home > Balcony and loggia > The life of a Russian peasant woman in the 16th-17th centuries. How Russian peasants of the Smolensk region lived on the eve of the Time of Troubles

The life of a Russian peasant woman in the 16th-17th centuries. How Russian peasants of the Smolensk region lived on the eve of the Time of Troubles

1. Nobility.

The ruling class - feudal lords . First of all this boyars who had their own ancestral land holdings - fiefdoms. In the 17th century, as the Russian autocracy consolidated, the position of nobility, which gradually turned into a new class.

IN 1 649 year, the Zemsky Sobor adopted a new Code, according to which the eternal right of feudal lords to dependent peasants was secured and the transfer from one owner to another was prohibited(serfdom).

By the end of the century, up to 10% of peasant households in the country belonged to the tsar, 10% to the boyars, 15% to the church and about 60% to the nobles.

The previous system of filling senior positions in the state according to birth (system localism ) V 1682 year was completely cancelled. All categories of feudal lords were given equal rights.

2. Peasants.

The situation of peasants in the 17th century worsened significantly. The peasantry was divided into two main groups: proprietary And black-mush. The first are the property of feudal lords. They could be sold, exchanged, gifted. The latter owned vast lands (mainly in Pomerania and Siberia) and bore state duties.

Peasants worked for the feudal lords corvée (2-4 days a week), paid natural And monetary quitrent . The taxation system has changed. Instead of land taxes were introduced by yard.

By the end of the century serfs semi-slaves became clerks, messengers, grooms, tailors, falconers, etc.

The average size of peasant plots was 1-2 hectares of land. Wealthy peasants, whose plots reached several tens of hectares, became entrepreneurs, merchants, and traders.

3. Urban population.

In the 17th century, the urban population grew. In new cities, after fortresses, appeared posad. Not only Russians lived in them, but also representatives of other peoples of Russia. Crafts and trade flourished there.

The dominant positions in city life were occupied by rich artisans and merchants . The position of the boyars, nobles and monasteries was also privileged servants and serfs, which in free time They lived in trade and craft.

Wage labor begins to be used, but still on a small scale.

4. Clergy.

By the end of the 17th century, the number of Russian clergy increased (110 thousand people in 15,000 churches). A new church hierarchy emerged. The closest to the believers and the most numerous in composition were parish priests . The highest stratum were bishops, archbishops And metropolitans. Headed the church hierarchy patriarch Moscow and all Rus'.

In 1649, the Council Code prohibited the church from increasing its land holdings and eliminated the rights of white settlements.

5. Cossacks.

The Cossacks became a new class for Russia, military class , which included the population of a number of outlying areas of Russia (Don, Yaik, Urals, Terek, Left Bank Ukraine). It enjoyed special rights and benefits under the conditions of compulsory and general military service.

The basis of the economic life of the Cossacks was crafts- hunting, fishing, cattle breeding and agriculture. The bulk of the income was received in the form of government salaries and military booty.

The most important issues in the life of the Cossacks were discussed at a general meeting (“circle”). Led by elected officials atamans And foremen s. Ownership of the land belonged to the entire community.

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

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

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

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

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

Legal status of peasants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The landowner peasants still retained the old right to enter into agreements with the treasury and with outsiders in the absence of their masters; the government recognized this right for them and recorded them in contracts in the land registers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

§ 1. Black-growing (state) peasants

§ 2. Palace peasants

§ 3. Landowner (privately owned) peasants

§ 4. Monastic peasants

§1. Yards and houses

§2. Home furniture and utensils

§3. Cloth

§4. Food and drink

Conclusion

peasants life in black soshny monastery

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§1. Chernososhnye (state) peasants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The picture of complete self-government of the black-sown peasants is clear from the court lists and charters of the 15th century. According to monuments of the 16th century. Black-growing peasants had two types of relationships with the land: either they owned a certain share of the communal land, or the community gave the peasant land for rent according to a quitrent record. The first type of land relations was determined by a serial record, which the peasant issued to the community or volost. With the addition of peasants, this class, until then integral, was divided into 2 categories: peasants of palace and black lands and peasants of proprietary or private lands. Then for the first time the term “black-mown peasants” appeared.

