the boyars. But such facts were assessed by contemporaries as an anomaly 114. The position of the boyars often determined the behavior of the prince. And the chronicles tell us more than once that the princes began this or that business by listening to their boyars 115. It is clear why weaker princes curried favor with the boyars of strong princes. Characteristic in this regard is the story of the Ipatiev and Laurentian chronicles about how Vsevolod Olgovich, fearing Mstislav Vladimirovich, gave gifts to the latter’s boyars in order to win them over and thereby influence Mstislav 116. Inter-princely agreements were often violated due to the fault of the boyars, who pushed the princes into mutual conflicts. To give strength to the treaties, the princes not only kissed the cross themselves, but also brought the boyars to the oath. In 1150, Izyaslav and Vyacheslav in Vyshgorod “kissed the cross of the holy martyr on the tomb, on that Izyaslav had Vyacheslav as his father, and Vyacheslav had Izyaslav as his son, on the same the men kissed the cross with her, as the boundaries of her desire for good and honor Guard, and not destroy it” 117.

102 Sreznevsky I. Thoughts on the history of the Russian language, p. 134; Lvov A. S. Vocabulary “Tales of Bygone Years”, p. 214.

103 Khlebnikov N. Society and state in the pre-Mongol period of Russian history. St. Petersburg, 1872, p. 101-102, 104; Yablochkov M. History noble class in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1876, p. 4, 5, 28, 31; Yushko in S.V. Socio-political system... p. 91-92; G rekov B. D. Kievan Rus, p. 122-129; Rybakov B. A. The first centuries of Russian history, p. 19-20.

104 D a n i l o v a L. V. Discussion problems of pre-capitalist societies. - In the book: Problems of the history of pre-capitalist societies. M., 1968, book. 1, p. 43; CherepninL. V. Rus'. Controversial issues in the history of feudal land ownership in the 9th-15th centuries - In the book: Novoseltsev A.P. et al. Ways of development of feudalism M., 1972, p. 160; Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus... p. 65.

105 F r about i n about in I. Ya. Kievan Rus... p. 87-90.

106 Klyuchevsky V. O. Soch., vol. 6, p. 146.

107 Right there. z Grushevsky M. Galzhtske boyars... p. 5; Presnyakov A. E. Princely right... p. 247, 249; see also: Yushko in S.V. Feudal relations in Kievan Rus.- Academic. zap. Saratovsk. University, 1925, vol. 3, issue. 4, p. 64.

109 N e u s y h i n A.I. The pre-feudal period as a transitional stage of development from the tribal system to the early feudal system. - In the book: Problems of the history of pre-capitalist societies, book. 1, p. 597. - Of great scientific interest are the observations of scientists about the relatively late appearance in the ancient Russian language of the term “boyar” and the boyars themselves as such. - See: Bakhrushin S.V. On the issue of baptism... p. 54 - 55; Lvov A. S. Vocabulary “Tales of Bygone Years”, p. 211, 218; L a r i n B. A. Lectures... p. 84.

110 Presnyakov A. E. Princely law... p. 243-249; Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus, p. 344; Mavrodin V.V. Formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian nationality, p. 104.

111 PVL, part 1, p. 121, 136, 144, 172; PSRL, vol. I, stb. 295, 311, 380, 381, 440, 457, 495; vol. II, stb. 282, 314, 343-344, 399, 487, 638, 658; 729-730, 751, 763, 851, 876, 901, 908, 928, 933, 937.

112 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 341, 342, 347, 349, 473, 495; t. P, stb. 355, 469; 513, 522, 538, 607, 624, 638, 676, 683, 686, 688, 689, 694, 699.

113 Ibid., vol. II, stb. 536-537.

114 There, Stb. 614-^615, 659; PVL, part 1, p. 142.

115 See, for example: PSRL, vol. I, stb. 314, 326, 375, 381, 402; t. P, stb. 330, 394, 607.

A certain dependence of the princes on the boyars, thus, can be traced quite clearly in the sources. But it was a two-way relationship. The boyars needed princes, but to a lesser extent than the princes needed the boyars. “You are the only prince among us, so what can we do?” said the Galician boyars to their prince Yaroslav 118. Very eloquent is the testimony of a certain “lieker” Peter, a Syrian by birth, who reproached St. Nicholas the Holy One, who accepted the schema: “Behold, the boyars, who served you, sometimes imagining the greatness of being shared with you, now the deprivation of your love, the desire to build great houses, sit in them in a great deal of despondency" 119. The boyars, therefore, achieved greatness with all the ensuing benefits through service to the prince.

The interests of the prince and the boyars who served him were so intertwined that it was difficult to separate them. The unity of the goals and plans of the prince with the views of the boyars in his service finds an explanation for the facts of the princes’ persecution of each other by the boyars 120 . To avoid repression, the boyars had to follow their prince, who was being pressed by successful rivals 121. So the boyars moved together with the princes from volost to volost. We do not want to say: it was a general movement. However, it must be admitted that it covered a significant mass of the boyars.

Sometimes the boyars abandoned their unlucky prince. “Yaroslav Svyatopolchich ran out from Volodymyr Ugrians,” we read in the chronicle, “and his boyars and retreated from him” 122. The boyar service was free, which again imparted mobility to the boyars. Between 1051 and 1228 In the chronicles there are about one and a half hundred names of boyars. Having made the appropriate calculations, S. M. Solovyov was convinced that from this total number there were no more than six examples of a warrior-boyar serving after his father to his son, and no more than six examples of a warrior-boyar remaining in the same volost after a change of prince 123 . M.P. Pogodin, having made a selection of boyar names contained in the chronicles from 1054 to 1240, came to the conclusion that “there seems to be no possibility to divide the boyars by principalities (Kiev boyars, Chernigov) or even by princes; even without transitions, after the death of one prince, they diverged among his sons. Only the Novgorod and Galician boyars are not subject to this remark. We have too little news about the Ryazan, Smolensk, Galician ones” 124. M.P. Pogodin is not entirely right. Chronicles mention the boyars of Kyiv, Chernigov, Rostov, Vladimir, etc. This must be taken into account. At the same time, the materials extracted by M.P. Pogodin provide vivid illustrations of the mobility of the boyars in Rus' in the 12th century. Let us cite one, the most expressive of them, relating to the boyar Zhiroslav Ivankovich. First, this boyar acts as the mayor of Prince Vyacheslav in Turov, then in 1147 we see him under Gleb Yuryevich. In 1149 he acted on behalf of princes Vyacheslav and Yuri, and in 1159 he traveled as ambassador from Svyatoslav Olgovich to Izyaslav Davydovich. Then he found himself a mayor in Novgorod. In 1171, Prince Rurik deprived Zhiroslav of the Novgorod posadnik, but after Rurik left Novgorod, Prince Andrei sent him to posadnik again 125. WITH. V. Yushkov, summing up the activities of Zhiroslav, wrote: “Thus, Zhiroslav, changing princes, traveled literally all over Rus'” 126. The incident recorded in the Ipatiev Chronicle speaks about the boyar mobility. Prince Daniil of Galitsky, as the chronicler reports, sent his steward Yakov to boyar Dobroslav to say: “I am your prince, do not do my command, plunder the land. The Chernigov boyars were not ordered to be adopted to Broslav, but given to the Galich volosts" 127. From the quoted speech it is clear that the Chernigov boyars who found themselves in the Galician land held volosts there. This was hardly something extraordinary. Such movements of the boyars were based on old traditions.

116 Ibid., vol. I, stb. 297; vol. II, stb. 291.

117 Ibid., vol. II, stb. 399.

118 Ibid., vol. I, stb. 340; vol. II, stb. 467.

119 Patericon of Kyiv Pechersk monastery. St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 184; see also: Romanov B. A. People and customs of Ancient Rus', p.124.

