RUSSIA BIRTH IN PAIN
LOCAL OWNERSHIP
The emergence of the Russian state is inseparably linked with the creation of the state apparatus, the main part of which is military servicemen. Rus inherited from the Golden Horde one of the main postulates of the Mongol Empire first, then the Golden Horde; all who are capable of carrying arms must serve the empire. It inherited the distinctiveness, which was determined by the difference in management of the farmer and herders.
In the nomadic society, the general character of military and other services was ensured by the fact that the nomad is largely fed by nature itself. There the cattle-breeder could be both a professional soldier and a professional producer of the necessary life benefits: he himself should support himself economically. Agriculture, unlike livestock raising, being the type of farming, requires the farmer to give full force and time. Here the warrior, in order to be a professional, should have been kept by the state.
The state needs money and soldiers in the Middle Ages. A stable supplier of both in an agricultural state with developed exchange and scarcity of arable land are free plowmen paying taxes (Kulpin, 1990, pp. 201-210). When the Moscow state was established, there was no developed exchange, a shortage of arable land, and it turned away from free plowmen. According to Kliuchevskii, the basis of the national economy in this state is the labor of a free peasant working on state or private land, but "state land increasingly passes into the hands of a new military class created by the state, and at the same time freedom of peasant labor, dependence on the serving landowner. These are the main phenomena ... "" In the specific centuries, the content of a few servants was provided by three main sources, they were:
1) cash salary,
2) patrimony, the acquisition of which by the assisted people was assisted by the princes,
3) feeding, incomes from known government positions, to which service people were appointed.
In the XV and XVI centuries. these specific sources were already inadequate for the economic provision of the ever growing service class ... Successful gathering of Russia, the Moscow sovereign-owner acquired one new capital: it was a vast expanse of land, empty or residential, inhabited by peasants. This is the only capital he could put into circulation to provide its service people” (Klyuchevskii, V. 2, pp. 99, 202). Only this capital, he could put into circulation to provide his service people "(Klyuchevsky, vol.2, pp. 99, 202).
In the undeveloped tax system, exchange, trade, reliable (in the eyes of employees) type of payment was the provision of temporary use (for service) estates - the land on which the peasants who exploited it and who had to feed the landlords. From the very beginning, the viability and strength of the Russian state began to be directly dependent on the ability to "use" the growing apparatus of employees.
Unlike nomads, where everyone could directly be a civil servant as a military man, a hierarchical system of service to the state arose in agricultural Russia: the peasants
serve the landlord - the temporary owner of the land, given to him as a payment for the service of the sovereign.
The system of local ownership was introduced into the reign of the First Sovereign of All Russia, Ivan III (1462-1505), at the same time the beginning of the main processes that determined the history of Russia up to the present day. The whole last quarter of the 15th century. is characterized by a gradual shift of emphasis from the process of uniting the Russian lands under the auspices of Moscow to the process of replacing the state apparatus, subordinating the church to the state, and secularizing its possessions.
The problem of establishing a single ownership of land - the state became paramount with the creation after the dissolution of the Golden Horde of an independent Russian state (originally - Muscovy). However, the process of total stateization of the land stretched for almost two centuries. Initially private patrimonial land was not subjected to expropriation, except for those cases when certain feudal lords did not wish to peacefully go under the "hand" of the Grand Duke, "for treason" as it was qualified at that time. At the turn of the century, the state attempted to secularise ecclesiastical lands, proceeding from the objective realities of the second half of the XV century. - huge land allotments near the church.
POWER AGAINST THE CHURCH
By the end of the XV century. in North-Eastern Russia, practically all the lands accessible to economic development were developed (independent of the boyars), independent of the boyars and, in essence, formally dependent on the grand dukes of Moscow's "black" peasants, as well as the church. The land of the "black" peasantry, which did not fall into economic dependence on secular and ecclesiastical feudal lords, was reduced. The feudal lands passed from hand to hand. Part of the trophy lands the princes distributed to the fiefdoms of the boyars' associates.
In accordance with the ancient Slavic and Mongolian legal concepts, all the land in the independent Moscow state, except for the church land, was the property of the Grand Duke. He had the right to grant any non-Church land in possession for the service, and to take it. In accordance with this law "from the half of the XV century. a rule is established that all personal landowners must carry on the ground military service "(Klyuchevsky, vol. 2, p. 190). This rule extended to the hereditary possessions of the boyars - ancestral lands. The Ruler confiscated the lands of the feudal lords (most often under the pretext of violating the conditions of service-fidelity to the overlord), could, by granting new lands, select old ones, in other words, redistribute the state's land fund.
The redistribution of the land fund, its use as a state budget, gradually turned into one of the main functions of the Moscow state, and the sovereign's ownership of land (at that time the main type of property) became the economic base of the sovereignty of the Sovereign, the dictatorship of the state over society-autocracy. But it did not happen immediately. In particular, the economic independence of the church prevented complete autocracy.
Unlike the princely new ownership, the church ownership of the land, confirmed by khan's labels, was not associated with a particular individual, but with the church as an institution. According to the established practice it was possible to take the land away from the individual, but not from the institute. There was an uncertain situation: it would seem that the church, like any other land, was supposed to serve, but to whom? Prince, God or people? This issue was not solved in principle. The decision was hampered by the old practice: with the khans, the church, theoretically and for the most part, was not actually taxed and imposed.