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

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

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

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

§2. Palace Peasants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§3. Landowner (privately owned) peasants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§4. Monastic peasants

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter II. Socio-economic situation of peasants

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

§1. Legal status of peasants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§2. Economic situation of peasants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter III. Life of the Russian peasantry

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

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

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

§1. Yards and houses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§2. Home furniture and utensils

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§3. Cloth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§4. Food and drink

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

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

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

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

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

§5. Holidays and home rituals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of sources and literature used

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

Buganov. V.I. World of history: Russia in the 17th century - M.: "Young Guard", 1989.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

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

Strengthening serfdom in the owner's village.

As you know, serfdom in Russia lasted for a very long time and took extremely crude and cruel forms. Like a giant octopus, it covered with its tenacious tentacles all aspects of the material and spiritual life of the country and for many centuries left an indelible imprint on them.

First of all, it should be noted that the term “serfdom” arose relatively late. It originates from the word “fortress”, which was used in Russia from the end of the 15th century to designate documents confirming the right of a person to acquired property. In relation to the feudal-dependent privately owned population, the term “serf” came into use from the middle of the 17th century, when the sale of peasants without land began to be practiced. In my opinion, the most accurate definition of the term “serfdom” was given by M. M. Shevchenko. “Serfdom is the right of feudal lords, illuminated by customs and sanctioned by the norms of written law, to the person, labor and property of direct producers, endowed with the means of production and conducting private households.”

In other words, serfdom is a legal expression of the dependence of direct producers on the owners of the land, that is, the owners of the means of production.

Delving deeper into the study of this topic, the question comes to mind: in what ways did previously free peasants become dependent on feudal landowners? Judging by the literary data and sources, it can be assumed that the ways of becoming dependent were very different: frequent crop failures, fires, livestock deaths, and so on led to massive devastation of the population. In the face of these natural disasters, the peasants were completely powerless. Having no other choice, they were forced to turn to the landowners for help. In addition, various wars had a detrimental effect on the peasant economy. Such natural and economic factors undoubtedly played a role in the process of enslavement of peasants.

However, the main thing here was naked violence and non-economic coercion, against which both individual peasants and the community as a whole were powerless. In the hands of feudal lords, non-economic coercion was one of the main means of subjugating direct producers.

Throughout the 17th century, Russian nobles received from the authorities a huge amount of land inhabited by free peasants for estates and estates. For example, on the instructions of Mikhail Fedorovich in 1612-1615, 1620, massive distributions of land were carried out to the nobles. These awards were given for merits in the fight against external enemies and against popular uprisings within the country. As historical data show, this was the case in 1613 and the subsequent years of the reign of M. F. Romanov, whose government granted tens of thousands of dessiatines. As a result, the “black” lands in the central counties of the country almost disappeared, and the fund of palace lands also decreased significantly. In the first quarter of the century, the black lands in the Zamoskovny region were so depleted that in 1613 the government tried to limit their distribution, but could not resist the onslaught of the nobility and canceled this decree in 1618.

In addition, the colonization of lands by feudal lords, secular and spiritual, on the outskirts of the country assumed large proportions. In its southern districts, in the “Wild Field,” landowners seized land as the Crimean Tatar raids weakened. And it was a consequence of the strengthening of the power of Russia, in particular, the repair of the Zaotskaya abatis line in the 30s of the 17th century and the subsequent construction of a more southern Belgorod abatis line. According to V.I. Buganov, lands within the districts of Oryol, Kromsky, Lebedyansky, Shatsky, Tambov gradually passed into the hands of feudal lords. The same thing is happening in the Volga region, where secular and spiritual feudal lords are taking over large expanses of land.

The main source of income for the feudal lords was the labor of the serf. Naturally, therefore, the desire of the feudal lords, on the one hand, to get as many peasants as possible at their disposal, on the other, to prevent the departure and flight of those whom they already owned. The peasants responded to this by pursuing their own policies. For example, the first peasant war ended as a natural response of the masses to the sharp deterioration of their economic and legal situation. After the defeat of the peasant war under the leadership of I. Bolotnikov, anti-serfdom protests by peasants, serfs and townspeople continued. There were enough reasons for this: attempts by feudal lords to improve their estates and fiefdoms, ruined during the Troubles, by increasing the exploitation of the subject population; an increase in the tax burden, a massive distribution of “black” palace lands, along with the peasants who lived on them, to the serving nobles.