120 See, for example: PSRL, vol. II, stb. 327, 502, 570, 605.

121 Soloviev S. M. History of Russia from ancient times. M., 1960, book. 2, p. 16.

122 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 285.

123 S o l o v e v S. M. History of Russia since ancient times, book. 2, p. 116-117; see also: Klyuchevsky V. O. Soch., vol. 1, p. 197.

124 P o g o d i n M. P. On the heredity of ancient dignitaries in the period from 1054 to 1240. - In the book: Archive of historical and legal information relating to Russia. St. Petersburg, 1876, book. 1, p. 91.

125 Ibid., p. 81.

126 Yushko in S.V. Socio-political system... p. 246.- If we consider the Turov mayor Zhiroslav and the Novgorod mayor Zhiroslav to be different persons, then the example of the first Zhiroslav, who passed from prince to prince, is quite expressive - See: Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times, book. 1, p. 444, 498, 526-

127 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 789.

So, it can be argued that the ancient Russian boyars of the X-XII centuries. did not have time to completely leave the sphere of friendly relations. Here we mean, first of all, the boyars who entered the service of the princes, which still retained a largely druzhina lining 128 . The contingent of such boyars was significant. It was by no means a frozen mass, but a fluid mass. The so-called “Zemstvo boyars” constantly poured into it, and from it there was an outflow of boyars into the ranks of the Zemstvo nobility. That is why the opposition of the princely boyars to the zemstvo boyars seems arbitrary. And if we remember that the prince himself was, in a certain sense, a communal, zemstvo authority 129, then this opposition becomes even more conditional.

It is difficult to take the point of view of B. A. Rybakov, who puts too sharp a line between ancient Russian princes and “zemsky” boyars. The author sees in the boyars, who strived for the stability of princely power, a “progressive class,” and in the princes, a “reactionary force.” He writes: “The constant movement of princes from land to land, from city to city created that instability common life, which primarily aggravated social contradictions. The prince, who was thinking about new cities, could not organize his domain economy well, increased the rate of exploitation above a reasonable limit, poorly managed his temporary possession, and was not sufficiently connected with the local zemstvo boyars; the interests of his personal squad and some of the vassals who came with him from his previous reign must inevitably come into conflict with the interests of the local feudal lords” 130. According to B. A. Rybakov, the prince looks like some kind of external appendage to the volost, to the city. At one time, A.E. Presnyakov 131 strongly objected to such a qualification of the prince. We hope that our study of the princely status in Rus' in the 11th-12th centuries. shows the unconvincing nature of such ideas 132 . However, the point here is not only in the position of the prince itself, but also in the policy of the zemstvo boyars, who took an active part in the princely strife. Zemstvo boyars often themselves initiated the change of princes. The events of 1146 in Kyiv are clear evidence of this. The chronicler says that it was the Kyiv boyars Uleb, Ivan Voitipshch, Lazar Sakovsky, Vasil Polochanin, Miroslav who “buyed Kiyana around themselves and dreamed of how they could seduce their prince” Igor 133. As a result of the “evil council” of the named boyars, who managed to win over the masses of the people, Prince Igor fell, and Izyaslav Mstislavich reigned on the Kiev table. The Zemstvo boyars were not distinguished by their unity. It split into parties that supported various princes 134. In Kyiv, for example, there were boyars who stood for Igor. When Izyaslav entered the city, they were captured and then released “for redemption.” The chronicler gives the names of the disgraced boyars. This is Daniil the Great, Yuri Prokopyevich, Ivor Yurievich 135. The struggle of parties led by boyars, accompanied by a change of princes, was especially evident in Novgorod 136. We do not think that Novgorod in this sense stood out sharply among the cities of Rus' in the 12th century.

128 The druzhina system of relations between the prince and the boyars is vividly depicted in the chronicle obituary of Prince Vasilko, who was “kind to the boyars, no one from the boyars, who served him and ate his bread and drank his cup and received gifts, he could not have been with any other prince... " - Ibid., vol. I, stb. 467.

129 See p. 43-44 of this book.

130 Rybakov B.A. Review of general phenomena of Russian history of the 9th - mid-13th centuries. - Questions of History, 1962, No. 4, p. 43-44.

131 Presnyakov A.E. Lectures on Russian history, vol. 1, p. 174.

132 See p. 33-42 of this book.

Speaking about the druzhina ties between the boyars and the princes, we do not want to say that these ties were comprehensive. Boyars cannot be mistaken for warriors in their pure form, living under the prince’s roof and at the prince’s expense. They had their own houses, started villages 137. The certain everyday and economic independence acquired by the boyars contributed to the development of druzhina relations into vassal relations 138 . Of the Soviet historians, S. V. Yushkov 139 studied the boyar vassalage in Kievan Rus most thoroughly. L.V. Cherepnin and V.T. Pasha 140 assigned an important place to the vassalage of the boyars in their studies.

The history of boyar vassalage can be traced in sources, if not from the end of the 9th century, then at least from the middle of the 10th century. K. Marx, characterizing the vassal organization that established itself in Rus' in the 10th century, wrote that it was “a vassalage without fiefs, or fiefs consisting exclusively of tribute” 141. K. Marx, thus, stated in Rus' at that time vassalage without land grants. In Soviet historical science, various judgments are made about the time of existence of the “vassalage without fiefs”. B. A. Rybakov believed that this vassalage by the beginning of the 10th century. was an already completed stage 142. L.V. Cherepnin doubted the validity of B.A. Rybakov’s conclusion 143. And in this, in our opinion, he was right.

133 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 324-325.

134 Grushevsky M. S. History of Kyiv land, s. 170.

135 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 327.

136 Rozhkov N. Historical and sociological essays. M., 1906, part 2, p. 30-35; see also: Cherepnin L.V. Russian feudal archives of the XIV-XV centuries. M.; L., 1948, part 1, p. 269.

137 Yushko in S.V. Socio-political build...p.244.

138 Our historians do not always distinguish between squad and vassal relations. A typical example can be called V.T. Pashuto, whose squad is vassals and subvassals. - See: Pashuto V.T. Features of the political system of Ancient Russia. - In the book: Novoseltsev A.P. et al. Old Russian state and its international significance. M., 1965, p. 52.

139 Yushko in S.V. 1) Feudal relations in Kievan Rus, p. 61-71; 2) Essays on the history of feudalism in Kievan Rus. M.; L., 1939, p. 146-151; 3) Socio-political system... p. 245-250.

140 Cherepnin L.V. Rus'. Controversial issues... p. 159-162; Pasha V.T. Features of the political system... p. 51-68.

141 Magh K. Secret diplomatic history of the eighteenth century. New York, 1969, p. 109.

In the legend about the calling of the Varangians we read: “And Rurik took power, and his husband gave away the cities, to one Polotesk, to another Rostov, to another Beloozero” 144. Perhaps here we are talking about granting Rurik’s “husbands” tributes from the listed cities. But it is also quite likely that the chronicler of the early 12th century, who placed the mentioned legend in the chronicle, transferred the contemporary order into the past. Therefore, it is difficult to give preference to any of these options.

Narrating about Oleg’s campaign to Kyiv, the chronicler reports how Oleg, having accepted Smolensk and taken Lyubech, planted “his husbands” there 145. It can be assumed that the “men” left by the prince in Smolensk and Lyubech enjoyed the right to collect tribute. But this assumption, of course, is a guess, and not a firmly established fact.