After the fall of the Horde, the Moscow princes sought to end the khan's privileges of the church. The struggle for the only state-owned property - church at the first stage became almost the main goal of the state. If in Western Europe there was a struggle for power between the state and the church, then in the East - for property, specifically, for property churches. It is possible that the church at that time concentrated, if not most of the whole, then most of the best land.
Tendencies in changing the proportions of the main landowners in Russia are known. The wartime possessions of the feudal lords, with the exception of the Moscow prince, throughout the entire fifteenth century. the land of the church grew, the "black" peasant land also grew with the growth of the population (until the middle of the XVI century) and peasants plowing forest virgin land (until the end of the XV century). Quantitative relationships can not be analyzed.
How much to whom then belonged the land in Northeast Russia is for certain unknown. Foreigners believed that the church had accumulated most of the state's lands. However, Gauthier believed that the news of Collins that the clergy owned 2/3 of the space of the Moscow State was exaggerated (Gauthier, p. 251). Estimates of historians are very approximate. According to them, monasteries owned from 1/5 to 1/3 of the whole earth, "black" (independent of the feudal lords and dependent on the Grand Duke, ie the state) peasants also - from 1/5 to 1/3, hereditary estates of feudal lords , including the domain of the Moscow prince - 1 / 3-3 / 5.
According to VO Klyuchevsky, "by the middle of the XVI century. monastic land ownership has reached burdensome for the state size. One of the Englishmen who were at that time in Moscow wrote ... monks own the third part of all landed property in the state ... English ambassador Fletcher, who arrived in Moscow in 1588, writes that Russian monasteries managed to occupy the best and most pleasant places in the country state "(Kliuchevsky, p. 262).
Although the real relationships of landholdings are not clear, they can be assessed. So, if we take the lower limit, then the theoretical "reserve" for the use of black and ecclesiastical lands accounted for almost half of the cultivated areas. The rest of the land was in the hands of the feudal lords. The quality of arable land for black peasants and monasteries was different: the monasteries owned a significant part of the fertile old-arable land. Good old plow land meant not only higher and more stable crops, but also the attachment of peasants to it, i.e. guarantee landlords receiving rents and the opportunity to reclaim from the latter a faithful service.
In contrast to the feudal (except for the possessions of the Grand Duke) the church lands at the expense of donations and development of forest virgin soil only increased. The church was a state in the state, had its own interests, different from the interests of secular power. "The most famous monk-politician of the second half of the XIV century. was Sergius of Radonezh. The dormitory reform contributed to the transformation of the monastery headed by him into an internally strong corporation independent of individuals ... It is significant that both Sergius himself and his disciples did only those assignments of the Grand Duke that did not contradict the interests of the church. They were convinced supporters of a strong church organization, independent of Moscow princes or other secular authorities, capable of influencing all aspects of state life ... Already in the mid-70's. XIV century. it becomes obvious the maturing of an acute conflict between the grand prince's power and militant clerics "(Borisov, pp. 95, 96).
While the process of uniting the possessions of Moscow was going on, the church could preserve its landed property without weapons, playing on the contradictions of secular feudal lords. When these contradictions were resolved in favor of Moscow, only military force could become an argument. With the exception of Novgorod, where the archbishop (second in importance to the church hierarchy of Russia after the metropolitan) had his Vladychny regiment, the church had no military units. The military defeat of Novgorod was practically and the defeat of the army of the church in Russia. Since that time, the church has been able to retain its immense land holdings only by appealing with moral arguments.
In the course of the struggle for the subordination of Moscow to Novgorod, Ivan III carried out a complex multi-way intrigue for the legalization of shares of confiscation, distribution and redistribution of land property of the commercial republic. First he distributed land confiscated from Novgorod boyars, boyars in Moscow as a reward for the conquest of Novgorod, then executed the main new (Moscow) landowners and, according to the customs of those times, expropriated their lands. Further, he withdrew Novgorod from the jurisdiction of the Moscow Duma and, transferring Novgorod in reign to his son Vasily, to be able to expropriate the church lands of Novgorod without the consent of the Moscow Duma.
According to Ruslan Skrynnikov, most of the possessions were expropriated and distributed to estates. This was favored, in particular, by the public critical attitude towards the churchmen. The church always scared the flock near the end of the world and the need for a righteous life in the face of the Last Judgment. The end of the world was expected in 7000-m from the creation of the world or 1492 from the birth of Christ. (Skrynnikov, pp. 153-155). But once again did not take place. The authority of the church and religion was once again undermined. The heretics triumphed. They found support from the Grand Duke. And, as the chronicler writes, "in the summer of the year 7007 (1499 - r.h.) ... the prince captured the great patrimonial patrimony in Novegorod and distributed to their children a boyar estate."
However, Novgorod land was not enough and there was a problem of expropriation of all other church lands of the Moscow state. Expropriation had to be justified. Preparations for the substantiation were conducted thoroughly. They used not only all the methods that were possible for medieval intrigue, the struggle that was supported, or maybe provoked by the Sovereign, which in the historical literature was called the dispute of non-possessors and Josephis began.