The situation was also tense within the ruling class of feudal lords, and countless clashes took place between its individual groups. The struggle was for political privileges, for military and civil positions, and most of all for land and peasants. Often, judging by the sources, different owners claimed rights to the same lands. The struggle for workers, without whom the land would lose all value, became especially intense during that period. That is why the feudal lords sought to forever subjugate the population that was in their power. But this was hampered by the limited years, which limited the search for escaped and deported serfs to a certain period. I would like to note one important point: there was no unity of opinion among the ruling class on the issue of school summers. If some feudal owners were interested in maintaining short lesson years, others, on the contrary, sought their complete abolition.

The entire first half of the 17th century was actually filled with the struggle of the serving nobles for the abolition of school years. Since 1619, the five-year limitation period for claims comes into force. The only exception was the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, which in 1613-1614 the government allowed to search for runaway serfs for 9 years. Seeking the complete abolition of school years, the serving nobles supported their demands in various ways: they did not show up for service, disobeyed the governors... but, perhaps, the most common form of their oppositional actions in relation to the government was the submission of individual and collective petitions. In 1637, the serving nobles of a number of cities submitted the first collective petition to the Tsar demanding the abolition of school years. It represents, according to M. M. Shevchenko, an indictment against monasteries, metropolitans... who persuade foreign peasants to escape and shelter them in their own country.

Similar petitions were submitted in 1641. The nobles insisted that they be allowed to return their runaway peasants and peasants without a lesson.

But this government concession did not calm the insatiable landowners. Now they began to demand from the authorities the complete abolition of school years. And to the great misfortune of the peasants, in 1649, during the reign of A. M. Romanov, the Council Code was published, on the basis of which it was allowed to search for fugitive peasants indefinitely. After the adoption of the Council Code, special attention should be paid to peasant escapes, since with the abolition of the lesson years they not only did not stop, but, on the contrary, brought unprecedented proportions. This is all the more necessary because the fight against the escape of peasants, their investigation was the core around which, as A. G. Mankov noted, the threads of serfdom were wound; according to the observations of T. I. Smirnova, peasants fled mainly from the estates of small and medium-sized feudal lords Moreover, some of them, adhering to the old tradition, rushed to the outskirts of the state, where serfdom was weaker, others tried to find a better share in the large estates and estates of the central regions. Unlike in the past, peasants now began to flee in large groups, sometimes entire villages, taking with them everything necessary for farming in their new places of residence.

Medium and small landowners were unable to stop the flight of serfs on their own and persistently demanded help from the state authorities. They resorted to submitting collective petitions to the government and the tsar himself. So in the “famous petition” of the nobles of the Novoselsky district to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1657 it is said: “In the current sovereign year 169 (1957), in different months... people and peasants from villages and hamlets, intending to steal, flee... to Ukrainian cities, sir, in those villages they are burning, and we, your servants, are being kidnapped and broken...” Similar complaints of service people run like a red thread through all their petitions of the second half of the 17th century. In response to this, the government issued a whole series of new legal acts that prescribed penalties for both escapes and harboring fugitives. One of these acts, according to M. M. Shevchenko, was the decree of September 13, 1661. The decree ordered that “clerks of privately owned estates should be whipped mercilessly for receiving and harboring runaways without the consent of their masters, so that in the future it would be unacceptable for others to accept runaway people and peasants from others.” Thus, as a result of the combined efforts of the government and the serving nobles, many tens of thousands of fugitives were caught and returned to their former places of residence. The government again made a minor concession: on March 9, 1642, a decree appeared, according to which the terms of exile for fugitive peasants were increased to 10 years, and for those forcibly removed to 15 years. Peasants found in other people's possessions were returned to their former owners along with all their property. In addition, a fine of five rubles was collected from persons who kept fugitives in their homes for each year they lived on their land.

Speaking about the owner's village of the early 17th century. It should be noted that the peasants were divided into class groups: peasants themselves, peasants, householders and business people, and smaller people, the number of which was very small. A special group consisted of slaves, whom we combine with serfs. Serfs had no legal rights. They could carry out various types of property transactions only with the permission of their owner. They themselves, their families, and property were the complete property of the owners. If a man marries a serf, then he also becomes a serf. If a woman marries a serf, she also becomes a serf. The trial of serfs was carried out by the owner (except for especially serious crimes). The feudal lord had the right to sell peasants with land. The landowners widely used their power. “If someone doesn’t listen to you, you should whip them, and send them to the Moscow region,” one of the landowners wrote to his clerk.