The given chronicle information, as we see, lends itself to different interpretations. And only from the first quarter of the 10th century. the researcher has direct instructions about the transfer to the “princely men” of the right to collect tribute from the conquered tribes. The Novgorod First Chronicle for 922 contains the following entry: “Igor sat as a prince in Kyiv, and fought against the Drev-Lans and Uglich. And he had a governor named Svendeld; and take the coal, put a tribute on her, and give it to Svendeld... And give the village tribute to Svendeld, and Imasha will be blackened by the smoke” 146. In 940, according to the chronicler’s story, “Igor was convicted of tribute, and Peresechen was quickly taken. This summer, give tribute to Svendeld for them” 147. Finally, the last similar entry under 942 reads: “Give tribute to the village Svendeld to the same” 148. Sveneld is not just a warrior. He is quite independent. He has his own squad - the youths. Sveneld was a vassal of the Kyiv prince Igor. His vassalage was not based on land grants, but on the provision of tribute. It is possible that the Varangian “men” to whom Vladimir distributed cities, i.e., granted the rights to collect tribute, were in a similar position 149 . In any case, this assumption is consistent with the data Scandinavian sagas, from where we learn that princes Vladimir and Yaroslav, accepting into the service people from the “midnight countries,” rewarded them with tribute from the conquered tribes and peoples 150.

So, there is reason to talk about the boyar vassalage of the 10th century, which arose from the grant of tribute. L.V. Cherepnin, defining the essence of the transfer of tribute collection to the warriors, wrote: “This was the transfer by the feudal monarch to his vassal not of the estate, which was in his private ownership and inhabited by people dependent on the patrimonial owner, but of the territory to which his rights as the supreme owner extended . The expression of the subordination of the population of such a territory to him was tribute” 151. We do not consider the Kyiv princes of the 10th century. neither feudal monarchs nor supreme landowners 152. In our deep conviction, the princes endowed their vassals not with territorial possessions, but with the right to collect tribute, which had nothing to do with land ownership. There is not even a grain of feudalism in this vassalage.

It is not known whether they were encountered in Rus' in the 10th century. vassals from the boyars. True, L.V. Cherepnin talks about the complexity of vassal relations at the time in question. He uses the concept of “small squad” as a designation of the nobility close to Prince Igor, in contrast to ordinary warriors 153. Firstly, here L.V. Cherepnin confuses vassal and squad ties, between which, of course, it is impossible to put an equal sign. Secondly, he bases his construction on the misunderstood expression “small squad”. When the chronicler reports how Igor went again for tribute to the Drevlyans with “a small squad,” does he want to talk about the small number of warriors surrounding the prince, which clearly follows from his subsequent words? “And when the villagers came out of the city of Izkorsten, they killed Igor and his squad, for there were few of them” 154.

Boyar vassalage in the 10th century, in our opinion, barely emerged from its infancy, being primitive in social essence and simple in organization.

Later, however, the boyar vassalage underwent changes. As a result of the formation in Rus' of the 11th-12th centuries. city ​​volosts-states 155 and reducing the opportunities for enrichment of the nobility through tribute 156 the vassalage of the boyars, based on the grant of tribute, was transformed into a vassalage based on the grant of feedings, i.e., income from one or another volost, previously received by the prince as the supreme ruler for the execution socially useful functions. However, it cannot be said that the transfer of tribute by the princes to their vassal boyars completely ceased. This could not happen, since tributary existence existed in both the 11th and 12th centuries. 157 Let us recall, for example, Yan Vyshatich, who collected tribute on Beloozero 158. But still, in the second half of the 11th century, and especially in the 12th - early XIII c.. it was no longer tribute, but feeding that played the leading role in the development of boyar vassalage.

142 Rybakov B. A. 1) Antiquities of Chernigov.-In the book: Materials and research on the archeology of ancient Russian cities. M.; L., 1949, vol. 1, p. 52; 2) Capital city Chernigov and the specific city of Vshchizh. - In the book: In the footsteps of ancient cultures. Ancient Rus'. M., 1953, p. 92.

143 Cherepnin L.V. Rus'. Controversial issues... p. 160.

144 PVL, part I, p. 18.

145 There, p. 20. 146 NPL, p. 109.

147 Ibid., p. 110.

148 Ibid.

149 PVL, part I, p. 56.

150 Rydzevskaya E. A. Ancient Rus' and Scandinavia in the 9th-14th centuries. M., 1978, p. 30, 38, 104.

151 Cherepnin L.V. Socio-political relations... p. 146.

152 See p. 31-32, 52 of this book.

153 Cherepnin L.V. Socio-political relations... p. 147.

154 PVL, part I, p. 40;cm. also: Rybakov B. A. Smerdy. - History of the USSR, 1979, No. 2, p. 47.

155 About it we'll talk in the last essay.

VO sources testify with certainty that the princes granted the boyars the feeding of cities and villages. We will not now cite the relevant facts, because they appear in our study devoted to the socio-economic history of Kievan Rus 159. Let us emphasize only one idea: the transfer of feeding cities and villages was of a non-land character. After all, it was not the territory that was transferred, but the right to collect income from the population living on it. Therefore, the vassalage, based on the grant of feeding, did not have feudal content, since it was deprived of a land basis^/Nevertheless, it marked an important step on the path to feudal vassalage, since the center of gravity from the external exploitation of the conquered tribes and peoples was now transferred to the sphere of extracting income from the ancient Russian population itself, which created the prerequisites for the transformation of feeding into feudal rent 16 °.

Compared to the X century. vassal relations of the boyars of the 12th - early 13th centuries. have become noticeably more complicated. We can speak with complete confidence about the existence of boyar subvasalage at the time in question. M. S. Grushevsky, studying the Galician boyars of the 12th-13th centuries, drew attention to the fact that the boyars received not only cities, but also villages to collect taxes and perform state functions 161. From here he made a conclusion, supported by facts, that from this of a small estate, which was the village, a small Galician boyar began his career, to whom a much larger boyar, who held an entire district, granted ownership and feeding of this village 162. If we take into account that the boyars in Ancient Rus' had a staff of their own servants and squads 163, from which the boyar vassals emerged, then this observation by S. M. Grushevsky becomes even more convincing.

156 The change in situation was keenly felt by the author of the Initial Code, who regretted the good old days, when the squad “fed” “warring foreign countries.” - NPL, p. 103-104; see also: Froyanov I. Ya. Tributaries in Rus' X-XII centuries - In the book: Yearbook on the agrarian history of Eastern Europe. 1965 M., 1970.

167 F r about i n about in I. Ya. Kievan Rus... p. 117-118.

158 PVL, part I, p. 117.

159 Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus... p. 65-69.

160 Wed: Gurevich A. Ya. The role of royal grants in the process of feudal subordination of the English peasantry. - In the book: Middle Ages. M., 1953, issue. 4, p. 63; Bromley and Yu. V. The formation of feudalism in Croatia. M., 1964, p. 286.

161 Grushevsky M. Galitsky boyars of the 12th-13th centuries, p. 5-6.

The boyars received feeding as a kind of payment for participation in the management of society. Together with the princes, they formed the government stratum. Their activities do not show any manifestation of exclusively class domination, which is understandable, since Kievan Rus did not know established classes. The concentration of public power in itself in the hands of a certain group of people, according to the correct remark of Yu. V. Kachenovsky, “cannot give rise to class contradictions. As long as there is no monopoly (ownership) of a minority over the means of production, there are no class antagonisms. Under the primitive communal system and even under socialism, certain contradictions between managers and the governed are possible, however, since there is no exploitative ownership of the means of production, such contradictions are neither class nor antagonistic” 164.

The vassal relations of the boyars corrupted the druzhina system. True, vassalage based on the award of feeding did not completely deny the squad. It assumed a close connection between the boyar and the prince, causing the boyars to move after the prince, which in turn contributed to the revival of druzhina relations. The boyar squad disappeared only when the vassalage that arose from the grant of feeding was replaced by vassalage, which was based on land holding. The latter happened already outside the Old Russian period. Despite the well-known compatibility of boyar vassalage, which grew up on the basis of feeding, with the druzhina union, the former was still the beginning of the swan song of the latter. As for the boyars who served the princes, they often represented a kind of symbiosis of warriors and vassals. This dual position of the boyars was due to the transitional state of relations (from druzhina to vassals) between princes and boyars. Hence, probably, the confusion in the use of the terms “boyars” and “druzhina” that we notice among chroniclers: in some cases these terms coincide 165, in others they do not 166.