In this struggle, for the sociological history, the positions of the parties are primarily important in relation to the role of labor, its place in the system of values. The watershed between non-possessors and iosiflans seems to have taken place in the question of the obligatory nature of productive labor for people who have devoted themselves to serving God and the possibility or impossibility of living at the expense of others' labor.
In the XIV and XV centuries monasteries in Russia were flourishing, hundreds of new monasteries appeared in the center and on the outskirts, some of them turned into big landowners, others existed as monasteries and tiny forest deserts, in the deserts the monks lived by the labor of their hands and led an ascetic way of life.In rich monasteries the life of the brotherhood has undergone dramatic changes.The elders spared no effort to multiply their possessions.They conducted trade, engaged in usury, and received the money spent on the acquisition of real estate. and they also contributed to the donations of the worshipers ... The wealthy people adopted a peculiar view of sin and repentance: they hoped to pray with each other's prayers after death, and the authorities and crimes were inseparable, and therefore the princes gave generously the monasteries in villages in old age and handed them letters of gratitude. Their example was followed by other wealthy landowners ... Monks assigned ever larger sums for entering the name of the deceased into monastic commemoration books - synodics ... Monks who retired from the world for the sake of spiritual achievement, became and lead a life very far from the ideals of monastic ascetic life. Instead of feeding "needlework," they indulged in acquisition, collected obrokas from the peasants, extorted donations from widows, led a completely secular way of life. The decline of piety in monasteries caused alarm in church circles. The best minds of the church sought a way out of the crisis. Neil Sorskii developed the ideas of asceticism. Joseph Sanin defended the monastery wealth, but saw the salvation in the multiplication of the strictures "(Skrynnikov, pp. 156-158).
The victory of the Josephites, according to Skrynnikov, was due to the whole course of historical development. She deprived secular power of moral justification for the secularization of church lands. Possibility of priming, i.e. fees for service, was now limited to the lands of black peasants and the redistribution of boyar lands.
Recall that in the Golden Horde the church functioned in the most favored nation. From all encroachments on her property she was protected by Khan's labels. Now this protection was not, because there was no state giving the church the privilege. There is one tradition left. Because the church owned land on the basis of traditions, it was necessary to break these traditions.
The state tried to expropriate church property in the late XV - early XVI centuries. The First Sovereign of All Russia, Ivan III, proposed a project not just for the secularization of church lands, but for the transformation of the church into a part of the state apparatus: the clergymen were to receive payment of their labor directly from the state.
It is possible that the epicenter of the struggle came in 1503, when the church council was held, and found its expression in the ideological discussion of non-possessors and Josephis. It was then decided the question: should a monk (and then, according to the logic of morality, any mortal in Russia) live only by personal labor or can he live at the expense of others' labor?
The struggle around the church land (if it existed at all) was dramatic, and well-known concrete historical figures participated in it. Their characters, foundations, behavior would allow to present the process bright, lively, if not for the difficulties, which we spoke about in words of Leo von Bertalanffy. However, it is impossible to ignore immediate actors. The main actors of the dispute, as is commonly believed in traditional historical Russian literature: Neil Sorsky, Joseph Volotsky and the Tsar of All Russia, Ivan III, who, with the victory of non-possessors, received the moral right to expropriate church possessions. Below are given their characteristics, when writing which the author tried to be as objective as possible.
The First Sovereign of All Russia was, of course, a brilliant politician. In some historians, he is admired, in others, almost disgust for mcciavelism. Apparently, if he was not an atheist, he did not show any respect for religion and the church, if only because he wanted to turn the church into an integral part of the state apparatus of government. "In his personal qualities, Ivan III could not be better suited as a gravedigger of the political sovereignty of the Russian church. A man of strong will, great intellect and boundless ambition, the Moscow prince was practically deprived of all "containment centers" in relation to religion and the church hierarchy ... was convinced that, contrary to the Gospel saying, God is not in truth but in power. "The Sovereign of All Russia" was equally ready to reach out to the "Romans" and robbed the Orthodox churches in Kiev "to the ashamed", and worshiped "the land and sky" of the Novgorodian heretics, and even Satan himself - even if not Beelzebub, but only worn this is the nickname of the Lithuanian Metropolitan "(Borisov, p. 162).
Although "the advanced detachment of the church forces - the Metropolitan Department - did not render the Grand Duke effective support in his centralization policy" (Borisov, p. 188), Ivan III actively used the church to collect land, intervened in the struggle for power within the church, found temporary allies among the hierarchs. However, in one, despite the princely pressure, the steep and unceremonious treatment of the prince with the disgraced churchmen, the church stood up to the end: it did not go to expropriation of its lands. Even the Prince of Moscow, due to his inheritance from the monastic "ice" prison and his elevation, the Novgorod Archbishop Gennady, when it came to property, in the words of the chronicler, viciously "barked" at the prince at the cathedral of 1503.
The Grand Duke maneuvered. Sometimes his allied hierarchs were sentenced to severe punishments and it cost him great efforts to save them. Punishments often included severe beatings. As a sign of protest against moral and physical pressure from secular authorities, the metropolitan twice left his post. Once he forced Ivan III to Russian "Kanossa". The second time the same method did not work.