The category of privately owned peasants includes peasants of secular owners, peasants of church institutions (patriarch, bishop, monasteries) and peasants of the household. True, feudal estates, church and household estates differed from private ones in that their owners were not individuals, but institutions, but this did not change either the essence of feudal exploitation or the essence of the legal status of peasants.

Features of the development of feudal exploitation in the 17th century. consisted in a new combination of three forms of feudal rent, changing under the influence of the general economic development of the country, namely, under the influence of the formation of the all-Russian market. With money rent, the personal dependence of peasants is mitigated. With working rent, personal dependence becomes stricter. Exhausted rent (according to the old terminology “product” - corvée), the simplest form of rent, in which forced labor appears in its crudest form, consisted in the fact that the direct producer works for one part of the week, on land that actually belongs to him, with the help of tools production, and the rest of the week he works for nothing on the landowner's estate. The sizes of the “product” were varied: 2-4 days a week. In the 17th century The main types of corvée were: work on the owner’s arable land and hayfields, in the vegetable garden and orchards, transporting fertilizers to the field, construction work on the owner’s estate...

Work on the “everyday maidans” (potash production) in the possessions of large feudal lords was a huge burden on the peasants. In addition, it is necessary to note the cunning, arbitrariness and insolence of the landowner, who forced the peasants to cultivate the master's fields in the best agronomic terms. The matter was not limited to the landowner's control over the implementation of agricultural work; he began to regulate the daily life of the peasant household in order to maintain the size of the peasant family at the required level.

A unique type of labor service was the production of wine, cereals, crackers, malt, linen, cloth, and butter by peasants.

No less varied were the farm duties of the peasants. Usually the amount of quitrent in kind was calculated from the vyti. The natural rent included products own farm peasants, both their home industry and all kinds of crafts.

It is important to note that in addition to payments and work in favor of the feudal lords, privately owned peasants bore state duties. But they paid significantly less to the treasury than black and palace peasants.

The feudal owners managed to achieve exemption for their peasants from performing yam duties and participating in difficult elective services, luring them to the suburbs. However, the duties of privately-owned peasants were heavier than those of black-sown and palace peasants.

Thus, from all that has been said, the conclusion follows: that in the first half of the 17th century. peasants were the subject of a dispute between large boyars and small ones, nobles striving for power.

The peasant was robbed from all sides: on the one hand there was the state, which took a tax from him in the form of the same tithe and quitrent, on the other hand there was the murderer landowner who lived at his expense. But we must not forget that at that time peasant families had many children, and the head of the family had to take care of their existence: water, feed, clothe. And how? For me this is unthinkable. But the serf peasant somehow coped with these tasks. It is not for nothing that they say that man is a creature that adapts to all living conditions. But we must not forget that sooner or later all patience comes to an end. And yet, how long the serfs suffered, because serfdom existed in Russia for about a thousand years.

Legislation in relation to state peasants.

Social structure of the Russian state in the 17th century. was a motley interweaving of classes and clans typical of the Middle Ages. It is necessary to make a reservation that in the social stratum at this time there were significant changes in the simplification of its structure, in a sharper separation of the ruling class of feudal lords from the rest of the population, in a clearer separation of the city from the countryside, and the merging of various layers into one enslaved tax mass. In the XVI-XVIII centuries. The main classes in Russia were peasants and feudal lords - landowners and townspeople - traders and artisans.

Peasants made up the majority of the population. They were divided into state and privately owned. The state peasants include the Black Hundreds and the Odnodvortsy.

Black-growing peasants are peasants who cultivated land subject to state taxes and therefore called “black”, i.e. tax. “Black” peasants back in the 16th century. lived in some places in the center of the country, but also in the middle of the 17th century. everyone was enslaved, distributed to secular feudal lords and the clergy, or turned into palace servants. They remained only in the north and northeast, where the lands were infertile and did not attract the attention of the feudal lords, as well as in Siberia, where the government did not distribute lands to secular feudal lords (but the clergy had possessions both in the north and in Siberia). Exploited by feudal oppression, the “black” peasants had an easier life than the serfs. In contrast, privately owned peasants had to bear state duties in addition to payments and work in favor of the feudal lord. And also, according to the decree of September 11, 1625, a preference was established for the payment of quitrent money for Black Hundred peasants. According to it, quitrent was prescribed to be taken only for the last 13 years (since 1613). fearing that the peasant payers would be “hardened,” the government recommended spreading the payment of quitrent money for the poor “over two or three terms.” The decree testified to the prevalence of peasants’ use of land “without rent”, “arbitrarily,” which was possible in the North, because peasants could find “land” more easily than the government could take them into account. By issuing a decree on the benefit, the government probably hoped to expand the range of land subject to quitrent.