162 Ibid., p. 6.

163 R a p o v O. M. Question about boyar land ownership in Rus' XII-XIII centuries - In the book: Poland and Rus'. M., 1974, p. 194-195.

164 K achenovskiy and Yu.V. Slavery, feudalism or Asian mode of production? M., 1971, p. 152.

165 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 382, 384; vol. II, stb. 298, 522, 536, 544, 570-572. 166 Ibid., vol. II, stb. 275, 380, 381, 638.

Stronger ties connected the prince with the younger squad, which included “youths”, “children”, “almsmen”, etc. Sources introduce us to the youths earlier than with the rest of the representatives of the junior squad. The earliest information about youths dates back to the mid-10th century. 167 Then we meet them in the news of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. 168 They are with the prince, one might say, relentlessly. The youths are first of all the servants of the prince 169. The official purpose of the youths is revealed in written monuments without much difficulty. The Tale of Bygone Years tells about the youths who served Olga and Svyatoslav 170. In the Extensive Pravda, the princely youth is placed in a row with the groom and the cook 171. Quite indicative material is contained in the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh, where we read: “Do not be lazy in your house, but you see everything; Do not look at Tivun, nor at the boy, so that he who comes to you will not laugh, neither at your house, nor at your dinner” 172.

The youths are not only domestic, but also military servants of the prince. Svyatopolk Izyaslavich had 700 youths ready for battle 173. The military affairs of the youths are repeatedly attested in chronicles 174 .

The data we have about the youths indicates that the youths belonged to the princely house, and that they were completely dependent on the prince. They appear to have descended from slaves. We have hints of this. The youths, as we have seen, were servants, busy, among other things, with housework. But housework is usually the lot of slaves. Further, in the lengthy edition of the Russian Pravda, the youth is taken into the same bracket as the princely cook 175. It is known, however, that the princes had slaves as cooks 176 . It is symptomatic that in the Old Church Slavonic, Czech and Slovak languages ​​the word “youth” meant a slave 177 . Another interesting detail is the foreign origin of some of the youths. We know the youths of Prince Boris Georgy and Moses, originally Ugrians 178, the youth of Vladimir Monomakh Byandyuk from the Polovtsians 179, the youths of Davyd Igorevich Ulan and Kolchko 180, who, judging by their names, came from nomads 181. We know about a certain nameless youth who knew how to speak Pecheneg 182 - a sign that clearly indicates that this is a foreigner. M.D. Zatyrkevich, having examined the names mentioned, came to the conclusion that the Old Russian youths were formed from prisoners of war 183. Against the background of the above facts, the thought of M.D. Zatyrkevich looks quite legitimate. The etymology of the word “youth” is very interesting. According to linguists, it, being common Slavic, is formed using a negative prefix from-("not from rock,"speaking". Hence the youth is a non-speaking, wordless 184. Perhaps in ancient times the Slavs called a prisoner a youth, that is, a person who could not speak the Slavic dialect. A parallel here involuntarily suggests itself with the word “German”, which in the Old Russian language meant someone who spoke unclearly, incomprehensibly, i.e. any foreigner 185 .

167 PVL, part I, p. 39, 42, 51.

168 NPL, p. 15, 170, 171, 175; PVL, part I, p. 90, 91, 93, 98, 136; 143; 149, 157, 158, 163, 173; PSRL, vol. II, stb. 373, 763, 775, 830, 832.

169 In the chronicles there are examples of the interchange of the words “youth” and “servant” - PVL, part I, p. 90-91; NPL, p. 171; see also: Lvov A. S. Vocabulary “Tale of Bygone Years”, p. 227.

170 PVL, part I, p. 42, 51.

171 PR, vol. I, p. 105.

172 PVL, part I, p. 157.

173 Ibid., p. 143.

174 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 769, 775, 832.

175 PR, vol. I, p. 105.

176 See: Patericon of the Kyiv Pechersk Monastery, p. 40.

177 F a s m e r M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1971, vol. 3, p. 172; Konechny F. F. On the etymology of slavs. o1gok.- In the book: Etymology. 1966. M., 1968, p. 54; Lvov A. S. Vocabulary “Tales of Bygone Years”, p. 226.

We are, of course, far from the idea that all the princely youths came from captive slaves. But some of the youths undoubtedly completed this path. This circumstance left its mark on the position of the youths as a whole, infringing on their freedom and placing them in close dependence on the prince. The “children” were in a slightly different position.

Scientists, as a rule, combine adolescents and children, not seeing differences between them 186. And only a few researchers have tried to establish such differences. V.I. Sergeevich, in his early book “The Veche and the Prince,” sees the difference between children and youths in the fact that the “term” “children” is not used to designate slaves: these are predominantly young people of free origin.” 187 N. Zagoskin, accepting opinion of V.I. Sergeevich, expressed additional considerations, according to which the children’s children were “exclusively of a military nature, while the youths took up arms only when necessary - the main purpose of their economic and palace service to the prince.” 188 The fundamental line that separated the youths and the children’s, according to M. Yablochkov, consisted in the freedom of the latter, while the youths consisted of free and slaves 189. M. A. Dyakonov noted that “children are also junior warriors, but in their position they are higher than the youths. This must be concluded from the fact that in the monuments they are mentioned not at all as household servants, but as a military force under the prince” 190.

178 PVL, part I, p. 91; Patericon of the Kyiv Pechersk Monastery, p. 102.

179 PVL, part I, p. 149; Zatyrkevich M.D. On the influence of the struggle between peoples and classes on the formation of the Russian state system in the pre-Mongol period. M., 1874, p. 151.

180 PVL, part I, p. 173.

181 3 atyrkevich M.D. About the influence of the struggle... p. 151.

182 PVL, part I, p. 47.

183 Zatyrkevich M. D. About the influence of the struggle... p. 24, note 8.

184 Preobrazhensky A.G. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1959, vol. 1, p. 669; Shansky N.M. et al. Brief etymological dictionary of the Russian language, p. 319; Konechny F. F. On the etymology... p. 55.

185 F a s m e r M. Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language, vol. 3, p. 62.

186 S o l o v e v S. M. History of Russia since ancient times, book. 2, p. 19; Klyuchevsky V. O. Soch., vol. 6, p. 148-179; Porai-Koshits I. A. Essay on the history of the Russian nobility from the half of the 9th to the end of the 18th century. St. Petersburg, 1874, p. 7; Vladimirsky-Budanov M. F. Review of the history of Russian law, p. 29; Pavlov-Silvansky N. P. Gosudarevs service people, With. 9; Sergeevich V.I. Russian legal antiquities, vol. 1, p. 389-390; Dovnar-Zapolsky M. V. Squad and boyars, p. 299; Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus, p. 344; Yu sh-kov S.V. Socio-political system... p. 111; Tikhomirov M.N. A manual for studying Russian Truth. M., 1953, p. 146; Zimin A. A. Historical and legal review of Russian Pravda. - In the book: PRP, vol. I, p. 117; Mavrodin V.V. Formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian nationality, p. 104.