The main arguments of the Grand Duke (judging by the actions) was the presence of his military strength, which is in no way comparable to that of the specific princes or boyars, and the absence of firm legal guarantees of the sovereignty of the church. Ivan III had the opportunity and intimidated the church hierarchs. No one, not even the metropolitan, was guaranteed against the use of physical violence against him. Metropolitan tried several times to escape from the prison-monastery and each time was "caught" by the prince. By the time of the cathedral, the metropolitan was psychologically, apparently, broken, and only the unanimous tough stance of the hierarchs forced him to act decisively.
The main ideologist of non-covetousness was Neil Sorsky, who came from a Moscow family close to the Grand Duke's name, abandoned his mundane career and founded his monastery on the River Sorka, where his nickname came from. Life following the example of the Nile was not easy: heavy physical labor, the absence of any even small joys of life, almost unsanitary living conditions, often intentional torture of the flesh, did not contribute to a massive influx of adepts into the Nile. "In mass, the black clergy remained deaf to the preaching of the Nile ... Attempts to implement the principle of equality, compulsory labor, self-denial did not lead to success," says Ruslan Skrynnikov (Skrynnikov, pp. 98, 108-110).
The Iosiflian party was led by Hegumen Joseph Volotsky, in the world Ivan Sanin. The vigorous owner of the feudal fiefdom Ivan Sanin resolutely rejected the acquisition as a means of personal enrichment; in the property and wealth of the monastic community he saw a means of charity - helping the needy peasants, he cared about the aesthetic side of the perception of religious dogmas. In general, it was a complex and attractive personality for the perception of a medieval person.
The outcome of the debate in 1503 around the church land property according to the version of Yuri Alekseyev, created by him on the basis of the literary and church work "The Word Other", was ultimately connected "with a purely accidental but fundamentally important fact" - the illness of the Grand Duke: "most likely he was struck blow (according to the current terminology - a stroke). " Alekseev describes in detail how this happened.
It was in the summer of 1503 that the Grand Duke set out to deprive the church of the main property and turn the servants of the church into state officials. He did not presume to do this forcibly - by a sovereign decree, but by a voluntary, independent decision of the church at its supreme forum - the cathedral. At the church church, the question of land became practically the main one. A fight broke out over him. Most of the hierarchs opposed the Prince's intentions. Then the prince summoned to Moscow a well-known supporter of personal nondelivery of the abbot Joseph Volotsky. However, Joseph did not live up to the sovereign's hopes and resolutely opposed the expropriation of the church lands.
The cathedral took place against the backdrop of uninterrupted fifteen-year lawsuits for land from 1490 onwards. Everyone tried, including peasants and the church. In one such case, the sovereign took the side of the peasants of the largest Trinity monastery in Russia in their lawsuit against the monks and ordered the fine to be fined. The "elders" in return organized a mass demonstration of protest. Constantly betraying the anathema of the sovereign, decrepit hermits marched on Moscow, who were on carts, who were on stretchers. They were accompanied by supporters and, as always, just curious.
The rumor about the march, ahead of him, stirred the capital and so psychologically influenced the Grand Duke that his arm, leg and eyes were taken away, which was regarded as a divine punishment for sacrilege. Ivan III personally did not go to the cathedral, did not say his decisive word (Alekseev, pp. 218-220). Without the Emperor, his clerical officials could not overcome the resistance of church hierarchs. In the struggle for the land of the church, Ivan III was defeated, according to Yuri Alekseev, perhaps for the first time in his life.
Are there really decisive moments in the above version of historical events, where there are personalities and a separate act, a plot for the tragedy of Shakespeare's heat? Could the victory of Ivan III and the non-possessors at the cathedral really change the fate of Russia, or was Russia's path predetermined by the processes of the historical development of previous centuries?
Skrynnikov, as well as Alekseev, fixes the fact of illness of the Grand Duke during the cathedral, but suffers a stroke six months after its completion. Both draw their conclusions from the analysis of the same historical documents, which indicates the plasticity of the narrative sources, which makes it possible to question the conclusions drawn on their basis.
If we add to this the opinion of Andrei Pliguzov, a historian who has specifically studied the discussion on the ideology of nondecipitation, which has been going on for almost two centuries, the plot will become even more intriguing. Pliguzov states that Nil Sorsky does not have a single work that deals with the issues of ecclesiastical land ownership, and Iosif Volotsky wrote much later on this matter, and even then, as applied to a particular case (Pliguzov, p. 31). "It is no coincidence ... Kazakova, who dedicated two monographs and a doctoral thesis to Vassian and his associates (non-possessors), acknowledged that" the history of non-covetousness as an ideological trend, the history of its formation, development, connections with other ideological currents is still waiting for its researcher ... " "(Pliguzov, pp. 32; Kazakova, p. 139).
Pliguzov believes that the question of the secularization of church lands in the cathedral of 1503 may not have been at all. "At the same time, there is evidence that the plans of the government of Ivan III to significantly limit or completely eliminate the landownership of the church, turning it into a state fund for local awards to medium and small feudal lords. It is difficult to say to what extent this program was of an official nature and how objectively it reflected the real balance of forces "(Pliguzov, p. 5).