According to I.D. Belyaev, the state, by attaching peasants to the land, had its own state and financial goals: “The peasant, no matter whose land he was on, always had a certain relationship with the state, according to the rights and responsibilities of his class; and the state received its benefits precisely from the fact that the peasant was a peasant; That’s why it only cared about ensuring that the peasant did not leave the peasantry.”

The black-nosed peasants were the descendants of the once free communal peasants. Despite the freedom of the Black Hundred peasants from direct subordination to the feudal serf lords, their position in no way violates the system of the feudal system of the Russian state of the 17th century.

For example, the economy of Pomerania had unique features. Basic land unit in the black-plowed North there was a village, which consisted of one or several courtyards with adjacent arable, hayfields, pastures, forests, fishing and hunting grounds. An individual peasant owned either the whole village or part of it. The peasant could leave his share as an inheritance, sell it, or mortgage it. When selling land into outside hands, the heirs of the previous owner exercised the right to buy out family plots. The Russian North of the 16th-17th centuries, therefore, did not know communal land ownership. The nature of the redistributions that took place does not speak about communal land ownership. Redistributions arose when village co-owners found that their actual land ownership did not correspond to the shares to which each of them was entitled. In addition, as I said earlier, along with the permitted plots in the village there were undivided pasture lands, forests, and rivers, which the co-owners used jointly.

The peasants of the northern coastal districts were also engaged in fishing and hunting and salt making. The abundance of forests ensured the development of carpentry - local and regional. Other industries worth noting include the mining of mica, iron and its processing.

But, for example, the black-mown peasants of the Cherdyn and Solekamenny districts, rich in forests and having infertile soil, preferred to engage in forestry - the procurement of building materials and firewood, the demand for which was especially great in Solekamsk, the largest center of the Russian salt-making industry of the 17th century.

In addition, black-growing peasants were drawn into commodity-money relations. An example would be Pomorie, because Two major trade routes passed through it - the White Sea-Dvina and Siberian. Many peasants carried on large trades with Siberia, exporting furs from there and sending goods to Siberia that were in short supply there. Thus, it should be noted that servicing trade routes was by no means the last place in the industrial black-plow peasantry.

The black-nosed peasants did not represent a homogeneous mass. At this time, there was a concentration of land in the hands of the most economically powerful of them. At the same time, significant layers of land-poor and landless peasants formed. Impoverished peasants under the names of polovniki, bobyli, and Cossacks were exploited in the economy not only of monasteries and large industrialists and merchants, but also of wealthy peasants.

The usurious transactions carried out by rich peasants also led to the enslavement of the poor peasantry. The black-nosed peasants did not know the direct power of the feudal serf lords over them. But they were subjected to no less severe exploitation by the feudal state. They brought tax-quarter revenues to the state, i.e. direct taxes received by financial Moscow quarters. Instead of paying nominal money, the black-sown peasants served their nominal persecution in kind, and the cost of this service was the largest of the worldly fees. Thus, in a decree of March 8, 1627, the government developed special instructions on the number of carts due to each person, based on his rank, birth and official position.

In addition, it should be noted that the group close to the black-sown peasants were the one-household peasants. Formally, they did not belong to the peasant class: they were lower-class people and small-scale nobles who were given estates for joint and personal use.

Unlike the feudal lords, especially the nobility, the situation of peasants and slaves in the 17th century deteriorated significantly. Of the privately owned peasants, the best life was for the palace peasants, and the worst for the secular feudal lords, especially the small ones.

The peasants worked for the benefit of the feudal lords in corvée (“product”), and contributed quitrents in kind and in cash. The usual size of the “product” is from two to four days a week, depending on the size of the lordly household, the wealth of the serfs (rich and “family-many” peasants worked more days per week, “meager” and “lonely” - less), the amount of land they have. The peasants plowed arable land and mowed hay for the masters, cultivated their vegetable gardens and orchards, transported manure to the fields and built mills and dams, cleaned ponds, made “edges”, “cuts” for fishing, and much more. The hottest times were “running” (general) work during sowing and harvesting, haymaking and repairing dams, when “we lived at work as long as we could.”