It should be recognized that the desire of historians to distinguish between children and adolescents is justified, for, despite the fact that both of them belonged to the younger squad, there was not complete identity between them. If the youths had to act as ordinary household servants of the prince, then the children, as far as is clear from the sources, did not serve in the princely household 191 . Moreover, some children themselves even had their own houses, which cannot be said about the youths. The Vladimir chronicler speaks about the presence of children's homes, telling about the unrest that followed the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky: “And a lot of evil was done in his volost (Andrei.- I.F.), the posadnik and the tiuns robbed their houses, and robbed the samekhs; the children and swordsmen robbed them, and plundered their houses” 192. While drawing closer together in the military sphere, 193 children and youths diverged noticeably in the sphere of social activities. The youths did not go beyond basic participation in court with the ensuing right to collect court fees 194 . Children’s children sometimes occupied senior government positions, receiving “posadnichestvo.” An old acquaintance of ours, the Vladimir chronicler, says: “When Rostislavich sat as prince, the land of Rostov distributed bast throughout the city to the Russian Dedtsky posadnichestvo” 195. Such broad social opportunities for children show them to be free people. Perhaps a significant part of them were children of the nobility, in particular the boyars, although this, of course, is only a guess. The nature of the news about the children's houses inclines one to believe that the children's children were raised on native, ancient Russian soil, while the youths were often replenished at the expense of foreign captives. Thus, a certain difference in the sources of formation of youths and children is revealed, which determined the difference in their rights: children, being free servants, enjoyed the right to “departure” from the prince; the youths did not have such a right. All of these, of course, are assumptions to which the researcher is forced to resort due to the extreme scarcity of specific material.

187 Sergeevich V.I. Veche and the Prince. M., 1867, p. 353.-Subsequently, V.I. Sergeevich stopped distinguishing between youths and children.- See: Sergeevich V.I. Russian legal antiquities, vol. 1, p. 389-390.

188 3 agoskin N. Essays on the organization and origin of the service class in pre-Petrine Rus'. Kazan, 1875, p. 53-54.

189 Yablochkov M. History of the nobility in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1876, p. 41.

190 D yakonov M.A. Essays on the social and state system of Ancient Rus'. St. Petersburg, 1912, p. 83.

191 The use of youths as servants in everyday life explains the fact that the boyars also acquired them. It is interesting to note the lack of children among the boyars.

192 PSRL, vol. I, p. 370.

193 The military function of children is clearly visible in the sources. - PSRL, vol. I, stb. 325; vol. II, stb. 390; NPL, p. 73, 284.

194 PR, vol. I, p. 106.

In addition to youths and children, the squad elements included “almsmen.” We know very little about them. The reason for this is the insignificant amount of historical data. The almsmen, together with the youths and children, formed a junior squad, as we conclude from the following chronicle fragment: “And then Svyatoslav, having thought with his princess and with Kochkar his almsman, did not tell his husband who was molding his thoughts” 196 . Consequently, the almsman Kochkar did not belong to the “molded men”, the senior warriors. M. N. Tikhomirov believed that “almsmen are not just princely favorites, but a special category of princely servants employed directly in the palace household, primarily housekeepers and servants, a category corresponding to medieval ministerials in Western Europe” 197. While agreeing with M.N. Tikhomirov that the prince’s servants were hidden under the almsmen, we cannot accept his idea that these servants were employed primarily in the palace economy, since it rests on shaky foundations. The author relied on the Novgorod Chronicle, which says that Andrei Bogolyubsky was killed by his own “charms” 198. Having compared the version of the Novgorod chronicler with the text of the Ipatiev Chronicle and finding in this text among the conspirators the beloved “servant” of Prince Andrei, as well as the prince’s housekeeper Anbal, M. N. Tikhomirov made a conclusion about the almsmen as servants “employed directly in the palace household” 199. Analysis of the sources, however, overturns the logic of M. N. Tikhomirov. The news of the Novgorod chronicler, poorly informed about the bloody drama in Bogolyubovo, raises doubts: Andrei is killed in his

185 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 374.

196 Ibid., vol. II, stb. 614-615.

197 T i h o m i r o v M. N. Conditional feudal holding in Rus' in the 12th century - In the book: To Academician B. D. Grekov on his seventieth birthday. M., 1952, p. 101.

198 NPL, p. 34, 223.

199 Tikhomirov M.N. Conditional feudal holding... p. 100-101.

Vladimir at night while the prince was sleeping in Bogolyubovo. M. N. Tikhomirov drew attention to this inconsistency. He wrote: “Here the Novgorod chronicler shows obvious ignorance of the topography of Vladimir and Suzdal (?). However, the main detail of the circumstances of Andrei’s murder was remembered by the chronicler: the prince was killed by his benefactors” 200. We doubt the correct coverage of the “main detail” by the Novgorod scribe. It is enough to consider the composition of the conspirators to be convinced of the correctness of our words. M. N. Tikhomirov attributes the nameless servant, “beloved” by the prince, to the instigators of Andrei’s murder, forgetting to say that the servant’s name was Yakim Kuchkovich. He does not mention another “wicked person,” Kuchkov’s son-in-law Peter 201. Yakim and Peter are boyars. The involvement of the boyars in drawing up the conspiracy and its execution seems obvious to historians 202. But the boyars cannot be considered merciful. This means that the Novgorod chronicler, who attributed the murder of Prince Andrei to charity workers, was mistaken. Therefore, the Novgorod version of the presentation of the circumstances of Bogolyubsky’s death does not supplement the story of the Ipatiev Chronicle with new details, but distorts it, introducing confusion. That is why we consider the text of the Ipatiev Chronicle to be the most correct. Her language is clear and precise. Yakim and Peter are not called almsmen in it, which is natural, for they were boyars, not almsmen. Anbal was brought out by who he really was - the key holder. M. N. Tikhomirov, as if infected by the example of the Novgorod scribe, writes: “All the murderers, whom the chronicler further calls the prince’s couples, numbered up to twenty” 203. According to M.N. Tikhomirov, it turns out that the chronicler of the boyars Yakim and Peter equated to parobki. But there is nothing like this in the Ipatiev Chronicle. M.N. Tikhomirov mistook all the participants in the murder for parobkov, probably under the impression of the scene at the door of the “lozhnitsa” where Andrei slept: “And one (of the murderers) spoke: I.F.), standing at the door: “Mr., sir!” And the prince said: “Who is it?” And he said: “Prokotsya.” And the prince said: “Oh little boy, not Prokotsya!” 204. The described scene gives absolutely no reason to think that the chronicler called all the murderers “ladies.” However, in the Ipatiev Chronicle there is another episode where steamers appear. Kuzmishche Kiya-nin, outraged by the reluctance of the prince’s people to “unlock the shrine” where he wanted to put the body of the murdered Andrei, says: “You, sir, don’t know your people.” 205 Kuzmische, therefore, turns his word not to the murderers, but to the prince’s servants, who showed shameful indifference to the memory of the deceased master.

200 Ibid., p. 100.

201 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 585-586.

202 Essays on the history of the USSR. The period of feudalism IX-XV centuries. M., 1953, part 1, p. 301; Mavrodin V.V. Popular uprisings in Ancient Rus' XI-XIII centuries. M., 1961, p. 84.- Yes, and M. N. Tikhomirov himself will later say: “... the conspiracy against Andrei Bogolyubsky was closely connected with the struggle of the Vladimir-Suzdal boyars against the princely power” (Tikhomirov M. N. Peasant and urban uprisings in Rus' XI -XIII centuries M., 1955, p. 230). In the Tver collection there is a direct indication that Prince Andrei died “from his boyars, from the Kuchkovichs” (PSRL, vol. XV, pp. 250-251). The same collection speaks of the princess’s participation in the conspiracy, which was confirmed as a result of the study of chronicle miniatures (Podobedova O.I. Miniatures of Russian historical manuscripts: On the history of Russian chronicle writing. M., 1965, p. 82; Rybakov B. A. The struggle for the Suzdal inheritance in 1174-1176 according to miniatures of the Radzivilov Chronicle. - In the book: Medieval Rus'. M., 1976, p. 90).

203 Tikhomirov M.N. Conditional feudal holding... p. 101.

So, almsmen, in our opinion, are junior warriors, i.e., first of all, military servants, although, perhaps, they also had to deal with issues of the palace economy 206. In terms of the military service of almsmen, we are guided by the chronicle news about “merciful horses” and “merciful weapons” 207. It is easy to understand that these horses and weapons were intended for the princely militia warriors. But if the prince supplied the almsmen with horses and weapons, then it is natural to assume that in other respects they were provided at his expense, being supported by the prince 208. The same must be said about adolescents and the bulk of children.