Pliguzov's opinion allows us to consider the tragically beautiful version of Alekseev, like many other historians, nothing more than an illustration of Leo von Bertalanffy's argument concerning, unfortunately, the small scientific significance of narrative sources.
What then remains valid in the written testimonies of the era? The fact that the church had large land plots. The fact that they were partially Ivan III were expropriated. The fact that he had plans for complete expropriation, but failed to implement it, and consequently, the problem of the employment of state servants remained unresolved.
POLICE DICTATORSHIP,
AS A FORM OF THE CONTRACT OF THE STATE WITH THE PEOPLE
The grandson of the first Russian Tsar - the famous Ivan the Terrible did not directly encroach on the land ownership of the church. The church cathedrals that followed the council in 1551 only limited the growth of church land ownership, but did not consider the problem of secularization. "The verdict of 1551 prohibited the church from acquiring lands in any way" (Gauthier, pp. 235). The problem of landowning was to be decided differently. Recall that the main capital of the Russian sovereign was the land.
In the middle of the sixteenth century, after the mass concessions of the fifteenth century, this capital dried up. The accession of new lands, mainly Western lands (1510 - Pskov with the region, 1514 - Smolensk, 1517 - Ryazan, 1517-1523 - Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversky lands), not so much gave a reserve for pomeshchivaniya, how many, according to the accepted practice (cm Klyuchevsky, vol. 2, p. 173), prompted the need to transfer the local feudal lords to the Zamoskvy Krai and to use them here.
A vivid picture of someshine and turnout at the service was one of the first gave Sergei Solovyov. His positions are generally shared by modern historians. He wrote: "The new Russian state, composed by the Moscow princes, was a poor state, the incomes of the great princes were small, because the people were few, few cities where trades would flourish, trade; but meanwhile, the dangers on all sides, it is necessary to fight back from enemies, it is necessary, therefore, to have a large army; but how to keep it, a lot of money goes to the army; there is no money, but a lot of land, and therefore they began to give out plots of land to those who went to serve the prince; while serving, the lands remained behind him, ceased to serve, the land was taken away; these and that plots of land were called estates, and the landlords owned them. There were also vopchinniki who forever owned their lands, because they inherited them from their ancestors; but rich votchinnikov who could serve, did not need the allowance, in the salary of the government, there was little; most of them the Grand Duke was also giving out estates. By the time of John III, many princes had gathered in the court of the Grand Duke in Moscow, who had lost their principalities as a result of the collection of the Russian land; all of them entered the service to the Grand Duke and occupied the main places; but since they did not retain their principalities, only a few of them, they were not rich either, and their patrimonies were all diminished because everyone wanted to give something to the church at death, especially to some monastery, to remember there was no money, and they gave to the souls of the earth; monasteries were enriched, and secular landowners were poorer and should have asked the Grand Duke of estates to be able to serve, i.e. on the first call to go to war on horseback, in full arms and bring with them a certain number of armed men, why in the old days they said that a serviceman should appear at the horse, armed and armed "(pp. 235-236). "... when you need to go on a campaign ... the voevods begin calling, calling:" So-and-so? "-" There are! "- responds the landlord, and he is written in" estech "; cause another - silence, then there is no it, did not show up, and it is written in "netekh." And it began to turn out that there was a lot in the "nete", and whoever was in the "estech" had a bad weapon, a bad horse and people, not so much as he had to bring from his land. What's the reason? The landlords are justified that they can not serve, the earth is there, but it needs to be processed, but there are no workers; the peasants were free, they crossed freely from one land to another ... A poor landowner would call them to him, order with them, and then a rich, multi-land patrimony of the secular or monastery, they need workers, because there are many lands everywhere, but no workers , and they are luring the peasants away from the poor landowners ... "(Soloviev, p. 250).
In 1550 the state uses, probably, the last reserves of land to provide it to the "service": in the Moscow and the nearest counties, 1,787 servicemen were distributed at a time to 176775 acres of arable land in three fields "(Klyuchevsky, vol. 2, p. 208) . These "most reliable" landowners subsequently formed something like the tsarist guard and served as officer cadres for provincial gentry militias.
As events unfolded from the early 1550's. we do not know for certain, we can only assume, proceeding from the current processes at that time. According to VO Klyuchevsky, then it was "land, real estate forced to play the role of money, to replace the monetary salary for the service" (vol.2, pp. 221). It is clear that the villages that the new landlords received were different, but mostly small (there were cases when there were several landlords in one village, there were cases when the landlords did not have peasants at all, but exactly when and how the peasants left the land is unknown) .
It is natural to assume that at the last mass exploration of the lands of the Moscow Region, not the best lands went into the course (the best have long found owners). It is no coincidence that it was after the last mass confusion of 1550 that the "tendency towards the desolation in the first place of thin lands" and the depopulation of small villages became clear. It can be assumed that many new landlords did not receive adequate funds for the service and for the service. However, we can not assume the emergence of the effect of non-payment of wages, which at all times was fraught with a loss of loyalty to the servants of the gentleman. It is possible that only the "advance" was paid, and the payment of "wages" was made dependent on the performance of the work.