“Table supplies” - bread and meat, vegetables and fruits, hay and firewood, mushrooms and berries - were transported to the owners’ yards by the same peasants. Nobles and boyars hired carpenters and masons, brickmakers and painters, and other craftsmen from their villages. Peasants worked in the first factories and factories that belonged to the feudal lords or the treasury, made cloth and canvas at home, etc., etc.

The boyars and nobles took everything necessary for everyday life in the city in the form of rent from the peasants. Stolnik A.I. Bezobrazov in the 60-70s demanded from the Belev estates per year 18 buckets of wine, 7 pounds of meat, pork hams and young pigs, 16 rams, 16 arshins of linen, 15 arshins of cloth, 16 chickens, 16 “bast shoes” ", two harnesses, reins, tugs, cords and "snacks". Everywhere the owners received “corowai” of butter and lard, cheese, cottage cheese and sour cream; in other places - nuts and berries, horseradish and mushrooms. They took products from village craftsmen made of iron and wood, leather and matting, fish and honey, etc.; All this, as they said then, one cannot count or know. Various whims were also fulfilled: the same B.I. Morozov once wished that “the hunters have starlings, collect them from everyone,” deliver them to him in Moscow in a large cage, “so that when they are brought to Moscow, they will not be killed; and it wouldn’t be cramped for them.”

The owners combined all three types of exploitation of peasants. But gradually, especially in the second half of the century, in the Zamoskovny region the share of quitrents, especially monetary ones, increased, and in the southern districts and near Moscow - corvée labor.

Serfs, in addition to work and payments to the feudal lords, bore duties for the treasury. In general, their taxation and duties were heavier than those of the palace and black sowing people. The situation of the peasants dependent on the feudal lords was aggravated by the fact that the owners disposed of not only their labor. The trial and reprisal of the boyars and their clerks were accompanied by overt violence, bullying, and humiliation of human dignity. It came, and quite often, to batogs and whips, torture with fire and the rack, shackling and imprisonment. The peasants' complaints against the landowners had no force. The owner was not responsible for their murder. The nobles interfered in the family divisions of peasants and marriages.

After 1649, the search for runaway peasants became widespread. Thousands of them were captured and returned to their owners. Serfdom included non-enslaved groups of the rural population: the so-called “free” or “walking people”, children and relatives of peasants who were not included in the scribe books, released enslaved slaves, and villagers freed from captivity; those who left the tax or service and settled in the village of the townspeople and instrumentalities, etc. Quite a few of them were runaway peasants and slaves. Free and free people usually came to the landowner “in body and soul”; they said about such people: “naked as a falcon.” They took a loan from the feudal lord and, according to the “loan record” or “order”, they were obliged to live “forever”, “without a way out”, “not to go anywhere and henceforth to live motionless”, “to live in the peasantry forever”, to pay taxes and dues.

Many peasants could not, due to extreme need, bear duties, and “mortal” justice came to the aid of the feudal lords and authorities with merciless punishments, the sale of “bellies” (property) and “the last nags” for next to nothing. After this, what should I do? Lie down and die! Or it remains to “walk around the world with a stake.” Even the clerks who extorted taxes and fees from the peasants saw that there was nothing to take from them. One of them complained to his owner (1674):

“And always, sir, I will be beaten by them, because they are meager and poor. You will begin to rule, but there is nowhere for them to get money, and the bread has not been born, and there is nothing to get money from.”

Owners and clerks gave grain loans to peasants who had fallen into poverty, especially in the spring, “for seeds and subsistence.” Steward Bezobrazov's clerk explains the purpose of such loans:

“We give bread because so that your work doesn’t become worthless. If you don’t give bread, there will be no one to work.”

In order to survive, the peasants went into retirement, to become “farmers”, to earn money. They were hired by artels. Impoverished peasants moved into the category of peasants. There were especially many of them during the Time of Troubles: peasants, unable to bear the burden, asked the owners to allow them to “live in bobyli for a while.” Some peasants plowed their land, worked on the boyars' arable land, but did not pay taxes and payments. Others could not do this either, did not even have a yard, “were fed by work among the peasants”, like “backyard workers”, “neighbors and sub-neighbors” of other peasants. Gradually, as the situation of the bobs improved, they were again forced to bear the tax at half or less, and eventually in full. According to the decree on household taxes (1679), they were equated to peasants. But even after this, the bobyli, as a social category of the rural population, continued to exist.