Youths, children and almsmen were the embodiment of druzhina relations in Kievan Rus. From the end of the 12th century. we get the opportunity to observe how the younger squad (youths, children, alms-givers, etc.) are little by little absorbed into the princely court. The term “nobles” also appears in sources.

It first appears in the Laurentian Chronicle in 1175. when, after the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky, the townspeople “Bogolyubsky and nobles plundered the prince’s house” 209. This feature of the Laurentian Chronicle allowed I. A. Porai-Koshits to assert that allegedly with the division of Ancient Rus' “into two halves, southern and northern, in the latter, precisely in the Grand Duchy of Vladimir, the personal servants of the prince, who until then bore the name “youths” , or “children,” began to be called nobles” 210. N. Zagoskin reasoned in approximately the same vein, according to which the terms “court” and “nobles” first arose in Rostov-Suzdal land 211. K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, giving preference to the Ipatiev list, where the word “nobles” is absent in the legend about the “murder” of Prince Andrei, believed that this word in the Laurentian Chronicle came from the pen of a later editor 212. K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin wrote that “before the Tatars and at the beginning of Tatar rule,” the term “nobles” was used “exclusively in the Novgorod chronicles. The only case its use in the chronicles of North-Eastern Rus' should almost be considered an amendment” 213. Recently M. B. Sverdlov, noting the circulation of the name “nobles” in the Rostov-Suzdal and Novgorod lands XII century, made an assumption, confirmed, as it seems to him, by “the entire complex of southern Russian sources of the XII-XIII centuries”, that “in Southern Rus' the term “nobleman” did not exist, whereas in the North-East it had already taken shape by the second half of the 12th century.” 214 M. B. Sverdlov does not attach due importance to the word “court,” which is often found in the Ipatiev Chronicle 215. He also belittles the fact of the presence in the southern Russian source of the terminological expression “household servants” 216, declaring it a new formation of the second half of the 13th century. and without proving this postulate of his in any way 217. There can hardly be any doubt that the terms “courtyard” and “court servants” are derived from the word “yard” 218. Therefore, there is reason to assume the existence in Southern Rus' of the late XII - early XIII centuries. princely courts as a designation for the totality of the prince's servants. We find confirmation of our idea in the message of the Novgorod chronicler under 1220: “And Prince Vsevolod left the Settlement with his entire court, and curled up in the armor, like an army...” 219 Here we are talking about Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, the son of the Kyiv prince Mstislav Romanovich Old 220. Vsevolod Mstislavich reigned in Novgorod for a short time: only two and a half years 221. In 1221

204 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 586.

205 Ibid., stb. 591.

206 This is just an assumption. The sources do not trace the economic activities of charity workers.

207 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 589.

208 M. N. Tikhomirov believed that almsmen of the 12th century. more and more became holders of lands granted by the prince as a conditional fief (Tikhomirov M.N. Conditional feudal possession... p. 104). It is difficult to agree with this. - See: Cherepnin L.V. Rus. Controversial issues... p. 161; Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus... p. 70-73.

209 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 369-370.

210 P o r a i - K o sh i ts I. A. Essays on the history of the Russian nobility... p. 8.

211 Zagoskin N. Essays... p. 58.

212 Bestuzhev-Ryumin K.N. On the meaning of the word “nobleman” according to monuments before 1462. - In the book: Proceedings of the Second Archaeological Congress. St. Petersburg, 1876, issue. 1, dept. 4, p. 122.

213 Ibid., p. 122-123.

214 Sverdlov M.B. Nobles in Ancient Russia.-In the book: From the history of feudal Russia: Articles and essays. L., 1978, p. 56.

215 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 777, 795, 798, 803, 804, 811, 822; 829, 834, 839. - It is curious that the word “court” in the Ipatiev Chronicle appears under 1171 in connection with the Kyiv prince Mstislav Izyaslavich. - Ibid., stb. 544.

216 There, Stb. 887, 899, 918.

217 Sverdlov M. B. Nobles in Ancient Rus', p. 58.

218 F. P. Military vocabulary... p. 158.

219 NPL, p. 60, 262.

220 R a p o v O. M. Princely possessions in Rus' in the X - first half of the XIII century. M., 1977, p. 192.

221 Yanin V.L. Actual seals of Ancient Rus' X-XV centuries. M., 1970, vol. 1, p. 91.

the Novgorodians “showed the way” to him, and he goes to “Rus”, where he reigns on the Kiev table 222. Of course, his yard moved along with him. But since the southern princes had courts, then, one must think, there were also nobles. And again we have an interesting testimony from the Novgorod chronicler: “Mstislav, the prince, attacked them (chudi.- I.F.) tribute, and yes, two parts of the tribute to the Novgorodians, and the third part to the nobles” 223. Mstislav Mstislavich, about whom the chronicler speaks, is the son of Mstislav the Brave. It is known that before coming to Novgorod, he reigned in Trepel, Torchsk, Toropets. After the reign of Novgorod, around 1219, he managed to reign in Galich and hold out there until 1227. Mstislav died in Torchesk in 1228. 224 Thus, we have before us another southern prince, who has his own court - the nobles. All this convinces us that the word “nobles” was known to Southern Rus'. It is remarkable that it also appears in the Ipatiev Chronicle, which for some reason M. B. Sverdlov is silent about. “Having learned that Mindogo,” we read in the entry of 1252, “as he (Tovtevil) wanted, I.F.) help God’s nobles and the squeaker and all the howls of Rizhka, and being afraid” 225. Here the chronicler calls the swordsmen God's nobles. In his mouth, God's nobles are, of course, God's servants 226. The southern chronicler’s use of the word “nobles” in such a figurative sense leaves no doubt that this word was well known and very familiar in Southern Rus'.

In the report of the Laurentian Chronicle about the nobles, one detail draws attention: the chronicler separates the nobles from the posadniks, tiuns, children and swordsmen, thereby warning against the mistake of confusing them with the nobles 227. At first, the nobles, apparently, were court servants of the prince, free and dependent 228. Gradually, the composition of these servants became more complicated due to the inclusion of military elements who dropped out of the junior squad and settled in the princely court. As druzhina relations decomposed, which became clear towards the end of the 12th century, the younger druzhina was gradually digested by the princely court. Transforming into a courtyard, it transfers some squad principles into the life of the courtyard. It is no coincidence that the court is in many ways similar to a squad: it is fused with the prince and follows him everywhere 229 fights like a squad 230. It is no wonder that sometimes the chroniclers did not distinguish between the princely court and the squad 231.

222 PSRL. t. I, stb. 741; Rapov O. M. Princely possessions... p. 192.

223 NPL, p. 52-53, 251.

224 Rapov O. M. Princely possessions... p. 182.

225 PSRL. vol. II, stb. 816.

226 Wed: Begunov Yu. K. Monument of Russian literature of the 13th century. M.; L., 1965. p. 164.

227 PSRL, vol. I, hundred. 370.-Cf.: Porai-Koshits I. A. Essay on the history of the Russian nobility, p. 8; Sergeevich V.I. Russian legal antiquities, vol. 1, p. 461-462.