Sergey Solovyov gave one of the first pictures of his work and appearance to the service. His positions are generally shared by modern historians. He wrote: "The new Russian state, composed by the Moscow princes, was a poor state, the incomes of the great princes were small, because the people were few, few cities where trades would flourish, trade; but meanwhile, the dangers on all sides, it is necessary to fight back from enemies, it is necessary, therefore, to have a large army; but how to keep it, a lot of money goes to the army; there is no money, but a lot of land, and therefore they began to give out plots of land to those who went to serve the prince; while serving, the lands remained behind him, ceased to serve, the land was taken away; these and that plots of land were called estates, and the landlords owned them. There were also vopchinniki who forever owned their lands, because they inherited them from their ancestors; but rich votchinnikov who could serve, did not need the allowance, in the salary of the government, there was little; most of them the Grand Duke was also giving out estates. By the time of John III, many princes had gathered in the court of the Grand Duke in Moscow, who had lost their principalities as a result of the collection of the Russian land; all of them entered the service to the Grand Duke and occupied the main places; but since they did not retain their principalities, only a few of them, they were not rich either, and their patrimonies were all diminished because everyone wanted to give something to the church at death, especially to some monastery, to remember there was no money, and they gave to the souls of the earth; monasteries were enriched, and secular landowners were poorer and should have asked the Grand Duke of estates to be able to serve, i.e. on the first call to go to war on horseback, in full arms and bring with them a certain number of armed men, why in the old days they said that a serviceman should appear at the horse, armed and armed "(pp. 235-236). "... when you need to go on a campaign ... the voevods begin calling, calling:" So-and-so? "-" There are! "- responds the landlord, and he is written in" estech "; cause another - silence, then there is no it, did not show up, and it is written in "netekh." And it began to turn out that there was a lot in the "nete", and whoever was in the "estech" had a bad weapon, a bad horse and people, not so much as he had to bring from his land. What's the reason? The landlords are justified that they can not serve, the earth is there, but it needs to be processed, but there are no workers; the peasants were free, they crossed freely from one land to another ... A poor landowner would call them to him, order with them, and then a rich, multi-land patrimony of the secular or monastery, they need workers, because there are many lands everywhere, but no workers , and they are luring the peasants away from the poor landowners ... "(Soloviev, p. 250).
In 1550 the state uses, probably, the last reserves of land to provide it to the "service": in the Moscow and the nearest counties, 1,787 servicemen were distributed at a time to 176775 acres of arable land in three fields "(Klyuchevsky, vol. 2, p. 208) . These "most reliable" landowners subsequently formed something like the tsarist guard and served as officer cadres for provincial gentry militias.
As events unfolded from the early 1550's. we do not know for certain, we can only assume, proceeding from the current processes at that time. According to VO Klyuchevsky, then it was "land, real estate forced to play the role of money, to replace the monetary salary for the service" (vol.2, pp. 221). It is clear that the villages that the new landlords received were different, but mostly small (there were cases when there were several landlords in one village, there were cases when the landlords did not have peasants at all, but exactly when and how the peasants left the land is unknown) .
It is natural to assume that at the last mass exploration of the lands of the Moscow Region, not the best lands went into the course (the best have long found owners). It is no coincidence that it was after the last mass confusion of 1550 that the "tendency towards the desolation in the first place of thin lands" and the depopulation of small villages became clear. It can be assumed that many new landlords did not receive adequate funds for the service and for the service. However, we can not assume the emergence of the effect of non-payment of wages, which at all times was fraught with a loss of loyalty to the servants of the gentleman. It is possible that only the "advance" was paid, and the payment of "wages" was made dependent on the performance of the work.
There are no more hands; the peasants were free, they crossed freely from one land to another ... A poor landowner would call them to him, order with them, and then a rich, multi-land patrimony of the secular or monastery, they need workers, because there are many lands everywhere, but no workers , and they are luring the peasants away from the poor landowners ... "(Soloviev, p. 250).
In 1550 the state uses, probably, the last reserves of land to provide it to the "service": in the Moscow and the nearest counties, 1,787 servicemen were distributed at a time to 176775 acres of arable land in three fields "(Klyuchevsky, vol. 2, p. 208) . These "most reliable" landowners subsequently formed something like the tsarist guard and served as officer cadres for provincial gentry militias.
As events unfolded from the early 1550's. we do not know for certain, we can only assume, proceeding from the current processes at that time. According to VO Klyuchevsky, then it was "land, real estate forced to play the role of money, to replace the monetary salary for the service" (vol.2, pp. 221). It is clear that the villages that the new landlords received were different, but mostly small (there were cases when there were several landlords in one village, there were cases when the landlords did not have peasants at all, but exactly when and how the peasants left the land is unknown) .
It is natural to assume that at the last mass exploration of the lands of the Moscow Region, not the best lands went into the course (the best have long found owners). It is no coincidence that it was after the last mass confusion of 1550 that the "tendency towards the desolation in the first place of thin lands" and the depopulation of small villages became clear. It can be assumed that many new landlords did not receive adequate funds for the service and for the service. However, we can not assume the emergence of the effect of non-payment of wages, which at all times was fraught with a loss of loyalty to the servants of the gentleman. It is possible that only the "advance" was paid, and the payment of "wages" was made dependent on the performance of the work.