In the north of European Russia there was a category of ladles, usually from black-growing peasants. For help and loans, they worked on the farms of monasteries and wealthy peasants, giving them half, two-fifths, and a third of the harvest.

Feudal lords, especially large ones, had many serfs, sometimes several hundred people each (for example, the boyars N. I. Romanov, B. I. Morozov had 300–400 people each). These are clerks and parcel servants, grooms and tailors, watchmen and shoemakers, falconers and “singing guys.” They did not run an independent household; they were completely supported by the owner. Some nobles began to transfer their slaves to the land, provided them with equipment, and they paid them quitrents, performed corvée work, but, unlike peasants, did not bear the state tax. However, the tax reform of 1678–1681 equalized both. By the end of the century, there was essentially a merger of serfdom with the peasantry.

The average level of well-being of the Russian serf peasantry decreased in the 17th century. For example, peasant arable farming has decreased: in the Zamoskovny Territory by 20–25 percent. Some peasants had half a tithe, about a tithe of land, others did not have even that. And the wealthy had several dozen tithes. Steward Bezobrazov’s Kashin estate had, on the one hand, horseless peasants who didn’t even have a chicken; on the other, the elder F. Oparin and his brothers, who owned nine horses, two foals, 1 2 cows and other livestock. For a special rent, this rich peasant rented three wastelands and a hayfield from the master.

Articles By topic:

How and how much to bake beef Baking meat in the oven is popular among housewives. If all the rules are followed, the finished dish is served hot and cold, and slices are made for sandwiches. Beef in the oven will become a dish of the day if you pay attention to preparing the meat for baking. If you don't take into account	Why do the testicles itch and what can you do to get rid of the discomfort? Many men are interested in why their balls begin to itch and how to eliminate this cause. Some believe that this is due to uncomfortable underwear, while others think that it is due to irregular hygiene. One way or another, this problem needs to be solved.
Why do eggs itch? Minced meat for beef and pork cutlets: recipe with photo	Until recently, I prepared cutlets only from homemade minced meat. But just the other day I tried to cook them from a piece of beef tenderloin, and to be honest, I really liked them and my whole family liked them. In order to get cutlets Schemes for launching spacecraft Orbits of artificial Earth satellites

1 2 3 Ptuf 53 · 10-09-2014 The union is certainly good. but the cost of removing 1 kg of cargo is still prohibitive. Previously, we discussed methods of delivering people into orbit, but I would like to discuss alternative methods of delivering cargo to rockets (agree with

2024-04-21 02:23:23	Popular
2024-04-14 02:26:43	Grilled fish is the most delicious and aromatic dish
2024-04-13 02:40:32	Yu. Andreev - Live Journal! Andreev Yu.A. Yuri Andreev: biography
2024-04-12 02:26:50	Master class for teachers on the topic “Creating electronic tests”; methodological development on technology on the topic
2024-04-10 02:23:37	Elder Pavel (Gruzdev) Elder Archimandrite Pavel Gruzdev
2024-04-08 02:21:43	The benefits and harms of protein for the body
2024-04-05 02:30:06	Miller's dream book: distinctive features and characteristic features See dream book interpretation of Miller's dreams
2024-04-05 02:30:06	Recipes for lavash rolls with different fillings (photo)
2024-04-01 02:23:38	Fried zucchini - the best recipes
2024-03-31 02:28:43	Organs of flowering plants Plant organs and their functions presentation

The structure of the molecule of ice and water vapor drawing

2024-03-29 02:26:33	New
2024-03-29 02:26:33	Ivan Krylov the best fables for children Various fables are interesting and easy to read
2024-03-28 06:32:57	Meatballs with gravy in a frying pan
2024-03-28 06:32:57	The Life of Saint Veronica in Orthodoxy
2024-03-26 02:24:23	Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye Temple of the Ascension of the Lord Great Ascension
2024-03-24 02:29:32	An interesting story about yourself (All about myself)
2024-05-31 02:21:07	Eat honey, eat ginger - be healthy like a hero!
2024-05-23 02:16:29	How and how much to bake beef
2024-05-10 02:22:08	Why do the testicles itch and what can you do to get rid of the discomfort?
2024-05-02 02:14:23	Minced meat for beef and pork cutlets: recipe with photo
2024-04-21 02:23:23	Popular
2024-04-14 02:26:43	Grilled fish is the most delicious and aromatic dish