228 P a v l o v - S i l v a n s k i i N. P. Sovereign's service people, p. 27; Dyakonov M. A. Essays... p. 84.

The material side of the life of the nobles is reflected in historical monuments very sparingly. Therefore, we can judge it only in the form of assumptions. The nobles, in our opinion, stood primarily on the prince's allowance, dining with the prince and receiving monetary rewards for their service. It is known, for example, that Prince Mstislav granted his nobles part of the Chud tribute 232. The words of Daniil Zatochnik are noteworthy: “Every nobleman should have honor and favor from the prince” 2 d3 . The concepts of “honor” and “mercy” in those days were usually associated with good deeds, so to speak, in kind. And the very general thrust of the “Prayer” by Daniil Zatochnik, who was most likely a nobleman 234, is quite eloquent. “Daniil,” wrote D.S. Likhachev, “emphasizes his complete dependence only on the prince. Only in the prince does he see possible source of his well-being, only praises the prince, extols him to the skies” 235. After Tatar-Mongol invasion who upset the former financial system princes 236, the nobles gradually become land holders, which is reflected in the treaty letters of the Novgorodians with the princes 237.

Despite the clearly expressed process of disintegration of druzhina ties, noticed at the end of the 12th - first half of the 13th centuries, the druzhina as a socio-political institution continued to operate, 238 influencing the position of the prince both within the framework of the druzhina union and ancient Russian society as a whole.

In order to imagine even more clearly the place of the prince and the druzhina nobility in Kievan Rus, let us turn to the study of the problem of the seigneurial regime of the 11th-12th centuries.

229 NPL, p. 60, 61, 63-64, 78.

230 There, p. 40, 52-53, 64.

231 There, p. 79, 304. - Some modern historians do not always distinguish warriors from nobles. - See: Pa joke about V.T. Essays on the history of the USSR XII-XIII centuries. M., 1960, p. 13; Sverdlov M. B. Nobles in Ancient Rus', p. 57,

232 NPL, p. 52-53,-251.

233 Word of Daniel the Sharper. L., 1932, p. 68.

234 History of Russian literature. M.; L., 1958, vol. 1, p. 154; B u d o v-nits I. U. 1) Monument to early noble journalism (Prayer of Daniil Zatochnik).-TODRL, vol. VIII; 2) Social and political thought of Ancient Rus' (XI-XIV centuries). M., 1960, p. 289.

235 Likhachev D.S. Great Heritage. M., 1975, p. 207.

236 Froyanov I. Ya. On the emergence of peasant transitions in Russia.- Vesti. Leningr. University, 1978, No. 14, p. 32.

237 GVNP, No. 1, p. 10, no. 2, p. I. Wed: Sverdlov M. B. Nobles in Ancient Rus', p. 58-59.

238 See p. 76-77 of this book.

Nowadays, the word “druzhina” cannot be classified as a frequently used term. When mentioned, someone might remember school lessons stories. Which, in general, is correct, since of all possible meanings, two refer to past eras. However, before moving on to their consideration, the term itself should be defined.

What does it mean

According to dictionaries, a squad is a detachment or group formed for the purpose of performing a special task. Often such units, especially when it comes to paramilitary forces, have a rigid hierarchical structure.

The term itself comes from the Old Slavonic “drouzhin”, therefore similar words can be found in many related languages, for example, in Bulgarian, Czech, Croatian, Ukrainian, Polish, Slovenian, etc. In any of these languages, druzhina is a word meaning “society” or “detachment”, which is also derived from the word “ Friend".

Today this term is used in several meanings. Below we will briefly consider each of them, but for now we will list what types of squads there are:

• princely;
• engineering and construction;
• combat;
• folk;
• voluntary;
• sanitary;
• firefighters;
• pioneer

Princely squad

This is a privileged part of the army in Old Russian state(IX-XIII centuries). It included noble servants appanage prince, which, on the one hand, raised the authority of his power among the people, and on the other, helped to manage the principality. In addition, the squad was the combat core of the army when repelling an enemy attack.

Her ethnic composition was heterogeneous. According to historical documents, among the combatants there were not only Russians, but also Varangians, Hungarians, Poles, Finns, and Turks. They were bound by a free contract with the prince, which could be broken at any moment.

In the 11th-12th centuries, the squad was divided into senior and junior. The first included representatives of the boyars who held important positions: governors, mayors, thousanders, etc. They constituted the princely council and the most influential part of the people's veche. The junior squad also included free community members and even dependent slaves.

Royal Russia

After appanage principalities left the historical stage, giving way to centralized state, the word squad has not gone out of use. True, its meaning has changed. So, in pre-revolutionary Russia it meant:

• separate military units formed on the basis of the militia;
• engineering and construction teams engaged in military work;
• partnerships and artels;
• voluntary sanitary brigades created for the period of military operations.

During the Russian Revolution of 1905-1907. a new one has appeared political term- “fighting squad”. These were groups of workers formed by the Bolsheviks with the aim of preparing an uprising.

However, one should not think that such organizations were formed exclusively during periods of social upheaval or in conditions of military operations. An example of this is a voluntary squad of 20 thousand people created in Moscow in 1881. Her tasks included ensuring order during the celebrations associated with the coronation of Alexander III.

In 1930, voluntary societies (brigades) were organized in the USSR, which helped the police maintain law and order both in rural areas and in cities. In the summer of 1941, on their basis, a civil uprising, sanitary and fire brigades.

IN post-war years these brigades continued to help the police maintain law and order and conduct educational work up to 1959. From that time on, in addition to the police, the protection of public order in the country was also carried out by the DND - voluntary people's squads that patrolled the streets every day. This social movement, like many others, was abolished in 1991 after the ban on the Communist Party.

In addition to him, in the USSR there were also pioneer squads that united members of the All-Union Children's Organization.

Revival of people's vigilantes

By presidential decree in Russian Federation starting in 2014, citizens of the country could again actively participate in the search for missing people and maintaining public order. According to this document, members of the voluntary people's squad are equal to After registration with local authorities, they can use distinctive symbols and wear uniforms.

People's warriors can be:

• adult citizens of the Russian Federation;
• had no criminal record;
• not suffering from mental disorders;
• know how to provide first aid;
• not suffering from drug addiction or alcoholism.

What are their powers:

• notify the police of offenses;
• assist her in maintaining law and order;
• patrol the streets;
• participate in the search for missing citizens;
• maintain order during mass actions;
• participate in operations that do not threaten their lives, and if there is consent from the police.

For disobedience to people's vigilantes, the decree provides for a fine of 500 to 2.5 thousand rubles. On the other hand, the guards of public order themselves can be fined for exceeding their powers in the amount of 1 to 3 thousand rubles.

Any settlement has borders that must be protected from enemy invasions; this need has always existed for large Slavic settlements. During the period of Ancient Rus', conflicts tore the country apart; it was necessary to fight not only with external threats, but also with fellow tribesmen. Unity and agreement between the princes helped create a great state that became defensible. Old Russian warriors stood under one banner and showed the whole world their strength and courage.

Druzhina

The Slavs were a peace-loving people, so the ancient Russian warriors did not stand out too much from the background of ordinary peasants. They defended their home with spears, axes, knives and clubs. Military equipment and weapons appear gradually, and they are more focused on protecting their owner than on attack. In the 10th century, several Slavic tribes united around the Prince of Kyiv, who collected taxes and protected the territory under his control from the invasion of the steppes, Swedes, Byzantines, and Mongols. A squad is formed, 30% of which consists of professional military men (often mercenaries: Varangians, Pechenegs, Germans, Hungarians) and militias (voi). During this period, weapons ancient Russian warrior consists of a club, a spear, a sword. Lightweight protection does not restrict movement and ensures mobility in battle and on the march. The main force was infantry, horses were used as pack animals and for delivering soldiers to battlefields. The cavalry is formed after unsuccessful clashes with the steppe people, who were excellent riders.

Protection

Old Russian wars wore shirts and ports, common for the population of Rus' in the 5th - 6th centuries, and put on bast shoes. During the Russian-Byzantine war, the enemy was amazed by the courage and bravery of the “Rus”, who fought without protective armor, covering themselves with shields and using them at the same time as weapons. Later, the “kuyak” appeared, which was essentially a sleeveless shirt, it was trimmed with plates from horse hooves or pieces of leather. Later, metal plates began to be used to protect the body from slashing blows and enemy arrows.