It was not by chance that the views of the Tsar's advisers almost simultaneously with the "under paradise" of the chosen thousand "appealed to the" podraisk "epithet is not accidental!) To the land - the Kazan Khanate." As soon as the thousand entered the service of the tsar, preparations began for the conquest of the Volga region. "In 1552 Kazan was taken , but in the same way as it was in 1487 under Ivan III, then the Khanate was placed in a vassal dependence and, thereby, favorable conditions were created for the spontaneous mass peasant colonization of the khanate lands. unfavorable conditions, despite the mutual raids of the Tatars and Russians throughout the first half of the 16th century. This time the goals of the state were different: to obtain additional funds for the state treasury by direct robbery of the wealthy neighbor's treasures and a new resource of land for landowning, ie colonization organized by the state .
Moscow expropriated the best lands of the Volga region - the lands of the khan and the Tatar aristocracy. Kazan - the Tatar capital was wiped from the face of the earth. According to the "Royal Book", on the orders of the Russian command, "all the men were beaten to death:" There are small wives and small children in the town, and beat up all the women "... a lot of people are beaten in the city, where the steps are not on the dead ... the ditches on the other side of the city are full of dead lying with the walls of the hailstones exactly ... full of dead lying down and along the Kazan River and in the river and across the meadow lying dead dead. " To enter Ivan IV into the city, they could "clean the street one by one to the Tsar (Khan's - EK) from the Muralay Gate of the Dead, and barely cleaned," despite the fact that the distance from the gate to the palace was no more than 100 sazhens "( Khudyakov, pp. 643-644).
The cruelty that surpassed the invasion of Batu was probably not accidental, as it was not accidental the subsequent destruction of the Tatar villages and villages around Kazan within a radius of 50 versts, i.е. almost a hundred kilometers. According to Damir Iskhakov, the loss of the Tatars during the Russian conquest in the XVI century. "Amounted to more than one third of the population, which meant an actual demographic catastrophe. Volga-Ural Tatars to restore their numbers, which they had in the middle of the XVI century. spent about 150 years "(Iskhakov, p. 130).
The Kazan Khanate was doomed to failure, and its population - to physical destruction and forced emigration by demographic growth and ecological crisis in the Russian northeast. The population of the Moscow state surpassed that in the Kazan Khanate, according to Iskhakov's calculations, at least ten times (Iskhakov, p. 129), and apparently 9/10 of the Russian population, judging by the scale of the national flight from the old lands, were out of balance with the natural base.
In place of the old was built a new Kazan - Russian, in which the Tatars were forbidden to settle. As the well-known Tatar historian Gaziz Gubaidullin wrote, "The Russian peasantry came to our region under duress, and some of them were looking for salvation from the growing oppression of the landlords, who in the fifteenth century began to exploit them intensively, so after the capture of Kazan, a spontaneous flight from the central regions of the Russian peasantry to new edge. On this new land, they were attracted, therefore, by the freedom and abundance of wastelands. Those who entered the service of the landlords, these peasants received a 10-year grace (from taxes and duties - EK) and the new owners carefully treated them, due to a lack of labor in the event of their departure, although the fugitives caught, but at first , the government looked at this escape to the "land of Kazan" through fingers, wishing to quickly colonize the newly conquered territory, because, in addition to internal, there were external causes "(Gubaidullin, pp. 20-21).
However, the destruction of Tatar Kazan led to a new tension of the state and society. Crimea and Turkey came out in defense of the coreligionists of the Tatars and from 1555 began a tense struggle for the Volga region with the Crimea and Turkey, which lasted until 1572. In 1570 Devlet-Giray even stormed Moscow, burned it and ruined it. In the Volga region it was restless. Immediately after the capture by Russian troops of Kazan, an uprising of the Tatars, Mari and other peoples of the Khanate began, which, gradually fading, continued until 1560.
"Hunger in all Moscow cities and throughout the world, and more in favor of the Volga River" in 1556-57. (Readings of the OIDR, 1895, book 3, pp. 68-69, Kolitscheva, p. 36), the need to defend the new Volga borders from Turkey and the Crimea, the annual Crimean raids on the southern borders and up to the central regions of the state have created in Muscovy almost unbearable tension.
Not having immediately obtained the expected results in Kazan (which was hampered by the famine and insurrection of the Volga peoples), but having mobilized a large army, Ivan the Terrible got into a new war, promising to be victorious, to bring new lands and draft peasants to the state. In 1558, the army moved to the west, to Livonia, where the development of events only initially developed in favor of Moscow. However, from 1560 (the definition of the term Gerke, Christensen, pp. 126) "the years of great desolation" began. These years were marked by the flight of peasants from the Zamoskova Territory, defeats in the Livonian War, the incessant raids of Crimeans, which annually take away thousands of peasants.
To fight on three fronts: in the west against Poland and Sweden, in the south against the Crimean Khanate, behind which stood the most powerful state of the European Middle Ages-Turkey, in the east to keep troops against the newly conquered peoples of the Volga region, a large army was needed. It was necessary to use new thousands of servicemen, to find land with peasants for them.