Shield

The armor of the ancient Russian warrior was light, which ensured high maneuverability, but at the same time reduced the degree of protection. Large ones, human-sized, have been used by Slavic peoples since ancient times. They covered the warrior's head, so in the upper part they had a hole for the eyes. Since the 10th century, shields have been made round shape, they are upholstered in iron, covered with leather and decorated with various tribal symbols. According to the testimony of Byzantine historians, the Russians created a wall of shields that tightly closed with each other, and put spears forward. This tactic did not allow the advanced units of the enemy to break through to the rear of the Russian troops. After 100 years, the uniform is adapted to a new type of army - cavalry. The shields become almond-shaped and have two mounts designed to be held in battle and on the march. With this type of equipment, ancient Russian warriors went on campaigns and defended their own lands before the invention of firearms. Many traditions and legends are associated with shields. Some of them are still “winged” to this day. Fallen and wounded soldiers were brought home on shields; when fleeing, the retreating regiments threw them under the feet of the pursuers' horses. Prince Oleg hangs a shield on the gates of the defeated Constantinople.

Helmets

Until the 9th - 10th centuries, Old Russian warriors wore ordinary hats on their heads, which did not protect them from the chopping blows of the enemy. The first helmets found by archaeologists were made according to the Norman type, but in Rus' they did not receive widespread. The conical shape has become more practical and therefore widely used. In this case, the helmet was riveted from four metal plates; they were decorated with precious stones and feathers (for noble warriors or governors). This shape allowed the sword to slip without causing much harm to the person; a balaclava made of leather or felt softened the blow. The helmet was changed due to additional protective devices: aventail (chain mail mesh), nasal (metal plate). The use of protection in the form of masks (faces) was rare in Rus'; most often these were captured helmets, which were widely used in European countries. The description of the ancient Russian warrior, preserved in the chronicles, suggests that they did not hide their faces, but could fetter the enemy with a menacing gaze. Helmets with a half mask were made for noble and wealthy warriors; they were characterized by decorative details that did not have a protective function.

Chain mail

The most known part The vestments of an ancient Russian warrior, according to archaeological excavations, appear in the 7th - 8th centuries. Chain mail is a shirt made of metal rings tightly connected to each other. At this time, it was quite difficult for craftsmen to make such protection; the work was delicate and took a long period of time. The metal was rolled into wire, from which rings were rolled and welded, fastened to each other according to a 1 to 4 pattern. At least 20 - 25 thousand rings were spent on creating one chain mail, the weight of which ranged from 6 to 16 kilograms. Copper links were woven into the fabric for decoration. In the 12th century, stamping technology was used, when woven rings were flattened, which provided a larger area of ​​protection. During the same period, chain mail became longer, additional elements of armor appeared: nagovitsa (iron, wicker stockings), aventail (mesh to protect the neck), bracers (metal gloves). Quilted clothing was worn under the chain mail to soften the force of the blow. At the same time, they were used in Rus'. Manufacturing required a base (shirt) made of leather, onto which thin iron slats were tightly attached. Their length was 6 - 9 centimeters, width from 1 to 3. Lamellar armor gradually replaced chain mail and was even sold to other countries. In Rus', scale, lamellar and chain mail armor were often combined. Yushman, bakhterets were essentially chain mail, which, to increase their protective properties, were equipped with plates on the chest. IN early XIV century, a new type of armor appears - mirrors. Large metal plates, polished to a shine, were usually worn over chain mail. They were connected on the sides and shoulders with leather straps and were often decorated various kinds symbolism.

Weapon

The protective clothing of the ancient Russian warrior was not impenetrable armor, but was distinguished by its lightness, which ensured greater maneuverability of warriors and shooters in battle conditions. According to information obtained from historical sources of the Byzantines, the “Rusichi” were distinguished by their enormous physical strength. In the 5th - 6th centuries, the weapons of our ancestors were quite primitive, used for close combat. To cause significant damage to the enemy, it had a lot of weight and was additionally equipped with damaging elements. The evolution of weapons took place against the background technical progress and changes in battle strategy. Throwing systems, siege engines, piercing and cutting iron tools were used for many centuries, and their design was constantly improved. Some innovations were adopted from other nations, but Russian inventors and gunsmiths have always been distinguished by the originality of their approach and the reliability of the manufactured systems.

Percussion

Weapons for close combat are known to all nations; at the dawn of the development of civilization, its main type was the club. This is a heavy club that is wrapped in iron at the end. Some options include metal spikes or nails. Most often in Russian chronicles, a flail is mentioned along with a club. Due to their ease of manufacture and effectiveness in combat, impact weapons were widely used. The sword and saber are partially replacing it, but militias and warriors continue to use it in battle. Historians have created based on chronicle sources and excavation data, a typical portrait of a man who was called an ancient Russian warrior. Photographs of reconstructions, as well as images of heroes that have survived to this day, necessarily contain some type of impact weapon, most often the legendary mace acts in this capacity.

Slashing, piercing

In the history of ancient Rus' great value has a sword. It is not only the main type of weapon, but also a symbol of princely power. The knives used were of several types; they were named according to the place where they were worn: boot knives, belt knives, side knives. They were used along with the sword and the ancient Russian warrior changed in the 10th century, the sword was replaced by a saber. Her combat characteristics The Russians appreciated it in battles with nomads, from whom they borrowed the uniform. Spears and spears are among the most ancient types of piercing weapons, which were successfully used by warriors as defensive and offensive weapons. When used in parallel, they evolved ambiguously. Rogatins are gradually being replaced by spears, which are being improved into sulitsa. Not only peasants (warriors and militias), but also the princely squad fought with axes. For mounted warriors, this type of weapon had a short handle, while infantrymen (warriors) used axes on long shafts. Berdysh (an ax with a wide blade) became a weapon in the 13th - 14th centuries. Later it was transformed into a halberd.

Strelkovoe

All means used daily in hunting and in everyday life were used by Russian soldiers as military weapons. Bows were made from animal horns and suitable types of wood (birch, juniper). Some of them were more than two meters long. To store arrows, they used a shoulder quiver, which was made of leather, sometimes decorated with brocade, precious and semi-precious stones. To make arrows, reeds, birch, reeds, and apple trees were used, with an iron tip attached to the splinter. In the 10th century, the design of the bow was quite complex, and the process of its manufacture was labor-intensive. Crossbows were a more effective type. Their disadvantage was their lower rate of fire, but the bolt (used as a projectile) caused more damage to the enemy, piercing armor when hit. It was difficult to pull the bowstring of a crossbow; even strong warriors rested their feet on the butt to do this. In the 12th century, to speed up and facilitate this process, they began to use a hook, which archers wore on their belts. Before the invention of firearms, bows were used by Russian troops.

Equipment

Foreigners who visited Russian cities of the 12th - 13th centuries were surprised at how equipped the soldiers were. Despite the apparent cumbersomeness of the armor (especially on heavy horsemen), the horsemen coped with several tasks quite easily. Sitting in the saddle, the warrior could hold the reins (drive the horse), shoot from a bow or crossbow, and prepare a heavy sword for close combat. The cavalry was a maneuverable strike force, so the equipment of the rider and horse had to be light but durable. The chest, croup and sides of the war horse were covered with special covers, which were made of fabric with iron plates sewn on. The equipment of the ancient Russian warrior was thought out to the smallest detail. Saddles made of wood allowed the archer to turn around reverse side and shoot at full speed, while controlling the direction of the horse's movement. Unlike European warriors of that time, who were completely encased in armor, the light armor of the Russians was focused on fighting with nomads. Noble nobles, princes, and kings had combat and ceremonial weapons and armor, which were richly decorated and equipped with state symbols. Foreign ambassadors were received there and went on holidays.