In crisis conditions, the tsar demonstratively refuses power, moving to the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. The people ask the king not to leave him to the mercy of fate. The king demands extraordinary powers for himself and receives them. The brilliant Klyuchevsky briefly and accurately determined the role of the oprichnina: "The tsar seemed to have begged from the state council a police dictatorship - a peculiar form of the sovereign's treaty with the people." "On the maintenance of the court (" oprichnogo - EK ")," for his own use "and his children, Prince Ivan and Fedor, he singled out of his state up to 20 cities with counties and several separate townships in which the lands were distributed to oprichniki, and the former landowners were withdrawn from their estates and estates and received lands in unauthentic uyezds "(Klyuchevsky, p. 165).
A great movement of the boyars began. "Up to 12 thousand of these evicts in winter with families went on foot from the estates taken from them to remote empty estates, they were allotted." Many of deported and not deported boyars are destroyed physically.
"Prince Kurbsky in his History, listing the victims of Ivanovo cruelty, has more than 400. Contemporary foreigners believed even for 10 thousand" (Kliuchevskii, vol.2, pp. 165, 174).
Humiliated and insulted, deprived of ancient ancient rights and privileges boyars are morally and physically broken, do not protest, except for the dissident Kurbsky who fled abroad. The main opponent of the tsar - Prince Kurbsky is known as a participant in the Kazan campaign, the voivod in the Livonian War. Fearing dislike for being close to Ivan the Terrible feudal lords, he fled to Lithuania in 1564, became a member of the royal council (glad), fought against the troops of the tsar. Descendants know him primarily as a writer-publicist - the author of three messages to Ivan the Terrible and "History of the Grand Duke of Moscow."
The epistolary dialogue between Ivan the Terrible and Kurbsky, according to Klyuchevsky, can be reduced to two phrases. Kurbsky: "The custom of Moscow princes has long been to desire the brethren of their blood and destroy their wretched ones for the sake of their wretched fiefdoms, insatiable for their own sake." The Tsar: "We are free to pity our own servants and execute them free." (Key words: Klyuchevsky, vol. 2, pp. 155-158). The Tsar "complained": "By the end of the XVI century. the state tax became much heavier than at the beginning of it "(Gautier, p.363).
The paradox is that not the boyars-politically one of the strongest segments of the population, but the peasants opposed the policy of the king and “voted” feet. The settlement of the Volga region began immediately after the capture of Kazan, but the people "rushed" to new lands in large numbers from the beginning of the 1560s. and especially after the introduction of oprichnina, i.e. after the boyar patrimonies were given to the estates and the peasants received new owners - the owners of the land. The intensity of the process was also associated with the "pacification" of the Volga region. As a result of the great exodus, "the huge number of villages that were measured by many tens of thousands (from 50 to 90% in different regions) turned into wastelands" (Degtyarev, p.170), at which time "the Englishman Fletcher on the way between Vologda and Moscow met villages that stretched on a verst, with cottages on the sides of the road, but without a single inhabitant ... "(Klyuchevsky, vol. 2, p. 298).
The size of the flight of peasants is seen in comparison with the middle of the century, when only new landlords received land on which there were at least 15 thousand households, which was about 55% of all households. We do not know how much of at least nine-tenths of the total population went to new lands, as a part of them died of hunger and pestilence, some in wars, some were in Crimean full, but we can assume that most of it. And in this connection, to affirm: the king has replaced his servants, but they have remained without the peasants on an empty land, ie. without payment of their labor. The latter, if not determined, then aggravated the crisis situation.
The collapse of the police regime that developed under Ivan the Terrible reached its apogee at the end of the reign of Godunov was predetermined, but at the same time the police regime as a system of government was finally approved. The society is deprived of property and independence. The significance of the person was close to zero, and the motto of the Russian state found its expression in the words of Grozny just then: we are free to pay tribute to our servants and execute free.
***
As it grew from the second half of the XV century. With every decade the Russian state expanded the range of issues that required resolution, the severity of problems and the need for ever more rapid action grew. Time seemed to contract. Especially in the second sixteenth century. Not only was the political and economic power of the state asserted: "the basic phenomenon of the history of the service of land ownership in the sixteenth century. was the growth of the local ownership and the subordination of the patrimony to the duties that lay before only on estates "(Gauthier, p. 256). In all spheres of life, there have been rapid and, more importantly, irreversible changes, events of extreme importance. The main processes and events of the socioecological crisis, which determined the whole further course of its development, occurred in the second half of the 15th - the middle of the 16th century. There was a sharp deterioration in climatic conditions, an unprecedented increase in the instability of the climate, an increase in adverse natural phenomena for agriculture. The ecological crisis that caused the transition to a low-yielding free-flowing tripod was observed. Inertial population growth has caused a drop in the level and quality of life.
Deepening of the ecological crisis provoked the socio-economic and as a consequence - a political crisis. In a crisis situation, when the society did not know what to do, it delegated the right to solve the main problems to the state, as a result, the value of the individual fell in the value system of the ethnos. The police state put an end to the freedom of the black peasantry, limited the freedoms of all social strata and groups. Deprived all ownership of the land. Solved problems through the development of extensive technologies, the seizure of new lands.
.png){kind=avatar}
